Difference between revisions of "Talk:Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain"

From OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 28: Line 28:
 
In terms of Metallinos’ claim that the saint had no access to Western sources, you need to back that up more specifically: Was he referencing that particular work, or in all cases, and relative to not directly knowing their original text without translations/intermediaries? If you want to give a direct quote and contextualize, that would help. Re Anselmian view of atonement, there is a good recent study of how that was incorporated as one among a number of emphases by Orthodox writers, though not in any way exclusive, and that is how what you call Metallinos’ claim is contextualized. Relying heavily on Yannaras with language indicating his view is factual is problematic given that other Orthodox scholars have offered critiques of Yannaras’ methodology in approaching earlier texts as colored by (in their view) ultra-Orthodox academic theories. I’ve added in the narrative reference to Bishop Basil of Wichita’s teaching on the saint’s writing as well as a counter-balance. [[User:Kentigern|Kentigern]] ([[User talk:Kentigern|talk]]) 02:53, July 29, 2018 (UTC)
 
In terms of Metallinos’ claim that the saint had no access to Western sources, you need to back that up more specifically: Was he referencing that particular work, or in all cases, and relative to not directly knowing their original text without translations/intermediaries? If you want to give a direct quote and contextualize, that would help. Re Anselmian view of atonement, there is a good recent study of how that was incorporated as one among a number of emphases by Orthodox writers, though not in any way exclusive, and that is how what you call Metallinos’ claim is contextualized. Relying heavily on Yannaras with language indicating his view is factual is problematic given that other Orthodox scholars have offered critiques of Yannaras’ methodology in approaching earlier texts as colored by (in their view) ultra-Orthodox academic theories. I’ve added in the narrative reference to Bishop Basil of Wichita’s teaching on the saint’s writing as well as a counter-balance. [[User:Kentigern|Kentigern]] ([[User talk:Kentigern|talk]]) 02:53, July 29, 2018 (UTC)
  
The Metallinos quote is from his introduction to the ''Exomologetarion''. He continues the quote, "because at this stage (Nicodemus) operated freely within the parameters of hagiographical and Patristic language and tradition." This is rich. The Anselmian language isn't Patristic, and Metallinos' argument boils down to N uses Aneelmian language but he doesn't mean it. And where in "Patristic language and tradition" does one find the practice of indulgences that N engaged in? I'm the one who has been putting citations into this article. I'd like to see a citation for Larchet, for example. The only one is to an article about personhood and referring to texts by the Cappadocians and Maximus the Confessor -- his critique of Yannaraa' approach refers to patristic texts, not modern texts such as the modern Catholic texts Nicodemus used. No evidence is offered to explain away how the Anselmian language, that even Metallinos says if repugnant, doesn't really mean what it says. And no evidence that this is Yannaras somehow misreading Nicodemus. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] ([[User talk:Fr Lev|talk]]) 14:19, July 30, 2018 (UTC)
+
The Metallinos quote is from his introduction to the ''Exomologetarion''. He continues the quote, "because at this stage (Nicodemus) operated freely within the parameters of hagiographical and Patristic language and tradition." This is rich. The Anselmian language isn't Patristic, and Metallinos' argument boils down to N uses Aneelmian language but he doesn't mean it. And where in "Patristic language and tradition" does one find the practice of indulgences that N engaged in? I'm the one who has been putting citations into this article. I'd like to see a citation for Larchet, for example. The only one is to an article about personhood and referring to texts by the Cappadocians and Maximus the Confessor -- his critique of Yannaraa' approach refers to patristic texts, not modern Catholic texts such as the ones Nicodemus used. This does nothing to explain away Nicodemus adoption of Aneelmian language (and theology). All in all, the article (miss the critical comments about Western influence) just read like a hagiographical puff piece, an not an encyclopedia article. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] ([[User talk:Fr Lev|talk]]) 14:25, July 30, 2018 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
I removed the Larchet article as I was able to obtain a copy and, as I suspected, it doesn't even mention Nicodemus. It has to do with Larchet's disagreements with how Yannaras, Zizioulas, and others handle deal with the Cappadocians and Maximus Confessor "on the relationship of personalism and existentialism." Yannaras is mentioned exactly twice in the article -- once in the opening paragraph and once in a footnote, both times along with Zizioulas. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] ([[User talk:Fr Lev|talk]]) 16:09, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:09, August 1, 2018

Can someone confirm that St. Nikodemos translated Loyola's Spiritual Exercises? I know that he published a book called that, but do not know where the author of the article is getting his source information.

I'll just add that it's a shame that the article is so short on Orthodox Wiki when even wikipedia has much more useful and accurate information about this saint and father of the Church.


Please be sure to sign your posts, and please don't assume that information is inaccurate simply because you are unaware of it. I have seen multiple references to the Saint's translation of the work in question. One citation is Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, "St Nikodimos and the Philokalia", in Mount Athos the Sacred Bridge: The Spirituality of the Holy Mountain (2005). The Metropolitan writes: "In addition to the Combattimento Spirituale of Scupoli, Nikodimos produced a Greek edition of the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola, using the expanded version of Gianpetro Pinamonti. Nikodimos's widely respected work on confession, Exomologitarion, is also for the most part a direct translation of two books by another Roman Catholic writer, Paulo Segneri, ...." (p. 91). --Fr Lev 07:40, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Did not make such assumption, Fr. Lev. Did you know that this western source hypothesis for the Exomologetarion has been debunked? Check out the introduction to its english translation by Fr. George Metallinos, who mentions this fact and the scholar that did this. It is good to know you found a source, though. isaakios 18:36, October 17, 2010

