Let us say a few words about scholasticism. Above, we had the opportunity to see the fruits of scholasticism: madness, heresy, and the impenetrable darkness of the KPBA professors – the “enlighteners” of the flock of UOC KP. This sad picture is all the fruits of scholasticism. (In this world, people eat everything dead (animals, before we eat them, we kill them; we also eat plants dead… in short, we eat dead things, death). But since the Kingdom of God has come, and the Lord has resurrected, deified our nature, we already have the opportunity to eat Life – Thanksgiving, for the Eucharist resurrects the dead. In the Eucharist, we consume the resurrected Bread and Wine – nature, deadened by sin (separated from God, from Life), but resurrected by the Logos in His Hypostasis and offered to us in the Gift of the Grace of the Holy Spirit in the communion of the God-human reality of Eternal Life!). Scholasticism is deadness. Because the word is alive only in its native context. And phrases taken out of context are dead! Therefore, the letter is dead by itself, without the context of the experience of reality to which the word points (without the Spirit, which is only in the Eucharist, Thanksgiving, in the mystery of communion with the reality to which the word points). For in communion with reality, the word that points to it becomes a symbol, a manifestation of reality, a facet of reality being discussed. Therefore, the words of the saints (Christians) are life-giving, because they are not only labels-conventions (addressed to the intellect and rational memory), but are a call to co-participation in the Kingdom of God, in the context of which the prophet-witness resides!
Scholasticism is deadness! Flowers in a vase still smell for a while but no longer give nectar – there will be no honey of knowledge-understanding, only the intoxication of self-delusion and pride (I already know!?). Therefore, you need to draw flowers! And those who are interested in them – send to the meadow! Or if you have picked – the essence of picked flowers is one: to advertise the flowers that grow (live) in the meadow, – smell them there, take nectar from the living ones, in the native context of the meadow, and not in a beautifully arranged bouquet of dead flowers (which is scholasticism – beautiful bouquets of quotes on certain topics). Quotes taken out of their native contexts (meadows-books) are dead, for they are alive only in their native contexts! And the context of the Sacred Scripture of the Church is the Holy Eucharist! Therefore, the “quote” is resurrected only in Thanksgiving-Eucharist. In KPBA – it stinks (a dizzying stench), because there is no Eucharist and they eat dead things. All the dissertations of the scribes of the UOC KP are dead weight, deadness (collections of dead quotes, torn out (previously deadened by separating the spirit of the author from the form of the quote) and filled with the spirit of heresy, godlessness!). And the professors of the mentioned seminary cannot grasp this simple fact (by their fruits!). Those who eat dead things are blind dead who do not know the Scriptures or the Power of God!
Quotes need to be read in their native context (in the context of the author’s work, the “father” of the word), only there they are alive and fragrant! And scholastic works (collections of raped quotes “on the topic”) are flowers in a vase (picked from the meadow – native context), dead and withering, and even still slightly fragrant and pleasing to the eye (although they are dead); deadness, although it gives the impression of beauty and a feeling of pleasure “paradise” for the dead. Therefore, wise men, when quoting (calling in witnesses of their experience-knowledge someone from the God-seers or just knowledgeable fathers (of the realities of this age) of the reality being spoken of), always refer the reader to read it (understand it) in its native context. Then such a work is not scholastic (not deadness), but life-giving words, for in this word-preaching-call everything is alive (and the quotes being quoted, because they are not torn from their native contexts, but are only pointers to the fragment of the author’s work from which the quote is taken; that is, the quote is literally given verbatim, but it must be understood not in the context of the work in which it is placed (from the native context), but in the native context). This can be understood by the example of a shortcut to a file on a computer (e.g., on the desktop): when trying to open it, it turns out to be empty, that is, the content is in another place!
And when the author uses word forms created by others (that is, he is not the father of the word form – the quote), but does not name the author (the father of the word – does not call him as a witness…), then the content of the word-quote must be understood not in the native context (as the father of the word filled these words with semantic content), but in the one in which you read them. For the speaker (the author of the book you are reading) took only the form (used it – this vessel for conveying meaning-call), but filled it with his own content, used these verbal vessels for his own purposes (for example, the father of these verbal vessels used them to convey “milk,” and someone took and used them to convey “gasoline”…).