The issue with Romanides is not whether he correctly repeated the Patristic teachings about purification, illumination, and deification (which more or less everyone agrees with). The issue is that - if the narrative presented by Phos Publications is true - Romanides would be the only Orthodox Christian in history to achieve illumination, genuine theoria and vision of God, and conclude from this “empirical theology” that the Bible “contains errors disproven by modern science” and that Christ’s ancestors might have been monkeys. There are *zero* Saints who professed errors of that magnitude. In other words, the issue is the seemingly-uncrossable chasm between his own professed approach to the faith and the conclusions about God and man which he taught. His slander against Saints and mischaracterization of St. Augustine’s teachings - to such a degree that what he taught about St. Augustine is, on certain issues, quite literally the polar opposite of what St. Augustine actually taught - further does not exactly lead one to conclude that he possessed the purified spiritual achievements which he seems to have believed he’d achieved. As to whether he was “Orthodox,” that also depends what you mean. To my knowledge he was Orthodox his whole life and never excommunicated, so on that level yes, he was. On the other hand, when he submitted work on his dissertation “The Ancestral Sin” his professor forwarded it to his Archbishop and said he thought it was heretical. The Archbishop agreed with the professor, and Romanides - by his own admission - switched schools instead of accepting correction from his Bishop. Though I don’t believe he was ever brought up on formal charges of heresy, that attitude likewise brings into question just to what degree he truly followed to Patristic path. I’ll add, in his defense, that being informally accused of heresy by one cleric doesn’t necessarily mean he did in fact teach heresy. But one would still imagine he would want to defend himself rather than shopping the dissertation around to someone else without what appears to be any meaningful reflection. Also, Phos is not telling the truth here about Romanides’ view of Augustine’s title. In the introduction to the English translation of “The Ancestral Sin,” the author explicitly says that Romanides requested Augustine *not* be referred to as either “Saint” or “Blessed.” As to St. Seraphim’s book, it is very obviously written *against* people like Romanides and those who spoke about St. Augustine the way he did. The context is unmistakable, though Romanides was not named in the book. To say they had the same beliefs on the topic is wildly untrue, and anyone who has read both Romanides and St. Seraphim knows it. Lastly, the alleged distinction between original and ancestral sin is not found in any conciliar decree ever produced by the Orthodox Church.
The issues you bring up regarding his mistaken views on science and evolution are dealt with in Part 4 section 6, Part 5 and in the Conclusions of the text. Regarding Fr. John's views on Augustine's sainthood, you are referring to the Translator's Introduction to "Ancestral Sin" by George Gabriel but Romanides discusses this topic further in other texts including "Patristic and Scholastic Theology in Perspective" where he expressed the hope that Augustine is a saint. His difficulty was in reconciling how Augustine could have been filled with the Holy Spirit while teaching things that were so at odds with the consensus of the Fathers. Ironically, you seem to have the same difficulty in believing Fr. John was purified and illumined since his views on evolution and science depart from the teachings of several modern saints on this topic. On the extent of Fr. John's own purification and illumination, he does not make any claims about himself but others like Met. Neophytos of Morphou who have known many contemporary saints have commented that Fr. John wrote about purification and illumination as someone with actual experience of what he was writing about. If you think Romanides misrepresented Augustine, we have not seen evidence of this and are unaware of any publications where someone has demonstrated this. Regarding the book by Fr. Seraphim Rose on Augustine, he came to similar conclusions as Fr. John and said that Augustine should be honored for his piety and repentance but not relied on at all for his theology. Fr. Seraphim never mentions Romanides in his book nor in his private letters on the topic of Augustine but was rather responding to the views of Fr. Michael Azkoul and Holy Transfiguration Monastery which seem to have been more extreme than that of Romanides. The distinction between original and ancestral sin may be more of a modern distinction to differentiate between Augustinian views on this subject that prevailed in the West and the consensus of the Fathers on this topic that prevailed in the East. Whether this distinction is discussed in conciliar decrees or not doesn't seem very significant.
