History of Eastern Orthodox Christian theology - Revision history

KJV: /* 20th century */ removed Template:See

2019-02-05T09:26:28Z

20th century: removed Template:See

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:26, 5 February 2019
Line 211:		Line 211:

	==20th century==		==20th century==
	{{see\|Eastern Orthodox theologians of the 20th century}}		see Eastern Orthodox theologians of the 20th century

	John Behr characterizes Orthodox theology as having been "reborn in the twentieth century."<v> Norman Russell describes Orthodox theology as having been dominated by an "arid scholasticism" for several centuries after the fall of Constantinople. Russell describes the postwar re-engagement of modern Greek theologians with the [[Church Fathers\|Greek Fathers]] with the the help of diaspora theologians and Western patristic scholars.<sup>[]</sup> A significant component of this re-engagement with the Greek Fathers has been a rediscovery of Palamas by Greek theologians who had previously been given less attention than the other Fathers.<sup>[]</sup>		John Behr characterizes Orthodox theology as having been "reborn in the twentieth century."<v> Norman Russell describes Orthodox theology as having been dominated by an "arid scholasticism" for several centuries after the fall of Constantinople. Russell describes the postwar re-engagement of modern Greek theologians with the [[Church Fathers\|Greek Fathers]] with the the help of diaspora theologians and Western patristic scholars.<sup>[]</sup> A significant component of this re-engagement with the Greek Fathers has been a rediscovery of Palamas by Greek theologians who had previously been given less attention than the other Fathers.<sup>[]</sup>

Line 258:		Line 259:


	A number of notable Orthodox theologians such as [[John S. Romanides\|John Romanides]] have criticized Meyendorff's understanding of Palamas as flawed. Romanides argued that Meyendorff's entire characterization of Palamas' teachings was erroneous, criticizing what he called Meyendorff's "imaginative theories concerning Palamite monistic prayer and anthropology, and Incarnational and sacramental heart mysticism."{{Citation needed\|date=January 2011}} According to Duncan Reid, the theme of the debate between Meyendorff and Romanides centered on the relationship between nominalism and Palamite theology.<sup>[]</sup> Romanides characterized Meyendorff as engaged in an "obsessed struggle to depict Palamas as an heroic Biblical theologian putting to the sword of Christological Correctives the last remnants of Greek Patristic Platonic Aphophaticism and its supposed linear descendants, the Byzantine Platonic-nominalistic humanists."~~{{Citation needed\|date=December 2010}}~~ Orthodox theologians such as John Romanides, Alexander Golitzin, and Andrew Louth have argued against Meyendorff's interpretation of the works of [[Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite]] and have strenuously asserted the Orthodoxy of the Dionysian corpus.<sup>[]</sup>		A number of notable Orthodox theologians such as [[John S. Romanides\|John Romanides]] have criticized Meyendorff's understanding of Palamas as flawed. Romanides argued that Meyendorff's entire characterization of Palamas' teachings was erroneous, criticizing what he called Meyendorff's "imaginative theories concerning Palamite monistic prayer and anthropology, and Incarnational and sacramental heart mysticism."{{Citation needed\|date=January 2011}} According to Duncan Reid, the theme of the debate between Meyendorff and Romanides centered on the relationship between nominalism and Palamite theology.<sup>[]</sup> Romanides characterized Meyendorff as engaged in an "obsessed struggle to depict Palamas as an heroic Biblical theologian putting to the sword of Christological Correctives the last remnants of Greek Patristic Platonic Aphophaticism and its supposed linear descendants, the Byzantine Platonic-nominalistic humanists." Orthodox theologians such as John Romanides, Alexander Golitzin, and Andrew Louth have argued against Meyendorff's interpretation of the works of [[Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite]] and have strenuously asserted the Orthodoxy of the Dionysian corpus.<sup>[]</sup>

	==Modern ecumenism==		==Modern ecumenism==

KJV: /* Slavophile movement */ removed Template:See

2019-02-05T09:24:36Z

Slavophile movement: removed Template:See

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:24, 5 February 2019
Line 205:		Line 205:

	==Slavophile movement==		==Slavophile movement==
	{{see\|Slavophile}}
			see Slavophile

	The [[Slavophile]]s promoted Orthodox Christianity as Russia's defining feature, hoping to make the Orthodox Church synonymous with Russian native culture.<sup>[]</sup> Starting with [[Vladimir Solovyov (philosopher)\|Vladimir Soloviev]], [[sobornost]] was put forth as the basis for the [[ecumenical]] movement within the [[Russian Orthodox Church]]. [[Sergei Bulgakov]], [[Nikolai Berdyaev]], [[Pavel Florensky]] were notable proponents for the spirit of [[sobornost]] between different Christian factions.		The [[Slavophile]]s promoted Orthodox Christianity as Russia's defining feature, hoping to make the Orthodox Church synonymous with Russian native culture.<sup>[]</sup> Starting with [[Vladimir Solovyov (philosopher)\|Vladimir Soloviev]], [[sobornost]] was put forth as the basis for the [[ecumenical]] movement within the [[Russian Orthodox Church]]. [[Sergei Bulgakov]], [[Nikolai Berdyaev]], [[Pavel Florensky]] were notable proponents for the spirit of [[sobornost]] between different Christian factions.

