OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 20, 2014, 05:20:05 PM *
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: The Divine Milieu, by Teilhard de Chardin  (Read 1588 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,682



« on: January 08, 2014, 01:36:29 AM »

I'm apparently going to be reading this book later on in the semester, and looking it up all I can say is: what in the world?

This a summary of some points according to this website:
Quote
In The Spiritual Exercises, St. Ignatius taught Teilhard how to dig deeply into the mind and heart of Jesus of Nazareth and how to be transformed by his suffering, death, and resurrection. In the sixteenth century when Ignatius lived, he knew nothing of the many scientific facts that are simply part of our daily assumptions about reality. For most people then, the flat earth was the center of God’s creation, and God lived up in the sky. And his traditional spirituality reflects those beliefs.

In The Divine Milieu, Teilhard the scientist takes us many centuries further in the life of Christ. He invites us to learn to see, as he does, not only the Christ of 2,000 years ago, but also the magnificent Being that the Risen Christ with his Total Body has developed into during two millennia. He also invites us to glimpse into Christ’s future, to identify the goal toward which that Total Body of Christ has been constantly evolving.

For Teilhard, Christ today is not just Jesus of Nazareth risen from the dead, but rather a huge, continually evolving Being as big as the universe. In this colossal, almost unimaginable Being each of us lives and develops in consciousness, like living cells in a huge organism. At various times, theologians have described this great Being as the Total Christ, the Cosmic Christ, the Whole Christ, the Universal Christ or the Mystical Body of Christ.

Anyone read him before and have any thoughts?
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 01:37:02 AM by Nephi » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2014, 01:41:59 AM »

He was a very creative archaeologist. That's close to all I know.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,148


Hello for now, my friend


« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2014, 01:56:54 AM »

I've never read him. There's a bit about him in the Fr. Seraphim Rose biography, if you want an Orthodox take from that perspective.

(Why am I plugging that bio so much lately?  Must be something in the weather changes...)
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin

Hey, so I'm in a pop-alt-punk-folk-prog band called "Affable Dregs" and we have a new album coming out, titled "Vicious Turnips Always Taste Most Delicious." We'd really appreciate your support!
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,428


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2014, 02:02:21 AM »

Here are some "icons" by the hand of Robert Lentz of the so-called Cosmic Christ:











Logged
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,682



« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2014, 02:41:30 AM »

I've never read him. There's a bit about him in the Fr. Seraphim Rose biography, if you want an Orthodox take from that perspective.

(Why am I plugging that bio so much lately?  Must be something in the weather changes...)

I might actually look into that. Thanks.

Can't remember if the picture shows it as it's located now or not, but either way there's a statue dedicated to Teilhard's "Omega Point" on our campus.

Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2014, 02:26:33 PM »

Teilhard integrated evolution with Christianity. If evolution is true, then Christ must be the ultimate source and goal of evolution.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,682



« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2014, 02:47:11 PM »

Teilhard integrated evolution with Christianity. If evolution is true, then Christ must be the ultimate source and goal of evolution.

Any idea why Christ specifically?

Interestingly a modified form seems compatible with what I've been reading of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov lately. Namely that evolution could be a reflection of the evolution-prototype in the Sophia of God. angel
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 02:47:24 PM by Nephi » Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2014, 04:04:56 PM »

Teilhard integrated evolution with Christianity. If evolution is true, then Christ must be the ultimate source and goal of evolution.

Any idea why Christ specifically?

Interestingly a modified form seems compatible with what I've been reading of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov lately. Namely that evolution could be a reflection of the evolution-prototype in the Sophia of God. angel
Christ is fully Man and fully God. Since He is fully Man, He is also fully Creation. The Fullness of Creation is, thus, the union of Creation and God. Evolution's ultimate purpose is the divinization of Creation, the union of Creation with God -- in other words, the Christ.

Christ's Incarnation and Resurrection 2000 years ago is the promise of the ultimate divinization of Creation.

All of evolution is powered by the Risen Christ.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 04:07:02 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,682



« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2014, 04:44:22 PM »

Interestingly a modified form seems compatible with what I've been reading of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov lately. Namely that evolution could be a reflection of the evolution-prototype in the Sophia of God. angel

Having since read more, this pretty much needs completely rephrased.

Christ is fully Man and fully God. Since He is fully Man, He is also fully Creation. The Fullness of Creation is, thus, the union of Creation and God. Evolution's ultimate purpose is the divinization of Creation, the union of Creation with God -- in other words, the Christ.

