Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
It was the Feast of his Entrance into Egypt just last week.
Yea, there were sour events of course, as Father Peter mentioned, relations between leaders was not good. For instance, from 451-631, 5 Miaphysite popes of Alexandria, were either exiled and/or had to hide for some time from the pro-Chalcedonian emperor. At the same time, there was a total of 14 miaphysite popes of Alexandria, from 451-631... so clearly most of them didn’t experience this nor had to resort to hiding. it’s because Egypt was anti-chalcedonian majority. Even today in Egypt, OOs are around 5-8 million(this is a conservative figure) & EOs are only around 250,000 - 300,000(and this is a generous figure).

 Syria on the other had, was divided on mainly Chalcedonian/Miaphysites lines(with significant pockets of COE), with no clear absolute majority in any of these 2 at the time(although today most Syrian christians are chalcedonian). So that’s why there was more sour events between chalcedonians & anti-chalcedonians  in Syria than in Egypt….it was due to proximity without clear absolute majority. That’s also why Severus of Antioch sought refuge in Egypt….Egypt at the time was the Miaphysite “safe place."
As Severus of Antioch described "settled in the great Christ-loving city of the Alexandrines"
It is necessary to distinguish between the polemical atmosphere at the level of theologians and bishops, and what life was like for ordinary faithful.

It is also necessary to distinguish between polemical positions being held and the recognition that the same faith was held by both sides from a very early period indeed. But that Chalcedon itself was the stumbling block - not theology.
Relations between leaders were not good. But it was always the position from 451 AD onwards that the faithful should be received without any obstacle, and that clergy should be received in their orders, without any re-baptism or re-chrismation, with bishops having a one year probation period.
Faith Issues / Re: St. John Chrysostom responsible for anti-semitism?
« Last post by beebert on Today at 02:55:58 AM »
Everyone who wrote polemics in the ancient world used the same time of scathing, hyperbolic and insulting language as Chrysostom. It is unfair to judge him alone for doing it, because everyone did it.
1. Sources of EVERYONE doing it?
2. Lol. It is almost like saying that it is unfair to judge a nazi because "everyone" was a nazi during the second world war. Or that "everyone" in the US was a racist before, so why be hard on that 

No I dont agree with all this Christian hypocrisy; John Chrysostom had a criminal and unexcusable (remember that this man was himself an expert on calling out things as unexcusable) view on this point and that is the only way to view it.
Everyone who wrote polemics in the ancient world used the same time of scathing, hyperbolic and insulting language as Chrysostom. It is unfair to judge him alone for doing it, because everyone did it.
Other Topics / Re: Random Postings
« Last post by Asteriktos on Today at 12:57:10 AM »
Hey Asteriktos, I didn't want to post this in your Modern Fathers quotes thread, but can you help me find the writing of Fr. Schmemann where he says "Academic theology is false." I want to understand what he means in its context. Maybe it was a spoken off the cuff remark. Thanks.

I couldn't find a document with that exact phrase--except on a couple dozen sites which only list quotes without giving sources.
I did find this though, fwiw:

But to achieve this, we must give some thought to that which, at least in my opinion, constitutes the basic defect of our theology: its almost total divorce from the real life of the Church and from her practical needs. By his very upbringing and training, the theologian is used to looking at everything "practical" as virtually opposed to theology and its lofty pursuits, and this attitude has been adopted for so many centuries that it is almost taken for granted. Since the breakdown of the patristic age, our theology (and not without Western influence) has become exclusively "academic" -- "scholastic" in the literal sense of the word. It is confined to a narrow circle of professional intellectuals, writing and working, in fact, for each other (who else reads theology, or, even if he wished to, is capable of reading its highly professional and esoteric language?) and, as time goes by, more and more anxious to satisfy and please their peers in other academic disciplines, rather than the less and less theologically-minded Church.

They are reconciled to the supreme indifference of the Church at large to their work because, in their unshakable self-righteousness, they put the blame on the anti-intellectualism of the clergy and laity. What they do not seem to realize, however, is that this "anti-intellectualism" is in a way a direct result of their own exclusive "intellectualism," of their quasi-manichean contempt for the "practical" needs of the Church, for their reduction of theology to a harmless intellectual game of "interesting points of view" and scientifically impeccable footnotes. And the sad irony of the situation is that, ignored by the Church, they are not truly accepted by the so-called "intellectual community" either, for which, in spite of all their efforts ad captatiam benevolentiae, they remain non-objective and non-scientific "mystics." And as long as such is the state and the inner orientation of our theology, the hope that it will fulfill its pastoral function and respond to the crying needs of our situation is, of course, vain.

But it is at this point, maybe, that we can turn our eyes to those whom we always claim to be our examples and teachers, the Holy Fathers of the Church, and look a little deeper into their understanding of theological task. Most certainly they were not less intellectual. And yet, there is one decisive difference between them and the modern theological scholars. To all of them that which we call "practical" and virtually exclude from our academic concerns meant nothing else but the unique and indeed very practical concern of Christianity: the eternal salvation of man. Words and ideas were for them directly related not simply to Truth and Error, but to the Truth that saves and to the error that brings with it death and damnation.

And it is their constant, truly "existential" preoccupation with, and their total commitment to, salvation of real, concrete men that makes every line they wrote so ultimately serious and their theology so vital and so precisely pastoral. Intellectual as it is, their theology is always addressed not to "intellectuals," but to the whole Church, in the firm belief that everyone in the Church has received the Spirit of Truth and was made a "theologian" -- i.e., a man concerned with God. And the lasting truth of their theology is that in it ideas are always referred to the "practical" needs of the Church, revealed in their soteriological significance, whereas the most "practical" aspects of the Church are rooted in their ultimate theological implications.

-- The Task of Orthodox Theology in America Today

The closest to the phrase comes near the end of it: "It must be admitted that much too often our official "academic" theology has failed to accept this "obedience" and preferred quiet complacency."

Perhaps someone more familiar with Fr. Alexander knows of an exact location (or can at least confirm that it exists somewhere)...
Other Topics / Re: Random Postings
« Last post by Asteriktos on Today at 12:42:18 AM »
The moderated forums are now in alphabetical order, but the general and foreign language forums are not. What is the significance of this? The world needs answers...

Some invisible stuff the admin team is working on. The alphabetizing was a byproduct.

Well I didn't actually expect a response  :laugh: Thanks though!
Other Topics / Re: Random Postings
« Last post by Alpo on Today at 12:06:24 AM »
I in should go to sauna more often. You wouldn't believe how being naked in a 100°C (212°F) hot sweaty room cures all your problems.
There's only one kind of sauna where men can be naked here...

The gay kind? I heard that "Finnish sauna" is an euphemism to gay club in Croatia. I wonder how many tourists have ended there with out realizing it.

I haven't been to a sauna in a while.

Hasten therefore to do the work of God.
Faith Issues / St. John Chrysostom responsible for anti-semitism?
« Last post by Isaiah53IsMessiah on Yesterday at 11:02:00 PM »
I've heard critics accuse St. John Chrysostom of being responsible for anti-semitism in Christendom, particularly that experienced in certain periods of the Byzantine Empire, as well as being a partial influence during the Spanish Inquisition. Though I have not delved deep into Adversus Judaeos , I'd like to hear your thoughts and responses to these critics.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10