Check out my new website about Orthodoxy!

[Happy Orthodox]

Hello, dear Orthodox brothers and sisters! I've created an Orthodox website of missinary purpose not so long ago. What do you think of it?

http://true-faith.narod.ru

The server is slow because it's free. And there aren't that much materials there, but more are on the way. Suggestions? Critique?

[MariaRegina]

Western theology has a beginning in Augustine's works

This quote is bound to be contested.

[Julio]

This quote is bound to be contested.
And contested it is.

If St Augustine is responsible for anything, it is for writing a number of speculative works that, eventually falling into the wrong hands, were perversely misread.

And of course, remember that Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, is a saint of the Holy Church, commemorated on June 15.

In any case, it might better to write that while the East has remained faithful to the fulness of Apostolic faith and practice, the West increasingly introduced novel ideas into their minds and hearts, thus accounting for both the consumation of the Great Schism and the remarkable difference between the theologies of East and West.

[Apostolos]

A small contribution to enrich your library (these are free publications of the School of Theology of the Athens University):

Faith And Science In Orthodox Gnosiology And Methodology
The Very Rev. Prof. Dr. Dr. George Metallinos
Professor


PART 1


A. Problem or pseudo-problem?
The antithesis and consequent collision between faith and science is a problem for western (Franco-Latin) thought and is a pseudo-problem for the Orthodox patristic tradition. This is based upon the historical data of these two regions.

The (supposed) dilemma of faith versus science appears in Western Europe in the 17th century with the simultaneous development of the positive sciences. About this same time we have the appearance of the first Orthodox positions on this issue. It is an important fact that these developments in the West are happening without the presence of Orthodoxy. In these recent centuries there has been a spiritual estrangement and differentiation between the [rational] West and the Orthodox East. This fact is outlined by the de-orthodoxiation and de-ecclesiastication of the western European world and the philosophication and legalization of faith and its eventual forming as a religion in the same area. Thus religion is the refutation of Orthodoxy and, according to Fr. John Romanides, the sickess of the human being. Therefore, Orthodoxy remained historically as a non-participant in the making of the present western European civilization, which is also a different size than the civilization of the Orthodox East.

The turning points in western Europeans course of alteration include: scholasticism (13th century), nominalism (14th century), humanism/renaissance (15th century), Reformation (16th century) and the Enlightenment (17th century). It is a series of revolutions and, at that same time, breaches in the structure of western European civilization, that was created by the dialectic of these two movements.

Scholasticism is supported on the adoption of the Platonic realia. Our world is conceived of as an image of the transcendent universalia (realism, archetype). The instrument of knowledge is the mind-intellect. Knowledge (including knowing God) is accomplished through the penetration of logic in the essence of beings. It is the foundation of metaphysic theology, which presupposes the Analogia Entis, the consequitive ontological relation between God and the world, the analogy between the created and uncreated. Nominalism accepts that the universalia are simple names and not beings as in realism. It is a struggle between Platonism and Aristotelian thought in European thought. However, nominalism turned out to be the DNA, in a way, of European civilization, whose essential elements are dualism philosophically and individualism (eudomenism) socially. Prosperity will become the basic quest of the western man, theologically based on the scholastic theology of the middle ages. Nominalism (that is dualism) is the foundation of scientific development of the western world, that is the development of the positive sciences.

The Orthodox East had had another spiritual evolution, under the guidance of its spiritual leaders the saints – and of those who followed them, the true believers--who remained loyal to the prophetic-apostolic-patristic tradition; this tradition stands at the opposite end of scholasticism and all the historic spiritual developments in the European word. In the East, hesychasm or prayer of the heart is dominant (and is the backbone of patristic tradition) it is expressed with the ascetically experienced participation in the Truth as communion with the Uncreated. The faith in the possibility of the joining of God and the world (the Uncreated and the created) within history is preserved in the Orthodox East. This, however, means the rejection of every form of dualism. Science, to the degree it developed in Byzantium/Romania, developed within this framework.

The scientific revolution in Western Europe of the 17th Century, contributed to the separation of the fields of faith and knowledge. It resulted in the following axiomatic principle: New (positive) philosophy only accepts truths which are verified through rational thought. It is the absolute authority of Western thinking. The truths of this new philosophy are the existence of God, soul, virtue, immortality, and judgment. Their acceptance, of course, can only take place in a theistic enlightenment, since we also find atheism as a structural element of modern thought. The ecclesiastical doctrines that are rejected by rationality are the Triune nature of God, the Incarnation, glorification, salvation, etc. This natural and logical religion, from the Orthodox viewpoint, not only differs from atheism but is much worse. Atheism is less dangerous than its distortion!


B. Orthodox Gnosiology

It has been said that in the East the antithesis between faith and science is a pseudo-problem, Why? Because gnosiology in the East is defined by the object to be known which is twofold: the Uncreated and the created. Only the Holy Trinity is Uncreated. The universe (or universes) in which our existence is realized, is created. Faith is knowledge of the Uncreated, and science is knowledge of the created. Therefore, they are two different types of knowledge, each having its own method and tools of inquiry.

The believer, moving within the territory of supernatural, or knowledge of the Uncreated, is not called to learn something metaphysically or to accept something logically, but to experience God by being in communion with Him. This is accomplished by introducing him to a way of life or method which leads to divine knowledge.

It has been correctly stated that if Christianity were to appear for the first time in our era, it would have taken the form of a therapeutic institution, a hospital to reinstate and restore the function of man as a psychosomatic being. That is why Saint John Chrysostom calls the Church a spiritual hospital. Supernatural-theological knowledge is understood in Orthodoxy as pathos (experience of life), as participation and communion with the transcendent and not an unreachable personal truth of the Uncreated and certainly not a mere exercise in learning. Thus, the Christian faith is not the abstract contemplative adoption of metaphysical truths, it is rather, the experience of beholding True Being: the experience of the Supersubstantial (Superessential) Trinity.

This clearly expresses that in Orthodoxy, authority is found in experience. The experience of participating in the Uncreated, of seeing the Uncreated (as expressed by the terms and "theosis" and "glorification"), and is not based on texts or in the Scriptures. The tradition of the Church is not preserved within texts but in people. Texts help, but they are not the bearers of the Holy Tradition. Tradition is preserved by the Saints. Human beings are the bearers of the Gospel. The placing of texts above the actual experience of the Uncreated (an indication of the religionizing of faith) leads to their ideologization and in fact to their idolization. This in turn leads to the absolute authority of the text (fundamentalism) and all the well understood consequences.

The presupposition of the function of knowing the Uncreated, for Orthodoxy, is the rejection of every analogy (either Entis or Fide) in this relationship of the created and the Uncreated. St. John of Damascus summarizes this previously extant patristic tradition in the following manner: It is impossible to find, in creation, an icon that would reveal the way of existence of the Holy Trinity. Because, how could it be possible for the created, which is complex and changeable and describable, which has shape and is perishable, to clearly reveal Superessential Divine Essence, which is free of all these categories? (P.G. 94,821/21).

Therefore, it now becomes apparent why school education and philosophy more specifically, according to the patristic tradition, are not presuppositions for knowledge of God (theognosia). Alongside the great academic St. Basil the Great (+379) we also give honor to St. Anthony (+350), who by wordly standards was not wise. Yet they are both teachers of the faith. Both witness to knowledge of God, St. Anthony as someone uneducated and St. Basil as someone who was more highly educated than Aristotle. St. Augustine (+430) differs (something that the West would find very painful, if they knew about it) from patristic tradition at this point when he ignores scriptural and patristic gnosiology and is in essence a Neo-platonist! With his axiom credo ut intelligam (I believe in order to understand) he introduced the principle that man is lead to a logical conception of Revelation through faith. This gives priority to the intellect (the mind), which is considered by this form of knowledge to be the instrument or tool of knowing both the natural as well as the supernatural. God is considered as a knowable object that can be conceived of by the human intellect (mind) just as any natural object can be conceived of. After St. Augustine the next step in this evolution (with the intervention of the scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas+1274) will be made by Decartes (+1650) with his axiom cogito, ergo sum (I think therefore I am) in which the intellect (mind) is declared as the main basis of existence.

