Rush to Embrace

尼古拉前执事 · Post by **尼古拉前执事** » Mon 2 June 2003 12:25 pm

Last night I read RUSH TO EMBRACE by Father Alexey Young a spiritual son of Father Seraphim Rose. This book is excellent as it points out issues, including some that one many not even thin of and then connects them to make total sense out of the Ecumenical movement and why we should stay away from it.I immediately thought of Joe, Jakub and Nektarios when I read it, as all 3 would benefit from it IMO. But I highly recommend it to anyone who wonders what is behind ecumenism on either the Orthodox or Catholic side.

Jakub · Post by **Jakub** » Mon 2 June 2003 1:19 pm

Nicholas,

I will ck my favorite book store while I'm in SIN CITY (las vegas)later this week.

In my view no traditions of any kind should be involved in EC talks, only the primacy & infalliable issues + the Filioque. East/West traditions should be left to their respectful Churches.

My humble opinion,
james

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Mon 2 June 2003 4:46 pm

Dear Nik,

Sorry, but I can't agree with you on that book, I thought it sucked. It is full of mistruths and propoganda. Reading it I got a sense of how much he hates the Catholic Church and I was pretty mad at him. I personally hate polemical literature (being a scholar-in-training, God willing) but if you must read it, I suggest Clark Carlton more. I could handle him.

anastasios

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Mon 2 June 2003 6:15 pm

Anastasios,

You said: "I personally hate polemical literature"

St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, St. Photius, St. Mark of Ephesis, St. Isaac, St. Theophan the Recluse, St. Maximus, St. Nicodemos, and St. Theodore the Studite (to name a few).....

There is a big difference between you hating their literature and them hating the heresies you embrace. Yet you venerate them and confess them as divinly inspired teachers who have been long accepted by the conscienecness of the Church, and at times JUST BECAUSE of their "polemical literature" .

How can anyone shamelessly claim that they have more love in their hearts than did these Saints who were not able with their love to overcome the barriers which divided them from heresy, but on the contrary, they made these barriers higher so they could protect the sheep from the wolves?

This is tremendous paradox which I implore you to resolve honestly for yourself. I know this all sounds harsh, but even a good friend would not say softly and nicely in a whisper, "Anastasios, don't jump off that cliff."

I must add, and this is not directed at anyone in particular, that I am sure if it were possible someone would jump up and say that these men were simple converts who were carrying allot of protestant baggage.

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Mon 2 June 2003 7:31 pm

OOD:

I wasn't thinking of the Church Fathers when I condemned polemical literature. The Church Fathers backed everything up and were very theological whereas modern polemical literature like Fr. Alexy's work is full of mistruths. The Church Fathers would never have knowingly misrepresented the religion they were opposing--that's dishonest, and the Church Fathers weren't. Father Alexy does, on the other hand, misrepresent Catholicism in his essays. Clark Carlton does a much better job of being fair while still critical, which is all I ask for.

anastasios

尼古拉前执事 · Post by **尼古拉前执事** » Mon 2 June 2003 7:49 pm

What mistruths?

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Post by **OrthodoxyOrDeath** » Mon 2 June 2003 11:19 pm

Anastasios,

I will agree with you that Fr. Alexey does not use theological arguments as the basis of the book, its been a long time since I've read it but I just breezed through it and agree.

Having said that, if you consider the refutation of Latinism as being assumed as the book points out in many places (such as pages 82-83), then it is easy to think of this book as a sincere exploration of modern ecumenism, and not so much a refutation of Latinism, which the Saints have already done. If fact this is exactly what the back cover says the book is. It really doesn't seem very "polemical" to me, it really just seems like a sincere assesment.