@@PhosPublicationsHow charitable of Romanides to “hope” that a man referred to as a Holy Father in the Fifth Ecumenical Council might possibly be a saint! 😂
Fr. John Romanides is a fantastic and brilliant theologian and expressed 90%+ Orthodox theology. I will be ordering the book. As for unbaptized infants the general consensus of the Saints that I've read is they experience some sort of heavenly experience. The exact boundaries and status is not discussed at length and varies greatly. It is those who say they are damned that are in the minority.
Why do I feel like everything Fr John Romanides wrote must be interpreted with an exceptional amount of charity. Even if he's not a heretic, it's certainly true that he was a poor teacher. He only confuses people.
Not everything, not most things, but only the few quotes that are taken out of context and amplified. If one actually sits down and reads Fr John deeply, you acquire a much better picture of his teachings than little snippets that are shown on the internet. The most confusing and unclear quotes are taken and focused on and amplified and the many many many passages where he's more clear are ignored.
@@PhosPublicationsI don’t think it’s confusing or unclear when he said that Pope St. Leo was “walked like a dog on a leash” by a heretic. If you’re asserting that does not represent his true views, please cite the passage in his work where he retracts or clarifies that statement.
@@basilp5179Second paragraph, book page 487 (or page 9 of the PDF). It was actually “pet,” not “dog.” Never once does Romanides appear to call *any* Western Saint a Saint; apparently that’s what happens when you profess grand and dazzling standards of “empirical theology” but are just, in reality, another biased academic. ecclesiagreece.gr/greek/press/theologia/material/1994_3_4_Romanides.pdf
29:00 the greek is "Propatorical" sin, in latin there is both "pecatus avitus" (ancestral/forefathers sin) and "pecatus originalis" (original sin) 39:00 No objective response to a very clear citation where Fr. Romanides exposes his exagerated reaction to the doctrine of original sin.
@@brotheraugustine this is true, but we do take official, prepared writings as having more gravity than offhand comments. Fr Daniel Sysoev has some challenging sayings precisely for this reason.
I think my answer to this question was very precise and addressed it adequately. Fr John also contradicts this false interpretation in other places in his writings. I would frankly question the motives of those who continue to insist on interpreting this quote in a heretical way.
The quote I wasn't able to find on time (I apologize for that) is on pp.32-33 of ,,The Ancestral sin'' - ,,Man’s withdrawal from God unto his own death, like the freedom of human free will, is outside of God's jurisdiction.'' Phos Publications said that the punitive language describes man's experience with God's energies. But then in the escathon the unrepented sinners must be in the presence of God, just experiencing His energies differently than the righteous. But in that case, if the gehenna is not created, how would the unrighteous depart, be separate from God forever (Matthew 25.41)?
I don't know about Fr. John's views, but in the eschaton the unrighteous will be separate from God forever even though they will be in his presence forever. Look at how God's presence is deadly in the old testament, how Moses has to hide in a crack to see the majesty of the Lord pass by so he can look at his back, how coming into contact with the pressence of God in the ark of the covenant struck dead those who had not been purified; God's presence is fatal to sin and those who remain in their sin. But to those joined to Christ in Theosis the presence of God will be eternal love and peace. In other words spiritual separation and temporal separation are two different things, and you can have spiritual separation even without temporal separation.
@Satarack Thank you for the reply. Yes, I understand your point. But the issue is that the view that the unrighteous will be in the presence of God forever, is met only in St.Gregory of Nyssa who is still one of the greatest Fathers. But St.Photious suggests a corruption of the text by the origenists.
Of course, that that the righteous will be in the presence of God in the eschaton is not apokatastasis. But the fact that St.Photios the Great assumes that the view resembles apokatastasis, shows that it is not the teaching of the Church. Hence, the unrighteous will not be in the presence of God.
The issue with Romanides is not whether he correctly repeated the Patristic teachings about purification, illumination, and deification (which more or less everyone agrees with). The issue is that - if the narrative presented by Phos Publications is true - Romanides would be the only Orthodox Christian in history to achieve illumination, genuine theoria and vision of God, and conclude from this “empirical theology” that the Bible “contains errors disproven by modern science” and that Christ’s ancestors might have been monkeys. There are *zero* Saints who professed errors of that magnitude.
