Mystical Theology

Onesimus

So . . . I thought we have many theological courses on offer in our parishes. But what about mystical theology? ( ya know, prayer and contemplation etc etc i.e study of the saints spiritual directive writings like St.Evagrios the solitary, St.John Cassian, St.Ignatius of Loyola and St.John of the Cross ).

Would you think our parish would be a better place if we studied this first and learned somehow to grow in our Love towards God and neighbour? Think about it, should this course precede that of the theological studies we have on offer today in the parish? would not this type of study help us and enrich our next step in theology?

afterall St.Evagrios the solitary did say ''If you pray truly you are a theologian, and you are a theologian if you pray truly''

philologos

Prayer is definitely key, but in terms of reading I would encourage people to get familiar with the Bible first before getting familiar with external works. The reason is, that one can better determine what is biblical and what is unbiblical when reading other texts.

Throughout the Bible we find examples of prayer. Sometimes I think people overcomplicate something which is quite simple. That is communicating with our Father in heaven.

kelly1

I think it's definitely something that should be brought out into the light of day. We don't hear enough about it, like it's been covered in dust by years of neglect.

But can it be practiced in a group setting? I don't know.

Currently read this Centering Prayer book.

I've read a lot of the old classics and I find it Orthodox in comparison. I also like the psychological treatment at the beginning. A great read!

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

So . . . I thought we have many theological courses on offer in our parishes. But what about mystical theology? ( ya know, prayer and contemplation etc etc i.e study of the saints spiritual directive writings like St.Evagrios the solitary, St.John Cassian, St.Ignatius of Loyola and St.John of the Cross ).

Would you think our parish would be a better place if we studied this first and learned somehow to grow in our Love towards God and neighbour? Think about it, should this course precede that of the theological studies we have on offer today in the parish? would not this type of study help us and enrich our next step in theology?

afterall St.Evagrios the solitary did say ''If you pray truly you are a theologian, and you are a theologian if you pray truly''

If you mean Evargrias Ponticus than he most certainly is not a saint. Infact he is a condemned heretic, though his writings have been very influential on ascetic theology. Also St John Cassian and St John of the Cross have extremely different teachings to Ignatius Loyola, opposite ones infact in many regards.

qrrgprgua

Many Saints write about their spiritual experience, And the tests God sent. There is a whole world out there that many Catholics and Christians know little about. The reality is to be close to God you need to leave the EGO at the door to pass that spiritual threshold. Abandon your soul entirely to God. Its a Spiritual Path that is not easy. I read a lot of John of the Cross in Spanish as well as St. Theresa de Avila. St. Theresa de Lisieau also writes about similar spiritual experiences. There is great power in these people who take about their spiritual journey, it requires a lot of humility and purity of heart and intention. The problem in Ireland is that we have too many priest who talk about God instead of talking to God. If you don't have a personal experience of God in your life its very hard to preach about him.

There is no point talking about Mysticism if people don't understand the basics of their faith.

tommy2bad

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

If you mean Evargrias Ponticus than he most certainly is not a saint. Infact he is a condemned heretic, though his writings have been very influential on ascetic theology. Also St John Cassian and St John of the Cross have extremely different teachings to Ignatius Loyola, opposite ones infact in many regards.

Indeed he was but he was also a huge influence on The Benedictines.
Are you asking about Hesychasm, Onesimus ?

HamletOrHecuba

tommy2bad wrote: »

Indeed he was but he was also a huge influence on The Benedictines.
Are you asking about Hesychasm, Onesimus ?

He was friends at one point with the St Gregory the Theologian so we should presume that he only fell into heresy later, was he himself influential on the Benedictines or was it that he is said to be very influential through St John Cassian? I think the latter, outside of the Miaphysites I believe that his writings only survived because they were copied under another name and even still I dont think he was known in the west.

St John Cassian never mentions Evargius so I personally would say that the similarities between them reflect a general tradition of the Egyptian desert on which bought drew on rather than St John being his pupil and Evargius being the inventor.

St John Cassian is well worth reading though whether book 13 of the conferences is in line with the teaching of the Council of Orange is up for debate.

HamletOrHecuba

I realize I have contradicted myself over just how influential Evargius was. Modern scholarship certainly believes that he is, but much is it a case of him being influential or one of the tradition he drew on being so?

