Fr. Lev Gillet
Dan
as "a monk of the Eastern Church". I later learned that the author was
a strange individual, an RC priest who was "received" into the
Orthodox by Met. Evlogy, not by baptism or chrismation, but by the
simple act of concelebrating the liturgy with him. For the rest of his
life, Fr. Lev let it be known that he considered himself a "dual
citizen" as it were, of both Churches.
Anyway, recently, at the urging of a Jewish friend, I read another of
Fr. Lev's books, this one entitled "Communion in the Messiah", which
presented itself as an attempt to encourage Jewish-Christian dialogue.
It included an astonishingly selective recounting of the history of
the Church and Synagogue which, taken at face value, would suggest
that Christians have been solely responsible for any and all frictions
between themselves and Jews for the past 2000 years. This supposed
"Orthodox monk" seems, for example, to regard St. John Chrysostom as
an evil antisemite without any redeeming features whatsoever. He
trashes the Septuagint but reveres the Talmud and is at pains to
suggest that there is no Christian insight which may not also be found
in Rabbinic Judaism.
I was wondering whether anyone else here had read the book and what
they thought of it.
Olympiada
I don't know, but the second someone gives me one of his books, or I
find one on a library bookshelf, I am reading it. I have been
intrigued by him ever since my retired bishop expressed his apparent
dislike of him.
++
Jesus suggested that he wished they were cold or hot, but since they
were only lukewarm, he spewed them out of His mouth.
Here is an example of the kind of damage such individuals, who I like to
term "People who have deliberately and purposefully chosen not to
actually become Orthodox" do:
1. Lie about priviledges of taking communion as if simply the act of
taking communion without following Orthodoxy conferred some kind of
magic. Have they received the Body and Blood of Christ in such
circumstances or only denigrated it ?
2. By communing in two churches, one heretical, they publically
invalidate what we believe in, i.e. the Creed.
3. Real example: There is a local Orthodox church in Washington, D.C.
where the choir is directed by , the Gospel and the Epistle sung by an
Episcopalian who refuses to become Orthodox because we won't ordain gays
and women. The supposedly Orthodox convert priest gives her rides to
church services.
4. Statements like it not mattering what religion one is, or that it is
all relative are rampant with htis type individual.
5. They water down the Faith by denying it in whole or in part.
Dan
> Church . They are not Eastern Orthodox.
>
> I wonder what his church would think of his views? Would they
> excommunicate him as a heretic ?
>
> Looks like he may be .
>
> Peter
Sorry Peter, I should have included a little more biographical info.
Louis Gillet (he took the name 'Lev' much later) was French, born in
1893 in a town called Saint-Marcellin in France and baptised in the
Roman Catholic church. After WWl, he became a Benedictrine monk at the
abbey of Clairvaux and later spent time at a uniate monastery in the
Ukraine, which is where he encountered "Eastern Christianity".
His "reception" into the Orthodox Church was very controversial for
the reasons mentioned above, and he is still not regarded by many
Orthodox authorities as an Orthodox Christian. The jurisdiction he
jointed was that of Metroploitan Evlogy (Georgievsky) of Paris, who
broke with ROCOR in 1927, and ended up forming an exarchate under the
Ecumenical Patriarchate. It was this jurisdiction that produced
Fathers Florovsky, Schmemann, Meyendorff, et al. Fr. Lev later spent
many years in England and died in 1980.
While his books contain much of value, Fr. Lev often sounded like a
Roman Catholic and viewed matters of the Faith from a very western
perspective.
Cheers!
Dan
Dan
> The Church has ongoing problems with this type of individual, of whom
> Jesus suggested that he wished they were cold or hot, but since they
> were only lukewarm, he spewed them out of His mouth.
>
> Here is an example of the kind of damage such individuals, who I like to
> term "People who have deliberately and purposefully chosen not to
> actually become Orthodox" do:
>
> 1. Lie about priviledges of taking communion as if simply the act of
> taking communion without following Orthodoxy conferred some kind of
> magic. Have they received the Body and Blood of Christ in such
> circumstances or only denigrated it ?
>
> 2. By communing in two churches, one heretical, they publically
> invalidate what we believe in, i.e. the Creed.
>
> 3. Real example: There is a local Orthodox church in Washington, D.C.
> where the choir is directed by , the Gospel and the Epistle sung by an
> Episcopalian who refuses to become Orthodox because we won't ordain gays
> and women. The supposedly Orthodox convert priest gives her rides to
> church services.
>
> 4. Statements like it not mattering what religion one is, or that it is
> all relative are rampant with htis type individual.
>
> 5. They water down the Faith by denying it in whole or in part.
Sadly, these things are becoming more and more common. We Orthodox
really need to understand that we are not somehow immune to the
influences of the prevailing secular culture and mindset.
Does the Bishop of the Diocese in which that Washington temple is
located have any idea of what is going on there?
Kyril Jenner
"Dan" <dan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e2d8a120-6241-4434...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Many years ago, I read several books whose author was identified only
> as "a monk of the Eastern Church". I later learned that the author was
> a strange individual, an RC priest who was "received" into the
> Orthodox by Met. Evlogy, not by baptism or chrismation, but by the
> simple act of concelebrating the liturgy with him.
That was the normal practice of the Russian Orthodox Church at that time.
> For the rest of his
> life, Fr. Lev let it be known that he considered himself a "dual
> citizen" as it were, of both Churches.
That is a highly misleading quote (if it is a quote from anywhere). After
his reception into the Orthodox Church he functioned exclusively as a
priest-monk of the Orthodox Church. In his later years when I knew him
this was under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Yes, he sometimes attended
services in other churches. Yes, he sometimes appeared as a guest preacher
in other churches (such as the French Huguenot church in London). But he
never compromised on his Orthodoxy.
>
> Anyway, recently, at the urging of a Jewish friend, I read another of
> Fr. Lev's books, this one entitled "Communion in the Messiah", which
> presented itself as an attempt to encourage Jewish-Christian dialogue.
> It included an astonishingly selective recounting of the history of
> the Church and Synagogue which, taken at face value, would suggest
> that Christians have been solely responsible for any and all frictions
> between themselves and Jews for the past 2000 years. This supposed
> "Orthodox monk" seems, for example, to regard St. John Chrysostom as
> an evil antisemite without any redeeming features whatsoever. He
> trashes the Septuagint but reveres the Talmud and is at pains to
> suggest that there is no Christian insight which may not also be found
> in Rabbinic Judaism.
>
> I was wondering whether anyone else here had read the book and what
> they thought of it.
Perhaps you should consider the context in which this book was written (it
was first published in 1942).
If you read his biography (I think there may be a few copies still available
somewhere - or borrow one from a library) you will get a clearer
understanding of what he was trying to do during his life.
Archimandrite Kyril Jenner
nick cobb
by the Orthodox Church, but what they practice & believe is heterodox.
Therefore, an RC priests' baptism, chrismation and ordination is
accepted, but what is needed is confession/rejection of false belief and
the acceptance of the "true" belief, Orthodoxy. Once this is
accomplished, the RC priest is accepted via "vesting" and admitted into
the clergy via the Holy Eucharist.
Please remember, that tomorrow if the Pope of Rome rejected and
denounced the heterodox beliefs of the Roman church, he could be
accepted as an Orthodox bishop.
Dan
<ky...@mynachdysantelias.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> "Dan" <dan....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e2d8a120-6241-4434...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Many years ago, I read several books whose author was identified only
> > as "a monk of the Eastern Church". I later learned that the author was
> > a strange individual, an RC priest who was "received" into the
> > Orthodox by Met. Evlogy, not by baptism or chrismation, but by the
> > simple act of concelebrating the liturgy with him.
>
> That was the normal practice of the Russian Orthodox Church at that time.
>
> > For the rest of his
> > life, Fr. Lev let it be known that he considered himself a "dual
> > citizen" as it were, of both Churches.
>
> That is a highly misleading quote (if it is a quote from anywhere). After
> his reception into the Orthodox Church he functioned exclusively as a
> priest-monk of the Orthodox Church. In his later years when I knew him
> this was under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Yes, he sometimes attended
> services in other churches. Yes, he sometimes appeared as a guest preacher
> in other churches (such as the French Huguenot church in London). But he
> never compromised on his Orthodoxy.
My impression of Fr. Lev is based on a number of sources. For example,
after his death, a longtime colleague at St. Basil's House, Helle
Giorgiadias claimed, in print, that he had never left the Catholic
Church and had "infiltrated" the Orthodox Church "almost as a spy".
