He is an Orthodox layman, where is his priest and his bishop?

Archpriest John W. Morris

You got all that from “Truth is that which we do not understand but love anyway?” I am not an apologist for David Dunn, but you have run wild with a simple figure of speech that I find does not significantly differ from the words I offered from St. Dionysius: aware that they could not comprehend, figuratively better to call Him “nothing,” yet they loved. And how does it significant differ from the natural expression of hesitancy and awe in St. Basil’s Anaphora:

Therefore, most holy Master, we also, Your sinful and unworthy servants, whom You have made worthy to serve at Your holy altar, not because of our own righteousness (for we have not done anything good upon the earth), but because of Your mercy and compassion, which You have so richly poured upon us, we dare to approach Your holy altar…”

“We do not understand why you allow us, nor can we comprehend Your Mercy, but because of it, we dare.”

I see no basis to suggest even an implication that knowledge is an illusion, “everything” is a paradox, or that Truth cannot be known. And while the quote from Met. Hilary is certainly true, it has no bearing on the issue at hand. If you would chastize and scorn Dr. Dunn, at least make it a point not to confuse what he said with what I said.

“Tradition is not fixed, but neither is it in constant, ambiguous flux. I see the Tradition more like a life-giving stream. It maneuvers through history, swinging sometimes this way and sometimes that in response to its place in the world at a particular point and time”

I’m sorry, but Dr. David Dunn is a schismatic at best and a heretic at worst. Thank you Fr John for being an example of an Orthodox leader that is not taking this sitting down. I only wish our bishops would do the same. Hey, is there anyway we can convince Patriarch Kirill to loan us Met. Hilarion for about 20 years?

A favorite tactic of liberals is to try and place those who disagree with them outside of what is considered acceptable public discourse with dismissive terms like “homophobe”, “islamophobe”, “fundamentalist”, etc.

There is no paradox between male and female. The male/female synergy is not antinomical. Only those who wish to normalized homosexuality believe that they are.

There is a vast difference between that DA says and the which is that we stand before God in awe and wonder at His mightiness and can never reduce Him to mere human understanding and the propositions of Dr. Dunn which are quite the opposite.

Michael, your quote does nothing to discount my statement. Do I need to point out the distinction between “our Faith” and the Divine Essence? Our Faith tells us that God is in His essence unknowable, but we know Him to the extent that He has chosen to reveal Himself, and through His energies. Our Faith is not a Zen koan.

And as for which homily is the “rest of the story”, when it comes to the question homosexuality, the homily that says that no unrepentant homosexual may approach communion without eating and drinking damnation unto himself is clearly the one most to the point. That homily is not only valid on Holy Thursday, it is valid every day of the year… including Pascha. St. John’s Paschal homily says nothing about unrepentant sinners approaching the chalice. It speaks of people who have been less diligent during the fast — not the same thing.

How does Dr. Dunn twist apophatic theology?

Simple. He uses the term to relativize things that are certain, such as marriage is between one man and one woman.

Sure, God is beyond knowing, but that does not mean that all knowledge is an illusion.

Sure, paradox exists, but that does not mean that everything is paradox.

Sure, no man can know the fullness of Truth, but that does not mean that Truth cannot be known.

Finally, theology and anthropology are different categories through which the Church expresses truth. Anthropology is not apophatic. Morality is not plastic. Met Hilarion (Alfeyev):

Secularism is dangerous because it destroys human life. It destroys essential notions related to human life, such as the family. One can argue about the role of the church. One can even argue about the existence of God; we cannot prove that God exists to those who don’t want to believe that God exists.

But when the difference in the world outlook touches very basic notions such as family, it no longer has to do with theological truths; it has to do with anthropological issues. And our debate with secularism is not about theology; it’s about anthropology. It’s about the present and the future of the human race. And here we disagree with atheist secularism in some areas very strongly, and we believe that it destroys something very essential about human life.

Ignorance is not becoming to the Christian, and we should not twist theology to make it appear that it is.

Fr. John, I will do this once:

You said one would be “hard pressed to produce a single Father or Saint of the Church who would say that the Truth of the Orthodox Faith is something that “we do not understand, but love anyway.” I have offered you a statement from Dionysius the Areopagite – and if you are familiar with The Divine Names, this is one example among a thousand or more – because it expresses a paradox. The paradox is that a name ascribed to God the Father is “ultimate essence of goodness.” Dionysius is saying that we humans cannot fathom, cannot grasp, cannot understand the fullness of Truth contained in this Divine Name, “ultimate essence of goodness.” And even though the “Sacred Writers celebrate It” – and I presume it proper to say “love” It – their fundamental lack of knowledge compels them to “call It Nameless.” In other words, our understanding is so limited, better to call Him “Nameless” than what I do not understand. How Andrew concluded that Dr. Dunn has “twisted” apophatic theology is beyond me, and his statement opposes no tradition.

