REDISCOVERING THE PATRISTIC ORTHODOX SPIRITUALITY IN THE OCCIDENTAL

SPACE – A CHANCE TO RECOVERING THE CHRISTIAN UNITY OF EUROPE FROM

THE FIRST MILLENIUM

By the Master’s Degree Student Corneliu Chivu

1
 Summary

Introduction / 3

1. The Romanian Orthodox Church and Europe / 4

2. The Patristic Age / 9

3. The Existential Character of Patristic Theology / 10

4. The meaning of Patristic “Age”/ 11

5. The Heritage of Byzantine Theology / 12

6. For a limitless Europe / 14

Conclusions / 15

Bibliography / 16

2
 Introduction

The moral values are guiding lines for man’s orientation in life, by bringing about his
objectives and giving them meaning. The societies from the Europe’s Occident have undergone a
dramatic change of values, which have not left untouched the churches. Thus, there appears, also,
behind the change in the orientation of values, a plurality of life styles and of religious convictions.
The religion seems to become a value, together with other values into a general offer with which
we help ourselves. Thus, the Church risks becoming an executor of services which participates in
the beautifying of some instances of life. If it’s true that in the Occidental countries the universal
values are the typical ones, then the inter-religious dialogue becomes a sine qua non condition in
order for the unity of Europe to be not only a chimera. But there is, also, another reason for the
speeding up of this dialogue: in order for us to be able to make solid affirmations on the importance
of religion in this Europe of the East and of the West, we have to find out much more about the
different life styles, and should know better the frame conditions for addressing these problems. At
the same time, the countries with different traditions and different life styles have a different
religious context, also.
The ancient humanism, the modern era enlightenment, and not in the last run, the
Christianity in her Byzantine-Slavic-Orthodox, Latin-Catholic and Reformed interpretations, was
irrevocably impressed upon the spiritual and cultural profile of Europe. If the common values do
represent the basis of Europe, as it is explicitly mentioned in the Treatise of the European
Constitution, then the question about, to what extent these Christian values have an obligatory
character in this Constitution, is legitimate. In accordance with the studies, only 50% of the
European population counts religion as being important. However, the values of religious past
(tolerance, family), are and still remain important today for the contemporary citizens.
A new challenge is represented by the frame conditions which are modified for the
ecumenical dialogue. Of course, at any time the extremely good ecumenical climate is emphasized
in the churches, and oftentimes it is said that there are many more things which unite us than those
which separate us. The Church responsibility in Europe and for Europe is a common one.
Wherefore, it would be well for us not to treat the differences between us in such a way that others
will rejoice in them.
A special challenge is addressed to the post-communist countries and aims at the profound
modifications which have taken place in these countries: the religious currents such as the New
Age, Pentecostals, Jehovah’s witnesses, the Adventists of 7th day, etc. Some of them have
succeeded in understanding and successfully taking advantage of the so-called vacuum left by the
communist ideology, and we have to recognize that these currents offer some solutions that seem

3
important for today’s citizens, especially those of a material nature. We cannot clearly say which
ones are the most affected categories; there have been, in the main, some groups integrated from
some social inferior strata, those who have belonged to some middle classes, or those interested in
new spiritual experiments. However, it may be realized that those who belong to the consecrated
churches are less exposed. But the consecrated religious categories are oftentimes pushed to
reactions leading to the prohibition of the sects, and this in turn is leading to the decreasing of the
ecumenical dialogue. Today’s Christians live in almost all the countries of the world in the
pluralistic societies. Pluralism defines their life day in and day out and forces them to look with
different eyes at those who belong to other religions and to create some new relations. In many
regions the religious extremist militancy can be noticed, and the search for identity, for religious
relation is involved in many international conflicts.
Wherefore, the religious dialogue is extremely necessary and we are glad to know that there
are organized gatherings with religious debates at a global level.

1. The Romanian Orthodox Church and Europe

In the greater part of her geographical dispersion, the Orthodox Church had to bear the
tribulation years of the communist totalitarianism. She is forced, also, to go through this difficult
state of transition which turns topsy-turvy the entire Eastern society. The search for Orthodox unity
nowadays has become an imperative, since the European integration calls on us first of all to
intensify the inter-Orthodox relations. Even though we talk about the existence of the unity of faith,
of cult and of discipline, and the Orthodox world is united by a series of traditions, there persists,
however, numerous elements of misunderstanding which have divided the Orthodox world, by
threatening her unity, especially during the last years. The disintegration of the communist political
systems from the Orthodox East, as well as the radical social and economic transformations, place
Orthodoxy in the presence of some situations which were un-experienced until now. There appear
challenges which have to be rapidly answered by the Orthodox Church without having had any
preceding experiences in this realm. The current political tensions do influence the ecclesiastical
life, also, but by her clergy, the Church is called to make her presence felt in the middle of dramatic
events, to defend her faithful and to strengthen their faith. Unfortunately, after so many transitional
years, the countries from the former communist camps, which are Orthodox in their greater part,
have not succeeded in clearly making more precise a coherent political strategy which was
supposed to draw the peoples in to clear objectives, the implementation of which should be
followed with perseverance.

