Sous la direction de

Cristian Badilita

Patristique et cumnisme
Thmes, contextes, personnages
Colloque international sous le patronage de Mgr Teodosie, Archevque de Tomis Constana (Roumanie) 17-20 octobre 2008

PONTUS EUXINUS

Devotion versus theology? Some mariological issues of interest to patristicians and ecumenists
Lucian TURCESCU This paper will look at some mariological issues, first from the perspective of late Roman Catholic theologian and cardinal Yves Congar, and then from an Orthodox perspective, trying to make some suggestions for the ongoing ecumenical dialogue among Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants. Throughout his life the late Congar was involved in the ecumenical movement striving for the unity of all Christians. As any serious theologian, he did not seek quick and easy solutions that would relativize the differences among us for the sake of unity, but rather tried to identify and address the real differences with the utmost honesty and with the risk of being silenced by his own Church at times. In recognizing that our differences are due to our ecclesiologies and that ecclesiology is determined by christology, in his book titled Christ, Our Lady, and the Church Congar proposed that we take a closer look at our christologies to understand what went wrong there.1 Congar recognized that, compared to the Churches which emerged from the Reformation, the Orthodox Church has much more in common with the Roman Catholic Church. Consequently, our christologies and the doctrines ensuing thence (ecclesiologies and mariologies) have also a lot more in common. Congar notes that, while most Protestants recognize only the first four ecumenical councils (and some will perhaps accept the decisions of the sixth), Orthodox and Roman Catholics accept seven ecumenical
1

Y. M.-J. CONGAR, Christ, Our Lady and the Church. A Study in Eirenic Theology, tr. H. ST. JOHN, Westminster, MD, The Newmann Press, 1957.

148

Lucian Turcescu

councils. It was precisely at the latter three councils that the consequences of the christological dogma formulated at the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were expressed when combating in particular the heresies of Monenergism, Monothelitism and iconoclasm.2 In the book just mentioned, Congar then makes an appeal to both Roman Catholic and Protestant partners in dialogue to stick to the dogmatic formulation of the council of Chalcedon and to draw honestly the conclusions of the christological dogma formulated there.3 I think this invitation is valid for the Orthodox partner, too. I would like to address only one such consequence that interested Congar, namely mariology. Since the time for this presentation is limited, I will only treat two connected aspects of mariology which are controversial in todays ecumenical dialogue: Mary Co-Redeemer and Mediator. I will explain shortly why they are controversial at this particular time. One conclusion which must be drawn from christology regards the place of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in salvation history. According to both Roman Catholic and Orthodox official Church teaching, Mary plays a very important role in salvation history because she is the one who made possible the Son of Gods incarnation by her fiat, that is, by her acceptance that the second divine person take his human nature from her. Her fiat represents the first freely accepted human participation in the salvation of the fallen humanity. Subsequently, each and every one of us is expected to contribute our own fiat to the spiritual generation of Christ in our lives. Both our Churches also agree on some specifics of Marys role, such as her eternal virginity, her being called the Mother of God, and the special veneration owed her. Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church disagrees with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception proclaimed by the Catholic Church in

2 3

Ibid., pp. 22-23. Ibid., p. 38.

Devotion versus theology?

149

1854,4 and, I would say, only half-heartedly agrees with another dogma proclaimed by Pope Pius XII in 1950 of Marys Bodily Assumption to heaven, as well as with two other issues, Mary coredemptrix and mediatrix. When I said before that two Marian issues have been particularly controversial, I had in mind in particular the project being pushed in the United States by such theologians as Mark Miravalle (of the Franciscan University of Steubenville) for the Catholic Church to define the dogma of the Virgin Mary as Co-Redeemer, the so-called fifth Marian dogma; this would imply that she is also mediator. Judging by the number of publications produced by Dr. Miravalle and his collaborators every year, one can certainly consider that the movement is still alive. The 25 August 1997 Newsweek magazine article about Dr. Miravalles initiative read:
This week a large box shipped from California and addressed to His Holiness, John Paul II will arrive at the Vatican. The shipping label lists a dozen countries from every continent but Antarctica plus a number, 40,383, indicating the quantity of signatures inside. Each signature is attached to a petition asking the pope to exercise the power of papal infallibility to proclaim a new dogma of the Roman Catholic faith: that the Virgin Mary is CoRedemptrix, Mediatrix of All Graces and Advocate for the People of God. Such a move would elevate Marys status dramatically beyond what most Christians profess. But in the last four years, the pope has received 4,340,429 signatures from 157 countries an

However, for a nuanced treatment of this issue in the Orthodox Church, see Kallistos WARE, The Sanctity and Glory of the Mother of God: Orthodox Approaches, The Way Supplement, 51, Autumn 1984, pp. 7996. In it, he shows on p. 87 that there was a period from about 1600 to 1850 during which within both Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism there were different opinions on the matter of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and a number of Orthodox theologians supported it, just as a number of Catholics opposed it. But the formal definition caused a crystallization of positions on both sides, and since that time no significant Orthodox theologians have supported it.

150

Lucian Turcescu
average of 100,000 a month supporting the proposed dogma. Among the notable supporters are Mother Teresa of Calcutta, nearly 500 bishops and 42 cardinals, including John OConnor of New York, Joseph Glemp of Poland and half a dozen cardinals at the Vatican itself. Nothing like this organized petition drive has ever been seen in Rome. But then, it isnt often that Catholics beg a pope to make an infallible pronouncement.5

While the movement led by Miravalle can legitimately be seen as a millennial movement preceding the year 2000, when we witnessed much weirder religious manifestations than this, the question still remains: If the dogma of Mary Co-Redeemer were to be proclaimed, could ecumenism ever recover? This was the question raised several years ago by the British Catholic magazine The Tablet and four theologians (Orthodox, Anglican, Catholic, and Anglican evangelical) were invited to provide answers to it.6 All of them responded to the question with a clear and resounding No. Moreover, in 1997, a papal commission of mariologists, by a vote of 23-0, advised against promulgating the new dogma.7 Congar himself dealt with a similar question in his Christ, Our Lady, and the Church in reaction to the proclamation by his Church of the dogma of Marys bodily assumption into heaven in 1950. As one can read explicitly in his Conversations with Bernard Lauret, Congar was not at all in favor of [the dogmatic definition of the bodily assumption of Mary Mother of God], since historically the ancient evidence is very sparse and we can no longer

K.L. WOODWARD, A. MURR, Hail, Mary, Newsweek, vol. 130, Issue 8,

Bishop Kallistos [WARE] OF DIOKLEIA, The Place of Mary: 1: No New Dogmas, Please, The Tablet, 17 January 1998, p. 93; Roger GREENACRE, The Place of Mary: 2: Mother of All Christians, The Tablet, 24 January 1998, p. 121; R. LAURENTIN, The Place of Mary: 3: Look Before You Sign, The Tablet, 31 January 1998, p. 153; E. STORKEY, The Place of Mary: 4: Scripture Comes First, The Tablet, 7 February 1998, p. 185. 7 WOODWARD and MURR, Hail, Mary, p. 48.

25 August 1997, pp. 48-56.

Devotion versus theology?

151

accept that the present faith of the church has a revelatory value, even if one can draw certain consequences from divine motherhood.8 In what follows I would like to comment on the response that the well-known Orthodox theologian Bishop Kallistos Ware of Diokleia9 gave to the question raised by The Tablet, in light of what other Orthodox have to say on this issue, and then to compare it to Congars reaction in his Christ, Our Lady and the Church. First, let me summarize Bishop Wares answer. He starts with an example of a friend of his who used to be told by his nanny: Before you say anything, ask yourself: Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? He then asks the same three questions about the proposal to define Mary as Co-Redeemer. Is it true? The answer to this question depends on how one interprets the title Co-Redeemer, along with the related titles Mediator of All Graces and Advocate of the People of God. Kallistos then says that, as an Orthodox, he has no objection to these titles, provided they are understood correctly. The Christian East with the greatest frequency says to the Virgin Mary, Most Holy Mother of God, save us! In the prayers to the other saints we almost never say more than ... pray for us. Also, in the preparation for the Divine Liturgy we address Mary in parallel terms: Open to us the door of compassion, blessed Mother of God; setting our hope in you, may we not go astray; through you may we be delivered from distress; for you are the salvation of the
8

B. LAURET (ed.), Fifty Years of Catholic Theology. Conversations with Yves Congar, tr. John BOWDEN, London, SCM Press, 1988, p. 62. Cf. also the treatment given the dogma of the assumption by Congar in his Christ, Our Lady, pp. 68-82. Bishop Kallistos [WARE] OF DIOKLEIA, No New Dogmas, Please, The Tablet, 17 January 1998, p. 93. For a similar argument, see Kallistos WARE, The Mother of God in Orthodox Theology and Devotion, in Marys Place in Christian Dialogue, A. STACPOOLE (ed.), Wilton, CN: MorehouseBarlow, 1983, pp. 169-181.

152

Lucian Turcescu

Christian people. In the evening prayers, the petition is included: All my hope I put in you, Mother of God: guard me under your protection. At the end of the highly popular Paraklisis or Service of Intercession to the Theotokos we sing Queen of the world, become our mediator (Greek: mesitria). The question arising now is: Since Jesus Christ is the only Saviour and the one Mediator between God and humankind (1 Tim 2,5), how can we speak of Mary in this way? Bishop Ware answers by writing that we should understand titles such as these in relation to Colossians 1,24: I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing that which is lacking in Christs afflictions, for the sake of his Body, that is, the Church. Indeed, Christs sacrifice is altogether complete and unrepeatable. Yet at the same time through our own self-offering through our own suffering and our martyrdom, inner or outward we the baptised make up that which is lacking in Christs suffering.... In this sense all the members of the Body are co-redeemers. Mary, however, is CoRedeemer in a particular and outstanding way; for, as Mother of the Saviour, she is involved with a unique nearness in her sons work of salvation. In this sense, all of us are co-redeemers and are called, in union with her, to complete that which is lacking in Christs afflictions. So much for the first question, Is it true? To the remaining two questions, Is it kind? Is it necessary?, Ware responds in the negative, concluding that the proclamation of the dogma of Mary Co-Redeemer will not help the cause of Christian reconciliation. Among the very few Orthodox addressing this issue, Wares approach is perhaps the most honest and easy to understand by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestant brothers and sisters. Most of the Orthodox bibliography I consulted simply ignores the issue of Mary Co-Redeemer and Mediator in the Orthodox tradition or does not want to recognize that it creates difficulties for the

Devotion versus theology?

153

Protestants.10 It is obvious to me that we, the Orthodox, become embarrassed if pressed to explain the above-mentioned expressions about Mary, because we probably have not given them enough thought or do not want to recognize them as difficult even if only at a linguistic level. We would prefer to be left alone or to say, Its not us, its the Catholics who say that Mary is Co-Redeemer. After studying numerous Orthodox texts, I think I can conclude that this embarrassment has yet another source: the lack of a clear distinction between devotion, theology, and dogma. Ware himself, when trying to explain the source of the above-mentioned expressions about Mary, appeals to a secret tradition: the mystery of [Gods] Mother forms part of the Churchs inner, secret tradition that is revealed only through prayer and doxology to those inside the Church.11 He borrows this explanation from an earlier article in which he treated Marys Bodily Assumption; along with V. Lossky, Ware believes in the historicity of the apocryphal tradition according to which, after her death, Mary was resurrected and

10

The following contain no treatment of the expressions mentioned by Ware in regard to Mary. If they treat of Mary Co-Redeemer and Mediator at all, they say that this is not part of the Orthodox tradition but is only Catholic teaching: S. BULGAKOV, The Burning Bush, in his A Bulgakov Anthology, J. PAIN and N. ZERNOV (eds.), London, SPCK, 1976, pp. 90-96; G. FLOROVSKY, The Ever-Virgin Mother of God, in his Creation and Redemption, Nordland, Belmont, 1976, pp. 171-188; A. KNIAZEFF, La Mre de Dieu dans lglise Orthodoxe, Paris, Cerf, 1990; J. MAXIMOVITCH, The Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God, Platina, St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1987; Art. Mariology, in Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church, M. PROKURAT et al. (eds.), Lanham, Scarecrow Press, 1996, p. 212; Dumitru STNILOAE, nvtura despre Maica Domnului la ortodoci i catolici [The Orthodox and Catholic teachings on the Mother of God], Ortodoxia, vol. 2, Bucharest, 1950, pp. 559-609; D. STNILOAE, Teologia Dogmatic Ortodox [Orthodox dogmatic theology], 3 vols., Bucharest, Editura Institutului Biblic i de Misiune Ortodox a Bisericii Ortodoxe Romne, 1978. 11 Kallistos OF DIOKLEIA, No New Dogmas, p. 93.

154

Lucian Turcescu

translated bodily from earth to heaven.12 The assumption of Mary seems to have been a belief that originated in the apocryphal literature from about the fourth century onwards and had a profound effect on both Eastern and Western Christianity.13 This tradition has entered the Orthodox liturgical text of August 15 when Marys Dormition is celebrated, but other Orthodox theologians do not consider it a truth conditioning our salvation.14 Kniazeff thinks that the tradition of her resurrection might have been fostered by the absence of any relics of Mary in a period (4th-5th centuries) when the cult of the saints was developed particularly around the saints relics and tombs. In an apocryphal writing such as The Discourse of St. John the Divine Concerning the Falling Asleep of the Holy Mother of God one can find accounts of Marys resurrection and assumption, as well as the phrase Holy Mary, you who bore Christ our God, have mercy on us.15 Romanian Orthodox theologians N. Chiescu, I. Todoran, I. Petreu, and D. Stniloae (entrusted by the Romanian Orthodox Church with the production of an official manual of dogmatic theology in the 1950s) provided some explanations about the presence of Marian expressions in the Orthodox tradition, thus trying to make a distinction, however embryonic, between devotion (which they referred to as piety) and theology:
12

