Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Nicolae
V. Dura at the age of 60). Prof. Univ. Dr Teodosie Petrescu (ed.), (Constanţa: Editura
Arhiepiscopiei Tomisului, 2006) 386-91. The differences of pagination come from the
preference of the editors to transform the endnotes into footnotes. The text below
represents a revised version of the original]
The current meanings of the words orthodoxy and tradition are generally
associated with some outdated traces of an ancient glory, with everything that
could be more irrelevant – in their presupposed mineral aspect – to the conscience
and experience of modern people. For reasons that will become obvious, when
applied specifically to the living Orthodox tradition, these meanings represent
signs of a painful misunderstanding. More unfortunate is the fact that this
erroneous perception seems to last indefinitely, still casting the shadows of
ignorance upon the dynamics, richness and the spirit of our tradition.
Looking closer, the Orthodox tradition cannot be confused with an ossified
reality. The Orthodox tradition represents a reference system manifested through,
and embodied in, the possibilities of various cultures, and simultaneously
transcending any of its manifestations. What characterises Orthodoxy, besides its
both dynamic and polyphonic expressions, is an extremely complex development,
unfolding into a multilevel structure, combining rigour and mobility, identity and
flexibility. The present essay endeavours to put into light this complex
architecture, stressing the importance of a still incompletely studied aspect of the
inner side of tradition: its operative criteria. This task cannot be accomplished
without preliminary notes on the structure and the dynamics of our ecclesial
tradition.
During modern times and mostly in the West, Christian Churches have offered a
series of dramatically oscillating strategies in their ways of connecting to the new
contexts emerging from continuous paradigm shifts. These ways went from
narrow rejection, like in the revival of fundamentalism, to uncritical acceptance,
like in the so-called theology of secularisation. Such a contradictory phenomenon
seems to indicate different and inadequate understandings of the spirit of the
apostolic tradition. In the background of the above mentioned attitudes, one could
discern a reiteration – within a Christian context – of the ancient difficulty of
articulating stability and motion, immutability and becoming, perfectly evident in
the concurrent paradigms represented by Heracleitus and Parmenides.1 More
specifically, the fundamentalist rejection of modernity could represent a
Parmenidian-like feature – if this represented the culture of a status quo –, whilst
the uncritical acceptance plays the role of a Heracleitian-like dynamic paradigm,
always open to new and change.
Beyond any triumphant claim and lack of realism, I would assert that traditional
Orthodoxy did not experienced such dilemmas, as for instance it did not reach an
open conflict with either science or the modern world.2 This assertion remains
valid although it is obvious that Orthodoxy, attempting to avoid a unilateral
positioning into temporal and secular, was not always able to resist travelling
towards a timeless and aerial refuge.3 Even today its rhythm of articulating with
the new context, particularly in the changing space of the Eastern European
countries, seems to be of slow motion. Always contemplating its own inner nature,
Orthodox tradition displays a permanent care for continuity (“the unity of faith,”
according to our liturgy), indeed risking to be branded as defending an antiquated
1
stand in a century of change.4 Thus, and unfortunately, it is precisely this
propensity towards permanence and continuity which allows certain superficial
minds to excommunicate Orthodoxy from the modern world (cf. Huntington’s
famous map5). The facts, however, are very different so that a judgement of this
kind is not essentially accurate.
In the Orthodox understanding, continuity does not refer to the custody of
ancient trophies, but to preserving the ecclesial spirit; it is the persistence of a
particular way of addressing things, of living and thinking. There is nothing to be
cherished in the Church but the spirit that animates the bearers of the apostolic
mindset. In a paradoxical way, being always the same this spirit remains ever
productive and fruitful – the inexhaustible source of new answers within the
parameters of the same apostolic framework.6 To be traditional means therefore
not only
……………………………..387……………………………
2
the “false opinions” regarding the body of the truth. This strong emphasis on the
canon/norm, as part of the complex interplay of the written and unwritten sides of
tradition,12 has become necessary given the emergence of Gnostic sects that
threatened to relativise the canon of right belief/opinion.
