Topic: The Official Post-Mortem Hopko Disagreement Thread

[Peacemaker]

I may be one of the few people who didn't like his podcast's, books or opinions on liturgical practice ideas. However he was a very kind man and brought the faith to a lot of people. I pray God will number him how He see's fit. Memory Eternal.



Fathers John Tkachuk, Alexander Schmemann & Thomas Hopko

[rakovsky]

I may be one of the few people who didn't like his podcast's, books or opinions on liturgical practice ideas.

I don't know what there wasn't to like. I don't expect it to be perfect. At worst, his talks could sometimes be rambling maybe, but I thought that they were packed with deep thoughts. If he made it extra systematic and outlined, it could seem too academic in tone for interest.

[tcolon90]

I may be one of the few people who didn't like his podcast's, books or opinions on liturgical practice ideas.

I don't know what there wasn't to like. I don't expect it to be perfect. At worst, his talks could sometimes be rambling maybe, but I thought that they were packed with deep thoughts. If he made it extra systematic and outlined, it could seem too academic in tone for interest.

Saying that RC church is just as legitimate as the EO and that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, to name a few. He was a very nice man, but I dislike that he would go out of his way to scandelize people by saying heretical things, and then tell people that they misunderstood him, like what Francis does. As a clergyman he should know better. I know a few people who were introduced to his work after chrismation and they were somewhat confused/upset.

Point is, people come to Orthodoxy to escape the Catholic/Protestant theological and liturgical innovating, only to find out that it is also going on here and that people are agreeing with it (Schmemenite reforms for example). Its heartbreaking for some.

 

[FinnJames]

I may be one of the few people who didn't like his podcast's, books or opinions on liturgical practice ideas.

I don't know what there wasn't to like. I don't expect it to be perfect. At worst, his talks could sometimes be rambling maybe, but I thought that they were packed with deep thoughts. If he made it extra systematic and outlined, it could seem too academic in tone for interest.

Saying that RC church is just as legitimate as the EO and that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, to name a few. He was a very nice man, but I dislike that he would go out of his way to scandelize people by saying heretical things, and then tell people that they misunderstood him, like what Francis does. As a clergyman he should know better. I know a few people who were introduced to his work after chrismation and they were somewhat confused/upset.

Point is, people come to Orthodoxy to escape the Catholic/Protestant theological and liturgical innovating, only to find out that it is also going on here and that people are agreeing with it (Schmemenite reforms for example). Its heartbreaking for some.

Who are these 'people'? Some come to Orthodoxy because they are searching for something authentic rather than because they are running away from change that makes them uncomfortable. Some come to Orthodoxy because it is a living faith, not because it is a liturgical museum.

May Fr. Hopko's memory be eternal!

[FatherGiryus]

I have a number of disagreements with Fr. Tom, but they mostly had to do with my time at St. Vladimir and his treatment of some students (most especially me).

Those who think he was the 'anointed one' to carry on Fr. Alexander Schmemann's work never heard Fr. Tom actually talk about his opinions of Schmemann's theology.  He was actually quite critical of several of Fr. Alexander's books.  I asked him why SVS Press still sold them, and he said because they sold well.  That became kind of a wake-up call for us who believed that there was unanimous support for Fr. Alexander's theology.  The truth is that no one has really 'carried the torch.'  Fr. Tom went off in his own direction.

As with most real people, he had his strong points and his weaknesses.  I ran afoul of the latter, and so that's mostly how I now remember him.  I came to seminary idolizing him, which I suppose was my first mistake.  Idols are always disappointing up-close.

When news spread of his passing, I recall a number of us 'un-fans' were quietly calling one another to share our general annoyance with all the adulation.  I think it was our own form of grief.  For me, I had regrets that I never 'confronted' him for what I perceived were his sins against me and some others, but eventually I realized that I already had.  I had moved on and had a good life.  There really wasn't much else to say.

Fr. Tom will be remembered more for his personality than the points of his theological teachings.  And, I do think he sought to do good things for the Church.

[NicholasMyra]

I may be one of the few people who didn't like his podcast's, books or opinions on liturgical practice ideas.

