Subscribe by Email
« Jeffrey D. Finch’s “Neo-Palamism, Divinizing Grace. . .” | Main | westernorthodox.blogspot.com not a dia-blog, but rather a mono-blog »
James has officially entered the “westernorthodox.blogspot.com” fray
By James Kelley | July 13, 2008
Here’s my recent comment to a post on: http://westernorthodox.blogspot.com/2006/02/most-unique-orthodoxy-ever.html
I think you guys should chime in, because I think the westernorth. crowd needs to see that I am not a lone nut, preachin’ sola barbe. 
Hey “Ille,” just though you would like to know that any first-year seminarian in any Orthodox seminary knows that we Orthodox reject “original sin” as it was set down by Augustine. J.S. Romanides’ Ancestral Sin put the nail in the coffin. I don’t mean to be presumptuous, but you should read Ancestral Sin and write a post about it. Fr. John’s book actually eradicated, in one fell swoop, much of the scholastic Orhtodox theology which was, in the first half of the last century, part and parcel of Greek university life. For background, read Christos Yannaras, Orthodoxy and the West (Brookline, MA 2006)p. 275-278, and G.D. Dragas, “Introduction, Protopresbyter John Savas Romanides (1927-2001),” p. xi-xv in John Romanides, An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics trans. G.D. Dragas (Rollinsford NH 2004).
As for beards, I have to say, we as Orthodox should be inspired by the thousands of icons of saints who have beards, as well as by by “mountain men.” I understand your point, Seth! I also like my beard, for aesthetic as well as spiritual reasons!
It is embarrasing, though, that I have to explain why men should have beards to people who should know better than to disrespect so pious a practice. We should emulate those who are piously struggling to embody, physically and noetically, the Aaronic icon of the “deified priest of creation.” The holy libation which dripped upon the “beard of Aaron” in the Psalter is the Chrism of deification. This does not mean that a beard bestows holiness on a man, but it does mean that a holy man has a beard (exceptions prove the rule). Have you seen or heard of an Athonite elder who owned a razor? It is an ascetic practice to allow our hair to grow, being concerned to allow ourselves to begin to resemble an icon, though doubless a beard alone (sola barbe? ha, ha) does not save us, but rather obedience to the will of God saves us. Impiously questioning the pious practices of saints is very bad behaviour. Shame on you! I don’t know where you all live, but let’s get together for a weekend retreat to an Orthodox monastery sometime. We’ll ask these questions and maybe gain some insight. Maybe you all (and especially me, for I know I need to learn a little humility :]) will see the bigger picture.
I like the Eastern parable (it might be Persian) about the prince who went to the West for his education, and came back clean-shaven. How did his father reply? “Why have you HARMED your beard?” The point is, the king believed that the beard was as much a part of a man’s body as his fingers or limbs. Indeed, why harm your beard? Does it clash with your ‘highlights’ or your ‘perm’? If so, this is also a shame. Put away such effete practices, and let’s get on with purifying our hearts! We need each other, for we cannot be saved alone! I need the prayers of each of you, sinner that I am.
It’s like the story I read in Newsweek wherein this smark-aleck reporter went around Eastern Europe trying to figure out why icons of St. Constantine the Great show him with a beard when statuary and Roman custom showed that he had no beard. The reporter asked a simple Russian passer-by “Why does Constantine have a beard in your church pictures when we know he did not have one in real life?”
The Russian serenely replied: “It is his heavenly beard.”
If the Holy Icons invariably show deified men with beards, why should we not humbly follow their lead?
Topics: Beards, General, Heresy, Patristics, Romanides, Theology |
July 13th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
In regards to the term “original sin”.
What are your thoughts of the council of Carthage, and the decrees of the 6th ecumenical Council?
I personally use the term because it seems to me that the decrees of the 6th council embraced the local North African council.
The christians who ruled against Pelagianism at the council were the Semi-Pelagian camp, as well as the Augustinian camp. They teamed up to fight against the Pelagian camp.
