Interesting thoughts from a ROCOR priest.

[bogoliubtsy]

From the Indiana List. Posted 3 years ago.

Two observations:

1) Has anyone noticed a peculiar thing? That those
clergy who graduated
from Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville are, with
perhaps very few
exceptions, of one mind regarding the current issues
confronting the Church
Abroad. They support the decisions of Their bishops
and do not hold
extremist views.

Remember, those who attended Holy Trinity Seminary
in the 1950's, 1960's
and early 1970's were under the direct influence of
Archbishop Averky,
Archimandrite Constantine (Zaitseff), Protopresbyter
Michael Pomazansky,
Ivan Mikhailovich Andreev and other professors of
the old generation. The
Seminarians saw Archbishop Averky virtually every
day, sometimes for many
hours a day (he taught New Testament and
Homiletics), and heard all of his
discourses at Trapeza and all of his sermons. These
seminarians were
completely imbued with the teaching and minset of
the Historcial Russian
Church and the historcial position of the Church
Abroad. They were all
ordained by Metropolitan Philaret, Archbishop
Averky, Archbishop Anthony of
SF, Archbishop Seraaphim of Chicago and other
bishops of the older generation.

Also, it should be noted that a good number of the
hierarchs and well-known
clergy of the Church Abroad were at the Seminary
(either as instructors or
students) at about the same time: Archbishop Laurus,
Archbishop Alypy,
Archbishop Hilarion, Bishop Mitrophan, Bishop
Alexander, Archimandrite
Peter (Lukianov), Protopriests George Larin, Victor
Potapov, Stefan
Pavlenko, John Shaw, Alexander Lebedeff,
Protodeacons Victor Lochmatow,
John Onopko, Andrei Papkov and quite a number of
others.

And none of them hold to the concept of a "strict
ecclesiology." None
believe that the Anathema of 1983 applies to anyone
outside the Church
Abroad. None of them believe that the Moscow
Patriarchate is outside the
Church and graceless. None believe that
concelebrations with the Serbs or
with the Jerusalem Patriarchate make the Church
Abroad in any way ecumenist
or heretical. None believe that the New Calendarists
are outside the Church
and graceless. None believe that one cannot allow
members of New Calendar
Churches or the Moscow Patriarchate to receive
communion in our Churches.
All believe that we should be striving toward the
unity of the Russian
Church and the elimination of those things that
currently divide it, while
not rushing to embrace the Moscow Patriarchate
unless substantial issues
are addressed and resolved.

Interesting, isn't it?

2) Related to the first observation, let us look at
and compare the
theological education of the supporters and
detractors of the Sobor of
Bishops of the Church Abroad,held in October, 2000:
specifically its
decisions, epistles and other documents.

Supporters of the Sobor:

Archbishop Laurus -- Seminary Graduate
Archbishop Alypy -- Seminary Graduate
Archbishop Mark -- Belgrade Spiritual Academy
Graduate
Archbishop Hilarion -- Seminary Graduate
Bishop Evtikhy -- Seminary Graduate
Bishop Mitrophan -- Seminary Graduate
Bishop Daniel -- Seminary Graduate
Bishop Kirill -- Seminary Graduate
Bishop Gabriel -- Seminary Graduate
Archimandrite Peter (Lukianov) -- Seminary Graduate
Protopresbyter Valery Lukianov -- Seminary Graduate
Protopriest Roman Lukianov -- Seminary Graduate
Protopriest Boris Kizenko -- Seminary Graduate
Protopriest George Larin -- Seminary Graduate
Protopriest Alexei Ohotin -- Seminary Graduate
Protopriest Alexander Lebedeff -- Seminary Graduate
Protopriest Stefan Pavlenko -- Seminary Graduate
Protopriest John Shaw -- Seminary Graduate
Protopriest Peter Perekrestov -- Seminary Graduate
Protopriest Victor Potapov -- Seminary Graduate
Priest Sergei Overt -- Seminary Graduate
Protodeacon Andrei Papkov -- Seminary Graduate
Protodeacon Ioann Onopko -- Seminary Graduate
Protodeacon Victor Lochmatow -- Seminary Graduate

and many others

Let's compare it with those who are in opposition
to, or have criticized
the Sobor of 2000:

Archbishop Lazarus -- no theological education
Bishop Varnava -- no theological education
Bishop Agathangel -- no theological education
Bishop Benjamin -- no theological education
Archimandrite Sergei (Kindiakov) -- no theological
education
Protopriest Konstantin Fedoroff -- no theological
education
Protopriest Benjamin Joukoff -- no theological
education
Protopriest Nicholas Semenoff -- no theological
education
Priest Andrew Kencis -- no theological education
Priest Nikita Orloff -- no theological education
Protodeacon Germain Ivanov-Trinatsatyj -- no
theological education
Deacon Mark Smith -- no theological education

(and others in the same situation--among all of the
clergy of the Western
European Diocese who went into schism from their
lawful hierarchy I believe
I can find only one who is a Seminary graduate).