I don't know what there wasn't to like. I don't expect it to be perfect. At worst, his talks could sometimes be rambling maybe, but I thought that they were packed with deep thoughts. If he made it extra systematic and outlined, it could seem too academic in tone for interest.

Saying that RC church is just as legitimate as the EO and that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, to name a few. He was a very nice man, but I dislike that he would go out of his way to scandelize people by saying heretical things, and then tell people that they misunderstood him, like what Francis does. As a clergyman he should know better. I know a few people who were introduced to his work after chrismation and they were somewhat confused/upset.

Point is, people come to Orthodoxy to escape the Catholic/Protestant theological and liturgical innovating, only to find out that it is also going on here and that people are agreeing with it (Schmemenite reforms for example). Its heartbreaking for some.

Are you sure his arguments don't just kick the crap out of yours and your faction's, which peeves you? Hence the libel in your post?

[Volnutt]

I asked him why SVS Press still sold them, and he said because they sold well.

What disagreements specifically? Why should he have pulled the books unless he thought there was something absolutely heretical in them?

[tcolon90]

I may be one of the few people who didn't like his podcast's, books or opinions on liturgical practice ideas.

I don't know what there wasn't to like. I don't expect it to be perfect. At worst, his talks could sometimes be rambling maybe, but I thought that they were packed with deep thoughts. If he made it extra systematic and outlined, it could seem too academic in tone for interest.

Saying that RC church is just as legitimate as the EO and that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, to name a few. He was a very nice man, but I dislike that he would go out of his way to scandelize people by saying heretical things, and then tell people that they misunderstood him, like what Francis does. As a clergyman he should know better. I know a few people who were introduced to his work after chrismation and they were somewhat confused/upset.

Point is, people come to Orthodoxy to escape the Catholic/Protestant theological and liturgical innovating, only to find out that it is also going on here and that people are agreeing with it (Schmemenite reforms for example). Its heartbreaking for some.

Are you sure his arguments don't just kick the crap out of yours and your faction's, which peeves you? Hence the libel in your post?

His argument that the Virgin was not a virgin during or after giving birth goes against the churches hymnography and iconography. It's not about factions. Believe in the ever-virginity is required for communion.

My point is that as a priest he should know better than to use his position of authority to stir people up unnecessarily. He has said some things in his books and podcasts that are bad, yet i get the feeling that he doesnt actually believe what he says. But if he didnt than his attempt to rile people up was equally wrong.

Im not saying hes not in paradise, but I get worried about the post mortem praise that goes on with people like Hopko, Rose, and Schmemenn. They've done just as much damage as theyve healed in some cases. Not intentionally.

[Volnutt]

What are his exact words on that? I'm guessing his only issue was with the idea that the birth did not break her hymen, which is a medically false definition of virginity.

If ever-virginity is defined in some way relating to the pain of childbirth or something (and more importantly, to the fact that she didn't have sex either before or after the birth of Christ) as well as relating to her spiritual purity, then I'm sure that Fr. Hopko believed in it.

[NicholasMyra]

Does it have to do with the claim by some protoevangeliumistas that, in order for the Theotokos to remain a virgin, Christ had to be teleported out of her womb in a cloud of light rather than born through  her birth canal? Because for him to pass through would void her virginity?

If that's what's going on here, then we can safely ignore the criticism.

[PeterTheAleut]

I may be one of the few people who didn't like his podcast's, books or opinions on liturgical practice ideas.

I don't know what there wasn't to like. I don't expect it to be perfect. At worst, his talks could sometimes be rambling maybe, but I thought that they were packed with deep thoughts. If he made it extra systematic and outlined, it could seem too academic in tone for interest.

Saying that RC church is just as legitimate as the EO and that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, to name a few. He was a very nice man, but I dislike that he would go out of his way to scandelize people by saying heretical things, and then tell people that they misunderstood him, like what Francis does. As a clergyman he should know better. I know a few people who were introduced to his work after chrismation and they were somewhat confused/upset.

Point is, people come to Orthodoxy to escape the Catholic/Protestant theological and liturgical innovating, only to find out that it is also going on here and that people are agreeing with it (Schmemenite reforms for example). Its heartbreaking for some.

