Since this guy stands a very strong chance of being the next Patriarch of the Russian Church, and since he is perhaps the most prolific contemporary Orthodox theologian, I'm making this thread to discuss his work and theology. The only works I've completely read by him are Volumes I and II of his Orthodox Christianity (I still intend to read volumes III and IV), which is mainly a catechetical work; nonetheless, a lot of elements of his personal theology are manifested in it.
I think the first thing that stood to me about is that he has a very pessimistic, even cynical, attitude toward Church-state relations, in contrast to, for instance, Kallistos Ware. He even lapses into sarcasm at one point on this, which is very uncharacteristic for the rest of his work's tone. He says overtly that Saint Constantine become an Arian and Saint Justinian subscribed to aphthartodocetism; these are certainly hypotheses with some evidence in the academic world, but the evidence is largely circumstantial, extremely biased, or very far removed from its source in time, therefore they are still highly contentious among secular scholars, but Hilarion simply states them as fact. He also states factually that Saints Constantine and Vladimir converted for purely political reasons, which I think is a rather tenuous claim. In addressing why the Church canonizes such people, he claims it is out of gratitude for service to the Church; that, I might add, is not intended sarcastically or cynically, that is just how Hilarion feels about it. He has a strong suspicion and dislike of all state involvement with the Church, because he sees the state purely as meddler who has zero business being involved; it seems he sees the state an entirely worldly organ, and therefore the idea of a state made in the image of heaven, as the Byzantines envisioned, is not something he is willing to consider. There is one exception, here, though: he mentions Saint Czar Nicholas's involvement in the Church regarding two things: the canonization of Seraphim of Sarov, and the urging of the Church not to force the name-worshipers to recant (which they didn't due to his influence), and he seems positive or at least neutral on this. Which brings me to the next part of Hilarion's theology.
He is clearly sympathetic toward name-worshiping. HOWEVER, his use of the term "worship" is very broad in his work (he says, for instance, the Gospel is an object of liturgical worship), akin to how the Hebrews used it (the word translated as "prostrate" or "bow" in Genesis 48:12, is also the word used as "worship" throughout the Old Testament; in the Septuagint, the word is προσεκύνησαν, which we generally phrase as "venerate", but the King James translates as worship for the most part, example: "But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee."). λατρεία, which we generally refer to as "worship," he distinguishes as "service" (much as the King James Bible, for instance: "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."), although in Greek the term is typically not service in general, but specifically divine service on par with offering sacrifices; כָּהַן would be the Hebrew equivalent. So there's that. Then there his is understanding of "name": he explicitly discusses the use of the term "name" in a mystical sense, and distinguishes this sense from the sense of letters and sounds. So these are important points to keep in mind when reading him.
In terms of the Papacy, he doesn't bear a strongly opposition to it in the first volume. While he rejects it doctrinally, he sees it just a different path of development taken in the West, and serving a practical function of getting out from under secular power, and even as a reasonable reading of Western fathers. However, by the second volume (written much later), even though he holds the largely rejected idea that doctrine is continually being revealed by the Spirit over time (he quotes fathers to support this, but I don't really find the quotes really supporting his case, although he says even all revealed doctrine is clearly espoused earlier, it just isn't widely noticed), he has turned much more sharply against Papism, and now sees it as a theology shoehorned into the Western fathers by later readings, as opposed to just a possible interpretation.
He does not see any room for compromise on the Filioque. Not only does he oppose its addition to the Creed, but says even holding the opinion as a "theologoumenon" is not acceptable, because the Church has overtly ruled against it. He says the idea that while it is not acceptable in the Creed, but alright as an opinion, is a later development and is not really valid.
Regarding evolution, he thinks it is fine to believe the earth is billions of years old, and says there is no reason to think the days of Genesis have to be literal when it is clear throughout Scripture "day" can be used quite figuratively. He also says there is nothing remotely objectionable about believing in evolution in general. However, he does draw a line when it comes to humans as brought about by evolution, and says while some theologians have advocated this, it is simply not acceptable or true.
He is clearly supportive of Father Seraphim Rose, as, in the footnotes, he recommends him for further reading concerning what happens at death.
