Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

[Published in Omagiu Profesorului Nicolae V. Dură la 60 de ani (In Celebration Prof.

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 Inner Side of the Visible: Apostolic Criteria and Spirit


in the Orthodox Tradition
Doru Costache

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associated with some outdated traces of an ancient glory, with everything that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.

Continuity and becoming

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……………………………

to preserve the achievements of previous Christian generations, but to find


appropriate ways of confessing the same content of Christian experience and faith
within new historical, cultural and geographical contexts. As a result of its
intricate architecture Orthodoxy represents in fact a synthesis of old and new,
immutability and becoming, harmoniously keeping together the rigour of its own
criteria and the flexibility required when addressing new cultural paradigms.7
Besides some problematic features specific to various Orthodox milieus, such as
nationalism and pietism, the proof that supports the above claim is the way local
Churches approach their immediate contexts. Thus, the same traditional grounds
of Orthodoxy can be easily discerned beyond the diversity of local Churches
(although their perfect unity is something still to come8). To consider Orthodoxy
something closed and belonging in the past obviously represents an
oversimplification of this model, which was officially extolled by the late Pope John
Paul II9.

The two levels of tradition

In order to properly understand what Orthodoxy is beyond the intricate display


of local Churches, modern conscience – as moving inside a non-traditional or even
anti-traditional culture – has to address the complex structure of the levels, or
layers, of tradition. A traditional corpus, like that of Orthodoxy, unfolds
simultaneously in at least two dimensions which, paraphrasing St Paul’s words, we
may designate as the letter and the spirit (cf. 2 Cor 3:6). By letter we understand
here the ‘external’ elementary teaching delivered during the preliminary stages of
Christian initiation, whilst by spirit the inner meaning of teachings, revealed to
those initiated, fully enlightened or integrated to the Church.10 Though not
necessarily using the above terms, this understanding is actually suggested by
the New Testament in several contexts, such as in Heb 5:12-14 and 6:1-2, also
those dealing with the issue of strong/weak among the faithful (cf. Rom 14:1-3
etc). There is no real comprehension of what Orthodoxy represents without
discerning between what belongs to the external and internal levels of tradition.
The reality of the two levels was more or less clearly defined but always present
in the writings of the holy fathers. St Irenaeus of Lyons11 (early third century)
witnessed the way the faith was transmitted in the ancient Church, through
written and unwritten teaching. Delivered from the beginning within the
catechumenal instruction, and by initiation, faith has been handed on by “the
elders, the disciples of the apostles.” The oral teaching represented indeed the
irreplaceable vehicle of ecclesial mindset, outside of which any attempt to
interpret correctly the written “summary memorandum” (the exposition of faith
but also the Scriptures) was difficult if not impossible. Thus, only by being aware
of the apostolic rule one could have discerned “what really is, as it is,” avoiding

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.

The permanent embodiment of the spirit

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……………………………

contemporary morphological theories, the great family of Orthodox Churches


could be actually schematised like a fractal structure, as constituting a basic
pattern indefinitely multiplied into an intricate net of similar yet ever different
features.
Therefore, by its natural complexity, Orthodoxy represents a framework within
which rule and freedom, letter and spirit, identity and change, coexist in perfect
balance just as the soul intimately meets with the body. Theoretically, if
Orthodoxy remains devoted to its own structure and dynamics, it preserves every
possibility of transmitting efficiently its traditional message, embodying the
apostolic spirit here and now – without ceasing to be itself, even when making use
of the scientific language of our times. Indeed, the point is not to change the spirit
but to fill every cultural structure with the apostolic spirit.23
The cultural and linguistic diversity of Orthodoxy makes futile any further
attempt to provide additional proofs in regard to its capacity to express in new
ways. Orthodoxy is neither so monolithic as those from outside think it is, nor that

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.