Are you sure his arguments don't just kick the crap out of yours and your faction's, which peeves you? Hence the libel in your post?

His argument that the Virgin was not a virgin during or after giving birth goes against the churches hymnography and iconography.

Where is it recorded that Fr. Hopko ever denied the ever-virginity of the Theotokos? Can you post a link?

It's not about factions. Believe in the ever-virginity is required for communion.

My point is that as a priest he should know better than to use his position of authority to stir people up unnecessarily.

On what grounds do you judge Fr. Hopko's attempts to stir other people up unnecessary?

He has said some things in his books and podcasts that are bad, yet i get the feeling that he doesnt actually believe what he says. But if he didnt than his attempt to rile people up was equally wrong.

Some people need to be riled up.

Im not saying hes not in paradise, but I get worried about the post mortem praise that goes on with people like Hopko, Rose, and Schmemenn.

This is about the one truthful thing I see in your post. It's called being careful to not put anyone on a pedestal, lest you be disappointed.

[Volnutt]

Does it have to do with the claim by some protoevangeliumistas that, in order for the Theotokos to remain a virgin, Christ had to be teleported out of her womb in a cloud of light rather than born through  her birth canal? Because for him to pass through would void her virginity?

If that's what's going on here, then we can safely ignore the criticism.

I could have sworn that that particular view was condemned by some council or other.

[Minnesotan]

What are his exact words on that? I'm guessing his only issue was with the idea that the birth did not break her hymen, which is a medically false definition of virginity.

If ever-virginity is defined in some way relating to the pain of childbirth or something (and more importantly, to the fact that she didn't have sex either before or after the birth of Christ) as well as relating to her spiritual purity, then I'm sure that Fr. Hopko believed in it.

Strictly speaking, virginity doesn't really exist (at least not in a medical or biological sense). A lot has been written about this lately both from inside and outside the medical profession.

Which is why I've been wondering if at some point in the future, people will start using the term virgin only in reference to the Theotokos.

[tcolon90]

Does it have to do with the claim by some protoevangeliumistas that, in order for the Theotokos to remain a virgin, Christ had to be teleported out of her womb in a cloud of light rather than born through  her birth canal? Because for him to pass through would void her virginity?

If that's what's going on here, then we can safely ignore the criticism.

Im not saying that. He did pass through the birth canal physically. Hopkos argument was that Christ broke the womb and opened it, but the hymnography says otherwise.

As for riling people up, saying borderline heretical things in order to work up peoples emotions and then deriving pleasure from it is a pet peave of mine. Paul is clear about needlessly scandelizinv people. Its a tactic Francis uses and for some reason it really irks me.

Maybe im being too critical. It is good to look past peoples faults and see the good, since we all have faults. Maybe im just overreacting to all the cultic praise that these modern theologians get. Im more of a Viniamin, Romanides guy myself

[Ilyin]

You certainly aren't the only who didn't like his over-simplistic slightly modernist talks.

[William T]

Does it have to do with the claim by some protoevangeliumistas that, in order for the Theotokos to remain a virgin, Christ had to be teleported out of her womb in a cloud of light rather than born through  her birth canal? Because for him to pass through would void her virginity?

If that's what's going on here, then we can safely ignore the criticism.

Im not saying that. He did pass through the birth canal physically. Hopkos argument was that Christ broke the womb and opened it, but the hymnography says otherwise.

As for riling people up, saying borderline heretical things in order to work up peoples emotions and then deriving pleasure from it is a pet peave of mine. Paul is clear about needlessly scandelizinv people. Its a tactic Francis uses and for some reason it really irks me.

Maybe im being too critical. It is good to look past peoples faults and see the good, since we all have faults. Maybe im just overreacting to all the cultic praise that these modern theologians get. Im more of a Viniamin, Romanides guy myself

1) I really think you ought to give the benefit of the doubt to priests, Popes, etc who are communicating to the public rather than putting them under your own suspicion.  The fact is, they are speaking publicly with both their credentials and authority behind them and in so much as you understand that this kind of knowledge and institution is not egalitarian, it is your duty to be listen and be a student.  As for saying undermining and motive doubting things like "tactic", "deriving pleasure from.." and even worse "borderline heretical", without any sources (!!!) and in the anonymity and limited medium of a forum your words ought be treated as empty rhetoric until you can provide more substantial meat to your point (which as far as I am concerned there is no point made at the moment).