4
 The Orthodox peoples from the south-east of Europe were realizing, as far back as the 19th
century, that they belong to a distinct space, with specific problems, and that they are bound, also,
by a common past, by a common religious faith, the Orthodox one, and that they follow, each one
in its proper way the same destiny: the national affirmation. The Orthodox Church has actively, if
not most actively, participated in the accomplishment of this destiny. If the end of the 19 th century
has brought to this geographic space some national states and autocephalous Orthodox Churches,
the 20th century has ended by accentuating the call to Orthodox unity and inter-confessional
dialogue.1
A dangerous phenomenon with which the Eastern European space is confronted, and thus,
our Church, also, is the invasion of occult sects; they practice a religious syncretism and an
artificial religious unification in behalf of a new religion, the religion of the future. Also, a
European unity based just on economic laws and on monetary unity risks to become a community
of distrustfulness. The lack of knowledge of the other one brings about fear of the unknown, of
insecurity. First of all, it is necessary for us to know each other’s cultures and traditions and to
mutually pay respect to them. In Europe, the cultures that are so diverse and so anchored in history
need to be manifested. The same thing is imperatively necessary for the possibility of making
manifest the religious faith. In the European space the talk is more and more about multiculturalism
and the respect for diversity. Without these two things, the process of European integration is
transformed into a globalizing one, a mixer of cultures, of traditions, and of religious faiths. The
Romania’s integration requires the preservation of her spiritual characteristic – the confession of
Orthodox faith. Wherefore we can say that Europe needs the Romanian Orthodox Church. His
Beatitude Teoctist, the late Patriarch of Romanian Orthodox Church remarked: “We should not
underestimate ourselves, in our steps; we should have the courage to find the place which we fully
deserve in the symphony of the peoples of a united Europe, since we have to offer something of
value to the other nations. We are a country which is in the greater part of Orthodox faith, and
here are found, also, believers belonging to some other faiths with whom we lived together for
more than one thousand years, sharing in each other’s preoccupations. We could say that we are,
from this point of view, the Europe in miniature.”2 It is of major importance to display an
intercultural and interreligious dialogue at the level of European countries, a dialogue aiming at
finding common points, a language accessible to all, as well as the cultivation of the mutual trust.
The tolerance, the trust, and the respect are the premises for the building up of a united and
functional Europe. Romania brings to Europe an exceptional culture and a distinct spirituality and,
at the same time, a pacifist and tolerant spirit. As far back as the first centuries the Church was the
1
Pr. Cotan Claudiu, Ortodoxia şi mişcările de emancipare naţională din sud-estul Europei în secolul al XIX-lea, Ed.
Bizantină, Bucureşti, 2004, pp. 12-14.
2
Mesajul Prea Fericitului Părinte Patriarh, la Forumul Naţional Uniunea Europeană 2007 (14 februarie 2003).

