Byzantine Architecture Fanatic. Sober Husband, Father & Architect. Student of the Cappadocian Fathers. ICXC NIKA. #OrthodoxChurch circa 33AD ☧ ☦️☦︎ Come & see!
Joined July 2019
- Tweets17.9K
- Following863
- Followers8.5K
- Likes103K
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
"[Antony] lead Orthodox thought away from the scholastic-rationalistic path and onto the blessed ascetic path."
- St Justin Popović, The Mystery of the Personality of Metropolitan Anthony and His Meaning for Orthodox Slavdom
'First of all, let us examine the words of the Apostle Paul to the Romans (5:12): “As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all sinned.” If “in whom” is understood as “in which”, it is unclear what this “which” refers to. To the one man? The words stand too far apart. To the world? Possibly. To death? That too is possible, for in Greek “death” (θάνατος) is masculine. We take up the Russian translation and at once see the treacherous italics, where, as has already been said, Catholic and Lutheran conjectures are mostly to be found: “because in him all sinned.” Were this interpretation correct, it would be the chief, and perhaps the only, basis for the juridical theory and for ascribing to God a blood-feud against a whole race. “As from an infected spring,” we read in the textbook, “flows corrupted water,” and so on. But permit me: a spring and its water are one thing; living, morally responsible people are quite another. It is not by our own choice that we are Adam’s descendants, so why should we bear the guilt of his disobedience? To make Christ’s redemption our own we must struggle hard; can it be, then, that the condemnation of all on account of Adam befell men apart from the guilt of each one of them? The Apostle says here that the gift was poured out more richly than the condemnation (Rom. 5:15), whereas the juridical interpretation yields the very opposite.'
- Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky, The Dogma of Redemption, 1917
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
No one has offered any meaningful critique of Apostolic Succession since Dr. Felix Cirlot addressed and dismissed them all in the mid 20th century.
This book really is the definitive work on the topic.
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
“When reading Holy Scripture, it's not possible for us to theologize correctly based solely on the Bible. And if one attempts to theologize based solely on Scripture, then you cannot avoid becoming a heretic. Because the correct interpretation of the Bible only takes place when it is accompanied by the experience of illumination and of theosis.
Without illumination and theosis, we cannot interpret Holy Scripture correctly. And isn't this why, on a deeper level, the Church has placed the memory of St. Gregory Palamas and the second Sunday of Great Lent immediately following the Sunday of Orthodoxy? It's not enough to believe correctly, intellectually.
The Orthodox faith is a life lived, and it is experience of God. And we see, as an example of this, placed before us, the person of St. Gregory Palamas himself. Let's say we have a book on surgery.
Can anyone take a book on surgery and read it without the practical experience of surgery and interpret it correctly? I mean, this is what people think can be done. Is it possible for a person to declare that he's going to become a surgeon and instead of going to a medical college to first become a doctor and to study anatomy and so forth, and not only to study and to sit examinations but to go through the relevant exercises and study under an experienced surgeon and under the supervision of a surgeon and then begin to practice the various forms of surgical intervention? Can that person become a surgeon without doing that? It's obvious that that's not possible.”
- Dr. Christopher Veniamin, Mystical Theology: Introducing the Theology and Spiritual Life of the Orthodox Church: Episode 7
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
‘Heresy is not a mere logical error, nor have heretics merely missed finding the truth. In their case, something deeper and more essential has occurred. They are familiar with the Scripture, verbatim, in such a way that is often quite surprising. But they lack something essential, and its absence is what radically differentiates them from the Fathers: they lack the Holy-Spiritual experience of the Fathers, the inner illumination by the Spirit, because they have not undergone the therapy of the Church. They may well be morally impeccable (externally), however, they do not have the Spirit within them. They do not see the things that the Fathers see “in-the-Spirit”. They may be amazingly endowed intellectually. It is indeed a fact that all the major heretics can impress with their display of knowledge and their “wisdom” – even today! But they don’t have a cleansed heart, nor have they been transformed into temples of the Holy Spirit. Heresy presupposes bad or nonexistent therapy. That is why for heretics, Theology is an intellectual, scientific matter – a game of logic and cogitation.
What they lack is the experience of theosis, which awards the Fathers. That is why a heretic cannot distinguish between the truth and delusion at any critical point: he cannot see the truth inside himself; he does not recognize it within his heart. He doesn’t have the vehicle of the “noetic prayer”, which is why he cannot attain “glorification” - the revelation of “every truth” by the Holy Spirit.
This is also exactly where the tragic state of all heretics is uncovered, and more so of the heresy leaders. While un-illuminated themselves, they seek to cure others. While God-less themselves, they seek to theologize. We could compare them to quack doctors and charlatans, who deceive others. But they are something worse: they are doctors who offer a murderous therapy, which causes eternal death to man. They are pharmacists peddling poisoned and altered medicines that are dangerous to public health – not to the physical body, but to the spiritual and eternal one.’
