Видео

Thanks for the comment, Isaac. There is a wide range of critiques of Florovsky's neopatristic project, both as he conceived it and as it has actually been practiced. The main critiques revolve around its narrow focus on Greek-Byzantine theology (even including Augustine!), its implicit anti-Westernism, its tendency to "flatten" the ancient Fathers as though they all lived at the same time and said the same things on everything, its weak historical and social sensitivity, and its difficulty in engaging meaningfully with modern problems. For an elaboration, see for example chapter 17 of my book Modern Orthodox Theology, "Light and Shadows in Modern Orthodox Theology," especially pages 418 to 438. Dr. Paul Ladouceur

Thanks for the comment, Isaac. There is a wide range of critiques of Florovsky's neopatristic project, both as he conceived it and as it has actually been practised. The main critiques revolve around its narrow focus on Greek-Byzantine theology (even including Augustine!), its implicit anti-Westernism, its tendency to "flatten" the ancient Fathers as though they all lived at the same time and said the same things on everything, its weak historical and social sensitivity, and its difficulty in engaging meaningfully with modern problems. For an elaboration, see for example chapter 17 of my book Modern Orthodox Theology, "Light and Shadows in Modern Orthodox Theology," especially pages 418 to 438. Dr. Paul Ladouceur

Paul Ladouceur Thank you for the response.

You misunderstand. The Orthodox Fathers are not trying to define the mystical realities and remove the mysterious aspects. The creeds are, largely, only reactionary and were necessary responses to heresies arising at the time, and largely serve to make clear what is in scripture and give the correct interpretation with proper nuance, especially in the face of heresies which have overly dialectical positions and attempt to erroneously define that which is a mystery. It is Orthodoxy, in fact, that is the only branch of Christianity which maintains the rightful apophatic understanding and doesn't try to apply all-encompassing definitions to mystical realities. In actuality, it is the Protestant reformers and Roman Catholics, being informed by the flawed currents of western Scholasticism and the whole of the western theological project, which use overly legalistic, definitional creeds. In Orthodoxy, the creeds are as true as scripture because they accurately describe the doctrines in scripture.

@@ALLHEART_ Only problem for Orthodoxy is that Moses, the Prophets, the Apostles and Christ Himself were not apophatic in their communication of revelation but propositional.

@@felixguerrero6062 Those are not mutually exclusive.

@@ALLHEART_ They literally are.

@@felixguerrero6062 There is mostly certainly apophatic and cataphatic statements in the Bible, as are there in the Fathers.

Links added to the description now

@@trinityorthodox Thank you. The first link is missing the final 'f'

@@PeterMielke Fixed!

Thanks for the feedback. Glad you enjoyed the presentation. Theologically speaking, you are absolutely right that aside from celebrating sacraments, women can serve within any of the ministries of the Orthodox Church. The difficulty arises because historically and culturally that has not always been the case, and it continues to be problematic in many Orthodox parishes today where women are still discouraged (or banned outright) from singing, reading scriptures, serving in leadership, teaching or counselling roles. It's great that hasn't been your experience, but for many women, young and old, there have been obstacles in their path of service. In a real sense, this is part of the larger issue of the rise of clericalism -- assuming that ministry belongs exclusively to a professional clergy -- and a failure within the church for ALL lay people to take up their proper place within the royal priesthood of the church. The result is that the "diakonima" (service ministry) that Presbytera Kyriaki spoke about has been long neglected in our church. Where are all the Orthodox hospitals, hospices, care homes, schools, ministries to the imprisoned, the poor, the alienated? We are put to shame by the non-Orthodox in such endeavours. That's what lies behind the comment that we do indeed have the right theology and spirituality, but we aren't always so great in living it out, either in our relationships with each other (including male/female interrelationships) or our living in a way that proclaims the kingdom of God in this world.

As much as we agree with your sentiment, the agreed statements are those of the "Joint Commission Of The Theological Dialogue Between The Orthodox Church And The Oriental Orthodox Churches". That's the official name of the dialogue, and us editing it on this video wouldn't change that.

Byzantine was a city within the Holly Eastern Roman Empire. Calling Eastern Orthodox, Byzantine Orthodox would be inaccurate . Officially, the Eastern Orthodox Church ‘s designation is the Orthodox Catholic Church, however, with the arrival of Charlemagne within the Western Orthodox Church and his secular aspirations and persuasions , as well as the fall of Constantinople, weekend the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church, and through time, the designation was ill fully transformed to what the Western Church calls the Eastern Orthodox Church omitting “ Catholic”. What is bizarre is that the Christian leaders, theologians have yet clean up there act and finally unite all Christians as Scripture dictates. Everyone was, is and will be seeking Jesus Christ, no one really knows the answer, truly, no one does. One person comes up with an idea out of the blue , some accept this idea , others reject and decide to disassociate with the group. Such was the case historically within the Christian world. Manipulating, scheming for the so called “ throne “ for me is not being Christian and following Scripture or the teachings of Jesus Christ, in fact the opposite happened and still is happening, separating human beings from one another. The quest for power, terrible thing. History seems to repeat itself over and over again. I hope and pray that one day all will be accomplished and rectified with truth ,honesty and respect for all Christians. These types of discussions reminds me of a board of directors meetings.. who will get the most power oblivious of our true Christian values - Big shame. Thank you for listening .

Haha! Fair enough. We had a wide angle lens and too short an extension lead to pull it further back. Close your eyes and enjoy the discussion. :-)

:-)

There are bigger issues in our reality to focus on than this.

Hi Mr Slayer. We don't like deleting comments, so we wonder if you could provide a constructive elaboration of your remarks. As they stand, they don't really help anyone to understand the concepts better. Thanks for your interest in this talk and we look forward to a more substantive reflection.

pontification i never heard of that translation as well. biblically speaking is the logos the thing that holds all together, but the word "logos" means word or reason etymologically speaking, right? also, keep in mind that jordan peterson is no theologian.

Hi Tito, thanks for your comment and question. The Orthodox churches are communions of churches, both the Chalcedonian Eastern ("Byzantine") communion and the Non-Chalcedonian Oriental communion. Your question indeed makes sense: why, given the similar communion structure, is one treated in the singular, the other in the plural? One of the principle of ecumenical dialogues allows each party to identify itself as it chooses. For some reason, the communion of Eastern Orthodox churches (14 or 15 self-governing patriarchates or "local" churches) decided to identify for the purposes of this dialogue as the "Eastern Orthodox Church" whereas the four Oriental Orthodox churches went with a plural designation. It is perhaps a reflection of a greater degree of identification with the wider communion on the part of Eastern Orthodox (rather than one's own local church), but I wouldn't read too much into it. The third, much smaller group is the Assyrian Church of the East -- so-called "Nestorians" who did not accept the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus (431).