Is there a pattern here?

Also, we can also add some of the detractors of the
Church Abroad and its
positions who have left the Church:

Archimandrite Gregory (George/Abu-Asaly) -- no
theological education
Priest Seraphim Stephens -- no Orthodox theological
education
Priest Dionisy McGowan -- no Orthodox theological
education

Something to think about.

With love in Christ,

Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

[Daniel]

I don't quite see how having not going to Holy Trinity, or any seminary for that matter, means you have 'no theological education'.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

As Daniel says, the simple fact that Fr. Alexandre L. used the term "no theological education" for those having not gone to seminary only shows his own ignorance....again.

This only further proves the argument I previously raised, that seminaries can be as harmful as they are helpful and that real education happens in the Church and from God - as Holy Scripture and the Fathers says.

[尼古拉前执事]

I think Peter's point is that Seminary's are bad for you.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

I thought so too, but I don't think that is what Fr. Alexandre was saying, but he unwittingly made the case.

"professing to be wise they become fools"

[Seraphim Reeves]

While it proves nothing to say this (just as Fr.Alexander's list proves nothing either), I know from experience that attendance at an educational institution helmed by a strong personality (or personalities) for a long period of time, generally creates the phenomenon of it's graduates being to some degree, little clones of those big men in their thinking. That can be a good thing, it can be a bad thing. It says nothing, obviously, as to how right or wrong they are - it speaks to their formation.

For example, my family is very much a part of the "traditionalist" Roman Catholic movement. IN particular, they're involved with the SSPX. My brother is a seminarian with the SSPX. The seminary he attends (in Minnesota) up until recently was helmed by Bp.Richard Williamson, known as "the hawk" in the SSPX. He's a gentleman, but minces few words, and is probably the least liked by the RC heirarchy, and considered the most inflammatory in his speach. Well, one thing I noticed back in my 'traddie' days (and I see this in people I know who came out of the Minnesota seminary) was that the seminarians (and young priests) who were formed under his supervision and lived under him for so long, had imbibed much of his own way of thinking as their own. Thus, the American clergy for the SSPX who came out of Minnesota, tend to be more "hawkish" than many of their compadres who go to SSPX schools abroad (such as in Switzerland or Germany.)

Obviously, I'm not about to put such a trend forward as proof, however, that the SSPXers are right on in religious matters.

The seminary system has it's strong points - it helps ensure the clergy are not ignorant of the most basic things about services and what everyone should know (most of all a Priest!) about the doctrine of the Church. However, I think it has to be kept in mind that such schools (the "academies" of the declining pagan Roman world, which existed in the midst of early Roman Christendom stand out) have also been breeding grounds for a lot of ill. They're very fragile, and are very dependent upon who is running them - if they're confused, they will create confused clergy. If they're good, many good clergy will result. If they're heretical, they'll create ecumenist clergy. Etc.

Most of all, it has to be remembered that the seminary system has a limited history in Orthodoxy, and even then only recently penetrated some parts of the Orthodox world (they were most common in Russia prior to the revolution). They are an import from the Roman Catholics, who themselves only devised this system towards the end of the middle ages...arguably it's a system tailored for their own (distorted) view of what normal priestly life must constitute (all celibate clergy, acting as low level foot soldiers in a fundamentally "pyramidal" heirarchy headed at the top by the infallible Pope).

Before this system, in both the west and the east, Priests were generally formed gradually, directly under their Bishop - their formation being very much a matter of continual discernment, and familiarity with the local heirarchy. Not every Priest needed to be a quote "theologian", and much less a "philosopher" (which is in fact what most people really mean when they speak of "theologians" - philosopher/historians) - rather they need Godliness, and the character to lead their flock. If anything, "theology" properly speaking is not a species of philosophy or a primarily academic discipline - rather it is the putting into words of that which can be known of God; "theo", "logos". This is why to some extent, both the status of "theologian" and "mystic" are, strictly speaking, the calling of every genuine Christian - as one advances on "the way", so too do they advance in these.

This is not to say book learning is bad (good books are indispensable!) - but I suppose I am saying that none of the "great theologians" are remembered for being clerically garbed philosophers, but because their words were born of sanctity. There is not a single great teacher of the Church, who was also not a great saint.

While being of no academic standing is not proof one is on the right way (obviously), I don't recall this being proof of falseness either.

Seraphim

[Anastasios]

Jordanville, being a seminary founded by ROCOR's real Russian background, seems to me to be the criterion of what ROCOR is all about. I think ROCOR as it is now looks better every day.

anastasios