Part, Chapter, Paragraph
1 I,Intro | of England), he discussed theology with the Pope and Cardinals
2 I, 2,2 | traditions or schools of theology. Nestorius, brought up in
3 I, 2,2 | a defeat for Alexandrian theology: it was a defeat for Alex-~
4 I, 2,2 | one of terminology, not of theology: the two parties used different
5 I, 2,3 | leisure to study works of theology has only to enter a ~church
6 I, 2,3 | Councils the great age of theology; and, ~next to the Bible,
7 I, 2,4 | V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p.
8 I, 3,1 | took an active interest in theology. The ~.lay theologian. has
9 I, 3,1 | the Church for its clergy. Theology became the preserve of the
10 I, 3,1 | the Greeks un-~derstood theology in the context of worship
11 I, 3,1 | emphasis in Trinitarian theology has ~far-reaching consequences
12 I, 3,2 | faith. (Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p.
13 I, 3,3 | grow further apart in their theology and in their ~whole manner
14 I, 3,3 | synthesis of ~philosophy and theology worked out in the twelfth
15 I, 3,3 | history of eastern mystical theology. The main features of this
16 I, 3,3 | features of this mystical theology were worked ~out by Clement (
17 I, 3,3 | trends in this ~mystical theology, not exactly opposed, but
18 I, 3,3 | of negation . apophatic theology, as it is often called . ~
19 I, 3,3 | 163 [77A]). ~ Negative theology reaches its classic expression
20 I, 3,3 | permanent place in Orthodox theology. Dionysius has also ~had
21 I, 3,3 | records that the Mystical ~Theology of Dionysius .ran through
22 I, 3,3 | greatest use of negative theology . Greg-~ory of Nyssa, for
23 I, 3,3 | apophatic language of negative theology, these writers ~claimed
24 I, 3,3 | integrating it into Orthodox theology as a whole, and by ~showing
25 I, 3,3 | personally ac-~cept the theology of Palamas. ~ Gregory began
26 I, 3,3 | any exponent of negative theology, that God is in essence
27 I, 3,3 | V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p.
28 I, 3,3 | work shows that Orthodox theology did not cease to be ~active
29 I, 3,3 | linked ~together in Byzantine theology. Palamas and his circle
30 I, 3,3 | for the ~Greeks to discuss theology dispassionately, for they
31 I, 5,1 | contrary current in Orthodox theology ~of the seventeenth and
32 I, 5,1 | they interpreted Orthodox theology. ~Certainly Greek students
33 I, 5,1 | for them not to look at theology through ~western spectacles;
34 I, 5,1 | their own Church. Orthodox theology underwent what the Russian
35 I, 5,2 | developments in Orthodox theology. ~ The first important exchange
36 I, 5,2 | influence in mat-~ters of theology, and his Confession (By .
37 I, 5,2 | history of modern Orthodox theology. Faced by the Calvinism
38 I, 5,2 | the limitations of Greek ~theology in this period: one does
39 I, 6,3 | Church art, Church music, and theology. Those who rebelled against
40 I, 6,3 | necessarily ~agreeing with them. Theology was westernized, but standards
41 I, 6,3 | missionary work, while in theology, as in spirituality, Orthodoxy
42 I, 6,3 | Apostles.. ~ In the field of theology, nineteenth-century Russia
43 I, 6,3 | Orthodox to borrow their theology from the west, as ~they
44 I, 6,3 | our Or-~thodox school of theology was not in a position to
45 I, 6,3 | contribution to Orthodox theology. ~ Khomiakov during his
46 I, 6,3 | little or no influence on the theology taught in the ~academies
47 I, 6,3 | By ~1900 Russian academic theology was at its height, and there
48 I, 7,6 | both contain Faculties of ~Theology. Non-Orthodox are often
49 I, 7,6 | should take an interest in ~theology. Many students afterwards
50 I, 7,6 | author of a famous ~Dogmatic Theology first published in 1907,
51 I, 7,6 | achievements of ~modern Greek theology, one cannot deny that it
52 I, 7,6 | own Orthodox tradition. Theology in Greece today suffers
53 I, 7,6 | life of the Church: it is a theology of the ~university lecture
54 I, 7,6 | room, but not a mystical theology, as in the days of Byzantium
55 I, 7,6 | more flexible approach to theology, and of a ~living recovery
56 I, 7,10 | have been sent to study theology in Greece, and since 1960
57 I, 7,10 | V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of ~the Eastern Church,
58 II, 0,11 | satisfied with a barren ‘theology of repetition,’ which, parrot-like,
59 II, 0,12 | was the separation between theology and mysticism, between liturgy~
60 II, 0,12 | division. All true Orthodox theology is mystical; just as mysticism~
