Dimitrios Tselengidis, Professor of the Theological
School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
“POST-PATRISTIC”
OR “NEO-BARLAAMIC” THEOLOGY?
IGNORANCE OR
DENIAL OF SANCTITY?
THE CRITERIA
FOR THEOLOGIZING IN AN ORTHORODOX MANNER, WITHOUT ERROR
The
presumption and theological aberration of “post-Patristic” theologians
In order to
avoid any possible confusion of terminology, perhaps we might begin with a
necessary definition of the newly-minted term “post-Patristic”. This new
academic term is susceptible to a variety of interpretations, but the ones most
prevalent in the academic community are, in our opinion, the following two: a)
when the first part of the compound word- “post”- is given chronological
significance, which, in this case, would mean the end of the Patristic era; and
b) when the first part of the word is given a critical meaning, in which case
the compound “post-Patristic” has the sense of relativism, partial or total questioning, re-evaluation, a new reading, or
even the transcendence of the thought of the Fathers of the Church.
The most
destructive work in the consciousness of the Christian theological community
was accomplished, in our opinion, by the Protestants. This is because they cast
doubt, directly, on the prestige of the Ecumenical Synods of the Church, and,
indeed, on the whole of its Apostolic and Patristic Tradition. At the same
time, they have officially, substantially and formally, nullified the sanctity
of all known saints, casting doubt, in this way, on the experience of the Holy
Spirit in the Church Militant on earth.
By the same token, the most
destructive work in the dogmatic conscience of the membership of the Orthodox
Church has been, and continues to be performed by Ecumenism. Ecumenism today is
the agent of inter-Christian and inter-religious syncretism and, consequently,
is the official agent of the most dangerous multi-heresy of all times, since,
through its syncretism, it contributes in a decisive manner to the weakening of
the Orthodox criterion and Orthodox self-awareness. In particular, through its
representatives at the local and international level, it continually and
gradually makes increasingly greater “discounts” from the ecclesiological/dogmatic
awareness of the spiritually-unsuspecting Orthodox faithful. Above all, it
achieves this through the relativization, or abolition in practice, of the
status of the teachings of the Holy Fathers and, moreover, of their collective
decisions made in the context of the Ecumenical Synods. See, for example, the
blatant and repeated breach of Canon 2 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Synod, a
breach which has been going on for years now. This canon explicitly forbids
praying together with those outside communion and with the heterodox, with the
clear threat that clerics should be defrocked and the laity excommunicated for
the transgression.
The movement
of putative “post-Patristic” theologians which has appeared in recent years, is
organically embedded in the broader, secularized, theological climate mentioned
above, and particularly in the spirit of Ecumenism itself as we have described
it. Certainly, this movement also has Protestant influences, which are
particularly clear in the scientific nature of the attitude of the
“post-Patristic” theologians to the theological teaching of the Holy Fathers,
which had, until today, been accorded enduring status.
In our brief
theological statement, we shall focus primarily on the outlook rather than the
persons of the “post-Patristic” theologians, as well as the criteria of their
implied theology.
Alas, our
beloved brethren in Christ, the “post-Patristic” theologians- with their bold,
or rather, perhaps unwittingly, brazen statements- appear to be entirely
ignorant, in practice, of what sanctity itself is and, by extension, what the
life of the saints in the Holy Spirit really is, though, in the experience of
the Church, this is the prime requirement for theologizing in an Orthodox and
error-free manner. Even more specifically, it appears from their texts that
they do not know that Orthodox and error-free theology can be produced
primarily only by those who have been purified of the detritus of their
passions and, in particular, those who have been enlightened and glorified by
the uncreated radiance of deifying Grace. The insolent efforts to transcend the
teaching of the holy Fathers on the part of the “post-Patristic” theologians
shake the confidence that the faithful need to have in the enduring validity of
the theology of the holy Fathers while, at the same time, undesirably and
deviously introducing the Protestant type of theological speculation. But in
this way, we are, in practice, “moving the boundaries set by our Fathers”. And
this is a blatant violation of the utterances of the holy Fathers[1]
and of the Bible[2].
