Royal and Crooked Paths

[Julianna]

"For the path of righteousness is straight, but that of unrighteousness is crooked. But walk in the straight and even way, and mind not the crooked. For the crooked path has no roads, but has many pathless places and stumbling-blocks in it, and it is rough and thorny. It is injurious to those who walk therein. But they who walk in the straight road walk evenly without stumbling, because it is neither rough nor thorny. You see, then, that it is better to walk in this road.

'I wish to go by this road,' I said.

You will go by it, and whoever turns to the Lord with all his heart will walk in it." - Hermas, Shepherd of Hermas, Commandment 6, 1

Isn't the so-called "royal" path you spoke of elsewhere the crooked path?

[Justin Kissel]

The royal path is the path of Orthodoxy, it's been mentioned by everyone from Gregory the Theologian to Archbishop Averky (I can get references tomorrow, too late tonight).

[Justin Kissel]

Here's an article from Fr. Seraphim Rose about ROCOR being on the "Royal Path," and he includes many patristic quotes on the concept as well.

One of my favorite mentions of the royal path is by Gregory the Theologian:

"Let us then bid farewell to all contentious shiftings and balancings of the truth on either side, neither, like the Sabellians, assailing the Trinity in the interest of the Unity, and so destroying the distinction by a wicked confusion; nor, like the Arians, assailing the Unity in the interest of the Trinity, and by an impious distinction overthrowing the Oneness. For our object is not to exchange one evil for another, but to ensure our attainment of that which is good. These are the playthings of the Wicked One, who is ever swaying our fortunes towards the evil. But we, walking along the royal road which lies between the two extremes, which is the seat of the virtues, as the authorities say, believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, of one Substance and glory" (Emphasis mine) - Gregory the Theologian, Oration 42, 16

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Justin,

It seems to me, that the "two extremes" in the sentence bolded above are the extremes of the Sabellians and the Arians.

Do you think this sentence means something different?

[Jakub]

Will someone please explain this term BUMP.

And please don't remind me how young I am.

james

[Justin Kissel]

If I remember correctly, that would be them, yes (St. Gregory didn't start most of his apologetics against the Apollinarians until after he had "retired," so I don't think it'd be them). However, Gregory often uses such language of going "in the center" and not swaying from side to side into error (as do other fathers). Perhaps I'm particularly attached to the saying because not only did my favorite ancient Father (Gregory) like this terminology, but one of my favorite heterodox writers (G.K. Chesterton) also used similar language when he talked about the Church avoiding errors to the left and right of her. I suppose it's just a part of my normal thinking now... for example I used this terminology just this week as I described (in the text on Fr. Seraphim) those who had gone off "the royal path". So, I guess in answer to your question, I'd say that the "meaning" of the passage from St. Gregory is much like those of Saint Paul as he refutes the Judaizers: he has particular errors in mind, but the principles he uses are universally applicable.

PS. Just went back and reread the actual quote.. the very mentioning of Arians and Sabellians makes the answer somewhat easier, hehe

[Justin Kissel]

Jakub,

Using a "bump" is just sort of a way of posting on a thread to bring it to the top so that people will see the thread. It's a way of bringing an old thread back to life, in case anyone wants to comment on it at this point. So, if you see an old thread, and you're curious what other people might think of it, but you don't have anything particular to add yourself, you can just put in "bump" and "bump it to the top"