The Centrality of Christ in Orthodox Theology

Wacław Hryniewicz

The Centrality of Christ in Orthodox

Theology

Collectanea Theologica 46/Fasciculus specialis, 153-168

C ollectan ea T heologica 46(1976) ' fasc. specialis

W ACŁAW HRYNIEWICZ, OMI, LUBLIN

THE CENTRALITY OF CHRIST IN ORTHODOX THEOLOGY The problem of christocentrism becomes m ore and more im port­ an t in contem porary theological w ay of thinking. Both Catholic and Protestant theologians are now w riting quite a lot about christo­ centrism or "christological concentration". O rthodox theologians are speaking m ore and more too about the cen trality of Christ not only in theological thinking, but also in C hristian spirituality. Thus the problem of christocentrism seems to have an im portant signi­ ficance for the ecum enical dialogue betw een various Christian denom inations. The central them e of the Vth G eneral A ssem bly of the W orld Council of C hurches in N airobi (Nov. 23—Dec. 10, 1975) was: Jesus Christ frees and unites. Section I discussed the problem of Confessing Christ Today.

Lately, O rthodox theologians gave more attention to the pro­ blem of christocentricity during their consultation at the m onastery of Cernica, near Bucarest (June 4—8, 1974), w hose aim was to prepare O rthodox participation in the Fifth A ssem bly of the W orld Council of Churches. In their rep o rt they stated th at the problem of the centrality of C hrist in the life of the C hurch was closely linked to the topic "Confessing Christ Today". In C hristian faith, C hrist occupies the central place in the v ery act of cofessing; more than that, He is the dynam ic factor of the Christian confession of faith in the w orld1.

C ontem porary tendencies in the W estern C hristianity to so-called theological concentration find, on the whole, a positive appraisal on the p art of O rthodox theology. M any O rthodox theologians have observed, how ever, th at these tendencies, no m atter how beneficial and fruitful, might nevertheless be exposed to the danger of

one-1 See Report N o. one-1: T h e C e n tra lity o l C hrist in O rth o d o x T h e o lo g y , St. V la ­ dimir's T h eological Quarterly 18 (1974) 195— 197.

154

-sidedness and lack of real connection w ith the doctrine of the Trinity, and especially of the H oly Spirit.

The present paper tries to analyze some of the m ost outstand­ ing features of the O rthodox idea of christocentricity, its connections w ith pneum atology, and at the same time, to point out to some dangers, which in the opinion of the O rthodox th rea ten a christo- monistic theology.

I. Christocentric Character of Orthodox Thinking

Not v ery distant is the time, w hen many O rthodox thinkers blam ed the Catholicism for the lack of a deep feeling of the presence of Christ in the human history. Some of them appealed for the restau ratio n of "the full Christological view ", characterizing the m any hundred years old tradition of the O rthodox C hurch2.

O ne has in fact to admit, that the C hristian East has alw ays been proud of its christocentricity and possessed a deep consciousness of the central place of C hrist in the w hole of C hristian knowledge. For a long time O rthodox thinking has distinguished itself b y its em phatic christocentrism . The O rthodox w illingly refer to the fact, that the christocentric orientation was characteristic of the whole of theological thinking of the Early Church. C hristology w as in the v e ry centre of reflection of the Church Fathers since IVth century. This christocentrity, being the common ethos of the ancient Church, continues to rem ain one of the leading principles in O rthodox theology3. As "the C hurch of the first seven councils", O rthodoxy has retained in her thinking a living consciousness of the central place of Christ in the C hristian doctrine of man, w hich deals with his relation to God, his destiny and his connection w ith the entire cosmos. Though the O rthodox C hurch recognizes the autho rity of all seven ecum enical councils, still she celebrates in her liturgy in a particular w ay the feast of the Council of N icaea (325), Chal­ cedon (451) and N icaea II (787)4. The O rthodox theologians have attached a v ery special significance to the dogma of the Council of Chalcedon. M any Russian theologians considered it to be the

2 See G. F l o r o v s k y , P ro b lem a tika ‘k h ristia n sk o g o v o s s o y e d in ie n ia (Pro­ blem s of Christian Reunion), Put' 9 (1933) no. 37. Supplem ent p. 12.

3 G. F l o r o v s k y , T h e E th o s o f th e O r th o d o x C hurch, The Ecum enical Re­ v ie w 12 (1960) 183— 198, esp. 192— 197; P. B r a t s i o t i s , T h e F u n d a m en ta l P rin­ c ip les a nd M ain C h a ra cteristics ot th e O rth o d o x C hurch, The Ecum enical R eview 12 (1960) 154— 163, esp. 157— 158.

4 See Y. C o n g a r , La p rim a u té d e s qu a tre p rem iers c o n ciles o ecu m én iq u es. O rigine, d e stin , sen s e t p o rté e (d 'u n th è m e tra d itio n n el, in: Le co n cile et le s co n ­ ciles, Paris 1960, 75— 109, esp. 107— 108; S. S a l a v i l l e , La fê te d u co n cile de C h a lcéd o in e d a n s le rite b y za n tin , in: Das K o n zil vo n C h a lk e d o n . G e sc h ic h te un d G eg en w a rt, vol. II, W ürzburg 1953, 677—695.

T H E C EN TR A LIT Y O F C H R IST ₁₅₅ highest expression of the theology of the Fathers. A ccording to the others, this concilier definition can be made m ore and m ore explicit (P. S V i e 1 1 о v) and explained in the light of sophiology and kenotic christology (S. B o u l g a k o v)3.

O rthodox theologians m ake rath er rarely use of such term s as "christocentrism " or "christological concentration". N evertheless the idea of christocentrism is v ery familiar to them. It results from the v ery n atu re of O rthodox christology and its undeniable original­ ity. O rthodox theologians trea t rath er w ith distrust the christology, understood as a closed and isolated dogmatic treatise, in w hich one looks for an answ er to the following questions: w ho is Christ, how to com prehend His two natures, w hat is the aim of His incarnation and His saving mission in the world. The originality of O rthodox christology has not found its expression in this sort of system atic elaborations. It was revealed above all in a creative research of som e theologians and religious philosophers, especially Russian ones, who em phasized a predom inant significance of the christo­ logical dogma in the w hole of religious thinking. They taught for instance, th at the christological dogma had been the source of inspiration for christological anthropology and ecclesiology, the foundation for an integral conception of culture and human creativ ­ ity. The cosmic dim ensions of the christology of the G reek Fathers (especially of St. I r e n a e u s , St. M a x i m u s t h e C o n f e s ­ s o r , and St. J o h n o f D a m a s c u s ) , dw elt upon w ith predilec­ tion by a num ber of O rthodox thinkers, show the dynam ic presence of the risen C hrist not only in the sacram ental life of the Church, but also in the w hole world.

M any outstanding Russian thinkers, such as P. S v i e 11 о v, V. S o l o v i e v , N. B e r d y a e v and S. B o u l g a k o v taught, th a t Christ was the centre of the universe, and His incarnation had b een the purpose of creation, and not only a soteriological act

(propter nos et propter nostram salutem )6. It seems, th at this convic­

tion is, at least to some extent, the result of view ing the m ystery of th e incarnation in close relationship to the doctrine of creation. The m ystery of C hrist is considered by some O rthodox theologians to be the starting point, the aim and climax of faith and theological thinking7. This central im portance of the doctrine of incarnation results above all from the fact, that Christ both reveals God (the m y stery of the H oly Trinity), and manifests tru e dim ensions of man and his destiny.

5 See B. S c h u 1 1 z e, P roblem e der o r th o d o x e n T h eo lo g ie, in: H a n d b u ch der O s tk ir c h e n k u n d e , D üsseldorf 1971, 156— 157.

6 S ee for instance S. B o u l g a k o v , Du V e r b e In ca rn é (A g n u s Dei), Paris 1943, 95— 9.8.

156

C hristocentrism is also one of the most characteristic features of O rthodox ethics and m oral theology. The O rthodox unanim ously em phasize with N. C a b a s i l a s (+ 1371), that Christian life is "the life in C hrist", and can be fully realized only in the Church8. No wonder, that according to some O rthodox theologians the chri- stological dogma is at the same time "a sym ptom atic test to judge the spirituality of each epoch"9.

The fact is th a t n early all great syntheses arriv ed at by the most creative rep resen tativ es of O rthodox tradition have m ore or less distinct christocentric character. For instance, all theological w orks of A. M. B o u k h a r e v (1822— 1871) are perm eated by the idea of dynam ic presence of Christ in the w hole tem poral hum an activity; His hum anity recapitulates all dim ensions of life. A ccording to B o u k h a r e v , the Chalcedonian dogma is a con­ tinuous appeal for creativ ity and participation in the redeem ing w ork of Christ. The en tire hum an culture em bodies in itself a hidden christological and theandric dim ension10. It is only n atu ral that in opposition to a negative evaluation of B o u k h a r e v ’ s view s in 19th century, some contem porary O rthodox have fully rehabilitated him. They regard him, thanks to his bold and creative idea of christocentricity, as a prophetic figure and the initiator of O rthodox theology of c u ltu re11.

B o u k h a r e v ' s view s are but an exam ple of christocentric thinking, w hich found its expression m ainly in the area of an th ro ­ pology and theology of culture; its repercussions can be traced later in g reat religious syntheses of some O rthodox, predom inantly Russian, thinkers. This kind of christocentrism is to be found above all in an original and bold doctrine of "G od-hum anity" or "God- m anhood" (B ogocelovecestvo), w hich subsequently becam e the basis for a num ber of attem pts at "christological concentration" in anthropology, theology of history and the w hole hum an creativ ity 12.

8 The treatise w ritten b y C abasilas on the sacram ents has the title: Zoe en C h risto (Life in Christ). S everal hundred years later Father John S e r g i e v (1828— 1908) of Kronstadt left behind his m editations entitled M y Lite in C hrist. See an abbreviated English translation published b y E. E. G o u l a e f f , London 1897. A good introduction to this topic is g iv en by N. M 1 a d i n, D ie G ru n d ziig e der o r th o d o x e n E thik, Zeichen der Zeit (Berlin) 22 (1968) no. 9, 324—331.

9 P. E v d o k i m o v , Le C hrist dans la p e n sé e ru sse , Paris 1970, 55.

10 See B o u k h a r e v ’s main w orks О p r a v o s la v ii v o tn o s h e n ii к so v rie - m e n n o sti, St.-Petersburg 1860, 2nd ed. 1906, and О s o v r ie m e n n y k h d o u k h o v n y k h p o tre b n o stia k h m y s li i z h y z n i, o so b en n o r o u s sk o y , M oscow 1865.