Christ's Incarnation and Resurrection 2000 years ago is the promise of the ultimate divinization of Creation.

All of evolution is powered by the Risen Christ.

Do you know how this accounts for before Christ became Man, and how all of Creation (and, I assume, the creative act itself) can be identified with only one Hypostasis and not the others nor the Godhead itself? This is interestingly reminding me of Fr. Sergius' arguments against identifying Sophia solely with the Second Hypostasis.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 04:45:13 PM by Nephi » Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2014, 05:35:01 PM »

Interestingly a modified form seems compatible with what I've been reading of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov lately. Namely that evolution could be a reflection of the evolution-prototype in the Sophia of God. angel

Having since read more, this pretty much needs completely rephrased.

Christ is fully Man and fully God. Since He is fully Man, He is also fully Creation. The Fullness of Creation is, thus, the union of Creation and God. Evolution's ultimate purpose is the divinization of Creation, the union of Creation with God -- in other words, the Christ.

Christ's Incarnation and Resurrection 2000 years ago is the promise of the ultimate divinization of Creation.

All of evolution is powered by the Risen Christ.

Do you know how this accounts for before Christ became Man, and how all of Creation (and, I assume, the creative act itself) can be identified with only one Hypostasis and not the others nor the Godhead itself? This is interestingly reminding me of Fr. Sergius' arguments against identifying Sophia solely with the Second Hypostasis.
I don't know if Teilhard does this, but subsequent Catholic theologians have emphasized as well the role of the Spirit in Creation and the creative evolutionary process. The "Word" (Logos) is inseparable from the "Spirit" (ruach, pneuma).
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 05:35:43 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,682



« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2014, 05:57:41 PM »

Do you know how this accounts for before Christ became Man, and how all of Creation (and, I assume, the creative act itself) can be identified with only one Hypostasis and not the others nor the Godhead itself? This is interestingly reminding me of Fr. Sergius' arguments against identifying Sophia solely with the Second Hypostasis.
I don't know if Teilhard does this, but subsequent Catholic theologians have emphasized as well the role of the Spirit in Creation and the creative evolutionary process. The "Word" (Logos) is inseparable from the "Spirit" (ruach, pneuma).

Interesting, thank you. Although, all of this sounds much more reasonable and different than the OP's synopsis describing Jesus as a universe-sized organism.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,428


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2014, 06:08:27 PM »

Nephi, Bulgakov's Sophianist writings were declared as heretical by the Russian church. Caveat emptor.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2014, 06:09:48 PM »

Interestingly a modified form seems compatible with what I've been reading of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov lately. Namely that evolution could be a reflection of the evolution-prototype in the Sophia of God. angel

Having since read more, this pretty much needs completely rephrased.

Christ is fully Man and fully God. Since He is fully Man, He is also fully Creation. The Fullness of Creation is, thus, the union of Creation and God. Evolution's ultimate purpose is the divinization of Creation, the union of Creation with God -- in other words, the Christ.

Christ's Incarnation and Resurrection 2000 years ago is the promise of the ultimate divinization of Creation.

All of evolution is powered by the Risen Christ.

Do you know how this accounts for before Christ became Man, and how all of Creation (and, I assume, the creative act itself) can be identified with only one Hypostasis and not the others nor the Godhead itself? This is interestingly reminding me of Fr. Sergius' arguments against identifying Sophia solely with the Second Hypostasis.

Creation, according to Fr. Hopko (I think--if not, it was Metropolitan Kallistos), was by the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. Following, so I was lead to believe, the Cappadoccians.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,682



« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2014, 06:12:56 PM »

Creation, according to Fr. Hopko (I think--if not, it was Metropolitan Kallistos), was by the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit. Following, so I was lead to believe, the Cappadoccians.

This is, more or less, what Fr. Sergius thinks as well.
Logged
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,682



« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2014, 06:30:58 PM »

Nephi, Bulgakov's Sophianist writings were declared as heretical by the Russian church. Caveat emptor.

It seems more complicated than that according to Orthodoxwiki. While the Russian Patriarchate issued a pronouncement saying his Sophiology was "alien" to Orthodoxy and ROCOR "formally accused" him of heresy, Fr. Sergius' own jurisdiction (apparently under the EP) under Metropolitan Evlogy ultimately "concluded that the accusations of heresy against Bulgakov were unfounded but that his theological opinions showed serious flaws and needed correction." Unless Orthodoxwiki is leaving something out it doesn't seem his Sophiology was clearly condemned officially, nor condemned in a way that was binding on him.

