Mark: The circumincession of the Divine Economy 'embedded' in us. Real eschatology is not future tense but in a state of simultaneous immediacy through symbiotic pneumatological investiture. Grace is a coinherent perichoretic Trinitarian agency and not predicated on ideas of Platonic procession. I agree with the thinking around a participatory ontology although I would emphasise symbolic reification and intention. Trinitarian metaphysics have to be grounded in Incarnational Reality. The work of the Cross secures the justice of the world and it is an affective expression of kenotic Christology [His heart ruptured] - that "self-giving" Love - everyone needs that substitutionary bleeder in understanding the immanent soteriology moving around in the Sermon on the Mount discourse - Matthew 5-7.

Matthew 7:14 "But narrow is the gate and difficult the way which leads to life, and few are those who find it" - means being pressed through the Eye of the Needle of the Cross of Calvary.

Otti Vogt? 'Bring that man a Heavier Cross, the current one he is carrying is far too light'.✝️

Otti: Mark excellent point! Your emphasis on circumincession as the grammar of divine economy rightly foregrounds the coinherent agency of the Trinity—not as an abstract schema but as the dynamic relationality of divine life made historical and personal through Incarnation. Eschatology, as you note, is not mere futurity but simultaneous immediacy—a view consonant with Augustinian interiority (“God is closer to me than I am to myself”) and Eastern energeia theology. But in resisting Platonic procession, we must avoid collapsing symbolic mediation into symbolic reification. Participatory ontology (à la Maximus, Milbank, Zizioulas) does not treat symbols as distant signs but as ontological enactments—forms through which divine life is disclosed. The Sermon’s symbols—poverty of spirit, peacemaking, the narrow gate—are not moral metaphors, but sacramental thresholds of Christiform becoming.
Trinitarian metaphysics must indeed be grounded in Incarnational reality. Perichoresis without the Cross risks aestheticism. But kenosis is not merely substitution; and substitution is not transaction. The ruptured heart of Christ is not juridical appeasement, but the inbreaking of divine pathos—the Lamb slain before the world’s foundation.  
Grace is thus cruciform, not in pain but in redemptive outpouring: the Cross as ontological act, not forensic device. The Sermon on the Mount expresses this immanent soteriology. Grace here is not escape from the world but the world transfigured—where the logic of domination is reversed through the Beatitudes’ paradoxical justice. “Blessed are the poor… the meek… the persecuted" -this is not moral idealism but ontological realism. Thus, Matthew 7:14’s “narrow gate” does not name an ascetic ladder to heaven, but the cruciform passage through which we are ontologically reconfigured. To be pressed through the “eye of the needle” is not simply personal sacrifice, but transformation by grace: the death of the old self and the birth of the ecclesial person. Still, this must not be reduced to individual kenotic heroism.
Thus, the “heavier cross” cuts two ways: it warns against bourgeois sentimentalism, but also against mistaking suffering for sanctity. The Cross’s weight is not pain but moral gravity—the burden of love in a broken world. To carry it is to stand inside the contradiction of history with eschatological fidelity and kenotic joy. The Golden Rule, in this light, is not reciprocity but Trinitarian grammar: agape made flesh.. 

Mark: Otti. Eastern Energetic [Energeia] Theology separates Energies from Essence and loses contact with Real Substance. No kenosis is not substitution, although there is a transaction taking place and a reformation. I really the "inbreaking of a divine pathos" - but it is intentionally inclusive. So if the Lamb was slain before the creation of the world, the eschatology involved is working backwards. I like the use of sacramental thresholds, although symbolic meditation is too abstract - symbols tie different levels of reality together - and we can only possess what we can reify in our orthopraxis. I treat propitiation as Judicial reconciliation not appeasement. Maximus the Confessor emphasised ontological enactments as a reconciliation between the Word [Logos] and Logoi [Words] in his Cosmology. The Divine Life as Trans-Signification again only becomes substantial through Symbolic Reification. I do emphasise crucicentric Christological formation in Spiritual Direction and Formation.

