| Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus of Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, Crestwood, NY, and noted Orthodox Christian priest, theologian, preacher, and speaker, fell asleep in the Lord on the afternoon of March 18, 2015. Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus of Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, Crestwood, NY, and noted Orthodox Christian priest, theologian, preacher, and speaker, fell asleep in the Lord on the afternoon of March 18, 2015. Father Thomas was the beloved husband of Matushka Anne [Schmemann] Hopko. They were married on June 9, 1963. Together, Father Thomas and Anne are the parents of five children, sixteen grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren. Thomas John Hopko was born in Endicott, NY, on March 28, 1939, the third child and only son of John J. Hopko and Anna [Zapotocky] Hopko. He was baptized and raised in Saint Mary’s Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church and educated in Endicott public schools, graduating from Union-Endicott High School in 1956. Father Thomas graduated from Fordham University in 1960 with a bachelor’s degree in Russian studies. He graduated with a theological degree from Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary in 1963, from Duquesne University with a master’s degree in philosophy in 1969, and earned his doctorate degree in theology from Fordham University in 1982. Ordained to the Holy Priesthood in August 1963, Father Thomas served the following parishes as pastor: Saint John the Baptist Church, Warren, OH (1963–1968); Saint Gregory the Theologian Church, Wappingers Falls, NY (1968–1978); and Saint Nicholas Church, Jamaica Estates, NY (1978–1983). Father Thomas was honored with the clerical rank of Archpriest in 1970 and the rank of Protopresbyter in 1995. Beginning in 1968, Father Thomas began his long service to Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. Over the years, Father Thomas held the following positions: Lecturer in Doctrine and Pastoral Theology, 1968–1972; Assistant Professor of Dogmatic Theology, 1972–1983; Associate Professor of Dogmatic Theology, 1983–1991; Professor of Dogmatic Theology, 1991–1992; Dean, Rector of Three Hierarchs Chapel, and Professor of Dogmatic Theology, 1992–2002. |
| Professor of the Theological School at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Dr. Demetrios Tselengidis has sent his first theological observations to the Orthodox hierarchs of several Local Orthodox Churches (including those of Greece, Russia, Serbia, Georgia, Bulgaria, Alexandria, and Antioch) concerning the text: “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World.” This text displays recurrent theological inconsistency and contradiction. Thus, in the first article it proclaims the ecclesiastical self-identity of the Orthodox Church, considering Her—and very rightly—as the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” In article six, however, there is a contradiction with respect to the formulation of the above article (1). It notes characteristically that the “the Orthodox Church recognizes the historic existence of other Christian Churches and Confessions not in communion with Her.” Here the reasonable theological question arises: If the Church is “One” according to our Creed and the Orthodox Church’s own self-identity (art. 1), then how is there mention of other Christian Churches? It is clear that these other Churches are heterodox. Heterodox “Churches”, though, cannot at all be called “Churches” by the Orthodox. Considering things from a dogmatic perspective it is not possible to speak about a plurality of “Churches” with different dogmas, and this, indeed, with regard to many different theological issues. Consequently, as long as these “Churches” remain firm in the erroneous beliefs of their faith, there is no theological justification to grant them ecclesial recognition —and this officially —outside of the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” In the same article (6), there is another serious theological contradiction. At the beginning of the article the following is noted: “According to the ontological nature of the Church, it is impossible for [Her] unity to be shattered.” At the end of this same article, however, it is written that, by Her participation in the Ecumenical Movement, the Orthodox Church has as its “objective aim the paving of the way which leads toward unity.” |