She quoted Fr. Lev as saying that he had always considered himself to
be "a catholic priest in full communion with the Slavic Orthodox
Church." (See Helle Georgiadis, "The witness of Fr. Lev," Chrysostom,
8, 1980, pp. 235-238)
In an article entitled "Father Lev Gillet: The Monk in the City, a
Pilgrim in many worlds" by Fr. Michael Plekon wrote:
"It is also likely the case that Fr. Lev consistently fell between the
ecclesiastical cracks himself. Thoroughly a Westerner, a Frenchman,
and formed in the Roman Catholic Church, though he became fluent in
Russian, completely assimilated in Orthodox theology and liturgy and
something of a cultural cosmopolitan, he really could not be taken as
"one of our own" by any of the jurisdictions to which he was attached,
whether that of the Lviv diocese and Uniov monastery of Metropolitan
Andrei Szeptyky, the Western European Exarchate of Metropolitan
Evlogy, the patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople to which he was
later connected. He was never formally excommunicated by Metropolitan
Andrei [his uniate bishop] and was never asked to formally renounce
anything when received into the Orthodox church by concelebrating the
liturgy and during it confessing the Creed."
> > Anyway, recently, at the urging of a Jewish friend, I read another of
> > Fr. Lev's books, this one entitled "Communion in the Messiah", which
> > presented itself as an attempt to encourage Jewish-Christian dialogue.
> > It included an astonishingly selective recounting of the history of
> > the Church and Synagogue which, taken at face value, would suggest
> > that Christians have been solely responsible for any and all frictions
> > between themselves and Jews for the past 2000 years. This supposed
> > "Orthodox monk" seems, for example, to regard St. John Chrysostom as
> > an evil antisemite without any redeeming features whatsoever. He
> > trashes the Septuagint but reveres the Talmud and is at pains to
> > suggest that there is no Christian insight which may not also be found
> > in Rabbinic Judaism.
>
> > I was wondering whether anyone else here had read the book and what
> > they thought of it.
>
> Perhaps you should consider the context in which this book was written (it
> was first published in 1942).
>
> If you read his biography (I think there may be a few copies still available
> somewhere - or borrow one from a library) you will get a clearer
> understanding of what he was trying to do during his life.
>
> Archimandrite Kyril Jenner
Father, have you read the book I was referring to? Frankly, unless Fr.
Lev was a credulous innocent, I find it hard to attribute its enormous
gaps and distortions to the context in which it was written.
I started this thread precisely because I was puzzled by what I read,
and I appreciate your comments.
Kyril Jenner
Perhaps more relevant is this quote from the same article: 'A Westerner
always, he nevertheless was surely a priest and "monk of the Eastern
Church." ' Also note his critique of the comments from Helle Georgiadis.
Archimandrite Kyril Jenner
djm
>
> Many years ago, I read several books whose author was identified only
> as "a monk of the Eastern Church". I later learned that the author was
> a strange individual, an RC priest who was "received" into the
> Orthodox by Met. Evlogy, not by baptism or chrismation, but by the
> simple act of concelebrating the liturgy with him. For the rest of his
> life, Fr. Lev let it be known that he considered himself a "dual
> citizen" as it were, of both Churches.
I have 6 or 7 books from him here, and his Gospel meditations are all but really deep and touching
I was received on the base of Canon 95 of 6th Ecumenical Councile, althought I estimated that the bishop accepting me that way was going really too
far in "oikonomia," I accepted, certainly because I know that the Church can perfect and accomplish anything imperfectly done in the "preparatio
evangelica" undergone in a group calling itself Christian while remaining openly and actively outside of the One Church..
> Anyway, recently, at the urging of a Jewish friend, I read another of
> Fr. Lev's books, this one entitled "Communion in the Messiah", which
> presented itself as an attempt to encourage Jewish-Christian dialogue.
> It included an astonishingly selective recounting of the history of
> the Church and Synagogue which, taken at face value, would suggest
> that Christians have been solely responsible for any and all frictions
> between themselves and Jews for the past 2000 years. This supposed
> "Orthodox monk" seems, for example, to regard St. John Chrysostom as
> an evil antisemite without any redeeming features whatsoever. He
> trashes the Septuagint but reveres the Talmud and is at pains to
> suggest that there is no Christian insight which may not also be found
> in Rabbinic Judaism.
I haven't read that book
now I have here and I have read (not the same :-) the book of fr. George C. Papademetriou
"essays on Orthodox Christian - Jewish relations"
isnb I-55605-164-6 paperback
isbn 1-55605-165-4 clothback (my sample)
1990, Wyndham Hall Press, PO Box 877, Bristol, Indiana, 46507, USA
it is _GREAT_ in many aspect, althought I don't follow him in all points (unlike in his essay on saint Photios, more than great)
fr. George comes with a brilliant point, enlightening the problem of fr. Lev Gillet : translations.
I _OFTEN_ tempest about the lack of garanteed Orthodox translations. In English, it's a real hell to have a truly Orthodox translation of anything. In
English, lots of translations are even not done on critical editions, just because of "pragmatism," something definitely deadly in matter of Faith, as eternal
life is the issue.
In French, we have _some_, very little garanteed Orthodox translations done on garanteed official manuscripts.
back to the book
fr. George goes on with the issue of saint John Chrysostom and its translators in the West : they _ALL_ mistranslate saint John's words. And fr. George
gives (of course!) the examples and reasons of misunderstandings on saint John Chrysostom's standpoint on the Jews. To make it short, as it is better to
read fr. George's book than my mean explanations, the translators missed all up the fact saint John goes about former Christians who apostasied and
became Proselyts (or Jews for some?) by worldly choices, and now attacked the Church. To go to the ground of the problem, "Bird" posted here a link
to dr. Marcus' study on the influence of saint John Chrysostom in the FALLEN West. Great. It doesn't speak lots of the heretics reading saint John's
works in Greek..... and here we are... what the Church Fathers, both East and West, said, is
1) mostly always perverted by the official translators, following the "orthodoxy" of their group (be it vatican or protestant or anglican or whatever)
or
2) don't understand Greek the way they should before trying a scholar translation to be used by their group
so they all made saint John appearing like an ugly Antisemit, while in fact, it's them, the translators, who are the uggly ones..
for the Talmud instead of the LXX, they could be some reasons, indeed. The Byzantine NT, if taken in samples before the 6th century, could be ok, but
after? We just have to compare with the big full manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus, and discripancies are numerous. With saint Jerome's Vulgate, we have
error of translations due to ignorance. With the Greek compilers from the "decadency centuries" (6-7th century) who prepared the drama's of
iconoclasm, we have errors done by the will of putting their ideas, their theology (neo-platonistic) in the text. This point being "imho"
In the Talmud, for the patient reader (it's huge and often borying), you can find pearls helping to discover much more pearls in the Gospel. Totally
undiscoverable by the simple use of Greek, cos' it was not originally done in Greek. Same with Old Testament.
> I was wondering whether anyone else here had read the book and what
> they thought of it.
well, I have also Easter catechesis of fr. Lev, and honnestly, it's not the worst I have seen in Eastern Orthodoxy in French...
pax tecum
Jean-Michel
athair ambrois
> I later learned that the author was
> a strange individual, an RC priest who was "received" into the
> Orthodox by Met. Evlogy, not by baptism or chrismation, but by the
> simple act of concelebrating the liturgy with him.
Met. Evlogy was acting in accordance with centuries old Russian
Orthodox tradition.
Here is what we read in the "Handbook for Clergy" by Bulgakov:
"Regarding Roman Catholic priesthood -- the Orthodox Church accepts as
normative the First Canon of the Council of Constantinople of 879 AD,
when the canonicity of this priesthood was recognized; and, at the
current time, a Catholic priest who wishes to covert to Orthodoxy
while retaining his orders, is accepted in those orders, without
having a new ordination performed over him. (See for more detail
'Orthodox Canon Law, by Nikodim, Bishop of Dalmatia, pp. 280-283)."
(See Bulgakov, p. 1027)
The 1913 edition of the Bulgakov "Handbook for Clergy" in Russian,
in facsimile is available online at:
Look at about the middle of the page for Bulgakov -- be aware that
there is another Handbook for Clergy on the same page--the new one by
the Moscow Patriarchate--which is in 8 volumes.
The download site for the Bulgakov book is
http://www.typikon.ru/books/bulgakov.htm
The download is 67 Megabytes.1,794 pages.
athair ambrois
Church attracted very strong personalities and sometimes they were a
little controversial. Fr Lazarus Moore springs to mind immediately.
