Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

1

Fr. Dan Bdulescu Comment on an article:

Faith And Science In Orthodox Gnosiology And Methodology1


The Very Rev. Prof. Dr. George Metallinos
Professor
About the Author we note the following:
Protopresbyter (Archpriest)
Fr. George
Metallinos (in Greek .
) is a Greek theologian, priest, historian, author and professor.

He was born in Corfu, Greece in 1940, where he also completed his Secondary
Education. He is a graduate of the University of
Athens in Theology (1962) and Classical Literature (1967).
After his military service (19631965) he became Research
Assistant at the Department of Patrology and in 1969 he
went to Western Germany for post graduate studies
in Bonn and Cologne, where he resided until 1975. During
this time he also conducted studies and archival research
in England. In 1971, he was ordained a member of the
clergy and became Doctor of Theology (University of
Athens) and Doctor of Philosophy - History (University of
Cologne).
In 1984 he became Professor at the School of
Theology of the University of Athens, teaching History of
Spirituality during the Post-Byzantine Period, History and
Theology of Worship, and Byzantine History. He served
as Dean of the School of Theology between 2004 and 2007,
when he was emerited.2
We stopped on this article because it seemed to be one of the most interesting and
competent in the contemporary Orthodox space related to the topic of science and religion. In
it we find pertinent observations, new and edifying information, erudition and intuition.
Noting the commendable contributions, however we chose to dwell on some questionable and
risky passages on which we dare to issue certain observations.

1
2

http://www.megarevma.net/Metallinos.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Metallinos

We start with page 4, chapter.:


C. The two types of knowledge
It is the Orthodox Tradition that puts and end to this theoretical collision within the
field of gnosiology. It does so by differentiating the two types of knowledge and of wisdom:
1.

divine or that which "from above" and

2.

secular (thyrathen) or lower.

The first knowledge is supernatural and the second is natural. This corresponds to the
clear distinction between the Uncreated and the created, between God and creation. These
two types of learning require two methods of learning. The method of divine wisdomknowledge is the communion of man with the Uncreated through the heart. It is accomplished
through the presence of the Uncreated energy of God in man's heart. The method of secular
wisdom-knowledge is science, it is accomplished by exercising the intellectual/ logical power
of man. Orthodoxy establishes a clear hierarchy in the two types of knowledge and their
methods.
If we admit this division, and also trace the argument of the rev. Teacher, we come to
a standstill. Where would be the stumbling block? The father gave previously the example of
St. Basil the Great with his famous Hexaemeron, homilies on the six days of Creation. For
yes, this reference work, to which we can add The Apologetic Word to Hexaemeron of St.
Gregory of Nyssa, The Hexaemeron of St. Ambrose the Great, Homilies on Genesis of St.
John Chrysostom and An exact exposition of the Orthodox faith of St. John Damascene - all
these patristic normative works - and of course others on the same topic, but less known - are
obviously dealin with Creation, taking obviously into account that this is the work of God's
hands. But this creation - and here we are talking mainly of the seen creation,
cosmos/universe (and not universes!) - in which area could it be part of: natural or
supernatural? The answer can only be: natural, supernatural refers to God and at most to the
creation of the unseen world of angels. But, as we said, the hexaimerons are not dealing with
those than tangentially, the topic being the seen creation, the physical world, the cosmos, the
earth, the sky, so nature, the life on earth, the crown of creation: man.
The contents of An exact exposition of St. John Damascene, the second book
Chapters 1-28 are dealing with creation (chapter 2 is called: On creation).
We move forward with the reasoning: if the subject is nature what kind of
knowledge have we here, divine (or from above) or natural - secular (thyrathen) or lower?
The first would be theology, science would be second. All authors of these works are Saints
Fathers of the Church, great teachers and hierarchs (less St. John Damascene who was not a
bishop), and not scientists3. But those works, of which kind are they? Of course, without any
If we are talking about scientists, in West, during all this mediaeval period (those 1000 years of
darkness the 5-15th centuries, as were called by the enlightenmentpeople) and in East the 5-19
centuries, they, practically were not, the field itself being completely in Church area.
3

