Meeting God in the Other: Studies in Religious Encounter and Pluralism in Honour of Dorin Oancea on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday 3643911920, 9783643911926

Table of contents :
Contents
Remarks on the Cover Image
Words of Honor and Blessing • Metropolitan Laurențiu Streza
Professor Dr. Dorin Oancea zum 70. Geburtstag • Altbischof Christoph Klein
Lieber Dorin • Philipp Harnoncourt
The Human and Academic Profile of Dorin Oancea: Introduction • Alina Pătru
Selected Bibliography of Dorin Oancea
The Reception of Dorin Oancea’s Creative Thinking
Gott im Anderen begegnen.Zum Denken und Wirken von Dorin Oancea • Christoph Klein
Contribuția Părintelui Prof. Dr. Dorin Oancea la dialogul teologic bilateral dintre Biserica Ortodoxă Română și Biserica Evanghelică din Germania • Viorel Ioniță
Convergences in Archimandrite André Scrima’s and Rev. Dorin Oancea’s Thinking • Codin Șimonca-Oprița
Dorin Oancea’s Christocentric Personalist Pluralism: A Christian Orthodox Theology of Religions • Alina Pătru
Orthodox Tradition and Modern Cognitive Approaches to the Believing Process: „De Fide Orthodoxa“ of St. John Damascene Re-read with the Lenses of Credition• Hans Ferdinand Angel
Theoretical Foundations of Ecumenical and Interreligious Openness
Was verbindet uns? Anregungen zu einer theologischen „Soziologie“ • Michael Weinrich
„Ne rugăm pentru unirea tuturor“: Considerații preliminare în favoarea continuării dialogului teologic cu semenii noștri de diferite confesiuni sau religii • Nicolae Moșoiu
Dezvoltarea liturgică a Bisericii în secolul al IV-lea Temei istoric și liturgic al deschiderii ecumenice • Dan Alexandru Streza
„Die Kirche macht sich selbst zum Dialog“Eine Darlegung aus katholischer Sicht • Bernhard Körner
The Mission of the Church in Light of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Reflections from within the Reformed Tradition • Kang Phee Seng
An Updated Ecumenical Theology • Martien E. Brinkman
Christlicher Absolutheitsanspruch und Dialog der Religionen Thesen zur Gesprächseröffnung • Bernd Jochen Hilberath
Examples from Past and Present
Interreligiosität in den Samuelbüchern? • Walter Dietrich
Encounter at the Well between Judaism and Samaritanism: A Life Changing Experience • Lehel Lészai
Der Ort der Ehe in neutestamentlichen Liebeskonzepten Eine Skizze • Urs von Arx
Christianity and Jewish Mysticism in Antiquity: Some Dialogical Reflections in honor of Fr. Professor Dorin Oancea • Doru Constantin Doroftei
Circumcision in Ignatius of Antioch and Theophilus of Antioch • Daniel Buda
Origenes als Brückenbauer • Adolf Martin Ritter
Encountering the Other on the Way: Egeria and Marching towards the Holy • Pablo Argárate
Legile constantiniene privind statutul iudeilor din Imperiul Roman (Codex Theodosianus 16.8.1-16.8.5) • Dragoș Boicu
Iubirea ca participare la taina lui Dumnezeu și la taina semenului în gândirea duhovnicească a Sfântului Ioan Scărarul • Ioan Mircea Ielciu
From Persia to China, among Muslims and Mongols: Research on the „Church of the East“ and its Environment • Dietmar W. Winkler
Gab es ein Großes Schisma zwischen der Orthodoxen und der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche? • Grigorios Larentzakis
Testimonium patrum. Die Bedeutung des Zeugnisses der Kirchenväter für die lutherischen Bekenntnisschriften • Hermann Pitters
Religionsfreiheit oder Toleranz? Ökumenische und systematische Reflexionen über das Edikt von Turda 1568 • Tamás Juhász
Eine christlich-orthodoxe Stellungnahme zur religiösen Vielfalt — Wladimir Solowjew und die Sophiologieder monotheistischen Religionen • Marian Pătru
A Glimpse into the Past or an Attempt to define Romanian Orthodoxy • Remus Rus
Fr. Ioan G. Coman and the Reception of one of his Contributions to Ecumenism • Radu Gârbacea
Die Satisfaktionslehre Anselms von Canterbury in der Theologie von Vater Dumitru Stăniloae • Ionuț Vasile Crișan
Open Sobornicity and Apophatic Anthropology. Modern Romanian Hesychasm and the Theologies of Fr Dumitru Stăniloae and Fr André Scrima • Ivana Noble and Tim Noble
Eine synodale Kirche? Reflexionen über die orthodoxe Ekklesiologie im Spannungsfeld von Theorie und Realität • Johannes Oeldemann
The Capacity for Religious Pluralism in Southeast European Nations: The Paradigms of the Role of Religion in Political Constitutions and the Struggle for Religious Education in School • Andreas Müller
Perspectives for the Future of the Dialogue between Orthodox and Protestants • Dagmar Heller
Practical Theological Reflections of Openness to the Other
Die Basiliusanaphora: Ein liturgisch-ökumenisches Zeugnis ersten Ranges • Erich Renhart
Der Trishagion-Hymnus und andere ostkirchliche Gesänge als ökumenische Zeichen im Ost-West-Transfer • Basilius J. Groen
Die göttliche Liturgie. Das Streben des Menschen nach dem Ähnlichwerden mit Gott • Ciprian Streza
Schalom/Friede als gemeinsamer Fluchtpunkt jüdischer und christlicher Liturgie • Peter Ebenbauer
The Ecumenical Dimension of Education. Priorities • Constantin Necula
Epitimia ca expresie a dragostei față de penitent • Irimie Marga
Further Topics from Religious Studies
The Divine and the Problem of Evil • Vasile Chira
„Nebunul” lui Nietzsche. Modernitatea şi ideea „morţii lui Dumnezeu” • Aurel Pavel and Dan Țăreanu
Philip Sherrard's Orthodox Esotericism and the Cosmological Grounding of Sacred Art • Ionuț Băncilă
Demokratie und Liberalismus aus theologischer Sicht. Ein Beitrag als Erinnerung an nur scheinbar Selbstverständliches • Stefan Tobler
Părintele Ioan Glăjar, un veritabil teolog și istoric al religiilor sibian: 90 de ani de la nașterea sa • Nicolae Chifăr
Danksagung

Citation preview

Nachtr"agliche Korrekturen sind kostenpflichtig)

freigegeben:

OPOe 16

Alina Pătru (Ed.)

The present volume unites 44 studies to honor Prof. Dr. Dorin Oancea, Romanian-Orthodox theologian and religious studies scholar, well known as a bridge-builder between Eastern and Western Christian Traditions. The manifold studies reflect upon the fundaments of interfaith and inter-confessional openness, offer insightful examples from past and present, or point to the loci where this openness can and should be achieved today. A meaningful collection for all those interested in present day ecumenical theology, in inter-confessional studies or theology of religions.

Studies in Religious Encounter and Pluralism in honour of Dorin Oancea on the occasion of his 70th birthday Alina Pătru (Ed.)

Alina Pătru, Dr. theol., is Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Sibiu, Romania and Adjunct Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Hanover, Germany.

Meeting God in the Other

Meeting God in the Other

978-3-643-91192-6

LIT www.lit-verlag.ch

9*ukdzfe.y .xn*

orientalia – patristica – oecumenica vol. 16

LIT

LIT

Alina P˘atru (Ed.)

Meeting God in the Other

orientalia – patristica – oecumenica herausgegeben von/edited by

Dietmar W. Winkler (Universität Salzburg)

Vol. 16

LIT

Meeting God in the Other Studies in Religious Encounter and Pluralism in honour of Dorin Oancea on the occasion of his 70th birthday edited by

Alina P˘atru

LIT

Cover graphic by Alina P˘atru and Drago¸s Boicu on the basis of illustrations of Prof. Dorin Oancea (see also p. 11)

Typesetting: Gerolf Winkler

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. ISBN 978-3-643-91192-6 (pb) ISBN 978-3-643-96192-1 (PDF) A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

©

L

IT VERLAG GmbH & Co. KG Wien, Zweigniederlassung Zürich 2019 Klosbachstr. 107 CH-8032 Zürich Tel. +41 (0) 44-251 75 05 E-Mail: [email protected] http://www.lit-verlag.ch Distribution: In the UK: Global Book Marketing, e-mail: [email protected] In North America: Independent Publishers Group, e-mail: [email protected] In Germany: LIT Verlag Fresnostr. 2, D-48159 Münster Tel. +49 (0) 2 51-620 32 22, Fax +49 (0) 2 51-922 60 99, e-mail: [email protected] e-books are available at www.litwebshop.de

CONTENTS Remarks on the Cover Image

11

Words of Honor and Blessing Metropolitan Laurențiu Streza

13

Professor Dr. Dorin Oancea zum 70. Geburtstag Altbischof Christoph Klein

15

Lieber Dorin Philipp Harnoncourt

19

The Human and Academic Profile of Dorin Oancea: Introduction Alina Pătru Selected Bibliography of Dorin Oancea

21 27

THE RECEPTION OF DORIN OANCEA’S CREATIVE THINKING Gott im Anderen begegnen. Zum Denken und Wirken von Dorin Oancea Christoph Klein Contribuția Părintelui Prof. Dr. Dorin Oancea la dialogul teologic bilateral dintre Biserica Ortodoxă Română și Biserica Evanghelică din Germania Viorel Ioniță

35

43

Convergences in Archimandrite André Scrima’s and Rev. Dorin Oancea’s Thinking Codin Șimonca-Oprița

57

Dorin Oancea’s Christocentric Personalist Pluralism A Christian Orthodox Theology of Religions Alina Pătru

71

Orthodox Tradition and Modern Cognitive Approaches to the Believing Process: „De Fide Orthodoxa“ of St. John Damascene Re-read with the Lenses of Credition Hans Ferdinand Angel

87

Contents

6

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF ECUMENICAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS OPENNESS Was verbindet uns? Anregungen zu einer theologischen „Soziologie“ Michael Weinrich „Ne rugăm pentru unirea tuturor“ Considerații preliminare în favoarea continuării dialogului teologic cu semenii noștri de diferite confesiuni sau religii Nicolae Moșoiu

105

117

Dezvoltarea liturgică a Bisericii în secolul al IV-lea Temei istoric și liturgic al deschiderii ecumenice Dan Alexandru Streza

135

„Die Kirche macht sich selbst zum Dialog“ Eine Darlegung aus katholischer Sicht Bernhard Körner

147

The Mission of the Church in Light of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Reflections from within the Reformed Tradition Kang Phee Seng An Updated Ecumenical Theology Martien E. Brinkman Christlicher Absolutheitsanspruch und Dialog der Religionen Thesen zur Gesprächseröffnung Bernd Jochen Hilberath

157 165

179

EXAMPLES FROM PAST AND PRESENT Interreligiosität in den Samuelbüchern? Walter Dietrich

185

Encounter at the Well between Judaism and Samaritanism A Life Changing Experience Lehel Lészai

197

Der Ort der Ehe in neutestamentlichen Liebeskonzepten Eine Skizze Urs von Arx

209

Contents

Christianity and Jewish Mysticism in Antiquity Some Dialogical Reflections in honor of Fr. Professor Dorin Oancea Doru Constantin Doroftei

7

225

Circumcision in Ignatius of Antioch and Theophilus of Antioch Daniel Buda

233

Origenes als Brückenbauer Adolf Martin Ritter

245

Encountering the Other on the Way Egeria and Marching towards the Holy Pablo Argárate

265

Legile constantiniene privind statutul iudeilor din Imperiul Roman (Codex Theodosianus 16.8.1-16.8.5) Dragoș Boicu

283

Iubirea ca participare la taina lui Dumnezeu și la taina semenului în gândirea duhovnicească a Sfântului Ioan Scărarul Ioan Mircea Ielciu

297

From Persia to China, among Muslims and Mongols Research on the „Church of the East“ and its Environment Dietmar W. Winkler

309

Gab es ein Großes Schisma zwischen der Orthodoxen und der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche? Grigorios Larentzakis

327

Testimonium patrum. Die Bedeutung des Zeugnisses der Kirchenväter für die lutherischen Bekenntnisschriften Hermann Pitters

349

Religionsfreiheit oder Toleranz? Ökumenische und systematische Reflexionen über das Edikt von Turda 1568 Tamás Juhász

357

Eine christlich-orthodoxe Stellungnahme zur religiösen Vielfalt Wladimir Solowjew und die Sophiologie der monotheistischen Religionen Marian Pătru

367

Contents

8

A Glimpse into the Past or an Attempt to define Romanian Orthodoxy Remus Rus

379

Fr. Ioan G. Coman and the Reception of one of his Contributions to Ecumenism Radu Gârbacea

395

Die Satisfaktionslehre Anselms von Canterbury in der Theologie von Vater Dumitru Stăniloae Ionuț Vasile Crișan

407

Open Sobornicity and Apophatic Anthropology. Modern Romanian Hesychasm and the Theologies of Fr Dumitru Stăniloae and Fr André Scrima Ivana Noble and Tim Noble Eine synodale Kirche? Reflexionen über die orthodoxe Ekklesiologie im Spannungsfeld von Theorie und Realität Johannes Oeldemann The Capacity for Religious Pluralism in Southeast European Nations The Paradigms of the Role of Religion in Political Constitutions and the Struggle for Religious Education in School Andreas Müller Perspectives for the Future of the Dialogue between Orthodox and Protestants Dagmar Heller

423

437

455

433

PRACTICAL THEOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS OF OPENNESS TO THE OTHER Die Basiliusanaphora Ein liturgisch-ökumenisches Zeugnis ersten Ranges Erich Renhart

479

Der Trishagion-Hymnus und andere ostkirchliche Gesänge als ökumenische Zeichen im Ost-West-Transfer Basilius J. Groen

487

Die göttliche Liturgie. Das Streben des Menschen nach dem Ähnlichwerden mit Gott Ciprian Streza

497

Contents

9

Schalom/Friede als gemeinsamer Fluchtpunkt jüdischer und christlicher Liturgie Peter Ebenbauer

515

The Ecumenical Dimension of Education. Priorities Constantin Necula

529

Epitimia ca expresie a dragostei față de penitent Irimie Marga

537

FURTHER TOPICS FROM RELIGIOUS STUDIES The Divine and the Problem of Evil Vasile Chira

547

„Nebunul” lui Nietzsche. Modernitatea şi ideea „morţii lui Dumnezeu” Aurel Pavel and Dan Țăreanu

563

Philip Sherrard's Orthodox Esotericism and the Cosmological Grounding of Sacred Art Ionuț Băncilă

581

Demokratie und Liberalismus aus theologischer Sicht Ein Beitrag als Erinnerung an nur scheinbar Selbstverständliches Stefan Tobler

595

Părintele Ioan Glăjar, un veritabil teolog și istoric al religiilor sibian 90 de ani de la nașterea sa Nicolae Chifăr

605

DANKSAGUNG

617

Fr. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Dorin Oancea

REMARKS ON THE COVER IMAGE The scheme on the cover is one that Prof. Dr. Dorin Oancea has repeatedly drawn, in different variations, during his lectures to illustrate the basic ideas of his system of thought. It illustrates the double ontological orientation of the Human Being, towards God and towards the World consisting of all other creatures, as well as the fact that the individual Human Being enters through every act of life in communion with God. This may be direct communion with God (in prayer or in mystical vision, i.e. by logos or by vision), or indirect communion, which goes via other creatures, because all of them go back to God, reflect Him and therefore connect us with Him. The indirect communion itself emerges under two distinct forms: via the logos, when the Human Being fulfills a commandment of God prescribing him how to act towards others, or via vision, when he gets the ability to see God in the world of creatures. Analytically, both forms of communion start with God addressing the Human Being, continue with his answer and are completed with God’s validation of this answer, which sets the new ontological conditions for the further existence of the respective Human Being and indirectly of all other creatures, since all are in relation with him/her. Therefore, for Dorin Oancea, every single act of life is an act of meeting God, be it directly or in the Other with ontological implications on the further existence of the respective Human Being and of all other creatures, that are all interrelated and hence bear the repercussions of every single act of this universal dynamic. Thanks are due to my colleague Dr. Dragoș Boicu for the graphic transposition of the scheme. Alina Pătru

WORDS OF HONOR AND BLESSING † LAURENȚIU Archbishop of Sibiu and Metropolitan of Transylvania

On the occasion of Rev. Prof. Dorin Oancea’s 70th anniversary, we warmheartedly wish to add in the pages of the homage volume that is being edited on this blessed occasion, our homage to the one who served for a long time, with great dedication, at the "Andrei Șaguna" Faculty of Theology in Sibiu. Father Dorin has always been a man of interconfessional and inter-religious dialogue, deeply anchored in the tradition of the Church of our ancestors. The entire teaching, ecumenical and cultural activity, crowned by innumerable achievements, outlines the image of a worthy servant of the Orthodox Church. Father Dorin Zosim Oancea was born on February 13, 1949, as the fourth son of the confessing priest Zosim Oancea, imprisoned in the communist jails for his dedication to defending the faith of our ancestors, and his wife Dorina. The years of his training are marked by many obstacles that all those who have been described as having an "unhealthy past" had to face. Despite all the vicissitudes, he succeeds in studying Orthodox Theology in Sibiu and Bucharest, as well as philology (German-English) in Bucharest. The double theological and philological formation sets marks on his scientific work, many of the studies he has published throughout his career having a clear interdisciplinary character, both through their content and methodology. Father Professor Dorin Oancea worked as a Documentarist and Translator of the Department for External Church Relations of the Romanian Patriarchate (19731979), accompanying many foreign delegations who visited the Romanian Orthodox Church; as a Lecturer for English and German at the "Andrei Şaguna" Theological Institute in Sibiu; and then as a Lecturer, Associated Professor and eventually Full Professor of History and Philosophy of Religions at the same faculty. The generations of students whose steps he guided in the world of religious diversity, on the paths of Christian knowledge and understanding of those of other religions, bear him in memory as a vocational educator, fully devoted to the service of both the academic institution he honored and the Church of our ancestors. At the same time, Father Professor Dorin Oancea was one of the interfaces of the Romanian Orthodox Church in its external dialogues. He participated as a member of the bilateral dialogue committee between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Evangelical Church in Germany, but also in the Dialogue Committee between the Orthodox Church and the Reformed World Federation.

14

Metropolitan Laurențiu

Moreover, Father Dorin was the promoter of the partnerships between our Faculty of Theology and the Faculty of Theology of Graz (Catholic), Basel (old Catholic), and Bern (Reformed), being repeatedly invited as a Visiting Professor at the named faculties. Now, at the age of 70, We wish Father Professor Dorin Oancea health and many years together with his wife and all his dear ones! With humility, We pray to our Savior Jesus Christ to give His chosen servant a great deal of health and peace of mind to continue to serve with the same dedication, wisdom and sacrificial love the Church of our forefathers. In many and blessed years!

PROFESSOR DR. DORIN OANCEA ZUM 70. GEBURTSTAG Christoph KLEIN Altbischof der Evangelischen Kirche in Rumänien

Es ist mir eine besondere Freude, Professor Dr. Dorin Oancea aus Anlass seines 70. Geburtstages meine herzlichen Segenswünsche zu übermitteln. Bin ich ihm doch als sein Doktorvater schon seit vierzig Jahren, das heißt seit einem halben Leben, herzlich verbunden und werde ihm, dem Theologen, Professor und Ökumeniker, dies im Gedenken an unseren gemeinsamen Weg im Bemühen um den Dialog zwischen der Orthodoxen und der Lutherischen Kirche in respektvoller Anerkennung auch weiterhin bleiben. In diesem Sinne möchte ich einen zentralen Aspekt im Leben des Jubilars hervorheben. Die in Rumänien bereits in den 70er Jahren des vorigen Jahrhunderts eingerichteten „Interkonfessionellen Theologischen Konferenzen“ zwischen der Orthodoxen Kirche und den Protestantischen (lutherischen und reformierten) Kirchen, gemeinsam mit den Theologen der Römischkatholischen Kirche als Beobachter, haben die Ökumene in unserem Land maßgeblich geprägt. Sie haben wertvolle theologische Ergebnisse gezeitigt und theologisch herausragende Dokumente publiziert, darunter vornehmlich die „gemeinsamen Erklärungen“, die als greifbare Ergebnisse der regelmäßigen, anfänglich zweimal im Jahr und später jährlich organisierten Konferenzen entstanden sind. In dieser theologisch und menschlich offenen Atmosphäre ist Dorin Oancea in die ökumenischen Aufgaben hineingewachsen und hat hierauf ein außergewöhnliches reiches theologisches Werk geschaffen. Es war angeregt, begleitet und durchdrungen von seiner anschließende Teilnahme an den aktuellen ökumenischen Gesprächen über Themen, die vom Weltrat der Kirchen (WCC) aufgegeben worden waren, dessen Mitglieder, seit der Vollversammlung in Neu Delhi 1961, sowohl die Orthodoxe Kirche als auch die Protestantischen Kirchen in Rumänien. So wurde Dorin Oancea zu Recht zu einem geschätzten und anerkannten Brückenschläger zwischen den Dialogpartnern, lokal und international. Von großer Bedeutung waren dabei auch seine vielfältigen Sprachkenntnisse, vor allem die Beherrschung der deutschen und der englischen Sprache. Und diese eng verbunden mit einem scharfen Geist, einem systematischen Denken und geschult durch die im Studium angeeigneten kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Fähigkeiten, die von der gelebten Wirklichkeit des Jubilars nicht zu trennen sind. Sie stellen nicht nur einen theoretischen Aspekt seiner Theologie dar, sondern sind verbunden mit einer seltenen Gabe, menschliche und

16

Christoph Klein

denkerische Kontakte herzustellen, und mit der Kunst, Gespräche gezielt und gekonnt zu führen. Durch seine rhetorische Begabung und Überzeugungskraft gelingt es ihm, den Standpunkt seiner Theologie und der Kirche, die er vertritt, glaubwürdig darzustellen und zugleich auch auf die andere Seite, auf die „Anderen“, zu blicken und auf diese Weise zu vermitteln. Seine Begeisterungsfähigkeit für die Theologie und ihr eigentliches Wesen, dem Gläubigen das Heil nahezubringen und ihn zum geistlichen Leben in der Kirche zu erziehen, war und bleibt ebenso bewundernswert. Sein Leben und Denken als Theologe ist verbunden mit einer, nicht zuletzt durch das fromme Elternhaus und von seiner schweren Kindheit in jener Zeit der politischen Verfolgung seines Vaters geprägten, Spiritualität. Sie schließt Weltoffenheit nicht aus, sondern ermöglicht eine besondere Öffnung für Kultur und Bildung, Literatur, Poesie und Kunst. So hat für Dorin Oancea die Kirche, auch die orthodoxe, und besonders ihre theologische Ausbildungsstätte, einen klaren Bildungsauftrag. Dazu gehört die Plurikulturalität, aber auch der Mut zur offenen Auseinandersetzung mit dem Säkularismus oder mit einer „religionslosen Zeit“, von der der evangelische Theologe Dietrich Bonhoeffer sprach, mit dem Dorin Oancea sich in einer Studie beschäftigt hat. Hier lässt sich auch das Geheimnis festmachen, wie es kommt, dass der Professor so viel menschliche Nähe zu seinen Studierenden entfaltete und sich bei ihnen großer Beliebtheit erfreuen konnte. Immer im Gespräch, und in einer besonderen, familiären Gemeinschaft auch mit seinen Kollegen von der Fakultät, hat er, in der Zeit seines Dekanats, dieses Anliegen konsequent verfolgt. Es ging ihm darum, dass die Professoren nicht bloß Wissensvermittlung anstreben, sondern durch die Erziehung im Sinne einer persönlichen Spiritualität die zukünftigen Pfarrer auf das geistliche Amt vorbereiten, das auf das Wohl der Kirche ausgerichtet sein muss. Es ging ihm stets um das Heranbilden eines spirituell geprägten Klerus, im Dienste der ihm anvertrauten Menschen. Um diese geistliche Dimension im Leben muss man sich schon im Studium bemühen, aber diese überwältigende Erfahrung kann allerdings nur durch die Festigkeit im Glauben geschehen. Und auf diese Weise sollte durch die Teilnahme am gottesdienstlichen liturgischen Leben, im Vollzug der Liturgie durch die Begegnung mit Christus, nicht bloß in der Aneignung theologischen Wissens gesucht werden. Dorin Oancea hat auch davor gewarnt, dass die Liturgie nicht zu einer Gewohnheit werden solle, sondern zum Lebensvollzug für den Alltag. Seine Einschätzung als Systematiker und Religionsphilosoph hat ihm den Blick auf das gottesdienstliche Geschehen geschärft und auf die vollen Gotteshäuser und die gut besuchten Liturgien oder Kasualien (wie Trauungen oder Beerdigungen) gerichtet, die vornehmlich am Gewicht ihrer spirituellen Dimension gemessen werden müssen und nicht mit beschränkender Selbstzufriedenheit. Diese strenge Selbstprüfung ist wohl auch Frucht seiner schweren Kindheit, geprägt von Verfolgung und Heimsuchung seiner Familie in der politisch harten Zeit ̶ Erschütterungen, die einen Läuterungsprozess zur Folge hatten, der seinem liturgischen, geistlichen Leben in der Kirche und seinem Dienst als Lehrer und

Christoph Klein

17

Mentor der zukünftigen Diener der Kirche bis heute zugutegekommen ist und auch weiterhin zugutekommen wird. Für das neu angebrochene Lebensjahrzehnt wünsche ich dem Jubilar den Beistand des dreieinigen Gottes und Seine weitere Begleitung auf dem Glaubensweg als Geistlicher und Theologe, als bewährter Brückenbauer und als wunderbarer Mensch. Und das im Kreise seiner Familie und Freunde, vor allem seiner Frau Monica Oancea, die ihn auf seinem ganzen Lebensweg liebevoll begleitet und bei seiner Arbeit stets unterstützt hat, zusammen mit den zwei erwachsenen Töchtern Manuela und Alexandra und dem vierjährigen Enkelsohn David. Der Herr schenke ihnen allen noch viele gesunde und gesegnete Jahre!

LIEBER DORIN! Philipp HARNONCOURT Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät, Universität Graz

Zu deinem 70. Geburtstag gratuliere ich dir herzlich und erinnere mich – und dich! – zu diesem Anlass an unsere jetzt schon jahrzehntelange gute und familiäre Freundschaft! Einige Ereignisse möchte ich besonders herausheben. Es war im Jahr 1988. Wir hatten mit P. Dr. Daniel Gelsi OSB eine Exkursion der Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Graz in das damals noch kommunistische Rumänien vorbereitet, um christliches Leben hinter dem Eisernen Vorhang kennen zu lernen. Am 24. April ist aber P. Daniel Gelsi ganz unerwartet in Bari gestorben. Da wandte ich mich an meinen evangelischen Freund und Kollegen Paul Philippi in Sibiu/Hermannstadt, den ich bei einer Konferenz der Liturgik-Dozenten 1968 in Heidelberg kennengelernt hatte. Er hat mich auf dich aufmerksam gemacht und auch selbst dich gebeten, unsere Gruppe durch Rumänien zu führen. Diese Reise mit dir und deiner lieben Frau Monika hat etwas ganz Neues in mein Leben gebracht: Meine besondere Verbundenheit mit Rumänien, mit der Orthodoxie, mit der Stadt Sibiu/Hermannstadt und mit deiner Familie. Ihr wart die besten Reiseleiter, die man sich vorstellen kann. Schon von P. Daniel Gelsi hatten wir erfahren, dass es wichtig ist, möglichst viele Stangen SMART-Zigaretten mitzunehmen, weil sie in Rumänien als Zahlungsmittel wichtiger sind als Geld. Auch Frauenklöster (Moldovița, Sucevița und Agapia) sind auf SMART-Zigaretten angewiesen, wenn sie rasch Hilfe von Handwerkern brauchen; und auch Polizisten waren bei Tempokontrollen mit SMART zufrieden. Der uns vom staatlichen Reisedienst zugewiesene Begleiter Tarcisiu sollte uns bespizeln, erwies sich aber als ehrlicher Freund und Helfer, der den Zusammenbruch der Ceaușescu-Diktatur erwartet hat, der dann im Dezember 1989 – leider nicht ohne Blutvergießen! – erfolgt ist. Im Februar 1990 machte ich mich mit einen geliehenen Lieferwagen voller Lebensmittel und Kleider und in Begleitung von Erich Renhart auf dem Weg nach Rumänien. Es war ein großes Glück, dass du uns dort begleitet hast, denn in Bolintin (bei Ploiești) kam es zu einem schweren Unfall mit Personenschaden, und Du hast veranlasst, dass mein beschädigtes Auto bei der Österreichischen Botschaft in Bukarest abgestellt wird. Die Szenen mit der

20

Philipp Harnoncourt

Botschafterin, Dr. Berta Braun, werden uns unvergesslich bleiben. Das havarierte große Auto habe ich dann Prof. Mihoc überlassen, der es noch jahrelang gut brauchen konnte. Weil ich mich damals schwer verkühlt und hoch gefiebert hatte, hast du (und Monika!) mich und Erich eine ganze Woche beherbergt und gepflegt. So konnte ich auch eure Kinder Manuela und Alexandra kennenlernen. Seit dieser Zeit ist deine Familie auch meine Familie, und dank deiner Initiative wurde deine Fakultät auch meine Fakultät, und es kam bald zu einer intensiven Partnerschaft. Du hast mich auch auf die Ökumene in Sibiu aufmerksam gemacht, so dass ich auch dort vortragen und publizieren konnte. Auf deinen Antrag hin hat mich die Theologische Fakultät „Andrei Șaguna” der „Lucian Blaga”-Universität in Sibiu zum Doctor honoris causa promoviert, wobei ich Alina Pătru als perfekt Deutsch sprechende Vertreterin der Studierende kennen und schätzen gelernt habe. Und auch das war wieder der Anfang einer neuen guten Geschichte. Das mich am stärksten prägende Rumänien-Erlebnis war ein dreimonatiger Aufenthalt in Mănăstirea Brâncoveanu in Sâmbăta de Sus bei Făgăraș. Ich wollte dort selbst erleben, was christliche Kirchen einander antun, wenn sie Mit-Christen aus Schwester-Kirchen vom Empfang der Eucharistie ausschließen. Dieser Skandal muss und wird bald ein Ende finden. Danke für die treue Wegbegleitung, Dein Philipp

THE HUMAN AND ACADEMIC PROFILE OF DORIN OANCEA INTRODUCTION Alina PĂTRU This volume is intended to be a gesture of honor to Fr. Professor Dr. Zosim Dorin Oancea, a great theologian appraised for his reflection on the Christian message and a man of dialogue, esteemed and appreciated not only by his Romanian colleagues and students, but also by those who have known him over time during his many theological, didactic or dialogical manifestations, as dialogue partners or simple auditors on all the meridians of the Globe and from all Christian contexts. Fr. Professor Dorin Oancea has spent the 70 years of his life so far under the double sign of the Christian faith assumed up to the level of self-sacrifice and of the total openness and connectedness to the other, to the sibling created by God to be alive and placed by Him in a different theocosmic framework, in accordance with His science. One can discover the qualities of mind and soul characteristic of his life style in the Words of Honor and Blessing written by H.E. Metropolitan Laurențiu Streza, as well as in the Word of Appreciation and in the study of Christoph Klein, Bishop Emeritus of the Evangelical Church in Romania. I will highlight, regarding the motions that have led to the formation of Oancea’s mythology, his social self, the intertwining between the confessing verve inherited from his father, Fr. Zosim Oancea, confessor of the Christian faith in the Communist prisons, verve which sometimes made him be perceived as an uncomfortable man, and the ability to see in everything and everybody, even in those who opposed him the concrete work and presence of God. These qualities have set his unique character of a profoundly spiritual man, a fine intellectual and an attentive observer, and precisely due to their intermingling capable of a creative using of the Orthodox Christian tradition, in accordance with the needs of time and with every concrete situation encountered. Entrusted with the ministry at the Chair for History and Philosophy of Religion at the "Andrei Șaguna" Faculty of Theology of the University of Sibiu (between 1992-2017), Dorin Oancea preaches values and reasons them down to his listeners through the mark of his fine spirit and his exceptional intellectual qualities. Distancing from the descriptive-apologetic approach of his predecessors1, Prof. Dr. Corneliu Sârbu (1952-1977) and Prof. Dr. Ioan Glăjar 1

In order to understand the general coordinates of the development discipline of the history and philosophy of religions in Romania and to understand the dynamics of the theological act in the communist period see: Ionuț Daniel Băncilă, History of Religions and Orthodox Theology

22

Alina Pătru

(1977-1991)2, Dorin Oancea initiates a solid theological reflection on religious diversity, extended over time to a system of philosophy of religion, capable to explain all aspects of religious life, from the dynamics of the individual religious existence to the parallel existence of more religions and the soteriological possibilities associated with them.3 Moreover, Dorin Oancea aims to accomplish it in a way that simultaneously satisfies the exigencies of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism, in complete fidelity to the Christian Revelation and the patristic sources of the Orthodox theology, in which he finds the necessary resources for the full appreciation of the other religious spaces and the recognition of their soteriological capacity. Through the methods he uses and the tools he chooses, through the way of articulating his argumentation and last but not least through the theological solutions he finds, Dorin Oancea elaborates a discourse of philosophy and theology of religions of international value, thus elevating to an unprecedented level in Romanian culture the way of approaching religious diversity from a theological perspective.4 In this approach, Dorin Oancea has found an enlightening precursor in the person of Prof. Dr. Remus Rus, holder of the Chair for History and Philosophy of Religions at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology of the University of Bucharest (1978-2008), a close person to Dorin Oancea, who decisively marked his intellectual evolution, as he himself confesses. But if Remus Rus “will revise and abandon the clichés that have been circulated to him and invite to a serious (re)thinking of the relationship between Christian religion and the other religions”5, thus initiating the cultural and ideological thawing within the discipline of the history and philosophy of religions and making the first steps towards an authentic valorization, from within the Christian-Orthodox theological tradition, of the other religious spaces, Dorin Oancea is the one who will elaborate a consistent, methodical and systemic discourse in this respect. The importance of knowing and deepening these perspectives cannot be highlighted enough, especially since the risk of returning to a narrow vision is not alien to even the academic practice of a discipline such as the history and philosophy of religions. Theological education is meant to prepare students for life and pastoral work in the conditions of the world today, where for many of us the encounter with the faithful of another religion is an ordinary element of

2 3

4 5

in Communist Romania (1948-1989), in: Archaeus, 10, 2006, pp. 131-155. For a brief introduction into the thinking of the two foremen at the Department see: Ionuț Daniel Băncilă, Preocupări de Istoria Religiilor în Teologia Română. Perioada 1948-1989, Teză de licență susținută la Facultatea de Teologie Ortodoxă a Universității din Sibiu, under the guidance of Fr. Professor Dorin Oancea, Sibiu, 2005, pp. 80-92. For details on pr. Prof. Ioan Glăjar, see the study: Nicolae Chifăr, Părintele Ioan Glăjar, un veritabil teolog și istoric al religiilor sibian – 90 de ani de la nașterea sa, in this volume. For details see the studies: Codin Şimonca-Opriţa, Convergences in Archimandrite André Scrima's and Rev. Dorin Oancea's Thinking; and Alina Pătru, Dorin Oancea's Christocentric Personalist Pluralism. A Christian Orthodox Theology of Religions, both in this volume. See more in: Alina Pătru, ibidem. Băncilă, 2005, 58.

The Human and Academic Profile of Dorin Oancea

23

daily existence, at the same time as indifference and religious relativism become dominating, triggering counter-reactions through the appearance of much lower numerical but very vocal forms of fundamentalism and religious integrism. In this context, the role of the history and philosophy of religions in theological formation is to facilitate comprehension of all these religious dynamics, offering also, through interpretations specific to the theology of religions, a way of understanding the religious diversity from a Christian point of view. In his lectures and studies, Dorin Oancea has launched himself on all these directions, building up some remarkable answers. In honor of Fr. Professor Dorin Oancea, 48 authors contributed to this volume. His vocation as a bridge builder can be also noticed in the perfect numerical balance between the authors affiliated to universities and institutions in Romania and those with international universitarian and institutional affiliation, as well as between the Orthodox and those belonging to other Christian Churches. Most of them have met him while addressing issues of valuing and deepening the Christian truth, in specialized symposiums, theological dialogue rounds, in regular or occasional lectures, as an attendant of delegations and groups, as a welcoming host or simply as a friend and colleague in everyday life. Those who met him during the theological dialogue rounds witness how Dorin Oancea has been able to repeatedly unstrain strained situations, to find acceptable solutions for both parts, sometimes by merely setting the problem in a new light.6 His PhD thesis, which he defended in 1992 at the Protestant Theological Institute in Sibiu, is a good example: it expands upon the problem of the relationship between faith and good deeds via system theory and communication theory, an approach that throws a new light on the issue, which has come to be considered of real use in inter-confessional encounters7. In light of the above, a volume in honor of Prof. Dorin Oancea is well suited to articulate the idea of meeting God in the other, an idea specific to Orthodox theology, which equates the ability to see God in other beings, or natural contemplation, with the second out of the three steps of spiritual ascent. On the other hand, it is an idea which implies constantly opening up towards the other, the different one, being therefore appropriate to our times. The idea of opening up towards the other has also been the basis of the structure of the volume, made up of five parts. In the first part, five studies are grouped together in an attempt to spotlight the creative thinking of Dorin Oancea. In the second part, seven studies emphasize the theoretical foundations of ecumenical and interfaith opening, while the third part contains 21 exemplifications of this opening in past and present, ordered 6

7

See the study: Viorel Ioniță, Contribuția Părintelui Prof. Dr. Dorin Oancea la dialogul teologic bilateral dintre Biserica Ortodoxă Română și Biserica Evanghelică din Germania, in this volume. See: Dorin Oancea, Glauben und Handeln. Eine kommunikatorische Perspektive, Hermann, Sibiu, 1997.

