Topic: Lossky, Frs. Schemm. and Meyendorff not reliable?

[Jy3pr6]

Hello everyone,

I'm a possible convert from Catholicity, and have been researching several things pertaining to Orthodoxy as of late. I recently came across a claim that these three popular English speaking theologians were unreliable to the point of comparing them to Hans Kung. It was mentioned that they were from a more left-leaning/liberal school of thought and that they certainly do not represent Orthodoxy in its entirety.

Is this true? If so (or not) who are some reliable Orthodox sources I should read and where could I find their work in english?

Specific recommendations (e.g. books, articles, websites etc.) are also greatly appreciated.

He is risen!

titles added - MK

[podkarpatska]

As a 'mainstream' Orthodox, I would not compare them to Fr. Kung. Some might, but IMHO they would be akin to SPXX followers calling Pope Benedict's theology "liberal." But, others will surely disagree.

[Alpo]

By normal mainstream standards "liberal Orthodox" equals to "fundamentalist", "medieval" and other sucn beautiful adjectives.

[Punch]

By normal mainstream standards "liberal Orthodox" equals to "fundamentalist", "medieval" and other sucn beautiful adjectives.

Wrong.  Liberal Orthodox mean dispensing with tradition, textual criticism, new calendar, abbreviated liturgies and the like.  In other words, Protestants with censers.

[Alpo]

By normal mainstream standards "liberal Orthodox" equals to "fundamentalist", "medieval" and other sucn beautiful adjectives.

Wrong.  Liberal Orthodox mean dispensing with tradition, textual criticism, new calendar, abbreviated liturgies and the like.

Believing in Bible, tradition and church calendars are fundamentalist and medieval by popular standards. Even with criticisms and abbreviations.

[Punch]

I can see that you have not spent a lot of time around conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics.  I have noticed that a good number of Orthodox see themselves as far more conservative than they really are.

By normal mainstream standards "liberal Orthodox" equals to "fundamentalist", "medieval" and other sucn beautiful adjectives.

Wrong.  Liberal Orthodox mean dispensing with tradition, textual criticism, new calendar, abbreviated liturgies and the like.

Believing in Bible, tradition and church calendars are fundamentalist and medieval by popular standards. Even with criticisms and abbreviations.

[Alpo]

I can see that you have not spent a lot of time around conservative Protestants and Roman Catholics.  I have noticed that a good number of Orthodox see themselves as far more conservative than they really are.

One of my friends is a confessional Lutheran priest and I know several former Lutherans who converted to Catholicism. As for my Pentecostal childhood, Creationism was pretty much the norm.

[choy]

I'm a little lost here.  Can anyone give the context of the issue at hand?

[SolEX01]

Hello everyone,

I'm a possible convert from Catholicity, and have been researching several things pertaining to Orthodoxy as of late. I recently came across a claim that these three popular English speaking theologians were unreliable to the point of comparing them to Hans Kung. It was mentioned that they were from a more left-leaning/liberal school of thought and that they certainly do not represent Orthodoxy in its entirety.

Do you have a source (web, video, etc.) that can be analyzed for further discussion?

[orthros]

I'm a little lost as well.  And I've never heard (Father?) Vladimir Lossky mentioned as anything other than Orthodox.

[Hiwot]

subscribed

[NicholasMyra]

Who made the claim?

[88Devin12]

By normal mainstream standards "liberal Orthodox" equals to "fundamentalist", "medieval" and other sucn beautiful adjectives.

Wrong.  Liberal Orthodox mean dispensing with tradition, textual criticism, new calendar, abbreviated liturgies and the like.  In other words, Protestants with censers.

I don't agree that the bolded = liberal Orthodox.

Liberal Orthodox = dispensing with Tradition and doctrine, abbreviated/speedy liturgies, feeling that we and _____ heterodox group are the same, rejection of Church Fathers & Saints as antiquated, belief that the Orthodox Church is just one denomination, one ethnic branch of Christianity, belief that Church attendance isn't necessary

Conservative Orthodox = strict adherence to tradition & Tradition, belief that lengthy Liturgies is more holy, feeling that _____ heterodox group are totally fallen from grace, prooftexting Church Fathers & Scripture, belief that even little, new traditions are God-inspired and unquestionable, belief that the Church Fathers & Saints are the answer to every question, belief that all should adhere to and read the 19th C. Philokalia and other monastic texts, belief that frequent Church attendance is compulsory and absolutely necessary for salvation.


