OrthodoxWiki - User contributions [en]

User:Mike

2010-04-21T13:42:40Z

Mike:

{| align="left"
| {{user orthodox US}}
|-
| {{user antiochian}}
|-
| {{user clergy}}
|-
| {{user en}}
|-
| {{user el-2}}
|-
| {{user la-1}}
|}

[[Image:mikejess.jpg|right|thumb|My wife and I dining in Ixtapa-Zihuatanejo, MX]]My name is Michael Fulton. Brought up a Roman Catholic, I was led to Orthodoxy through research after becoming disturbed by post-conciliar Rome. I was brought into the Church [[Holy Saturday]] 2004 at St. Elias Antiochian Orthodox Church in Austin, TX. I currently attend St. Joseph's Antiochian Orthodox Church in Houston, TX.

[[image:Readermike.jpg|right|thumb|In my cassock on Holy Saturday]]On [[Theophany|Epiphany]] 2007, I was tonsured a [[reader]] by His Grace [[Bishop]] [[Basil (Essey) of Wichita]]. On [[Theophany|Epiphany]] 2010, I was elevated to [[subdeacon]] by His Grace [[Bishop]] [[Basil (Essey) of Wichita]].

On [[Saint]] [[Nicephorus]] Day, I was united in [[Marriage|Holy Matrimony]] to [[User:Gabriela|Gabriela]].
=Education and Prospectives=

I have a B.A. in Ancient History and Classical Civilizations with minors in Southeast Asian Studies and Greek from the University of Texas at Austin. For two years I was a teacher in the Houston Independent School District. I am now a seminarian under the omophorion of Metropolitan PHILIP studying at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. God willing, one day I will be ordained a [[priest]].

[[Image:altarboy.jpg|right|thumb|The eternal acolyte. At my wife's chrismation on Holy Saturday, 2006.]]
=My Interests=

I have a fondness for [[:Category:Liturgics|liturgical theology]], which would explain my beef with current innovations in Western liturgics (particularly the Novus Ordo Missae). I am also keenly interested in patristics,[[:Category:Angels|angelology]], pre-schismatic Anglo-Saxon and French saints, and [[:Category:Church History|ecclesiastical history]] as well as Byzantine history in general are passions of mine. Aside from trudging through Latin and Greek (often with much pain on my person), I have a sick fascination with cultology, and from that stems my interest in apologetics (specifically responding to [[Islam]], [[Mormonism]], Scientology, and the Baha'i Faith from a Christian perspective).

I'm a nerd and cajun at heart, finding delight in spicy foods and jazz. My parents' families have unique histories which are closely tied to the Texas Gulf Coast and Southern Louisiana. Beyond my pious interests, I am a trekkie, and I have a habit of rubbing it off on Gabriela (she is learning to tell the difference between a Cardassian and a Klingon). However, since there are no more Star Trek franchises being produced, Gabriela and I have found solace in the Re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series. When we aren't watching Law and Order: SVU episodes together, we delight in Starbuck slaying Cylons.

Much to the chagrin of my long-suffering wife I also have a profound interest in the literary works of J.R.R. Tolkien. Slowly and surely Gabriela is starting to take my Hobbit-loving and ramblings about wizards in grey hats with humor and understanding.

[[Category:User Pages|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Lazarus

2010-03-28T17:38:22Z

Mike:

[[Image:raisingoflazarus.jpg|right|frame|The Raising of Lazarus]][[Saint]] '''Lazarus''' or '''Lazarus, the Four Days Dead''' was a friend and one of the first disciples of [[Jesus Christ]] and first Bishop of [[Metropolis of Kittium|Kittium]], [[Church of Cyprus|Cyprus]]. He was resurrected by Jesus shortly before His [[Palm Sunday|triumphal entry]] into the city of Jerusalem. The [[Church]] commemorates his feast on [[Lazarus Saturday]], the first day of [[Holy Week]] and, conversely, the eve of [[Palm Sunday]].

==The Lazarene Miracle==
According to the [[Gospel of John]], Lazarus lived in the town of Bethany (approximately two miles outside of Jerusalem in the present day West Bank) with his two sisters, [[Mary of Bethany|Mary]] and [[Martha]]. On His way to Jerusalem before the Passover, the sisters had sent word to Jesus and His [[Apostles]] that Lazarus was ill. The Lord tarried where He was, later perceiving Lazarus' death. When He arrived, Lazarus had already been in his tomb for four days. When Martha reproached Our Lord for not arriving sooner, Christ assured her that Lazarus would rise. Martha mistook this for the universal [[resurrection]] on [[Book of Revelation|Judgment Day]], to which He replied, "I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And whosoever believeth in me shall never die" (John 11:25-26, KJV). In the presence of the mourners, the Lord ordered the stone rolled away from Lazarus' tomb and bade him to come forth. Lazarus did so, still in his grave wrappings. Jesus then called for the crowd to remove the wrappings and free him. St. John goes on to explain that even more Jews were convinced of Jesus' divinity. This event struck fear into the hearts of the Jewish leaders, so much so that they even considered putting Lazarus to death (John 12:9-11). The religious hierarchy of the Jews at this time was dominated by Sadducees, who denied the resurrection. The Raising of Lazarus represents a testimony to the resurrection - both Christ's and the universal resurrection, as well as Our Lord as victor over death.

According to the V. Rev. [[Presbyter|Fr.]] [[Thomas Hopko]], the Lazarene Miracle is the "climactic high point" of St. John's Gospel and the proof of Christ's divinity. It is also the act which serves as the catalyst of the events leading to Our Lord's arrest and [[Passion]].{{ref|1}}

==Later Life==
According to Scripture and the tradition of the Cypriot church, Lazarus was compelled to seek refuge away from Jerusalem to avoid the anger of the high priests and the pharisees, who wanted to kill him, ''...the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed in Jesus'' (John 12:10-11). Many christians too ''... were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about. Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch ...''; just like Stephen, Lazarus would have had to leave Judea to seek refuge in another country.

This location was [[Metropolis of Kittium|Kittium]] (today Kittium is called Larnaca) of [[Church of Cyprus|Cyprus]]. When [[Apostle Paul]] and [[Apostle Barnabas]] travelled to Cyprus, they ordained Lazarus as the first Bishop of Kitium. That is why all episcopal thrones in Larnaca have the icon of St. Lazarus instead of Christ, which is the standard custom of the church.

Little more is known about Lazarus after Our Lord's [[Pascha|Resurrection]] and [[Ascension]] except that during his thirty year he never smiled or joked except for one occasion. One day, he saw someone stealing a clay pot and he laughed saying, "the clay steals the clay".

Another famous tradition connected to Lazarus is the discovery of [[Mount Athos]] in 52AD. Lazarus was very close to the [[Theotokos|Virgin Mary]] and he was very grieved that he could not return to Jerusalem to visit her (he was still in fear of the Jews). The Theotokos learned of his sorrow and sent him a letter to comfort him. She asked that he might send a ship to her that she might visit him in Cyprus. With great joy, Lazarus sent a ship to the [[Holy Lands]] to bring the Virgin Mary and [[John the Theologian|John]], the beloved disciple to Cyprus for a visit. On their journey, a great storm blew them off course and carried them to the shores of Ephesus and then the ship to the shores of [[Athos]], Greece. Unaware that divine providence had brought her to this area, the Virgin Mary completely taken by the beauty of the area, prayed to her son that this could be her garden devoted to prayer to "fight the good fight of faith". Having converted, blessed and established a new christian community from the local idolaters they set sail for Cyprus and met with Lazarus.

It is said, that she had sewn the [[omophorion]] and [[epimanikia]] as a present for Lazarus.

The first tomb of Lazarus in Bethany remains as a site for [[pilgrimage|pilgrims]] to this very day. The second tomb, on the island of Cyprus, was found in Kittium sometime in A.D. 890, with his relics inside and bearing the inscription "Lazarus, the Friend of Christ."

Subsequently a church dedicated to Saint Lazarus has been built on this site.

==See Also==
*[[Church of Cyprus]]
*[[Lazarus Saturday]]
*[[Resurrection]]

==References==
*{{note|1}} [http://audio.ancientfaith.com/hopko/stt022lazarus_saturday_pc.mp3/ Lazarus Saturday.] ''Speaking the Truth in Love'' Podcast by Fr. Thomas Hopko. Ancient Faith Radio. 18 April 2008.

[[Category:Saints]]
[[Category:Biblical Saints]]
[[Category:Bishops]]

Lazarus

2010-03-28T17:18:23Z

Mike:

[[Image:raisingoflazarus.jpg|right|frame|The Raising of Lazarus]][[Saint]] '''Lazarus''' or '''Lazarus, the Four Days Dead''' was a friend and one of the first disciples of [[Jesus Christ]] and first Bishop of [[Metropolis of Kittium|Kittium]], [[Church of Cyprus|Cyprus]]. He was resurrected by Jesus shortly before His [[Palm Sunday|triumphal entry]] into the city of Jerusalem. The [[Church]] commemorates his feast on [[Lazarus Saturday]], the first day of [[Holy Week]] and, conversely, the eve of [[Palm Sunday]].

==The Lazarene Miracle==
According to the [[Gospel of John]], Lazarus lived in the town of Bethany (approximately two miles outside of Jerusalem in the present day West Bank) with his two sisters, [[Mary of Bethany|Mary]] and [[Martha]]. On His way to Jerusalem before the Passover, the sisters had sent word to Jesus and His [[Apostles]] that Lazarus was ill. The Lord tarried where He was, later perceiving Lazarus' death. When He arrived, Lazarus had already been in his tomb for four days. When Martha reproached Our Lord for not arriving sooner, Christ assured her that Lazarus would rise. Martha mistook this for the universal [[resurrection]] on [[Book of Revelation|Judgment Day]], to which He replied, "I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live. And whosoever believeth in me shall never die" (John 11:25-26, KJV). In the presence of the mourners, the Lord ordered the stone rolled away from Lazarus' tomb and bade him to come forth. Lazarus did so, still in his grave wrappings. Jesus then called for the crowd to remove the wrappings and free him. St. John goes on to explain that even more Jews were convinced of Jesus' divinity. This event struck fear into the hearts of the Jewish leaders, so much so that they even considered putting Lazarus to death (John 12:9-11). The religious hierarchy of the Jews at this time was dominated by Sadducees, who denied the resurrection. The Raising of Lazarus represents a testimony to the resurrection - both Christ's and the universal resurrection, as well as Our Lord as victor over death.