KJV: /* Hesychast Controversy */ removed Template:seealso

2019-02-05T09:23:18Z

Hesychast Controversy: removed Template:seealso

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:23, 5 February 2019
Line 174:		Line 174:
	==Hesychast Controversy==		==Hesychast Controversy==
	[[Hesychast controversy]]		[[Hesychast controversy]]
	{{See also\|Palamism\|Hesychasm\|Tabor Light\|theoria\|Fifth Council of Constantinople}}
			See also Palamism Hesychasm Tabor Light theoria Fifth Council of Constantinople

	[[Image:Gregor Palamas.jpg\|thumb\|right\|200px\|Gregory Palamas]]		[[Image:Gregor Palamas.jpg\|thumb\|right\|200px\|Gregory Palamas]]
	Under church tradition the practice of Hesychasm has it beginnings in the bible, Matthew 6:6 and the [[Philokalia]]. The tradition of contemplation with inner silence or tranquility is shared by all Eastern [[ascetics\|ascenticism]] having its roots in the Egyptian traditions of monasticism exemplified by such Orthodox monastics as [[Anthony the Great\|St Anthony of Egypt]].		Under church tradition the practice of Hesychasm has it beginnings in the bible, Matthew 6:6 and the [[Philokalia]]. The tradition of contemplation with inner silence or tranquility is shared by all Eastern [[ascetics\|ascenticism]] having its roots in the Egyptian traditions of monasticism exemplified by such Orthodox monastics as [[Anthony the Great\|St Anthony of Egypt]].
	About the year 1337 [[Hesychasm]] attracted the attention of a learned member of the Orthodox Church, [[Barlaam of Calabria\|Barlaam, a Calabrian monk]] who at that time held the office of abbot in the Monastery of St Saviour's in Constantinople and who visited [[Mount Athos]]. There, Barlaam encountered Hesychasts and heard descriptions of their practices, also reading the writings of the teacher in Hesychasm of St [[Gregory Palamas]], himself an Athonite monk. Hesychasm is a form of constant purposeful prayer or experiential prayer, explicitly referred to as [[Theoria\|contemplation]]. It is to focus ones mind on God and pray to God unceasingly. The hesychasts stated that at higher stages of their prayer practice they reached the actual[[theoria\|contemplation-union]] with the [[Light of Tabor\|Tabor Light]], i.e., Uncreated Divine Light or photomos seen by the apostles in the event of the Transfiguration of Christ and Saint Paul while on the road to [[Damascus]]. It is depicted in icons and theological discourse also as tongues of fire.<sup>[]</sup>		About the year 1337 [[Hesychasm]] attracted the attention of a learned member of the Orthodox Church, [[Barlaam of Calabria\|Barlaam, a Calabrian monk]] who at that time held the office of abbot in the Monastery of St Saviour's in Constantinople and who visited [[Mount Athos]]. There, Barlaam encountered Hesychasts and heard descriptions of their practices, also reading the writings of the teacher in Hesychasm of St [[Gregory Palamas]], himself an Athonite monk. Hesychasm is a form of constant purposeful prayer or experiential prayer, explicitly referred to as [[Theoria\|contemplation]]. It is to focus ones mind on God and pray to God unceasingly. The hesychasts stated that at higher stages of their prayer practice they reached the actual [[theoria\|contemplation-union]] with the [[Light of Tabor\|Tabor Light]], i.e., Uncreated Divine Light or photomos seen by the apostles in the event of the Transfiguration of Christ and Saint Paul while on the road to [[Damascus]]. It is depicted in icons and theological discourse also as tongues of fire.<sup>[]</sup>

	Trained in Western [[Scholasticism\|Scholastic]] theology, Barlaam was scandalized by Hesychasm and began to campaign against it. As a teacher of theology in the Western Scholastic mode, Barlaam propounded a more intellectual and propositional approach to the knowledge of God than the Hesychasts taught. In particular, Barlaam took exception to, as [[Christian heresy\|heretical]]and[[blasphemy\|blasphemous]], the doctrine entertained by the Hesychasts as to the nature of the [[Tabor Light\|uncreated light]], the experience of which was said to be the goal of Hesychast practice. It was maintained by the Hesychasts to be of divine origin and to be identical to that light which had been manifested to Jesus' disciples on [[Mount Tabor]] at the [[Transfiguration of Jesus\|Transfiguration]]. Barlaam held this concept to be [[Polytheism\|polytheistic]], inasmuch as it postulated two eternal substances, a visible ([[Immanence\|immanent]]) and an invisible God ([[Transcendence (religion)\|transcendent]]).		Trained in Western [[Scholasticism\|Scholastic]] theology, Barlaam was scandalized by Hesychasm and began to campaign against it. As a teacher of theology in the Western Scholastic mode, Barlaam propounded a more intellectual and propositional approach to the knowledge of God than the Hesychasts taught. In particular, Barlaam took exception to, as [[Christian heresy\|heretical]]and[[blasphemy\|blasphemous]], the doctrine entertained by the Hesychasts as to the nature of the [[Tabor Light\|uncreated light]], the experience of which was said to be the goal of Hesychast practice. It was maintained by the Hesychasts to be of divine origin and to be identical to that light which had been manifested to Jesus' disciples on [[Mount Tabor]] at the [[Transfiguration of Jesus\|Transfiguration]]. Barlaam held this concept to be [[Polytheism\|polytheistic]], inasmuch as it postulated two eternal substances, a visible ([[Immanence\|immanent]]) and an invisible God ([[Transcendence (religion)\|transcendent]]).
Line 187:		Line 188:

