Doru Costache - Orthodoxy Through The Centuries

[Published in The Greek Australian Vema (September 2008) 8-9]

ORTHODOXY THROUGH THE CENTURIES A Brief History of Who We Are – A Promise of What We Might Become By Revd Dr Doru Costache Beyond its current problems, Orthodoxy is the living continuation of the Church established by our Lord Jesus Christ through the indwelling of his Holy Spirit within the first Christian community in Jerusalem. Built upon the proclamation of the apostolic faith and the experiential aspect of its liturgical life, Orthodoxy is the catholic (καθολική) manifestation of the original Church established by Christ, a truthful witness to the Spirit’s deifying presence. By catholicity we mean here the fullness of the ecclesial reality as constituted – in Christ and the Holy Spirit – in and through each local Church around a bishop, and in the communion of the local Churches. Generation after generation, starting with the first century up until now, Orthodoxy has embraced various nations, manifesting diachronically its catholicity through a large diversity of cultural expressions. This gives account as to how the one Orthodox Church, defined by one faith and life, is constituted as a communion of local Churches, distinct in regards to their cultural features. As such, and despite the internal disagreements which darken at times its horizon, Orthodoxy is called to reflect in a superior way – as a true structured pneumatocracy (Archbishop Stylianos) – the divine paradigm of unity (one God) in plurality (three persons or hypostases). Along with the common faith and life shared by all Orthodox Churches, the canonical and symbolic expression of Orthodoxy’s unity remains throughout history – including in our increasingly globalised world – the primacy of the Ecumenical Throne, i.e. the prerogatives of the Patriarch of Constantinople as primus inter pares (the first among the equals) in the gathering of Orthodox bishops. To the realisation of this model has contributed a long process of theological and canonical refinements. During their first centuries of historical existence, the emerging Churches had preserved their communion in spite of the geographical distances separating them and the oppression exerted by pagans. This unity has been consistently expressed through the communal witness to the apostolic kerygma and the celebration of the liturgy, also by the spiritual ethos characterising Christians – no matter their dwelling place and the language in which they announced the compassion of God to all people. Last but not least, Christian unity has also been realised at the level of the complex episcopal ministry. In communion with both their local dioceses and each other, the bishops manifested the inner cohesion of Christendom as a new reality in Christ Jesus, the Head of the Church and sole pontiff (bridge-maker) between God and humanity. Therefore, being centred in Christ and oriented both vertically and

eschatologically, the early Churches needed no geographical point of reference. The spirit of this paradigm has been faithfully preserved by the subsequent generations, even if from the organisational point of view the Church has experienced a process of continuous reformation, given the various historical circumstances. In the early centuries, the most impressive sign of Christian presence in the world, however, was the uncompromising proclamation of faith in the form of martyrdom. Less theologically elaborated the creedal statements of the martyrs concerning the Holy Trinity, Christ as Son of God and Saviour, and the sacramentally regenerated life in the Church, constituted unambiguous confessions of the apostolic faith. Furthermore, they represented truthful expressions of the inner life of the Church as communion and the nobility of the Christian way of living. In fact, these statements constituted one of the most efficient ways of communicating the Gospel of Christ to the world, relying on the power of conviction springing from personal example. With the Constantinian era, the Church was no longer persecuted by the Roman authorities yet it had to face numerous internal and external challenges. Mainly, along with the effort to safeguard the inner unity of Christendom, menaced by the powers of division represented by the heretical movements, the Church had to elaborate a political platform upon which to build its complex relations with the Empire. Throughout the history of the Christian Roman Empire, between the foundation (in 330) and the fall (in 1453) of Constantinople, there unfolded a constant – although mostly just tacit – struggle between the State and the Church. With numerous occasions, the Empire attempted to impose upon the Church its own policies, often causing serious damage with painful and lasting consequences. It is well known that the most distinguished Christian theologians of the period (such as St Athanasius the Great, St Basil the Great, St Maximus the Confessor, St John Damascene, St Theodore the Studite and others), suffered persecutions for defending Orthodoxy against the illegitimate ideological pressures exerted from time to time by the civil authorities. Perhaps the most exemplary form of resistance against the secular policies in the Byzantine era remains that of monasticism, at least up until the end of the second iconoclast crisis, in 843, and the interlude occasioned by St Symeon the New Theologian at the crossroads of the first and second millennia. In many ways, monasticism constituted throughout the Byzantine era a spiritual and prophetic phenomenon echoing the experience of martyrdom. But there are also bright colours to be added to this picture, of dynamic and creative interactions between Church and Empire. One of the most significant is that the Christian Empire offered to the Church new opportunities for its experience and mission. A long chain of pious emperors and empresses considered themselves as accountable before Christ for the well being of God’s people, the defence of faith and the spreading of the Gospel to the barbarians. Characteristically, many emperors and empresses (largely imitated by numerous dignitaries) embraced the spiritual path of monasticism, consecrating for the coming centuries a cultural, social and political paradigm that may be considered one of the most impressive

