Defining an Orthodox epistemology

[Rick H.]

"Catch Phrases"

Dear All,

Since I have been a community member here at monachos, I have noticed a way of speaking or referring to a way of 'seeing and interpreting' the different topics that come up for discussion on the boards. In short, on a regular basis as it relates to understanding and a theory of knowing, certain "catch phrases" are used. And, I normally just read over these while thinking I will try to learn what is meant here another time. But, a few minutes ago while reading one of Fr. R's posts, I noticed another one, and I am at the point now where I would like to try to understand what is being said by such things a "the larger framework."

Because, to someone like me this phrase is completely meaningless.

Or, to say as Father has:




For us at least, the Fathers need to be always seen & interpreted from within the larger framework of the Church.



I think when it is said "For us . . ." the 'us' refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church, but (and Father if you are reading this) what does the expression "the larger framework of the Church" mean?

So with this we are off in this thread that I would like to continue clicking and dragging such expressions to in the future (in order not to interrupt the other threads as they are moving along).

It occurs to me that in even some cliches or expressions there might be instant access to a part of the treasury, (viz. an Orthodox epistemology that is modeled by an Orthodox ontology -- yes an 'Orthodox ontological argument' come to think of it!) . . . by means of *simply* looking at some of these expressions that are without meaning to likes of me, and possibly some others here as well.

Paul Cowan suggested a dictionary type of thread once before. Possibly, this could serve as a similar thing, in terms of a slang dictionary. And, I wonder if this could also serve as a bridge of sorts as well. How many times have we seen history repeat itself whereby seemingly opposing sides were in fact saying the exact same thing; however because they couldn't understand the words each other was using, an artificial separation was created that did not exist in reality. The mindset was not the problem, the lack of true interpersonal communication was the problem.

In Christ,

Rick

[Herman Blaydoe]

I think when it is said "For us . . ." the 'us' refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church, but (and Father if you are reading this) what does the expression "the larger framework of the Church" mean?

"Us" does refer to the Orthodox Church, but it is a much bigger set than the current members who happen to be alive at this moment. It refers also to the "Consensus Patrum", which is the preserved Apostolic Witness and time-tested two millenia of consistant accumulated wisdom of the Church, which consists of those who have gone before, those who struggle now, and those who follow after.

Orthodoxy has no need for "infallibility". It is not a "valid" concept. No single Father or bishop or theologian can be examined in isolation. All things must be "tested" as the Holy Apostle Paul teaches, to ensure that it is truely from God. The Church provides the FRAMEWORK, the "standard", the environment for this testing. We, as individuals, test "new" ideas against what the Church teaches so that we are not led astray. The Church, as a concilliar organism, keeps the various parts of itself in check. When one part of the Church departs from the true Apostolic Witness, the other parts of the Church work together to bring the ailing part back, sometimes through councils, other times through censure, convening of spiritual courts, and in extreme cases through severing communal relations.

So, for me at least, the term "larger framework" has significant meaning, in that if I am espousing an interpretation or idea that seriously departs from what the Church holds in concensus, then that idea or interpretation fails the Paulian test, and keeps me from going out and starting my own schismatic "church". It is the "one mind" that the Apostle Paul says we, as the church, must be.

I think....but I could be wrong, usual disclaimer applies....

What was the question again?

[Father David Moser]

"Us" does refer to the Orthodox Church, but it is a much bigger set than the current members who happen to be alive at this moment. It refers also to the "Consensus Patrum", which is the preserved Apostolic Witness and time-tested two millenia of consistant accumulated wisdom of the Church, which consists of those who have gone before, those who struggle now, and those who follow after.

This brings to mind a definition of the Tradition of the Church which I heard at one time as being, "that which is believed by the whole Church in all times and in all places" Thus we cannot be satisfied with just the flat dimension of the witness of the Church in the present but must include the depth of the Church from the beginning until now (and even on into the future). And even this must be consistent with He Who is Truth - God Himself. If we do not consider the whole dimension of the Truth - the self revelation of God through Jesus Christ and the experience of that Truth not only in the present but throughout time and not only here but in all places where the Church is, then we do not have Truth.

Fr David Moser

[Nina]

Dear Rick,

I do not know where the question came from, because the post and other words of Father(s) here I understand perfectly. And because Father David and Herman have explained so wonderfully above you know by now what it is all about. I just wanted to add to it, and say that what you refer to as cliché is what is left to us as a Testament from Saints and Holy Fathers and what we imitate (so I am sure it is not without meaning to you or us because we all draw in our posts from the unending well of spiritual knowledge the Holy Fathers left us). And even more: you characterize those words as cliché, uttering thus unknowingly the truth yourself: because cliché's etymology is traced to 'of imitative origin': which is the simple truth of our faith. Holy Fathers imitated Christ and we try to imitate Them.

P.S To avoid complaints :) "Parlez-vous cliché?" means "Do you speak cliché?"

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

Thanks very much for the contributions here. But, as Joan Rivers says, "Can we talk?"

Seriously.

I wonder if we can articulate our faith in a way that does not sound like a 'Who's on First' routine?

If not, why have discussion groups?

The original question was:





. . . what does the expression "the larger framework of the Church" mean?