5
factor of unity and cohesion of the known world at the time. She laid the foundations for the
European communion, and some of the saints of our Church have participated in the building up of
this communion. St. John Casian, John Maxentius, and Dionysius Exiguous, as spirits of the
Christian conscience and culture of the time, have been, through their service, artisans for a Europe
united around the same Gospel teaching and the same norms and traditions as far as the
organization of public and ecclesiastical life is concerned.
The European unity has existed and exists through the presence of the preaching the Gospel
of Christ in this geo-political space. Wherefore, it is absolutely necessary, when people talk about
“the European unity” to take into consideration her spiritual unity, since Europe is characterized by
Christianity. The building up of the future Europe has begun from respecting the fundamental
rights of man. These rights have brought about the countries of the world to assert their adherence
to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of November 10, 1948, and, more recently, to the
Amsterdam Treaty (October 2, 1997).3 For the Christians, the European unity cannot be conceived
by adopting laws which contradict the principles of the Gospel and of Christian moral. The human
rights should be situated and asserted in the light of biblical revelation. More than that, the Russian
Orthodox Church asserts that the human dignity goes beyond the provisions of human rights
legislation, which needs, therefore, to be re-evaluated based on the Gospel teaching.
If the European political unity becomes a reality, the Christian unity remains a challenge
for all of the European Churches. The ecumenical movement has clarified some aspects and has
installed a sincere dialogue, but it has not succeeded in making some progress in the direction of a
real drawing near. Even some stronger and stronger voices show an outright opposition as against
the attempts at knowing the more and more profound diversity of present-day Christian life.4 More
than that, the Christianity has not found its due place in the European Constitution. His Beatitude,
the Patriarch Teoctist was appealing to the Romanian Parliament in order for the adopted laws, and
particularly, the European Constitution to preserve the Christian essence.5 It is necessary in this
context a renewal of the ecumenical movement which is to overcome the Christological pluralism
and to return to the experience of the first general assemblies of the World Council of Churches.
There was discussed and there is still discussion on the Christian unity, but we have to ask: What
kind of unity? The Roman-Catholic Church views the unity being accomplished by reporting all
Christians to a unique centre of ecclesial authority and even by reducing this authority to a single
individual. This form of authority explains, also, the Catholic imperialism which was known by
human history. The Protestant churches and confessions suggest a unity in diversity, each church
3
Pr. Prof. Dr. Nicolae Dură, Bisericile Europei şi Uniunea Europeană. Ecumenism, reconciliere creştină şi unitate
europeană, Ed. IBMBOR, Bucureşti, 2005, p. 775.
4
Ecumenismul: Concluziile conferinţei inter-ortodoxe de la Tesalonic (20 -24 septembrie 2004).
5
Scrisoarea Prea Fericitului Părinte Patriarh Teoctist, Patriarhul Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, către Valer Dorneanu,
preşedintele Camerei Deputaţilor, 19 februarie 2003.

6
keeping her teaching, her proper structure, but getting united through „drawing near.” For the
Protestants, the World Council of Churches represents a satisfactory model of unity. The Orthodox
Church does not conceive the unity without it being focused on Christ, the God-Man. All other
models are only models of weakening the faith in Christ. In the Orthodox Church we are one in
Christ, in God, as our very Savior says: „As all be one, as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, so
they be one in Us” (John 17, 21). Therefore, the work of the Church is God’s work through men,
since Jesus is present in every work of His Church. The movement for the Christian unity must be
first of all a confession of the same Truth. First, the ways leading to re-discovering Christ must be
searched, and then be reached the unity.6 His Holiness, Patriarch Batholomew pointed out in one of
his talks: „Into a Europe which is looking today for the economical and political unity, but
especially of the spiritual one,” the Orthodox Church has „to play an important role for
accomplishing this unity. Orthodoxy is a constituent element of Europe seen as a whole.”7 The
Christian dialogue must continue, since Europe needs to re-discover her Christian roots in order for
her not to wander in the limited jugdments of human mind. The Orthodox Church could help the
Western Europe to rediscover „the religious-cultural heritage of the undivided Church, where she
will rediscover a lot of what she has lost, that is, the most precious gifts.” 8 As a matter of fact, by
the Amsterdam Treaty, Declaration nr. 11, there is the provision: „The European Union respects
and is not detrimental to what, in accordance with national legislation, is defined as the Statute of
the Churches and of the religious groups and communities which are within the frame of the
member Churches.” The European Union does not have an attitude which is against Orthodoxy,
and it does not sustain a conflict of civilizations as some political scientists think.9
Orthodoxy is part and parcel of the European space, and Romania must capitalize this
advantage in the process of integration. Our Church is a real support for the Romanian state in its
effort to adhere to the European Union. The Romanian Orthodoxy confesses the Eastern faith into a
Western language of origin which constitutes a connection bridge between Orient and Occident.10
Romanian spirituality and culture contributes to the encountering of the two worlds and can share
with the Occident values that which have been forgotten or lost by it. It is not by chance that there
are some voices which ask for the Romanian Orthodox Church to have her representatives at
Bruxelles.

6
Pr. Constantin Coman, Biblia în Biserică, eseuri pe teme biblice, Ed. Bizantină, Bucureşti, 1997, pp. 64-70.
7
Elisabeth Behr Sigel, Eglise orthodoxe et construction europeene,” în „Constacts,” nr. 190, 2000, pp. 107-109.
8
Bartolomeu, Patriarhul Ecumenic, Biserica Ortodoxă şi Europa Contemporană, în „Almanah Bisericesc,”
Arhiepiscopia Bucureştilor, Bucureşti, 2000, pp. 76-85.
9
See Samuel P. Huntington, Ciocnirea civilizaţiilor şi refacerea ordinii mondiale, trad. de Radu Carp, Ed. Antet,
Bucureşti, 1997.
10
Pr. Conf. Dr. Ştefan Buchiu, Integrare şi secularizare in Biserica în misiune. Patriarhia Română la ceas aniversar,
Ed. IBMBOR, Bucureşti, 2005, p. 834.

