The idea that eros can be "transfigured" or redirected from earthly objects to God is considered heretical by some. Thus Hieromonk Gregory Lourie mocks that idea that "one's sexual energies can be directed toward God in an acceptable way" (The Calling of Abraham, p. 135 not 236). However, in this rejection he shows his kinship to the heretic Barlaam, to whom St. Gregory Palamas writes: "But, philosopher, we have not been taught that dispassion is the putting to death of the soul's passionate part; on the contrary, it is the conversion of the passionate part from the lower to the higher, and its active devotion to divine realities, completely turned away from evil and towards what is good" (Triads, II, 2, 19). And the saint's words were confirmed by the Fathers of the Holy Mountain: "Once the soul's passible aspect is transformed and sanctified - but not reduced to a deathlike condition - through it the dispositions and activities of the body are also sanctified, since body and soul share a conjoint existence" (Declaration of the Holy Mountain in Defence of Those who Devoutly Practise a Life of Stillness, 6; The Philokalia, vol. IV, p. 423). Again, the most recent work on St. Gregory Palamas by Makarov states that "for the teacher of hesychasm the purification of the passionate part of the soul was equivalent not to its cutting off, but its change for the better" (Antropologia i Kosmologia sv. Grigoria Palamy, p. 271). Again, St. Maximus the Confessor writes: "The passions become good in those who are spiritually earnest once they have wisely separated them from corporeal objects and used them to gain possession of heavenly thigns. For instance, they can turn desire into the appetitive movment of the soul's longing for divine things, or pleasure into the unadulterated joy of the mind when enticed toward divine gifts, or fear into cautious concern for imminent punishment for sins committed, or grief into corrective repentance for a present evil...The spiritually earnest use the passions to destroy a present or anticipated evil, and to embrace and hold on to virtue and knowledge. Thus the passions become good when they are used by those who 'take every thought captive in order to obey Christ'" (To Thalassiu, i, 48, 49). Again, St. Basil the Great: Desire, irascibility and the other passible faculties "each become a good or an evil for its possessor according to the use made of it" (Against those who get angry, 6). Again, St. Gregory of Nyssa: "If we use our reason aright and master our emotions, everything can be transformed into virtue; for anger produces courage, hatred - aversion from vice, the power of love - the desire for what is truly beautiful " (On the Making of Man, XVIII, 5). Again, St. Maximus the Confessor: "The incensive power and desire... are to be treated like the servant and handmaid of another tribe. The contemplative intellect, through fortitude and self-restraint, subjugates them for ever to the lorship of the intelligence, so that they serve the virtues. It does not give them their complete freedom until the law of nature is totally swallowed up by the law of the spirit, in the same way as the death of the unhappy flesh is swallowed up by infinite life, and until the entire image of the unoriginate kingdom is revealed... When the contemplative intellect enters this state it gives the incensive power and desire their freedom, transmuting desire into the unsullied pleasure and pure enravishment of an intense love for God and the incensive power into spiritual fervour, an ever-active fierly elan, a self-possessed frenzy" (Third Century on various texts, 54; The Philokali, vol. II, p. 253). Not quite. Eros has a very broad meaning in the Holy Fathers, sometimes as a name of God Himself, and sometimes as a created force present in both men and angels. Thus St. Maximus the Confessor writes: "We should regard the erotic force, whether divine, angelic, noetic, psychic or physical, as a unifying and commingling power. It impels superior beings to care for those below them, beings of equal dignity to act with reciprocity, and, finally, inferior beings to return to those that are greater and more excellent than they" (Fifth century on Various Texts, 90). Here he closely follows the usage of St. Dionysius the Areopagite writes: "[Eros is] afaculty of unifying and conjoining and of producing a special commingling together in the Beautiful and the Good: a faculty which pre-exists for the sake of the Beautiful and the Good, and is diffused from this Origin and to this End, and holds together things of the same order by a mutual connection, and moves the highest to take thought for those below and fixes the inferior in a state which seeks the higher. And the Divine Eros brings ecstasy, not allowing those who are touched by it to belong to themselves but only to the objects of