Herman was kind enough to share:

"the preserved Apostolic Witness and time-tested two millennia of consistent accumulated wisdom of the Church, which consists of those who have gone before, those who struggle now, and those who follow after."
"Orthodoxy has no need for "infallibility". It is not a "valid" concept. No single Father or bishop or theologian can be examined in isolation. All things must be "tested" as the Holy Apostle Paul teaches, to ensure that it is truly from God.
The Church provides the FRAMEWORK, the "standard", the environment for this testing.
We, as individuals, test "new" ideas against what the Church teaches so that we are not led astray.
What was the question again? (I'm still laughing about this one--very good sir :)And, I feel that Herman is 1000% sincere here in what he is sharing, and I have no doubt that this has deep meaning for him. Herman has proved himself to be sincere over and over, in fact I love Herman and if he wasn't married already, I would want him to marry one of my daughters . . . BuuuUUUTT . . .

at the end of the day this is all a big bunch of nothing. "Consensus Patrum!!!" is just as meaningful uttered here, in response to my question, as it would be if shouted by Harry Potter as he points his magic wand at an enemy.

And, I could drive this point home farther, but there is no need for this.

Is there anyone out there besides me that sees what I am saying here?

To me there is no difference between, these kind of statements and what goes on in this audio (last week we had McDonald's as the Church, this week it is Bud and Lou and an Orthodox Epistemology):



Abbott and Costello, Who's on first? audio and text (http://www.phoenix5.org/humor/WhoOnFirst.html)



http://www.phoenix5.org/humor/images/ACBaseball.jpg



So, my question is when we are attempting to define how we know, can we articulate things any more precisely about the "consensus" of the fathers, or apostolic witness, or whatever you want to call it?



I had a friend in northern Ohio named "Okie." He was an older gentleman. I used to go fishing with "Oak" all the time, and he had an expression which was "Rick, either you know or you don't, and if you don't know, I can't tell you." And, whenever he would reach down into his bag of expressions and pull that one out for me, I remember he would always look at me in the eyes in a very direct way and laugh hard and loud. Kind of a country boy metaphysic I think.--something to do with "speaking the language of the country folk." Possibly, some of you know what I am saying here?


So, as Joan Rivers says, "Can we talk?"



Is an Orthodox epistemology something that cannot be articulated in any real way? It seems like we always end up with something like: Who is the one that subscribes to the true apostolic witness? Well, this is the one who has been taught by those who teach the teachings of the true apostolic witness!



In Christ,
Rick

[Nina]

Kind of a country boy metaphysic I think.--something to do with "speaking the language of the country folk." Possibly, some of you know what I am saying here?


In Christ,
Rick


I do not have the giggle smiley here but insert it with your imagination. Rick, you are amusing. When you said that -"Herman has proved himself to be sincere over and over, in fact I love Herman and if he wasn't married already, I would want"- because of the way the sentence was placed on the screen, my mind raced in front of my eyes and I thought you want to marry Herman. giggles... It is kind of like Matthew S. said about the word 'sinlessness'. But I do not wear glasses... therefore I was rubbing my eyes... and sighed with relief when I read the entire thing. Therefore you are rehabilitated. :)

Ok for your quote above. You are right. But this comes from a guy named Rick, who starts threads about phronema and ... oh if I look in your posts I can find so much terminology and phrases and etc. :)

[Rick H.]

Nina--You got me here (good job :), I originally was going to say that to try to be funny, but I decided not to becuase I thought I would never live it down . . . but, again just for the record I did not say whatever it is that we may or may not be talking about here--Rick http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/0201d201a5/16

PS Also, just for the record, I kept reading the other one as "silly" too yesterday. :)

[Nina]

Ok, ok my dear brother in Christ, Rick. But you have to remember that I am not here to get you. It was just e-convo, it was my reaction to what you wrote. As for the 'silly', I am the one for that epithet.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Is an Orthodox epistemology something that cannot be articulated in any real way?

Obviously I am not articulating very well, but what, exactly, do you think we articulate in every Orthodox prayer and service?

[Rick H.]

"Jargon as Terminology or Jargon as Nonsense?"

Dear Herman, Dear All,

Yesterday, in summation of a post, I asked:




Is an Orthodox epistemology something that cannot be articulated in any real way?



And, Herman followed up with this summary question:


Obviously I am not articulating very well, but what, exactly, do you think we articulate in every Orthodox prayer and service?


which is a great question to which I think we would have many beautiful answers. What exactly is it that we hear vocalized/verbalized through these expressions and aspirations each week?

Each week we listen to voices from the past singing in a perfect beautiful harmony of our aspiration for Christ and our expectation of Christ.

In very plain *simple* talk our beliefs and hopes and prayers are expressed each week beginning with:

"Blessed is the kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages."

To which we reply:

"Amen"

Each week we listen and agree and hopefully participate together in both the aspiration and the realization of communion and union with Christ.

And, to go any further is to start a new thread on your most excellent question Herman (which sounds like a beautiful thing to me right now).

But, back to this thread . . . even as I consider briefly your question here, and I think of the beauty and the harmony that is to be found within the divine liturgy (and especially for me in the services for Holy Week and Easter), I am forced once again to see the disconnect between what the Church vocalizes each week in our prayer books and service books, etc., and where 'the rubber meets the road.'

And, it may sound like I am being critical here. But, I am not. I am seeking definition (dokimaso!). Since I have been here at monachos, I have observed a kind of "Orthodox Jargon" that is used regularly by the wider community. Usually, this type of language comes into the picture when one is seeking clarification on something that was said. I have noticed that the more one tries to understand what is said, the more this Orthodox jargon is employed.