24

Alina Pătru

according to the chronology of the events. The fourth part is dedicated to six practical-theological reflections of the opening to the otherand the fifth part opens further perspectives emerged from the wide field of specialized studies on religion. Thus, in the first contribution of the first part, Christoph Klein provides an overview of the creative activity of Fr. Professor Dorin Oancea. It is followed by the study of Viorel Ioniţă, which highlights the profile of the participant in the interconfessional dialogue, Dorin Oancea, offering as an example of his contributions to the bilateral dialogue between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD). The following two studies address the model of theology of religions proposed by Dorin Oancea: while Codin Şimonca-Opriţa’s material depicts its fundamentals comparing them with the thinking of another Christian-Orthodox author, André Scrima, Alina Pătru’s contribution describes his proposed solution to the question of the possibility of salvation of non-Christians and aims to establish its place among similar approaches in worldwide theology. The last text, written by Hans-Ferdinand Angel, introduces Dorin Oancea in another unique theological posture: that of participant in very recent scientific preoccupations, like those about the processuality of believing (credition). In the second part there are seven studies highlighting the opening to the other. Thus, Michael Weinrich seeks the unifying element of society and takes into account, as possible answers, faith, religion, freedom, and God, opening up new perspectives on the need for ecumenical and interreligious co-operation. The following two articles by Nicolae Moşoiu and Dan Alexandru Streza, underpin the ecumenical opening from a Christian-Orthodox perspective, using liturgical resources in this respect. Bernhard Körner’s study describes dialogical opening as constitutive to the Church from the perspective of Catholic theology. The following two texts, written by Kang Phee Seng and Martien E. Brinkman, spotlight two reformed perspectives: the first one ponders over the Church’s mission, focusing on the contextuality of the ways of actualizing the message of Christ, and the second proposes the opening of ecumenical theology to the contextual, i.e. to the other. Finally, Bernd Jochen Hilberath formulates a number of theses in support of the real dialogical openness towards other religions, under the circumstances of Christianity's claim to be the full owner of truth. The third part starts with the biblical Old Israel: Walter Dietrich scrutinizes the existence of interreligious elements in the Books of Samuel. The following two contributions by Lehel Lészai and Urs von Arx refer to New Testament texts. While the former reflects upon two religious spaces in contact, Judaism and Samaritanism, the latter tackles the opening of God, towards God or towards another human being and about the institution of marriage, i.e. about love and about marriage, as they appear in New Testament writings. Doru Constantin Doroftei offers an overview of Jewish mysticism from the time of the prophets

The Human and Academic Profile of Dorin Oancea

25

up to the beginning of Late Antiquity and points to elements which are to be reevaluated in the light of newest research, to the benefit of Jewish/Christian dialogue. The study of Daniel Buda on Circumcision in Ignatius of Antioch and Theophilus of Antioch introduces the patristic period, with further studies by Adolf Martin Ritter on Origen as a bridge builder and Ioan Mircea Ielciu on love in the view of St. John Climacus. Patristic studies are also interwoven in the text of Pablo Argárate about Egeria, the well-known Christian pilgrim of Antiquity and of Dragoş Boicu about the Constantinian legislation on the Jews. The study by Dietmar W. Winkler demonstrates the extraordinary expansion of the Church of the East and its mission among Persians, Mongols and Chinese. With the text of Grigorios Larentzakis – questioning the idea of the great schism of 1054 and proposing instead the gradual departure between the Churches of East and West, the series of contributions on inter-confessional relations opens up. Thus, for the relationship between Orthodoxy and Protestantism the study of Hermann Pitters is important, dealing with the reception of the Testimonium patrum in the Lutheran Confessions of faith. Tamás Juhász’s material explores a moment in the history of Transylvania, namely the Turda Edict of 1568, placing it in the context of its time and showing its inestimable value for the idea of religious freedom. In the modern era, Marian Pătru looks into Vladimir Soloviov’s sofiology as a proposal to overcome the divisions among the Christians, elaborated in the nineteenth century in the Christian-Orthodox world, while Remus Rus speaks about the way Romanian Orthodoxy has been configured, acquiring distinctive features of the Greek and Russian ones, relying in particular on the writings of Fr. Dumitru Stăniloae and Nichifor Crainic. The article of Radu Gârbacea inaugurates the post-war period. This text proposes to recover the personality of the Romanian Fr. Prof. Ioan G. Coman as promoter of ecumenism, showing the reasons why his vision remained unknown, and why his concrete ecumenical involvement was prevented. Two other studies deepen the thinking of the eminent theologian Dumitru Stăniloae: Ionuţ Vasile Crişan analyzes the way in which he received Anselmian thought, while Ivana and Tim Noble speak of open sobornicity, a concept used by Fr. Stăniloae interrelating it with modern Romanian hesychasm and presenting it parallel to apophatic anthropology, illustrated, among others, by André Scrima. A critical reflection on Orthodox ecclesiology and its transposition into practice is provided by Johannes Oeldemann. Andreas Müller deals with the capacity for religious pluralism in the Southeast European Nations. Finally, Dagmar Heller considers the conditions for the future success of the theological dialogue between Orthodox and Protestants. In the fourth part, no less than four studies are dedicated to the Divine Liturgy. Erich Renhart analyzes St. Basil’s Anaphora with his variants regarded as an example of unity in diversity and as an ecumenical model; Basilius J. Groen dedicates his study to the Trishagion and to other Orthodox liturgical chants taken over in Western liturgical books; Ciprian Streza expands upon the Divine Liturgy as a whole; and Peter Ebenbauer compares the Christian liturgy with the

26

Alina Pătru

Jewish liturgy in the light of their endeavor to achieve peace. These four studies are followed by the articles of Constantin Necula, who advocates an ecumenical education, and of Irimie Marga, who speaks of opening up towards the penitent as it is through the epithymia. The texts in the fifth part deal with various topics, such as the problem of evil in the history of religions and philosophy (Vasile Chira), the modernity and the death of God in the Nietzschean conception (Aurel Pavel, Dan Ţăreanu), the Christian-Orthodox esoteric view of Philip Sherrard and its relation to sacred art (Ionuț Daniel Bancilă), democracy and liberalism in the theological vision (Stefan Tobler), or the personality of Fr. Prof. Ioan Glăjar, Fr. Professor Dorin Oancea’s predecessor (Nicolae Chifăr). It is also worth mentioning that the list of colleagues and friends wishing to pay homage to Dorin Oancea is not limited to those present in this volume. There have been others who have been held back by health problems of their own or of their family members, as well as by other kinds of problems. Among them, mention should be made of Dawn DeVries, Otto König, Jürgen Henkel, Sebastian Moldovan, Ovidiu Matiu and Emanuel Tăvală. The numerous and diverse contributions, centered on the idea of meeting with God in the other, highlight once again the richness of the personality of Fr. Professor Dorin Oancea, capable both of stimulating theological reflection on so many coordinates and, no less important, of being a source of inspiration at the human level for so many colleagues, students and collaborators! I cannot conclude without mentioning that this volume would not have been issued without the significant support received from many parts. First of all, I thank Prof. Dr. Dietmar W. Winkler of the University of Salzburg, the editor of the series “orientalia-patristica-oecumenica”, who not only accepted the publication of the volume in the series coordinated by him, but acted like a coeditor: I have settled with him all kinds of details, he resolved the funding for the publishing and structured the work of typesetting. Sincere thanks deserve also all who have expressed their deep appreciation for Fr. Professor Dorin Oancea by financially supporting the publication of this Festschrift! Their complete list is to be found in this volume.

Sibiu/Hermannstadt, on the Feast of the Holy Trinity 2019

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF DORIN OANCEA

Books 1. Glauben und Handeln. Eine kommunikatorische Perspektive, Hermann Verlag, Sibiu 1997, 279 pp. 2. Gesammelte Schriften, Saeculum, Sibiu, 1998, 196 pp. 3. Despre cunoaştere. Cea de început, Editura Universităţii “Lucian Blaga”, Sibiu, 2002, 185 pp. 4. După chip şi asemănare. Structuri şi dinamici primordiale, Editura Universităţii “Lucian Blaga”, Sibiu, 2002, 183 pp. 5. Raţionalitatea actului religios, Editura Universităţii “Lucian Blaga”, Sibiu, 2003, 246 pp. 6. O istorie problematizată a marilor religii. I. Fiinţarea sacrului, Editura Universităţii “Lucian Blaga”, Sibiu 2003, 206 pp. Studies: 1. Prea Fericitul Părinte Patriarh Iustin la 75 de ani. Coordonate ale activităţii sale teologice, in: BOR, Nr. 7-8/1985. 2. Ecumenismul în gândirea teologică transilvăneană, in: Mitropolia Ardealului, “Contribuţii transilvănene la teologia ortodoxă”, Sibiu, 1988. 3. Die Rumänische Orthodoxe Kirche zwischen gestern und morgen, in: “Zugänge”, Nr. 9, April 1991. 4. Zwischen Vergangenheit und Zukunft, in: Erich Renhart/Andreas Schnider (ed.), “Sursum Corda. Variationen zu einem liturgischen Motiv. Für Philipp Harnoncourt zum 60. Geburtstag”. Graz, 1991. 5. Unitatea vieţii religioase şi pluralitatea formelor ei de expresie. O perspectivă comunicaţională, in: Ioan I Ică jr. (ed.), “Persoană şi comuniune. Prinos de cinstire Părintelui Profesor Academician Dumitru Stăniloae la împlinirea vîrstei de 90 de ani”, Sibiu, 1993. 6. Theologischer Dialog als Kommunikation, in: Studia Univ. Babeş-Bolyai, Theologia Orthodoxa, XXXVIII, 1-2, 1993. 7. Satul - spaţiu al comuniunii, in: “Transilvania”, Nr. 3-4/1994. 8. Structuri ideatice filozofice şi ştiinţifice în“Cuvântul apololgetic la Hexaemeron” al Sf.Grigorie de Nyssa, in: “Saeculum”, Nr. 1-2/1995.

28

Dorin Oancea

9. Gemeinschaft im Geist als Grundlage ethnischen Zusammenlebens, in: “Cultural and Comparative Studies”, Nr. 1/1995. 10. Cea de a şaptea întrunire din cadrul dialogului teologic bilateral dintre Biserica Ortodoxă Română şi Biserica Evanghelică din Germania, in: “Revista Teologică”, Nr. 4/1995. 11. Casa - locuinţă ca realitate teocosmică, in: “Transilvania”, Nr. 1-2/1995. 12. Eros und Gemeinschaft, in: “Una Sancta”, Nr.1/1996. 13. Unitatea şi multiplicitatea sacrului în religia vechilor greci, in: Mircea Păcurariu/ Aurel Jivi (eds.), “Teologie, slujire, ecumenism. Inalt Prea Sfinţitului Dr. Antonie Plămădeală, Mitropolitul Ardealului, la împlinirea vîrstei de 70 de ani”, Sibiu, 1996. 14. Bisericile Greco-Catolice într-o perspectivă ortodoxă, in: “Revista Teologică”, Nr. 1/1997. 15. Filozofia religiei şi exegeza textului religios, in: “Revista Teologică”, Nr. 2/1997. 16. Sehnsucht nach dem Goldenen Zeitalter. Implizite religiöse Struktur in der frühen Lyrik Gottfried Benns, in: “Germanistische Beiträge”, Nr. 6, Sibiu, 1997. 17. Biserica Ortodoxă Română în raport cu regimul comunist din România, in: „Revista Teologică”, Nr. 4/1997. 18. Ökumenismus als Herausforderung an eine orthodoxe theologische Fakultät, in: “Ökumenisches Forum”, Nr. 20, Graz, 1997. 19. Gemeinschaftsstrukturen im orthodoxen Glaubensvollzug, in: Peter Inhoffen (ed.), “Demokratische Prozesse in den Kirchen? Konzilien, Synoden, Räte”, vol. 2, Graz,1998. 20. Zur heutigen ökumenischen Situation in Rumänien, in: Hans Klein et al (eds.), ”Kirche, Geschichte und Glaube, Freundesgabe für Hermann Pitters zum 65. Geburtstag”, Erlangen,1998. 21. Christliche Einzelidentität, Einheit und europäische Integration, in: ÖARR (Österreichisches Archiv für Recht und Religion), 46. Jahrgang, 1/1999. 22. Der prophetische Dienst der Christen in Zeiten säkularer Umbrüche, in: Rolf Koppe (ed.), “Gemeinschaft der Heiligen - Berufung unserer Kirchen und ihre Erfüllung in der säkularisierten Welt. Siebtes Gespräch im bilateralen Theologischen Dialog zwischen der Rumänischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland”, Studienheft 24, Missionshandlung Hermannsburg, 1999. 23. Der versöhnende Dienst der Kirchen in einer säkularisierten Gesellschaft, in: Rolf Koppe (ed.), “Dienen und Versöhnen. Europäische Integration als Herausforderung an unsere Kirchen. Achtes Gespräch im bilateralen Theologischen Dialog der Rumänischen Orthodoxen Kirche in Deutschland”, Studienheft 25, Missionshandlung Hermnannsburg, 1999. 24. Le présent apocaliptique et l´”eshaton” refusé, in: “Cahiers Emil Cioran”, Sibiu, 2001.

Selected Bibliography

29

25. Biserica şi multiculturalitatea europeană, in: Ioan Vasile Leb (ed.), “Biserică şi multiculturalitate în Europa sfîrşitului de mileniu”, ClujNapoca, 2001. 26. Semnificaţia ecumenică a Confesiunii Augustane, in: “Revista Teologică”, Nr. 2/2002. 27. Reflexii asupra raţionalităţii verificabile a enunţurilor teologice, in: “Revista Teologică”, Nr. 3/2002. 28. Legea unică - sursă a unei duble identităţi confesionale?, in: “Anales Universitatis Apulensis – Historica”, 6/II, 2002. 29. Pluralism religios la Lucian Blaga, in: “Caietele Lucian Blaga”, vol.III, Sibiu, 2002. 30. Die Verantwortung des Menschen für die Schöpfung. Eine orthodoxe Stellungnahme zur ökologischen Frage, in: “Ökumenisches Forum”, Graz, 25/2002. 31. Comuniune cu Dumnezeu într-o lume secularizată?, in: “Anuarul Facultăţii de Teologie Ortodoxă din Cluj-Napoca”, Cluj- Napoca, 2002. 32. Antinomical Structures in St Ephrem’s Hymns of Paradise, in: “Anuarul Facultăţii de Teologie Andrei Şaguna”, Sibiu, 2002. 33. Lucian Blaga - filozof al religiei, in: “Caietele Lucian Blaga”, vol. IV, Sibiu, 2002. 34. Der Bildungsauftrag der Kirche aus orthodoxer Sicht, in: “Zugänge”, Nr. 4/2003. 35. Dumitru Stăniloae – filozof al religiei, in: Dumitru Abrudan (ed.), “Părintele Dumitru Stăniloae, teolog al iubirii”, Sibiu, 2004. 36. Christsein, Religion und Religionen, Eine Untersuchung im Zusammenhang von Dietrich Bonhoeffers Kritik am Religionsbegriff, in: Christoph Klein (ed.), „Spannweite. Festgabe für Hans Klein zum 65. Geburtstag”, Bucharest, 2005. 37. Religionsfreiheit, Kirche, Nation, in: „Una Sancta“, Nr. 4/2005. 38. Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von Mehrheit und Minderheit im ethnischen und konfessionellen Bereich, in: Dagmar Heller/ Rolf Koppe (eds.), „Das neunte und das zehnte Gespräch im bilateralen theologischen Dialog zwischen der Rumänischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland”, Frankfurt am Main, 2005. 39. Facultăţile de Teologie în Viaţa şi Misiunea Bisericii, in: „Studii Teologice”, Nr. 3/2005. 40. Dialogul teologic bilateral dintre Bisericile Ortodoxe şi Alianţa Mondială Reformată. Prezentare şi evaluare din perspectivă ortodoxă, in: Alexandru Moraru (ed.), “Biserica Ortodoxă Română între anii 1885 – 2000. Dialog teologic şi ecumenic”, vol. III, tom 2, Bucharest, 2006. 41. Church Communion and Reception of Ecumenical Dialogues: An Orthodox Perspective, in: Tim and Ivana Noble et al (eds.) “Charting Churches in a Changing Europe. Charta Oecumenica and the Process of Ecumenical Encounter”, Amsterdam – New York, 2006.

30

Dorin Oancea

42. Elemente de teologia religiilor la Sf.Grigorie de Nyssa I, in: “Anuarul Facultăţii de Teologie Andrei Şaguna”, Sibiu, 2006. 43. Orthodoxe Kirche und säkulare Gesellschaft, in: „Una Sancta”, Nr. 3/2007. 44. Religionsphilosophische Überlegungen zur Theokratie und zum prophetischen Dienst im Alten Testament, in: Hans Klein/ Hermann Pitters, (eds.), “Kirche als versöhnte Gemeinschaft. Festschrift für Bischof D. Dr. Christoph Klein zu seinem 70. Geburtstag”, Beihefte der "Kirchlichen Blätter", Monatsschrift der Evangelischen Kirche A. B. in Rumänien, Heft 7, Sibiu, 2007. 45. Falsa sacralizare a lumii în Catehezele Sf. Chiril al Ierusalimului, in: Constantin Necula (ed.), “Ale Tale dintru ale Tale, Liturghie – pastoraţie – mărturisire: prinos de cinstire adus Ȋ.P.S. Dr. Laurențiu Sreza la ȋmplinirea vârstei de 60 de ani”, Sibiu, 2007. 46. Dumitru Stăniloae – filosof al religiei. Fiinţarea nedefinită/definită a sacrului şi a lumii, in: IPS Laurenţiu Streza et al (eds.), “Dumitru Stăniloae (1903 – 1993).Teologie românească de dimensiune europeană”, Sibiu, 2008. 47. The Theological Bilateral Dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. An Evaluation from an Orthodox Point of View, in: “Reseptio”, Nr.1/2009. 48. Teologia Religiilor în Biserica Primară: Athenagoras, Sf. Justin Martirul, Origen, in: Nicolae Moșoiu (ed.), „Relevanţa operei Părintelui Profesor Ion Bria pentru viaţa bisericească şi socială actuală. Direcţii noi de cercetare în domeniul doctrinei, misiunii şi unităţii Bisericii”, Sibiu, 2010. 49. Der Einfluß der Securitate auf die Rumänisch-Orthodoxe Kirche am Beispiel der Familie Oancea, in: “Zugänge”, Nr. 18, 2010. 50. Cine sunt drepţii Vechiului Testament?, in: Aurel Pavel/ Constantin Oancea (eds.), “Biblie și misiune creștină. Popas aniversar Pr. Prof. Dumitru Abrudan”, Sibiu, 2010. 51. Bisericile Ortodoxe şi Bisericile Reformate în dialog. Evaluare şi perspective, in: Viorel Ioniță (ed.), “Teologia Ortodoxă în secolul al XX-lea și la începutul secolului al XXI-lea”, Bucharest, 2011. 52. Istoria şi filosofia religiilor în teologia ortodoxă, in: Viorel Ioniță (ed.), “Teologia Ortodoxă în secolul al XX-lea și la începutul secolului al XXIlea”, Bucharest, 2011. 53. Centrul lumii din perspectiva unei teologii ortodoxe a religiilor, in: TABOR, Nr. 11/ 2011. 54. Mitropolitul Georges Khodr despre lucrarea Domnului Hristos în religiile necreştine, in: Nicolae Achimescu (ed.), “Omagiu Domnului Profesor Universitar Dr. Remus Rus”, Cluj-Napoca, 2012. 55. Ökologie al Schöpfungsspiritualität, in: Ingeborg Gabriel/ Petra SteinmairPösel (eds.), “Gerechtigkeit in einer endlichen Welt”, Mainz, 2013. 56. Orthodox Dialogues with the Reformed Churches, in: Pantelis Kalaitzidis et al (eds.), “Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism. Resources for Theological Education”, Volos, 2014.

Selected Bibliography

31

57. Martiriul – realitate religioasă universală, in: Nicolae Chifăr et al (eds.), “Epoca lui Constantin Brâncoveanu în context sud-est european: biserică, societate, geopolitică”, Sibiu, 2014. 58. Die komunikatorischen Stufen der Heiligkeit, in: Petra Bosse-Huber et al (eds.), “Im Dialog mit der Orthodoxie. Festschrift für Reinhardt Thöle”, Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau, 104, Leipzig, 2015. 59. Niveluri de realitate ale cuvântului religios, in: “Text şi discurs religios”, Iaşi, Nr. 6/2015. 60. Unitatea religioasă a lumii. Reflexii pe marginea unei lucrări timpurii a Pr. Prof. Dumitru Stăniloae, in: Nicolae Moșoiu/ Vasile Bîrzu (eds.), “Darul unităţii Bisericii şi a lumii. Implicaţii teologico-dogmatice şi culturale”, Sibiu, 2015. 61. Catholicity as Communion. Three Moments of the Orthodox Experience, in: Dagmar Heller/ Péter Szentpétery (eds.), “Umstrittene Katholizität: von der zwiespältigen Beziehung zwischen Vielfalt und Einheit”, Beihefte zur Ökumenischen Rundschau, 105, Leipzig, 2016. 62. Spiritualität und Toleranz im orthodoxen Gedankengut, in: D. Galter et al (eds.), “Reformation und Toleranz - Brücken über Jahrhunderte”, Bonn / Sibiu 2016. 63. Communion with God in the World, in: Daniel Benga/ Constantin Pătuleanu (eds.), “Teologia ortodoxă în dialog. Evocări, analize, perspective. Volum dedicat Părintelui profesor doctor Viorel Ioniță la împlinirea vârstei de 70 de ani”, Bucharest, 2016. 64. Orthodoxie und Kultur, in: Ioan Vasile Leb et al (eds.), “Die Orthodoxe Kirche in der Selbstdarstellung. Ein Kompendium”, Berlin, 2016. 65. Identitätsbestimmende Bindungen im ökumenischen Annäherungsprozess, in: RES – Review of Ecumenical Studies, Nr. 9, 1/2017. 66. Soul and Body According to “De Fide Orthodoxa” of St. John Damascene, in: Hans-Ferdinand Angel et al (eds.), “Processes of Believing. The Acquisition, Maintenance, and Change in Creditions”, Wiesbaden, 2017. 67. Credinţa jertfelnică a martirilor şi mărturisitorilor din închisorile României comuniste. Mărturia Părintelui Zosim Oancea, in: “Deisis. Revistă de cultură şi spiritualitate editată de Mitropolia Ortodoxă pentru Germania, Europa Centrală şi de Nord”, Nr. 25/2017. 68. Lucrarea lui Dumnezeu ca temei al fiinţării naţionale, in: Alin Albu et al (eds.), “Centenarul unirii românilor şi Europa de astăzi. Religie şi geopolitică”, Cluj-Napoca, 2018. 69. Gemeinschaft von Verschiedenheiten. Religionsphilosophische Überlegungen, in: “Review of Ecumenical Studies“, Sibiu, Nr. 3/2018. 70. Teologia trece printr-o mare criză din multe privințe, in: http://ecum.ro/interviu-teologia-trece-printr-o-mare-criza-din-multeprivinte/, July 2018. 71. Ecumenismul și provocările lui, in: http://ecum.ro/interviu-ecumenismul-siprovocarile-lui/, July 2019.

32

Dorin Oancea

Translations: 1. Veijo Meri, Funia, novel, translated from German into Romanian, Editura Univers, colecţia Globus/ Editura Meridiane, 1974. 2. Virgil Cândea, Constantin Simionescu: Die Beziehungen der Rumänen zum Berge Athos, translated from Romanian into German, Editura Sport-Turism, Bucharest, 1979. 3. Heinrich Lützeler, Drumuri spre artă, vol. I and II, translated from German into Romanian, Editura Meridiane, Bucharest,1986. 4. Introduction to the new edition of the "Noul Testament de la Bălgrad", translated from Romanian into German, Alba-Iulia, 1988, 60p. 5. Brian Davies, Introducere în Filozofia Religiei, translated from English into Romanian, Editura Humanitas, Bucharest, 1997. 6. John Bossy, Creştinismul în Occident, translated from English into Romanian, Editura Humanitas, Bucharest,1998.

RECEPTION OF DORIN OANCEA’S CREATIVE THINKING

GOTT IM ANDEREN BEGEGNEN ZUM DENKEN UND WIRKEN VON DORIN OANCEA Christoph Klein Sibiu / Hermannstadt

„Gott im Anderen begegnen.“ Keine andere Formulierung könnte das Denken und Wirken von Professor Dr. Dorin Oancea treffender umschreiben als diese. Denn in diesem Titel sind die drei wichtigsten Themen genannt, die das Leben, das Wesen und den Kern seiner Theologie herausstellen: Begegnung, der Andere und Gott, der „ganz Andere“. Von Martin Buber stammen die Worte: „Alles wirkliche Leben ist Begegnung.“ Durch sein so besonderes Leben wurde Dorin Oancea von Gott die Fähigkeit geschenkt, das Andere im Sinne von Andersartigkeit zu erfahren, aber ebenso den anderen Menschen, mit denen man sein Leben teilt, zu begegnen. Und es ging ihm vor allem darum, dem „ganz Anderen“, Gott zu begegnen.1 Dorin Oanceas Denken und Wirken können wir in erster Linie anhand seines Lebensweges verstehen und nachvollziehen. Das beginnt mit dem besonderen „Lebensraum“, in dem er aufgewachsen ist: mit Siebenbürgen. Unvergesslich hat unser Schriftsteller und Dichter Adolf Meschendörfer in seiner „Siebenbürgischen Elegie“ das ausgedrückt: Anders rauschen die Brunnen, anders rinnt hier die Zeit. Früh fasst den staunenden Knaben Schauder der Ewigkeit /.../ Anders schmeckt hier der Märzwind, anders der Duft von Heu. Anders klingt hier das Wort von Liebe und ewiger Treu.

Damit ist zunächst die Stadt zu nennen, in der Dorin Oancea vor 70 Jahren geboren wurde: Sibiu-Hermannstadt-Nagy-Szeben. Und das heißt: der Ort von einem multiethnischen, multikulturellen und multikonfessionellen Gepräge, in dem die Menschen schon früh die Begegnung mit dem „Anderen“ erfahren. Es bestimmt gewiss das Leben entscheidend, wenn man etwa in der Fleischergasse/ 1

Die Rede von Gott „dem ganz Anderen“, die sich bei Dorin Oancea so nicht findet, entnehmen wir – inspiriert von dem Titel der Festschrift – Karl Barth, der diese Bezeichnung in seinem epochalen Werk „Der Römerbrief“ (2. Auflage 1922) häufig verwendet. Sie geht auf den Religionsphilosophen Rudolf Otto zurück, der in seinem Werk „Das Heilige“ Gott „das ganz andere“ nennt. Von Gott, als „dem ganz Anderen“ spricht auch Eberhard Jüngel, der diese Redeweise in dem Gedankengut des Hl. Chrysostomos vermutet („Gott als Geheimnis der Welt“, Tübingen 1982, S. 8)

36

Christoph Klein

Strada Mitropoliei täglich an fünf historischen Kirchen vorbeigeht, wo zwei, gelegentlich drei Sprachen zu hören sind, und man – wie Dorin Oancea ̶ Rumänisch und Deutsch gleichermaßen fließend zu sprechen lernt. Und später das Privileg hat, nicht nur diese beide Sprachen zu beherrschen, sondern – weil der Bildungsweg dies ermöglicht – seiner Veranlagung gemäß, mit Englisch zu ergänzen oder, im späteren Theologiestudium, sich auch die klassischen und biblischen Sprachen anzueignen. Kein Wunder, dass den Frühbegabten die Sprache an sich fasziniert, als das wichtigste Instrument für sein Anliegen, das ihm schon in seinen jungen Jahren so wichtig war und bis heute wichtig geblieben ist: die Begegnung und der Austausch mit dem Anderen. Und dabei auf diese Weise die Erfahrung einer grundlegenden Horizonterweiterung zu erleben, die dem ganzen Leben Sinn und Erfüllung verleiht. Doch gleichermaßen gehört auch das Elternhaus dazu. Der Vater, als Geistlicher mit einer tiefen orthodoxen Spiritualität und Hingabe an den Dienst am Evangelium gesegnet, ist gleichzeitig mit einer breiten Weltoffenheit, Kunstliebe und künstlerischen Begabung begnadet. Und dieser hat er Inhalt und Sinn gegeben durch seine Zuwendung zur einheimischen Malerei, vornehmlich auch zur Hinterglasmalerei, die herausfordert, ihre geistliche Dimension in den Ikonen zu entdecken. In das Bewusstsein seines Sohnes jedoch ist der Vater erst getreten, als ihn sein Sohn erst als Neunjähriger wahrnehmen durfte. Denn der Vater hatte als politischer Häftling Jahre lang im Gefängnis für seinen Glauben zu leiden. In seiner Not legte er – nach einem geistlichen „Erlebnis“ – das Gelübde ab, den Sohn Dorin, der zudem auch seinen, des Vaters eigenen Namen Zosim erhält, dazu zu bestimmen, seinem – des Vaters – Glaubensweg und seiner – des Vaters – Berufung nachzufolgen und dies durch das Theologiestudium zu bezeugen. Doch für den jungen Dorin – dessen Name nicht zufällig das Wort „dor“ = Sehnsucht enthält (und von Dorina, dem Namen der Mutter Dorina übernommen ist) ̶ , steht zunächst nicht dies Besondere und Einmalige, sondern das „Andere“ im Vordergrund. Es ist die andere Welt, die ihm, der von früh auf viel liest und von den vielen Büchern über Literatur, Philosophie und anderen Gebieten fasziniert ist, begegnet. Und so kann er sich – gleichzeitig dem Wunsch des Vaters folgend, aber auch weil er den Reichtum dieses „Anderen“ ebenso in der Theologie entdeckt ̶ , für das Studium entscheiden, das sich der Vater für ihn gewünscht hat – zunächst jedoch nur für die ersten Jahre. Hier begegnet ihm nun mit den klassischen Sprachen, mit Griechisch und Hebräisch, aber auch mit Religionsphilosophie und mit den anderen Wissenschaften, die Fülle der Wissensgebiete, die man sich als Theologe aneignen muss. Und diese Fülle an Wissen und Kenntnis hat sich Dorin Oancea mit Freude und Überschwang, mit Fleiß und Hingabe aneignet. Seine Liebe und Vertrautheit mit den Sprachen und die Kenntnis des Deutschen und des Englischen, die er sich unermüdlich lernend angeeignet hatte, halfen ihm, als Dolmetscher und Übersetzer zu wirken. Darauf aufbauend, findet er ein

Gott im Anderen Begegnen

37

anderes, ein wichtiges Betätigungsfeld bei der Patriarchie in Bukarest, wo er hauptamtlich als Sprachmittler zu wirken berufen wird. Denn er war inzwischen in die Hauptstadt übersiedelt, wo seine Brüder lebten, und konnte am Bukarester Theologischen Hochschulinstitut auch sein Theologiestudium fortsetzen. Hier studierte er bei berühmten Lehrern wie Dumitru Stăniloae und hörte in den verbindlichen Fächern Vorlesungen von anderen Professoren von hohem Ansehen. Hier, in der Hauptstadt gab es recht früh auch die Dialoge der RumänischOrthodoxen Kirche mit der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (EKD), und diese gaben dem angehenden Theologen die Möglichkeit, bereits zu jener Zeit der Suche nach dem geistlichen Austausch segensreich zu wirken. Später, nach Hermannstadt zurückgekehrt, konnte er, nun nicht bloß als Dolmetscher und Übersetzer, sondern selbst als Lehrender und vielmehr als Mitglied in den Dialog–Kommissionen mit dem Lutherischen Weltbund und andern Partnern, mit seinen vielfältigen Kenntnissen und Erfahrungen das ökumenische Gespräch bereichern und mitbestimmen. In dieser Zeit der sich immer intensiver entfaltenden Dialogfähigkeit lernt er die „Fülle“ des Anderen in dieser weiteren Dimension, der der Ökumene, kennen und schätzen. So wird er auch zum Übersetzer einer Reihe von Texten der lutherischen Bekenntnisschriften, wie der „Confessio Augustana“ (dem Grundbekenntnis der Lutheraner) und anderer theologischer und ökumenischer Texte. Die Themen im ökumenischen Dialog führen den Theologen freilich zur Frage nach der Wahrheit. Diese kann letztlich nur in der Theologie gesucht und gefunden werden. So war es folgerichtig, dass Dorin Oancea sich nicht mit dem vierjährigen Theologiestudium zufrieden geben konnte, das er in Bukarest abgeschlossen hatte. Es lag nahe, das Doktoratsstudium anzustreben. Es geht ihm nun nicht mehr bloß um Erfüllung und Befriedigung seines Wissens durch die Begegnung mit Sprachen, Philosophie und Religionswissenschaft. Es geht um das Ringen danach, wo in all diesem die Wahrheit liegt -, somit nicht darum, wer die Wahrheit hat, sondern was die Wahrheit ausmacht. So lernt er eine neue Dimension der Wahrheit kennen, die ̶ mit dem Titel des Werkes eines damals vielbeachteten protestantischen Theologen, Emil Brunner, ausgedrückt ̶ die „Wahrheit als Begegnung“ ist. Martin Buber, der große Religionsphilosoph, hat einmal über sich selbst geäußert: „Ich habe keine Lehre, aber ich führe ein Gespräch.“ Was dieser Entdecker des „dialogischen Prinzips“ damit meint, ist dies: „Aus dem im Ich-Du und als Ich-Du Erfahrenen ein Es machen.“ Und umgekehrt: „Vom Es zum Du vorzustoßen.“ Und so wird zum „Zentralthema“ seines Suchens das Sich-Einzulassen auf die „Ich-Du-Beziehung“ des Menschen. Gemeint ist damit, was Buber als wie folgt erkannt hat: Der Mensch wird am Du zum Ich. Aber auch: Der Mensch findet am Du zum Du Gottes und vom Du Gottes zum Du des Anderen. Diese Bedeutung der Ich-Du-Beziehung wurde für das neuzeitliche Denken entscheidend. Karl Heim, der seinerzeit sehr bekannte Tübinger Tübinger Theologe, hat dies als die „kopernikanische Tat des modernen Denkens“ bezeichnet. Buber spricht darüber als eine „für andere

Christoph Klein

38

und auch für andersartige Menschen gültige Erfahrung“, die er selbst gemacht hat und die er weitergeben musste2. Dieses „Andere“ und „Andersartige“ hat Dorin Oancea hierauf in seinen nun folgenden Studien zur Doktorarbeit zentral beschäftigt. In seiner theologischen Fragestellung ging es nun um die Entdeckung Gottes im „ganz Anderen“. Dabei hat er in seiner Dissertation zunächst nach der rechten Methode gesucht, wie dieses Reden über den „ganz Anderen“, Gott, denn überhaupt möglich ist. In seinem Bemühen, die Antworten auf diese Frage zu finden, stieß er während eines Auslandsstudiums, das vom Europäischen Institut in Mainz gefördert worden war, auf die so genannte „Systemtheorie“ des bekannten Heidelberger Professors Dietrich Ritschl. In dieser Theorie geht es letztlich um die „Versöhnung“ unterschiedlicher Sichtweisen, die auch auf die unterschiedlichen theologischen Ansichten, vor allem der evangelischen und der katholischen Lehre angewendet werden kann. Konkrete Fragen und Grundgedanken der Wahrheit Gottes, um die in der Reformationszeit und in der Zeit danach gerungen wurde, finden so eine neue Herangehensweise, so zum Beispiel auch das Problem „Glauben und Handeln“, also das der Rolle der so genannten „guten Werke“. Ebenso kann aus dieser Sicht auch die Rede von der „versöhnten Verschiedenheit“ weiterentwickelt werden. So entstand seine Dissertation mit dem Titel „Glaube und kommunikatives Handeln. Eine fundamental-theologische Untersuchung“, die er auf der Grundlage der „System-, Handlungs- und Kommunikationstheorie“ von Dietrich Ritschl mit schöpferischer wissenschaftlicher Arbeitskraft exemplarisch durchgeführt und als Doktorarbeit vorgelegt hat, nachdem er bereits Dozent und Diakon am Orthodoxen Theologischen Institut in Hermannstadt geworden war. Ich hatte ihm Jahre zuvor – nach unserer ersten ausführlichen Begegnung bei einer „Interkonfessionellen theologischen Konferenz“ in Hermannstadt – vorgeschlagen, an unserem „ProtestantischTheologischen Institut mit Universitätsgrad Klausenburg, mit deutschsprachiger Abteilung in Hermannstadt“ zu promovieren, und er war damit einverstanden. So wurde ich auch sein Doktorvater. Es war somit naheliegend, zum Hauptreferenten seiner 320 Seiten umfassenden Doktorarbeit, die er 1991 vorgelegt hatte, ernannt zu werden. Es ist eine gründliche, gut dokumentierte Arbeit auf dem Gebiet der Fundamentaltheologie, eines Grenzgebietes also zwischen Theologie und Philosophie und anderen Wissenschaften, zu denen auch die Kommunikationstheorie gehört. Theologisch gesehen geht es um das Problem des Verhältnisses zwischen Gnade, Glauben und guten Werken, kurz gesagt: zwischen Glauben und christlichem Leben. Es ist das Bemühen, diesem Fragenkomplex (Gnade, Rechtfertigung, Glaube und Werke) zu einem gemeinsamen Verständnis nachzugehen. Angeregt durch das von Dietrich Ritschl entwickelte system-, handlungs- und kommunikationstheoretische 2

Vgl. G. Wehr, Martin Buber, Hamburg 1968, S. 8f.

Gott im Anderen Begegnen

39

Denken entstand ein hochinteressantes theologisches Opus, mit strengem logischem Aufbau und mit geschlossener Gedankenführung bei der Behandlung eines ökumenischen Problems, das originell und aufgrund von umfangreichen Kenntnissen und überzeugenden theologischen Argumenten zugänglich gemacht wird. Diese theologische Konzeption eines Brückenschlages zu dem Anderen und den Anderen befähigte Dorin Oancea in hohem Maße zum Einsatz im ökumenischen Dialog. Er brachte neue profunde, theologische, sprachliche und kommunikative Voraussetzungen – inzwischen auch als Professor für Fundamentaltheologie – für den Dialog im ökumenischen Umfeld mit, und dies als Ergebnis seines Suchens nach der Wahrheit, die sich in der Begegnung offenbart. Was als „Dialog der Liebe“ begann, konnte so zum „Dialog der Wahrheit“ werden. Das bedeutet, dass man nicht bloß aufeinander zugeht, geprägt durch das multikonfessionelle Umfeld und das traditionelle Zusammenleben verschiedener, anderer Menschen im Glauben, in kirchlichen Traditionen und im alltäglichen Beieinandersein in unserer Stadt, und dass dies bloß „aus Liebe“ getan wird. Für den „Dialog der Wahrheit“ muss man sich gegenseitig kennen und verstehen lernen. Die Begegnung ist dann nicht nur die liebevolle, freundschaftliche, sondern auch eine verstehende, erkennende und anerkennende Begegnung. Der „Dialog der Liebe“ wird demnach gleichzeitig transzendiert. Es ist dann nicht bloß unsere, so eng begrenzte Ich-bezogene Eros-Liebe gemeint, sondern die uneingeschränkte, für Öffnung bereite, Dubezogene Agape-Liebe Gottes. Und wir transzendieren auf diese Weise auch unseren „Dialog der Wahrheit“: Es ist nicht unsere, partikularistische, historisch geprägte, in der Tradition gehütete Wahrheit, sondern die Wahrheit Gottes, die im biblischen Verständnis etwas mit Glauben und Vertrauen Gemeinsames hat, in der das Gebet Jesu für die Einheit Wirklichkeit wird, „damit sie alle eins seien“ (Johannes 17,21). So wurde in Rumänien, im Dialog zwischen der Orthodoxen Kirche und den protestantischen Kirchen, und auch im Dialog mit der evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (EKD), nicht zuletzt dank des Professors, Ökumenikers und Brückenschlägers Dorin Oancea, und anderer, ökumenisch geprägter und befähigter Theologen, ein Dialog begründet, der, theologisch gesehen, zu den wichtigsten dieser beiden großen kirchlichen Familien gehört. So darf Dorin Oancea zu Recht „Botschafter eines fruchtbaren und zukunftsweisenden theologischen Dialogs“ genannt werden. Das „Andere“ bleibt das große Thema seines Denkens und Wirkens. Der Theologe und Schriftsteller Walter Dirks hat über die „Unterscheidung des Christlichen“ von der Grenze gesprochen, die dadurch entsteht, dass wir sagen: „Hier das `Christliche´, was immer das sein mag, dort das Andere! In der Vergangenheit schien diese Unterscheidung den Charakter einer Mauer anzunehmen: als Abgrenzung nach außen hin, zu denen, die `noch nicht´ oder auch nicht mehr christlich sind/.../. Doch gegenüber dem Bild von der Stein-

40

Christoph Klein

Mauer sollte man das steinerne, bergende und abwehrende Gebilde als Brücke verstehen, die über die Mauer gebaut wird.“ „Die Mauer ist die Brücke“, nennt er es in seinen „Anmerkungen zur Unterscheidung des Christlichen“.3 Mit Recht wird der Ökumeniker Dorin Oancea ein Brückenbauer zwischen der Orthodoxen Kirche und den Kirchen des Westens genannt. Zu seiner Tätigkeit in den zahlreichen Dialog-Kommissionen, auch mit dem Reformierten Weltbund und der Gesamtorthodoxie sowie im Leitungsgremium der „Societas Oecumenica“, gehören auch seine Gastprofessuren an der katholischen Fakultät in Graz, an der reformierten Fakultät in Bern und an der altkatholischen Fakultät in Basel und nicht zuletzt sein Einsatz für den „lokalen Ökumenismus“. Dass er dabei einen Blick für das Wesentliche besaß, weisen seine zahlreichen Publikationen auf, die sein Denken und sein Werk in vielfältiger Weise widerspiegeln. Hier sind in erster Reihe die umfangreichen Bücher zu nennen, und als Maßstab dafür vorrangig die Beschäftigung des Autors mit dem theologischen Thema seines Lebenswerkes, das in dem Titel seines Buches „Glauben und Handeln. Eine kommunikatorische Perspektive“ (erschienen 1997) genannt und hier ausführlich dargestellt wird. Es ist seine überarbeitete Dissertation, von der an anderer Stelle bereits die Rede war. Die weiteren BuchPublikationen handeln schwerpunktmäßig von der Geschichte der Weltreligionen und stützen sich grundsätzlich auf die Darstellungen der Religionsphilosophie des Autors. Hinzu kommen auch zahlreiche Übersetzungen von Büchern aus dem Deutschen oder Englischen in die rumänische Sprache oder umgekehrt. Von Klarheit und von geistesgeschichtlicher Bildung gekennzeichnet sind auch seine zahlreichen Beiträge in den inländischen und ausländischen Zeitschriften, Sammelbänden, Festschriften und Nachschlagewerken. Dabei geht es Dorin Oancea in erster Linie um die Darstellung der Orthodoxen Kirche im Gespräch mit anderen Kirchen, anderen Religionen oder anderen Denkweisen, bis hin zur Auseinandersetzung mit dem Säkularismus. Im Vordergrund steht der theologische Dialog, den er als Kommunikation beschreibt und pflegt. Wichtige Dokumente sind diesbezüglich seine Berichte über die Arbeit der theologischen Dialog-Kommissionen der Rumänisch-Orthodoxen Kirche mit der EKD oder über den Dialog mit dem Reformierten Weltbund. Auf Grund seiner persönlichen Kontakte und Erfahrungen stellt er mit seiner verbürgten Kompetenz auch die Griechisch-katholische Kirche aus orthodoxer Perspektive dar. Ein anderes großes Thema ist die Religionsphilosophie, ganz besonders das Verständnis von Religionsphilosophie in der Geisteswelt von Lucia Blaga, dem berühmten Namensgeber der Hermannstädter staatlichen Universität. Der Sinn 3

W. Dirks: Die Mauer ist die Brücke, in: K. Rahner/ B. Welte, Mut zur Tugend, FreiburgBasel-Wien, 3. Aufl.1980, S. 58-61

Gott im Anderen Begegnen

41

des Verständnisses der Religion wird bei Dorin Oancea zur thematischen Grundlage auch in der Auseinandersetzung mit evangelischen Theologen wie Dietrich Bonhoeffer und dessen Religionsbegriff. Besonders interessant ist bei dem Professor Dorin Oancea auch die Sicht der Ökumene „als Herausforderung an eine orthodoxe theologische Fakultät“, wie einer seiner Beiträge überschrieben ist. Ein bleibendes Thema seiner theologischen Forschung ist weiterhin die Auseinandersetzung mit der Kultur in ihrer übergreifenden Dimension (so ein Beitrag über „Kirche und europäische Multikulturalität“), und dazu gehört gewiss auch der „Bildungsauftrag der Kirche aus orthodoxer Perspektive“, wie der Titel eines anderen Beitrages lautet. Ob als theologischer Lehrer, als praktischer Ökumeniker oder als unermüdlicher Forscher, DORIN OANCEA kann kaum treffender denn als „Brückenschläger“ bezeichnet werden. Er hat sich in dieser Aufgabe bewährt, denn sie entsprang einem tiefen inneren Halt im Glauben. Sein geistiges Leben haben vornehmlich das Andere, die Anderen und der „ganz Andere“ geformt, und diese Inhalte und ihre Werte stehen weiterhin im Mittelpunkt seines Lebens und Wirkens. Möge er auch im folgenden Lebensjahrzehnt als geistiger Lehrer weiter unter dem Segen Gottes bleiben und auch in Zukunft der Sache seiner Kirche, seiner Theologie und der Ökumene mit der gleichen Hingabe dienen.