Onesimus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

If you mean Evargrias Ponticus than he most certainly is not a saint. Infact he is a condemned heretic, though his writings have been very influential on ascetic theology. Also St John Cassian and St John of the Cross have extremely different teachings to Ignatius Loyola, opposite ones infact in many regards.

He is not a heretic. His writings and thoughts upon doctrine were condemned at the fifth ecumenical council. That does not mean he abandoned the faith and created his own ''sect'' once corrected. Although he was not bestowed the honor of Sainthood it was his great Love of God and neighbour that makes him a saint in my eyes at least.

Anyhow he was still a mystic who possessed many gifts of God. His writings as you say are brilliant and it's this that would need to be focused on in study. Unfortunately I was not thinking straight when I gave him the official ''St.'' Abbreviation for the name.

Of course both St.John of the Cross and Ignatuis have different theological views on prayer. St.Johns writings very much mirror the Heyschast eastern view ( no imagination when praying ) and Ignatius is the opposite whereas he was more in favor of using images and the imagination.

But studying both their writings can bear much fruit on mystical theology and in the different ways mystics tend to think when touched by God.

Onesimus

kelly1 wrote: »

I think it's definitely something that should be brought out into the light of day. We don't hear enough about it, like it's been covered in dust by years of neglect.

But can it be practiced in a group setting? I don't know.

Currently read this Centering Prayer book.

I've read a lot of the old classics and I find it Orthodox in comparison. I also like the psychological treatment at the beginning. A great read!

Thanks. Nice post.

I am not saying that we ''practice the path of spiritual perfection'' right there and then in a group setting. But to study the writings and simply discuss them. It would not be a retreat like Ignatius of Loyolas spiritual directions in which we ''practice'' them on the weekend. But more of a study. The hope of this study would be to ''provoke'' the persons conscience and make them more aware of themselves and their imperfections. To give them more of a hunger for prayer and lead them in lightly.

This kind of course though might be too much a step ahead for those beginning in prayer. But for those who spend much time in prayer and are without spiritual direction it could well be beneficial.

I dunno. Just thought I'd throw it out there and see what you all think. We could discuss the positives and negatives and weigh both.

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

He is not a heretic. His writings and thoughts upon doctrine were condemned at the fifth ecumenical council. That does not mean he abandoned the faith and created his own ''sect'' once corrected. Although he was not bestowed the honor of Sainthood it was his great Love of God and neighbour that makes him a saint in my eyes at least. .

Do you realize that his Christology was far from orthodox and it wasnt just a question of belief in a final restoration that was the problem? People can be very righteous and than fall away- obviously he was one of them. Valentinus didnt create his sect and was ascetic, do you want to rehabilitate him too?

Onesimus are you actually a Melkite or a Ruthenian? I ask because I have never encountered such an extremist Ultramontanist as yourself among them, and asking around neither has anyone I know. Also the Ultramontanes who do exist as a minority among them tend to veer strongly away from anything that seems to "Eastern" and "Mystical" and here you are canonizing the father of Origenism! You most certainly are a puzzling!

Onesimus

Do you realize that his Christology was far from orthodox and it wasnt just a question of belief in a final restoration that was the problem? People can be very righteous and than fall away- obviously he was one of them. Valentinus didnt create his sect and was ascetic, do you want to rehabilitate him too?

Do you realize you have no evidence that once his writings/theories were rejected at the fifth ecumenical council that he did not accept his correction and remain in the faith? unlike Tertullian who we have certain evidence had abandoned the faith.

Onesimus are you actually a Melkite or a Ruthenian? I ask because I have never encountered such an extremist Ultramontanist as yourself among them, and asking around neither has anyone I know. Also the Ultramontanes who do exist as a minority among them tend to veer strongly away from anything that seems to "Eastern" and "Mystical" and here you are canonizing the father of Origenism! You most certainly are a puzzling!

I am not officially ''canonizing'' him. I am saying that he was a man of great prayer who for all we know remained that way until death. I was saying that he was a ''saint'' in my eyes in a simple way.

I am not Melkite or Ruthenian so no is the answer to your question. And I've just been judged as an Ultramontanist for absolutely no reason whatsoever Just because I felt he was a Holy man in my personal view?

Afterall we will not be judged upon what we knew but how much we loved. There are many Orthodox Saints I pray to who were canonized by the Orthodox Church. They are Holy men and saints in my eyes. Thats the way I am.

