jgress wrote:Your personal opinions of Fr John Romanides' writings certainly conflict drastically with many in my jurisdiction, including at least two bishops.
Yes, I am fully aware of this. But I am certainly not the only one scandalized by the promotion of Romanides and his views by clergy in your jurisdiction. I know people from your jurisdiction, as well as people belonging to the sister synod in Greece, who are as disturbed about this as I am. Take some recent public writings by Rdr. Vladimir Moss, for example. He has written a number of articles seeking to expose the errors of Romanidean theology. It is readily apparent to even the casual observer, that he is disturbed by the direction the bishops are taking here in America, promoting the ideas of Romanides along with making unwise overtures toward HOCNA, but out of discretion he chooses not to criticize Bp. Christodoulos openly, but rather Met. Ephraim of HOCNA and the subject of Bp. Christodoulos' praise, John Romanides.
If it makes you feel better, I am inclined to be skeptical about his interpretation of original sin, and certainly about the interpretation of Heaven and Hell offered by his follower, Dr Alexander Kalomiros, who, unlike Fr John, is an Old Calendarist and traditionalist.
Dr. Kalomiros was an old-calendarist, but he was not an Orthodox traditionalist, for he advocated a number of positions contrary to sacred Orthodox Tradition. Old-calendarism does not equate to Orthodox. Let's not forget, the papists remained on the old calendar for more than 500 years after the Great Schism, but that didn't make them Orthodox.
If Fr John was a heretic, well technically that's true, in that he died a new calendarist, and so at least died under the anathemas against that church, regardless of the theological status of his other teachings.
Romanides spewed forth a number of lies and slanders, which are contrary to the Faith and are unacceptable, irrespective of which calendar he followed, or which bishop he was under. The fact that he was an ecumenist and schismatic new-calendarist, and a member of the Central Committee of the World of Churches just makes it all that much more obvious that he was cut-off from the depository of grace, the Church.
But, again technically, that has nothing to do with his writings that have gained such a following, such as The Ancestral Sin.
Perhaps this writing of his has gained a following in the circles which you travel. But that doesn't mean they have been accepted by the Orthodox Church. When his Ancestral Sin was first published more than 50 years ago, it was quite controversial and caused quite a stir. So it really depends on whom you talk to. Outside of the New-calendarists, HOCNA, and HOTCA, where has it gained such a following? I'd be curious to know.
I personally don't feel comfortable with the uncritical promotion of a new calendarist's theology in our True Orthodox church, but that is less to do with the quality of the writings themselves than the fact that, because the author is a new calendarist, that has the capacity to scandalize many.
'Quality' should not be used in the same sentence as his writings. They are filled with scorn for the saints, innuendo and slander, promotion of ecumenism, bad theology, and unsupported assertions. Anyone who has become well acquainted with the writings of the saints, and then reads his nonsense, can see that they are as different as day and night. There is no Orthodox spirituality found in his writings at all, but an alien malevolent spirit.
The same goes for Met Hierotheos Vlachos. I have read both the Ancestral Sin and the Mind of the Orthodox Church, and while I found good things in both, I recognize also that they are not beyond criticism. To that extent I sympathize with your concern. But to call them heretics simply on the basis of those writings, I think, is excessive.
They were heretics long before I ever encountered their writings. Whether or not I had ever read them or not, that would not change this fact. They did not become heretics simply because I said so. They chose to remain separated from the communion of the Church, thereby depriving themselves of the Holy Spirit, and consequently the lack of guidance by the Holy Spirit is manifested in their writings, which are filled with the spirt of error, not the Spirit of Truth.
I'm not aware of Catherine's defense of Islam, but if her comments bother you especially I can have a word with her. If she doesn't like Fr Seraphim, that's her choice. If she spreads unsupported gossip about him, I will call her on that.
Mohammedism is a heresy; all heresies originate from the father of lies. So Islam is a religion originated by the devil. This is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. As long as she is fine with this teaching, there is no problem.