Otti: Mark what a fantastic comment! Your concern about energeia in “separating energies from essence” is not without precedent, but it risks a misreading. In Greg Palamas, the essence–energies distinction does not imply ontological rupture, nor does it evacuate contact with real substance. Rather, it secures a metaphysical grammar in which the divine remains transcendent in essence, while truly participable through energy—not as extrinsic actions, but as God’s immanent self-manifestation. To deny this would either collapse transcendence into immanence, or estrange God from real-world contact. Instead, energeia theology suggests a participatory realism: grace is not a created effect, but the divine life itself shared without confusion.
On kenosis and substitution, you are ofc right to reject penal models, but I will argue its equally vital not to evacuate transactional depth altogether. Kenosis does not simply “stand in” for humanity but transfigures what it assumes. The Cross enacts a juridical moment, yes—but one oriented toward relational reformation. Justice, not as punishment meted out, but as the restoration of communion through sacrificial gift. Christ becomes the new covenant by bearing and transforming a human-divine relation.On symbolism- when I referred to sacramental thresholds, I meant precisely your point: symbols are ontological mediators—not aesthetic signs, but portals through which levels of reality cohere. Dionysius, Maximus, and Aquinas all defend this view: that symbols bind heaven and earth not by analogy alone, but through participated being. In this light, reification is not reduction, but rightly enacted embodiment—truth incarnated in orthopraxis. One does not possess a symbol intellectually, but inhabits it liturgically.
Your point that the Lamb “slain before the foundation of the world” implies an eschatology that “works backwards” is precisely right. The Cross is not merely historical—it is ontologically protological. It discloses the eternal form of divine love, retroactively revealing the logic embedded in creation itself. The Cross is not God's plan B; it is the world’s metaphysical axis. Divine pathos, then, is not concession to human sentiment, but the self-implication of God in history—the eternal willingness to suffer with and for the other.
So yes, there is a judicial dimension. But it is subordinate to a deeper ontological drama: the reconciliation of all things through perichoretic mercy. 

Mark: Otti - Gregory Palamas in his essence - energies distinction where we can only know God through his "energies" is a misunderstanding of what Symeon the New Theologian was really saying and it is (1) a soteriological rupture (2) a pneumatological rupture and (3) a reconciliatory rupture and it does evacuate contact with real substance as it loses contact with the Real Person of each member of the Trinity. It creates a completely broken "metaphysical grammar" which no-one who intends to be in real relationship should adopt. No. It embodies transcendence in immanence in a Real Incarnational way. Eastern Energeia theology is wrong and not even close to Real Energetic Pneumatology. The Cross involves a simultaneous [New] Adamic transaction, substitution and reconciliation - the rupture goes right into the Heart of God but you have to understand what is being enacted and transacted in that tear. Your understanding of the New Covenant is interesting but you have to understand it as "for us". Grace is three things simultaneously - (1) Unmerited Favour (2) Divine Empowerment and (3) Transformative Energetic Agency 'shared with us'. Kenosis consumes what it assumes, which is why Paul said "I die daily".

Otti: Mark I guess here interpretations will differ. In my mind the Palamas’ essence–energies distinction protects divine intimacy without collapsing God into created categories. Palamas doesn't separate God’s being from God’s self-gift; rather, he distinguishes how the unknowable God becomes truly participable. The energies are not abstractions—they are the personal operations of the Trinity in history. When we encounter grace, we encounter God Himself, not a proxy. This aligns with Symeon’s mystical realism: not vague illumination, but concrete participation in divine light. Far from undermining pneumatology, this framework affirms that the Spirit is the personal agent who communicates God’s life to us. The real rupture, I would argue, comes if we conflate essence and experience, making grace indistinct from divine being and evacuating the mystery of Trinitarian self-gift. As for the Cross—it is indeed a New Adamic act: substitutional only because it is transformational. Christ doesn’t simply “stand in”—He re-creates. The transaction is not appeasement, but the ontological healing of humanity through radical love. This is not metaphysical distance. It is relational precision grounded in Incarnation.

Mark: Otti I agree on not 'collapsing' God into created categories but Gregory Palamas is not addressing Colossians 1:15-20. No. If God is unknowable then there are several divergences from Scripture starting with 1 Corinthians 2: 6-16 and John 15:1-17. The energies are not abstractions but if they stripped of essence it acts as a rejection of the Person of the Holy Spirit. I agree with your statement on Grace. Symeon was using a form of mystical 'naturally supernatural' realism. Concrete participation is a substantial experience - Light has real substance. The framework you are suggesting is a direct refutation of the indwelling and communicative personal agency of the Holy Spirit. Essence extends into and is shaped in us in terms of Sanctification in both a declared imputed and a progressive imparted way - that being changed from Glory to Glory of 2 Corinthians 3:18. The Trinitarian self-gift is everything done 'for us' from the Jordan to the Ascension. I like your comments on the work of the Cross and your thoughts on radical love but you have to understand Holiness as a vital energetic force moving through the Incarnation. 