In other words, the issue is the seemingly-uncrossable chasm between his own professed approach to the faith and the conclusions about God and man which he taught.
His slander against Saints and mischaracterization of St. Augustine’s teachings - to such a degree that what he taught about St. Augustine is, on certain issues, quite literally the polar opposite of what St. Augustine actually taught - further does not exactly lead one to conclude that he possessed the purified spiritual achievements which he seems to have believed he’d achieved.
As to whether he was “Orthodox,” that also depends what you mean. To my knowledge he was Orthodox his whole life and never excommunicated, so on that level yes, he was.
On the other hand, when he submitted work on his dissertation “The Ancestral Sin” his professor forwarded it to his Archbishop and said he thought it was heretical. The Archbishop agreed with the professor, and Romanides - by his own admission - switched schools instead of accepting correction from his Bishop. Though I don’t believe he was ever brought up on formal charges of heresy, that attitude likewise brings into question just to what degree he truly followed to Patristic path.
I’ll add, in his defense, that being informally accused of heresy by one cleric doesn’t necessarily mean he did in fact teach heresy. But one would still imagine he would want to defend himself rather than shopping the dissertation around to someone else without what appears to be any meaningful reflection.
Also, Phos is not telling the truth here about Romanides’ view of Augustine’s title. In the introduction to the English translation of “The Ancestral Sin,” the author explicitly says that Romanides requested Augustine *not* be referred to as either “Saint” or “Blessed.”
As to St. Seraphim’s book, it is very obviously written *against* people like Romanides and those who spoke about St. Augustine the way he did. The context is unmistakable, though Romanides was not named in the book. To say they had the same beliefs on the topic is wildly untrue, and anyone who has read both Romanides and St. Seraphim knows it.
Lastly, the alleged distinction between original and ancestral sin is not found in any conciliar decree ever produced by the Orthodox Church.
Thanks for this comment.
A lot of good thoughts here.
The issues you bring up regarding his mistaken views on science and evolution are dealt with in Part 4 section 6, Part 5 and in the Conclusions of the text.
Regarding Fr. John's views on Augustine's sainthood, you are referring to the Translator's Introduction to "Ancestral Sin" by George Gabriel but Romanides discusses this topic further in other texts including "Patristic and Scholastic Theology in Perspective" where he expressed the hope that Augustine is a saint. His difficulty was in reconciling how Augustine could have been filled with the Holy Spirit while teaching things that were so at odds with the consensus of the Fathers. Ironically, you seem to have the same difficulty in believing Fr. John was purified and illumined since his views on evolution and science depart from the teachings of several modern saints on this topic.
On the extent of Fr. John's own purification and illumination, he does not make any claims about himself but others like Met. Neophytos of Morphou who have known many contemporary saints have commented that Fr. John wrote about purification and illumination as someone with actual experience of what he was writing about.
If you think Romanides misrepresented Augustine, we have not seen evidence of this and are unaware of any publications where someone has demonstrated this.
Regarding the book by Fr. Seraphim Rose on Augustine, he came to similar conclusions as Fr. John and said that Augustine should be honored for his piety and repentance but not relied on at all for his theology. Fr. Seraphim never mentions Romanides in his book nor in his private letters on the topic of Augustine but was rather responding to the views of Fr. Michael Azkoul and Holy Transfiguration Monastery which seem to have been more extreme than that of Romanides.
The distinction between original and ancestral sin may be more of a modern distinction to differentiate between Augustinian views on this subject that prevailed in the West and the consensus of the Fathers on this topic that prevailed in the East. Whether this distinction is discussed in conciliar decrees or not doesn't seem very significant.
@@PhosPublicationsHow charitable of Romanides to “hope” that a man referred to as a Holy Father in the Fifth Ecumenical Council might possibly be a saint! 😂
I think it should be granted that speculation about St. Augustine’s being a saint or not by Romanides was a mistake.
