www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Fr. Meyendorff, the Paris School and the West

Friends-

Andrew/Rillian thread on Fr Dumitru Stăniloae mentioned that Fr. Meyendorff and others of the "Paris School" are popular in the West but are criticized in the old countries.

Many of Fr. Meyendorff's books fascinate me (e.g. his books on Byzantine history and St. Gregory Palamas). However, before I splurge and buy/read his books, I'm a bit curious if people could discuss this a bit further.

What is the "Paris school?" What do they teach which is out of line with "traditional" Orthodoxy? And if I read Fr. Meyendorff's work can I expect to get something approaching the Orthodox view on the subject?

Thanks!

The Paris school would include Afanasiev and Schmemann as well as Bulgakov. Georges Florovsky, Lev Gillet and Evdokimov are also part of the "Paris school". Mother Maria Skobtsova was also in France as was Nicholas Lossky, the father of Vladimir Lossky.

I think a great deal of the bias in Eastern Europe was not inherent heterodoxy, but rather that the government and the pro-Soviet Orthodox hierarchies would not allow the works of "rebel" or "subversive" emigres to be distributed. Much of the polemic I see against these fine men is contrived and without much basis.

One can certainly see the impact of their thought even in Russia with the likes of the holy Fr. Alexander Men. I personally think Meyendorff is great, and his Byzantine Theology is right up there with the best.
FDD

I don't consider myself in either camp. I have read criticisms of the Paris School and I think they are quite substantive, just as many of the arguments of the Paris school theologians have substance.

I would like to know which �pro-Soviet hierarchy� is being talked about here that suppressed the works of any of these men, since the church in Russia and elsewhere was essentially reduced to ruin and all manner of religious publications and instruction were illegal and obstructed at various levels. It should be noted for instance that Fr. Schmemann was broadcast on the VOA and widely read in the Soviet Union in the underground book market. His ideas may have had as much exposure as anyone else�s.

I think you will find that criticisms of the Paris school tend to focus on their deviations from received tradition and what many consider to be a loss of traditional Orthodox phronema and piety (particularly regarding monasticism) under their influence. Many of their most vociferous critics (and the feeling was returned) were to be found in the Russian Church Abroad, well outside of the state censure of the Eastern Bloc. So I don�t think the idea that their writings were shielded any more than any others, or that their opponents didn�t understand what they were saying really holds any water.

I would balance anything written by them with the works of Fr. Justin Popovic, Elder Cleopa of Romania, St. Nikolai Velimirovic, Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos and Fr. Seraphim Rose just to name a few.

I will restate my feeling that it is ironic that Catholics are drawn to the works of these authors.

Andrew

I'd advise you to quit beating that dead horse 'cause you're just not goint to get a satisfactory answer.

Logos Teen

Could the problem for the Abroads have been that they were not part of their Russia Church Abroad and yet Paris continued to function quiet well. The Abroads could be very unforgiving for those who were seen as either with them or with the otherside. Paris must have been doing things right to have produced so much good reading, the prodict no doubt of some good circles of thought and discussion.

I would not also be surprised that for many these books were suddenly available in western languages and would have been the first means of seeing theology from the byzantine perspective.

Just a thought!

ICXC
NIKA

Andrew, we can start with the compromise of Patriarch Sergius. The ukazes censuring individuals of the Paris community came soon after.

By the way, VOA was not appreciated by either the Soviet government nor the MP and was criticized publically by both. If your point is Schmemann's presence on VOA representing some approval of either, I disagree.
FDD - a Catholic "drawn" by many Orthodox writers, and not one "school"...

Dear Friends,

For me, the Paris school is essentially the Kyivan Baroque assimilated by the Russian intellectuals who became open to western European spiritual and philosophical influences.

The ROC never liked either.

Alex

With the exception of Pomozansky, Seraphim Rose and a few others (with some valid observations, I will say) there simply wasn't much criticism of them outside of the Soviet bloc.

Today the influence of this group is undeniable on "canonical" Orthodoxy outside of ROCOR and some Old Calendarist jurisdictions, and as I stated can be seen within Russia now with the likes of Fr. Alexander Men. It is far too narrow to say this is one "school", to containerize it somehow, as there are many tangentials like the spiritual descendents of Elder Isidore, Florensky, etc. who share many of the same ideas.
FDD

I�m likely not to get a satisfactory answer, but the fact remains it is still ironic to me. Go to some of the more popular Roman Catholic apologist sites for instance on the Internet and you will find the �proofs� posted about how Orthodoxy isn�t consistent with the apostolic church are often quotes taken from modernist Orthodox theologians influenced by the Paris school.