In a way we should be grateful to these pioneering converts since they
opened the door for many others.
A sympathetic article on Fr Lev:
"Father Lev Gillet: The Monk in the City, a Pilgrim in many worlds"
by Fr. Michael Plekon
http://www.jacwell.org/spring_summer2000/father_lev_gillet.htm
Steve Hayes
>Many years ago, I read several books whose author was identified only
>as "a monk of the Eastern Church". I later learned that the author was
>a strange individual, an RC priest who was "received" into the
>Orthodox by Met. Evlogy, not by baptism or chrismation, but by the
>simple act of concelebrating the liturgy with him.
In the Russian tradition that is a common way of receiving Roman Catholics,
with a renunciation of errors taught by the Roman Catholic Church.
In the Greek tradition, baptism and/or chrismation may be required.
--
The unworthy deacon,
Stephen Methodius Hayes
Contact: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Orthodox mission pages: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/
Steve Hayes
>On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:39:50 -0800 (PST), Dan <dan...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>He may be a "member" of the Great Church of the East an Assyrian
>Church . They are not Eastern Orthodox.
He wasn't.
Steve Hayes
>2. By communing in two churches, one heretical, they publically
>invalidate what we believe in, i.e. the Creed.
Do you have any evidence that he did that?
ao
Paul Evdokimov book he translated, Ages of the Spiritual Life. We should
still be grateful for pioneering converts, who are still opening doors
for others.
++
Dan wrote:
The bishop of Washington, DC is Metropolitan Herman. I doubt he has a clue.
Orthodox News
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:km6rn3lqj1fri3nig...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 11:39:50 -0800 (PST), Dan <dan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Many years ago, I read several books whose author was identified only
>>as "a monk of the Eastern Church". I later learned that the author was
>>a strange individual, an RC priest who was "received" into the
>>Orthodox by Met. Evlogy, not by baptism or chrismation, but by the
>>simple act of concelebrating the liturgy with him.
>
>
>
> In the Russian tradition that is a common way of receiving Roman
> Catholics,
> with a renunciation of errors taught by the Roman Catholic Church.
***As a convert from the Episcopal Church I had to renounce them and then I
was chrismated.
++
athair ambrois wrote:
>On Jan 4, 8:39 am, Dan <dan....@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I later learned that the author was
>>a strange individual, an RC priest who was "received" into the
>>Orthodox by Met. Evlogy, not by baptism or chrismation, but by the
>>simple act of concelebrating the liturgy with him.
>>
>>
>
>Met. Evlogy was acting in accordance with centuries old Russian
>Orthodox tradition.
>
>Here is what we read in the "Handbook for Clergy" by Bulgakov:
>
>"Regarding Roman Catholic priesthood -- the Orthodox Church accepts as
>normative the First Canon of the Council of Constantinople of 879 AD,
>when the canonicity of this priesthood was recognized; and, at the
>current time, a Catholic priest who wishes to covert to Orthodoxy
>while retaining his orders, is accepted in those orders, without
>having a new ordination performed over him. (See for more detail
>'Orthodox Canon Law, by Nikodim, Bishop of Dalmatia, pp. 280-283)."
>
>
But all this presumes that the cleric has renounced his heresies and
fully come to be Orthodox. What was written by "A monk of the Eastern
Church" seemed indeed to be so. What was written by Gillet on Judaism,
I have not read. The prevarication_attitude_ is what I wrote about
ruining our Church.
>(See Bulgakov, p. 1027)
>
>The 1913 edition of the Bulgakov "Handbook for Clergy" in Russian,
>in facsimile is available online at:
>
> http://www.typikon.ru/
>
>Look at about the middle of the page for Bulgakov -- be aware that
>there is another Handbook for Clergy on the same page--the new one by
>the Moscow Patriarchate--which is in 8 volumes.
>
>The download site for the Bulgakov book is
>http://www.typikon.ru/books/bulgakov.htm
>
>
By the way:
Not Found
The requested URL /books/bulgakov.htm was not found on this server.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache/1.3.37 Server at typikon.ru Port 80
Try:
http://www.orthodox.net/ustav/index.html
Bulgakov had a few strange ideas. But perhaps you would be an
appropriate person to write on these? Perhaps it would be good to read
Bulgakov in the edited edition?:
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/orthodox_church_s_bulgakov.htm
Other liturgical links: http://www.noeticspace.com/links.htm
athair ambrois
>
> Bulgakov had a few strange ideas. But perhaps you would be an
> appropriate person to write on these? Perhaps it would be good to read
> Bulgakov in the edited edition?:
>
I have never equated the Sergey Bulgakov of Paris with the Bulgakov of
the "Handbook for Clergy." Are they the same person?
athair ambrois
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
nick cobb
the RC church. The Episcopal Church is man-made and doesn't really have
apostolic succession. It's a Protestant church.
> "Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
++
Steve Hayes wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:01:48 -0500, ++ <sp...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>2. By communing in two churches, one heretical, they publically
>>invalidate what we believe in, i.e. the Creed.
>>
>>
>
>Do you have any evidence that he did that?
>
>
Who particularly are you talking about? One individual I was thinking
about is now Orthodox, so it no longer pertains. It only pertains when
he publically suggests, in the listening of possible converts, that he
was allowed to take communion by this or that cleric at this or that place
>
>
>
athair ambrois
> >The download site for the Bulgakov book is http://www.typikon.ru/books/bulgakov.htm
> >>
> By the way:
>
> Not Found
>
> The requested URL /books/bulgakov.htm was not found on this server.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apologies. It has the wrong suffix for the URL
It ought to be
http://www.typikon.ru/books/bulgakov.djvu
If you do not have DJVU (Deja-Vu) you can download a free DJVU Reader
at:
http://www.lizardtech.com/download/dl_options.php?page=plugins
athair ambrois
> The sacraments of the Episcopal Church are not recognized as those of
> the RC church. The Episcopal Church is man-made and doesn't really have
> apostolic succession. It's a Protestant church.
I would agree with you, but all the same...
"The validity of the Anglican hierarchy was not recognized by
Metropolitan Philaret [Drozdov], nor was it rejected. In this question
he found himself forced to be "settling between rejection and
acceptance, in unresolved doubt," and therefore he suggested to
perform over converting members of the Anglican clergy a conditional
ordination [using the formula] "if he is not ordained. . ." (see for
more information 'Orthodox Observer', 1866, II, pp. 85-94).
"Our contemporary researcher of the given question, Professor V. A.
Sokoloff, considering that the Apostolic Succession of the Anglican
Church is proven, recognizes also the Anglican rite of Ordination as
satisfying the requirements of the Orthodox Church, and the dogmatic
errors of the Anglicans as being such that they do not destroy the
unquestionable grace-filled power of ordinations performed in the
Anglican Church, as a result of which these ordinations, in the view
of the Orthodox Church, may be recognized as valid."
(See Bulgakov, p. 1027)
And see the essay by Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky
"Why Anglican Clergy Could Be Received in Their Orders."
http://anglicanhistory.org/orthodoxy/khrapovitsky_orders1927.html
Steve Hayes
Your comment impied that Fr Lev Gillet received communion in other churches
after he became Orthodox. I was asking if you had any evidence that he had
done so.
++
athair ambrois wrote:
Aha, maybe they are two? There is the Bulgakov who has written the
typika for various services. And I thought he died in Paris in the
40s? One was supposed to be careful of his theology. But I can't
remember quite why? Some kind of tension between two strains of thought
in theology, with Florovsky on one side and Bulgakov on the other, two
popular schools of thought. I am doing huge downloads of music so I
can't read articles. If I wait patiently, either my mind will start
working again or I will be able to look it up online......Still can't
but it had something to do with his construction of almost a being, sort
of a Madame Sophia out of the concept of Holy Wisdom. and, as I said,
you are in a better position than I, one would presume, to comment on
that convoluted theology. Now, I cannot ascertain he was or was not the
19th century compiler of the typika which is just prior to or around the
turn of the 20th century? Aha, she comes in:
General life: http://orthodoxwiki.org/Sergius_Bulgakov
Still nothing about his or another Bulgakov's typikon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Bulgakov
Still nothing about the typik, plenty about ties to Florenski and Soloviev
On sophiology, and his popularity, check this out:
http://www.geocities.com/sbulgakovsociety/
http://www.vehi.net/bulgakov/index.html doesn't mention
Still, I think it is the same person. OK, searching for the book itself
when I really ought go to sleep, lotta work tomorrow to accomplish. Hwo
would google transliterate the Nastolnaja Kniga? Has to be at least one
antiquarian online selling a copy or a copy of a copy:
Paydirt: Nastol'naja kniga dlja svjascenno-cerkovno-sluzitelej:
(sbornik svedenij, kasajuscichsja preimuscestvenno prakticeskoj
dejatel'nosti otecestvennago duchovenstva)
Bulgakov, Sergej V.