2) I don't know the two theologins you listed but the search I did when I looked up their names shows that they were both born in the 20th century...hardly "unmodern"

3) It's going to be impossible to interpret either Scripture, Tradition,n Liturgy, Hyms, The Fathers etc without a living Tradition that exists in time.  Orthodox Theologians are probably necessary for this, it's an important vocation...as I think you may have hinted you use the lens of two moderns to help interpret and contextualize things yourself...this is inevitable.  If there are disagreements between two schools of thought or whatever, so be it but you shouldn't use the rhetoric you're using to talk about what is merely an intellectual / practical / methodological error and disagreement by painting things as an undermining and deliberate scandal (from Popes and priests who are authorized to talk no less).  Talk like that is highly irresponsible, especially within the medium we are using.  If you have an intellectual disagreement, just say it and leave it at that, no need to throw in weighty theological and moral terms to give your post more gravitas than it actually has.

[PeterTheAleut]

Does it have to do with the claim by some protoevangeliumistas that, in order for the Theotokos to remain a virgin, Christ had to be teleported out of her womb in a cloud of light rather than born through  her birth canal? Because for him to pass through would void her virginity?

If that's what's going on here, then we can safely ignore the criticism.

Im not saying that. He did pass through the birth canal physically. Hopkos argument was that Christ broke the womb and opened it, but the hymnography says otherwise.

As for riling people up, saying borderline heretical things in order to work up peoples emotions and then deriving pleasure from it is a pet peave of mine. Paul is clear about needlessly scandelizinv people. Its a tactic Francis uses and for some reason it really irks me.

Maybe im being too critical. It is good to look past peoples faults and see the good, since we all have faults. Maybe im just overreacting to all the cultic praise that these modern theologians get. Im more of a Viniamin, Romanides guy myself

You still haven't answered my request for proof of your allegations.

[tcolon90]

Does it have to do with the claim by some protoevangeliumistas that, in order for the Theotokos to remain a virgin, Christ had to be teleported out of her womb in a cloud of light rather than born through  her birth canal? Because for him to pass through would void her virginity?

If that's what's going on here, then we can safely ignore the criticism.

Im not saying that. He did pass through the birth canal physically. Hopkos argument was that Christ broke the womb and opened it, but the hymnography says otherwise.

As for riling people up, saying borderline heretical things in order to work up peoples emotions and then deriving pleasure from it is a pet peave of mine. Paul is clear about needlessly scandelizinv people. Its a tactic Francis uses and for some reason it really irks me.

Maybe im being too critical. It is good to look past peoples faults and see the good, since we all have faults. Maybe im just overreacting to all the cultic praise that these modern theologians get. Im more of a Viniamin, Romanides guy myself

You still haven't answered my request for proof of your allegations.

I dont have much time to pull out the specific sources. Some of tgem are from his books and some are from afr podcasts ive listened to, which are hard to cite. Im at work most of the day but if i have time ill pull the sources and compare it to patristic and liturgical sources.

[Rohzek]

Wait a minute? It's actually controversial that a woman's flesh rips and tears when giving birth?

[TheTrisagion]

Wait a minute? It's actually controversial that a woman's flesh rips and tears when giving birth?

It is if it is the Theotokos.

My personal opinion is that there are far more important things to meditate on regarding the Theotokos instead of the physical mechanics of Christ's birth, but perhaps that is just me.

[Volnutt]

Does the Liturgy ever actually specify what was broken or not, etc? I know the Protoevangelium does, but it's not on the same level AFAICT. The Liturgy says "without defilement you gave birth..." but that's pretty ambiguous (and I've been told it's better translated as "without suffering").

[Volnutt]

Wait a minute? It's actually controversial that a woman's flesh rips and tears when giving birth?

