Question about "River of Fire" by Kalomiros

[truthseeker32]

I just finished reading "The River of Fire" by Kalomiros (http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm) and I was perplexed by this section:

"God will never take back this gift of freedom which renders us what we are. This means that we will always be what we want to be, friends or enemies of God, and there is no changing in this our deepest self. In this life, there are profound or superficial changes in our life, in our character, in our beliefs, but all these changes are only the expression in time of our deepest eternal self. This deep eternal self is eternal, with all the meaning of the word. This is why paradise and hell are also eternal. There is no changing in what we really are. Our temporal characteristics and our history in life depend on many superficial things 'which vanish with death, but our real personality is not superficial and does not depend on changing and vanishing things. It is our real self. It remains with us when we sleep in the grave, and will be our real face in the resurrection. It is eternal."

Kalomiros says that Hell exists as a result of our human freedom, because at the core of some individuals there true self rejects God. What I see as problematic is that he also says that this core aspect that rejects God is an unchanging aspect of the individual: "This deep eternal self is eternal, with all the meaning of the word. This is why paradise and hell are also eternal. There is no changing in what we really are."

My question: If we are unable to change this "deep eternal self" Kalomiros speaks of, then how exactly are we free?

 

[KeenanParkerII]

*patiently waits*

 

[Boris89]

Do not read Kalomiros. He is basically an Orthodox modernist and this is dangerous. Also, stay away from Alexander Shmemann and Alexander Men. Unintentionally of not, they have heavily deviated from the ancient teachings of the church. Instead you should focus on the works of Fr. Seraphim Rose who will clear your head on what ancient Orthodoxy really is and how modern interpretations of it are dangerous. In his works he will direct you to other traditional church fathers whose works you should also read if you want to get into Orthodoxy.

I realise being in the United States will expose you to modernist works which have always been easily propagated there. It's very difficult to discern... at least here in Bulgaria we still have a branch of the priesthood which always reacts whenever we get some twisting of the ancient teachings(they also try to propagate them here).

 

[Agnikan]

My question: If we are unable to change this "deep eternal self" Kalomiros speaks of, then how exactly are we free?

We are free because *God* is able (with our cooperation) to change us. We (ourselves, alone) can't change who we really are.

God takes us and changes us: theosis.

 

[ArmyMatt]

seems to me that the second sentence answers your question. we will always be WHAT WE WANT TO BE. so this eternal self is an act of will, based on our choice. it is not some eternal state that no one can effect, otherwise it would not be what we want it to be, but rather what we just are.

and I gotta say, stop worrying about this eschatological stuff. there are a ton of writings out there that Orthodox writers have put forth. it's not the kinda stuff to read for someone inquiring into the faith. plus, when you read that, you will always find stuff that you disagree with. I personally have yet to find someone who writes about soul after death/the Second Coming that I can honestly say I agree with %100 either in their theology or their approach to it. tis nothing you should worry about.

 

[truthseeker32]

and I gotta say, stop worrying about this eschatological stuff. there are a ton of writings out there that Orthodox writers have put forth. it's not the kinda stuff to read for someone inquiring into the faith. plus, when you read that, you will always find stuff that you disagree with. I personally have yet to find someone who writes about soul after death/the Second Coming that I can honestly say I agree with %100 either in their theology or their approach to it. tis nothing you should worry about.

Thanks for the advice, Matt. I am not so worried about whether Kalomiros is correct, since I know both Orthodox Christians that love and hate his writings, just as I know people who like and dislike Seraphim Rose and Kallistos Ware. I simply brought the passage here to see how his fans might interpret what seemed to me a contradiction, and more importantly whether this idea is in line with Orthodoxy.

I also find it interesting that, aside from Ware's books, this article has been recommended to me more than any other text. I have to say that now that I have read through it again I fall into the "not a fan" camp. At this point my favorite books have been:

1. Orthodox Way- Ware
2. The Way of a Pilgrim
3. Becoming Orthodox- Fr. Peter Gillquist
4. Apostolic Successiom- Gregory Rogers
5. Brothers Karamazov- Fyodor Dostoevsky (does this count? )

 

[Kyprian]

Yes, Dostoevsky always counts.

I also highly recommend Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, by Fr. Andrew Steven Damick, but that's just me.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Stay away from Schmemman? NO WAY JOSE!