CONTRIBUȚIA PĂRINTELUI PROF. DR. DORIN OANCEA LA DIALOGUL TEOLOGIC BILATERAL DINTRE BISERICA ORTODOXĂ ROMÂNĂ ȘI BISERICA EVANGHELICĂ DIN GERMANIA Viorel IONIȚĂ Geneva / Universitatea din București

I. Pe baza temeinicelor sale cunoștințe de limbă germană și limbă engleză, precum și pe baza studiilor sale la Institutul teologic protestant din Sibiu, unde a obținut titlul de Doctor în Teologie (1992), dar și pe baza experienței de documentarist la Sectorul de Relaţii Externe Bisericeşti al Patriarhiei Române (1973 -1979), Părintele Profesor Dr. Dorin Oancea este unul dintre cei mai calificați teologi ortodocși români ai generației sale pentru promovarea dialogului teologic în special dintre Biserica Ortodoxă și diferitele confesiuni protestante. Pe parcursul celor șase ani cât a activat în cadrul Sectorului de Relații Externe al Patriarhiei Române, tânărul teolog sibian a însoțit ca interpret pe mulți dintre teologii de seamă reprezentând diferite tradiții creștine, care au vizitat România în calitate de oaspeți ai Patriarhiei Române, ocazie cu care el sa familiarizat cu situația bisericească și orientarea teologică a comunităților din care proveneau aceștia. Interesul Părintelui Profesor Oancea pentru dialogul dintre diferite culturi și tradiții religioase s-a manifestat și în cercetarea sa științifică, fiind unul dintre puținii teologi ortodocși români preocupați de aspectele comunicaţionale ale dialogului inter-cultural și inter-religios, ca și de cele al „Teologiei Religiilor”. Contribuția teologului sibian la dialogul dintre tradiția teologică ortodoxă și diferite tradiții teologice protestante s-a concretizat atât prin diferite conferințe și participări la întruniri ecumenice din țară și din strănătate, cât și în cadrul dialogului teologic oficial dintre Biserica Ortodoxă și Alianța Mondială a Bisericilor Reformate (World Alliance of Reformed Churches), devenită în anul 2010 Comuniunea Mondială a Bisericilor Reformate (World Communion of Reformed Churches), dar mai ales în cadrul dialogului teologic dintre Biserica Ortodoxă Română (BOR) și Biserica Evanghelică din Germania (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland - EKD). Având în vedere faptul că la acest din urmă dialog am fost mereu împreună cu Părintele Profesor Dorin Oancea mă voi opri ca fost martor direct doar la contribuția sa la acesta. Dialogul teologic bilateral dintre BOR și EKD a început, la învitația acesteia din urmă, în anul 1979 la Goslar în Germania, fiind organizat pe rând în Germania și în România, astfel acest dialog s-a concretizat până în prezent (între anii 1979-2016) prin 14 întruniri oficiale. Pentru vara anului 2019 este programată

44

Viorel Ioniță

cea de a 15-a întrunire din acest dialog. Delegația Bisericii Ortodoxe Române la acest dialog a fost condusă de următorii ierarhi: Episcopul Vasile Coman al Oradiei (1979-1988), Mitropolitul Nicolae Corneanu al Banatului (1998 – 1995) și IPS Mitropolit Serafim al Mitropoliei Ortodoxe Române a Germaniei, Europei Centrale și de Nord (începând din anul 1995 până astăzi). Delegația EKD a fost condusă la întrunirile din acest dialog de episcopii care coordonau Sectorul de Relații Ecumenice și Externe (Abteilung Ökumene und Auslandsarbeit im Kirchenamt) al acestei Bisericii și anume: Heinz Joachim Held (1979-1991), Rolf Koppe (1995–2006), Martin Schindehütte (2010-2013) și Petra Bosse-Huber (începând din anul 2016). Din delegația EKD au făcut parte unii dintre cei mai reprezentativi teologi evanghelici ca: Georg Kretschmar (1925-2009); Ferdinand Hahn (1926-2015); Peter Hauptmann (1928-2016); Helmut Eßer (1921-2011), iar din generația mai nouă: Jörg Jeremias, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr, Michael Weinrich, Gunther Wenz ș.a. Din delegația Bisericii Ortodoxe Române pe parcursul primelor trei întruniri (1979, 1980 și respectiv 1982) a făcut parte și Părintele Prof. Dr. Dumitru Stăniloae (1903-1993), despre care Episcopul Heinz Jochim Held spunea că referatele și statura sa au avut o mare influență asupra atmosferei și a desfășurării acestui dialog.1 Într-adevăr, prin lumina care strălucea pe chipul său și prin contribuțiile sale, Părintele Stăniloae a imprimat acestui dialog o mare ținută teologică și spirituală. Pe parcursul primelor șase întruniri ale acestui dialog (1979-1991), din delegația Bisericii Ortodoxe Române au mai făcut parte preoții profesori: Dumitru Popescu (1929-2010), Dumitru Radu (1926-2014), Ilie Moldovan (1928-2012), precum și Pr. Prof. Dr. Ioan Ică și Arhid. Prof. Dr. Ioan Caraza. Începând însă cu cea de a șaptea întrunire (1995) delegația Bisericii noastre în acest dialog s-a schimbat și a fost compusă în exclusivitate din teologi care vorbeau curent limba germană, astfel la întrunirile care au urmat nu a mai fost nevoie de interpreți, cum fusese cazul la întrunirile aterioare. Din noua generație de membrii ai delegației BOR în acest dealog menționăm pe preoții profesori: Ioan Tulcan (Arad), Valer Bel (Cluj-Napoca), Mircea Basarab (München), Nicolae Chifăr (Sibiu), Stelian Tofană (ClujNapoca), Daniel Benga (București), Constantin Pătuleanu (Craiova/București), Ioan Vicovan (Iași) ș.a. Semnatarul acestor rânduri a însoțit acest dialog din anul 1980 până astăzi. II.1. Părintele Profesor Dorin Oancea a făcut parte din noua generație de teologi ortodocși români în cadrul dialogului BOR-EKD și a participat la următoarele opt întruniri, desfășurate la: Techirghiol, România (6-11 mai 1985); Kloster Kirchberg, Germania (18-27 mai 1988); Curtea de Argeș, România (11–20 iunie 1

Buße und Beichte im Glauben und Leben unserer Kirchen und ihre Bedeutung für die Erneuerung und Heiligung des Christen. Dritter Bilateraler Theologischer Dialog zwischen der Rumänischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland vom 28. Mai bis 3. Juni 1982 in Hüllhorst, herausgegeben vom Kirchenamt der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland, Verlag Otto Lembeck, Frankfurt am Main, 1987, p. 10.

Contribuția Părintelui Prof. Dr. Dorin Oancea

45

1991); Selbitz, Germania (27 noiembrie -5 decembrie 1995); București, România (3-8 octombrie 1998); Hernnhut, Germania (7-12 octombrie 2000); Cluj-Napoca, România (14-20 noiembrie 2002) și Drübeck, Germania (13-17 martie 2013). La aceste întruniri Părintele Profesor s-a remarcat prin intervențiile sale, iar la majoritatea din ele a făcut parte din comitetul restrâns care a elaborat comunicatele finale ale întrunirilor respective, comunicate în care erau rezumate rezultatele la care se ajungea prin discuțiile purtate pe marginea referatelor la temele stabilite. Dar Părintele Oancea a susținut și personal unele referate, prin care s-a remacat ca un teolog ortodox original și reprezentant de seamă al generației sale. Dintre referatele susținute de Părintele Profesor Oancea în acest dialog amintim mai întâi pe cel intitulat: „Slujirea profetică a Bisericii în vremuri de mutații seculare”2 susținut la cea de a VII-a întrunire, unde s-a discutat tema generală: „Comuniunea Sfinților – Chemarea Bisericilor noastre și împlinirea ei în lumea secularizată” (Gemeinschaft der Heiligen – Berufung unserer Kirchen und ihre Erfüllung in der säkularisierten Welt). Precizăm că Părintele Profesor, ca și alți membrii ai tinerei generații de delegați BOR în acest dialog, a elaborat referatele sale direct în limba germană, de aceea pentru sintezele care urmează luăm în considerare variantele originale ale acestor referate. Referatul menționat al Părintelui Profesor Oancea era structurat în următoarele trei părți: I. Conținutul și structura slujirii profetice; II. Secularizarea și mutații seculare și III. Slujirea profetică în lumea secularizată. În prima parte referentul sublinia că slujirea profetică aparține naturii Bisericii și se exprimă prin caracterul ei comunitar, care pornește de la dubla orientare ființială a omului și anume orientarea spre Dumnezeu și ceea spre lume. Această dublă orientare a omului își găsește împlinirea sa în Iisus Hristos, care prin Biserica Sa a restaurat adevărata comuniune a oamenilor cu Dumnezeu și în același timp a omenilor întreolaltă și aceasta este realiztă în Hristos prin acțiunea Duhului Sfânt. Astfel, Biserica apare ca un întreg comunitar viu între Hristos și oameni, precum și între aceștia întreolaltă, iar oamenii au mandatul să transmită mai departe această dublă comuniune. Prin aceasta se afirmă două orientări dinamice adică două forme de realizare a comuniunii: 1. Comuniunea directă și indirectă între Hristos și credincioși și 2. Comunicarea acestei comuniuni altor credincioși. Aceste manifestări ale comuniunii se realizează prin predicarea cuvântului și prin faptă, astfel că acestea împreună exprimă comuniunea (koinonia) în credință. Slujirea profetică a Bisericii constă tocmai în transmiterea permanent actualizată a comuniunii complete, care se realizează în mod complementar prin acțiunea preoției sacramentale – ca structură special instituită pentru acțiunea Sfântului Duh – și prin aceea a fiecărui credincios.

2

Dorin Oancea, Der prophetische Dienst der Kirche in Zeiten säkularer Umbrüche, in „Gemeinschaft der Heiligen – Berufung unserer Kirchen und ihre Erfüllung in der säkularen Welt”, Herausgegeben von Rolf Koppe, Missionshandlung Hermannsburg, 1999, p. 87-107.

46

Viorel Ioniță

În a doua parte a referatului său, profesorul sibian pornea de la definirea conceptului de secularizare, care are, în mod curent, două înțelesuri, nu numai diferite ci și opuse. Primul înțeles al acestui concept este cunoscut mai ales în cercuri evanghelic-protestante, iar în terminologia ortodoxă este practic necunocut. Acest înțeles a fost propus de teologul protestant Friedrich Gogarten și desemnează eliberarea omului de tirania lumii prin opera de mântuire a lui Iisus Hristos. Este vorba aici de o înțelegere pozitivă a conceptului în discuție, concepție care însă este practic absorbită în concepția generală, de aceea referentul nu a mai insistat asupra ei. Cea de a doua înțelegere a termenului de secularizare este foarte răspândită, chiar dincolo de cercurile teologice și desemnează în principal o schimbare apărută în timpul iluminismului referitoare la înțelegerea de sine a omului, care se consideră independent de Dumnezeu, în timp ce structurile relației sale anterioare cu Dumnezeu continuă să existe. In acest sens secularizarea înseamnă o concepție autonomă despre sine a omului, respectiv emanciparea lui de relația cu Dumnezeu, astfel că Dumnezeu este exclus din viața zilnică a omului precum și ca factor de determinare și de relaționare. Această situație este exemplar exprimată de Laplace care afirma că Dumnezeu este o ipoteză de care el nu are nevoie pentru explicarea universului. Astfel, lumea modernă a apărut pentru creștini ca determinată de secularizare atât în cultura ei, cât și în formele esențiale de exprimare a vieții zilnice. Mai apoi, în raport cu noile evoluții, expresii ca Postmodern sau Pluralism au devenit concepte de sinteză care au dat întregii lumi un profil post-creștin. Referentul precizează mai departe că majoritatea teologilor ortodocși s-au raliat acestui punct de vedere și în acest sens sunt citați teologii ortodocși: Hamilcar Alivisatos, Grigorie Larentzakis, Dumitru Popescu și Ioannis S. Petrou. Într-o primă abordare, teologii ortodocși au aplicat fenomenul secularizării și la viziunea postmodernă și în acest sens ei au preluat - de o manieră fidelă interpretările occidentale ale secularizării. Și totuși, în viziunea ortodoxă, mulți teologi ortodocși interpretează secularizarea ca un proces tipic occidental, care exprimă un eșec al teologiei din acel spațiu. Teologii ortodocși reproșează teologiei occidentale faptul că, pentru a păstra transcedența lui Dumnezeu, aceasta L-a îndepărtat de imanență atât de mult încât omul, nu mai îl percepe pe Dumnezeu deloc, ceea ce duce la autonomia respectiv la secularizarea omului și a lumii. Acestei viziuni teologice, ortodocșii îi opun teologia energiilor necreiate ale lui Dumnezeu, prin care sunt evitate toate dificultățile menționate. În acest punct Părintele Profesor Oancea declară că este adeptul acestei perspective, cu convingerea că fundamentarea teologică a prezenței imanente a lui Dumnezeu prin mijlocirea energiilor necreiate evită cu adevărat separarea conceptuală prea mare dintre Dumnezeu și lume. La aceste considerații referentul adaugă că după părerea sa cauzele secularizării trebuie căutate mult mai adânc, dincolo de opoziția dintre Răsărit și Apus și anume în ceea ce atinge pe om în adâncul ființei sale. Reflecțiile care urmează acest punct de plecare se concentreză asupra conceptelor de Autonomie și

Contribuția Părintelui Prof. Dr. Dorin Oancea

47

Antropocentrism. În acest sens, referentul consideră că procesul de afirmare a autonomiei omului își are începutul în păcatul lui Adam, iar acest proces a dus la o secularizare continuă (kontinuierliche Säkularisierung). Această tendință continuă de secularizre se manifestă uneori în funcție de factori generali și devine secularizare punctuală (punktuelle Säkularisierung). Pe baza acestor distincții conceptuale, Părintele Profesor Oancea se întreabă dacă nu cumva Răsăritul și Apusul nu sunt determinate de aceeași secularizre continuă, în timp ce aceasta a putut să ia forme specifice într-un anumit spațiu cultural ca secularizare punctuală. În această perspectivă referentul consideră că ar putea fi depășită prejudecata cu privire la posibilele origini ale secularizării doar într-o regiune anume și s-ar deschide perspective pentru o abordare și o acțiune comună între Răsărit și Apus cu privire la provocările secularizării. În cea de a III-a parte a referatului său, Părintele Profesor Oancea aplică reflecțiile sale cu privire la lumea secularizată, pe de o parte, cu cele despre Biserică, pe de altă parte, precizând de la început faptul că aceste două entități, care au fost tratate separat una de alta, în realitate nu sunt întru totul separate, ci ele se află într-o continuă interdependență. Astfel, lumea secularizată, care potrivit considerațiilor din partea a doua a referatului este o secularizare punctuală modernă, atacă Biserica, respectiv comuniunea lui Dumnezeu cu oameni restaurată în Hristos, mai ales în două forme, adică dinăuntru și dinafară. Cât privește atacul intern al secularizării la adresa comuniunii omului cu Dumnezeu în Biserică, se revine la considerațiile că omul credincios este angajat într-o comuniune cu lumea, iar în urma primirii Sfintelor Taine se află, în același timp, în comuniune cu Dumnezeul Treimic. Credinciosul ortodox se străduiește să progreseze spre îndumnezeire, sau Theosis, deci să avanseze în comuniunea cu Dumnezeu, dar așa cum s-a întâmplat și cu Apostolul Petru, credinciosul este expus ispitei și căzând în păcat se adâncește în comuniunea sa cu lumea. Aceste două tendințe sunt numite de referent teocentrism, când omul avansează spre Dumnezeu, și autocentrism, când el se adâncește în comuniunea sa cu lumea. Părintele Profesor exprimă lupta în care este angajat omul credincios prin aceea că atunci când crește teocentrismul scade autocentrismul și invers. În acest sens, pericolul secularizării interne este permanent în Biserică și lui sunt expuși toți membrii Bisericii, atât clericii cât și laici, și față de această provocare lupta este permanentă, iar una dintre cele mai utile măsuri împotriva ei este spovedania, care trebuie practicată de către toți. Printre provocările secularizării punctuale, cu care s-a confruntat în special Biserica Ortodoxă Română pe parcursul celei de a doua jumătăți a secolului al XX-lea, referentul subliniază mai ales presiunea exercitată de dictatura comunistă asupra credincioșilor. Pe lângă provocarea comunistă ca atac secularist la adresa credinței, autorul amintește și naționalismul, pe care însă nu îl analizează. În fața pericolelor secularizării punctuale moderne, autorul formulează trei recomandări și anume: 1. Încredințarea că Dumnezeu îl susține pe om în orice împrejurări dificile, chiar și în fața agresiunilor lumii; 2. Impulsurile secularizării reprezintă o permanentă interpelare a omului de către

48

Viorel Ioniță

Dumnezeu, la care omul trebuie să răspundă, prin aceea că el trebuie să se îndrepte spre lume pentru a o câștiga pentru comuniunea cu Hristos; 3. Atunci când vorbim despre întâlnirea Bisericii cu lumea, trebuie să avem totdeauna în vedere două forme de comuniune opuse una alteia. Una este teocentrică și teonomică, iar cealalată este antropocentrică și autonomă. În măsura în care Biserica împlinește rolul ei profetic, ea nu trebuie să piardă niciodată din vedere această dualitate, ca nu cumva acțiunea ei să se îndrepte în direcția opusă față de cea urmărită. În măsura în care Biserica tinde să transmită mai departe natura ei teandrică, ea trebuie să vorbească limba lumii secularizate și acest lucru este posibil atâta timp cât ea este purtată de Dumnezeu și punctul ei central este omul care rămâne, chiar și în aceste situații, chip al lui Dumnezeu, chir dacă este deformat. În această situație, pericolul folosirii aceleiași limbi ca și lumea atutonomă este de a importa în Biserică și orientarea autonomă. Aceasta ar afecta mandatul propriu de provăduire și ar duce la o secularizare proprie a Bisericii. Pentru a evita astfel de pericole, Biserica trebuie să urmeze astăzi exemplul Sfinților Părinți, care nu au pierdut niciodată din vedere faptul că propovăduirea este un act de comunicație, în care receptorul trebuie să fie în stare să primească integritatea informațiilor pe care a intenționat să le transmită emitentul. În acest sens, Sfinții Părinți nu au ezitat să folosească, atunci când a fost cazul, terminologia și structurile de gândire ale filosofiei antice. Pe această linie Biserica Ortodoxă va rămâne fidelă tradiției ei și, când va fi necesar, se va deschide ideilor filosofice și științifice ale vremii noastre. Pe de altă parte, slujirea profetică a Bisericii în lumea secularizată nu înseamnă doar predarea mai departe, ci și demascarea obstacolelor care stau în cale propovăduirii, adică exercitarea criticii la adresa lumii, a autonomiei existente în aceasta. În încheierea referatului său foarte complex, Părintele Profesor Oancea subliniază faptul că pentru a putea intra în comuniunea cu Hristos și pentru a putea transmite aceasta mai departe, trebuie să solicităm ajutorul Duhului Sfânt ca să ne fie alături să putem îndeplini mandatul încredințat nouă de Domnul tocmai în lumea aceasta secularizată. Și aceasta nu o putem îndeplini singuri, ci împreună cu toți creștinii din lume, căci numai dacă suntem uniți în cuvânt și în faptă va fi lumea iluminată de lumina comuniunii noastre cu Hristos și a noastră întreolaltă. II.2. Părintele Profesor Oancea a susținut un referat și la cea de a VIII-a întrunire de dialog dintre BOR și EKD, cu titlul: „Slujirea de împăcare a Bisericilor într-o lume secularizată”.3 Așa cum observă de la început referentul, tema distribuită lui continuă în mod evident pe cea a întrunirii precedente, cu diferența că în anul 1995 era vorba despre slujirea profetică, iar la această 3

Dorin Oancea, Der versöhnende Dienst der Kirchen in einer säkularisierten Welt, in „Dienen und Versöhnen. Europäische Integration als Herausforderung an unsere Kirchen”, Herausgegeben von Rolf Koppe, Missionshandlung Hermannsburg, 1999, pp. 197-209.

Contribuția Părintelui Prof. Dr. Dorin Oancea

49

întrunire accentul se punea pe slujirea reconciliatoare a Bisericii, amândouă în lumea secularizată, deși tema secularizării nu mai apare în tema generală a ultimei întruniri. Tema generală a acestei întruniri a abordat însă conceptul de „integrare europeană” și prin acest fapt nu se intenționa doar o discuție abstractă ci se urmărea formularea unui răspuns la îngrijorarea lumii occidentale și de o manieră specială a societății germane în fața perspectivei acceptării în Uniunea Europeană a Bulgariei și României, două țări majoritar ortodoxe, pe considerentul că tradiția ortodoxă ar fi incompatibilă cu principiile europene. Revenind la referatul teologului ortodox de la Sibiu, observăm că în prima parte a acestuia autorul a continuat considerațiile privind conceptele de secularizare și lume secularizată din referatul său anterior, astfel că, după a scurtă întroducere, autorul trece la primul subcapitol al contribuției sale, intitulat Trăsături fundamentale ale comuniunii între Dumnezeu și om – Biserica și dubla ei orientare spre lume (Grundzüge der Gemeinschaft zwischen Gott und dem Menschen – die Kirche und ihre doppelte Ausrichtung auf die Welt). La considerațiile sale referitoare la această temă din referatul ținut la întrunirea din 1995, Părintele Oancea adaugă în acest referat unele considerații noi prin care deschide perspective ecclesiologice pentru slujirea de reconciliere a Bisericii. Una din aceste reflecții noi este că în fond comuniunea dintre Dumnezeu și om este constitutivă acestuia din urmă, fără de care omul nu ar putea exista și de aceea această comuniune ar putea fi exprimată și prin conceptul de concilium, pentru că ea se bazează pe comuniunea din sânul Sfintei Treimi. Comuniunea treimică s-a descoperit oamenilor de la început, atunci când la crearea omului Dumnezeu a zis „să facem om...” (Facere 1, 26) și astfel Sfânta Treime nu s-a descoperit oamenilor cu numele fiecărei Persoane în parte, ci doar cu numele ei de comuniune, și de aceea comuniunea lui Dumnezeu Treimic cu oamenii se poate numi și concilium. Referentul precizează că, atât în limba română cât și în limba germană, acest termen latin desemnează în mod curent un mod specific de adunare bisericească, dar adaugă că el folosește aici termenul respectiv întrun sens special. Prima precizare în acest sens este că formele de comuniune inter-trinitare, în care cele trei Persoane sunt absolut egale între ele, nu trebuie să ducă la părerea falsă că și în interiorul comuniunii dintre Dumnezeu și oameni ar exista aceeași egalitate. Această diferență în calitatea dintre cele două forme de comuniune a fost afirmată de la început prin revelație, când omului i sa dat dreptul să se adreseze lui Dumnezeu cu apelativul de Tată (vezi Mt. 6, 613), dar în același timp s-a precizat că filiația (Sohnschaft), sau calitatea omului de fiu al lui Dumnezeu, nu este după natură ci dăruită în Duh (Rom. 6, 14, 16). Pe de altă parte omul trebuie să progreseze spre omul desăvârșit în calitatea lui de fiu al lui Dumnezeu. De aici autorul ajunge să distingă în sânul comuniunii cu Dumnezeu între o dimensiune integrală și de una parțială. Partea a doua a referatului Părintelui Profesor din anul 1998 se intitulează „Împăcarea, „reconciliere” și lumea seculară” (Versöhnung, „reconciliatio” und die säkulare Welt). Cu referire la conceptul de împăcare, se precizează că atât termenul românesc de „împăcare” cât și cel german de „Versöhnung” corespund

50

Viorel Ioniță

termenului grecesc de katalloge, folosit în I Cor. 5, 18-21, în sensul de stingere a unui conflict, de încheiere a păcii în forma unei ispășiri. În fond, împăcarea înseamnă în sens biblic restauarea calității de fiu în comuniune și indică o trecere de la comuniunea parțială la comuniunea integrală, de la o stare de autoexcludere la una de a fi inclus (von einem Sich-selbst-Aussschließen zu einem Eingeschlossen-sein). În legătură cu conceptul de lume secularizată, sau lume seculară (säkulare Welt), față de cele afirmate în referatul precedent referentul adaugă formularea că secularizarea desemnează pierderea comuniunii integrale cu Dumnezeu, ceea ce pentru creștini înseamnă în același timp conștiința acestei pierderi. În continuare, autorul prezintă unele considerații în legătură cu împăcarea in Biserică și precizează de la început că Biserica nu reprezintă o dimensiune socială neutră, ci „o comuniune împăcată în dragoste” (eine versöhnte Gemeinschaft in der Liebe). Biserica este o comuniune împăcată, pentru că ea exprimă locul în care se împlinește înbrățișarea (Umarmung) Fiului de către Tatăl și dăruirea Fiului față de Tatăl și prin aceasta ia formă relația filială (Sohnschaft). Astfel, Biserica nu este o dimensiune abstractă, ci modul meu de existență ca filiație în raport cu Dumnezeu prin Fiul Său în Sfântul Duh. Această calitate de fiu o trăim numai în comuniune cu Domnul Hristos, care devine o filiație specială, pentru că El se împacă cu noi și ne împacă pe noi cu El, ca prin aceasta să fim împăcați cu Dumnezeu. Această înțelegere a împăcarii în perspectivă comunitară nu se aplică doar la credinciosul luat independent și la relația particulară cu Dumnezeu, ci trebuie înțeleasă totdeauna ca o comuniune a creștinilor care preamăresc împreună pe Domnul. Dimensiunea comunitară a împăcării este exprimată în Sfânta Liturghie ortodoxă, atunci când la sfârșitul fiecărei ectenii, slujitorul invită pe credincioși „..unii pe alții și toată viața noastră lui Hristos să o dăm”. Această dimensiune comunitară a împăcării în tradiția ortodoxă nu exclude însă conștiința de sine a fiecărui credincios, iar cele două dimensiuni, cea comunitară și cea individuală, se completează reciproc. Ultimul aspect abordat de Părintele Oancea în capitolul privind conceptul de împăcare se referă la „împăcarea față de lumea din afară” (Versöhnung der äußeren Welt gegenüber). În acest sens autorul precizează că împăcarea față de lumea din afară se desfășoară după aceleași principii ca și în domeniul bisericesc intern. Lumea de astăzi apare autorului a fi învăluită de nesfârșite forme de secularizare, care a piedut adevărurile fundamentale ca și conștiința despre un singur Dumnezeu și despre acțiunea Sa pentru noi în Iisus Hristos prin Duhul Sfânt. Dar tocmai în această diversitate pluralistă, care poate părea unora complet străină, se așteaptă de la noi creștinii să descoperim unitatea structurii fundamentale comunitare, pe care să o valorificăm ca atare și prin ea să experiem propria comuniune cu Dumnezeu. De aceea, împăcarea din interiorul Bisericii nu este separată de cea față de lume, ci acestea stau într-o relație perihoterică una față de alta, astfel că una din aceste forme de împăcare nu este de conceput fără cealaltă.

Contribuția Părintelui Prof. Dr. Dorin Oancea

51

Ultimul capitol din referatul ținut de Părintele Profesor la întrunirea de dialog BOR-EKD din anul 1998 se întitulează Împăcarea, Graz și integrarea europeană. În acest capitol autorul se referă la cea de a doua Adunare Ecumenică Europeană organizată de Conferința Bisericilor Europene împreună cu Consiliul Conferințelor Episcopale (Catolice) din Europa între 23-29 iunie 1997, la Graz în Austria, cu tema „Reconcilierea dar al lui Dumnezeu și izvor de viață nouă” (Versöhnung Gabe Gottes und Quelle neuen Lebens). Pornind de la raportul final al acestei adunări, publicat în anul 1998 de Rüdiger Noll și Stefan Vesper la Editura Styria din Graz, Părintele Oancea apreciază „excelenta realizare a acestei conferințe” și consideră că însemnătatea ei ar putea fi rezumată într-un singur cuvânt, care este cel de „întâlnire” (Begegnung), căci întâlnirea însemnează comuniune, împăcare, împărtășire din bogăția altuia, din comuniunea sa cu Dumnezeu și mijlocirea propriei comuniuni. Pe lângă aprecierile sale pozitive la adresa Adunării de la Graz, referentul atrage atenția că succesul acestei adunări nu trebuie să ducă la neglijarea faptului că acolo accentuarea procesului de reflecție asupra temei împăcării a lăsat în umbră luarea în considerare a implementării practice a acesteia. Cu privire la procesul de integrare europeană referentul consideră că aceleași considerații – ca și cele privind Adunarea de la Graz – pot fi aplicate și la acest proces, în care diferite grupări mai mari sau mai mici sunt chemate să se unească într-o construcție, care este mânată numai de interese economice și politice. Este însă posibil ca o nouă structură de o asemenea importanță să fie construnită numai pe acele valori? După părerea autorului acest lucru este imposibil, pentru că astfel dimensiunea spirituală a omului ar fi complet neglijată și el ar rămâne numai o ființă determinată darvinist. În fața acestei provocări, creștinii sunt chemați să arate noii construcții fundamentele sale spirituale și prin propovăduirea și acțiunea lor să cheme pe toți oamenii, precum și instituțiile corespunzătoare din acest proces, la o comuniune de împăcare cu Hristos și prin aceasta cu Dumnezeu. În acest ens, mesajul ortodox al împăcării în Hristos ar putea mijloci tuturor oamenilor sentimentul unității lor întru totul îndreptățită și în același timp al diferențierii lor. II.3. În sfârșit, cel de al treilea referat susținut de Părintele Profesor Dorin Oancea în cadrul dialogului BOR-EKD, intitulat „Considerații cu privire la raportul dintre minoritate și majoritate în domeniul etnic și confesional”4 a fost prezentat la cea de a IX-a întrunire din acest dialog, desfășurată la Herrnhut, Germania, în luna octombrie a anului 2000, unde s-a discutat tema generală intitulată „Biserica și responsabilitatea ei politico-socială astăzi” (Die Kirche 4

Dorin Oancea, Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von Mehrheit und Minderheit im ethnischen und konfessionellen Bereich, in „Das neunte und das zehnte Gespräch im bilateralen theologischen Dialog zwischen der Rumänischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland”, hg. von Dagmar Heller und Rolf Koppe, Verlag Otto Lembeck, Frankfurt am Main, 2005, pp. 141-146.

52

Viorel Ioniță

und ihre politisch-gesellschaftliche Verantwortung heute). Așa cum precizează autorul încă din primul paragraf, referatul său este structurat în următoarele patru puncte: 1. Națiunea; 2. Biserica; 3. Biserică națională sau Biserici naționale și 4. Actualizarea privind Biserica Ortodoxă Română. În legătură cu conceptul de națiune, autorul precizează co folosește acest concept cu referire la o anumită grupă de oameni, determinată etnic, lingvistic, cultural și juridic, oameni care locuiesc un teritoriu mai mult sau mai puțin unitar. În mod normal, într-un stat trăiesc mai multe națiuni și în acest caz se pot distinge mai multe situații, anume una în care într-un stat trăiesc mai multe națiuni egale din punct de vedere numeric; iar o altă situație este dată într-un stat în care trăiește o națiune mai mare, majoritară, și alta sau mai multe națiuni minoritare. Națiunea majoritară împrumută formațiunii statale respective caracterele sale fundamentale, fără ca prin aceasta să prejudicieze identitatea națiunilor minoritare. Cu privire la Biserică autorul subliniază că aceasta este comuniunea cu Dumnezeu, desăvârșită și restaurată prin Iisus Hristos în Duhul Sfânt, care pe parcursul existenței sale pământești este constituită din persoane individuale în mod inevitabil fragmentar, dar care indică fără întrerupere spre comuniunea eshatologică deplină. Această comuniune indică totdeauna spre oameni individuali ca persoane și spre legătura lor în interiorul comuniunii, care are deci o dimensiune personal-individuală și una personal-comunitară, care sunt complementare și se condiționează reciproc. Cel de al treilea punct din acest referat cu referire la conceptele de Biserică națională sau Biserici naționale include subpunctele următoare: 1. Bisericile Ortodoxe naționale; 2. Bisericile Naționale; 3. Biserica națională / Bisericile naționale și 4. Concluzii. Cu privire la Bisericile Ortodoxe naționale să arată că acestea s-au format în decursul istoriei prin faptul că la nivel local ele au luat un caracter etnic-lingvistic și au contribuit la formarea statelor naționale respective. În acest proces s-a ajuns la o împreună-creștere dintre caracteristicile etnice și existența bisericească. De aici au apărut și diferențele culturale dintre diferitele Biserici Ortodoxe locale, deși din punct de vedere dogmatic, liturgic și din punctul de vedere al disciplinei bisericești ele sunt identice. De remarcat este și contribuția determinantă a acestor Biserici la formarea specificității popoarelor în mijlocul cărora și-au desfășurat activitatea. Acest fenomen este specific și în cazul României, dar are atât un aspect pozitiv, cât și unul negativ, prin aceea că influența credinței asupra vieții concrete a credincioșilor a scăzut și aceasta se vede și în creșterea mare a numărului avorturilor din această țară după revoluția din 1989. Cu privire a conceptul de Biserici naționale autorul afirmă că în cadrul unui singur stat pot să existe mai multe grupări etnice, mai multe națiuni, care au fost marcate de credința lor creștină și au dezvoltat o identitate bisericească proprie. Acest fenomen este mai evident atunci când aceste diferite națiuni se deosebesc între ele și din punct de vedere confesional. După reformă și până la apariția

Contribuția Părintelui Prof. Dr. Dorin Oancea

53

Bisericii unite, sașii din Ardeal au fost legați de identitatea evanghelică, iar românii de cea ortodoxă. În acest sens se poate spune că structurile bisericești respective au un caracter național și ele reprezintă „Biserici naționale”. Un alt caz este atunci când în cadrul aceluiaș stat și în cadrul aceleiași comunitate etnică să exite două Biserici, care în decursul istoriei au marcat caracterul acelui popor și atunci aceste Biserici pot să revendice fiecare denumirea de „Biserică națională”, chiar dacă una este majoritară și alta minoritară, cum este cazul dintre Biserica Ortodoxă Română și Biserica Română Unită cu Roma din Ardeal. În punctul al treilea referitor la raportul dintre Biserica națională și Bisericile naționale se face referire concretă la situația din statele în care una dintre biserici se află într-o situație evident majoritară și în comparație cu celelalte biserici a marcat în mod decisiv specificul statului respectiv, astfel că în acest caz în raport cu statul respectiv se poate vorbi despre o Biserică națională. O astfel de situație este specifică pentru statul român, în care definirea Bisericii Ortodoxe Române ca „Biserică națională” se face în primul rând în raport cu statul. În concluziile la acest capitol se arată că expresia de „Biserică națională” are două înțelesuri pe deplin îndreptățite amândouă, atât fiecare biserică determinată etnic în interiorul unui stat, cât și însemnătatea specifică unei anumite biserici pentru existența statului respectiv. În ultima parte a referatului său, Părintele Oancea s-a concentrat asupra situației speciale din România, când solicitarea Bisericii Ortodoxe Române de a fi recunoscută prin constituție ca Biserică națională era foarte criticată mai ales de către comunitățile creștine minoritare din această țară. Referentul preciza însă de la început faptul că Biserica Ortodoxă Română a cerut această recunoaștere din perspectiva faptului că ea a determinat devenirea și ființa poporului român, apoi a statului român. În acest sens el se referă la scrisoarea oficială a Patriarhului Teoctist din aanul 1999 către primministrul de atunci al României, prin care se preciza că recunoașterea Bisericii Ortodoxe Române ca Biserică națională nu însemna în niciun caz acordarea unui statut privilegiat pentru această Biserică în dauna celorlalte biserici din România. Părintele Profesor Oancea consideră că recunoașterea cererii statutului de Biserică națională poate fi obținută numai în acord cu alte „Biserici naționale” și numai prin dialog poate o Biserică majoritară să convingă că bisericile minoritare nu vor fi dezavantajate, ci dimpotrivă vor putea ajunge la deplina lor dezvoltare. III. Alegerea temelor tratate în cadrul dialogului teologic oficial dintre BOR și EKD a fost direct determinată de situația politico-socială a celor două țări în care acestea își desfășoară misiunea lor. Definirea temelor respective se făcea în de comun acord între reprezentanții celor două biserici, deși înițiativa a aparținut totdeauna părții germane. Astfel în perioada dintre anii 1979 - 1991 toate temele discutate în cardul acestui dialog au avut un caracter strict dogmatic, eventual cu implicații pastorale, dar în niciun caz cu implicații sociale

54

Viorel Ioniță

sau politice. Această precauțiune s-a datorat tot partenerului german, iar partea română a putut observa acest lucru abia mai târziu, anume prin intenția evidentă, chiar dacă nu era niciodată clar exprimată, de a se evita teme care să implice raportarea sau chiar intrarea în contact cu autoritatea de stat din România de atunci, cu care partea germană nu voia să aibă nimic de a face. Dacă alte întruniri sau conferințe bisericești din acei ani veneau în contact cu Departamentul Cultelor, sau cu alte instituții publice românești, întrunirile de dialog BOR-EKD, desfășurate în România în acea prioadă (1980 la Iași și respectiv 1985 la Techirghiol) s-au desfășurat într-un cadru exclusiv bisericesc, fără niciun fel de implicație sau conotație politică, ceea ce a asigurat supraviețuirea și continuitatea acestui dialog după schimbările politica din România în anii 1989-1990. După anul 1990 atât EKD cât și BOR au fost interesate să discute teme tot mai mult din domeniul „Biserică și societate”, cum au fost misiunea lor într-o lume secularizată sau responsabilitatea lor în procesul de integrare europeană. La definirea temelor din această perioadă delegații români au fost atenți ca temele alese să nu devină pur sociale sau etico-sociale, astfel că s-au găsit formulări în care ambii parteneri să fie mulțumiți cu rezultatele la care s-a ajuns. Contribuția principală a Părintelui Profesor Dorin Oancea la dialogul BOR-EKD a apărut exact în perioada în care tematica acestui dialog aborda aspecte teologice cu impact social-politic pentru misiunea și poziționarea celor două biserici în contextul în care trăiau. Primul punct al acestei contribuții a constat în abordarea problemelor sociale din punct de vedere ortodox, abordare cu care teologii ortodocși români nu avuseseră ocazia să se familiarizeze în perioada precedentă, iar bibliografia ortodoxă în acest domeniu era extrem de rară. Teologul sibian a reușit de fiecare dată, așa cum am văzut mai sus, să formuleze o utilă interpretare ortodoxă a noii tematici. În al doilea rând, înainte de abordarea temelor distribuite lui, Părintele Oancea a purces totdeauna la clarificarea termenilor cheie pe care urma să-i folosească în prezentarea sa. Într-un dialog inter-cultural și în același timp inter-confesional, dar mai ales într-un dialog cu parteneri germani, care gândesc foarte precis și sistematic, primul principiu necesar este clarificarea termenilor, sau stabilirea uneltelor de lucru, cu atât mai mult cu cât termenii teologici din limba germană, atât cei de teologie sistematică și cu atât mai mult cei de etică-socială, sunt încărcați de diferite conotații, care dacă nu sunt luate în considerare cu precauție pot duce la multe confuzii și, deci, la o prezentare eronată a poziției ortodoxe. În acest sens, tânărul teolog ortodox sibian a știut să depășească astfel de pericole, mai întâi prin cunoștințele sale excelente de limbă germană, dar și prin familiarizarea sa cu metodologia dialogului inter-cultural și inter-confesional. O altă dificultate cu care s-a confruntat acest dialog pe o perioadă mai îndelungată a fost cea legată de hermeneutica teologică și biblică folosită de cele două delegații, dificultate care nu a putut fi ușor depășită, mai ales pentru faptul că principiile hermeneutice dintre cele două tradiții teologice sunt foarte

Contribuția Părintelui Prof. Dr. Dorin Oancea

55

diferite. Teologia evanghelică germană folosește în hermeneutica biblică fără rezerve metoda istorico-critică, iar în hermeneutica teologică principiile reformatorilor, respectiv cele intitulate sola scriptura și sola gratia. Dificultățile legate de aspectele hermeneutice ale acestui dialog au fost subliniate cu prilejul evaluării dialogului de un comitet special în anul 1998, când s-a constatat că discuțiile privind aspectele hermeneutice nu au fost suficiente și că găsirea unei hermeneutici biblice comune în acest dialog rămâne încă un desiderat. Cu toate acestea s-a precizat că abordarea biblică în ambele tradiții teologice nu se face absolut independent de alți factori, cum este autoritatea Sfinților Părinți ai Bisericii pentru ortodocși și autoritatea reformatorilor pentru evanghelici. Iar în legătură cu principiul protestant de sola scriptura s-a constatat că în teologia evanghelică Biblia nu este folosită ca și când în afară de ea nu ar mai exista alte autorități de credință. Clarificarea acestor aspecte în dialogul BOR-EKD a fost facilitată de teologii ortodocși români, cum a fost Părintele Profesor Oancea Dorin, care erau familiarizați cu teologia protestantă ca să o poată face accesibilă gândirii teologice ortodoxe. În sfârșit, o dificultate generală în dialogul ortodox-protestant la diferite niveluri, nu numai cel dintre BOR și EKD, a constat în faptul că mulți teologi ortodocși porneau la prezentarea poziției ortodoxe printr-o confruntare cu unul sau mai mulți teologi protesatnți luați, de cele mai multe ori, la întâmplare, iar poziția ortodoxă era prezentată în contrast cu cea protestantă, care era aspru criticată. Această metodologie, întâlnită la început și în dialogul BOR-EKD, ducea aproape automat la o stare de iritare în rândurile delegațiilor protestante, mai ales că membrii acestora nu se recunoșteau în teologia propestantă luată drept criteriu de partenerul ortodox. Părintele Profesor Dorin Oancea a adus o valorasă contribuție în dialogul BOR-EKD și în această privință, nu numai prin faptul că a evitat orice confruntare inutilă cu teologia protestantă, ci și prin aceea că a căutat totdeauna, așa cum s-a putut vedea mai sus, punctele de contact între cele două tradiții. Astfel, teologul ortodox sibian a contribuit la succesul acestui dialog, succes evidențiat în mai multe rânduri în evaluările reprezentanților EKD.