	One of Barlaam's friends, [[Gregory Akindynos]], who originally was also a friend of Gregory's, later took up the controversy. Another opponent of Palamism was [[Manuel Kalekas]] who sought to reconcile the Eastern and Western Churches. Following the decision of 1351, there was strong repression against anti-Palamist thinkers. Kalekas reports on this repression as late as 1397, and for theologians in disagreement with Palamas, there was ultimately no choice but to emigrate and convert to Catholicism, a path taken by Kalekas as well as [[Demetrios Kydones]] and [[Ioannes Kypariossiotes]]. This exodus of highly educated Greek scholars, later reinforced by refugees following the [[Fall of Constantinople]] of 1453, had a significant influence on the first generation (that of [[Petrarch\|Petrarca]] and [[Giovanni Boccaccio\|Boccaccio]]) of the incipient [[Italian Renaissance]].		One of Barlaam's friends, [[Gregory Akindynos]], who originally was also a friend of Gregory's, later took up the controversy. Another opponent of Palamism was [[Manuel Kalekas]] who sought to reconcile the Eastern and Western Churches. Following the decision of 1351, there was strong repression against anti-Palamist thinkers. Kalekas reports on this repression as late as 1397, and for theologians in disagreement with Palamas, there was ultimately no choice but to emigrate and convert to Catholicism, a path taken by Kalekas as well as [[Demetrios Kydones]] and [[Ioannes Kypariossiotes]]. This exodus of highly educated Greek scholars, later reinforced by refugees following the [[Fall of Constantinople]] of 1453, had a significant influence on the first generation (that of [[Petrarch\|Petrarca]] and [[Giovanni Boccaccio\|Boccaccio]]) of the incipient [[Italian Renaissance]].


	==The "Western Captivity"==		==The "Western Captivity"==

KJV: /* Iconoclasm */ removed Template:Bibleref2c

2019-02-05T09:20:10Z

Iconoclasm: removed Template:Bibleref2c

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:20, 5 February 2019
Line 115:		Line 115:
	[[Iconoclasm]]		[[Iconoclasm]]

	Resolved under the Seventh Ecumenical Council, [[Iconoclasm]] was a movement within the Eastern Christian Byzantine church to establish that the Christian culture of portraits (see [[icon]]) of the family of Christ and subsequent Christians and biblical scenes were not of a Christian origin and therefore heretical.<ref>Epitome, Iconoclast Council at Hieria, 754</ref> There were two periods of Iconoclasm 730-787 and 813-843. This movement itself was later defined as heretical under the [[Second Council of Nicaea\|Seventh Ecumenical council]]. The group destroyed much of the Christian churches' art history, which is needed in addressing the traditional interruptions of the Christian faith and the artistic works that in the early church were devoted to Jesus Christ or God. Many Glorious works were destroyed during this period.<ref>[http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/byzantiumiconoclasm.htmlProtopresbyter Alexander Schmemann: Byzantium, Iconoclasm and the Monks~~<!--Bot-generated title-->]~~</ref>		Resolved under the Seventh Ecumenical Council, [[Iconoclasm]] was a movement within the Eastern Christian Byzantine church to establish that the Christian culture of portraits (see [[icon]]) of the family of Christ and subsequent Christians and biblical scenes were not of a Christian origin and therefore heretical.<ref>Epitome, Iconoclast Council at Hieria, 754</ref> There were two periods of Iconoclasm 730-787 and 813-843. This movement itself was later defined as heretical under the [[Second Council of Nicaea\|Seventh Ecumenical council]]. The group destroyed much of the Christian churches' art history, which is needed in addressing the traditional interruptions of the Christian faith and the artistic works that in the early church were devoted to Jesus Christ or God. Many Glorious works were destroyed during this period.<ref>[http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/byzantiumiconoclasm.htmlProtopresbyter Alexander Schmemann: Byzantium, Iconoclasm and the Monks</ref>
	Two prototypes of icons would be the [[Christ Pantocrator]] and the [[Icon of the Hodegetria]]. In the West the tradition of icons have been seen as the veneration of "graven images" or against "no graven images."~~{{Bibleref2c\|~~Exodus\|20:4}} From the Orthodox point of view graven then would be engraved or carved. Thus this restriction would include many of the ornaments that Moses was		Two prototypes of icons would be the [[Christ Pantocrator]] and the [[Icon of the Hodegetria]]. In the West the tradition of icons have been seen as the veneration of "graven images" or against "no graven images."Exodus 20:4 From the Orthodox point of view graven then would be engraved or carved. Thus this restriction would include many of the ornaments that Moses was commanded to create in the passages right after the commandment was given, i.e., the carving of cherubim.Exodus 26:1 The commandment as understood by such out of context interpretation would mean "[[Idolatry\|no carved images]]". This would include the cross and other holy artifacts. The commandment in the East is understand that the people of God are not to create idols and then worship them. It is "right worship" to worship which is of God, which is Holy and that alone.<ref>[http://www.protomartyr.org/image.html No Graven Image</ref>
	commanded to create in the passages right after the commandment was given, i.e., the carving of cherubim.~~{{Bibleref2c\|~~Exodus\|26:1}}The commandment as understood by such out of context interpretation would mean "[[Idolatry\|no carved images]]". This would include the cross and other holy artifacts. The commandment in the East is understand that the people of God are not to create idols and then worship them. It is "right worship" to worship which is of God, which is Holy and that alone.<ref>[http://www.protomartyr.org/image.html No Graven Image~~<!--Bot-generated title-->]~~</ref>

	==Tensions between the East and the West==		==Tensions between the East and the West==

KJV: /* Ecumenical councils */ removed Template:Seealso

2019-02-05T09:16:46Z

Ecumenical councils: removed Template:Seealso

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:16, 5 February 2019
Line 56:		Line 56:
	==Ecumenical councils==		==Ecumenical councils==
	[[First seven Ecumenical Councils]]		[[First seven Ecumenical Councils]]
	{{See also\|State church of the Roman Empire\|sobor\|Council of Jamnia}}
			See also State church of the Roman Empire sobor Council of Jamnia