contributions of the Gospel to the renewal of the world. It is therefore not by chance that the Empire has become an immense Christian arena, first allowing and then actively supporting the public implementation of the very criteria that governed the early ecclesial life. The apostolic spirit of Orthodoxy constituted the primary and underlying factor causing the State, for example, to observe the principles of philanthropy and to support the struggle of the Church to build the first coherent and efficient system of social care in history. Also significant is that the Empire, through a series of visionary rulers, had undertaken the task of assisting the Church in its effort to articulate and refine the canonical form of the apostolic faith. As such, in conjunction with the Church, the emperors convened and organised the ecumenical councils (centuries 4-8), officially endorsing their decisions and proclaiming worldwide their authority. Thus, the apostolic faith and life – grounds of the ecclesial unity – have become in this way the background of the Byzantine mindset and the Empire’s own legislation. And indeed, the Christological principle of theandricity or divine-humanity – the decisive criterion in all aspects of ecclesial experience –, articulated by the author known as St Dionysius the Areopagite (early sixth century), had inspired the imperial doctrine of symphony. This was already obvious during the rule of Justinian the Great – author of the famous hymn ‘Only-begotten’, celebrating the mystery of theandricity –, the first emperor to elaborate, in the mid sixth century, on symphony. According to this doctrine, the Empire represented the earthly side of the heavenly aspect as constituted by the Church, in other words the body of a soul. It took a long time until the complete Christianisation of the Empire and the Greek-Roman world yet this effort resulted in the deep conversion of a whole society and culture. Along this process, symptomatically, Church and Empire have influenced and shaped each other within a unique and fascinating synthesis known to posterity as the Byzantine model. To note a specific feature of this synthesis, it is evident that on more than several occasions the fate of the Empire was put at risk precisely for the sake of preserving the highly spiritual exigencies of the Gospel as experienced and proclaimed by the Orthodox Church. The most impressive outcome of the inculturation of the Orthodox Church within the Byzantine context, however, should be undoubtedly considered its theological spirituality and art, still defining Orthodoxy around the world. Along this process of historical becoming, Orthodoxy had to experience a series of misfortunes. Among them, noteworthy remains the Oriental schism occurring in the mid fifth century, when (for theological and non-theological reasons) the non Greek-speaking Churches of the East had chosen a separate faith path. Also noteworthy remains the schism of the Latin Church, gradually produced (centuries 9-11) by the papacy and the Carolingian state. Unfortunately, the repeated attempts of both the Byzantine Church and Empire to bridge the gap between Orthodoxy and the heterodox Churches proved to be unfruitful, because of the subsequent fall of the Orientals under pagan rule (Persian, Arab and Turk) and the increasing arrogance of the Westerners. In fact, the Westerners had manifested unfriendly ways of