According to the V. Rev. [[Presbyter|Fr.]] [[Thomas Hopko]], the Lazarene Miracle is the "climactic high point" of St. John's Gospel and the proof of Christ's divinity. It is also the act which serves as the catalyst of the events leading to Our Lord's arrest and [[Passion]].{{ref|1}}

==Later Life==
According to Scripture and the tradition of the Cyprian church, Lazarus was compelled to seek refuge away from Jerusalem to avoid the anger of the high priests and the pharisees, who wanted to kill him, ''...the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed in Jesus'' (John 12:10-11). Many christians too ''... were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about. Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia, and Cyprus, and Antioch ...''; just like Stephen, Lazarus would have had to leave Judea to seek refuge in another country.

This location was [[Metropolis of Kittium|Kittium]] (today Kittium is called Larnaca) of [[Church of Cyprus|Cyprus]]. When [[Apostle Paul]] and [[Apostle Barnabas]] travelled to Cyprus, they ordained Lazarus as the first Bishop of Kitium. That is why all episcopal thrones in Larnaca have the icon of St. Lazarus instead of Christ, which is the standard custom of the church.

Little more is known about Lazarus after Our Lord's [[Pascha|Resurrection]] and [[Ascension]] except that during his thirty year he never smiled or joked except for one occcassion. One day, he saw someone stealing a clay pot and he laughed saying, "the clay steals the clay".

Another famous tradition connected to Lazarus is the discovery of [[Mount Athos]] in 52AD. Lazarus was very close to the [[Theotokos|Virgin Mary]] and he was very grieved that he could not return to Jerusalem to visit her (he was still in fear of the Jews). The Theotokos learned of his sorrow and sent him a letter to comfort him. She asked that he might send a ship to her that she might visit him in Cyprus. With great joy, Lazarus sent a ship to the [[Holy Lands]] to bring the Virgin Mary and [[John the Theologian|John]], the beloved disciple to Cyprus for a visit. On their journey, a great storm blew them off course and carried them to the shores of Ephesus and then the ship to the shores of [[Athos]], Greece. Unaware that divine providence had brought her to this area, the Virgin Mary completely taken by the beauty of the area, prayed to her son that this could be her garden devoted to prayer to "fight the good fight of faith". Having converted, blessed and established a new christian community from the local idolaters they set sail for Cyprus and met with Lazarus.

It is said, that she had sewn the [[omophorion]] and [[epimanikia]] as a present for Lazarus.

The first tomb of Lazarus in Bethany remains as a site for [[pilgrimage|pilgrims]] to this very day. The second tomb, on the island of Cyprus, was found in Kittium sometime in A.D. 890, with his relics inside and bearing the inscription "Lazarus, the Friend of Christ."

Subsequently a church dedicated to Saint Lazarus has been built on this site.

==See Also==
*[[Church of Cyprus]]
*[[Lazarus Saturday]]
*[[Resurrection]]

==References==
*{{note|1}} [http://audio.ancientfaith.com/hopko/stt022lazarus_saturday_pc.mp3/ Lazarus Saturday.] ''Speaking the Truth in Love'' Podcast by Fr. Thomas Hopko. Ancient Faith Radio. 18 April 2008.

[[Category:Saints]]
[[Category:Biblical Saints]]
[[Category:Bishops]]

User:Mike

2010-01-21T16:36:56Z

Mike:

{| align="left"
| {{user orthodox US}}
|-
| {{user antiochian}}
|-
| {{user clergy}}
|-
| {{user en}}
|-
| {{user el-2}}
|-
| {{user la-1}}
|}

[[Image:mikejess.jpg|right|thumb|My wife and I dining in Ixtapa-Zihuatanejo, MX]]My name is Michael Fulton, and I am a recent graduate of the University of Texas at Austin. Brought up a Roman Catholic, I was led to Orthodoxy through research after becoming disturbed by post-conciliar Rome. I was brought into the Church [[Holy Saturday]] 2004 at St. Elias Antiochian Orthodox Church in Austin, TX. I currently attend St. Joseph's Antiochian Orthodox Church in Houston, TX.

[[image:Readermike.jpg|right|thumb|In my cassock on Holy Saturday]]On [[Theophany|Epiphany]] 2007, I was tonsured a [[reader]] by His Grace [[Bishop]] [[Basil (Essey) of Wichita]]. On [[Theophany|Epiphany]] 2010, I was elevated to [[subdeacon]] by His Grace [[Bishop]] [[Basil (Essey) of Wichita]].

On [[Saint]] [[Nicephorus]] Day, I was united in [[Marriage|Holy Matrimony]] to [[User:Gabriela|Gabriela]].
=Education and Prospectives=

I have a B.A. in Ancient History and Classical Civilizations with minors in Southeast Asian Studies and Greek from the University of Texas at Austin. For two years I was a teacher in the Houston Independent School District. I am now a seminarian under the omophorion of Metropolitan PHILIP studying at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. God willing, one day I will be ordained a [[priest]].

[[Image:altarboy.jpg|right|thumb|The eternal acolyte. At my wife's chrismation on Holy Saturday, 2006.]]
=My Interests=

I have a fondness for [[:Category:Liturgics|liturgical theology]], which would explain my beef with current innovations in Western liturgics (particularly the Novus Ordo Missae). I am also keenly interested in patristics,[[:Category:Angels|angelology]], pre-schismatic Anglo-Saxon and French saints, and [[:Category:Church History|ecclesiastical history]] as well as Byzantine history in general are passions of mine. Aside from trudging through Latin and Greek (often with much pain on my person), I have a sick fascination with cultology, and from that stems my interest in apologetics (specifically responding to [[Islam]], [[Mormonism]], Scientology, and the Baha'i Faith from a Christian perspective).

I'm a nerd and cajun at heart, finding delight in spicy foods and jazz. My parents' families have unique histories which are closely tied to the Texas Gulf Coast and Southern Louisiana. Beyond my pious interests, I am a trekkie, and I have a habit of rubbing it off on Gabriela (she is learning to tell the difference between a Cardassian and a Klingon). However, since there are no more Star Trek franchises being produced, Gabriela and I have found solace in the Re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series. When we aren't watching Law and Order: SVU episodes together, we delight in Starbuck slaying Cylons.

Much to the chagrin of my long-suffering wife I also have a profound interest in the literary works of J.R.R. Tolkien. Slowly and surely Gabriela is starting to take my Hobbit-loving and ramblings about wizards in grey hats with humor and understanding.

[[Category:User Pages|{{PAGENAME}}]]

User:Mike

2009-11-25T02:13:25Z

Mike:

{| align="left"
| {{user orthodox US}}
|-
| {{user antiochian}}
|-
| {{user clergy}}
|-
| {{user en}}
|-
| {{user el-2}}
|-
| {{user la-1}}
|}

[[Image:mikejess.jpg|right|thumb|My wife and I dining in Ixtapa-Zihuatanejo, MX]]My name is Michael Fulton, and I am a recent graduate of the University of Texas at Austin. Brought up a Roman Catholic, I was led to Orthodoxy through research after becoming disturbed by post-conciliar Rome. I was brought into the Church [[Holy Saturday]] 2004 at St. Elias Antiochian Orthodox Church in Austin, TX. I currently attend St. Joseph's Antiochian Orthodox Church in Houston, TX.

[[image:Readermike.jpg|right|thumb|In my cassock on Holy Saturday]]On [[Theophany|Epiphany]] 2007, I was tonsured a [[reader]] by His Grace [[Bishop]] [[Basil (Essey) of Wichita]].

On [[Saint]] [[Nicephorus]] Day, I was united in [[Marriage|Holy Matrimony]] to [[User:Gabriela|Gabriela]].
=Education and Prospectives=

I have a B.A. in Ancient History and Classical Civilizations with minors in Southeast Asian Studies and Greek from the University of Texas at Austin. For two years I was a teacher in the Houston Independent School District. I am now a seminarian under the omophorion of Metropolitan PHILIP studying at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. God willing, one day I will be ordained a [[priest]].

[[Image:altarboy.jpg|right|thumb|The eternal acolyte. At my wife's chrismation on Holy Saturday, 2006.]]
=My Interests=

I have a fondness for [[:Category:Liturgics|liturgical theology]], which would explain my beef with current innovations in Western liturgics (particularly the Novus Ordo Missae). I am also keenly interested in patristics,[[:Category:Angels|angelology]], pre-schismatic Anglo-Saxon and French saints, and [[:Category:Church History|ecclesiastical history]] as well as Byzantine history in general are passions of mine. Aside from trudging through Latin and Greek (often with much pain on my person), I have a sick fascination with cultology, and from that stems my interest in apologetics (specifically responding to [[Islam]], [[Mormonism]], Scientology, and the Baha'i Faith from a Christian perspective).

I'm a nerd and cajun at heart, finding delight in spicy foods and jazz. My parents' families have unique histories which are closely tied to the Texas Gulf Coast and Southern Louisiana. Beyond my pious interests, I am a trekkie, and I have a habit of rubbing it off on Gabriela (she is learning to tell the difference between a Cardassian and a Klingon). However, since there are no more Star Trek franchises being produced, Gabriela and I have found solace in the Re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series. When we aren't watching Law and Order: SVU episodes together, we delight in Starbuck slaying Cylons.

Much to the chagrin of my long-suffering wife I also have a profound interest in the literary works of J.R.R. Tolkien. Slowly and surely Gabriela is starting to take my Hobbit-loving and ramblings about wizards in grey hats with humor and understanding.

[[Category:User Pages|{{PAGENAME}}]]

User:Mike

2008-07-07T01:16:28Z

Mike:

{| align="left"
| {{user orthodox US}}
|-
| {{user antiochian}}
|-
| {{user clergy}}
|-
| {{user en}}
|-
| {{user el-2}}
|-
| {{user la-1}}
|}

[[Image:mikejess.jpg|right|thumb|My wife and I dining in Ixtapa-Zihuatanejo, MX]]My name is Michael Fulton, and I am a recent graduate of the University of Texas at Austin. Brought up a Roman Catholic, I was led to Orthodoxy through research after becoming disturbed by post-conciliar Rome. I was brought into the Church [[Holy Saturday]] 2004 at St. Elias Antiochian Orthodox Church in Austin, TX. I currently attend St. Joseph's Antiochian Orthodox Church in Houston, TX.

[[image:Readermike.jpg|right|thumb|In my cassock on Holy Saturday]]On [[Theophany|Epiphany]] 2007, I was tonsured a [[reader]] by His Grace [[Bishop]] [[Basil (Essey) of Wichita]].