Basically this is how I see Orthodoxy, or Orthodoxy as it really is, with the inner line representing Orthodoxy:
|-Con-|--------------------Mainstream/Moderate--------------------|-Lib-|
With conservatives & liberals (on the extreme ends that is) not representing Orthodoxy, but non-radical conservatives, moderates and non-radical liberals all being Orthodox with moderate/mainstream Orthodoxy being the norm.

This is how Conservatives see the line of Orthodoxy:
|-------------------------Conservative-------------------------|-Lib-|
That "conservative Orthodox" see themselves as true Orthodox and everyone else as liberals.

How Liberals see the line being drawn:
|--------Con--------Mod--------Lib--------|
"liberal Orthodox" see everyone being equally Orthodox, but that everyone eventually will become Liberal with the passage of time.

[Asteriktos]

Hello everyone,

I'm a possible convert from Catholicity, and have been researching several things pertaining to Orthodoxy as of late. I recently came across a claim that these three popular English speaking theologians were unreliable to the point of comparing them to Hans Kung. It was mentioned that they were from a more left-leaning/liberal school of thought and that they certainly do not represent Orthodoxy in its entirety.

Is this true? If so (or not) who are some reliable Orthodox sources I should read and where could I find their work in english?

Few people could be said to "represent Orthodoxy in its entirety" by themselves. But as for the Fathers you mention, while I could (and have) nitpick certain things, they are generally reliable.  I'd be happy to suggest books if you are looking at a particular subject/topic.

[ialmisry]

By normal mainstream standards "liberal Orthodox" equals to "fundamentalist", "medieval" and other sucn beautiful adjectives.

Wrong.  Liberal Orthodox mean dispensing with tradition, textual criticism, new calendar, abbreviated liturgies and the like.  In other words, Protestants with censers.

LOL.  Tradition does stand by how encrusted a fossil is. Orthodoxy isn't the dead faith of the living.

[choy]

Hello everyone,

I'm a possible convert from Catholicity, and have been researching several things pertaining to Orthodoxy as of late. I recently came across a claim that these three popular English speaking theologians were unreliable to the point of comparing them to Hans Kung. It was mentioned that they were from a more left-leaning/liberal school of thought and that they certainly do not represent Orthodoxy in its entirety.

Is this true? If so (or not) who are some reliable Orthodox sources I should read and where could I find their work in english?

Few people could be said to "represent Orthodoxy in its entirety" by themselves. But as for the Fathers you mention, while I could (and have) nitpick certain things, they are generally reliable.  I'd be happy to suggest books if you are looking at a particular subject/topic.

What things?  Please share, I'm curious.

[Shanghaiski]

Labels really aren't helpful. Just read a variety, and make sure you're not just reading a "trend." Intersperse your modern Orthodox writers with the ones who have undisputed authority, the Holy Fathers themselves.

[Asteriktos]

What things?  Please share, I'm curious.

Off the top of my head, Fr. Alexander's treatment of St. Justinian in his book on Church history, and some of V. Lossky's ideas about tradition, seem a bit innovative/untraditional to me, but are hardly something I'd make a huge fuss over.

[choy]

What things?  Please share, I'm curious.

Off the top of my head, Fr. Alexander's treatment of St. Justinian in his book on Church history, and some of V. Lossky's ideas about tradition, seem a bit innovative/untraditional to me, but are hardly something I'd make a huge fuss over.

Thanks!  I guess I have to read more about it.

[username!]

By normal mainstream standards "liberal Orthodox" equals to "fundamentalist", "medieval" and other sucn beautiful adjectives.

Wrong.  Liberal Orthodox mean dispensing with tradition, textual criticism, new calendar, abbreviated liturgies and the like.  In other words, Protestants with censers.