their affection. This principle is shown by superior things through their providential care for their inferiors, and by those which are of the same order through the mutual bond uniting them, and by the inferior through their diviner tendency towards the highest… Words of the most holy Hierotheus from the Hymns of Eros: ‘Eros (whether it be in God or in angel, or spirit,or animal life, or nature) must be conceived of as a uniting and commingling power which moves the higher things to a care for those below them, moves co-equals to a mutual communion, and finally moves the inferiors to turn towards their superiors in virtue and position'." (On the Divine Names, IV, 10, 12-13, 15). You write: "I made a search in TLG… I found very few usages of 'eros'” there, and most of them were when speaking about pagans. ‘Eros towards woman’ is used in a negative sense. And I did not find this word used for ‘positive sexual desire’. It is not a patristic word, but a pagan notion.” Really I am very surprised! Olga, do you regard the books of Proverbs and the Wisdom of Solomon as pagan? Read these books and you will find that in them the Holy Spirit uses 'eros' or its cognates to denote the highest type of love. Thus "I sought to take her for my bride, and I became a lover (Gk: erastes) of her beauty" (Wisdom 8.2), and "Love her (erastheti avtes) and she shall keep thee” (Proverbs 4.6). St. Dionysius the Areopagite, after quoting the first of these passages, continues: "Indeed to some of our writers on sacred things, the name ‘Eros’ seemed to be more divine that the name ‘Agape’. For the divine Ignatius writes, ‘My Eros is crucified’, and in the… Scriptures you will find one saying, ‘I became a lover of her beauty’. Therefore let us not be afraid of this name ‘Eros’ or be disquieted by anything that any man may say about it. For it seems to me that the sacred writers considered the names ‘eros’ and ‘agape’ as having the same meaning" (On the Divine names, IV; P.G. 3:11-12). One of these “sacred writers” was St. Gregory of Nyssa, who calls God "the One truly worthy of agape and eros" (to monon to onti agapeton kai erasimon), as if the two concepts were interchangeable (On the Soul and Resurrection, 450). Another was St. John Chrysostom, who, as even your spiritual father admits ("The Calling of Abraham", p. 138, note 239) uses the words "eros" and "agape" interchangeably. "Those who shine with the beauty of the soul… thereby make love (eros) warmer in their husbands, as also their own love (agapin) which attaches to him… When the mother is beautiful and chaste and endowed with every virtue, she will by all means be able to draw her husband and enjoy his desire (potho) for her.” (Encomium to Maximus, 5).Here "agape", "eros" and "pothos" are used interchangeably. And again: "For love eros) is not of necessity. For nobody loves (philei) by necessity, but willingly and by choice.” (Homily 2 on Ephesians, 3). Here “eros” and “philia” are used interchangeably. And again: "Often it happens that from that day [of marriage] fornication takes the bridegroom prisoner and removes him from his friends and quenches his love (eros) for his bride, and drags down kind feelings and dissolves the love (agapen) that was kindled before and drops the seeds of debauchery.” (On ‘On account of fornication’, P.G. 51:212).This last quotation is particularly significant, because it shows that fornication is not only not to be identified with eros, but actually quenches it in its lawful direction, as if they were opposites… You write: "Sexual desire is a very concrete thing. Yes, most of the passions are fallen virtues. But sexual desire is not the ‘fallen virtue of love’ but the result of this fall." The patristic teaching is that man is made up of three main faculties: the rational, the desiring and the irascible (St. Ambrose sometimes adds a fourth: the perceptible faculty). All three of these faculties were present in Adam and Eve, but in an unfallen form. As I understand you, the desiring faculty was not in man before the fall; in other words, he had only two faculties (or perhaps only one?). But, as I showed in a previous posting, here you are not in agreement with the Holy Fathers. All the fallen passions are the result of the fall. But some have their roots in the nature of man before the fall, and others do not. Anger and desire are two examples of fallen passions which have their roots in the unfallen nature of man. These, though fallen, are natural; we are not to be blamed for having them, although we must control them (and, I would argue, transfigure them through God’s grace). Avarice is an example of a fallen passion that does not have its roots in unfallen nature; it is therefore unnatural and sinful at all times and in all forms. Thus St. JohnChrysostom writes: "Of desires some are necessary, some natural, some