Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos Vlachos reply to Metropolitan John of Pergamon

                                                               

 

 I have read from the internet from 27/09/2012 Statement by His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, after my metropolitan of nafpaktos hierotheos vlachos, which preceded it.

Sorry forced to follow his own way and to respond to unusual tactics Eminence and the unusual way of acting in the present case, even if anyone does not have responded so far to the negative reviews that have exercised scholars teachers and colleagues for positions that are time support.

We highlight four specific points he raises his statement.
1. The will is the appetite naturally and no facial

Known in my presentation at a conference of the Holy Metropolis of Piraeus deal with the issue of "ontology of the person" and note that this constitutes a 'metapateriki theology. "

In this section does not detect the heretical view that "freedom of the person supposedly has value, because it goes beyond the necessity of nature, that nature is the need and the will to face." Within this perspective quoted two sentences of Metropolitan John of Pergamon for his opinion about the "free will of the Father" and "the concept of choice." Recordings:

"The free will of the Father is the one that stems from the existence of the triune God, the essence hypostasized in trinitarian God ... The concept of choice is precisely the meaning of choice. "

His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon letter expresses "wonder" why was the manipulation of text. But what I wrote in my previous letter to the Reverend Pergamon perfectly valid and repeat once more to understand:

"The phrase mark (I wrote the Reverend Pergamon)" The concept of choice is precisely the meaning of choice "to attach to people, ie a choice made by people.

However, in this text I would be very interested and I stress most emphatically that the willingness-willingness both to God and humans is associated with nature, nature is an appetite and not the face, while the option, ie option-which there is no God, but only in humans-owned-status person.

This is the key issue, and that the people will not be an option, but appetite of nature. The choice is related to the option. "

With that realization I did some subterfuge, as claimed by the Reverend in his statement, but we emphasize that it can from the Orthodox point of view to speak of "free will of the Father," nor that "the concept of choice is precisely the meaning of choice "to God and to people.
Both of these phrases are misplaced from the Orthodox side, as shown in the teaching of St. Maximus the Confessor, and I have analyzed in a previous text me. The willingness both to God and man is nature's appetite and not the face, while the selection trait in humans is not the option of choice.

This was the main topic interested me in this case. In this there was no falsification and well understand the reasons why they bothered Eminence Pergamon and lost his temper.

And even if I raised these two phrases separately, without the ellipsis-the crux of the matter would not change, since the will-will to God and humans is the appetite naturally and not a choice of the person.

Do not try to His Eminence depositor dilemmas to escape from the substance of the matter.

That did not happen either inadvertently (in the sense of carelessness) or deliberately (in the sense of deliberate falsification). I wanted to mention heretical teaching that will make a choice.

Moreover, the statement of His Eminence seems the inconsistency, because on the one hand denying my intention to misrepresent non-text when I wrote "I had no intention to do that" - on the ground "like to have significance intent and not act ", on the other hand himself in the next paragraph of his statement refers to his intention:" I intend, frankly, was not, nor impair the position of eminence. " I can not explain this dual attitude towards the "intentions" of both.

So, for what I have said so far and mainly for what would then refer respectfully ask His Eminence revoke the "falsification of positions", because it is offensive to my face.

2. Misinterpretation of the passage of Athanasius

Studying more issue raised by the Reverend Pergamum in his letter and the subsequent statement seems true that it does not accept the Arian heresy that the Son came from the will-will of the Father, and therefore is a building, or even notes that he is " heretical concept "being understood that" the will of God is the selection decision, "but I think it misinterprets the relevant passage of Athanasius with some meticulous maneuvers to reach two conclusions apokleinoun the Orthodox patristic tradition.

The first is that "The free will of the Father is the one that stems from the existence of the triune God, the essence hypostasized in trinitarian God ...". And the second is that it presents Athanasius to want "a free will, eternal, eternal 'Father,' which will not be choice between two possibilities," and speaks of the "heretical notion when the will of God is selection decision between potential "and" godly sense of will ", which is" the orthodox sense of the will, "according to the relevant passage of Athanasius, which misread in my opinion.

Professor Nick Matsoukas the doctrinal points of this mistake of Reverend Pergamon. Writes that Athanasius 'launches first' ", followed by later orthodox fathers" the distinction of "natural birth" and "to create at will."

