Hopko and Schmemann?

Cappadocious

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,885
860
✟30,661.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I'll give you a demonstration: the word "gay". Its core meaning of merriment has NOT been lost, despite the horrendous abuse the word has been put to, and that you seem to approve of, ignoring its fundamental state of being an evil euphemism.

And the proof of that is in the word "gaiety". As long as that word exists, you cannot alienate "gay" from the concept of merriment, just as the coiners of the euphemism counted on, that merriment should be associated with vile acts.
You have not demonstrated that the so called original meaning is necessarily connected with "gay". All you have done is shown that it remains connected in act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gzt
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,591.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
You have not demonstrated that the so called original meaning is necessarily connected with "gay". All you have done is shown that it remains connected in act.
Capp, you can be in denial about the super-obvious if you want to; your efforts make me think of the kind of person who would deny that the sky is blue because sometimes it takes on different hues, or because sky-blue is not the same shade as dark blue. Study of literature makes it clear that throughout the history of English speakers, the words "gay" and "gaeity" always referred to merriment. People trying to apply them in other meanings are so few and far between as to be effectively non-existent.

What I say here, that everyone else except you (and maybe gzt) can see, is that the word "gaeity" still exists, and is still used exclusively to refer to merriment. That IS the demonstration. You can deny it if you will, but that IS your will, and you will not be intelligent or honestly introspective in doing so.
 
Upvote 0

Cappadocious

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,885
860
✟30,661.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Study of literature makes it clear that throughout the history of English speakers, the words "gay" and "gaeity" always referred to merriment. People trying to apply them in other meanings are so few and far between as to be effectively non-existent.

What I say here, that everyone else except you (and maybe gzt) can see, is that the word "gaeity" still exists, and is still used exclusively to refer to merriment. That IS the demonstration. You can deny it if you will, but that IS your will, and you will not be intelligent or honestly introspective in doing so.
You are not demonstrating a necessary connection, you are merely demonstrating a connection.

Obey the rationality of the Fathers and argue rationally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gzt
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Matt - to say that people condemned his theology is far too broad a statement. They condemned parts of it, such as the strange idea of pre-existent souls.

As for the teaching of Patristic Universalism prior to Augustine, I am currently reading a book which has numerous quotes from men who are considered saints in the Church and whose orthodoxy is impeccable.

It was merely a suggestion that Justinian was led by certain desires to do those things which would unite the empire. I have no proof one way or the other. This is the frustrating thing about reading "historians." They are almost always influenced to say certain things by the agenda which drives them. It can make finding the truth very problematic.

well, you could make the same argument about any heretic. not everything Arius said was wrong either. the bottom line is Origen was spoken against, to include universal salvation, long before St Justinian came on the scene. the biggie being St Epiphanios of Salamis.

but that does not matter. it was condemned at an Ecumenical Council. it does not matter when it was condemned, only that it was condemned
 
Upvote 0

Light of the East

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir
Supporter
Aug 4, 2013
4,989
2,480
75
Fairfax VA
Visit site
✟555,654.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
well, you could make the same argument about any heretic. not everything Arius said was wrong either. the bottom line is Origen was spoken against, to include universal salvation, long before St Justinian came on the scene. the biggie being St Epiphanios of Salamis.

but that does not matter. it was condemned at an Ecumenical Council. it does not matter when it was condemned, only that it was condemned

Of all the people I distinctly do not with to argue with, you are at the top of my list.

Scholars have questioned the veracity of those canons. There are irregularities there, especially on Canon 15, which appears to address apocatastasis. What we do know was condemned was Origen's odd ideas on the pre-existence of souls and the connection that had with apocatastasis.

It is also very odd that for 400 years prior, it was taught and there was no council to discuss it as a potential heresy. That is not the way the Church worked. Most heresies, especially those which were gaining great traction and disturbing the Church, only were around for the most a decade before a council said "Hold on thar, Babba Louie. We gonna talk about this strange idea you got!"

Didn't happen for almost 400 years. Odd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gzt
Upvote 0

Kristos

Servant
Aug 30, 2006
7,379
1,068
Minnesota
✟37,552.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I have always found the Church's relationship to Origen to be curious. Is there another heretic quoted so often? His writings were preserved by the Church itself - which is not very common for a heretic. Compare to Arius, whose extant writings consist of some quoted fragments. Origen was in fact held in very high regard by many Saints prior to the 5th council.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gzt
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Of all the people I distinctly do not with to argue with, you are at the top of my list.

