Hopko and Schmemann?

[gzt]

So, just to summarize, it seems on this count that the crucifixion of Fr Thomas was a little premature, as he seems to have had something reasonable and defensible in mind?

 

[rusmeister]

As for Rus, when I point out a missing connecting principle in your argument and you say, none is needed, what more can be said? but I trust that those bearing witness have, at least on some level, seen what your argument amounts to.

Capp, you haven't "pointed out any 'missing connected principle'". I stated what the connections are, and you ignore them. It's that simple. "Gay" always meant one definite concept (merriment), and at the time it was adopted to refer to a completely unconnected concept (sodomy), it did not have sexual connotation. I noted the earlier failed attempt to establish the word as euphemism for sexual misdeeds and did not ignore it. I established that the word is in fact euphemism, does not say what it means, and served an evil purpose, enabling the attaining of social tolerance and approval of the evil, which it demonstrably has.

The only way you could have a case would be to prove that sodomy is merry in its essential nature, which you can't. It's so simple a fifth-grader could understand it. You're ignoring it and trying to invent a missing link, a non-existent chain link while ignoring the very real one staring you in the face. It is you that has no case. The word "gay" as used now is definitely an evil euphemism that does not express truth. It pulls a bait and switch, in which everyone tacitly understands it to mean sodomic relations, while no longer seeing them as sodomic, but instead as colored by the pleasant nature of the word "gay".

Is there anyone else besides Capp that doesn't get what I'm saying?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

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?

It really has to do with the spirit of the thing. Taking even your own salvation for granted (as Protestants like to do) is generally a very wrong--perhaps heretical--thing to do.

Justinian had to put the Pope in prison to get him to concur with the council, so I wouldn't say that Justinian was any captive to Latin theology; in fact in the West, he was seen as being excessively Alexandrian in his theology.

Justinian had two major concerns: purging crypto-Nestorianism, and purging influences derived from Greek philosophy. The doctrine of universal reconciliation, as was preached by Origen, was really a thing derived from pagan cosmology, and that was Justinian's major concern. This doctrine saw creation as an inevitable cycle of fall and return, although not necessarily perpetual (some monks, however, did see a new fall as inevitable). Origen probably would have gotten off if he just talked about universal reconciliation, regardless of its correctness. But with universal reconciliation as an element of his Platonic worldview, and with him as the major source of syncretism, it was very logical he was anathematized; he was contaminating theology. He was an extremely devoted, brilliant and ascetic fellow, one who provoked love in many he met, but his legacy was more harmful than beneficial.

 

[All4Christ]

So, just to summarize, it seems on this count that the crucifixion of Fr Thomas was a little premature, as he seems to have had something reasonable and defensible in mind?

It seems like Fr Tom was a very Holy man with a passion to help others. Despite that, he is a human man, and thus is not infallible. As is the case with all Orthodox Christians, theologians, clergy, monastics and laypersons, Holy Tradition, including Scripture, trumps all teachings should they differ. I think the good should be taken, while remembering that he isn't infallible. He has reached out to many and made a huge difference (in a good way) in many lives. Just my 2 cents.

 

[ArmyMatt]

A lot of things from a western convert's perspective are a lot easier if you just accept it as a mystery rather than doing what is the initial reaction of analyzing how it works.

ain't that the truth

 

[ArmyMatt]

It does not entail divinity would change, as the change is alienation between hypostaseis. and in any case, this change can e caused by the incarnation. without entailing two hypostaseis or persons in Christ. There is no reason why both cannot be true, the perfect indwelling and the total alienation. and this does not contradict johns gospel

and the hypostases are both Divine, and therefore unchanging. the Son is never alienated or not in full communion with the Father. so no, the Incarnation, the Divine Logos only took on human nature and not a human person. the only way the person of Christ could go from being not alienated from the Father, to alienated from Him, to not alienated from Him is for Christ to be subject to change in His Person, which He is not.

 

[Light of the East]

Justinian had two major concerns: purging crypto-Nestorianism, and purging influences derived from Greek philosophy. The doctrine of universal reconciliation, as was preached by Origen, was really a thing derived from pagan cosmology, and that was Justinian's major concern.