CONVERGENCES IN ARCHIMANDRITE ANDRÉ SCRIMA’S AND REV. DORIN OANCEA’S THINKING Codin ŞIMONCA-OPRIŢA The Orthodox Theological Seminary of Arad

In 1993, in honor of Father Dumitru Stăniloae at the 90 years of age the volume Persoană şi comuniune (Person and Communion) has been published with the blessing of the Metropolitan bishop Antonie Plămădeală, on the initiative of the dean of „Andrei Şaguna” Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Rev. Mircea Păcurariu, under the care of the Assistant Lecturer deacon Ioan I. Ică jr. Among the contributions to this valuable volume, except for those of Patriarch Teoctist, metropolitan bishop Antonie, Kalistos Ware of Diokleia, Serafim Joantă Făgărăşanul and Christoph Klein, I would like to mention the articles of some reverends professors such as Mircea Păcurariu, Dumitru Abrudan, Ion Bria, Olivier Clément, Boris Bobrinskoy, Tomaš Špidlik, Adolf Martin Ritter, Ilie Moldovan, Dumitru Popescu, Constantin Galeriu, Ioan I. Ică, Ioan I. Ică jr., Aurel Jivi, Constantin Voicu, Vasile Mihoc as well as of professors: Virgil Cândea, Karl Christian Felmy, Hermann Pitters and of many others. Rev. Dorin Oancea contributed the important study “Unitatea vieţii religioase şi pluralitatea formelor ei de expresie – o perspectivă comunicaţională” (“The unity of religious life and the plurality of its forms of expression - a communicational perspective”1). Starting from the explicit formulated query: “If there is only one God, why are there so many different religions, so many forms of expression of the religious life?” [OANCEA, 1993, p. 477], Rev. professor gives a “both apologetic and missionary” gracious answer. In fact, there is a double question: 1. can we identify a unity of the manifestations of the religiosity of people everywhere and from all periods of history? And 2. Whence does the existent diversity derive? Rev. Oancea bases his answers on the revelation expressed in the first chapters of the Book of Genesis, as Justin the Martyr and Philosopher, Clement of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil of Caesarea, Origen and Ambrose of Milan, St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Symeon the New Theologian did. From the very beginning, he introduces the syntagm “partialized communion” used also in the courses delivered by him as professor for the History and Philosophy of Religion at the Faculty of Theology in Sibiu, meaning the 1

“Die Einheit des Religiösen Lebens und die Vielfalt seiner Ausdrucksformen. Eine kommunikatorische Perspektive”, in Persoană şi comuniune (Person and Communion), p. 501.

58

Codin Şimonca Oprița

“religious degradation” (as Rev. Petru Rezuş used to call it) as a consequence of man’s sin and opacity against God. He also carries out a concise and critical analysis of some contributions outside of the theological research, which aim a certain scientific objectivity of the approach. However, he mentions researches conducted by Max Müller, Edward Tylor, Sigmund Freud, or Carl Gustav Jung, affected by evolutionist handicap, in order to emphasize that they cannot withstand a serious analysis, because of their considerable fallacies from the perspective of the cognitive structure and internal coherence. Rudolf Otto is also mentioned especially with his famous work Das Heilige. He identifies an a priori factor, specific to man generally, with the help of which man has the experience of sacred (numinous). This a priori factor confers a unitary character of the people’s religious experiences everywhere and of all time. However, the differences are due to the diversity of the historical and geographical settings, in which this religious experience happens. Rev. Oancea notes that despite the coherence of the system proposed by Rudolf Otto, from the Christian perspective, he analyzes only the human experience after man’s fall into sin and thus, it is devoid of completeness. Therefore, Rev. Prof. Oancea aims to analyze this topic and to offer exactly this completeness. Father’s approach is double contrived, namely from the external and the inner part of the religious phenomenon. The novelty of his approach is given by the use of specific instruments taken from modern epistemology – for the external perspective. It is the systems theory combined with the aspects of communication theory; therefore, we speak about a systemic communicational perspective. Moreover, in order to analyze the religious phenomenon from inside, as we have already mentioned, Rev. Oancea substantiates his step with a fundamental text on the religious phenomenon of humanity, namely the first three chapters of Genesis. “We are convinced that in order to give a satisfying answer to the interrogation that accompanies us, it should be started from a well-functioning initial level of the human existence, not from a subsequent distorted one, as Otto does”. [OANCEA, 1993, p. 480] Thus, the biblical text is analyzed from the systemic communicational perspective (which in the classical theological research aria is perfectly compatible with the allegorical interpretation of the sacred text). From this point of view, the Book of Genesis begins by building a closed system (every religion is such a closed system), which is naturally called by Rev. Oancea Existence. Some subsystems are embedded in it and they interrelate very clearly and especially communicate on “some precise communicational paths, forming some systems of communication”, which at their turn form a situation. Hence, there come as a result both the analysis of the referred communicational reality and the changes that it supports at a specific moment. [OANCEA, 1993, p. 481] The author of the study identifies the following systems, which are distinct from one another, but interrelated: 1. God (who initially occupied the entire plan of Existence); 2. Heaven; 3. the Earth,

Convergences Scrima and Oancea

59

the last two appearing as a result of the action of the first. A transfer of information happens from the first one to the others two. The Earth subsystem is subjected to God’s action of structuring. These subsystems (God, Earth and Heaven) can be classified too, in two subsystems called Creative Existence and Created Existence (consisting of Heaven and Earth). Regarding the Earth there are identified another three subsystems: the unliving world, the living world and man. The relation between God and Earth has a permanent character. Therefore, Rev. Oancea highlights that the communicational perspective makes the existential entity Earth not to be defined only by itself, by its nature, but by its relations, because without the permanent communication between the Uncreated Existence and the Created Existence Earth (and Heaven) would not be; therefore, this communication is a constitutive part of the Created Existence. Moreover, the informational exchange between God and Earth happens differently: in a certain way with the unliving world, in a different way with the living world and a personal dialogical exchange with man called by Rev. Oancea communion (assimilated to the syntagm religious life) [cf. OANCEA, 1993, p. 497]. Therefore, we can speak about an informational hierarchy, in which man, by the way he was created, benefits from a communicational dimension oriented towards the Creative Existence (that configured his way of communication with the other subsystems, namely with the living and the unliving world). The communion, namely the informational exchange between God and man, consists of the interrogation of God, and the answer that man gives to it. The option to oppose communion is contrary to man’s nature. God also communicates indirectly with man (and man with God also) through the living and unliving world. In the first stage of man’s being, (both direct and indirect) communion is maximally accomplished, for man responds to God’s interrogation with all the information that he received. Father Oancea calls this first stage of communion, integral communion. [cf. OANCEA, 1993, p. 486] This integral communion refers mainly to both the relation between God and man and between man and the other creatures, regarding especially the interpersonal relationships. Reverend Professor notes a second stage in man’s history, when the communion becomes partialized. [cf. OANCEA, 1993, p. 487] The beginning of partializing was realized through what Theology uses to call the “ancestral sin” that has multiple meanings, out of which three are highlighted in the article. First: violating the commandment, man evades the indirect communion, after devilsnake’s intervention, namely the intervention of somebody belonging to the Heaven subsystem. Then, the violation of the commandment does not lead to the interruption of the God-man communion, but partialized it (the visual element disappears – from man’s perspective but the verbal one is kept), although the integrality of the initial communion is deeply affected. Finally:

60

Codin Şimonca Oprița

God establishes for man a new existential settings. Further, Rev. Oancea analyzes the partialized communion in terms of the content and informational exchange (in the moment of transmission and reception). He notes that the dialogue continues to remain even after the fall of man, precisely because this communication is constitutive of man through his creation, by the way he was created, and therefore, the content of communication between God and man is preserved. In this content, there is the first reason of a certain unity of the religious manifestations of all people. Quantitatively, the exchanged information remains the same, but a part of information flow is diverted from the natural direction, oriented towards a certain system and therefore, directed to another subsystem: a part of the information that man should have directed towards God, is redirected to the Earth, namely towards God’s creatures. Thus, this is how the partialized communion between man and God appears: “the information that previously circulated on the God-man trajectory, has been reoriented by man towards the circuits that link with the other creatures” [OANCEA, 1993, p. 491] In other words, what man should have conveyed to God, he conveyes to creatures. He falsely conferred, for example, the power of theosis (deification) on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; or he also falsely conferred the bush he sat behind the function of shielding that it had never before, in the vision of God. In these situations, he falsely sacralized the elements of the created world. Actually, man redirected the information that he should have directed to God both towards evil spiritual forces (that belong to Heaven subsystem), namely, the devil and towards the other creatures (elements that belong to the Earth) and towards himself. Rev. Oancea ends his study with the presentation of similarities and differences between the two stages of God-man communion: the integral communion and the partialized communion, in terms of quantity and quality of the informational exchange. Therefore, the amount of the exchanged information remains constant; the paths on which it is achieved are different from one phase to another. The common elements of the two types of communion for each of them are because “an essential part of the initial communion can never be diverted from its natural path”. [OANCEA, 1993, p. 497] Moreover, the content of information, although hijacked (from God to the “serpent”) remains the same. On the other hand, the differences between the two stages of communion “refer to the human communication partner: first, it is naturally oriented exclusively to God; secondly, the specific information is directed totally unnatural towards the three groups of creatures already mentioned”. [OANCEA, 1993, p. 497] The conclusions of this study are obvious: “the unity of manifestation forms of the religious life is based on the fundamental communion between God and man, which outlasts every attempt of partializing. [...] ...the concrete manifestations of religious life are always elements of the Created Existence, sacralized by a partial reorientation of the God-man constitutive communication towards the negative spiritual worlds, towards the human being itself and towards the other creatures; considering the three interrelated directions, it can

Convergences Scrima and Oancea

61

be observed a preponderance of human”. [OANCEA, 1993, p. 499] Therefore, the “extraordinary diversity of the individual manifestations of religious life is due to the relationship between the real communion between man and God and the God-man specific information equated to creatures”. [OANCEA, 1993, p. 500] We dare here a very brief critical analysis. The structure proposed by Rev. Oancea is based on the axiomatic statement: The analysis is made from the perspective of accepting the Orthodox Theology truth. This means on one hand an apparent reduced availability2 (for those who accept the truth of the Orthodox Church), on the other hand a great benefit in respect of understanding the answer to the initial question, from the Orthodox Christian perspective. Hence, the transition from the philosophy of religions to the (Orthodox) theology of religions. In other words, we receive the answer to the question ‘How does the Orthodox Theology understand the religious pluralism?’. Rev. Prof. Dorin Oancea’s approach is unique in its way, in the Romanian Orthodox Theology research field and thus, it is priceless. *** On the other hand, although in different contexts and many years before, Archimandrite Father André Scrima systematically uses, as we shall see further, thematic approaches related to the philosophy and theology of religions, and moreover, the same concepts, patterns of thinking and even the same wordings as later Rev. Oancea will do. Thus, we find in the Archimandrite Father André Scrima’s writings on several occasions, one of the keywords that Rev. Oancea will later use: „sectarian religion is driven by social frustrations to which it gives substitutive responses and, therefore, partial, non-authentic.” [SCRIMA, f.a., p. 317] In another place, he speaks about Karl Marx: „He did not see, especially him, who secularized the prophetic and messianic elan of Christianity by transferring the messianic expectation into the history”. [SCRIMA, d. 1960, p. 77] See the false sacralization in different terms! In a text that prefaces the Romanian translation of the Islamic version of Frithjof Schuon’s book The Transcendental Unity of Religions, André Scrima 2

We are talking about an only apparently reduced availability because as Rev. Prof. Dorin Oancea, clearly asserts, in order to understand a certain religious reality (in this case of the whole of humanity) it is necessary to consider “a fundamental text convinced that it has an allembracing character, with explanatory value for all forms of man’s religious manifestations. [...] ...in general, in the Holy Scripture there are revealed all the necessary elements to solve this kind of problems, no matter what they are; and on the other hand religion is a human permanence, therefore a basic approach as the present one, has to consider a fundamental text of the beginnings”. [OANCEA, 1993, p. 480]

62

Codin Şimonca Oprița

discusses precisely the theme approached by Father Oancea, in very similar terms: “The transcendent does not belong to the world but keeps the world. It is on omni tenens side, but not on omni potens side (do we still need to remind the Orthodox iconography where the Pantocrator’s hand ‘holds’ in His blessing the world?): here is the meaning of the great tenderness of the transcendent, presence that comes not to compel, but to call the freedom of being to the heights. [...] ... extraordinary is especially Christ’s word at The Last Supper in St. John’s pericopae: «It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you» (John 16:7). We would dare to say how amazing is this retreat of transcendence manifested in human body – for it itself, unseen to be able to come back, in fully freedom, «hiding» in the renewed man’s image. The Eastern Tradition names this Spirit: «who art in all places and fillest all things». It traces the horizon of true transcendence, which now flows everywhere in the immanent world”. [SCRIMA, 1994, pp. 13-14] Thus, if the transcendence (namely, the Spirit, according to the Eastern Christianity) is everywhere, it means consequently that the Spirit should be also sought in other religious places, more correctly in all the others, simply because He is there. Is it not a way to assert that the partialization of the communion does not mean its total loss? (Although father Scrima’s text refers to another historical era, namely after Christ and especially to the time after His Ascension to Heaven and after the sending of the Holy Spirit into the world, we think that our statement is as valid as it refers to other religious spaces, to all the others that have not received Christ, but in essence, are subjected to the same conditions of evaluation). Critically referring to the Western Christianity’s understanding of the relationship between nature and grace, inherited from Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas (actually, a constant of the Romanian Orthodox textbooks of Dogmatics3), the Archimandrite Father Andrei Scrima notes: „We thus arrive at 3

See, for instance, the classic manual for Theological Institutes, Teologia Dogmatică şi Simbolică, (Dogmatic and Symbolic Theology), published by the Bible and Orthodox Mission Institute, Bucharest, 1958 (authors Prof. N. Chiţescu, Rev. Prof. Isidor Todoran and Rev. Prof. I. Petreuţă), 2nd vol., chapter Har şi libertate (Grace and Freedom, pp. 674-699), particularly the subchapters Doctrina Ortodoxă despre raportul între natură [creată] şi har (The Orthodox Doctrine of (Created) Nature and Grace, pp. 682-691), respectively Teorii Catolice despre raportul între natură şi har (Catholic Theories of the relation between Nature and Grace, pp. 674-682). The theme is also approached by Rev. Prof. Dumitru Stăniloae, in his Teologie Dogmatică Ortodoxă (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology). In the second volume, he dedicates an entire chapter to this theme, titled Lucrarea Sfântului Duh sau harul dumnezeiesc şi colaborarea liberă a omului cu el (Holy Spirit’s Work or the divine grace and man’s free collaboration with it). Here he writes: “Definitely in man remained after the fall some good impulses to break the walls of his egoism and if he uses them, he opens himself to the grace that is offered him and this makes man able to easier receive God’s redeemable grace. As a dialogical being he remains in a kind of weaken dialogue with the Word. Therefore, we have to understand cases like that of Cornelius the centurion (Acts 10, 35). Some of the people used this power set within us by God, which makes our essence withstand sins and do good, more

Convergences Scrima and Oancea

63

what is viewed in the East as a fundamental axiom, which complements what has been formulated in the West [...]: the relation between nature and grace. Father Pegon, in his introduction to Maximus the Confessor, writes: While in the West, nature, distinct from grace or supernatural, has early come to name a vital principle or a the human being’s fundamental tendency more or less supernatural, Eastern spirituality seems to see in physis and hyperphysis only two stages of a single development of God’s plan. Nature, according to the Eastern Church Fathers is man-image of God, namely the abstract nature along with the prenatural gifts of the Western theologians». In East, it cannot be asserted that man is a nature to which God is added. On the contrary, man is, from the very beginning, oriented towards God. The original sin (distortion) blocked this way, but the human being still preserves something from the first destiny” [SCRIMA, d. 1960, pp. 56-57] André Scrima does even not say: „the nature to which the created grace is added” (according to the consecrated Catholic doctrine), but „to which God is added”. In other words, Scrima’s reformulated text would be “Even if the Westerns would say that God himself is added to the human nature it would not be enough”. It is exactly what Rev. Oancea says textually: “In this regard we can imagine even an extreme situation in which man would like to give up completely the communication with God. Even in this extreme situation, he will not be able to suspend the reception of information from God, because such a suspension would be equivalent to his disappearance from the plan of existence”. [OANCEA, 1993, pp. 488-489] Therefore, here we find the answer to the question regarding the common core of all peoples’ religious manifestations in the light of Christian-Orthodox understanding. In the same study (Fundamentele Ecleziologiei Răsăritene - Fundamentals of Eastern Ecclesiology) Archimandrite Andrei Scrima makes an attempt of theology of history, of hermeneutics of historical time of communism from the Christian-Orthodox perspective. “How did communism succeed to spread in Russia? [...] Marx thought that communism would be successful in Germany or England, but if it would be a country, in which it would surely fail, that would be Russia. Just because it was a country with a very poor industry. However, Marx was confuted. Why? He did not see, particularly him, who had secularized the prophetic and messianic elan of Christianity, by transferring the messianic expectation into history that especially this eschatological expectation was very strongly present among the Russian people”. [SCRIMA, a. 1960, p. 77]. Rev. Oancea would say it likewise: “Particularly Marx, who falsely sacralized the prophetic and messianic elan of Christianity by reorienting the information than by the others”. (Second edition, 1997, p. 206). We highlighted this paragraph, for it refers exactly to the reality approached by father Dorin Oancea, noting that the findings of his research go even further than father Stăniloae dares to assert (to be honest, in a manual of Dogmatic Theology for higher education). Moreover, it is well known that Rev. Oancea constantly returns to the same example of Cornelius the centurion, in his courses and seminaries.

64

Codin Şimonca Oprița

towards history instead of naturally orienting it towards the messianic expectation, did not see that among the Russian people, especially that eschatological expectation was very strongly present”. In an improvised lecture on the 29th of May, 1985, a reflective answer to Joseph Moingt’s homonym text (thus, the quotation mark in the title) presented in February, 1985 in Beirut, Father Scrima emphasized exactly the didactic lifelong step assumed by Rev. Prof. Dorin Oancea: “We would like, for instance, to highlight the importance of the beautiful paragraph (paragraph 16) regarding the «usefulness of the dialogue: seeking God beyond god and beyond the religious field», which in the conclusion of the text, is in agreement with what we thought appropriate to mention as methodological prolegomena, namely the absolute necessity of questioning ourselves in order to open the epistemological space of the meeting by setting it free from any prejudgment (Vorverstehen), in which our tendency to rule over the others could be circumscribed without realizing it. That determines us to say again how difficult and unexplored is by us, the Christians, the field of the genuine intellective knowledge and knowledge through faith of the great living traditions of experience and spiritual doctrine. We dare, from a strict personal point of view, to mention some eventual research topics meant to face a problematic future”. [SCRIMA, 1985, p. 99] Isn’t this exactly Rev. Oancea’s didactic and even gnosiological approach? Archimandrite Andrei Scrima’s vision match perfectly, even prophetically, in a certain sense to Rev. Oancea’s thought: father Scrima speaks here about “some elements of phenomenology or of «sein lassen» that permits the eclosion of the sense from its most intimate space of expression. Of course, such an attitude would not seldom lead to real conceptual or classical upheavals that we are not used to, yet. Bringing into relation, for instance, notions like salvation and (spiritual) liberation, personal God – impersonal God, history and eschatology, per Christum hominem tende ad Christum Deum”. [SCRIMA, 1985, p. 100] This distinction between the personal and the impersonal aspect of the divinity, of sacred, appears repeatedly in professor Oancea’s approaches, especially in the courses delivered by him. It is well known that analyzing various religions, Rev. Prof. Oancea also evaluates them by reference both to the personal sacred (represented in the Christian Revelation by faith in the three Persons of the Holy Trinity), and to the impersonal sacred (in Christianity, God the only one, The only true God; the only one essence of God). Therefore, we note that Rev. Oancea’s perspective to approach the discussed issues is in fact that of the Christian anthropology. In a rather uncomfortable dialogue (for somebody, who is used with the superficial ‘spiritual’ conversation; but it was not the case of Father Scrima) with Andrei Pleşu in the 1990s, father archimandrite Andrei questions even the idea of belonging to one or another religion, be it even Christianity, for religions are understood here as equal intra-historical phenomena in the eyes of God. Instead, he sees in “the

Convergences Scrima and Oancea

65

living man who lives [one religion or another], the man of faith” [SCRIMA, 1985, p. 121] the equality before the personal sacred represented by the Holy Trinity. We identify here an anthropological basis of the approach of the other religions from the Christian-Orthodox perspective, exactly as in Rev. Oancea’s courses: “For all eternity, we are ‘differently identical’ before God, if I can say so”. [SCRIMA, 1985, pp. 121-122] Is it relevant, as Rev. Oancea would say how every man or every religion activates the real communion between him respectively it and the Real God. However, father Scrima claims the encounter between theology itself (which refers to the Eternal Self-Existent God) and God’s iconomic plan (with the world created by Him; creation, incarnation, eschatology) expressed in anthropology (man, cosmos). (This topic of encounter between theology and economy is extremely relevant, as we will see further in the present study!) It is about a scheme identified by father Scrima in the core of the Byzantine tradition. Therefore, Theology is a “mystery of the Living God, of God himself. It is applied to the ineffable, unknowable, eternal God”. [SCRIMA, 1971-1972, p. 148] On the other hand, father Andrei Scrima points out in respect of the economy announced by St. Apostle Paul that “Christ revealed to us the mystery of his will (…) towards the administration of the fullness of the times, to head up all things in Christ – the things in heaven and the things on earth” (New American Standard Bible; or: “as a plan for the fullness…” – English Standard Version; from the original: “εἰϛ οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρῶματος τῶν καιρῶν”) (Ephesians 1, 9-10). It is about “the revelation of the mystery that had been kept secret for long ages, but now is disclosed, and through the prophetic scriptures has been made known to all the nations, according to the command of the eternal God” (Romans 16, 25-26). Father Scrima also bring up Maximus the Confessor’s idea: “It was fitting for the Creator of the universe, who by the economy of his incarnation became what by nature he was not, to preserve without change both what he himself was by nature and what he became in his incarnation”. (Ad Thalassium 60. Translated by Paul Blowers and Robert Wilken in ‘On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ: Selected Writings from St. Maximus the Confessor’, (Popular Patristics Series. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2003). (Romanian version: Filocalia2 3, p. 331, Răsp. Thal. 60) “This mystery is foreknown, before all ages, only by the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit: by the Father as his loving plan, by the Son as his own work, by the Spirit as his cooperation”. (Ibidem, p. 333) Etymologically, economy means restoring the orderliness (nomos) of creation (oikos); the history of incarnation and redemption through Christ; through Him the orderliness (nomos) was restored in God’s creation (oikos), notes father Scrima. Moreover, he asserts, „God’s economy is nothing but God’s selfcommunication to His creation”. [SCRIMA, 1973-1974, p. 200] “The salvation plan – as it is understood in Saint Paul’s writings –, the economy of salvation is found in the Scripture, which itself is the support of the signs that God’s puts

Codin Şimonca Oprița

66

through his revealed Word”. [SCRIMA, 1973-1974, p. 191] Therefore, for Andrei Scrima the economy of salvation means God’s revelation to his creature. Considering the I Corinthians 5, 7 („For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed”) Father Scrima speaks about the stages of economy. God creates the world, revealed Himself in it, gives the Scripture, takes on a fleshly, bodily form, moves across his Passover, passing through death and overcoming it; Christ is our Passover means that the whole cosmic dimension (that of the first stage of the economy) is included from now on in Christ the Risen One. He remains from now on God’s liturgical word. In other words, economy goes from a cosmic level (where the gift - through which God is revealed - is the cosmos, the shaping of creation; the level to which cosmic liturgy corresponds) to another level of significance where the gift is the Word, namely the meaning of the form, the significance of it. Thus, God’s economy has several steps: First Step: creation – cosmos – form; Second Step: Word – Logos – meaning – significance (the person who has seen Him has seen the Father – The Son reveals the Father); Third Step: The Holy Spirit (Who achieves God’s last revelation; Christ is perceived as Lord only in the Holy Spirit – I Corinthians 12, 3; The Spirit reveals the Son); Forth Step: man, in whom the Holy Spirit is manifested. [cf. SCRIMA, 19731974, pp.202-204].

Therefore, God’s economy “culminates by a presence in every man’s sanctuary: the presence of God’s last communication that is the Holy Spirit”. [SCRIMA, 1973-1974, p. 204] („The last communication” because the Holy Spirit is the “meaning” of the Word). “The Spirit is the point towards which any theological discourse aims.” [SCRIMA, 1971-1972, p. 174] In this way, we naturally move from economy to theology: “the sense that [the Byzantine liturgy] is continuously seeking in economy is the passage from economy to theology”. [SCRIMA, 1971-1972, p. 140] The starting point of the new economy (new comparing with that of the Old Testament) is The Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos, God’s new Temple, into the Temple of the Old Testament. [cf. SCRIMA, 1971-1972, p. 140] In the Old Testament epiphanies reveals God’s plan (the economy) regarding His people. [SCRIMA, 1971-1972, p. 130] However, Septuagint avoids using this term and prefers paraphrases („the vision of the image / likeness of the glory of God). Father Scrima interprets this as a silence of the word ‘epiphany’, waiting for its proper use: in The New Testament – the Baptism of Jesus. In the New Testament, it becomes synonym with ‘arrival’: Parousia, for God enters the reality of history. [cf. SCRIMA, 1971-1972, p. 131] André Scrima notes that St. Apostle Paul uses even the two terms together: „the manifestation of His arrival” (“τῇ ἐπιφανεία τῆς παρουσίας αὐτῦ”) (II Thessalonians 2, 8). “Concrete arrival of God’s manifestation in Jesus Christ”. [SCRIMA, 1971-1972, p. 131] Actually, it is about God’s arrival (the first in history and the second one is eschatological),

Convergences Scrima and Oancea

67

which is all the time epiphany. The both epiphanies are God’s heavenly arrivals. (Luke 1, 78: „the Sunrise shall visit us from high”). On the other hand, the economy according to Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite is nothing but theophany in act: „True metaphysician of the theophany, Dionysius shows how God is omnipresent though his revealed providence, which are nothing but He himself, pouring out of himself, God «ad extra» próodos Theós. The creatures participate in precise ways – which are also ways of knowledge – to the Godhead that underlies this processions and it is not diminished by them”. [SCRIMA, 1951-1952, p. 75] In other words, theology is somehow equivalent to the essence, and economy of the uncreated energies, “his multiple and multiform, communicable and comprehensible energies to the creature. Although truly distinct from the essence, the divine energy is indivisible from it, for it is the expression of the three hypostases’ common essence”. [SCRIMA, 1951-1952, p. 76] Regarding anthropology father Scrima notes: „The term deification [...] reveals us human being’s capacity to properly become a receiver subject of the divine life, namely to be capax Dei; hence, at this level, the entire issue moves its center of gravity from the theological field as such to the anthropological one”. [SCRIMA, 1951-1952, p. 97] “Incarnation according to the Orthodox patristics articulates directly with man’s profound structure, with both his inner face and destiny”. [SCRIMA, 1951-1952, p. 125] “The Christological category became the human being’s fundamental anthropological category”. [SCRIMA, 19511952, p. 132] God’s working time is “defined by the act of hosting the holiday. It is the time of Economy: the time that, taking the steps marked by particular liturgical days, aims to Theology (God’s manifestation of himself). There is an ascetic sense, but also and even better expressed, a synergic sense: God works through my own work” [SCRIMA, 1971-1972, p. 137] “Alienation – restauration [...] History – cosmos. Creative freedom and deification (theology and economy come together within man)”. [SCRIMA, 1971-1972, p. 148] “The Spirit is working from now on [since Pentecost] as an iconographer. He represents himself in the image of the fullness of all saints”. [SCRIMA, 1970-1971, p. 53] The “restauration”, the possibility of deification is nothing but a sort of return to man’s initial state, who was created in God’s ‘image’ to attain the ‘likeness’ to God. The question „What is man in his profoundness, in his uniqueness before God?” can be answered only by appealing to revelation. [SCRIMA, 1951-1952, p. 162] Thus, we find the point of theological perspective according to which man’s topic is “from the beginning firmly put in communion with God’s revelation”. [SCRIMA, 1951-1952, p. 161] This statement was formulated for the first time in 1956 in the Romanian theology (the year when Andrei Scrima passed the licence thesis examination. He included in his written paper implicitly this text elaborated even earlier, between 1951 and1956). Rev. Prof. Dorin Oancea of Sibiu brings up the topic in 1993 (the year of the publication of

Codin Şimonca Oprița

68

his article Unitatea Vieţii religioase şi pluralitatea formelor ei de expresie. O perspectivă comunicaţională/ The unity of religious life and the plurality of its forms of expression. A communicational perspective). See especially the phrase already cited: “To see the religious phenomenon within it, we will consider a fundamental text [...] namely the first three chapters of Genesis. [...] We are convinced that in order to give a satisfying answer to the interrogation that accompanies us, we should start from a well-functioning initial level of the human existence, not from a subsequent distorted one”. [OANCEA, 1993, p. 480] Or: “The content of information that starts from God refers to Him himself, to his creative and supporting action and to its result, respectively to the Created Existence, in which man is definitely included. Through it man is permanently told that he is created by God [...] that according to his creation he is called to communion with God and with the other people...” [OANCEA, 1993, p. 485] Communion with God is “maximally realized in a first instance, namely man answered the interrogation that comes from God together with all the information given to him in this respect from the first moment of his creation. We are talking here about integral communion between him and his creator. The biblical accounts show us unequivocally that it could be realized only for a relatively short time; however, only its enunciation has an exceptional paradigmatic value in the perspective of any effort of a future communion”. [OANCEA, 1993, p. 486] Father Scrima also spoke about the “paradigm”: “a certain ontological dependence on its Paradigm [on man, the created image of God] (in other words, the essential necessity of «likeness») indwells the structure of the image”. [SCRIMA, 1951-1952, p. 112] We conclude our article with a ‘conceptual’ meeting between Scrima and Oancea on the methodological field of the history, philosophy and theology of religion. Both of them speak about the position of evaluation: from within or from outside; from within the religious phenomenon or from within a certain religion, or both of them. The analyzed issue can be considered as “an object, as an object of theological study” “somehow in an outer sense” [SCRIMA, 19731974, p. 183]. Both of them prefer a combination between an outer vision and an inner vision, favoring the last one. “We will attempt here a combination of the outer approach with an approach within the religious phenomenon”. [OANCEA, 1993, p. 480] This “way of understanding the relation among liturgy and theology (to which we will pay attention most often) consists in the fact that the Byzantine liturgical office - or any other liturgical office, respecting proportions and accents - is a theological place in itself because it expresses a theology in act. [...] Meaning that it unceasingly expresses a theological meditation, a theological insight into the knowledge of the revealed truth”. [SCRIMA, 1973-1974, p. 189] *** We think that the matching ideas, the encounters, coincidences, identities, similarities found in the two Romanian theologians’ works and approaches are

Convergences Scrima and Oancea

69

obvious. We also consider that a deep involvement in regard with the theology of religions has been extremely rare and occasionally in Romanian Theology. Hence, the relevance and the importance of the contributions of the two servants of the Romanian academic Theology, archimandrite André Scrima and Rev. Dorin Oancea, professor at „Andrei Şaguna” Faculty of Orthodox Theology in Sibiu, who meet each other in so many points.

Bibliography Scrima, André, Funcţia limbajului liturgic (The function of the liturgical language), [f.a.], in the volume “Biserica liturgică” (“Liturgical Church”), Anca Manolescu (ed.), translation from French, forward and notes by Anca Manolescu, preface by Mihail Neamţu, Humanitas Publishing House, Bucharest, 2005, pp. 316-319 [SCRIMA, f.a.] Scrima, André, Antropologia apofatică (Apophatic Anthropology), written in 19511952, in the volume “Antropologia apofatică” (“Apophatic Anthropology”), Vlad Alexandrescu (ed.), Humanitas Publishing House, Bucharest, 2005, pp. 15-157 [SCRIMA, 1951-1952] [translated into English: Aphophatic Antropology. An English Translation, translated by Octavian Gabor, Gorgias Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016] Scrima, André, Fundamentele Ecleziologiei Răsăritene (The Foundations of the Eastern Ecclesiology), [’60 of 20th century], in the volume „Duhul Sfânt şi Unitatea Bisericii. Jurnal de Conciliu” (“Holy Spirit and the Unity of the Church. Log of the Council”), foreword by Olivier Clemént, preface by H.-R. Patapievici, Bogdan Tătaru-Cazaban (ed.), translated texts by Măriuca Alexandrescu, Dan Săvinescu, Larisa and Gabriel Cercel, Bogdan Tătaru-Cazaban, Bucharest, Anastasia Publishing House, 2004, pp. 38-86 [SCRIMA, d. 1960] Scrima, André, Teologia oficiului liturgic bizantin, curs susţinut în anul academic 19701971 (Theology of the Byzantine Liturgical Office), course delivered in the academic year 1970-1971 at the Institute of Liturgy, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, Lebanon, in the volume “Biserica liturgică” (“Liturgical Church”), Anca Manolescu (ed.), translation from French, forward and notes by Anca Manolescu, preface by Mihail Neamţu, Humanitas Publishing House, 2005, pp. 45-118 [SCRIMA, 1970-1971] Scrima, André, Epifania în tradiţia liturgică bizantină (Epiphany in the Byzantine Liturgical Tradition), course delivered by father André Scrima in the academic year 1971-1972, at the Institute of Liturgy, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, Lebanon, in the volume “Biserica liturgică” (“Liturgical Church”), Anca Manolescu (ed.), translation from French, forward and notes by Anca Manolescu, preface by Mihail Neamţu, Humanitas Publishing House, 2005, pp. 119-175 [SCRIMA, 1971-1972] Scrima, André, Liturgica bizantină a Cincizecimii (The Byzantine Liturgics of Pentecost), course delivered in the academic year 1973-1974 at the Institute of Liturgy, Holy Spirit University of Kaslik, Lebanon, in the volume “Biserica liturgică” (“Liturgical Church”), Anca Manolescu (ed.), translation from French,

70

Codin Şimonca Oprița

forward and notes by Anca Manolescu, preface by Mihail Neamţu, Humanitas Publishing House, 2005, pp. 176-315 [SCRIMA, 1973-1974] Scrima, André, „Religii ale mântuirii şi mântuire în Iisus Hristos” (“Religions of salvation and salvation in Jesus Christ”), in the volume “Teme ecumenice” (“Ecumenical Topics”), Humanitas Publishing House, Bucharest, 2004, pp. 88-103 [SCRIMA, 1985] Scrima, André, Un test ultim al faptului religios. André Scrima în dialog cu Andrei Pleşu (A Last Test of the Religious Act. André Scrima in dialogue with Andrei Pleşu), in the volume “Teme ecumenice” (“Ecumenical Topics”), Humanitas Publishing House, Bucharest, 2004, pp. 104-138 [SCRIMA, 1993] Scrima, André, Cuvânt înainte la cartea lui Frithjof Schuon, Despre unitatea transcendentă a religiilor (Foreword to Frithjof Schuon’s book: The Transcendent Unity of Religions), new edition, revised and added, translation by Anca Manolescu, Humanitas Publishing House, Bucharest, 1994, pp. 5-18 [SCRIMA, 1994] Oancea, Diacon Lector Dorin, Unitatea vieţii religioase şi pluralitatea formelor ei de expresie. O perspectivă comunicaţională (The Unity of Religious Life and the Plurality of Its Forms of Expression - a Communicational Perspective), in the volume „Persoană şi comuniune. Prinos de cinstire Părintelui Academician Dumitru Stăniloae la împlinirea vârstei de 90 de ani” (“Person and Communion. Homagial volume dedicated to the Academician Father Dumitru Stăniloae at the 90 years of age”), printed with the blessing of the Metropolitan bishop Antonie Plămădeală, on the initiative of the dean of „Andrei Şaguna” Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Rev. Mircea Păcurariu; Assistant Lecturer deacon Ioan I. Ică jr. (ed.), Sibiu, 1993, pp. 477-501 [OANCEA, 1993] (Translated from Romanian by Maria Curtean)

DORIN OANCEA’S CHRISTOCENTRIC PERSONALIST PLURALISM A CHRISTIAN ORTHODOX THEOLOGY OF RELIGIONS Alina PĂTRU Orthodox Theological Faculty, „Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu / University of Hannover

Dorin Oancea’s theological profile is very complex. While his friends and collaborators from different parts of the world know him primarily as a bridgebuilder between Eastern and Western Christian traditions, for his students he is the author of a comprehensive religious-philosophical model that seeks to explain the whole complexity of religious life. This theological construct is anchored both in the tradition of Christian Orthodox thought, with strong Biblical and Patristic roots, and in the intellectual currents of his time, such as systems theory and communication theory, Jung's analytical psychology, credition research, ecological theory and practice, and in his own observation of religious dynamics. At the same time, Oancea’s thinking is new and fresh, and presents us with an authentic theological achievement. Oancea is a scholar working with the methods and in the spirit of the Church Fathers. He does so consciously and with purpose: again and again he has emphasized that it is the duty of Orthodox theologians to pursue theological reflection in the spirit of the Fathers rather than a clinging to the letter. The Fathers of the Church, in tremendous gestures of intellectual courage and humility, were able to address the problems of their time in their own intellectual language and to present solutions arising from their confrontation with the Christian faith. Oancea aims to do the same, convinced that only in this way can he remain true to his theological vocation. While the preceding study by Codin Șimonca-Oprița has outlined the basis of Oancea’s theological-philosophical model, I would like to address one of its high points here, namely Oancea’s reponse to the central question of the Christian theology of religions, which examines the salvation of non-Christians from a Christian point of view. This has been a lifelong concern for Oancea, leading to the gradual construction of his own Christian-Orthodox theology of religions,which is a self-contained and fully articulated model, one that is unique in the Christian-Orthodox world. A central aim of this study is to promote this model by lifting it out of the relative obscurity of monographs and studies written mostly in Romanian,1 along with its exposition in lectures 1

See the following monographs, which cover parts, but not the whole, of Oancea’s model: După chip şi asemănare. Structuri şi dinamici primordiale (In His Image and Likeness.