And we all know that the semi-pelagians had a different view of Anthropology than the Augustinians. And it is because of this, that I still use the term “original sin”.
So the issue to me, and I could be wrong about this. But the issue is not the term “original sin”. Instead, the issue is “original guilt”.
We don’t believe Adam’s and Eve’s guilt was passed on to their posterity. We shouldn’t allow the west to dictate what the doctrine of “original sin” means. Thus, my interpretation of “Original sin” is “Ancestral sin”. That is how I understand the doctrine of Original sin.
This way, I will be consistant with the decrees of the 6th ecumenical council.
So the issue is one of interpretation. The Semi-pelagians interpreted the doctrine of “original sin” differently than the Augustinians. With this said. I would like to ask you.
Why should we give up the term “original sin” when it can be interpreted in an Orthodox mannor?
Thank you for your time.
JNORM888
July 13th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
following the link I don’t see your comment in post. Is this a problem on my end?
July 14th, 2008 at 2:25 am
Marcus,
The blog owner there approves all comments posted and this sometimes takes a day or longer.
ICXC
John
July 14th, 2008 at 4:40 am
Best wishes in the WO fray. I once entered that fray to raise legitimate questions — honest questions, not rhetorical criticism — because I am theoretically disposed to the general idea of WO. Instead, I got pummeled and flamed and, eventually, banned!
BTW, I believe at the “Eight Council” of 879-80, the old Roman aristocratic clergy agreed to compromise and sport short beards.
July 14th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
JNORM88,
I said “‘original sin’ as it was set down by Augustine,” has been rejected, not “original sin” per se. One can say original sin and mean “ancestral sin,” and that’s very Orthodox, for the very good reasons you’ve stated.
As Orthdox, we follow St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was flexible in his terminology at the Formulary Council of 433, which showed that subsequent Western misinterpretations of the so-called “Alexandrian school” are illegitimate. Terminological fundamentalism is the West’s game, not ours. I appreciate that you pointed this out.
By the way, “Death,” forgive me if I have offended you with my stentorian tone, or maybe I misinterpreted the “rhetorical criticism” comment. Even if you did direct it towards me, I say ‘fair enough, I probably could have done better’. Keep in mind, I followed it all up with a genuine proposition: Let’s go find some real ascetics, don’t just take James Kelley’s word for it, and then we’ll ALL (including me) learn something.
Asceticism is our only hope, our only possible answer to God’s constant knock at the door of our hearts. I cannot abide the attitude of levity towards Orthodox piety I witnessed on WO, and I hope it makes everyone a little gunshy about publishing such sentiments in the name of Orthodoxy. I appreciate anyone’s effort to deliver a softer, more cautious version of my stance to WO and anyone else. I’m definitely not everyone’s cup of tea, but I’m not going away until I’m forced to.
Anyway, talk is cheap when it comes to aceticism, so keep me and my family in your prayers.
July 15th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Not offended at all. God be with you in the WO fray!
July 15th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
That blog? That guy never approves comments unless he likes them or they’re easily refuted. He only prints the worst arguments against his ideas. I see your comment certainly didn’t show up over there. Not an honest blog.
July 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Jnorm,
What do you take to constitute semi-pelagianism?
July 16th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Perry,
I think he means what is categorized as “semi-pelagianism” as understood by Sts. John Cassian and Vincent Lerins. For both would deny that you need a “special act” of grace, “prevenient grace” to put it in Arminian terms, that orients you toward God which the grace of the Incarnation wrought in Christ’s human nature didn’t already accomplish for you. The healing of the natural will in Maximian terms.
What is (mis)appropriated as “semi-pelagianism” by the Augustinian party was just the assumption of poor Christology, or lack of.
Photios
July 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Yes, and I might add that the term “semi-pelagianism” is sometimes used to pejoratively characterize the “synergistic” Theo-anthropology of the Christian East, which does not see grace as either created or “super-added” to human nature. Judge for yourself wheter or not the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils and those collected in the Philocalia believed that man can do anything “on his own.”