Well if we're forced to believe the Protoevangelium (emphasis mine):

And the widwife said to him: Is this true? And Joseph said to her: Come and see. And the midwife went away with him. And they stood in the place of the cave, and behold a luminous cloud overshadowed the cave. And the midwife said: My soul has been magnified this day, because my eyes have seen strange things— because salvation has been brought forth to Israel. And immediately the cloud disappeared out of the cave, and a great light shone in the cave, so that the eyes could not bear it. And in a little that light gradually decreased, until the infant appeared, and went and took the breast from His mother Mary. And the midwife cried out, and said: This is a great day to me, because I have seen this strange sight. And the midwife went forth out of the cave, and Salome met her. And she said to her: Salome, Salome, I have a strange sight to relate to you: a virgin has brought forth— a thing which her nature admits not of. Then said Salome: As the Lord my God lives, unless I thrust in my finger, and search the parts, I will not believe that a virgin has brought forth.

And the midwife went in, and said to Mary: Show yourself; for no small controversy has arisen about you. And Salome put in her finger, and cried out, and said: Woe is me for mine iniquity and mine unbelief, because I have tempted the living God; and, behold, my hand is dropping off as if burned with fire.

[Rohzek]

Sounds like apocryphal nonsense to me. I always understood Mary's virginity as pertaining to whether or not she ever had sex with a guy (Joseph in her case), not whether or not her hymen or vagina tore while birthing Jesus. The latter position sounds like some sort of fetishization of Mary's vagina as the par excellence for vaginas insofar that she wasn't effected in any way by pregnancy.

[TheTrisagion]

Preparing for LBK in 3...2...1...

 

[LenInSebastopol]

You all sound like Protestants: how many pin heads does it take to dance on an angel and the like.
Evolution or Creation Theory?    Abortion or Pro-Choice?
I can't see how you can even write of such things regarding Her?

How may one "unsubscribe" from silly threads?

[FormerReformer]

Does the Liturgy ever actually specify what was broken or not, etc? I know the Protoevangelium does, but it's not on the same level AFAICT. The Liturgy says "without defilement you gave birth..." but that's pretty ambiguous (and I've been told it's better translated as "without suffering").

On a strictly literal level the word "adiaphthorws" is better translated "without corruption" or "without destruction". Whether there might be some allegorical level on which corruption or destruction might be equated with suffering is for more mystically minded individuals than myself to tackle.

[DeniseDenise]

How may one "unsubscribe" from silly threads?

Stop reading them

[TheTrisagion]

You all sound like Protestants: how many pin heads does it take to dance on an angel and the like.
Evolution or Creation Theory?    Abortion or Pro-Choice?
I can't see how you can even write of such things regarding Her?

How may one "unsubscribe" from silly threads?

If I knew the answer to this, I would no longer have to see the Ban the Person Above thread.

[FormerReformer]

You all sound like Protestants: how many pin heads does it take to dance on an angel and the like.
Evolution or Creation Theory?    Abortion or Pro-Choice?
I can't see how you can even write of such things regarding Her?

How may one "unsubscribe" from silly threads?

I I knew the answer to this, I would no longer have to see the Ban the Person Above thread.

Is that thing still going?

[PeterTheAleut]

Preparing for LBK in 3...2...1...

 

Don't invite her.

[PeterTheAleut]

You all sound like Protestants: how many pin heads does it take to dance on an angel and the like.
Evolution or Creation Theory?    Abortion or Pro-Choice?
I can't see how you can even write of such things regarding Her?

How may one "unsubscribe" from silly threads?

Don't read them.

[TheTrisagion]

Preparing for LBK in 3...2...1...

 

Don't invite her.

LBK has a knack for sniffing out threads such as these. No invitation is needed.

[PeterTheAleut]

Preparing for LBK in 3...2...1...

 

Don't invite her.

LBK has a knack for sniffing out threads such as these. No invitation is needed.

No need to make it easy for her by mentioning her name, either.

[FatherGiryus]

Preparing for LBK in 3...2...1...

 

Don't invite her.

LBK has a knack for sniffing out threads such as these. No invitation is needed.

No need to make it easy for her by mentioning her name, either.

Why is this reminding me of 'Beetlejuice'...?

[DeniseDenise]

Wow.

Just wow. You all must ascribe some modicum of mystical power to LBK if you think typing a name 'makes it easier' for someone to know there is a thread they might want to reply to.

