| Even if someone doubts the correctness of interpreting of ‘μεταστοιχειω’, translated in the patristic dictionary as ‘change of an object’s elementary nature, the change of nature at the most basic level, at its very base’ 58 as a real physical process he should take into account the usage of μεταποιω to describe the Eucharist in St. Gregory’s texts. This term that characteristically describes purely natural processes in material nature to denote the Eucharistic change further confirm the vivid degree of the Saint’s teaching on the cardinal change of matter in both purely physical and spiritual, grace-filled aspects. Perhaps most clearly in the Eucharist doctrine is manifested St. Gregory’s withdrawal as a Christian theologian from Platonic tradition. By St. Gregory’s definition here, the human soul receives the foundation for salvation through faith (δι πστεως) 59 and the body should take as an antidote (τ λεξιτριον) 60 ‘the Body that proved to be stronger than death and became the beginning of our lives’ (τς ζως μν κατρξατο). 61 The Saint calls the Body of Christ immortal and granting partakers of divine Gifts incorruptibility and immortality, ‘the life-giving power of the Spirit’ (τν ζωοποιν δναμιν το Πνεματος), 62 which animates the whole of human nature ‘πσαν ζωοποιε τν τν νθρπων φσιν’. 63 It is by union with the immortal Body of the risen Christ in the Eucharist sacrament that the Christian receives a promise of his future bodily resurrection. This teaching of St. Gregory particularly opens up in the typical use of derivatives from the verbs ‘μεταστοιχειω’ or ‘ναστοιχειω’ to describe changes in the Eucharistic Gift’s nature and changes in material nature of the resurrected body. Both ancient Greek terms reflect the Christian doctrine of matter change at the elementary level under the influence of God’s power in such a way that the matter takes on qualitatively new properties. Unlike the law of circular elements in the transformation of natural processes, the effect of God’s grace leads to restoration of the original harmony and beauty that are closely associated with the gifts of incorruption, lightness, and purity. |
| The principal problem with Dostoevsky’s salvation is his doctrine of salvation as expressed (or unexpressed) in his novels. There is such a stress upon a salvation by suffering that this theme raises real questions about an authentic Christianity in the famous author himself. Dostoevsky unquestionably believed he had a religious mission in his writing, but any message of clear-cut conversion—and how to become a Christian—fails to come through in the great novels. At best, they serve a pre-evangelistic purpose, which is indeed a valuable function. At the climax of his novels Christianity comes through more as a flickering light at the end of a dark tunnel. Even the Dostoevsky-praising philosopher Berdyaev observed that the famed Russian " did not tell us how to acquire [freedom of spirit], how we may attain spiritual and moral autonomy… " 62 In an 1875 letter Dostoevsky advised N. L. Ozmidov: " Wouldn’t it be more to the point…if you read somewhat more attentively the epistles of St. Paul? " 63 Ah, we could only wish that Dostoevsky had heeded his own admonition when it came to the subject of soteriology! Thankfully, there is some evidence to be adduced on the positive side of the fence. We have Dostoevsky’s own utterance: " If you believe in Christ, then you believe you will live eternally. " 64 His wife Anna also narrated a visit to a monastery where her husband was asked point-blank by a Father Ambrosius whether he was a believer. To him Dostoevsky responded that he was. 65 When Dostoevsky was about to be shot in 1849, a fellow prisoner named F. N. Lvov documented that Dostoevsky exclaimed to Speshnev: " We shall be with Christ. " 66 (The problem here is that Speshnev was a known atheist!) William Lyon Phelps, a Christian professor at Yale University, acknowledged that Dostoevsky " found in the Christian religion the only solution of the riddle of existence… " 67 V. Conclusion There is much valuable grist for a Christian’s mental mill to be found within the sterling novels of Fyodor Dostoevsky. His presentation of God, Christ, and sin are generally aligned with the theological thought of Christian orthodoxy. Sadly, however, his crystallizations that relate to the subject of salvation in his novels often appear defective. Do we suffer for our sins, or (as the NT declares) has Christ sufficiently suffered for our sins (Heb 9:26-28; 1 Pet 2:21-24; 3:18)? Dostoevsky almost seemed to embrace an in-this-life purgatory. Suffering here on earth is purgative, regenerative for him, which does not square with NT teaching. Suffering did prove personally beneficial in Dostoevsky’s own life, so he probably read his NT through this experiential grid. But experience will not necessarily be prescriptive for exegesis. |
