Hopko and Schmemann?

[Lukaris]

yes, he is a saint in spite of that. and he is not the only one who used methods we would today consider cruel or wrong. like with any saint, it's the totality of his life (and this can tie in to Hopko and Schmemann) that we look to as Orthodox.

He is also deserving of scrutiny, if St. Augustine can draw scrutiny, so can St. Justinian. Personally I generally avoid reading much on either but Augustine has to be considered much more benign.

 

[ArmyMatt]

St Augustine is for his theology. St Justinian is an amazing theologian.

 

[All4Christ]

St Augustine is for his theology. St Justinian is an amazing theologian.

Lukaris has a point though, in that we shouldn't seek to emulate all of what he did in his life. We shouldn't assume that every part of a saints life is something we should emulate. For example, we emulate St Mary of Egypt's life upon her return to God, not her life beforehand. No matter a saint's theology, we should first and foremost follow the teachings of the church if the actions or teachings of a saint sometime in his or her life doesn't match what Orthodoxy teaches - both in morality, actions and theology. Would you agree?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Lukaris has a point though, in that we shouldn't seek to emulate all of what he did in his life. We shouldn't assume that every part of a saints life is something we should emulate. For example, we emulate St Mary of Egypt's life upon her return to God, not her life beforehand. No matter a saint's theology, we should first and foremost follow the teachings of the church if the actions or teachings of a saint sometime in his or her life doesn't match what Orthodoxy teaches - both in morality, actions and theology. Would you agree?

yes, I agreed to this earlier. my point is that St Justinian's theology has no reason to be suspect. yes, some aspects of his life or what he did are, but not in his theology. the point of this whole thread is the theology of Frs Hopko and Schmemann, which do have errors to be wary of. St Cyril of Alexandria was a little heavy handed when it came to certain heretics, but his theology was spot on. this is not about sins committed, as much as errors and/or heresy preached.

 

[All4Christ]

yes, I agreed to this earlier. my point is that St Justinian's theology has no reason to be suspect. yes, some aspects of his life or what he did are, but not in his theology. the point of this whole thread is the theology of Frs Hopko and Schmemann, which do have errors to be wary of. St Cyril of Alexandria was a little heavy handed when it came to certain heretics, but his theology was spot on. this is not about sins committed, as much as errors and/or heresy preached.

Ok. It seems like it is all related to me, as morality / acts can be considered a person's theology put into action, but that's just my layperson's interpretation / understanding.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Most of the problems with their works are due to trying to simplify things. For instance, Father Hopko uses the analogy of the three states of water for the Trinity, which we all know is rather modalist and not proper, but he also adds that all the analogies he uses on their own are flawed. You have to remember they aren't necessarily writing scholarly works, but more often basic stuff for people who aren't versed in-depth.

I don't think either of should be called heretics without the Church saying so. Saint Augustine made some errs, we don't call him a heretic, though. Any Orthodox who call them, or Saint Augustine, "heretics," I would give a wide berth, because that is indicative of the kind of zealotry Saint Isaac the Syrian and Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov warned us about.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ok. It seems like it is all related to me, as morality / acts can be considered a person's theology put into action, but that's just my layperson's interpretation / understanding.

well, that is true. and while we can see and judge the sin that someone does, we cannot see or judge their repentance. so I would be hard pressed to call Fr Hopko a heretic, even though he has some things that are heretical in his teaching, because the man I knew had a heart for Christ and a deep love of anyone he came in contact with. and, like St Augustine, he was right also on a lot of stuff.

 

[All4Christ]

well, that is true. and while we can see and judge the sin that someone does, we cannot see or judge their repentance. so I would be hard pressed to call Fr Hopko a heretic, even though he has some things that are heretical in his teaching, because the man I knew had a heart for Christ and a deep love of anyone he came in contact with. and, like St Augustine, he was right also on a lot of stuff.

I certainly agree, especially about Fr Thomas Hopko. Also, knowing his grandson, I can see that his love for God has passed down to his family

And FTR, I never meant that we should judge their repentance or relationship with God.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I certainly agree, especially about Fr Thomas Hopko. Also, knowing his grandson, I can see that his love for God has passed down to his family

And FTR, I never meant that we should judge their repentance or relationship with God.

I was fortunate to have gone to college with one of his grandsons, which is why I knew Fr Tom fairly well.

and I know that is not what you were saying. I threw it there for any lurkers.

 

[rusmeister]

I was fortunate to have gone to college with one of his grandsons, which is why I knew Fr Tom fairly well.

and I know that is not what you were saying. I threw it there for any lurkers.

On lurkers (OT):
The Lurker of Sarangrave

 

[rusmeister]

Ok. It seems like it is all related to me, as morality / acts can be considered a person's theology put into action, but that's just my layperson's interpretation / understanding.

I don't think so. We can have all the right understandings, and still sin, and know full well that our actions contradict what we know to be the right teachings.

