Dumitru Staniloae: An Ecumenical Ecclesiology

Radu Bordeianu

• Éditeur: T&T Clark
• Année: 2011
• ISBN:
  9780567105615
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Teologia e religione
• Sous-sujet: Ecumenismo religioso e interreligioso

Widely considered the most important Orthodox theologian of the twentieth century, Dumitru Staniloae (1903-1993) contributed significantly to an ecumenical understanding of these themes. Because of his isolation by the Romanian Communist regime, his work still awaits its merited reception, especially given its potential contribution towards Christian unity. In Staniloae's understanding the Church is a communion in the image of the Trinity. Because there is a continuum of grace between the Trinity and the Church, the same relationships that exist among trinitarian persons are manifested in creation in general, and the Church in particular. In this way, the Trinity fills the world and the Church, determining their mode of existence. Intratrinitarian relationships are manifested in the relationships between humankind and non-human creation, the Church and the world, local and universal aspects of the Church, clergy and the people, and among various charisms.

PART I

ECUMENICAL ECCLESIOLOGY

Chapter 1

OPEN SOBORNICITY: STANILOAE’S INTERACTION WITH THE WEST

Orthodox theology suffered an unhealthy influence during its “Western captivity.” Its neoscholastic theology was overly intellectualistic, an academic exercise divorced from spirituality. In line with several notable predecessors, Eastern and Western alike, Georges Florovsky has called for a departure from the previous manual tradition. He proposed a “neo-patristic synthesis” that would incorporate the methodology and theology of patristic writings while engaging ecumenically with contemporary scholarship. As a historian, however, Florovsky did not write such a theology systematically.

In the present chapter, I contend that Staniloae wrote a “neo-patristic synthesis.” His work represents a creative development of the Orthodox patristic, spiritual, and liturgical tradition in dialogue with modern thought, thus being relevant for contemporary Church and social issues. To support this thesis, after a brief analysis of Orthodox theology in the fifteenth to twentieth centuries, I present theological and biographical elements that attest to Staniloae’s departure from manual theology, contrasting neo-patristic with neoscholastic theology. I then analyze his adoption of the three offices of Christ and the designation of seven sacraments as instances of open sobornicity. I thus hope to provide a methodology of constructive engagement with the West and correct the misconception according to which Staniloae was antiecumenical, an opinion that is based on mere marginal aspects of his works.

From Old to New (or Actually Older): Orthodox Theology after the Fall of Constantinople (1453)

Prior to 1453, Orthodox theology was done either by the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers of the patristic era, or in the spirit of the Fathers in postpatristic times. This latter period marks a decline in the quality of Orthodox theology, with notable exceptions such as Symeon the New Theologian, Nicholas Cabasilas, and Gregory Palamas. Setting aside the polemics of this period, the interaction between East and West was minimal at best. Augustine’s De Trinitate was translated only in the thirteenth century.¹ Greek theologians began to engage constructively (even appreciatively) with the West, especially with Thomas Aquinas,² during the fourteenth century.

The situation changed under Ottoman rule. Given the practical difficulties to theologize freely, the East turned rather uncritically to the West: when responding to Catholic missionary activities, it used the already-made Protestant answers;³ when enamored with Western models of education, Orthodoxy adopted Catholic theology uncritically or sent its youth to study at Protestant schools without prior initiation in Orthodox theology. At that time, German, Italian, French, and English schools provided the only opportunity to obtain a higher education.⁴ As a counterreaction to this Western influence, at times the East adopted an ultraconservative, highly polemical attitude that resulted in the simple repetition of patristic formulas. Thus, the encounter between East and West resulted in the impoverishment of Orthodox theology either because of foreign influences suffered without much discernment, or because of stifling creativity for fear of the West.

Western Captivity

To what extent was Orthodox theology influenced by the West in this period? Alexander Schmemann writes about the “Western captivity of the East.”⁵ (Nouvelle théologie or ressourcement Catholic theologians would probably also speak of the Western captivity of the West, given the predominance of neoscholasticism at that time). Georges Florovsky was probably the Orthodox theologian who condemned this period most vehemently, calling it—under Luther’s inspiration, of course— “the Babylonian captivity” of Orthodox theology. He noted that Peter Moghila’s Confession was organized according to anti-Protestant catechisms that appeared during the Counter Reformation era, being more closely linked to Catholic literature than to Orthodox spiritual life. Although key Catholic doctrines such as the primacy of the pope were repudiated, the initial version argued in favor of the doctrine of the purgatory and a specific moment in the Liturgy when the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.⁶ Even though the Confession was not so much doctrinally in error, the choice of language and the uncritical use of Catholic argumentations against Protestantism made Florovsky write about

Moghila’s Latin “pseudomorphosis” or “crypto-Romanism.” . . . The impression is created that Orthodoxy is no more than a purified or refined version of Roman Catholicism. This view can be stated quite succinctly: “Let us omit or remove certain controversial issues, and the rest of the Roman theological system will be Orthodox.” Admittedly, in some ways this is true. But the theological corpus that is thereby obtained lacks or severely reduces the native genius and the ethos of the Eastern theological tradition.⁷

Florovsky’s criticism of Moghila extended to the establishment of the Kiev Academy, in which Catholic methodology and doctrine (including the Immaculate Conception) were being taught following Latin textbooks. Why was Moghila so important in Florovsky’s view?