Sorry if I misunderstood your remark to the effect that this article was less accurate than the Wikipedia article. Also, I should have pointed out the source that was already in the article, under the Sources section, namely, the Yannaras volume. I'll check Fr George's intro. --Fr Lev 00:34, October 18, 2010 (UTC)

Please do! Our article should be much better than Wikipedia's, I think. We should include the blessed one's labors in restoring the practice of commemoration services on Saturdays, in his encyclopedic knowledge of the Scriptures, Fathers, and Canons, in his profound synthesis of "akribeia" and "oikonomia" and his zealous defense of Orthodox patristic ecclesiology. We might also mention that his authority as a patristic witness is ubiquitous throughout the Orthodox world, except in some places in America and Europe. I would also appreciate some confirmation that in fact the book entitled "Spiritual Exercises" that he composed is identical to Ignatius of Loyola's work, or is based upon it. If so, fine, but sure if it's true we can find something else that confirms it. We might also discuss the animosity that Yannaras has against St. Nikodemos, and quote from Fr. George Metallinos' fine introduction to the Exomologetarion, as well as Bishop Basil of Wichita's Preface to same. Those are my suggestions. We need more than: "He wrote the Philokalia but otherwise was a Jesuit in a klobuk." Forgive my frankness, it just seems that the article as yet does not capture exactly why the conscience of the Church elevated him for both the Orthodoxy of his teachings as well as the sanctity of his life. isaakios 22:25, October 17, 2010

St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain

Recent addition removed as it contradicts and to some extent repeats information in preceding paragraph regarding alleged Catholic influences on St. Nicodemus’ writings. The two sources offered in support do not appear to be specialized scholarship, and if they are need to be contextualized or related to the newer commentary in recent editions and translations cited above. Kentigern (talk) 11:48, July 15, 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware wrote this in an article on St Nicodemus, and it is included in a book edited by Graham Speaks, who "studied classics at Trinity College, Cambridge, and was awarded a doctorate by the University of Oxford for a thesis on the Byzantine transmission of ancient Greek literature. He is the founder and Chairman of the Friends of Mount Athos and author of Mount Athos: Renewal in Paradise (2nd edn., 2014), for which he was awarded the Criticos Prize. He is also a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London.' The other source was Christos Yannaras, a leading theologian in the Church of Greece, snd it was from his book specifically addressed to the problem of Western influence on Orthodoxy. You need to do better than that to simply remove sourced material you don't agree with. --Fr Lev (talk) 12:44, July 15, 2018 (UTC)

Until you have demonstrable evidence that Speaker and Yanaras are factually incorrect, you ned to leave both sides in the article. I did not remove your claims to the contrary. --Fr Lev (talk) 12:47, July 15, 2018 (UTC)

I have ordered a copy of one of the books by Segneri, on which it is said the Exomologetarion is based. When it arrives and I compare the two, I will update this page. --Fr Lev (talk) 13:49, July 16, 2018 (UTC)

This is not a more neutral presentation. I've tried to balance both sides, but you seem keen to try to debunk the critics of St Nicodemus, and without providing documentation and deleting their problematic claims, such as Metallinos' claim that St Nicodemus had no access to Western sources. I'm inclined to reverse your edits unless they are better substantiated and more neutral. To simply say that Metallinos rejects the idea that Nicodemus doesn't have an Anselmian view of the Atonement isn't an argument, particularly when the only evidence adduced is Anselmian language about wrath that Metallinos says we should interpret differently but without evidence. --Fr Lev (talk) 19:55, July 28, 2018 (UTC)

In terms of Metallinos’ claim that the saint had no access to Western sources, you need to back that up more specifically: Was he referencing that particular work, or in all cases, and relative to not directly knowing their original text without translations/intermediaries? If you want to give a direct quote and contextualize, that would help. Re Anselmian view of atonement, there is a good recent study of how that was incorporated as one among a number of emphases by Orthodox writers, though not in any way exclusive, and that is how what you call Metallinos’ claim is contextualized. Relying heavily on Yannaras with language indicating his view is factual is problematic given that other Orthodox scholars have offered critiques of Yannaras’ methodology in approaching earlier texts as colored by (in their view) ultra-Orthodox academic theories. I’ve added in the narrative reference to Bishop Basil of Wichita’s teaching on the saint’s writing as well as a counter-balance. Kentigern (talk) 02:53, July 29, 2018 (UTC)

The Metallinos quote is from his introduction to the Exomologetarion. He continues the quote, "because at this stage (Nicodemus) operated freely within the parameters of hagiographical and Patristic language and tradition." This is rich. The Anselmian language isn't Patristic, and Metallinos' argument boils down to N uses Aneelmian language but he doesn't mean it. And where in "Patristic language and tradition" does one find the practice of indulgences that N engaged in? I'm the one who has been putting citations into this article. I'd like to see a citation for Larchet, for example. The only one is to an article about personhood and referring to texts by the Cappadocians and Maximus the Confessor -- his critique of Yannaraa' approach refers to patristic texts, not modern Catholic texts such as the ones Nicodemus used. This does nothing to explain away Nicodemus adoption of Aneelmian language (and theology). All in all, the article (miss the critical comments about Western influence) just read like a hagiographical puff piece, an not an encyclopedia article. --Fr Lev (talk) 14:25, July 30, 2018 (UTC)

I removed the Larchet article as I was able to obtain a copy and, as I suspected, it doesn't even mention Nicodemus. It has to do with Larchet's disagreements with how Yannaras, Zizioulas, and others handle deal with the Cappadocians and Maximus Confessor "on the relationship of personalism and existentialism." Yannaras is mentioned exactly twice in the article -- once in the opening paragraph and once in a footnote, both times along with Zizioulas. --Fr Lev (talk) 16:09, August 1, 2018 (UTC)