possible doubt: the theological. Yet, there we find the basic elements and at the highest level
of the moment, both spiritual and scientific, of cosmology, astrophysics, chronology, history,
geography, biology, meteorology, botany, zoology, anthropology, psychology.
If it is so, and we assume that the rev. teacher (or anyone else) would have no
objection in this regard, we see that the above scheme hardly stands: here we have a
knowledge of both supernatural and natural on the nature/creation, and, hierarchically
speaking, of course with the theological predominance (supernatural).
Returning, how about the competence? Do these Holy Fathers have some expertise
in creative/the natural or not? If yes, and we strongly believe that they have, this means that,
through them, the Church had also a distinct cosmology, chronology, history, geography,
biology, meteorology, botany, zoology, anthropology, psychology, with well and clearly
defined concepts, anchored both in supernatural revelation (Scripture) and in the natural one
(philosophy, natural science). These notions, even if not strictly falling under the realm of
dogma, are a part of the Holy Tradition, and - with some minor exceptions in realm of
geography or biology - are not variable in time and space, as happens with secular sciences.
We reach in this moment the most delicate and controversial point of the study:
The most tragic expression of the alienated Christian body is the ecclesiastica1
attitude in the West towards Galileo. The case could be characterized as surpassing the limits
of jurisdiction. But it is much more serious, it is the confusion of the limits of knowledge and
their conflict. It is a fact that this loss of the wisdom from above in the West and the way of
achieving it have caused the intellect (mind) to be used as a tool of not only human wisdom,
but of Divine Wisdom too. The use of the intellect in the field of science leads unavoidably to
the rejection of the supernatural as incomprehensible, and its use in the field of faith can lead
to the rejection of science when it is considered to be in conflict with faith. This same way of
thinking and the same loss of criteria is also betrayed by the rejection of the Copernican
system in the East (1774-1821). Science, in turn, takes its revenge for the condemnation of
Galilee by the Roman Church, in the person of Darwin, with his theory of evolution.
Taking now a concrete case - the heliocentrist controversy and Galileo case of the 17th
century, the rev. teacher issues an axiomatic verdict: the church (Catholic) was drastically
wrong and the humanist scholar was right. His Holiness got nor more painstaking to show us
what went wrong, perhaps considering that this is clear once and for all. And here, not only
the Western Catholics4 have fallen into this error, but also: This same way of thinking and
the same loss of criteria is also betrayed by the rejection of the Copernican system in the East
(1774-1821). Here, perhaps without realizing it - we can not know exactly in this moment the father entered right in a minefield: the rejection in question took place in ... Greece, and its
protagonists were just... the hesychasts traditionalists fathers, the colyvades that he gives us
- rightly! - as examples of loyal keepers of the patristic tradition in the face of Enlightenment
rationalist/Greek moralists. And lest we be accused of talking generally and vaguely, here are

and by the way, the Protestants of the time as well!

two concrete examples of the works of the saints Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain and
Athanasius Parios on this topic:
For how many miracles contains in itself the wonder of the supernatural vanishing of
the sun
which occurred at the Crucifixion of the Lord or better to say, the darkness of the sun.

Since when our Lord was crucified, it was noon in spring, ie twelve hours per day and
twelve hours per night after The settlings of the Holy Apostles, and after the paschalion
makers. And because the sun was not darkened by itself, as thought Origen, but the moon, and
although it was full moon of fourteen days after the divine Scripture, coming under the sun
and walking together has darkened it, as the Divine Dionysios
the Areopagite had seen by his own that joined journey and
darkness, being in Egypt's Heliopolis together with
Apolophanes, and writes to it evident in the letter to
Polycarpos. - That by the laws of nature, while full moon, it is
impossible that the sun travels together with the moon, because
then both lights are after match, ie, when the midday sun is
above the earth and at about the top middle sign of the sky
which is called the zenith, the moon is right after the match in
the middle under earth sky sign which is called the nadir. And otherwise. Also if the sun is at sunset, the moon
lies to the east. But at the Lord's Crucifixion, these natural laws
have changed and the sun and moon have been supernatural
and glorified traveling together (St. Nicodemus, Unseen Warfare) ff. which can be read
here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/35663771/Five-Geocentric-Celestial-Wonders