neither the one nor the other. For example, those which, if not gratified, destroy the creature are both natural and necessary, as the desire of food and drink and sleep; carnal desire is natural indeed but not necessary, for many have got the better of it, and have not died. But the desire of wealth is neither natural nor necessary, but superfluous; and if we choose we need not admit its beginning.” (Homily 74 on John, 3). Speaking of eros at its most fallen, St. Dionysius writes: "The depraved sinner, though bereft of the Good by his brutish desire, is in this respect unreal and his desires unrealities; but still he hath a share in the Good insofar as there is in him a distorted reflection of true Love and Communion. And anger has a share in the Good insofar as it is a movement which seeks to remedy apparent evils, converting them to that which appears to be fair. And even he that desires the basest life, yet insofar as he feels desire at all and feels desire for life, and intends what he thinks the best kind of life, to that extent participates in the Good. And if you wholly destroy the Good, there will be neither being, life, desire, nor motion or any other thing." (On the Divine Names, IV, 20). So don't pretend, Olga, that desire can be destroyed. It cannot. Eros exists in the saint as well as in the sinner. But in the saint it is rightly directed, upwards; in the sinner it is wrongly directed, downwards. You write: "In your letter ‘The Transfiguration of Eros’ none of the seven quotes mention any ‘eros’ (because this word is not a patristic term).” First, I have shown that “eros” is a patristic term. Secondly, in all the quotations I cited the Holy Fathers were talking about eros or concupiscence or desire (there are many terms to refer to the same thing), and not about anything else. I have given you seven quotations, and you still insist that I give more! Well, okay, here’s another one. St. Gregory Palamas writes: "Those who love the good (oi erastai [from ‘eros’] ton kalon) carry out a transposition of this faculty and do not make it die; they do not suck it into themselves without letting it move, but they show it to be active in love towards God and neighbour” (Triads, III,iii, 15). So you see, Olga, eros is not meant to be destroyed, but to be made active in love towards God and neighbour. I don't see how anything could be clearer! You write: "If you want to discuss the famous phrase of St.Ignatius the Godbearer ‘My Eros is crucified’, then do it in accord with xplanations of this phrase by St. Dionysius Areopagitus. The word ‘Eros’ was used for Christ and not for sexual desire." Yes, I accept that ‘Eros’ here was used for Christ, and I will gladly quote (again) the passage from St. Dionysius: "Indeed to some of our writers on sacred things, the name ‘Eros’ seemed to be more divine that the name ‘Agape’. For the divine Ignatius writes, ‘My Eros is crucified’, and in the… Scriptures you will find one saying, ‘I became a lover of her beauty’. Therefore let us not be afraid of this name ‘Eros’ or be disquieted by anything that any man may say about it. For it seems to me that the sacred writers considered the names ‘eros’ and ‘agape’ as having the same meaning" (On the Divine names, IV; P.G. 3:11-12). But don’t you see, Olga, that this proves my point, not yours? First, if both St. Ignatius and St. Dionysius used the term in such a positive context, then the term is clearly patristic (and scriptural). Secondly, St. Dionysius considers “Eros” to be an even more divine name than “Agape”, so the Fathers do not use it only in a pejorative sense, as you claim. But thirdly, and most importantly, WHY do these saints call Christ "Eros"? Is it not because we must love God with all our heart, and all our soul, and all our mind, and all our strength, which must include all the faculties of our soul and body, including our desiring faculties, as Blessed Theophylact says? And if this shocks you, Olga, because you immediately think of fallen sexual passion, then, as St. Dionysius, "let us not be afraid of this name ‘Eros’ or be disquieted by anything that any man may say about it". Let us transfigure our thinking, raise it to the level of the unfallen passion. Even if we, as sinners, cannot fully grasp what the unfallen passion is, we can nevertheless, insofar as we are Christians at all, gain some dim apprehension of its existence. "We see through a glass darkly," said St. Paul, speaking precisely about love. Yes, it is dark because we are in the darkness of the fallen passions. Nevertheless we do see something through that glass. We do feel, however dimly and weakly, that those forces of our nature which we vainly squander on unworthy and base objects can and should be redirected and transmuted towards, and thereby transfigured by, the supreme Object of all desire, which is Christ.