- Protopresbyter George Metallinos, Apostolic Messages
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
‘The Holy Fathers always theologize with the illumination of the Holy Spirit. They first become vessels and Temples of the Spirit with their ascesis and their spiritual struggles, and are awarded by becoming Spirit-moved, God-moved mouths of the Logos and hands of the Spirit. Their theology is thus an expression of their mystical experiences. They express that which the Spirit reveals inside them, and they spread His light around. They utter that which they can “see” within their illuminated and God-bearing heart. Therefore, they are not the meditators and philosophers of the world – the intellectuals, as we would call them. Our meditation can never become Theology; it remains a philosophy, metaphysics, a human seeking.
The Theology of the Fathers is the result of the presence of the Holy Spirit within them. This is confessed by one of the few who were justifiably given the title “Theologian of the Church” – Saint Gregory the Theologian: “It is not for everyone to philosophize about God. Not for everyone. This thing is not that cheap and humble… It is not for everyone, except only for those who have been tested and who have advanced to “theoria” (ie., the “sighting” of God) and who had previously cleansed both soul and body, or at least are being cleansed”.’
- Protopresbyter George Metallinos, Apostolic Messages
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
"When you, dearest friend, hear it said that the grace of the Spirit is also 'theurgic,' do not be especially concerned, nor inquire after how it could or could not be this or that, since, according to those who have spoken about it, without it you will not belong to God; rather, hold fast to those works by which you may obtain it, for then you will know it (insofar as this is possible.)
Indeed, according to Basil the Great, he who learns the energies of the Spirit by experience, who seeks knowledge prior to works by trusting in those who have had experience, only receives a certain impression of the truth. But, when he thinks about things on his own terms, thus losing even the impression, he puffs himself up greatly as though he had discovered it, and he blusters at length against those with experience (as though they were in error.)
So then, do not be especially concerned, but follow those who have experience, especially their deeds..."
St. Gregory Palamas
The First Treatise of the Third Triad
(Titus translation, p. 303)
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
I've been watching the exchange w/ Catholic priest Fr. Rooney and Erick Ybarra on the atonement this last week. You can see a large part of it in the quote-tweet. Erick promotes PSA as part of Catholic teaching and has written a whole book on the matter. Fr. Rooney denies this and does of fine job of showing that Catholicism doesn't teach PSA.
Fr. Rooney's points in many respects are the same points I and others have made with respect to PSA and the difference between PSA and Vicarious Satisfaction. He makes clear the differences between the Protestant view of PSA and the Catholic view of Vicarious Satisfaction not least of which is noting the entailment of a Protestant view of justification by the former.
The exchange is useful for those on the Orthodox side of the fence who are confused by the promoters of PSA within an Orthodox framework and their spoof texting. Rooney rightly notes the ways in which it is anachronistic to read terms like debt, punishment, etc. in pre-Reformation texts in PSA terms, just as I and others have done, as well as pointing out the actual conceptual differences between PSA and Vicarious Satisfaction. That language can be and is used by non-PSA views. Hence pointing to that language doesn't of itself prove a given figure expressed PSA.
As an added bonus, here we can be sure that Fr. Rooney did not derive his views from a study of Romanides or other figures but rather from a study of Catholic theology. And I'd bet money that Fr. Rooney or other Catholic academics know Catholic theology far better than any of the Latinizer crowd.
But we are treated to other bonuses here as well. For some time I have had Erick Ybarra blocked. And the main reason I did so is because Erick is a time sucker. I don't write that with respect to his character, but with respect to his method and behavior. I have gone rounds with Erick in the past to establish a point, with a concession on his part, only to have him relitigate the point all over again with the same reasoning a few hours or days later.
When Erick came out with his book defending the Protestant doctrine of PSA I knew a few things. I knew it was going to be a muddled mess. It is not that Erick is stupid, but he really lacks the education in this and related areas. The book defending PSA is just proof of it.
I also knew that as soon as the book caught the attention of Catholic academics it would spell doom for Mr. Ybarra. They would pick it apart and that is what Fr. Rooney has begun doing, along with other Catholics.
Another bonus is that Ericks fundamentally Protestant assumptions and frameworks for thinking about such issues would be laid bare. You can see this in the remark I have snipped below. Here the Protestant bifurcation between the justice of Christ, glossed as necessarily extrinsic, and the intrinsic state of the agent is pretty clear. Such a framework precludes a participatory relation that Catholic (and Orthodox) theology require.