Second example: And some all-round coverage is the sky of all created things visible
and invisible. Inside it are also the rational powers of the
angels and all the sensible things, the stars and everything
else, including theearth itself, which is a point and a center
to all world... For indeed, or sphere, or sphere image,
whichis said to be the realm of the blessed. Of which the
uppermost part is the all sides roundness, and the lowest one
is the middle, where the earth as a center sits motionless, as the
ancient wise men outside and the Divine Scripture also teaches.
(St. Athanasius Parios Dogmatics)
Here is the apologetic of the Roman Church in 1615
through its most brilliant representative of the time, Cardinal
Bellarmine. He says about Galilei the following in a letter to
a clergyman who incline to such ideas:
But to want to affirm that the Sun, in very truth, is at the centre of the universe and
only rotates on its axis without traveling from east to west, and that the Earth is situated in
the third sphere and revolves very swiftly around the Sun, is a very dangerous attitude and
one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to
injure our hold faith by contradicting the Scriptures
Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the
Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers 5. Now if your
Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the
Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all
agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is
in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense
speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at
the centre of the universe, and motionless. Consider, then in
your prudence, whether the Church can support that the
Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that
of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both
Latin and Greek.
Third... In case of doubt one may not abandon the Holy
Sriptures as expounded by the leave the sacred texts
interpretation given by the holy Fathers. But the man who
wrote:
"The sun also ariseth,
and
the sun goeth down,
and hasteth to his place where he arose", was Solomon, who not only spoke of divine
inspiration but was also wise and learned, above else, in human sciences and knowledge of
the created things. And therefore he had all the wisdom from God Himself, can not he have
made such statements contrary to the truth, whether proven or possible to be proven. If you
tell me that Solomon speaks appearances, so far as to tell us that the sun seems to us to move,
5

This goes for The Holy Orthodox Church as well, isnt it?

while the earth makes this a reality, just as the poet said: "The coast is not moving away from
us," I answer that, although it seems that the traveler departs from shore where the boat is not
the boat to shore, though he knows that this is an illusion and is able to correct his judgment,
because experience clearly says that the earth sitting still and his eyes not wrong when he says
that the sun, moon and stars are moving. (Letter from Bellarmino to Foscarini)
Now, please, judge yourselves if you find in all these cases the surpassing the limits
of jurisdiction, the confusion of the limits of knowledge, the loss of criteria.
And if we talk about A church which persists in metaphysical theology, will always
be obliged to beg Galileo's pardon it would appear rather that, in the first place this church here clearly refers to the Roman Catholic Church - should beg today pardon to Cardinal
Bellarmino, canonized as a saint, and not to Galileo6. We affirm these as an Orthodox priest,
not as a potential supporter to Catholicism. Because there, as one author said The Church
was right and Galileo was wrong. The Copernican/Galilean cosmological model from the
17th century held a cosmos with sun motionless in the center - because this is the exact
meaning of heliocentrism! with 6 planets (including Earth):

It is a model that contradicted then the revelation, and it was radically amended by
contemporary science, that means: it is false.

Who beg in his time this forgiveness, thing documnentary attested (see Apendix). Now there are all
kinds of speculation on how it was done this withdrawal / confession under torture (physical or mental
only) as a tactical move, but totally insincere, etc. But speculation remain just that: speculation, while
the only solid things and clear is at the document itself and Galilei 's tomb in the Basilica di Santa
Croce church in Florence.

