yeah, Fr Tom being Fr Schmemann’s son-in-law definitely put him against Fr Seraphim in those arguments. however, later in his life he became a huge supporter of Fr Seraphim (even being the main celebrant at the 20th anniversary of Fr Seraphim’s repose).
It is this divide that I have been struggling with, and have found myself nearly decisively on the side of Fr Seraphim. I see the things that these wonderful priests go wrong on in ways that not they nearly so much as their followers latch onto. It’s an OT observation, but an important one, that those that latch onto “love above all” tend to link that to worldly ideas of love, of a benevolent tolerance of everything, and even a complete dismissal of disciplines or rejections of passions for oneself, rather than the more genuinely Christian understanding of self-sacrifice. But that’s the “1%” where they lean wrong, as opposed to the 99% where they are totally right. Some fell further than others. Met Kallitos definitely went more wrong at the end. Fr Alexander Men’s ecumenism is his weakness, and I found disturbing things even with Fr A (Schmemann) and Met Anthony Bloom, amid the massive wisdom they all have. Fr Seraphim, by contrast, seems to go overboard on the idea that all aliens must necessarily be demons, though he has a good point there. Basically, everyone, however respected and admired, seems to go wrong on something.
priests disagree with each other a lot. it’s not an uncommon thing through the centuries. but usually they both come to be held in high regard if they see themselves as open to correction by the Church, and the Church will sort it out.
I remember the "New Atheism" was coined by Robert A. Morey, in 1986 when his book "The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom" was released. This was the first time I remember a theist using the term. Morey republished his book in 1994 and when the 21st century began other theists began referring to Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennet as the New Atheists. But the term was coined by Robert A. Morey in 1986.
Father Thomas Hopko was a modernist and wore a Roman Catholic collar (a symptom of modernism and ecumenism). If he accused Fr. Seraphim of lacking humility, I would respond by saying that he was guilty of an argument ad hominem fallacy, because the truth of a position is independent of the person holding it. Fr. Seraphim could have theoretically been the post prideful person in human history, but his position against evolution could have still been true. Fr. Seraphim was actually humble and simply obedient to Church teaching. Fr. Thomas was the prideful one, since he thought he knew more than the Church Fathers and our tradition, in addition to being disobedient to said tradition.
St Tikhon of Moscow also wore a collar sometimes when he would dialogue with Anglicans.
Can you cite a primary source or a photo proving this? Without this kind of documentation, the claim is hearsay. At any rate, two wrongs don't make a right. To argue otherwise would commit the Tu quoque fallacy.
no, aside to say I went to St Tikhon’s and what he did to reach out to the Anglicans was discussed a lot. relatedly, there are plenty of pics of St John Maximovitch using a Western style crook when serving with the Western rite.
of course it’s a legit question. the issue isn’t in the questioning, it’s in the accusing him of something when if you google St John Maximovitch Western Rite, he is clearly shown holding a Western crook in the services.
Wearing Orthodox Church approved western style attire is not the same as wearing a Latin Roman Catholic dog collar. But I would need to see photographic proof before I accept your claim. The Latin collar is wrong because it contradicts Orthodox tradition, and is a symptom of modernism and ecumenism. Read "Orthodox Tradition and Modernism," by Cavarnos.
The Roman Catholic collar is in fact a symptom of modernism, but many Orthodox believers today are desensitized to these innovations. The problem with these clergy is that they do not trust the Holy Spirit and the tradition of the Church, so they take matters into their own hands, and audaciously think that they can improve on God, which is prelest (spiritual delusion).
you can google it, it’s one of the top pics. I don’t care if you accept my claim or not.
a crook is the hooked, western style shepherd’s staff that Western bishops use.
Your first sentence here seems reasonable, but I don’t think that what you described to be the problem is accurate. It certainly doesn’t describe how people like father Tom understood things. Where you may be right is on the issue of synthesis or attempt to synthesize knowledge, belief and practice with what we encounter in the world. for example, because the science of this world often reveals truths about our world, many do assume that evolution is true, because many of the priests of science, AKA “scientists“, tell them that it is. However, they certainly don’t think in terms such as that they can improve on God. They think they are accepting truth from different sources. Regarding things like these collars, and pews, they accept them because they are accepted throughout the west, without much thought about whether they are good or wise things to adopt in our own worship, practice, and expression of faith.
), then I can see why it is reasonable to accept the collar as such. Some adaptation is reasonable.
