Who is Vladimir Moss?? is he an orthodox Christian??

[walter1234]

I am a protestant . Recently, I studied orthodoxy. I like its dotrince and enjoy the teaching of ancient faith radio. The concept of God in Orthodox church seems not as horrible and violence as the one in Protestant.

But, recently, I find out an orthodox christianity author called Vladimir moss. His writing or understanding about orginal sin, juridical, penal view, gospel seems closer to the teaching in {rotestant. He even criticizes the teaching of Steve Robinson in youtube(e.g. Love Wins - An Orthodox View / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8)   is a heretic teaching

I really don't like his teaching.....

Is he an orthodox christian??IS his teaching really the Orthodox one??Whay is your comment on his writing??

 

[walter1234]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8


This is heretical teaching, a denial of the doctrine of Christ's Sacrifice for sin on the Cross, which is ORTHODOX teaching. It comes from the heretical teacher Fr. John Romanides, an ecumenist and newcalendarist.

Vladimir Moss   One week before

Is this true??

 

[Orthodox11]

Is he an orthodox christian??IS his teaching really the Orthodox one??Whay is your comment on his writing??

Vladimir Moss is a schismatic and not a member of any canonical Orthodox Church.

 

[Alpo]

I think he is a member of some Old Calendarist church which is not in communion with the mainstream patriarchates.

That said, I don't think his opinions on those issues are anyhow problematic. An Orthodox Christian can legitimately have those kind of views.

 

[Agabus]

I think he is a member of some Old Calendarist church which is not in communion with the mainstream patriarchates.

That said, I don't think his opinions on those issues are anyhow problematic. An Orthodox Christian can legitimately have those kind of views.

The problem is when one represents those views as the only ones Orthodox Christians can have.

 

[searn77]

I'm pretty sure he's a member of HOTCA which is an Old Calendarist synod. While I have enjoyed reading some of his writings on church history I don't like most everything I've read of his theological works.

 

[Alpo]

I think he is a member of some Old Calendarist church which is not in communion with the mainstream patriarchates.

That said, I don't think his opinions on those issues are anyhow problematic. An Orthodox Christian can legitimately have those kind of views.

The problem is when one represents those views as the only ones Orthodox Christians can have.

Agreed. But then again it's not that different from the opposing party with Western Captivities and the like.

 

[walter1234]

I'm pretty sure he's a member of HOTCA which is an Old Calendarist synod. While I have enjoyed reading some of his writings on church history I don't like most everything I've read of his theological works.

I even think that he is a protestant  or semi-protestant when I read his written work . His view on orginal sin, salvation, GOd's juridical, wrath, penal is just similar and closer to the teaching of protestant which I am believing now.

 

[walter1234]

I think he is a member of some Old Calendarist church which is not in communion with the mainstream patriarchates.

That said, I don't think his opinions on those issues are anyhow problematic. An Orthodox Christian can legitimately have those kind of views.

The problem is when one represents those views as the only ones Orthodox Christians can have.

Agree, his written work can easily confuse the non-orthodox christian who is studying orthodoxy, like me!!

 

[Alpo]

His view on orginal sin, salvation, GOd's juridical, wrath, penal is just similar and closer to the teaching of protestant which I am believing now.

Or perhaps Protestantism is closer to Orthodoxy than you've thought. Who knows, maybe Mr. Moss is right.

 

[jckstraw72]

my own thought is that the full truth is prolly a lil' Romanides and a lil' Moss.

 

[Gorazd]

Romanides was a canonical Orthodox Christian priest and full professor of theology, whose teachings are have a firm foundations in the Fathers.

Moss seems to be a schismatic, surely he cannot be considered on equal footing with Romanides. He also is the author of "Bolshevism and the Jews (Vladimir Moss)", a text which falls into the domain of obscure conspiracy theories.

 

[mike]

I am reminding you that Fr. John Romanides was a priest and therefore he, as the forum rules say, has to be addressed here with his proper clergy title. Further violation of that rule will result in warnings.