61 II, 0,12 | mysticism~divorced from theology becomes subjective and heretical,
62 II, 0,12 | subjective and heretical, so theology, when it is not mystical,~
63 II, 0,12 | the bad sense of the word.~Theology, mysticism, spirituality,
64 II, 0,12 | prayed, must also be~lived: theology without action, as Saint
65 II, 0,12 | Saint Maximus put it, is the theology of demons (Letter 20 (P.G.~
66 II, 0,12 | live it. Faith and love, theology and life, are inseparable.~
67 II, 1,1 | is not a piece of ‘high~theology’ reserved for the professional
68 II, 1,1 | society depend upon a right theology of the Trinity. ‘Between~
69 II, 1,1 | V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern~Church, p.
70 II, 1,1 | negation,’ of ‘apophatic’ theology. Positive or ‘cataphatic’
71 II, 1,1 | Positive or ‘cataphatic’ theology — the ‘way~of affirmation’ —
72 II, 1,1 | Orthodox~emphasis on apophatic theology and the distinction between
73 II, 1,1 | of traditional Orthodox theology there can be but one rejoinder~
74 II, 1,1 | questions of Trinitarian theology;~but it is not trivial.
75 II, 1,1 | difference in Trinitarian theology is bound to have repercussions
76 II, 1,1 | Father. In the language of theology, the Father is the ‘cause’
77 II, 1,1 | point that Roman Catholic theology begins to disagree. According
78 II, 1,1 | disagree. According to Roman~theology, the Spirit proceeds eternally
79 II, 1,1 | the Trinity. But western theology ascribes the distinctive
80 II, 1,1 | semi-Sabellianism. Orthodox Trinitarian theology~has a personal principle
81 II, 1,1 | God. In Latin Scholastic theology, so it seems to Orthodox,
82 II, 1,1 | of each.~Latin Scholastic theology, emphasizing as it does
83 II, 1,1 | Scholasticism, not to Latin theology as a whole.~
84 II, 1,2 | in man. Man is a~‘living theology,’ and because he is God’
85 II, 1,3 | Christus Victor, alike in theology, in spirituality,~and in
86 II, 1,4 | Orthodox Church’ (The Mystical Theology of~the Eastern Church, p.
87 II, 1,5 | deity, Orthodox~mystical theology has always insisted that
88 II, 1,5 | V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p.
89 II, 1,5 | from a highly developed theology of the body.~Not only man’
90 II, 1,5 | tears.’ Orthodox mystical theology~is a theology of glory and
91 II, 1,5 | Orthodox mystical theology~is a theology of glory and of transfiguration,
92 II, 1,5 | transfiguration, but it is also a theology of penitence.~In the third
93 II, 2,1 | this sense, that~Orthodox theology never treats the earthly
94 II, 2,1 | Christ with us~(Dogmatic Theology, Athens, 1907, pp. 262-5 (
95 II, 2,2 | and invisible; Orthodox theology refuses to separate the ‘
96 II, 2,2 | sacraments. The Orthodox theology of the~Church is above all
97 II, 2,2 | Church is above all else a theology of communion. Each local
98 II, 2,2 | with traditional Orthodox theology. If we~are going to speak
99 II, 2,3 | certain points in the Orthodox theology of Councils~which remain
100 II, 2,3 | V. Lossky, The Mystical~Theology of the Eastern Church, p.
101 II, 2,4 | due to God alone. In Greek theology the distinction is very
102 II, 2,5 | the end, which in Greek theology is termed the apocatastasis~
103 II, 2,5 | V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p.
104 II, 4 | seven as~in Roman Catholic theology:~1 Baptism~2 Chrismation (
105 II, 4 | significance for Orthodox theology, but is used primarily as
106 II, 4,3 | Churches. According to Latin theology, the consecration~is effected
107 II, 4,3 | According to~Orthodox theology, the act of consecration
108 II, 4,3 | all: according to Orthodox theology,~the Eucharist is a propitiatory
109 II, 4,6 | point of view of Orthodox theology a divorce~granted by the
110 II, 6,2 | valid.’ (Note that Orthodox theology~declines to treat the question
111 II, 7,1 | J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal
112 II, 7,8 | Orthodox theology~General Studies~• V. Lossky,~
113 II, 7,8 | V. Lossky,~ The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, London,
114 II, 7,8 | New York, 1974.~! Orthodox Theology: An Introduction, New York,
115 II, 7,8 | 1923~(tends to see Orthodox theology through Latin spectacles).~•
116 II, 7,8 | 1966-~1968.~• D. Staniloae, Theology and the Church, New York,
117 II, 7,8 | London, 1979.~72~Biblical theology~• G. Barrois,~! The Face
118 II, 7,8 | London, 1949.~Sacramental Theology~• A. Schmemann,~! Introduction
119 II, 7,8 | Introduction to Liturgical Theology, London, 1966.~! For the
120 II, 7,10 | Olten, 1952.~• L. Ouspensky, Theology of the Icon, New York, 1978.~•
|