What I have read and understood is that the pagan understanding was more in line with ECT than with forgiveness. My understanding (and I have a lot of research to do and studying on this) is that if you crossed the pagan gods, you were in deep kimchee forever.


This doctrine saw creation as an inevitable cycle of fall and return, although not necessarily perpetual (some monks, however, did see a new fall as inevitable). Origen probably would have gotten off if he just talked about universal reconciliation, regardless of its correctness.

That's the point.....Origen mixed the teaching of Patristic Universalism with his strange ideas of the pre-existence of souls. But the point that no one seems willing to tackle is that this teaching was all over the Church in the first several centuries. Origen was not speaking of some odd teaching. Of six theological schools that existed, four of which, including Alexandria, taught apokatastasis. Only one taught ECT.

Look at this quote from St. Justinian:

The folks at Classical Christianity posted today a passage from St Justinian’s letter to Patriarch Menas criticizing universal salvation. This is the letter in which the Emperor commanded the patriarch to convene a synod to condemn the teachings of Origen. To it he appended the nine anathemas that were eventually confirmed by the 543 Synod of Constantinople. Here’s the passage:

Will render men slothful, and discourage them from keeping the commandments of God. It will encourage them to depart from the narrow way, leading them by deception into ways that are wide and easy. Moreover, such a doctrine completely contradicts the words of our Great God and Savior. For in the Holy Gospel he himself teaches that the impious will be sent away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will receive life eternal. Thus to those at his right, he says: “Come, O blessed of my Father, and inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world” [Mt 25:34]. But to those on his left, he says: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” [Mt 25:41]. The Lord clearly teaches that both heaven and hell are eternal, but the followers of Origen prefer the myths of their master over and against the judgments of Christ, which plainly refute them. If the torments of the damned will come to an end, so too will the life promised to the righteous, for both are said to be “eternal.” And if both the torments of hell and the pleasures of paradise should cease, what was the point of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ? What was the purpose of his crucifixion, his death, burial, and resurrection? And what of all those who fought the good fight and suffered martyrdom for the sake of Christ? What benefit will their sufferings have been to them, if in the “final restoration” they will receive the same reward as sinners and demons? (Against Origen PG 86.975 BD)

In regards to apokatastasis, was Justinian concerned with orthodoxy theology, or keeping the masses in line? Nothing like a good threat of hell forever to make people obey you. One can certainly see his orthodoxy in the first 8 anethemas which he appended to the council, but the ninth one I would say it seems reasonable to question, based on the above quote in red.

But with universal reconciliation as an element of his Platonic worldview, and with him as the major source of syncretism, it was very logical he was anathematized; he was contaminating theology. He was an extremely devoted, brilliant and ascetic fellow, one who provoked love in many he met, but his legacy was more harmful than beneficial.

One could say that of Augustine as well when you look at what original sin and penal substitution did to Western thinking.

 

[gzt]

It seems like Fr Tom was a very Holy man with a passion to help others. Despite that, he is a human man, and thus is not infallible. As is the case with all Orthodox Christians, theologians, clergy, monastics and laypersons, Holy Tradition, including Scripture, trumps all teachings should they differ. I think the good should be taken, while remembering that he isn't infallible. He has reached out to many and made a huge difference (in a good way) in many lives. Just my 2 cents.

Well, sure, but when we tried to press on a concrete example ("He denies the ever-virginity!" - where people even remembered what book it was from), it turned out to be... nothing. So I think we need to be even more careful than that!

 

[All4Christ]

Well, sure, but when we tried to press on a concrete example ("He denies the ever-virginity!" - where people even remembered what book it was from), it turned out to be... nothing. So I think we need to be even more careful than that!

Honestly, I'd say what I wrote above about every Orthodox Christian...well, the part about him not being infallible.

 

[jckstraw72]

it didn't turn out to be nothing ...