Scholars have questioned the veracity of those canons. There are irregularities there, especially on Canon 15, which appears to address apocatastasis. What we do know was condemned was Origen's odd ideas on the pre-existence of souls and the connection that had with apocatastasis.

It is also very odd that for 400 years prior, it was taught and there was no council to discuss it as a potential heresy. That is not the way the Church worked. Most heresies, especially those which were gaining great traction and disturbing the Church, only were around for the most a decade before a council said "Hold on thar, Babba Louie. We gonna talk about this strange idea you got!"

Didn't happen for almost 400 years. Odd.

it is because the Church only addresses a heresy when it becomes a problem. that was not always a problem for the Church, but that does not make it any less a heresy.
 
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,591.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Don't feed any trolls, Rus!
Well, I think Capp is sincere, so I don't think "troll" fits.

But speaking of a "necessary" connection when all that the coiners needed was a connection is itself only an attempt to avoid admitting thta it is the simple truth. It's really so obvious and direct that you have to WANT to not know it in order to not know it. Anyone with any historical memory, and/or a good grounding in literature can see it. I have both. It seems, Capp, that you don't have either. You speak about being rational. Being rational is good, and I AM being rational. I could point out that though we value reason, we do not value it as much as faith. You are the one that, as far as I can see, is not being rational. The word had a definite and unarguable meaning throughout the recorded history of the language, certainly from the 14th century. Its record as a euphemism for anything else prior to the end of the 19th century, that the few exceptions prove the rule that it had no other popular meaning, whatever a few lone individuals tried to ascribe to it. Even its popular usage as speaking of general licentiousness was temporary, and definitively died as popular usage (which is why it could even BE applied more narrowly to sodomy later). Thus, the term as it is misused today dates back to about 1970, within my living memory. These are the basic and relevant facts. The word "gaeity" was, thank God, not similarly hijacked, and if there were legitimacy to the euphemistic usage, then it would have been. But it hasn't. I can still speak of gaeity at a party and people will not misunderstand me to mean "homosexuality". Ergo, speaking rationally, it is not a "necessary" connection. It is THE connection, the thing that proves that "gay" retains its legitimate meaning of merry, and its reference to sodomy as mere euphemism, that which says what it doesn't mean. You can try to say that's "not rational", but you're not going to be able to offer rational proof that what I say is not true. You can assert, but you cannot prove. I have proved. That is the difference.
 
Upvote 0

Light of the East

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir
Supporter
Aug 4, 2013
4,989
2,480
75
Fairfax VA
Visit site
✟555,654.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
it is because the Church only addresses a heresy when it becomes a problem. that was not always a problem for the Church, but that does not make it any less a heresy.

Matt - I think that reinforces my point actually. How could it have existed for 400 years as the premier teaching of the Church and not have caused major problems if it was wrong? And it didn't start being a "problem" until Augustine's ideas began to be promoted in the Latin Church.

BTW - someone has suggested that St. Justinian had very strong Latinized teaching and sympathies, which would mean that if this is true, he would be influenced deeply by the legalistic ideas of Roman society and imprint them on his understanding of the Scriptures.

Do you know if this is true and also, do you know if there are books out with St. Justinian's writings in them? I would be interested in reading him. Search for truth, ya know?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,527.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Matt - I think that reinforces my point actually. How could it have existed for 400 years as the premier teaching of the Church and not have caused major problems if it was wrong? And it didn't start being a "problem" until Augustine's ideas began to be promoted in the Latin Church.

BTW - someone has suggested that St. Justinian had very strong Latinized teaching and sympathies, which would mean that if this is true, he would be influenced deeply by the legalistic ideas of Roman society and imprint them on his understanding of the Scriptures.

Do you know if this is true and also, do you know if there are books out with St. Justinian's writings in them? I would be interested in reading him. Search for truth, ya know?
What is your proof that it was the "premier" teaching? Individual church father's teachings doesn't make it the "premier" teaching. Personally, I'd rather trust the Church on this matter over my interpretation as to what was the premier teaching of the church fathers many centuries ago.
 