(to be continued)

[Apostolos]

Faith And Science In Orthodox Gnosiology And Methodology
The Very Rev. Prof. Dr. Dr. George Metallinos
Professor
PART 2

C. The two types of knowledge
It is the Orthodox Tradition that puts and end to this theoretical collision within the field of gnosiology. It does so by differentiating the two types of knowledge and of wisdom:


divine or that which "from above" and

secular (thyrathen) or lower.

The first knowledge is supernatural and the second is natural. This corresponds to the clear distinction between the Uncreated and the created, between God and creation. These two types of learning require two methods of learning. The method of divine wisdom-knowledge is the communion of man with the Uncreated through the heart. It is accomplished through the presence of the Uncreated energy of God in man's heart. The method of secular wisdom-knowledge is science, it is accomplished by exercising the intellectual/ logical power of man. Orthodoxy establishes a clear hierarchy in the two types of knowledge and their methods.

The method of supernatural gnosiology, in the Orthodox Tradition, is called hesychasm and is identified with watchfulness and purification (nepsis and katharsis) of the heart. Hesychasm is identified with Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy, patristically speaking, is inconceivable outside its hesychastic practice. Hesychasm in its essence, is the ascetic-curative practice of cleansing the heart of passions to rekindle the noetic faculty within the heart. It must be noted at this point, that the method of hesychasm as a curative practice is also scientific and practical. Therefore, theology, under proper conditions, belongs to the practical sciences. Theology's academic classification among the theoretical sciences or arts began in the 12th century in the west and is due to the shift of theology into metaphysics. Therefore, those in the East who condemn our own theology, demonstrate their Westernization, since they, essentially, condemn and reject a disfigured caricature of what they regard as theology. But what is the noetic function? In the Holy Scriptures there is, already, the distinction between the spirit of man (his nous) and the intellect (the logos or mind). The spirit of man in patristics is called nous to distinguish it from the Holy Spirit. The spirit, the nous, is the eye of the soul (see Matt. 6:226).

The noetic faculty is called the function of the nous within the heart and is the spiritual function of the heart, its parallel function is the heart as the organ that pumps the blood throughout our bodies. This noetic faculty is a mnemonic system that exists with the brain cells. These two are known and are detectab1e from human science, which science cannot, however, conceive of the nous. When man attains illumination by the Holy Spirit and becomes the temple of God, self-love changes to unconditional love and it then becomes possible to buiId real social relations supported upon this unconditional reciprocity (a willingness to sacrifice for our fellow man) rather than a self- interested claim of individual rights according to the spirit of western European society.

Thus some important consequences are understood: First, that Christianity in its authenticity is the transcendence of religion and a conception of the Church as merely an institution of rules and duties. Furthermore, Orthodoxy cannot be conceived as an adoption of some principles or truths, imposed upon from above. This is the non-Orthodox version of doctrines (absolute principles, imposed truths). Conceptions and meanings in Orthodoxy are examined through their empirical verification. The dialectical-intellectual style of thinking about theology, as well as dogmatizing, are alien to authentic Orthodox Tradition.

The scientist and professor of the knowledge of the Uncreated, in the Orthodox Tradition, is the Geron/Starets (the Elder or Spiritual Father), the guide or "teacher of the desert". The recording of both types of know1edge presupposes empirica1 knowledge of the phenomenon.

The same holds true in the field of science, where only the specialist understands the research of other scientists of the same field. The adoption of conclusions or findings of a scientific branch by non-specialists (i.e. those who are unable to experimentally examine the research of the specialists) is based on the trust of the specialists credibility. Otherwise, there would be no scientific progress.

The same holds true for the science of faith. The empirical knowledge of the Saints, Prophets, Apostles, Fathers and Mothers of all ages is adopted and founded upon the same trust. The patristic tradition and the Church's Councils function on this provable experience. There is no Ecumenical Council without the presence of the glorified/deified (theoumenoi), those who see the divine (this is the problem of the councils of today!) Orthodox doctrine results from this relationship.

Therefore, Orthodox faith is as dogmatic as science is. Those who speak of bias in the filed of faith, must not forget the words of Marc Bloch, that all scientific research is biased from the beginning, otherwise research could not have been possible. The same holds true of faith. Orthodoxy, makes a distinction between the two types of knowledge (and wisdom), and their methods and tools, thus, avoiding any confusion between them as well as any conflict. The road remains open to confusion and conflict only where the conditions and essence of Christianity are lost. However, in the Orthodox environment, some illogical analogies exist. Such as the possibility of having someone who excels in science, yet with regard to divine knowledge is a child spiritually; and vice-versa, someone who is great in divine knowledge and completely illiterate in human wisdom as the aforementioned St. Anthony the Great. Nothing, however, precludes the possibility of possessing both types of wisdom/knowledge, as is the case of the Great Fathers and Mothers of the Church. This is exactly what the Church hymns for the 3rd century mathematician Saint Catherine the Wise as possessing both types of knowledge: The martyr having received God's wisdom since childhood, learned all secular wisdom well...


D. God-Man dialectic

Thus the Orthodox believer experiences in the correlation of the two knowledge-wisdoms a God-man dialectic. And to use the Christological terminology, every knowledge must stay put and move within its limits. The problem of the limits of each kind of knowledge is put thus: The surpassing of those limits leads to the confusion of their functions and finally to their conflict. According to the above, the Holy Fathers defended the correct use of science and education. Saint Gregory the Theologian states: "Education should not be dishonored." The same Father in his second theological Oration also sets the limits of both kinds of wisdom. Saint Gregory says that the ancient sage (Plato in Timaeus) said: "It is difficult to know God and impossible to express Him [verbally]." However the same Greek yet Christian St. Gregory understands that it is impossible to express (describe) God with words, moreover it is absolutely impossible to understand Him! That is, Plato has already pointed out the limits of human reason and it is important to add that there is no rationalism in the ancient Greek philosophy. Saint Gregory also demonstrates the impossibility of surpassing those limits and the conception of the Uncreated by means of the knowledge of the created.

The distinction and simultaneous hierarchy of the two kinds of knowledge have been pointed out by Saint Basil the Great when he states that faith must prevail in words concerning God and the proofs made by reason. That faith originates from the action and energy of the Holy Spirit. Faith for St. Basil is the illumination of the Holy Spirit in the heart. (P.G. 30,104B-105B). He also gives a classic example of the Orthodox use of scientific knowledge in his Hexameron (P.G. 29, 3-208). He repudiates the cosmological theories of the philosophers on the eternity and self-existence of the world and proceeds to the synthesis of biblical and scientific facts, through which he surpasses science. Furthermore, by rejecting materialistic and heretical teachings, he gets to the theological (but not metaphysical) interpretation of the nature of creation. The central message of this work is, that the logical support of dogma is impossible based only on science. Dogma belongs to another sphere. It is above reason and science, yet within the limits of another knowledge. The use of dogma with wordly knowledge leads to the transformation of science into metaphysics. Whereas the use of reason in the domain of faith proves its weakness and relativity. Therefore, there is no belief that is not searched in Orthodox gnosiology, but each field is searched with its own criteria: Science with its presuppositions and Divine Knowledge with its presuppositions.

