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.
     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.

     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.  
   
 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. 

     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. 


--Is your Orthodox jurisdiction imperfect in a practical sense, however, theoretically perfect?  Answer:  There is none that is perfect.  
--What should you do about it?  Answers:
ALTERNATIVE 1:  Keep switching jurisdictions while looking for one that is perfect in practice--which you will never find unless your criterion for perfection is a single item.
ALTERNATIVE 2:  
FIRST,
distinguish ESSENTIALS (e.g. foreign domination of a kind that compromises the unity that Christ prayed for or undermines His command to missionize the people of a given nation) from NON-ESSENTIALS such as ecumenical waywardnesses on the part of some officials that would compromise Orthodox truth if (and only if) they were followed by officially endorsed changes in the creed or beliefs or in the worship or piety of the jurisdiction in question.  

     NOTE that it is irrational to fail to react to non-essential problems in a different way from the way one reacts to essential defects, certainly when Christian unity is at stake.  NOTE that from the set-backs that Orthodoxy has always suffered in interfaith discussions--as the result of bad ecumenics--it is not right to rule out the possibility (however unlikely) of rightly structured and properly conducted interfaith discussions aimed at Christian truth and unity (SEE HERE). 

     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.



    

   Search this site    powered by FreeFind
   

Click to add search to YOUR web site!

Hits on this website since 11-22-98