On the basis
of the above (and nothing else) we might claim scientifically that the putative
“post-Patristic” theologians clearly have not mastered the basic requirements
of the theology of the holy Fathers. Because how can they really claim that
they do, in fact, have these when it happens that they are brazenly proposing
the transcendence of the Fathers of the Church or when they attempt to import
into theological thought a Western type of theological and cognitive
speculation which has as its prerequisite nothing more than scientific/academic
justification and theological reflection? This very conceit is, in any case,
what leads to the negation of the charismatic presence of the Holy Spirit, Who
guarantees the validity of Orthodox theology.
The
scientific/academic criteria introduced by the “post-Patristic” theologians as
evidence of their objectivity do not necessarily coincide with the ecclesiastical
criteria of theologizing in an Orthodox and error-free manner, especially when
these criteria are used unconditionally. The Orthodox Church has, clearly and
principally, criteria of the Holy Spirit. The outstanding and chief criterion
of the error-free nature of ecclesiastical theology is the sanctity of the
God-bearing Fathers who formulated it.
The gross
ignorance, and the conceit based thereon, of the “post-Patristic” theologians,
who are attempting, entirely benightedly, to replace the Patristic theology of
the Orthodox Church, which no doubt bothers them, with their own updated,
scientific/ academic theology is a matter of deepest sadness. By this attitude
they clearly reveal that they do not know, in fact, that the Fathers are
actively God-bearing saints of the Church. But they are unaware, in particular,
of the fact that the sanctity of the saints and that of God Himself is one and
the same, according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa[3].
In other words, the sanctity of the saints has an ontological character and is
an uncreated attribute of God, in which the faithful can share directly and
personally and under clear ecclesiastical conditions, becoming “in all
discernment” partakers of the sanctity of God Himself. It is therefore obvious
that the sanctity of the saints is itself uncreated.
The great
Fathers of the Church expressed the Apostolic Tradition in an error-free
manner, in their era, having first, however, experienced it in their
hesychastic/ ascetic and, primarily, sacramental life. Saints Gregory the
Theologian, Basil the Great, Maximos the Confessor, Symeon the New Theologian
and Gregory Palamas, to mention but a few, brought the Apostolic and Patristic
Tradition up to date, expressing in highly-educated theological language
precisely what other, less learned, holy Fathers had experienced uncreatedly
and “in all discernment”, as had the barely literate but
charismatically-gifted, and as the ordinary God-bearing faithful of our own
time do.
It is the
charismatic experience of God which creates the original theology of the
Church, no matter whether the manner in which it is verbalized is simplistic,
fluent or literary. This theology is a created expression and interpretation of
the living and uncreated revelation of God through a specific historical set of
circumstances in the life of its Godly enunciators. “People spoke from God as they were
carried along by the Holy Spirit”[4],
as we are assured by the chief among the custodians of divine majesty.
But to return to the
criteria for theologizing. The scientific/academic criteria are created. This is why,
apart from the most guaranteed criterion of uncreated sanctity, the only
assurance for error-free, Orthodox, scientific theology can be sought- even by
those academic theologians who are
wanting in terms of sanctity- in the humble mind-set contained and expressed in
the ecclesiastical method which has been applied for centuries and which is
characterized by the Patristic statement: “following the holy Fathers”. In any
case, this outlook, which was also what ensured their sanctity, was something
enjoyed by all the God-bearing holy Fathers who took part in the Ecumenical
Synods, which defined, in an error-free manner, the theology of the Church.
Theological reflection, to which the “post-Patristic” theologians like to
refer, and their concomitant theological speculation do not suit Orthodox
ecclesiastical theology but rather that of the heterodox and heretics, which
Saint Basil the Great aptly calls
“technology” rather than theology[5].
It is also worth noting in this case the apposite observation of Saint John the
Sinaite (of the Ladder) that “he who does not know God [meaning empirically and
experientially], predicates by reflection”[6].
And Saint Gregory Palamas charged the Latin-thinking supporters of Barlaam with
base and human theological reflection when he noted that we, on the contrary,
“do not follow reflections but have been enriched in the confession of the
faith by God-chosen sages”[7].