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's the point.....Origen mixed the teaching of Patristic Universalism with his strange ideas of the pre-existence of souls. But the point that no one seems willing to tackle is that this teaching was all over the Church in the first several centuries. Origen was not speaking of some odd teaching. Of six theological schools that existed, four of which, including Alexandria, taught apokatastasis. Only one taught ECT.

well, yes and no. while many early folks taught apokatastasis, not all of them had the same understanding as Origen. from folks more knowledgeable than I am, the reconciliation of Nyssa is not the same as the reconciliation of Origen.

In regards to apokatastasis, was Justinian concerned with orthodoxy theology, or keeping the masses in line? Nothing like a good threat of hell forever to make people obey you. One can certainly see his orthodoxy in the first 8 anethemas which he appended to the council, but the ninth one I would say it seems reasonable to question, based on the above quote in red.

orthodox theology. it would not have been affirmed at an ecumenical council and by the whole Church if it was simply to keep the masses in line.

One could say that of Augustine as well when you look at what original sin and penal substitution did to Western thinking.

sure could, but the Holy Spirit did not reveal him to be a heretic.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Frankly, my sincere hope is that anti-evolutionism is anathematized, so

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a Church dogma. And let's hope we remember to distinguish between the two, because conflating them lead Rome to prosecute Galileo for denying Aristotle's theory of geocentrism.

 

[jckstraw72]

St. Theophan the Recluse said that Darwinism would be anathematized, but there's no need, since such teachings were already anathematized long ago.

 

[rusmeister]

St. Theophan the Recluse said that Darwinism would be anathematized, but there's no need, since such teachings were already anathematized long ago.

Well, that was then, this is now. Too many Orthodox Christians now think they have never never anathematized, so need a fresh reminder.

 

[jckstraw72]

Well, that was then, this is now. Too many Orthodox Christians now think they have never never anathematized, so need a fresh reminder.

I agree

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, that was then, this is now. Too many Orthodox Christians now think they have never never anathematized, so need a fresh reminder.

I think too many also think that if priest X says something that goes against the grain of the Church, and no Ecumenical Council specifically condemned that teaching, that it is permissible.

 

[All4Christ]

So do you all promote Young Earth Creationism as the only acceptable account in Orthodoxy? Or are you just against Darwinism? (Personally, I don't adhere to Darwinism, but I wouldn't be opposed to Old Earth Creationism. I'm not sure how everything worked exactly, but I know that it is an amazing fact that God created this World and that He created us, so I am happy and thankful knowing that, no matter the details). Most of what I've read outside of TAW in modern Orthodoxy, as well as my priest, says that Orthodoxy insists that God created the world, and that He intelligently designed the world, but they have not insisted on Young Earth Creationism. They even suggested that the Bible is not a science textbook, and that Orthodox Christianity didn't teach the fundamentalist YEC position was necessary. Please note that I am not making a statement of my beliefs here. I am just requesting clarification of your positions.

Evolution or Creation Science?

Evolution, Creation and the Hidden Cause - Glory to God for All Things

 

[ArmyMatt]

So do you all promote Young Earth Creationism as the only acceptable account in Orthodoxy? Or are you just against Darwinism? (Personally, I don't adhere to Darwinism, but I wouldn't be opposed to Old Earth Creationism. I'm not sure how everything worked exactly, but I know that it is an amazing fact that God created this World and that He created us, so I am happy and thankful knowing that, no matter the details). Most of what I've read outside of TAW in modern Orthodoxy, as well as my priest, says that Orthodoxy insists that God created the world, and that He intelligently designed the world, but they have not insisted on Young Earth Creationism. They even suggested that the Bible is not a science textbook, and that Orthodox Christianity didn't teach the fundamentalist YEC position was necessary. Please note that I am not making a statement of my beliefs here. I am just requesting clarification of your positions.

Evolution or Creation Science?

Evolution, Creation and the Hidden Cause - Glory to God for All Things

I am a Young Earther, as that is the only explanation of our origin the saints affirm

 

[All4Christ]

I am a Young Earther, as that is the only explanation of our origin the saints affirm

Ok. I figured that was your belief based on your posts. That said, what is acceptable according to the Church today? I've always heard that there is a range of beliefs accepted (with TAW honestly being the exception to what I've heard).

 

[All4Christ]

Also, I don't want to get in a debate, so please don't consider my post to be a contentious post.