The most tragic expression of the alienated Christian body is the ecclesiastica1 attitude in the West towards Galileo. The case could be characterized as surpassing the limits of jurisdiction. But it is much more serious, it is the confusion of the limits of knowledge and their conflict. It is a fact that this loss of the wisdom from above in the West and the way of achieving it have caused the intellect (mind) to be used as a tool of not only human wisdom, but of Divine Wisdom too. The use of the intellect in the field of science leads unavoidably to the rejection of the supernatural as incomprehensible, and its use in the field of faith can lead to the rejection of science when it is considered to be in conflict with faith. This same way of thinking and the same loss of criteria is also betrayed by the rejection of the Copernican system in the East (1774-1821). Science, in turn, takes its revenge for the condemnation of Galilee by the Roman Church, in the person of Darwin, with his theory of evolution.


E. Transplantation of the Western Problem to the Orthodox East

The European Enlightenment consisted of a struggle between physical empiricism and the metaphysics of Aristotle. The Enlighteners are philosophers and rationalists as well. The Greek Enlighteners, with Adamantios Korais as their patriarch, were metaphysical in their theology and it was they who transported the conflict between empiricists and metaphysicists to Greece. However, the Orthodox monks of Mount Athos, the Kollyvades and other Hesychast Fathers remained empiricists in their theological method. The introduction of metaphysics in our popular and academic theology is due, principally, to Korais. For this reason Korais became the authority for our academic theologians, as well as for the popular moral movements. This means that the purification of the heart has ceased to be considered as a presupposition of theology and its place has been taken by scholastic education. the same problem appeared in Russia at the time of Peter the Great (17-18th century). Thus the Fathers are considered to be philosophers (principally Neo-platonists like St. Augustine) and social workers. This has become the prototype of the pietists in Greece. Furthermore, Hesychasm is rejected as obscurantism. The so-called progressive ideas of Korais comprise from the fact that he was a supporter of the Calvinistic and not the Roman Catholic use of metaphysics, and his theological works are intense in this Calvinistic pietism (moralism).

However, for the Fathers,Orthodoxy is anti-metaphysical, as it continually searches empirical certainty, by means of the hesychastic method. This is why the hesychasm of the Kollyvades is empirical and scientific. Ratio according to Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite is empirical. This is illustrated by the Hesychasts of the 18th century in the way in which they accept the scientific progress of the West. The Kollyvades acknowledged scientific viewpoints like, for example, Saint Nicodemos the Hagiorite did in his work, Symbouletikon, where he accepts the latest theories of his time on the functioning of the heart. Saint Athansios Parios does not fight science itself, but its use by the Westernized Enlighteners of the Greek nation. They regarded science as God's work and as an offering for the improvement of life. But the use of science in a metaphysical struggle against faith, as was practised in the West, and as was transferred to the East, is opposed quite rightly by the traditional theologians of the 18th and 19th century. The mistakes lies on the side of the Greek Enlighteners who, without having any relationship with the patristic viewpoint of knowledge, although they themselves were priests and monks, transferred the European conflict of metaphysicists and empiricists to Greece, talking about irrational religion. Whereas, the Fathers of Orthodoxy, discriminating between the two kinds of knowledge making a distinction at the same time between the rational from the super-rational.

The problem of conflict between faith and science, apart from the confusion of knowledge, has caused the idoloziation of the two kinds of knowledge. Thus, a weak and morbid apologetic has resulted in Christianity (e.g. a Greek professor of Apologetics many years ago produced a mathematical proof of the existence of God !). In Orthodoxy, however, this dualism is not self-evident. Nothing excludes the co-existence of faith and science when faith is not imaginary metaphysics and science does not falsify its positive character with the use of metaphysics. The mutual understanding of science and faith is helped by current scientific language.

The principle of indetermination (that there is no causality) is a kind of apophatism in science. The return to the Fathers therefore, helps to overcome the conflict. The acceptance of the limits of the two kinds of knowledge (Uncreated and created) and the use of the suitable organ or tool for each one, is the element of Orthodoxy and of the Fathers which places earthly wisdom under higher or divine knowledge.

In contrast, the confusion of the two types of knowledge in Western thought promotes their mutual misinterpretations and continues and fosters their conflict. A Church which persists in metaphysical theology, will always be obliged to beg Galileo's pardon. But a Science that also ignores its limits, will deteriorate into metaphysics and will either deal with the existence of God (which is not its responsibility) or reject God completely.

[Apostolos]

The Orthodox Church
Professor Constantine Scouteris
PART 1

Some preliminary clarifications

"Orthodoxy" means "right belief" or "right opinion" as opposed to heresy, i.e. to the "wrong" or "false belief". The term "Orthodoxy" combines the adjective "orthos", which signifies "right", "true" or "correct", and the noun "doxa" which is derived from the verb "doxazo", which means to "hold an opinion", or "to believe". Thus, Orthodoxy indicates "correct doctrine". An early Greek Father, Anastasius the Sinaite, describes Orthodoxy as the true conception about God, beings and Creation.1 The term "Orthodoxy" also indicates right glorification, since the verb "doxazo" also means "to glorify"; in this sense the term "Orthodoxy", more accurately, means right glorification encompassing both sound doctrine and the right way of expressing it.2

Within the Christian context and understanding of the term, "Orthodoxy" is related to Eastern Christendom. The term is used especially to indicate those Churches which are in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and share a common faith and ecclesial life. These Churches constitute one family or one body and are even from ancient times described as "the one holy, orthodox, catholic and apostolic Church".

When describing Orthodoxy as a family of Churches, we are not implying that Orthodoxy forms a static or a monolithic bloc, an inflexible so to speak body, but rather a global and living Christian fellowship, embracing people from all the continents and from different historical and cultural environments.3


The Orthodox Faith

The Orthodox Church is founded on the mystery of God's Word. As the Father has sent me, I also send you (John 20: 21). It is a fundamental conviction of the Orthodox believer that the Church has been sent into the world to live and bear witness to the loving vocation, with which God enfolds humankind from the beginning of its existence, through the presence within herself of God's Word,. "For God so loved the word that he gave his only begotten Son... God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved" (John 3: 16-17).

According to the Orthodox point of view, the vocation and responsibility of the Church is to hold to the truths, which are revealed by the historical appearance of Jesus Christ, and preserve them, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as a living tradition within the ecclesial body. The Church is described in the Bible as the pillar and ground of the truth (I Tim. 3: 15). This means that every perfect gift and every truth revealed in Christ is kept intact in the Church and transmitted as a dynamic tradition and a life giving reality in every historic now» The very being of the Church is understood as Orthodox communion.

The issue of tradition is of capital importance for the understanding of the faith, work and life of the Orthodox Church. Tradition is not simply the transmission of an abstract teaching, but rather the maintenance of the eternal truth of the Gospel. Tradition is lived in time and history. This means that the Church has received the faith of the Apostles, maintains it and lives this faith as a divine heritage and dynamic process. Thus, the Orthodox Faith, once delivered to the Apostles and the Saints, is preserved as a living inheritance in specific situations; it has, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, a historic continuity and actuality.

