A beloved brother in the Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe has asked that Orthodoxy in Dialogue publish this anonymous letter from a priest in Russia to Archbishop John of Charioupolis.

This version was translated from a French translation (included below) of the original Russian. Since a translation of a translation is never ideal, those who read Russian are referred to the original at the Akhilla website. We do not have the time to edit the minor linguistic errors in this translation.

For context see Act of Canonical Subordination of the Orthodox Parishes of Russian Tradition in Western Europe to the Local Dioceses of the Holy Ecumenical Patriarchate and the article linked in the introduction there.

Patriarch Kirill and the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. February 2013.

✠

Your Eminence, dear Monseigneur John, dear brothers and sisters in Christ of the Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe,

I am writing to you following decision taken by Patriarch Bartholomew to abolish the Archdiocese and hand over its legacy to the local Greek metropolia, a decision that puts the Archdiocese in a difficult position.  It is unfortunate to say so, but it seems that this decision of Patriarch Bartholomew and his Synod has significantly undermined the confidence that the Archdiocese had in him: it is unlikely that the Archdiocese will return under his omophor and regain its previous status.  Thus dislocated, the Archdiocese would cease to be a whole and would see its parishes, one by one, enter the Greek metropolia, which nevertheless appears to me as an even less satisfactory solution. Read More

When I announced Orthodoxy in Dialogue’s partial hiatus I let it be known that I would continue to respond to anything sent to our editorial email address. People write to us not only with their ideas for an article, but very often to me personally for spiritual support in their struggles with questions of sexuality and gender. These questions might pertain to themselves, their child, or someone else for whom they care deeply.

The day before yesterday we heard from a woman who’s familiar with the work of Father James Martin, SJ. (See the titles under his name in our Archives by Author.) Over the course of two or three emails she reached a comfort level with me where she asked why I study theology, why my studies focus on sexuality and gender, what makes a person straight or gay, what were the reactions to my article in The Wheel. 

I share my rushed and unpolished answer in the hope that some of our readers might find it helpful. Read More

✠

To His Beatitude

EPIPHANIUS

Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine

Εἰς πολλὰ ἔτη, Δέσποτα! Іс полла еті, Деспота! Many Years, O Master!

Sunday, February 3, 2019. St. Sophia Cathedral, Kyiv.

✠

Read More

Dr. Ables’ review brings Rev. Dr. Mongeau’s Embracing Wisdom and Thomas Aquinas into direct conversation with modern Orthodox theology. 

Embracing Wisdom: The Summa theologiae as Spiritual Pedagogy
Gilles Mongeau
Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2015

A few years ago in graduate school, I spent months tracking down the origins of a curious little echo chamber in 20th-century trinitarian theology. Starting with Karl Rahner and recurring through many luminaries—Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox—one encounters the same argument repeatedly. The argument was really a story, a story of decline and discovery, as theologian after theologian decried the shortcomings of Western trinitarian theology and found refuge and renewal in the trinitarian thought of Orthodoxy. I eventually traced this narrative to the writings of Vladimir Lossky and the exiled Russian Orthodox community in Paris, emanating from the St. Dionysius Institute and the Fellowship of Saint Alban and Saint Sergius. It made its way into an essay by Rahner, and the rest was history.

This particular narrative of trinitarian history is not directly relevant to Mongeau’s masterful work; what is significant, however, is how the reception of Parisian Orthodox thought in Germany and France seemed to trade on a deep suspicion of two canonical Catholic figures: Augustine and Aquinas. Indeed, as I dug further into 20th-century Orthodox thought, the allergy to Thomas seemed to be the common denominator among these Orthodox and their Western interpreters. And no wonder. With the promulgation of Aeterni Patris and the Neo-Thomist revival in Catholic seminaries, the fastidious manuals of the schools seemed the very antithesis of the apophatic, mystical, doxological theologies being developed by Lossky, Florovsky, and other Orthodox—and their Western readers. Read More