7
 The Orthodox Church should not be afraid of the European integration, but to look at this
phenomenon as at any other political process. But she may be called much more to accomplish her
destiny, the work of salvation in the world. There are great challenges which already confront our
Church: the globalizing,11 the secularization, the estranging and the apathy of the modern man from
the Gospel message. Many years ago, an Orthodox theologian seemed to predict the present-day
events:
„Had Europe remained a Christian continent, she would have boasted herslef with Christ
and not with her culture; and the big peoples of Asia and Africa, even if un-baptized, but proned to
spirituality, would have understood and treasured this thing, since each one of these peoples, also,
boast with its faith, with its gods, with the books which are counted as holy by its faith: one of them
with the Koran, another one with the Vedas, and so on. Therefore they do not boast with the work
of their hands, with their culture, with what they count above themselves, with what they consider
to be perfect in the world. Only the Europe’s peoples do not boast themselves either with Christ, or
with Christ’s Gospel; they boast themselves with their dangerous cars and their cheap products,
that is, with their culture. The end-result of this European self-boasting with the famous culture is
the hatred of all un-Christian nations against Christ and against Christianity. In hating the
European goods and European men, they have hated, also, the European God. But, wow! Europe
does not feel the pain of this reality. As a matter of fact, she herself has first of all renounced her
God.”12
The modern Europe is the result of moving away from Christianity. The Church, the one
which gave birth to Europe, no longer recognizes herself in it. 13 Wherefore, the European
integration must have a spiritual dimension, also. The Orthodox Church considers that the man’s
destiny is to transfigure the world, and not to make the man into the prisoner of material values, and
in this sense, the Orthodox living is called on to work.
Our Church is invited to defend and to assert the idea of a Christian Europe, especially
because those who have made outstanding efforts towards the concretization of the European unity
have been politicians with a Christian-democratic orientation. The Christian-democratic political
leaders, such as Adenauer, J. Monet, Spaak, with a prophetic vision on the Europe’s future, have
contemplated the creation of an economic community, the cultural dimension of which, and
particularly the spiritual-religious one, should be parts and parcels. Everything in today’s Europe
was inspired by the Holy Scripture and by Christian living.

11
Diac. Ioan I. Ică, Jr. , Globalizarea. Mutaţii şi provocări, în Biserica în misiune. Patriarhia Română la ceas
aniversar, Ed. IBMBOR, Bucureşti, 2005, pp. 684-703.
12
See Arhim. Iustin Popovici, Biserica Ortodoxă şi ecumenismul, trad. Adrian Tănăsescu, Bucureşti, 2002.
13
Pr. Prof. Dr. Dumitru Popescu, Pr. Prof. Dr. Ioan Ică, Biserica Ortodoxă Română şi integrarea europeană, in
Biserica în misiune. Patriarhia Română la ceas aniversar, Ed. IBMBOR, Bucureşti, 2005, p. 766.

8
 At the Snagov gathering together in 1995, where the representatives of political parties and
of some institutions of Romania have signed the Declaration of Romania’s adhering to the
European structures, there was remarked the fact that, in order for the European unity to be
accomplished, the spiritual dimension should be granted the utmost importance. The process of
European unification can be fully realized only when are created conditions to succeed in the
spiritual enrichment, also. The contribution of Romania will increase the value of European
spiritual and cultural treasure. In the perspective of adherence, the organizing of common actions
and activities with the other cults from Romania, for a better understanding of each one’s specific
traits, is considered welcome.14 Our Church must pay attention to the fact that some states which
are members of the European Union, not only that they are not secular, but they assert their
affiliation to the faith in God even in the text of their Constitutions. Also, by their own legislation,
they provide the existence of religious education in their state institutions. To us, the Greece’s
example, the 1975 Constitution of which was redacted and voted: „In the name of the
consubstantial and indivisible Holy Trinity,” is edifying; it is the only Constitition of a state
member of the European Union which invokes God in Trinity, and which represents in detail the
relations of the Church with the State. We remark, also, the fact that, the constitutions of some
other Catholic or Protestant states make direct referrence to the dominant religion. It is absolutely
necessary for our state to make more precise by a law its relation with the Orthodox Church and
with the other cults, law which should become functional before the year 2011. Thus, the statute
and the position embraced by our Church while entering the European Community will be better
clarified.
In the year 2000 came into force the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union
which was adopted at Nice and included in the Constitution of European Union accepted in the year
2004. By this Constitution, the religious rights and liberties that offer the legal frame for religious
manifestations are guaranteed.
Through the European integration, our Church must pass through her own filter the
European norms to which she has to render the Christian valence.15 Our Church, by the confessed
faith – a priceless treasure of human living – will enrich the treasury of the European spirituality.