Orthodox the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The life of the Orthodox Church is marked by the teaching of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. These Councils were formal gatherings of the bishops of the whole Church in order to regulate doctrinal issues and define the Orthodox teaching upon the basic themes of the Christian faith, mainly the Trinity and the Incarnatlon.4 For the Orthodox, the content of the Christian faith is expressed in the definitions and the regulation of the Ecumenical Councils. The work of the Ecumenical Councils was not abstract speculation. When the bishops of the Councils drew up definitions their intention was to protect the people of God and exclude false teachings and deviations leading to error and heresy, and consequently making salvation impossible. It is for precisely this reason that the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils are held to possess the highest authority which the Orthodox Church can exercise. Thus, with a deep consciousness of the perfect continuity with the preaching of the Apostles, the Orthodox Church acknowledges the following as Ecumenical Councils:


The Ist Ecumenical Council, held in Nicaea in 325, which formulated the First Part of the Creed defining the divinity of Christ, the Son of God

The 2nd Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 381, which formulated the Second Part of the Creed defining the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

The 3rd Ecumenical Council, held in Ephesus in 431, which defined Christ as the Incarnate Word of God and His Mother as Theotokos.

The 4th Ecumenical Council, held in Chalcedon in 451, which defined Christ as perfect God and perfect Man in one Person. It stressed that the two natures were united in the hypostasis of the Word "without confusion, change, division or separation»

The 5th Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 553, which reconfirmed the doctrines concerning the Holy Trinity and the Person of Christ.

The 6th Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople in 681, which affirmed the true humanity of Jesus Christ, by clarifying that Christ has two natures and consequently two wills and actions, the divine and the human.

The 7th Ecumenical Council, held in Nicaea in 787, which affirmed that Holy Icons are authentic expression of the Orthodox faith.

The Trinity

The Orthodox Christian considers that God's glory is revealed to hurnan kind as knowledge about the Holy Trinity. God is one in essence (nature) and Triune in persons. In our ecclesial prayer and life we the Orthodox, confess and glorify God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, without confusing the persons or dividing the nature of God All Orthodox theology, all ecclesiology and Christian ethos is based on and oriented towards this triune mystery. The blessed Trinity is the solid basis for every Theological investigation, for all spiritual experience and life, for all piety and ecclesial action.

The creation of the entire cosmos is the work in time of the Holy Trinity. The world is never considered as self-created; its existence is the product of the love, the wisdom and the creative power of the All-Holy Trinity.

In the Eastern Orthodox tradition the contemplation of the mystery of the Holy Trinity take place in an attitude, spirit and language of glorification and thanksgiving. This spiritual atmosphere is clearly expressed in the liturgical life of the Orthodox Church. A characteristic example is the ancient hymn which is still used today, during the feast of Pentecost: "Come, you people, worship the Godhead in three persons, the Father in the Son with the Holy Spirit. For the Father from all eternity begets a co-eternal Son, reigning with Him and the Holy Spirit is in the Father, glorified with the Son - one only power, one only substance, one only Godhead; Him do we worship, repeating together: Holy God, who created all things through the Son with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit; holy Strong One, through whom we have known the Father and through whom the Holy Spirit came into the world; holy Deathless One, Spirit of Consolation, who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son: Holy Trinity, glory to Thee»5.

Christ

In the Orthodox Church we confess that Jesus Christ is truly God, the only-begotten Son of the Father; not created of another essence but begotten of the very essence of the Father before all ages. He is co-essential (consubstantial) with the Father, according to His divinity. Through His incarnation, He also became truly man, like us in every respect with the exception of sin. Thus, He is of the same essence with us all, according to His humanity. The two natures of Christ remain distinct, but nevertheless being united in the one Person of Christ, without being transformed into one another, they interpenetrate one another.

The mystery of the two natures in the one Person of Christ, the incarnate Word of God, constitutes the foundation and the pledge for the restoration and the salvation of human beings. Through Christ the human person has immense potentiality: he-she has the possibility to overcome his-her individuality and isolation and be in communion with God The Fathers of the Church constantly and repeatedly declare that, Christ became what we are so that we might become what He is.

The Holy Spirit the Church and deification

In the theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the divinity which is common to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is communicated by the Holy Spirit to human beings within the Church, making them partakers of divine life6 This does not mean that humans partake of God's essence, which is absolutely unapproachable for created beings, but rather that they partake of His energies. Thus, the deification of the human person is based on the fact that the Holy Spirit interpenetrates and influences his or her entire being. This means that participation in the divine life of the Holy Trinity is realized and perfected through the presence and the operation of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, is distinct from the Father and the Son, but nevertheless He is in every respect perfect God, coessential, coequal and coeternal with the Father and the Son. Gift of the Father, source of life and freedom, the Holy Spirit is called "the Spirit of God" "the Spirit of Christ" "the Mind of Christ" "the Spirit of the Lord" and Lord Himself; He is also called Spirit of Truth, of Wisdom, of Adoption, of Liberty; The Holy Spirit is the "Heavenly King" the "Comforter", "Treasury of goodness and Giver of Life".

The Holy Spirit grants the divine gifts to human persons: "the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord" (Is. II: 2). The Holy Spirit, as the source of the uncreated and infinite divine gifts, was sent into the Church and the world in order to communicate divine grace to humans. This is indeed what we call in the Orthodox tradition deification or "divinization" ("theosis"). Through the transforming light of the Holy Spirit the human person becomes a vehicle and receptacle of divinity. The human being transcends his corporeal limitations, or rather enriches his earthly life with heavenly gifts7 for, as St. Gregory the Theologian says: He is the source of light and life, and he makes a temple of me, he deifies me, he perfects me, he is before baptism and is sought after baptism. Whatever God does, it is the Spirit who does it. He multiplies himself in tongues of fire and adds gift to gift"7.

For Orthodox theology the Church, founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of human beings, is filled by the Holy Spirit. The Church is the fullness of Him who fills all in all (Eph. I: 23). The Church is described by Paul as fullness in the sense that the Spirit dwells within her body and guides her to fulfill her mission. St. Irenaeus explicitly declares that "where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and every kind of grace8. Thus, the Church, through the uninterrupted presence of the Holy Spirit, becomes a holy institution. In the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople the Church is described as: "One in so far as Jesus Christ is the only Lord who founded not many churches but one Church. "Holy because her Head, Christ, is the incarnation of holiness and because she is guided by the Holy Spirit. "Catholic» because she transcends every local and cultural limitation. "Apostolic" since she was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone» (Eph. 2:20).

The ecclesial life is a profoundly spiritual and mystical way. It is an attitude which is based on and expresses the doctrinal tradition of Orthodoxy; it is a way of being closely related with what is known as sacramental life. The Orthodox recognize the Sacraments of Baptism, Chrism or Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Confession of sins, Ordination to Priesthood, Marriage and Holy Unction as channels leading to a dynamic rather than a static Christian life.

More precisely, the mystical and at the same time communal character and attitude of Orthodoxy is expressed in the eucharistic gathering. In this gathering, around the table of the Lord, all division and individuality is abolished and all are united with the bishop, the living image of Christ, who offers the bread and wine in all and for all The communion by all believers of the bread and wine, the body and the blood of Christi is the realization of the unity both with Christ and with all the members of the Church. Thus, through the Eucharistic communion our human nature is elevated to the divine level, being united with the divine in the Person of the incarnate Word of God.

It is within the context of eucharistic theology that one can understand the teaching of the Orthodox Church concerning death and the life to come. The Eucharist is a foretaste of the perfect co-celestial communion, which will be a communion penetrated by the uncreated divine light. The resurrected bodies of the friends of God will be glorious, like the glorified body of Christ which the disciples beheld on the day of His Transfiguration.


(to be continued)

[Apostolos]

The Orthodox Church
Professor Constantine Scouteris
PART 2

Orthodoxy, the Cosmos and Ecology

From another perspective, Eucharistic theology reveals that, according to the Orthodox approach, there is a deep and indissoluble bond between the Church and the created world. In fact, in the Eucharist elements of the created world, the bread and the wine, are taken and transformed. They are offered to God by the worshipping community: "We offer to Thee Thine own from Thine own". Thus, the created word is related to God through this eucharistic action of offering and transformation. This means that the human being is not an owner of creation, but a bond or link between it and the Creator.