	Several doctrinal disputes from the 4th century onwards led to the calling of [[ecumenical council]]s which from a traditional perspective, are the culmination and also a continuation of previous church [[synods]]. These Pre Ecumenical councils include the[[Council of Jerusalem]] c. 50, [[Council of Rome]] 155 AD, [[Second Council of Rome]] 193 AD, [[Council of Ephesus]] 193 AD,[[Council of Carthage]] 251 AD, [[Council of Iconium]] 258 AD, [[Synods of Antioch\|Council of Antioch]], 264 AD, [[Councils of Arabia]]- 246-247 AD, [[Council of Elvira]] 306 AD, [[Council of Carthage]] 311 AD, [[Synod of Neo-Caesarea]] c.314 AD [[Council of Ancyra]] 314 AD, [[Council of Arles]] 314 AD. The first ecumenical council in part was a continuation of Trinitarian doctrinal issues addressed in pre-legalization of Christianity councils or synods (for examples see [[Synods of Antioch]] between 264-269AD and [[Synod of Elvira]]). These ecumenical councils with their doctrinal formulations are pivotal in the history of Christianity in general and to the history of the Orthodox Church in particular. Specifically, these assemblies were responsible for the formulation of Christian doctrine. As such, they constitute a permanent standard for an Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the person or hypostasis of Christ, the incarnation.<ref>Papadakis, Aristeides.[http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7053.asp History of the Orthodox Church]</ref>		Several doctrinal disputes from the 4th century onwards led to the calling of [[ecumenical council]]s which from a traditional perspective, are the culmination and also a continuation of previous church [[synods]]. These Pre Ecumenical councils include the[[Council of Jerusalem]] c. 50, [[Council of Rome]] 155 AD, [[Second Council of Rome]] 193 AD, [[Council of Ephesus]] 193 AD,[[Council of Carthage]] 251 AD, [[Council of Iconium]] 258 AD, [[Synods of Antioch\|Council of Antioch]], 264 AD, [[Councils of Arabia]]- 246-247 AD, [[Council of Elvira]] 306 AD, [[Council of Carthage]] 311 AD, [[Synod of Neo-Caesarea]] c.314 AD [[Council of Ancyra]] 314 AD, [[Council of Arles]] 314 AD. The first ecumenical council in part was a continuation of Trinitarian doctrinal issues addressed in pre-legalization of Christianity councils or synods (for examples see [[Synods of Antioch]] between 264-269AD and [[Synod of Elvira]]). These ecumenical councils with their doctrinal formulations are pivotal in the history of Christianity in general and to the history of the Orthodox Church in particular. Specifically, these assemblies were responsible for the formulation of Christian doctrine. As such, they constitute a permanent standard for an Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the person or hypostasis of Christ, the incarnation.<ref>Papadakis, Aristeides.[http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7053.asp History of the Orthodox Church]</ref>
Line 72:		Line 73:
	# The [[Seventh Ecumenical Council]] was called under the [[Irene (empress)\|Empress Regnant Irene]] in 787, known as the second of Nicea. It affirmed the making and veneration of [[icon]]s, while also forbidding the worship of icons and the making of three-dimensional statuary. It reversed the declaration of an earlier council that had called itself the Seventh Ecumenical Council and also nullified its status (see separate article on [[Iconoclasm]]). That earlier council had been held under the iconoclast Emperor [[Constantine V]]. It met with more than 340 bishops at Constantinople and Hieria in 754, declaring the making of icons of Jesus or the saints an error, mainly for [[Christology\|Christological]] reasons.		# The [[Seventh Ecumenical Council]] was called under the [[Irene (empress)\|Empress Regnant Irene]] in 787, known as the second of Nicea. It affirmed the making and veneration of [[icon]]s, while also forbidding the worship of icons and the making of three-dimensional statuary. It reversed the declaration of an earlier council that had called itself the Seventh Ecumenical Council and also nullified its status (see separate article on [[Iconoclasm]]). That earlier council had been held under the iconoclast Emperor [[Constantine V]]. It met with more than 340 bishops at Constantinople and Hieria in 754, declaring the making of icons of Jesus or the saints an error, mainly for [[Christology\|Christological]] reasons.

	The Orthodox Church does not recognize as [[dogma]] any ecumenical councils other than these seven.<ref name = "OrthodoxInfo-Price">[http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/tca_priceofecumenism.aspx The Price of Ecumenism<!--Bot-generated title-->]</ref> Orthodox thinking differs on whether the [[Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox)\|Fourth]] and [[Fifth Council of Constantinople\|Fifth]] Councils of Constantinople were properly Ecumenical Councils, but the majority view is that they were merely influential rather than dogmatic and therefore not binding.~~{{Citation needed\|date=June 2007}}~~		The Orthodox Church does not recognize as [[dogma]] any ecumenical councils other than these seven.<ref name = "OrthodoxInfo-Price">[http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/tca_priceofecumenism.aspx The Price of Ecumenism<!--Bot-generated title-->]</ref> Orthodox thinking differs on whether the [[Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox)\|Fourth]] and [[Fifth Council of Constantinople\|Fifth]] Councils of Constantinople were properly Ecumenical Councils, but the majority view is that they were merely influential rather than dogmatic and therefore not binding.