But I am aware it's controversial, non-standard, etc.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 06:31:50 PM by Nephi » Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,428


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2014, 08:15:59 PM »

Nephi, Bulgakov's Sophianist writings were declared as heretical by the Russian church. Caveat emptor.

It seems more complicated than that according to Orthodoxwiki. While the Russian Patriarchate issued a pronouncement saying his Sophiology was "alien" to Orthodoxy and ROCOR "formally accused" him of heresy, Fr. Sergius' own jurisdiction (apparently under the EP) under Metropolitan Evlogy ultimately "concluded that the accusations of heresy against Bulgakov were unfounded but that his theological opinions showed serious flaws and needed correction." Unless Orthodoxwiki is leaving something out it doesn't seem his Sophiology was clearly condemned officially, nor condemned in a way that was binding on him.

But I am aware it's controversial, non-standard, etc.

One only needs to see the work of the Prosopon "school" of "iconography" to see the odious and self-indulgent fruits of sophianism. Pretty on the outside, but rotten and ugly within.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2014, 08:20:16 PM »

Nephi, Bulgakov's Sophianist writings were declared as heretical by the Russian church. Caveat emptor.

It seems more complicated than that according to Orthodoxwiki. While the Russian Patriarchate issued a pronouncement saying his Sophiology was "alien" to Orthodoxy and ROCOR "formally accused" him of heresy, Fr. Sergius' own jurisdiction (apparently under the EP) under Metropolitan Evlogy ultimately "concluded that the accusations of heresy against Bulgakov were unfounded but that his theological opinions showed serious flaws and needed correction." Unless Orthodoxwiki is leaving something out it doesn't seem his Sophiology was clearly condemned officially, nor condemned in a way that was binding on him.

But I am aware it's controversial, non-standard, etc.

One only needs to see the work of the Prosopon "school" of "iconography" to see the odious and self-indulgent fruits of sophianism. Pretty on the outside, but rotten and ugly within.
By "Prosopon", you mean this here?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,428


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2014, 08:22:19 PM »

Nephi, Bulgakov's Sophianist writings were declared as heretical by the Russian church. Caveat emptor.

It seems more complicated than that according to Orthodoxwiki. While the Russian Patriarchate issued a pronouncement saying his Sophiology was "alien" to Orthodoxy and ROCOR "formally accused" him of heresy, Fr. Sergius' own jurisdiction (apparently under the EP) under Metropolitan Evlogy ultimately "concluded that the accusations of heresy against Bulgakov were unfounded but that his theological opinions showed serious flaws and needed correction." Unless Orthodoxwiki is leaving something out it doesn't seem his Sophiology was clearly condemned officially, nor condemned in a way that was binding on him.

But I am aware it's controversial, non-standard, etc.

One only needs to see the work of the Prosopon "school" of "iconography" to see the odious and self-indulgent fruits of sophianism. Pretty on the outside, but rotten and ugly within.
By "Prosopon", you mean this here?

That's the one.  Tongue

Vladislav Andreyev's latest opus is the so-called Triumph of Orthodoxy, a pseudo-mystical confection which has almost nothing to do with the actual feast of that name.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 08:26:23 PM by LBK » Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2014, 08:35:42 PM »

Nephi, Bulgakov's Sophianist writings were declared as heretical by the Russian church. Caveat emptor.

It seems more complicated than that according to Orthodoxwiki. While the Russian Patriarchate issued a pronouncement saying his Sophiology was "alien" to Orthodoxy and ROCOR "formally accused" him of heresy, Fr. Sergius' own jurisdiction (apparently under the EP) under Metropolitan Evlogy ultimately "concluded that the accusations of heresy against Bulgakov were unfounded but that his theological opinions showed serious flaws and needed correction." Unless Orthodoxwiki is leaving something out it doesn't seem his Sophiology was clearly condemned officially, nor condemned in a way that was binding on him.

But I am aware it's controversial, non-standard, etc.

One only needs to see the work of the Prosopon "school" of "iconography" to see the odious and self-indulgent fruits of sophianism. Pretty on the outside, but rotten and ugly within.
By "Prosopon", you mean this here?