Orthodoxy refuses to ascribe to the created universe a self determinate reality or a natural sufficiency. The created universe does not have ontological foundation in itself, but is a gift of God; through the creative word of God a passage from non-being into being is realized The fact that the created world has the free will and the creative wisdom of God as the unique foundation of its existence is of paramount importance for an understanding of Nature and of the cosmos in general. The point is that the created world has a spiritual significance and orientation. Being created by God "ex nihilo the natural world is the manifestation of divine wisdom and harmony. This means that, when trying to understand and examine the inner reason of created beings, we finally face divine knowledge and the wisdom of God, the causal principle of the harmonious existence of created beings.

Bearing in mind this brief theological approach, we easily come to the conclusion that ecological evil is the consequence of a mentality which considers creation as desacralized material. The ecological crisis is connected with the loss of the sense of the divine in Nature. Talking of "the divine in Nature" we do not intend to support the pagan approach that the natural world is permeated by divine presence, but rather to stress that Nature, created by God out of love, is associated with God. This means that it has been created by God and also that the human being exists as the organic link between God and creation. In the final analysis the ecological problem is the consequence of the loss of what is described as spiritual equilibrium» between man and Nature9. Thus, the world is considered as something which can be used unconditionally, dominated, manipulated and consumed for our economic and scientific interests. In other words desanctified Nature is the result of the dehumanized human being.

The Orthodox Church is very sensitive towards such an egotistic attitude and utilitarian understanding of Nature. It is for precisely this reason that the spiritual center of the Orthodox Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, decided to dedicate the 1st of September each year as the Feast Day of Creation. On this occasion the Ecumenical Patriarchate calls all Orthodox Churches to hold worship services and distributes Patriarchal messages stressing the responsibility of all Christian world for the protection of the creation. On the other hand the annual Symposium, concerning environmental issues, is also recognized as a constructive project encouraging and enabling people to take responsibilities and initiatives and to care for creation and the environment.


The Orthodox Communion

Among the Orthodox there is a strong conviction that the Orthodox communion has an unbroken, direct descent from the apostolic Church. The unity of Orthodoxy is expressed, first by the fidelity to the faith of the apostles and to the heritage of the Early Church, and secondly, equally important, by the visible unity and fellowship of all the venerable Orthodox Churches.

Structurally, the Eastern Orthodox Church is composed; firstly, from the four out of the five ancient Patriarchates which, together with Rome, formed the system of "Pentarchy and secondly by a number of other autocephalous Churches, which elect their own primate, without reference to another autocephalous Church, and which are responsible for the government of their Church, through their own Synod. Orthodoxy also includes autonomous or semi-autonomous Churches. These particular Churches organize their own internal life, but they have reference to and are under the aegis of one of the autocephalous Churches. Thus, the Orthodox Church is a family of self-governing Churches, which are held together by their unity in faith, their communion in the sacramental life and their spiritual relationship with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.


The Four Ancient Patriarchates
(The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, The Patriarchate of Alexandria, The Patriarchate of Antioch and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem).

Like Rome, these Churches are called Apostolic Seats, because they have apostolic origin, founded in the 1st century. The ancient system of Pentarchy, whereby the five apostolic seats were held in particular honor and order of seniority was established among them (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem), came at a decisive moment in 1054, when the see of Rome was separated from the other four Apostolic Churches. The year 1054 is commonly considered as the official date of the schism between East and West. But nevertheless, the process leading to this separation was long and complicated. Christian East and West developed their own understanding about the Church and ministry. To a great extent they experienced a different way of life and theology. The estrangement between East and West was broadened by Western scholastic theological development and the doctrine of the Papal authority and infallibility. However, in recent times the atmosphere has changed considerably, due to the ecumenical movement and the theological dialogue between the Roman-Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.

Since the separation from the Christian West, all the Orthodox Churches continued their life, recognizing the seniority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which holds a particular primacy of honor in the Orthodox Church.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople

The Ecumenical Patriarchate is the ecclesiastical center of the Orthodox world. According to the order of the ancient system of "pentarchy which was established by the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381), the see of Constantinople was second to Rome. Thus, following the great separation, dividing Rome and the Eastern Patriarchates (1054), the Patriarch of Constantinople became first in the ecclesiastical order of the Orthodox Churches, holding a primacy of honor in the hierarchy of the Orthodox Churches. The seniority and primacy of honor (First among equals) entails the right of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to call and preside at the Pan-Orthodox Conferences, and also to coordinate Orthodox activities and hear appeals (under certain conditions) from all parts of the Orthodox world. Evidently, this ecclesiastical primacy does not impair the equality of all Orthodox bishops and their divine right to preside in their local Church, to perform the sacraments and to teach the people of God, as those divinely appointed for this mission.

The apostolic origin of the Church of Constantinople is testified in the Orthodox tradition. Byzantium is believed to have been founded by the Apostle Andrew, the brother of Peter. When Constantinople was founded upon Byzantium and became the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, the status of the Bishop of Constantinople was elevated through a series of ecclesiastical decisions. Thus, by the 3rd canon of the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381) the Bishop of Constantinople was placed second in the ecclesiastical order. The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the prerogatives of honor after the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is New Rome The 28th canon of Chalcedon (451) reconfirmed the 3rd canon of the Council of Constantinople, attributing again to New Rome the place of honor next to Old Rome. Later, in the year 587, a Synod held in Constantinople officially ascribed to Patriarch John the VI the title "Ecumenical" due to the fact that Constantinople was the center of the "ecumenical empire".

Over the years the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople was occupied by many outstanding Patriarchs. Among them one could mention St. Gregory the Theologian (329-389), St. John Chrysostom (347-407), Photius the Great (810895), and others.

During its long history the Ecumenical Throne developed remarkable missionary work. This missionary work covers a long period7 from the conversion of the Slaves, Czechs, Moravians and Poles by St. Cyril and Methodius (9th century), who devised the Cyrillic alphabet and script, to South Korea and the Far East in our own century.

In our time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate continues its mission serving the unity of the Orthodox world Thus, the primacy of honor» is in practice primacy of service (diakonia) and never a primacy of authority over the other Orthodox Churches. The service and the spiritual and ecclesiastical leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is shown today in many diverse activities. In Pan-Orthodox Conferences, in the various theological dialogues, in theological education, in the Ecumenical movement, and above all in its pastoral care for Orthodox Christians of different national origin dispersed worldwide. Today the Ecumenical Patriarchate has jurisdiction in Europe, North and South America, Asia, Australia and New Zealand.

(to be continued)

[Apostolos]

The Orthodox Church
Professor Constantine Scouteris
PART 3

The Patriarchate of Alexandria
The Alexandrian Church was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, in the year 64, and played a very considerable role in the life of the early Church. Its theological contribution was very important in the defense of Orthodoxy, especially during the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea (325) and Ephesus (431). Alexandrian theology, very much influenced by Platonic tradition, was developed by the Apologists, Clement Alexandrinus, Origen, and later by St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Alexandria. In their exegetical work the theologians of Alexandria were inclining towards mystical and alegorical exposition.

At the time of Reformation the Patriarchate of Alexandria was served by the outstanding Patriarchs Meletios I Pegas, Cyril Loukaris and Metrophanis Kritopoulos, who wrote an important and well known Confession of Faith» (1625).