Upvote 0

Light of the East

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir
Supporter
Aug 4, 2013
4,989
2,480
75
Fairfax VA
Visit site
✟555,654.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
What is your proof that it was the "premier" teaching? Individual church father's teachings doesn't make it the "premier" teaching. Personally, I'd rather trust the Church on this matter over my interpretation as to what was the premier teaching of the church fathers many centuries ago.


There is a long list of Early Church Fathers who taught the restoration of all things (apocatastasis). In addition, of the six theological schools that existed at that time, four of them taught apocatastasis, one taught annihilationism, and only one taught ECT.

One would have to say that if you look to the condemnations of Origen in the and use that as a basis for saying that apocatastasis is a heresy, then it is most odd that none of these other Fathers of the Church were condemned as well, for they were most out front and vociferous in teaching it.

Why was there no ecummenical council ever call to address this specific issue. Yes, I trust the Church and the fact of the matter is that there is simply no council which has ever addressed this other than the questionable at best fifteenth canon of the Fifth Council.
 
Upvote 0

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,527.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
There is a long list of Early Church Fathers who taught the restoration of all things (apocatastasis). In addition, of the six theological schools that existed at that time, four of them taught apocatastasis, one taught annihilationism, and only one taught ECT.

One would have to say that if you look to the condemnations of Origen in the and use that as a basis for saying that apocatastasis is a heresy, then it is most odd that none of these other Fathers of the Church were condemned as well, for they were most out front and vociferous in teaching it.

Why was there no ecummenical council ever call to address this specific issue. Yes, I trust the Church and the fact of the matter is that there is simply no council which has ever addressed this other than the questionable at best fifteenth canon of the Fifth Council.
ETC? If you are talking about eternal torture / lack of God's presence, etc, then I'd say it isn't the general teaching I have been taught. Rather, God's love is torment to those who reject Him and pure peace to those who love Him (to put it very simply).
 
Upvote 0

Light of the East

I'm Just a Singer in an OCA Choir
Supporter
Aug 4, 2013
4,989
2,480
75
Fairfax VA
Visit site
✟555,654.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
ETC? If you are talking about eternal torture / lack of God's presence, etc, then I'd say it isn't the general teaching I have been taught. Rather, God's love is torment to those who reject Him and pure peace to those who love Him (to put it very simply).

See? Actually I think we are on the same page here because that is what I mean when I speak about Patristic Universalism. Christ entered the house of the "strong man" through the work of the Cross and plundered it (the Harrowing of Hell). All which rightfully belongs to God has been returned to Him, which includes all mankind that ever have or ever shall live.

But as you say, to be in the presence of the God who is love will be torment for those who do not wish it and who love evil over the good. That is straight Orthodoxy and I think in line with the idea of the restoration of all things. The only real big question is whether or not the wicked soul can come to a point of repentance and turn to God after the scourging for its sins. That's a biggie, and we simply do not know that answer. The best we can do is hope.

ECT to me represents the idea more in line with Dante's Inferno and the visions that are presented by Roman Catholic "seers" in which the Father is angry and His wrath against us is barely held back by the Mother of God and Her Son. It is God as torturer (think of David Bentley Hart's delicious description of Cur Deus Homo by Anselm of Canterbury as "Catholics in the Hands of a Psychotic God.") rather than as Love.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Matt - I think that reinforces my point actually. How could it have existed for 400 years as the premier teaching of the Church and not have caused major problems if it was wrong? And it didn't start being a "problem" until Augustine's ideas began to be promoted in the Latin Church.

BTW - someone has suggested that St. Justinian had very strong Latinized teaching and sympathies, which would mean that if this is true, he would be influenced deeply by the legalistic ideas of Roman society and imprint them on his understanding of the Scriptures.

