tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5134782302655515338.post7652470322335761529..comments2023-12-25T05:12:46.199+01:00Comments on ORA ET LABORA: St Dionysius the Areopagite, Postscript IIFelix Culpahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18062279686869827534noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5134782302655515338.post-21845113632862958662008-04-29T20:00:00.000+02:002008-04-29T20:00:00.000+02:00Felix:Don't expect anything by way of a knock down...Felix:<BR/>Don't expect anything by way of a knock down argument here on this one. It is based on the liturgical witness that the church venerates the persons she says he is: the author of the texts in question. And the fact that textual criticism doesn't give any truer picture of the author in question. Then there is the unquestioned reading of ancient texts in the light of philosophy and NeoPlatonic writers, i.e. if it looks like a text lifted from the writing of a NeoPlatonist, the NeoPlatonist predated the writer, and the writer is in fact a NeoPlatonist himself and belongs to this genre of writing. This is a Eunomian language theory: that different terminology used constitutes a different author or genre of authors. Think the JEPD theory here in the Old Testament. It's a subtle Gnosticism. Instead of adhering to Tradition that Moses wrote the penteteuch, they [unkowingly] use a Eunomian theory of language that different divine names used by the author in the text necessarily means that the text is written by different authors or different "traditional" groups of authors.<BR/><BR/>That's the gist in an nutshell, but the Eunomian language theory and its inherent falsity and dialectical method is the thrust of the argument.<BR/><BR/>St. Dionysios definitely needs some more rescuing I believe.<BR/><BR/>PhotiosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5134782302655515338.post-89850071955706220862008-04-28T20:40:00.000+02:002008-04-28T20:40:00.000+02:00Photios: I'd really love to hear your argument tha...Photios: I'd really love to hear your argument that the Dionysius of Acts is the author of these treatises. If you would like to write something up along these lines I would be honored to post it here as part of this series.Felix Culpahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18062279686869827534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5134782302655515338.post-21002295520029063022008-04-28T17:57:00.000+02:002008-04-28T17:57:00.000+02:00I really enjoyed your series on St. Dionysios. I h...I really enjoyed your series on St. Dionysios. I have held the same opinions as you for some time and am quite familiar with Frs. Golitzin and Romanides corrections of these misunderstandings.<BR/><BR/>I'm actually one of those odd Orthodox that believes the author is the actual disciple of St. Paul. I don't go along with the crowd that says that his statments were lifted right out of Proclus without questioning that the reverse may very well be the case. It is this scientific method of textual criticism that is actually distorting the truth (speculatively) and questioning old texts (like the scriptures) that were always quite certain.<BR/><BR/>Bravo on the series though!<BR/><BR/>PhotiosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5134782302655515338.post-85874931878077255982008-04-03T18:00:00.000+02:002008-04-03T18:00:00.000+02:00I am greatly enjoying your blog. If I might make a...I am greatly enjoying your blog. If I might make a comment.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that church fathers such as St. Dionysius wrote from their spiritual experiences after having gone through long spiritual suffering, fasting and achieving some degree of theosis. Later fathers would not disagree with St. Dionysius because they, too, would have obtained some sort of spiritual knowledge through their ascetic work and understand what is being said. I don't think the fathers wrote these works for the same reasons many academics do today - they were trying to teach others based on their own experiences that were revealed to them by God.<BR/><BR/>Our modern theologians, approaching these subjects as academics with much less spiritual experience than the fathers, use rational explanation and modern methods of textual criticism to try and compare, contrast and understand such works. I think we can see the fruit of these methods described in your article - St. Dionysius's writings are simply not really understood.<BR/><BR/>One of my feelings is that our modern Orthodox leaders are mostly academics. My background is engineering, and I have started some businesses. I have been trained to be practical, as in such fields the results of your efforts are clear and measurable. We should remember that the church fathers were also practical - their writings were completed on the basis of results they obtained and observed, and they also understood that what they wrote would produce results. When I read the fathers I never get the feeling they are speaking for the sake of explaining; no, they are speaking for the sake of doing and motivating others to act. They were not academics.<BR/><BR/>From my own limited experience as a repentant sinner, I can see the changes in myself by trying to follow the true Orthodox faith and lead as much as an ascetic life as possible as the years go by. Deep prayer, fasting and following the liturgical life of the church is ultimately transformational and therapeutic. Our view of life and the world changes as we slowly change. I think this simple approach to the faith is largely lost in some circles, and mostly absent from western Christianity. These fathers understood somehow intuitively that spiritual progress could possibly be "measured" and perhaps described with our limited human language.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com