"Liberation Theology" and the Orthodox Church

[Romaios]

—Paraphrase of Father Seraphim Rose and Elder Ambrose of Optina.[/i]

WOW, that was fantastic!

+100

 

[Nephi]

What I've been exposed to so far seems largely at odds with traditional Christianity in all forms, as it almost describes salvation in purely material terms

Which is pretty much the only terms (or at least necessary ones) Christianity offers for salvation, so what is your point?

What?

 

[orthonorm]

What I've been exposed to so far seems largely at odds with traditional Christianity in all forms, as it almost describes salvation in purely material terms

Which is pretty much the only terms (or at least necessary ones) Christianity offers for salvation, so what is your point?

What?

Wow. Some say I am cryptic, but this certainly can't be the case here.

So let me put it in bullet points:

* Salvation
* In
* Christianity
* Is
* Material
* So
* Your
* Post
* Makes
* No
* Sense

 

[Nephi]

Wow. Some say I am cryptic, but this certainly can't be the case here.

So let me put it in bullet points:

* Salvation
* In
* Christianity
* Is
* Material
* So
* Your
* Post
* Makes
* No
* Sense

What?

 

[orthonorm]

Wow. Some say I am cryptic, but this certainly can't be the case here.

So let me put it in bullet points:

* Salvation
* In
* Christianity
* Is
* Material
* So
* Your
* Post
* Makes
* No
* Sense

What?

Since you don't have a grasp of basic orthodox Christian thought, I am not sure we can go further. Others here can give you the label for the various schools of Christianity labeled by Orthodox as heresies which deny the materiality of nearly everything or at least seek to make it a reification for evil. You might find more understandable and sympathetic statements there.

 

[orthonorm]

—Paraphrase of Father Seraphim Rose and Elder Ambrose of Optina.[/i]

WOW, that was fantastic!

+100

Meh. Ancient Eastern Biedermeierism.

 

[Nephi]

What?

Since you don't have a grasp of basic orthodox Christian thought, I am not sure we can go further. Others here can give you the label for the various schools of Christianity labeled by Orthodox as heresies which deny the materiality of nearly everything or at least seek to make it a reification for evil. You might find more understandable and sympathetic statements there.

But wait, what?

 

[augustin717]

—Paraphrase of Father Seraphim Rose and Elder Ambrose of Optina.[/i]

WOW, that was fantastic!

+100

Meh. Ancient Eastern Biedermeierism.

That perfectly summarizes father Rose. Or as Bunuel puts it " if everybody took shalt hour everyday to pray to St. Joseph peace and quiet will prevail."

 

[Romaios]

—Paraphrase of Father Seraphim Rose and Elder Ambrose of Optina.[/i]

WOW, that was fantastic!

+100

Meh. Ancient Eastern Biedermeierism.

What Modern Western -ism do you prefer?

 

[rakovsky]

Their main mistake is calling it a "theology". If they just said they had a teaching about freeing people from suffering in society and then used traditional phrases and examples it would sound fine.

Then they talk about it in relation to Feminist "theology" and you can really get driven bonkers by it.

How about if I said in a class lecture that there is an icon "theology" and that this is important in relation to idol "theology"? And then talk about it using western art phrases and depictions. A random Protestant would probably think "I don't know what icon theology is, but it seems at odds with what I believe".

To give one more analogy, western scholars sometimes talk about Replacement "Theology", claiming it is in the Church fathers. A natural reaction by an Orthodox person who hears descriptions of it couched in the western terminology may be quick to say that whatever it is, it must be bad. Unfortunately I am afraid that alot of these problems will continue to come up in alot of areas.

Can anyone please give me an example of any time Orthodoxy refers to any of its teachings as a specific theology?

"Salvation theology?" No.
"Theology of the Body?" Do we even say that?
"good theology?" That's not how I mean it, although yes we should have good theology.
"Grace Theology?"
etc. etc.

Anyone?  Why don't we talk that way?

