OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 08:56:51 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Response to "Soloviev and the Papacy"  (Read 1584 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
moronikos
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ...and they were first called Christians in Antioch
Posts: 150


I'm trying to think, but nothing happens!


WWW
« on: November 26, 2003, 07:28:49 PM »

Response by an Orthodox layman about more recent hackery by Fr. Ray Ryland--Catholic Answers anti-Orthodox hatchet man.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2003, 02:20:40 PM by moronikos » Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2003, 07:50:08 PM »

Thanks for the link. Impressive article.

IIRC Berdyaev has his probs too - didn't the Russian Orthodox Church in Paris condemn or at least investigate his Soloviev-influenced views about 'sophia' in the 1920s?

My say about Ryland's take on Soloviev is on my blog, dated this past Sunday (23rd November).

The link to the blog is my signature below.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2003, 07:51:34 PM by Serge » Logged

carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2003, 11:13:41 PM »

Apologies for the hatchet job.  Please do remember that Fr Ryland doesn't represent the official position of the RCC.  He should stick to drawing in the Prots.  Like any convert he has a convert's zeal for RCC which in many cases tends to get off course.

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #3 on: November 28, 2003, 02:04:11 PM »

It is interesting that Fr. Ryland is a former Episcopalian. So is Harry W. Crocker, III. Crocker's book, Triumph:The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, also features a hatchet job on Eastern Christendom.

I am not anti-Roman Catholic by any stretch. I think we agree about 99.99% of the time, and sometimes that .01% of disagreement is exaggerated.

Ecclesiology is a subject of which I find it very difficult to get hold.

The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

It is the first of the marks of the true Church that I find perplexing.

I liked this quote from Berdyaev:

“Strictly speaking, it is not possible to speak about the re-unification of the two human worlds, the world of the Eastern-Christian and the world of the Western-Catholic. The Church - is one, and is the fullness thereof. The divisions and the non-fullness are but of people, only human history. And the division separating Orthodox and Catholic mankind is a human sin, a limitedness that is human. But the redeeming of the human sin and the overcoming of human limitedness is not to be gained by formal unias, by negotiations and agreements, by mutual concessions or reciprocal pretensions, but only by a transformation of the mutual attitudes of the two Christian worlds within the very deeps of the religious experience.”

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #4 on: November 28, 2003, 03:17:29 PM »

Ecclesiology is a subject of which I find it very difficult to get hold.

The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

It is the first of the marks of the true Church that I find perplexing.

Well, it is the nature of sinful humanity, that human organizations are going to make sweeping exclusivist claims, regardless of whether these claims are true or not. And they will declare themselves holy, whether they are or not. Call it hubris.
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #5 on: November 28, 2003, 03:36:46 PM »

Ecclesiology is a subject of which I find it very difficult to get hold.

The Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

It is the first of the marks of the true Church that I find perplexing.

Well, it is the nature of sinful humanity, that human organizations are going to make sweeping exclusivist claims, regardless of whether these claims are true or not. And they will declare themselves holy, whether they are or not. Call it hubris.


It is the lack of unity among churches of apparently apostolic foundation that I find difficult to understand, although I realize the divisions come down to sin, particularly, as you said, hubris.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,410



« Reply #6 on: November 28, 2003, 04:15:35 PM »

My say about Ryland's take on Soloviev is on my blog, dated this past Sunday (23rd November).

The link to the blog is my signature below.

I'm not quite sure exactly what I'm supposed to be looking for; the main thing I found was a link to an SSPX article in which I see major problems.

Two problems, to be precise.

FIrst of all, there's the classic "-ism" problem. Names and taxonomy are not the same thing. Anyone who does any vaguely serious botany (even gardening) come across this immediately: things with the same name aren't necessarily related. Christianity itself suffers from this. And "feminism" suffers from it worse than almost anything. Ordinarily from the perspective of taxonomy, one would go for the intersection of all the different sets of characteristics. So what is the intersection between Mary Daly and Feminists For Life? Or for that matter, between FFL and Planned Parenthood?? If one takes everyone's word as a self-identified feminist, then one must conclude that feminism is such a vague concept as to almost defy any definition at all (besides having something to do with the word "female"). The same problem bests the author of the article in some of his other attacks. "Inclusive language" has at least two distinct meanings, depending upon whom you ask.

The other problem is the "fruitcake" problem. Now, Mary Daly is a fruitcake. This is a woman who has quotes from animals in Gyn/Ecology-- literal quotes, in quotation marks. (See Footnote 47 to Chapter 10 if you don't believe me.) The Wickedary is, in its way, crazier. But every institution has its loons, and Orthodoxy is certainly no exception. And SSPX is definitely no exception. So if we start defining every group and -ism in terms of its loopiest members, we're all in trouble.

(As an aside, it's clear that Dr. Mago doesn't understand Peter Kreeft at all. Or chooses not to.)

That said, one has to wonder at anyone behind a "Sophianism" should be taken as the mouthpiece of any church.  Roll Eyes
Logged
gbmtmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2003, 11:50:15 PM »

Response by an Orthodox layman about more recent hackery by Fr. Ray Ryland--Catholic Answers anti-Orthodox hatchet man.

Good article.  I have found from my own experience that Soloviev has, at times, been regarded as an important "representative" or theologian of Orthodoxy by a few Roman Catholics (who are familiar with his works).  However, I have found that he has less impact in Orthodox circles (at least the ones I have seen), and has even been regarded in a negative light for his views about the Papacy and his sophiology.

PS: The referenced (http://www.zenit.org/english/) Zenit article (within the link that Moronikos provided us) states:

Quote
During and after his academic career, Soloviev published many works of logic, metaphysics, philosophy, theology and theosophy, an integration of theology and philosophy.

and:

Quote
His mind ranged far and wide among Western and even Eastern philosophies -- not to be eclectic, but to extract from many different systems of thought the truth they contained.

"Theosophy"Huh  Every time I see that word, I think of Madame Blavatsky (of New Age notoriety).   Lips Sealed

gbmtmas
Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,646


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2003, 02:48:55 PM »

Keble, my friend:

Yes, that's what I was referring to. Good point: not everything that calls itself 'feminist' is necessarily evil.

Learnt a lot about Mary Daly from that article. What's fascinating is that because she is an ex-Thomist, on one level she knows better and as the article explains, she knows that what she says is, using the framework of the orthodox, indefensible. (Another way of putting it is she knows she's acting like a fruitcake.)

Re: Sophianism, I'd have no prob with Sophia-worship if we're talking about a white-hot Eastern European called Sophia - 'with my body I thee worship' as the Prayer Book marriage service says.
Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.07 seconds with 36 queries.