Slav

Onesimus wrote: »

He is not a heretic.

From Canon 1 of Quinisext Council:

Also we recognize as inspired by the Spirit the pious voices of the one hundred and sixty-five God-beating fathers who assembled in this imperial city in the time of our Emperor Justinian of blessed memory, and we teach them to those who come after us; for these synodically anathematized and execrated Theodore of Mopsuestia (the teacher of Nestorius), and Origen, and Didymus, and Evagrius, all of whom reintroduced feigned Greek myths, and brought back again the circlings of certain bodies and souls, and deranged turnings [or transmigrations] to the wanderings or dreamings of their minds, and impiously insulting the resurrection of the dead.

Onesimus wrote: »

Do you realize you have no evidence that once his writings/theories were rejected at the fifth ecumenical council that he did not accept his correction and remain in the faith?

I have such evidence. He died almost two centuries before the Fith Ecumenical Council. Is it good enough?

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

I am not Melkite or Ruthenian so no is the answer to your question. And I've just been judged as an Ultramontanist for absolutely no reason whatsoever Just because I felt he was a Holy man in my personal view?

No, no, I reached the understanding that you were an Ultramontane based on comments you made on the SSPX thread that seemed to imply you believed that the Pope was not bound any law and that there were never legitimate reasons to disobey, ignore or resist him. Nothing to do with your fondness for Evargius.

Onesimus

Slav wrote: »

From Canon 1 of Quinisext Council:

Also we recognize as inspired by the Spirit the pious voices of the one hundred and sixty-five God-beating fathers who assembled in this imperial city in the time of our Emperor Justinian of blessed memory, and we teach them to those who come after us; for these synodically anathematized and execrated Theodore of Mopsuestia (the teacher of Nestorius), and Origen, and Didymus, and Evagrius, all of whom reintroduced feigned Greek myths, and brought back again the circlings of certain bodies and souls, and deranged turnings [or transmigrations] to the wanderings or dreamings of their minds, and impiously insulting the resurrection of the dead.



I have such evidence. He died almost two centuries before the Fith Ecumenical Council. Is it good enough?

Thanks Slav. That is interesting. So how come it took them two centuries to condemn his writings?

Onesimus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

No, no, I reached the understanding that you were an Ultramontane based on comments you made on the SSPX thread that seemed to imply you believed that the Pope was not bound any law and that there were never legitimate reasons to disobey, ignore or resist him. Nothing to do with your fondness for Evargius.

Of course he is bound by a law and there can be legitimate reasons to disobey him. But the sspx as far as I can see have no legitimate reason to do so.

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

Of course he is bound by a law and there can be legitimate reasons to disobey him. But the sspx as far as I can see have no legitimate reason to do so.

Rescuing the entire Liturgical tradition of the Roman Rite is not a legitimate reason! I dont want this go off topic so I will just say this; how much actual spiritual guidance in ascetic struggles is given in Novus Ordo parishes? You cant rise to the heights of the Philokalia unless you start at the beginning and when fasting has been abandoned on wensdays and fridays where can we possibly get too?

qrrgprgua

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Rescuing the entire Liturgical tradition of the Roman Rite is not a legitimate reason! I dont want this go off topic so I will just say this; how much actual spiritual guidance in ascetic struggles is given in Novus Ordo parishes? You cant rise to the heights of the Philokalia unless you start at the beginning and when fasting has been abandoned on wensdays and fridays where can we possibly get too?

Not far.. Sure Sundays for many is reduced to 45 mins (at most if at all) of a Mass. Which is often rushed.

Slav

Onesimus wrote: »

So how come it took them two centuries to condemn his writings?

It's an interesting question and it's actually more then 2 centuries that took the Church to deal with the teaching because Evagrius was anathematised in the context of Origenism.

I think it's because during the first four councils were busy with far more important stuff like Arianism and Monophysitism (and them being the reason for the councils to gather). Maybe it was partially due to the charisma of Origen. Perhaps its only by the sixth century when Platonism started to be seen as a serious threat to Christian orthodoxy.

Onesimus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Rescuing the entire Liturgical tradition of the Roman Rite is not a legitimate reason! I dont want this go off topic so I will just say this; how much actual spiritual guidance in ascetic struggles is given in Novus Ordo parishes? You cant rise to the heights of the Philokalia unless you start at the beginning and when fasting has been abandoned on wensdays and fridays where can we possibly get too?