More explicitly, St Basil the Great (fourth century) distinguished within the
ecclesiastical tradition the two perfectly distinct layers of dogmata (the opinions,
“reserved to members of the household of faith”) and kērygmata (the “publicly
proclaimed” teachings), stressing that none among those acquainted with the life
of the Church deny their existence and “equal force.” 13 Usually designated as
“written sources” or “written authority,” kērygmata represented the teachings
“proclaimed to the world,” having the function of communicating the elementary
faith notions to non-Christians and catechumens. By contrast, dogmata
transmitted to us “secretly, through apostolic tradition” or by “secret and mystical
tradition,” represented the inner substance of the “unpublished and unwritten
teachings” and were “observed in silence” by those initiated.14 Although both
levels were worthy of reverence, dogmata had priority over kērygmata, since they
attested to the ecclesiastical significance of what was been preached.
Ignoring dogmata was synonymous to “reducing the Gospel teachings to bare
words.” According to St Basil, there is no ecclesial understanding of the Gospel in
the text as such; outside the rule
……………………………..388……………………………
of faith (dogmata) and reduced to itself, the text communicates information that
can be interpreted in various ways. What really matters for the Church therefore is
the norm of right opinion/interpretation, the ecclesial understanding of the text
(also of teaching and practice), meaningful to the Church itself. Obviously, the
prominent role of dogmata derives from the very fact that the kērygmata do not
manifest immediately their own deep ecclesial meaning.15 The meaning is
preserved at the level of dogmata and carefully handled by the fathers,
enlightening the teachings and the practices of the Church16 for the
understanding of those fully integrated. Of course one should not confuse the
recommended silent reverence regarding the mysteries of faith with a Gnostic
prescription. The recommendation aims to preserve the right opinion (which is the
literal sense of the word ‘orthodoxy’) unaltered and to acknowledge the different
degrees of accessing it.
Similarly, St Dionysius the Areopagite (early sixth century) pointed out that the
“theological tradition” had a double meaning, as being composed of two
intertwined aspects. There was an apophatic and secret side, “ineffable and
mysterious,” “revealed to the real lovers of holiness,” and a manifested and
publicly accessible side, “open and more evident.” Beyond the similarity between
his ideas and those of St Basil,17 various nuances – echoing a different
ecclesiastical context – are immediately obvious. St Dionysius refers on the one
hand to the apophatic aspect, which “resorts to symbolism and involves
initiation,” putting the “souls firmly in the presence of God.” On the other hand he
refers to a superficial approach by way of “the method of demonstration,” making
use of persuasion and imposing “the truthfulness of what is asserted.”18 The two
ways represent two different kinds of nourishment: the “solid and stable” and
respectively the “liquid and flowing.” Imitating divine revelation, “the fathers of
unutterable wisdom” or “the sacred initiators of our tradition,” employed symbols
for every theological aspect of our faith; this was meant to enable “the one
capable of seeing the beauty hidden within these images” to find the true
meaning. In the beginning, this meaning remains inaccessible to the “profane;”
however, step by step and through initiation the symbols are uncovered so that
eventually the meaning is perceived in its “naked purity”. Once unravelled, the
meaning must be ecclesiastically tested, for it has to stay “in harmony with the
sacred tradition and the truth of scripture.”19 Although in St Dionysius the aspects
of tradition’s complex architecture and the degrees of understanding are
sometimes intermingled, the idea of the two levels of one and the same
3
‘theological’ (i.e. prophetic and apostolic) tradition is as clear as it was in the
thought of earlier fathers.