| The Heresy of Constantinoplés Neo-Papism in Light of Orthodox Trinitarian Theology Скачать epub pdf Christ is the Head of the Orthodox Catholic Church In our day we are being challenged with the aggravation of the internal ecclesiastical problem, which may be designated as the “self-institution” of the Constantinople Patriarchate, the would-be head of the Orthodox Catholic Church. In fact, this has been a decades-long issue rooted in Church history. Evidently, it is associated with man’s inexhaustible inclination to the sin of pride, which sometimes may grow worse if one is granted the authority of being a priest. The terrible experience of Judas – who shared the Last Supper as well as many other meals with Christ – is a vivid example to all ages and nations. According to the testimony of many holy fathers, the sin of pride is at the root of every fall. And this sin causes enormous harm to the Church body, to all God’s people, actually headed by the Humblest and Meekest Jesus Christ our Lord. Many great saints of antiquity – specifically including primates in the See of Constantinople – would denounce the current theological speculation of the Constantinople Patriarchate, which identifies the Constantinople Patriarch as the «head of all the Orthodox». Truly, any Patriarch is the “Primate” rather than the “head” of the Church. In accordance with the Holy Scriptures, saints Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom would declare that we have only one head of the Church, and that is Christ. 1 “We make up one Church, which is harmoniously represented by the members of one Head” – the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 The Twentieth Century Idea of Neo-Papism It was in the twentieth century, in the Church of Constantinople, that the idea of Eastern neo-papism was revived. As early as 1950, almost 70 years ago, Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) warned against the dangerous trends gaining strength in the Constantinople Patriarchate. “At present, in the depths of our Holy Church, lies a great danger of perverting the dogmatic teachings concerning Her, and therefore the danger of perverting Her being, because dogmatic thinking is organically connected with the whole course of inner spiritual life. Any minor change in dogmatic thinking would inevitably incur changes in the corresponding mode of one’s spiritual being. And vice versa: evading the truth of inner spiritual life would produce change in dogmatic thinking. The violation of dogmatic truth would inevitably lead to evading the possibility of true knowledge of God, the fullness of which is granted to the Church ... Any particular distortion would certainly affect the whole. If we distort Church doctrine now, and thus ... the mode of Her being, then how could She serve Her sons and provide the way to the Truth? You would ask, in which way is this distortion visible now? The answer is: in Constantinople’s neo-papism, which is quickly trying to move from the theoretical phase into the practical one.” 3 |
| Elizabeth Theokritoff, Mary B. Cunningham Elizabeth Theokritoff, Mary B. Cunningham Notes on contributors Dr Nicolas Abou Mrad is Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at Saint John of Damascus Faculty of Theology, University of Balamand (Lebanon), and Lecturer at various non-Orthodox theological schools in Lebanon. He is author of various articles and reviews in biblical theology and literature. The Rt Revd Dr Hilarion Alfeyev holds doctorates from Oxford and Paris. He is currently the Moscow Patriarchate " s Bishop of Austria and Representative to the European Institutions. He has published widely in the areas of Byzantine and Syriac patristics, Church history, dogmatic theology and contemporary theological, moral and social issues. His writings in English include St Symeon the New Theologian and Orthodox Tradition (2000), The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian (2000), The Mystery of Faith. An Introduction to the Teaching and Spirituality of the Orthodox Church (2002) and Orthodox Witness Today (2006). The Very Revd Boris Bobrinskoy has served as Dean and Professor of Dogmatic Theology at St Sergius Institute of Orthodox Theology in Paris. A pupil of Georges Florovsky and Nicolas Afanasiev, he has published numerous studies on the theology of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, the Church, and the Eucharist. Translations of his writings include The Mystery of the Trinity: Trinitarian Experience and Vision in the Biblical and Patristic Tradition, trans. A. P. Gythiel (1999) and The Mystery of the Church (2005). Dr Peter Bouteneff is Associate Professor in Theology at St Vladimir " s Seminary, New York, having served for five years as Executive Secretary for Faith and Order at the World Council of Churches. He has written extensively on Orthodox relations with other churches, as well as on patristic and dogmatic themes. Recent publications include Sweeter than Honey: Orthodox Thinking on Dogma and Truth (2006) and Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narratives (2008). |
