From OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I don't think you ought to be using the term 'Yesu' here. You're writing in English and so Jesus would be more appropriate.James 08:56, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)

This article has a strange emphasis and cites not-Orthodox texts as Scripture. I'm removing it and replacing it with the Wikipedia article on Theosis, which itself will need some modification. The possible source of this material was [1]. Fr. John 15:23, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)
At first I thought this "Church of the East" might be the Nestorians, but when I looked at the front page and noticed the bit about "sacred sensuality", I became much more suspicious. This group isn't even as Orthodox as the Nestorians. --Rdr. Andrew 19:47, 6 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Oh dear, when I criticised the use of Yeshu, I didn't bother reading the article much as the English was so poor. If I had I wouldn't have bothered with such a minor point. I've actually come across this 'church' before via an online forum, whilst discussing Orthodoxy with a distinctly Gnostic person. They seem like a New Age group jumping on the Thomasite lineage in the East as an attempt to gain legitimacy. Even their grasp of Church history seems very poor.

Cleanup tag

Perhaps this tag is deserved, but I can't help thinking that it is a leftover from when it was imported. Comments? — edited by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 03:18, September 22, 2006 (CDT)

Looks like it. Though I would note that the orthodoxize tag was added in August of this year, and that seems entirely different from the cleanup tag. Personally, the only part of the article I would say is non-Orthodox is the East/West part in "comparative considerations." It seems to be saying that Catholicism, whether it be using the Tridentine Mass or the Novus Ordo Missae, is completely valid and even equal to Orthodoxy. That seems pretty skewed. Perhaps I'll change it. Gabriela 22:37, September 22, 2006 (CDT)

Clarification of Theosis

This beginning is ontologically inaccurate.

Theosis, meaning deification or divinization, is the process of man becoming holy and being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in the resurrection. Theosis is the understanding that humans from the beginning are made to share in the life of the Trinity. Therefore, we are saved from sin for participation in the life of the Trinity, which is life-giving and therefore eternal.

Three things:

1: Deification (Apotheosis) by essence is heresy. No created being can participate in the Divine Essence of GOD. This language is extremely deontological in the fact that it has at it's base a western-minded theological paradigm (and theoria), which is condemned by the Hesychast fathers and all the Councils. Orthodoxy in its truest form is deeply ontological, this can be attributed to the brilliant Holy Fathers who were able to define such theology through deep mysticism, contemplation and most importantly prayer. Gregory Palamas is one, Symeon the New Theologian is another.

St. Peter was precise in his epistle, "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." (2 Peter 1:4) This simple (and overlooked) verse is salvation in Orthodox theology. Through the Divine Nature of God we partake of His Energies.

2. Life is fine, but the energies of the Divine Nature (not Essence) is the most crucial, this should be included in the article.

3. Perhaps the "comparative with other religions" on the bottom of the article should be included on a subpage or a different page altogether. The reason is that I was reading this article and was deeply confused by it? Did Orthodox spiritual theology change recently? I then realised I was reading Mormon theology. People will be confused and assume that this is Our theology. A different page dedicated to comparing Orthodox Spirituality (in it's ontic expression) with other religions would be a better idea than mixing it together on a page dedicated to "Orthodox Spirituality." The article also gives the impression that Roman (Papal) western theology was (and is?) the same as Orthodox Eastern Theology. Western Spiritual theology diverged as early as the 3rd century, with Jerome, Augustine and others. This view is also shared by such brilliant modern day theologians; George Gabriel and Athanasios Bailey.

An infant is not saved from sin (hamártema) but from the ontic condition of hamártía - unholiness. God can easily forgive sin; getting rid of hamártía is the problem. This requires "work" from the worshiper. Christ was clear on this, "Your sins are forgiven you, GO, and sin no more."

What do you think? Nectarios 14:12, June 8, 2007 (PDT)

I don't agree with your assertion that East and West diverged as early as the third century. The most up to date scholarship thinks of the idea that there was some great ideological divide between Greek thinkers and Latin thinkers as a myth. I think that by the time of Charlemagne we begin to see the seeds of division. But we should be careful not to overstate our case and come off as reactionaries, foolishly believing just about anything that confirms our assumption that Roman Catholics are clearly 180 degrees from the truth. Even if it's slander. Fr John Romanidies, perhaps the architect of the anti-western movement, said that the heart of the Orthodox tradition is concerned with the healing of the soul through purification, illumination, and glorification. Check these two links out and then tell me that Roman Catholic scholasticism caused the contemplative life ordered toward union with God to dry up into mere rational speculation. and Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. even says, "In this case the theologian has a contemplation which is in a sense acquired, so far as it is the fruit of his work, and which, in a superior sense, is infused, so far as the special inspiration of the Holy Ghost elevates it in a more or less manifest manner, giving it a penetration and spiritual sweetness surpassing simple faith and theological speculation. Faith adheres to revealed mysteries, the gift of understanding makes us penetrate them, the gift of wisdom makes us taste them." and this: "From the higher point of view dominated by the gifts of understanding and wisdom, which render faith penetrating and sweet, the theological treatises appear more elevated and profound." He says the the theologian who isn't also a mystic is impoverished, but if he becomes a mystic and experiences purification and illumination, and then returns to his studies, he finds in his appreciation of the faith something "penetrating and sweet" because the contemplative way adds something deep that mere rational study cannot give. --Ryan Close 15:23, January 16, 2015 (PST)

Methodist reference

I do not believe that the reference to Methodism's views on Christian Perfection are accurate. 1. We believe that Christian Perfection is only a perfection of intent, not of action. 2. We believe those who are sanctified continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of God throughout our lives. To better understand our view see Wesley's sermon Christian Perfection [ .

No the reference is correct. It clearly states that it's talking about a subsection of the methodist movement (the holiness movement). Having been part of this theological point of view before my conversion to orthodoxy, it's accurate to a certain degree. The main problem with the article is that there is more diversity in the movement then what the article protrays. Some claim it to be profection of intentions and others see the process still going on AFTER moral profestion has occured. --NateL 13:34, September 3, 2009 (UTC)