relating with the Orthodox East, taking advantage of the continuous pagan assaults upon Constantinople to either impose their terms (the so-called attempts of reunion) or literally to conquer (the famous fourth crusade, 1204). To all these was added the expansion of the Ottoman power over the areas where the Orthodox Church was active. Long before the fall of Constantinople (1453) but mostly after, with the exception of the Russian, Romanian, Baltic and Polish Churches, the whole Orthodox world was under pagan dominion, experiencing dire situations and being compelled to adopt a strategy of survival similar to that of the early Church. Consequently, new martyrs shone upon the ecclesial firmament, manifesting the inner spiritual strength of Orthodoxy. However, in spite of all adversities, the flame of traditional spirituality – far from becoming extinct – continued to grow within and around monasteries, with the hesychast revival that literally contributed to the relaunch of Orthodoxy in modern times. From an ecclesiastical viewpoint, even if under strict control and at times unbearable pressures, the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople had continued to represent the canonical factor of communion for all Orthodox, managing to coordinate the efforts of the Churches from both inside and outside the Ottoman rule. It is due to the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s ministry of unity that the emergence of autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox Churches in modernity, beyond various jurisdictional tensions, did not produce further schisms. Modernity has arrived with new challenges for the Orthodox Church. One of the most serious was the obvious discontinuity between the traditional Orthodox mindset and the non-traditional, if not thoroughly anti-traditional, modern culture. Configured on a different spirit, Orthodoxy was taken by surprise with the emergence of new cultural trends related to the secular character of societies. It is perhaps not unexpectedly, therefore, that in their hurried attempt to secure a place within the framework of the brave new world, the Orthodox Churches embraced with uncritical enthusiasm various nationalist and social ideologies. In turn, the nationalist propensities – in the form of the condemned phyletism (priority of ethnicity over ecclesial criteria) – caused to the coherence of the Orthodox commonwealth. Oblivious to the unifying spirit shared by the tradition of the first millennium, the national Churches have substituted unwisely the natural category of ethnicity for the theandric criteria that shape the ecclesial mindset. Along with, and in close connection to, phyletism, another corruption of the ecclesial mindset is the innovation of special feasts, dedicated by various Churches to the observance of the sum of their ‘national saints’. The aspect is highly significant, since this apparently benign innovation actually manifests just phyletist sentiments, of national arrogance, which contribute greatly to the alienation and distance between the partners (rather than sisterChurches) within the Orthodox commonwealth. Characteristically and consequently, in recent times the Orthodox proved unable to bring with one voice a coherent message to a world spiritually disoriented.

However, if the legitimate attempt to fit within the modern context turned in the end negatively (with phyletism), Orthodoxy as an ensemble managed to address maturely the essence of the new world. Thus, by contrast with the proclamation of the ‘dogma of the European man’s infallibility’ (St Justin Popovitch), canonised by the Roman papacy, the Orthodox Church offered modernity a different answer. In the famous encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848, opposing – on traditional grounds – the idea of one man’s infallibility, Orthodoxy presented implicitly the program of its ‘structured pneumatocracy’, where hierarchy and community constitute together a united witness to the divine-human wisdom. Unfortunately, the message of the Orthodox Church was not positively received by a delusional society, deceived by its dream of omniscience and omnipotence. We all taste now the bitter consequences of this lack of sensibility for wisdom. Unfortunately again, as a reaction to being ignored and despised, many Orthodox have taken the path of an uncritical rejection of modernity, barricading behind a (distorted) sense of tradition taken in anachronistic terms. To be traditional, however, means not to entertain the nostalgia of past glories; it is instead to remain both faithful to the truth and creatively open to new missionary contexts. Archbishop Stylianos (‘The Place of Tradition in the Christian Faith’) observes that …tradition is not so much a treasury of structures and forms but rather a living current of life, a way of existing, thinking and feeling… Tradition is not just a way of handling matters of major or minor importance, but rather the spirit which leaves its creative traces through all possible expressions. Today, in a pluralistic and increasingly globalised world, the Orthodox Church is called not just to give a truthful and united testimony to the apostolic faith and life, but also, and for this purpose, to recover its inner coherence. Or, in order to reach coherence, the Orthodox commonwealth should overcome the undermining ramifications of phyletism and learn to appreciate again our hierarchical structure of communion. St Paul knew what the dangers of fragmentation might be, when he wrote (Ephesians 4:1-6): I, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. Meekness and humility in Christ imply that we are able to discern what is from God and what is against God, also what it means to abandon the traditional wisdom and to be “carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles” (Ephesians 4:14). Meekness and humility, founded on the ecclesial wisdom, will hopefully teach the national Churches to acknowledge the necessity of a strong united Orthodox voice around the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in these uncertain times

of dissolution and loss of identity. However, only by healing its self-inflicted wounds could the Orthodox commonwealth become again one polyphonic, multicultural, voice, able to truthfully give witness to our traditional values, actualising again and again the foundational paradigm of Pentecost.