But the icing on the cake is the fact that Erick has written a whole book on a core area of Catholic theology and he has gotten the matter seriously wrong. So much so that Catholic theologians have had to step in to correct him publicly. What is more, Erick doesn't appear to grasp that he is in serious trouble both in terms of understanding as well as credibility as an apologist. He also doesn't seem to understand that it would be better for him to steer clear from discussions with academics like Fr. Rooney than to attempt to correct them and be outed for his clear error, inability to grasp the operative concepts, and represent Catholic theology. This howler of a mistake in turn undermines all of his other books as well. If he got the atonement this seriously wrong in Catholic theology, what about his book on the Trinity?
But it appears that the desire to be a somebody in the realm of on-line apologetics is too great and here you can see Mr. Ybarra attempt to double down in the exchange with Rooney. Eventually it seems that he figured out that he was outmatched by Fr. Rooney and just goes dark. But it is too late and the damage is done.
What is worse is the fact that Fr. Rooney is unmarried. He has no children. Currently, Rooney is in the prime of his academic career. He is young, accomplished and is cranking out articles and books published by major academic presses like clockwork. This is what he does. This is all he does, 24/7. I exaggerate but not by much. All Erick has done is provide Fr. Rooney with the motivation for another book project to correct the errors of Erick and others on the atonement. And the more Erick promotes his book, the greater that motivation will be. It is pretty obvious that Erick is engaged in a business model that requires him to engage others to promote his book. He is as the kids say "locked in" and not in a good way.
The best part is that accomplishing this goal didn't require any work on my part. I didn't have to do anything to refute Erick or take away his credibility. I just had to sit and wait. After all, never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. This has the added benefit of showing that all the Latinizers who thought PSA was part of pre-Reformation Catholic (and Orthodox) teaching were not only wrong, but lack the ability to not only comprehend what they are reading but how to contextualize a text. But sure, they too can try their hand with Rooney or other Catholic theologians on this point, and please by all means do so. One thing is for sure. I am going to need to make a Costco run for more popcorn.
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
The word αρχιτεκτονική (architecture) in Greek comes from αρχή (beginning, principle, authority, leadership) and τεκτονική (art/craft of building sth) and comes from the word τέχνη (that was used more to mean skill and craft than art...well a fine result of skill is art :) so ...
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
Yeah, none of these texts touch the relevant point I made. So here is what you have to think about. For a Platonist, how is a soul individuated from the All Soul? This comes about via embodiment, which is discussed in part in Plotinus’ Ennead 4 with respect to the fall of soul to body.
As I already noted, Augustine holds to the principle that the penalty of death is justly applied to those that sin. Infants die and so therefore they must have sinned. If they die and they didn’t sin, the penalty of death would be unjust on God’s part, but that is impossible. Hence infants sinned.
How and when did they sin then? They sinned when they were the one soul or person of Adam. Now that individuation of soul has taken place that guilt and sentence of death still accrues to them, but the mode of its existence is no longer strictly personal. Why? Because they have been individuated from Adam and are now a distinct new person. They did not cease to be a person though in this process. Hence the sin exists in them in a kind of metaphysical limbo between the categories of person and nature. And the reason for this is due to the fact that Augustine is working even at a very late date, with a Platonic conception of soul and this does not admit of a distinction between person and nature. This is why in Contra Julian his account has to transgress the person/nature distinction to carry through on his argument in the face of Julian’s criticism.
So it appears to me what you are getting hung up on is Augustine’s discussions post individuation of soul and ignoring the fact that the sin was genuinely that of the infants when they were the person of Adam. The sin does not exist in them as something they did now as a discrete act from a discrete person from Adam, true enough, which is what Augustine is denying when he speaks of original sin as a personal sin of theirs. So if the guilt was not theirs then the sinful act of Adam was not theirs either, in which case they would not die, but they do die, ergo their sinful act and Adam's are one and the same because they were the person of Adam at one point in the past.
Again, the principle that Augustine adheres to from his debates with the Manicehans all the way through to Julian is that only those that sin suffer the penalty of death. To say that infants did not sin therefore is to entail that the penalty is unjustly applied to them by God.
Part of the problem here for Augustine is that along Platonic lines he is thinking of the person as the soul, which won't work with an appropriately expressed Christology. It is one reason why Augustine tends to speak and write of Christ as the result of the union between God the Word and "the man" due to an influence from Origen as you can see below.
energeticprocession.wordpres…
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
We sang this at Vespers, and despite what the PenSub people tell you, we see that Christ's ascension annuls sin--not specifically the payment of blood.
Christ's whole economy atones for our sins.
Heterodox lack such an understanding because they are theologically shallow.
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
St Hermans Orthodox Church in Kalispell is building a new temple and fellowship hall. Check out the video and the link below! heartland.hyfin.app/Q6T6UP3V…
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
“For our nature contracted the disease of sin because of the disobedience of one man, that is Adam, and thus many became sinners. This was not because they sinned along with Adam, because they did not then exist, but because they had the same nature as Adam, which fell under the law of sin. Thus, just as human nature acquired the weakness of corruption in Adam because of disobedience, and evil desires invaded it, so the same nature was later set free by Christ, who was obedient to God the Father and did not commit sin.”