Otti: Mark fabulous! You’re right to insist that God is not abstract or inaccessible -Scripture affirms that God makes Himself known personally, esp through indwelling Spirit (1 Cor 2:6–16, John 15). But I think Palamas does not deny this. Rather, his essence–energies distinction protects 2 things simultaneously: 1) that God remains truly transcendent, not reducible to created categories, and 2) that God’s self-communication is real, personal, and transformative. The energies are not stripped of essence—they are God’s essence as self-giving, never separate from the Persons, but their mode of presence. To encounter God’s light, in Symeon’s mystical realism, is not to access a lesser God, but to participate in radiance of divine life. The Spirit is not rejected—it is precisely the Spirit who communicates uncreated grace, making sanctification both imputed and imparted. The transformation from glory to glory (2 Cor 3:18) is not dissolution of essence but its manifestation in us through participation. Holiness is not simply moral separation—it is energetic communion with the Triune God. From Jordan to Ascension, the Trinitarian self-gift is enacted for us but also in us drawing us into a life where divine transcendence is made fully present

Mark: Otti - this statement "God’s self-communication is real, personal, and transformative. The energies are not stripped of essence—they are God’s essence as self-giving, never separate from the Persons, but their mode of presence" is changing Palamite theology and making Essence fully present, communicable and communicative in and through the Energies which I do agree with - although I think there is 'progressive essential transference' in dealing with sanctification as a trans-substantive, and communicable experience. I agree with the comment on Symeon. I would frame your comment on the Holy Spirit this way - 'the Spirit who communicates transformative grace through revealing the real person of Christ in us (Philippians 4:19) , making sanctification both imputed and imparted - the emphasis on 'uncreated' is not adding anything of real soteriological intent and content. I agree with this: "The transformation from glory to glory (2 Cor 3:18) is not dissolution of essence but its manifestation in us through participation" but Gregory Palamas would not in his energies-essence distinction. I agree with this with one slight change: 'Drawing us into a life where divine transcendence and communicative immanence is made fully present'.

Otti: Mark, thank you for this brilliant chat. You're absolutely right to push on the limits of Palamas’ metaphysical grammar, and I agree: while my articulation leans toward the full communicability of divine essence in and through the energies, this does represent a developmental reading—pressing beyond Palamas, though not against the logic of participation.
Your notion of “progressive essential transference” in sanctification is fruitful. It offers a compelling way of naming what’s at stake in theosis not merely as ethical conformity, but as ontological transformation: a trans-substantive participation in the divine being that is neither pantheistic fusion nor legal declaration. This has deep resonance with Maximus’ understanding of the logoi, Bulgakov’s sophiological realism, and even Gregory of Nyssa’s dynamic perfection (epektasis). In this view, sanctification becomes the historical manifestation of divine essence in the creature by grace, a process that draws the divine mystery ever deeper into the fabric of human becoming. This also reframes Palamas’ apophatic reserve: the essence is not unknowable in the sense of being inert or inertly transcendent, but rather unknowable as exhaustible.  What we encounter in the energies is thus not “other than” essence, but essence as eternally self-giving—the ontological mode in which transcendence becomes communicatively present without being dissolved. Your reframing of the Holy Spirit’s role is both beautiful and necessary: the Spirit as the One who reveals the real person of Christ in us is not merely a corrective to impersonal grace-theology, but a return to the concrete Christocentrism of Pauline and Johannine pneumatology. The Spirit does not act as a mystical conveyor of divine force but as the personal agent of divine presence—indwelling, convicting, and transfiguring the believer in the image of Christ (2 Cor 3:18, Gal 4:19). In this light, the distinction between imputed and imparted sanctification is not two stages but a single communicative movement of participatory union.
Your critique of “uncreated” is also well-placed. While Palamas employed it to guard against created grace models (especially in response to Barlaam), the term can indeed become metaphysically loaded without soteriological precision.The theological weight lies not in the “uncreatedness” as such, but in the relational immediacy and ontological intimacy of divine self-gift. Grace saves not because it is metaphysically exalted, but because it is personally and transformatively given. Your reformulation works- it preserves the dialectic of distance and nearness, of divine otherness that does not exclude but enables communion. This is the paradoxical realism of Christian holiness: not the eradication of the creature, but its elevation into participatory likeness through love.