This patristic position, says Nick Matsoukas 'seems to deny "text of John Zizioulas' apparently fail or some oversight." Then lists the relevant text of Eminence:

"Analytikotera this means that God, as Father, not the" substance "to be" is "constantly reaffirms the free will of to exist, and this affirmation is precisely the yparxis His Triune: Father of love-that freely - generates the Son and the Spirit emanates. If God exists, because there is the Father, that He, who from love Freedoms generates the Son and the Spirit emanates. "

And then said Professor Nick Matsoukas:

"But" by nature "is not subject to the freedom of the will except the" at will ".

The Supreme Court in them just falsehoods had fallen, which fought the Athanasius argued that the Logos is the product of the free will of the Father, which is in Athanasius applies only to the creation of Creation.

Therefore the Athanasius distinguishes between economic and eternal Trinity, while Arius not what makes the distinction. When the Supreme Court is able to distinguish the divine essence and divine MEASURES Father, but the two others, the Son and the Holy Spirit, not classified to the family of the uncreated and consubstantial Trinity.

And this is because the Word, when Arius always comes from the volitional act of the Father, and certainly not a "by nature" relationship of the Father to the Son. As we will see later, these effects are alienating the experience and teaching of redemption "(SE Matsoukas, Dogmatic and Symbolic Theology II: Report of the Orthodox Faith in confrontation with Western Christianity, F.TH.V. 3 , yew, Thessaloniki 2003, pp. 96-97, sgd 56).

Therefore, this misconception is doing Pergamon Eminence the village of Saint Athanasius to reach freedom in the face of the Father and the distinction between the two concepts of the will, or a "heretical idea" and the other "the pious notion of volition. "

Let us examine in more detail how this is, to see the misinterpretation of patristic texts or "fail" or "some oversight," as noted by academic decorum Professor Nick Matsoukas.

Brew and special studies to identify the false hermeneutic methodology. Just here to make a concise presentation of the subject.

When reading carefully the text of Athanasius, and those before and after it finds that Athanasius faced the dilemma posed by the Arians, if the Son was born of the substance of the Father, which for them was necessarily, or created by the will of the Father, something which they believed themselves, and are building.

The Athanasius neutralized with powerful arguments Arian view that the Son came from the will of the Father, because then it would be built, and supported by the substance of the Father, Son's birth. Indeed the central point of this passage in Athanasius is that it considers him insane set between the Father and the Son will and thought, and so he writes: "For he Mainoito if titheis between the Father and Son and thoughts especially lib. Hetero and gar esti speak, wills gegonen, another that is not inherently own the Son he loves and wants him. "

While the Athanasius argued that the essence is not necessarily so wrote: "For he osper the same hypostasis you are willing ESTI (Father techniques, etc) so also the Son, He s this substance, CDR is he inadvertently him. "

The "you are willing" was used by Athanasius to reject the "involuntary", the "necessarily" the principle, who believed the Martians, and express that you are willing to be responsible and not involuntary.

The word "you are willing" is not interpreted the meaning of the will, which will previously Athanasius had rejected the existence of the Son, but the sense of desirable (= desired errands during the Liddel-Scott), dear.

Thus translated the passage of Athanasius the translator to "Patristic Publications" (Athanasius, Project 3, In Arians III, 66, EIA-Eisag. Keim.-Metfr.-School. Tokatlidis Sophocles, "Gregory Palamas" Thessaloniki 1975, pp. 193), probably approaching the subject more. Translates: "For as (the Father) wishes to idikin His hypostasis, so also the Son, who has koinin essence with the Father, it is undesirable to him."

This interpretation is correct, it seems that the Athanasius connects "you are willing" to love, referring to the word of Christ: "the Father gar fillets and his son always deiknysin notify him directly he" (John ' , 20). And said: "Thelestho fileestho toinyn and the Son of the Father, and so wanting it and not the avouliton God devoutly logizestho. GAR and the Son willingly or theletai of the Father, and he loves principle itself, and wants, and honors the Father and EN esti errand from the Father in the Son, and as a consequence of which the Son in the Father, and the Father in the interim Son. "

It seems quite clear that in this passage speaks of the common physical effects of the Persons of the Trinity, as the Persons of the Trinity are common nature and common action and what the Father wants wants and the Son and the Holy Spirit.

There is no difference in willingness to Persons of the Holy Trinity and of course no different personal freedom.

