NOTES
TO THE MAIN PAGE OF
PART R OF THIS WEBSITE
© 2002-2003 by Orchid Land Publications
[20030329]
The
most debilitating of heresies is relativism--the idea that all
[Christians or religions] are saying the same thing, however differently
they may say it. This of course deprives all belief of meaning.
(CLICK HERE.)
To accept this, or the slogan that love can make the false true, one has
to check one's reason at the narthex door. Probably no arguments
will work against unfalsifiable premises of this sort, because persons
using such arguments may not realize that a premise is not a
truth-vulnerable statement. One may have to get at the
emotional basis of advocating such nonsense: Seeing a son or
daughter at college giving up the Orthodox Faith or seeing one's
grandchildren brought up in another religion make make one try to
reconcile this reality with one's contrary hopes. If the idea that
love can make the false true is used to make oneself popular at an
interfaith meeting, pointing out that it takes as much love to love
those who oppose our ideas as it does to love those who agree with us
might clarify how utlimately purposeless that motivation is.
Anyhow, unlike Luther, who elevated will above reason, the Orthodox do
not teach that the evening sacrifice of a Christian is the slaughter of
reason (occisio rationis), though the Orthodox do condemn
attempts to probe or analyse infinite Mysteries and God's Essence beyond
essence with the finite human mind: A patristic balance has got to
be preserved. If a person does, however, park one's reason
outside of the temple and is not amenable to showing how certain plain
contradictions are saying the same thing, one can only suggest that not
offering one's reason to God in His service is not offering one's all,
or even one of one's highest faculties, to God.
Beliefs make a philosophy. Charitable deeds make an ethic or a
service organization. What makes a religion is Worship.
The Orthodox believe that there is one true Faith. The Orthodox
accordingly believe that beliefs differing from the one true Faith are
not true Christian beliefs; and that practices not according with
the one true Faithh are not true Christian piety. This entails no
disrespect for the sincerity of those embracing what we consider errors
or others' right to hold honest beliefs differing from ours.
Those laboring under the
delusion that Orthodox theology has many affinities or is of a
pattern with anything like Western theology as it developed after
Augustine can disabuse themselves of this error by reading the
recently published translation of THE
ANCESTRAL SIN.
This volume is a doctoral thesis for the University of Athens in
1957 by the recently reposed genius and greatest of
twentieth-century Orthodox theologians--Protopriest John Romanides.
Fr. John wrote it when he was a young man, after leaving his native
America, where he had been a football-player in highschool. He
became the pre-eminent restorer of Orthodox theology--which in
Greece and Russia had been seriously infected with Western
assumptions--to its Patristic roots. The writings of Fr. John
reveal his wide aquaintance with the works of the reigning
Protestant and Latin authors of the time. His writings are
thus able to speak to English-language OTHERdox
in a way that prominent Orthodox thinkers of America and England who
promoted a similar movement were unable to do; the same goes for the
translators of works by Vl. Lossky, etc. (These writers in
other languages have not been any more fortunate in the quality of
English translations of their writings that Westerners have
made than the Fathers have have been in many a well-known series;
series. The translators of the Philokalia have done
much better, as have the translators of the Orthodox New Testament,
whose 2d ed. is available from Holy Apostles Monastery, Buena Vista,
CO.) Lacking Fr. John's Greek-American background and
resources, they proved themselves impotent to convince Western
theologians (and ecumenists!), not to speak of scores of North
American Orthodox leaders of the exact nature and extent of the gulf
between Eastern and Western Christianity. Many pages of this
book offer more than one quotable statement destined to become
aphorisms of third-millennium Orthodox theology.
To see the gulf between the Orthodox thought world and the
Western Christian thought worlds, a reader has only to
compare the book under scrutiny with the
Western-cum-"Orthodox" paradigm and phrónema of
"Orthodoxy" exhibited in "Some aspects of
contemporary Greek Orthodox thought" (transl. by Dr. F.
Gavin, 1923; reprinted by American review of Eastern
Orthodoxy, 1962) and in catechisms and confessions (ignorantly
translated as "symbolic books") of the fifteenth,
sixteenth, and seven-teenth centuries; SEE
R97!!! How
lamentable it has been that Western inquirers and Latin and
Protestant scholars have relied on these latter documents
for their misunderstanding of Orthodoxy--and the idea
that it does not differ from the West fundamentally, but
only with respect to a small list of differences--no
Filioque, etc. In this writer's experience, the Gavin
translation of a by no means brief list of Orthodox writers
has been (not through Gavin's fault or intention) disastrous
for any sort of true perception of the spirit or real
outlook of holy Orthodoxy. The basic concept of energy
is not even listed in the index. It is not erroneously
that one says that the pages (from p. 218 on) dealing with
Grace are a disgrace. The epigonous Western theology
presented here is dull; Orthodoxy comes across as one more
denomination beside the Western denominations. How
sad!
It is important to that until Western thinkers gain a proper
understanding of the Eastern paradigm and the gulf between its
assumptions and the presuppositions of Latin and Protestant
theologies, they will not be able to understand the Greek-language
Bible or Greek-language Christianity. The juridicalism of the
Punic inventors of Western theology (Tertullian, Cyprian, and
Augustine) and the Roman St. Ambrose (a Milanese judge), as well as
of the Teutonic Lombards (Anselm, Gratian, and Peter), Teutonic
Normans (Thomas and the whole Oxford school up to Scotus, Bacon, and
Ockham), the Teutonic Burgundian (Bernard), and the Teutonic Luther
(an Ockhamist) is as alien to the East as the Eastern ontological
outlook is to the West after its seven-century Dark Age disconnect
from the Greek-language roots of Christianity.
The just published
translation of this book of 190 pages by the eminent lay theologian and
master translator, Dr. George Gabriel, is now available from
Zephyr
Publishers (Ridgewood, NJ.).
Dr. Gabriel, an American,
received his doctorate from the famous St. Denys Institute of Orthodox Theology
in Paris.
There is no intercommunion between the Orthodox
and other Christian Faiths because the Orthodox hold intercommunion to
be the goal and result of Christian unity--by no means the means.
We do not accept the premise of no few ecumenists that the true Church
will exist only in the future; it has always existed. One should
resist the fallacy that co-operation among Faiths entails intercommunion
or recognition of one another's truth.
DO
NOT BE MISLED BY THE TITLE OF THIS SEMINAL WORK. The
volume covers the ground of doctrinal theology. The title
itself is due to the author's understanding that GOD
and SALVATION
cannot be properly thought of apart from a true concept of the Fall of Adam
and Eve. The understanding of the Fall in the Bible and Eastern Fathers
is incommensurate with the juridical paradigms of Western Christianity--as is
clearly shown in this book. Juridical understandings of Salvation from
Augustine and Anselm to Aquinas and the Protestant Reformers are as alien to
the Eastern understanding as the energy-ontology understanding of the East is
to the West. The paradigm-shift that is necessary for either side to
understand the other is difficult, but Fr. John makes it--perhaps because he
grew to maturity in a non-Orthodox country.
![]()
|
--Is your Orthodox jurisdiction imperfect in a
practical sense, however, theoretically perfect? Answer: There is none that is perfect.
SECOND, it is better to strive for change from within--if the means for doing so are thinkable and one has the necessary courage and stamina--than simply to leave. If, however, it is clear that change is not going to happen and that working from within will just create fruitless disorder, then changing to a less critically impaired jurisdiction would be wholly justified. |