In this sense, Palamas for me at least guards the mystery. But the deeper movement of the tradition—from Dionysius to Maximus, Symeon to Bulgakov—presses us to affirm that what sanctifies us is not merely proximity to divine operations, but union with the very life of God, communicated without confusion, and drawing us into a glory that both reveals and exceeds us.

Mark: Otti - but what you are doing is changing the 'essential' nature of that participation. Sergius Bulgakov on Sophiology is a predicate of Platonic procession but with an emphasis on wisdom rather than energy and it is far from Real. Gregory of Nyssa treated 'epektasis' as a Pauline "reaching towards" in understanding Philippians 3:12-14. Epektasis is derived from a Greek word found in verses such as Philippians 3:13, where it is translated as “straining toward.” The term implies something that is becoming, striving, or developing and it is incorrect to suggest 'dynamic perfection'. But I really like this: "sanctification becomes the historical manifestation of divine essence in the creature by grace, a process that draws the divine mystery ever deeper into the fabric of human becoming". Yes I like your final conceit on Palamas and you reconciliation of your view of his theology.  "The theological weight lies not in the “uncreatedness” as such, but in the relational immediacy and ontological intimacy of divine self-gift. Grace saves not because it is metaphysically exalted, but because it is personally and transformatively given. Your reformulation works- it preserves the dialectic of distance and nearness, of divine otherness that does not exclude but enables communion" - Yes I like this but I am going to continue to emphasise "for us". 'Participatory likeness - and wholeness' - through love incarnate". The kenotic theology of Sergius Bulgakov is more complex but I like your closing sentence. 

Otti: Mark you’re right to caution that I risk reframing the essential nature of participation. Bulgakov’s Sophiology does indeed carry the danger of reintroducing a mediated chain of being under the guise of wisdom, thereby compromising the immediacy and asymmetry of divine–human communion.
To clarify: when I say that sanctification is “the historical manifestation of divine essence in the creature by grace,” I do not mean the divine essence becomes present as substance in the creature. Rather, I mean that God’s essence remains incommunicable in itself but is freely self-manifesting in and through the energies—personal, real, and transformative—as grace. Not essence collapsing into form, but essence revealed through gift, without confusion or fusion. The creature does not possess God’s being but is drawn ever more deeply into participatory likeness, which is ontologically real, but metaphysically asymmetrical.
On epektasis, I fully accept your correction. Nyssa uses the term to express endless striving, not “dynamic perfection” as terminable growth. It’s a perpetual orientation toward the infinite where perfection lies not in arrival but in unending desire, a sanctified yearning drawn forward by divine plenitude.

Mark: Otti - But I really do mean the divine essence becomes increasingly present in a substantial way in our [redeemed and renewed] humanity.

"I mean that God’s essence remains incommunicable in itself but is freely self-manifesting in and through the energies—personal, real, and transformative—as grace" - this is shifting back to Palamite theology and an incorrect understanding of what the Sufficiency of Grace really is in the context of 2 Corinthians 12:9. Essence does translate into form - that is the real nature of the Incarnation [John 1:14; 1 John 1:1].

"The creature does not possess God’s being but is drawn ever more deeply into participatory likeness, which is ontologically real, but metaphysically asymmetrical" - this is entirely wrong and an injurious and grievous refutation of 2 Peter 1:4.

We are in agreement on Gregory of Nyssa but when we reach out - the action is energetic but what we touch is essential.

I am impressed Otti. Good.

On Essence and Energy, I have been with the Serenes and sat with them in this immense Light. Unimaginable in its intensity and felt it get into everything. 