	===Confronting Arianism===		===Confronting Arianism===
	[[Arianism\|Arian controversy]]		[[Arianism\|Arian controversy]]
	{{See also\|Feast of Orthodoxy}}		See also Feast of Orthodoxy

	[[Image:Eusebius of Caesarea.jpg\|thumb\|150px\|Eusebius of Caesarea]]		[[Image:Eusebius of Caesarea.jpg\|thumb\|150px\|Eusebius of Caesarea]]
	The first ecumenical council was convened to address again the [[christology\|divinity of Christ]] (see [[Paul of Samosata]] and the[[Synods of Antioch]]) but this time through the teachings of [[Arius]], an Egyptian presbyter from [[Alexandria]]. Arius taught that Jesus Christ was divine but created, both sides likened Jesus to the [[Angel of the Lord]].<ref>AUGUSTINE UNKNOWINGLY REJECTS THE DOCTRINE OF THE ECUMENCAL COUNCILS CONCERNING THE OLD TESTAMENT LORD OF GLORY INCARNATE AND HIS VATICAN AND PROTESTANT FOLLOWERS DO THE SAME Part 2 With the sole exception of Augustine, the Fathers maintain that Jesus Christ, before His birth from the Virgin Theotokos, in His uncreated Person of the Angel of God, Angel of the Great Council, the Lord of Glory, the Lord Sabbaoth, is He who revealed God in Himself to the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament. Both the Arians and Eunomians agreed that it was Christ who did this in His person or hypostasis which existed before the creation of the ages, but they insisted that He was created from non-being and is therefore not of the same nature (consubstantial or co-essential) with God, who is alone truly God by nature.[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.18.en.augustine_unknowingly_rejects_the_doctrine.02.htm]</ref><ref>That the Orthodox and Arians agreed that it was the Angel-Logos Who appeared to and revealed God to the prophets and the very same person who became man and the Christ should be taken very seriously as the key to understanding the decisions of the First and subsequent Ecumenical Councils. ''It is important to realize that the Orthodox and Arians were not arguing speculatively over an abstract Second Person of the Holy Trinity whose identity and nature one allegedly deciphered by mulling over biblical passages with the help of Hellenistic philosophy and the Holy Spirit.'' What they were discussing was the spiritual experience of the prophets and apostles; specifically whether it is a created or uncreated Logos who appears in glory to them and reveals in Himself as Image God the Father as Archetype.[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.18.en.augustine_unknowingly_rejects_the_doctrine.02.htm]</ref> Arian taught that Jesus was sent to earth for the salvation of mankind but was not uncreated and not God in essence. It was this teaching that Jesus Christ was not God in Essence (the uncreated logos) from the Father (infinite, primordial origin) and uncreated just as the Holy Spirit (giver of life) that came to be known as Arianism. Under Arianism, Christ was instead not[[consubstantiality\|consubstantial]] with God the Father.<ref>"The oneness of Essence, the Equality of Divinity, and the Equality of Honor of God the Son with the God the Father." Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky pages 92-95</ref> Since both the Father and the Son under Arius where of "like" essence or being (see [[homoiousia]]) but not of the same essence or being (see [[homoousia]]).<ref>Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter[[Michael Pomazansky]] pages 92-95: "This heretical teaching of Arius disrupted the whole Christian World, since it drew after it very many people. In 325 the First Ecumenical Council was called against this teaching, and at this council 318 of the chief hierarchs of the church unanimously expressed the ancient teaching of Orthodoxy and condemned the false teaching of Arius. The Council triumphantly pronounced anathema against those who say that there was a time the Son of God did not exist, against those who affirm that he was created, or that he is of a different essence from God the Father. The Council composed of a Symbol of Faith, which was confirmed and completed later at the Second Ecumenical Council. The unity and equality of honor of the Son of God with God the Father was expressed by this Council in the Symbol of Faith by their words: 'of One Essence with the Father.'"[http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_INDEX.HTM]</ref> Much of the distinction between the differing factions was over the[[kenosis\|kenotic]] phrasing that Christ expressed in the New Testament to express submission to God the Father.<ref>Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter [[Michael Pomazansky]] pages 92-95: "After the council, the Arian heresy was divided into three branches and continued to exist from some decades. It was subject to further refutation in its details at several local councils and in the works of the great Fathers of the Church of the 4th century and part of the 5th century (Sts.[[Athanasius]] the Great, [[Basil the Great]], [[Gregory the Theologian]], [[John Chrysostom]], [[Gregory of Nyssa]], [[Epiphanius of Salamis\|Epiphanius]], [[Ambrose of Milan]], [[Cyril of Alexandria]], and others).[http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_INDEX.HTM]</ref>		The first ecumenical council was convened to address again the [[christology\|divinity of Christ]] (see [[Paul of Samosata]] and the[[Synods of Antioch]]) but this time through the teachings of [[Arius]], an Egyptian presbyter from [[Alexandria]]. Arius taught that Jesus Christ was divine but created, both sides likened Jesus to the [[Angel of the Lord]].<ref>AUGUSTINE UNKNOWINGLY REJECTS THE DOCTRINE OF THE ECUMENCAL COUNCILS CONCERNING THE OLD TESTAMENT LORD OF GLORY INCARNATE AND HIS VATICAN AND PROTESTANT FOLLOWERS DO THE SAME Part 2 With the sole exception of Augustine, the Fathers maintain that Jesus Christ, before His birth from the Virgin Theotokos, in His uncreated Person of the Angel of God, Angel of the Great Council, the Lord of Glory, the Lord Sabbaoth, is He who revealed God in Himself to the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament. Both the Arians and Eunomians agreed that it was Christ who did this in His person or hypostasis which existed before the creation of the ages, but they insisted that He was created from non-being and is therefore not of the same nature (consubstantial or co-essential) with God, who is alone truly God by nature.