And, even here, I am not being critical of the use of jargon because, obviously, I love jargon. In fact to be crystal clear about this, if I wasn't already married, I would want to marry jargon. Jargon can be extremely helpful as an aid to covering much 'ground' in a short time!

But, if one or more in a group does not understand the terminology that is being used, then attempts to communicate anything become again a one way ticket to the theater of the absurd, which will result in the opposite of the intended outcome--every time! As a normal practice/method, to use jargon when it cannot be defined or articulated in any meaningful way is shear madness--only the spirit of confusion is to be found whereby we no God is not the author of this!.

This is the miserable method of those who subscribe to the "postmodern" myth by the way. I *really* hate to talk to these people who play language games and change word meanings and definitions as you try to understand what is being said--the masters of the HDC (Humpty Dumpty Clause). With these folks, who are masters at talking things in circles until they literally have no meaning, with these folks who will slip out of any corners they place themselves into in order to avoid contradictions, it becomes an exercise in lunacy to sit and have coffee and conversation in very short order. Because they are masters of nonsense. They will parrot back and recite by rote memory the thinking of others until clarification is asked for, at which time, the ones who are able to think for themselves will start doing a dance and playing a pipe for you for as long as you are willing to participate in this sort of thing--until you finally give up and give in, or choose to walk away.

But, jargon is: "terminology, much like slang, that relates to a specific activity, profession, or group. It develops as a kind of shorthand, to express ideas that are frequently discussed between members of a group."

Jargon, itself, is not to be shunned. I love jargon as a shorthand to express ideas. But, jargon without definition is something to be walked away from, it is something to be shunned when it is used as a shield for either the incompetent or the practitioners of the HDC for whatever reason.

And, this is why I have established this thread so that we may bring some definition to our expressions/thinking, to what it is that we are saying--what it is that we are thinking--in a way that can be communicated other than by means of a jargon that we use that we cannot define or articulate in a meaningful way.

In Christ,
Rick

[M.C. Steenberg]

It is a part, in my experience, of community life, that a community of shared experience develops terms and phrases that grow out of and indicate that experience and awareness. The term Theotokos is a good example of this: at its best it is a 'short hand' for a whole confessional understanding of the encountered Christ: the one known in his humanity to be the Son of the eternal Father, born of human mother. Without the communal experience of the term, it may have (and does have) its own significance; but this is not necessarily identical to the term's meaning in that community of experience, for which the term is part of that experiential articulation of the faith.

The same is true of many other phrases. In some sense, it would be this to which I would turn, myself, when thinking of 'the larger context' or 'the larger framework' in which specific concepts are explored. It is the common life of the ecclesial body of Christ, borne up in the illumination of the Spirit. It is in part collected in written documents: creeds, conciliar statements, theological and ascetical writings; but it is also encountered in the ongoing, living experience of the ecclesia. This can make it aggravating, at times, to delineate: but no more so than any relational knowledge in any other context. The relationship between two human persons is carried out in the same way, and suffers from the same constraints and is blessed by the same dynamism of an articulation that is always bound up in experience.

To a degree, this means that abstracted epistemological determinations about Christianity and Christian belief have value only - ironically - to a degree. There are significant and important absolute indications and declarations that can be made in words about aspects of Christian life, that can be shared and spread into varied contexts; but, as so many Orthodox writers have taken pains to stress, full Orthodox epistemology is a relational epistempology, and requires the encounter of relation in order to find its fullness. This is part of the reason that certain 'summary phrases' have been important in Christian language over time: phrases that indicate realities of experience that can be partially spoken, but the fuller meaning of which comes less from an abstracted analytical consideration than from relation experience of that reality within the ecclesia.

I would hesitate with the term 'cliches', to speak of common phrases. Though sometimes what is needed is some more careful and prayerful engagement with the words and descriptions that are most common in 'Christian talk', common usage does not make a phrase less meaningful or significant.

INXC, Matthew

[Celinda Grace]

"In short, on a regular basis as it relates to understanding and a theory of knowing, certain "catch phrases" are used."

Rick, I think I understand your question because I was wrestling with questions of epistemology before I started posting regularly here on Monachos. The questions I was asking at the time were questions about the relationship between intuition and reason.


It is the common life of the ecclesial body of Christ, borne up in the illumination of the Spirit. It is in part collected in written documents: creeds, conciliar statements, theological and ascetical writings; but it is also encountered in the ongoing, living experience of the ecclesia. This can make it aggravating, at times, to delineate: but no more so than any relational knowledge in any other context.


The definition of intuition is -- the direct knowing or learning of something without the conscious use of reasoning, immediate apprehension or perception. Intuition is born of experience rather then reason.

Rational knowledge comes from taking our sensible intuitions (our sensible experience of reality) and combining these such that we arive at a more unified knowledge. All of my experiences of trees combines into a conceptual idea of tree. That conceptual idea might be looked at as a mental experience of the essence of all those experiences.

phrases that indicate realities of experience that can be partially spoken, but the fuller meaning of which comes less from an abstracted analytical consideration than from relation experience of that reality within the ecclesia.

Everyone's idea of 'tree' is going to be a little different because of the different experiences that they have had, someone who has lived in say the S. American jungle will have a different experiential picture in their mind then someone from NE USA. Therefore, although we do manage to communicate we are not communicating our ideas completely, our communications are filtered through our own personal experience.