Thus, despite the various terminologies used by the holy fathers, the reality of a
complex bi-dimensional tradition – also reflected in the two main parts of the
liturgy – was highly obvious to the early Church. Furthering the comparison with
the liturgy, the actual relation between the two levels of tradition appears like an
unceasing interplay of changeable (feature of the liturgy of the catechumens,
within which other sacred texts are read each time) and unchangeable (feature of
the liturgy of the faithful, always with the same Eucharistic prayer and
operations). It becomes evident that the spirit, the level of dogmata, constitutes
the core of the ecclesial tradition, providing coherence to what is preached.
Together with the complex structure of our ecclesial tradition becomes also
obvious what represents the appropriate context for debating mobility and
stability. Theoretically speaking, the spirit (the level of dogmata) never changes
whilst the letter (the level of kērygmata), being culturally conditioned, is fluid in
character. Always in this light, the various unilateral solutions to connect with
modern paradigms, discussed above, appear as misunderstandings concerning
this ideal balance of letter and spirit. On the one hand, any addiction to the past
represents a symptom of a misplaced faithfulness with reference to outdated
cultural features and circumstantial expressions of faith; it is the symptom of an
idolatrous consideration of the letter, construed as immutable.20 On the other
hand, the abandonment of basic traditional principles, the breaking with wisdom
and experience, and the uncritical effort to update originate in the
misunderstanding of spirit as a volatile reality.
Orthodoxy should not be mistaken for an historical archive or a museum of
antiquities, although being the witness of two thousands years of civilisation it
may be analysed from this point of view, too. It rather represents a continuous
embodiment of the spirit, the framework par excellence within which the mystery
of the humanised Logos is repeated, over and over;21 a spirit that assumes the
flesh of every culture and capable to manifest itself through the letter, or features,
of any paradigm. The way Orthodoxy has approached the language of Greek
philosophy coincides to the way in which it has succeeded to embrace in a
polyphonic synthesis the possibilities of any other culture. This aspect has
become paradigmatic to the Byzantine tradition with the translation of Bible and
the liturgy into Slavonic by Sts Cyril and Methodius;22 this spirit was already and
concretely manifested by the rich diversity of communities coexisting with the
Greek speaking Christian world. Perceived through the lens of
……………………………..389……………………………
4
monolithic as the Orthodox themselves like it to be.24 This is an aspect that
sweeps away the modern myth of its inability to participate in a new context,
pointing simultaneously to the necessity to preserve critically what really defines
our tradition.
5
experience is accomplishable, i.e. the Church, extension of the theanthrôpos
(Godman) Christ. Finally the third one indicates the eschatological purpose of this
experience, pointing to the
……………………………..390……………………………
When applied to the Orthodox Church and considered in light of the above
specifications, the current meanings of the words tradition and orthodoxy do not
match with reality. However, if there could be acknowledged a certain relevance
of these meanings, this is only by referring to marginal ecclesiastical phenomena
(such as the confusion between spirit and letter within the literalist circles and in
the anachronistic tendencies of these circles).
To confuse the message and its expressions in the name of a traditional Church,
by attempts to mineralise the spirit in the crust of dead letters (i.e. obsolete
cultural formulae), represents in fact a serious misinterpretation of the ecclesial
mindset. When they have been assimilated by the Church, in successive historical
stages, these various cultural paradigms were fully operating and relevant to
people that were making use of them. Or, given the permanent shift of
mentalities, the ancient and medieval figures have become almost completely
irrelevant to our modern everyday experience. The way the Hebrew Bible has
become difficult to read in a Hellenised circum-Mediterranean world, a fact that
pushed the ecclesial mind to review its understanding of God’s revelation inside
the parameters of a new culture, the same way the Church is called to reinterpret
its own faith within new contexts.