2. izd., ispravlennoe i dopolnennoe, photomech. Nachdr. d. Ausg.
Char'kov 1900. Graz. Akad. Dr.-u. Verl.-Anst.. 1985 ca.. 12, II, 1272 S..
Now, did he publish the service book when he was only 29? Well, i think
he published his disputations on Marxism in 1903, so.....
Still inconclusive, eh? But I think so, yes
++
athair ambrois wrote:
>
>
>Apologies. It has the wrong suffix for the URL
>
>It ought to be
>
>http://www.typikon.ru/books/bulgakov.djvu
>
>If you do not have DJVU (Deja-Vu) you can download a free DJVU Reader
>at:
>http://www.lizardtech.com/download/dl_options.php?page=plugins
>
>
Whatever is a djvu reader and why should I have one?
>
>
>
>
>
>
++
Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>
>Your comment impied that Fr Lev Gillet received communion in other churches
>after he became Orthodox. I was asking if you had any evidence that he had
>done so.
>
>
I have no idea of Faither Gillet, indeed I did not even know that he had
been found to be the "Monk of the Eastern Church" with whom we are all
familiar. I was talking about the prevarication between two churches
that was quoted as Father Gillet's in a work of his I have not read in a
posting to which I responded, as an ATTITUDE that is a killer in our
churches, approaching the modern "I'm ok, you're OK" philosophy. This
is how the kuma (Yearly godmother) of a parish ends up being a Roman
Catholic (although the kum, her husband, is Orthodox). This is how the
treasurer of another parish hasn't taken communion in twenty odd years
for fear she might "catch something" from the Body and Blood of our Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ. This is how Orthodoxy ends up getting
denigrated into protestant pablum
In case anyone else should get the wrong idea form those particular
response posts, I'll remove them. But they should have been obvious and
the ATTITUDE bears constant discussion. Beats the constant stream of ad
hominems around here.
>
>
>
athair ambrois
>
> >http://www.typikon.ru/books/bulgakov.djvu
>
> >If you do not have DJVU (Deja-Vu) you can download a free DJVU Reader
> >at:
> >http://www.lizardtech.com/download/dl_options.php?page=plugins
>
> Whatever is a djvu reader and why should I have one?
athair ambrois
> Aha, maybe they are two? There is the Bulgakov who has written the
> typika for various services. And I thought he died in Paris in the
> 40s? One was supposed to be careful of his theology. But I can't
> remember quite why?
Bulgakov's teaching (Sophianism) brought him the quite unique
distinction of
being condemned by both the Moscow Patriarchate and by the Russian
Orthodox
Church Abroad!
1) A decree of Moscow Patriarchate dated 24 August, 1935, No.93.
In this document the following is said: "By our decision of 24 August,
1935, No.93 it was determined:
i) The teaching of Professor and Archpriest S.N. Bulgakov -- which, by
its peculiar and arbitrary (Sophian) interpretation, often distorts
the dogmas of the Orthodox faith, which in some of its points directly
repeats false teachings already condemned by conciliar decisions of
the Church, and the possible deductions resulting from which could
even prove dangerous to spiritual life -- this teaching is to be
recognized as alien to the Holy Orthodox Church of Christ, and all its
faithful servants and children are to be cautioned against an
acceptance of this teaching.
ii) Those Orthodox Reverend Archpastors, clergy and laity who have
indiscreetly embraced Bulgakov's teaching and who have promoted it in
their preaching and works, either written or printed, are to be called
upon to correct the errors committed and to be steadfastly faithful to
"sound teaching".
2) A Decision of the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church
Abroad of the 17/30 October 1935 concerning the new teaching of
Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov on Sophia, the Wisdom of God.
The first three points of this Decision state:
"i) To recognize the teaching of Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov on Sophia
the Wisdom of God as heretical.
ii) To inform Metropolitan Evlogy of this Decision of the Council and
to request that he admonish Archpriest Bulgakov with the intention of
prompting him to publicly renounce his heretical teaching concerning
Sophia and to make a report about the consequences of such admonition
to the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.
iii) In the event that Archpriest Bulgakov does not repent, the
present Decision of the Council which condemns the heresy of
Sophianism is to be made known to all Autocephalous Churches."
Among the works refuting the heresy of Sophianism one must first of
all mention the works of St. John (Maximovitch) [149] and Archbishop
Seraphim (Sobolev's) book "A New Teaching concerning Sophia the Wisdom
of God", Sofia, 1935. This is "the most significant critical work of
Archbishop Seraphim on Sophiology in the 20-th century, -- with regard
to both its volume (525 pages) and its content (Theological Works, 27,
M., p. 61).
Apart from this book the ever-memorable Archbishop Seraphim devoted
yet another work dedicated to this problem -- "The Defense by
Archpriest S. Bulgakov of the Heresy of Sophianism in the Face of Its
Condemnation by the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church
Abroad", Sofia, 1937.
The above mentioned works, written in a patristic spirit completely
demolish the Sophianist heresy of Bulgakov and Florensky.
The decision of the Bishops' Council of the Russian Orthodox Church
Abroad which condemned the false teaching of Archpriest S. Bulgakov
was founded on a most serious theological analysis made by Archbishops
John (Maximovitch) and Seraphim (Sobolev). For this reason the claim
made by Sophianists that those Bishops who have declared Bulgakov to
be a heretic allegedly did not read his works, is a flimsy lie.
(Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, No.12, p.31) [150].
Olympiada
and laity by seminary presses that mentions Bulgakov is invalid? I
know of one archpastor who apparently thinks that way. Does this mean
that those Orthodox laity who read that writing are going to fall into
error? Is that what is assumed?
athair ambrois
> So does this mean that all the published writing of Orthodox clergy
> and laity by seminary presses that mentions Bulgakov is invalid? I
> know of one archpastor who apparently thinks that way. Does this mean
> that those Orthodox laity who read that writing are going to fall into
> error? Is that what is assumed?-
Well, no, since that time there has been a reassessment of Bulgakov
and the modern wisdom seems to be that his teaching on Sophia is a
huge worry but not as bad as first thought. Afraid I cannot refer you
to any sources for this... we'll have to look around. Personally I
stir clear of it... it's gives me a headache -which I also get when I
read Rudolph Steiner.
Olympiada
Thanks Your Venerableness, I am actually not that interested in that
part, the sophiology part . I believe his name came up in the book
that Fr. Michael sent me, The Ages of the Spiritual Life. I may post
that quote. That book, Ages of the Spiritual Life, is very
challenging. Have you ever read it? There is an older version of it
online, if you are interested.
It is interesting you should mention Rudolf Steiner. There is quite a
lot of connection between him and some clergy and their children in my
religious organization. That is something I am going to exercise
extreme discretion about and only discuss with you in confidential
email, if you are interested. Its part of what I need to sort out
about my Orthodox formation in SF. I also got exposed to his thought
prior to my conversion, going as far back as high school, when I was
investigating alternative forms of education on my own, as an academic
area of interest.
athair ambrois
> It is interesting you should mention Rudolf Steiner. There is quite a
> lot of connection between him and some clergy and their children in my
> religious organization. That is something I am going to exercise
> extreme discretion about and only discuss with you in confidential
> email, if you are interested. Its part of what I need to sort out
> about my Orthodox formation in SF. I also got exposed to his thought
> prior to my conversion, going as far back as high school, when I was
> investigating alternative forms of education on my own, as an academic
> area of interest.
<groan> My brother and sister-in-law were two of the "leading lights"
of Anthroposphy in this country and ran one its major centres. (The
movement attracted the Russian intelligentsia before the Revolution
and even made its way into the clergy.) When she converted to
Pentecostalism (a major surprise) she took their extensive
anthrosophical library, probably the best in the country, and
consigned it all to a bonfire one day!
athair ambrois
> It is interesting you should mention Rudolf Steiner. There is quite a
> lot of connection between him and some clergy and their children in my
> religious organization.
My two nephews were homeschooled by anthroposophical/Steiner methods
and, thank God, they have turned out just fine.