 

[Alpo]

Romanides was a canonical Orthodox Christian priest and full professor of theology, whose teachings are have a firm foundations in the Fathers.

I've read just about nothing from Fr. John himself but considering what he seemed to think about St. Augustine I wouldn't say he had firm foundations in the Fathers.

 

[walter1234]

How about Steve Robinson and his video ----- 'Love Wins - An Orthodox View'  ?

Vladimir Moss said that the teaching of this video(e.g. Love Wins - an orthodox view) is a heretic teaching, and it is not the orthodox view of salvation. Is it true??

 

[The least of all]

I honestly cant believe why anyone would claim Fr. John as a heretic. The little I have read of him, i have greatly enjoyed and he is an extremely honest (i find) interpreter of the EO/OO split and most likely contributed greatly to the warm relations we have today

 

[Iconodule]

Romanides was a canonical Orthodox Christian priest and full professor of theology, whose teachings are have a firm foundations in the Fathers.

I've read just about nothing from Fr. John himself but considering what he seemed to think about St. Augustine I wouldn't say he had firm foundations in the Fathers.

His "religion is a neurobiological illness" schtick is very shaky to say the least. Such a concept is nowhere to be found in the Fathers. In some places I think by religion he means "idolatry" but he starts talking about spinal fluid, short-circuit between the brain and heart, etc., it's clear he's using a gimmick to pander to scientism and new-agey "spiritual not religious" nonsense.

 

[The least of all]

Oh i agree with that. I just dont think that makes him 'not Orthodox' . Perhaps Fr. John did make some points as such lol, but i still like a few of his writings. Then again, I have not read a vast amount of his work so i am no expert!

On a side note: i feel the 'ecumenist' charge (as if thats a heresy, WHICH i agree it can be but not when it comes to EO/OO relations) is always so divisive

 

[recent convert]

To the OP: You might want to get a good reliable overview of Orthodoxy by a general catechism & then proceed from there. See:  

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx

 

[Iconodule]

For the record, I don't think Fr. John is a heretic, but some people seem to adopt his peculiar views as a standard of Orthodoxy.

 

[The least of all]

hmm, interesting! The neurobiology stuff just seems to be unnecessary .

BUT i think we have diverged from the question of OP . Sorry!

 

[Aristocles]

hmm, interesting! The neurobiology stuff just seems to be unnecessary .

BUT i think we have diverged from the question of OP . Sorry!

Apparently you have not read Orthodox Psychotherapy.

The Church as a hospital of our spiritual existence is hardy a fringe belief.

 

[walter1234]

But, recently, I find out an orthodox christianity author called Vladimir moss. His writing or understanding about orginal sin, juridical, penal view, gospel seems closer to the teaching in {rotestant. He even criticizes the teaching of Steve Robinson in youtube(e.g. Love Wins - An Orthodox View / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8)   is a heretic teaching

Vladimir Moss said that the teaching of Steve Robinson (e.g. Love Wins - an orthodox view  /  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8) is a heretic teaching, and it is not the orthodox view of salvation.

Is the criticism of vladimir Moss correct??

 

[jckstraw72]

im not able to watch the video right now, but i think there is a move to downplay or completely do away with the concept of God's justice and judgment --- its all just His love and light! i think Vladimir Moss is at least correctly motivated in calling attention to teachings on God's justice and judgment.

 

[Alpo]

Nevermind.

 

[Iconodule]

hmm, interesting! The neurobiology stuff just seems to be unnecessary .

BUT i think we have diverged from the question of OP . Sorry!

Apparently you have not read Orthodox Psychotherapy.

The Church as a hospital of our spiritual existence is hardy a fringe belief.

Right. But when someone starts saying that Orthodoxy is the way to get your spinal fluid or blood flowing correctly, we are definitely in fringe territory.

 

[Gorazd]

I've read just about nothing from Fr. John himself but considering what he seemed to think about St. Augustine I wouldn't say he had firm foundations in the Fathers.