On [[Saint]] [[Nicephorus]] Day, I was united in [[Marriage|Holy Matrimony]] to [[User:Gabriela|Gabriela]].
=Education and Prospectives=

I have a B.A. in Ancient History and Classical Civilizations with minors in Southeast Asian Studies and Greek from the University of Texas at Austin. God willing, I will some day become a seminarian (hopefully at [[St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary (Crestwood, New York)|St. Vladimir's]]). Until then, I am currently a high school social studies teacher with the Houston Independent School District.

[[Image:altarboy.jpg|right|thumb|The eternal acolyte. At my wife's chrismation on Holy Saturday, 2006.]]
=My Interests=

I have a fondness for [[:Category:Liturgics|liturgical theology]], which would explain my beef with current innovations in Western liturgics (particularly the Novus Ordo Missae). I am also keenly interested in patristics,[[:Category:Angels|angelology]], pre-schismatic Anglo-Saxon and French saints, and [[:Category:Church History|ecclesiastical history]] as well as Byzantine history in general are passions of mine. Aside from trudging through Latin and Greek (often with much pain on my person), I have a sick fascination with cultology, and from that stems my interest in apologetics (specifically responding to [[Islam]], [[Mormonism]], Scientology, and the Baha'i Faith from a Christian perspective).

I'm a nerd and cajun at heart, finding delight in spicy foods and jazz. My parents' families have unique histories which are closely tied to the Texas Gulf Coast and Southern Louisiana. Beyond my pious interests, I am a trekkie, and I have a habit of rubbing it off on Gabriela (she is learning to tell the difference between a Cardassian and a Klingon). However, since there are no more Star Trek franchises being produced, Gabriela and I have found solace in the Re-imagined Battlestar Galactica series. When we aren't watching Law and Order: SVU episodes together, we delight in Starbuck slaying Cylons.

Much to the chagrin of my long-suffering wife I also have a profound interest in the literary works of J.R.R. Tolkien. Slowly and surely Gabriela is starting to take my Hobbit-loving and ramblings about wizards in grey hats with humor and understanding.

[[Category:User Pages|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Nicodemus the Righteous

2008-05-11T22:58:11Z

Mike:

The holy and [[righteous]] '''Nicodemus''' was a Pharisee who came to hear the Lord by night. After the [[Crucifixion]], he acted as one of the Holy Myrrhbearers. Because of this, he is commemorated on the [[Sunday of Myrrh-bearing Women]], two weeks after [[Pascha]].

In the [[Gospel of John]], he appears three times. The first is the aforementioned encounter, where he visits Jesus in the dead of the night (in order to avoid persecution by the Sanhedrin, the Jewish temple leaders, of which he was a member) to listen to his teachings (John 3:1-21). This meeting, a poignant scene in the [[Gospel]], is where Jesus tells Nicodemus that one must be "born again" in order to enter into the Kingdom of God. The second appearance is in John 7:45-51, where he states the law concerning the arrest of Jesus at the Feast of Booths. Finally, his last appearance is after the [[Crucifixion]] where he assists the [[Joseph of Arimathea|Noble Joseph]] in recovering Jesus' body and preparing it for burial (John 19:39-42).

Not much is known outside of John's Gospel regarding the life of St. Nicodemus after the [[Resurrection]]. Church tradition states that he was possibly martyred sometime during the 1st Century AD.

==External link==
*[http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=102182 OCA page]

[[Category:Saints]]
[[Category:Biblical Saints]]
[[Category:Martyrs]]

Nicodemus the Righteous

2008-05-11T22:56:05Z

Mike: Removed stub. Added information. Happy Sunday of the Myrrhbearers!

Pelagia of Tarsus

2008-05-04T21:07:43Z

Mike:

The holy and glorious [[Virgin-Martyr]] [[Saint]] '''Pelagia of Tarsus''' was a resident of Tarsus in Asia Minor during the reign of the Emperor [[Diocletian]]. She is commemorated [[May 4]].

According to the tradition of the [[Church]], the son of Diocletian fell in love with the holy maiden, wishing to seek her as his own. When he made advances towards her, Pelagia replied that she could not love him, having sworn herself to [[Jesus Christ|Christ]], the [[Bridegroom]]. In passion, anger, and sorrow, Diocletian's son killed himself. Pelagia was then sent to Rome by her pagan mother, where Diocletian himself asked her to become his wife. She refused, and seeing the cruelty of the tyrannical emperor, she called him insane. The emperor had her burned at the stake, and as her flesh melted like wax, the incense of [[myrrh]] emitted from her holy flesh, perfuming the city.

The pagans sent four lions to surround her bones, but instead of consuming them, they protected her remains from vultures until Bishop Linus recovered them. After the [[Edict of Milan|legalization of Christianity]], [[Constantine the Great]] built a church on the site of those [[relics|remains]] in her honor.

==External Links==
*[[W:Pelagia of Tarsus]]

[[Category:Saints]]
[[Category:Martyrs]]
[[Category:Myrrh-Streamers]]

Demetrius of Thessaloniki

2008-05-04T19:42:47Z

Mike: Categorical placement

:''For other saints with the name "Demetrios," see the [[Demetrios (disambiguation)|disambiguation page]].

The holy, glorious and right-victorious Great-[[martyr]] (Greek: Μεγαλομάρτυς) '''Demetrios of Thessaloniki''' the [[Myrrh]]-streamer (Greek Μυροβλήτης) is one of the most popular saints in the Orthodox world. He was martyred around the year 306 in [[Wikipedia:Thessaloniki|Thessaloniki]], and his cult rapidly grew during the Middle Ages, when he was regarded as the first recognized as the [[patron saint|patron]] and protector of the city, militarily as well as spiritually. His [[feast day]] is celebrated on [[October 26]]. The [[Serbian Orthodox Church]] commemorates the Saint as a Mitar having a feast of Mitrovan on [[November 8]].

==Life==
Demetrios came from a noble family of the Roman province of Macedonia. Through this noble ancestry and through his own ability and virtue he rose to a high military position under [[Wikipedia:Galerius|Galerius Maximian]], Caesar of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire (with [[Wikipedia:Diocletian|Diocletian]] as the Augustus, or senior emperor). Despite this position in the still-pagan empire, he remained fervent in faith and works for [[Christ]], encouraging many Christians to endure persecution and even bringing many pagans to the faith.

When Maximian returned from one of his campaigns to Thessaloniki, which he had made his capital, he had pagan games and sacrifices celebrated for his triumph. Demetrios was denounced by pagans who were envious of his success, and he was thrown into prison. While in prison he was visited by a young Christian named Nestor, who asked him for a blessing to engage in single combat with the giant Lyaios (or Lyaeus), who was posing as the champion of paganism. Demetrios gave his blessing and Nestor, against all odds, slew his opponent in the arena, as [[David]] had once defeated Goliath.

The enraged emperor, learning that this had occurred with Demetrios's aid, first had Nestor beheaded outside the city and then had Demetrios impaled in prison. Later Demetrios's servant Lupus was beheaded after using his master's blood-stained tunic and signet ring to work many miracles. The Christians buried Demetrius and Nestor next together in the bath where Demetrius had been imprisoned. During the seventh century a miraculous flow of fragrant [[myrrh]] was found emanating from his tomb, giving rise to the appellation ''Mirovlitis'', the ''Myrrh Gusher'' to his name. His tomb containing his [[relics]] is now in the crypt of the [[Church of Saint Demetrios (Thessalonica)|Church of St. Demetrios]] in Thessaloniki.

St. Demetrius is revered as the patron saint of Thessaloniki and is believed by the people as having intervened to save the city over the years from invading foreigners, from the Slavic nations, Bulgarians, Arabs, Saracens, and others. While well remembered in the Hellenic world, the memory of the Great Martyr Demetrius of Thessaloniki found an attachment in the Slavic, particularly the Russian, world from the times of the Russian Primary Chronicle.

==Popularity in the sixth century==
Extreme popularity for Saint Demetrios is first attested in the sixth century. It grew because of his miraculous interventions in defense of the city during the many sieges it endured during the early Middle Ages, particularly by Slavic tribesmen who overran the old provinces of Hellas and Macedonia during the sixth through eighth centuries. His cult was centered around the basilica that bears his name in Thessaloniki, which contained a [[Wikipedia:ciborium|ciborium]] which acted as a cenotaph, since his relics had not been found. Later his relics were found and confirmed through their miraculous outpouring of myrrh -- hence the saint's epithet of "Myrrh-streamer."

He is depicted in earlier images in civilian aristocratic garb of the late Roman Empire, and in later iconography as a Byzantine soldier. Because of his military protection he is often paired with St. [[George]] of Cappadocia, another great military saint. They are usually depicted on horseback, with St. Demetrios spearing a man (perhaps Lyaios, or one of the pagan Slavs whose assaults he warded off from his city), while St. George spears a dragon. The saints are both youthful and unbearded, by can be distinguished by certain characteristics, including hair style and the colors of their garments and horses.

Nestor, Demetrios's protégé, is commemorated the day after Demetrios, on [[October 27]].

==Different narrative==
Many scholars today believe that Demetrios was not a soldier but a civil official and that his martyrdom may have actually occurred at [[Wikipedia:Sirmium|Sirmium]], an important Roman garrison-town in the northern Balkans.

==Sources==
*Hieromonk Macarius of [[Simonopetra Monastery (Athos)|Simonopetra]], Christopher Hookway (trans.) ''The Synaxarion: The Lives of the Saints of the Orthodox Church: Volume 1: September, October'' (Ormylia, Greece: 1999) under the entry for October 26.
*Wikipedia entry at [[Wikipedia:St._Demetrius_of_Thessaloniki|St._Demetrius_of_Thessaloniki]]

==External links==
*[http://www.goarch.org/en/special/listen_learn_share/demetrios/learn/ Feast of Saint Demetrios] ([[GOARCH]])
*[http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/saints.asp?contentid=257 Demetrios the Myrrhbearer & Great Martyr of Thessaloniki] (GOARCH)
*[http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=103059 Holy, Glorious Demetrius the Myrrhgusher of Thessalonica] ([[OCA]])
*[http://www.westsrbdio.org/prolog/my.html?month=October&day=26 The Holy Great-martyr Demetrius] (''[[Prologue of Ohrid]]'')
*[http://www.st-demetrios.org/stdemetrios.htm The Life of Saint Demetrios]
*[http://www.macedoniansincanada.com/SS8%20saint_demetrios.htm Saint Demetrios - Protector of Salonica]
*[http://www.ucc.ie/milmart/imgdem.html Images of St. Demetrius Throughout the Ages]

[[Category:Martyrs]]
[[Category:Saints]]
[[Category:Greek Saints]]
[[Category:Myrrh-Streamers]]

Category:Myrrh-Streamers

2008-05-04T19:41:00Z

Mike: New page: Category:Saints

[[Category:Saints]]

Pelagia of Tarsus

2008-05-04T19:37:40Z

Mike: Spelling and links. My apologies. Still running on empty from Holy Week.