In our century the Patriarchate of Alexandria has developed important missionary activity in several African countries, where it has organized schools, hospitals and a Theological Seminary in Nairobi (Kenya). The Alexandrian Patriarchate includes Greeks, Africans and Arab Christians amongst its flock. One of the main concerns of the Church of Alexandria today is to present the Christian Gospel in a way that is relevant to African cultural pluralism, at the same time maintaining its integrity.

The Patriarchate of Antioch

It was in the ancient city of Antioch that "the disciples were first call Christians (Acts 11: 26). The theological contribution of Antioch to the life of the Church of the first Christian centuries is great without doubt. This can be seen from the times of St. Ignatius (35-107), bishop and martyr, who emphasized the episcopal shape of the post apostolic Church in his epistles, up to St. John of Damascus who summarized patristic theology in his treaties. The Antiochean theology of the early Church was to a great extent opposed to Alexandrian theology. Its direction was historical and Aristotelian, while Alexandria s was mystical and Platonic. In their exegesis the theologians of Antioch followed the literal and historical method.

The Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch now resides in Damascus and his current jurisdiction covers Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. In the 2Oth century a considerable arabic speaking diaspora appeared in North and South America, Europe and Australia The Patriarchate of Antioch has a long experience of coexistence with the islamic world.

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem

After the dispersion of the twelve disciples of Christ, St. James the Lord's brother (Gal. I: 19) presided over the local Church of Jerusalem. The see of Jerusalem became important after the visit of St. Helena, the mother of emperor Constantine, when the fashion for venerating the holy places were the Lord lived and suffered became popular. Thus, the first Church dedicated to the Resurrection of Christ was built around 335. During the first centuries of Christianity the see of Jerusalem was under the metropolitan see of Caesarea It was at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) that the diocese was elevated to patriarchal dignity. One of the greatest theologians of the Church of Jerusalem was St. Cyril of Jerusalem, whose Mystagogical Cathecheses are very famous.

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem suffered through several occupations and from proselytism. For centuries its main task was, and still is, the protection of the churches of the Holy Land: the Holy Sepulchre, Calvary, the Nativity, the Ascension, the Transfiguration, and others. The rights of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem in the holy places are recognized by international treatise. Today, the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate covers Israel, Palestine and Jordan.





Orthodox Autocephalous, Autonomous and Semi-autonomus Churches

In addition to the four ancient Patriarchates, the Orthodox family includes a number of autocephalous, autonomous and semi-autonomous Churches. These Churches are, according to their order of rank:

The Orthodox Church of Russia

The Orthodox Church of Russia is the largest of all the Orthodox Churches. Christianity was established in Russia in 988, when the Emperor Vladimir was baptised and recognized it as the official religion in his dominion. The Russian Church was proclaimed autocephalous in 1448. In the year 1589 the elevation of the Church of Russia to the rank of a Patriarchate was decided by the Great Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, presided by the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremias II.

The Orthodox Church of Serbia

The patron of the Serbian Orthodox Church is St. Sabas, who, after he founded a strong Serbian dynasty, went to Mount Athos where he became monk and founded, together with his father, the Serbian Monastery of Hilandar. In 1219 he was consecrated Archbishop of the Serbian Church by the Patriarch of Constantinople. In the year 1831 an inner autonomy was granted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate under its supervision. In 1879 the Church of Serbia was proclaimed autocephalous and in 1920 was recognized as a Patriarchate.

The Orthodox Church of Rumania

Roman Dacia, which covered the present land of Rumania, received Christianity by the 4th century, probably through soldiers. For a long period the Church of Rumania was under the spiritual care of the Church of Constantinople. In 1885 the Rumanian Orthodox Church was proclaimed autocephalous, by the Ecumenical Patriarch Joacheim IV, and a Holy Synod constituted. In 1925 the elevation of the Rumanian Church to the rank of Patriarchate was decided by the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The Orthodox Church of Bulgaria

The Bulgarian Church is the first-born daughter of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Christianity was preached in Bulgaria even by the 7th century and this evangelisation was completed in the 9th century, when St. Photius was Patriarch of Constantinople. The Bulgarian Church received its autocephaly in 1945. On the 27th of July 1961 the Church of Bulgaria was elevated to the rank of Patriarchate.

The Orthodox Church of Georgia

The Church of Georgia was founded by the Apostle Andrew, but the full acceptance of the Christian Gospel was completed in the 4th century by St. Nina the illuminator of Georgia In the 5th century the Church of Georgia was recognized as an autocephalous Church by the Patriarchate of Antioch, since the Church of Georgia was included at that time in the Antiochean jurisdiction. In the year IBII the Church of Georgia lost its autocephaly through a non-canonical decision of the Russian Emperor. The Church of Georgia was again recognized as an independent Church on the 3rd of March 1990, by a Patriarchal and Synodical decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Church of Georgia is presided by the Catholicos Patriarch of all Georgia.

The Orthodox Church of Cyprus

Cyprus was evangelised by St. Paul and St. Barnabas (Acts 13). The Church of Cyprus has been autocephalous since the Third Ecumenical Council (431). Many Cypriot saints are mentioned in the Byzantine Synaxaria (Lives of the Saints); this fact proves that a living ecclesiastical presence was in Cyprus even from early Christian times. At the 1st Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (325) Cyprus was represented by three Cypriot bishops; one of them was St. Spyridon of Trimithous. Today the Church of Cyprus is presided by an Archbishop and governed by the Holy Synod of the five dioceses.

The Orthodox Church of Greece

Christianity was preached in Greece by St. Paul (Acts 17: 15-16.I Thes. 3: I), whose main center was Corinth. Organized ecclesiastical life was already present in Greece from the 1st century and many martyrs and saints are mentioned in the Byzantine Synaxaria. From the beginning of the eighth century Greece was under the jurisdiction and the spiritual protection of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. When the establishment of the modern Greek State took place, the Church of Greece was proclaimed autocephalous, in the year 1833. The autocephaly was re-declared by the Ecumenical Patriarchate on the 29th of June of 1850, by a Patriarchal and Synodical Tomos. The Church is governed by the Holy Synod of the Bishops of the Church of Greece and presided, for historical reasons, not by a Patriarch but by the Archbishop of Athens. The Church's jurisdiction reaches over the greater part of Greece.

The Orthodox Church of Poland

The Polish Church is presided by the Metropolitan of Warsaw and all Poland and is composed of six dioceses. It has 250 parishes and about 300 priests. The Orthodox Church of Poland was recognized as autocephalous in 1924.

The Orthodox Church of Albania

Presided by the Archbishop of Tirana and of all Albania, the Church of Albania was recognized as autocephalous in 1937, by a Patriarchal and Synodical Tomos of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, when Benjamin I was Patriarch. The Church was suppressed for many decades by the Communist regime and was restored by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1991.


Autonomous and Semi-autonomous Churches

As autonomous Churches we mention: the Church of Czechia and Slovakia, founded by the brothers and Saints Cyril and Methodius and recognized as autonomous in 1923; and the Church of Finland which was founded as an autonomous Church in 1923, by a Patriarchal and Synodical Tomos. The Church of Crete is semi-autonomous, and canonically is dependant upon the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and under its spiritual care. Finally, we mention the exceptional case of the autonomous Orthodox Church of Sinai. Sinai has been a monastic community since the VIth century, when it was founded by Emperor Justinian. Its abbot is Archbishop, ordained by the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

According to Orthodox Ecclesiology all Orthodox Churches, although having internal autonomy, are united in their fidelity to the apostolic faith as expressed in the doctrinal and canonical decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and in the teaching of the Fathers of the Church. They are also united in their common liturgical life. All Orthodox Churches celebrate the same divine Liturgy. Every local Church in the language of her people. The Liturgy, whose center is the Eucharistic communion, has a mystagogical character. It is an introduction into the divine Mysteries. Indeed, the Liturgy is the center of Orthodox theology and spirituality. All Orthodox Churches are also united in the sense that all form one unbroken reality, a body and a fellowship of local Churches in one conciliar communion of faith and sacraments. The conciliar nature of the Orthodox Church is expressed in every local eucharistic gathering, but equally in the conciliar relations among the local Churches. Thus, the unity of the Orthodox world is lived and expressed in the conciliar communion of all the local Churches faithful to the same faith. The conciliar or synodical fellowship of the Orthodox Church is a testimony to the unity of Orthodoxy which is not static, but rather a living body embracing people from different cultural backgrounds and situations and making them one in Christ.