But when the
sanctity or even the Orthodox theological methodology of “following the holy Fathers” is ignored and
set aside, adoption of “free” theological reflection and of theological
speculation is inevitable. But this, in essence, leads to a “neo-Barlaamist”
theology, which is anthropocentric and has as its criterion self-validating
reason. Just as Barlaam and his
followers doubted the uncreated nature of the divine light and divine grace, so
the “post- Patristic” theologians today effectively ignore the uncreated and,
therefore, enduring character of the sanctity and the teaching of the
God-bearing Fathers, whom they attempt to replace, as regards teaching, by
producing their own original theology. This is not a battle against the
Fathers, of an external nature, but in essence a battle against God, because
what makes the Fathers of the Church really Fathers is their uncreated
sanctity, which, indirectly but to all intents and purposes, these theologians
set aside and cancel out with what they propose with their “post-Patristic”
theology.
“Post-Patristic”
theology, according to the criteria of the Church which we mentioned above, is
the result of conceited intellect. This is why it cannot be legitimized by the
Church. Ecclesiastical theology is humble, it is always “following the
Fathers”. This is not to say that that there is no original dynamism in Church
theology, no spirit of renewal and modernity. On the contrary, it has all the
above features, because it is the expression of the living presence of the Holy
Spirit in the person who theologizes in this way. The Fathers of the Church
expressed what they experienced from the activation of their own personal
Pentecost, but always, practically, “following” and in agreement with the
earlier, God-bearing Fathers.
Orthodox
scientific/academic theology is not required to replace the charismatic
theology of the Holy Fathers, but nor is it justified in presenting anything
other than the authentic theology of the Church. Its task is to approach,
investigate and present scientifically the content of the original, charismatic
theology of the Church, and also to discern and disseminate the criteria for
true theology. In this way, the conjunction of the charismatic theology of the
Fathers with an academic approach is achieved and strengthened, the latter
being duty bound to follow the former in a humble manner. But all this is
promoted only when the academic theologians are not personally bereft of the
requirements of the Fathers and unacquainted with the ecclesiological experiential
stipulations.
When
scientific and academic theology does not meet the above specifications, when
it lacks experiential ecclesiological expression, it is cogitative theology and
spiritually poor. It approaches the reality of the world and of life merely in
a created manner and, at best, expresses things inadequately, while in certain
cases, unfortunately, wrongly and even heretically.
In our view,
if the “post-Patristic” theologians met the requirements of the Fathers, they
would attempt, humbly and quietly, to interpret properly the truth for their
own time, without dismissive or at least dubious references to the holy
Fathers. And, of course, if, in the end, they were justified, then they would
be the voice of the living Holy Tradition of the Church. But this would
inevitably mean that what they said would not be at odds with what the holy
Fathers said over the years and, in particular, it would not clash with their
decisions at the Ecumenical Councils. And all this kerfuffle over
“post-Patristic” theology would be redundant. But these putative
“post-Patristic” theologians know very
well that the teaching of the holy
Fathers sets clear boundaries, which either do not suit them personally or
which impede their strategic goals, which serve their beloved Ecumenism. That
is the truth. All the rest is merely careful packaging!
Finally, in
conclusion, we might claim without hesitation that “post-Patristic” theology is
a clear and overt deviation both from the method and the outlook of the holy
Fathers. That is, a deviation from traditional theology, both as regards the
way, the requirements and the criteria of theologizing in an Orthodox manner,
as well as the content of the ecclesiastical theology of the holy Fathers.
[1] See Saint John
Chrystostom, PG, 59, 63: “let us not
move eternal boundaries set by our Fathers”.
[2] See Prov. 22, 28. “Do not move the boundary
set by your Fathers”.
[3] On Perfection. PG 46, 280D. The only difference lies in the fact that the sanctity
of God is spontaneous and natural (it is the essential energy of the divine
nature), whereas that of the saints is bestowed by grace from God.
[4] II Peter, 1, 21.
[5] Epistle
90, PG 31-32, 473.
[6] See Discourse XXX, 13.
[7] On the Procession of the Holy Spirit,
Discourse II, 18.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου