Book Launch of "The Patristic Witness of Georges Florovsky: Essential Theological Writings" Thursday 14 November 2019 Orthodox School of Theology at Trinity College
I don’t quite understand the critique of the weakness of Florovsky’s neo-patristic synthesis. He considered Augustine, for example, and even Aquinas, to be well within the stream of Christian Hellenism.
Thanks for the comment, Isaac. There is a wide range of critiques of Florovsky's neopatristic project, both as he conceived it and as it has actually been practiced. The main critiques revolve around its narrow focus on Greek-Byzantine theology (even including Augustine!), its implicit anti-Westernism, its tendency to "flatten" the ancient Fathers as though they all lived at the same time and said the same things on everything, its weak historical and social sensitivity, and its difficulty in engaging meaningfully with modern problems. For an elaboration, see for example chapter 17 of my book Modern Orthodox Theology, "Light and Shadows in Modern Orthodox Theology," especially pages 418 to 438. Dr. Paul Ladouceur
Thanks for the comment, Isaac. There is a wide range of critiques of Florovsky's neopatristic project, both as he conceived it and as it has actually been practised. The main critiques revolve around its narrow focus on Greek-Byzantine theology (even including Augustine!), its implicit anti-Westernism, its tendency to "flatten" the ancient Fathers as though they all lived at the same time and said the same things on everything, its weak historical and social sensitivity, and its difficulty in engaging meaningfully with modern problems. For an elaboration, see for example chapter 17 of my book Modern Orthodox Theology, "Light and Shadows in Modern Orthodox Theology," especially pages 418 to 438. Dr. Paul Ladouceur
Would Dr. Ladouceur contrast his systematic textbook’s approach with that of Florovsky, Lossky, and the short introduction by Dr. Louth? (Thank you)
I don’t quite understand the critique of the weakness of Florovsky’s neo-patristic synthesis. He considered Augustine, for example, and even Aquinas, to be well within the stream of Christian Hellenism.
Thanks for the comment, Isaac. There is a wide range of critiques of Florovsky's neopatristic project, both as he conceived it and as it has actually been practiced. The main critiques revolve around its narrow focus on Greek-Byzantine theology (even including Augustine!), its implicit anti-Westernism, its tendency to "flatten" the ancient Fathers as though they all lived at the same time and said the same things on everything, its weak historical and social sensitivity, and its difficulty in engaging meaningfully with modern problems. For an elaboration, see for example chapter 17 of my book Modern Orthodox Theology, "Light and Shadows in Modern Orthodox Theology," especially pages 418 to 438. Dr. Paul Ladouceur
Thanks for the comment, Isaac. There is a wide range of critiques of Florovsky's neopatristic project, both as he conceived it and as it has actually been practised. The main critiques revolve around its narrow focus on Greek-Byzantine theology (even including Augustine!), its implicit anti-Westernism, its tendency to "flatten" the ancient Fathers as though they all lived at the same time and said the same things on everything, its weak historical and social sensitivity, and its difficulty in engaging meaningfully with modern problems. For an elaboration, see for example chapter 17 of my book Modern Orthodox Theology, "Light and Shadows in Modern Orthodox Theology," especially pages 418 to 438. Dr. Paul Ladouceur
Paul Ladouceur Thank you for the response.