 

[All4Christ]

I don't think so. We can have all the right understandings, and still sin, and know full well that our actions contradict what we know to be the right teachings.

Agreed on some areas. If you don't recognize or realize it is sin though (and especially as a leader, you teach it to others by example), couldn't or be considered to be part of your theology? I wouldn't say all sins - but some sins, depending on the situation. Some sins shape our worldview more than others.

 

[All4Christ]

Thinking about it, this might be an interesting topic from a convert's perspective...viewing morality from an ontological perspective as opposed to a separate area of teaching. I'd be interested, Rus, to hear your thoughts on some of the linguistics behind the Orthodox meaning of the terminology vs the later Western understanding.

 

[rusmeister]

Agreed on some areas. If you don't recognize or realize it is sin though, and as a leader, you teach it to others by example, couldn't or be considered to be part of your theology? I wouldn't say all sins - but some sins, depending on the situation.

Well, yes, of course, if it involves approving of what has clearly been condemned, such as fornication or sodomy. Teaching brokenness from God as not-brokenness is bad theology. But that would go in the direction that Fr Arida has gone, and not the two great Christian voices that are the topic of this thread.

I think evolution, and mandatory synthesis of Church doctrine with modern secular teaching in general, will someday be declared a heresy, like all worldly wisdom that people put their faith in, but Hopko firmly believed in it, despite the consensus of the fathers that see Adam and Eve as literally existing, fully created - and not evolved - humans Falling in an un-Fallen environment. He trusted, as all evolutionists do, that worldly education produces truth that can challenge the common consensus of the fathers. Revelation ought to trump scientific claims of the moment, but our faith is so weak, and certainty in our own secular education so strong.

But arguing that is for another thread. It's been done before, and will be again, just like Arianism at one time. Some defended it, not seeing the harm, and seeing it as more compatible with their reason. So these few posts are not going to resolve it. But it can be certainly agreed that in some things, they held controversial views on things not generally believed in Church history.

 

[rusmeister]

Thinking about it, this might be an interesting topic from a convert's perspective...viewing morality from an ontological perspective as opposed to a separate area of teaching. I'd be interested, Rus, to hear your thoughts on some of the linguistics behind the Orthodox meaning of the terminology vs the later Western understanding.

Well, I'm just one guy, and in some things would have to defer when things pass beyond what I think I know. But I can take specific terms and ruminate on them, and the etymology and philosophy behind them. The extreme short is that words matter; a particular word has a particular history and root meaning that is not completely lost in legitimate usage, even though language has been twisted by the Fall, and misuse of language forms twisted, false understandings in our minds. That's why, as I've said a thousand times, saying that a person "is gay" or speaking of their "gender" in regard to their sex, or "have sex" in regard to marital relations, is illegitimate usage. We understand things more wrongly than our ancestors, and so know less, not more than them, and all of our science is clouded by the "Dark Side" of those errors that riddle our speech.

I just try to figure out what language is illegitimate, since language is something I do understand something about. It's a fairly safe rule, though, that anything invented in the last forty-fifty years, that expresses a new and different way of speaking of morality unknown to our great-grandfathers, let alone the Church fathers, is deceptive language. The cure is to return to how our ancestors spoke. If we could speak again of courting instead of "dating", being engaged or married instead of "being in a relationship", we'd be on our way, in terms of language, to recovering the mind of the Church. The Aridas would never get off the ground, and not come to the errors they honestly come to. Common sense would be more common.

 

[Cappadocious]

God bless you all, brothers. I am happy to post here again, and I really hope that you all are fine and healthy.

I have a question that I thought it would be better to post here since I believe you are more familiarized with the question. I have read in a group online that is considered "Orthodox" that Fr. Thomas Hopko and Fr. Schmemann are heretics and should be avoided, which troubled me very much since they are two of my favourite modern theologians of our Church. What do you think?

Christ is in our midst!

I think the group in question resents the superiority of Fr. Hopko and Fr. Schmemman's faculties and virtue to their own.

 

[Cappadocious]

Even our Patristics prof, Dr. Christopher Veniamin

He and his friend Metropolitan Heirotheos are ones to talk about injecting modern thought into things. They just took the Romanticist's intuition and re-branded it as the nous, and read that back on to the Fathers use of the term.

Since this was said in an internet group it shouldn't be questioned

 

[jckstraw72]

Since this was said in an internet group it shouldn't be questioned

pretty sure that's not how it works there, chief, although it does explain where you get your ideas...

 

[ArmyMatt]

He and his friend Metropolitan Heirotheos are ones to talk about injecting modern thought into things. They just took the Romanticist's intuition and re-branded it as the nous, and read that back on to the Fathers use of the term.

Since this was said in an internet group it shouldn't be questioned

as someone who actually sat through all three of Dr Veniamin's classes, this is not true.

 

[gzt]

Frankly, my sincere hope is that anti-evolutionism is anathematized, so