Any attachment to cultural instruments used in the past that is motivated by
other reasons than acquiring insight into a modus operandi for the Church here
and now is thoroughly counterproductive. Exactly because of an idealistic
attachment to the past34 the Church may be easily mistaken for some obsolete
cultural expression and cast together with the latter into the shadow of oblivion…
The old-fashioned features, the cultivated archaism, the figure of a supratemporal
reality – in striking contrast with the nationalistic tendencies that confuse blood
6
(ethnicity) and spirit (ecclesial identity) –, also perhaps the lack of a true desire to
discover the new world, all these aspects undermine the Church from within. In
the end these attitudes have nothing in common with the spirit of the apostolic
tradition.35
In order to understand properly the significance of ancient inheritance and to
emulate today the accomplishments of yesterday, the Church is called to
approach its traditional documents the way the fathers use to approach Scripture,
discerning between letter and spirit. Literalism is as foreign to the apostolic spirit
as any form of fundamentalism and anachronism. St Gregory the Theologian
blamed the heretical groups for being “very eager to defend the letter,” taking
“their love for the letter” as “a cloak for irreligion.”36 Irreligion meant to him
alienation from the standards/criteria of the ecclesial mindset, an attitude
demonstrated by exaggerating the letter’s value. Instead, the holy fathers “have
read the Holy Scriptures not in frivolous, cursory way, but with penetration so that
they saw inside the written text its inner meaning.”37
As already noted to be traditional does not take just to cherish the legacy of the
past. To be traditional takes the capacity to question our historical prejudices
about what Christianity is and to experience the authentic ecclesial instruction,
able to introduce – through a radical conversion of both mind and life – into the
mystery of the Church, of the apostolic opinion and the right way of living in
Christ. The unity of faith asked by the participants in the liturgy (using St Paul’s
terminology in Eph 4:13), does not refer primarily to a formal adherence to a
series of teachings – mostly inaccessible, intellectually speaking, to many among
the faithful –, but a way of thinking, the ecclesial mindset. We have to learn how
to appropriate and employ the criteria transmitted through these teachings,
condition sine qua non for orthopraxy (the right way of living). We need to return
to an understanding of the Church’s teachings in the spirit of the
……………………………..391……………………………
fathers; that is, to understand faith the way the fathers would have understood
it today. “For they would not have ignored our time just as they have not ignored
their own.”38
To preserve the letter is not enough, although this could lead our mind to
discern – beyond the rich polymorphism of our tradition – a unifying vision (the
spirit) to be found in the infrastructure of tradition. Precisely this understanding is
expressed in the Orthodox liturgy attributed to St John Chrysostom (see the
prayer before the reading of the Holy Gospel and the second prayer for the
faithful). The authentic mind of the Church operates with the criteria of the
truth/right belief, outside which the documents of our tradition have no salvific
meaning; also, outside which the opportunities for an efficient Orthodox
contemporary witness remain difficult to fructify.
Towards ending
7
The paper has endeavoured to unravel forgotten aspects of the invisible side of
Orthodox tradition, hoping to contribute to a better understanding of our ecclesial
legacy. Of course other major aspects (such as the work of the Holy Spirit and the
role of spiritual guidance), which could not be treated here, wait for further
research. In the author’s view, a true insight into the meaning of Orthodoxy
cannot be achieved without addressing topics like the levels of tradition and the
criteria of right opinion. The awareness regarding the traditional features analysed
here could also significantly contribute to reshape the image Orthodox tradition
has within contemporary culture.
Notes:
8
1
With no specific reference to Christianity, an enlightening overview of the two concurrent philosophies, see
in Anton Dumitriu’s Eleatic Cultures and Heracleitian Cultures (Romanian), (Bucharest: Cartea românească,
1987).
2
Many of the Byzantine refugees in the West, theologians and clergymen, were supporters of sciences in a
time when the Western Church was reticent. Cf. Claude Allègre, Dieu face a la science (Paris: Fayard, 1997),
218. See also Magda Stavinschi, “Chrysantos Notaras – A famous representative of European theology and
science” (Romanian), in R. Constantinescu & G. Calina, eds., Theology and Natural Sciences: Pursuing the
Dialogue (Craiova: Centre for Applied Theology, 2002), 149-161.
3
Cf. Ioan I. Ică jr., “Church, Society and Thinking in the East, West and Today Europe” (Romanian), in I.I. Ică jr.
and G. Marani, eds., The Social Thinking of the Church: Foundations – Documents – Analyses – Perspectives
(Sibiu: Deisis, 2002), 24-27, 37-46. John Behr considers that the Orthodox Churches have seen in their
withdrawal to themselves and the past a way of escaping the abuses coming from the communist regimes; cf.
“Scripture, Gospel and Orthodoxy” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly [SVTQ] 43/3-4 (1999), 226.
4
Though endangered by several pseudomorphoses, this could be a trace of the traditional contemplative
feature of Orthodoxy; cf. John Chryssavgis, In the Heart of the Desert: The Spirituality of the Desert Fathers
and Mothers (Bloomington: World Wisdom, 2003), 63-64.
5
Cf. Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Touchstone,
1997).
6
Cf. St Maximus the Confessor, Difficulty 41, PG 91, 1304D-1305B.
7
The principles are explained in the notorious homily To the Youth of St Basil the Great. See also Georges
Florovsky, “The Patristic Age and Eschatology: An Introduction,” in Aspects of Church History, vol. 4 in the
Collected Works (Belmont: Nordland Publishing Company, 1975), 63-78; John Behr, “Faithfulness and
Creativity,” in J. Behr, A. Louth, D. Conomos (eds.), Abba: The Tradition of Orthodoxy in the West (Crestwood:
St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003), 165.
8
Cf. Archbishop Stylianos (Harkianakis), “Commemoration in Orthodox Worship and Life” Phronema XIX
(2004), 1-22.
9
Cf. La luce dell’ Oriente: Apello all’ unità con le Chiese orientali nel centenario della Orientalium dignitas di
papa Leone XIII. Lettera apostolica di Giovanni Paolo II (Milano: Figlie di San Paolo, 1995), see especially
chapter “Vangelo, Chiese e culture” (I:7).
10
See the two series of catechetical orations of St Cyril of Jerusalem, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
Series II, vol. VII. In the words of Kei Yamamura, applied to St Gregory of Nyssa, it is about “the internal
dialogue of confession and praise” or “Church’s internal word” and “the outgoing dialogue of mission” or
“external proclaimed kerygma” (cf. “The Development of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in Patristic
Philosophy: St Basil and St Gregory of Nyssa,” SVTQ 18.1 (1974), 4, 9 & 17). John Chryssavgis identifies the
two levels with the hierarchical authority (institutional level) and the spiritual guidance (charismatic level); cf.
“The Spiritual Father as the Embodiment of Tradition” Phronema 1 (1986), 20.
11
Cf. St Irenaeus of Lyons, On the Apostolic Preaching 1 & 3, translation and introduction by John Behr
(Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997).
12
Cf. Behr, Formation of Christian Theology, Vol. I, The Way to Nicaea (Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 2001), 44; idem, “Irenaeus on the Word of God” Studia Patristica XXXVI (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), 164.
13
Cf. St Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit 66 (Crestwood: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980).
14
On the Holy Spirit 66. See also St Gregory of Nazianzus, On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations
and Two Letters to Cledonius, trans. by Frederick Williams and Lionel Wickham (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 2002) 29. Contrary to St Basil’s insight, many of our contemporary handbooks are silent on
the mystical element of our Church tradition. Perhaps they are dependent on the outdated discussion
regarding authority and opposing the institutional hierarchy and the spiritual fathers. For an interesting
approach to the topic, see John Chryssavgis, The Way of the Fathers: Exploring the Patristic Mind
(Thessalonika: Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies, 1998), 17-19; idem, In the Heart of the Desert, 63-68.