[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.18.en.augustine_unknowingly_rejects_the_doctrine.02.htm]</ref><ref>That the Orthodox and Arians agreed that it was the Angel-Logos Who appeared to and revealed God to the prophets and the very same person who became man and the Christ should be taken very seriously as the key to understanding the decisions of the First and subsequent Ecumenical Councils. ''It is important to realize that the Orthodox and Arians were not arguing speculatively over an abstract Second Person of the Holy Trinity whose identity and nature one allegedly deciphered by mulling over biblical passages with the help of Hellenistic philosophy and the Holy Spirit.'' What they were discussing was the spiritual experience of the prophets and apostles; specifically whether it is a created or uncreated Logos who appears in glory to them and reveals in Himself as Image God the Father as Archetype.[http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.18.en.augustine_unknowingly_rejects_the_doctrine.02.htm]</ref> Arian taught that Jesus was sent to earth for the salvation of mankind but was not uncreated and not God in essence. It was this teaching that Jesus Christ was not God in Essence (the uncreated logos) from the Father (infinite, primordial origin) and uncreated just as the Holy Spirit (giver of life) that came to be known as Arianism. Under Arianism, Christ was instead not[[consubstantiality\|consubstantial]] with God the Father.<ref>"The oneness of Essence, the Equality of Divinity, and the Equality of Honor of God the Son with the God the Father." Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky pages 92-95</ref> Since both the Father and the Son under Arius where of "like" essence or being (see [[homoiousia]]) but not of the same essence or being (see [[homoousia]]).<ref>Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter[[Michael Pomazansky]] pages 92-95: "This heretical teaching of Arius disrupted the whole Christian World, since it drew after it very many people. In 325 the First Ecumenical Council was called against this teaching, and at this council 318 of the chief hierarchs of the church unanimously expressed the ancient teaching of Orthodoxy and condemned the false teaching of Arius. The Council triumphantly pronounced anathema against those who say that there was a time the Son of God did not exist, against those who affirm that he was created, or that he is of a different essence from God the Father. The Council composed of a Symbol of Faith, which was confirmed and completed later at the Second Ecumenical Council. The unity and equality of honor of the Son of God with God the Father was expressed by this Council in the Symbol of Faith by their words: 'of One Essence with the Father.'"[http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_INDEX.HTM]</ref> Much of the distinction between the differing factions was over the[[kenosis\|kenotic]] phrasing that Christ expressed in the New Testament to express submission to God the Father.<ref>Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition Protopresbyter [[Michael Pomazansky]] pages 92-95: "After the council, the Arian heresy was divided into three branches and continued to exist from some decades. It was subject to further refutation in its details at several local councils and in the works of the great Fathers of the Church of the 4th century and part of the 5th century (Sts.[[Athanasius]] the Great, [[Basil the Great]], [[Gregory the Theologian]], [[John Chrysostom]], [[Gregory of Nyssa]], [[Epiphanius of Salamis\|Epiphanius]], [[Ambrose of Milan]], [[Cyril of Alexandria]], and others).[http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0824/_INDEX.HTM]</ref>
Line 98:		Line 100:
	In the years following Chalcedon the patriarchs of Constantinople intermittently remained in communion with the non-Chalcedonian patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, (see [[Henotikon]]) while Rome remained out of communion with the latter and in unstable communion with Constantinople. It was not until 518 that the new Byzantine Emperor, [[Justin I]] (who accepted Chalcedon), demanded that the Church in the Roman Empire accept the Council's decisions.<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07470a.htm CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope St. Hormisdas<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Justin ordered the replacement of all non-Chalcedonian bishops, including the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria. The extent of the influence of the[[Bishop of Rome]] in this demand has been a matter of debate. [[Justinian I]] also attempted to bring those monks who still rejected the decision of the Council of Chalcedon into communion with the greater church. The exact time of this event is unknown, but it is believed to have been between 535 and 548. [[Abraham (Copt)\|St Abraham of Farshut]] was summoned to Constantinople and he chose to bring with him four monks. Upon arrival, Justinian summoned them and informed them that they would either accept the decision of the Council or lose their positions. Abraham refused to entertain the idea. [[Theodora (6th century)\|Theodora]] tried to persuade Justinian to change his mind, seemingly to no avail. Abraham himself stated in a letter to his monks that he preferred to remain in exile rather than subscribe to a faith contrary to that of [[Athanasius]].		In the years following Chalcedon the patriarchs of Constantinople intermittently remained in communion with the non-Chalcedonian patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, (see [[Henotikon]]) while Rome remained out of communion with the latter and in unstable communion with Constantinople. It was not until 518 that the new Byzantine Emperor, [[Justin I]] (who accepted Chalcedon), demanded that the Church in the Roman Empire accept the Council's decisions.<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07470a.htm CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope St. Hormisdas<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Justin ordered the replacement of all non-Chalcedonian bishops, including the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria. The extent of the influence of the[[Bishop of Rome]] in this demand has been a matter of debate. [[Justinian I]] also attempted to bring those monks who still rejected the decision of the Council of Chalcedon into communion with the greater church. The exact time of this event is unknown, but it is believed to have been between 535 and 548. [[Abraham (Copt)\|St Abraham of Farshut]] was summoned to Constantinople and he chose to bring with him four monks. Upon arrival, Justinian summoned them and informed them that they would either accept the decision of the Council or lose their positions. Abraham refused to entertain the idea. [[Theodora (6th century)\|Theodora]] tried to persuade Justinian to change his mind, seemingly to no avail. Abraham himself stated in a letter to his monks that he preferred to remain in exile rather than subscribe to a faith contrary to that of [[Athanasius]].