The holy and glorious [[Virgin-Martyr]] [[Saint]] '''Pelagia of Tarsus''' was a resident of Tarsus in Asia Minor during the reign of the Emperor [[Diocletian]]. She is commemorated [[May 4]].

According to the tradition of the [[Church]], the son of Diocletian fell in love with the holy maiden, wishing to seek her as his own. When he made advances towards her, Pelagia replied that she could not love him, having sworn herself to [[Jesus Christ|Christ]], the [[Bridegroom]]. In passion, anger, and sorrow, Diocletian's son killed himself. Pelagia was then sent to Rome by her pagan mother, where Diocletian himself asked her to become his wife. She refused, and seeing the cruelty of the tyrannical emperor, she called him insane. The emperor had her burned at the stake, and as her flesh melted like wax, the incense of myrrh emitted from her holy flesh, perfuming the city.

The pagans sent four lions to surround her bones, but instead of consuming them, they protected her remains from vultures until Bishop Linus recovered them. After the [[Edict of Milan|legalization of Christianity]], [[Constantine the Great]] built a church on the site of those [[relics|remains]] in her honor.

==External Links==
*[[W:Pelagia of Tarsus]]

[[Category:Saints]]
[[Category:Martyrs]]
[[Category:Myrrh-Streamers]]

Pelagia of Tarsus

2008-05-04T19:33:15Z

Mike:

The holy and glorious [[Virgin-Martyr]] [[Saint]] '''Pelagia of Tarsus''' was a resident of Tarsus in Asia Minor during the reign of the Emperor Diocletian. She is commemorated [[May 4]].

According to the tradition of the [[Church]], the son of Diocletian fell in love with the holy maiden, wishing to seek her as his own. When he made advances towards her, Pelagia replied that she could not love him, having sworn herself to [[Jesus Christ|Christ]], the [[Bridegroom]]. In passion, anger, and sorrow, Diocletian's son killed himself. Pelagia was then sent to Rome by her pagan mother, where Diocletian himself asked her to become his wife. She refused, and seeing the cruelty of the tyrannical emperor, she called him insane. The emperor had her burned at the stake, and as her flesh melted like wax, the incense of myrrh emitted from her holy flesh, perfuming the city.

The pagans sent four lions to surrounded her bones, but instead of consuming them, they protected her remains from vultures until Bishop Linus recovered them. After the [[Edict of Milan|legalization of Christianity]], [[Constantine the Great]] built a church on the site of those remains in her honor.

==External Links==
*[[W:Pelagia of Tarsus]]

[[Category:Saints]]
[[Category:Martyrs]]
[[Category:Myrrh-Streamers]]

Pelagia of Tarsus

2008-05-04T19:32:17Z

Mike: New page: The holy and glorious Virgin-Martyr Saint '''Pelagia of Tarsus''' was a resident of Tarsus in Asia Minor during the reign of the Emperor Diocletian. According to the tradition of t...

The holy and glorious [[Virgin-Martyr]] [[Saint]] '''Pelagia of Tarsus''' was a resident of Tarsus in Asia Minor during the reign of the Emperor Diocletian. According to the tradition of the [[Church]], the son of Diocletian fell in love with the holy maiden, wishing to seek her as his own. When he made advances towards her, Pelagia replied that she could not love him, having sworn herself to [[Jesus Christ|Christ]], the [[Bridegroom]]. In passion, anger, and sorrow, Diocletian's son killed himself. Pelagia was then sent to Rome by her pagan mother, where Diocletian himself asked her to become his wife. She refused, and seeing the cruelty of the tyrannical emperor, she called him insane. The emperor had her burned at the stake, and as her flesh melted like wax, the incense of myrrh emitted from her holy flesh, perfuming the city.

The pagans sent four lions to surrounded her bones, but instead of consuming them, they protected her remains from vultures until Bishop Linus recovered them. After the [[Edict of Milan|legalization of Christianity]], [[Constantine the Great]] built a church on the site of those remains in her honor.

==External Links==
*[[W:Pelagia of Tarsus]]

[[Category:Saints]]
[[Category:Martyrs]]
[[Category:Myrrh-Streamers]]

Talk:Evolution

2008-05-04T19:04:33Z

Mike:

==Edited vandalism==

[[user:CharlesDarwin|CharlesDarwin]] decided to vandalize this page. I have undone his work to the previous page.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 19:04, May 4, 2008 (UTC)

OK. Now I've done it. I added a link to my own article on the subject. If there's an issue here, let me know and I'll deep-six it. --[[User:Basil|Basil]] 17:24, March 14, 2006 (CST)

== Compatibilism/Incompatibilism ==

At the risk of multiplying "-isms," I appropriated the two terms ''compatibilism'' and ''incompatibilism'' primarily so that references, books, and external links could be marked WRT their general position in the current debate. In philosophy, these terms denote positions WRT to the free will debate: IOW, whether free will is compatible with determinism or not. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism Compatibilism and Incompatibilism] on Wikipedia. --[[User:Basil|Basil]] 19:33, March 14, 2006 (CST)

Hi, I just wanted to say that I appreciate the balanced approach that your article takes, especially with the Compatabilism/Incompatabilism distinction. Well written. By the way, which approach would you say is more widespread within Orthodoxy? My priest, at least, is of the compatabilist persuasion.
--[[User:Gabriela|Gabriela]] May 9, 2006, 11:23 (CST)

Gabriela, they both get about equal play. I think some people don't realize how pervasive either view is because, frankly, most Orthodox don't get worked up about it, unless they're adult converts. Adult converts bring their own issues to Orthodoxy (nothing wrong with that; it's simply the nature of personal development). Most people, when pushed, will admit that it doesn't really matter to one's salvation which way one falls (which is not to say that they think it's an irrelevant question; just not one to get dogmatic about).--[[User:Basil|Basil]] 18:40, June 11, 2006 (CDT)

I have found, in my research, that although there may be no "dogmatic" pronouncements on the evolution issue there is a very solid teaching by the Fathers on the whole train of thought that evolution puts forth. The wisdom needed with evolution is to tell when the philosophy of evolution begins, and it is at that point it leaves the realms of science.
In regards to science I think many times it comes down to how one is reading the info. What thought pattern is one starting from...? For the simple facts of science could go many ways.
But back to the Fathers I found a few things helpful, in short-
- The Fathers teach that man and woman were made immortal in paridise one example is Abba Dorotheus-
"For God created man according to His own image, that is immortal, master of himself, and adorned with every virtue..."
This contrasts evolutions philosophy which says man started as a lower form and through mutations and other things (very simply) over much time evolved into a human.
I think it is vital in our times to understand what the Church has taught about man and his beginings, and it contrasts greatly with the philosophy of macro-evolution (dealing with how life began). Zachary, June 26, 2006

There may be no "dogmatic" discussion but based on the following story it does have a major spiritual effect. Some saints are given the gift of telling sins through smell. Once Elder Joseph of the Holy Mountain met a man who had a unknown stench (meaning that He did not know what sin caused it). So he told the man that he should go to confession. It turned out that the stench was cause by the mans belief in evolution. Ssmith165, September 10, 2006

Evolution

2008-05-04T19:02:00Z

Mike: Undo revision 65639 by CharlesDarwin (Talk)

'''Evolution''' is the popular name for a set of scientific theories which aim to explain the apparent similarity of different species and the appearance of complex species later in the fossil record. In short, evolution means that all life on earth shares a common ancestry which can traced back to a single species. Orthodox Christians have divergent views on how to react to this development in science.

In general Orthodox responses can be grouped into two large categories, which we might label Compatibilism and Incompatibilism.

Compatibilists hold that science and theology are compatible and view them as complementary revelations of God. As God is the source of both his specific revelation of himself in the Christian faith and the source of the general revelation of himself in nature, the findings of science and theology cannot really contradict; the contradictions must be merely apparent and a resolution possible which is faithful to the truth of God's revelation.

Incompatibilists hold that science can be incompatible with faith. They usually argue either that science is philosophically based on a kind of naturalism or that God's specific revelation is infallible and therefore trumps the findings of human reason in the case of any conflict between them. This is often based on a suspicion of human reason to arrive at reliable conclusions in the first place.

The development of modern science as we know it is a product of the Enlightenment, therefore no [[ecumenical council]] has ever addressed how to integrate it with divine revelation in a coherent and consistent worldview. As a result, there is not a dogmatic treatment examining how to resolve conflicts, whether apparent or real, when scientific findings appear to contradict divine revelation. Many early Fathers were happy to use the primitive science of their day to divine purposes, perhaps suggesting to modern Christians a compatibilist resolution to the question. Other Fathers, however, clearly see conflicts and contradictions which they resolve in favor of their understanding of Christian revelation.