Fr. John Romanides is a fantastic and brilliant theologian and expressed 90%+ Orthodox theology. I will be ordering the book.
As for unbaptized infants the general consensus of the Saints that I've read is they experience some sort of heavenly experience. The exact boundaries and status is not discussed at length and varies greatly. It is those who say they are damned that are in the minority.
Why do I feel like everything Fr John Romanides wrote must be interpreted with an exceptional amount of charity. Even if he's not a heretic, it's certainly true that he was a poor teacher. He only confuses people.
His disciples demand he be treated with a charity which he, himself, did not show to canonized Saints. It is a bit ironic.
Not everything, not most things, but only the few quotes that are taken out of context and amplified. If one actually sits down and reads Fr John deeply, you acquire a much better picture of his teachings than little snippets that are shown on the internet. The most confusing and unclear quotes are taken and focused on and amplified and the many many many passages where he's more clear are ignored.
@@PhosPublicationsI don’t think it’s confusing or unclear when he said that Pope St. Leo was “walked like a dog on a leash” by a heretic. If you’re asserting that does not represent his true views, please cite the passage in his work where he retracts or clarifies that statement.
It’s probably best to also reference this quote about St. Leo. Where is it found?
@@basilp5179Second paragraph, book page 487 (or page 9 of the PDF). It was actually “pet,” not “dog.” Never once does Romanides appear to call *any* Western Saint a Saint; apparently that’s what happens when you profess grand and dazzling standards of “empirical theology” but are just, in reality, another biased academic.
ecclesiagreece.gr/greek/press/theologia/material/1994_3_4_Romanides.pdf
29:00 the greek is "Propatorical" sin, in latin there is both "pecatus avitus" (ancestral/forefathers sin) and "pecatus originalis" (original sin)
39:00 No objective response to a very clear citation where Fr. Romanides exposes his exagerated reaction to the doctrine of original sin.
It’s rather telling that, in order for the quote not to be heresy, it has to be interpreted to mean exactly the opposite of what it says.
@@brotheraugustine this is true, but we do take official, prepared writings as having more gravity than offhand comments. Fr Daniel Sysoev has some challenging sayings precisely for this reason.
I think my answer to this question was very precise and addressed it adequately. Fr John also contradicts this false interpretation in other places in his writings. I would frankly question the motives of those who continue to insist on interpreting this quote in a heretical way.
Great discussion
The quote I wasn't able to find on time (I apologize for that) is on pp.32-33 of ,,The Ancestral sin'' - ,,Man’s withdrawal from God unto his own death, like the freedom of human free will, is outside of God's jurisdiction.'' Phos Publications said that the punitive language describes man's experience with God's energies. But then in the escathon the unrepented sinners must be in the presence of God, just experiencing His energies differently than the righteous. But in that case, if the gehenna is not created, how would the unrighteous depart, be separate from God forever (Matthew 25.41)?
I don't know about Fr. John's views, but in the eschaton the unrighteous will be separate from God forever even though they will be in his presence forever. Look at how God's presence is deadly in the old testament, how Moses has to hide in a crack to see the majesty of the Lord pass by so he can look at his back, how coming into contact with the pressence of God in the ark of the covenant struck dead those who had not been purified; God's presence is fatal to sin and those who remain in their sin. But to those joined to Christ in Theosis the presence of God will be eternal love and peace.
In other words spiritual separation and temporal separation are two different things, and you can have spiritual separation even without temporal separation.
@Satarack Thank you for the reply. Yes, I understand your point. But the issue is that the view that the unrighteous will be in the presence of God forever, is met only in St.Gregory of Nyssa who is still one of the greatest Fathers. But St.Photious suggests a corruption of the text by the origenists.
Of course, that that the righteous will be in the presence of God in the eschaton is not apokatastasis. But the fact that St.Photios the Great assumes that the view resembles apokatastasis, shows that it is not the teaching of the Church. Hence, the unrighteous will not be in the presence of God.
I found your book on Job!
💀