2. The Patristic Age

The Church is truly „Apostolic.” But the Church is „Patristic” also. She is intrinsically „the
Church of the Fathers.” These two „traits” can not be separated. Yet, only by being „Patristic” the
14
See Declaraţia cultelor privind integrarea României în Uniunea Europeană, in B.O.R.., nr. 4-6/2000, pp. 121.
15
Pr. Prof. Dr. Nicolae V. Dură, Drepturile şi libertăţile fundamentale ale omului şi protecţia lor juridică. Dreptul la
religie şi libertate religioasă, in Ortodoxia, nr. 3-4, Bucureşti, 2005, p. 54.

9
Church is truly „Apostolic.” The testimony of the Fathers is much more than a simple historical
aspect, a voice of the past. Let us quote a troparion from the Three Holy Hierarchs service: „With
the word of knowledge you drew up the dogmas, which before the masterly done words, have been
set in order by the fishermen, who were knowledgeable by the power of the Spirit. Since it was due
in order for our true faith to be made out.” We may say, that there are two stages in the preaching
of the true faith. „Our true faith had to be made out.” There was an inner impulse, in this transition,
an inside logic, an internal necessity. Indeed, the teaching of the Fathers and the Church’s dogmas
are the same „plain message” which was transmitted and hoarded up once for all by the Apostles.
But now, it is, as it were, properly and fully articulated. The Apostolic preaching is not only
preserved, it is, also, kept alive and well by the Church. In this way, the teaching of the Fathers is a
permanent category of the Christian living, a measure, and a constant and ultimate criterion of the
true faith. The Fathers are not only witnesses of the ancient faith, testes antiquitatis (the confirmers
of its antiquity); they are, rather, the confessors of true faith, testes veritatis. „The thinking of the
Fathers is an inherent reference term in the Orthodox Theology, not inferior to the word of the Holy
Scripture, and certainly, never separated from this. As it was said very well, „The Catholic Church
of all ages is not only the daughter of the Church of the Fathers, she is and remains the Church of
the Fathers.”

3. The Existential Character of Patristic Theology

The main distinctive trait of Patristic Theology was its „existential” character. The Fathers
theologized, as St. Gregory the Theolgian put it, „in the manner of the Apostles, not in the one of
Aristotle. Their theology was a „message” to be continued. Their last reference goes on to be the
vision of faith, the spiritual knowledge and experience. If it is separated from the life in Christ, the
Theology transmits no conviction, and if it is separated from the life of faith, the Theology may
degenerate into a void dialectics, without any spiritual fruit. The Patristic Theology was
existentially rooted in the decisive engagement of faith. It was not a self-clarifying „discipline,”
which could have been arguingly introduced, such is the case with the Aristotelian philosophy,
without any previous spiritual engagement. During the period of controversies and never-ending
theological debates, the Cappadocian Fathers have openly protested against the use of the
dialectics, of the „Aristotelian silogisms,” and have taken pains to orient the Theology back to the
vision of faith. The Patristic Theology may only be „preached” or „announced” – preached from
the pulpit, proclaimed, also, in the words of prayers or in the holy rites, or truly made manifest in
the integral making of the Christian life. This kind of Theology can never be separated from the

10
prayer life and from the practicing of virtue. „The perfect end of chastity is cause for theology,” as
was put by St. John Climacus, (The Ladder of Paradise, the 30th rung).
The Theology is never a self-clarifying discipline. She appeals ceaselessly to the seeing
through faith. „We announce you what we have seen and heard.” Without this „announcing,” the
theological formulas are lacking the content and with no fruit. For the same reason, these formulas
can never be considered „in the abstract,” that is outside the integral context of faith. To select
private affirmations of the Fathers, and to detach them from the complete perspective in which they
have been expressed, is misleading to error, as much as it is misleading to error to handle biblical
quotations detached from the context of the Holy Scripture. It is a risky habit to „quote” the
Fathers, that is, their isolated expressions and phrases, outside their concrete context, the only one
in which the quotations have their proper and full sense, and where they are truly alive. „To follow
the Fathers,” does not simply mean „to quote them.” To be a „follower” of the Fathers means to
acquire their „mind.”