	The [[Church of Caucasian Albania]] existed as an autocephalous Oriental Orthodox church from 313 to 705.{{Citation needed\|date=May 2010}} Located in[[Caucasian Albania]] in what is now [[Azerbaijan]], the church was absorbed by the [[Armenian Apostolic Church]] following the Muslim conquest of the region.~~{{Citation needed\|date=May 2010}}~~		The [[Church of Caucasian Albania]] existed as an autocephalous Oriental Orthodox church from 313 to 705.{{Citation needed\|date=May 2010}} Located in[[Caucasian Albania]] in what is now [[Azerbaijan]], the church was absorbed by the [[Armenian Apostolic Church]] following the Muslim conquest of the region.

	By the 20th century the Chalcedonian schism was not seen with the same importance, and from several meetings between the authorities of the [[Holy See]] and the Oriental Orthodoxy, reconciling declarations emerged in the common statement of the Syriac Patriarch (Mar [[Ignatius Zakka I Iwas]]) and the Pope ([[John Paul II]]) in 1984.		By the 20th century the Chalcedonian schism was not seen with the same importance, and from several meetings between the authorities of the [[Holy See]] and the Oriental Orthodoxy, reconciling declarations emerged in the common statement of the Syriac Patriarch (Mar [[Ignatius Zakka I Iwas]]) and the Pope ([[John Paul II]]) in 1984.

KJV: /* The Eastern Monastic or Ascetic tradition */ removed Template Seealso

2019-02-05T09:13:32Z

The Eastern Monastic or Ascetic tradition: removed Template Seealso

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:13, 5 February 2019
Line 48:		Line 48:
	==The Eastern Monastic or Ascetic tradition==		==The Eastern Monastic or Ascetic tradition==
	[[Image:StJohnClimacus.jpg\|thumb\|Icon Depicting Souls Ascent to Heaven]]		[[Image:StJohnClimacus.jpg\|thumb\|Icon Depicting Souls Ascent to Heaven]]
	{{See also\|asceticism\|Starets\|The Ladder of Divine Ascent}}		See also asceticism Starets The Ladder of Divine Ascent

	Christian monasticism started in Egypt. The first monks lived in cities and villages, but only received great renown as they left for the wilderness and became hermits ([[eremetic]] monks).<ref>Dag Øistein Endsjø ''Primordial landscapes, incorruptible bodies. Desert asceticism and the Christian appropriation of Greek ideas on geography, bodies, and immortality.'' New York: Peter Lang 2008.</ref> By the end of the early Christian era, Saint[[Pachomius]] was organizing his followers into a community and founding the tradition of monasticism in community ([[cenobitic]] monks).		Christian monasticism started in Egypt. The first monks lived in cities and villages, but only received great renown as they left for the wilderness and became hermits ([[eremetic]] monks).<ref>Dag Øistein Endsjø ''Primordial landscapes, incorruptible bodies. Desert asceticism and the Christian appropriation of Greek ideas on geography, bodies, and immortality.'' New York: Peter Lang 2008.</ref> By the end of the early Christian era, Saint[[Pachomius]] was organizing his followers into a community and founding the tradition of monasticism in community ([[cenobitic]] monks).

KJV: /* Biblical Canon */ removed Template:See

2019-02-05T09:11:39Z

Biblical Canon: removed Template:See

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:11, 5 February 2019
Line 36:		Line 36:
	[[Divine Liturgy]]		[[Divine Liturgy]]
	[[Main\|Biblical canon]]		[[Main\|Biblical canon]]
	~~{{See\|~~Peshitta\|Didache}}		Peshitta Didache

	The [[Biblical canon]] began with the officially accepted books of the [[Koine Greek]] [[Old Testament]] (which predates Christianity). This ''canon'' is called the [[Septuagint]] or ''seventy'' and is accepted as the foundation of the Christian faith along with the [[Good news (Christianity)\|Good news]] (gospels), [[Book of Revelation\|Revelations]] and Letters of the Apostles (including [[Acts of the Apostles]] and the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]]). The earliest text of the [[New Testament]] was written in common or Koine Greek, according to [[Greek primacy]]. The many texts in the many tribal dialects of the Old Testament were all translated into a single language, Koine Greek, in the time of [[Ptolemy II Philadelphus]] in 200 BC.<ref>[http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm "The Letter Of Aristeas"], R.H. Charles-Editor, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1913</ref>		The [[Biblical canon]] began with the officially accepted books of the [[Koine Greek]] [[Old Testament]] (which predates Christianity). This ''canon'' is called the [[Septuagint]] or ''seventy'' and is accepted as the foundation of the Christian faith along with the [[Good news (Christianity)\|Good news]] (gospels), [[Book of Revelation\|Revelations]] and Letters of the Apostles (including [[Acts of the Apostles]] and the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]]). The earliest text of the [[New Testament]] was written in common or Koine Greek, according to [[Greek primacy]]. The many texts in the many tribal dialects of the Old Testament were all translated into a single language, Koine Greek, in the time of [[Ptolemy II Philadelphus]] in 200 BC.<ref>[http://www.ccel.org/c/charles/otpseudepig/aristeas.htm "The Letter Of Aristeas"], R.H. Charles-Editor, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1913</ref>

KJV: /* Consensus of the Fathers */

2019-02-05T09:10:22Z

Consensus of the Fathers

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:10, 5 February 2019
Line 15:		Line 15:

	==Consensus of the Fathers==		==Consensus of the Fathers==
	See also Theoria\|Hesychasm		See also Theoria Hesychasm

	Orthodoxy interprets truth based on three witnesses: the consensus of the Holy Fathers of the Church; the ongoing teaching of the Holy Spirit guiding the life of the Church through the ''[[nous]]'', or mind of the Church (also called the "Catholic Consciousness of the Church"<ref>Pomazansky, ''op. cit.'', p. 35</ref>), which is believed to be the Mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16 KJV); and the [[Praxis (Eastern Orthodoxy)\|praxis]] of the church (including among other things [[asceticism]], [[liturgy]], hymnography and [[iconography]]).		Orthodoxy interprets truth based on three witnesses: the consensus of the Holy Fathers of the Church; the ongoing teaching of the Holy Spirit guiding the life of the Church through the ''[[nous]]'', or mind of the Church (also called the "Catholic Consciousness of the Church"<ref>Pomazansky, ''op. cit.'', p. 35</ref>), which is believed to be the Mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16 KJV); and the [[Praxis (Eastern Orthodoxy)\|praxis]] of the church (including among other things [[asceticism]], [[liturgy]], hymnography and [[iconography]]).