Secondly, how have you concluded I think St. Chrysostom to be a “minimalist.” I used “minimalists,” as a free modifier of “those who ignored the Fast.” Nevertheless, I hardly find it appropriate to pull a sermon out of the context of Holy Thursday – “The Lord who is going to His voluntary Passion for us and our salvation” – and declare it the “rest of the story.” The Pascha Homily is the “rest of the story,” its culmination and fulfillment.

And here is the text of that homily by St. John Chrysostom:

Homily of our Father Among the Saint, John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, for Holy Thursday

O my beloved and greatly-desired brethren who have gathered in the Holy Church of God, in order to serve the Living God in holiness and righteousness, and, with fear, to partake of the holy, most-pure, and immortal, awesome Mysteries of Christ: Hearken unto me who am lowly and unworthy. For it is not I who am speaking to you and instructing you; rather the grace of the Most-holy and Life-giving Spirit; for I speak not from myself, but as I have been instructed by the divine canons, and the God-bearing Fathers, as the Church received instruction from the divine Apostles who received their wisdom from God, so do I myself speak, who am lowly and least of all.

I know not your works; I consider not that which you have begun; and so, as one who fears God, I give counsel to everyone among you, whether man or woman, whether great or small, to anyone of you that may be guilty of sin, convicted by your own counsels, that first you must repent and confess your sins, that you may dare, considering yourself unworthy, to approach and touch the Divine Fire Itself. For our God is a consuming Fire, and they, therefore, who with faith and fear draw near to the God and King and Judge of us all, shall burn and scorch their sins; and It shall enlighten and sanctify their souls. But It shall burn and scorch with shame, the souls and bodies of them that draw near with unbelief.

Therefore, many among you are ill and sleep in sickness, that is, many are dying unconfessed and unrepentant. And furthermore, my brethren, I beseech you, and I say: no one that swears oaths, nor a perjurer, nor a liar, nor one that finds fault with others, nor a fornicator, nor an adulterer, nor a homosexual, nor a thief, nor a drunkard, nor a blasphemer, nor one that envies his brother, nor a murderer, nor a sorcerer, nor a magician, nor a charmer, nor an enchanter, nor a robber, nor a Manichean, shall, unconfessed and unprepared, approach, touch, or draw near the dread Mysteries of Christ, for it is terrible to fall into the hands of the Living God.

For the Word of God is sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the joints and marrow and bones, and thoughts and hearts. See, therefore, my brethren, that no one approach, unrepentant or unprepared or unworthily, to partake of His dread and most-pure Mysteries. For He Himself saith: I am He, and there is no god besides me; I kill, and I make alive; neither is there any that can deliver out of My hand; for I, Myself, am King forever: to Whom is due all glory, honor, and worship: to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages, Amen.

See “˜The Great Book of Needs,” Volume II, St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 1998, pp. 332-333

Obviously, this homily has a lot more bearing on the subject than the Paschal homily. As Paul Harvey might say, this homily is the rest of the story.

Michael, as usual, your arguments are compelling and make sense only to you. I fail to see how your quote from St. Dionysius proves anything. Also, you never responded to my response to you:

What would be helpful would be for you to lay out reasons why your string of assertions are believed by you to be true and actually address what I said.

Also, Michael, take a look at St. John Chrysostom’s homily for Holy Thursday, and let me know if you think he was a minimalist: http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2011/07/homily-for-holy-thursday-by-st-john.html

“Words, words, words… the satirical rogue says here.” And that would be Hamlet.

Fr. John, those who stand by the Tradition of the Church are “Orthodox,” they are not traditionalist. This is a contrivance of exclusion, that ignores St. Chrysostom’s instruction that, “our God is a jealous God,” who equally invites “those who ignored the Fast.” the “minimalists,” with those who have kept it from the first: “The table is heavily laden,” he says, “and the Lord welcomes the last even as the first.” They are both, first and foremost, Orthodox. We are wisely instructed to “Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well,” (Prov. 5:15) and the water is “living water,” (Jn. 4:14), not stagnant. And throwing around the word “maximalistic,” is not helpful because it it is simply used as a synonym for “superior.” I do not find his view “contrary” to Tradition.

Secondly, I was not “hard pressed” to find this statement of Dionysius the Areopagite, “On the Divine Names,” in Migne Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 3, p.3:

And yet since, as the [ἀγαθότητος ὕπαρξις] ultimate essence of goodness, It, by the very fact of Its existence, is the Cause of all things, in celebrating the bountiful Providence of the Supreme Godhead we must draw upon the whole creation.

I have highlighted the Greek phrase “ultimate essence of goodness” (ἀγαθότητος ὕπαρξις) because it conveys a fullness of Truth – a Divine Name of our God – yet Dionysius concludes, “Conscious of this, the Sacred Writers celebrate It by every Name while yet they call It Nameless.” Sometimes, Fr. John, it is wiser to cut the line on a fish, lest you appear obsessed with the “catch” (something about Ahab…), and recall that the tradition icon of Blessed John the Evangelist depicts him covering his mouth.

Academics aside this view when lived in real life is damaging to people and the Church. Its not theology its just a tragedy.