True.  It has to do with sounding like a product of Vatican 2....... "well I think this is the way they used to do it at some point in history so I'm going to start doing it".  
Priest at a local parish "all true believing Christians" at the great entrance because I don't want to upset so and so's husband since he's not orthodox or when he invents words in the gospel because he doesn't like the translation.  Or when he leaves the royal doors open like he's an archamandrite or bishop, or when he adds his own litanies, or when he adds words to the litanies, or when he reads the entire anafora aloud, or when he has a procession with the baby Jesus statue on Christmas and puts the infant Jesus statue on the altar like a roman catholic tridentine mass, or when he lets the laity consume the chalice for him... Ok, liberal enough for you?  Or letting the people say in the creed "one holy universal and apostolic church" instead of "one holy catholic and apostolic church" because they think only catholics say that.  He lets non-Orthodox hold the napkin at communion.... I can go on.

[mike]

By normal mainstream standards "liberal Orthodox" equals to "fundamentalist", "medieval" and other sucn beautiful adjectives.

Wrong.  Liberal Orthodox mean dispensing with tradition, textual criticism, new calendar, abbreviated liturgies and the like.  In other words, Protestants with censers.

True.  It has to do with sounding like a product of Vatican 2....... "well I think this is the way they used to do it at some point in history so I'm going to start doing it". 
Priest at a local parish "all true believing Christians" at the great entrance because I don't want to upset so and so's husband since he's not orthodox or when he invents words in the gospel because he doesn't like the translation.  Or when he leaves the royal doors open like he's an archamandrite or bishop, or when he adds his own litanies, or when he adds words to the litanies, or when he reads the entire anafora aloud, or when he has a procession with the baby Jesus statue on Christmas and puts the infant Jesus statue on the altar like a roman catholic tridentine mass, or when he lets the laity consume the chalice for him... Ok, liberal enough for you?  Or letting the people say in the creed "one holy universal and apostolic church" instead of "one holy catholic and apostolic church" because they think only catholics say that.  He lets non-Orthodox hold the napkin at communion.... I can go on.

+1

[Shanghaiski]

By normal mainstream standards "liberal Orthodox" equals to "fundamentalist", "medieval" and other sucn beautiful adjectives.

Wrong.  Liberal Orthodox mean dispensing with tradition, textual criticism, new calendar, abbreviated liturgies and the like.  In other words, Protestants with censers.

True.  It has to do with sounding like a product of Vatican 2....... "well I think this is the way they used to do it at some point in history so I'm going to start doing it".  
Priest at a local parish "all true believing Christians" at the great entrance because I don't want to upset so and so's husband since he's not orthodox or when he invents words in the gospel because he doesn't like the translation.  Or when he leaves the royal doors open like he's an archamandrite or bishop, or when he adds his own litanies, or when he adds words to the litanies, or when he reads the entire anafora aloud, or when he has a procession with the baby Jesus statue on Christmas and puts the infant Jesus statue on the altar like a roman catholic tridentine mass, or when he lets the laity consume the chalice for him... Ok, liberal enough for you?  Or letting the people say in the creed "one holy universal and apostolic church" instead of "one holy catholic and apostolic church" because they think only catholics say that.  He lets non-Orthodox hold the napkin at communion.... I can go on.

Oh my. Sounds like a case of "God is in heaven and the bishop is far away."

[podkarpatska]

By normal mainstream standards "liberal Orthodox" equals to "fundamentalist", "medieval" and other sucn beautiful adjectives.

Wrong.  Liberal Orthodox mean dispensing with tradition, textual criticism, new calendar, abbreviated liturgies and the like.  In other words, Protestants with censers.

LOL.  Tradition does stand by how encrusted a fossil is. Orthodoxy isn't the dead faith of the living.

Well stated!

[Fotina02]

This article critical of Frs. Schemm, & Meyendorff, but not Lossky:


Fr Daniel in the Lion’s Den: ‘Paris’ Theology and Neo-Renovationism

Priest Daniel Sysoiev (1974-2009)

Translated from: http://sysoev2.narod.ru/parizh.htm

The following article was written over ten years ago by the recently martyred missionary, Priest Daniel Sysoiev. It deals with the Neo-Renovationism (new modernism) which crept into Russia in the 1990s from the West, where, as Renovationism (old modernism) but which had been developed to its ultimate form, it has been practised for decades in France, England, Finland and the USA. http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/frdaniel.htm

[Shanghaiski]