That's the one.  Tongue

Vladislav Andreyev's latest opus is the so-called Triumph of Orthodoxy, a pseudo-mystical confection which has almost nothing to do with the actual feast of that name.
Are there sophianic elements in that icon?

One website described the icon thusly:

Quote
The "Triumph of Orthodoxy" icon is a "newly revealed" icon created by master iconographer, Vladislav Andrejev.  Historically, the Orthodox Church celebrates the restoration of icons because this restoration symbolically captures the essence of the Orthodox faith - Christ the second person of the Trinity became incarnate to restore man's relationship with God, which was broken with the fall of Adam.   This new icon visually articulates the depth of the action of the incarnation on the spiritual, noetic and material levels.  It visually celebrates the feast, in which all Orthodox Christians participate each week during liturgy and reminds us of the time to come when the first Icon, Christ, is made visible face to face.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,428


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2014, 08:49:22 PM »

I can assure you that the spiel (and the full spiel, not just the excerpt you posted) is stuffed full of pseudo-mystical, new-agey nonsense, with no correlation at all to the doctrinal and liturgical traditions associated with the feast. I've seen all too much of Andreyev's work, and this "Triumph" is yet another travesty, both in its "premise", and in its profusion of heretical depictions within. It's all about him and his flights of fancy, and not about proclaiming the truths and teachings espoused by the Church through the works of his hands.

St Andrei of Radonezh (Andrei Rublyev) masterfully distilled the existing icon of the Hospitality of Abraham into the sublime and incomparable Holy Trinity. Andreyev mocks both iconography and its premier commemoration in this shameful and spiritually ugly work.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 08:49:45 PM by LBK » Logged
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,682



« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2014, 08:55:05 PM »

I'm having a hard time telling how the icon relates to Fr. Sergius' writings, if it even does.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 08:55:33 PM by Nephi » Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,428


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2014, 09:14:13 PM »

I'm having a hard time telling how the icon relates to Fr. Sergius' writings, if it even does.

Sophia imagery (the androgynous winged figure representing the pre-incarnate Christ, and an image repeatedly declared by the Church as deficient and heretical in its proclamation of the Incarnation) is present in many of Andreyev's works, as well as angels bearing names such as Eros, Philia, Agape, etc. He also conflates his own muddled take on Christology with established and accepted canonical icons, including the Holy Trinity.

Fortunately, there is a very small but growing group of iconographers and iconophiles who are beginning to see what a pernicious effect this "school" is having on the unsuspecting. I'm happy to do my bit for the cause.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2014, 09:40:49 PM »

Nephi, Bulgakov's Sophianist writings were declared as heretical by the Russian church. Caveat emptor.

It seems more complicated than that according to Orthodoxwiki. While the Russian Patriarchate issued a pronouncement saying his Sophiology was "alien" to Orthodoxy and ROCOR "formally accused" him of heresy, Fr. Sergius' own jurisdiction (apparently under the EP) under Metropolitan Evlogy ultimately "concluded that the accusations of heresy against Bulgakov were unfounded but that his theological opinions showed serious flaws and needed correction." Unless Orthodoxwiki is leaving something out it doesn't seem his Sophiology was clearly condemned officially, nor condemned in a way that was binding on him.

But I am aware it's controversial, non-standard, etc.

There's a growing list of people waiting to be anathematized. Fortunately, there's no statute of limitations.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2014, 09:42:47 PM »

Nephi, Bulgakov's Sophianist writings were declared as heretical by the Russian church. Caveat emptor.

It seems more complicated than that according to Orthodoxwiki. While the Russian Patriarchate issued a pronouncement saying his Sophiology was "alien" to Orthodoxy and ROCOR "formally accused" him of heresy, Fr. Sergius' own jurisdiction (apparently under the EP) under Metropolitan Evlogy ultimately "concluded that the accusations of heresy against Bulgakov were unfounded but that his theological opinions showed serious flaws and needed correction." Unless Orthodoxwiki is leaving something out it doesn't seem his Sophiology was clearly condemned officially, nor condemned in a way that was binding on him.

But I am aware it's controversial, non-standard, etc.

One only needs to see the work of the Prosopon "school" of "iconography" to see the odious and self-indulgent fruits of sophianism. Pretty on the outside, but rotten and ugly within.
By "Prosopon", you mean this here?