4. The Sense of the Patristic „Age”

The phrase „Fathers of the Church” is usually limited to the teachers of the Early Church. It
is usually assumed, also, that their authority depends on their „oldness,” on their closeness as
compared to the „Early Church,” to the starting „Age” of the Church. This idea had already to be
challenged by Blessed Jeronimus. Indeed, there has not taken place any decreasing of the
„authority,” neither a subtraction, as far as the immediate character of competence and spiritual
knowledge throughout the Christian history is concerned. Anyhow, in fact this idea of „decreasing”
has strongly influenced the modern theological way of thinking. In reality, it is presumed much too
often, consciously or not, that the Early Church was, so to speak, closer to the spring of truth. As an
acquiescence of our own failure, and of our lack of becoming adequate, as an act of humble self-
criticism, such an asumption is sound and helpful. But it is risky to make out of it the ground or the
starting point of the „Theology of Ecclesiatical History,” or even of our ecclesiastical Theology.
Indeed, the Apostolic Epoch must keep its unique position. But it was only a beginning. The idea
that the „Epoch of the Fathers” is already closed is largely spread and, consequently, it is looked at
as an ancient writing, which is old-fashioned in a certain sense and „archaic.” The limit of the
„Patristic Epoch” is variously defined. As a general rule, St. John of Damascus is considered as the
„last Father” in the East, and St. Gregory the Dialogist or Isidor of Sevilla as the „last Father” in the
West. This division into periods was recently challenged, and rightfully so. For instance, could not
St. Teodor the Studite, at least, be included among the „Fathers?” Mabillon has suggested that
Bernard of Clairvaux, Doctor mellifluous, would be „the last of the Fathers, and with certainty he is

11
not inferior to those who have preceded him.”16 In fact, the matter is much more than a division into
periods problem. From the West’s point of view, the „Epoch of the Fathers” was succeeded, and
really replaced, by the the „Epoch of Scholastics” which has constituted an essential step ahead. All
at once with the ascension of Scholasticism, the Patristic Theology has fallen into desuetude, in fact
it became a „past epoch,” a kind of archaic prelude. This point of view, legitimate in the West, was,
unfortunately, also, accepted blindly and without a critical sense, by many from the East.
Adequately, the alternatives must be looked at. It must either be regretted the backward character of
the East, which has never developed its own „Scholasticism,” or a withdrawal into an „Early
epoch” is required, into a manner more or less archeological, and the practicing of what was
recently described in a spiritual way as a „theology of repetition.” In fact, the last one in nothing
else but a private form of imitative „Scholasticism.”
The theological importance of the Seventh Ecumenical Council is dangerously obscured,
and it remains to us to wonder: Why must the Feast of Orthodoxy be connected to the remembering
of the Church’s victory against the iconaclasts? Were it only a „ritualistic controversy?” We
oftentimes forget that the famous formula Consensus quinquesaecularis (the consensus of the first
five centuries), that is, in fact, to Chalcedon, was a Protestant formula, which mirrored a private
Protestant „theologiy of history.” It was a restrictive formula, no matter how comprehensive it
seemed to be to those who wanted to retire themselves in the Apostolic Epoch. The problem is,
anyway, that the present-day Eastern formula of the „Seven Ecumenical Synods” is much better if
some tend, as usually is the case, to restrict or limit the spiritual authority of the Church to the first
eight centuries, as if the „Golden Age” of Christianity has already passed, and we are finding
ourselves in the „Iron Age,” somewhere much lower on the scale of spiritual power and authority.
Our theological thinking was dangerously influenced by the model of decay adopted after
Reformation in thw West in the interpretation of Christian History. The fullness of Church was then
interpreted into a static manner, and the attitude as comapared to the Oldness was adequately
distorted and misinterpreted. In the last run, it does not matter too much if we restrict the authority
of the Church to one century or to five, or to eight centuries. There should be no restrictions.

5. The Heritage of Byzantine Theology

For the time being, we are ready, much more than we have been ready a few decades ago, to
admit the perenial authority of the „Fathers,” especially all at once with the revival of the Patristic
studies in the West. But we still have the tendency to limit the recognizing horizon, and obviously,
the „Byzantine theologians” are not quickly counted among the „Fathers.” We are prone to