Hodegus, II, PG 89, 76D-77A.
C. Scouteris, Doxology, the Language of Orthodoxy, The Greek Orthodox TheologicaI Review, 38 (l993), p. 155
Ion Bria The Sense of the Ecumenical Tradition, Geneva 1991, p. 5
T. Ware, The Orthodox Church, Harmondsworth, Middlessex, 1969 (repr.), p. 28ff.
The above English version is by John Keble. Quoted by M. J. Le Guillou The Tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy (transl. by D. Attwater), London 1962, p.32.
V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Engl. Transl.), London 1957, p. 162.
"Ubi enim Ecclesia ibi et Spiritus Dei: et ubi Spiritus Dei, illic Ecclesia et omnis gratia". On the Holy Spirit. PG 36, 168A.
Contra Haereses, III, 24. PG 7, 966C.
P. Sherrard, The Rape of Man and Nature. An Enquiry into the Origins and Consequences of Modern Science, Ipswich, Suffolk 1987, pp. 90-91.

[Apostolos]

Image, Symbol and Language in Relation to the Holy Trinity
Professor Constantine Scouteris
PART 1




The relation between fides and ratio has been a constantly recurring theme through-out the long ages of Christian thought. Already Paul makes a sharp distinction between "the wisdom of this age" and "the wisdom of God in mystery, the hid-den wisdom". "The hidden wisdom" and "the wisdom of this age" constitute two diametrically opposing realities and ways. They represent two extreme possibilities of seeing the beginning and the end, the existence and the raison d' etre both of man and of the entire world.

"The hidden wisdom" is a wisdom taken captive by the power of God or, to put it differently, "the hidden wisdom" is God Himself "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" . "My speech", writes Paul to the Corinthians, "and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the spirit and of power that your faith should not be in the wisdom of man but in the power of God" . The wisdom "of this age" is a wisdom held captive by human reason. Again we may look at the point from a different perspective; the wisdom of this age is a wisdom absolutely alien to God. Those who base their existence on it are described as walking "in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God" . In the epistle of James, we find the same affirmation concerning human wisdom: "This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic".

The aim of this paper is not to discuss the relationship between the wisdom of God based on faith and the wisdom of this age based on human reason, but to demonstrate how and to what extent "the hidden wisdom" can be grasped by human beings. The question is how the unutterable can be uttered. Or to look at the question from another angle, do we have the possibility to bring to utterance what, in fact, is beyond human understanding? The question is not a new one; already Plato, made the statement that it is difficult to apprehend the Creator and the Father of this world but to express Him is indeed an impossibility . St. Gregory the Theologian, in referring to Plato without naming him, changes his statement and emphasizes that "to form an adequate concept of God is even more impossible than to express it when formed". The reason is because "that which may be apprehended may perhaps be expressed by language if not relatively well at any rate imperfectly".

For Orthodox patristic thought it is of primary and capital importance for any theological discussion to understand that the divine nature or essence is far beyond any knowledge and consequently all human linguistic expression is absolutely inadequate. The superessential nature cannot be a subject of human knowability. "God", points out St. John of Damascus, "is infinite and incomprehensible, and all that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility. All that we say about God kataphatically does not show forth His nature but the things that are related to His nature".

There is a remarkable consensus among the Greek fathers that what we know of God is not His ineffable nature, but His uncreated energies. We know God through His "manifestations", His "movement", His "power", His "outhrusts". "We know God", says St. Basil the Great, "by His energies, but we do not assert that we can approach His essence; His energies descend to us, although His nature remains unapproachable".

It is true and has been admitted on all hands that one of the fundamental point of patristic theological gnosiology is that the limited knowability of the divine energies and actions as well as the absolute incomprehensibility of God's nature do not form a kind of philosophical speculation but indicate an attitude, a personal experience of the revelation.

This personal experience of the revelation is understood in terms of participation in the uncreated glory of God. In other words, the attitude of which we are speaking is not a knowledge, in a narrow and speculative sense of the term, but a way toward deification. This attitude presupposes a radical change of mentality. The term used in Greek is metanoia which means both "change of mind" and "repentance". Bearing this in mind, we reach the conclusion that this attitude leads to a knowledge which is, in fact, a radical transformation of human wisdom, a wisdom which is called by Paul, "Foolishness of the message preached". It is paramount importance to understand that Christian theology, in order to be genuine, must be a destruction of "the wisdom of the wise" . It has to elevate itself from the level of "natural" ways of thinking to the level of contemplation of the mysteries revealed.

On this level theology, prayer and communion with God are not simply in close connection but are, in fact, interwoven. They constitute one and the same reality; a state where the human person is dominated and illuminated by God in such a way that his theological language is brought to its true essence. The unknown author of the fifth century in the prologue of his treatise on The Mystical Theology expresses this "captured by God" attitude: Supernal Triad, Deity above all essence, Knowledge and Goodness; Guide of Christians to Divine Wisdom; Direct our path to the ultimate summit of Thy mystical Lore, most incomprehensible, most luminous and most exalted, where the pure, absolute and immutable mysteries of theology are veiled in the dazzling obscurity of the secret Silence, outshining all brilliance with the intensity of their Darkness, and surcharging our blinded intellects with the utterly impalpable and invisible fairness of glories surpassing all beauty.

From all this it is not surprising, therefore, to observe that to speak about God presupposes the acceptance of both the priority of revelation as well as the faithfulness of those theologizing, not to the natural concepts of the human mind, but to an attitude which is based on love and communion. It is very significant that according to St. Gregory of Nyssa, knowledge of God and communion or participation in God are bound together. More than that, knowledge of God and communion with God are explicitly considered as identical. The process of love and communion leads to a personal experience of revelation enabling the human person to know God and to use true theological language, a language which will never be "a ******* form of speech" , working through speculations and purely human categories but through contemplation.

Christian theology in the final and ultimate analysis is not the reflections of an individual but arises within the ecclesial community. It is in the Church, this place of love and communion, that theology can attain its fulness and its true essence, given that the God of the Christians is not the impersonal supreme Being of the philosophers. It has been rightly said that the way of existence of the Church is an image and reflection of the way in which God exists . This means that each human person in the Church is an "image" of God in the sense that he exists in communion as God Himself exists in communion.

The fact that the way of existence of the Church is an image of the way of God's existence and that in the Church each human being is understood as an image of God is very significant and important for the understanding of theology itself. The Imago Dei ecclesiology and anthropology represent a solid basis upon which one can build an "image theology". In other words, one cannot see the symbolic and iconic character of Christian theology unless he understands the Church's mode of existence as an image of God's existence, that is to say, as a communion, and unless he sees the human person as an image of God's reality.