| John Anthony McGuckin Contemporary Orthodox Theology ARISTOTLE PAPANIKOLAOU The fall of Constantinople in 1453 silenced a long and vibrant intellectual tradition within Orthodox Christianity. It would take nearly 400 years before a revival occurred in 19th-century Russia, which then saw the emergence of an intellectual tradition that was rooted in the Orthodox theological and liturgical tradition, but that also sought to engage modern philosophical currents streaming into Russia, especially German idealism. From this particular trajectory emerged what is referred to as the Russian school. The best-known and most influential scholar of the Russian school is Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov (1853–1900), considered to be the father of Russian Sophiology. Two ideas were central to Solovyov’s thought: the humanity of God (bogochelovechestvo) and Sophia. Solovyov’s concept of the humanity of God is related to the Orthodox dogmatic principle of the divine-human union in Christ. Solovyov, however, was far from a dogmatician. His philosophy attempts to express the Orthodox principle of the divine-human union in Christ in critical engagement with the categories of German idealism. The humanity of God forms the basis for Solovyov’s attempt to conceptualize a God who is both transcendent of and immanent to creation. Solovyov expresses this particular understanding of the God-world relation with the concept of Sophia, and by so doing gives birth to the Sophiological tradition of the Russian school. God is Sophia, which means that God eternally relates to creation, and creation itself (that is, created Sophia) is a movement of reconciliation towards divine Sophia. More than any other contemporary Orthodox theologian, Solovyov attempted to develop the implications of divine-human communion for a political theology and for a theology of culture. Although the thought of the Russian school bears the stamp of Solovyov’s Sophiology up until the 1917 Revolution, it was Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov (1871–1944) who advanced the most sophisticated development of Solovyov’s thought. Bulgakov was more conversant than Solovyov with the eastern patristic tradition, and his Sophiology is expressed explicitly in the idiom of the traditional theological dogmas and categories of the Orthodox tradition. The most developed form of Bulgakov’s Sophiology appears in his dogmatic trilogy On Divine Humanity (O bogochelovechestve, 1933–45), the first English translation of which would only appear nearly sixty years later. |
| 1998 Synodical Decision of the Orthodox Church of Georgia on the Chambésy and Balamand Agreements, the Branch Theory and more INTRODUCTION Among the milestones of contemporary Orthodox ecclesiastical history with regard to the Church's struggle to maintain " the faith once delivered " and Her belief in the " One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, " the 1998 Synodical Decision of the Apostolic Orthodox Church of Georgia is of especial importance. Echoing the earlier decision of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in 1983, which condemned the heresy of ecumenism, and in particular made reference to the " Branch Theory, " the Decision of the Apostolic Orthodox Church of Georgia is broader in scope, touching on six different manifestations of unorthodox teachings emanating from the contemporary ecumenical movement and ecumenical involvement of the Local Orthodox Churches. In particular, the decision rejects by name the Chambésy and Balamand agreements, the agreement signed by the Patriarch of Antioch with the Non-Chalcedonians in Syria, in 1991, the adoption of the Gregorian Paschalion by the Finnish Church under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the idea that the Holy Mysteries exist outside the Church and also the various manifestations of the " Branch Theory , " as well as common prayer and sharing of mysteries with the non-Orthodox. Both the particular and wide-ranging nature of the decision increases its importance and significance for the entire Church in terms of coming to a pan-Orthodox consensus with regard to the heretical nature of syncretistic ecumenism. For this reason, the fact that it has (to our knowledge) never been translated into English - until now - is all the more astounding. It is important to note the following concerning this Synodical Decision, so as to put it into its proper historical and ecclesiastical context: The Holy Synod's decision was based on a review done by a theological commission appointed by the Catholicos-Patriarch of Georgia, Ilia II. The decision to create the commission and review the above-mentioned six issues and texts came on the heel of a major, popular " uprising " of the faithful of Georgia, in particular, the monastic community. Hence, it was the watchfulness and dogmatic sensitivity, not only or even primarily of the hierarchy, but of the entire pleroma of the faithful that brought about this landmark decision in favor of Orthodox ecclesiology. This point cannot be over-stated and must be seriously considered by the faithful everywhere, in every Local Church, for every believer is co-responsible for the guarding of the deposit of the Faith and the upbuilding of the Church. |