16
Mabillon, Bernardi Opera. Praefatio generalis, nr. 23 (Migne, PL, CLXXXII, c. 26).

12
discriminate into a rather rigid way between „Patristics” – into a more or less narrow way – and the
„Byzantine studies.” We are still prone to look the „Byzantine studies” as an inferior continuation
of the Patristic Epoch. We still have some doubts as to its normative relevance for the theological
thinking. Now, the Byzantine Theology has meant much more than a „repetition” of the Patristic
Theology, and what was novel in it is not qualitatively inferior to the „Old Christian Period.” The
Byzantine Theology has constituted an organic continuation of the Patristic Age. Was there any
interruption? Was the ethos of the Eastern Orthodox Church ever changed, at any moment or
historic date, so much that the „subsequent” historic development were of an inferior importance
and authority, if not, somewhat even without any significance? This acceptance seems to be tacitly
involved in the restrictive sending to the Seven Ecumenical Synods. Then, St. Symeon the New
Theologian and St. Gregory Palamas are simply left outside, and the great Hesychast Synod of the
14th century is overlooked and forgotten. What are their places and authority in the Church?
In fact, now, St. Symeon the New Theologian and St. Gregory are still the masters and
inspirers of all those who, in the Ortodox Church, strive to attain to the consummation and live a
prayerful and contemplative life, either in the monastic communities which have survived or in the
loneliness of the desert, or even in the world. These faithful men do not know anything about an
alleged „interruption” between „Patristics” and „Byzantine studies.” The Philokalia, this
extraordinary encyclopedia of Eastern piety, which includes writings of manay centuries, becomes
nowadays, more and more the guidance and instruction handbook for all those who strive for
practicing Orthodoxy under our contemporary circumstances. The authority of the Philokalia’s
compiler, St. Nicodemus the Aghiorite, was recently recognized and increased by his official
canonization within the frame of the Church. In this respect, we feel obliged to say: „The Fathers
Epoch” is still continued in the „True-worshiping Church.” Should not this be continued, also, in
our preoccupation and study, in our research and theological instruction? Should we not recover the
„thinking of the Fathers” both in our theological thinking and in our theological learning? To truly
recuperate it: not only as an archaic modality and manner, and neither as a simple venerable relic,
but as an existential attitude, as a spiritual orientation. Only in this way can our theology be re-
instated in the fullness of our Christian existence. It is not enough to preserve a „Byzantine
Liturgy” as we do, to restore the Byzantine iconography and music, as we are not capable to do
consistently from the bottom of our hearts, or to practice a few kinds of Byzantine prayers. It is
necessary to go to the very roots of this traditional „piety” and to recuperate „the patristic mind.”
Thus, we will risk to find ourselves divided inward – as happens in reality with many of us
– between the forms of „traditional piety” and a very untraditional kind of theological thinking. It is
a real danger. As „worshippers” we still find ourselves in the bosom of „Tradition of the Fathers.”
Should we not perhaps stay, consciously and openly, in the same tradition with the „theologians,”

13
as witnesses and teachers of Orthodoxy? Can we possibly preserve our own integrity in any other
way, whatsoever?

6. For a Europe without Limits

The duty of the Christians is the one of communicating a renewing breath to the European
building up in the perspective of divino-humanity. The Christianity’s societies have oftentimes
thought about God as being against the man, against his liberty, and the secularized modernization
has thought the man as being against God, against his spiritual profoundness. There comes the time
of divino-humanity, when God reveals Himself in man, and the man reveals himself in God. This
divino-humanity can give sense to the explorations of humanism, when the psychology of the
depths and the physical movement have a premonition of the spiritual; it may give, also, sense to
the explorations of the Oriental mystics when, while in contact with the Occident, they will feel
obliged to take into consideration the cosmic and historic evolution and of the reality of the other.
In the secularized society of contemporary Europe we must introduce three fundamental
attitudes: the repentance, especially after so many wars and persecutions among nations; self-
limitation, to share what we have with the poor countries of the planet; and finally, the respect to
the earth – its spiritualization.
The implacable development of unemployment asks of us a firm criticism of the economic’s
autonomy, of our permanent and exclusive resort to its criteria. We are caught in the trap of
tyrannical necessity to endlessly increase the production, hence to unceasingly create new needs.
We perfect the production means, and at the same time diminish the share of human work, while, in
parallel, the needs are constrained to amplify and multiply. The economy functions, while it no
longer takes into consideration the human being. Thus both the unemployment and the exclusion
grow.
Therefore, we must now favor the creativity and personal sympathy in the human relations
within the society. Even beyond the politicians’ responsibility, the Christians must bring about a
revolution of sensibility and of the life style. A revolution which should allow by free and good will
the sacrifice of the frenzy of consumerism, of the productivity’s exigencies, in order for us to find
again the life communion in the communion of persons.
Max Weber, Werner Sombart, R. H. Tawney, have pointed out that a certain Christian
theology, tied in its entirety to a certain vision on the world, voicing it, and maybe, arousing it, has
generated the present-day conceptions on labor and economy. Maybe, a profound theological
examination, connected to the encounter with the Christian East, can possibly give them a new
sense.