Do you know if this is true and also, do you know if there are books out with St. Justinian's writings in them? I would be interested in reading him. Search for truth, ya know?

because it was not the premier teaching of the Church. it was a teaching of the Church. and it does not matter when it was officially condemned, only that it was condemned. the Spirit knew what He was doing at Constantinople 2.

yes, I have three of St Justinian's writings.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

All4Christ

✙ The Handmaid of God Laura ✙
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
Mar 11, 2003
11,682
8,018
PA
Visit site
✟1,013,527.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
See? Actually I think we are on the same page here because that is what I mean when I speak about Patristic Universalism. Christ entered the house of the "strong man" through the work of the Cross and plundered it (the Harrowing of Hell). All which rightfully belongs to God has been returned to Him, which includes all mankind that ever have or ever shall live.

But as you say, to be in the presence of the God who is love will be torment for those who do not wish it and who love evil over the good. That is straight Orthodoxy and I think in line with the idea of the restoration of all things. The only real big question is whether or not the wicked soul can come to a point of repentance and turn to God after the scourging for its sins. That's a biggie, and we simply do not know that answer. The best we can do is hope.

ECT to me represents the idea more in line with Dante's Inferno and the visions that are presented by Roman Catholic "seers" in which the Father is angry and His wrath against us is barely held back by the Mother of God and Her Son. It is God as torturer (think of David Bentley Hart's delicious description of Cur Deus Homo by Anselm of Canterbury as "Catholics in the Hands of a Psychotic God.") rather than as Love.
The portion I bonded is the concern I have with patristic universalism (assuming it includes that section). It often goes beyond a pious hope and affirms that all will turn to God in the end - especially when it also references the restoration of the demons and the Enemy himself.

The Orthodox faith does not teach that all will necessarily be saved in the end. The most we can do regarding universal reconciliation is hope and pray. We can't count on it happening, so we need to continue to follow God and share His Love to all.
 
Upvote 0

Cappadocious

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,885
860
✟30,661.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
But speaking of a "necessary" connection when all that the coiners needed was a connection is itself
Do you not claim that there are original meanings to all words, and that use is legitimate if and only if represents the original meaning, and this is the case just because the original meaning is necessarily connected in meaning to any given use, to some greater or lesser degree?

Because unless you've changed your tune, that's what we've seen you argue here before.

The word had a definite and unarguable meaning throughout the recorded history of the language, certainly from the 14th century. Its record as a euphemism for anything else prior to the end of the 19th century, that the few exceptions prove the rule that it had no other popular meaning, whatever a few lone individuals tried to ascribe to it. Even its popular usage as speaking of general licentiousness was temporary, and definitively died as popular usage (which is why it could even BE applied more narrowly to sodomy later). Thus, the term as it is misused today dates back to about 1970, within my living memory. These are the basic and relevant facts.
Let's suppose this is all true; what do you say follows from it?

Here's a hint: It would look something like this...

1. The word had a definite and unarguable meaning throughout the recorded history of the language, certainly from the 14th century. Its record as a euphemism for anything else prior to the end of the 19th century, that the few exceptions prove the rule that it had no other popular meaning, whatever a few lone individuals tried to ascribe to it. Even its popular usage as speaking of general licentiousness was temporary, and definitively died as popular usage (which is why it could even BE applied more narrowly to sodomy later). Thus, the term as it is misused today dates back to about 1970, within my living memory. These are the basic and relevant facts.

2. If <?> then if (1), then the usage of gay to mean homosexual is illegitimate.

3. <?>

4. Therefore the usage of gay to mean homosexual is illegitimate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gzt
Upvote 0

rusmeister

A Russified American Orthodox Chestertonian
Dec 9, 2005
10,394
5,011
Eastern Europe
Visit site
✟432,591.00
Country
Montenegro
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Do you not claim that there are original meanings to all words, and that use is legitimate if and only if represents the original meaning, and this is the case just because the original meaning is necessarily connected in meaning to any given use, to some greater or lesser degree?

Because unless you've changed your tune, that's what we've seen you argue here before.


Let's suppose this is all true; what do you say follows from it?

Here's a hint: It would look something like this...

1. The word had a definite and unarguable meaning throughout the recorded history of the language, certainly from the 14th century. Its record as a euphemism for anything else prior to the end of the 19th century, that the few exceptions prove the rule that it had no other popular meaning, whatever a few lone individuals tried to ascribe to it. Even its popular usage as speaking of general licentiousness was temporary, and definitively died as popular usage (which is why it could even BE applied more narrowly to sodomy later). Thus, the term as it is misused today dates back to about 1970, within my living memory. These are the basic and relevant facts.

