Ephrem wrote:Yes, there's been a bit of controversy over Metropolitan Anthony's views, and particularly his work, The Dogma of Redemption. That's one reason why it's very pleasant to have this writing translated into English, so that the reader can access the Metropolitan's ideas in their original form, without the distortions of his detractors.
...or the distortions of his greatest promoters! It should be noted, Met. Anthony refers to the "Blessed Augustine" in his Dogma of Redemption, but one of Met. Anthony's greatest advocates, a certain prominent so-called "theologian" priest in HOCNA, praises Met. Anthony as "St. Anthony" on public message boards, while simultaneously condemning St. Augustine as a "heresiarch"--in fact, he once claimed in a booklet he authored, that Augustine was: "the source of all Western heresy". Not surprisingly, this HOCNA priest holds a theological degree from the liberal and unorthodox St. Vladimir's Seminary in NY, which is of course an American product of the liberal-scholastic "Parisian" school.
Ephrem wrote:His detractors fail to recognize that all the recent saints and holy people very much adored and revered Vladyka Anthony, and even defended his views, including St. John (Maximovitch), St. Philaret of New York, and Bishop Gregory Grabbe.
We have to be careful when we use sweeping words like "all". I don't think it is accurate to suggest that "all" saints and holy people of our time defended or agreed with Met. Anthony's views. Some of them made a distinction between the personage of Met. Anthony and his writings, defending the man, while not necessarily accepting all of his teachings.
Who taught you this? Your bishop or priest? or have you arrived at this conclusion independently on your own? HOCNA are heretics; they are not Orthodox, and their writings are extremely unreliable and dangerous for those of us who are not well-versed in the doctrines of the Holy Fathers. Wouldn't we be better off to read Athanasius, John Damascene, Cyril the Catechist, or Isaac the Syrian, or some other Holy Father, before getting bogged down in polemical disputes with these modernist, neo-traditionalist scholastics from the Parisian school of philosophy?
Ephrem wrote:I agree that nowadays there is a lot to be wary of as far as reading goes.
I think we would all be better off reading 150 pages of Chrysostom or Gregory of Nyssa rather than 150 pages of Met. Anthony's Dogma and HOCNA's cacodox defense of it.
Ephrem wrote:We should be careful, though, not to be so over-zealous as to become bitter or, especially, mean-spirited. This controversy in particular has seen quite a bit of that, and it seems that the popularity of various views toward Metropolitan Anthony can be attributed precisely to his detractors being self-willed and mean-spirited.
Indeed, I myself have encountered a handful of detractors of Met. Anthony who exhibit a zeal not according to knowledge, and they do in fact come across as mean-spirited when they spew mindless vitriol at his personage. However, you will encounter no shortage of mean-spirited promoters of Met. Anthony in HOCNA as well, especially those who have inherited the malicious spirit of ecumenist John Romanides.
Ephrem wrote:In Orthodoxy, one understands Theology insofar as he has become proficient spiritually, and in accordance with his faith. We ought to all struggle first of all to make a beginning in this.
Wise words.
From: Not Of This World, The Life and Teaching of Fr. Seraphim Rose,
Chapter 61: ZEALOTS OF ORTHODOXY
Fr. Herman had encountered Fr. Schmemann's books when he was at Jordanville. As he explained: "When I came to Jordanville, I read three books which were bound up with my conversion: the Life of St. Seraphim, the Life of Elder Ambrose of Optina, and The Way of a Pilgrim. I found that the most interesting thing about Christianity is the ascetics, because they make all of Christ's talk about the Kingdom of God make sense. And then someone said, 'If you really want to know what's happening in Orthodoxy today, read Schmemann.' So I read it, and I was bored. I read more and I was still bored. I wondered what was wrong. And then I figured it out. He speaks abstractly, albeit eloquently, not from experience like the ascetics. And then I thought: Big deal. I could do the same -- read books and think about them. It was two-dimensional, while the saints are three-dimensional, because they have sought and attained the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. They try their best to get it across to us, and it's only our denseness that prevents us from understanding their experience."