| Editorial The purpose of St Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly is to serve our English-speaking Orthodox Communicants in America in the fields of theological knowledge and religious education... The aim of the Quarterly is, on the one hand, to introduce to the English-speaking Orthodox (and other Christians) the rich Tradition of the Church; and on the other hand, to interpret the current issues of the day in the light of our Holy Faith and Tradition. This paragraph in the «Foreword» to the inaugural issue – Fall of 1952 – of St Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly (renamed St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly in 1969) is remarkable for describing and prescribing a balance between fidelity to the dogmatic, liturgical, and spiritual inheritance of Orthodoxy and responsible engagement with the challenges of the time. It is noteworthy, too, that the «Foreword» presents the Quarterly as both «a continuation of and successor to the academic theological journals of Old Russia» and a vehicle for «spreading knowledge and understanding of our Orthodox Faith, History, and Spirituality in America». At the time, this was the first English-language Orthodox theological journal in the world 2 , an expression of Fr Georges Florovsky’s vision for academic rigor and fertile theological reflection at the Quarterly’s sponsoring institution, St Vladimir’s Seminary. Eminent Orthodox theologians have followed Florovsky as editors over the decades – beginning with Frs Alexander Schmemann and John Meyendorff and ending with Fr John Behr and Professor Paul Meyendorff 3 – and made the Quarterly «a world-class scholarly journal» and the «flagship periodical of Orthodox scholarship» 4 . Much has changed since 1952 in the Church and in the world. Evidently, much has also changed for St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary and its Quarterly. In this day and age, the stature and vision of a single individual are not sufficient for the task at hand. Reflecting an ongoing shift towards collaboration and team work at the Seminary, SVTQ will be led, beginning with this first double issue of 2020, by an editorial team of three professors at St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, who also rely on a stellar Advisory Board for deep and broad theological expertise. |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy The Metropolitan of Kykkos Nicephorus: “The unilateral decision by Patriarch Bartholomew on Ukraine threatens pan-Orthodox unity with a schism of monstrous proportions” On 16 th September a joint presentation by the metropolitan of Kykkos and Tillyria Nicephorus and the metropolitan of Tamasossos and Oreini Isaiah (the Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus) was heard at the “World Orthodoxy: Primacy and Conciliarity in the Light of Orthodox Dogmatic Teaching” conference taking place in Moscow at the Christ the Saviour Cathedral. Before this, the metropolitan of Tamasossos and Oreini Isaiah greeted the conference participants with the following words: “Your Holiness, Your Graces, much-esteemed conference participants. I would like to thank you for inviting me and the elder metropolitan of Kykkos and Tillyria Nicephorus to take part in this theological forum. Metropolitan Nicephorus and I decided to give a joint presentation based on metropolitan Nicephorus’ recently published book on the topic of resolving the present-day Ukrainian problem on the basis of the holy canons. This book was recently translated into Russian. … You know that geopolitical events have compelled Cyprus to fall in line with Euro-American policy with all the attendant consequences. In spite of this, we are speaking out and writing, and we are also beseeching God to enlighten us to ‘rightly divide the word of truth’ as our episcopal conscience dictates, no matter what the negatives consequences may be for us. I will no longer detain your attention and I offer you some thoughts by metropolitan Nicephorus, hoping that the saints and martyrs of Orthodox Cyprus and Russia will intercede before our Lord Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Mother of God for the unity of the Orthodox Church and the speedy resolution of this grave ecclesiastical problem which should never have arisen.” |