The article by Fr. Daniel and the footnotes are most unfortunate. There was a time when we did not rip apart our fathers for their flaws and shortcomings. There is a recurring tendency in Russian Church history to cast aspersions on rivals. I think part of it is due to envy. I'm reminded of an incident when one bishop out in Chukohtia was burning books by Fr. Alexander Schmemann. Patriarch Alexey II was shocked. He called Fr. Alexander "my teacher." Indeed, these fathers have a lot to teach us. I think we can cover and leave their small mistakes. I understand the reaction against them is sometimes more a reaction to their being absolutized--and I disagree with absolutizing them. But I more strongly disagree with degrading and discounting them.

[LBK]

The majority of the articles on the Orthodox England site must be treated with great caution. Some don't even stand up to basic scrutiny.

[FormerReformer]

This article critical of Frs. Schemm, & Meyendorff, but not Lossky:


Fr Daniel in the Lion’s Den: ‘Paris’ Theology and Neo-Renovationism

Priest Daniel Sysoiev (1974-2009)

Translated from: http://sysoev2.narod.ru/parizh.htm

The following article was written over ten years ago by the recently martyred missionary, Priest Daniel Sysoiev. It deals with the Neo-Renovationism (new modernism) which crept into Russia in the 1990s from the West, where, as Renovationism (old modernism) but which had been developed to its ultimate form, it has been practised for decades in France, England, Finland and the USA. http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/frdaniel.htm

Fun weasel words from the last link in the footnotes! "Most consider...." " As one modernist priest of the old Sourozh Diocese told me...." "Faithful Orthodox...."  I'm not even past footnote 4 yet  

[Fotina02]

The majority of the articles on the Orthodox England site must be treated with great caution. Some don't even stand up to basic scrutiny.

Actually, the article is posted on pravoslavie.ru without footnotes where I read it but posted the source link.

[Shanghaiski]

This article critical of Frs. Schemm, & Meyendorff, but not Lossky:


Fr Daniel in the Lion’s Den: ‘Paris’ Theology and Neo-Renovationism

Priest Daniel Sysoiev (1974-2009)

Translated from: http://sysoev2.narod.ru/parizh.htm

The following article was written over ten years ago by the recently martyred missionary, Priest Daniel Sysoiev. It deals with the Neo-Renovationism (new modernism) which crept into Russia in the 1990s from the West, where, as Renovationism (old modernism) but which had been developed to its ultimate form, it has been practised for decades in France, England, Finland and the USA. http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/frdaniel.htm

Fun weasel words from the last link in the footnotes! "Most consider...." " As one modernist priest of the old Sourozh Diocese told me...." "Faithful Orthodox...."  I'm not even past footnote 4 yet  

I believe the footnotes are by Fr. Andrew Philips, the owner of the Orthodox England site, not by Fr. Daniel. Also, it would be helpful to know the context of Fr. Daniel's article, his purpose for writing it, the date he wrote it, if his opinions had changed, if he had read or heard Fr. Alexander et al. It was saddening how strongly he denounced the fathers, especially given Fr. Alexander Schmemann's Orthodox radio service to the Soviet Union and Fr. Alexander Men's brilliant academic work.

[Agabus]

What things?  Please share, I'm curious.

Off the top of my head, Fr. Alexander's treatment of St. Justinian in his book on Church history...but are hardly something I'd make a huge fuss over.

Are you talking about in The Historical Road where he sort of bemoans the marriage of the Church and state?

[Asteriktos]

What things?  Please share, I'm curious.

Off the top of my head, Fr. Alexander's treatment of St. Justinian in his book on Church history...but are hardly something I'd make a huge fuss over.

Are you talking about in The Historical Road where he sort of bemoans the marriage of the Church and state?

That's the book, though I don't remember what particular criticisms I had of it that I'd still have... this was maybe 11-12 years ago that I read it. I just remember posting on an internet forum at the time how I was surprised how he spoke about Emperor Justinian, and that I wouldn't even have realised that Justinian was considered a saint in Orthodoxy if all I had to go on was his book. Like I said, just nit picking.

[88Devin12]

The majority of the articles on the Orthodox England site must be treated with great caution. Some don't even stand up to basic scrutiny.