But there are Australian studies I have read which document the
devastation wrought on students from Steiner schools when it comes
time to encounter the real world as teenagers. Many cannot cope and
turn to alcohol and substance abuse or simply cannot make any progress
in life. I would never recommend any parent to enrol their children
in such schools. There can be a price to pay when they leave school.
Olympiada
Wow. That is very interesting Your Venerableness. Thank you very much
for sharing. I have been thinking about throwing all my art and
writing from my past into a bonfire myself. I have done that in the
past... (As an aside). I have to say, I do find the Waldford method of
education interesting, I got to use it for one year in my former
professional life, although now I despise the arrogant elitism it
spawns in its progeny, at least those who come from a background of
privilege already and somehow think they are better than the rest of
society. I am all for public school education now. In fact, I think
all children should be compelled to go to public school, that
education should be equal for all. I have been critical of the texts
and the syllabuses of AP courses in high school, elite public high
schools in general, expensive private universities, for starters.
I am going to exercise discretion about my further views regarding
that in public as well, since I want to make sure what I say remains
appropriate and its off subject to this newsgroup, save for the
connection between the Eastern Orthodox and Rudolf Steiner. That we
can discuss to our heart's content, but I need to go to sleep.
I just started reading an excellent new book tonight, Empire Falls by
Richard Russo. The prologue is excellent, and I'd like to finish it
before I fall asleep. I was reading it in between moves while playing
Battleship and Checkers with my daughter. That was challenging.
Olympiada
Yes! Unfortunately the people I know that were educated under Waldorf
methods or in Waldorf schools are horrendous snobs and I despise that.
I hate arrogant elitists who think they are better than the rest of
the population, I resent this.
You have a fascinating family, Your Venerableness, and I really do
thank you for sharing about them in public. I hope you too write your
memoirs one day. They would be very interesting to read. You still
have not told us much about your father, and it sounds like you came
from a large Irish Catholic family?
Perhaps you could instruct these people in ethnic Catholicism as well?
They don't seem to get it. I am quite sure that Irish Catholicism is
distinct from Roman (as in Rome) Catholicism, yes?
I really must retire for the evening, but I do look forward to your
reply in the morning, if you have time. My morning of course, I still
haven't memorized our time difference yet.
Orthodox News
result of schism) of RCism, not Luther's reformation. It probably has more
valid orders than any protestant denomination.
***There was a time whern St. Patriarch Tikhon recognized Anglican
xsacraments as valid.
"nick cobb" <ni...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:0Ohfj.3941$lo5....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
nick cobb
as valid within the Orthodox Church. Receiving of all people, clergy and
laymen, are via Chrismation.
Orthodox News
"nick cobb" <ni...@cris.com> wrote in message
news:jMrfj.36167$Pv2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
nick cobb
The Russian tradition is reception of RC's via confession of faith and
Holy Communion. The Greek tradition is the reception of RC's via
chrismation. When in doubt, chrismate!
Orthodox News
be nice for any length of time, isn't it?
"nick cobb" <ni...@cris.com> wrote in message
news:9nsfj.86061$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Orthodox News
Russian Churh parish in Hackettstown, NJ, she was chrismated.
"nick cobb" <ni...@cris.com> wrote in message
news:9nsfj.86061$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
nick cobb
it's a matter of education.
One of the primary problems in the Orthodox Church in the past AND
TODAY, is the lack of solid Orthodox theological education. Most all the
problems with the Orthodox Church stems from this. No cleric and
especially no bishop should be uneducated. Sunday school type education
is just not acceptable today and theological education from other
denominations is lacking. Extensive book reading is not a substitute for
solid Orthodox theological education. Some of the stuff we see being
pulled in Alaska and elsewhere is a result of this.
nick cobb
Orthodox News
"nick cobb" <ni...@cris.com> wrote in message
news:rZsfj.86065$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
++
athair ambrois wrote:
Hmm, it reduces things. Nice for websites, maybe, but perhaps few
people have the utility? Anything that reduces the use of Adobe Pdfs....
++
athair ambrois wrote:
lol, lol
++
athair ambrois wrote:
I actually think Steiner school quite nice for the younger students.
They teach boys and girls to knit at a young age, which helps their
eye/hand coordination, they teach listening skills, not bad for anyone,
and they don't introduce reading until the age of eight. Studies have
shown that by that age, children who learned to read at , say, five or
six or seven and eight when mixed together in a classroom all attain the
same levels of comprehension rather quickly. Of course, that does not
account for troublesome children such as I was . Our maid taught me to
read at 3 to keep me out of trouble and to stop the persistent
questioning.
++
nick cobb wrote:
> When in DOUBT, Chrismate! (Maybe her baptism was questionable)
Nick,
It is even common today to chrismate protestants of any persuasion. The
rule used to be in a few parishes I attended, that if baptized in the
name of the Holy Trinity, then chrismate, if not, then rebaptize and
chrismate.
djm
>
> Dan wrote:
> >
> > Many years ago, I read several books whose author was identified only
> > as "a monk of the Eastern Church". I later learned that the author was
> > a strange individual, an RC priest who was "received" into the
> > Orthodox by Met. Evlogy, not by baptism or chrismation, but by the
> > simple act of concelebrating the liturgy with him. For the rest of his
> > life, Fr. Lev let it be known that he considered himself a "dual
> > citizen" as it were, of both Churches.
>
> I have 6 or 7 books from him here, and his Gospel meditations are all but really deep and touching
I'm surprised this explanation had no reaction...
Dan
<ky...@mynachdysantelias.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
---snip---
> Perhaps more relevant is this quote from the same article: 'A Westerner
> always, he nevertheless was surely a priest and "monk of the Eastern
> Church." ' Also note his critique of the comments from Helle Georgiadis.
>
> Archimandrite Kyril Jenner
My impression was that he was trying to put as "positive a spin" as
possible on the events of Fr. Lev's life; but he did at least try to
present all the facts.
Others have been less delicate:
"Without denying his significant literary contribution to Orthodoxy in
this century, we must point out that Father Lev was never, strictly
speaking, Orthodox, except in name. Metropolitan Evlogy of Paris, a
notorious modernist and ecumenist, received him into Orthodoxy in a
most unusual way: by concelebration--no vesting, no renunciation of
heresies, no Chrismation: nothing. Moreover, one need read only a few
of his writings to realize that Father Lev never truly converted to
Orthodoxy. Throughout his life, he considered himself to belong to
both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, in some
mysterious way--although at times he would say that "the light shines
brighter in the Eastern Church." We do not wish to condemn Father Lev,
who by all accounts lived a life of great poverty and simplicity and
who was a sympathetic spiritual Father to many people; nor do we in
any way impugn the uprightness of his intentions. However, we feel it
necessary to indicate "the source of the profound and extensive errors
in [the] theological outlook" of a man who was, quite manifestly,
"neither Orthodox in his ecclesiology nor traditional in his personal
spiritual life" (Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIII, No. 1 [1996], p.
31).
Dan
I agree, although I did notice some "dissonances" in his book on
"Orthodox Spirituality".
> I was received on the base of Canon 95 of 6th Ecumenical Councile, althought I estimated that the bishop accepting me that way was going really too
> far in "oikonomia," I accepted, certainly because I know that the Church can perfect and accomplish anything imperfectly done in the "preparatio
> evangelica" undergone in a group calling itself Christian while remaining openly and actively outside of the One Church..
>
> > Anyway, recently, at the urging of a Jewish friend, I read another of
> > Fr. Lev's books, this one entitled "Communion in the Messiah", which
> > presented itself as an attempt to encourage Jewish-Christian dialogue.
> > It included an astonishingly selective recounting of the history of
> > the Church and Synagogue which, taken at face value, would suggest
> > that Christians have been solely responsible for any and all frictions
> > between themselves and Jews for the past 2000 years. This supposed
> > "Orthodox monk" seems, for example, to regard St. John Chrysostom as
> > an evil antisemite without any redeeming features whatsoever. He
> > trashes the Septuagint but reveres the Talmud and is at pains to
> > suggest that there is no Christian insight which may not also be found
> > in Rabbinic Judaism.
>
> I haven't read that book
>
> now I have here and I have read (not the same :-) the book of fr. George C. Papademetriou
> "essays on Orthodox Christian - Jewish relations"
> isnb I-55605-164-6 paperback
> isbn 1-55605-165-4 clothback (my sample)
> 1990, Wyndham Hall Press, PO Box 877, Bristol, Indiana, 46507, USA
>
> it is _GREAT_ in many aspect, althought I don't follow him in all points (unlike in his essay on saint Photios, more than great)
>
> fr. George comes with a brilliant point, enlightening the problem of fr. Lev Gillet : translations.