 

[Avdima]

Liberation Theology is doomed to fail in completeness without a spiritual backing. But at the same time I agree with the oppressed of the world rising/standing up to the powers that be and taking back what is rightfuly theirs. The world today could look a lot like "Star Trek socialism" if we would quit being selfish and shared with our brothers not only wealth but knowledge, I doubt I will see it but I pray for the day noone goes without outside of some mental issues or the mark of the beast.

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

I remember this thread from back in the day.  Although it resulted in some interesting discourse (once the OP bowed out), it wasn't started in good faith as an honest inquiry into the Church's position on the uniquely Roman Catholic phenomenon of "Liberation Theology".  Instead, it was started as a cop out, a sideways attack and a failed attempt at a "gotcha" by a cowardly, feeble-minded individual who proposed in two other threads that God created some "races" to be slaves and others to be masters.  Me and a guy named NorthernPines ate his lunch for him, and since he couldn't refute us, in a weak attempt to characterize us as some sort of Marxists (we weren't and aren't), he started this thread.

 

[Fabio Leite]

It has failed spiritually but not politically. And the aim in creating it was political all the way.

Liberation Theology either created or infiltrated "comunidades eclesiais de base", "foundational ecclesial communities", para-eclesiastic communities in most churches, mainly in the rural area, dedicated to convince the Roman faithful that the Kingdom of God is to exist in this world and it's the socialist utopia.

They created the public figure of Lula, then "just" a union leader. Eventually he, and many other radical leftists rose to power in Latin America. They managed to use the infrastructure of the Church, with seminars, parishes in every town, resources, experience, and above all, spiritual authority, to transform several innocent peasants into militant guerrilla invaders.

It is demonic from its very root to its very end. So it may "loose" in terms of intellectual debate, but it wins in actual political war. And that's the strategy.

Liberation Theology is doomed to fail in completeness without a spiritual backing. But at the same time I agree with the oppressed of the world rising/standing up to the powers that be and taking back what is rightfuly theirs. The world today could look a lot like "Star Trek socialism" if we would quit being selfish and shared with our brothers not only wealth but knowledge, I doubt I will see it but I pray for the day noone goes without outside of some mental issues or the mark of the beast.

 

[Fabio Leite]

Not any longer. Since the 500 thousand Guatemalans joined the Greek Church, Constantinople "gained" a veritable Trojan Horse. These groups were organized by a radical Latina-American leftist (now Orthodox bishop) and my guess is that they will try to spread some equivalent of Liberation Theology into the Latin American Orthodox Church, duely customized of course. Let's wait and see.

the uniquely Roman Catholic phenomenon of "Liberation Theology". 

 

[mike]

Fr. Giron is not a bishop.

And everyone knows Orthodox Church is only for libertarians. Everyone else - out.

 

[Fabio Leite]

Libertarians are out as well, for other reasons...

But I *do* agree with the principle that not all political ideas are Christian. Not all forms of fun are, not all philosophies are.

In what regards politics, I can see how one may be Republic or Monarchy is indifferent to being a Christian.

But no revolutionary mentality is acceptable in Christianity. Not from the left, not from the right.

I do think that radical right ideals and the left meet in their anti-christianity, specially when they have totalitarian leanings (like the Liberation Theology). But, no I don't see at all how giving power to politicians in the name of wellfare can in any angle be a Christian thing.

The difference between left and right is this: the radical left and the left conduct themselves through the same anti-christian values. One just resorts to violent means while the other believes in more gradual changes. From Stalin to the Fabian society and the Frankfurt School, all the left desires a world that is totally controlled by the values they deem superior. "Democracy" for them is choosing among variants of their ideas. The "moderate" left sure believe in freedom of speech as in "anyone can speak", but they hate freedom of opinion "anyone can say what the person wants and not variants of the acceptable discourse".
The right, on the other hand shows radical differences between the moderates and the radicals. The moderates want an effective state (one that does more with less, the real concept of a "minimum state"). They want a separation not only from State and Church but of State and Market (if the state controls the market, to whom will you complain when some injustice happen in the market, since this injustice was intended by the controllers, i.e., the state?). It's the state being out of the market that allows it to be a fair judge and an arbiter when problems happen. The radical right, though, want *more* state, more intervention, just not in the name of welfare, but in the name of Nation, Tradition and so on. Libertarians, another form of radical right, adopt the whole of the cultural agenda of the Left for drugs, abortion, gay "marriage" and so on and advance all those ideas. The praxis of the radical right (in its political radical branch "fascists" and in its economic anarchic branch "libertarians") is closer to the typical praxis of the left (moderate and radical) than to the praxis of the moderate right.