(to be continued)

[Apostolos]

Image, Symbol and Language in Relation to the Holy Trinity
Professor Constantine Scouteris
PART 2
The human person as an image of God in the Church, which herself is also an image of God , becomes a "receptacle receiving goods", he partakes of God and as such has something akin to that in which he partakes. As an image of God, he is endowed with life, reason, wisdom and all the divine goods, so that by each of them, he is directed toward his archetype . This clearly means that his way of thinking and his way of speaking about God are not based on a subject-object principle, but, as we have already mentioned, on a completely new reality-relation, that of the ecclesial communion. It is evident that by entering into this communion one is not only a participant in the divine glory but is also united to the others who share this common knowledge and life. Thus, within the ecclesial body every human person shares through askesis a common and identical experience. Consequently he shares the same theology, he makes his own the same method; and thus he understands the iconic language and the symbols used by all persons who have experienced or are now experiencing the event of the ecclesial communion.

We have to emphasize her that ecclesial communion as the sole and adequate foundation of the common experience is the basis of the unity in truth. This means that the same faith, the understanding of that faith as well as the expression of that faith is only possible within the ecclesial body. The iconic and symbolic language which characterizes the Christian way of speaking about God has its own context and this is the context of the corpus Christi. Outside this reality icons and symbols appear simply as mythological descriptions. It is my personal conviction that the well known "Demythologizing program" of Bultmann and his school was ambiguous and, consequently, misleading for the simple reason that it was based on the principle of individualistic analysis outside of any living context and that images referring to God were evaluated in purely human terms and categories. It is not my intention here to enter into a dialogue with this school, but it seems to me very important for our investigation to make clear that, for any understanding of the iconic and symbolic language when speaking about God the individual must transcend his individuality and enter into the catholic consciousness of the Church. Otherwise, he can fall into a rationalization of the Church's iconic-symbolic language.

In this connection something must be added to clarify the great distinction between symbolic language and conceptual language. The point we have already made is that the only adequate language one can use when speaking about God is a symbolic and iconic language. This is because concepts about God presuppose that He can be reduced to an object of human investigation and analysis. In such a case God is understood as one reality among many others or, in the best case, as being above the others of this world. But if we accept the image of God given by Christian faith, that is to say, if we recognize that God is not limited to the finite world, then the conceptual language becomes an imperfect organ to express His reality. In fact abstract conceptions concerning God transform Christian theology into metaphysics. This means, in other words, that purely "conceptual theology" is a distortion of Christian theology that it operates as a rationalization of the Christian faith reducing God to an object of analysis.

By contrasting the symbolic and the conceptual language as we have done and by claiming that it is only through the symbolic language that we can properly speak about the Triune God, we do not intend either to overevaluate the part that symbols play in theology or to underevaluate and absolutely disconnect human reason in the theological process. We must make the point more precise by clarifying certain things.

The use of symbols, icons, parables and metaphors is fundamental to the scriptural approach to the divine revelation. It is the language of the prophets, the "teaching method" of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ and the foundation of the apostolic interpretation of Christ, His mission and the Church. Thus it is a divinely inspired given of any authentic approach to Christian theology.

By using symbols icons, etc. when speaking of God we simply recognize that we cannot give a purely rational explanation of God's existence, of His intra-Trinitarian life and of His relationship to the world. In other words, symbols and icons are not used in the purely theological discussion as a kind of trinitarian speculation; they do not play the role of theoretical statements and definitions. Thus they are not used to replace concepts. The rationalization of symbols is equally excluded from Orthodox theology as is excluded the absolutization of human reason. This means that symbols as well as human reason have their own limitations. On the other hand, symbols are not symbols in the narrow sense. They are not simply and only symbols. From an Orthodox patristic view point, symbols are directly connected with truth. Symbols and icons represent something which exists, something "real" and not something imaginary.

This was, in fact, the Orthodox response during the long iconoclastic controversy. St. John of Damascus makes a clear distinction between "shadow" and "image". Basing himself on the Epistle to the Hebrews (10:1), he comments that image represents a complete reality. Contrasted with the Law which is a "preliminary sketch for a picture" and a "shadow" of "the good things to come", the New Testament presents to us the very image of those thing . It is in Christ and in the Church of Christ that image represents truth. In the Church truth is in no way understood as intellectual construct, as a metaphysical concept, built upon a philosophical foundation, but as a reality in which to participate. The defenders of the veneration of icons during the iconoclastic controversy did not support a particular theological method among many others, neither did they argue for a theological comprehension, but they struggled to preserve the unique Christian tradition which understand theology as a vision, an event in which one participates manifested as an epiphany in the Church and through the methods set forth by the Church. The fathers of the second Council of Nicaea (787) were deeply aware that icons and symbols protect truth from any rationalization and objectification. They keep the way clear for a direct, existential (not individualistic), communal and participatory vision of truth.

Without further additions let us now briefly examine certain concrete examples of the symbolic and iconic language used in the New Testament and the Christian tradition and try to see their significance and function. It is selfevident that we shall limit our exposition to the symbols and icons related to the Trinitarian mystery.

Studying the New Testament data as well as those of Christian history, we find that symbols and images used to express in some way the reality of the Triune God are taken from two sources. The one is the socalled "natural" world and the other is the human state or world . We have to observe that using symbols and images from the natural world, the risk of rationalization is to a great extent limited, not impossible, but certainly limited. There is a kind of distance between man and the natural world so that man can easily see the limits and functions of symbols and images based on its realities. When, for example, we speak of God as "Light" (Lk. 2:32‹Jn 1:79‹etc.), the symbolism is very expressive so that no one would identify light and God. The same is true when we speak of God as "fountain" (Rev. 21:6). Again the symbolism is evident, and no one would think to reverse the statement and say that the fountain is God. But when we use symbols and images derived from the human experience, the danger of rationalization is always present, given that man is existentially involved in the human and historic situation. Thus, often he confuses or identifies symbols and images related to God with symbols and images related to his own human life. This was, for example, the case of Arius, who understood "generation" and "sonship" in human terms and consequently denied the eternity of the Logos of God and held that He is, therefore, not true God but, rather, a creature whom the Father formed out of nothingness as the beginning and agent of His creation.

But it would be a serious misunderstanding to place the image of generation and sonship within the anthropomorphic context and identify the eternal generation and sonship of the Logos of God and with human generation and sonship. It is beyond doubt that in Christian theology the categories of fatherhood, generation and sonship have a unique and peculiar significance. This means that the images of fatherhood and sonship when related to the Triune God are not derived from the human experience. In other words, human and divine fatherhood are two absolutely incomparable realities. Likewise, the sonship of the Logos of God cannot be understood and interpreted in human terms. The "sonship of our Savior", writes Alexander of Alexandria, "has absolutely no communion with the sonship of human persons".

All this means that in Christian theology the divine fatherhood and sonship transcend human fatherhood and sonship. Any attempt to limit our understanding of the fatherhood or sonship of God to human models leads to an anthropomorphic understanding of God and, consequently, to a theology confined within the narrow framework of human reason. In such a case there is no room for a theology of faith or for a theology based on the common ecclesial experience and vision.

[Jason of Wyoming]

The server is slow because it's free.
Yeah, for a second there.....I thought I had dial-up again! :sleep:

[Sergius_Lucius]

Интересные статьи, Таня. Спасибо! :)

[Happy Orthodox]

Thank you, guys, for your responces. Thank you, Apostolos, for your contribution :) I need to read the articles first and then put them on the website.

What do you think of the design, if you had the nerve to wait till it all loads?

[Marjorie]

Happy Orthodox, I saw from the site that your name is Tatiana? How beautiful! That has always been one of my favorite Russian names. I will keep it in my prayers! :)

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[Happy Orthodox]

Marjorie: thank you :)