Update with Craig Crawford

1) Debate on Angelic Movers - and 1054, Photius · 2) Craig Crawford is back in the fray on angelic movers! · 3) Debate with Craig Crawford Continues · 4) Update with Craig Crawford

Craig Crawford

Hans-Georg Lundahl John Romanides was a new calendarist ecumenist heretic, and in no way was he an authentic witness for the Orthodox Church. Genuine Orthodox Christians do not accept him, or his heresies.

Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Moscow was a notorius anathematized heretic, and his heresy goes by the name of Sergianism. No one in the Church honors his memory, but he is thrice-cursed.

Neither of these two individuals were Orthodox. They are not honored as saints by the Church, and in no way speak for the Church.

The Orthodox Church has never accepted the heresy of Evolution, and a number of Orthodox saints have openly voiced their rejection of it.

If one wants to learn what the Orthodox Church teaches regarding the heresy of Evolution, they should first and foremost directly consult the approved historical writings of the saints, but the following is an excellent summary of the patristic consensus:

Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Creation-Early-Man-Christian/dp/1887904026

I recommend reading at least the first few chapters of the book online for free here:

Genesis, Creation and Early Man
The Orthodox Christian Vision
Fr. Seraphim Rose
http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/index.html

Important note, here Seraphim Rose becomes heretical: We may also see another, a mystical reason, for the fact that the light precedes the sun in the days of creation. Here, admittedly, we have no Fathers to quote, and we offer this interpretation as our own opinion. We will see below that the separation of man into male and female was not part of the original "image" in which God created him; and we know that it will not be part of man's nature in the eternal kingdom of heaven, for in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven (Matt. 22:30). Rather, God made the division into male and female foreseeing the fall of man and that the increase of mankind would require a passionate mode of generation. HGL, ... PS on remark, NOW the page ends before the quote I took from it, on end of section 3 of the chapter. As if someone wanted to hide that Seraphim Rose had made a heretical statement. Could that be why Chapter Four. The Creation of Man (Genesis 1:26-31,2:4-7) is not uploaded? It can have been earlier and someone pointed out this mistake?/HGL ...now back to comment of Craig Crawford:

One will note, that in chapter three, Fr. Seraphim relates the teaching of the Church, that the Earth is the center of the universe.

"But Divine revelation, as interpreted by the Holy Fathers, tells us the contrary: that the earth comes first, both in time and in significance, and the sun comes second. If our minds were not so chained to the intellectual fashions of the times, if we were not so fearful of being thought “behind the times,” we would not have such difficulty in opening our minds to this alternative explanation of the world’s beginnings.

In the Scriptural-Patristic view the earth, as the home of man, the pinnacle of God’s creation, is the center of the universe. Everything else—no matter what the scientific explanation of its present state and movement, or the physical immensity of it in comparison to the earth—is secondary, and was made for the sake of the earth, that is, for man."

The Orthodox Church has never advocated contraception.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am glad for all this, but if you see any problem with angelic movers from a technical point of view, you remind me of these.

And if you consider scholasticism wrong, you seem to be buying Romanides' view of what is sane and what is a "mental disease".

While I was among Orthodox, Seraphim Rose was one man I did consider a saint.

To say the stars or heavenly bodies are moved directly by God with no angels obeying Him and moving them even in their slower movements is perhaps untrue, but certainly not heretical.

My point about angelic movers was that cosmology is not tied down to only gravitational and similar "physical" movers.

However, if God provides the BIG movement of ALL celestial bodies every day, and if angels were, before men, created in His image, I consider God gave some of them the task to provide Sun with yearly, Moon with monthly and so on movements.

If daddy is a great biker, won't he give some of the sons bikes for presents?

Many men give their sons the first bikes on the fourth birthday, why could God not have given angels a kind of bikes on the fourth day of their existance, some of them, and that which is "bikes" to them is light and heat and lifegiving seasons to us?

But I say SOME of them, since, if all stars and planets may be guided by angels, it is wrong and forbidden to say all angels are there and only there to carry stars.

Condemned proposition 77: Quod si esset aliqua substantia separata que non moueret aliquid corpus in hoc mundo sensibili, non clauderetur in uniuerso

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Capitulum VII
Errores de intelligentia uel angelo
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2012/01/capitulum-vii.html

Bishop Tempier's condemnations for the list of 219 seems to have never been revoked in the diocese of Paris and it was also accepted in England.

Where people divided it into systematic chapters (77 becomes error 12 of chapter 7).

Collectio errorum in Anglia et Parisius Condempnatorum
qui sic per capitula distinguuntur

Capitulum VI

Isti articuli qui sequuntur, condempnatisunt a domino stephano parisiensi episcopo, de consilio magistrorum theologie, anno domini M °. CC °. LXXVI, die dominica qua contatur "Letare Ierusalem" in curia parisiensi, ubi excommunicauit in scriptis omnes illos qui scienter eos docuerint uel defenderint. Et primoordinantur qui sunt de deo, scilicet :

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Collectio errorum in Anglia et Parisius Condempnatorum
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2012/01/collectio-errorum-in-anglia-et-parisius.html

Full index, here:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html

added later

I'd like to get the Latin text clear and into this:

"Nec sicut cogitantur angeli mundi spiritus caelestia corpora inspirantes atque ad arbitrium quo seruiunt deo mutantes atque uersantes neque si omnes, cum sint milia millium, in unum conlati unus fiant, nec tale aliquid deus est."

Vicifons : De trinitate (Aurelius Augustinus)/Liber VIII
https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_trinitate_%28Aurelius_Augustinus%29/Liber_VIII

• Main clause:
  
  "Nec ... neque ...nec tale aliquid deus est."
  
  Neither [this] nor [that] neither is such a thing God.
  
  
• First level subsidiary clause I:
  
  "sicut cogitantur angeli mundi spiritus"
  
  As the angel are though of [indicative, are in fact thought of] as pure spirit ...
  
  Second level subsidiaries, by participles rather than clauses:
  
  
  
  
  • 1) "caelestia corpora inspirantes"
    
    ... which inspire the celestial bodies (participles has agreement with angeli, not with caelestia corpora)
    
    
  • 2) "atque ad arbitrium ... mutantes"
    
    ... and change them at will
    
    [what will? the will]
    
    Third level subsidiary: "quo seruiunt deo"
    
    by which they serve God
    
    
  • 3) "atque uersantes"
    
    And turn ["them", "at will" supplied from previous].
  
  
  
• First level subsidiary clause II:
  
  "si omnes, ... unus fiant,"
  
  if all were to become [present conjunctive or subjunctive, hypothesis]
  
  
  • Second level subsidiary to "omnes":
    
    "cum sint milia millium," as they are millions
    
    
  • Second level subsidiary to subject angeli itself with unum fiant:
    
    "in unum conlati"
    
    [previously] gathered together.
  
  
  
• So:
  
  "Neither the angels as they ARE thought of as clean spirits" [clean as opposed to unclean, blessed angels as opposed to demons] "and as inspiring the celestial bodies" [whatever inspiring means] " and as changing and turning them around at their will, a will bny which they serve" [the real] "God, nor all of them if they WERE to be put together and to become one, neither of these is God."

My analysis from English stands measured by the Latin text.