| John Anthony McGuckin Yannaras, Christos (b. 1935) see Contemporary Orthodox Theology Appendix Foundational Documents of Orthodox Theology Contents 1 Creed of Nicea 650–1 2 Creed of Constantinople 651–2 3 Documents of the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus 652–9 4 The Definition of Faith of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon 659–60 5 The Definition of Faith of the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople 660–70 6 The Definition of Faith of the Sixth Ecumenical Council 671–3 7 The Definition of Faith of the Seventh Ecumenical Council 674–6 8 The Five Theological Orations of St. Gregory of Nazianzus (the Theologian) 676–734 9 Excerpts from the “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” by St. John of Damascus 734–71 These documents are adapted from the source collections presented in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church (series 2), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids; and T&T Clark, Edinburgh. Especially NPNF: vol. 7, 1893 (St. Gregory of Nazianzus), vol. 9, 1899 (St. John of Damascus), and vol. 14, 1900 (Seven Ecumenical Councils). Texts modernized and clarified by the editor. Original text and all secondary references related to it can be accessed from www.ccel.org/fathers.html. Introduction The range of the Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodoxy is immense in both geographical and temporal terms. Its topical coverage, from the front of the alphabet to the end, allows for easy access for a researcher on any major theme that they may wish to follow up. This appendix tries to offer more. It is attached to the main body of the articles, in a sense as if it were the words of the ancients themselves (indeed, that is chiefly in what it consists) telling of the Orthodox faith directly, viva voce, rather than having it presented by contemporary commentators and exegeted in historical context. Both things, of course, are useful and necessary, and should complement one another invaluably. But if someone were to ask, “What are the essential primary texts of the Orthodox faith?” it might be easy enough to answer that here in this appendix one will meet with a good collection of them. Not all of them, by any means, but a representative sample of what the major theologians and dogmatic bishops (fathers) of the early church thought were essential architectural elements of the building. |
| A relatively modern term deriving from the Latin Patres, or “Fathers.” It was also known as patrology up to the mid-20th century, though this latter designation has now been restricted mainly to signify reference manuals dealing with the works of the fathers of the church. The fathers were the bishops, outstanding theologians, and leading monastic elders ofthe early church, who left behind them authoritative bodies of spiritual, biblical, liturgical, and dogmatic writings. The age of the fathers is generally seen as extending from after the apostolic era (beginning of the 2nd century) to the 8th and 9th centuries, whose great luminaries then included St. John of Damascus and St. Photios the Great. John is, in many ways, a certain sign of the closing of the patristic age, with his works gathering together as a kind of encyclopedia of the earlier authoritative materials to form a synthesis of patristic theology for the later church’s reference. In terms of Latin patristics, the traditional cut-off point has been significantly extended beyond this time, even up to the medieval western theologian Bernard of Clairvaux, who is sometimes called, in the Catholic Church, the “last of the fathers» Even so, there is not a hard and fast historical line, as Orthodoxy understands it, for some of the late Byzantine writers such as St. Symeon the New Theologian of the 11th century, or St. Gregory Palamas (1296–1359), for example, certainly enjoy a high “patristic status” in contemporary Orthodoxy. The word generally means, in Orthodox circles, those definitive and highly authoritative theologians of the church in its classical ages who represent purity of doctrine allied with great holiness of life; a life that manifests the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in their acts and their consciousness, such that they are not merely good speculative thinkers, or interesting religious writers, as such, but rather substantial guides to the will of God, and Spirit-bearers (pneumatophoroi) whose doctrine and advice can be trusted as conveying the authentic Orthodox tradition of faith and piety. This does not mean that every single thing any one of the fathers ever wrote is given “canonical” status. Orthodoxy admits that the general rule of human authorship applies even among the saints, for as the adage tells, “even Homer nods,” but it does mean that collectively, and by the consensus of the fathers among themselves, and by the manner in which they stand in a stream of defense of the ecumenical faith of the church, they together comprise a library of immense prestige and authority. They are thus collectively strong and concrete evidence for the central tradition of the Orthodox Church. This is why the church affords them a very high theological authority, not as great as the Scriptures or the ecumenical councils, but certainly alongside the latter; for it was from their writings that the doctrine of the great councils generally emerged. |
|
|