Let's summon others too!  Orthonorm, orthonorm...   

Jamesr, JamesR,...

[Mor Ephrem]

Wow.

Just wow. You all must ascribe some modicum of mystical power to LBK if you think typing a name 'makes it easier' for someone to know there is a thread they might want to reply to.

Let's summon others too!  Orthonorm, orthonorm...   

Jamesr, JamesR,...

Mor Ephrem, Mor Ephrem, Mor Ephrem...

...and I'm here.

[DeniseDenise]

Wow.

Just wow. You all must ascribe some modicum of mystical power to LBK if you think typing a name 'makes it easier' for someone to know there is a thread they might want to reply to.

Let's summon others too!  Orthonorm, orthonorm...   

Jamesr, JamesR,...

Mor Ephrem, Mor Ephrem, Mor Ephrem...

...and I'm here.

Ooh self summoning.

But you also never leave. So hardly a test of the ME broadcasting system.

[Mor Ephrem]

Wow.

Just wow. You all must ascribe some modicum of mystical power to LBK if you think typing a name 'makes it easier' for someone to know there is a thread they might want to reply to.

Let's summon others too!  Orthonorm, orthonorm...   

Jamesr, JamesR,...

Mor Ephrem, Mor Ephrem, Mor Ephrem...

...and I'm here.

Ooh self summoning.

But you also never leave. So hardly a test of the ME broadcasting system.

Everywhere present and filling all OCNets.

[IXOYE]

Preparing for LBK in 3...2...1...

 

Don't invite her.

LBK has a knack for sniffing out threads such as these. No invitation is needed.

No need to make it easy for her by mentioning her name, either.

Why is this reminding me of 'Beetlejuice'...?

Some have brought up LBK.  She is a good member of the forum.

But to bring this thread back on topic...

The way you describe your seminary experience it sounds more like high school than college.  What would lead to such disagreements?  It is sad when one hears of bad interactions at any level of education.  Maybe sometimes the teacher is on a power-trip.  Not saying this is the case. 

[PeterTheAleut]

Preparing for LBK in 3...2...1...

 

Don't invite her.

LBK has a knack for sniffing out threads such as these. No invitation is needed.

No need to make it easy for her by mentioning her name, either.

Why is this reminding me of 'Beetlejuice'...?

Betelgeuse is the armpit of the night sky.

[FatherGiryus]

The way you describe your seminary experience it sounds more like high school than college.  What would lead to such disagreements?  It is sad when one hears of bad interactions at any level of education.  Maybe sometimes the teacher is on a power-trip.  Not saying this is the case.

Actually, if you talk to most academics, you can hear similar stories going on in completely secular educational institutions.  Greater intellectual capacity does little to stem the tide of human desires and their distortion.

[TheTrisagion]

I can't speak to Fr. Thomas Hopko, but I will say that my experience is that academia breeds some of the most juvenile, petty people that I have ever encountered.

[IXOYE]

The way you describe your seminary experience it sounds more like high school than college.  What would lead to such disagreements?  It is sad when one hears of bad interactions at any level of education.  Maybe sometimes the teacher is on a power-trip.  Not saying this is the case.

Actually, if you talk to most academics, you can hear similar stories going on in completely secular educational institutions.  Greater intellectual capacity does little to stem the tide of human desires and their distortion.

Were both parties able to set aside differences in Theology outside of the classroom and "agree to disagree"?

[IXOYE]

I can't speak to Fr. Thomas Hopko, but I will say that my experience is that academia breeds some of the most juvenile, petty people that I have ever encountered.

I understand, but in talking about a seminary I would think things would be different - even if just for appearances.

[Agabus]

I can't speak to Fr. Thomas Hopko, but I will say that my experience is that academia breeds some of the most juvenile, petty people that I have ever encountered.

I understand, but in talking about a seminary I would think things would be different - even if just for appearances.

Oh no. Religious institutions — especially with a divinity school — are seed beds for personality conflicts. My experience is strictly with a Protestant school, but I'd assume people are people no matter where they are.

This is not to say anything about Father Thom, of course. Just an anecdotal observation.