2. If <?> then if (1), then the usage of gay to mean homosexual is illegitimate.

3. <?>

4. Therefore the usage of gay to mean homosexual is illegitimate.
You sure know how to misunderstand simple things.

It's (1). Full stop. Stop trying to make imaginary logical chains. You can only say if (1), then (2) the usage of gay to mean homosexual is illegitimate.

That's all.

Regarding your opening expression of what I have said, your misunderstanding is thinking I have been saying that a word must mean exactly and only the precise definition of what it once meant (which is what you are implying I mean here, which IS absurd, and I do not mean that).
I do mean that legitimate use is linked to the original meaning. A thread connecting it to the idea of merriment would remain. And it doesn't. There is no such thread, therefore the use is illegitimate. That is why you inserted question marks in your own imagination of my chain.

While we are called to be wise as serpents, we are also called to become like little children if we want to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. If your reason offends you, cut it off! (And by "offend", I don't mean "disgust" or "anger", but "interferes with accepting the truth of Holy Tradition", here, that the Christian ideal is just as eternal in sexual morality as in everything else.

It's not hard. Maybe you would only need to be ten years older to see it, to remember when "gay" really did mean "merry", and how the word was hijacked for the express purpose of attaining social approval of the sin, which it has with a vengeance, and how now no one dares to use "gay" in its traditional meaning. A beautiful word has been ruined. (In Russian, that beautiful word is the word for "sky-blue".)

There's no long argument. It's not a complicated reasoning chain. It is as simple as 2+2=4. You have to make an effort to make it hard.
 
Upvote 0

Jesus4Madrid

Orthodox Christian
Jul 21, 2011
1,064
755
✟90,072.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You sure know how to misunderstand simple things.

It's (1). Full stop. Stop trying to make imaginary logical chains. You can only say if (1), then (2) the usage of gay to mean homosexual is illegitimate.

That's all.

Regarding your opening expression of what I have said, your misunderstanding is thinking I have been saying that a word must mean exactly and only the precise definition of what it once meant (which is what you are implying I mean here, which IS absurd, and I do not mean that).
I do mean that legitimate use is linked to the original meaning. A thread connecting it to the idea of merriment would remain. And it doesn't. There is no such thread, therefore the use is illegitimate. That is why you inserted question marks in your own imagination of my chain.

While we are called to be wise as serpents, we are also called to become like little children if we want to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. If your reason offends you, cut it off! (And by "offend", I don't mean "disgust" or "anger", but "interferes with accepting the truth of Holy Tradition", here, that the Christian ideal is just as eternal in sexual morality as in everything else.

It's not hard. Maybe you would only need to be ten years older to see it, to remember when "gay" really did mean "merry", and how the word was hijacked for the express purpose of attaining social approval of the sin, which it has with a vengeance, and how now no one dares to use "gay" in its traditional meaning. A beautiful word has been ruined. (In Russian, that beautiful word is the word for "sky-blue".)

There's no long argument. It's not a complicated reasoning chain. It is as simple as 2+2=4. You have to make an effort to make it hard.
I really appreciate what you are saying here, because you are challenging the way people frame this debate. Language matters and when we accept uncritically the way the debate has been framed, perhaps we also accept uncritically the conclusions.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cappadocious

Well-Known Member
Sep 29, 2012
3,885
860
✟30,661.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
You sure know how to misunderstand simple things.

It's (1). Full stop. Stop trying to make imaginary logical chains. You can only say if (1), then (2) the usage of gay to mean homosexual is illegitimate.
The premise "if (1), then (2) the usage of gay to mean homosexual is illegitimate" is not known by definition, and so there must be a demonstration for it. What is the demonstration?

There is no such thread, therefore the use is illegitimate.
What is the demonstration for this? Why must legitimate use entail such a thread?

If your reason offends you, cut it off!
If your reason offends you, cut it off. You are the one proposing linguistic legitimacy theories, not I.

In your modernist seminaries and private schools, you dare to promote romantic sentiment in place of Father-exalted reason, and call it God's noetic insight. In this you blaspheme the nous of St. Gregory Palamas in favor of Emerson's "iron string".
 
Upvote 0