There is nothing to be rescued as far as the current Roman Mass goes. The problems of the Mass ( if there are any ) can be resolved without returning to a Pre-Vatican II Mass.

The same goes for disobedience. There is a lot of liberal dissent and abandoning of Vatican II. the modernists have took it upon themselves to have their very own interpretation of Vatican II. The same goes for Vatican I trad..*cough* mean Fund..amentalists.

The whole fasting issue is a ''discipline'' the Pope is allowed to change so I don't know why you would bring that whole issue up. But there are many non sspx priests who would like to see a return to fasting and it being regularly preached about. Nothing new there as far as I'm concerned.

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

The whole fasting issue is a ''discipline'' the Pope is allowed to change so I don't know why you would bring that whole issue up. But there are many non sspx priests who would like to see a return to fasting and it being regularly preached about. Nothing new there as far as I'm concerned.

Would agree with the Pope allowing that change was evil?

Your advocacy of the Desert Fathers on one hand and extreme laxity once the Pope says it okay on the other hand is a bit contradictory to say the least, given God has not changed and human nature if anything has gotten worse. There are many such priests, but they are a small minority within the Novus Ordo and a tiny, tiny one in Ireland and Northern Ireland (the situation over on mainland Britain is better that is not saying much at all). By the standards put forward by the Desert Fathers the SSPX also advocate a hell bound laxity.

Onesimus

Your advocacy of the Desert Fathers on one hand and extreme laxity once the Pope says it okay on the other hand is a bit contradictory to say the least,

The practice of the Desert Fathers are for those who wish to lead the life of spiritual perfection. It has nothing to do with the Liturgical changes made by the Popes.

Like I said. . . The problems we have now can be resolved without returning to a Pre-Vatican II Mass.

End of discussion as far as I'm concerned. I dont want to entertain your fundamentalist desires anymore than I have.

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

The practice of the Desert Fathers are for those who wish to lead the life of spiritual perfection.

The Desert Fathers did have not have the Counter-Reformation division between spiritual perfection and a minimum for the mob; they clearly believed that everybody was called to spiritual perfection. You seem to have missed this.

HamletOrHecuba

Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 5:48.

And indeed the Gospel doesnt know such a division either.

Onesimus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

The Desert Fathers did have not have the Counter-Reformation division between spiritual perfection and a minimum for the mob; they clearly believed that everybody was called to spiritual perfection. You seem to have missed this.

St.Cyril of Alexandria pointed out that there are those who live in the world and battle to obey the commandments and there are those who lead a life of spiritual perfection.

All Christians are called to be perfect as their heavenly father is perfect. But there are those who are called to be perfect according to their abilities and vocation. A man in the desert can fast for days and hold late night vigils. A father of many children cannot do this. He must work an eight hour day and plunge into the dangers of the world.

The Monk removes himself visibly from the world. Temptation therefore led from ''sight'' is lessened. He works only 4 hours in the day and is able to lead his life of spiritual perfection in the way he is called.

Both are called to perfection but in different ways.

I'm not going to entertain your views on this either. This thread is about whether not it's a good idea to have mystical theology courses in parishes, weighing the positives and negatives of it all. It is not a thread about sspx, and debate on monks and laity etc.

philologos

Onesimus wrote: »

All Christians are called to be perfect as their heavenly father is perfect. But there are those who are called to be perfect according to their abilities and vocation. A man in the desert can fast for days and hold late night vigils. A father of many children cannot do this. He must work an eight hour day and plunge into the dangers of the world.

How can a man who has clearly sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) be perfect?

That is other than that we are saved by Jesus and Him alone, He who lived a blameless life took it away (1 Peter 3:18)

People can't earn perfection. It's simply not possible.

Onesimus

philologos wrote: »

How can a man who has clearly sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) be perfect?

That is other than that we are saved by Jesus and Him alone, He who lived a blameless life took it away (1 Peter 3:18)

People can't earn perfection. It's simply not possible.

*heavy sigh* Protestant/Catholic debate thread that way --->>>

philologos

I'm interested in finding out how this works. Why is that a bad thing?

Onesimus

philologos wrote: »

I'm interested in finding out how this works. Why is that a bad thing?