KJV: /* Consensus of the Fathers */ removed Template:Seealso

2019-02-05T09:09:56Z

Consensus of the Fathers: removed Template:Seealso

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:09, 5 February 2019
Line 15:		Line 15:

	==Consensus of the Fathers==		==Consensus of the Fathers==
	{{See also\|Theoria\|Hesychasm}}		See also Theoria\|Hesychasm

	Orthodoxy interprets truth based on three witnesses: the consensus of the Holy Fathers of the Church; the ongoing teaching of the Holy Spirit guiding the life of the Church through the ''[[nous]]'', or mind of the Church (also called the "Catholic Consciousness of the Church"<ref>Pomazansky, ''op. cit.'', p. 35</ref>), which is believed to be the Mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16 KJV); and the [[Praxis (Eastern Orthodoxy)\|praxis]] of the church (including among other things [[asceticism]], [[liturgy]], hymnography and [[iconography]]).		Orthodoxy interprets truth based on three witnesses: the consensus of the Holy Fathers of the Church; the ongoing teaching of the Holy Spirit guiding the life of the Church through the ''[[nous]]'', or mind of the Church (also called the "Catholic Consciousness of the Church"<ref>Pomazansky, ''op. cit.'', p. 35</ref>), which is believed to be the Mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16 KJV); and the [[Praxis (Eastern Orthodoxy)\|praxis]] of the church (including among other things [[asceticism]], [[liturgy]], hymnography and [[iconography]]).

KJV: /* Consensus of the Fathers */ removed Template:bibleverse

2019-02-05T09:08:14Z

Consensus of the Fathers: removed Template:bibleverse

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:08, 5 February 2019
Line 16:		Line 16:
	==Consensus of the Fathers==		==Consensus of the Fathers==
	{{See also\|Theoria\|Hesychasm}}		{{See also\|Theoria\|Hesychasm}}
	Orthodoxy interprets truth based on three witnesses: the consensus of the Holy Fathers of the Church; the ongoing teaching of the Holy Spirit guiding the life of the Church through the ''[[nous]]'', or mind of the Church (also called the "Catholic Consciousness of the Church"<ref>Pomazansky, ''op. cit.'', p. 35</ref>), which is believed to be the Mind of Christ (~~{{bibleverse\|~~1\|Corinthians\|2:16\|KJV}}); and the [[Praxis (Eastern Orthodoxy)\|praxis]] of the church (including among other things [[asceticism]], [[liturgy]], hymnography and [[iconography]]).		Orthodoxy interprets truth based on three witnesses: the consensus of the Holy Fathers of the Church; the ongoing teaching of the Holy Spirit guiding the life of the Church through the ''[[nous]]'', or mind of the Church (also called the "Catholic Consciousness of the Church"<ref>Pomazansky, ''op. cit.'', p. 35</ref>), which is believed to be the Mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16 KJV); and the [[Praxis (Eastern Orthodoxy)\|praxis]] of the church (including among other things [[asceticism]], [[liturgy]], hymnography and [[iconography]]).

	The consensus of the Church over time defines its [[catholicity]]—that which is believed at all times by the entire Church.<ref>St. [[Vincent of Lerins]], wrote in his ''Commonitoria'' (434 AD), that Church doctrine, like the human body, develops over time while still keeping its original identity: "[I]n the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all" (Chap. XXIII, §§ 54–59)</ref> Those who disagree with that consensus are not accepted as authentic "Fathers." All theological concepts must be in agreement with that consensus. Even those considered to be authentic "Fathers" may have some theological opinions that are not universally shared, but are not thereby considered heretical. Some Holy Fathers have even made statements that were later defined as heretical, but their mistakes do not exclude them from position of authority ([[heresy]] is a sin of [[pride]]; unintended error does not make one a heretic, only the refusal to accept a dogma which has been defined by the church). Thus an Orthodox Christian is not bound to agree with every opinion of every Father, but rather with the overall consensus of the Fathers, and then only on those matters about which the church is dogmatic.		The consensus of the Church over time defines its [[catholicity]]—that which is believed at all times by the entire Church.<ref>St. [[Vincent of Lerins]], wrote in his ''Commonitoria'' (434 AD), that Church doctrine, like the human body, develops over time while still keeping its original identity: "[I]n the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all" (Chap. XXIII, §§ 54–59)</ref> Those who disagree with that consensus are not accepted as authentic "Fathers." All theological concepts must be in agreement with that consensus. Even those considered to be authentic "Fathers" may have some theological opinions that are not universally shared, but are not thereby considered heretical. Some Holy Fathers have even made statements that were later defined as heretical, but their mistakes do not exclude them from position of authority ([[heresy]] is a sin of [[pride]]; unintended error does not make one a heretic, only the refusal to accept a dogma which has been defined by the church). Thus an Orthodox Christian is not bound to agree with every opinion of every Father, but rather with the overall consensus of the Fathers, and then only on those matters about which the church is dogmatic.