{{stub}}

==Books==
*[[Priest-monk]] [[Seraphim Rose|Seraphim (Rose)]], ''Genesis, Creation, and Early Man'' — Contains a detailed examination of Patristic teaching related to the discussion of evolution and argues along the lines of modern creation science. '''Incompatibilist'''
*Woloschak, Gayle, ''Beauty and Unity in Creation: The evolution of life.'' (Minneapolis: Light and Life, 1996) — Primer on the relationship between evolutionary biology and Orthodoxy by a scientist. ISBN 1880971275 '''Compatibilist'''

==Articles==
*Bishop Alexander (Mileant) of Buenos Aires and South America (ROCOR), [http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/creation_man_a_mileant_e.htm "On the Appearance"] '''Compatibilist'''
*Boojamra, Dr. John, [http://www.annunciationakron.org/phyllisonest/pdf/creation.pdf "The Orthodox Idea of Creation"] A very basic explanation of the Orthodox notion of creation which touches on the subject, intended as part of an Orthodox education program for 8th or 9th grade. '''Compatibilist'''
*Bensusan, Ephrem Hugh, [http://razilazenje.blogspot.com/2005/06/orthodox-christianity-and-post.html "Orthodox Christianity and the Post-Christian Intelligentsia: A Response to Archbishop Lazar (Puhalo): Part 1"] Bensusan deals with the Archbishop's acceptance of evolution. '''Incompatibilist'''
*Fritts, Kevin Basil, [http://blog.kevinbasil.com/on-the-dogma-of-creation/ "On the Dogma of Creation"] The author is a contributor to this OrthodoxWiki article. '''Compatibilist'''
*Hallam, Fr. Gregory, [http://antiochabouna.blogspot.com/2006/02/orthodoxy-and-creationism.html "Orthodoxy and Creationism"] '''Compatibilist'''
*Kalomiros, Dr. Alexandre, [http://www.zephyr.gr/stjohn/sixdawn1.htm "The Six Dawns"] '''Compatibilist'''
*Kuraev, Fr. Deacon Andrey, [http://www.hvmla.org/library/evolution.html "Can an Orthodox Become an Evolutionist?"] '''Compatibilist'''
*Kuraev, Fr. Deacon Andrey, [http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/ort_creation.htm "Orthodoxy and Creationism"] '''Compatibilist'''
*Metallinos, V. Rev. Prof. Dr. George, [http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/patrology/metallinos_faith_and_science.htm "Faith and Science in Orthodox Gnosiology and Methodology"] Very briefly mentions evolution, but overall states the traditional Orthodox position of separation between divine and earthly knowledge. '''Compatibilist'''
*Nicozisin, Fr. George, [http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/dogmatics/nicozisin_creationism.htm "Creationism versus Evolution"] '''Compatibilist'''
*Priest-monk Seraphim (Rose), [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx "Genesis and Early Man: The Orthodox patristic understanding"] '''Incompatibilist'''
*Theokritoff, George, with Elizabeth Theokritoff, [http://jbburnett.com/resources/theokritoff_rose-svtq.pdf "Genesis and Creation: Towards a debate"] (PDF) — Review of Seraphim Rose, ''Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision'', St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, Volume 46, Number 2 (2002). '''Compatibilist'''
*[[Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos|Vlahos, Hierotheos]], [http://www.parembasis.gr/0000/00_88_04.htm "Orthodox Theology and Science"] From the Greek Orthodox Theological Review. Brookline: Spring 1999. Vol. 44, Iss. 1-4; pg. 131, 19 pgs. A useful introduction to the broader relationship between science and Orthodox Christianity.
*Bufeev, S. V, [http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/sbornik/sbufeev_whynot_english.html "Why an Orthodox Christian cannot be an evolutionist"] '''Incompatibilist'''
*Gascoigne, Fr. Serafim [http://www.tserkovnost.org/articles/evolution-gascoigne.html "Evolution" A New Fundamentalism"] from Tserkovnost, an Eastern Orthodox Research Center. '''Incompatibilist'''
*Rose, Fr. Seraphim, [http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/index.html "Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision"] This page presents several chapters from Fr. Seraphim's book on creation from the Patristic perspective. '''Incompatibilist'''
*Christensen, Fr. Damascene, [http://www.pravoslavie.ru/enarticles/060222155510 "Interview with Fr. Damascene"] Monk Damascene speaks about the Patristic view of creation. '''Incompatibilist'''
[[Category:Theology]]

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-03T21:56:06Z

Mike:

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from Creation to Protection (Mar 6).
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from Protection to Unprotection (Apr 30).

== Reversion ==

I've rolled back [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]]'s recent major changes (essentially for reasons detailed throughout this Talk page)—perhaps it was a mistake to unprotect the article again so soon. I'll leave it unprotected for now, hoping that Agenda-driven edits won't take over again. If they do, and especially if they're from [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], it may be necessary to introduce a ban on that editor for a time. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:07, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

: Your revert without even reading the changes I put in is another proof that this website has no interest in expressing the reality that exists in The Church, but rather fictitious visions of several individuals claiming to be "fr". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh, trust me—I read them. Anyway, [[w:Talk:John Zizioulas]], along with your Agenda here, demonstrate that you're not interested in pursuing the editing of an encyclopedia in a calm manner. Indeed, your above condemnation of our many thousands of editors ''en masse'' is a pretty clear indication that you're not interested in good faith editing. As noted on your Talk page, your account has been banned. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:33, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

::: Your action against my account was illegal. It represented misjudgment on your side, which resulted in misuse of your sysops powers. Consequently, your error was reverted by Fr. John. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:21, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Illegal? Are you planning to sue me now? (In what court?) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:25, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

== Enough ==

This is an Orthodox Website which for many people is a valuable source of knowledge. The attacks against His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, or any other hierarch of the Holy Orthodox Church, are not necessary on this forum. Whilst I don't share the same ecclesiological opinions as His Eminence, I have no right as a member of the Church to criticise him. Please, for the sake of those young people who use this website for edification, cease these attacks on the hierachy of the One, Holy Orthodox Church. - Peter Mav

:I also agree Peter, it would be a good idea if the discussion around this Father of the church is put on hold and indeed perhaps we should pray for the poor dear's soul as the amount of negativity emitted towards him is very unfair! I say, lets all work towards continuing to build Orthodox articles not critical defences to be used in a court of law. I dont even know why he is controversial :-) Like Mother Molania said in her talk from [[Ancient Faith Radio]], Insane people associating with insane people can not become sane ...only the Saints are "sane"! Chit chatting, keeps US in INSANITY! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 09:32, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

:: That is precisely why all over the article of Metropolitan John and other contemporary Orthodox theologians we should print in big bold letters: “DO NOT BASE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORTHODOXY ON WIRITINGS OF THIS CONTEMPORARIES WHOSE THEOLOGY IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE HISTORY YET. USE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY FATHERS INSTEAD.”

:: We do not want to educate young people with the thought of the potentially problematic theologians like m. John (and fr. Schmmemmann, fr. Mayendorff, fr. Afanasiev, etc. – students of the “Paris school of Orthodoxy”). If you want to discuss it further, and you know more appropriate place (e.g. private forum), we can go there and continue.

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:59, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

::: This is an encyclopedia, not a catechism. We're not in the business of putting big warning labels on articles about modern writers, especially those who are generally quite well-regarded throughout the Orthodox world, such as nearly everyone you mention.

::: That they are criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy is certainly a viable element for their respective articles, but that criticism should not be the dominant theme of the article, which would be undue weight. The impression a reader should get ought to be based on how the writer is regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, not on the idiosyncratic criticisms of a few, especially not regarding someone who's never even been accused by the proper authorities (much less condemned by them).

::: In any event, any general overview of Orthodoxy makes it plain that our theological emphasis is on the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, not on any modern writer. If someone gets his entire impression of Orthodoxy or education in the faith from a single article on OrthodoxWiki, well, he's going about it wrong. One would hope that common sense would make that clear. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some points raised by all who have responded. I am still concerned however, because I know a lot of youths use this website for introductory information and not having extensive knowledge or sometimes even the spiritual grounding can be scandalised. Obviously, mentioning that this hierarch's teachings are not accepted by some is good, encyclopaedic knowledge but some of the criticisms prior to their removal were not beneficial to the soul of anyone. I apologise if I have offended anyone. - Peter Mav

: In the above response of user Andrew we find the basis for the entire dispute. He is saying that Metropolitan John is ''"regarded throughout the Orthodox Church"'' and being ''"criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy"'', which is completely untrue/false/wrong/misguiding/misleading/etc. Vast majority of Orthodoxy exists beyond US shoreline, and even beyond English speaking world. Sooner that group of the individuals realize that, sooner we will get synergy in our actions. Such a fringe and perverted view of position of m. John in Orthodoxy is what user Andrew and couple of other individuals kept promoting, constantly trying to minimize the number and extent of the critics. It is best evident in the current version of the article, when in the criticism section they put reference to Bishop Ignjatije, who praises his work. What is that reference doing there? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

I think that the user Fr Andrew is correct in his assessment. Lest anyone get the impression that the Serbian Church has somehow made a judgement that Metropolitan John is heterodox, I thought it worthwhile to note that a bishop and professor of theology in Serbia is a strong supporter of Metropolitan John's work. Anytime anyone disagrees with Cebactokpatop, he resorts to personal attack (both here and in the Wikipedia article). He has attacked and dismissed not only the other editors and Metropolitan John, but also:
*Bishop Kallistos Ware ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Christos Yannaras ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Fr John Meyendorff ("Heterodox", along with Schmmemann and Afanasiev)
*Fr Boris Bobrinskoy ("never heard of this guy"): I can't help it if Cebactokpatop hasn't heard of the dean of the St Sergius Institute in Paris, but then again, he dismisses the Paris school as "heterodox."
*Bishop Ignjatije Midić ("ecumenist... who can hardly be called a theologian, as he is almost not writing anything"): Well, in addition to being bishop of Branicevo, he is professor of dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian theological institute in Belgrade and is the author of a new book on dogmatics.
*Aristotle Papanikolaou ("Another buddy of JZ"), etc.

When I mentioned Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, his only response was "Are you sure?" The answer to that is, Yes. If one checks the several references to Metropolitan John in Metropolitan Hierotheos' book on the person, one finds they are all very positive. On a personal note, having just finished reading ''Communion and Otherness'' and looking through ''Being as Communion'' again, I do not see how anyone who carefully read them could give any credence to the charges Cebactokpatop has made, not least of which is the absurd charge of heterodoxy. Aprt from the Serbian text he cites by Lazic and the interview with Archbishop Stylianos, NONE of the sources he cites as criticisms draw his conclusions. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:51, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:: You are certainly entitled to support JZ and other individuals from Paris school of "orthodoxy". However, you are not entitled to personally dismiss me for providing valid academic resources that criticize JZ or any other product of mentioned school in Paris. From the list of the articles you contributed to, we can clearly see that your faith is in Paris. Orthodox who prefer to have their faith elswhere (e.g. Cappadocia), have a right to express their dissatisfaction with the innovations of Paris' school as well. You have done a great job in prizing JZ's work in the article. Now it is a time to balance it with the concerns of the Traditional Orthodox, Mr. Puhalo. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:43, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::: Methinks you have Fr. Lev confused with Abp. [[Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa]]. They're not the same person. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:02, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Are you sure about that my friend? I am beyond reasonable doubts... they are the same person. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:10, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Based on what? The name "Lev"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! I have been accused of many things in my life, but never of being an archbishop! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: You are right. You are not an Archbishop. To become the one, it would require valid canonical ordination. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:14, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack -- ''quelle surprise''! I was "canonically" ordained, BTW, by a "canonical" bishop of a "canonical" patriarchal Church. I know who I am, but I have no idea who Cebactokpatop is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:30, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Whatever. I am not interested in "canonicity" of your ordination (if any). What I am interested in, is making sure you understand that current version of the article is not balanced, as you intentionally (or not) tried to minimize criticisms of JZ. Do you understand that? If you do, it would be easier for me to go in and try to balance it so that readers do not get an impression that they have before them, article about some "saint". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, enough everyone with the personal back and forth. I agree that the article should also present criticisms fairly and rationally. Cebactokpatop, I am concerned by your personal attacks, which at least in some cases are totally unfounded, and to my mind, crazy (e.g. Fr Lev is not Archbp Lazar!). If this kind of stuff continues, I'm going to freeze this page. I've just edited the article to incorporate some of the material present in earlier drafts. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 21:17, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. While I normally say very little on Orthodoxwiki (I'm not a scholar of complex dogma or theology, nor do I wish or claim to be), I've been lurking around this discussion and reading what everyone has said. Cebactokpatop, I think it would behoove you to take a leaf from Frs. Andrew and John, as well as the other sysops and users here on Orthodoxwiki. They've been extremely charitable with you when they have received so very little from you in these discussions. When they indulge your vitriol, you reward them with ad hominem attacks, questioning their identities, and even going so far as to question the canonicity of people's ordinations with temerity (although you deny this, it is clearly evident that you do so). You ask readers and writers to address your edits with "proper academic attire." Yet, I have to ask the physician to heal himself with respect to your paranoia and derision. Fr. Andrew, specifically, has not only responded to you in a very Christ-like manner, but has been nothing short of a gentleman in dealing with you.

