From OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Why is this hyphenated? I understand that yurodivyi is a single word, but I'm not sure hyphenating "fool for Christ" as a single word is the right choice. I rarely see it hyphenated (in fact, Orthodoxwiki would be the first instance). --Basil 11:56, April 1, 2007 (PDT)

Ok, I was confused about this after reading your question, Basil, but I think I get it now. It appears to be hyphenated only when used as a title (e.g., St. Xenia, Fool-for-Christ]], but not when used as a general category (e.g., "Those who have attained the highest degree of humility are the ‘fools for Christ,’" from the GOARCH site (
If you go to OCA's Lives of the Saints and type in "fool," all are hyphenated after a name. Here's a couple more examples of the hyphenation from GOARCH and ROCA:
Does this make sense, or am I totally wrong? Anyone? Gabriela 21:02, April 1, 2007 (PDT)
G, I've seen this practice more now that I've been made sensitive to it. I think this comes down to the question of which is more common and which makes more sense in English. I'm not sure I totally see the distinction between one usage being a title and the other being non-titular contexts. Personally, I think it has to do with whether single words in an original language should be hyphenated in English to somehow indicate they are single words in Greek, Russian, etc. This works when creating a compound word, such as myrrh-bearer or wonder-worker, although those are more commonly not hyphenated. When one hyphenates a word, it is an indication that the word is not commonly a compound word, to give some indication that there are two words combining to make one. Eventually, after repeated usage, the hyphens fall away, and a single compound word is left. This makes no sense with "foolforchrist." I'll continue to look for both instances. --Basil 08:19, April 20, 2007 (PDT)
Cf. also: Looks like the difference is that the above (St. Xenia of St. Petersburg) comes from a Russian source, and the entry for St. Simeon comes from a Greek source. --Basil 08:26, April 20, 2007 (PDT)

Dear Editors, Greetings! I noticed that this article states, "Saint Andrew of Constantinople is considered to be the first such saint, although Saint Basil of Moscow is also widely known." Actually, there were notable fools for Christ well before St. Andrew of Constantinople who lived in the 10th century. Perhaps you could include correct this by including something like the following text from the article "Foolishness for Christ" from Wikipedia at  :

"The Eastern Orthodox Church records Isidora Barankis of Egypt (d. 369) among the first Holy Fools. However, the term was not popularized until the coming of Symeon of Emesa, who is considered to be a patron saint of holy fools[1][5]. In Greek, the term for Holy Fool is salos."

    Thank you for your kind service and assistance!
    Respectfully yours,
    Dean Langis
    Pastoral Assistant at St. Paul's Greek Orthodox Church, Irvine, CA

Following an enemy

Carl Jung has been called the greatest threat to the Church since Julian the Apostate, and I've met one former President of the C.G. Jung Institute in Zurich who has only loudest alarms to sound about him (see Jeffrey Burke Satinover, The Empty Self: Gnostic and Jungian Foundations of Modern Identity). One hears that at the beginning of many failed Protestant pastorates, the clergy began reading Jung.

Why are we seeking common ground with the likes of Arius and Nestorius? And, um, is the "Bishop" in charge of a "Traditionalist" center in communion with other bishops? I'm pretty much a traditionalist (for a slice of my writing, see Orthodoxy, Contraception, and Spin Doctoring: A Look at an Influential but Disturbing Article, or better my flagship collection The Best of Jonathan's Corner), but so far as I know I have never met an assembly that has "Traditionalist" in its name that is canonical. I've made several efforts, and completely failed to find the bishop in charge of the Traditionalist Orthodox Center on