14
 Conclusions

We live confused times, in which the values ladder was capsized, and the men tend to
remain without reference points; a world of „modernism” and of technology evolving alertly,
characterized by technical progress and spiritual regress. Wherefore, the man is moving away from
God and from attaining to the goal of his life. The man has the liberty from God, but the liberty
must be understood as an emancipation from sin, an independence as against what is evil and
enslaves. First, we must live in communion with God, and then with those who surround us. The
men have always wished to discover the mystery of this world, to explain and to comprehend the
sense of existence, and to know to superior governing forms, by reason. For the Patristic thinking,
the reason has only an ultimate value, being one of the souls’s aptitudes which cannot be abusively
used, and used against the man when it is not enlightened by faith. The Patristic spirituality has its
authority sources in the Gospel, and is founded on the idea of the man’s effort for the inward
cleaning, in order for the whole man to re-acquire his spiritual health which was lost by the Fall.
The Patristic mind is a theocentric one, which has Christ as the centre of preoccupations,
and tends to the unity with Him with all its powers. The Fathers say that at a certain stage of the
spiritual ascent, the mind starts to be strongly attracted by God, what represents a radical change of
attitude in comparision with the usual man, who is characterized by his flight from God.
The modern contemporary civilization represents an organized form of this flight from God.
The preoccupation with the material aspects of life is taken to the extreme point. The rediscovery of
Patristic thinking is the chance to finding the soul for the civilization of a united Europe.

15
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Bria, Pr. Prof. Dr. Ion, „Slujire” în teologia contemporană, in „Ortodoxia,” nr. 2, 1971;
2. Idem, Tratat de Teologie Dogmatică şi Ecumenică, Ed. România Creştină, Bucureşti, 1999;
3. Pr. Prof. Dr. Nicolae V. Dură, Bisericile Europei şi Uniunea Europeană. Ecumenism,
reconciliere creştină şi unitate euroopeană, Ed. IBMBOR, Bucureşti, 2005;
4. Şurubaru, Drd. Ioan, Relaţia între Hristos şi Duhul Sfânt în viaţa Bisericii, in Studii Teologice,
nr. 9-10, 1968;
5. Pr. Claudiu Cotan, Ortodoxia şi mişcările de emancipare naţională din sud-estul Europei în
secolul al XIX-lea, Ed. Bizantină, 2004;
6. Chiţescu, Prof. Nicolae, Biserica, trupul tainic al Domnului, in rev. B.O.R., an LX (1942), nr. 6-
8, pp. 309-318;
7. Popescu, D., „Hristos, Biserică, Societate,” Ed. IBMBOR, Bucureşti, 1998;
8. Popescu, Teodor M., „Biserica şi cultura,” Ed. IBMBOR, Bucureşti, 1996;
9. Ziziulas, Ioannis, „Fiinţa eclesială,” Ed. Bizantină, Bucureşti, 1996;
10. Pr. Prof. Dr. D. Radu, Mântuirea în şi prin Biserică, in „M.O.,” nr. 7-8, 1983;
11. Diac. Prof. Orest Bucevschi, Viaţă şi credinţă, in „G.B.” nr. 9-10, 1956;
12. Ionescu, Şerban, Probleme de morală socială, vol. I, Bucureşti, 1999;
13. Părintele Georges Florovski, Biserica, Scriptura, Tradiţia – Trupul viu al lui Hristos,Ed.
Platytera, Bucureşti, 2005;
14. Anca Manolescu, Europa şi întâlnirea religiilor, Ed. Polirom, Bucureşti, 2005;
15.Ioan I. Ică jr. şi Germano Marani, Gândirea socială a Bisericii, Ed. Deisis, Sibiu, 2002;
16. Maria Cornelia şi Diac. Ioan I. Ică jr., Spiritualitatea Sfântului Siluan Atonitul. Tâlcuiri
Teologice, Ed. Deisis, Sibiu, 2000;
17. Pr. Prof. Dr. Dumitru Popescu, Pr. Prof. Dr. Ioan Ică, Biserica Ortodoxă Română şi
integrarea europeană, in Biserica în misiune. Patriarhia Română la ceas aniversar, Ed. IBMBOR,
Bucureşti, 2005;
18. Pr. Conf. Dr. Ştefan Buchiu, Integrare şi secularizare, in Biserica în misiune. Patriarhia
Română la ceas aniversar, Ed. IBMBOR, Bucureşti, 2005;
19. Yannoulatos, P. F. Anastasie, Arhiepiscopul Tiranei şi a Toată Albania, Ortodoxia şi
problemele lumii contemporane, trad. Drd. Gabriel Mândrilă şi Pr. Prof. Dr. Constantin Coman,
Ed. Bizantină, Bucureşti, 2003.

16