Alina Pătru

72

delivered to his students,2 so that it might gain the full recognition that it deserves within the intellectual community at large. While it is only possible to present a sketch of this model here, my contribution should be understood as a first step towards highlighting the importance of Oancea’s theoretical construct and making it better known, in the hope that this will be an incentive to further research and exploration.

The Christian Theology of Religions In order to situate Oancea’s model within its field, I shall begin with an introduction to the Christian theology of religions, which will clarify its terms and the questions it addresses. Christian reflection on other religions, on their value and soteriological capacity, is as old as Christianity itself. Traces of it can be found in many patristic writings.3 Nevertheless, the theology of religions as a distinctive field of research is relatively new, having emerged only after World War II, and gaining a decisive momentum in the wake of the 2nd Vatican Council. Coming into prominence as a “distinct theological subject” in the early 1970s,4 the theology of religions was quick to enjoy a boom in popularity. Recent years have witnessed a flourishing of studies in the field, mostly within

2

3

4

Primordial Structures and Dynamics), Sibiu: Publishing House of the Lucian Blaga University, 2002a; Despre cunoaştere. Cea de început (On Knowledge. The One of the Beginning), Sibiu: Publishing House of the Lucian Blaga University, 2002b; O istorie problematizată a marilor religii. I. Fiinţarea sacrului (A problematized history of the great religions. I. The Essence of the Sacred), Sibiu: Publishing House of the Lucian Blaga University, 2003a; and Raţionalitatea actului religios (The Rationality of the Religious Act), Sibiu: Publishing House of the Lucian Blaga University, 2003b. The model as a whole is to be found in Oancea’s course materials. Some of his more recent course materials are to be found on www.scribd.com. See: https://www.scribd.com/document/150370185/Curs-de-Filosofia-Religiilor, https://www.scribd.com/document/49566031/Curs-IFR-2010-2011-b-2, and https://www.scribd.com/document/134402016/Curs-Ifr-Oancea, all accessed 14.05.2019. These also show how Oancea's thinking has evolved over the years. Dorin Oancea has also conducted research on patristic thinking in this field. See the following studies: ‘Elemente de teologia religiilor la Sf.Grigorie de Nyssa I’ (‘Elements of the Theology of Religions in St. Gregory of Nyssa I’) in: Anuarul Facultăţii de Teologie Andrei Şaguna, Sibiu: Andreiana Publishing House, 2006; ‘Falsa sacralizare a lumii în Catehezele Sf.Chiril al Ierusalimului’ (‘The False Sacralization of the World in the Catecheses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem’), in: Constantin Necula (ed.) : Ale Tale dintru ale Tale, Liturghie – pastoraţie – mărturisire, Sibiu: Publishing House of the Lucian Blaga University, 2007; ‘Teologia Religiilor în Biserica Primară: Athenagoras, Sf. Justin Martirul, Origen’ (‘The Theology of Religion in the Early Church: Athenagoras, St. Justin the Martyr, Origenes’), in: Nicolae Mosoiu (ed.), Relevanţa operei Părintelui Profesor Ion Bria pentru viaţa bisericească şi socială actuală. Direcţii noi de cercetare în domeniul doctrinei, misiunii şi unităţii Bisericii, Sibiu: Publishing House of the Lucian Blaga University, 2010. Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, Maryknoll NY: Orbis, 1997, 2f.

Dorin Oancea’s Christocentric Personalist Pluralism

73

Western Christianity, with numerous publications aimed at an explanation of religious diversity and considerations on the possibility of salvation for nonChristian others. The object of this research field has been defined in various ways. According to Alan Race, the theology of religions is “that area of Christian studies which aims to give some definition and shape to Christian reflection on the theological implications of living in a religiously plural world”,5 “the endeavor to adumbrate ‘some doctrine of other religions’, to evaluate the relationship between the Christian faith and the faith of the other religions”.6 Veli-Matti Karkkainen has defined it as “that discipline of theological studies which attempts to account theologically for the meaning and value of other religions. Christian theology of religions attempts to think theologically about what it means for Christians to live with people of other faiths and about the relationship of Christianity to other religions.”7 For Perry Schmidt-Leukel, the theology of religions has to address two key questions: “How does Christianity understand and assess other religions? And: How does Christianity understand and assess itself in light of other religions?”8 In a narrow sense, however, the Christian theology of religions’ central question is of a soteriological nature. The theology of religions aims to analyze from a Christian point of view whether and how non-Christians might be saved. Since the 1980s, the different explanatory models have been divided into three major groups: the exclusivist, inclusivist and pluralist models.9 Exclusivists claim that salvation can be achieved only in relation to Jesus Christ and inside the Christian church, denying the possibility of salvation for all non-Christians. Inclusivists also bind salvation to the person of Jesus Christ, but stress that all humans on Earth are in relation to Him, even if they are not conscious of it. Non-Christian religions are viewed as deficient, as not fully able to grant salvation, which their members nevertheless obtain from their unconscious relation to Jesus Christ. Lastly, the pluralists affirm the universality of God’s soteriological will and the full soteriological capacity of other religions than Christianity. In most pluralist positions, salvation does not need to be related to the Person and activity of Jesus Christ. While this tripartite scheme has been contested by some scholars for a variety of reasons,10 there are others who defend it as a useful scientific tool11 and again 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

Alan Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism, New York: Orbis, 1982, ix. Ibid. 3 Veli-Matti Karkkainen, An Introduction To The Theology of Religions: Biblical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, Illinois: IVP Academics, 2003, 20. Perry Schmidt-Leukel, God Beyond Boundaries, Münster: Waxmann, 2017, 33. These were first outlined in: John Hick, ‘On Conflicting Religious Truth Claims’, Religious Studies 19, 1983, 485-491; and also in: Alan Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism. Patterns in the Christian Theology of Religions, London: SCM Press, 1983. Schmidt-Leukel, 2017, 69ff. Ibid. 60ff.

74

Alina Pătru

others who aim to enlarge it by demarcating intermediate or additional positions.12 One of the most sought-after intermediate positions lies in the area between inclusivism and pluralism. This has been occupied by theologians who strive to recognize the value and soteriological capacity of all religions while remaining faithful to the dogma of salvation only in Christ. Among the terms used to name this intermediate position are ‘pluralistic inclusivism’,13 ‘inclusive pluralism’,14 and the ‘acceptance model’.15 The best known figures associated with such a position are the Protestant theologian, Mark Heim,16 and the Catholic priest and theologian, Jacques Dupuis S.J.17 Mark Heim’s system is built upon the notion that there are several eschatological goals followed by the different religions, and from the Christian point of view he makes a distinction between penultimate and ultimate salvific ends.18 The penultimate salvific ends of the non-Christian religions are deemed as such because they inhabit certain aspects of God, admittedly in an intensified form, but do not know the fullness of God, which is contained only in the understanding of God as a Trinity.19 Thus, all non-Christian religions have a relevance to salvation, insofar as they connect people with one specific aspect of God and allow them a penultimate state in which they can live in a relationship with God, albeit in the limited form circumscribed by that religion.20 To remedy this situation of imperfection, Heim postulates that God exerts a pull towards full salvation, drawing in all those who are not held back by their own sins,21 so that members of non-Christian religions can also finally reach the ultimate salvific end. Jacques Dupuis goes one step further towards a pluralistic acceptance of other religions and affirms that the different religions are in a “relational interdependence”,22 as Christianity does not contain the whole truth and grace, but still needs the enrichment of, and transformation through the other 12 13

14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22

See e.g. the “acceptance model”, in: Paul Knitter, Introducing Theologies of Religions, Maryknoll: Orbis, 2002, 192-237. Mark Heim, Salvations: A More Pluralistic Hypothesis. In: Modern Theology 10, 1994, 341360, here: 355; Jacques Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions, Maryknoll: Orbis, 2002, 95, 255. Dupuis, 2002, 87ff. Knitter, 2002, 192ff. See Mark Heim, Is Christ the Only Way? Christian Faith in a Pluralistic World, Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1985; Salvations. Truth and Difference in Religion, Maryknoll: Orbis, 1995; The Depth of the Riches. A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends, Grand Rapids – Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2001. See Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, Maryknoll: Orbis, 1997. Heim, 1995, 165. Ibid. 165f. Heim, 2001, 19, 179. Ibid. 272ff. Dupuis, 1997, 204.

Dorin Oancea’s Christocentric Personalist Pluralism

75

religions.23 This is because the incarnation of the Logos in Jesus is not exhaustive, since Jesus is a human and bears the limitations specific to humans.24 The problem of the impossibility of holding the whole truth lies not only in the limited receptive capacity of the normal human being, but also in the limited capacity of the perfect human, Jesus, to mediate the whole truth while being a human. The richness of the Logos, as well as that of the Holy Spirit, is therefore divided between the different religions, and the Kingdom of God is greater than the Church.25 Religions are called to work together towards a convergence which will finally be reached only in the eschaton and which implies the subordination of all religions to Christ as the one Lord and the recognition of Him as the source of all truth.26 Here, Dupuis relies upon the distinction between the historical Jesus and the divine Christ. While all religions are paths to this final convergence and recognition, there remains a certain asymmetry. In Dupuis’ words, “whereas other religious traditions can find, and are destined to find, in the Christ event their fullness of meaning — but without being absorbed or dispossessed — the reverse is not true: God’s selfmanifestation and self-giving in Jesus Christ are not in need of a true completion by other traditions”.27 The positions of both Heim and Dupuis have been criticized in their claim to represent forms of inclusive pluralism by Perry Schmidt-Leukel, who unmasks them as mere forms of inclusivism. He identifies in Heim’s model the idea of the superiority of Christianity, which is deemed to hold “the truest description of God, so that the truth and potential salvific efficacy of other religions is graded according to how much or how little their conceptions of transcendent reality have in common with this most accurate description”,28 a position that adopts “the image of concentric circles, so characteristic for inclusivism”.29 As the other religions can only lead to penultimate salvific ends, they are also imperfect from a soteriological point of view. As for Dupuis, his statement quoted above on the Christ event also qualifies him as an inclusivist rather than a genuine pluralist. From my point of view, there is an internal, logical contradiction in Dupuis’ arguments. He is not consistent in distinguishing between the historical Jesus and the universal Christ; the latter is sometimes described as an apanage of Christianity, while at other times evoked as something wider than the person of Jesus and the content of his message. For Perry Schmidt-Leukel, both models are unconvincing, and the idea of a pluralistic inclusivism remains a logical impossibility.30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Ibid. 388f. Ibid. 298f. Ibid. 344f. Ibid. 389. Ibid. 257. Schmidt-Leukel, 2017, 131. Ibid. 130. Ibid. 136.

Alina Pătru

76

Dorin Oancea also aspires to such a position. Does he succeed in antinomically holding together the pluralist and the inclusivist claims? As we will see, Oancea fully valorizes other religions and acknowledges their soteriological significance, affirming that they are bearers of covenants between God and humanity, receivers of Revelation, and partakers in the communion with God. But he also believes that from the Christian point of view, the doctrines of Jesus Christ’s divine and human nature and the necessity of salvation through Him alone are absolutely obligatory. He calls his position a “Christocentric personalist pluralism”31 and affirms: Personalist pluralism is different from other models. In relation to these, it has a synthetic character, without diminishing in one way or another the value of each. Thus, Christocentric personalist pluralism together with exclusivism affirms the absolute necessity for all people to be connected to the work and person of the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. At the same time, it assimilates the inclusivist solution, by which all men live in Christ primarily through the semantic logos (seminal words - St. Justin the Martyr and the Philosopher) specific to each creature, by the hypostatic union and by subliminal communication of Christ with every man. These elements of participation are present in all people, which enable them to do good in their own theocosmic space, as we have seen in St. Basil the Great in the Great Rules. Finally, it affirms, along with religious pluralism, that no theocosmic space, not even the Christian one, has a soteriological superiority that would allow for exclusive claims of superiority, or by which it could look with condescension on the other. (83)

To give a proper account of this Christocentric personalist pluralism, I will first introduce the fundamental basics of Oancea’s theology of religions model, remaining as faithful as possible to Oancea’s own words. Then I will highlight what is distinctive in his proposed solution to the problems of this field, evaluate its merits and consider whether it satisfies all the requirements of a genuinely inclusive pluralistic model. In this way, I will attempt to establish its position among the recognized theologies of religions of our time.

Dorin Oancea’s Theology of Religions As noted by Codin Şimonca-Opriţa in the preceding article, Dorin Oancea believes that the current situation of religious imperfection makes it impossible to understand the complexity of religious forms. He believes that the ideal state of the origin in Eden and the ideal state of fulfilment in Jesus Christ must be used as counterparts and that it is proper for a theologian to make use of them as well as other biblical texts as sources of information and truth. By resorting to 31

Dorin Oancea, Curs de Filozofia Religiilor, Suport de curs, Sibiu, 2013, 83. To be found at: https://www.scribd.com/document/150370185/Curs-de-Filosofia-Religiilor, accessed 14. May 2019. All further references will refer to this text and will only indicate the page number in brackets.

Dorin Oancea’s Christocentric Personalist Pluralism

77

the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis, understood as a text translating essential truths in the form of a narrative that also reflects its historical context at the time of writing, and to further writings of the Old and New Testament, Oancea seeks to gain the complementary perspectives that are needed. Oancea’s account of the constitutive communion between God and his creatures, the partialization of this communion and the false sacralization of various elements of the mundane has also been discussed in the preceding study. What remains to be indicated here is that “the double structural and relational orientation of creatures towards God and the world qualifies them as theocosmic existences. Any creature, from the mountain to the atom and the smallest subatomic particle, from the simplest virus to the most complex living being that man is, represents a theocosmic existence” (38-39). Two or more theocosmic existences related to each other for a theocosmic space: “By drawing one human to another human, a theocosmic space is formed, which brings together both the communicative potentials and achievements in relation to God and the world” (39). The partialization of communion between man and God after the Fall, and all further partializations, as well as any subsequent acts towards the restoration of the communion’s perfection, at the same time create new theocosmic spaces for the communion between God, humanity and the rest of creation. Oancea considers all prelapsarian and postlapsarian situations of communion to be theocosmic spaces. Here the term "space" expresses not only the determining conditions of a communion, but also the constitutive double orientation of humans towards God and towards the world. In other words, it evokes the concrete reality of our communion with God and the world in all its forms, with the term "theocosmic" indicating both of these two constitutive orientations (39). Oancea goes on to argue for the legitimacy of all theocosmic spaces. The legitimacy of such spaces in the postlapsarian condition has a twofold foundation. Firstly, it derives from the proto-Gospel, from the announcement of a Saviour. Since this announcement is made immediately after the Fall, before the appearance of other theocosmic spaces, it has a universal character. All later theocosmic spaces are derived from the Adamic one and preserve the announcement made to it. Their legitimacy is relative, as they aim at an encounter with the Redeemer and are also dissolved in this encounter. It should also be noted that the encounter with the Redeemer is imperative, since it is announced from the beginning, and is therefore prior to the differentiation of humanity into a plurality of theocosmic spaces (58-59). The second basis for the legitimacy of theocosmic spaces derives from the covenant between God and Noah. The text in Genesis 8:21-22 (“I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease”) expresses the legitimation of human precariousness, its incomplete communion with God. It also “has an all-encompassing

78

Alina Pătru

significance, since Noah and his wife are the second beginning of humanity after Adam and Eve. All theocosmic spaces that arise through their descendants fall under the scope of this covenant and the legitimation it confers upon them, which is, again, a relative legitimacy” (59). Subsequently, Oancea draws on the theory of successive covenants between God and humanity. This succession of covenants is comprised of the prelapsarian and postlapsarian ones with Adam, the covenant with Cain, the covenant with Noah, the covenant with Abraham, the covenant with Moses and the covenant through Jesus Christ. While the intial four covenants apply to the followers of all religions, since all peoples on Earth are Noah’s descendants, the other three are limited in extent. The Abrahamic covenant covers only the members of the monotheistic religions, and the Mosaic applies only to Judaism and Christianity, while the covenant in Jesus Christ remains specific only to Christianity. The new covenants do not annihilate the previous ones but complete them. All these covenants initiate new theocosmic spaces, which are all legitimate by the very fact that God allows them to exist and brings people into life within them, while also opening for their inhabitants the perspective of a Redeemer (86ff.).32 The legitimacy of all theocosmic spaces affirms the equality of all religions. In the light of Oancea’s arguments, as considered thus far in this study and the preceding one, all religions are marked by inevitable processes of partialization, false sacralizations and false valorizations in general, whereby none can claim its own superiority. The restoration of the communion between God and any human, irrespective of the religion to which he or she belongs, is not possible in the absence of the salvific act of God in Jesus Christ. In this respect Christianity itself has no ascendancy over the other religions: the different forms of Christianity are equally subject to partializations and false valorizations. The mere act of preaching about Christ does not offer any guarantee; on the contrary, it entails an extra responsibility, before which the human condition is again and again forced to encounter its limits. Consequently, Oancea affirms “the relative legitimacy of all religions, of all time; the calling of all religions either to a Redeemer or to a work or situation whose effects are similar to the work of a Redeemer; the concrete possibility of the members of all these religions to address the Redeemer in such a manner that he is as significant to them as to his own contemporaries, no matter at what point in history they would be placed themselves” (83). Furthermore, Oancea notes that

32

For further details, see also: Dorin Oancea, ‘Cine sunt drepţii Vechiului Testament?’ (‘Who are the Righteous of the Old Testament?’), in: Aurel Pavel and Constantin Oancea (eds.), Biblie și misiune creștină. Popas aniversar Pr. Prof. Dumitru Abrudan, Sibiu : Publishing House of the Lucian Blaga University & Andreiana Publishing House, 2010, 395-422, here: 402ff.

Dorin Oancea’s Christocentric Personalist Pluralism

79

the same relation to the Redeemer also appears in the case of unbelievers of any kind, those lacking any religious conviction – in other words, in all human beings. This is achieved by the creation of humanity in the image and likeness of God, which implies a permanent dynamic towards the good.33 The Redeemer is engraved on it, enters into the inter-human constitutive communion and manifests itself as a permanence of it (83). At the same time, Oancea emphasizes that it is not so easy to identify the Redeemer and to get into communion with him. In his words, the Redeemer's expectation itself is subject to partialization and false valorization, which makes his person sometimes difficult to identify. Thus, by partialization, his existence can be relativized to extinction, a process whose climax is the proletarian man [in Communist ideology] who considers himself absolutely independent of the sacred and of any other human being. At the other extreme, it leads to many false valorizations of the Redeemer. Some people expect everything from him, transfer him from the human arena to that of the exclusively sacred, which is again illegitimate, because the restoration of the communion between God and man must come from within this world. Finally, it is not to be forgotten that all manifestations of humanity are conditioned by the will of God. It is He who decides where each individual will be born and what He reveals to the people of each individual theocosmic space, depending on its specificity (84).

These are the revelational premises of the model proposed by Oancea, which is characterized by a personalist, Christocentric and eschatological pluralism. In the following section, each of these three dimensions of Oancea’s theology of religions will be briefly addressed in turn.

The Three Main Attributes of Oancea’s Model 1. Christocentric pluralism The Christocentric foundation of Oancea’s pluralism is made clear in his conviction that “[t]he basis of Christian existence is the firm belief that Jesus Christ is the Redeemer, who restores from within the world the communion of man with God and leads it to the perfection indicated analogously by the ‘sitting on the right hand of the Father’ (Acts 7:55–56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20). As a result, the Redemption made possible by Jesus Christ concerns all people, at all times, and extends over all theocosmic spaces, on all religions” (84). For Oancea, it is easy to make such a claim, for it “is required by the very logic of divine revelation. More difficult is understanding and accepting all its implications. How is it possible to relate Jesus Christ to past, present and future people who have not had any contact with Christian revelation?” To clarify this

33

See also Oancea 2002a, 66ff; Oancea 2002b, 99ff.

Alina Pătru

80

perplexity, he explains the way Orthodox Christians understand their own Redemption by Christ (85). 2. Personalism The ‘personalist’ dimension of Oancea’s model stresses the personal communion with Christ. In Oancea’s words, Orthodox Theology considers that Redemption is primarily communion of Christ with those he redeems. This communion takes place in the Church in the form of a personal bond, expressed especially in the Holy Mysteries. Those who experience it are Christians. In the case of non-Christians, it is obvious that they must also have share in communion with Christ, otherwise they could not be saved, which would be unfair, therefore God himself would be unfair, which is inadmissible. A first communion was highlighted in the classical inclusivism, which considers that Christ, incarnating himself, works automatically upon men by the rules of communion/communication that operate throughout the world. There is a subconscious communion with Christ,34 but this subconscious communion is not enough (85).

Oancea affirms that for the Orthodox theological understanding, it is necessary that the whole of human nature, including human rationality and the ability to choose freely, participates in the communion with Christ, and not only a part of what constitutes humanity (85). 3. Eschatological Pluralism At the basis of Oancea’s eschatological pluralism is an eschatological option for Christ. This attempt to reconcile pluralist and Christocentric perspectives evokes a personal meeting of non-Christians after their death with Jesus Christ, who will appear not as a Judge, but as a Saviour with open arms. When does this take place? Oancea affirms that “[t]he only moment in which Jesus Christ is associated with those already deceased is between the death on the cross and the Resurrection” (85). The scriptural basis for this is the text in 1 Peter 3:19-20, which speaks of Christ descending to hell and preaching to the spirits that have been imprisoned there, beginning from the time when Noah was preparing the ark. This is a personal encounter between Christ as preacher and the inhabitants of a pre-Noah theocosmic space, from which it can be concluded that this potentially salvific meeting is addressed to all people in all spaces and times. The fact that Jesus Christ preaches in hell and does not automatically draw out all of its members indicates the possibility of a post mortal option for or against Christ. Salvation is therefore accessible to the representatives of all theocosmic 34

See Romans 2, 14-15.

Dorin Oancea’s Christocentric Personalist Pluralism

81

spaces, though it takes place only on the basis of a personal meeting with Christ, one that involves the whole human being, not only their subliminal perceptual capacity, and which requires the correct, affirmative response to the call of Christ (85ff.).

The “Righteous of the Old Testament” This scenario inevitably provokes a number of questions: who can give the right answer to Christ, and what enables some of the inhabitants of hell to do so, while others remain incapable? The idea of the "salvation of the righteous of the Old Testament", whom the Lord delivered from hell after the Resurrection, has strong roots in the tradition of the Church, and is widespread in both its hymnography and iconography. The Orthodox Icon of the Resurrection shows Jesus holding Adam and Eve by the hand and pulling them out of hell. The question, therefore, is who are the righteous of the Old Testament (85)? This is Oancea’s response: In order to better understand this question, it should be noted that we do not understand "hell" as a particular place, though it is represented as such by way of analogy, but as a state of failure in the communion with God. This failure and distance from God's call are due to sin, namely the partialization of communion with the Trinitarian God and the various false valorizations that follow. In this sense, all people who do not live in full communion with God lie in hell, which thus appears as a complex communicative situation 35, because the degrees of partialization and false valorization experienced by the different people who have lived through time are of an extreme complexity. Knowing, however, that no man until Christ had fully experienced communion with the Father, it must be concluded that when Jesus descended to hell, Jesus met all the people who lived before Him. Such a definitive statement can cause perplexity and even disturbance, because it places remarkable figures in the history of salvation in hell, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. It was the monk Pelagius who asserted that all these special, God-chosen persons were among the righteous, and would not be in hell. The Incarnation of Christ would have been necessary in this case only for people who did not attain such high degrees of communion. It is to be noticed that in trying to solve this problem Pelagius fell into some even greater difficulties, as perceived by the Blessed Augustine, who confronted Pelagius without hesitation and with perseverance, because we are faced with the possibility of Man being reckoned as righteous in front of God, hence able to fulfil the meaning of his existence through his own efforts – one of the most delicate problems of religious existence. In this regard, the Christian statement leaves no room for any ambiguity: the salvation of Man is only possible in communion with the Lord Jesus Christ, who in turn fulfilled all the requirements of communion with the Father and with himself (86). 35

It may be worth reminding the reader of Oancea’s bracketing of communion and communication, as explained in the previous study.

82

Alina Pătru

Who are therefore for Oancea the "righteous of the Old Testament" that Christ brought out of hell? In Oancea’s words: the question of the ‘righteous of the Old Testament’ must be seen in the context of the communion between God and man, as it was in the context of the first theocosmic space that was paradise. In this sense, the righteous man is the one who realizes this communion to the maximum degree within the dynamics of the image-likeness with God that are constitutive for man. All post-paradisal theocosmic spaces are marked by the partialization of all forms of communion and their false valorizations, which leads to a completely deformed image of Man in his relationship with God and the world. Even under these conditions, communion in both directions was accomplished in God's terms for each theocosmic space. Those who satisfy these requirements are the righteous of the respective theocosmic space.36

The righteous are the ones who will be able to recognize the Redeemer and open themselves towards Him. The soteriological capacity of all religions is therefore fully affirmed, since the fulfilment of the precepts of each respective religion grants their adherents the possibility of responding well at their personal meeting with the Redeemer (96). Oancea has found the teaching of Christ’s descent to hell to be present in the writings of the Church Fathers. The Fourth Catechesis of St. Cyril of Jerusalem expresses the conviction that Christ has come not only for the salvation of Christians. As Oancea summarizes St. Cyril’s argument in his own theological terms: “Adam's descendants are implicitly or explicitly remembered among the righteous, and their deeds, specific to their own theocosmic space, render them far superior to contemporaries who hear Christ and accept Him, but are less virtuous than their forerunners.37 The conclusion is that the righteous will be more capable of accepting Him” (99). A similar text can be found in the Dogmatics of St. John Damascene, of which Oancea states: “Here we have the image of a complete preaching of the Savior in hell that involves adhesion, conviction”38 (99).39Further problems are to be clarified in relation to this model: A problem can result from the temporal delimitation of Christ’s preaching: on the one hand, we have three years on earth, on the other, three days in hell. This should not be a difficulty as we do not know in any way how the soul relates to others after death. At the same time there is little information given about hell, and the term "day" is itself very flexible, as we know from Genesis, 1. Beyond these issues, there remains the discovery that three days are sufficient to accomplish the work of salvation. These three days extend over 36 37 38

39

Oancea, 2010, 420. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catehezele (Catecheses), Bucharest: Publishing House of the Romanian Orthodox Church, the Biblical and Missionary Institute. Here: Catechesis 4, 113-114. St. John Damascene, Dogmatica (Dogmatics), Bucharest: Publishing House of the Romanian Orthodox Church, the Biblical and Missionary Institute, 1943, 2nd Edition, III, 29 – ‘About the Descent into Hell’, 273-274. See also Oancea 2010, 395.

Dorin Oancea’s Christocentric Personalist Pluralism

83

the entire period from the world's creation to the moment of Christ's death; in addition to this component in time, these sums include the sum of all theocosmic spaces. This is a reality of communion and a sum of all theocosmic existences. All people who have ever lived are concerned with the work of the Saviour Jesus Christ, as preached by Jesus Christ in these three days (99).

A comparison with Pentecost offers one key to understanding the three days in hell: Just as the apostles’ speech is understood by all participants as their key to understanding, so those who hear the word preached by the Savior have a personal experience of the Pentecost. In hell there are righteous, semirighteous, and unjust people, just as there are in this life. The Saviour addresses Himself to all, with the distinction that, with respect to preaching on earth, the audience here is infinitely larger and without the distinctions of space and time. In this way, there is no man who has not heard the word of the Saviour. In this way, we are granted the certainty that the Christian message is addressed to the whole earth (99)

Moreover, the preching of Jesus in hell extends also to those who lived after Jesus: The descent into hell also affects those people who have lived after the Resurrection. When St. Paul addresses the question of the Gentiles who follow the law, he is doing so after the time of the descent to hell, and is considering the situation after the Lord's death and resurrection. This extends the work [of salvation] we have discussed, without specifying any deadline. The Gentiles will be judged according to the law of their own theocosmic space, and the righteous of the respective spaces will be in communion with the Lord. Everyone will hear the preaching of Christ, and this situation will be extended to all times until the end of time. All will have the opportunity to listen to the preaching of Christ after their death, and the good response to it will be given by the righteous of the different theocosmic spaces as well as by the righteous among the Christians (100).

The extension of the Christian message to all nations is to be understood within the framework of a Christian personalism. In stating that Christ preaches to all and waits for them to respond, Oancea affirms that: between Christ and all people there is a personal relationship of communion that can be translated into the terms of an ‘I’ and ‘Thou’ relationship. This personal communion is not uniform. It is a dialogue and thereby a concrete reality, not an ideal. The criminal on the cross next to Jesus is a good example. His communion with Christ is not inferior in value to that of the apostles, though the three years spent by Christ with his disciples, and all his words of teaching, are not simply equivalent with it. That there are many mansions or dwelling places in the Father's house (John 14, 2) means that there are different degrees of communion, a plurality of forms of communion, and a plurality of ways in which to receive Christ as the Messiah (100).

Christian personalism, as formulated by Oancea, therefore proposes not only a dialogue between Christ and each human being, but also the specificity of this

84

Alina Pătru

dialogue inside each theocosmic space, so that no theocosmic space can claim superiority.

Conclusion: A Pluralistic Inclusivism Oancea's model fulfils the Christian requirement of salvation only through Christ, while supporting the soteriological value of all religions. All people can be saved by Christ, by virtue of their adhesion to Him as a personal response to His teaching and presence, and as a rational understanding of His message. This adhesion is possible only if they have fulfilled the commandments of their religion. This religion therefore has a real soteriological value – it enables people to open themselves towards Christ. In this way, Oancea builds up a position which is both pluralistic and inclusivistic. It can be viewed as a form of pluralistic inclusivism, or inclusive pluralism. The first designation gives priority to the inclusivistic requirement, to the fact that salvation occurs only in Christ, while the second emphasizes the pluralistic dimension. Oancea prefers to denominate his model in pluralist terms, calling it a personalistic pluralism or Christocentric pluralism. But is he entitled to call it a pluralistic position? What speaks for this claim is that Oancea genuinely aims towards the full recognition and valorization of all religions. He recognizes their soteriological value and their legitimacy. He steadfastly affirms that the representatives of all religions are in permanent communion with God, the Creator of the Universe, even if they perceive Him in a highly distorted way. In Oancea’s theology, all religions are a mixture of truths received from God – through the different covenants and the permanent revelatory communion between God and his creation – and of partializations and false valorizations, which distort the revelation they have received. The content of truth is indeed different in the various religions, and depends on the number of covenants addressed to them. But this cannot be translated into soteriological differentiations, since all living people are called to fulfil what has been given to them, and are accountable for what they have done with this bequest, as the Parable of the Talents (Matth. 25, 14-30) indicates. Moreover, the content of truth does not only depend on the number of covenants. Theocosmic spaces are complex realities of communion, in which the original revelation is modified both by the positive dynamic of growth from being an image of God to the likeness with God, and by the negative dynamic of partializations and false valorizations. Both of these dynamics mark not only the theocosmic space as a whole, but all individual theocosmic existences. The result is all the complexity of the various individual situations. With respect to their alethic or revelatory capacity, it is possible that a theocosmic existence or subspace which is subject only to the first four covenants might hold more truth than one which has received all the seven mentioned covenants. This occurs when the partializations and false valorizations of the theocosmic subspace with seven covenants are so strong

Dorin Oancea’s Christocentric Personalist Pluralism

85

that it receives a lower quantity of valid revelation than a positively functioning subspace with only four covenants. Moreover, the subspaces with four covenants are also participant in the dynamic of growth from the image of God to likeness with God, and are permanently able to actualize their real, active communion with Him, thereby gaining real benefit on the directions they work on. To illustrate this with an example: the Eastern religions, in particular Buddhism, but also some strains of Hinduism, with their greater stress upon the indefinite character of the sacred than other religious traditions, have developed the communion with God in a direction which remains an aspect of the complete understanding of God as both personal and superpersonal, both definite and indefinite, and both singular and plural. Christianity itself stresses the indefinite character of God, which it associates with the realm of the apophatic experience. But many Christian churches and believers both today and in the past have tended to forget this apophatic dimension of religious experience, and will benefit from paying attention to the Buddhist teaching on the Indefinite by adding it to the information they have received and working with it.40 Therefore, with respect to the alethic relevance of the different theocosmic spaces, Oancea’s claims are antinomic. The affirmation that Christianity alone has received the fullness of Revelation must be held together with the acknowledgement that the other religions may actualize a greater “quantity” of Revelation than some of the various Christian theocosmic subspaces and that this quantity of Revelation has no soteriological relevance, just as the number of initially received talents had no relevance in the parable. If pluralism is defined as that position which recognizes the soteriological capacity of all religions, then Oancea’s model is indeed a pluralistic one. If we look at it from the angle of the necessity of Salvation in Jesus Christ, then it can be labeled as inclusivistic. The same thing happens when we examine it in terms of the superiority in knowledge which characterizes the Christian theocosmic space – but as seen above, Oancea endeavours strongly to relativize this superiority. As Oancea has stated, his theoretical model fulfills the fundamental requirements of exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism equally, while still being a pluralistic position. If the central problem of inclusivism is that it cannot fully validate other religions, which are seen as inferior to Christianity, Oancea undertakes huge efforts to avoid this trap, stressing repeatedly that no single theocosmic space has superiority over the others, irrespective of the quantity of covenants and of the revelation imparted to them. His pleading for the value of all religions, despite their differences, is a very modern one. It resembles modern efforts to affirm the value of all humans, irrespectful of their level of intelligence and education, or of other differentiators with regard to the quantity of information they possess. Oancea’s position does not lead to relativism, but to a real valorization of diversity and a recognition of the different endowments of religions as well as of human beings. 40

See Oancea, 2003a.

86

Alina Pătru

In this sense, Oancea differentiates between a relativizing pluralism, which is to be avoided, and a pluralism based on the variety of theocosmic spaces and their relative legitimacy. The pluralism of theocosmic spaces is always the result of a defect. Its ground is the sinful condition of humanity. But there is also a pluralism of legitimate communion: Eve’s communion with God is different to that of Adam. Alongside this legitimate pluralism, there is also a negative multiplicity that, even if accepted by God, is only a temporary reality. The pluralism of precariousness is called to become a pluralism of fulfilment. This precariousness is to be found in every theocosmic space and in every religion. By contrast with Oancea’s position, an egalitarian pluralism, though it starts from the deep intuition that God is one, also relativizes the existential precariousness of humanity as well as the fact that human beings are called to overcome this condition. It considers the moment of partiality to be perfectly legitimate and does not take into account the possibility of a pluralism of fulfilment. Such an egalitarian pluralism generates a new theocosmic space, one of a largely syncretistic nature, which should be regarded in the same way as any other. For Oancea, understanding Christ as the Son of God makes it impossible to accept such a pluralism. Therefore, while Oancea does propose a model of pluralism, he rejects it in a relativizing form. Oancea’s pluralism is conscious both of the precarity of the present human condition in which it is rooted, and of the call to overcome this and the possibility of genuinely doing so which is given in Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God. This is a pluralism of the equality of chances for salvation, since all individuals, be they Christian or not, have an equal opportunity to be saved. Their salvation depends on their ability to open themselves towards Christ during their post mortal meeting with Him, and this in turn depends on their fulfilment of the righteousness of their own theocosmic space, understood as living in communion with God according to the revelation given in each respective theocosmic space. The theological model proposed by Oancea is the one best suited to representing the antinomic position of inclusive pluralism or pluralistic inclusivism. It is a model that is fully articulated and thoroughly rooted in the Christian Revelation and in the insights of Christian-Orthodox theology. The problems that arise from the theology of religions of Mark Heim and Jacques Dupuis, as discussed earlier, have been carefully circumvented by Oancea. His contribution to the development of a Christian theology of religions is therefore of universal value. He has constructed a highly developed pluralistic-inclusivist model that resolves a large number of problems which remain open in other theories. His theological model deserves to be widely known not only among scholars, but also among Christians who deal on a daily basis with the presence of followers of other religions and ask how they can be faithful to the Christian doctrine while also admitting the possibility of salvation for other faiths.

ORTHODOX TRADITION AND MODERN COGNITIVE APPROACHES TO THE BELIEVING PROCESS: “DE FIDE ORTHODOXA” OF ST. JOHN DAMASCENE RE-READ WITH THE LENSES OF CREDITION Hans-Ferdinand ANGEL Catholic Theological Faculty, University of Graz

“The openness of the Fathers for a comprehensive anthropological understanding of humans and their relation to God can be verified by having a closer look in their anthropology.” – Dorin Oancea

The title of this contribution might sound strange: not so much as JOHN OF DAMASCUS or JOHN OF DAMASCENE (Joannes Damascenus) might not be in the centre of interest for many Western theologians outside of the realm of patristics and not so much due to the term “re-read”. It belongs to the standard methods of theological thinking and reflecting to re-read important texts of earlier times. What might really sound strange is the labelling of the “lenses” by which, as here is announced, one of the most important scriptures of John of Damascene will be re-read. The lenses are called “lenses of credition” and this attribution derives from a scientific project which has been established at the KarlFranzens University of Graz: the so called Credition Research Projects1, which focusses on that what happens while someone is believing. Of course, it is always of some risk to claim that a “new” interpretation, a new perspective, or a new approach to traditional debates will provide new insights. The question of novelty even is one the most precarious ones with regard of the history of thinking. In Antiquity, and much later in the (Western) Middle Ages, studium novi, as interest in the new was not a virtue by which one could expect any ennoblement. In the contrary, to claim a special knowledge about something which exceeded the traditionally proved pool of sound knowledge was even dangerous. Doing so could attract the attention of authorities. They were sensitive for disturbances which could be evoked by those who selected2 some “bits of knowledge” to highlight them as “special bits” against a generally accepted mainstream of long-lasting truth. Thus, it was also something like a manifestation of virtue and braveness to select new aspects or new perspectives in order to interpret the sound traditions in a new way. But, the great theologians of the Middle Ages were champions in detecting traces of their own innovative ideas in the scriptures of the great authorities, might they be pre1 2

https://credition.uni-graz.at/ The Ancient Greek term for “selection” is αἵρεσις (haíresis) from which the modern term heresy is derived.

88

Hans-Ferdinand Angel

Christian philosophers or, maybe even better, might they have been acknowledged as great Fathers. And they were trained in arguing how their “modern” ideas could be embedded into a traditional corpus scriptorum. The re-reading of St. John`s scripture is not of such a dramatic dimension. And it is not totally new. It is driven by the intention of figuring out how far and in which way an understanding of the fluidity of belief – namely the processes of believing (= credition) – is compatible with an understanding of “belief” which is presented by St. John of Damascus. This intention structures the chapter here presented: (1) Background of this contribution, (2) Credition – the process of believing, (3) Credition-based theological thinking?, (4) Life and work of St. John of Damascus, (5) St. John of Damascus and the theory of credition.

1. Background of this contribution In 2011 the so called Credition Research Project was established at the KarlFranzens University of Graz. The term credition is derived from the Latin credere (to believe). Credition is a neologism which was coined to label “processes of believing” (Angel 2013a). Credition is neither a theological nor a philosophical term. It is conceived as a psychological term similarly to other psychological terms like emotion (from the Latin movere = to move; motus = moved) or cognition (from the Latin cogitare = to think or cognoscere = to recognize). Thus, any attempt to understand credition will be set in the realm of psychology and its different strands like neuropsychology, psychology of emotions, cognitive psychology, psychology of learning, psychology of perception, differential psychology, social psychology, psychology of religion, and so on. In this respect, all acknowledgements as well as all critics directed towards psychology and psychological thinking can also be applied to the term “credition”. This must be mentioned as it is a strong position of epistemology, the so called eliminativism, that denounces many psychological concepts as mere “folk psychology”. The concept which is probably most attacked by eliminativism is “belief”. Famous is Stephen Stich’s publication which is entitled: From Folk Psychology to Cognitive Science. The Case against Belief (Stich 1996). The eliminativistic perspective is very common in the actual mindset of epistemological thinkers. Therefore, when talking about belief – and in consequence about processes of believing – it is definitively needed to take account of both, the actual epistemological debates (Visala & Angel 2017) and the long-lasting tradition of theological thinking. And the question will remain: Is there any chance to bridge the gap between these meanwhile distant fields of reflecting? Additionally, theology is not a monolithic discipline. Since the early times of Christianity different traditions flourished. Unfortunately, the communication and the exchange of theologians trickled partly away by historically influential

Orthodox Tradition and Modern Cognitive Approaches

89

events. One can recall the division of the Roman Empire in two administrative units which was executed in 359 after the death of emperor THEODOSIOS I (347 – 395). One can mention the sometimes so called “Great Schism” of 1054 which contributed to the separation of the Church of the East and West and was followed by mental and practical alienation. After the schism the Eastern Church has experienced even more painful events like the devastations of large regions during the crusades and especially the sacking of Constantinople in 1204. It is one of the fruits of the last century that Pope Paul VI (1897 – 1978), as Patriarch of Rome and successor of St. Peter, and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras (1886 – 1972), as successor of St. Andrew, met in Jerusalem (4th January 1964) to open a new chapter of brotherhood and reconciliation (FitzGerald 2014). This new pathway fortunately has been supported by manifold efforts of ecumenical cooperation in the Conciliar Process. Nevertheless, the deplorable history after World War II practically separated the countries of the Eastern Church(es) from those of the Western Church(es). After the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, the ecumenical cooperation was reinforced by a deepened cooperation between Eastern and Western faculties of theology. Three Ecumenical Assemblies in Basel 1989 (Kobia 2009), in Graz 1997 (Arnold 1997), and in Sibiu/Hermannstadt 2007 (Ecumenical Patriarchate 2007) stimulated the real encounter of Christians so far separated from each other. In preparation of the second Ecumenical Assembly in Graz, the so-called Graz Process (Larentzakis 1994, Ionita 2010, Tuder 2010) was established. It was dedicated to an intensification of the cooperation of Christian faculties of all denominations. “Träger des Grazer Prozesses ist die Konferenz Europäischer Kirchen (KEK) in Verbindung mit dem Organisationsbüro der KatholischTheologischen Fakultät der Karl-Franzens Universität Graz” (Liagre & Angel 2014,7). The Graz Process flourished for more than twenty years. In this period four official Consultations3 were held4. In the year 1989 the first official cooperation between the Catholic-Theological Faculty of the Karl-Franzens University Graz and the Andrei Saguna Faculty of Orthodox Theology of the Lucian-Blaga University of Sibiu was signed5. These manifold interactions between Graz and Sibiu must be highlighted as they are the background for this article. They provided the fruitful soil on which the integration of the Orthodox faculty of Sibiu into the network of the Credition Research Project could be managed. 3 4 5

Dorin Oancea was continuously participant of the consultation and belonged for some time to the steering committee of the Graz Process. They are documented in: Ökumenisches Forum Jg. 2009 – 2013. It was one of the big pleasures of my deanship to meet Dorin Oancea during the festivities of this anniversary in Sibiu.

Hans-Ferdinand Angel

90

In 2017, the first results from the “Structure of Credition Conferences” were published in book: “Processes of Believing: The Acquisition, Maintenance, and Change in Creditions (Angel et al 2017). Among contributors from neuroscience, biology, pharmacology, psychology, philosophy, economy, law, and so on, three theologians also contributed to to this book: Lluis Oviedo from the Pontificial University Antonianum/Rome (Oviedo 2017), Oliver Davies from King`s College/London (Davies 2017), and Dorin Oancea from the Lucian Blaga University/Sibiu. The title of Oancea`s chapter is: Soul and Body according to „De Fide Orthodoxa” of St. John of Damascene.

2. Credition – the process of believing When talking about the matter of belief, it is quite common in theology and in philosophy, especially also in epistemology, to use the noun “belief”6. The use of the noun can be observed in many scientific texts. It is the noun “fides” which became famous throughout the history of theology in many basic positions: Fides quaerens intellectum (Anselm of Canterbury), fides caritate formata (Thomas Aquinas), sola fide (Martin Luther). The same noun-related use can be observed in epistemology. A strand which is labelled “foundationalism” for instance distinguishes between basic belief and non-basic belief (Schwitzgebel 2015). In psychology and cognitive science one can find expressions like formation of beliefs (Langdon & Coltheart 2000, McGarty et al 2002), dynamics of belief (Forrest 1986), erosion of beliefs (Beck & Miller 1999), or even evolution of misbelief (McKay & Dennet 2009). All these expressions seem to follow (at least implicitly) a concept of belief as a “stable” entity. In contrast, the research on creditions conceptualizes beliefs as something “fluent”. But it is a not an easy way “from the question of belief to question of believing” (Angel 2017). From a perspective which conceives belief as fluid it is possible to interpret stable beliefs as momentary snapshots of fluid beliefs. Stable beliefs indicate the actual end of processes which are preliminary to such a stability. Additionally, actual seemingly stable snapshots of beliefs may undergo a further change (Paloutzian & Mukai 2017). The development of attitudes is supported by stabilized beliefs. But there is no guarantee that seemingly stable beliefs will remain stable. Besides, on a theological level this raises the question of the relationship between belief and doubt.

6

In English one has to distinguish between faith and belief. The question of the relation of these two nouns is an issue which is debated in English written publications on philosophy of religion (cf. Swinburne 1983).

Orthodox Tradition and Modern Cognitive Approaches

91

According to the paradigm-shift which doesn`t focus any more on “belief/faith” (expressed as noun) but on the processes of believing, the use of the verb should be favored. When the fluidity of beliefs comes into mind it is more adequate to talk about “to believe”. In this sense “credition” is the process which takes place in the moments “while one is believing”. Such a concept of a fluid and processual believing brings up totally novel questions as for instance: when exactly is the starting point of a process of believing? Or, when exactly is the endpoint of a process of believing? There does not exist any reliable data to answer such kind of questions. What can be stated is the fact that such processes take place in humans. They are part of their ordinary and normal capacities. Creditions are fundamental brain functions (Seitz & Angel 2012, Sugiura et al 2015, Angel & Seitz 2016, Angel & Seitz 2017) which are relevant for many other processes which can be described from psychological and neurophysiological perspectives (Seitz et al 2017; Han et al 2017, Seitz et al 2018a; Seitz et al 2018b). Some of these functions can be found in other vertebrates, although though the processes of believing in humans have species-unique properties due to our possession of symbolic language. To stress that these believing processes are “normal” is needed to contrast opinions which favor an understanding of beliefs as intrinsically pathological. Neuropsychiatry obviously has many insights in pathological expressions of beliefs like neuroticism or delusion (Langdon & Coltheart 2000, Connors & Halligan 2017). Hence, even the idea of a possible “God Delusion” (Dawkings 2017) was highlighted. But, to label every kind of belief as pathological is unreasonable. It would be analogous to saying that all learning is pathological. Attributes of pathology result from a noun- related conceptualization of belief. Note, the process of believing (credition) is a normal process which nevertheless can shift to pathology. But this is not a peculiarity of the believing processes. It is due to their embodiment and their functionality that all inner processes might they be related to the body or the soul can proceed in a normal or in pathological mode. A theory of normal believing processes may help to bridge the gap between epistemological and theological thinking which are, as mentioned above, meanwhile distant fields of reflecting It is not possible to describe here more detailed the results of the ongoing basic research on those inner processes which are called credition. This research brought into play many highly complex aspects of the believing process. As they are embedded and imbodied they can be analyzed on different levels like cells, neurons, molecules, and so on. Neurophysiological aspects like the role of dopamine (Seitz et al 2018b) or oxytocin (Meissner 2017) can come into the focus. Additionally, biochemical aspects like the relevance of the brain-gut-axis (Holzer 2017) or the influence of the biome (Berg & Sensen 2017) can be highlighted. It can be observed that creditions generally are combined with emotional processes of valuation. Therefore, by definition, there are no

92

Hans-Ferdinand Angel

creditions without emotions. This drives the attention to emotional aspects of the Christian belief that has an impact on theological thinking. It is inadequate to emphasize only dogmatic and content related aspects of belief The theoretical background of the believing processes is a matter of basic research. In our applied research we have developed also a theoretical model of credition. To understand this model no detailed knowledge about the theoretical issues are required, it easily can be applied to any communicational setting. It even can be used to support practically all efforts of catechesis or faith related talking, for instance in preaching or in public media.

3. Credition based theological thinking? Is it possible to use a fluid understanding of belief as base for theological thinking? The question has not been asked and the issue has not been addressed so far. Therefore, no easy answer can be given. At any rate, one precondition must be addressed before one can try to approach the above question. It has first to be clarified whether belief can be understood as a theological term. Without going into detail, it can be observed that two different options seem to be possible. The famous and influential Protestant theologian Karl Barth (1886 - 1968) denied that belief itself is a theological term though it is the unavoidable precondition of understanding belief and theology [„conditio sine qua non, nicht aber (…) der Gegenstand und also das Thema der theologischen Wissenschaft“] (Barth 1962, 80). In his „Kirchliche Dogmatik“ he stresses that belief is narrowly intertwined with trust – the so called “Fiducialglaube” [„Vertrauen ist der Akt, in dem ein Mensch sich verlassen darf auf die Treue eines anderen, dass dessen Zusage gilt“] (Barth 1957,18). One the other side the Catholic theologian Max Seckler (* 1927) claimed that theology might be understood as “Glaubenswissenschaft” (Seckler 1988, Seckler 2013), a term which can be translated as “knowledge of belief”. The implications of this question cannot be discussed in this article. It may suffice to recall that belief is not the same as believing process (see above no. 2). In fact, it is a specific issue to define the relationship between faith/belief and the believing process (Seitz et al 2018a). The pathway which leads finally to credition as processual phenomenon can be compared with slalom. The starting point was a core problem of any religious education and religious development, namely the question: what is meant by “religious” and even more: what is the religious of the religious? Tackling this problem led to a new question: is the term religious related to religion or to religiosity? And then the next question came into focus: What is meant by the term religiosity? What became clear was that religiosity is much less of

Orthodox Tradition and Modern Cognitive Approaches

93

scientific interest than religion (Angel 2013b) and that in English it might be offensive to characterize someone with the term religiosity. It was proposed that any understanding of religiosity needs to first understand the processes of believing. But, at the same time it became clear that creditions cannot be reduced to the religious sphere alone. Creditions are unavoidable processes in all areas of secular human life. Oancea7 sees very clear that there might be obstacles in approaching the concept of credition: “One could argue that the Christian and particularly the Orthodox understanding of belief is a matter of the soul and not of the body. If one follows this argument, there is no observable benefit from any progress in studying the bodily life of man. At least, the understanding of body seems to have little relevance for his/her communion with God. Consequently, the binomial “creditions – neuronal processes” would have no significance at all for an Orthodox anthropology, one and the same at all times” (p. 321).

It is imaginable that such a position might be held by many religious thinkers. And, it is evident that positions of this type may not be easily to be disproved. Oancea suggests that it is worth listening to the Fathers and to check what their approach to anthropology was. Regarding the quoted position he argues: “But, that seems to me to be a reductionist outlook which is quite far from the much broader perspective of the Fathers. The openness of the Fathers for a comprehensive anthropological understanding of humans and their relation to God can be verified by having a closer look in their anthropology” (p. 321).

Of course, Oancea`s training in systematic theological thinking makes him aware of methodological traps. “It will be necessary to carefully separate different methodological approaches and not to confuse incompatible terms and research interests” (p. 320).

Oancea stresses one important aspect of credition which allows us to bridge – at least in a general way – the distance of different historical epochs. “The connection between creditions as processes of belief and neuronal processes allows an understanding of belief as embodied. This has a major implication for understanding religious cognition .” (p. 320).

It is worth mentioning that the model of credition also can be used for different theological issues as for instance as tool for the ecumenical process or for interreligious dialogue (Angel & Seitz 2016). The model of credition might also be a helpful instrument to support catechetical interests. Recently at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki a project intends to see the assets of the use of the credition model in the practical work with pupils and students (Mitropoulou 2018). The good results have encouraged the university to open a Centre of Credition-Based Life-long Learning with a planned opening in Fall 7

Whenever this contribution in honor of Dorin Oancea quotes passages from this chapter they are put in italic.

94

Hans-Ferdinand Angel

2019. It was a prospective and clear-sighted view that Oancea also opened the door to relate credition and catechetical interests. “Additionally, it helps to better formulate a central intention of Christian catechesis: it is not possible to pass over Christian Faith like an object. It has to be overtaken by those who are interested in understanding the meaning of the Christian dogma. Contents of belief and dogmatic concepts are not “alive” without “embodiment” in individual humans and in consequence in Christian communities. This leads to the conclusion that in order to understand Christian belief and the “growing in Christ” one should keep in mind at least the bodily processes complementary to creditions” (p. 320f.).

When Oancea titles his chapter in the book “Soul and Body according to ‘De Fide Orthodoxa’ of St. John of Damascene” he appears to be driven by a double intention. The first one is to justify the theory of credition as relevant for theological thinking. The second is to detect in the “theological architecture” of St. John of Damascus’ “bricks” that might be labelled as “compatible with the theory of credition”. For his contribution, Oancea focused on the relation between the soul and body. The relation of body and soul might be understood as a dominant topic of theory of mind (ToM), even if the highly Platonic soaked term ‘soul’ with some good reasons is avoided in modern debates. Nevertheless, ancient thinkers ascribed to the soul a variety of capacities. John of Damascene follows this tradition and addresses many of those issues8. Thus, we can find topics like “Memory” [Περὶ τοῦ μνημονευτικοῦ (chap. 34 / II.20)], “Sensation” or maybe better “perception” [Περὶ αἰσθήσεως (chap. 32 / II.18)], “Thinking/Thought” [Περὶ τοῦ διανοητικοῦ (chap. 33 /II.19)]. Additionally, issues regarding emotions and feelings are brought on the floor and the Damascene provides reflections like Περὶ λύπης [Concerning Pain (or Sorrow); chap. 28 / II.14], Περὶ φόβου [Concerning Fear; chap. 29 / II.15] or Περὶ θυμοῦ [Concerning Anger chap. 30 / II.16)]. All these topics are central for an understanding of credition. Oancea`s contribution to the book “Processes of Believing” is the first article to pave a way from modern cognitive approaches to understand the believing processes to the conceptional world of a medieval thinker. Thus, a first rolemodel exists, which shows an inchoative way to translate similar-meaning concepts of different epochs. His contribution is a most innovative way to relate texts of the Fathers with the theory of credition.

8

The first number of chapters indicates the chapters following the original row of 100 chapter; the second one refers to the medieval edition which influenced by the Four Books of Sentences of Petrus Lombardus divided De Fide Ordthodoxa also in four “books” (cf. later section 4). This version was used by Dorin Oancea.

Orthodox Tradition and Modern Cognitive Approaches

95

4. St. John of Damascus Biographical data There is no comprehensive account of John’s life. What we have are some vitae (biographies), two of which are anonymous and of questionable authenticity and authority (Rhodes 2009,15f.). What we know about his life stems mainly from a vita in Arabic, translated by John V who was patriarch of Jerusalem from at least 706 until 735. Even if the work raises questions of authenticity, it is the most reliable source9 known. The most common view is that St. John of Damascus – or in Latin Joannes Damascenus – was born in 675 or 676 in Damascus where he spent his youth. This was only forty years after the conquest of Damascus by the Muslim conquerors. Damascus was the first mayor city of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire which was taken over into a Caliphate (Kennedy 2006). Though it is under discussion whether John had an education in Arabic prior to his Greek education or not (Rhodes 2009,16) it is obvious that his work and interests were also influenced by this novel situation as he argued theologically with the "Heresy of the Ishmaelites" (Sahas 1972). As a monk he lived in a monastery not far from Jerusalem (Holy Lavra of Saint Sabbas, also known as Mar Saba) where he died in 749. Bibliographical data of De Fide Orthodoxa “De fide orthodoxa” which in terms of modern historical research often is named “expositio fidei” belongs to the most reputed writings of John of Damascene. The title of most of the traditional versions is Ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως“ (an Exposition of the Orthodox Faith). The text was announced earlier in another of St. John`s scriptures with the title Πηγή γνώσεως (source of knowledge). It comprises one hundred chapters, according to a tradition which used to structure a text in a hundred chapters. There exist two versions of the numeration because we have two different traditions, which differ in the way how they present the chapters. The “ordinary” row of the chapters is called in science “expositio ordinata”. Another strand of the written tradition which is called “expositio inversa” presents a different order of the chapters. The text that follows is the more common “expositio ordinata”. Philosophical background and Relevance of St John`s work The fame of St. John is not so much based on the originality of his thinking. As usual in his time he followed the principle which was highlighted for instance in the Proverbs 1,22: “Μη μέταιρε όρια αιώνια α έστησαν οι πατέρες” [Do not remove the everlasting boundaries] (cf. Kotter 1973, XXVII f.). But he shows a highly developed skill to summarize texts from different authors, to organize their ideas and to harmonize inconsistencies. Thus, St. John is 9

Migne, Patrologia Graeca 94, 484B; cf. Kotter 1973,XXVI.

Hans-Ferdinand Angel

96

unavoidably dependent from the philosophical background of his sources, which mostly are based on Platonic, Aristotelian and Neoplatonic thinking. The “expositio fidei” was known not only in the Eastern but also in the Western church. In 1153/1154 a complete translation into Latin was provided by Burgundio Pisanus (1110 - 1193). He intitled the Latin text “De fide orthodoxa”. Under this title the text was known throughout the Middle Ages. Petrus Lombardus (1095/1100 - 1160) used this Burgundio`s version when writing his famous “Four books of sentences” (Liber sententiarum Quatuor) and also Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) used it extensively. John of Damascene belongs to the most quoted father in his Summa Theologica. Hence, Oancea`s approach to the position of St. John of Damascus with the concept of credition can also be understood as a first attempt to see whether “bits” of modern cognitive theories can be detected in the traditions of platonic and neo-platonic reflections. Needless to state, that would be a tremendous work of interdisciplinary cooperation to filter these traditions to find out triggers for relating them with the theory of credition.

5. St. John of Damascus and the theory of credition10 “St. John Damascene deals with faith in Book IV, especially in chapters 9, 10 and 11. Important references can be found in Chapter 13 and 15” (p. 322). Two chapters are explicitly dedicated to faith. The chapter 83 is captured “Concerning Faith” (Περὶ πίστεως). Here he stresses the twofold character of faith. First – and here he follows the trace of St. Paul (Romans 10,17) – faith comes by hearing (Ἔστι γὰρ πίστις ἐξ ἀκοῆς). Second, in the tradition of the letter to the Hebrews (11,1) he presents faith as the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων). The strictly theological understanding makes it conceivable that the 83rd (= III,9) chapter is preceded by a chapter (= III,8) which is entitled “Concerning Faith and Baptism” (Περὶ πίστεως καὶ βαπτίσματος). This strict theological approach might give the impression that the position of John of Damascus might not be compatible with an understanding that stresses the fluidity of beliefs as the believing process. But this conclusion would be premature. It is worth to see how Oancea figures out the bridge between credition and the understanding of faith which is held by St. John. Oancea captures the 2nd section of his book chapter “The Universal Character of Faith – Structures/Creditions” (p. 322) which indicates that he transfers the debate into the field of anthropology. 10

Here I follow mainly the line which was exposed by Dorin Oancea 2017.

Orthodox Tradition and Modern Cognitive Approaches

97

“To start with I quote an important assertion St John makes on faith in IV,11: „ ... without faith it is impossible to be saved. For it is by faith that all things, both human and spiritual, are sustained. For without faith neither the farmer does cut his furrow nor does the merchant commit his life to the raging waves of the sea on a small piece of wood, nor are marriages contracted nor any other step in life taken”. Hence Oancea concludes: “With regard to creditions, the first would be the universal character of faith” (p. 322).

I will come to my conclusions. Oancea bridges in a novel and so far not undertaken way first results of the credition research project and the fundamental question of Christian faith. “Cognitive processes on the basis of previous experiences, hope and action, these are constitutive elements of his faith.” (p 323). The way that Oancea combines traditional positions of the Fathers with new cognitive approaches to understand the believing processes is remarkable. That`s the case not only because results are promising for future research. Oancea`s way of thinking is also remarkable because he avoids the trap of a pure fascination which sometimes accompanies interdisciplinary approaches. Quite often one can find very far reaching conclusions which neglect the inchoative character in novel fields of research. Oancea is aware of possible restrictions: “It needs of course deeper theological and anthropological research to clarify more substantially the relation of the concept of credition with traditional theological concepts regarding the role of belief for any understanding of Christian faith” (p. 321).

May this sentence be comprised as challenge which inspires many younger theologians to follow the traces which have been paved into the Credition Research Project by the hereby honoured fellow Dorin Oancea. Ziua de naștere fericită.

References Angel Hans-Ferdinand (2013b): Religiosity. In: Runehov Anne L.C., Oviedo Llouis, Azari Nina P. (eds) Encyclopedia of Sciences and Religion, Springer Reference, Dordrecht, volume 4, 2012–2014; http://www.springerreference.com/docs/html/chapterdbid/357427.html Angel Hans-Ferdinand (2017): From the question of belief to question of believing. In: Angel Hans-Ferdinand, Oviedo Lluis, Paloutzian Raymond, Runehov Anne, Seitz Rüdiger J. (eds): Processes of Believing: The Acquisition, Maintenance, and Change in Creditions. New York: Springer, 17-36 Angel Hans-Ferdinand, Seitz Rüdiger J. (2016): Process of believing as fundamental brain function: the concept of credition. SFU Research Bulletin 3: 1-20. DOI 10.15135/2016.4.1.1-25.

98

Hans-Ferdinand Angel

Angel Hans-Ferdinand, Oviedo Lluis, Paloutzian Raymond, Runehov Anne, Seitz Rüdiger J. (Eds) (2017): Processes of Believing: The Acquisition, Maintenance, and Change in Creditions. New York: Springer. Angel Hans-Ferdinand, Seitz Rüdiger J. (2017): Violation of expectation as matter for the believing process. Frontiers in Psychology, 29 May. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00772. Arnold John (1997): Second European Ecumenical Assembly: Introductory Speech by the President of the Conference of European Churches: The Very Reverend John Arnold, Church of England (see: Internet Sources Nr. 07). Barth Karl (1957): Kirchliche Dogmatik. ausgewählt und eingeleitet von Helmut Gollwitzer. Frankfurt/M. Barth Karl (1962): Einführung in die evangelische Theologie. 3. Aufl., Zürich. Beck R., Miller J.P. (1999): Erosion of Belief and Disbelief: Effects of Religiosity and Negative Affect on Beliefs in the Paranormal and Supernatural. The Journal of Social Psychology 141, no. 2, 277-287. Berg Gabriele & Sensen Maira (2017): Decision-Making and Credition Under a Microbial Perspective. In: Angel Hans-Ferdinand, Oviedo Lluis, Paloutzian Raymond, Runehov Anne, Seitz Rüdiger J. (eds): Processes of Believing: The Acquisition, Maintenance, and Change in Creditions. New York: Springer, 443 – 450. Connors Michael H., Halligan Peter W. (2017): Belief and Belief Formation: Insights from Delusions. In: Angel Hans-Ferdinand, Oviedo Lluis, Paloutzian Raymond, Runehov Anne, Seitz Rüdiger J. (eds): Processes of Believing: The Acquisition, Maintenance, and Change in Creditions. New York: Springer, 153-165. Dawkins Richard (2017): The God delusion. Davies Oliver (2017): Cognition, Emotion, and the Ethics of Authenticity. In: Angel Hans-Ferdinand, Oviedo Lluis, Paloutzian Raymond, Runehov Anne, Seitz Rüdiger J. (eds): Processes of Believing: The Acquisition, Maintenance, and Change in Creditions. New York: Springer, 277 – 287. Ecumenical Patriarchate (2007): Third European Ecumenical Assembly. Sibiu, Romania 4-9 September 2007 Assembly Message – Saturday, 8th September 2007 (see: Internet Sources Nr. 08). FitzGerald Thomas (2014): Impact of the Historic Meeting of Pope Paul VI and Ecumencial Patriarch Athenagoras (see: Internet Sources Nr. 05). Forrest Peter (1986): The Dynamics of Belief. Oxford: Blackwell. Han Xiaochun, Zhang Ting, Wang Shiyu, Han Shihui (2017): Neural correlates of believing, in: NeuroImage 156, 155–165. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811917304263 Holzer Peter (2017): Interoception and Gut Feelings: Unconscious Body Signals’ Impact on Brain Function, Behavior and Belief Processes. In: Angel HansFerdinand, Oviedo Lluis, Paloutzian Raymond, Runehov Anne, Seitz Rüdiger J. (eds): Processes of Believing: The Acquisition, Maintenance, and Change in Creditions. New York: Springer, 435 – 442. Ionita Viorel (2009): The Consultation Process between Theological Faculties (The Graz Process). In: Dietrich Werner, Esterline David, Kang Samsoon, Raja Joshva (eds.): Handbook of Theological Education in World Christianity, Oxford, 594-599. Kennedy Hugh N. (2006): The Byzantine and early Islamic Near East, Ashgate Publishing.

Orthodox Tradition and Modern Cognitive Approaches

99

Kobia Samuel (2009): 20th anniversary of 1st European Ecumenical Assembly (see: Internet Sources Nr. 06). Kotter Bonifatius, Volk Robert (Eds) (1973): Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, vol. 2. Ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως“ – Expositio Fidei. Berlin: De Gruyter. McGarty C., Yzerbyt V.Y., Spears R. (2002): Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McKay R.T., Dennet Daniel C. (2009): The evolution of misbelief. Behavioral and Brain Science 32, 493- 561. Meissner Karin (2017): Believing in the Effectiveness of Treatment: From Placebo to Credition and Back. In: Angel Hans-Ferdinand, Oviedo Lluis, Paloutzian Raymond, Runehov Anne, Seitz Rüdiger J. (eds): Processes of Believing: The Acquisition, Maintenance, and Change in Creditions. New York: Springer, 125-137. Langdon R., Coltheart M. (2000): The cognitive neuropsychology of delusions. Mind & Language 15 (1): 184-218. DOI 10.1111/1468-0017.00129. Langdon R., Connaughton E. (2013): The neuropsychology of belief formation. In: Krueger F., Grafman J. (eds): The Neural Basis of Human Belief Systems. Psychology Press, Hove, 19-42. Larentzakis Grigorios (1994): Konferenz Europäischer Theologischer Fakultäten und Hochschulen – eine ökumenische Vision. In: Harnoncourt Philipp & Liebmann Maximilian (eds): Theologien im Dialog. Gemeinsame Verantwortung – gemeinsame Aufgabe im südosteuropäischen Raum (= Grazer Theologische Studien 17), 169-171. Liagre Guy, Angel Hans-Ferdinand (2014): Vorwort zu The Graz Process (= Ökumenisches Forum, Jg. 32-35: 2009–2013), 7-9. Mitropoulou Vasiliki: Building worldviews with credition teaching model in high school curricula or religious education: A controlled experimental study. In: Sociology Study, 2018, Vol. 8, No. 7, 325-335. DOI 10.17265/21595526/2018.07.003. Oancea Dorin (2017): Soul and Body According to “De Fide Orthodoxa” of St. John Damascene. In: Angel Hans-Ferdinand, Oviedo Lluis, Paloutzian Raymond, Runehov Anne, Seitz Rüdiger J. (eds): Processes of Believing: The Acquisition, Maintenance, and Change in Creditions. New York: Springer, 319-330. Oviedo Lluis (2017): Recent Scientific Explanations of Religious Beliefs: A Systematic Account. In: Angel Hans-Ferdinand, Oviedo Lluis, Paloutzian Raymond, Runehov Anne, Seitz Rüdiger J. (eds): Processes of Believing: The Acquisition, Maintenance, and Change in Creditions. New York: Springer, 289-317. Paloutzian Raymond F., Mukai Katelyn J. (2017): Believing, Remembering, and Imagining: The Roots and Fruits of Meanings Made and Remade. In: Angel HansFerdinand, Oviedo Lluis, Paloutzian Raymond, Runehov Anne, Seitz Rüdiger J. (eds): Processes of Believing: The Acquisition, Maintenance, and Change in Creditions. New York: Springer, 39-49. Rhodes D. Brian (2009): John Damascene in Context: An Examination of “The Heresy of the Ishmaelites” with special consideration given to the religious, political, and social contexts during the seventh and eighth century Arabs conquest. Lynchburg/Virginia. Sahas Daniel J. (1972): John of Damascus on Islam: The "Heresy of the Ishmaelites". Brill.

100

Hans-Ferdinand Angel

Schwitzgebel Eric: "Belief", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/belief/ Seckler Max (1988): Theologie als Glaubenswissenschaft. In: Handbuch der Fundamentaltheologie 4, hg. von Walter Kern u.a.. Freiburg u.a., 180-241 Seckler Max (2013): Glaubenswissenschaft und Glaube. Beiträge zur Fundamentaltheologie und zur Katholischen Tübinger Schule. Band 2. Tübingen Seitz Rüdiger J., Angel Hans-Ferdinand (2014): Psychology of Religion and Spirituality: Meaning Making and processes of believing. Religion, Brain Behavior. DOI 10.1080/2153599X.2014.891249. Seitz Rüdiger J., Angel Hans-Ferdinand: “Processes of believing - a review and conceptual account”. In: Rev Neurosci 23/3 (2012) 303-309. DOI 10.1515/revneuro-2012-0034. Seitz Rüdiger, Angel Hans-Ferdinand (2014): “Psychology of religion and spirituality: meaning-making and processes of believing”. In: Religion, Brain & Behavior, 2230. DOI 10.1080/2153599X.2014.891249. Seitz Rüdiger J., Paloutzian Raymond, Angel Hans-Ferdinand: Processes of believing: Where do they come from? What are they good for?" In: F1000 Research (2017). DOI 10.12688/f1000research.9773.1. Seitz Rüdiger J., Paloutzian Raymond, Angel Hans-Ferdinand. From Believing to Belief: a general theoretical model. In: Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2018, 30(9), 1254-1264. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01292 [ = Seitz et al 2018a]. Seitz Rüdiger J., Paloutzian Raymond, Angel Hans-Ferdinand: Believing is representation mediated by the dopamine brain system. In: European Journal of Neuroscience, 2018 Dec 26. DOI 10.1111/ejn.14317. [Epub ahead of print] [ = Seitz et al 2018b]. Stich Stephen (1996): From folk psychology to cognitive science. The case against belief, 2nd Ed. Cambridge Massachusetts. Sugiura Motoaki, Seitz Rüdiger, Angel Hans-Ferdinand: “Models and Neural Bases of the Believing Process”. In: Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science (2015), 12-23. DOI 10.4236/jbbs.2015.51002. Swinburne, Richard (1983): Faith and Reason, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tuder Florian: Der Grazer Prozess als Chance ökumenischer Bildung. In: Asmus Sören, Mähling Patrik, Paschen Simon (eds.) Lernen für das Leben. Perspektiven ökumenischen Lernens und ökumenischer Bildung. Frankfurt/Main 2010, 135-150. Visala Aku, Angel Hans-Ferdinand (2017): The Theory of Credition and Philosophical Accounts of Belief: Looking for Common Ground. In: Angel Hans-Ferdinand, Oviedo Lluis, Paloutzian Raymond, Runehov Anne, Seitz Rüdiger J. (eds): Processes of Believing: The Acquisition, Maintenance, and Change in Creditions. New York: Springer, 183-193.

Internet Sources Expositio Fidei, Greek text: http://users.uoa.gr/~nektar/orthodoxy/paterikon/iwannhs_damaskhnos_ekdosis_akri bhs.htm

Orthodox Tradition and Modern Cognitive Approaches

101

Expositio Fidei; English text11: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3304.htm Proverbia, Greek text: https://biblehub.com/interlinear/ Credition Research Project: https://credition.uni-graz.at/ Fitzgerard 2014: https://www.apostolicpilgrimage.org/impact-of-1964-meeting Kobia 2009: https://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/generalsecretary/messages-and-letters/20th-anniversary-of-1st-european-ecumenicalassembly) Arnold 1997: https://www.anglicannews.org/news/1997/06/second-europeanecumenical-assembly.aspx Ecumenical Patriarchate: https://www.patriarchate.org/european-council-of-churches//asset_publisher/x8NXCkyQW7Ur/content/third-european-ecumenical-assemblysibiu-romania-4-9-september-2007-assembly-message-saturday-8th-september2007?_101_INSTANCE_x8NXCkyQW7Ur_languageId=en_US

11

I mainly follow this English version, but sometimes I added some different interpretations of the Greek terms.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF ECUMENICAL AND INTERRELIGIOUS OPENNESS

WAS VERBINDET UNS?

ANREGUNG ZU EINER THEOLOGISCHEN „SOZIOLOGIE“ Michael WEINRICH Universität Bochum

Es ist eine fundamentale Frage im Blick auf die Zukunftsfähigkeit einer Gesellschaft, dass es etwas gibt, das möglichst alle miteinander verbindet. Aber was verbindet unsere Gesellschaft? Die besondere Herausforderung dieses Themas liegt darin, dass es uns auf ein ebenso weitreichendes wie unübersichtliches Feld versetzt, das von sich aus keine verlässliche Orientierung anbietet. Wir haben hier keine wirklichen Hausnummern, die wir einfach aufsuchen könnten, und so weichen wir schnell aus auf abstrakte Allgemeinheiten, die dann als müde und ermüdende Appelle dem allgemeinen Gewissen anempfohlen werden. Was verbindet uns? Wenn wir die Antwort wüssten, würden wir die Frage wohl gar nicht stellen. So zeigt schon die Tatsache, dass wir fragen, dass wir uns hier in einer Verlegenheit befinden. Ich hoffe dennoch, dass es gelingt, einige Einstiege zu einer Antwort zu skizzieren. Ein erster Einstieg bietet sich an im Blick auf die große und überaus verschiedenartige Familie der Christenheit und das mit ihr gegebene verbindende Potential. Was ist das Verbindende in der Kirche? Ein zweiter Einstieg erweitert unsere Aufmerksamkeit auf das Verbundenheitspotenzial, durch das die verschiedenen Religionen miteinander verbunden sind – falls sich überhaupt ein solches ausmachen lässt. Schließlich wenden wir uns in einer letzten Erweiterung unserer Aufmerksamkeit dem Menschen als solchen zu: Gibt es etwas, in dem wir schon schlicht durch unser Menschsein miteinander verbunden sind? Nach einer kurzen Zwischenbilanz kommen wir dann in einem vierten Einstieg auf ein Verbundenheitspotential zu sprechen, das uns nicht auf unsere eigenen Möglichkeiten hin anspricht, sondern auf die Wahrnehmung der uns aus der Wirklichkeit Gottes entgegenkommenden Verbundenheit verweist. Das mag sich im Moment so anhören wie eine zum Abschluss bemühte beruhigende Zauberformel, aber es wird zu zeigen sein, dass es doch etwas anspruchsvoller ist.

1. Verbunden im Glauben Auch wenn wir Reformierten im Unterschied zu einigen anderen Kirchen mit Gerüchen eher sparsam umgehen, gibt es so etwas wie den reformierten Stallgeruch, und jede Hauptversammlung hat auch immer etwas von einer

106

Michael Weinrich

Familienfeier. Die Hauptversammlung ist selten genug, um immer wieder auch ein gewisses Highlight zu sein. Wir freuen uns auf Freundinnen und Freunde, mit denen wir uns in unserer so oder so reformierten Wahrnehmung des christlichen Bekenntnisses verbunden wissen. Und das ist auch gut so, jedenfalls solange, wie das reformierte Bewusstsein nicht vor allem von der Abgrenzung zu den Orientierungen anderer Kirchen lebt. Es wird davon auszugehen sein, dass jede Kirche ihren eigenen Stallgeruch hat, der von ihren Mitgliedern in der Regel geschätzt wird und von außen durchaus auch ein wenig befremdlich wirken mag. In der Ökumene stoßen wir immer wieder auf dieses Phänomen. Es war Dietrich Bonhoeffer, der sich schon in den 1920er Jahren in seiner Doktorarbeit auch unter Berücksichtigung soziologischer Merkmale mit der besonderen Gemeinschaftsform der Kirche beschäftigt hat. In der Bewährungssituation des Kirchenkampfes hat er sich dann noch einmal intensiv mit der Frage der besonderen Verbundenheit der christlichen Gemeinde befasst. Nachdem im Sept. 1937 die Geheime Staatspolizei das Predigerseminar in Finkenwalde geschlossen hatte, schreibt Bonhoeffer ein Jahr später im Horizont seiner Erfahrungen eine Abhandlung mit dem Titel „Gemeinsames Leben“, die rasch hintereinander vier und dann bis 1986 einundzwanzig Auflagen erlebte. Im Zentrum seiner Überlegungen steht, dass es entschieden nicht unsere Erfahrung sei, durch welche wir miteinander verbunden sind oder verbunden werden könnten, sondern es sei allein der Glaube, der uns zusammenbringt und beieinander hält und zu Schwestern und Brüdern macht.1 Das sei eben die spezifische Sozialform der Kirche, dass sie nicht über von uns zu verwaltende Kriterien reguliert wird, sondern uns vor allem dadurch an sich bindet, dass sie uns von allen Modellen unserer individuellen und gemeinschaftlichen Selbstverwirklichung befreit. Ein „gemeinsames Leben unter dem Wort wird nur dort gesund bleiben, wo es sich nicht als Bewegung, als Orden, als Verein, als collegium pietatis auftut, sondern wo es sich als ein Stück der Einen, heiligen, allgemeinen, christlichen Kirche versteht.“2 Die Grenzen dieser Kirche lassen sich nicht einfach definieren. Sie werden jedoch bestimmt nicht von unseren Sympathien, persönlichen Wunschvorstellungen oder zu realisierende Gemeinschaftsidealen orientiert. Wo sich die Sozialform der Kirche unseren Wohlfühlbedürfnissen anpasst, sieht Bonhoeffer die Gemeinde auf dem Weg in die „Sektiererei“3. Es gehe nicht um eine von uns zur realisierende, sondern um die uns in Christus geschenkte und eben auch allein durch ihn realisierte Gemeinschaft.4 So wie jede Einzelne und jeder Einzelne aus der von außen zugesprochenen Gerechtigkeit lebt, so gilt das auch für die Gemeinschaft, weil 1 2 3 4

Vgl. D. Bonhoeffer, Gemeinsames Leben, in: Gemeinsames Leben. Das Gebetbuch der Bibel, hg. v. G.L. Müller u. A. Schönherr (DBW 5), München 1987, 13–102, 34. Ebd., 32. Ebd., 33 Vgl. ebd., 18.

Was verbindet uns?

107

Christus eben nicht nur für mich, sondern auch für die anderen eintritt, so dass wir in jedem Menschen einem von Gott gerechtfertigten Menschen begegnen, und das geht wohl gemerkt auch über das hinaus, was wir die Christenheit zu nennen gewohnt sind. Es ist dieses Eintreten Gottes für uns, durch das wir untrennbar miteinander verbunden sind. Die Kontrollfrage für Bonhoeffer ist die Ausübung der Feindesliebe.5 An ihr spätestens scheitern all unsere psychologisch kompatiblen Optionen. Feindesliebe überfordert jede von individuellen Neigungen zusammengehaltene Gemeinschaft. Sie offenbart zugleich – und darauf legt Bonhoeffer den Ton –, dass die von unseren Sympathien und Neigungen konstituierte Gemeinschaft vor allem auf der Selbstliebe gründet und eben nicht wirklich als gelebter Dank für Gottes Eintreten für uns verstanden werden kann. Pointiert schreibt er: „Wer seinen Traum von einer christlichen Gemeinschaft mehr liebt als die christliche Gemeinschaft selbst, der wird zum Zerstörer jeder christlichen Gemeinschaft, und ob er es persönlich noch so ehrlich, noch so ernsthaft und hingebend meinte.“6 Das sind sehr ambitionierte Aussagen, denen man aber nicht so einfach entkommen kann. In der Kirche geht es nach Bonhoeffer um ein Familientreffen ganz anderer Art als beispielsweise unsere Hauptversammlung. In der Kirche werden wir von einer ganz anderen Verwandtschaft zusammengehalten als in unseren Wahlverwandtschaften. Aber lassen wir uns wirklich davon verbinden, dass wir miteinander verbunden sind? Setzen wir nicht selbst der mit unserem Glauben verknüpften Verbundenheit unablässig Grenzen, so dass sie nicht wirklich zum Zuge kommen kann? Überlassen wir nicht unserer partikularen theologischen Tradition oder gar unseren persönlichen Sympathien und Antipathien die Regie über unsere Bindungen und Verbundenheiten, und das keineswegs ohne das Pathos des besonderen Hörens auf den Willen Gottes? Weil wir nicht über unseren Schatten springen können, wollen wir die Kontrolle darüber behalten, was uns verbindet. Es erstaunt nicht wirklich, dass die besondere Sozialperspektive des christlichen Glaubens nicht wirklich zum Zuge kommt. Wir sind in der Kirche kaum anders miteinander verbunden als in einem Verein. Das sehen wir an uns selbst, an den verschiedenen Kirchen und ihren spezifischen Milieus und eben auch keineswegs abgeschwächt in der Ökumene. Es ist mehr die Nähe zu uns selbst bestimmend als die Nähe zu Gott, der uns beinahe überall näher erscheint als ausgerechnet auf Golgatha, wo er uns aber tatsächlich am nächsten ist. Das ist wahrhaftig nicht nur den Juden ein Ärgernis (1Kor 1,23), sondern wird auch von uns in der Regel verdrängt. – Wir werden aus anderer Perspektive am Ende darauf zurückkommen.

5 6

Vgl. ebd., 30. Ebd., 24.

108

Michael Weinrich

Erste zusammenfassende These: Die dem christlichen Bekenntnis entsprechende Selbstlosigkeit und Bindungskraft verpufft weithin im Konflikt mit der Selbstsorge und der aus ihr resultierenden Eigenwilligkeit und Treulosigkeit des Menschen. Die tatsächliche Wirkungslosigkeit der christlichen Sozialperspektive entspricht einer weitreichenden faktischen Lebensirrelevanz des Glaubens. Solange wir für unseren Glauben selbst die Regie beanspruchen, bleibt die ihn ausmachende besondere Verbindlichkeit weithin unwirksam.

3. Das verbindende Bekenntnis der Religionen Die Kirche steht in unserer Gesellschaft längst nicht mehr für die allein prägende Religion. Abgesehen von der immer noch fortschreitenden Säkularisierung bewegen wir uns in einem multireligiösen Umfeld, zu dem wir so oder so in Beziehung stehen. Auch eine Nichtbeziehung ist eine Beziehung, aber eben weder eine gedeihliche noch gar eine für die Gemeinschaft produktive. Anstatt diesen Zustand einfach stillschweigend hinzunehmen sollten wir uns Rechenschaft darüber ablegen, in welcher Weise wir mit den anderen Religionen verbunden sind. Auf der einen Seite ist unser Glaube da ganz besonders empfindlich und auf der anderen Seite zugleich geradezu offensiv weitherzig. Empfindlich ist der christliche Glaube darin, dass die Öffnung zu den anderen Religionen die Quelle der von ihm bezeugten Wahrheit relativieren und sich zu der ebenso billigen wie hoffnungslosen Ansicht verlieren könnte, dass entweder unterm Strich doch alle Religionen an denselben Gott glauben oder aber die Wahrheit nur in einem Konsens der verschiedenen Religionen untereinander gefunden werden könnte. Es heißt gern, dass es nun endlich abzusteigen gelte vom hohen Ross eines christlichen Absolutheitsanspruchs, um den Wahrheitsgehalt auch anderer Religionen anerkennen zu können. Angesichts der Vielfalt der Religionen gelte es, bescheidener als bisher von der Wahrheit zu denken. Sie gelte ohnehin nur bezogen auf den jeweiligen Schrebergarten, in dem das jeweilige Glaubensbekenntnis gilt. So sehr die hinter solchen Äußerungen stehende Intention nachvollziehbar sein mag, liegt der Grundfehler eines solchen Programms darin, dass es die Wahrheit mit ihrer logischen Umstellung gleichsam stilllegt. Es wird so getan, als könne es auch ein bisschen Wahrheit geben, hier ein bisschen und dort ein bisschen. Doch eine solche Zähmung kann keine Wahrheit überleben, die ihren Namen verdient. Es gibt eine Großzügigkeit, bei der genau das verloren geht, was sie eigentlich bewahren will. Nicht bescheidener, sondern anspruchsvoller ist von der Wahrheit zu denken, wenn man die verschiedenen Religionen ernst nimmt. Recht verstanden sind Religionen der lebendige Ausdruck dafür, dass sich der Mensch nicht selbst als

Was verbindet uns?

109

die Quelle der Wahrheit sieht und somit nicht absolut setzt. Darin liegt doch gerade das zutiefst Humane der Religionen, dass in ihnen der Mensch Abstand wahrt gegenüber der Versuchung seiner Selbstverabsolutierung. Es ist die babylonische Versuchung des Menschen, einen Turm bis in den Himmel als Thron der eigenen Selbstvergottung zu bauen, der die Religionen auf recht unterschiedliche Weise entgegenwirken. Sie stehen dafür, den Menschen Mensch bleiben zu lassen und bewahren ihn vor den Verheerungen der hemmungslosen Selbstverabsolutierung. Auf höchst unterschiedliche Weise stehen sie sowohl der Hybris als auch der Verzweiflung der Behauptung der Letztinstanzlichkeit des Menschen entgegen und treten eben damit für den Menschen ein. Sie verhindern, dass sich der Mensch über die Wahrheit stellt, weil diese für ihn dann nicht mehr wirklich hilfreich sein kann. Hilfreich kann nur eine Wahrheit sein, die über uns steht. Von der Wahrheit kann kaum anspruchsvoll genug gedacht werden. Religionen sind keine Veranstaltungen der Selbstfeier des Menschen, sondern seiner öffentlichen und gemeinschaftlichen Selbstzurücknahme. Ihre Stärke ist ein achtsamer Umgang mit der Schwäche des immer auch mit Schuld und Unzulänglichkeit behafteten und von seiner Endlichkeit bedrängten Menschen. Sie sollen ihn davor bewahren, sich über sich selbst in abstrakten Illusionen oder Zauberlehrlingsfiktionen zu verlieren, die sich dann früher oder später in zerstörerische Weise gegen ihn wenden. Diese Selbstzurücknahme ist das, was die Religionen miteinander verbindet. Natürlich sind auch die Religionen nicht der Versuchung entnommen, sich über die Wahrheit zu erheben und sie als ihren Besitz zu annoncieren. Das ist die Versuchung des Fundamentalismus, von der sich keine Religion einfach freisprechen kann. Fundamentalismus ist aber vor allem eine Form der Selbstzerstörung der Religion. Fundamentalismus nimmt ihr gerade das, was sie in ihrer Substanz so besonders auszeichnet. Er erklärt die Religion zu der den Menschen anvertrauten Verwaltungszentale der Wahrheit. Ob er nun zum Gotteskrieg rekrutiert oder nur die dogmatische Verwaltung der Wahrheit für sich reklamiert, in jedem Fall greift er die Substanz dessen an, was die Religion zu Religion macht und erweist sich damit faktisch als religionsfeindlich, weil er mit seiner angemaßten Wahrheitsunmittelbarkeit die sie auszeichnende Demut gegenüber der Wahrheit austreibt. Wenn wir da um ein Reinemachen in den anderen Religionen bitten, sollten wir nicht vergessen, auch im eigenen Haushalt deutlich schmutzempfindlicher zu werden. Auch wenn es uns ein Rätsel bleibt, werden wir davon auszugehen haben, dass die uns tragende Wahrheit vom Ostermorgen, die doch entschieden und jenseits aller konfessioneller Vielfältigkeit die Christenheit mit einander verbindet, auch in den für uns immer nur sehr begrenzt nachvollziehbaren Wahrheitseinsichten der anderen Religionen präsent ist. Zweierlei sollte uns zu wachem Bewusstsein kommen: Zum einen, dass wir es nicht nur im Herzen, sondern auch in den Sinnen bewahren sollen, um wie unendlich viel der Friede Gottes tatsächlich

110

Michael Weinrich

höher ist als all unsere Vernunft, und zum anderen, dass der Friede Gottes gerade angesichts seiner unendlichen Überlegenheit unsere Herzen und Sinne in Christus bewahren soll (Phil 4,7). Am Anfang dieses Abschnittes habe ich darauf hingewiesen, dass der christliche Glaube im Verhältnis zu den anderen Religionen besonders empfindlich, zugleich aber auch geradezu offensiv weitherzig sei. Es handelt sich um eine Empfindlichkeit, die von ihrer universalen und eben auch offensiven Weitherzigkeit abhängt. Es ist eine Weitherzigkeit, die ihre besondere Kraft allein aus ihrer definitiven Empfindlichkeit bezieht. Es wäre nicht wirklich die Empfindlichkeit des christlichen Glaubens an die Lebendigkeit des auferstandenen Christus, wenn sie nicht tatsächlich mit dieser Weitherzigkeit einherginge. Zweite zusammenfassende These: Religion steht für eine sozialfähig agierende Selbstzurücknahme des Menschen gegenüber der Versuchung seiner Selbstverabsolutierung und Selbstvergottung. Als solche verträgt sie sich ihrem Wesen nach nicht mit dem Anspruch, die Wahrheit zu besitzen. Sie weiß sich zwar der Wahrheit verpflichtet, aber diese weist prinzipiell über sie hinaus. Indem der Fundamentalismus die Wahrheit an sich reißt und sich damit selbst verabsolutiert, erweist er sich als Zerstörer der Humanität der Religion. Es ist die Selbstzurücknahme des Menschen, durch die die Menschen aller Religionen miteinander verbunden sind. Wo diese nicht mehr zum Zuge kommt, verlieren die Religionen ihr soziales Potenzial.

3. Verbindliche Freiheit Wenn wir nun auch noch über die Religion als Potenzial unserer Verbundenheit hinausgehen, so rückt der sich allein an sich selbst haltende Mensch in den Blick. Immer schon hat er sich seine Blöße schon irgendwie bedeckt, aber in der Regel eben mit Feigenblättern. So wie er die Chance seiner Freiheit schnuppert und wie Prometheus die Welt zu seiner Bühne erklärt, weiß er zugleich um sein Verhängnis, in dem er wie Sisyphos immer wieder den gleichen schweren Stein auf eine Höhe wälzen muss, auf der er sich nicht zu halten vermag. Fortschrittspathos und zugleich die ewige Wiederkehr des immer Gleichen. Karl Barth hat die Fortschrittlichkeit des Menschen aufs Ganze gesehen als „stationär“ bezeichnet, „einem am Göpel [sc. Laufrad] im Kreis herum laufenden, höchst unvernünftigen Rindvieh leider gar sehr vergleichbar.“7 Der Mensch kann sich etwas vornehmen und hat auch die Freiheit dazu, und zugleich muss er sich etwas vornehmen, weil ihn seine Freiheit nicht entlässt, eben auch dann nicht, wenn er erkennt, dass es immer wieder derselbe Stein ist, der ihm da vor den Füßen liegt. Es ist keineswegs abwegig, wenn Camus 7

K. Barth, KD IV/1, 565.

Was verbindet uns?

111

Sisyphos als glücklichen Menschen versteht8; es ist aber das Glück desjenigen, der sich von keinen Heiligtümern und Illusionen mehr zurückziehen muss, weil er ihnen längst den Rücken zugekehrt hat und deshalb von ihnen frei ist. Radikal frei und deshalb so grenzenlos optimistisch wie Prometheus, und zugleich radikal ernüchtert und eben deshalb so zur Freiheit gezwungen wie Sisyphos. Nicht nur der Macher Prometheus, auch Sisyphos lebt vom Pathos der Freiheit, ja ihm ist die Freiheit tatsächlich ein Pathos, im wörtlichen Sinne eine wirkliche Leidenschaft. Alles scheint darauf hinzuweisen, dass in diesem ganz weiten und bedingungslosen Horizont die Freiheit eine Gemeinsamkeit ist, an welcher die Menschen teilhaben. Ob diese Gemeinsamkeit sie auch miteinander verbindet, ist damit aber noch keineswegs ausgemacht. Mich beschleicht immer eine tiefe Skepsis, wenn ebenso gern und wie unausgewiesen gesagt wird, dass es die Freiheit sei, die unsere Gesellschaft etwa gegenüber der Bedrohung durch den blindwütigen und zugleich zielstrebigen Terrorismus zusammenhalte, wie es auch eine verfehlte Unterstellung ist, dass der Terrorismus auf unsere Freiheit ziele. Im Zentrum stehen doch vielmehr die Obsessionen, für deren Ermöglichung wir uns auf die Freiheit berufen. Bestenfalls könnte von einem Zerrbild der Freiheit gesprochen werden, das eben dann entsteht, wenn das, was der freie Markt genannt wird, nicht als brutaler Verdrängungskapitalismus, sondern als Ausdruck der Freiheit bezeichnet wird, oder wenn ein rücksichtsloser narzisstischer Individualismus als freie Selbstverwirklichung etikettiert wird, oder wenn der Sonntag nun auch noch Platz machen soll für die Freiheit des Konsums, dessen Unersättlichkeit ohnehin schon jedes Maß verloren hat und längst mehr der Ausdruck einer Dressur als der Freiheit ist. Es gibt ein ebenso substanzloses wie auf die Dauer tatsächlich selbstmörderisches Freiheitsgerede, das immer wieder zelebriert wird. Weil auf diesem Fass der ideologischen Ausschlachtung der Freiheit der Druck so unverhältnismäßig groß ist, will ich das Ventil jetzt nicht weiter öffnen. Möglicherweise verbindet uns hier mehr als uns lieb sein kann, es ist aber eben nicht die Freiheit, die uns hier verbindet. Sie ist nur das attraktive Werbelabel, das zur Irreführung beinahe überall draufgeklebt wird wie ein ungeschütztes Biolabel im Supermarkt. Freiheit, deren Wahrnehmung sich gegen unbeteiligte Menschen wendet, kann schwerlich als menschliche Freiheit ausgegeben werden. Wo Freiheit für andere zum Schrecken wird, ist sie bereits ins Unrecht gesetzt, auch wenn sie sich dabei auf sogenannte Freihandelsabkommen berufen kann. Es lohnt sich allemal, genau hinzusehen, für welche Zwecke sich ihre Protagonisten auf die Freiheit berufen. Mit diesen Einsprüchen gegen ihren Missbrauch wollen wir uns nun aber nicht die Freiheit ausreden lassen. Das Gegenteil ist der Fall. Es gilt den zutiefst menschlichen Charakter der Freiheit wieder zu entdecken und pfleglich zu 8

„Wir müssen uns Sisyphos als einen glücklichen Menschen vorstellen.“ A. Camus, Der Mythos des Sisyphos. Ein Versuch über das Absurde [1942], Hamburg 1959, 101.

112

Michael Weinrich

behandeln. Es gilt achtsam ihre Verletzlichkeiten zu vergegenwärtigen, damit sie nicht weiter mit Füßen getreten wird, von denen, die sich lauthals auf sie berufen. Keine Freigabe der Freiheit an das Kalkül eines Laissez-faire. Keine Preisgabe der Freiheit an das Kräftemessen, die nur die Freiheit der Starken begünstigt. Soll Freiheit etwas sein, das die Menschen verbindet, dann bemisst sie sich an der Freiheit der Schwächsten. Soll sie der Ausdruck der Menschlichkeit des Menschen sein, dann wird sie für ihn eintreten und sich dem entgegenstellen, was sie bedroht oder gar vollkommen erstickt. In ihrer Schmerzempfindlichkeit wird sie immer auch eine Brücke zur Solidarität schlagen.9 Ja, Freiheit verbindet, oder sie ist verlogen. Wenn ich nicht so recht erkennen kann, was unsere pluralisierte postmoderne Gesellschaft tatsächlich verbindet, kann es per se mit der Freiheit nicht allzu gut bestellt sein, auch wenn ihr Fähnchen allseits geschwungen wird. Vielmehr sollten wir uns eingestehen, dass es die Freiheit leider noch nicht ist, die uns verbindet. Eher sind wir verbunden – wie die Demoskopen sagen – in der Angst vor einem terroristischen Attentat, auch wenn das öffentlich unablässig dementiert werden muss und von den Statistikern als unbegründet angesehen wird. Dritte zusammenfassende These: Es ist die fundamentale Gefährdung des Menschen, dass er die ihm gegebene Freiheit vor allem zur Selbstdurchsetzung und damit zur Beschränkung oder gar zur Stilllegung der Freiheit anderer und schließlich auch seiner selbst benutzt. Der ideologische Weg, den Instrumentarien der Selbstdurchsetzung gleichsam zur Tarnung das Etikett der Freiheit aufzukleben, ist zugunsten einer schmerzempfindlichen Freiheit zu verlassen, die von der Freiheit auch der Schwachen orientiert wird.

4. Eine Zwischenbilanz Was verbindet uns? Auf der Suche nach belastbaren Perspektiven auf tragfähige Sozialformen haben wir drei Einstiege erprobt: Die Verbundenheit im Glauben, das Verbindende in den Religionen und die Verbindlichkeit der Freiheit. Alle drei sind sehr unterschiedlich, beziehen sich auf verschiedene Horizonte und schließen sich gegenseitig nicht aus. Dreierlei ist ihnen gemeinsam: (1) Jede Perspektive trägt so weit die Füße tragen, d.h. ihre jeweiligen Verheißungen halten so lange, wie wir sie halten. Wir sind genau so mit einander verbunden, wie wir uns miteinander verbinden. Das klingt banal, ist aber tatsächlich eher ernüchternd, denn es geht nicht einfach von selbst. Wir 9

Zum Diskurs über die Freiheit vgl. M. Weinrich, (Ver)Bindungen der Freiheit. Perspektivenwechsel, in: Th. Söding / B. Oberdorfer (Hg.), Kontroverse Freiheit. Die Impulse der Ökumene (Questiones Disputatae 284), Freiburg i.Br. 2017, 338–352.

Was verbindet uns?

113

können nicht mit einer uns vorgegebenen, gleichsam natürlichen Verbundenheit rechnen, auf die man sich dann verlassen kann, wenn das Eis dünner wird, und wir wissen ja, dass es schmilzt. Es scheint wie auch in unseren privaten Beziehungen zu sein, die eben auch nur so gut sind, wie wir sie aktiv im Blick halten und pflegen, um von Beziehungsarbeit einmal zu schweigen. (2) Das Zweite hängt unmittelbar damit zusammen. Jede der genannten Perspektiven kann von ihren Protagonisten verfehlt werden und wird eben auch tatsächlich mehr verfehlt als wahrgenommen. Wir wissen um die Ambivalenz des geschichtlichen Auftritts des christlichen Glaubens, wir leiden unter der abgründigen Ambivalenz der Religionen, und die Ambivalenz der Berufung auf die Freiheit ist beinahe erdrückend. Die Kirchen vernachlässigen die Katholizität der ihnen anvertrauten Botschaft und fragmentieren sie durch konfessionelle Grenzziehungen. Die Religionen klopfen sich auf die Brust und bemächtigen sich der Wahrheit, die ihnen genau dadurch entgleitet. Und die Freiheit haben wir weithin der Prostitution überlassen, so dass sie allzu häufig nur ein mehr als zweifelhaftes Vergnügen bereitet. (3) Die dritte Gemeinsamkeit besteht darin, dass sich in dieser nüchtern einzuräumenden Ambivalenz aber das Licht nicht vom Schatten löschen lässt. Das Licht ist bisweilen recht kümmerlich – und wir wissen, dass sich dann die Schatten besonders dramatisch gestalten –, aber es gilt eben auch umgekehrt, dass da, wo sich die Schatten besonders imponieren, um das ganze Feld zu beherrschen, auch dem kleinsten Licht die schlechterdings hoffnungsvolle Kraft zukommt, den Schatten wirkungsvoll die Behauptung zu verbieten, es gäbe nur die Dunkelheit. So wie uns die angesprochenen Ambivalenzen die Verdunklungen und Trübungen vor Augen rücken, so halten sie eben auch den Platz frei für die Verheißungen und ihre Verwirklichungen. Die ausstehenden Erfüllungen können die Verheißungen nicht diskreditieren. (4) Gott tatsächlich Gott sein lassen In unserem Kreis sollte die Frage erlaubt sein: Was hat Gott mit unserem Thema zu tun? Wir haben vom christlichen Glauben, den Religionen und der Menschheit als solcher gesprochen, aber von Gott ist nicht ernsthaft die Rede gewesen. Schaut er uns in seiner Güte wohlgesonnen zu und ermutigt uns, in unserem Engagement nicht nachzulassen, weil auch er nicht nachlässt, für uns zu sein? Oder trägt er auch selbst etwas bei zu dem, was uns verbindet in der Christenheit, unter den Religionen und in der menschlichen Existenz als solche? Haben wir die Vorstellung, dass Gott etwas tut in unserer Geschichte, dass er auch selber handelt bis hinein in unsere konkreten Geschichten? Gottes Handeln in der Geschichte – das ist eine Frage, die in der Theologie ganz aus der Mode gekommen ist. Sie war das Thema der sogenannten Vorsehungslehre, die spätestens mit der pervertierten Vereinnahmung der Vorsehung im Nationalsozialismus nicht mehr einfach fortgeschrieben werden konnte. Vielleicht wäre besser von Gottes Beistand oder Fürsorge die Rede, aber längst vor dem Nationalsozialismus war der Theologie das Thema in seiner

114

Michael Weinrich

ganzen Breite entschwunden. Seit der Aufklärung erklärt sich der Mensch selbst für seine Geschichte verantwortlich. Es ist unüblich geworden, von Gott als dem Lenker oder Hüter der Geschichte zu sprechen, und wo es dennoch geschieht, bekommt es meist unversehens einen anzüglichen und peinlichen Ton – wie etwa 1990 bei der Vereinigung der beiden deutschen Nachkriegsstaaten. In auffälliger Spannung dazu haben wir es uns allerdings nicht abgewöhnt, Gott all das vorzuhalten, was schief läuft, all das Elend und das himmelschreiende Leiden, wo in den meisten Fällen eben auch die Menschen ihre Hände im schmutzigen Spiel haben. Da möge Gott sich doch bitte schön rechtfertigen, wie er all das zulassen könne. Seine Untätigkeit stellt ihn unversehens auf die Seite des Übels und des Bösen. Ich weiß, dass ich jetzt ein wenig vereinfache, aber die Asymmetrie zwischen dem, was wir auf der einen Seite uns selbst zutrauen, und dem, was wir Gott klagend oder gar vorwurfsvoll vorhalten, bleibt auch bestehen, wenn wir uns weiter auf die nötigen Differenzierungen einließen. Zugespitzt gesagt: Einerseits wird Gott aus der Geschichte verdrängt, andererseits wird ihm ihr Elend vorgehalten. Es ist offenkundig, dass da etwas nicht ganz aufgeht. Der hohe Rang, der heute der Theodizee-Frage freigehalten bleibt, nach der sich Gott angesichts des Bösen und des Übels zu rechtfertigen habe, könnte auch ein Hinweis darauf sein, dass uns die Existenznot, in die wir Gott damit bringen, nicht wirklich erschüttert. Das verrät auch das verbreitete Einverständnis mit der Lösung der Theologie, die Gott in seiner beengten Lage durch den Hinweis auf seine Ohnmacht für gerettet erklärt. Dass wir aber mit diesem auf seine Ohnmacht verkleinerten Gott möglicherweise den tatsächlich von unsäglichem Leid betroffenen Menschen das Einzige bestreiten, an das sie sich noch halten können, kommt dabei selten in den Blick. Handelt Gott in der Geschichte? Was meinen wir eigentlich, wenn wir von „Geschichte“ sprechen? Was könnte das sein, was das sich mühevoll durch die Jahrhunderte bewegende Geschehen zu einer Geschichte zusammenbringt, an der wir Anteil haben? Müsste man nicht ein Ziel oder zumindest eine Bestimmung nennen können, um über Geschmacksurteile oder willkürliche und kurzlebige weltanschauliche Etiketten hinauskommen zu können? Welchem „Credo“ folgt unsere Vorstellung der Geschichte? Dem des Prometheus oder dem von Sisyphos? Glauben wir, dass jede Not auch die passende Medizin hervorbringen wird? Glauben wir, dass am Ende doch die Vernunft den Wahn der Macht und die rücksichtslose Raffgier besiegen wird? Woran aber sollte sich diese Vernunft orientieren? Wir könnten diese Reihe der Fragen beliebig fortsetzen. Eines aber ist jetzt schon deutlich: Wir sollen nicht meinen, dass es von Gott noch etwas wirklich Bedeutsames zu sagen gäbe, wenn er nicht fundamental etwas mit dem zu tun hätte, was wir Geschichte nennen. Unsere biblische Tradition bekennt sich durchgängig zu einer Geschichte, die zu keinem Zeitpunkt als gottlos angesehen werden kann, so viel Gottlosigkeit es auch in ihr geben mag. Auch wenn es ihr nicht auf die Stirn geschrieben ist, hat

Was verbindet uns?

115

unsere Geschichte ihren Anfang in Gott ebenso wie ihr Ziel, und ihre besondere Bestimmung hat sie im Ostergeschehen als dem entscheidenden Zentralereignis, das dem Zufall und dem blinden Schicksal entgegentritt. Der allseits erfahrbaren Todesgeschichte steht hier die Lebensgeschichte Gottes entgegen, ganz und gar dem Tod benachbart und ihm zugleich unendlich überlegen. Es ist eben wirklich nicht alles, was Gott in seiner Allmacht macht, aber er macht alles, was für die Vollendung seiner Geschichte mit dem Menschen erforderlich ist; dazu hat er alle Macht bis dahin, sich selbst in seiner Freiheit auch zwischenzeitlich in dieser Welt auch der Ohnmacht auszusetzen. Das ist die Geschichte, auf die sich unser Glaube beruft. Wie sollten wir je von ihr absehen können? All unser christliches Bekennen ginge ins Leere, wollten wir aus den Augen verlieren, dass wir in diese Gottesgeschichte hineingestellt sind, in der wir immer schon miteinander verbunden sind. Das ist darin geschichtlich, dass es nicht allein die Christenheit betrifft, sondern auch die Religionen und eben die Menschheit als solche miteinander verbindet, nicht erst irgendwann, sondern immer schon jetzt. Die Exklusivität Gottes kann nur recht verstanden werden in Wahrnehmung der mit ihr verbundenen Inklusion. Es kann nicht darum gehen, Gott exklusiv für den eigenen Glauben zu reklamieren und ihn damit zum Vereinsboss der Kirche zu erklären. In seiner Exklusivität zeichnet sich Gott gerade gegenüber uns Menschen insgesamt aus, und jeder, der ihm darin zu nahe tritt, indem er sich den anderen gegenüber auf seine Seite schlägt und als seinen Parteigänger ausgibt – und sei es der Papst oder der heilige Franz von Assisi selbst – vergreift sich an seiner Souveränität, in der er der Gott seiner ganzen Schöpfung und somit aller Menschen ist, die er in Jesus Christus mit sich versöhnt hat (2Kor 5,19). Es ist eben seine Souveränität, in der sich seine Exklusivität als konsequent inklusiv erweist. Darin sind wir unverbrüchlich miteinander verbunden jenseits von all dem, was uns gelingt und eben auch misslingt. Wir sind durch etwas verbunden, das wir nicht selbst sind, – Gott sei Dank! Doch unsere Schwierigkeit und zugleich unsere wirkliche Not bleibt, dass wir Gott nicht Gott sein lassen, dass wir uns von Gott nicht verbinden lassen, der sowohl unsere Wunden verbindet als auch sich mit uns und uns alle miteinander in seinem Bund verbunden hat. Das gilt für die Verbundenheit der Kirchen: Ökumene heißt an erster Stelle und überaus folgenreich nichts anderes als Gott in der Kirche Gott sein zu lassen. Wo das verbindlich ist, sind wir miteinander verbunden; nicht zuletzt wäre uns dann auch unsere Verbundenheit mit Israel essenziell. Es sind gerade die von uns definierten Verbindlichkeiten, die uns trennen und der uns immer schon vorauslaufende Verbundenheit die Wirklichkeit absprechen. Das gilt auch für Verbundenheit der Religionen: Sie propagieren keine von ihnen verwaltete Wahrheit, sondern setzen auf die Selbstbewahrheitung Gottes bzw. der von ihr vertretenen Wahrheit. Wo das ernsthaft geschieht, rückt man

116

Michael Weinrich

auch dann zusammen, wenn man nicht in die gleiche Richtung blickt, wenn nach der Wahrheit Ausschau gehalten wird. Und das gilt dann ebenso für die Verbundenheit der Menschheit als solcher: Sie muss nicht den Stellvertreter Gottes spielen und sich im Streit um die Oberherrschaft in der Geschichte zerreiben. Sie kann sich von einer Freiheit verbunden wissen, die in einer gegenseitigen Achtsamkeit ihre tragende Grundlage pflegt, weil auf der manischen Selbstsicherung keine vernünftige Verheißung liegt. Der Weg, den wir jetzt genommen haben, mag etwas überraschend erscheinen, aber jeder Weg, der sich auch an der Ehre Gottes zu orientieren versucht, wird nicht mit dem auskommen können, was sonst an dieser Stelle regelmäßig zu vernehmen ist, wenn gewiss nicht zu Unrecht etwa auf den demokratischen Rechtstaat, auf gemeinsame Werte oder gar einigermaßen schlicht – wie es Angela Merkel gern formuliert – die Art und Weise, wie wir leben, hingewiesen wird. Gott Gott sein zu lassen, das macht uns alle zu Schwestern und Brüdern. Was könnte verbindender und verbindlicher sein als diese Wahrnehmung? Wir sind bereits vereint zur Gemeinschaft. Es liegt Segen darauf, sie dann auch zu leben. Vierte zusammenfassende These: Auch wenn Gott gern all das Übel und Böse in der Welt vorgehalten wird, haben wir ihn weithin als Akteur aus unserer Geschichte verabschiedet. Es gibt eine verräterische wie überaus leichtfertige Sympathie für den ohnmächtigen Gott. Die Rede von Gott verliert aber ihre Substanz, wenn ihm die Geschichte entzogen wird, und unsere Geschichte verliert ihren Anfang und ihr Ziel, wenn das geschichtliche Engagement Gottes nicht mehr in ihrer Mitte steht. Die zu Ostern endgültig erkennbar werdende Pointe des Handelns Gottes macht die Geschichte zu einer Geschichte des Lebens, die dem Tod Einhalt gebietet, so sehr sich dieser auch noch mächtig gebärdet. Diese Geschichte kommt nicht zuletzt darin zum Zuge, dass wir Gott tatsächlich Gott sein lassen. Die Exklusivität Gottes kann nur als beispiellose Inklusionsinitiative verstanden werden. Wir sind durch etwas verbunden, das wir nicht selbst sind. Allein darauf liegt Segen.

„NE RUGǍM PENTRU UNIREA TUTUROR”

CONSIDERAȚII PRELIMINARE ÎN FAVOAREA CONTINUĂRII DIALOGULUI TEOLOGIC INTER–CREȘTIN ȘI INTER–RELIGIOS

Nicolae MOȘOIU Facultatea de Teologie „Andrei Șaguna”, Universitatea „Lucian Blaga” din Sibiu

„Ne rugăm pentru pacea a toată lumea, pentru bună-starea sfintelor lui Dumnezeu Biserici şi pentru unirea tuturor” („Ὑπὲρ τῆς εἰρήνης τοῦ σύμπαντος κόσμου, εὐσταθείας τῶν ἁγίων τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησιῶν, καὶ τῆς τῶν πάντων ἑνώσεως, τοῦ Κυρίου δεηθῶμεν.“) – Ectenia Mare „Duhul Sfânt nu e absent din nici o făptură şi mai ales din cele ce s-au învrednicit de raţiune. El o susţine în existenţă pe fiecare (…). Căci se întâmplă să aflăm şi dintre barbari şi nomazi mulţi care duc o viaţă de fapte bune şi resping legile sălbatice care stăpâneau odată în ei. Astfel se poate spune în chip general că în toţi este Duhul Sfânt.” – Sfântul Maxim Mărturisitorul1

În cererea din cadrul Ecteniei Mari citată supra sunt cuprinse sintetic obiectivele slujirii misionare şi ecumenice a Bisericii. Buna-stare a Bisericilor (eustathes, eustatheo care stă bine, este bine stabilit, ferm, fix, solid), în sensul etimologic al cuvântului şi unitatea reprezintă împletirea sinergică a darului lui Dumnezeu şi a strădaniei noastre. Este invocată mereu, dar poate niciodată destul accentuată, dorinţa Domnului nostru Iisus Hristos: „ca toţi să fie una” (In17,21), El fiind Mântuitorul tuturor oamenilor – Soter tou kosmou, Salvator mundi (In4,42). Iubirea și grija pentru întreaga creaţie a lui Dumnezeu reprezintă semnul sigur al sfinţeniei, pentru că așa cum ne învață Sfântul Maxim Mărturisitorul, în toți oamenii este Duhul Sfânt . Propovăduirea iubirii Sfintei Treimi, manifestată deplin prin Unul din Treime înomenit, Iisus Hristos Domnul, se realizează din iubire şi cu iubire, pentru că Dumnezeu Se descoperă din iubire ca iubire: „Dumnezeu este iubire” (1In4,8) şi toţi ai Săi trăiesc în iubire. Unitatea Bisericii aparține constituției sale teandrice, ca trup extins al Cuvântului întrupat, iar unde este Hristos este unitate și, totodată, o iubire „care dorește să îi îmbrățișeze pe toți în Sine și să-i înfățișeze Tatălui”2. Este o „unitate de viață, ontologic-pnevmatică în Hristos și în Duhul Lui cel sfânt”3. 1 2 3

Sf. Maxim Mărturisitorul, Răspunsuri către Talasie, 15, Filocalia, vol.3, București, 2017, p.76-77. Pr. Prof. Dumitru Stăniloae, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă, vol.2, București, 1978, p.169, a se vedea paragraful despre atributul unității Bisericii și cel despre sfințenia sa. Ibidem, p.172.

Nicolae Moșoiu

118

„Biserica este unirea a tot ce există, sau e destinată să cuprindă tot ce există: Dumnezeu și creație. Ea e împlinirea planului etern al lui Dumnezeu: atotunitatea. În ea eternul și temporalul, ultimul – destinat să fie copleșit de eternitate; necreatul și creatul, ultimul – destinat să fie copleșit de necreat, să se îndumnezeiască; spiritualul de toate categoriile și materia, ultima – destinată spiritualizării; cerul și pământul penetrat de cer; nespațialul și spațialul; eu și tu, eu și noi, noi și voi, uniți în «Tu» divin, sau în relație dialogică directă cu El”4. Vocația unificatoare a omului împlinită în Iisus Hristos, Dumnezeu adevărat și Om adevărat. Unitatea ontologică a lumii în Dumnezeu, afirmă părintele Stăniloae, rezidă, în special, în faptul că „toate unitățile existente în cadrul ei sunt în relație între ele și cu Creatorul și Atotțiitorul, Care, de altă parte, e mai presus de orice relație care L-ar determina și diferenția și pe El”5. Mai mult, există „o rațiune generală a lumii, cu toată varietatea de genuri, o unitate a fiecăruia dintre genuri, cu toată varietatea de specii subordonate, și o unitate a fiecărei specii, cu toată varietatea de indivizi care-i aparțin; dar și o unitate a individului, cu toată varietatea de elemente componente și de accidente. Iar unitatea cea mai accentuată și mai misterioasă este cea a subiectului uman, prin caracterul lui fundamental spiritual”6. Lucrarea creatoare și unificatoare a Logos-ului este adesea subliniată de Sfinții Părinți. Sfântul Atanasie cel Mare ne spune: „Deci Însuşi Cuvântul atotputernic şi atotdesăvârşit sfânt al Tatălui, sălăşluinduse şi întinzând puterile Lui în toate şi pretutindeni şi luminându-le pe toate cele arătate şi nevăzute, le ţine în Sine şi le strânge, nelăsând nimic gol de puterea Lui, ci dându-le viaţă tuturor şi păzindu-le pe toate împreună şi pe fiecare în parte 7 (…) pentru ca să alcătuiască o unică şi simfonică armonie”.

Iar Sfântul Grigorie al Nyssei aseamănă ordinea universului cu armonia muzicală: „Ordinea universului este ca o armonie muzicală, (…) al cărei auditor se face raţiunea (mintea) (…) [care] ascultă cântarea cerurilor”8.

Cu privire la autorul creației Sfântul Ioan Damaschin întreabă: „Cine este acela care a orânduit cele cereşti şi cele pământeşti, toate cele din aer şi toate cele din apă, dar, mai vârtos, cele dinaintea acestora, cerul, pământul, 4

5 6 7

8

Ibidem, paragraful despre „Constituția teandrică a Bisericii”, p.214 sq. Pentru teandrismul Bisericii vezi și Alina Pătru, Comunitatea bisericească şi condiţionările de diferite naturi. Problema limitelor comunităţii bisericeşti, în: Anuarul academic 2003-2004, Sibiu, Ed. Universității ”Lucian Blaga”, 2004, p.277-288. Idem, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă, vol.1, București,2003, p. 173. Ibidem, p. 173-174. Sfântul Atanasie cel Mare, Cuvânt împotriva elinilor, 42 , în „Scrieri”, partea I, PSB vol. 15, trad. Pr. Prof. Dr. Dumitru Stăniloae, Editura Institutului Biblic şi de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, Bucureşti, 1987, p. 79. Sfântul Grigorie de Nyssa, La titlurile Psalmilor, I, 3 , în „Scrieri”, partea a II-a, PSB vol. 30, pp. 139-140.

„Ne rugăm pentru unirea tuturor“

119

aerul, natura focului şi a apei? Cine le-a amestecat şi le-a împărţit pe acestea? Cine este acela care le-a pus în mişcare şi conduce mersul lor neîncetat şi neîmpiedicat? Nu este oare făuritorul lor acela care a pus în toate o lege, potrivit căreia totul se conduce şi se guvernează? Şi cine este făuritorul lor? Nu este oare acela care le-a făcut şi le-a adus la existenţă? Căci nu vom da întâmplării asemenea putere! Dar să admitem că s-au făcut prin întâmplare. A cui este orânduirea acestora? Să o admitem, dacă vrei, şi pe aceasta. A cui este atunci conservarea şi păstrarea lor, potrivit legilor după care, la început, au fost aduse la existenţă? Evident, a altcuiva decât a întâmplării. Iar acesta cine este altul dacă nu Dumnezeu?”9.

La originea creaţiei „există, aşa cum spune fizicianul Fritjof Capra, o ordine superioară tuturor celor pe care noi le putem imagina: ordinea supremă care reglează constantele fizice, condiţiile iniţiale, comportamentul atomilor şi viaţa stelelor”10. Omul nu este un simplu spectator în minunata creație, ci are un rol bine definit. Părintele Stăniloae tratează despre vocația de a uni a omului: „unitatea în sine și relația cu toate îl fac apt pe om de a fi adevăratul inel de legătură, adevăratul centru dat al lumii, dar și centrul care conduce lumea spre o tot mai mare unitate. (...) el fiind în uniune cu Dumnezeu, în măsura în care sporește în această uniune, unește și lumea tot mai mult în uniunea cu Dumnezeu. Dacă Dumnezeu nu ar fi o unitate absolut simplă, dar în același timp izvorul atâtor rațiuni și acte creatoare și desăvârșitoare ale lumii, lumea nu ar fi nici diversă și n-ar avea unitatea ei și nu ar spori în ea”11. În continuare, părintele Stăniloae face referire la Ambigua (P.G.91, col.1305), unde Sfântul Maxim Mărturisitorul folosește expresia „inel de legătură” și afirmă că omul „le aduce în sine la unitate pe cele care sunt distanțate”, lucrarea lui de unificare luând „sfârșit în Dumnezeu, în Care nu este despărțire”12. Dar omul, în loc să unească, fiind ispitit de dezbinătorul (dia-bolos, dia-balloo = a arunca în afară sau împotrivă, a dezbina), a folosit vocația de a unifica în sens contrar, ajungând să se dezbine pe sine, familia, societatea și lumea. Cel care a refăcut și a desăvârșit unitatea în Sine, și între toate și Dumnezeu, ne spune părintele Stăniloae, este Domnul Iisus Hristos, fiind Dumnezeu adevărat și Om adevărat. „Deoarece omul nu s-a mișcat spre desăvârșirea unității sale cu Dumnezeu și cu toate, Dumnezeu S-a făcut om ca să vindece în umanitatea asumată sfâșierile ivite prin păcat și să recapituleze toate în Sine și pe noi cu Dumnezeu. El a făcut toată creația una și la sfârșit a unit firea creată cu cea necreată prin iubire, ca s-o arate una și aceeași prin aptitudinea cea după

9 10 11 12

SF. IOAN DAMASCHIN, Dogmatica, I, 3, trad. Pr. Prof. Dumitru Fecioru, Ed. IBMBOR, Bucureşti, 2005, p. 19. Pr.Prof . Dumitru Popescu, Omul fără rădăcini, Ed. Nemira, Bucureşti, 2001, p. 16. Pr Prof.D Stăniloae, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă, vol.1 (2003), p. 174. Ibidem.