>
> I _OFTEN_ tempest about the lack of garanteed Orthodox translations. In English, it's a real hell to have a truly Orthodox translation of anything. In
> English, lots of translations are even not done on critical editions, just because of "pragmatism," something definitely deadly in matter of Faith, as eternal
> life is the issue.
> In French, we have _some_, very little garanteed Orthodox translations done on garanteed official manuscripts.
>
> back to the book
>
> fr. George goes on with the issue of saint John Chrysostom and its translators in the West : they _ALL_ mistranslate saint John's words. And fr. George
> gives (of course!) the examples and reasons of misunderstandings on saint John Chrysostom's standpoint on the Jews. To make it short, as it is better to
> read fr. George's book than my mean explanations, the translators missed all up the fact saint John goes about former Christians who apostasied and
> became Proselyts (or Jews for some?) by worldly choices, and now attacked the Church. To go to the ground of the problem, "Bird" posted here a link
> to dr. Marcus' study on the influence of saint John Chrysostom in the FALLEN West. Great. It doesn't speak lots of the heretics reading saint John's
> works in Greek..... and here we are... what the Church Fathers, both East and West, said, is
> 1) mostly always perverted by the official translators, following the "orthodoxy" of their group (be it vatican or protestant or anglican or whatever)
>
> or
>
> 2) don't understand Greek the way they should before trying a scholar translation to be used by their group
>
> so they all made saint John appearing like an ugly Antisemit, while in fact, it's them, the translators, who are the uggly ones..
>
> for the Talmud instead of the LXX, they could be some reasons, indeed. The Byzantine NT, if taken in samples before the 6th century, could be ok, but
> after? We just have to compare with the big full manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus, and discripancies are numerous. With saint Jerome's Vulgate, we have
> error of translations due to ignorance. With the Greek compilers from the "decadency centuries" (6-7th century) who prepared the drama's of
> iconoclasm, we have errors done by the will of putting their ideas, their theology (neo-platonistic) in the text. This point being "imho"
> In the Talmud, for the patient reader (it's huge and often borying), you can find pearls helping to discover much more pearls in the Gospel. Totally
> undiscoverable by the simple use of Greek, cos' it was not originally done in Greek. Same with Old Testament.
>
> > I was wondering whether anyone else here had read the book and what
> > they thought of it.
>
> well, I have also Easter catechesis of fr. Lev, and honnestly, it's not the worst I have seen in Eastern Orthodoxy in French...
>
> pax tecum
>
> Jean-Michel
Thanks, JM, for the pointer to Fr. George's books and for your
illuminating comments!
++
djm wrote:
I reacted. I ended up removing my posts over the reaction to my
reaction. Basically, paraphrasing myself, I suggested that the
_attitude_ of belonging to two churches is similar to the prevarication
that I personally feel is ruinous to churches whether it results in
catechumens of ten or more years or other fixtures in our parishes,
sometimes even taking over our parishes, that HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO
CONVERT, that is, they have CHOSEN NOT TO BE ORTHODOX. I think this is
a problem of huge proportions because it promotes an atmosphere, if not
tacit statements that Orthodoxy does not matter as much as some other
faith, or that Orthodoxy is one of a buncha equal things you can do with
your time, that the tenets of Orthodoxy are kinda sorta only for a few
but not for everybody, or that there are people who can consider
themselves, in a way, outside the law. How can Orthodoxy continue with
such attitudes.
Separate topic: In terms of Fr. Lev, who I only knew as did many others
as "a monk of the Eastern Church", we have only Dan's statement that he
was purported not to have fully converted. If he was a monk in an
Orthodox monastery but a Roman Catholic otherwise, it puts light on his
use of the word "Eastern" in his anonymatizing title. We have our
similar experience on this newsgroup with an individual who kept
webpages devoted to "the Romance of Orthodoxy" and called himself
"Seraphim" who I am guilty of outing in two ways, the usual way of
outing, and to show evidence that he had renounced his conversion to
Orthodoxy to not only become Roman Catholic once again, but to have
joined some kind of Jesuit pact to work to convert Orthodox to Roman
Catholicism by stealth. Seraphim had many good qualities, not the least
his love for Orthodox hymnography and certain Orthodox authors, but
other aspects were not so nice, all connected essentially with lying.
He admitted all that, but he was someone with whom one had to be
careful. Not being terribly well read in Father Gillet's works, and
having read none of the problematic ones, I cannot comment on him, but
the attitude that it is ok to play around with Orthodoxy (similar to a
bunch of tourists visiting a liturgy and clapping inside a nave as if
our liturgies were performances) is abhorant and something for which we
ought to show great caution. It is up to each and every one of us to
keep the Faith. How much do we care? How much are we preserving? Are
we preserving one another by showing love and kindness?
>
>
++
Dan wrote:
This is why I keep suggesting that people take a look at translations
done by those who had thological training, like Fan Noli's translation
of the New Testament and soem services in English. And we ought, when
disputing, put up the Greek or whatever texts. I have found of late a
tendency of some Orthodox not to trust slavonic texts, which should be
considered early enough from some manuscripts. And let us remember some
of the great translation work done in the 17-19th centuries in other
languages than into English.
>> In English, it's a real hell to have a truly Orthodox translation of anything.
>>
We should perhaps be putting together a corpus of Orthodox translations
and be clear or at least suggestive about any biases or weaknesses.
You are right to keep pointing out that we should not accept
translations wholesale.
>> In
>>English, lots of translations are even not done on critical editions, just because of "pragmatism," something definitely deadly in matter of Faith, as eternal
>>life is the issue.
>>In French, we have _some_, very little garanteed Orthodox translations done on garanteed official manuscripts.
>>
>>
Well, has anyone even done a critical examination of Migne?
>>back to the book
>>
>>fr. George goes on with the issue of saint John Chrysostom and its translators in the West : they _ALL_ mistranslate saint John's words. And fr. George
>>gives (of course!) the examples and reasons of misunderstandings on saint John Chrysostom's standpoint on the Jews. To make it short, as it is better to
>>read fr. George's book than my mean explanations, the translators missed all up the fact saint John goes about former Christians who apostasied and
>>became Proselyts (or Jews for some?) by worldly choices, and now attacked the Church. To go to the ground of the problem, "Bird" posted here a link
>>
>>
I think it was "Brid", short for Bridget. "Bird", i.e. Charles (or his
wife one was never quite sure but they are both wonderful people), has
not posted here in quite a while.
athair ambrois
>
> Others have been less delicate:
>
> "Without denying his significant literary contribution to Orthodoxy in
> this century, we must point out that Father Lev was never, strictly
> speaking, Orthodox, except in name. Metropolitan Evlogy of Paris, a
> notorious modernist and ecumenist, received him into Orthodoxy in a
> most unusual way: by concelebration--no vesting, no renunciation of
> heresies, no Chrismation: nothing.
Hiw can the wise old men of Etna be so ignorant of what was Russian
practice for hundreds of years as regards receiving Roman Catholic
clergy, and still is today.
Metropolitan Evloghy received this RC priest as all his Russian
episcopal predecessors had always received Catholic priests. My
appreciation of the scholarship of the Etna people has taken a major
dip!
athair ambrois
>
> "Without denying his significant literary contribution to Orthodoxy in
> this century, we must point out that Father Lev was never, strictly
> speaking, Orthodox, except in name.
It woyuld be interesting to see the Etna monks write their assessment
of Fr Seraphim Rose. Does anybody know if that is available?
djm
>
> >>I _OFTEN_ tempest about the lack of garanteed Orthodox translations.
> >>
>
> This is why I keep suggesting that people take a look at translations
> done by those who had thological training, like Fan Noli's translation
> of the New Testament and soem services in English. And we ought, when
> disputing, put up the Greek or whatever texts. I have found of late a
> tendency of some Orthodox not to trust slavonic texts, which should be
> considered early enough from some manuscripts. And let us remember some
> of the great translation work done in the 17-19th centuries in other
> languages than into English.
even in the French so-called "patristic revival" of 17-18th century, one has to be more than careful. It is a pure marvel to rediscover some texts that are
unknown to most Orthodox even today. But on the other hand, on what did they their translations and with which goal? Their purpose was not clearly
to rediscover the roots of Faith. So even with them...
> >> In English, it's a real hell to have a truly Orthodox translation of anything.