11 See P. E v d o k i m o v , Le C hrist... 85—89; E. B e h r - S i g e l , Un p ro p h è te o rth o d o xe: A le x a n d r e B o u k h a r e v (1822— 1871), C ontacts 25 (1973) no. 82, 93— 111. See also W. H r y n i e w i c z , „Boska litu rg ia ż y c ia ” (T h e D iv in e L itu rg y o i Life). A . M. B o u k h a re v , W ięź 18 (1975) no. 1, 67—79.

12 See N. B e r d y a e v , S m y s l tv o r c h e s tv a , M oscow 1916 (French transi. Le sen s de la création, Paris 1955); S. B u l g a k o v , D ie c h ristlic h e A n th ro p o lo g ie , in: K irche, Staat und M en sch , Genf 1937, 209—255.

T H E C EN TR A LIT Y O F C H R IST ₁₅₇ A ccording to the rem ark of P. E v d o k i m o v , theologians have spoken a lot about God and Godman, but "v ery little about man in C hrist''. For this reason, he adds, one of the most im portant problem s is now adays "the anthropology in the light of christology" or "christological an thropology"13. A num ber of prom inent O rtho­ dox theologians and religious thinkers have developed precisely this sort of christological anthropology, w hich could be term ed as "christology of the hum an being"14. In this respect it is w orth recall­ ing some profound anthropological insigths o f V . N e s m e l o v (1863— 1937), N. B e r d y a e v , S. B o u l g a k o v and B. Z e n ­ k o v s к y, closely linked to the chalcedonian dogma15.

U nder the influence of V. S o l o v i e v , w ho tried to explain christology by m eans of sophiology, the idea of God-hum anity found a large-scale reception in the w orks of m any other, m ostly Russian, thinkers, as one of the leading trends in their religious world- -view 16. This idea is a resu lt of rein terp retatio n of th e basic intuition of the chalcedonian dogma in relation to man and to the w hole of hum an history. For S. B o u l g a k o v , the chalcedonian definition is not only the basic norm of christology, but also the fundam ental principle of ontology in general. The apophatic form of the dogma (expressed in four negative formulas) contains in fact som ething positive, nam ely the affirm ation of God-humanity, the cen tral idea of C hristianity, w hich shows a dynam ic relationship betw een the incarnation and the w hole of the hum an h isto ry 17. The idea of God- -hum anity does not, of course, predicate in the sam e sense of the C hurch and human history, as it does of Christ Himself. It is only an analogical concept, w hich can be applied, w ith all due distinctions and proportions, to the individual hum an being as w ell to the Church and the hum an history. In conform ity with the definition of the Council of C halcedon one should stress the uniqueness of the m ystery of Godmanhood in C hrist Himself, based upon the fullness of His divinity and humanity. God-hum anity cannot be understood in the sense of one God-human natu re or being. O ne

18 P. E v d o k i m o v , Le C hrist..., 55. « ibid. 55, 136, 143, 163, 167.

15 See V. N e s m e l o v , N a o u k a о c h e lo v e k e , vol. II, Kazan 1906 (2nd ed.); N . B e r d y a e v , P roblem a c h e lo v e k a . К p o s tro e n y u k h r is tia n s k o y a ntropologii, Put’ 12 (1936) no. 50, 3— 26; B. Z e n k o v s k y , G ru n d la g en d er ch ristlic h e n A n ­ th ro p o lo g ie a u s der S ich t o rth o d o x e r T h e o lo g ie u nd R e lig io n sp h ilo so p h ie, in; Das B ild d es M e n sc h e n im L ich te d er o rth o d o x e n A n th ro p o lo g ie , Marburg/Lahn 1969, 6— 22.

16 See V. S o l o v i e v , L ectu res on G odm anhood, London 1948. S ee also a detailed an alysis in m y study H e r m e n e u ty c z n e zn a c ze n ie id e i b o g o c zło w ie c ze ń - stw a w ś w ie tle a n tro p o lo g ii p ra w o sła w n e j (The H erm eneutic S ignificance of the Idea of Godm anhood in the Light of Orthodox A nthropology), Studia T heologica V arsavien sia 12 (1974) no. 1, 263— 272.

158

m ust not forget, th at betw een the C reator and the creatures th ere alw ays exists an un traversab le ontological dividing line. Perhaps some advocates of the doctrine of God-hum anity did not succeed in avoiding the consequences of an inclination to some kind of monophysitism or pantheism , perceptible above all in philosophical system of S o l o v i e v and his idea of "all-unity" (vseiedinstvo)18. This is probably one of th e reasons w hy the christocentrism of some Russian thinkers seems to have a m etaphysical and cosmic character, ra th e r than concrete and historical19. It is necessary to admit, how ever, that the idea of God-humanity, pro p erly understood and developed, contains some undeniable values. The O rthodox thinkers have rightly understood the need of a closer link betw een the chalcedonian definition and anthropology, and have raised a num ber of questions, w hich still have no adequate answ ers. The m ystery of man does take on light only in the m ystery of Christ, the incarnate W ord.