15
Saint Basil considers that the inner intelligible coherence of tradition and Scripture is given by “the
unwritten tradition of the Fathers”. Cf. On the Holy Spirit 22.
16
See some important examples in On the Holy Spirit 66.
17
On the possible parallel between Sts Basil and Dionysius, cf. Andrew Louth, Denys the Areopagite,
Outstanding Christian Thinkers series (London and Wilton: Geoffrey Chapman and Morehouse-Barlow, 1989),
24-27.
18
St Dionysius the Areopagite, Letter 9.1, in Pseudo-Dionysius, The Complete Works, translation by Colm
Luibheid; foreword, notes, and translation collaboration by Paul Rorem; preface by Rene Roques; introductions
by Jaroslav Pelikan, Jean Leclerq, and Karlfried Froelich (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1987), 283. Louth sees here
the difference between learning (mathein) and experiencing (pathein); cf. Denys the Areopagite, 25.
19
Letter 9.1; 9.3-4; 9.6. The traditional background of St Dionysius’ vision is accurately emphasised by Louth
(Denys the Areopagite, 26), who points out the liturgical context of the whole discussion (see also 29-31).
20
Cf. Archbishop Stylianos (Harkianakis), “Dangers of Idealism in Theology and Spirituality” Phronema III
(1988), 7-9.
21
According to St Maximus the Confessor, Christ intends to repeat in each and every one the mystery of his
incarnation. Cf. Ambigua 7, PG 91, 1084D.
22
Cf. John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes (London and Oxford:
Mowbrays, 1975), 212-223.
23
Cf. Archbishop Stylianos (Harkianakis), “The Place of Tradition in the Christian Faith” Phronema I (1986), 11.
24
Cf. Karl Christian Felmy, Dogmatics of the Ecclesial Experience: The Renewal of Contemporary Orthodox
Theology (Romanian) (Sibiu: Deisis, 1999), 36.
25
At the end of the second century, Orthodoxy did not accommodate either a list of teachings or a list of
writings but the canon of the right understanding of the Scriptures (cf. Behr, “Scripture, the Gospel and
Orthodoxy,” 227). For an extensive elaboration on the traditional hermeneutical criteria of the Church see
John Breck, Scripture in Tradition: The Bible and its Interpretation in the Orthodox Church (Crestwood: St
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 38.
26
Cf. Behr, “Scripture, the Gospel and Orthodoxy,” 225.
27
Cf. The First Theological Oration 5.
28
Cf. St Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogy 24, PG 91, 704A.
29
Cf. Behr, “Faithfulness and Creativity,” 169; idem, “Irenaeus and the Word of God,” 164.
30
In St Basil’s homily “To Young Men: On How They Might Derive Profit from Pagan Literature,” 2. Cf. St Basil –
The Letters IV, translation by R.J. Deferrari (Loeb Classical Library, reprinted 1970) 381-383.
31
On the Apostolic Preaching 40-42.
32
Cf. Against the Heresies 4.18.5, in Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1.
33
Cf. Chryssavgis, The Way of the Fathers, 20-21.
34
Cf. Archbishop Stylianos, “Dangers of Idealism in Theology and Spirituality,” 8-9. See also Chryssavgis, The
Way of the Fathers, 25.
35
See the Christian constitution presented in the Epistle to Diognetus 5-6, in M.W. Holmes (ed.), The Apostolic
Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, revised edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 541-543. It
explicitly mentions that Christians do not differ from other people by their clothing etc, but by behaviour. An
important commentary on this text by Ioan Ică jr in “Church, society and thinking in the East, West and today
Europe”, 17-22.
36
The Fifth Theological Oration 3.
37
The Fifth Theological Oration 21. Very similar, St Dionysius, On the Celestial Hierarchy 1.2-3.
38
Cf. Dumitru Stăniloae, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (Romanian), vol. 1, (Bucharest: Biblical and Mission
Institute of the Romanian Orthodox Church, 1987) 5-6.