> >>
>
> We should perhaps be putting together a corpus of Orthodox translations
> and be clear or at least suggestive about any biases or weaknesses.
I once had a really hard talk with AWRV people. The issue was the KJV Bible, same as that for Rocor WR parishes btw, and Rocor people standed in line
with AWRV. I dared to ask which Orthodox Councile had examined that protestant translation and cleaned it up of errors before putting it for use by the
people of God. It was taken like a blasphemy, calling KJV a "protestant work," as for most of them, being not roman-catholic means being Orthodox...
At the end, one deacon of AWRV replied to me as last ressort that "KJV is 98% accurate." I asked not to know from where he got that number (no
Orthodox Councile having checked it, the answer couldn't be correct anyway!!) but well about the 2% inaccuracies, to know on which points they were.
Cos' for instance in the very Vulgate of saint Jerome, we find some roots of future errors in the West, in the very text. As soon as the text of Vulgate is
placed away from the patristic Tradition, some of his interpretations of the Greek & Hebrew texts are leading straight to theological errors and even
heresies. KJV being, imho, based on "Clementine" version of Vulgate (worse than original!), taking it "as is" can't be but an error. We have of course the
same problem in French, and I told them about but no way, KJV is "sacred" for them.
The first problem with translations lies in the Orthodox themselves - for slavonic too : tradition means transmitted from earlier generations, going back to
the very source of Truth, Christ. Most make big confusion with "little traditions", all of them going back only a few generations before them. And even if
going back 1 millenium before, if it's not truly apostolic, what's the value of it? Can but be a source of division. Only in Christ do we find unity.
> You are right to keep pointing out that we should not accept
> >>In French, we have _some_, very little garanteed Orthodox translations done on garanteed official manuscripts.
> >>
> >>
>
> Well, has anyone even done a critical examination of Migne?
German roman-catholics & protestant scholars from end of 19th century onward, but no Orthodox as far as I know.
I had a big discussion with an archimandrite here, who was going to an RCC benedictine abbey (but refuse to be in touch with Orthodox Benedictines of
course..) to get copies of Bollandists, for translating "Western Orthodox saints"
I ended up giving him a copy of the full collection to avoid him that bad relationship :-))
but I couldn't have him understanding that a Latin version of 16th century pretending to be a reproduction of an 8th century text could not be used
inside the Church unless he had personnaly been checking with at least a photocopy of the original preserved in a secular museum. I say "at least a
photocopy" cos' for serious paleography, he ought to check it the text is not a post-rewrited version on the original.
I have seen a recent example, the Trinitarian Confession of saint Martin of Tours. I haven't seen it in the Vita, and it's only presented by 16th c. RCC
people. In a so sensitive theological domain as Trinitarian doctrine, what can an Orthodox get to learn from vatican? Heresies! They have not hesitated
one second to falsify the Bible. So, honnestly, would they hesitate to falsify Church Fathers / Mothers writings? I don't think so. Thus, taking a document
from them, the way AWRV, WR Rocor, and ER seminaries are doing, like I see in English & French, is dangerous. We make errors entering the holy Church
of Christ. And those not sticking to the errors will be seen as "in error" by those accepting it "because it comes from the Fathers." 0ne drip of deadly
poison in a big basket of pure water suffice to render it fully dangerous.
ok, let's go, I have translations to end up before leaving for friends & family
have a really blessed day, all of you (yes, Al' & Peter, I wish it also to both of you)
Jean-Michel
djm
>
> reaction. Basically, paraphrasing myself, I suggested that the
> _attitude_ of belonging to two churches is similar to the prevarication
> that I personally feel is ruinous to churches whether it results in
> catechumens of ten or more years or other fixtures in our parishes,
> sometimes even taking over our parishes, that HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO
> CONVERT, that is, they have CHOSEN NOT TO BE ORTHODOX. I think this is
I think that Orthodoxy is a way, not an end
so we should put the writings & actions of fr. Lev in historical perspective
I don't think he was still considering himself as a "bridge" between the two after having served as chaplain to saint mother Maria Skobtsova's church at the
wake of WWII : he could not ignore the difference between those ministering the poors, truly and by love of Christ, and those serving the damned Pius 12..
jm
Dan
In carrying out such receptions, was it also customary to omit any
renunciation, however mild?
djm
>
>
> In carrying out such receptions, was it also customary to omit any
> renunciation, however mild?
theorically, the Confession of Faith, as provided by Canon 95 of 6th Ecumenical Councile, suffices in some cases.
Having myself been received that way, after lots of talks on the whys, I assumed that unlike some Greeks, Russians bishops in some way looks first to the
Faith of the candidate, not to his origin and on the why he is not born craddle Orthodox. I can accept that idea. After all, I know loooots of craddle
Orthodox who are less Christian than the average Evangelicals polluting our streets believe themselves are.
The danger of this very large extension of oikonomia lies in the habit of using it widely. To take a recent example in France, if Serbians had been allowed by
their fellows in the bishop's organisation in France to receive that way "in group" the former ECOF people assembled in the UACORO group, they would have
received alltogether some very great Orthodox people and some definitely convinced pro-vatican. The examination of the Faith of the candidate should come
first, before looking where he comes from, imho. And the proclaiming of the Faith Symbol, the Creed, by the candidate, in public, is for me a form of formal
renunciation to errors of the past way. In that sense, fr. Lev has officially renunced, as he had to proclaim the Faith Symbol together with the bishop & the
assembly, and the right one. All this being my opinion, not much.
bon, I'm tired, hard day, good translations ready for tomorow's Feast so anyone missing it can follow the texts & catechesis from at home, I may now serve
me a good Greek "cognac" (it's made of wine :-))) and have a good night...
jm
ao
ao
Fr Seraphim Rose. Shall I post the link?
nick cobb
character, but his theology was all over the place. He had so much
exposure to Buddhism and many other philosophies that it influenced his
"Orthodox Thought." He was a pious monastic who influenced many
converts, but there are many dangers in his writings.
Olympiada
> It was good that Rose became Orthodox and he was a charismatic
> character, but his theology was all over the place. He had so much
> exposure to Buddhism and many other philosophies that it influenced his
> "Orthodox Thought." He was a pious monastic who influenced many
> converts, but there are many dangers in his writings.
>
orientation. I think I will get that link, now that I have a new
bishop... Meaning to say I don't think my new bishop will
excommunicate me for publishing that link. My old bishop? Who knows,
he adores Fr. Seraphim Rose, at least based on his writing on the
Orthodox list, my old bishop's. I almost became a Buddhist as a
teenager, although now I am not sure if there is some formal
initiation ceremony like there is in Christianity. Maybe I did become
a Buddhist and still am one, after all, I am orthodoxbuddha. Anyways,
I am going to ask my Buddhist friends about that initiation thing. I
just was given the name of a Korean Buddhist writer and I am at the
library so I am going to see if some of his books are here. In the
meantime I am going to read a book by Sue Monk Kidd that my aunt sent
me for my birthday last year and that I opened for Christmas last
year, "The Dance of the Dissident Daughter".
Our former cathedral rector was a dissident, our former bishop said so
on his list or on the Orthodox list, so I don't see why I can't be one
myself.
Dan
Thank you jm. It would seem that I must bear in mind that the events
of Fr. Lev"s life occurred in an era when such broad exercises of
oikonomia were less risky than they are now.
BTW, I had no idea that there was such a thing as Greek cognac.
Personally, I think I'll stick with Remi Martin. :-)
++
nick cobb wrote:
> It was good that Rose became Orthodox and he was a charismatic
> character, but his theology was all over the place. He had so much
> exposure to Buddhism and many other philosophies that it influenced
> his "Orthodox Thought." He was a pious monastic who influenced many
> converts, but there are many dangers in his writings.
And there is much good in Seraphim Rose's writing as well. Whatever his
exposures, mostly on his own to Daoism and other eastern meditative
religions, he chose Orthodoxy, championed Orthodoxy, worked hard on
translations and articles for Orthodox publications, thought carefully
about his own tendencies, and struggled hard against homosexual
tendencies to direct his mind to Christ and His Holy Church. He may end
up being our first gay saint for all his work and struggle, to which
many have attested and many still do attest.
He worked hard for his own purity and worked hard to maintain the
fullness and purity of our Church.
nick cobb
Heaven and this is something which God decides. If God wishes, this will
be revealed.
++ wrote:
>... He may end
++
nick cobb wrote:
> I don't think so. Although, a saint is anyone who is in the Kingdom of
> Heaven and this is something which God decides. If God wishes, this
> will be revealed.