The above-m entioned report, drafted by the Consultation of O rthodox theologians in C ernica (1974) explains, th a t the basis of the central place of C hrist in the w hole econom y of salvation is the incarnation of the Logos, who through the H oly Spirit has renew ed and reg enerated the hum an being. Through His incarnation, the Logos has introduced himself m ore intim ately in the w orld and in hum an history, and thus has revealed the m eaning of all things. In C hrist the w hole human being has been resto red to the fulfillment of his original destiny. The O rthodox docum ent em phasizes also the inter-personal function of the incarnate Logos. C hrist as "man par excellence", "the centre of creation", "the central man who relates to all" com municates to man the pow er to liberate himself from his egotism, enables him to understand others and to enter into communion w ith them and w ith God. C hrist overcom es thus evil and sin, w hich are at the root of all divisions, and becom es therefore the unifying basis for the entire hum anity. O rthodox theologians stress v ery strongly, th at the confessing of the central place of Christ in the w hole of creation and m anifesting "the Truth of Christ as the personal pivot of history" are one of the most essential tasks of the C hurch in the m odern world. C hrist's creative presence extends to the w hole cosmos and leads all of history tow ards final fulfillm ent in Him. This cosmic presence of the Logos, calls a t the sam e tim e all Christians to m ake their contribution to the developm ent and th e progress of the world. A t present, Chri­ stians have a special m ission to help people to u nderstand the

18 See B. Z e n k o v s k y , S udba k h a lk id o n s k ik h o p red elen ii, P ravoslavnaia M ysl 9 (1953) 51—64, esp. 54.

19 See B. S c h u l t z e, C h ris to ze n trik im ru ssisc h e n G e d a n k e n , O stkirchliche Studien 8 (1959) 105— 126, esp. 125.

T H E C EN TR A LIT Y O F C H R IS T ₁₅₉ insufficiency of the achievem ents of human intellect, and to discover "the personal origin of reason", which is to he found precisely in the incarnate Logos20.

II. Danger of Christomonistic Approach to Theology

There is no doubt that most of contem porary O rthodox th e­ ologians ap preciate a present-day tendency tow ards christocentric in terp retation of various theological questions. They regard it as a good prom ise of fu rth er developm ent of theology, and of the ecum enical advance. H ow ever, according to them this w ide-spread tendency might also lead to some less desired results. In the light of O rthodox tradition, christocentric theology is meaningful only then, w hen it does not lose its close relationship w ith the entire doctrine of the T rinity; otherw ise christocentrism can easily turn into christomonism.

Some O rthodox theologians detect the traces of m onistic chri­ stocentrism in the history of traditional W estern theology, both Roman-Catholic and Protestant. A ccording to them, it appears to be, in both cases, first of all a resu lt of the separation of christology from pneum atology. The C hristian W est as a w hole has not yet overcom e, they think, the problem of "filioquism", and continues to be exposed to its dangerous consequences. Some theologians, among others O. C l é m e n t and N. A. N i s s i o t i s, perceive at the root of breaking down of the C hristian orthodoxy in the W est a tendency tow ards subordination of the H oly Spirit to the Son. T hey stress some far-reaching consequences of filioquism, especially in the area of ecclesiology. If th e Son is the principle of procession of the H oly Spirit (Filioque), then christological sacram entalism prevails over pneum atological prophetism , the Church hierarchy gains the upper hand of freedom, the P etrine m inistry in the Church dom inates over Pauline m inistry, the common good, objectified in juridical term s, surpasses the absolute value of hum an person. Thus filioquistic problem s brought about the decrease of the im portance of pneum atological aspect of the Church. Precisely in this obliter­ ation of the w hole pneum atological dim ension of the Church the O rthodox discern not only one of the main theological causes of the schism betw een th e C hristian East and W est, b u t also one of the basic reasons of schism w ithin the W estern C hurch in 16th century21.

20 See footnote 1.

21 For in stan ce N. A. N i s s i о t i s, D ie T h e o lo g ie d er O stk irc h e im ö k u m e ­ n is c h e n D ialog, Stuttgart 1968, 65; O. C l é m e n t , E cclésio lo g ie o rth o d o x e et d ia lo g u e o e c u m é n iq u e , C ontacts 15 (1963) no. 42, 89— 106, esp. 97.

160

O rthodox historiosophers detect two phenom ena in the dram a of the Reformation: on th e one hand th e research for a personal fullness of life in the H oly Spirit ( = the v ertical apostolicity of the Church), and on the other a partial paralyzing of this research through filioquistic problem s, in w hich the Reformers rem ained in spite of all entangled. The Reformation has in fact failed to appre­ ciate a mutual relationship betw een the Church as a christological institution and the C hurch as a pneum atological event. As a result of this, the Reformers w ere inclined to reduce the person to the individual, and by doing so they had im poverished the v e ry idea of the Church as a theandric reality on behalf of a p u rely existential faith. From O rthodox point of view, this tendency still manifests itself not only in "subjectivizing" the m y stery of th e E ucharist on the level of an existential faith, but also in stressing a subjective character of the encounter w ith God and of the m iracle of convers­ ion (especially in the doctrine of predestination)22.

In O rthodox view it is precisely this entanglem ent of the Chri­ stian W est in filioquistic problem s, which has produced some fatal after-effects. Since then the W est as a w hole has been exposed to the danger of losing a tru e theological balance. This situation gave finally rise to two con trary forms of christomonism in the Catholic and P rotestant theology.