This was the first outright encounter with the West. One might even have called it a free encounter had it not ended in captivity, or more precisely, surrender. But for this reason, there could be no creative use made of the encounter.⁸ . . . There emerged an imitative and provincial scholasticism, in its literal sense a theologia scholastica or “school theology.”⁹

The Jesuit theologian George Maloney has a milder opinion about Orthodoxy’s encounter with the West. Orthodoxy’s scholasticism, he contends, was unique in that it never developed into a speculative science and remained in continuation with the writings of the Fathers.¹⁰ Kallistos Ware is even more optimistic, considering that the Western influence affected primarily the form that Eastern theology took, never its substance.¹¹ Staniloae concurred:

Sometimes, under similar influences, a theological diversity appears in the bosom of one and the same national Orthodox Church. Russian theology of the Ukraine, which came under Polish domination, was greatly influenced by Roman Catholic theology during the 16th and 17th centuries, whereas after Peter the Great brought Russia into close cultural interrelationship with Prussia, Russian theology underwent a Lutheran influence. But by the second half of the 18th and 19th centuries and especially in the 20th century, simultaneously with the orientation of Russia towards the Balkans, its theology became profoundly patristic and mystical. Greek theology began, by the end of the Byzantine Empire, to come under the influence of Roman Catholic scholasticism, and after the Reformation up to the 20th century, some theologians came under Protestant influence, while others remained under that of the Roman Catholic. It is true that these two Western influences were of a formal rather than spiritual nature and did not succeed in making either the Greeks or the Russians leave the essential bounds of Apostolic Tradition, so jealously guarded in Orthodoxy.… Romanian theology, which like the Greek and Russian also came under the formal influence of Western theology up to the 19th century, in the last 40 years has discovered the new Russian theology and has begun creatively to develop the works of the Holy Fathers. We can say that . . . we witness . . . the return of all Orthodox theology to a spirit specifically Eastern and patristic. [emphases mine] ¹²

Eastern and Western theology of this period of crisis is labeled scholastic because it includes scholasticism-proper, but most of the time it refers to neoscholastic theology, with the surprising addition of Protestant theology. What constitutes scholastic or manual theology?

• Intellectualist approach to faith and the world, as opposed to intellectual description of faith (and its logical consequences) for catechesis¹³

• Philosophy as the criterion for theological truth as opposed to development within the limits set by the Fathers

• Theology as speculative science¹⁴

• Concentration upon unnecessary rational speculations¹⁵

• Overemphasis on cataphatism, to the detriment of apophatism

• Lack of concern with a personal encounter with God (theology being divorced from spirituality and the life of the Church)

• Separation from the liturgical life of the Church (theology not inspired by Liturgy, theology not incorporated into Liturgy)

• Ecclesiology understood through canons, organization, order (juridical), as opposed to Eucharist and sacraments (communal)

• Diminishment of a theocentric anthropology

There are several notable reactions to manual theology. First, the philokalic movement began in the eighteenth century with a textual compilation by Nikodemus and Makarios, and then its translation into Slavonic, Romanian and other languages.¹⁶ This hesychast literature represents a spiritual approach to theology, in contrast with the rationalism of neoscholasticism. Second, the departure from Western theology continued more intensely in the nineteenth century, when most Orthodox countries in Eastern Europe obtained political independence and ecclesiastical autocephaly. Third, the Slavophil movement intended to move away from the West (Catholic and Protestant alike) and toward Russia’s messianic dream. The genius of Slavic Orthodoxy became concentrated around the notion of sobornicity and the contrast between law/institution and love/charism.¹⁷ Fourth, early twentieth-century Orthodox theologians became more and more disenchanted with neoscholastic theology and explicitly set out to depart from it. Nicholas Afanassieff returned to the eucharistic and charismatic character of the early Church. One of his students, Alexander Schmemann, continued his work in liturgical theology and participation of the people in the public worship of the Church. Another one of Afanassieff’s students, John Meyendorff, put the Fathers back into the spotlight, being instrumental in the rediscovery of Gregory Palamas. Vladimir Lossky, too, returned to the Fathers, emphasizing apophatic theology in contrast with the overly cataphatic theology of the West.¹⁸ Most notably, Florovsky called for a neo-patristic synthesis; going beyond the repetition of earlier thought, this theology ad mentem Patrum can be preached, has spiritual consequences, and represents the key to Christian unity.¹⁹ In a creative interaction with the West,²⁰ Florovsky called for writing in the same patristic spirit, or in “the mind of the Fathers”²¹ and the rediscovery of the “catholic mind,” which is the language of the Scriptures, the worshipping Church, and the Fathers.²²

All these instances of Orthodox theology mark a gradual departure from the previous manual tradition, unhealthily influenced by the West. How does Staniloae fit into this picture?²³

Staniloae’s Engagement with the West

At times, Staniloae’s engagement with the West is markedly polemical for three reasons. First, he was not current with the developments in the theologies that he criticized because of his isolation behind the Iron Curtain. He engaged mostly with Catholic and Protestant theologies of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and with the classical Latin tradition, which he encountered early in life as a student in the West. These theologies are frequently criticized by modern Catholic theologians, too.²⁴ Second, Staniloae reacted against neoscholastic theology as it was being done by Orthodox and Catholic theologians at that time, as I show in the next section. And third, if Staniloae’s criticism of Catholi...