| 44 Text published by Metropolitan Maximus of Sardes, The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church, Thessaloniki, 1976. 45 Article 1 of the Regulations of the operation of the Pan-Orthodox Conferences, as recorded and unanimously ratified by the Third Preconciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference in 1986. 46 The translation from the official French text has been approved by the Secretariat of the Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church. 58 Translation from the original French text published at the web page of the Representation of the Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions. 59 At the time, Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Vienna and Austria was the representative of the Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions. He was part of the team of authors of the Bases of the Social Concept. Now Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokalamsk heads the External Affairs Department of the Moscow Patriarchate. 62 Charles C. West is former Professor of Ethics and Dean of Princeton Theological Seminary. He is associate editor of Religion in Eastern Europe and Chairman of the organization Christians Associated for Relations with Eastern Europe (CAREE), an ecumenical association related to the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. 66 Translation from the original German text published on the web page of the Representation of the Russian Orthodox Church to the European Institutions. 67 Rudolf Uertz teaches at the Institute for History and Social Sciences of the Catholic University of Eichstatt in Germany. The current text was presented as a research project of the Foundation Pro Oriente on the Social Doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church, conducted in cooperation with the Institute for Religion and Peace, the Institute for Social Ethics of the University of Vienna and the Austrian Catholic Social Academy in Vienna, September 10–11, 2003. 68 In this treatise, written approximately during the plague that ravaged Carthage in 252 AD, St. Cyprian answers the accusation of the pagans that the Christians are responsible for the epidemic by stating that it is, on the contrary, the crimes and persecutions of the latter that have brought it about. He underscores the attitude that Christians should take during persecution. |
| 4.3 The reception of Palamas’ Trinitarian model in West One of the most recent and fundamental works on palamite theological thought in the West is the doctoral dissertation, “Theosis bei Palamas und Luther”, by Reinhard Flogaus (1997). Alexander (Golitzin), an Orthodox theologian in Oxford, evaluates the work of Flogaus as an important contribution to the recent understanding of Palamas’ thought in the West . On what merits does Flogaus credit Palamas as being an impeccable source for modern Orthodox theology? There are two explanations: · His theology shows the real reason for the θε σις teaching. · His theology explicitly differentiates between “theology” and “economy”, whereby the acting of the Holy Spirit is not dependent on His ‘processio’ from Father and Son (Flogaus 54) The modern classical opposition between Western and Eastern traditions is, according to Flogaus, not the cause of the dispute between Palamas and Barlaam but its result. The so-called Palamite controversy was, according to Flogaus, an inner byzantine theological contention (Flogaus 60-62). At stake in this dispute was the negation/assertion of the possibility of a synthesis between faith and rational-argumentative thinking (Flogaus 62). This inner byzantine contention between two tendencies—negation/assertion of such a synthesis—brought, with the victory of the Palamite tradition, the establishment of mystic-traditional theology. To appropriately understand the reception of Palamas’ Trinitarian model in the West, it is indispensable to draw attention to the abnegation of a continuity of Palamite theological thought within the Eastern tradition on the part of Western theologians (Flogaus 417). Notably, western theologians state that the Palamite doctrinal heritage has received a new interpretation with the modern Orthodox theologians since both Meyendorff’s classical work on Gregory Palamas and V. Lossky’s tractates on Eastern dogmatic theology. What is then the difference between original Palamite thought and its modern reception within Orthodox theological circles, according to the western theological tradition? The main problem the West has with this modern Orthodox reception of Palamas’ thought consists of one difficulty: modern Orthodox theologians state that Palamas’ denotation of the energy as ‘enhypostatic’ is equal to the characterization of the energy as a ‘personal act’ (Flogaus 227). |