Likewise in the Church, each person's experience of the common life of the Church is going to color their own idea of the larger framework. Yet because the common life is common, our communications aren't totally in vain. Yet as Matthew said this idea can't be precisely delineated because it is both corporate and individual.

Also, we have to take into account that one becomes more conscious of and sensitive to the common life of the Church as one is illumined by the Spirit as Matthew mentions. Therefore the Church Fathers are most fully equipped to speak about that life because they are more aware of it at deeper, subtler levels . We need to realize though that there is a degree to which only they can understand each other because we do not have the experience they have. It is as if I met a naturalist who had studied all the trees the world over and in great depth- He would have things to say about trees that I could not grasp because my own experience of trees was too small. I would get what I call empty words without knowledge.

In the religious life I think a great deal of our talk is this empty words without knowledge. As you say they become cliche's that get thrown around and who has the experience to really know them as the Father's knew them? I run into this all the time when reading the Fathers. I read some passage 3-4 times and realize I have no idea what the words mean and no way to come to grips with what they are saying.

An example of the problem, What is faith? Can you define it or do you just experience it? And I know in my own life my experience of what faith is tends to change and vary depending on where I am in my walk with God.

I realize this is a little convoluted hopefully though it will help tie some things together.

PS I underlined the word idea to remind you to look at my definition of it.

[Nina]

I would hesitate with the term 'cliches', to speak of common phrases. Though sometimes what is needed is some more careful and prayerful engagement with the words and descriptions that are most common in 'Christian talk', common usage does not make a phrase less meaningful or significant.

INXC, Matthew

Exactly. I agree with your post, and this sums it up very well.

[Rick H.]

Jehovahnissi

Dear Celinda,

Now we are talking!

I am so overwhelmed by the wisdom that I find in your last post, that I am going to take the rest of the day to sit with what you have shared. I was still processing Matthew's excellent post as it relates to a common ground when yours hit the screen. So I am running behind here now. But, I am compelled to comment about the following in your last post:




Likewise in the Church, each person's experience of the common life of the Church is going to color their own idea of the larger framework. Yet because the common life is common, our communications aren't totally in vain. Yet as Matthew said this idea can't be precisely delineated because it is both corporate and individual.



Specifically the last sentence:




Yet as Matthew said this idea can't be precisely delineated because it is both corporate and individual.



and, this may be meaningless in itself, but I just have to share that just as this is developed and shared here, this is the Question of questions that we see in almost 100% (of the non-recipe threads) here on monachos. This is the Question behind all other questions, we even see this question in the hats and pants threads!

If this question is ever grasped, tackled, and then at the bare minimum 'recognized' for what IT *is,* I am fully persuaded that we all would be standing . . . oh never mind, I'll save this way of speaking for the sister thread to this one which is "The Kingdom of God as a Common Ground."

Thanks again Celinda, your post brings shalom-shalom to this sometimes weary traveler.

But, then again (and, speaking of shalom-shalom), as Mike, in another post, has inspired me to consider Owen's Spiritual IQ thread . . . "Is it better to have a.) contentment with satisfaction; or b.) contentment without satisfaction?

Or, let's get three with one blow here . . . Mike, as it relates to your comments on the other sister thread to this one, "Acquiring an Orthodox Mindset" . . . "Is it better to a.) evaluate without participation; or b.) participate without evaluation?

Let's consider these last two 'thought questions' to be rhetorical devices (for those who are offended by the expression Christian koan).

In Christ,
Rick

[Nina]

your post brings shalom-shalom to this sometimes weary traveler.
In Christ,
Rick

I highly doubt you are a "weary traveler". With all this energy, thoughts etc?!

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

A very interesting series of posts.

Remember also however that the experience that is being referred to is that of knowledge & it is this knowledge which is common within the Church.

Thus although experience in the sense of engagement is common the actual experiences of each are actually unique. This is what is being said above I guess.

But what ties all of this experience together within the Church is an inherent understanding, as guided by the Holy Spirit. Thus someone of minimal experience may gain real insight into the writings of the Fathers because experience within the Church is tied together like transparent icons lined up before each other. If we have no experience however, ie if we have not given of ourselves in the way God has called us to, then little will be understood.

This is why for example we can have books like those of Sts Gregory Theologian, Dionysios the Areopagite or St Isaac the Syrian. On the face of it these are at too high a level to ever understand. But yet when we meet those who have the experience of dying to themselves in Christ they do understand according to how God leads them.

And when they speak others 'hear' them because they also have some sort of similar experience of this way of life within Christ.

So within the Church like hears like not regardless of experience but even amidst different experiences. What allows us to hear each other within the Church is the commonality of a way of life and knowledge which ties all of these experiences together.

As the Pentecost tropar says, the Holy Spirit ties together the tongues that formerly had been separated.

In Christ- Fr Raphael






Rational knowledge comes from taking our sensible intuitions (our sensible experience of reality) and combining these such that we arive at a more unified knowledge. All of my experiences of trees combines into a conceptual idea of tree. That conceptual idea might be looked at as a mental experience of the essence of all those experiences.


Everyone's idea of 'tree' is going to be a little different because of the different experiences that they have had, someone who has lived in say the S. American jungle will have a different experiential picture in their mind then someone from NE USA. Therefore, although we do manage to communicate we are not communicating our ideas completely, our communications are filtered through our own personal experience.

