Since @SifiReturned is determined to obfuscate, let's look more carefully at Patriarch Bartholomew's claim that, in the Orthodox Church, the Greek race is superior to Slavs. First of all Patriarch Bartholomew's words are very clear.

Den antechontai i adelfoi mas i Slavi, to provadisma to opion echei to Ikumeniko Patriarcheio kai kata synepeian to yenos mas, mesa stin pankosmia Orthodoxia

Hear his words; there's no mistake in the transcription:

Do you agree with Patriarch Bartholomew's declaration that, within the Orthodox Church, Slavs are racially inferior to Greeks? Patriarch Bartholomew's comments were widely reported in the Greek media, but without any objection to his racial inferiorization of Slavs.

We often hear universalists tell us that there could be no everlasting hell, because no creature could finally resist God as the ultimate good.

However, their argument suffers from more problems than they admit, and in fact we should reject it firmly and finally.

A 🧵 According to the universalist:

—God has ordered things so that man will finally be unable to freely persist in the rejection of God.

—By nature, man longs for satisfaction through particular "configurations and resources". His freedom is subordinate to this.

Since it's come up again, let's remember the Orthodox doctrine of the divine-human hypostasis of Christ.

A 🧵

https://twitter.com/SolusChristus73/status/1753164297004634345

1. Through the incarnation, the hypostasis of the Divine Logos assumed human nature.

— So the incarnate Logos is not only God by nature, but also man by nature.

Does St Basil the Great say that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit?

A friendly critique of @MilitantThomist's recent apologetic. 🧵

youtube.com/live/hVTk-HXOc… 1. Recently, @MilitantThomist has been arguing that, in Contra Eunomium 3.1, St Basil the Great states the Son to be a cause of the Holy Spirit—& hence to affirm a filioquist triadology.

This argument has been effective against Dyerites, who have struggled to respond to it.

This is an interesting post about the Greek term Logos in the Gospel of John.

However, I see things rather differently, and so I'm going to present here a somewhat different account.

A critical 🧵:

https://twitter.com/retsinokinitoc/status/1689713034481016833

1. In fact, the basic meaning of λόγος is not to do with speech at all. Rather, most basically and originally, a λόγος is a "gathering" or "collection".

(Indeed, the very element "...lect..." in "collection" is etymologically cognate to λόγος.)

Cf. λέγειν in Homer, Il. 23.239:

Since people have been asking, here's why I cannot go along with the recommendation of Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology as a guide to Orthodox theology.

A 🧵: Most basically, I have two fundamental problems:

— Meyendorff's account is rooted in a modern philosophical personalism, alien to Byzantine theology.

— The Christology presented by Meyendorff is not Byzantine, but is incompatible with Byzantine theology.

Since people are still troubled by this, let's remember why there is no logical problem of the Trinity. 🧵

https://twitter.com/evilpersists/status/1651912623783399425

1. There is numerically only one divine nature, which is simple and undivided.

A hugely interesting interview with ROCOR Archpriest Viktor Potapov, which inspires many different positive reactions.

Everything about his demeanor — from how he sits, to how he speaks, and even how fast he speaks — exhude the ethos of the older ROCOR (perhaps in some contrast to the interviews). His very presence gives a window into the history of ROCOR, continuing to the present.

I find this sort of "jaded wisdom" unsettling, particular when it comes from a cleric.

At the risk of being unpopular, here's a small 🧵🧵 explaining why:

https://twitter.com/FrBarnabas/status/1651216039324049409

1. People can be passionately concerned with issues of politics and justice. This is a reality of life and part of a healthy society. Orthodoxy doesn't require us to be apolitical, or to turn a blind eye to genuine injustice or abuse (even in the Church!)

Ok, so this is a very disappointing communique from the Assembly of Bishops regarding Fr Peter Heers.

Let me go explain why I think this communique should not have been released, and why it undermines the status of the Assembly. 🧵

assemblyofbishops.org/news/2023/comm… 1. There is a complicated situation regarding Fr Peter Heers & ROCOR. He was received into ROCOR by the late Metr Hilarion, but then—for unexplained reasons, and in an apparently non-canonical fashion—others in ROCOR rescinded this reception, leaving Fr PH in canonical limbo.

Since @FrTotleben continues (in pessima fide) to pretend he agrees with me, it's time to cut through the verbiage and write something

Contra errores fratri Totlebeni 🧵 Here, as previously, I am concerned with Totleben's 14 minute written opening statement in the video:

youtube.com/live/6FZXqWjUo…

Ok, so I've been asked by @FrTotleben why I'm dissatisfied by the sort of discussion he's had with David Bradshaw about Palamism.

Strangely, he assumes that he knows my position and concerns before I've even stated them!

So let me clarify.

https://twitter.com/FrTotleben/status/1636107884957249546

1. The hesychastic theology of which St Gregory's controversial works are an important part, cannot be understood in terms of an (ultimately vacuous) ideal opposition of "East & West". To frame matters in such a way is an evasion of the real historical context of such theology.

Since it's come up again, let's remember the Orthodox doctrine that the Son of God is autotheos (αὐτόθεος), and not merely divine by participation. 🧵 1. The word "autotheos" itself is not difficult.

The word means literally "self-God", i.e. "God himself" or "God itself".

It is formed by the composition of:

– αὐτό- = self-
– Θεός = God

(As such, αὐτόθεος corresponds exactly to the Slavonic terms самобогъ.)

In his recent polemic against Orthodox iconography, @gavinortlund has argued that "for hundreds of years the early Christians were clear and vigorous in their opposition to the veneration of icons".

Here's why I don't think his argument works.🧵

Ortlund argues for his claim with 7 quotations, drawn from the writings of, respectively, Municius Felix, Origen (×2), Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Lactantius, & Arnobius.

However, in each case, I think, he depends on either a serious mistranslation &/or misinterpretation.

With this ordination, it seems that ROCOR is declaring itself pro-LGBT. 🧵

orthodox-europe.org/content/ordina… This newly-ordained Fr Alexander is apparently Stephen Groves, who has for many years been running a B&B with his same-sex partner, Paul Oxborrow.

telegraph.co.uk/finance/proper…

I was asked what I think this recent thread by @MilitantThomist (hereafter MT).

So here goes!

https://twitter.com/MilitantThomist/status/1594779771883380737

In this thread, MT sought to defend the statement “Father/Son/Spirit is not really distinct from the essence.”

He did so by arguing that the person–essence distinction in God is a distinction of the reason reasoned.