That's the one.  Tongue

Vladislav Andreyev's latest opus is the so-called Triumph of Orthodoxy, a pseudo-mystical confection which has almost nothing to do with the actual feast of that name.
Are there sophianic elements in that icon?

One website described the icon thusly:

Quote
The "Triumph of Orthodoxy" icon is a "newly revealed" icon created by master iconographer, Vladislav Andrejev.  Historically, the Orthodox Church celebrates the restoration of icons because this restoration symbolically captures the essence of the Orthodox faith - Christ the second person of the Trinity became incarnate to restore man's relationship with God, which was broken with the fall of Adam.   This new icon visually articulates the depth of the action of the incarnation on the spiritual, noetic and material levels.  It visually celebrates the feast, in which all Orthodox Christians participate each week during liturgy and reminds us of the time to come when the first Icon, Christ, is made visible face to face.

I didn't know there could be "newly-revealed" icons which had a known iconographer. Did he paint it and then put it in a bush and say, "Voila?"
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,428


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #24 on: January 08, 2014, 09:47:01 PM »

Quote
I didn't know there could be "newly-revealed" icons which had a known iconographer. Did he paint it and then put it in a bush and say, "Voila?"

I had thought the same when I first saw it, but you expressed it so much better than I could, and more politely.  laugh laugh
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 09:47:23 PM by LBK » Logged
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,682



« Reply #25 on: January 08, 2014, 09:56:20 PM »

Sophia imagery (the androgynous winged figure representing the pre-incarnate Christ, and an image repeatedly declared by the Church as deficient and heretical in its proclamation of the Incarnation) is present in many of Andreyev's works, as well as angels bearing names such as Eros, Philia, Agape, etc. He also conflates his own muddled take on Christology with established and accepted canonical icons, including the Holy Trinity.

Again, I'm not sure how that imagery relates to him. If you're saying Sophia is the winged figure and it's representing the pre-incarnate Christ, I don't think that's how Fr. Sergius would understand it. As I said earlier he doesn't identify Sophia solely with Christ, and as such wouldn't interpret any image of Sophia to be a depiction of the pre-incarnate Christ.



So this ^ icon that Jetavan linked to, with the description, "This new icon visually articulates the depth of the action of the incarnation on the spiritual, noetic and material levels.  It visually celebrates the feast, in which all Orthodox Christians participate each week during liturgy and reminds us of the time to come when the first Icon, Christ, is made visible face to face."

If it has any connection to Fr. Sergius' theology, then all I can see is it trying to depict Christ as the icon of God. The imagery of the Eucharist and the icon of the Theotokos holding Christ at the bottom seem to back this up.

And I really doubt the named angels have any relevance to him.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 09:56:59 PM by Nephi » Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,428


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #26 on: January 08, 2014, 10:21:48 PM »

The chief and glaring problem with Andreyev is that he willfully and repeatedly reduces God Incarnate to abstractions, speculations and prefigurations, and fills his "icons" with personifications of attributes of God. This is nothing less than the polar opposite of what the Incarnation is and stands for, and a direct and irreconcilable violation of what iconography is and stands for.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,428


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #27 on: January 08, 2014, 10:23:50 PM »

Quote
And I really doubt the named angels have any relevance to him.

Andreyev has simply taken the essence of sophianism and "developed" it further, according to his gnostic flights of fancy.
Logged
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,682



« Reply #28 on: January 08, 2014, 10:33:37 PM »

The chief and glaring problem with Andreyev is that he willfully and repeatedly reduces God Incarnate to abstractions, speculations and prefigurations, and fills his "icons" with personifications of attributes of God. This is nothing less than the polar opposite of what the Incarnation is and stands for, and a direct and irreconcilable violation of what iconography is and stands for.
Quote
And I really doubt the named angels have any relevance to him.

Andreyev has simply taken the essence of sophianism and "developed" it further, according to his gnostic flights of fancy.

I can concede much of that, but I must still say that the connection between Andreyev and Fr. Sergius Bulgakov is weak at best. If Andreyev is identifying Sophia as either the pre-incarnate Christ, an abstraction, a mere prefiguration, attribute of God, etc. then their theologies aren't even close.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,428


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #29 on: January 08, 2014, 10:42:21 PM »

The chief and glaring problem with Andreyev is that he willfully and repeatedly reduces God Incarnate to abstractions, speculations and prefigurations, and fills his "icons" with personifications of attributes of God. This is nothing less than the polar opposite of what the Incarnation is and stands for, and a direct and irreconcilable violation of what iconography is and stands for.
Quote
And I really doubt the named angels have any relevance to him.