Likewise in the Church, each person's experience of the common life of the Church is going to color their own idea of the larger framework. Yet because the common life is common, our communications aren't totally in vain. Yet as Matthew said this idea can't be precisely delineated because it is both corporate and individual.

Also, we have to take into account that one becomes more conscious of and sensitive to the common life of the Church as one is illumined by the Spirit as Matthew mentions. Therefore the Church Fathers are most fully equipped to speak about that life because they are more aware of it at deeper, subtler levels . We need to realize though that there is a degree to which only they can understand each other because we do not have the experience they have. It is as if I met a naturalist who had studied all the trees the world over and in great depth- He would have things to say about trees that I could not grasp because my own experience of trees was too small. I would get what I call empty words without knowledge.

In the religious life I think a great deal of our talk is this empty words without knowledge. As you say they become cliche's that get thrown around and who has the experience to really know them as the Father's knew them? I run into this all the time when reading the Fathers. I read some passage 3-4 times and realize I have no idea what the words mean and no way to come to grips with what they are saying.

An example of the problem, What is faith? Can you define it or do you just experience it? And I know in my own life my experience of what faith is tends to change and vary depending on where I am in my walk with God.

[Michael Stickles]

Mike, as it relates to your comments on the other sister thread to this one, "Acquiring an Orthodox Mindset" . . . "Is it better to a.) evaluate without participation; or b.) participate without evaluation?

Hmmmm.

That reads to me as "Is it better to a.) know without knowing; or b.) not know while knowing?"

If one cannot know while knowing, which knowing not to have? Which not-knowing to have?

And if a question falls in the forum, and no one reads it, does it...? Oh, never mind.

In Christ,
Mike

[M.C. Steenberg]

"Is it better to a.) evaluate without participation; or b.) participate without evaluation?"Both are equally absurd.

INXC, Matthew

[Rick H.]

Both are equally absurd.

INXC, Matthew


Yes they are, but you get a yellow card from the spiritual IQ police.

[Nina]

because experience within the Church is tied together like transparent icons lined up before each other.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

Wow, this is so beautiful!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Yes they are, but you get a yellow card from the spiritual IQ police.

Well, perhaps (though I don't know quite what this means). But the absurdity of the dichotomy is instructive in its own right. It's the kind of choice to which one might feel led, but which in fact circumvents the whole subject.

INXC, Matthew

[Rick H.]

Dear Matthew, Dear Celinda,

Matthew, I hear it is a good thing to get a yellow card from the Spiritual IQ Police--it means you did a good job with the thought question. Congratulations! In fact, here's one that you may remember from Owen's thread found at Spiritual IQ test - Page 2 - Monachos.net Discussion Community (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3424&page=2) :




Is one more oneself when a) alone or b) in a group?



I might even try to tackle this one here in this thread tomorrow. This one may prove to be instructive as well. Maybe I can even get a yellow card too.

And, Celinda, as I continue to consider, some contributions from the fields of anthropology and sociology as it relates to your last post, I wonder if you would rule out any notions of a radical individualism as means (for the lack of a better word now) of true community. Please don't look too hard at that word means now. I know this may be incomprehensible without developing this at all and just throwing it at you like this. But, I have been considering this concept for about four years now, and I just want to see if it strikes any chords with you based on what you have shared today. If not please just dismiss it and let if fall away.

In Christ,
Rick

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

I preferred Owen's opening question:

Is it better to be a victim of an injustice, or to commit an injustice?

and I am not sure whether it is radical individualism or part of Orthodox epistemology to say that the first seems the preferred option to the Christian.

In Christ,

John

[Celinda Grace]

Remember also however that the experience that is being referred to is that of knowledge & it is this knowledge which is common within the Church.

But what ties all of this experience together within the Church is an inherent understanding, as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Maybe instead of saying that the experience being referred to is that of knowledge, we should say that the experience being referred to is an experience of Truth. It this experience of He who is Truth that is common within the Church.


When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me." John 15:26

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. John 16:13


And when they speak others 'hear' them because they also have some sort of similar experience of this way of life within Christ.

So within the Church like hears like not regardless of experience but even amidst different experiences. What allows us to hear each other within the Church is the commonality of a way of life and knowledge which ties all of these experiences together.

As the Pentecost tropar says, the Holy Spirit ties together the tongues that formerly had been separated.

This I think can be applied to the heart of a true ecumenism, not one based on definitions of the church but one based on a common experience of life within Christ. When do the various Christains from different traditions hear each other? It is when they recognize the essential sameness of their way of life and knowledge as centered within Christ.

This is not always easy though, the linguistic barrier can be a problem -such as the different uses of the words salvation and sanctification. Experiential barriers exist such as different ways and contexts of approaching the Way of the Cross, or the different way Christ is experienced within the individual vs. in the Church, etc.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Earlier in this thread, the following came up, in a dialogue with another poster:



I wonder if you would rule out any notions of a radical individualism as means (for the lack of a better word now) of true community.

