"Theology" schools breed spiritual ignorance

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

These new-calendar schools, which are modeled after the Latin rationalist system, teach theology only in the existence of a few terms and expressions. As if theology is a speciality of some people who are studying scientifically the nature of God and the Church.

These schools consider that priests are those who possess some intellectual knowledge and that since they have endured some years in study they have adequetly exhibited a commitment to be a priest. Without excluding the importance of knowledge, it must be said that theology is chiefly the life and experience with God and that theologians, according to the teaching of the Church of all ages past, are those who see God. Furthermore, priests are not those who exhibit a desire to learn knowledge through reading and are self-elected, but those who are seen to learn through prayer and are chosen.

St. Gregory the Theologian says that theologians are "those who have been examined and are passed masters in the vision of God".

St. Neilos writes that a theologian is one who prays and who experience the purifying and illuminating energy of God.

A person can have completed theology school, taught theology, and yet NOT know what theology is (Thomas Hopko is a fine example, and if anyone has ever read one of his books they will know exactly what I mean). Another person can be illiterate, but have developed his spiritual life to the extreme, and be a real theologian who can put an army of SVS graduates to shame.

I would go so far as to say that not only are theology schools unimportant, they actually work against the Church by "catching" people in a trap of "higher learning" those who may have otherwise put their energies into real experience with God.

[Logos]

Orthodoxyordeath, I agree with you whole heartedly. Theology has a different meaning in Orthodoxy than it does in the west. I have wondered about this myself.

A person can have completed theology school, taught theology, and yet NOT know what theology is (Thomas Hopko is a fine example, and if anyone has ever read one of his books they will know exactly what I mean). Another person can be illiterate, but have developed his spiritual life to the extreme, and be a real theologian who can put an army of SVS graduates to shame.

I agree with you totally. Just because someone has a degree from a seminary or has taught theology does not mean that they are one "who prays and who experience the purifying and illuminating energy of God." I think many Orthodox tend to forget that. I have not read any Hopko books. I have heard much about him, I guess what makes you say that he does not know theology? I am curious and also I know that a lot of people speak highly of him. In fact, just recently someone suggested that I listen to a cassette of him lecturing on the "The Word of the Cross." Should I listen to it?

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Logos,

Listen to the cassette, no doubt anyone could "learn" somethng. Then read the writings of a saint of the Church.

I have found Hopko to write about orthodoxy as an astronomer would write about some far off planet. In other words, he writes about orthodoxy as if it is an academic study whereas the saints wrote from their heart as ones who had experienced something.

Read these two articles and judge for yourself...

http://www.svluka.org/Orthodoxy/Spiritu ... nHopko.htm

http://www.orthodox.net/articles/sacram ... thage.html

[Justin Kissel]

I agree with your central point. In fact, I'm reading a book right now written by a Romanian Priest on Gregory the Theologian, and it follows along exactly as you say: he writes from an academic point of view and not from within the tradition of the Church, following the mind of the Fathers.

I'm not against all theological training, but would agree that it's value is overrated here in the west (so that it's become seen almost as a necessity). I think it can be very beneficial when done the right way, but it's not necessary.

[bogoliubtsy]

OrthodoxyorDeath,
Would you find fault also with the writings of Fr.George Florovsky or others who wrote about theology, the rites of the Church, etc. in a similar tone to that of Fr.Thomas Hopko? There is a time and a place for everything...including different styles of writing and presentations of Orthodoxy. It seems apparent to me, at least in the article you've presented, that Fr.Thomas is describing the Orthodox practices of chrismation and churching in a way that's accessible to the non-Orthodox, yet is entirely backed up by references to scripture and tradition. He writes, as can be expected, in the style of a late 20th century American, presenting theology to others in the same century who have analytical, critical, and questioning minds. Minds that have been introduced to new sciences, technology, etc. and sometimes need more "complex" presentations of Orthodoxy in order for it to make sense to their modern minds. Fr.Seraphim Rose gave a great talk about this entitled "The Theology of St.John Maximovitch" where Fr.Seraphim discusses the same thing. We must be ready to explain our faith to our contemporaries, so bogged down by doubts and reservations about spiritual life created by our times. Fr.Thomas Hopko, by the way, had and has a very strong liking for Fr.Seraphim Rose. He wrote a great article on him after his repose in the official publication of the OCA. He also took part in the 20th anniversary of Fr.Seraphim's repose last year at Platina.

Nothing in the article you've presented reveals him as being detached from the traditions and practice of the Church. It does show him however to be writing as someone who knows the challenges of presenting Orthodoxy to modern day Americans...at the same time preserving the faith. It's a difficult balance I'm sure.

I too, prefer others writings to those of the St.Vladimir community...don't get me wrong. Still though, there's a time and a place for all types of truly Orthodox writings.

[Anastasios]

The three of you have no idea what you are talking about. Have you ever been to SVS? This is just ubelieveable to me, that you are all rattling off about theological schools, and what you are saying is so silly and contrary to fact!

No one at SVS teaches that theology is a set of rational concepts to be aprehended by academic discourse. Give me a break. That's why we are expected to go to chapel twice a day and participate fully in the life of the Church. There is no divorce between theology and praxis here!

I have met some of the most holy and devout Orthodox Christians here at SVS who are also blessed by God with great intelligence. Sure we have people who are not the best as well but the Church is full of saints and sinners.

You should really come check us out. You will discover how utterly wrong you are.

anastasios

[Justin Kissel]

anastasios

The three of you have no idea what you are talking about.

1) Fr. Seraphim knew a thing or two, and he said that all of the seminaries in America (with the exception of Jordanville) were modernist. I very much doubt things have gotten better in the last two and a half decades since he wrote that in the introduction to Saint Gregory of Tour's Vita Patrum. With the death of sober-minded individuals such as Fr. Georges Florovsky, Fr. Seraphim, Justin and Nikolai of Serbia, and so forth, I'm sure things have gotten much worse.

2) I've read numerous books by people from Saint Vlads (both teachers and texts that come from their publishing house). Some are extremely good (e.g., Deifcation in Christ by Nellas), some though are extremely bad (not bad in comparison to Protestant material, but bad when compared to other Orthodox material).

3) I've never been to a Catholic seminary either, that doesn't mean I can't critique the seminary based on the type of literature and teachings that I see coming from it.

No one at SVS teaches that theology is a set of rational concepts to be aprehended by academic discourse.

Correct. And no Catholic University teaches that Catholicism is a humanistic Church. Something doesn't have to be explictly taught (or even consciously realised) for it to be so.

That's why we are expected to go to chapel twice a day and participate fully in the life of the Church. There is no divorce between theology and praxis here!

You do some things right, but that doesn't say whether you have the right mindset. Not having pews, for instance, is only a big deal because of a larger problem: it points to a particular mindset that is not wholly right. I've been in ROCOR Churches with pews, I've heard that there's OCA Churches without them. The issue isn't a polemical hammer with which to beat someone over the head with. Again though, it can be a sign of a deeper problem with a group's mindset. And when the majority of the group go a certain direction, that says something about the prevailing mindset.

Btw, I was at an OCA (Romanian) monastery a few months ago, and by coincidence (for lack of a better word) Fr. Hopko was serving there. He did everything perfectly from what I could tell; there didn't appear to be anything wrong. We all fail, and we all fall down. We can all likewise sometimes appear to be doing things perfectly. Appearances can be deceiving though.

Justin

PS. I don't say that everyone who goes to, or teaches at, St. Vlads is a "flaming ecumenistic modernist" who is borderline Orthodox. I do stick by the idea that SVS is less than wholly Orthodox in mindset and tone though.