The principle of indetermination (that there is no causality) is a kind of apophatism in


science. The return to the Fathers therefore, helps to overcome the conflict.
We agree with the rev. father that the return to the Fathers and their theology is the
solution of the reconciliation to the religion-science conflict, but it remains to be seen what
concrete steps should be taken, and when and how it pleases God to achieve this goal. That
apofatism of the indeterminacy or uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics seems not
even the most appropriate solution, and it is not clear that this principle would be the return to
the Fathers.
Regarding the secular science - that we could qualify as natural revelation - the
attitude of the Fathers and their offspring, the traditionalist fathers (the colyvades and others)
we strongly believe that it was this: they avoided with spiritual balance the two extremes:
1. The total and principial rejection of the science;
2. Its unconditional acceptance, as the most (only?) competent knowledge of the
created.
The first case is extremely rare nowadays, at least in the civilized part of the world
and even among the clergy, monks and believers. Instead the 2nd extreme seems to dominate
from the second half of the 19th century, the Orthodox Church practically abandoned the
secular field research and resumed to the theological supernatural. The catholic church
passed to an aggiornamento with the secular world, there ares world-renowned Catholic
scholars as Mendel and Lematre, an astronomical observatory, etc. The price paid by this
cohabitation and avoiding of conflicts (cognitive dissonance) was one large and unacceptable:
the acceptance of practically all theories of the time, including evolutionism and
extraterrestrial life at the expense of revelation! And yes, by doing so, this metaphisical
church has to beg pardon to Galileo and many other scientists, including Darwin!
The Fathers and their offspring have avoided these two extremes, using the science
(natural revelation) of their time or that of the forerunners7, but in no case unconditionally, but
filtering this knowledge and even censoring when appropriate, where secular knowledge
conflicted with supernatural revelation (Scripture).
And then, if so, perhaps this would be the solution, although it is simple only at first
sight. With some exceptions, things do not seem to go in this direction...
fr. Dan Bdulescu

Therefore is not surpsing at all that Saint Nicodemos the Hagiorite accepted in his work,
Symbouletikon, the latest theories of his time on the functioning of the heart.

Appendix
Recantation of Galileo (June 22, 1633)
I, Galileo, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned
personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Reverend Lord
Cardinals, Inquisitors-General against heretical depravity throughout the entire Christian
commonwealth, having before my eyes and touching with my hands, the Holy Gospels, swear
that I have always believed, do believe, and by God's help will in the future believe, all that is
held, preached, and taught by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But whereas -- after
an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by this Holy Office, to the effect that I must
altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable,
and that the earth is not the center of the world, and moves, and that I must not hold, defend,
or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine, and after it had
been notified to me that the said doctrine was contrary to Holy Scripture -- I wrote and printed
a book in which I discuss this new doctrine already condemned, and adduce arguments of
great cogency in its favor, without presenting any solution of these, and for this reason I have
been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of
having held and believed that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the
earth is not the center and moves:
Therefore, desiring to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of all faithful
Christians, this vehement suspicion, justly conceived against me, with sincere heart and
unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally
every other error, heresy, and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church, and I swear
that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might
furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me; but that should I know any heretic, or
person suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor or
Ordinary of the place where I may be. Further, I swear and promise to fulfill and observe in
their integrity all penances that have been, or that shall be, imposed upon me by this Holy
Office. And, in the event of my contravening, (which God forbid) any of these my promises
and oaths, I submit myself to all the pains and penalties imposed and promulgated in the
sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. So
help me God, and these His Holy Gospels, which I touch with my hands.
I, the said Galileo Galilei, have abjured, I swore I promised and I linked above way;
and a witness of truth I signed this document with my hand, and I recited verbatim in Rome,
Minerva Convent at June 22, 1633.

I, Galileo Galilei, have abjured the above with my own hand.8

Concluding portion of Galileos Recantation (or Abjuration)

Links to this discussion:


https://www.scribd.com/doc/52277104/Scriptural-Passages-About-the-Stability-immobilityof-the-Earth
https://www.scribd.com/doc/11573472/The-Consensus-of-Church-Fathers-on-Geocentrism
https://www.scribd.com/doc/33821006/The-Three-Holy-Hierarchs-and-Geocentrism
https://www.scribd.com/doc/35663771/Five-Geocentric-Celestial-Wonders
https://www.scribd.com/doc/131317960/Are-The-Holy-Fathers-heliocentrists
https://www.scribd.com/doc/102962074/The-Interpretation-of-the-Sun-and-Moon-stopwonder-by-Jesus-Navi
https://www.scribd.com/doc/42924909/Reflections-Concerning-a-Recent-Article

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/recantation.html

Вам также может понравиться