[quote author=ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂµÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¹ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ link=topic=9332.msg125366#msg125366 date=1151016897]
Similar remarks could be said of Origen, Tertullian and even several non-Christians.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š That does not deal with the question of where is his cultus and should his works and teachings be considered part of the patristic tradition?
They always have been considered part of the patristic tradition (mind you, so has Origen's and Tertullian's to a degree), but as for such People as Origen and Tertullian, they were condemned by specific councils, the same cannot be said for Clement.
Interestingly enough relations were fairly good between the ROCOR and the EP until about the time of St. John's death, so I find it curious you take such a polemical stand on this matter.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Eitherway if it is matter between Moscow and the ROCOR as you say, are you following the talks between the two parties?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š If Moscow (or in the case of her daughter church, the OCA) accepts St. John's glorification...
Even though relations between ROCOR and the Oecumenical Throne were cordial until around that time, communion was broken when Moscow Excommunicated ROCOR for their blasphemous and schismatic belief that the Russian Church was without Legitimacy or Grace. Even if Moscow states she believes him to be a saint, I will withold my veneration. The Slanderous and Libelous attacks the person in question made against the Oecumenical Throne subject him to the review of said Throne just as much as his Slanderous and Libelous attacks against the Holy Hierarchs of Russia should be subject to the Synod of Moscow. Furthermore, if Moscow enters him into their Typikon I believe it can be safely said to be for political reasons, the issue of whether the person in question is a Saint is hardly one that should interfere in the return of lost sheep to the Body of Christ.
The question I am asking is whether somone who is as obscure as Clement of Alexandria (who appears to have no feast, no cultus, no icons) should be exalted to a position by GiC that he is - that when Clement's doctrine is at odds with the patristic consensus that Clement ought to be declared as having the Orthodox doctrine?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
What is the so-called patristic consensus that he is at odds with? If there is one thing I have learned from my studies of the fathers it is that 'patristic consensus' is a myth. Plus, the teachings of Clement are consonant with the teachings of several other fathers of the Church, amongst whom can be listed two of our Church's greatest theologans, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus, as well as, in all probability, Athanasios the Great who seems to adopt the doctrine of apokatastasis as a presupposistion in many of his writings.
Other than being mentioned in passing as a Saint by a few other works (yet not actually being venerated as such, apparently) and being respected by others (then again many non-Christians were respected, so I hardly see this as an endorsement of sainthood nor overall doctrinal soundness) why should anyone consider Clement of Alexandria a saint or believe that his works belong to (or are the pinnacle of!) the patristic tradidition?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š
Then don't accept an appeal to St. Clement of Alexandria as an appeal to authority, for Clement, unlike lesser men, does not merely pontificate in his great writings; rather, they are logical and well argued posistions, they were designed for controversy and debate, they are not mere homilies. Read Clement and accept or reject his posistions on the weight of his arguments (though the era and style of rhetoric should be taken into consideration). While I have referred in passing to Clement on many occasions, I do not believe that I have yet based the entirety of a posistion on the personal merit and authority of any individual.
It is I who have argued the particulars of the issue at hand, while my opponents have ignored many of my arguments (rarely even responding to the philosophical ones that are presented, some of which come straight out of Clement of Alexandria or Gregory of Nyssa) and have pontificated against me. Very recently when I presented some details of my posistion on the Infinite Mercy of God, which was the source of this discussion, the response I received was 'the Church says' or 'the Fathers say,' without any demonstration of this actually being the case. So while I often refer to Clement of Alexandria (considering some of my arguments, to do otherwise would be plagiarism), I refer to him as a source, I have generally not pontificated on the matter unless someone else starts it, then I tend to focus on Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory the Theologian, both of whom are beyond reproach.