First of all, we usually say "Blessed Augustine" in the Orthodox Church. Secondly, even the greatest supporters of Bl. Augustine in the Orthodox Church, such as Fr. Seraphim Rose, do not endorse him because of his theology, but because of his holy life.

I think it is pretty much consent in the Church that Bl. Augustine's theology contains flaws and it is not exactly a model for imitation, especially not if isolated from the Greek Fathers.

His "religion is a neurobiological illness" schtick is very shaky to say the least

The whole quote is "Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." So, by saying that, Fr. John Romanides made it quite clear that he did not call Orthodoxy "a neurobiological illness", on the contrary.

 

[The least of all]

I have not read that actually! Would you recommend it?

 

[Alpo]

I've read just about nothing from Fr. John himself but considering what he seemed to think about St. Augustine I wouldn't say he had firm foundations in the Fathers.

First of all, we usually say "Blessed Augustine" in the Orthodox Church.

Is that a historical convention or modern innovation which was meant to convey his lesser status? We have other non-controversial Saints who are called as Blesseds but I wonder what Augustine has been historically called

Secondly, even the greatest supporters of Bl. Augustine in the Orthodox Church, such as Fr. Seraphim Rose, do not endorse him because of his theology, but because of his holy life.

IIRC Sts. Gregory Palamas and Photios enorsed him partly because of his theology. But anyway, this is irrelevant. He is a Holy Father and anyone who belittles any of the Holy Fathers has hardly firm foundations in Fathers.

I might have misunderstood what Fr. John had to say about Augustine though. If his view was more positive, feel free to correct me.

I think it is pretty much consent in the Church that Bl. Augustine's theology contains flaws and it is not exactly a model for imitation, especially not if isolated from the Greek Fathers.

Present, non-historical consent. Greek Fathers are not standard of Orthodoxy to which other nationalities should be compared to and no Father can be read in isolation from the rest.

 

[Gorazd]

Is that a historical convention or modern innovation which was meant to convey his lesser status?

It is historical, already appears in the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

IIRC Sts. Gregory Palamas and Photios enorsed him partly because of his theology.

Guess that would need a thread of its own. But I'd be interested to read the quotes by these two saints.

But anyway, this is irrelevant. He is a Holy Father

His sainthood is extremely controversial in the Orthodox Church. And the reasons for that are in his theology. Ironically, the more yu push for his theology to be accepted, the more you encourage people who don't want him to be considered a saint at all. Would it not be a reasonable position to recognise his person holiness while admitting flaws in his theology?

Greek Fathers are not standard of Orthodoxy to which other nationalities should be compared to

The western fathers such as Saints Ambrosius, Jerome, Hilarius, John Cassian etc. have the same theology as them. Bl. Augustine is the odd one out.

 

[Alpo]

IIRC Sts. Gregory Palamas and Photios enorsed him partly because of his theology.

Guess that would need a thread of its own. But I'd be interested to read the quotes by these two saints.

I must admit I've used only second hand source. That's what Orthodox Readings of Augustine by George E. Demacopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou is saying. I don't have a copy of it at hand but quick search offered at least something. See p. 12 and onwards.

But anyway, this is irrelevant. He is a Holy Father

His sainthood is extremely controversial in the Orthodox Church. And the reasons for that are in his theology. Ironically, the more yu push for his theology to be accepted, the more you encourage people who don't want him to be considered a saint at all. Would it not be a reasonable position to recognise his person holiness while admitting flaws in his theology?

Of course I admit that there might be some potential flaws in his theology. No one is disputing that. All I'm saying is that IMO it seems that the Orthodox are reading his writing a lot more critically than the rest of the Fathers' writings. No one is scandalized by Apokatastasis, attributing sins to the Mother of God or, say, imperfect explanation of Trinity by some of the Fathers but when Augustine makes some mistake there's a lot more scandal in that. The mistakes of Augustine should be overlooked like the mistakes of other Fathers' are overlooked.

That's the historical approach to the criticism of Augustine. IIRC when St. John Cassian was correcting Augustine's mistakes he was not even mentioning his name out of reverence for him.