The sequence of the apostolic criteria

The permanent or immutable dimension of ecclesial tradition – the level of


dogmata, the reference system of God’s people – cannot be exhausted by its
circumstantial formulations. In fact, it consists of a set of criteria25 (to be found
behind the curtains of outer manifestations) that represent the content of these
formulations and in turn are communicated by them. This clarification allows us
discern between the apostolic spirit and the cultural patterns through which the
former was successfully expressed in the past, within various historical and
geographical contexts. To confuse between letter/channel and spirit/message
leads to the depreciation and loss of both.26 The clarification is also useful to the
Church when it experiences new contexts, so that it can avoid any schismatic
abandonment of its own identity. As St Gregory the Theologian put it, we are
allowed to philosophise and debate freely insofar as within the confines of our
faith.27
Against the current understanding of Orthodoxy as treasuring a doctrinaire
corpus, the above clarification points toward the inner side of tradition, consisting
of a sum of criteria not a sum of teachings. The teachings, the commandments,
the advices, the practices etc – revealed by God through the mediation of
prophetic, apostolic and patristic witnesses –, are all pregnant with contents that
could be appropriately termed, together with St Irenaeus, the canon/criteria of
truth. Talking to us, God does not just inform us; instead, he reveals his criteria in
order to allow us to think, live and act in a divine-like manner, in the likeness of
God. Consequently, if thoroughly assimilated, i.e. both theoretically and
practically, the apostolic canon becomes an active structure of the ecclesial
mindset: “the mind you should have is the one that Christ Jesus had” (Phil 2:5). As
such, becoming our mindset, the canon of truth serves to transform mankind into
a new reality, organised not according to the earthly lower criteria but to the
higher exigencies of the spirit.28
In the mind of the prophets, the apostles and the fathers of the Church, Christ
himself is the living manifestation and proclamation of these criteria: he is the
pearl hidden in the soil/letter of the Law. Christ is the ultimate criterion, the only
measure on earth and in heaven;29 and the Holy Spirit confirms this criterion (cf.
Mat 3:16-17; Jn 1:32). Scripture and tradition are both “energies” and witnesses of
Christ, not criteria of the truth. Scripture and tradition – together with everything
they encompass – are explanations of Christ’s mystery, embodiments of the only
criterion into concepts and analysable facts.
Although remaining the final and decisive criterion, Christ is ‘traditionally’
unfolding within the Church by means of three interconnected criteria. These
three criteria define the nature and constitute the reference system of the
Orthodox tradition, even if they operate mostly in a discrete manner. We can
reach them through analysing every confession of faith the Church has
established in the first millennium, although they remain usually unspoken for
reasons difficult to trace today, probably related to the discipline of secrecy
concerning the dogmata. Unfortunately, the discipline of secrecy turned in time
against the Church, for we have become almost unable to comprehend the
meaning of many aspects of the faith and practice handed down to us.
No matter how we shall meet them labelled, these Christologically-grounded
criteria are: Godmanhood, communion and deification. All three express
fundamental aspects of the Orthodox ecclesial tradition. Corresponding to the
structure of Christ’s complex hypostasis, the first term refers to the synthetic
structure of Christian faith and experience, where nothing occurs unilaterally from
above or from below. The second reveals the framework where the divine-human

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……………………………

finality of every ecclesial manifestation.30 Precisely in this order and bearing


these meanings (no matter how they are termed), the three criteria are listed by
St Irenaeus as renewal in Christ (the experience of Godmanhood), in the Church
(communion), and in the Holy Spirit (deification).31 In different context, he
highlights the significance of eucharist as an ecclesial criterion, corresponding to
Christ and summarising the three mentioned criteria: our opinion is in accord with
the eucharist, and the eucharist confirms our opinion.32
The Church has always made use of these criteria – even if implicitly – in its
historical experience, elaborating creatively within their parameters, a fact that
has provided Orthodoxy with a certain style, a specific and distinct imprint. These
are the irreducible elements that shape Orthodoxy the way we know it. Correlative
aspects of the Christological dogma, they point continuously to the mystery of the
life of Christ and in Christ. Perfectly interconnected, the three criteria constitute
the inner structure of the ecclesial liturgy, which represents the most prominent
manifestation of tradition as experience of Christian community with and in Christ.
The complex interconnection of the three apostolic criteria and their historical
expressions prevent the Church from renouncing these channels and from
substituting them with anything else. Fortunately, contemporary Orthodox
Churches are far from disregarding the inheritance passed on to us by previous
generations. Yet, within our contemporary context of shifting paradigms, what we
have to recover is the awareness of the call our generation must answer, of
becoming aware of the role of ecclesial criteria and the ways they could be
employed. That is, we are called to reconnect with the apostolic spirit and
understand the true meaning of the ancient traditional expressions.33

Connecting again with tradition

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

One of the most interesting and controversial phenomenon in modern


Orthodoxy was the so-called neopatristic movement. More or less clearly
formulated, the program of this movement envisaged a theological development
following three major stages: (1) recovering the whole corpus of the ecclesial
tradition; (2) reconnecting with the apostolic spirit; (3) bridging the gap between
ecclesial mindset and modern society. Despite some important scholarly
accomplishments, the neopatristic manifesto – insistently promoted through the
slogan ‘back to the fathers’ – had as an unfortunate result the growing feeling of
unworthiness that dominates our generation and particularly the fundamentalist
circles. This feeling is obvious through an almost general complex of inferiority in
regard to the creativity of past generations, followed by a complacent attitude
and the tendency of idolising antiquity. This phenomenon contributes massively to
the negative perception of the Orthodox tradition today.

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.

Вам также может понравиться