Kallistos WARE, The Mother of God in Orthodox Theology and Devotion, p. 179. 13 EPIPHANIUS OF SALAMIS, Panarion 78,11 (Griechische christliche Schriftstellers 3.462) writes that, if one searches the Scripture carefully, one will find neither the death of Mary, nor whether she died or did not die, nor whether she was buried or was not buried Scripture is simply silent, because of the exceeding greatness of the Mystery, so as not to overpower peoples minds with wonder. Cf. also Il dogma della immacolata concezione e la tradizione cristiana, the paper of Angelo DI BERARDINO in this present book. 14 KNIAZEFF, La Mre de Dieu dans lglise Orthodoxe, pp. 186-187. 15 The Discourse of St. John the Divine Concerning the Falling Asleep of the Holy Mother of God, 27,39-48, in The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation, by J. K. ELLIOTT, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1993, pp. 706-708.

Devotion versus theology?

155

Piety has appealed to the Holy Virgin to save us from all necessities, but theological thought specified what these necessities were. Popular piety interrupted the liturgical ektenia addressed to the saints with the cry Most Holy God-Bearer, have mercy on us, but theological thought limited the meaning of this salvation work to intercession. Marys intercession is of the same nature as the intercession of the saints, but of a much higher intensity and efficiency, given the exceptional power of the Mother in the taming of her Son.16

Unfortunately, at the end of the above quotation these theologians fall into the trap from which they tried to stay away. This is due to the phrase the exceptional power of the Mother in the taming of the Son (emphasis mine). This phrase, belonging to popular devotion, introduces the idea that the faithful do not have direct access to the Son, here depicted as a merciless Judge whom only his Mother can tame. In other words, mediation is reintroduced after an attempt to reduce it to intercession has just been made. Congar too quotes similar Catholic texts where Christ is presented as a stern, distant Judge inaccessible to the ordinary faithful.17 He disapproves of such views. Another Orthodox suggesting the necessity of an even more nuanced distinction between devotion and theology within the Orthodox tradition is the French theologian lisabeth BehrSigel. She very cautiously asked herself whether the role of Mary in salvation history as seen by the Orthodox Church could further the ecumenical cause. Therefore, she asks rhetorically, Should we not start by establishing a distinction between various levels: those of the dogma, of theology, of the liturgical expression, and of popular piety where cleavages exist even within the same ecclesial
16

N. CHIESCU et al., Teologia dogmatic i simbolic [Dogmatic and symbolic theology], Bucharest, Editura Institutului Biblic i de Misiune Ortodox, 1958, p. 761. E.T. mine. We now know that Stniloae himself co-authored the volume, but because of his arrest for political reasons in 1958, his name was deleted from the authors list. 17 Christ, Our Lady, and the Church, pp. 72-76.

156

Lucian Turcescu

community?18 Concerning the level of dogma, she writes that the Orthodox Church has not formulated any new Marian dogmas beyond those found in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed and the title Theotokos (formulated as dogma at the Council of Ephesus and confirmed at Chalcedon). The level of liturgical expression, in her view, represents a world of symbols and images not of definitions meant to introduce the believer to the reality of the age to come.19 From this point of view, Behr-Sigel thinks that the liturgical level has the potential to facilitate the dialogue with the Christian communities that developed historically in opposition to the exaggerations and deviation of the Marian devotion of the late Middle Ages. However, the level of popular piety as expressed in the exuberance of the Orthodox liturgical poetry about Mary20 risks to disconcert and even to shock the Reformed sobriety. She thinks that the use of apocryphal traditions, in particular, is in contradiction with one of the fundamental principles of the sixteenthcentury Reformation, sola Scriptura. Accordingly, Behr-Sigel suggests (and I subscribe to her view) that Orthodox theology should explain more clearly the meaning and limits of the utilization of apocryphal literature, because it has not done it so far.21 The necessity to distinguish between theology and dogma, on the one hand, and devotion, on the other, holds true for both the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches, especially when this devotion is based on apocryphal possibly Gnostic sources. Congar himself spoke of this necessity, following Jean Guitton.22 But
18

. BEHR-SIGEL, Marie, Mre de Dieu. Mariologie traditionelle et question nouvelles II, Irnikon, 59, 1986, p. 28. E.T. for the quotations from BehrSigel is mine. 19 Ibid., p. 29. 20 Elsewhere she calls these forms of manifestation exaggerations of popular piety, . BEHR-SIGEL, Marie, Mre de Dieu. Mariologie traditionelle et question nouvelles I, Irnikon, 58, 1985, p. 469. 21 BEHR-SIGEL, Mariologie traditionelle II, p. 30. 22 CONGAR, Christ, Our Lady, p. 77.