:::I ask, in the future, when you are a guest of other wikis and forums, you try to act in a similar manner.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:55, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Material for Inclusion ==

* [[Fr. John Behr]] in the aticle ''"The Trinitarian Being of the Church"'', argues that Zizioulas' use of The Three as an archetype for The Church, when he establishes communion of The Church as an image of the communion od The Three, ends up dismissing both - The Three and The Church. ''(St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48:1 (2004), 67-88)'' {{unsigned|Cebactokpatop}}

In reviewing Fr John Behr's essay, I don't see it saying anything to suggest that Metropolitan John's view ends us "dismissing" the Trinity and the Church. I'd like to see the quote and page number that is alleged to say that. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Any suggestions on how to reword Fr. Behr's criticism? Isn't this dismissal of The Church: ''"What is said of the Church is certainly based upon what is said of the Trinity, but the effect of speaking in this manner, paradoxically, is that the Church is separated from God, as a distinct entity reflecting the divine being."'' (page 68) Church without ties to God does not exist, even though, it may perfectly mimic the Three. At the same time, we do not know The Three without Their Church. It is The Church that is left behind to proclaim The Three. Disconnect JZ creates, dismisses The Church, and conequenly blind us from The Three, which equates to dismissal. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:43, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== What counts as "academic criticism"? ==

Fr John, I find your floowing edit problematic: "Peter J. Leithart's article, Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology, cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where Vladimir Lossky and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of divine energies. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of Prof. Lossky as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology."

(1) Leithart in no way understands hie article to be critical of Metropolitan John. Not only is that clear from actually reading the article, but he has confirmed that in personal correspondence. (2) There is nothing here to indicate there is any substantive problem with what Metropolitan John says about the essence/energies distinction. (3) If an undergraduate wrote in an academic paper the sentence, "Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology", there wouldn't get a very good grade. Lossky is a personal theological hereo of mine, but I don't know any serious theologian who would judge him to be the sole criterion of Orthodoxy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:13, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Indeed, no. Lossky himself has been criticized by major figures in the 20th century, e.g., Staniloae, who's no theological slouch himself. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:42, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: Zizioulas and Meyendorff fell into the pit trying to criticise either Lossky or St. Gregory Palamas, as both of them are not capable of grasping what those two champions were writing about. Area related to the Holy Spirit is unknown and incomprehensible to these "eucharistic ecclesiologians" who understand bodily portion only, based on instructions from RCC theologians Mr. Congar and Mr. Lubac. In order to understand The Spirit, one has to now The Spirit of Orthodoxy. Paris school is so far from that Spirit that their theology consequently, can not be in the Spirit of Orthodoxy. In order to "bring closer" Orthodoxy to Rome (ecumenists), they have to introduce some other spirit - that is spirit of Rome. Orthodox Spirit can never get any closer to Rome than in past 1000 years. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: An interesting analysis, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the task at hand, which is summarizing reliable secondary sources into an encyclopedia entry which represents the mainstream Chalcedonian viewpoint and takes minor note of other relevant viewpoints. Personal attacks are not really germane—how do you know what Meyendorff or Metr. John are "capable of grasping"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: That was my response on your assertion: "Lossky himself has been criticized" with my addition of Meyendorff and St. Gregory as another example of the same failure. JZ in his bible Being as Commununion "showed" how Lossky "was wrong". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:15, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Should criticism be 'mainstream'? ==

I have read repeatedly that OrthoWiki is about "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Some of the criticism included here is, e.g., from Old Calendarists, who condemn most of the Churches represented here for using the Revised Julian calendar or for ecumenism. Nothing against Old Calendarist "resistance" synods and hyper-traditionalists, but what relevance should their criticism have in a minstream venue such as this? Given that they make the same criticisms of Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Christos Yannaras, etc., as they do of Metropolitan John, why should this be included? And all to satisfy one editor whose personal animus is clear? What will come next? When he became convinced "beyond reasonable doubts" that I am Abp Lazar Puhalo, he immediately went to the page on the Archbishop to write negative comments. I am waiting for him to add "criticism" sections to the articles on Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, et al., in which they, too, are denounced as heterodox ecumenists of the Paris School. What is to stop him? After all, he can find a blog or an online article by or quoting Heiromonk Patapios or Archbishop Chrysostomos casting aspersions on the orthodoxy of them all. He has dismissed Bishop Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo. Look what passes for "criticism" in the link he provided on that page -- a blog entry with a paragraph of Bishop Ignatije. No argument. Even the priest who wrote the blog wasn't sure that the paragraph was a true representation of Bishop Ignatije. This is the "criticism" that should be included in an encyclopedia article? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I think your point is well made. The so-called "Traditionalist Orthodox" are explicitly not given a soapbox here, as per the [[OW:NPOV|MCB]]. If there seems to be a united front against the subject of an article from those sectors, it is enough to mention it briefly, but not to allow it to dominate an article.

: In any event, what is clear is that Metr. John is generally quite highly regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, which is explicitly defined on OrthodoxWiki as [[List of autocephalous and autonomous churches|this list]], i.e., the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches. Metr. John is not a controversial figure by any means, and the article should reflect that. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:37, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I dod not provide any link to Bishop Ignjatije. Please stop telling false stories. Also, "resistance" Orthodox are in dogmatics same as Orthodox, which makes them valid in their criticisms. What they differ about is heresy over all heresies - ecumenism, and masonic infux into Orthodoxy - [[Meletios IV (Metaxakis) of Constantinople]]. It appears that those who praise Paris school of "orthodoxy" support ecumenism, and logically, regard "reistance" Orthodox as lesser Orthodox than Vatican! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:47, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: If I am mistaken in how I read the OrthoWiki history page on the article, my apology. But it seems to say you created that link at 21:53 on May 2, 2008: http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Ignatije_%28Midic%29_of_Pozarevac_and_Branicevo&diff=65572&oldid=42851
--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:54, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], all of this is essentially irrelevant. The do-it-yourself "Celtic Orthodox" gent who lives near here and visits our church every so often is also quite likely "in dogmatics same as Orthodox," but I'm not about to interview him for this article.

:: The point is that what the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups think is only of relatively small importance on most OrthodoxWiki articles. Whatever one may think of the so-called "Paris School" (whatever that may mean—does that simply mean St. Sergius Institute?), it currently is part of and accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy, while by comparison the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups are fringe. Their opinions on Metr. John are irrelevant. Perhaps if one of them had engaged in some major debate with him, they might be relevant.

:: One doesn't have to be an "ecumenist" or a Freemason or an Ultramontanist sympathizer in order to see that giving undue weight to the opinions of such folks is essentially a violation of the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:57, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: I repeat - I did not produce any link related to Bishop Ignjatije. All I did on his page was to convert section listing his writings from latin into cyrillic.

::: It appears to me that both of you want to minimize amount and extent of the criticisms for some reason. Can you provide a valid reason for your attempts to blind the public? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's not a question of eliminating criticism (OrthodoxWiki articles are replete with descriptions of criticism, which is clear from even a cursory browsing of the site)—it's where it's coming from and how much is actually appropriate to represent the mainstream view on the subject matter. Piling an article high with criticisms from fringe sources is not consistent with the policies of OrthodoxWiki, nor does it do anyone a service. "The public" are not "blinded" by an attempt to write balanced articles consistent with OrthodoxWiki policies. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:11, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::: I have a problem with your statements simply because all of the disputes I had here were about same thing - constant denial of the criticisms from several individuals who disguise their denial under the mask of "policies", "encyclopedia", "POV/NPOV", etc. What is balanced for you? To praise his work on two pages, and then mention critics in a mild form just to satisfy annoyances like myself? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:20, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Just a thought ==

It seems to me that this article is basically supposed to be a biographical introduction to Metr. John. While mention of the variety of opinions expressed about his work can, and probably should, be mentioned, it seems to me that this is not the proper forum for a detailed discussion (and listing) of these opinions. Half of the article, as it stands, is concerned with criticism and responses to that criticism and that seems rather unbalanced for something that is trying to be an encyclopedic entry.

I am not sure where a discussion of all these opinions should take place, or even whether OrthodoxWiki is the right forum for such a discussion. It just seems to me that this particular page is not the place for it.

Just my two cents, and with this I leave this debate.

In the risen Christ,
[[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

:Hi Fr. Peter, Thanks for your comments on this. It is indeed a hard call, but I do think that part of the role OrthodoxWiki plays is precisely in pushing for an articulation of controversial issues in church life. Obviously, so many of the criticisms of Metropolitan John's work are not just about him, but are about a particular movement or trend within Orthodox theology. I really want to see as precise and accurate overview of this debate as possible. Again, I do think this itself is a good service to the community. I'm not interested in personal attacks or blanket condemnations, etc. but am very interested in thoughtful criticisms or defenses. I'm curious about what others think. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::Hello, Fr. John. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my original post, so I will try to briefly clarify what I was trying to say. First off, having thought about it and read your reply, it does make sense that the wiki is a good place to articulate controversial issues. In which case I meant to suggest following a Wikipedia approach: having a mention of the controversial issue on the biographical page with a link to an article specifically dedicated to the issue being debated (e.g., "Theology of John Zizioulas"). That way we can avoid the contentious section being longer than the rest of the article. We also get another page where all the relevant references can be quoted and noted (hopefully...), rather than simply having somewhat vague mentions in the vein of "Metr. John has addressed this criticism." [[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

I notice a minor edit "struggle" over the sentence someone wrote and I restored: "His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology." This had been changed to "This article would be critical if seen through the ideology of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]]'s work as being a contemporary synthesis of patristic theology." I think I understand the reason for this change -- the original sentence is rather vague and difficult to make sense of (it may be that the original author's primary language was not English), but I'm not sure the cleanup help makes the meaning any clearer. Perhaps somehow can expain this better, but for now I going to revert this again. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon

2008-05-03T21:55:20Z

Mike:

*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 1|Archive 1]] - from Creation to Protection (Mar 6).
*[[Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon/Archive 2|Archive 2]] - from Protection to Unprotection (Apr 30).