Otti: Mark thanks a lot - I do not mean to deny that through the Incarnation, essence becomes truly and substantially present in Christ’s humanity—the Word became flesh (John 1:14) is not metaphor but metaphysics. In Him, the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily (Col 2:9), and in Him, redeemed humanity is drawn into union not merely with grace as gift, but with God Himself.
However, the question remains whether this essential participation is extended beyond Christ to the ontological structure of the redeemed. My prior formulation sought to preserve the Chalcedonian asymmetry: that creaturely participation does not entail ontological possession, but communion through deifying grace. Yet you are right—2 Peter 1:4 does not speak of a likeness to divinity but of becoming “partakers of the divine nature.” This cannot be reduced to energetic mediation alone. If grace is truly sufficient (2 Cor 12:9), it must be because what is communicated is not merely operative power, but God's very being. Thus, I stand corrected: sanctification is not only relational participation but substantial indwelling, grounded in the real ontological translation of essence into redeemed form. What we reach toward is energetic—but what we receive is essential. 

Mark: Otti - Chalcedon is an extremely complex Council in its deliberations on the hypostatic union of Christ - I agree with Coptic Theology in dealing with Chalcedon and their Miaphysitist perspective - but with an element of Dyophysitist dynamic 'interfusion'. The word interfusion is not to be treated as if I am suggesting a state of fusion or implicate Monophysitism but a 'dynamic reconciliatory exchange'.

"What we receive is essential" - Otti Vogt

Yeah. I really like that.

I am arrested with the way you do Grace - that is quite convicting. That will remain with me. ✝️

Otti: Mark intriguing! I genuinely appreciate your theological precision! You're absolutely right that Chalcedon is extraordinarily complex, and that the resulting definitions, while safeguarding orthodoxy, have left interpretive tensions. “Dynamic interfusion” is carefully framed, and I agree—it should not be mistaken for Monophysitism which dissolves the human into the divine, nor is it mere static dyophysitism, which risks functional dualism. I reckon what you're pointing toward is a relational synthesis: not a confusion of natures, but a living, reciprocal exchange qua perichoretic enhypostasis. This I guess is precisely what Cyrillian Miaphysitism sought to protect: “μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη” - “one nature of God the Word made flesh” - in this frame, I see "nature" (physis) dynamically as the composite life of the incarnate Logos, not a static substance. So when you speak of interfusion as a “dynamic reconciliatory exchange,” I hear echoes of Maximus the Confessor’s enhypostatic logic and Athanasius’ soteriological formula: God became man so that man might become God—but always within the asymmetry that safeguards both divine initiative and human integrity. Not a fusion, but the mystery of transformative union.

Mark: Otti - 'Qua perichoretic enhypostasis' - I would emphasise 'perichoretic coinherence' in framing a 'relational synthesis'.

I agree on your excellent point of 'static dyophysitism' which would definitely risk a form of commensal functional dualism.

I think Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius and Maximus the Confessor are effectively all saying the same thing.

In dealing with asymmetry I would emphasis interconvergence and with transformative union the intercommunicative.

Mark: Otti - I started to use Scripture. My 'Sola Scriptura' approach to Patristics and Eastern Energetic theology is that "we will not accept anything that contradicts Scripture" which has its own animating energetic vivacity. To be honest I wrote virtually all this stuff back in 2005 on the walls of a drained swimming pool and in part on the ceilings of an abandoned amusement arcade, and I have not done much with it since, but your scholastic approach took me back to the original discussions - my final comments were new, although as you commented more geared to precision. The one thing I really liked was your commensal treatment of 'static dyophysitism'. You mentioned Theosis. I like Cassian.

Otti: Mark, what a vivid image: scripture and metaphysical inquiry scrawled across the walls of a drained swimming pool and the ceiling of an abandoned arcade! :-) That’s not just method—it’s iconography! It honours the reality that truth-seeking doesn’t only happen in lecture halls, but in the ruins, in exile, or in places emptied of institutional presence but still haunted by the sacred. I respect your Sola Scriptura stance as a theological anchor, esp when applied rigorously to Patristic and Eastern thought. You're right: Scripture has its own energetic vivacity—it is not inert text, but living word (logos empsychos), disclosing divine intent through Spirit-illumined engagement. The tension with energeia theology isn’t about rejecting the tradition but discerning whether its metaphysical scaffolding truly serves the biblical witness—or over-extends it. That’s a line worth walking with care, and your reflections sharpen it. Precision matters—but so does the memory of the raw, early wrestling! And yes—Cassian. His deep moral psychology and ascetic realism are often bypassed, but he embodies a theology of theosis that is grounded, patient, and watchful—a sanctification that unfolds not in speculation but in the battle for the heart. 