Phil I'd love to entertain it and I am sure your intentions are great and not of a trolling manner but seriously? I am just trying to keep this thread and topic on track. I've already swerved and fallen victim to doing that with one poster already.

Onesimus

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

St.Cyril of Alexandria pointed out that there are those who live in the world and battle to obey the commandments and there are those who lead a life of spiritual perfection.

I would like to see exactly what he says.

Firstly no one on this earth lives a life of spiritual perfection- even in Heaven the process of us being perfected will be as infinite as God's goodness.

Onesimus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

I would like to see exactly what he says.

Firstly no one on this earth lives a life of spiritual perfection- even in Heaven the process of us being perfected will be as infinite as God's goodness.

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI directly qoutes him in his book on the Church fathers.

Now can ya please take this conversation somewhere else? Puh-Please?

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm not going to entertain your views on this either. This thread is about whether not it's a good idea to have mystical theology courses in parishes, weighing the positives and negatives of it all. It is not a thread about sspx, and debate on monks and laity etc.

How can you separate mystical theology from either fasting or monasticism?

Courses on mystical theology outside of a regime of ascetic struggle could even be spiritually dangerous.

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI directly qoutes him in his book on the Church fathers.

Now can ya please take this conversation somewhere else? Puh-Please?

What work from St Cyril?

Onesimus

Courses on mystical theology outside of a regime of ascetic struggle could even be spiritually dangerous.

Finally we are getting somewhere. Ok, so would you like to elaborate on that? I find your comment interesting but it seems that you fail to go in depth on how that could be so?

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

Finally we are getting somewhere. Ok, so would you like to elaborate on that? I find your comment interesting but it seems that you fail to go in depth on how that could be so?

Because it takes it out of its context and gives people a hunger for "unusual" experiences that demons can very easily satisfy (temporarily at least), and of course it can lead to pride- mysticism is only for those who have really learnt what humility is (I havent) and what goes with it, an understanding of their complete reliance on God.

Onesimus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

Because it takes it out of its context and gives people a hunger for "unusual" experiences that demons can very easily satisfy (temporarily at least), and of course it can lead to pride- mysticism is only for those who have really learnt what humility is (I havent) and what goes with it, an understanding of their complete reliance on God.

That is odd. In my experience of reading The volumes of the Philokalia many of the fathers instruct on to avoid unusual experiences.

Do you really feel that humility is something we can ''learn''?

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

That is odd. In my experience of reading The volumes of the Philokalia many of the fathers instruct on to avoid unusual experiences.

Do you really feel that humility is something we can ''learn''?

Yes humility has to be learned the hard way, though of course the teacher is God.

Yes the Philokalia does teach that, but experiences unusual to the Saints- it does in places describe experiences that very much count as unusual to the vast majority of people today. Given the "Cross less Christianity" of today where so many people believe that getting into Heaven is basically easy which no one believed in the past do you not think exposing them to mystical theology could well be dangerous?

Onesimus

Yes humility has to be learned the hard way, though of course the teacher is God.

Again. An interesting response. How exactly do we ''learn'' humility though?

Yes the Philokalia does teach that, but experiences unusual to the Saints- it does in places describe experiences that very much count as unusual to the vast majority of people today. Given the "Cross less Christianity" of today where so many people believe that getting into Heaven is basically easy which no one believed in the past do you not think exposing them to mystical theology could well be dangerous?

Of course it teaches about experiences that are unusual to us today. and it shows us how to discern ( although ultimately discernment is acheived through prayer ) what comes from God and what does not. The Study of mystical theology will provoke the laity into taking their faith more seriously. into taking prayer more seriously. The course should also be done by a good spiritual master with many years of knowledge behind him too.

A course on how to pray and how to do so whilst avoiding small imperfections in day to day life I think is a good one. One that will make the study of Theology much more fruitful for us.

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

Again. An interesting response. How exactly do we ''learn'' humility though?

By showing us our powerlessness and utter need for him. What is so interesting there? Have you never experienced God allowing temptations or passions to flare up so that you realize your utter dependence on Him?

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

The course should also be done by a good spiritual master with many years of knowledge behind him too.

And where are you going to them?

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

AThe Study of mystical theology will provoke the laity into taking their faith more seriously. into taking prayer more seriously.

A course on how to pray and how to do so whilst avoiding small imperfections in day to day life I think is a good one. One that will make the study of Theology much more fruitful for us.

