 |
Met. Kallistos was present for almost all of the proceedings and gave the Florovsky Lecture entitled “The Decisive Importance of Councils in the Life of the Church.” He was a fine choice as an expert on Church history and theology, but was somewhat hampered in speaking on the upcoming council directly as his Eminence is not actively involved in the conciliar preparation himself. To my mind he could talk about Orthodox clerical footwear and make it a joy to listen to so it should be no surprise that he completely entertained a packed crowd of academics, clergy, and students for over an hour with a Q&A afterward where he responded with refreshing frankness to questions on things like the reception of councils and Oriental Orthodox relations.
The talks themselves were a mix of student presentations, academic papers, and panel discussions. If that sounds boring, it wasn't. There was quite a lot of saucy talk and polemical banter throughout. Met. Hilarion specifically and the Russian Church broadly were the targets of many of these papers and openly mocked for what were perceived disingenuous actions, strong-arm tactics, and self-serving theology. Having followed the Russian Church for a number of years I was surprised that no one came to Moscow's defense. Additionally, if I were to borrow from political rhetoric, there were some decidedly liberal talks delivered on Orthodox fundamentalism (reminiscent of the famous Obama "clinging to guns and religion" line), yet another paper on deaconesses, engaging in discussions with non-Christians, and a paper proposing that the hierarchs leave bio-ethics to the economia of the parish priest.
Before you ask, I have no idea if the talks will be available online. I actually doubt it, but the papers the talks are given from might well be published later.
Posts
I was there for Met. Kallistos's lecture (since I live in NYC). Would have loved to meet you if you had I known you were there.
ReplyDelete"...Met. Hilarion specifically and the Russian Church broadly were the targets of many of these papers and openly mocked for what were perceived disingenuous actions, strong-arm tactics, and self-serving theology. Having followed the Russian Church for a number of years I was surprised that no one came to Moscow's defense. Additionally, if I were to borrow from political rhetoric, there were some decidedly liberal talks delivered on Orthodox fundamentalism... "
ReplyDeleteI am surprised at your surprise. Besides being a stronghold of the EP's take on inter-church relations, you just went to probably the most "liberal", "progressive", "modern", and "secular" place which has a functioning "Orthodox" studies program. It is the place to be if you are trying to turn the Orthodox Church into an eastern rite Episcopalianism. Want leftist politics? Want womens ordination? Want to rant on about "fundamentalism" (a word by the way that they really don't understand), go to Fordham.
It's at places like Fordham that the demise of the mainline got their intellectual backing years ago, and for the Orthodox in america that want to fall into the "progressive" rabbit hole, Fordham is their playground.
Want you or your children to be a faithful Orthodox Christians? Avoid Fordham...
I am surprised at your surprise. Besides being a stronghold of the EP's take on inter-church relations, you just went to probably the most "liberal", "progressive", "modern", and "secular" place which has a functioning "Orthodox" studies program.
ReplyDeleteWell the most progressive place with an agenda to specifically study Orthodoxy is probably Union Theological Seminary, though one might argue that's not specifically a studies program.
Fordham unfortunately doesn't have much competition though does it? I'd be interested in what other programs exist at the doctoral level in the US that are less "progressive".