Slava Isusu Christu!
I was wondering, if there are any book from a "Traditional Orthodox" Perspective, Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement, that focuses on
receiveing Converts or at least goes into some details about it.
In Christ
OrthodoxLearner
I don't know of any works that deal with this subject specifically, but you might check out The Teachings of the Orthodox Church, Vol. I.
Nicholas Zollars
you also might check out the listings at St. John of Kronstadt Press.
Nicholas Zollars
OOD,
I am saddened to see you put "St" in front of the name of that proto-calvinist.
Nicholas Zollars
OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:I'm curious what "The Teachings of the Orthodox Church, Vol. I." has to say about St. Augustine with its "very informative special appendix dealing" with him...
Does anyone have this book?
I believe I have one, is it by Fr. Micheal Azkoul (I hope I spelled that right). I look it up when I get home from work (just read mind me about 6PM 
)
Nicholas,
I noticed the Dormition Skete didn't have a "St." in front of this Saints name either which is why I asked. So does this "special section" in this book then make the argument that he is not a Saint?
Of course this would not be something new. These self-assured and quite unfounded revisions on St. Augustine should be a deep concern for everyone. Everyone knows of the erroneous doctrine he had on Grace, even in his own time, but why this attempt to destroy entirley someone who has never in Orthodox tradition been denied a place among the Fathers of the Church?
Didn't St. Pope Stephen also have an erronious view of papal supremacy and therefore the Church? His errors were well known but simply ignored. Will he be next?
What about St. Cyril, wasn't his definition of the nature of Christ bordering on Monophysitism? His views were also well known but accepted only by the definition prescribed by the Fourth Ecumenical Council.
And St. Constantine the Great, many people today would like to destroy this great Saints memory entirley.
The point is, there was not a single Saint who was perfect. The examples of their mistakes are vast and inummerable, but only together and by that which was accepted by the conscienceness of the Church do we know perfection. A purest, a person seeking to make the Church absolutley pure, is in my estimation a rationalist; this is primarily because a person such as this cannot admit to antithesis, yet the Church is filled with antithesis and "contradiction"; and the people in it, guilty of many mistakes.
I am not afraid of these antithesis' and realize they are used by many people to pick and choose whatever it is they want to sell. These people will never know the truth because they don't want it in the first place.
And once you succeed in destroying the name of one saint, it will be much easier to destroy the next; and then who can say when or if it will ever stop?
The Fifth Ecumenical Council ranks St. Augustine as a theological authority at the same level as Sts. Basil, Gregory and John Chrysostom. Even St. John Cassian, who lived in the time of Augustine, corrected him without even mentioning his name, much less casting him out as chaff.
I am just not inclined to challenge the Church on something it has always accepted. And indeed, the Church has always accepted him even knowing the flaws in his teaching (as pointed out by St. John Cassian) but yet accepted him as a Saint.