Diak

That certainly is a sad chapter in the history of the church. I�m not a defender of Sergius, nor do I view him as an arch-villian. Coming on the heels of the Great Terror, I think it�s fair to say he was essentially acting with a gun to his head. That whole period has to be viewed in light of the circumstances. The most vocal critics of the Paris School in the Russian diaspora were equally critical of Sergius, if not more.

My point was the ideas of the Paris school had an audience and were heard despite of official disapproval, either of the church or state.

I think if you read the writings of more traditionally oriented Orthodox priests, monks and theologians from places like Romania, Serbia and Greece for instance you will find similar criticisms to the ones aired by those within the Russian Church Abroad.

It depends where you are and which church you are in. I think in general there is a widespread re-appraisement of many of the things that came out of the 20th century under the influence of the Paris School. I agree that one cannot cleanly delineate completely distinct schools of thought, and in places you can find overlap among different branches of the church. However, you can point to broad based trends and themes; and what grew up around the Exarchate and Rue Daru is clearly an identifiable movement with some essential and common elements.

Andrew

I would like to remind some of my fellow Orthodox posters to respect the home of their hosts, and that, in any case, certain comments about 'irony' are neither charitable, polite, or necessary at all. They add nothing to the discussion or debate at hand and comes across as nothing more than a polemical tool of insult and attack.
If it must continue, please do it privately.
Thank you.

In Christ,
Alice, Moderator

My apologies if my comments came across as polemical, because that was not my intent. Ironic was the wrong choice of wording. What I described is simply hard for me to understand because of the rather harsh criticisms I have read of more modernist Orthodox theologians by Roman Catholic apologists. That is all I was saying. I do think more generally there is an irony in East/West relations in that it seems many in the RCC look to the Orthodox as a bulwark of traditionalism, but often those who respond to their overtures are the most liberal elements of the Orthodox world. The Paris School is very representative of that phenomenon.

Also, I forgot to mention, I personally feel that the greatest Russian theologian to come out of the Russian diaspora in the 20th century was Fr. Georges Florovsky. I also feel he is somewhat difficult to pigeonhole in to any one camp, which to me is an indication of the depth of his thought.

Andrew

Alice, thanks - I like Harakas and Coniaris also, to give some equal time to a couple of fine Greek men of recent history. They also were chastised by a minority of traditionalists of their own church, and share some ideas in common with some of those we have spoken about.
FDD

Andrew,

Not all Catholic Apologists speak for everyone. Robert Sungenis is a popular apologist and he advocates a literal 6 day Creation and Geocentrism.

I am not saying I do buy into his theories and I'm not saying I don't. :p

Thanks everyone for the responses!

Comments on one:

I don't see anything ironic about Catholic interest in the Paris school. In my case, I'm simply curious to read a very interesting body of works. For instance, Fr. Meyendorff's book on Liturgical reform is a solid and thought-provoking (though by no means definitive) read to my theologically unschooled mind.

I don't know who you mean when you talk about the apolgists, but as far as I've seen these people generally fall into two types:

1. the "Catholic Answers" types who try to prove the truth of Catholcism above every other religion, frequently resorting to proof texting. This method is mainly directed against fence-sitters, evangelical-type Protestants and underchurched Catholics and its probably pretty effective. However, this apologetic methodology is grossly unfair (and sometimes offensive) to Orthodoxy.

2. "Tradish" types who will argue for a near- ultramontane, "pre-Vatican II" position who nevertheless frequently question the decisions of post-Pian Popes.

None of these people necessarily represent the official position of the Vatican or the Catholic Church; frequently either will make claims beyond the official claims of the Catholic Church (Catholic Answers) or contrary to the official claims of the Church ("Trads").

So, I don't see what internet apolgists have to do with Catholic reception of the works of the "Paris School". Relations with Orthodox are necessary to Catholics not because we're looking for traditionalism, but because they represent a real Church with real sacraments and Tradition. We have to "respond" to whomever chooses to respond to us.

I know several well-read Old Believers who greatly admire Meyendorff's work "Russia: Ritual and Reform" as he is quite frank and honest about the evolution of the Nikonian "reforms" - I know one Old Rite priest who uses it as an adult catechetical/church history work.

Just a cursory read of Fr. Schmemann's "Great Lent" has numerous laments of the decline in Lenten liturgical observances within his own Russian Orthodoxy, the need for greater length of lenten services to focus us on the "bright sadness", etc.
FDD