From O rthodox point of view, traditional Catholic ecclesiology w as too much institutional and hierarchical; it lacked profound T rinitarian foundations, and first of all pneum atology. That is w hy the O rthodox often h ave the im pression that the role of the H oly Spirit has been to some exten t subordinated to the C hurch as an institution. W hereas the function of the w hole com munity of the Church was reduced to its minimum, a prom inent ro le was assigned to the m agisterium as an external criterion of certain ty in m atters of faith. Some O rthodox theologians think, that the lack of profound and consistent pneum atology is a w eak point of the ecclesiology of V atican II as well. It is tru e th a t the Council docum ents m ention several times the H oly Spirit. The O rthodox are of the opinion, how ever, th a t this is not enough for the acknow ledgem ent of the full role of the H oly Spirit in ecclesiology23. The fact is, nevertheless, that some of them w ere pleased w ith the Council's idea of a super­ n atu ral sense of the faith, im printed by the H oly Spirit, on the hearts of the faithful who in their universal agreem ent cannot err in m atters of belief (cf. Lumen gentium , 12). A t least in this point

22 O. C l é m e n t , E cclésio lo g ie o rth o d o xe..., 103.

22 See N. A. N i s s i o t i s, W as b e d e u te t das Z w e ite V a tik a n is c h e K o n zil für un s O rth o d o xe? , in: W as b e d e u te t das II. V a tik a n is c h e K o n zil fü r uns...?, Basel 1966, 157— 188, esp. 163— 164; id ., D ie T h eo lo g ie d er O stk irc h e , 66—67.

T H E C E N TR A LIT Y O F C H R IS T ₁₆₁ the Council drew n ear to a traditional O rthodox doctrine24. The fu tu re possibility of m utual understanding rem ains therefore open.

Better understanding of the reasons of critical attitude of many O rthodox theologians tow ards Catholic doctrine w ould reguire a detailed presentation of th e m ain points of O rthodox ecclesiology. All w e can do in this paper is ju st to draw attention to some specific aspects of this question. A ccording to some O rthodox theologians» a christom onistic tendency m anifests itself in Catholic theology above all in the approach to the question of the criterion of tru th in the Church. They think, th at precisely here th e danger of one- -sided christocentric interpretatio n of some ecclesiological truths becomes clearly noticeable. In the light of O rthodox tradition, the problem of tru th in the Church involves first of all the w hole th e­ ology of the H oly Spirit. As a m atter of fact, this is one of the most im portant problem s of the ecum enical dialogue betw een O rthodoxy and Catholicism. M any O rthodox theologians believe, that in Ro­ man-Catholic doctrine th e ultim ate criterion of tru th is identified too much w ith the intervention of the Teaching Office of the Church or w ith papal definition. The elem ents of prelim inary consultation and agreem ent on the p art of the com munity of the Church appear here only b e f o r e the proclam ation of definition. From O rthodox point of view, the entire W estern approach to the problem of the Holy Spirit is determ ined by th e categories of Latin theology, and does not sufficiently take into account the Eastern tradition. In the light of this tradition, the bishops have the auth o rity to express the teaching of the Church, but this authority is lim ited b y the agreem ent of the Church as a whole. A ll proclam ation of tru th by the m agi­ sterium takes alw ays place w ithin the sensus ecclesiae and synodal structu re of th e Church. The sense of the faith of the Church should p reserv e the possibility of m anifesting itself not only before the proclam ation of a definition, b u t also a f t e r it. It is clear, that the proclam ation of truth belongs exclusively to the hierarchical m agisterium of the Church. N evertheless the charism a of truth

{charisma veritatis), belonging to the m agisterium of the bishops

is only then active, w hen the tru th is really at stake. The m ere fulfillm ent of canonical conditions of the proclam ation of tru th does not y et consitute an authentic guarantee of the truth. Only the process of reception, w hich involves the en tire C hurch allows to properly recognize the tru th 25.

21 For instance K. T. W a r e , P rim acy, C o lle g ia lity , a nd th e P eople о/ God, Eastern Churches R eview 3 (1970) 18—29, esp. 28; O. C l é m e n t , A p r è s V a tic a n II: V e r s un d ia lo g u e th é o lo g iq u e e n tr e c a th o liq u e s et o rth o d o x e s, La pensée orthodoxe 13 (1968) 39— 52, esp. 45.

25 See О. C l é m e n t , E cclésio lo g ie o rth o d o x e , 93, 102. 11 C o llectan ea Theologica

162

It is undeniable, th at in spite of many debates on the question of reception, O rthodox theologians have not y et arriv ed at a unani­ mous interpretation of this complex ecclesiastical reality. There are still serious differences in this m atter to be dealt w ith26. N e­ vertheless, m any of them agree, that the doctrinal definitions require the reception of the Church as a whole, in order to be considered as a true expression of the apostolic Tradition. The proclam ation of tru th by the bishops, especially at a Council, must then be verified by the consensus of the People of God. This happens in the life itself of the C hurch community. The criterion of tru th in the Church can only be a free consensus of personal consciousness of the faithful, open to the action of the H oly Spirit. The Spirit has been given to the C hurch as a whole. Each member of the People of God becomes "pneum atophoros" thanks to the pneum atical n a­ tu re of the sacram ents of initiation. A lthough the prom ulgation of doctrinal definitions belongs to the charism a of the bishops, the People of God as a w hole has also the mission to p ro tect and defend the tru th 27.