This raises some interesting questions (some of which are undoubtedly provoked by my continued reading, at present, of Metropolitan John's new book, Communion and Otherness). One of these is the the question of the term 'individual' (and 'individualism') in any context of 'community'. Metr John would certainly rule it out all together: according to his basic expressions, individuals cannot exist in or as communities, but only persons, and a person is distinguished from an individual precisely on communal grounds. Individual identity comes from seclusion from communion; personal identity comes wholly from it. So, by his terminology, a 'radical individualism' might in fact be the very definition of non-communion / non-community (and one is reminded here of St Makarios' story of the pagan priest in hell, who described hell as a place where 'we are tied back to back, so we cannot see one another': i.e., a place of non-communion). On the other hand, a 'radical personalism' or 'radical personhood' might be the definition of genuine communion and community.

Taking this back to the immediate subject of the thread, this relates to epistemological questions when one considers that, as is so often said, in Christian life truth is a person: Jesus Christ. So knowledge of the truth is personal - that is, it comes in the relating of the hypostasis of a person with the Person of the Son of God. And as such, who I am as a person bears directly on what I know (and can know) in a 'personal (or hypostatic) epistemology'.

INXC, Matthew

[Rick H.]

". . . this should be understood absolutely and without any reservations."

Dear Matthew,

This sounds like a great book, I didn't even know he had this out. I will be stuck at a Harry Potter party, at a local bookstore this Friday night. But, with any luck at all, I'll be in my favorite leather chair (with my ear plugs in), sipping a cup of quality coffee and reading a copy of Zizioulas's new book [while all the Harry's, in their costumes, are running amuck and casting spells on each other in the store that night].

So you have me at a slight disadvantage here as you introduce his thinking into this. But, you have really covered a lot of ground in a short time here, for which I thank you! For, that matter, though, you do not know how I am defining the term 'radical individualism,' so you are at a disadvantage as well. And, I am actually doing a writing project that devotes a major amount of space to this subject as it relates to the community of the cross. So I don't want to put all my cards on the table here now. But, knowing the one who uses the term first is the one who gets to define it http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/0201d201a5/02, I will share with you that as I am using the term a 'radical individualism' this speaks to such things, including but not limited to, 'a laying aside of all earthy cares and plans [as Fr. R. has said elsewhere];' 'death to self and a taking up of one's own cross;' as well as 'a transcendence of all divisions in Christ.'

That last phrase you may recognize as being representative of Zizioulas's thinking as well. And, I just simply love your summary paragraph, which concludes with a 'radical personalism' or 'radical personhood' as a suggestion of the definition of 'community.' There is possibly a huge common ground to be found in terms of the overlap of what is being said here, and what I am saying. I am presently trying to find a way to say this so that it may be more accessible. And, possibly I will develop what I am saying here more at some point to see if anyone can poke any holes in the presentation; however, in the meantime I would like to share another paragraph written by Zizioulas that is not without direct meaning and implications for this present subject.

Unless, I am up in the clouds here all by myself. We all know what is at stake in any conversation that speaks of such concepts as individualism, particularism, and community. As it relates to the way the catholicity of the Church is revealed by the very ones who claim membership in her, as Zizioulas says (BAC):

". . . the ultimate essence of catholicity lies in the transcendence of all divisions in Christ. This should be understood absolutely and without any reservations. It covers all areas and all dimensions of existence whether human or cosmic, historical or echatological [sic], spiritual or material, social or individual, etc. The dichotomies in which life has been placed and conceived, unfortunately to a great extent by Christian tradition itself, represent a betrayal of the catholic outlook so essential to the Church of Christ."

Zizioulas says things much more tactfully than I probably ever will, but the same message is heard just as clear whereby, this may be the way things are, but it's not okay.

And, I do appreciate your post here very much. But, once again I find myself reminded, in light of my original post, that on an increasing basis, words just really do get in the way sometimes. And, much like one's theology can get in the way of one's understanding, a word by itself really is a stupid thing.

Bagel,
Rick

[Andrew]

Earlier in this thread, the following came up, in a dialogue with another poster:



This raises some interesting questions (some of which are undoubtedly provoked by my continued reading, at present, of Metropolitan John's new book, Communion and Otherness). One of these is the the question of the term 'individual' (and 'individualism') in any context of 'community'. Metr John would certainly rule it out all together: according to his basic expressions, individuals cannot exist in or as communities, but only persons, and a person is distinguished from an individual precisely on communal grounds. Individual identity comes from seclusion from communion; personal identity comes wholly from it. So, by his terminology, a 'radical individualism' might in fact be the very definition of non-communion / non-community (and one is reminded here of St Makarios' story of the pagan priest in hell, who described hell as a place where 'we are tied back to back, so we cannot see one another': i.e., a place of non-communion). On the other hand, a 'radical personalism' or 'radical personhood' might be the definition of genuine communion and community.

Taking this back to the immediate subject of the thread, this relates to epistemological questions when one considers that, as is so often said, in Christian life truth is a person: Jesus Christ. So knowledge of the truth is personal - that is, it comes in the relating of the hypostasis of a person with the Person of the Son of God. And as such, who I am as a person bears directly on what I know (and can know) in a 'personal (or hypostatic) epistemology'.

INXC, Matthew

This might not be entirely on topic, but I think it is definitely possible to adhere to "individualism" in a communal setting. Take the ideology of social darwinism for instance... if human life is about survival of the fittest, then why are the adherents of this ideology informing the rest of the world about it? It gives those who are of "feeble minds" the chance to be aware of how things are, and plan accordingly. Or Objectivism (which is basically upside down Marxism)... individualists flock to other individualists, haha. This just proves human life is centered on communion! Even the radical libertarians, individualists, and such try to communicate their ideas with other people!