| 1) abstain from any food and drink from midnight until Communion (or at least for six hours before Communion if, e.g., a Presanctified liturgy is celebrated in the evening), 2) abstain from marital relations on a day and a night before Communion, and 3) read the Akolouthia of Holy Communion 62 . The pastors of the Church rejoice in their hearts when they see how many people approach the holy chalice. There is, however, another side to this picture. One notes that the spirit of consumerism, omnipresent in our modern-day world, has entered our church life as well. People like when they are «given» something in a church – be it holy water, a palm branch, a candle, or Holy Communion; but they tend to be far less interested in faith, in asceticism, in the work of charity, in being part of the community’s life. Many parents lead their children to Communion, hoping that this will help in their upbringing, but at the same time they themselves do not live a truly Christian life. During the evening services, when there is no Communion, but when many beautiful biblical passages and Christian hymns are read and sung, one finds far fewer people praying in church than during the services when Communion is offered. Therefore, it behooves Orthodox pastors to teach the faithful that while Holy Communion is probably the most important tool of spiritual life it is still just a tool and not the sole content of this life. But the pastors of the Church often do not have sufficient time to explain this nuance to the people 63 . Conclusion In its thousand-year history the teaching and practice of the Russian Church has gone through some significant changes, including the doctrine and practice of the Eucharist. For many centuries the Church considered the Eucharist from a predominantly mystical and strongly ascetical perspective; in the late nineteenth and then in the twentieth century, the Russian Church made a great contribution to the understanding of the Eucharist, because of the works of the great Russian liturgists and theologians of those times. In particular, the theologians of the Russian emigration had a decisive influence on the movement for the revival and transformation of eucharistic life throughout the Orthodox Church in general. |
| Заключение . Все домыслы о связи христианства с °гностическими или мистическими религиями (см. евангелия из Наг-Хаммади) были отвергнуты учёными, специализирующимися на библейских и классических исследованиях (ibid., 119). Исторический характер христианства и ранняя дата создания новозаветных документов не оставляют достаточно времени для развития мифологии. И полностью отсутствуют ранние исторические свидетельства для обоснования подобных идей. Британский учёный Норман Андерсон поясняет: Фундаментальное различие между христианством и мистериями состоит в исторической основе первого и мифологическом характере последних. Божества мистерий были не более чем «туманными фигурами воображаемого прошлого», тогда как Христос, о Котором благовествовала апостольская проповедь, kerygma, жил и умер всего за несколько лет до появления первых новозаветных документов. И когда апостол Павел писал своё первое послание к коринфянам, большинство из примерно пяти сотен свидетелей Воскресения были ещё живы [Anderson, 62–53]. Библиография : N. Anderson, Christianity and World Religions. E. C. Beisner. God In Three Persons. F. F. Bruce, Paul and Jesus. Y. S. Chishti. What Is Christianity? G. Habermas, The Verdict of History. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines. J. G. Machen, The Origin of Paul " s Religion. R. Nash, Christianity and the Hellenistic World. G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought. H. Riderbos, Paul and Jesus. Миф см. Чудеса и миф Мифология и Новый Завет (MYTHOLOGY AND THE NEW TESTAMENT) В центре аргументации высокой критики находится теория о том, что новозаветный образ Иисуса и изложение Его учения в значительной степени эволюционировали с течением времени под влиянием социального контекста и богословских исканий ранней церкви. Человек Иисус затерялся в легендах и мифах, оказался погребён под утверждениями о таких сверхъестественных событиях, как рождение от Девы, чудеса и Воскресение (см. воскресение Христа: свидетельства). Эта событийная канва навеяна древнегреческими и древнеримскими мифами о богах. Кроме атеистов и скептиков, подобные обвинения выдвигают и некоторые новозаветные богословы. Рудольф Бультман (Bultmann) находился в авангарде такого подхода к Новому Завету. Он настаивал, что религиозные материалы следует «демифологизировать», снять их мифологическую «скорлупу», чтобы очистить экзистенциальное «ядро» истины. |
