Difference between revisions of "Talk:Pavel Florensky"
|Line 35:||Line 35:|
Thanks, Fr. John. I understand the terminology issues - we have a lot of them. The point I was trying to make is that the Orthodox process to canonization can lead into the uncertianty of local usage for a saint until one of the Churches formally recognizes canonization, much as seems to be going on in the examples I mentioned. [[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 20:
Thanks, Fr. John. I understand the terminology issues - we have a lot of them. The point I was trying to make is that the Orthodox process to canonization can lead into the uncertianty of local usage for a saint until one of the Churches formally recognizes canonization, much as seems to be going on in the examples I mentioned. [[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 20:, June 15, 2006 (CDT)
Revision as of 01:26, June 16, 2006
- Yeah, I'd gotten the impression that Florensky hadn't been glorified by anyone. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 21:14, June 13, 2006 (CDT)
Thank you for the alert. I noted the ROCOR when I was writing the article and thought was strange and hoped some onr would address the point. I went back to the Wikipedia article and found the it was revised on June 1, 2006 after I had originally copied the earlier copy. There are two revisions that got to the current text.
I'll delete the sentence. I also note that Paul Florensky is listed as a new matryr on the Calendar for December 15.
Thanks again for the alert.Wsk 19:01, June 14, 2006 (CDT)
- This would mean that it's no longer disputed, yes? — edited by Pιsτévο at 19:08, June 14, 2006 (CDT)
I would hope so. But, then it is easy to "get into hot water" when religion is dicussed. Especially when writing about controversial people!Wsk 19:45, June 14, 2006 (CDT)
- Hmm.. Maybe we need to make a distinction in our minds -- he was canonized/glorified as a martyr. That seems pretty clear. Some really like his theological work. Others don't. It doesn't seem to me that "the Church" has pronounced either way on this, right? Fr. John
I don't know, but my impression was simply that he was glorified together with the New Martyrs. Via Google, I found a couple references but no solid historical account, e.g.:
- "The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia went in its time along the path of the canonization of all Orthodox who suffered at the hands of the bolsheviks. On the icon of ROCOR "Assembly of New Martyrs" there is, in particular, even Fr Paul Florensky, whom I mentioned, despite the fact that in ROCOR there is a rather critical attitude toward his statements and his works." http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0005e.html
He is also listed as a saint at http://www.pomog.org/saintlist.shtml (A ROCOR parish), s.v. January 9 / 22 as well as on a ACROD parish site at http://www.yourinter.net/zak/saints.html (probably copied from the other site?).
A couple sources I found state that he was canonized by the Church in Russia (Moscow Patriarchate), but then there's this. Also, I found a real slam job here. Besides the "St. Paul Florensky" book, I also found reference to an article by Columba Graham Flegg called "St. Pavel Florensky: An Appreciation" Modern Logic 4 (1994), 266-276.
Hope that helps. Fr. John 09:44, June 15, 2006 (CDT)
Fr. Florensky's status seems rather open. On the point of glorification my understanding that a person in "recognized" formally as a saint most often after that person in honored and revered at a local level. Current points are Abp. Arseny, honored in Canada, and the lady, her name doesn't come to me right now, in Alaska. However, I have added the position noted in the Wikipedia article about Metr. Vitaly's statements in which he notes the "unfortunate" icon that mentions Fr. Paul's name but has no painted icon of his face. ROCOR members may be vacillating on the question. As the points above are rationalized commentary can be added to our article. Also. a point, do we want to list Florensky as 'Pavel' or 'Paul'? On the Calendar he is listed as 'Paul'. Wsk 10:38, June 15, 2006 (CDT)
- Pavel seems to be the name under which his books are published. It's also the name I hear used most for him around the seminary. (In fact, I've never heard him called Paul.) —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 11:44, June 15, 2006 (CDT)
- I think we should keep the article as Pavel. We can add a (or Paul) in parens perhaps -- it's really the same in translation of course, and we shouldn't be suprised to find different usages. Bill, you're thinking of Matushka Olga Michael in Alaska. Local veneration is different from formal canonization. (I don't have a problem with the term "canonization" since I think it's an accurate description of what is being done. I'm not sure that attempts to purge it from our language aren't just over-zealous attempts to assert Orthodoxness over against Roman Catholic canonization practices. Not sure what the real history of both terms is, but "canonize" describes very well in my mind what is being done with these folks -- more than "glorified" even, since it is really only God who can glorify someone.) Fr. John
Thanks, Fr. John. I understand the terminology issues - we have a lot of them. The point I was trying to make is that the Orthodox process to canonization can lead into the uncertianty of local usage for a saint until one of the Churches formally recognizes canonization, much as seems to be going on in the examples I mentioned. By the way I have no problem with Pavel as I had used it in the article, but, again, we have questions about which 'transliterations' to use in other articles - I look at it as a case of consistency. Wsk 20:26, June 15, 2006 (CDT)