Do not read Kalomiros. He is basically an Orthodox modernist and this is dangerous. Also, stay away from Alexander Shmemann and Alexander Men. Unintentionally of not, they have heavily deviated from the ancient teachings of the church. Instead you should focus on the works of Fr. Seraphim Rose who will clear your head on what ancient Orthodoxy really is and how modern interpretations of it are dangerous. In his works he will direct you to other traditional church fathers whose works you should also read if you want to get into Orthodoxy.

I realise being in the United States will expose you to modernist works which have always been easily propagated there. It's very difficult to discern... at least here in Bulgaria we still have a branch of the priesthood which always reacts whenever we get some twisting of the ancient teachings(they also try to propagate them here).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I'd throw a couple more in there:

For the Life of the World--Father Alexander Schmemann
The Primacy of Peter--Father John Meyendorff
Our Thoughts Determine Our Lives--- Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica
The Orthodox Church--Bishop Kallistos Ware

Thanks for the advice, Matt. I am not so worried about whether Kalomiros is correct, since I know both Orthodox Christians that love and hate his writings, just as I know people who like and dislike Seraphim Rose and Kallistos Ware. I simply brought the passage here to see how his fans might interpret what seemed to me a contradiction, and more importantly whether this idea is in line with Orthodoxy.

I also find it interesting that, aside from Ware's books, this article has been recommended to me more than any other text. I have to say that now that I have read through it again I fall into the "not a fan" camp. At this point my favorite books have been:

1. Orthodox Way- Ware
2. The Way of a Pilgrim
3. Becoming Orthodox- Fr. Peter Gillquist
4. Apostolic Successiom- Gregory Rogers
5. Brothers Karamazov- Fyodor Dostoevsky (does this count? )

 

[Boris89]

5. Brothers Karamazov- Fyodor Dostoevsky (does this count? )

Everything from Dostoyevsky counts. If you haven't read it already, Crime and punishment should be next.

gurneyhalleck1 let's just say he should better focus on St. Theophanes the Recluse and St. Ignatius Bryanchaninov for example. You are right with Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica however. My orthodox friends here are all reading him and love his writings. As for Schmemann, it is not without purpose that much of the Eastern European priesthood is heavily reserved when it comes to his writings.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And why is that, Boris? I never knew that, brother.

As for Schmemann, it is not without purpose that much of the Eastern European priesthood is heavily reserved when it comes to his writings.

 

[Boris89]

And why is that, Boris? I never knew that, brother.

Well mostly they criticise him for his views on lithurgical practices. In his works he claimed that they were lacking in certain ways and need reformation, whatever the reasons. For example his view on the Eucharist as something secondary, similar to the protestant views on it. Basically the church is against any form of reforms or "revivals" and It's looking with suspicion on anybody making such efforts. Of course Schmemann himself might not have had bad intentions when making such claims and we do not necessary blame him.

As you are probably aware there has been a growing modernist movement in the Orthodox church and many hard line priests from Eastern Europe have written against certain people considered to be proponants of it.(like Schmemann, Kalomiros, Al. Men, Kalistos Ware and others)

 

[MariaRegina]

I just finished reading "The River of Fire" by Kalomiros (River of Fire) and I was perplexed by this section:

"God will never take back this gift of freedom which renders us what we are. This means that we will always be what we want to be, friends or enemies of God, and there is no changing in this our deepest self. In this life, there are profound or superficial changes in our life, in our character, in our beliefs, but all these changes are only the expression in time of our deepest eternal self. This deep eternal self is eternal, with all the meaning of the word. This is why paradise and hell are also eternal. There is no changing in what we really are. Our temporal characteristics and our history in life depend on many superficial things 'which vanish with death, but our real personality is not superficial and does not depend on changing and vanishing things. It is our real self. It remains with us when we sleep in the grave, and will be our real face in the resurrection. It is eternal."

Kalomiros says that Hell exists as a result of our human freedom, because at the core of some individuals there true self rejects God. What I see as problematic is that he also says that this core aspect that rejects God is an unchanging aspect of the individual: "This deep eternal self is eternal, with all the meaning of the word. This is why paradise and hell are also eternal. There is no changing in what we really are."

My question: If we are unable to change this "deep eternal self" Kalomiros speaks of, then how exactly are we free?

This sounds like predestination, not the true freedom of the sons of God.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well mostly they criticise him for his views on lithurgical practices. In his works he claimed that they were lacking in certain ways and need reformation, whatever the reasons. For example his view on the Eucharist as something secondary, similar to the protestant views on it. Basically the church is against any form of reforms or "revivals" and It's looking with suspicion on anybody making such efforts. Of course Schmemann himself might not have had bad intentions when making such claims and we do not necessary blame him.

