Some questions

[cassc]

OK well I'm not going to jump into the deep theology since mine is a little shallow but I will go back to the other question:

Originally Posted by cassc

Generally many bishops will take into account Christian Baptisms done in the name of the Trinity and only require Chrismation but it's another thing you shouldn't assume as it will depend (some take a better safe than sorry approach and require a full baptism)
​

is it only up to the Bishop? like what if i wanted to be more "safe than sorry"?

I'm sure you could ask for a full baptism, but really you do need to follow the direction of your Priest and Bishop. On of the most difficult (imo) lessons that needs to be learned by the faithful is submitting to God's will, one of the ways we practice for this is by being obedient to to your spiritual father (or mother). Does that make sense, because it's a big concept and I may not be explaining it well...

Originally Posted by cassc

You would not be able to take Communion until you were formally received into the Orthodox Church however you could become a member...
​

?

You cannot take communion in the Orthodox Church until you are Orthodox (baptized and chrismated). But many inquirers become fully involved in parish life even before they are officially Orthodox, so you can certainly be a member

 

[ikonographics]

Julia, Perhaps you have a different copy? Look in the index under terms like Energy, Divine (Uncreated Energy) (p.417 in my copy).

Most of his discussions on these topics are in footnotes, usually making reference to Lossky or Palamas. See for example p.166 where he discusses the Catholic view of Grace as created vs. the Orthodox view of Grace as the Uncreated Energy of God.

So your statements above are false on the face of it and a bit unfair to the author. He does indeed make numerous mentions of the Created/Uncreated and Essence/Energies distinctions.

That being said, I think it is true that he gives these topics a very light treatment. The emphasis of his work is on dogmatics, and so it is not surprising that his primary interest is less on St. Gregory Palamas and more in discussing the dogmas of the Church as put forth by the seven Ecumenical Councils.

Therefore, with this narrower theological focus, I would not recommend his work as a point of entry for those wanting to learn about the fullness of Orthodox theology, particularly Orthodox spirituality. If Pomazansky's were the only Orthodox theological work read by an inquirer, they could easily come away with the impression that there isn't much difference in emphasis, style, or approach between Orthodox and Catholic theology, and that would be incorrect.

With love in Christ.

Perhaps I do have a different copy. My copy definitely didn't have any mention of God's energy. Also when I did a search on the version that is in Word format I could find neither "energy" nor "uncreated." I studied Theology in Greece and used it as reference in English, so I know what I'm comparing it to. The problem is that his whole approach to dogmatics is not Orthodox, that is why I suggest reading Zizioulas Dogmatics lessons and you will clearly see the difference. The teaching of the difference between God's essence and energy does not originate with St Gregory Palamas but is found in the Cappadocians. It is one of the very foundations of Orthodoxy.

 

[27B6]

Perhaps I do have a different copy. My copy definitely didn't have any mention of God's energy. Also when I did a search on the version that is in Word format I could find neither "energy" nor "uncreated." I studied Theology in Greece and used it as reference in English, so I know what I'm comparing it to. The problem is that his whole approach to dogmatics is not Orthodox, that is why I suggest reading Zizioulas Dogmatics lessons and you will clearly see the difference. The teaching of the difference between God's essence and energy does not originate with St Gregory Palamas but is found in the Cappadocians. It is one of the very foundations of Orthodoxy.

The copy I have is the 3rd edition (2005) in English, translated by Seraphim Rose and published by St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood. It may be that the original in Russian did not mention such things, but that the translators added notes to fill in those gaps. I do not know, but that would explain a lot. I do agree that Zizioulas is better.

 

[ikonographics]

The copy I have is the 3rd edition (2005) in English, translated by Seraphim Rose and published by St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood. It may be that the original in Russian did not mention such things, but that the translators added notes to fill in those gaps. I do not know, but that would explain a lot. I do agree that Zizioulas is better.

I bought my copy in 1997 (I don't have it here to check the edition.) I'd read it to "prepare" for my dogmatics class which obviously was in Greek, only to basically have to "unlearn" everything, because the Orthodox approach is radically different. And the problem is that the things that left out are the very foundations of Orthodox Theology, not something that can be added to the footnotes. My first dogmatics professor treated the subject pretty much like Pomazansky, and left too many existential questions unanswered. When we had another professor for Historic Dogmatic Theology who used an Orthodox patristic approach to the subject it was such an eye opener. The dogmas are not just statements of faith that have nothing to do with our everyday lives, but our very way of existing in relation to God. Dogmatics is not for priests and theologians, but for everyone. A wrong approach to dogmatics means a wrong approach to our relationship with God, and that affects every one of us. This is why I'm currently writing a catechism to show what what relation that dogmas have to our lives.

I believe it is good to have read both Zizioulas and Pomazansky to be able to compare. And people shouldn't think that Zizioulas' Dogmatics lessons are aimed at theologians, they are aimed at students who probably know less than most converts! It really is a blessing to have them free on the internet!

God bless!

 

[angrylittlefisherman]

I think that maybe this discussion of Pomozansky should be continued in a new thread to allow for the further discussion of a possible convert to the true faith.

 

[ikonographics]

I have nothing more to say about Pomazansky, but when a possible new convert is asking for reading material, I believe it is best if he start from the most Orthodox material available so as not to get a distorted view of Orthodoxy. That is why I mentioned the problems with Pomazansky. In fact the problem is not limited to him, but most theologians writing in that period were enmeshed in the so-called "Western Captivity" of Orthodox theology. That is why I'm suggesting some caution in what one reads when one is not very familiar with Orthodox teaching

 

[27B6]

Yeah, I don't have anything more to say on Pomazansky either.

 

[angrylittlefisherman]

Cool.