Andreyev has simply taken the essence of sophianism and "developed" it further, according to his gnostic flights of fancy.

I can concede much of that, but I must still say that the connection between Andreyev and Fr. Sergius Bulgakov is weak at best. If Andreyev is identifying Sophia as either the pre-incarnate Christ, an abstraction, a mere prefiguration, attribute of God, etc. then their theologies aren't even close.

The "icon" of Christ Holy Wisdom, and its sister images of Angel of Great Counsel and Blessed Silence, (all elements that Andreyev frequently appropriates) have been around for several centuries, having originated in Russia during a time where all sorts of strange and often gnostic imagery contrary to established Orthodox teaching was being painted. Bulgakov was undoubtedly influenced by this. Andreyev has not only been influenced, but he has concocted a "theology" of his own making, and infecting what might have been proper icons with it, and the imagery expressing this "theology".
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 10:44:33 PM by LBK » Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,987


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #30 on: January 20, 2014, 11:52:29 AM »

Anyone read him before and have any thoughts?

I think what you find is a man who is at once a true scientist and also a true theologian who is trying to synthesize the seemingly opposed traditions.  Christ proclaimed himself the Alpha and the Omega and de Chardin was trying to investigate all the implicatons of that.  I think for him scientific discovery was relevatory.

I think it would be helpful to watch The Shoes of the Fisherman, Fr Telemond is a fictional representation of de Chardin.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,358


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #31 on: January 20, 2014, 04:20:41 PM »

Here are some "icons" by the hand of Robert Lentz of the so-called Cosmic Christ:

Oh wow. That's just horrifying.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,601



« Reply #32 on: January 20, 2014, 04:23:30 PM »

Nephi, Bulgakov's Sophianist writings were declared as heretical by the Russian church. Caveat emptor.

It seems more complicated than that according to Orthodoxwiki. While the Russian Patriarchate issued a pronouncement saying his Sophiology was "alien" to Orthodoxy and ROCOR "formally accused" him of heresy, Fr. Sergius' own jurisdiction (apparently under the EP) under Metropolitan Evlogy ultimately "concluded that the accusations of heresy against Bulgakov were unfounded but that his theological opinions showed serious flaws and needed correction." Unless Orthodoxwiki is leaving something out it doesn't seem his Sophiology was clearly condemned officially, nor condemned in a way that was binding on him.

But I am aware it's controversial, non-standard, etc.

There's a growing list of people waiting to be anathematized. Fortunately, there's no statute of limitations.

LOL!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,682



« Reply #33 on: January 20, 2014, 11:36:51 PM »

Anyone read him before and have any thoughts?

I think what you find is a man who is at once a true scientist and also a true theologian who is trying to synthesize the seemingly opposed traditions.  Christ proclaimed himself the Alpha and the Omega and de Chardin was trying to investigate all the implicatons of that.  I think for him scientific discovery was relevatory.

I think it would be helpful to watch The Shoes of the Fisherman, Fr Telemond is a fictional representation of de Chardin.

So does he believe that God himself evolves? Reminds me of the bit I've heard of process theology, with God being subject to change in some way. Also, critics charge him with being a monist/pantheist. Any thoughts? Admittedly, his omega point does seems to imply that.

This warning from Rome is interesting:
Quote
"Several works of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, some of which were posthumously published, are being edited and are gaining a good deal of success.

"Prescinding from a judgement about those points that concern the positive sciences, it is sufficiently clear that the above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine.

"For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.

"Given at Rome, from the palace of the Holy Office, on the thirtieth day of June, 1962.

Sebastianus Masala, Notarius"

While I don't oppose the attempt to understand evolution/science in light of Christianity, and vice-versa, I think I understand where Rome was coming from.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,987


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #34 on: January 21, 2014, 12:12:41 AM »

So does he believe that God himself evolves? Reminds me of the bit I've heard of process theology, with God being subject to change in some way. Also, critics charge him with being a monist/pantheist. Any thoughts? Admittedly, his omega point does seems to imply that.