| Павла, Баумгартен и Крузий – подлинность послания к Евреям, а большинство – подлинность Апокалипсиса (Облич. Богосл. Иннок. т. 3. стр. 235–216. Казань. 1863 г.). Прибавить к этому еще то, что самым Лютером заподозрено послание Ап. Иакова, второе послание Ап. Петра, второе и третье послания Св. Ап. Иоанна Богослова, послание Ап. Иуды, послание Ап. Павла к Евреям и Апокалипсис Св. Иоанна Богослова. Таким образом из Библии , которая у каждаго из лютеран и рационалистов под руками одна и таже, они отвергли по крайней мере 5/6 частей Библии. И отвергли единственно потому, что каждый из них воображает себе будто он имеет в себе Свят. Духа. Почему еще современник Лютера Карлштадт, касаясь того, что Лютер предоставил суд о Священных книгах внутреннему религиозному сознанию каждаго верующаго, писал: «si fas est ve1 parvum vel magnum facere, quod placet, futurum tandem erit, dignitates et auctoritates librorum a nostra pendere facultate». (Credner zur Gesch. d. Kanon. p. 360). Это предчувствие Карлштадта и сбылось. Современные Лютеру Цвинглий и Кальвин учение о Свящ. книгах довели до такой крайности, далее которой нельзя уже идти. 50 Не будем забывать при этом прекрасный совет Бл. Августина: in canonicis scripturis ecclesiarum catholicarum quam plurium auctoritatem sequatur christianus. Tenebit itaque hunc modum in scripturis canonicis, ut cas, quae ab omnibus ecclesiis accipiantur, praeponat iis, quas quaedam non accipiunt; in iis vero, quae non accipiuntur ab omnibus, praeponat eas, quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, iis, quas pavciores minorisque auctoritatis ecclesiae tenent (De Doctrin. Christ. Lib. II. cap. 8). 56 Евсев. Церк. Ист. кн. 4, гл. 29, стр. 222. Спб. 1858 г. Ист. Иннокентия отд. 1, стр. 52. М. 1857 г. 59 Евсев. Церк. Ист. кн. 3, гл. 27, стр. 146 Спб 1858 г.), Элкесанты(60 Ibid. кн. 6, гл. 38, стр. 340–342. 62 Внед. в Правосл. Богосл. преосвящен. Макария стр. 321–322. Спб. 1863 г. Богослов. облич. Иннокентия т. З, стр. 219–222. Каз. 1863 г. 66 Пособ. к добр. член. |
| Nietzsche’s proclamation points out, indirectly but quite clearly, the fundamental ‘heresy’ – the deviation from the original fact of the Church – which constitutes the historical temptation of western Christianity; the quest to impose itself rationally and socially, finally the Church’s ‘religionization», its transformation into a religion that satisfies individual needs for emotional and intellectual security, while also sustaining the practical moral interests of society. 61 These divergences in the doctrine, worship, art and structure of the western Church from the undivided Church of the early centuries converge in the fundamental alienation of western ecclesiological self-consciousness and identity. They constitute yielding to the third temptation of Christ in the wilderness, as Dostoevsky pointed out earlier than Nietzsche. 62 Hence, the proclamation of the ‘death of God’ is revealed as the historical outcome that makes clear the whole theological development of western Christianity. The replacement of ecclesial experience with intellectual certainty prepares for rational argument over this certainty. Rationalism, freed from the metaphysical guarantees provided by scholasticism, assumes the role of the historical preparation for the dominance of an empiricism centred on the individual; And an empiricism centred on the individual is the ‘open door’ at which nihilism appears. At the same time, the irrationalism of Roman Catholic fideism and Protestant pietism sets the scene for the historical emergence of utilitarianism. And the utilitarian justification of value leads ineluctably, by casting doubt on the traditional hierarchy of values, to scepticism, and finally to amoralism – to the ‘overthrow of all values’. Heidegger describes most vividly the outcome of this prolonged historical process: In the place of the dwindling authority of God and the teaching office of the Church, there steps the authority of the conscience. Against this there emerges the social instinct. The flight of the world to the transcendent is replaced by historical progress. The otherworldly goal of eternal beatitude is changed into the earthly happiness of the majority. The duties of religious worship are dissolved by enthusiasm for the creations of culture or the spread of civilization. Creativity, once the property of the biblical God, becomes a sign of human activity. His creation finally passes over to the creature. 63 |