I think atheism has a sort of irony to it too... especially the sort that flies around on the internet (ie Flying Spaghetti Monster). For people who disbelieve in the existence of God, they sure do talk a whole lot about something that doesn't seem to exist!

[Paul Cowan]

Matthew said:

Metr John would certainly rule it out all together: according to his basic expressions, individuals cannot exist in or as communities, but only persons, and a person is distinguished from an individual precisely on communal grounds.

I thought this interesting from answers.com



Person: Christianity. Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.

I heard a homily from Fr. Pat Rearden on the person of Jesus Christ from Ancient Faith Radio. I think it was the Devout Centurian Homily. (Paraphrased) God comes to us as a person. It takes two to be a person as this is a relationshipal condition. God is in essence 3 persons. Always in communion with Himself.

Paul

[Rick H.]

"Death to Self"

Dear All,

Keeping in mind this thread was designed with the following in mind (taken from the first post):




So with this we are off in this thread that I would like to continue clicking and dragging such expressions to in the future (in order not to interrupt the other threads as they are moving along).




I would like to bring an expression in from the St. John of the Cross thread:




If we die to ourselves then we will not only find good- and in the most unexpected places; we will instill good into the world. Try to do this the other way around and we will betray our basic Christian calling to the world.



I have seen this expression or varying forms of it used repeatedly through many threads here. I have used this expression myself (based on my understanding of this biblical concept as it is employed in renewal theology by non-orthodox theologians).

But, it occurs to me that I have never seen anyone define this concept or give any meaning to it. So, I am hoping that I can hear from some "Orthodox" church members about what this expression means as it is used in "Orthodoxy." As I was studying a post in the St. John thread by Father Raphael, I was appreciating what he said , but then it occurred to me I don't really know what this means in terms of the [I]received doctrine of "Orthodoxy." And, without an understanding of this, then I cannot really begin to know what is being said as a whole without starting with a foundation of assumptions.

In Christ,
Rick

[Herman Blaydoe]

I don't know that "Orthodoxy" treats the term any different than the Holy Apostle Paul:

"Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." (Romans 6:4). I don't think the Apostle is telling us to commit suicide, but to "die to oneself" so that we live, not for ourselves "...but for God" (Romans 6:10).

"For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live." (Romans 8:13).

From the Antiochian Orthodox Church in the UK:

Yet, accepting this, the Christian gospel declares that there is a way out and through this impasse of death and that is the resurrection of Christ … a greening of creation, a renewal of human life beyond death, a hope of eternal life.

This is no automatic transition, however, to a better life. In the Garden of Eden we found ourselves locked out of the banqueting hall, subject to the inexorable law of corruption and death. To participate in the resurrection of Christ, to regain entrance to Eden, we need to make continuous and crucial decisions day by day. These concern, fundamentally, our call to live by God’s indestructible life and to put to death our own corrupting self-will. This is a life long process of conformity to the cross as a life transforming encounter; putting to death our self-will and submitting to God’s will and by his power living the life of sacrifice and faithfulness. The way of death-destroying LOVE is our resurrection, they key to all life here and now and the promise of life to come, not subject to death, corruption, hell and judgement but rather life, health and the enjoyment of God’s Kingdom with All the Saints.

Maybe I am simply not understanding the question, so forgive me if I am merely restating the obvious.

[Rick H.]

Dear Father David,

I would like to suggest that you are correct in the following:




Without the authority of the Church, each person then has to decide for himself what is and isn't true.



and, as we consider the following quote:




John- I would need to see Bishop Hilarion's comments for myself to come to a more full agreement or disagreement with them. Just because Bishop Hilarion says something doesn't make it correct or something I need automatically agree with.



at the end of the day, as it relates to thinking and knowing, I wonder what it is that we are really saying. As we consider Shawn's approach which you have linked to individualism and as we consider Father Raphael's approach above, I wonder what are we saying. As we consider the approach of Shawn and as we consider what you mean by 'the authority of the Church,' who is the individualist and who models a true catholicism. Or, better yet, in this, who is the particularist and who is the catholic, and in this sense where does the charge of individualism really lie?

There are different schools of thought within the Eastern Orthodox Church. Who would disagree with this? As it relates to the question of whose authority one is under within the Church, as it relates to which Bishop one finds oneself under, or which priest, in the end we all make a move as Father Raphael has in the above (especially when we disagree with what is presented). Assuming we still think and have not forfeited this faculty in terms of proving, trying, examining (dokimaso), as we are commanded to do repeatedly in the Holy Writ . . . In the end, we need to see for ourselves and know for ourselves so that we may never hear those dreadful words on that day from our Lord, "I never knew you." There desperately needs to be a personal relationship for the individual with the Person of Christ. But! this needs to go beyond the desperation that is modeled by Linus in the Charlie Brown comic strip before, during , and after the Great Pumpkin never showed up.

So as we may talk about the authority of the Church as it relates to Shawn or this thread or anything else, as we may attempt to shun individualism or the sin of individualism, I wish we could be more clear about what we are saying. I wish we could engage and have all parties stick around and not head for the hills after a short go. Otherwise, there is no difference for the one(s) who could be ministered to between the Great Pumpkin and the Authority of the Church. Take this thread and Shawn for example, instead of merely saying something like, 'well, you are a great example of someone who just doesn't get it,' or, 'you and people like you, like those Protestants and Roman Catholics, if you looked at things the right way, then you would look at things just like I do.'