No, that we and all creation are evolving to Christ, as he draws all things to himself to be perfected and divinized. He created all things(Alpha), he will redeem all things(Omega).  I can see how it can easily be misunderstood as pantheist, however.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,682



« Reply #35 on: January 21, 2014, 12:25:54 AM »

So does he believe that God himself evolves? Reminds me of the bit I've heard of process theology, with God being subject to change in some way. Also, critics charge him with being a monist/pantheist. Any thoughts? Admittedly, his omega point does seems to imply that.

No, that we and all creation are evolving to Christ, as he draws all things to himself to be perfected and divinized. He created all things(Alpha), he will redeem all things(Omega).  I can see how it can easily be misunderstood as pantheist, however.

That doesn't necessarily sound too bad.

Do you know if there are any points where he does stray from orthodoxy? The way you've described him until now makes him seem like he didn't depart from its boundaries completely if at all, unlike most Catholic sources I've come across vehemently condemning or warning against him as a false-visionary, modernist, heretic, etc.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 12:26:11 AM by Nephi » Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #36 on: January 21, 2014, 12:32:38 AM »

Fr Seraphim Rose thrashes de Chardin in his "orthodoxy and t he religion of the future ". But as I see things that's  more like praise..
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 12:34:49 AM by augustin717 » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,273


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 21, 2014, 12:38:05 AM »

Quote
Sebastianus Masala, Notarius"

Sebastianus Masala is a dish best served hot. 
Logged

The New World Order (1943 to present):

Jesuit Provincial > Jesuit Order > Jesuit Superior > Mor < Roman Pontiff < Illuminati Families < Holy See < UN
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,428


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #38 on: January 21, 2014, 12:49:07 AM »

Quote
Sebastianus Masala, Notarius"

Sebastianus Masala is a dish best served hot. 

Is it a Sri Lankan dish?  Wink
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,273


"Do not be afraid, Zechariah..."


WWW
« Reply #39 on: January 21, 2014, 12:51:23 AM »

You know, I've never had Sri Lankan food.  I've been meaning to change that for at least a couple of years now...
Logged

The New World Order (1943 to present):

Jesuit Provincial > Jesuit Order > Jesuit Superior > Mor < Roman Pontiff < Illuminati Families < Holy See < UN
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,987


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #40 on: January 21, 2014, 12:59:48 AM »

So does he believe that God himself evolves? Reminds me of the bit I've heard of process theology, with God being subject to change in some way. Also, critics charge him with being a monist/pantheist. Any thoughts? Admittedly, his omega point does seems to imply that.

No, that we and all creation are evolving to Christ, as he draws all things to himself to be perfected and divinized. He created all things(Alpha), he will redeem all things(Omega).  I can see how it can easily be misunderstood as pantheist, however.

That doesn't necessarily sound too bad.

Do you know if there are any points where he does stray from orthodoxy? The way you've described him until now makes him seem like he didn't depart from its boundaries completely if at all, unlike most Catholic sources I've come across vehemently condemning or warning against him as a false-visionary, modernist, heretic, etc.
I think he was simply misunderstood because he touched on things that hadn't been thought about before because the scientifc discoveries hadn't been made yet.  He was a humble and devout man and accepted his silencing.  He obeyd his Jesuit superiors and the Pope. To reactionaries I would respond with Cardinal de Lubac's words:“We need not concern ourselves with a number of detractors of Teilhard, in whom emotion has blunted intelligence”(The Religion of Teilhard de Chardin, Image Books 1968).  I mean if you don't believe in evolution how can you accept de Chardin's work?
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,682



« Reply #41 on: January 21, 2014, 01:54:05 AM »

I think he was simply misunderstood because he touched on things that hadn't been thought about before because the scientifc discoveries hadn't been made yet.  He was a humble and devout man and accepted his silencing.  He obeyd his Jesuit superiors and the Pope. To reactionaries I would respond with Cardinal de Lubac's words:“We need not concern ourselves with a number of detractors of Teilhard, in whom emotion has blunted intelligence”(The Religion of Teilhard de Chardin, Image Books 1968).  I mean if you don't believe in evolution how can you accept de Chardin's work?

Makes sense. The critics of Chardin that I've read would also be pretty critical of Cardinal de Lubac, so that may or may not shed light on my sources (I know nothing about Cardinal de Lubac). To these critics' annoyance he does seem popular among New Age sorts, but perhaps his texts are just easily misunderstood/misinterpreted.

Since it's what I'll be reading and it seems somewhat like a mystical work, how well do you think the Divine Milieu can relate to Byzantine thought/spirituality?
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 0.159 seconds with 69 queries.