Dear Pravoslavnik,
I have four comments to make in reply.
First, I don't quite see the point in referring to Luther in this discussion, as I am not a Lutheran, have never mentioned him, nor does he have anything to do with what I've said. Why do you keep on bringing him up? Did you convert from Lutheranism? Is that why you are so insistent on referring to him?
In any case, I agree with you. We should not depend on the authority of any one individual, especially our own private interpretations, when deciding matters of faith. Doctrine should be settled according to the Vincentian canon, and especially by ecumenical council. That is precisely why I object to the influence of Pseudo-Dionysius - because his beliefs cannot be justified by history, council, or the Vincentian canon. They are, in fact, the private speculations of a man who overly admired Proclus and tried to marry pagan thought with Christianity, as is attested to by every authority who has studied the subject in any depth (beginning with the hints in Pomazansky).
Second, I think you misunderstand me. Not only have I not called into question the fact that the Holy Spirit leads the church into all truth such that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; I have actually presupposed that in all my arguments. That being said, questioning the authority of one alleged father of the church, especially one who is universally recognized as being a fake, is hardly an attack against the faith. Pseudo-Dionysius does not lie at the foundation of the Church, and she will not be harmed at the loss of him. Christ is the cornerstone, and the apostles are the foundation. Indeed, the Church survived without Pseudo-Dionysius for 7 centuries before some later fathers mistakenly believed his false apostolic claims and incorporated his speculations into their beliefs.
Third, I find it disingenious of you to suggest that I think of myself as some kind of holier-than-thou phony with pretentions to veneration. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I freely admit that I am a sinner who is only a Christian by the grace of God. Its unfortunate that the discussion degenarated so quickly. It seems to happen too often on these message boards. Since you are a self-professed Ivy Leaguer, I would expect you to actually engage my arguments with counter arguments of your own, rather than resort to ad hominem fallacies. Wouldn't it be better for both of us to simply discuss these issues with the view of determining the truth of the matter, rather than resort to sarcastic attacks? I don't see how it contributes to the discussion.
Fourth, and lastly, you seem to put a lot of emphasis on your a priori rejection of "modern era philological analysis of "text critics"". I assume you mean the linguistic analysis of texts. Well, I would not be so quick to reject the analysis of texts. After all, that is what the church did in establishing the canon of Scripture. I'm sure you would not consider yourself above the example of the church? But they analyzed texts, distinguishing the genuine from the fake. That is what St. Luke did in compiling his gospel (see Luke 1). And that is what all scholars (Orthodox or otherwise) continue to do today. For instance, I would highly recomend that you read the introductions to the various volumes of the 'Popular Patristics' series for examples of what I mean. In other words, carefully analyzing texts to determine their authenticity is hardly a modern phenomenon. Quite the opposite, it is very pre-modern. In fact, it is the practice of the ancient church and a matter of common sense - as someone with your education would surely recognize.
Sincerely,
Climacus
PS: I greatly admire Socrates and, by extension, both Plato and Aristotle. But I do not accept everything they say simply because they are famous. Their thought is a mixture of truth and error. Some Platonic beliefs are true, but not all. I know this because I can compare their thoughts to the teachings of Christ which is pure truth. Don't you do the same? And isn't that precisely what the Cappadocians did when they used Platonic and Aristotelian concepts in their theological formulations? Unfortunately, some later church fathers did not have that opportunity when reading Pseudo-Dionysius. They erred on the side of trust. An error I hope will be rectified in the church, just as surely as any non-Orthodox way of thinking should be rectified in the church.