theologoumena

Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
jgress
Moderator
Posts: 1382
Joined: Thu 4 March 2010 1:06 pm
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA

theologoumena

Post by jgress »

Dear all,

What do people understand by the term "theologoumenon"? I have heard this term employed a lot, but its meaning remains unclear to me, at least in its current usage. Does it mean a doctrine that is not supported by a patristic consensus, but disputed by the Fathers? Or can it also mean a doctrine that may or may not be heretical, but on which the Church has not yet pronounced with a definitive voice (i.e. through a conciliar decision)? I am asking because from some quarters I hear that, e.g. theistic evolutionism and the Romanidean teaching on original sin are heresies, and from other quarters that they are only "theologoumena".

In Christ

Jonathan

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: theologoumena

Post by Maria »

jgress wrote:

Dear all,

What do people understand by the term "theologoumenon"? I have heard this term employed a lot, but its meaning remains unclear to me, at least in its current usage. Does it mean a doctrine that is not supported by a patristic consensus, but disputed by the Fathers? Or can it also mean a doctrine that may or may not be heretical, but on which the Church has not yet pronounced with a definitive voice (i.e. through a conciliar decision)? I am asking because from some quarters I hear that, e.g. theistic evolutionism and the Romanidean teaching on original sin are heresies, and from other quarters that they are only "theologoumena".

In Christ

Jonathan

The term "theologoumenon" is often applied to disputed teachings that have not been declared dogmas in Orthodox Christianity, and probably will not.

For example, the teaching on Toll Houses is considered to be a theologoumenon. Many Russian Orthodox accept Toll Houses as valid and they quote from saints and from their Holy Services as proof, while Greek Orthodox believe that the concept of Toll Houses either borders on heresy or is a heresy.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

User avatar
joasia
Protoposter
Posts: 1858
Joined: Tue 29 June 2004 7:19 pm
Jurisdiction: RTOC
Location: Montreal

Re: theologoumena

Post by joasia »

Can it also mean a personal opinion? I mean, we know what is absolute dogma and Orthodox teachings, but there are views that fall in between.

The question is, what "quarters" are saying what. What are their goals in believing that particular view? I believe that the Fathers, being saints, had a consensus of all the right theology that God wants us to understand. I really haven't read anything that the Fathers disagreed on. But, I think there is a level of interpretation of their explanations that may take it beyond what they really meant.

I think the Fathers knew exactly what is true, but we people who live in this century are causing unnecessary confusion. We think too much and we are not the Fathers.

In Christ,
Joanna

Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. (Ps. 50)

JHunt777
Newbie
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue 12 May 2009 4:47 am
Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR

Re: theologoumena

Post by JHunt777 »

As far as I know, the term "theologoumenon" is not found anywhere in the writings of the Holy Fathers, but is rather a term that was made popular by the liberal Protestant theologian Adolf von Harnack in his 7 volume History of Dogma, circa 1885.

User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: theologoumena

Post by Maria »

joasia wrote:

Can it also mean a personal opinion? I mean, we know what is absolute dogma and Orthodox teachings, but there are views that fall in between.

The question is, what "quarters" are saying what. What are their goals in believing that particular view? I believe that the Fathers, being saints, had a consensus of all the right theology that God wants us to understand. I really haven't read anything that the Fathers disagreed on. But, I think there is a level of interpretation of their explanations that may take it beyond what they really meant.

I think the Fathers knew exactly what is true, but we people who live in this century are causing unnecessary confusion. We think too much and we are not the Fathers.

In Christ,
Joanna

Yes, certain people have caused serious dissension and confusion regarding theologoumena.

For example, AB Lazar Puhalo is the formerly deposed Deacon Lev of the ROCOR. The ROCOR deposed Deacon Lev because of his persistent teachings against Father Seraphim Rose and his Toll House teachings. What really caused the ROCOR Synod to take notice was the unhealthy dissension that was being created by this former Deacon Lev. Unfortunately, AB Lazar (who has changed his last name three times) was accepted into the ranks of the retired OCA hierarchs in 2003. Thus, he has the capacity to continue creating unholy uproars and damage the image of the Orthodox Church. If people listen to him, read his internet postings, or purchase his books, they could easily conclude that we all are a bunch of crackpots.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

jgress
Moderator
Posts: 1382
Joined: Thu 4 March 2010 1:06 pm
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA

Re: theologoumena

Post by jgress »

JHunt777 wrote:

As far as I know, the term "theologoumenon" is not found anywhere in the writings of the Holy Fathers, but is rather a term that was made popular by the liberal Protestant theologian Adolf von Harnack in his 7 volume History of Dogma, circa 1885.

Really? That's interesting. It's true that e.g. Fr Michael Pomazansky's book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology does not mention the term, as far as I can see.

jgress
Moderator
Posts: 1382
Joined: Thu 4 March 2010 1:06 pm
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA

Re: theologoumena

Post by jgress »

Then again, I think there has to be room for the concept of an idea that is not dogmatic and for which there is no patristic consensus. E.g. whether or not angels can physically mix with women. Just because the term itself is of non-Orthodox origin is not sufficient to reject the concept that the word signifies.

Post Reply