Devotion versus theology?

157

he also turns to a modern issue such as attempts made by groups from within the Church to convince the magisterium to proclaim a certain dogma, based on a groups particular devotion. Congar contends that such groups are motivated not by the place, importance and balance of emphasis that belongs to [certain theological themes] in an objective and comprehensive way but by the degree of fervor of souls that those particular themes can stimulate.23 While acknowledging the importance of Tradition and of the fact that these particular spiritual experiences may one day become part of it, Congar says that such experiences should be checked against the data of Revelation in the prophets, in Christ and in the Apostles. As a historical theologian who draws a lot on patristic sources, I would like to add that the issue of checking the Churchs teaching against the Scripture is not a concern that emerged only as late as the Reformation. It was fully present in the early Church as well. I will not use the example of homoousios (a non-biblical term) and the havoc it wreaked throughout the fourth century until it was eventually accepted, because this is too well known of an example. But I will tell you about another non-biblical term such as ungenerated and how Basil of Caesarea preferred to drop it from his vocabulary. Ungenerated was applied to the first divine person, God the Father, to distinguish him from the second divine person, the Son, who was generated. It should be noted that this usage had a history of at least one hundred years by the time of Basil. However, Eunomius of Cyzicus, a neo-Arian, tried to use ungenerated to show that the Son is not God. His argument was this: ungenerated describes the nature of the Father, whereas the term generated describes the nature of the Son. Since the Father is divine and his nature is described by the term ungenerated, it follows that the Son, whose nature is described by the term generated, is not divine. In reaction to this attitude, Basil said that ungenerated is non-biblical and advised his brother Gregory of
23

Ibid., p. 78.

158

Lucian Turcescu

Nyssa and their supporters to conserve the orthodox meaning of ungenerated in their soul, but not to be keen on the actual word, as the biblical word Father would sufficiently express the sense of ungenerated in God and would introduce the notion of Son because of the relation.24 A similar attitude of tolerance toward other Christians can be encountered in Athanasius of Alexandrias Tomus ad Antichenos of 363 when he accepts the new meaning of the Greek word hypostasis as person, and Cyril of Alexandrias acceptance to sign the creedal statement of 433 with John of Antioch. The lesson we should learn from the Fathers is that they were very concerned about using biblical expressions and mindful of their ecumenical mission. We should do likewise. If we insist so strongly that we only consider Mary as an intercessor, not a mediator in the sense in which Christ alone is mediator, we should perhaps change our formula to read Most Holy Mother of God, help us. This new formula would preserve fully the meaning of intercession and would open the door to an easier reconciliation with our Protestant brothers and sisters who only in recent decades have started discovering the richness of the notion of communion of saints of which Mary is the most important.

24

BASIL OF CAESAREA, Adversus Eunomium I,5,63-75 (516d-517a) quoted by GREGORY OF NYSSA in his Contra Eunomium I,548.

Table des matires

Remerciements Introduction Andrew LOUTH Patristic Scholarship and Ecumenism Dominique GONNET La porte cumnique de Sources Chrtiennes Lorenzo PERRONE Abramo, padre di tutti i credenti: Louis Massignon e lecumenismo della preghiera Marius CRUCERU Augustine and Ecumenism, A Short Presentation of the Augustinian View on other Christian Groups Michel STAVROU La pneumatologie de Nicphore Blemmyds (XIIIe sicle) : une synthse originale de la doctrine des Pres grecs Lucian TURCESCU Devotion versus Theology? Some mariological issues of interest to patristicians and ecumenstist Ysabel DE ANDIA Regards croiss sur la Sagesse V VII 1 17

33

73

111

147 159

Angelo DI BERARDINO Il dogma della Immacolata Concezione e la tradizione cristiana Marie-Hlne CONGOURDEAU Des pres latins Byzance la fin de l'empire Cristian BADILITA Gratia Dei et libertas nostri arbitrii : Jean Cassien ou la revanche de lortho-doxie Davide ZORDAN Passioni patristiche e discernimento confessionale: John Henry Newman e Louis Bouyer Monique ALEXANDRE Yves Congar : cumnisme et patristique Olga LOSSKY lisabeth Behr-Sigel, un engagement cumnique lcole des Pres Les auteurs

193 221

237

263 283

341 365