The Church can and will exist in any event (radical or moderate left or right).... but considering the only event in the Bible where God mandates a form of government (Exodus/Judges), it's clear to me that the most Godlý form is a descentralized federation whilst all forms of centralized government are akin to the "we want a king" of the Hebrews.

Fr. Giron is not a bishop.

And everyone knows Orthodox Church is only for libertarians. Everyone else - out.

Good to know. I hope he has repented from his previous ideologies.

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

It is demonic from its very root to its very end.

Just like the racially based hierarchies associated with Western imperialism and colonialism and defended by the intellectually dishonest OP.  Ironic.

Unable to muster a decent defense for his disgusting and anti-Christian idea that God created whites to be a Herrenvolk and all other groups to be subservient and by degrees inferior, he opted for a most cowardly and mendacious alternative indeed and endeavored to associate any theological argument advanced against the poison which plagued his soul with Marxism and the with the specific phenomenon of Liberation Theology.  This is why he unfairly attempted to peg me as some sort of Marxist agitator when I demonstrated that his perverse idea that God created some populations to be masters and others to be hewers of wood was anti-Christ and untenable.  Anyone who has read anything I've written about the Derg knows better.

Not any longer. Since the 500 thousand Guatemalans joined the Greek Church, Constantinople "gained" a veritable Trojan Horse. These groups were organized by a radical Latina-American leftist (now Orthodox bishop) and my guess is that they will try to spread some equivalent of Liberation Theology into the Latin American Orthodox Church, duely customized of course. Let's wait and see.

What about the group absorbed by the Syriac Orthodox Church in the same area?  Any information on them?  How is that coming along?

 

[mike]

Whatever.

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

Whenever I want to hear some late 80s/early 90s American slang that's still - apparently - all the rage in Poland, I'm starting an argument with you!  First you come at me with

This makes sense NOT.

Then you hit me with

Whatever.

How long's it gonna be before you dust of "As if!" or "No Duh!" or the dreaded Uncle Joey "Cut. It. Out." ?

 

[mike]

I am sorry but I was referring to Fabio not you.

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

I am sorry but I was referring to Fabio not you.

Cool!  Sorry for the mix-up.  But your awesome use of antiquated slang still stands!  Take it as a compliment, man!  

 

[orthonorm]

I am sorry but I was referring to Fabio not you.

Cool!  Sorry for the mix-up.  But your awesome use of antiquated slang still stands!  Take it as a compliment, man!  

Awesome post on your part. Dying @ Uncle Joey. Now that Shiny has been kicked out, someone has to amuse me. Thanks.

 

[Alpo]

I am sorry but I was referring to Fabio not you.

Cool!  Sorry for the mix-up.  But your awesome use of antiquated slang still stands!  Take it as a compliment, man!  

Welcome to Europe. Generations of European teenagers have learnt English by watching bad American tv-series. I still have no clue how regular English-speaking people actually talk like.

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

Awesome post on your part. Dying @ Uncle Joey. Now that Shiny has been kicked out, someone has to amuse me. Thanks.

Based on what I've seen of your posts, you'll also get my obscure 90s East Coast hip hop references.

Welcome to Europe.

And I thought my cousins in the Dirty South were behind the times!

Generations of European teenagers have learnt English by watching bad American tv-series. I still have no clue how regular English-speaking people actually talk like.

What, Zach Morris and Tony Micelli aren't "regular people" to you, Alpo?

 

[Alpo]

Whatever. :angel:

 

[AntoniousNikolas]

Whatever. :angel:

[duckie]touche[/duckie]