Greek Fathers are not standard of Orthodoxy to which other nationalities should be compared to

The western fathers such as Saints Ambrosius, Jerome, Hilarius, John Cassian etc. have the same theology as them. Bl. Augustine is the odd one out.

Well that could be true but that's just proof that Greek Fathers are not standard of Orthodoxy to which Latin, Arab etc. Fathers should be compared to. All Fathers regardless of nationalities should be consulted. We are the Catholic Church, not the Greek Church.

 

[Gorazd]

The mistakes of Augustine should be overlooked like the mistakes of other Fathers' are overlooked.

The mistakes of other fathers don't such a great wirkungsgeschichte*.


*although of German origin, this is used as an English word in some philosophical and theological texts. may be approximately translated as "history of effects".

 

[Alpo]

The mistakes of Augustine should be overlooked like the mistakes of other Fathers' are overlooked.

The mistakes of other fathers don't such a great wirkungsgeschichte*.

Yes, they do. Remember St. Paul and Protestantism. While there aren't any errors in his epistles there are certain quotes from him which are widely misused as a basis for Protestantism.

EDIT: I forgot to add that I love German language. No other language can produce words like that. ;D

 

[Gorazd]

Yes, they do. Remember St. Paul and Protestantism. While there aren't any errors in his epistles there are certain quotes from him which are widely misused as a basis for Protestantism.

Yes, but I would seriously argue that here, the fault is not with St. Paul. Whereas Bl. Augustine could have avoided his mistakes by reading the Greek fathers.

EDIT: I forgot to add that I love German language. No other language can produce words like that. ;D

Thank you, but I guess all Germanic languages can do that. It is usually translated to Swedish as verkanshistoria.

 

[mike]

Yes, but I would seriously argue that here, the fault is not with St. Paul. Whereas Bl. Augustine could have avoided his mistakes by reading the Greek fathers.

He couldn't. St. Augustine had some problems with Greek.

 

[Alpo]

Thank you, but I guess all Germanic languages can do that. It is usually translated to Swedish as verkanshistoria.

But verkanshistoria sounds a lot more boring than wirkungsgeschichte. Swedish would need a lot more consonants to compete with German.

Btw, in Finnish that would be vaikutushistoria. We too lose to Germans.

 

[Gorazd]

Yes, but I would seriously argue that here, the fault is not with St. Paul. Whereas Bl. Augustine could have avoided his mistakes by reading the Greek fathers.

He couldn't. St. Augustine had some problems with Greek.

That's precisely my point. Instead of re-solving already better solved theological problems, he should have worked on his Greek.

 

[Iconodule]

I've read just about nothing from Fr. John himself but considering what he seemed to think about St. Augustine I wouldn't say he had firm foundations in the Fathers.

First of all, we usually say "Blessed Augustine" in the Orthodox Church.

"Blessed" and "Saint" are synonyms in the Orthodox Church. For example, Saint Theophylact of Ohrid is often called "Blessed."

Saint Augustine is a saint.

The whole quote is "Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." So, by saying that, Fr. John Romanides made it quite clear that he did not call Orthodoxy "a neurobiological illness", on the contrary.

Yes, I understand that he is making a distinction between Orthodoxy and "religion." My point is, it's a bogus distinction and a gimmick.

 

[jah777]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8


This is heretical teaching, a denial of the doctrine of Christ's Sacrifice for sin on the Cross, which is ORTHODOX teaching. It comes from the heretical teacher Fr. John Romanides, an ecumenist and newcalendarist.

Vladimir Moss   One week before

Is this true??

It is true that you should not take Mr. Moss's claim of heresy at face value. If he claims that Mr. Robinson's teaching is heretical, he should at least give a thorough explanation why. Unfortunately, Mr. Moss throws claims of heresy around like it is a hobby, but has he provided a more thorough explanation for his views anywhere?

 

[Gorazd]

My point is, it's a bogus distinction and a gimmick.

Why do you think so?