Mark: Otti I do not use the expression 'logos empsychos' - again poor patristic thinking.

Empsychos" (ἔμψυχος in Greek) means animate or alive. It's a compound word, derived from "en" (εν) meaning "in" and "psyche" (ψυχή) meaning "soul" or "life". Therefore, "empsychos" refers to something that possesses a soul or has life within it.

I would use logos empneumaticos.

In Greek "pneumatikos" (πνευματικός) means spiritual. It's formed from the root word "pneuma" (πνεῦμα), which translates to "spirit," "wind," or "breath".

Again Cassian. He is not doing psychology. It is formative pneumatology.

Nepsis. Think about what 'pure awareness' and 'watchfulness' involves and how does it relate to noesis, phronesis and discernment.

The "raw, early wrestling" arose because of trying to distinguish between real exegesis and implicate eisegesis.

I do like "grounded, patient, and watchful" which could be a summation of the Philokalia.

You are good at citing source material but you need to think through the implications.

You will never achieve "Spirit-illumined [or illuminated] engagement" using logos empsychos as an instrumental approach.

Real Energetic theology is not Eastern, Western or the Global South, it is simply understanding Scripture. 

Otti: Mark brilliant! That’s a superb clarification, and you’re absolutely right to challenge my use of logos empsychos. While some literature loosely applies it to describe the Logos’ incarnation, it indeed carries problematic philosophical baggage, suggesting a generic ensouled being rather than the Spirit-constituted, divine-human hypostasis revealed in the Incarnation. ogos empneumatikosis far more precise. It locates the Logos not merely as animate but as Spirit-bearing. Likewise, for Cassian that's a crucial distinction. While I will suggest that later readings (especially in the West) psychologise the logismoi, Cassian and the Philokalic tradition as a whole is far more concerned with spiritual formation. Your invocation of nepsis is rich. As watchfulness, it is not mere attentional discipline, but a pneumatologically charged epistemic mode: a readiness of the nous, purified through ascetic struggle, to receive the divine energies and discern their movement. In this sense, it integrates noesis, phronesis, and diakrisis into a unified spiritual epistemology—not as faculties of a closed soul, but as instruments of co-operation with the Spirit. Thanks again for sharpening the tools and deepening the field! 

Mark: Otti - this is a great comment: "It locates the Logos not merely as animate but as Spirit-bearing".

This statement is often used: "purified through ascetic struggle, to receive the divine energies and discern their movement " - but has Pelagian implications. Ascetic struggle in itself will do nothing (John 15:5) but a dynamic relationship will. You can only discern what you can receive (John 3:27). Again this whole thing about energies in themselves is adding nothing to real energetic pneumatology and I think it fragments and scatters "noesis, phronesis, and diakrisis" which I agree should be "instruments of co-operation with the Spirit".

With Patristics think through the implications.

A 'pneumatologically charged epistemological mode' - only if you understand the Patristic exhortation to locate your 'mind in your heart' - Sergei Sakharov was good at that up to a point and he resisted the rote repetition of patristic formulas.

"Let the inspired Scriptures be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the divine words" - Gregory of Nyssa, 'On the Holy Trinity, And of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit'. In the exchange of views in Mark 12:28-33 the scribe uses the word “sunesis” – ‘understanding’ as in rational abstract discursive intellect and Jesus uses the word translated as ‘mind’ – dianoia – in the context of relational Heart knowledge (dianoia – literally: knowing through the Heart or “spiritual discernment / knowledge / wisdom / understanding”) – Spiritual Cognition and that is where I locate Real Nepsis.

One final thing – one of the problems I had and do have with academic scholasticism was and is the “soulish tendency” to emphasis the rational discursive intellect above the noetic faculties of the human spirit – where Sergei Sakharov and I met was at the point where we had both experienced our minds being drawn back out of our hearts….it is a struggle…and I confess that….keeping my rational-cerebral abstract-discursive mind in subjection to my human spirit (my heart in relational-affective terms of reference) or ‘keeping my mind in my heart’ is a daily discipline.

Go well Otti. Let me know when Amazon delivers that Heavier Cross to your door. I am Iurodstvo or a Fool.