Instead of this, how 'bout if a pastoral or evangelical/missional hat is put on and we engage on a different level. I wonder now what it would be like to have this conversation if defensiveness and polemics are left out on all sides. And, there is just a time of sharing where we discuss why we believe what we believe, whereby we make assertions and then support our assertions. I think this would be very beneficial for not only those outside of Eastern Orthodoxy, but for those like me, the new babies in Eastern Orthodoxy. Especially here in monachos.net. Because I am hearing and reading things here that I have not heard or read anywhere else. There is a mood and an epistemology present here that I have seen in just about every organization that I have ever been involved with, and one that I have read about in many places in history.

And, it could be said that this conversation has been had before here in other threads, and that is correct. This conversation has been had before, the archives are loaded with this, this is going on at the present, and it will go on in the future, so this is not a short conversation. And, it occurs to me now that this is a post for the Orthodox Epistemology thread and not the Dionysius thread as I had originally intended. So I will put it there and see if we can have a discussion that is void of defensiveness and polemics and does not have a premature ending.

In Christ,
Rick

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

Interesting points, and important ones. The themes you raise bring to mind St. Gregory Nazianzus's thought in his Orations 18:30, discussing, effectively, his relationship with his dead father and live mother, when he cites 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, reminding his hearers that the true disciple must pass from the stage of suckling milk, which means to live on natural impulses and the guidance of parents, to that solid bread which means being able to perceive spiritual values with wisdom and authority.

In Christ,

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Rick,

I don't understand anything you wrote in your last post. There was something about a pumpkin, at which point I skipped to the end.

What are you actually trying to ask after? Under four lines would be nice.

INXC, Matthew

[Rick H.]

Dear Rick,

I don't understand anything you wrote in your last post. There was something about a pumpkin, at which point I skipped to the end.

What are you actually trying to ask after? Under four lines would be nice.

INXC, Matthew



Dear Matthew,

Possibly, I am using too much American pop culture here and that is causing you a problem understanding what is being said. However, barring this, if you are not going to read half of the post (viz. 'skip' over half of what is written), and then share that you cannot understand, I'm not sure what to tell you. Possibly my last reference to Sgt. Shultz from Hogan's Heroes was not even comprehensible for you?

In Christ,
Rick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Matthew,

Possibly, I am using too much American pop culture here and that is causing you a problem understanding what is being said. However, barring this, if you are not going to read half of the post (viz. 'skip' over half of what is written), and then share that you cannot understand, I'm not sure what to tell you. Possibly my last reference to Sgt. Shultz from Hogan's Heroes was not even comprehensible for you?

In Christ,
Rick

Dear Rick,

Well, I read through your post and also would be interested in having the point clarified.

Remember that the point here at Monachos is:


the discussion of Eastern Orthodoxy through study of its patristic, monastic, liturgical and ecclesiastical heritage. It is not primarily an opinion forum, but an environment for the reflection upon and deliberation of themes within this scope of focus.

That is, what we say and discuss here should be tied into or flow from the patristic, monastic, liturgical and ecclesiastical Tradition of the Church.

Certainly no one is saying to not criticize or ask for something more in regards to those who post here. But the point we make needs to have something central to it in regards to what the Church represents as found in the sources mentioned above.

To my way of thinking at least it is only these sources within the Church which allow us to have a common discussion.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

Dear Father Raphael,

Your points are well made, and well recieved. It is obvious to me that you are not a green leader.

There are definitely langauge/linguistic barriers/issues here as it relates to 'a common discussion' of Orthodoxy for all (within the focus of this forum). Here, we have people from varied backgrounds/cultures, educational levels (and areas of specialization), and levels of experience. Clarification will be an ongoing thing here I suspect, whereby, I defer to what you have said and will be happy to attempt to clarify, in a future post, when it is a little earlier in the day.

In Christ,
Rick

PS And, speaking of clarification . . . where's Owen Jones maybe he can help out? ;)

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Rick,

I've been away for a while, but I'm back now. And, while "...I know nothing.." as pertaining to living the spiritual life, the words of St. Ignatius applies (at least to this feeble mind). The saint wrote "Do nothing apart from the Bishop." Huh! What's he raving about, I'm trying to understand what these phrases mean people keep using?

To both you and me, the Bishop represents God. The priest for all intents and purposes is the assistant of the Bishop in the care and feeding of the souls of the Christians in each congregation of the See. No, NO, parish is made up of just me. Therefore to understand what the Church means when she says Menologion, Akathist, Troparia, Kontakion, thurible, or any other unfamiliar word or phrase I cannot tell the Church what it is that seems plausible to me, but must, MUST, consider my own understanding as the dust of the street, and ask the Church to help me understand her. And to be honest, resorting in defiance to Webster's is of no help!

The wife of a couple who are very dear friends (now living in Montana) once said of me "I love him like a brother, but a lot of the time the things he says, just...(picture a hand passing over her head). My emotions had to learn the hard way the KISS method, Keep It Simple Stupid.

Our understanding is not our own to decide, but we understand as we enter into the authority of the Church. That is the larger framework wherein we find ourselves.

the sinful and unworthy servant

[Owen Jones]

Sorry, you're on your own...