== Reversion ==

I've rolled back [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]]'s recent major changes (essentially for reasons detailed throughout this Talk page)—perhaps it was a mistake to unprotect the article again so soon. I'll leave it unprotected for now, hoping that Agenda-driven edits won't take over again. If they do, and especially if they're from [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], it may be necessary to introduce a ban on that editor for a time. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:07, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

: Your revert without even reading the changes I put in is another proof that this website has no interest in expressing the reality that exists in The Church, but rather fictitious visions of several individuals claiming to be "fr". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:30, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

:: Oh, trust me—I read them. Anyway, [[w:Talk:John Zizioulas]], along with your Agenda here, demonstrate that you're not interested in pursuing the editing of an encyclopedia in a calm manner. Indeed, your above condemnation of our many thousands of editors ''en masse'' is a pretty clear indication that you're not interested in good faith editing. As noted on your Talk page, your account has been banned. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:33, April 30, 2008 (UTC)

::: Your action against my account was illegal. It represented misjudgment on your side, which resulted in misuse of your sysops powers. Consequently, your error was reverted by Fr. John. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:21, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Illegal? Are you planning to sue me now? (In what court?) —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:25, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

== Enough ==

This is an Orthodox Website which for many people is a valuable source of knowledge. The attacks against His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, or any other hierarch of the Holy Orthodox Church, are not necessary on this forum. Whilst I don't share the same ecclesiological opinions as His Eminence, I have no right as a member of the Church to criticise him. Please, for the sake of those young people who use this website for edification, cease these attacks on the hierachy of the One, Holy Orthodox Church. - Peter Mav

:I also agree Peter, it would be a good idea if the discussion around this Father of the church is put on hold and indeed perhaps we should pray for the poor dear's soul as the amount of negativity emitted towards him is very unfair! I say, lets all work towards continuing to build Orthodox articles not critical defences to be used in a court of law. I dont even know why he is controversial :-) Like Mother Molania said in her talk from [[Ancient Faith Radio]], Insane people associating with insane people can not become sane ...only the Saints are "sane"! Chit chatting, keeps US in INSANITY! [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 09:32, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

:: That is precisely why all over the article of Metropolitan John and other contemporary Orthodox theologians we should print in big bold letters: “DO NOT BASE YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORTHODOXY ON WIRITINGS OF THIS CONTEMPORARIES WHOSE THEOLOGY IS NOT VERIFIED BY THE HISTORY YET. USE THEOLOGY OF THE HOLY FATHERS INSTEAD.”

:: We do not want to educate young people with the thought of the potentially problematic theologians like m. John (and fr. Schmmemmann, fr. Mayendorff, fr. Afanasiev, etc. – students of the “Paris school of Orthodoxy”). If you want to discuss it further, and you know more appropriate place (e.g. private forum), we can go there and continue.

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 14:59, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

::: This is an encyclopedia, not a catechism. We're not in the business of putting big warning labels on articles about modern writers, especially those who are generally quite well-regarded throughout the Orthodox world, such as nearly everyone you mention.

::: That they are criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy is certainly a viable element for their respective articles, but that criticism should not be the dominant theme of the article, which would be undue weight. The impression a reader should get ought to be based on how the writer is regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, not on the idiosyncratic criticisms of a few, especially not regarding someone who's never even been accused by the proper authorities (much less condemned by them).

::: In any event, any general overview of Orthodoxy makes it plain that our theological emphasis is on the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, not on any modern writer. If someone gets his entire impression of Orthodoxy or education in the faith from a single article on OrthodoxWiki, well, he's going about it wrong. One would hope that common sense would make that clear. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with some points raised by all who have responded. I am still concerned however, because I know a lot of youths use this website for introductory information and not having extensive knowledge or sometimes even the spiritual grounding can be scandalised. Obviously, mentioning that this hierarch's teachings are not accepted by some is good, encyclopaedic knowledge but some of the criticisms prior to their removal were not beneficial to the soul of anyone. I apologise if I have offended anyone. - Peter Mav

: In the above response of user Andrew we find the basis for the entire dispute. He is saying that Metropolitan John is ''"regarded throughout the Orthodox Church"'' and being ''"criticized by certain minority sectors of Orthodoxy"'', which is completely untrue/false/wrong/misguiding/misleading/etc. Vast majority of Orthodoxy exists beyond US shoreline, and even beyond English speaking world. Sooner that group of the individuals realize that, sooner we will get synergy in our actions. Such a fringe and perverted view of position of m. John in Orthodoxy is what user Andrew and couple of other individuals kept promoting, constantly trying to minimize the number and extent of the critics. It is best evident in the current version of the article, when in the criticism section they put reference to Bishop Ignjatije, who praises his work. What is that reference doing there? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 12:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

I think that the user Fr Andrew is correct in his assessment. Lest anyone get the impression that the Serbian Church has somehow made a judgement that Metropolitan John is heterodox, I thought it worthwhile to note that a bishop and professor of theology in Serbia is a strong supporter of Metropolitan John's work. Anytime anyone disagrees with Cebactokpatop, he resorts to personal attack (both here and in the Wikipedia article). He has attacked and dismissed not only the other editors and Metropolitan John, but also:
*Bishop Kallistos Ware ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Christos Yannaras ("Ecumenist buddy of JZ")
*Fr John Meyendorff ("Heterodox", along with Schmmemann and Afanasiev)
*Fr Boris Bobrinskoy ("never heard of this guy"): I can't help it if Cebactokpatop hasn't heard of the dean of the St Sergius Institute in Paris, but then again, he dismisses the Paris school as "heterodox."
*Bishop Ignjatije Midić ("ecumenist... who can hardly be called a theologian, as he is almost not writing anything"): Well, in addition to being bishop of Branicevo, he is professor of dogmatics and ethics at the Serbian theological institute in Belgrade and is the author of a new book on dogmatics.
*Aristotle Papanikolaou ("Another buddy of JZ"), etc.

When I mentioned Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, his only response was "Are you sure?" The answer to that is, Yes. If one checks the several references to Metropolitan John in Metropolitan Hierotheos' book on the person, one finds they are all very positive. On a personal note, having just finished reading ''Communion and Otherness'' and looking through ''Being as Communion'' again, I do not see how anyone who carefully read them could give any credence to the charges Cebactokpatop has made, not least of which is the absurd charge of heterodoxy. Aprt from the Serbian text he cites by Lazic and the interview with Archbishop Stylianos, NONE of the sources he cites as criticisms draw his conclusions. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 13:51, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:: You are certainly entitled to support JZ and other individuals from Paris school of "orthodoxy". However, you are not entitled to personally dismiss me for providing valid academic resources that criticize JZ or any other product of mentioned school in Paris. From the list of the articles you contributed to, we can clearly see that your faith is in Paris. Orthodox who prefer to have their faith elswhere (e.g. Cappadocia), have a right to express their dissatisfaction with the innovations of Paris' school as well. You have done a great job in prizing JZ's work in the article. Now it is a time to balance it with the concerns of the Traditional Orthodox, Mr. Puhalo. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 17:43, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::: Methinks you have Fr. Lev confused with Abp. [[Lazar (Puhalo) of Ottawa]]. They're not the same person. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:02, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::: Are you sure about that my friend? I am beyond reasonable doubts... they are the same person. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 18:10, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::::: Based on what? The name "Lev"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 18:31, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL! I have been accused of many things in my life, but never of being an archbishop! --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: You are right. You are not an Archbishop. To become the one, it would require valid canonical ordination. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 19:14, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack -- ''quelle surprise''! I was "canonically" ordained, BTW, by a "canonical" bishop of a "canonical" patriarchal Church. I know who I am, but I have no idea who Cebactokpatop is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 19:30, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Whatever. I am not interested in "canonicity" of your ordination (if any). What I am interested in, is making sure you understand that current version of the article is not balanced, as you intentionally (or not) tried to minimize criticisms of JZ. Do you understand that? If you do, it would be easier for me to go in and try to balance it so that readers do not get an impression that they have before them, article about some "saint". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 20:12, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

::Ok, enough everyone with the personal back and forth. I agree that the article should also present criticisms fairly and rationally. Cebactokpatop, I am concerned by your personal attacks, which at least in some cases are totally unfounded, and to my mind, crazy (e.g. Fr Lev is not Archbp Lazar!). If this kind of stuff continues, I'm going to freeze this page. I've just edited the article to incorporate some of the material present in earlier drafts. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 21:17, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree. While I normally say very little on Orthodoxwiki (I'm not a scholar of complex dogma or theology, nor do I wish or claim to be), I've been lurking around this discussion and reading what everyone has said. Cebactokpatop, I think it would behoove you to take a leaf from Frs. Andrew and John, as well as the other sysops and users here on Orthodoxwiki. They've been extremely charitable with you when they have received so very little from you in these discussions. When they indulge your vitriol, you reward them with ad hominem attacks, questioning their identities, and even going so far as to question the canonicity of people's ordinations with temerity (although you deny this, it is clearly evident that you do so). You ask readers and writers to address your edits with "proper academic attire." Yet, I have to ask the physician to heal himself with respect to your paranoia and derision. Fr. Andrew, specifically, has not only responded to you in a very Christ-like manner, but has been nothing short of a gentleman in dealing with you.