-St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Romans 5
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
On Ortlund's remarks about saintly invocation being post 2nd/3rd century, can Ortlund show Augustinian predestinarianism prior to the late fourth/early fifth century? How about Limited Atonement?
No, he can't. Even Augustine strained to do the former when pressed.
On the other hand, baptismal regeneration can be shown to have existed in the time frame Ortlund denotes, yet this doesn't apparently move the ball for him. So, it wouldn't matter if we found saintly invocation expressly exhibited in the first or second centuries. Ortlund would just dismiss it out of hand as well and retreat to his own judgment as to what scripture teaches. That is, he will only be bound by his own reading of Scripture.
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
“If the origin of our virtues and of our vices is not in ourselves, but is the fatal consequence of our birth, it is useless for legislators to prescribe for us what we ought to do, and what we ought to avoid; it is useless for judges to honour virtue and to punish vice…. As for us Christians, we shall see our great hopes vanish, since from the moment that man does not act with freedom, there is neither reward for justice, nor punishment for sin. Under the reign of necessity and of fatality there is no place for merit, the first condition of all righteous judgment. But let us stop. You who are sound in yourselves have no need to hear more"
- Saint Basil the Great, Hexaemeron, Homily VI, Chapter VII
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
“I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna are scourged by the scourge of love. For what is so bitter and vehement as the punishment of love? I mean that those who have become conscious that they have sinned against love suffer greater torment from this than from any fear of punishment. For the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against love is sharper than any torment that can be. It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God. Love is the offspring of knowledge of the truth which, as is commonly confessed, is given to all. The power of love works in two ways: it torments those who have played the fool, even as happens here when a friend suffers from a friend; but it becomes a source of joy for those who have observed its duties. Thus I say that this is the torment of Gehenna: bitter regret. But love inebriates the souls of the sons of Heaven by its delectability.”
- Saint Isaac the Syrian, Ascetical Homilies, Homily 28
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
“Even if one of the Fathers utters the same things as the outsiders, it is only in the words; but as regards the meanings there is a great difference. For these have the mind of Christ, according to Paul, while those, if not something worse, speak from human reasoning.”
- Saint Gregory Palamas, The Triads
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
“Upon returning to the homeland, Justin Popović was appointed assistant at the Seminary of St. Sava, which had been moved from Belgrade to Sremski Karlovci. There, from October 1921, he first taught New Testament Scripture, and then Dogmatics and Patrology. Fully dedicating himself to enlightening and instructive work, spreading Orthodox patristic methodology and Svetosavian enlightenment and culture, he introduced a series of fruitful innovations into the educational and formative life of the seminary, pushing aside the outdated scholastic and Protestant-rationalist method of teaching.”
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
‘Thus, the connection between St. Nicodemus and Western legal theory is purely superficial, that is, at the level of vocabulary, which is used out of necessity, since these terms have become part of the Greek vocabulary. Indeed, in his texts we encounter such phrases as "immeasurable offense," "incalculable payment," and "the wrath of God." However, all of them have an Orthodox meaning. Taken out of context, these words and expressions can be understood legally, subverting the service of divine love, according to [John 3: 16] and [Rom 5: 8], which, incidentally, St. Nicodemus always implies. The God of St. Nicodemus is not an inexorable Judge, like the Frankish feudal lords, but a Father filled with mercy and love for mankind. St. Nicodemus's goal is for man to hate sin, and the "motive" of "insulting" God greatly assists in this regard.’
- Protopresbyter George Metallinos, The Myth of Foreign Influence on the Works of St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
St Theophan on Romans 2:5 and God's "wrath" (not an act of passion):
"On that day, the righteous judgment of God will be carried out; but since the sinner has lost any sense of what is right, this righteousness will appear to him as wrath, and it will be for him a day of wrath."
Byzarchi☦︎ec☦︎ retweeted
Is Orthodoxy Too Foreign?
fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2026…
Excerpt:
“Aside from that, the current forms of worship found in most Roman Catholic parishes in the United States today would seem very foreign to Southern Roman Catholics of previous generations. I am sure that Flannery O'Connorwould feel far more at home in an Orthodox Liturgy today, than she would in a Charismatic Catholic Church Mass, or at Pope Leo's recent LGBTQP pilgrimage to the Vatican, or even in a more common Novus Ordo Mass. I also don't think she would be a big fan of Pope Francis's decision to bless gay couples (a decision which has gone unchallenged by the current Pope).
For a typical Southern Protestant, an Orthodox Liturgy which is conducted in English is no less foreign than a traditional Roman Catholic Mass... and a lot less foreign than a Mass conducted in Latin.”
@frjohnwhiteford