The Communio article
October 29, 2009
I finally have some good news to report. Today I received an e-mail from the Managing Editor of the journal Communio, informing me that the Summer 2009 issue is now, at last, in print, and that they have decided to feature my article on “John Bekkos as a Reader of the Fathers” on their website. A link to the website, showing the contents of their current issue, is http://www.communio-icr.com/latest.htm; a permanent link to the article, in PDF format, is http://www.communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/gilbert36-2.pdf.
October 29, 2009 at 10:41 pm
I just today restarted my Communio subscription in order to read your essay. I did not realize that there was a link to it.
October 30, 2009 at 8:43 am
Congratulations! I look forward to reading the essay.
Pace e bene, Vito
October 30, 2009 at 12:50 pm
[...] 30, 2009 by Irenaeus From my favorite Orthodox blog, Prof. Peter Gilbert’s De Unione Ecclesiarum – I finally have some good news to report. Today I received an e-mail from the Managing Editor of [...]
October 30, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Yay! Congratulations, Dr. Gilbert!
October 30, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Peter,
Congrats on the article; I hope that scholars take note of it, as I’m sure they will. It makes a strong case for itself.
I see the editors didn’t let the argument for the authenticity of Basil’s A.E. III, 1, pass. I felt you had a very strong argument for it, and I hope your words hold true in the Bekkos article (p. 290, note 81) to publish this argument in a subsequent article.
-Veritas
October 31, 2009 at 9:52 am
Dr Gilbert, do you mind commenting on some of the objections raised by some on the Eirenikon site. i realize you might not be interested in back and forth Squabbles with some of them, so if you can post a response here on your own site. That would be helpful. Thanks! and Congrats.
October 31, 2009 at 11:05 am
Hello, Ted K,
I looked over the discussions happening at Eirenikon. It seems to that the posters there (“Lucian” in particular) have not taken Irenaeus’s warning to heart: to read the article in its entirety before commenting. Or, perhaps, they have read the article; in which, they just seem to have glossed over the points that really do directly address their concerns. Either way, the participants that do have concerns with Peter’s article do not seem to be too open to learning by exchange of dialogue; rather, what I see is a gratuitously uncharitable posture being employed. In other words, a willful neglect to understand the words of others as they have given and explained those words.
It would be my suggestion to Peter to not get involved with such engagements, as the article speaks for itself. No need to explain over and over again what is already on paper for anyone to study. It’s just a shame that those who do say that they have theological concerns with the article, don’t seem to notice (because of their willful prejudice) that they fall into that same Photain axiom as Photius himself. In other words, the article challenges the Photianites to step outside the box, and to at least ask themselves the question: Is Photius’ reading of the Cappadocians the end-all-be-all of their theology? I think that any honest truth-seeking Christian will have to at least ask themselves this question, and to read the article with an open mind. Something, in my opnion at least, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
-Veritas
October 31, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Veritas and Ted K.:
On this question of commenting on the objections raised to the article by people on the Eirenikon site, I will merely say that I would rather not do so right now. That is not because I think those objections are unanswerable; rather, it is, first, because I think the other parties in that debate have done a sufficiently good job of answering these objections themselves, and, secondly, because I am seriously behind in my work here, and I have found by experience that engaging in public internet contests is a huge distraction from necessary business. I will state here that I am grateful to Irenaeus of the Eirenikon site for citing long extracts of my article, and for providing a forum where such interaction can occur. Beyond that, I will not comment, and would hope that the article speaks sufficiently well for itself.
Peter
November 1, 2009 at 10:40 pm
It would be nice to read a response from you on the latest posts on Eirenikon from Perry Robinson.
He seems quite sure that your argument regarding Maximus is erroneous.
November 2, 2009 at 11:14 am
Evagrius,
You are asking me to come wrestle in a snake-pit. All in all, I would rather not; and, as mentioned above, I have other work to do.
Peter
November 2, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Peter,
I understand. There’s something strange, in a sense, in arguing with someone who will not or cannot, acknowledge that one’s own viewpoint, carefully stated, might have some validity.
November 2, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Dr. Peter,
That was an excellent article! Please continue to write about and translate from this inspiring man of God.
Fr. Gregory +
November 4, 2009 at 12:08 pm
I started reading it last night. Congratulations, Dr. Gilbert!
November 5, 2009 at 2:21 am
Dear Dr. Gilbert,
I have folloewd your blog on and off for some time, and now read your recent very fine article on Bekkos. I deeply appreciate your choice of topic and your scholarship, to which we are all in debt.
I am a ThM student at Holy Cross presently writing my thesis. Certain aspects of my research interests, though more systematic than historical, cross strangely with your own. Would you be willing to send me a personal email? I have some things I like to share which I think might interest you, as well as a couple questions.
Thanks,
Matthew
November 5, 2009 at 9:20 am
Peter,
I’m very happy for you. Congratulations on the publication of your article.
The fact that I agree with your conclusions, of course, has nothing to do with it! ;>
I hope it has a major beneficial impact among all Christians in our attempts at mutual understanding and respect.
Michael