Apropos of the “internal” workings of grace as put forth by the Christian East, I find P. Nellas’ Deification in Christ helpful. He quotes St. Gregory of Nyssa on p. 34 as follows:
“Through the natural glow lying within it, the eye, attracted by the innate power of what is akin to it, comes to have communion with the light. Similarly, it was necessary for something akin to the divine to be mingled with human nature, so that through this correspondence it should have a desire for what is its own. . . . For this reason it has been endowed with life and reason and wisdom and every good thing befitting God, so that through each of these things it might have a desire for what is its own. . . . The account of creation indicates all this succinctly by a single phrase when it says that man was made in the image of God.” (Cat. Or. 5 pat gr 45, 21CD)
Here, of course, “in the image” means that man cannot be conceived outside of his telos to assimilate himself to the uncreated grace with which man is designed to unite. Those who use the label “semi-pelagian” to describe Orthodoxy (JNORM88 never did this, and never would) are mainly Western Christian scholars who are embarrased and perplexed by the fact that the Holy Fathers of the first few centuries (and the early Church Councils) never spoke about Augustine’s innovations in almost every area of theology. Why didn’t the East give any indication of Augustine’s doctrines about man and grace? Because they are not the Tradition. Someone else needs to refine my generalized rant.
July 18th, 2008 at 10:42 am
In many ways, the terms “semi-pelagian,” “Augustinian,” “semi-Augustinian,” and so forth are completely alien categories to not only the Authentic West in regard to St. Vincent of Lerins, but also the Authentic East in Sts. John Cassian and John Chrysostom. Cassian’s doctrine has nothing to do with Pelagius and it equally has nothing to do with Augustine. It is foreign to both, because it is of another paradigm of how to address the questions and the order of how those questions are to be addressed. Western scholars down through the centuries have not been able to think outside the box of these rigid categories, so that we are glossed as Arminians (even more anachronistic then semi-pelagian) and semi-pelagians.
None of the monks that were condemned as “semi-pelagian” were anything of the kind, or at least how the Western Augustinians treated the debate, whether they be the strong Augustinian or semi-Augustinian parties. Even Augustine in his later “Anti-Pelagian” works avoided categorizing the monks of Marseilles and Provence and treated them as brothers.
On the other hand, if what St. Cassian and others could rightly and properly be glossed into a category of “semi-Pelagian” or whatever category you want to call it we should whole heartedly embrace it, because it is THAT doctrine that is Orthodox.
Photios
July 21st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Hey,
Very good site. I just had a comment about ‘Ancestral Sin’
I was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church about a year ago, and now want more than anything to join the Orthodox Church. Along the way I read Ancestral Sin, and I although I was very pleased with most of it, I was concerned about one part near the beginning. I don’t have it on me, so I will be paraphrasing. Basically, Fr. Romanides said that Catholics believe that Christ is re-sacrificed on the altar. Yet years before becoming Catholic, I was told that this belief was a complete misunderstanding and pure protestant propoganda.
Is Fr. Romanides correct here?
Thanks and blessings
July 21st, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Thanks for your comment, Alex,
Here’s the reference, Ancestral Sin p. 19-21 (Ridgewood 2002):
“Roman Catholics believe that the only difference between the Holy Eucharist and the other sacraments is that in the other sacraments created graces are imparted to the faithful, but in the Holy Eucharist, whicle graces of course are imparted, the Lord is present, and His sacrifice on the Cross is both truly and sacramentally repeated. In so far as they regard the soul as immortal by nature, they do not believe that Christ imbues immortality in the fatihful but that He is present in His capacity as both slayer and victim in order for His sacrifice to be renewed, for divine graces to be multiplied and flow from it to the faithful, for related good things to flow to the ecclesiastical treasury, and for the faithful to offer their adoration to Him.”
I do not know enough about Roman Catholicism to answer whether or not the above is accurate, but please, anyone, chime in to let us all know. Are any experts in Catholic theology out there?