I ask, in the future, when you are a guest of other wikis and forums, you try to act in a similar manner.[[User:Mike|Mike]] 21:55, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Material for Inclusion ==

* [[Fr. John Behr]] in the aticle ''"The Trinitarian Being of the Church"'', argues that Zizioulas' use of The Three as an archetype for The Church, when he establishes communion of The Church as an image of the communion od The Three, ends up dismissing both - The Three and The Church. ''(St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 48:1 (2004), 67-88)'' {{unsigned|Cebactokpatop}}

In reviewing Fr John Behr's essay, I don't see it saying anything to suggest that Metropolitan John's view ends us "dismissing" the Trinity and the Church. I'd like to see the quote and page number that is alleged to say that. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:54, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Any suggestions on how to reword Fr. Behr's criticism? Isn't this dismissal of The Church: ''"What is said of the Church is certainly based upon what is said of the Trinity, but the effect of speaking in this manner, paradoxically, is that the Church is separated from God, as a distinct entity reflecting the divine being."'' (page 68) Church without ties to God does not exist, even though, it may perfectly mimic the Three. At the same time, we do not know The Three without Their Church. It is The Church that is left behind to proclaim The Three. Disconnect JZ creates, dismisses The Church, and conequenly blind us from The Three, which equates to dismissal. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:43, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== What counts as "academic criticism"? ==

Fr John, I find your floowing edit problematic: "Peter J. Leithart's article, Divine Energies and Orthodox Soteriology, cites the work of Papanikolaou, and points out where Vladimir Lossky and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) differ on the issue of divine energies. His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of Prof. Lossky as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology."

(1) Leithart in no way understands hie article to be critical of Metropolitan John. Not only is that clear from actually reading the article, but he has confirmed that in personal correspondence. (2) There is nothing here to indicate there is any substantive problem with what Metropolitan John says about the essence/energies distinction. (3) If an undergraduate wrote in an academic paper the sentence, "Thus, to differ from Prof. Lossky, is to differ from patristic theology", there wouldn't get a very good grade. Lossky is a personal theological hereo of mine, but I don't know any serious theologian who would judge him to be the sole criterion of Orthodoxy. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 23:13, May 2, 2008 (UTC)

: Indeed, no. Lossky himself has been criticized by major figures in the 20th century, e.g., Staniloae, who's no theological slouch himself. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:42, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: Zizioulas and Meyendorff fell into the pit trying to criticise either Lossky or St. Gregory Palamas, as both of them are not capable of grasping what those two champions were writing about. Area related to the Holy Spirit is unknown and incomprehensible to these "eucharistic ecclesiologians" who understand bodily portion only, based on instructions from RCC theologians Mr. Congar and Mr. Lubac. In order to understand The Spirit, one has to now The Spirit of Orthodoxy. Paris school is so far from that Spirit that their theology consequently, can not be in the Spirit of Orthodoxy. In order to "bring closer" Orthodoxy to Rome (ecumenists), they have to introduce some other spirit - that is spirit of Rome. Orthodox Spirit can never get any closer to Rome than in past 1000 years. [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: An interesting analysis, but I fail to see how this is relevant to the task at hand, which is summarizing reliable secondary sources into an encyclopedia entry which represents the mainstream Chalcedonian viewpoint and takes minor note of other relevant viewpoints. Personal attacks are not really germane—how do you know what Meyendorff or Metr. John are "capable of grasping"? —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: That was my response on your assertion: "Lossky himself has been criticized" with my addition of Meyendorff and St. Gregory as another example of the same failure. JZ in his bible Being as Commununion "showed" how Lossky "was wrong". [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:15, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Should criticism be 'mainstream'? ==

I have read repeatedly that OrthoWiki is about "mainstream" Orthodoxy. Some of the criticism included here is, e.g., from Old Calendarists, who condemn most of the Churches represented here for using the Revised Julian calendar or for ecumenism. Nothing against Old Calendarist "resistance" synods and hyper-traditionalists, but what relevance should their criticism have in a minstream venue such as this? Given that they make the same criticisms of Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, Fr John Meyendorff, Christos Yannaras, etc., as they do of Metropolitan John, why should this be included? And all to satisfy one editor whose personal animus is clear? What will come next? When he became convinced "beyond reasonable doubts" that I am Abp Lazar Puhalo, he immediately went to the page on the Archbishop to write negative comments. I am waiting for him to add "criticism" sections to the articles on Bishop Kallistos, Fr Alexander Schmemann, et al., in which they, too, are denounced as heterodox ecumenists of the Paris School. What is to stop him? After all, he can find a blog or an online article by or quoting Heiromonk Patapios or Archbishop Chrysostomos casting aspersions on the orthodoxy of them all. He has dismissed Bishop Ignatije (Midic) of Pozarevac and Branicevo. Look what passes for "criticism" in the link he provided on that page -- a blog entry with a paragraph of Bishop Ignatije. No argument. Even the priest who wrote the blog wasn't sure that the paragraph was a true representation of Bishop Ignatije. This is the "criticism" that should be included in an encyclopedia article? --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 00:59, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I think your point is well made. The so-called "Traditionalist Orthodox" are explicitly not given a soapbox here, as per the [[OW:NPOV|MCB]]. If there seems to be a united front against the subject of an article from those sectors, it is enough to mention it briefly, but not to allow it to dominate an article.

: In any event, what is clear is that Metr. John is generally quite highly regarded throughout the Orthodox Church, which is explicitly defined on OrthodoxWiki as [[List of autocephalous and autonomous churches|this list]], i.e., the Mainstream Chalcedonian churches. Metr. John is not a controversial figure by any means, and the article should reflect that. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:37, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

: I dod not provide any link to Bishop Ignjatije. Please stop telling false stories. Also, "resistance" Orthodox are in dogmatics same as Orthodox, which makes them valid in their criticisms. What they differ about is heresy over all heresies - ecumenism, and masonic infux into Orthodoxy - [[Meletios IV (Metaxakis) of Constantinople]]. It appears that those who praise Paris school of "orthodoxy" support ecumenism, and logically, regard "reistance" Orthodox as lesser Orthodox than Vatican! [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 02:47, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: If I am mistaken in how I read the OrthoWiki history page on the article, my apology. But it seems to say you created that link at 21:53 on May 2, 2008: http://orthodoxwiki.org/index.php?title=Ignatije_%28Midic%29_of_Pozarevac_and_Branicevo&diff=65572&oldid=42851
--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 02:54, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:: [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]], all of this is essentially irrelevant. The do-it-yourself "Celtic Orthodox" gent who lives near here and visits our church every so often is also quite likely "in dogmatics same as Orthodox," but I'm not about to interview him for this article.

:: The point is that what the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups think is only of relatively small importance on most OrthodoxWiki articles. Whatever one may think of the so-called "Paris School" (whatever that may mean—does that simply mean St. Sergius Institute?), it currently is part of and accepted by mainstream Orthodoxy, while by comparison the "resistance/True/Genuine/Traditionalist/etc." groups are fringe. Their opinions on Metr. John are irrelevant. Perhaps if one of them had engaged in some major debate with him, they might be relevant.

:: One doesn't have to be an "ecumenist" or a Freemason or an Ultramontanist sympathizer in order to see that giving undue weight to the opinions of such folks is essentially a violation of the explicit bias of OrthodoxWiki. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 02:57, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::: I repeat - I did not produce any link related to Bishop Ignjatije. All I did on his page was to convert section listing his writings from latin into cyrillic.

::: It appears to me that both of you want to minimize amount and extent of the criticisms for some reason. Can you provide a valid reason for your attempts to blind the public? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:08, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

:::: It's not a question of eliminating criticism (OrthodoxWiki articles are replete with descriptions of criticism, which is clear from even a cursory browsing of the site)—it's where it's coming from and how much is actually appropriate to represent the mainstream view on the subject matter. Piling an article high with criticisms from fringe sources is not consistent with the policies of OrthodoxWiki, nor does it do anyone a service. "The public" are not "blinded" by an attempt to write balanced articles consistent with OrthodoxWiki policies. —[[User:ASDamick|Fr. Andrew]] [[User_talk:ASDamick|talk]] [[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|contribs]] ('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''') 03:11, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::::: I have a problem with your statements simply because all of the disputes I had here were about same thing - constant denial of the criticisms from several individuals who disguise their denial under the mask of "policies", "encyclopedia", "POV/NPOV", etc. What is balanced for you? To praise his work on two pages, and then mention critics in a mild form just to satisfy annoyances like myself? [[User:Cebactokpatop|Cebactokpatop]] 03:20, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

== Just a thought ==

It seems to me that this article is basically supposed to be a biographical introduction to Metr. John. While mention of the variety of opinions expressed about his work can, and probably should, be mentioned, it seems to me that this is not the proper forum for a detailed discussion (and listing) of these opinions. Half of the article, as it stands, is concerned with criticism and responses to that criticism and that seems rather unbalanced for something that is trying to be an encyclopedic entry.

I am not sure where a discussion of all these opinions should take place, or even whether OrthodoxWiki is the right forum for such a discussion. It just seems to me that this particular page is not the place for it.

Just my two cents, and with this I leave this debate.

In the risen Christ,
[[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

:Hi Fr. Peter, Thanks for your comments on this. It is indeed a hard call, but I do think that part of the role OrthodoxWiki plays is precisely in pushing for an articulation of controversial issues in church life. Obviously, so many of the criticisms of Metropolitan John's work are not just about him, but are about a particular movement or trend within Orthodox theology. I really want to see as precise and accurate overview of this debate as possible. Again, I do think this itself is a good service to the community. I'm not interested in personal attacks or blanket condemnations, etc. but am very interested in thoughtful criticisms or defenses. I'm curious about what others think. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

::Hello, Fr. John. I apologize for the lack of clarity in my original post, so I will try to briefly clarify what I was trying to say. First off, having thought about it and read your reply, it does make sense that the wiki is a good place to articulate controversial issues. In which case I meant to suggest following a Wikipedia approach: having a mention of the controversial issue on the biographical page with a link to an article specifically dedicated to the issue being debated (e.g., "Theology of John Zizioulas"). That way we can avoid the contentious section being longer than the rest of the article. We also get another page where all the relevant references can be quoted and noted (hopefully...), rather than simply having somewhat vague mentions in the vein of "Metr. John has addressed this criticism." [[User:Vandrona|Fr. Peter]]

I notice a minor edit "struggle" over the sentence someone wrote and I restored: "His article implies criticism, based on understanding of the certain Orthodox, who see work of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]] as contemporary synthesis of the patristic theology. Thus, to differ from [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]], is to differ from patristic theology." This had been changed to "This article would be critical if seen through the ideology of [[Vladimir Lossky|Prof. Lossky]]'s work as being a contemporary synthesis of patristic theology." I think I understand the reason for this change -- the original sentence is rather vague and difficult to make sense of (it may be that the original author's primary language was not English), but I'm not sure the cleanup help makes the meaning any clearer. Perhaps somehow can expain this better, but for now I going to revert this again. — [[User:FrJohn|FrJohn]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk]) 09:27, May 3, 2008 (UTC)

User talk:MikeM

2008-04-19T22:44:49Z