What happens if the Patirach of Constantinople wants to settle disputes?

[Sepp]

For those who are interested, I have discovered that the letter from Anatolius to Leo is referenced in a Papal encyclical as well. It is in the encyclical Sempiternus Rex Christus by Pope Pius XII, which can be found here: vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_08091951_sempiternus-rex-christus_en.html

The translation given there is:

‘With regard to the decree laid down by the recent synod of Chalcedon on behalf of the see of Constantinople, let your Beatitude rest assured that this was not my fault. But it was the desire of the reverend clergy of Constantinople . . . the validity and confirmation of this action being reserved to the authority of your Beatitude’ (Anatolius to St. Leo the Great. Ep. cxxxii, 4. PL. liv, 1084. Mansi vi, 278S).

 

[Nine_Two]

Who he is has no bearing on what he says. If Adolf Hitler proclaimed that E=mc^2, the equation would still be valid. Evaluate the statements, not the man (ad hom).

Given that the above press release advertises the “fact” that he was kicked out of the Orthodox Church for ecumenism, it very much does have a bearing. Both the ad and the book lose all credibility.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Who he is has no bearing on what he says. If Adolf Hitler proclaimed that E=mc^2, the equation would still be valid. Evaluate the statements, not the man (ad hom).

Would you read a theologian who has been condemned by the Catholic Church for information on Catholic theology?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I used to own it.

But I think it should be pointed out that Solovyev is mis-characterized when he is called a “Russian Orthodox Theologian”. He was nothing of the kind.

This would be a lot like claiming Teilhard de Chardin was a Roman Catholic theologian. BTW, Chardin the man was brilliant, in his off-the wall kind of way, and I have read several of his books but he is not what one should call a Roman Catholic theologian.

Solvyev should be seen in the same way. It would be more accurate to call him a Modernist tending toward syncretism and universalism, so naturally he would see papal developments as a good thing. He would probably have liked to draw in Buddhists and Muslims eventually as well into some sort of theosophical one-world religious compost.

The reservations of the Orthodox contributors here are duly noted and respected. Given Soloviev’s views as expressed in this work, one could certainly not accurately describe him as a Russian Orthodox theologian, nor should any Catholic expect the Orthodox to openly accept and embrace conclusions suggested in this book.

However, it does not seem as if he went so far as to suggest a union with non-Christians, nor even with non-Catholic Christians. If that is somehow suggested in his body of work, it is worth a citation here so that fact may be considered in evaluating the merits of this particular book.

 

[Khalid]

Would you read a theologian who has been condemned by the Catholic Church for information on Catholic theology?

I would read a dissident for their argumentation, yes. Not to find out what orthodox Catholic theology is, but to understand what their theology is (after all, there is the chance that they’re right, however small it may be). Hans Kung hasn’t exactly been “kicked out” (he denies Papal infallibility), but I find value in his works. The point is to evaluate each argument and position as if one didn’t know the man who made it or held it.

When he speaks in the first pages of the uncanny ability of the Byzantine court to find and support all heresies, which have at their root the desire to keep Caesar separate from or superior to God, to politicize Christianity, and then “to wean the populace off of Rome, once the theological orthodoxy had been decided, and now decayed into the ossified traditions of the Greco-Russian Church, without a valid form of church government, as we hold to the conciliar model, yet are unable to convoke a council”, etc., to an Orthodox, it should be much the same as reading in the first pages of a Catholic writer (such as Luke Timothy Johnson), “the Catholic Church must hold that women are ontologically inferior to men in order to have any basis to refuse their ordination”…

His analysis of the raskol and the resulting starovery is enough to make the book valuable.

Not a reason to ignore everything the author says (Luke Timothy Johnson otherwise is an outstanding exegete, and his works on Luke-Acts and Hebrews are some of the best I’ve seen), but to be careful to evaluate all arguments and statements, nor reject them out of hand, but to verify and reason, and take nothing on authority alone (which we shouldn’t do anyways - argumentum ad auctoritas - but which we habitually do out of laziness and lack of desire to spend out entire days boiling down everything we read to syllogisms and combing them for fallacious reasoning).