In the light of the above rem arks it becom es clear, w hy the O rthodox trea t w ith m istrust all external criteria of certainty, as contrary to an authentic understanding of the action of the Holy Spirit in the Church. They believe that the ultim ate criterion of tru th is God himself, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. A ll other criteria serv e only a false certainty, and obscure the tru e faith. According t o J . M e y e n d o r f f , the entire W estern ecclesiological problem, since the sixteenth century, turned around the opposition of two criteria, two references of doctrinal security (Sola Scriptura on the one hand, the infallible m agisterium on the other). "In O rthodoxy, he goes on, no need for, or necessity of, such a security w as ever really felt, for the simple reason that the living T ruth is its own criterio n ''28. In O rthodox view, the certainty of faith is attained only in m utual interacting of constant in terpretation of the Gospel, and of the life of the C hurch community, guided by the H oly Spirit.

To sum up, one can say that in the light of O rthodox theology the principle of monistic christocentrism is altogether insufficient, and most of all in the area of ecclesiology. C hristocentrism is considered to be in itself an inadequate principle of interpretation also in O rthodox teaching about man, grace, deification (theosis), Tradition, w orship etc. O rthodox theologians insist th at

christo-26 See m y article: D ie e k k le s ia le R e ze p tio n in d er S ich t d er o rth o d o x e n T h e ­ ologie, T heologie und G laube 65 (1975) no. 4, 250— 266.

27 See the E ncyclical Letter of the Eastern Patriarchs, adressed to the pope Pius IX in 1848 (Mansi 40, 378).

28 J. M e y e n d o r f f , T h e M ea n in g o i T ra d itio n , in: S crip tu re a nd E cum e­ n ism , Pittsburgh Pa. 1965, 51 ; i d. R o m e a nd O rth o d o x y , 143— 145.

TH E C E N TR A LIT Y O F C H R IS T ₁₆₃ centric in terpretation be alw ays confronted w ith pneum atology and the en tire doctrine of the Trinity.

A ccording to O rthodox theologians, the danger of monistic christocentrism has also been apparent in P rotestant ecclesiology, w hich tends to undervalue the im portance of the C hurch as an institution, and em phasizes the invisibility of the Church as an event. This christom onistic tendency m anifests itself th ere above all in docetic and spiritualistic understanding of C hrist's presence in the Church, beyond any institution. The unity in C hrist is suppos­ ed to be realized thanks to the personal faith and not require any institutional form of expression w ithin a historical community. Everything seems to be based directly on C hrist himself. The role of the H oly Spirit is in fact reduced to acting for the sake of personal salvation of the individual faithful. The O rthodox think, that this kind of em ancipation of the individual leads ultim ately to the de­ struction of the C hurch unity and deprives of any ecclesiological pneum atology. That is w hy in present-day ecum enical discussions th ey often ask the reform ed C hristians the question, w hether they take w ith all seriousness into account the theandric reality of the C hurch29.

From this point of view, O rthodox theologians judge v e ry se­ v erely the attem pt at christological concentration, u ndertaken on P rotestant side by so-called "God-is-dead" theology. They see in it "a kind of christom onistic natural theology", w hich confines itself to a general affirm ation of C hrist's presence in the world, but does not try to u nderstand it in connection w ith the w hole m ystery of the incarnation. This theology has also denied the v ery existence of the Church as the perm anent presence of C hrist in hum an history; it shows no sign of pneum atological dimension. Christology has been hum anized in a new m onophysitic way, co n trary to the spirit of the ancient monophysitism. Christ is considered here only as a perfect man, who approves the aspirations of hum anity for liber­ ation and developm ent. A ccording to some O rthodox theologians, this christom onistic inclination is characteristic of the w hole orientation of so-called new, or radical theology, w hich is in fact a kind of "pan-christology"30.

Thus we have come to the conclusion that ev ery type of monistic christocentrism constitutes for O rthodox consciousness a v ery serious problem indeed. In the two above m entioned forms of

chri-23 See N. N i s s i o t i s , Die T h e o lo g ie d er O stk irc h e , 65, 67, 71; O. C l é ­ m e n t , E cciésio lo g ie o rth o d o x e , 104.

30 N. N i s s i o t i s , D ie T h e o lo g ie d er O stk irc h e , 67, 70—71, S. S. H а г a к a s, А л O rth o d o x E va lu a tio n oi th e 'N e w T h e o lo g y ', The Greek Orthodox T heolo­ gical R eview 12 (1967) 340— 368; T. S t y l i a n o p o u l o s , N e w T h e o lo g y and th e O r th o d o x T ra d itio n , St. V ladim ir's T h eological Quarterly 14 (1970) 136— 154. u ·

164

stocentrism , O rthodox theologians discern first of all the lack of ecclesiological pneum atology and of its visible expression in the charism atic structure of the Church. They think th a t the danger of christomonism can only be avoided through serious taking into account the properly understood theology of the H oly Trinity. It is not enough to devote to each divine Person a special chapter. This sort of schematic doctrine of the Trinity does not y et provide a sufficient basis for theology, and particularly for ecclesiology. From theological point of view one must distinguish the w ork of the three divine Persons, and ask the question of how the divine plan of salvation has been fulfilled in time. Still one should m aintain the unity of all th ree Persons and not to seperate the action of one of them from the w orking of two other Persons.