| THE TRINITY IN WORSHIP AND SACRAMENTS Immersed as they are in the ecclesial and sacramental experience of the trinitarian mystery, the Fathers and teachers of the Church have also tried through the ages to formulate this mystery in rational and conceptual language. They have defended it against trinitarian heresies by means of conciliar formulations, and they have expounded it in theological and dogmatic treatises – not without fear and reticence about approaching unfathomable depths with a human language which is always inadequate. But they have also celebrated it in song, in the totality of the Church " s liturgy and hymnography. All language that speaks about God in the third person entails the mortal risk of objectifying him or of speaking of him merely in conceptual language: theological language must be «doxological», issuing out of and returning to prayer. The primary source of trinitarian doctrine is scripture. Orthodox Christians therefore recognise the importance of studying the Bible and being »nourished» thereby, as they perpetually rediscover the sacramental sense of the Word of God. And scripture is both interpreted and experienced, or relived, in the liturgical life of the Church. Liturgical and sacramental theology thus constitute jointly an essential guide for understanding the Holy Trinity and for entering into communion with it. Fr Alexander Schmemann demonstrates in his Introduction to Liturgical Theology that one may truly speak of liturgical theology, thus introducing a new concept into scholarship. 62 He speaks firstly of the sanctification of time by the liturgical cycles of the day, week and year, showing that each of these divisions of time reveals the mystery of Christ and, in consequence, that of the Holy Trinity. Sacramental remembrance, carried out in the presence of the Holy Spirit, reminds Christians of the events of the past – and of the future. In distinction from the liturgical cycles, the sacraments or mysteries of the Church break the closed and repetitive cycle of created temporality and introduce the faithful into the here and now of the redemptive sacrifice. Believers commune with this sacrifice both as contemporaries of the earthly life of Christ and as recipients of his heavenly intercession as he, the High Priest, intercedes for them at the right hand of the heavenly Father. |
| Outside the Church, where this anti-traditionalist passion, expressed through the humanism of the Renaissance and the rationalism of the Enlightenment, was pressed to its limits the result historically has been various expressions of despair, death, decomposition or, in more sophisticated, post-modern terms, deconstruction. Who is going to show the world the way back? Or is it a question of blind leading the blind»? 2. Ecclesiastic reasons In an article entitled Function of Tradition in the Ancient Church», Fr. Florovsky discusses the famous saying of St. Vincent of Lerins: «We must hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all». This, he believes, is the proper way of establishing double «ecumenicity» of the Church – in space and in timé. 62 We find here a nuanced analysis of St Vincent« " s widely accepted model, which stands in sharp contrast with Florovsky»«s earlier very critical discussion of the matter (published 1934). 63 A summary of Florovsky»«s paper in 1963 will be, we believe, a good introduction to our evaluation of the meaning of tradition in the Orthodox Church. What the author tries to establish in his later paper is the absolute necessity of the concept of tradition for a correct interpretation of Scripture. He states that no one of the criteria proposed by St. Vincent – universitas, antiquitas and consensio – could be absolute or adequate by itself. as such was not yet a sufficient warrant for truth, unless a comprehensive consensusof the «ancients» could be satisfactorily demonstrated, And consensio as such was not conclusive, unless it could be traced back continuously to Apostolic origins. " 64 Thus, orthodoxy can be recognized by a double recourse – to Scripture and to tradition. To this Florovsky adds carefully: did not imply however that there were two sources of Christian doctriné. Why then was it absolutely necessary to invoke the authority of «ecclesiastic understanding»? The answer is obvious: the Scriptures were interpreted in different ways by individuals and many times it seemed to yield quite opposite meanings. According to St. Vincent, followed by Fr. Florovsky and by most Orthodox theologians, the only protection against the danger of relativising the meaning of Scripture is to respond to it with an appeal to the mind of the Church. However, this does not make tradition into an independent authority or a complementary source of faith: «Ecclesiastic understanding» could not add anything to Scripture. But it was the only means to ascertain and disclose the true meaning of Scripture. Tradition was in fact the authentic interpretation of Scripture. And in this sense it was co-extensive with Scripture. Tradition was actually «Scripture rightly understood». 65 |
|
|