Most of us, me very much included, have a lot more than small imperfections to deal with; if the saints believed themselves to be wretches where does that leave us?

However you could be correct, it could if approached correctly actually bring some people to repentance.

HamletOrHecuba

The teachings of the Philokalia at a level that is actually of use to us are pretty well summed up by St Ignati's The Arena. That would be a good place to start- have you read it?

Ive posted some chapters here.

Onesimus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

By showing us our powerlessness and utter need for him. What is so interesting there? Have you never experienced God allowing temptations or passions to flare up so that you realize your utter dependence on Him?

I was unsure if you meant we have to ''learn'' intellectually humility. As Humility is a grace from God and can only be aquired through prayer and much hardship. But I see you are not saying that.

And where are you going to them?

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

Metropolitan Kallistos Ware

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=17129.0

Oh I feel the temptation to make a cynical comment here but you should really do some background checks on this Metropolitan.

Onesimus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=17129.0

Oh I feel the temptation to make a cynical comment here but you should really do some background checks on this Metropolitan.

So you saw his name and you decided to google it and read some comments from people on a forum. You then decide that he is no good etc etc.

Is there anyone you like or would be lectured by Hamlet? I found his lectures on Mystical theology to be very good. I find him to be a nice man too.

Onesimus

HamletOrHecuba

Onesimus wrote: »

So you saw his name and you decided to google it and read some comments from people on a forum. You then decide that he is no good etc etc.

Is there anyone you like or would be lectured by Hamlet? I found his lectures on Mystical theology to be very good. I find him to be a nice man too.

Onesimus

No, I heard about his strange views from Greek friends. I could add more but it would count as conspiracy theory which the mods have banned me from mentioning but people are free to pm. Interesting that you dont have a problem with women priests or gay marriage though or least find them acceptable views.

Onesimus

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

No, I heard about his strange views from Greek friends. I could add more but it would count as conspiracy theory which the mods have banned me from mentioning but people are free to pm. Interesting that you dont have a problem with women priests or gay marriage though or least find them acceptable views.

It's Patricia McKay. :eek:

:cool: Now I know just not to respond. This person is the biggest Christian troll I know on boards. This person has an odd knowledge of Christianity but lacks much of it him/herself. I am making a bold assumption but I definitely know its him/her.

Bye bye Patricia. I am not going to feed your nonsensical posts that you purposely design to troll and irritate other board members with anymore.

Slav

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

No, I heard about his strange views from Greek friends. I could add more but it would count as conspiracy theory which the mods have banned me from mentioning but people are free to pm. Interesting that you dont have a problem with women priests or gay marriage though or least find them acceptable views.

Reading that quote by Met.Kallistos I have an impression that his point was misunderstood by his critics in that thread. Unfortunately, there are quite a few Orthodox (and Catholics) who, if they see the words "female priesthood" and "homosexual relationships" not surrounded by words of strong condemnation, they immediately smell liberalism and revisionism even if the author meant something totally different. I think this was the case with this quote as well.

The way I understand it is that if you have an opinion then let it be an educated opinion. If you are, for example, arguing against female priests then don't just use the argument "tradition says it's not permissible" but you should know why the tradition rejected them and why it's problematic from the theological point of view. And in case with homosexual relationships not only be prepared to explain why the Church does not bless them but also be prepared to interpret the tradition in the light of contemporary understanding of human sexuality. I think it's hard to disagree with him here because without that the Tradition becomes dead and making it dead is the first step to abandon it altogether.

Northclare

Im a fan of John Moriarty.
He wrote and spoke a lot about St Teresa of Avila and the Rhineland Christian mystics.

I find that stuff quite intriguing but more people find it too deep.

Sometimes mystics can fill in the gaps that the local parish priests or pastors cant.

In one of Johns books he described the spearhead that pierced Christ as what humanity are guilty of today.
From harpooning whales to sex to unfair backstabbing etc
Were all guilty of throwing the spear.
But yet Jesus took the spear so we don't have to throw it anymore.
There is a lot of symbolism in Christianity and Islam that only the chosen Christian mystics and in Islam's case Sufism, can open up to the masses.

The ego needs to be deflated for a person to let God in because if the soul is wrapped up in ego and self, what chance do they have ?

Some Donegal guy pounding the pulpit and preaching The King James Bible in some hall in Ennistymon doesn't appeal to the masses.....