I'm shocked at the article posted. It attributes the views of these authors as being innovation and western. Yet actually things like the idea of "sacred liturgical language", priesthood being exclusive to hierarchy are both actually Western influences on Russia and not the idea of vernacular language and priesthood of all believers.

He even condemns his-holiness Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev as a heretic which is Quite unfortunate. God-willing, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev will be the next Patriarch of Moscow.

[Jy3pr6]

Thank you all for the replies and I'm sorry for the delayed response. The article which I read was actually one I found while researching about Archbishop Lazar Puhalo. Here it is:

http://startingontheroyalpath.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-does-this-blog-list-lazar-puhalo-as.html

The comment is around the end of the first third of the page by a fellow named Alexandr.

May our Lord Jesus Christ bless you all!

[Shanghaiski]

The majority of the articles on the Orthodox England site must be treated with great caution. Some don't even stand up to basic scrutiny.

I'm shocked at the article posted. It attributes the views of these authors as being innovation and western. Yet actually things like the idea of "sacred liturgical language", priesthood being exclusive to hierarchy are both actually Western influences on Russia and not the idea of vernacular language and priesthood of all believers.

He even condemns his-holiness Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev as a heretic which is Quite unfortunate. God-willing, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev will be the next Patriarch of Moscow.

Two trends with the same origins reminds me of how the Slavophiles and Westernizers in 19th century Russia were both the products of German romanticism.

[NicholasMyra]

hen he leaves the royal doors open like he's an archamandrite or bishop... or when he reads the entire anafora aloud

I commend him for those two good practices.

[88Devin12]

Thank you all for the replies and I'm sorry for the delayed response. The article which I read was actually one I found while researching about Archbishop Lazar Puhalo. Here it is:

http://startingontheroyalpath.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-does-this-blog-list-lazar-puhalo-as.html

The comment is around the end of the first third of the page by a fellow named Alexandr.

May our Lord Jesus Christ bless you all!

Why are you reading that site? She is not in communion with us (Eastern Orthodox Churches) and says she has left us twice, and that she believes the still in-schism branch of ROCOR is the only valid continuation of the Church.

If you read that site, keep in mind that she isn't in communion with worldwide Orthodoxy.

[username!]

hen he leaves the royal doors open like he's an archamandrite or bishop... or when he reads the entire anafora aloud

I commend him for those two good practices.

You might commend him but when the local bishop does not condone it then it is wrong.  When a priest is ordained he is to serve how the bishop tells him.  He is handed a service book, a liturgicon, and is to conduct services in a manner as prescribed by the bishop.  Met. Phillip instructs his priests to hang the doors open and read everything aloud.  That's his priests.  This priest isn't an antiochian.

[NicholasMyra]

You might commend him but when the local bishop does not condone it then it is wrong. 

Ah.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

There are folks in this world who for reasons that are important to them criticize and or condemn perfectly orthodox theologians and leaders, such as Fathers Lossky, Schmemann and Meyendorff. They have even attacked Father Alexander Men of blessed memory and current hierarchs, such as Metropolitans Kallistos (Ware) and Hilarion (Alfayev). These folks are zealots and tend to believe that they are (a) better than the rest of Orthodox and/or (b) the true Orthodox, with the rest being heretical. I would take what they say with a large grain of salt.

[Alveus Lacuna]

Wrong.  Liberal Orthodox mean dispensing with tradition, textual criticism, new calendar, abbreviated liturgies and the like.  In other words, Protestants with censers.

I think it's fine to be informed on the textual-critial perspectives, and in some ways it's helpful in actually curbing a kind of harmful and ignorant textual literalism. We all need to be aware of the interplay between mythology and legenda as a genres, the use of allegory, etc. The problem is that these are not really thoughtfully considered and are used as a way to dispense with Biblical authority, simultaneous literal and allegorical understandings, etc. Also, it must be approached in the same way that Fr. Seraphim of Platina taught about "handing down what is received in humility" and not "knowing better" on everything. There has been too much brazen criticism of certain traditions or pure allegorizing of whole feasts, like for example the Presentation of the Theotokos.