Anyway, I know that Roman Catholics believe that we are saved through created grace(s) and maybe beata vita of God’s essence in the next life. The Anglican Archbsp. Rowan Williams tries to strike a compromise with us Orthodox by admitting that the essence/energies distinction is valid in “epistemology” but not on the level of “metaphysics”. His point of view is of no interest to us, because he is merely playing word games and inventing dichotomies of which the Fathers have no knowledge.
The point is merely further underscored by Rowan and co. that the non-Orthodox do not view the grace of God as uncreated. Instead, all non-Orthodox are forced, some against their spiritual instincts, to believe in a modified scholasticism. I’m frankly tired of the feeble “anti-Palamite” writings which are still coming out today, some from co-called Orthodox theologians.
If anyone reading this thinks he or she has the “latitude” to disbelieve in the “essence/energies” distinction and all that goes with it, go read the full text of the Synodicon of Orthodoxy, or just listen to what you yourself are chanting on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Plain and simple: If you are against uncreated energies as set down by St. Gregory and the other Fathers, you are anathematized by your own words.
I think we all were aware of the above, but Met. John Zizioulas and his cronies are teaching otherwise, and I’ll be the lone voice decrying their errors if I have to be.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
This discussion, especially Mr. Kelley’s comment in #10, is enlightening to me on the nature of grace. I think that I need to adjust my understanding to include that the common grace that we all have in Christ, as distinguished from a Calvinist view of common grace that keeps us all from killing each other and ourselves as our animal nature would have us do, grants us all immortality and the means to desire and seek our telos, that which is already our own. Therefore when I am more in tune with my natural self, I am utilizing the uncreated grace instilled in me, even though it may feel like I am being given extra grace and peace at the time. I am now wondering more about Sacramental grace available to those in The Church. Perhaps all of our telos(es) are to be located in the Church and we all have the grace to desire to be in the Church where we will receive the nourishment (added or revealed, already-present grace?) to continue towards Theosis. Therefore those outside the Church are “living well” according to how much of the energies of God (already made natural to them through Christ’s bonded human nature) they are cooperating with, but there is always more if they will continue on their path towards union with the Saints in theosis in the Church. I have a hypothesis that people in their search for God come to a crossroads at some point where they choose to accept or deny continuing on the path available to them - which may differ from person to person as the physical Orthodox Church is not always available, or faithfully represented to everyone. And maybe some people are allowed to deliberate for longer than others as God is merciful. Still some seem to make a decision against continuing on and perhaps it is to those God sends a “strong delusion” as mentioned in 2 Thess. 2.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
I need to apologize to animals for my above comment. It is based on a false assumption of total depravity and dialectic towards them too. I suppose animals have a telos too that we as stewards and priests can help them attain, like the lion close to St. Mary of Egypt and the bears to St. Seraphim of Sarov. Orthodoxy is so different, yet beautifully natural!
July 29th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I just became aware through EP of this very interesting conversation at
http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/on-original-sin-and-the-immaculate-conception/
that addresses my inquiry above as to the Orthodox teaching on the nature of grace. My lingering hopes for further understanding regarding Sacramental grace remain, though are somewhat satisfied by Photios’ statement,
“there is a two fold grace that is given in baptism to infants that is of dynamis (potent), but a person must confirm themselves in it to achieve and have theosis, active (energeia). In any manner, the view I take is that theosis must be synergistic, not only the beginning but the end as well.”
What I said above about those outside the Church participating in common grace (beyond immortality) is speculative and unsubstantiated. I think we choose not to make judgments while maintaining that baptism is necessary to become adopted children of God as St. Maximus says in Ad Thalassium 6. We become newly illumined - we gain sight, not that all within have sight and that all without don’t… we just pray for our own union with Christ to be realized through cleansing from sin by grace and our free will.
Sorry for posting three times in a row.
October 4th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Excellent post, James!
Just thought you might want to check out a post I made some time ago on beards in Orthodoxy. http://solzemli.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/writings-related-to-beards-in-orthodox-christianity/