Anyway, his work is readable and erudite. While there are some elements I don't agree with, he without a doubt is one of the foremost experts in Patristics and his work is laced with excerpts from the Church Fathers. He is definitely worth reading if you have the time.
I think the first thing that stood to me about is that he has a very pessimistic, even cynical, attitude toward Church-state relations, in contrast to, for instance, Kallistos Ware. He even lapses into sarcasm at one point on this, which is very uncharacteristic for the rest of his work's tone. He says overtly that Saint Constantine become an Arian and Saint Justinian subscribed to aphthartodocetism; these are certainly hypotheses with some evidence in the academic world, but the evidence is largely circumstantial, extremely biased, or very far removed from its source in time, therefore they are still highly contentious among secular scholars, but Hilarion simply states them as fact. He also states factually that Saints Constantine and Vladimir converted for purely political reasons, which I think is a rather tenuous claim. In addressing why the Church canonizes such people, he claims it is out of gratitude for service to the Church; that, I might add, is not intended sarcastically or cynically, that is just how Hilarion feels about it. He has a strong suspicion and dislike of all state involvement with the Church, because he sees the state purely as meddler who has zero business being involved; it seems he sees the state an entirely worldly organ, and therefore the idea of a state made in the image of heaven, as the Byzantines envisioned, is not something he is willing to consider. There is one exception, here, though: he mentions Saint Czar Nicholas's involvement in the Church regarding two things: the canonization of Seraphim of Sarov, and the urging of the Church not to force the name-worshipers to recant (which they didn't due to his influence), and he seems positive or at least neutral on this. Which brings me to the next part of Hilarion's theology.
He is clearly sympathetic toward name-worshiping. HOWEVER, his use of the term "worship" is very broad in his work (he says, for instance, the Gospel is an object of liturgical worship), akin to how the Hebrews used it (the word translated as "prostrate" or "bow" in Genesis 48:12, is also the word used as "worship" throughout the Old Testament; in the Septuagint, the word is προσεκύνησαν, which we generally phrase as "venerate", but the King James translates as worship for the most part, example: "But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee."). λατρεία, which we generally refer to as "worship," he distinguishes as "service" (much as the King James Bible, for instance: "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."), although in Greek the term is typically not service in general, but specifically divine service on par with offering sacrifices; כָּהַן would be the Hebrew equivalent. So there's that. Then there his is understanding of "name": he explicitly discusses the use of the term "name" in a mystical sense, and distinguishes this sense from the sense of letters and sounds. So these are important points to keep in mind when reading him.
In terms of the Papacy, he doesn't bear a strongly opposition to it in the first volume. While he rejects it doctrinally, he sees it just a different path of development taken in the West, and serving a practical function of getting out from under secular power, and even as a reasonable reading of Western fathers. However, by the second volume (written much later), even though he holds the largely rejected idea that doctrine is continually being revealed by the Spirit over time (he quotes fathers to support this, but I don't really find the quotes really supporting his case, although he says even all revealed doctrine is clearly espoused earlier, it just isn't widely noticed), he has turned much more sharply against Papism, and now sees it as a theology shoehorned into the Western fathers by later readings, as opposed to just a possible interpretation.
He does not see any room for compromise on the Filioque. Not only does he oppose its addition to the Creed, but says even holding the opinion as a "theologoumenon" is not acceptable, because the Church has overtly ruled against it. He says the idea that while it is not acceptable in the Creed, but alright as an opinion, is a later development and is not really valid.
Regarding evolution, he thinks it is fine to believe the earth is billions of years old, and says there is no reason to think the days of Genesis have to be literal when it is clear throughout Scripture "day" can be used quite figuratively. He also says there is nothing remotely objectionable about believing in evolution in general. However, he does draw a line when it comes to humans as brought about by evolution, and says while some theologians have advocated this, it is simply not acceptable or true.
He is clearly supportive of Father Seraphim Rose, as, in the footnotes, he recommends him for further reading concerning what happens at death.
Anyway, his work is readable and erudite. While there are some elements I don't agree with, he without a doubt is one of the foremost experts in Patristics and his work is laced with excerpts from the Church Fathers. He is definitely worth reading if you have the time.