I am opposed to the New Calendar at this point after thinking/praying about it for many years, but I know many very traditional New Calendarists who seem to have most other affairs in order. I would only fundamentally accept the New Calendar if it was universally received, but not as it is now. That being said, I will still of course attend a New Calendar parish if it is the only one in a reasonable/affordable distance. Anyway all that to say I think that its genesis is liberal (i.e. the Masonic Ecumenist Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios) and all churches must be united in the calendar change before it can be implimented, but that those who have inhereted the change cannot I think be branded liberals.

[choy]

Wrong.  Liberal Orthodox mean dispensing with tradition, textual criticism, new calendar, abbreviated liturgies and the like.  In other words, Protestants with censers.

I think it's fine to be informed on the textual-critial perspectives, and in some ways it's helpful in actually curbing a kind of harmful and ignorant textual literalism. We all need to be aware of the interplay between mythology and legenda as a genres, the use of allegory, etc. The problem is that these are not really thoughtfully considered and are used as a way to dispense with Biblical authority, simultaneous literal and allegorical understandings, etc. Also, it must be approached in the same way that Fr. Seraphim of Platina taught about "handing down what is received in humility" and not "knowing better" on everything. There has been too much brazen criticism of certain traditions or pure allegorizing of whole feasts, like for example the Presentation of the Theotokos.

I am opposed to the New Calendar at this point after thinking/praying about it for many years, but I know many very traditional New Calendarists who seem to have most other affairs in order. I would only fundamentally accept the New Calendar if it was universally received, but not as it is now. That being said, I will still of course attend a New Calendar parish if it is the only one in a reasonable/affordable distance. Anyway all that to say I think that its genesis is liberal (i.e. the Masonic Ecumenist Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios) and all churches must be united in the calendar change before it can be implimented, but that those who have inhereted the change cannot I think be branded liberals.

But how will it be universally adopted if no one adopts it in the interim?  There must be a proponent for change, otherwise change will never happen.

[Alpo]

There are folks in this world who for reasons that are important to them criticize and or condemn perfectly orthodox theologians and leaders, such as Fathers Lossky, Schmemann and Meyendorff. They have even attacked Father Alexander Men of blessed memory and current hierarchs, such as Metropolitans Kallistos (Ware) and Hilarion (Alfayev). These folks are zealots and tend to believe that they are (a) better than the rest of Orthodox and/or (b) the true Orthodox, with the rest being heretical.

or c) *fanfare* without conspiracy theories or any other hullabaloo just happen to disagree with them.

We don't believe in infallible clerics. People make mistakes.

[Thomas]

Jy3pr6,

The simplest answer I can give you is that Theologians who teach in seminaries often present Theolugumen or "theological ideas" to start discussion and debate on topics that further explore and expand the base of knowledge and understanding of Orthodoxy .  Such is classic Greek style apologetics
that have been the way theology has always been presented and discussed in Orthodoxy Schools of theological thought for ages. The only time a theologian is condemned in the Church is when they teach AGAINST the official dogmatic statements of the Orthodox Church as defined by the official Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church, otherwise they remain Theolugumen or theological thought. There are conservative, traditional, modernists, and liberal theologians in the Orthodox Church few of them reach the point of total false teachings that bring them to being excommunicated as Heretics. This is an important thing for an inquirer to know when they are reading theologians beyond the teachings of the official church Fathers and the scriptures.

(edited for spelling)

[88Devin12]

Jy3pr6,

The simplest answer I can give you is that Theologians who teach in seminaries often present Theolugumen or "theological ideas" to start discussion and debate on topics that further explore and expand the base of knowledge and understanding of Orthodoxy .  Such is classic Greek style apologetics
that have been the way theology has always been presented and discussed in Orthodoxy Schools of theological thought for ages. The only time a theologian is condemned in the Church is when they teach AGAINST the official dogmatic statements of the Orthodox Church as defined by the official Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church, otherwise they remain Theolugumen or theological thought. There are conservative, traditional, modernists, and liberal theologians in the Orthodox Church few of them reach the point of total false teachings that bring them to being excommunicated as Heretics. This is an important thing for an inquirer to know when they are reading theologians beyond the teachings of the official church Fathers and the scriptures.

(edited for spelling)

*slow clap*

[Alpo]

*slow clap*

Was this sarcastic?