And not thought that this "you are willing" refers to the "will of the Father" which supposedly came in being the Son, Athanasius concludes: "Oukoun non legestho creature will of the Son, nor the Oualentinou epeisagestho the Church parliament but living, and truly born naturally, as the brightness of the light. "

As the brightness (shine) "naturally it (the light) we shall be born despite the light and gennisantos this" and not "in Reflections consensus but by nature and in truth", so it could be one occasion that happens with Father and Son, "that the Father and He loves the Son and the Son loves the Father and wants."

Therefore, he wants only the Father the Son and the Son the Father. The same happens with the Holy Spirit.

Besides, the very Athanasius elsewhere in the same speech in Martian clearly declares that "the nature voulesthai per overlays, and nature CuX subject the will."

The Saint Gregory Palamas referring to this passage of Athanasius writes that the Son was born of the nature of the Father, not by the will and rule "the good pleasure and His will Nativity quite a Estin, but for good pleasure and naturally-thelisin GAR deiknysin Father of the Son beings as genuine and consubstantial with him, but my wants clean the buildings. "

The same happens with the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father (Gregory Palamas, Writings, ed Panagiotis Christou, Thessaloniki 1962, pp. 98-99).

Any other interpretation of the words of Saint Athanasius: "very hypostasis ESTI you are willing," referring to heretical view that supposedly you are willing and Father of His own existence, that of Himself!

However, an intense theological problem why the phrase "very hypostasis ESTI you are willing" (the Father) that by Athanasius is to address the "necessarily" the nature of the Arians, and to show that the Son is born by nature the Father, the Reverend Pergamon extends to "a free will, eternal, eternal" of God and the freedom of God the Father, that "the cause of freedom of the Triune God" is not "the freedom that comes from the substance is freedom of the cause of the Father. "

Therefore, although the Reverend does not accept that the Son came from the will of the Father, in the way the Arians spoke, but when he speaks of "the free will of the Father" and when he writes in another text that "But if the ratio of ontological freedom of God is just in the "nature" of it, to the effect that nature is uncreated, and we naturally built, then no hope, no possibility there is for humans to ever gini personnel, meaning that God is, that actually face.

But why not the ontological freedom of God lies not in nature, but rather to His own, personal yparxin, ie in the "way of being" with whom there is a divine nature (yposim.: If, moreover, the absolute freedom syndesome of God by nature, this, as we showed earlier, the recant!) "(John Zizioulas, From mask to his face.

The contribution of patristic theology in the sense of the person, in Light ineffable garments: Interdisciplinary Approach to Facial ed. L. Chr. Presentation, holly Thessaloniki 2002, page 94) as well as when he argues that "the way in which God exercises about the ontological freedom, He just makes him be ontologically free, is that more and removes about the ontological necessity of substance to be God as Father, ie as one who is "born" and the Son "emanates" Spirit ", this leads to deviations from orthodox teaching.

I emphasize again that there is a distinction between will and desire-option. The will-will, God and man, is the appetite naturally and not the person, and therefore the will-will has no choice, as taught in Western philosophy, while the option to man-not God, who no option-related choices to make.

But the option is an imperfection in man, because man reborn in Christ, the saint in Christ acquires and atrepsia of options. This teaches St. Maximus and analyze it in a new comprehensive text me. Do not try, then, to the Reverend Pergamon overcomes these serious issues with the alleged falsification of his theses.

The monk Father Maximos Lavriotis in 1990, 22 years ago, very ably dealt with this serious issue and introduced the teaching of the Church. In an article entitled "Freedom and salvation" in the first part deals with the "salvific capital", and the second part deals with on "heretical liberty."

Speaking in terms of "certain hopeless romantics Russians' theologians' and philosophers' views and analysis on the relationship Evdokimov liberty and person, compared with patristic passages, observes:

"They had suffered so confused all the Fathers?" The gar free will, thelisin orisanto "and will" free will and physical orektikin movement of the mind. " There is no mention of free will to ... "Person" by any Father of the Church. But there are many many heretics (Eunomians, Nestorians, and especially Origenistes Monothelites and Monoenergites), whose common feature is the "non eidenai the difference of the natural and the will of the premises", namely that "although the volitive ie His will power and this the merely wanting, of course, not you are willing, ie what is wanting, gnomikon and hypostatic. "

source