tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17052672.post3076883426918396024..comments2024-02-05T16:38:28.448+00:00Comments on Orthodox Monk: ApokatastasisOrthodox Monkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07240761033816443587noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17052672.post-54054870263347893552008-03-12T14:52:00.000+00:002008-03-12T14:52:00.000+00:00We will reply to this comment. Please see:http://...We will reply to this comment. Please see:<BR/><BR/>http://orthodoxmonk.blogspot.com/2008/03/reply-to-deacon-gregory.html<BR/><BR/>Orthodox MonkOrthodox Monkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07240761033816443587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17052672.post-9744015420801792962008-03-12T14:36:00.000+00:002008-03-12T14:36:00.000+00:00Father,A few thoughts if I may:Evagrius was not co...Father,<BR/><BR/>A few thoughts if I may:<BR/><BR/>Evagrius was not condemned at the Fifth Council - there is no such document belonging to the council itself. It is "hearsay" at best from Cyril of Scythopolis or perhaps part of Cyril's rhetorical strategy in defense of his monastic heroes (who had been associated with adherents of Theodore of Mopsuestia and were thus opposed by "the Origenists" (see D. Hombergen, "The Second Origenist Controversy" in the Studia Anselmiana series). <BR/><BR/>Also the 15 anathemas belong to a letter written by Justinian the Great circulated among the Bishops in Constantinople awaiting the convocation of the Fifth Council - it was never part of the Council and does not belong to its decisions. The only anathema directed at Origen or Origenism is the 11th anathema where Origen's name appears at the end of a traditional list of heretics of a Christological category. But even this is a disputed fact - and no absolute agreement exists whether or not Origen's name was added by the Council or by later (anti-Origenist) copyists. <BR/><BR/>After all the Sicth Ec. Council discovered all kinds of fraudulent additions to the acts of the Fifth Council and anathematized the ones responsible for it. The sixth Council did not investigate the question concerning Origen because it's concern was christological (monothelitism, monoenergism) but it is not at all implausible Origen's name is a latter addition to seal the fate of "Origenism" after the Fifth Council. <BR/><BR/>To conclude this message: Neither Origen nor Evagrius taught the kind of doctrine condemned in the 15 anathemas of Justinian this much is clear from the work of Fr. John Behr ("The Way to Nicea") and Mark Edwards ("Origen against Plato") together with that of Frs. Gabriel Bunge, Jeremy Driscoll and Luke Dysinger. Whatever kind of Origenism is being condemned in the 15 anathemas is way beyond both Origen and Evagrius and without question heretical indeed. <BR/><BR/>My two cents ...<BR/><BR/>Fr. Dn. GregoryFr. Gregory Wassenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13751849568854606897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17052672.post-70790135428420736592007-07-18T09:56:00.000+01:002007-07-18T09:56:00.000+01:00We will address these issues as best we can in the...We will address these issues as best we can in the next few articles after the promised additional Barsanuphios translations. These are questions 604 - 607. In question 604, the next question, the issue of St Gregory of Nyssa is raised. The material for translation is a little lengthy, so please be patient.<BR/><BR/>Orthodox MonkOrthodox Monkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07240761033816443587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17052672.post-56630829742410595862007-07-18T08:20:00.000+01:002007-07-18T08:20:00.000+01:00Dear Brother,Thank you very much for your clarific...Dear Brother,<BR/><BR/>Thank you very much for your clarification - as I look forward to the further articles you mentioned. I am enjoying your series on Evagrius very much, they are very helpful to me.<BR/>Regarding apokatastasis, as a rough approximation, I see at least two elements that ought to be addressed somewhat separately. (i) the pre-existence of souls: I suppose the contention lies in what one understands by soul - was Adam, before his fall, wholly material? The fact that he was given "coats of skin" after his prevarication suggests not, in which case could he be said to have been a soul (mind?) that pre-existed his bodily form? (ii) the eternity of hell: how does that sit with God's infinite mercy? If man can reconcile through life-long efforts, can't demons do the same even if it takes longer than a human life? And if one demon can regain his place in God's mercy, can't they all? Does the eternity of hell not last only as long as the demons refuse God? It may be all theoretical, but I wouldn't want to deny even the demons' free will.<BR/>Lastly, I would like to point out that the doctrine of apokatastasis doesn't imply many rebirths in the sense of reincarnations, but rather the possibility of infinite migration towards God (c.f. St Gregory of Nyssa).<BR/><BR/>The anathemas typically list the contentious theories and declare them anathema, with no explanation. This is where I ask you for guidance, as to explain why those anathemas were pronounced. I understand that there can be a fear that people would stop making the effort if they thought that they would end up going to Paradise sooner or later whatever they did, but those are simply fear politics that have little relevance to us today.<BR/><BR/>As an aside, Origen and Evagrius were condemned, but not St Gregory of Nyssa. Does that reflect an evolution of the Churches' point of view or is it due to differences in St Gregory's doctrines?<BR/><BR/>I realise that these questions call for long answers, but I would be very grateful if you could address them bit by bit in the next few articles you mentioned.<BR/><BR/>Thank you so much for your time and patience.<BR/><BR/>Simon, just a layman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com