III. Tow ards C hristocentric and Pneum atological Theology A ccording to O rthodox tradition, a christocentric orientation of theological thinking requires at the same time a pneum atological, and in consequence, a fully trin itarian approach. This results from the v ery n atu re of O rthodox understanding of pneum atology and of its role in the w hole of C hristian theology. The doctrine of the H oly Spirit is not to be understood as an isolated treatise or chapter in O rthodox dogmatics. It is rath er "a comment to the w hole revelation of the T rin ity ”31. It explains the trin itarian activity of God, the life of the Church, her w orship and the m ystery of man, regenerated in Christ. In this respect, pneum atology belongs to the v ery centre of C hristian theology; it cannot be reduced to a certain am m ount of formulas, or to any particular dogma. Theology as a w hole is, by its v ery nature, a pneum atological theology. C hrist's m ystery becomes real in man and manifests itself only by the act­ ing of the Holy Spirit. Pneum atology, understood in this way, is in consequence an in terpretation of the w hole rev elatio n of the Trinity; it points constantly out to the presence of increated divine

energies, bringing about the salvation of mankind.

It is w orth noting th at the alread y m entioned O rthodox rep o rt from Cernica (1974), w hich deals w ith the question of centrality of Christ, talks at once about the w ork of the Holy Spirit in the entire world. The rep o rt lays a particular em phasis on the role of the Holy Spirit in the incarnation of the Logos, and in the process of spiritual transform ation and reg en eratio n of man by Christ. It recalls that a new relationship betw een the C reator and man, established by the Logos comes to its perfection through 'the

11 N. A. N i s s i o t i s, P n eu m a to lo g ie o rth o d o x e , in: Le Saint-E sprit, G enève 1963, 86; id ., Die T h e o lo g ie der O stk irc h e , 64—65.

T H E C E N TR A LIT Y O F C H R IS T ₁₆₅ energies of God”, effected b y the H oly Spirit. O rthodox theologians drew also attention to the role of the Spirit in establishing the com m unity of the Church, in sensitizing us for union among C hristians and betw een C hristians and the others. The H oly Spirit opens the human being to God and to ,,the m ystery of the b ro th er” ; it is He who makes us sensitive to hear those w ho suffer and are oppressed, and w ho p enetrates the entire m aterial cosmos. Confess­ ing Christ today, C hristians call all people to become sensitive to the w ork of the Holy Spirit in the entire world. The Church already anticipates the eschatological era, for she participates in the first- -fruits of the Spirit, w hich are the source of hope and the pow er for advancing the w hole of hum anity tow ards the coming Kingdom of God32.

No w onder that some O rthodox theologians not only develop the theology of the H oly Spirit w ithin the frame of the doctrine of the Trinity, but also a "pneum atical christology”, "pneum atological ecclesiology”, "pneum atology of w orship”, and "pneum atological an thropology”33. This means, that for the O rthodox consciousness the pneum atological approach is equally im portant w ay of in terp ret­ ing the R evelation as christological interpretation. In accordance w ith the w hole of Eastern tradition, O rthodox theologians are not inclined to accept unnecessary delim itations and divisions. O rthodox thinking seems to be m ore com prehensive and synthetic. In most cases it does not know those oppositions and distinctions, which are frequently in the use of W estern theologians.

Now let us come back once again to some ecclesiological pro­ blems, especially to those w hich are the most controversial among C hristians, in order to becom e m ore familiar w ith O rthodox u n d er­

standing of relationship betw een christological and pneum atological' interpretation. In O rthodox tradition the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be a clue of equilibrium betw een the idea of the C hurch as sacram ental hierarchical institution (the Body of Christ) and the concept of the Church as prophetical freedom in the Holy Spirit (the C hurch of the H oly Spirit). For if the F ather is th e only source (a ich è) of divinity, the etern al generation of the Son and the procession of the H oly Spirit are inseparable and related to each other. A nalogically, a christological and m inisterial aspect of the Church, and her pneum atological, personal and prophetical di­ m ension are m utually linked w ith each other, in sim ilar w ay as christology is inseparable from pneum atology. The Church is in fact one and the same m y stery of 'spiritual body' (soma pneum ati-

kön) of Christ, i.e. the entire hum anity perm eated through the

32 See footnote 1.

33 See N. N i s s i o t i s , D ie T h e o lo g ie der O stkirch e, 64—85; i d. , P neum ato- lo g ie o rth o d o x e , 91— 105.

166

energies of the H oly Spirit. The Church exists by the pow er of redem ptive act of Christ, but unceasingly actualised in time by the Holy Spirit34.