>
>
> ++ wrote:
>
>> ... He may
>
note word may
>> end
>> up being our first gay saint for all his work and struggle, to which
>> many have attested and many still do attest.
>
>
Perhaps one word he wrote here or one prayer he uttered there, or the
very strength of one of his struggles while keeping the image of
goodness and purity in his mind will be what causes him to be revealed
R.V. Gronoff
> Seraphim Rose may end
No, I don't think so.
St Photini of the Jordan did that before. She was so "boyish" that her
father used to call her "Little John" and she's said to have gone to the
desert because she couldn't stand living with nuns (other women) in a
community.
Elder Porphyrios also spoke very tenderly (as usual) of those people who
are "boys in their bodies and girls in their hearts" or the other way
and adressed their issues towards a life of simplicity and chastity,
either in the world or in monasteries, helping them to offer both sides
of their personality to the Lord in whom "there can be no male and
female; for [we] all are one man in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).
A confessor from Maldon used to speak of homosexuality as "a spirit in
the air".
++
R.V. Gronoff wrote:
> ++ a écrit :
>
>> Seraphim Rose may end up being our first gay saint
>
>
> No, I don't think so.
> St Photini of the Jordan did that before. She was so "boyish" that her
> father used to call her "Little John" and she's said to have gone to
> the desert because she couldn't stand living with nuns (other women)
> in a community.
She was then androgynous, not gay.
>
> Elder Porphyrios also spoke very tenderly (as usual) of those people
> who are "boys in their bodies and girls in their hearts" or the other
> way and adressed their issues towards a life of simplicity and
> chastity, either in the world or in monasteries, helping them to offer
> both sides of their personality to the Lord in whom "there can be no
> male and female; for [we] all are one man in Christ Jesus" (Galatians
> 3:28).
That should be some consolation to those who are gender challenged among
us.
>
> A confessor from Maldon used to speak of homosexuality as "a spirit in
> the air".
As for Seraphim Rose, I , like many others, I am sure, used to wait with
wonderful expectation for the latest issue of the Orthodox Word that
used to come in the 60s and 70s, amid the many people going completely
crazy with experimentation of various kinds. It was a way of staying
focused, and sometimes came with little icons of this saint or that, or
this way of thinking or that, so it was also useful for reading to
children when they were of contemplative frame of mind. I remember one
long series on the development of monasticism By Paisi Velichkovski. In
the days before the internet, not so many of us were so incredibly well
read. I would translate maybe one life here and one life there from some
reprinted turn of the century volume of Dimitri of Rostov and I had this
unwieldy toe meant for families from Jordanville , Zakon Bozhi (Law of
God). Now there is so much useful.
At a time in which a lot of gay people were "letting it all hang out"
and cruising for momentary thrills, Seraphim Rose was celebrating the
quiet of monasticism and contributing to a great output of Orthodox
knowledge for us.
Quote from the Saint Herman website: /The wealth of the Orthodox
Calendar, with its inspiring commemorations, is so great that on any day
one can begin the holy task which St. Herman gave to us as a testament
to Orthodoxy on this continent—‘From this day, from this hour, from this
minute let us strive to love God above all.’ May every day be for us
such a beginning!”/*-Hieromonk Seraphim Rose*
Orthodox News
occasions that Seraphim Rose's "teachings" were greatly influenced by
Gnosticism.
"nick cobb" <ni...@nospamsnet.net> wrote in message
news:EETfj.3038$pr6...@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
djm
>
> >
>
> Thank you jm. It would seem that I must bear in mind that the events
> of Fr. Lev"s life occurred in an era when such broad exercises of
> oikonomia were less risky than they are now.
I had looong talks yesterday with an RCC friend - thought convinced RCC, it's a friend ;-)
for him, the place where he lives is terrible, and he should take his family away, and so on, you know, he goes to "charismatic communities" and they have
totally stupid ideas. I recounted him the daily life of saint Genevieve in her time, and the life of her correlatives, neighbours, and so on. We should always
remember the context in any situation - for me : in the use of Canon Law, of course. But for others too :-)
> BTW, I had no idea that there was such a thing as Greek cognac.
> Personally, I think I'll stick with Remi Martin. :-)
you'd be surprised to know what I have been drinking night after night in Pireaus harbour cafe's, years ago...
"koniak" (as written with chalk on the dirty wall), served with "pitta" made of full heavy greasy bread and greasy "meat" wrapped in newspaper sheet, the
difference with the fuel we used for our ships was slight.. I did survive, of course :-)
jm
Dan
wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
> > Thank you jm. It would seem that I must bear in mind that the events
> > of Fr. Lev"s life occurred in an era when such broad exercises of
> > oikonomia were less risky than they are now.
>
> I had looong talks yesterday with an RCC friend - thought convinced RCC, it's a friend ;-)
> for him, the place where he lives is terrible, and he should take his family away, and so on, you know, he goes to "charismatic communities" and they have
> totally stupid ideas.
Worse than stupid, I'm afraid. The RC charismatic movement reflects a
tragic intuition on the part of a minority in that body that the RCC
has come very close to eliminating the Holy Spirit from its life and
worship.
> I recounted him the daily life of saint Genevieve in her time, and the life of her correlatives, neighbours, and so on. We should always
> remember the context in any situation - for me : in the use of Canon Law, of course. But for others too :-)
>
> > BTW, I had no idea that there was such a thing as Greek cognac.
> > Personally, I think I'll stick with Remi Martin. :-)
>
> you'd be surprised to know what I have been drinking night after night in Pireaus harbour cafe's, years ago...
>
> "koniak" (as written with chalk on the dirty wall), served with "pitta" made of full heavy greasy bread and greasy "meat" wrapped in newspaper sheet, the
> difference with the fuel we used for our ships was slight.. I did survive, of course :-)
>
> jm
My recollection is that "retsina" was also a bit like drinking
petrol...
djm
>
> On Jan 6, 12:53 pm, djm <enlevezceci.doggys...@etcela.gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Dan wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you jm. It would seem that I must bear in mind that the events
> > > of Fr. Lev"s life occurred in an era when such broad exercises of
> > > oikonomia were less risky than they are now.
> >
> > I had looong talks yesterday with an RCC friend - thought convinced RCC, it's a friend ;-)
> > for him, the place where he lives is terrible, and he should take his family away, and so on, you know, he goes to "charismatic communities" and they
have
> > totally stupid ideas.
>
>
> Worse than stupid, I'm afraid. The RC charismatic movement reflects a
> tragic intuition on the part of a minority in that body that the RCC
> has come very close to eliminating the Holy Spirit from its life and
> worship.
they really did
the official "theology" of their sect is that the Holy Spirit is not a Person per se, but "the movement of love between the Father and the Son"
in some places, they say "Person", but at the same time, they say "movement of love", or simply "love"
having officially replaced God on earth since Innocent III - proclamation of himself being "vicarius Christi", and encyclopeadia teaches anyone that vicarius
in its acceptance of then and in the "theological" acceptance of vatican sect means "the guy that take the place of the Big Boss" - they now lack strictly
all in their sect. All. It's Godless. It's terrible because most don't understand where it leads : to atheism.
> > "koniak" (as written with chalk on the dirty wall), served with "pitta" made of full heavy greasy bread and greasy "meat" wrapped in newspaper
sheet, the
> > difference with the fuel we used for our ships was slight.. I did survive, of course :-)
> >
> > jm
>
> My recollection is that "retsina" was also a bit like drinking
> petrol...
I drink very often retsina wine - the more "rude" it is, the more I like it :-)
writing this, I am having a glass of calvados... "one apple a day keeps the doctor away" do they say? Right, with my "calva", I have taken lots of apples in
my life :-))
jm
Olympiada
Good Lord have mercy, St. Photini the Hermitess was a lesbian? Wonders
never cease. What kind of talk is this? Oh why oh why did I ever
become Orthodox?
Orthodox News
"Olympiada" <olympi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bbb1f3b-1d23-43cb...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
***Maybe you are a subconscious queer!
R.V. Gronoff
Question:
> Oh why oh why did I ever
> become Orthodox?
>
>
Answer:
coyote
> Oh why oh why did I ever
> become Orthodox?
I'm sure the real Orthodox are asking themselves that same question
about you on a regular basis.
--
~coyote
Proud member of the Demon Raddled Horde!
-
Also an "abusive apostate atheist delusional heretical heterodox
mentally-ill proud secular defamer and libeler."
Go, me. ...and in my free time, I actually have a job!