Gleanings from Russian Orthodox Vladimir Soloviev

[Cavaradossi]

Why should I care what Solovyov had to say anymore than Nestorius or Arius? That is the crucial question. His Sophiological views have left a black mark on his theological output, and there is little doubt in my mind that his understanding of theology as a science (in the traditional sense) is what led him to seek out Rome as a grounding point for approaching theology as such. But seeing as how I believe that understanding theology as a science is incompatible with Christian faith, what reason have I really even to care about Solovyov’s heretical system of beliefs any more than I care about Apollinaris’ heretical system of beliefs or any number of other heretical beliefs?

 

[howirenic]

Okay, I guess I’ll become Catholic.

 

[Peter_J]

and there is little doubt in my mind that his understanding of theology as a science (in the traditional sense) is what led him to seek out Rome as a grounding point for approaching theology as such.

I honestly don’t know if that’s true or not, but I don’t think it matters. Whatever he may have thought or not thought does not change the truth (or Catholic teaching).

Bottom line, I will probably never make any concerted effort to study him.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why should I care what Solovyov had to say anymore than Nestorius or Arius? That is the crucial question. His Sophiological views have left a black mark on his theological output, and there is little doubt in my mind that his understanding of theology as a science (in the traditional sense) is what led him to seek out Rome as a grounding point for approaching theology as such. But seeing as how I believe that understanding theology as a science is incompatible with Christian faith, what reason have I really even to care about Solovyov’s heretical system of beliefs any more than I care about Apollinaris’ heretical system of beliefs or any number of other heretical beliefs?

Okay, I guess I’ll become Catholic.

I honestly don’t know if that’s true or not, but I don’t think it matters. Whatever he may have thought or not thought does not change the truth (or Catholic teaching).

Bottom line, I will probably never make any concerted effort to study him.

Hans Urs von Balthasar paid tribute to Soloviev’s “skill in the technique of integrating all partial truths in one vision.” Von Balthasar ranked Soloviev second to Thomas Aquinas as “the greatest artist of order and organization in the history of thought.”

Pope John Paul called attention to Soloviev in 1998’s “Fides et Ratio” as standing in a line of distinguished Christian philosophers. A couple of years later, the Holy Father declared that Soloviev’s “prophetic” work makes him one of our era’s great “witnesses of the faith and illustrious Christian thinkers.”

 

[Cavaradossi]

Hans Urs von Balthasar paid tribute to Soloviev’s “skill in the technique of integrating all partial truths in one vision.” Von Balthasar ranked Soloviev second to Thomas Aquinas as “the greatest artist of order and organization in the history of thought.”

Pope John Paul called attention to Soloviev in 1998’s “Fides et Ratio” as standing in a line of distinguished Christian philosophers. A couple of years later, the Holy Father declared that Soloviev’s “prophetic” work makes him one of our era’s great “witnesses of the faith and illustrious Christian thinkers.”

“Great Christian thinkers” are often distinguished from the average ones precisely by their heterodoxy. Origen, Arius, Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Severus of Antioch, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Honorius, and Apollinaris could all have passed as “great Christian thinkers” had they only been born in this last century.

 

[Peter_J]

**“Great Christian thinkers” are often distinguished from the average ones precisely by their heterodoxy. **Origen, Arius, Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Severus of Antioch, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Honorius, and Apollinaris could all have passed as “great Christian thinkers” had they only been born in this last century.

But, hopefully, not only by that.