Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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?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?
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.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.
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 familywell, 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.
On lurkers (OT):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.
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.
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.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.
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.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, 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.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.
I think the group in question resents the superiority of Fr. Hopko and Fr. Schmemman's faculties and virtue to their own.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!
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.Even our Patristics prof, Dr. Christopher Veniamin
pretty sure that's not how it works there, chief, although it does explain where you get your ideas...Since this was said in an internet group it shouldn't be questioned
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?