The w hole of ecclesiology cannot be reduced therefore to the christological aspect of the Church. O rthodox ecclesiological tradition is characterized by its epicletic approach, noticeable above all in some Church Fathers, St. G r e g o r y P a l a m a s and in so- -called Philokalia. The em phasis is laid there on the experience of, and the p ray er for, the coming of the Holy Spirit. The hierarchical and institutional aspect of the C hurch is view ed by the O rthodox both in christological and pneum atological perspective. The Church as the Body of C hrist is at the same time the eternal Pentecost35. It seems th at V. L о s s к y w as the first among O rthodox the­ ologians, who initiated this sort of "dialectic ecclesiology", in w hich the econom y of C hrist and the econom y of the H oly Spirit are organically connected w ith each other. A ccording to him, the Church has two inseparable aspects, i.e. christological and pneu­ matological, organic and personal. The unity of the C hurch results from the v ery essence of the action of Christ, who has deified the hum an n a t u r e as such. On the other hand, the H oly Spirit is the author of divinization of ev ery hum an p e r s o n thanks to a p art­ icular relationship to the p lurality of these persons. In this respect, the structural, necessary and static dim ension of the Church should be a christological one, w hereas the personal, free and dy­ namic dim ension ought to be pneum atological. Under the influence of critical reception of his ideas, Lossky was com pelled to modify his opinion. He rem oved then the opposition betw een the aspect of necessity or stability in the w ork of Christ, and the aspect of dynam ic freedom in the econom y of the H oly Spirit. H e also explained, th at the C hurch in her christological aspect had ma­ nifested herself as th e continuation of the hum anity of Christ. Besides the econom y of the Son of God, who has recapitulated in Himself the unity of hum an nature there is also in th e Church the econom y of the Holy Spirit, who addresses himself to each free hum an person. This dim ension determ ines in consequence a pente- costal or pneum atological aspect of the Church. Thanks to the unity of human nature and the p lurality of hum an persons th e C hurch is the m ystery in the im age of the T rinity36.

34 O. C l é m e n t , E cclésio lo g ie o rth o d o x e , 95—96. 33 Ibid., 91.

36 V . L o s s k y , T h e o lo g ie m y s tiq u e de l'E glise de l'O rie n t, Paris 1944, 2nd ed. 1960, 131— 169, 171— 192; i d. , La co n scien ce ca th o liq u e. Im p lic a tio n s a n th ro ­ p o lo g iq u e s d u d o g m e de l'E glise, C ontacts 15 (1963) no. 42, 80—85. See also som e critical remarks of G. F 1 о r о v s k y , Le C orps d u C hrist v iv a n t. U ne in te rp ré ta tio n o r th o d o x e de l'Eglise, in; La S a in te Eglise u n iv e r se lle , N eu ch âtel 1948, 9—57, i d.,

TH E C E N TR A LIT Y O F C H R IS T ₁₆₇ This basic insight found later acceptance am ong such theologians as O. C l é m e n t and N. A. N i s s i o t i s. They w arn of the dang­ er of unilaterally christocentric approach to theological problem s in general, and ecclesiological in particular. In their view, the chri­ stological in terp retatio n does not reflect the entire reality of the Church. One of the main ecum enical problem s concerning ecclesio­ logy is considered to be the question of the relationship of reciproc­ ity betw een the Son and the H oly Spirit, in order to overcom e the u n ilateral subordination. C hristology and pneum atology cannot be opposed to each other; although they are to be distinguished, n ev ertheless they rem ain m utually subordinated. Pneum atology cannot be absorbed by christology and vice versa. The christologi­ cal aspect of the Church (the presence of the risen C hrist in the 'm ysteries' as w itnessed to by the apostolic succession of the epis­ copate) alw ays rem ains inseparable from her pneum atological dim ension (freedom, event, prophecy)37.

It is precisely in this sort of "pneum atological christology" that O rthodox theologians see an effective rem edy both for christomo- nism and "pneum atom onism ". A pneum atological christology does not allow to introduce any division w ithin one personal God. It adm its only the difference in power, w ay of acting, and m anifesta­ tion of the grace of God through C hrist in the H oly Spirit. АЦ comes from the Father, who is the source, pow er and purpose of all, but is realized through the action of the two other Persons.

The idea of the centrality of Christ has been v e ry popular among O rthodox theologians. On the one hand, they acknow ledge its great value, and all bold syntheses of O rthodox thought referred to in the first p art of our study give evidence thereof. On the other hand, how ever, many O rthodox theologians firm ly believe th at an integral in terp retatio n of faith can n ever be an exclusively christological interpretation. This results from the conviction, that the w hole econom y of salvation is by its v ery n atu re the econom y of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. M any O rthodox theologians object to accept­ ing the principle of an exclusive christocentrism . W hile they appreciate a christological orientation of contem porary theology, the em phasis is laid at the same time on the constant confrontation w ith pneum atological and trin itarian principles. In this consists the originality of the idea of christocentrism in O rthodox theology.

In our study w e tried to draw a particular attention to eccle­ siology, which rem ains the m ost controversial issue among C hri­ stian denom inations. It seems that O rthodox appeal for overcom ing C hrist a nd H is C hurch. S u g g e stio n s an d C o m m en ts, in: L'E glise e t les E glises, C h evetogn e 1955, vol. II, 159— 170.

37 N. N i s s i o t i s, D ie T h e o lo g ie der O stk irc h e , 74— 75; O. C l é m e n t , E cclesio lo g ie o rth o d o x e , 95— 97, 103; i d., A p r è s V a tic a n II..., 47.

christomonism and taking equally into account pneum atological aspects of the truths of faith has in presen t ecum enical situation v ery positive significance. No doubt that the task of full integration of these tw o aspects belongs to the future generations of theologians, open in higher degree to the richness of theological tradition of