As you are probably aware there has been a growing modernist movement in the Orthodox church and many hard line priests from Eastern Europe have written against certain people considered to be proponants of it.(like Schmemann, Kalomiros, Al. Men, Kalistos Ware and others)

yeah, in Fr Seraphim Rose's bio they say that Fr Schmemann saw problems with folks using the faith as an empty rituals, and he rightly wanted to get back to the essentials, but he focused to much on the Liturgy being a product of history, and therefore more flexible in practice than it should be.

that being said, some of Fr Alexander's stuff is spot on. Great Lent, Thanksgiving Homily, etc. I am reading For the Life of the World right now and it is pretty sweet so far.

 

[MariaRegina]

yeah, in Fr Seraphim Rose's bio they say that Fr Schmemann saw problems with folks using the faith as an empty rituals, and he rightly wanted to get back to the essentials, but he focused to much on the Liturgy being a product of history, and therefore more flexible in practice than it should be.

that being said, some of Fr Alexander's stuff is spot on. Great Lent, Thanksgiving Homily, etc. I am reading For the Life of the World right now and it is pretty sweet so far.

For the Life of the World is awesome.

 

[Dorothea]

Thanks for the advice, Matt. I am not so worried about whether Kalomiros is correct, since I know both Orthodox Christians that love and hate his writings, just as I know people who like and dislike Seraphim Rose and Kallistos Ware. I simply brought the passage here to see how his fans might interpret what seemed to me a contradiction, and more importantly whether this idea is in line with Orthodoxy.

I also find it interesting that, aside from Ware's books, this article has been recommended to me more than any other text. I have to say that now that I have read through it again I fall into the "not a fan" camp. At this point my favorite books have been:

1. Orthodox Way- Ware
2. The Way of a Pilgrim
3. Becoming Orthodox- Fr. Peter Gillquist
4. Apostolic Successiom- Gregory Rogers
5. Brothers Karamazov- Fyodor Dostoevsky (does this count? )

Best book on the history of the Church, Christianity, etc., imo, is Fr. John Morris' The Historic Church. EXCELLENT. Highly recommend it.

 

[Dorothea]

yeah, in Fr Seraphim Rose's bio they say that Fr Schmemann saw problems with folks using the faith as an empty rituals, and he rightly wanted to get back to the essentials, but he focused to much on the Liturgy being a product of history, and therefore more flexible in practice than it should be.

that being said, some of Fr Alexander's stuff is spot on. Great Lent, Thanksgiving Homily, etc. I am reading For the Life of the World right now and it is pretty sweet so far.

I've read the two highlighted, and they were really good.

 

[truthseeker32]

Sounds like I'm going to have to read some Alexander Schmemann. I would also say that if it wasn't for Met. Kallistos Ware, Met. Hilarion Alfeyev, Fr. Meyendorff, and others who are often labeled as "modernists" I never would have encountered Orthodoxy or given it much thought.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Despite the haters, Father Schmemann was really into Eucharistic renewal. Back in the day, many Orthodox parishes were turning into what the Catholic Church looked like in the Middle Ages---a spectator sport. Father Schmemann sought to get the laity back to taking communion and being active participants. Instead of things like the "Serbian shuffle" where the priest would walk out, present the gifts, partake, and nobody else went up for communion, liturgy over, Father Schmemann sought to bring life back into the parish community. People need to go to confession, receive the Eucharist frequently, and be involved. I think Father saw the Church gathering too many cobwebs from within. He sought more flexibility, but not taking away the essentials or innovating either. That's what I get from his books anyway. My own priest is highly-influenced by Father Schmemann and Father Meyendorff. Both men were his professors in seminary. Father Meyendorff was his confessor! He spoke to both on a regular basis. And when people come visit our parish, they frequently comment, "wow, a lot of people take communion at this parish!" as if it's a real anomaly. But they always say it with a smile and delight in the revelation. Father Schmemann's legacy....

Sounds like I'm going to have to read some Alexander Schmemann. I would also say that if it wasn't for Met. Kallistos Ware, Met. Hilarion Alfeyev, Fr. Meyendorff, and others who are often labeled as "modernists" I never would have encountered Orthodoxy or given it much thought.

 

[Cappadocious]

For example his view on the Eucharist as something secondary

By "the Eucharist as something secondary", are you referring to the fact that he thought priests should preach homilies?