120

Nicolae Moșoiu

har.(...) Din puterea lui Hristos pot realiza și oamenii această operă unificatoare”13. „Unitatea ce o realizează în sine și cu Dumnezeu în Hristos, omul o extinde prin efortul său și la raporturile cu ceilalți semeni. Liniile urmărite de ei se leagă între ele într-o comunicare tot mai strânsă, care urcă spre aceeași sursă și țintă. Toți ajung la o supremă simplificare și unitate, în simplitatea divină. Dar aceasta este echivalentă cu suprema plenitudine. Dumnezeu și toate cele create vor avea o unică simplitate și plenitudine” 14.

Prin Întrupare, Mântuitorul a desfiinţat păcatul în Trupul Său, zdrobind moartea prin Înviere şi a împlinit sintezele ipostatice pe care omul a fost chemat să le realizeze. Sfântul Maxim prezintă constituţia omului ca o pregătire pentru taina eshatologică a teandrismului, omul fiind un mediator chemat să unească, prin sine, lumea cu Dumnezeu. Cele cinci distincţii fundamentale pe care Sfântul Maxim le vede în univers: dintre creat şi necreat, dintre sensibil şi inteligibil, dintre cer şi pământ, dintre rai şi lumea locuită de oameni şi dintre bărbat şi femeie, nici una nu este rea în sine, ci ele sunt rău folosite de diavol pentru o pseudo-divinizare a întregii lumi15. Cele cinci sinteze sunt: Sinteza dintre sexe – este primul stadiu de unire progresivă prin care lumea se va împlini în unitatea lui Dumnezeu. În omul împărţit în două sexe, extrema diferenţiere a universului cunoaşte primul pas spre unitate16. Mântuitorul împlineşte această sinteză prin naşterea Sa, zămislirea fiind fără plăcere, iar Maica Sa a rămas pururea fecioară17. Totodată în exegeza la Gal. 3, 28, Sfântul Maxim arată că Sfântul Apostol, spunând că în Iisus Hristos nu mai e nici bărbat, nici femeie, indică faptul că El a învins patimile şi a supus trăsătura pătimitoare sub puterea raţională a firii, realizând astfel sinteza între sexe. Sinteza dintre rai şi lumea locuită de om. Distincţia aceasta este legată de căderea şi izgonirea lui Adam din rai. Mântuitorul, întrupându-Se, a sfinţit şi lumea şi murind pe cruce, a realizat această sinteză prin intrarea cu tâlharul în rai (Lc 23, 43). Sinteza dintre cer şi pământ - este împlinită prin Înălţarea la cer a Mântuitorului cu Trupul Său consubstanţial cu al nostru, arătând, prin pnevmatizarea şi înălţarea lui la cer, unitatea lumii sensibile dincolo de orice distincţie. Această sinteză are şi o conotație ascetică și mistică: Înălţarea implică în ea și chemarea de a depăşi slăbiciunea trupului şi a „vieţui îngereşte”, pentru a se ajunge la coliturghisirea oamenilor cu îngerii.

13 14 15 16 17

Ibidem. Ibidem, p. 176. Lars Thunberg, Man and the cosmos. The vision of St. Maxim the Confessor, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York, 1985, p. 81. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Kosmische Liturgie. Das Weltbild Maximus des Bekenners, Einsiedeln, 1961, p. 350. Sfântul Maxim Mărturisitorul, Răspunsuri către Talasie, Filocalia, vol.3, p. 62.

„Ne rugăm pentru unirea tuturor“

121

Sinteza dintre inteligibil şi sensibil - a fost realizată de Mântuitorul prin înălţarea Sa cu natura omenească îndumnezeită la Dumnezeu-Tatăl. Aceasta arată destinaţia creaţiei de a fi un „tot” în Logos-ul cosmic, adică în Hristos Domnul. Sinteza dintre necreat şi creat - se realizează treptat şi prin celelalte acte ale Mântuitorului, ale mediaţiilor anterioare, iar plenar prin şederea Fiului răstignit şi înviat, aflat în stare de continuă jertfă, de-a dreapta Tatălui. Unirea dintre Dumnezeu şi creaţie devine vizibilă prin har în iubire; unirea mistică cu Dumnezeu este o unire în iubire; omul, prin această mediaţie a lui Hristos, devine dumnezeu după har18.

Misiunea și mișcarea ecumenică – rod al iubirii jertfelnice Misiunea, în accepţiunea holistică19 a termenului, şi mişcarea ecumenică văzută ca o dorinţă sinceră de realizare a unităţii creștinilor, nu pot fi decât rodul iubirii, al dezideratului ca toţi să se împărtăşească de iubirea lui Dumnezeu, fiind, de fapt, iubirea creştină în lucrare. Bucuria omului duhovnicesc este bucuria celorlalţi, de fapt mântuirea sa este și mântuirea celorlaţi. A considera, cu seninătate, pe toţi ne-creştinii şi ne-ortodocşii vrednici de iad (să nu uităm că din aproximativ şapte miliarde câţi suntem astăzi pe Terra, în jur de două miliarde suntem creştini, mulţi cu numele, dintre care sub trei sute de milioane suntem ortodocşi, iarăşi mulţi cu numele) şi a nu face nimic pentru ca ei să nu ajungă acolo, este cu totul terifiant. Mai degrabă, aşa cum, inspirat de Duhul 18 19

Prof. Ciprian Streza, http://ro.scribd.com/doc/144600730/Mystagogia-Lucrare-Finala-PDF1#scribd În documentul Comisiei pentru Misiune şi Evanghelizare Mondială a Consiliului Ecumenic al Bisericilor intitulat „Misiune şi evanghelizare în unitate astăzi”, se fac câteva precizări terminologice importante: „a) Termenul misiune are o accepţiune holistică: proclamarea şi împărtăşirea veştii celei bune a Evangheliei prin cuvânt (kerygma), faptă (diakonia), rugăciune şi cult (leiturgia), şi prin mărturisirea zilnică a vieţii creştine (martyria); învăţarea ca mod de creştere şi întărire a oamenilor în relaţia lor cu Dumnezeu şi între ei; şi tămăduirea ca integritate şi reconciliere, spre a se realiza koinonia – comuniunea cu Dumnezeu, comuniunea cu oamenii şi comuniunea cu întrega creaţie. b) Cuvântul evanghelizare, chiar dacă nu exclude diferitele dimensiuni ale misiunii, se axează pe o propovăduire explicită şi intenţionată a Evangheliei, incluzând chemarea la convertire personală, la o nouă viaţă în Hristos şi la condiţia de ucenic. Expresia misiune în unitate se referă la căutarea căilor de a mărturisi împreună în unitate şi colaborare – în pofida diferitelor eclesiologii – în contextul provocărilor din ce în ce mai mari cu care se confruntă Bisericile din toată lumea în zilele noastre astfel încât lumea să creadă (In 17, 21), evitându-se orice formă de rivalitate confesională sau competiţie. Aceasta nu implică o eclesiologie nerealistă a unei supra-Biserici; nici nu neagă relaţia intrinsecă dintre misiune şi eclesiologie”, Vezi Mission and Evangelism in Unity Today, în: You are the Light of the World, Statements on Mission by the World Council of Churches 1980-2005, WCC Publications, Geneva, 2005, pp. 62-89, trad. rom. în: Pr. lect dr. Nicolae Moşoiu (coordonator), Elemente de istorie, doctrină şi practică misionară- o perspectivă ecumenică, Ed. Universităţii „Lucian Blaga”, Sibiu, 2006, pp. 403-429.

122

Nicolae Moșoiu

Sfânt, ne spune Sfântul Siluan Atonitul, noi ortodocşii ar trebui să ne ţinem mintea în iad, dar să nu deznădăjduim, să nu ne pierdem speranţa, chiar dacă suntem conştienţi că adesea ţinem „sub obroc” (Mt.5,15) tezaurul de doctrină, morală şi cult, şi nu intrăm nici noi, nu-i lăsăm nici pe alţii să intre în Împărăţia lui Dumnezeu (Mt 23, 13). Acest avertisment dat de Mântuitorul fariseilor ar trebui să ne cutremure. Din perspectivă ortodoxă, observa David Bosch, misiunea are caracter centripet, mai degrabă decât centrifug, organic, mai degrabă decât organizat. Evanghelia se propovăduieşte prin doxologie şi Liturghie. „Comunitatea mărturisitoare este comunitatea care proslăveşte; de fapt, comunitatea proslăvitoare este în sine şi de la sine un act de mărturie. Este aşa întrucât celebrarea euharistică are în mod fundamental o structură şi un scop misionar, şi este săvârşită ca un eveniment misionar. Deoarece misiunea este o manifestare a vieţii şi cultului Bisericii, misiunea şi unitatea merg împreună”20. David Bosch remarca, de asemenea, faptul că misiunea nu se poate face în mod individual, ci numai cu sprijinul Bisericii.

Prozelitismul afectează grav dezideratul unității creștinilor Prozelitismul afectează foarte mult relaţiile inter-creştine şi alimentează reacţiile anti-ecumenice, de aceea este salutară publicarea unui document în care se prezintă, fără nici un echivoc, poziţia intransigentă a Consiliului Ecumenic al Bisericilor în privinţa prozelitismului. Este imperios necesar ca toate Bisericile membre să respecte reglementările cuprinse în acest document. Realizăm, încă o dată, importanţa unui for care să cuprindă toate Bisericile şi comunităţile creştine, pentru că doar aşa pot lua împreună decizii pe care apoi să le respecte cu stricteţe. În acest document se afirmă categoric21: „Responsabilitatea primară pentru misiune, acolo unde există o Biserică locală, îi revine acelei Biserici în contextul respectiv”. „Mărturia comună autentică presupune respect şi înţelegere pentru alte tradiţii şi confesiuni”. „Noi deplângem modul de a acţiona al celor care îşi duc la îndeplinire activităţile misionare şi de evanghelizare, distrugând unitatea Trupului lui 20 21

David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission. Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, Orbis Books, New York, 2005, p.208. „Towards Common Witness: A Call to Adopt Responsible Relationships in Mission and to Renounce Proselytism”, în: „You are the light of the world”. Statements on Mission by the World Council of Churches 1980-2005, WCC Publications, Geneva 2005, pp. 39-58, a se vedea şi trad. rom.: „Pe calea spre mărturia comună: O invitaţie de a adopta relaţii responsabile în misiune şi de a se renunţa la prozelitism” în: Pr. lect dr. Nicolae Moşoiu (coordonator), Elemente de istorie, doctrină şi practică misionară - o perspectivă ecumenică, Ed. Universităţii „Lucian Blaga”, Sibiu, 2006, pp. 433-448 (textele citate sunt la p. 439, 440, 445) . Menționam că sublinierea şi încadrarea în chenar apar în textul original.

„Ne rugăm pentru unirea tuturor“

123

Hristos şi afectând grav demnitatea umană şi chiar vieţile şi culturile celor care sunt evanghelizaţi; îi îndemnăm pe aceştia să conştientizeze că fac prozelitism şi să renunţe la acesta.” Acelaşi document cuprinde şi câteva propuneri practice: Deoarece drumul către evanghelizare în comuniune ecumenică şi parteneriat este încă lung, Bisericile partenere în misiune trebuie: – să se căiască pentru – eşecurile din trecut şi să reflecteze auto-critic asupra modalităţilor de a fi în relaţie una cu alta şi asupra metodelor de evanghelizare, pentru a depăşi, în cuprinsul formulărilor lor teologice sau doctrinare, sau a politicilor şi strategiilor lor misisonare, tot ceea ce exprimă lipsă de iubire, de înţelegere şi de încredere în alte Biserici; – să renunţe la orice formă de competiţie confesională şi rivalitate, precum şi la tentaţia de a atrage prin prozelitism membrii altor tradiţii creştine, acţiuni ce contravin rugăciunii lui Iisus pentru unitatea ucenicilor Săi (In 17, 21); – să evite stabilirea structurilor bisericeşti paralele, şi mai degrabă să stimuleze, să ajute şi să coopereze cu Bisericile locale existente în lucrarea lor evanghelizatoare în societate în general, ca şi în relaţiile cu proprii membri, mai ales cu aşa-numiţii membri nominali; – să condamne orice manipulare a asistenţei umanitare a creştinilor sau Bisericilor pentru a-i tenta pe oameni să-şi schimbe apartenenţa lor confesională sau să promoveze scopurile misionare ale unei Biserici în detrimentul alteia; – să-i ajute pe cei care se află în procesul de a-şi schimba apartenenţa bisericească, să discearnă dacă sunt ghidaţi de motive demne sau nedemne (cum ar fi avansarea pe scara socială sau şanse pentru o viaţă mai bună); – să înveţe «să-şi rostească adevărul în iubire» atunci când consideră că alţii fac prozelitism sau sunt implicaţi în practici de evanghelizare lipsite de onestitate”22. Dacă pentru mulţi ortodocşi cuvântul „misiune” implică încă prozelitismul, deoarece „misiune” a însemnat pătrunderea diverselor agenţii misionare în spaţiul ortodox23, astăzi, ne spunea părintele Bria, ortodocşii trebuie să se implice mult în „misiunea externă”, inclusiv prin colaborare ecumenică.

Ortodoxia este pentru toți oamenii Ortodoxia este ecumenică, adică este pentru toată lumea (oikoumene24), nu poate fi circumscrisă doar unor naţiuni care „s-au născut” creştine şi ortodoxe. 22 23 24

Ibidem, pp. 445-446. Ion Bria, Martyria-Mission. The Witness of the Orthodox Churches Today, Geneva, WCC Publications, 1980, p. 3. Etimologic „oikoumene” înseamnă Terra locuită, iar în sens larg, lumea, sau chiar Universul.

124

Nicolae Moșoiu

Nu ne naştem creştini, ci ne convertim, nu este destul să fi fost botezaţi, dacă nu ne amintim mereu Crezul baptismal, dacă nu experiem mereu pocăinţa (metanoia), ca al doilea botez, dacă nu ne botezăm cu Botezul în Duhul Sfânt, care nu este o altă Sfântă Taină, ci este reînnoirea perpetuă a harului baptismal, cum minunat ne spune Sfântul Simeon Noul Teolog. Cazurile convertiţilor la Ortodoxie din secolul al XX-lea, secolul atâtor martiri în ţările preponderent ortodoxe, sunt impresionante şi au fost posibile prin harul lui Dumnezeu, prin studiu şi, foarte important, prin „adevărul spus în iubire”. Îi amintim aici pe: Kallistos Ware, Placide Deseille, Olivier Clement, Karl Christian Felmy, Gabriel Bunge şi, în mod special, pe Jaroslav Pelikan25. Noi, oamenii, comunicăm foarte mult non - verbal ( unii psihologi spun chiar spre 90%), non idem est si duo dicunt idem, dar nici nu este acelaşi lucru dacă spui în mod diferit acelaşi lucru. Tezaurul Ortodoxiei trebuie mărturisit cu toată dragostea, să se simtă grija, preocuparea şi dorinţa sinceră ca şi ceilalţi să se împărtăşească de adevăr şi de bucuriile noastre duhovniceşti. Această preocupare sinceră transpare din multe documente care cuprind contribuţiile ortodoxe la mişcarea ecumenică, începând cu Enciclica patriarhală şi sinodală a Patriarhiei Ecumenice, Fanar, 1902, până la hotărârile Sinodului din Creta (2016). În documentul sinodal intitulat:„Relațiile Bisericii Ortodoxe cu ansamblul lumii creștine” Bisericile Ortodoxe, cu cele patru excepții cunoscute, declară că: „4. Biserica Ortodoxă, care se roagă neîncetat „pentru unirea tuturor”, a cultivat întotdeauna dialogul cu cei care s-au separat de ea, cu cei de aproape şi cu cei de departe, a condus chiar cercetarea contemporană a căilor şi a mijloacelor de restaurare a unităţii celor care cred în Hristos şi a participat la Mişcarea Ecumenică încă de la apariţia acesteia, contribuind la formarea şi la

25

Poate cea mai relevantă este convertirea lui Jaroslav Pelikan (1923-2006), profesor la prestigioasa Universitate Yale din Statele Unite ale Americii, cel mai important istoric al crezurilor şi dezvoltării doctrinei creştine, luteran convertit la Ortodoxie în anul 1998 când avea 75 de ani! În anul 2004, Biblioteca Congresului (Library of Congress) i-a decernat premiul John W. Kluge pentru întreaga activitate. Distincţia se oferă în domenii unde nu se acordă premiul Nobel, mai precis în ştiinţe umaniste şi sociale. Jaroslav Pelikan a donat Institutului Ortodox „Sfântul Vladimir” din New York, de care a fost foarte ataşat în ultimii ani, cei cincisutedemii de dolari primiţi ca premiu. În privinţa convertirii, profesorul Jaroslav Pelikan spunea: „Am primit sute de invitaţii la interviuri, dar am decis să nu răspund la niciuna” (http://jaroslavpelikan.blogspot.com/ accesat în august 2011), poate pentru a nu-i răni pe membrii fostei sale confesiuni. Este foarte posibil ca studierea în original a operei Părinţilor Capadocieni să fi fost factor determinant pentru convertirea sa. Unii membri ai familiei sale şil amintesc spunând că, de fapt, nu s-a convertit la Ortodoxie, ci s-a întors la ea, „curăţind straturile propriei mele credinţe pentru a ieşi la suprafaţă Ortodoxia care fusese acolo dintotdeauna” - George, Timothy (Summer 2006). „Delighted by doctrine”. Christian History & Biography (Christianity Today International, 91): 43–45 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaroslav_Pelikan, accesat în august 2011.

„Ne rugăm pentru unirea tuturor“

125

dezvoltarea ei ulterioară (…) Biserica Ortodoxă s-a străduit întotdeauna pentru refacerea unităţii creştine”26.

Observăm că în acest document se face distincție clară între unitatea Bisericii și unitatea între creștini; de asemenea este exclusă egalitatea confesiunilor, sau mai bine spus Biserica Ortodoxă nu este o confesiune, deoarece nu se fundamentează pe vreo mărturisire de credinţă ulterioară epocii apostolice, ci este Biserica Una Sancta Catholica27. Prin urmare nici teologia ortodoxă nu poate fi o teologie confesională, ci o teologie ecumenică, deoarece are ce să transmită oricărei confesiuni, întrucât a păstrat întregul tezaur al credinţei apostolice, fiind Biserica deplină. Această deplinătate va fi simţită şi de “ceilalţi”, şi vor fi atraşi de ea (se cunosc cazurile atâtor teologi sau credincioşi obişnuiţi care au reuşit ca prin studiu şi aleasă viaţă duhovnicească să primească darul lui Dumnezeu şi să îmbrăţişeze Ortodoxia), şi în măsura în care creştinii ortodocşi îşi vor cunoaşte, înţelege, trăi - experia şi mărturisi această revărsare ecumenică a credinţei lor, urmând modelul sfinţilor, şi nu doar declarativ, formal, uneori chiar în mod fariseic.

Aportul Ortodoxiei la apariția și dezvoltarea mișcării ecumenice Încă se mai consideră, în multe cercuri bisericeşti ortodoxe cât şi ne-ortodoxe, că mişcarea ecumenică s-ar fi născut din interiorul lumii protestante, ca un rezultat al situaţiei sale interne şi în urma unui efort de a găsi soluţii la problemele referitoare la viaţa cotidiană şi la mărturie28. Din această cauză mulţi ortodocşi mai sunt încă surprinşi de prezenţa ortodoxă în mişcarea ecumenică şi de participarea activă la Consiliul Ecumenic al Bisericilor. În acelaşi timp nu puţini protestanţi, nefamiliarizaţi cu creştinătatea răsăriteană, sunt tentaţi să-i considere pe ortodocşi ca aparţinând unei „lumi” şi culturi diferite, străine preocupărilor mişcării ecumenice, care constituie, adesea, un obstacol în calea unităţii creştine29. 26 27 28

29

https://basilica.ro/sfantul-si-marele-sinod-relatiile-bisericii-ortodoxe-cu-ansamblul-lumiicrestine-document-oficial/ - a se vedea tot documentul. v.: Pr. Prof. Dr. Ion Bria, “Biserica – Una Sancta. De la convergenţele teologice ecumenice spre “comunitate conciliară”, Revista Teologică., nr.3, 1997. George Tsetsis, „The Meaning of the Orthodox Presence in the Ecumenical Movement”, în: Orthodox Visions of Ecumenism, compiled by Gennadios Limouris, WCC Publications, 1994, p. 272. Ibidem. Din păcate, această atitudine s-a făcut simţită şi la Harare, unde a avut loc cea de a opta Adunare Generală a Consiliului (4-13 decembrie 1998), cauza constituind-o retragerea, intenţia de a se retrage sau participarea nesemnificativă a unor Biserici ortodoxe. După ce s-a explicat - reprezentantul Georgiei având o mişcătoare intervenţie în acest sens - că aceste hotărâri s-au luat ca ultimă soluţie la presiunea puternicelor grupuri conservatoare, antiecumeniste, ale căror acţiuni au dus şi ar fi putut duce în continuare la schismă internă, situaţia a început să fie înţeleasă şi s-a hotărât constituirea unei comisii speciale care să analizeze foarte serios problemele apărute şi să redefinească prezenţa şi participarea ortodoxă.

126

Nicolae Moșoiu

Încercând schiţarea unei cronologii a prezenţei ortodoxe, părintele George Tsetsis afirma că istoria mişcării ecumenice şi în special a Consiliului Ecumenic al Bisericilor, este strâns legată de Biserica Ortodoxă. Prima propunere concretă, „fără precedent în istoria Bisericii”30, pentru stabilirea unei „koinonia de Biserici”, a fost făcută de Patriarhia Ecumenică, în binecunoscuta enciclică31 din anul 1920. Odată cu apelul de a se renunţa la prozelitism, documentul accentua convingerea că iubirea va face posibilă cooperarea Bisericilor, şi chiar constituirea unei ligi (koinonia) a acestora, după exemplul Ligii Naţiunilor, dar modelul să fie cel nou-testamentar. Privită din perspectivă ortodoxă, fondarea Consiliului Ecumenic al Bisericilor odată cu prima Adunare Generală ţinută la Amsterdam în anul 1948, poate fi considerată într-un fel ca împlinirea propunerii făcute de Constantinopol cu 28 de ani înainte, cu atât mai mult cu cât modele de cooperare proiectate atunci au devenit bază pentru colaborare, cel puţin pentru primul deceniu de viaţă şi activitate al Consiliului. Este adevărat că la Adunarea Generală inaugurală, dintre ortodocşi au participat doar delegaţi ai Patriarhiei Ecumenice, ai Bisericii din Cipru, din Grecia şi ai Episcopiei Ortodoxe Române din Statele Unite ale Americii. Celelalte Biserici Ortodoxe, deşi participaseră la mişcarea ecumenică între anii 1920-1938 (cu excepţia Bisericii din Rusia, care se confrunta cu marile necazuri cauzate de revoluţia bolşevică), nu au luat parte la Adunarea Generală, ca rezultat al recomandărilor conferinţei de la Moscova ţinută doar cu o lună înainte, unde se decisese neparticiparea32, nu din motive teologice sau eclesiologice, ci din cauza „războiului rece”. S-a reuşit depăşirea situaţiei, şi între anii 1961 şi 1965 toate Bisericile ortodoxe autocefale şi autonome au devenit membre ale Consiliului33. Prezenţa ortodoxă a reprezentat şi reprezintă foarte mult pentru mişcarea ecumenică. Delegaţii ortodocşi au participat activ la: Comisia „Credinţă şi Constituţie” („Faith and Order”) unde au mărturisit „credinţa Apostolilor” (FA 2, 42) şi unde au avut şi au o contribuţie unică la continuarea dezbaterilor despre unitatea văzută; la Comisia „Viaţă şi Muncă” („Life and Work”) unde au 30

31

32 33

W.A. Visser’t Hooft, The Genesis and Formation of the World Council of Churches, Geneva, WCC, 1982, p. 1, la G. Tsetsis, op. cit., p. 272. Într-o predică rostită în Catedrala Sfântul Petru la 8 noiembrie 1967, cu ocazia vizitei Patriarhului ecumenic Athenagora, W.A. Visser’t Hooft afirma: „Biserica din Constantinopol a fost în istoria modernă prima care ne-a reamintit că creştinătatea din toată lumea ar fi neascultătoare faţă de dorinţa Domnului şi Mântuitorului său dacă nu s-ar strădui să facă vizibilă în lume unitatea poporului lui Dumnezeu şi a trupului lui Hristos.” Vezi G. Tsetsis, L’Eglise orthodoxe et le mouvement oecumenique, în: Le monde religieux, vol. 32, 1975, p. 152. „Encyclical of the Ecumenical Patriarchate”, 1920, în: The Ecumenical Review, vol. XII, octombrie 1959, pp. 79-82; reed. în: The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, editor Constantin Patelos, Geneva, WCC Publications, 1978, pp. 40-44; v: trad.rm. în: Biserica Ortodoxa in dialogul ecumenic, Vol2 :1987-2006, Editura Presa Universira Clujeana, 2014, p.7074. Actes de la Conference des Eglises autocephales orthodoxes, vol. II, 1952, Moscova, p. 450. G. Tsesis, The Meaning of Orthodox Presence…, op. cit., p. 273.

„Ne rugăm pentru unirea tuturor“

127

promovat conceptele morale şi sociale şi au accentuat semnificaţia şi rolul cultului, şi mai ales al Euharistiei în viaţa Bisericii, şi au dat expresie experienţei asceticii şi misticii prezente în viaţa trupului eclesial. Dar, în acelaşi timp, Ortodoxia însăşi s-a îmbogăţit mai ales în privinţa trăirii dragostei creştine şi a solidarităţii umane. Consiliul a dezvoltat multe programe şi a pus în mişcare resurse în multe părţi ale lumii, în domeniile diaconiei, educaţiei teologice şi dialogului între creștini. Mulţi teologi ortodocşi au reuşit astfel să studieze în cele mai bune centre universitare din lume şi să participe la numeroase conferinţe internaţionale. Se cuvine să amintim aici că încă de la începutul anilor ’60, părintele profesor Dumitru Stăniloae aprecia că: „Mişcarea ecumenică s-a născut dintr-o nelinişte şi nemulţumire a conştiinţei creştine contemporane, care se vede confruntată cu două fenomene îngrijorătoare ale creştinătăţii de azi: a) cu modul nesatisfăcător în care răspunde năzuinţelor şi frământărilor umanităţii moderne şi b) cu dureroasa fărâmiţare din sânul său propriu. Ea a luat fiinţă dintr-un sentiment de vinovăţie al formaţiunilor creştine pentru cele două neajunsuri amintite şi din voinţa de a le vindeca. De aceea nu se poate să nu se vadă în apariţia şi acţiunea ei lucrarea lui Dumnezeu” 34.

Chiar dacă, spre sfârşitul vieţii, şi-a manifestat îngrijorarea pentru unele neajunsuri din cadrul Consiliului Ecumenic al Bisericilor, părintele Stăniloae a scris, şi mai ales s-a rugat neîncetat „pentru unirea tuturor”, a dezvoltat, încă de la începutul anilor ’70, conceptul „sobornicitate deschisă”35, a cultivat relaţii de prietenie cu teologi catolici, luterani şi anglicani, a lăsat o impresie excepţională celor cu care a participat la diversele conferinţe ecumenice. Părintele Stăniloae s-a înscris pe linia celorlalţi mari profesori de Teologie români: Nicolae Chiţescu, Liviu Stan, Ioan G.Coman, Teodor M. Popescu, Ene Branişte, şi mulţi alţii, care au „crezut în ecumenism”, aşa cum scria vrednicul de pururea 34 35

Pr. Prof. Dumitru Stăniloae, „Mişcarea ecumenică şi unitatea creştină în stadiul actual”, în: Ortodoxia, nr. 3-4, (1963), p. 544. Vezi.: Pr. N. Moșoiu, Taina prezenţei lui Dumenzeu în viaţa umană. Viziunea creatoare a Părintelui Profesor Dumitru Stăniloae, Ed. Paralela 45, 2002, pp. 243-287; „Dacă ar fi să rezumăm sensul conceptului sobornicitate deschisă credem că am putea spune că ar fi: cunoaşterea, înţelegerea, trăirea-experierea, mărturisirea, valorificarea şi actualizarea credinţei Apostolilor în integralitatea sa, la care sunt chemaţi toţi creştinii - uniţi după fiinţă, dar diverşi după persoane, familie, neam şi tradiţii, fiind prinşi în ţesătura dialogică între ei înşişi şi între ei şi Dumnezeu (v. studiul: „Rugăciunile pentru alţii şi sobornicitatea Bisericii”, Studii Teologice, nr.1-2,1970, p.32) - într-o comuniune - koinonia ce poate deveni tot mai accentuată, pe măsură ce ei tind ca toată viaţa lor să se desfăşoare „potrivit întregului” – conform plenitudinii (kata-potrivit, conform; holon-întregului, secundum totum, quia per totum est, „exprimă o totalitate care nu este geografică, orizontală, cantitativă, opusă oricărei fragmentări a dogmei. Acolo unde este Hristos Iisus, acolo este Biserica universală. (Sf. Ignatie, Smyrn., 8,2) , arată această unitate a plinătăţii care nu depinde nicidecum de condiţii istorice, spaţiale şi cantitative”. (Paul Evdokimov, Ortodoxia, trad. din lb. franceză de Dr. Irineu Ioan Popa, EIB, 1996, p.171).

128

Nicolae Moșoiu

pomenire, mitropolitul Antonie al Ardealului, despre patriarhul Iustin Moisescu36. Părintele Stăniloae nu a emis judecăţi apriorice, ci a făcut efortul de a valoriza orice tendinţă de apropiere de învăţătura Bisericii venită din partea diferitelor Biserici şi diferiţilor teologi. A transformat cu multă acrivie sloganul: „Să accentuăm ceea ce ne apropie, nu ceea ce ne separă!”, într-o veritabilă metodă de a face teologie comparată. Părintele spunea cu atâta delicateţe (şi ştim că delicateţea, iubirea, blândeţea, gingăşia, spiritul de sacrificiu sunt dovezile sfinţeniei37) că: „În diferite confesiuni creştine sunt mulţi credincioşi a căror viaţă creştină nu sa redus la formulele doctrinare oficiale ale confesiunilor lor. Tradiţia veche creştină a fost mai tare decât inovaţiile de doctrină aduse de întemeietorii lor şi susţinute în mod oficial până azi de acele formaţiuni şi de teologii lor. În catolicism, de exemplu, se practică până azi Tainele, însoţite de convingerea credincioşilor că prin ele se unesc intim şi nemijlocit cu Hristos, deci că Hristos este lucrător în sânul Bisericii, deşi teoria teologică a dat lui Hristos un locţiitor şi concepe mântuirea adusă de Hristos ca înfăptuită prin simpla satisfacţie dată de El lui Dumnezeu, pe Golgota, sau declară că harul primit în Taine este o graţie creată, nu o lucrare izvorâtoare din dumnezeirea necreată a lui Hristos şi ca prelungire a ei în fiinţa credincioşilor”. Totuşi, deşi: „credincioşii diferitelor confesiuni creştine s-au pomenit fără voia lor în cadrul acelor denominaţiuni, cu credinţe despre un Hristos care nu e prezent cu toată eficienţa Lui mântuitoare în sânul lor, participarea lor nedeplină la Hristos, şi aceasta în mare măsură fără vina lor, poate avea ca urmare o participare nedeplină la El şi în viaţa viitoare, conform cuvântului Mântuitorului: «În casa Tatălui Meu multe locaşuri sunt»”38.

Avem în textul citat aici două elemente de mare importanţă: evlavia credincioşilor, sensus fidelium, mult mai putermică decât inovaţiile doctrinare sau de orice fel (se conferă importanţa cuvenită credinciosului laic în păstrarea dreptei învăţături de credinţă), şi speranţa de mântuire pentru toţi. Expresia „poate avea ca urmare” lămureşte peremptoriu faptul că Dumnezeu este Judecătorul. Conform logicii omeneşti, din moment ce aici participă nedeplin la Hristos şi dincolo vor participa nedeplin, dar Dumnezeu va judeca cine şi în ce măsură va participa, speranţa părintelui era că vor participa mai mult decât aici. Prin urmare, am putea afirma că ecumenismul autentic nu înseamnă relativizarea doctrinei, aşa cum s-a afirmat foarte clar şi la Toronto: „4. Dacă o Biserică este membră a Consiliului Ecumenic al Bisericilor, acest lucru nu înseamnă că ea îşi relativizează propria concepţie despre Biserică” 39;

36 37 38 39

Patriarhul Iustin, Discursuri ecumenice, Ed. Anastasia, 2004, p. 8. A se vedea paginile minunate despre atributul supra-sfinţeniei lui Dumnezeu şi participarea noastră în: Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă, vol. 1. Pr. Prof Dumitru Stăniloae, Teologia Dogmatică Ortoodoxă, vol. 2, p. 269, 270. Trad. rm. în: Pr.conf.Nicolae Moșoiu și Prof. Dr. Ștefan Tobler (editori), Biserica Ortodoxa in dialogul ecumenic, Vol2: 1987-2006, Editura Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2014, p.438-459

„Ne rugăm pentru unirea tuturor“

129

ecumenismul autentic nu înseamnă compromisuri, ci angajament ferm, ştiinţă teologică, grijă faţă de ceilalţi şi faţă de întreaga creaţie a lui Dumnezeu, înseamnă rugăciune. Mişcarea ecumenică nu trebuie confundată cu anumite instituţii şi structuri perfectibile, mişcarea ecumenică este o stare de spirit ce trebuie să se propage cât mai mult. Receptarea convergenţelor teologice40 trebuie să aibă loc la un nivel cât mai larg. Din fericire, multe dintre neajunsurile instituţionale ale Consiliului Ecumenic al Bisericilor, semnalate de ortodocşi, au fost eliminate prin implementarea rezoluţiilor Comisiei speciale41 (cum ar fi luarea deciziilor prin consens şi regulile pentru rugăciunea comună în cadrul întrunirilor ecumenice) instituită la a VIII-a Adunare generală a CEB de Harare (1998). Datorită acestor reglementări a IX-a şi cea de a X-a Adunare Generală a Consiliului Ecumenic al Bisericilor (Porto Alegre , Brazilia, februarie 2006 şi Busan, Coreea de Sud, octombrie, 2013), s-au desfăşurat într-o atmosferă complet schimbată. Dar în Consiliul Ecumenic al Bisericilor, care are aproximativ 350 de Biserici şi comunităţi creştine membre, sunt reprezentaţi doar ceva mai mult de un sfert din întregul număr al creştinilor (aprox. 500 de milioane). Consiliul Ecumenic al Bisericilor este doar un cadru de discuţii şi dialog, nu este o supra-biserică, deciziile aparţin Bisericilor membre aşa cum s-a precizat foarte clar încă de la 40

41

A se vedea recentele documente: „The Church Towards a Common Vision” (Biserica înspre o viziune comună), Faith and Order Paper No. 214, WCC Publications, Geneva, 2013; şi pe: http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/faith-and-ordercommission/i-unity-the-church-and-its-mission/the-church-towards-a-common-vision (trad. rm de pr. conf. N. Moșoiu:„ Biserica: înspre o viziune comună” (prezentare, note și traducere), în Revista Teologică, nr.3, 2015, p.227-267; și Revista Teologică, nr.4, 2015, p.174-198 și pe: http://ecum.ro/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Biserica.pdf) şi „One Baptism: Towards Mutual Recognition A Study Text”, Faith And Order Paper No. 210, World Council Of Churches, Geneva, https://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/faith-andorder-commission/ii-worship-and-baptism/one-baptism-towards-mutualrecognition?set_language=en. https://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/assembly/2006-porto-alegre/3preparatory-and-background-documents/final-report-of-the-special-commission-on-orthodoxparticipation-in-the-wcc; trad. rm în: Pr. conf. Nicolae Moșoiu și Prof. Dr Ștefan Tobler (editori), Biserica Ortodoxa in dialogul ecumenic, Vol 2: 1987-2006, Editura Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2014, p.450-515; A se vedea aprecierea activităţii acestei comisii în: „Mesaj din partea Sanctităţii Sale Bartolomeu I, Patriarhul Ecumenic, cu prilejul celei de-a IX-a Adunări Generale a CEB, Porto Alegre, 2006”: „Comisia Specială pentru Participarea Ortodoxă în cadrul CEB, constituită în cadrul celei de-a opta Adunări Generale, a lucrat temeinic şi a punctat provocări esenţiale pentru participarea noastră în CEB. Pentru prima oară în istoria Consiliului, întrebări fundamentale ridicate de către Bisericile Ortodoxe au fost împărtăşite şi de alte Biserici membre. Subiecte ca rugăciunea, eclesiologia, calitatea de membru, chestiuni de etică şi morală, şi noi modalităţi de luare a deciziilor au fost propuse pentru o reflecţie aprofundată şi pentru noi discuţii. Comisia Specială a pregătit în acest sens un raport. Am remarcat cu bucurie receptarea pozitivă a acestui raport, mai ales din partea Bisericilor Ortodoxe surori. Acum rămâne să continuăm împreună această activitate pentru implementarea deciziilor cu realism şi responsabilitate, spre folosul comuniunii Bisericilor noastre.”, Ibidem, p.428.

Nicolae Moșoiu

130

Toronto (1950), şi s-a afirmat fără echivoc în Raportul Comisiei speciale pentru participarea ortodoxă la CEB: „Deşi Consiliul joacă un rol decisiv în a ajuta Bisericile membre să lucreze împreună pentru a-şi îndeplini chemarea comună, următoarele afirmaţii ar trebui luate în considerare: Bisericile membre în CEB sunt subiectul căutării unităţii văzute, nu Consiliul; Bisericile membre în CEB învaţă şi iau decizii doctrinare şi etice, nu Consiliul; Bisericile membre în CEB proclamă consensul doctrinar, nu Consiliul; Bisericile membre în CEB se dedică rugăciunii pentru unitate şi se angajează într-o întâlnire care are drept scop găsirea unui limbaj cu rezonanţe ale credinţei creştine comune în alte tradiţii bisericeşti; Bisericile membre aparţinând CEB sunt responsabile pentru dezvoltarea şi educarea sensibilităţilor şi a limbajului care le va permite să rămână în dialog”42.

Totuşi, se aşteaptau şi se aşteaptă orientări şi poziţii mai ferme împotriva aspectelor de doctrină şi de morală contrare Evangheliei, cum sunt păcatul împotriva firii, avortul şi legalizarea aşa numitei „căsătorii” între persoane de același gen, acceptată deja în Franţa, Spania, Belgia (Bruxelles este „capitala Europei”!), Danemarca, Olanda şi Canada, mai multe state ale SUA şi probabil urmează şi altele. Se elaborează şi se dau publicităţii, de către Comitetul Central al CEB, multe rezoluţii, dar se uită „rezoluţiile morale”, pentru care Bisericile sunt direct răspunzătoare. Tot gravă este lipsa unei viziuni cu privire la dialogul cu iudaismul în general şi cu mişcarea iudeilor mesianici în special43.

Reconfigurarea mişcării ecumenice În ultima perioada s-a discutat despre reconfigurarea mişcării ecumenice, despre un ecumenism al secolului al XXI -lea44. Mişcarea ecumenică este mai largă decât relaţia dintre Biserici, de aceea viitorul mişcării nu le poate aparţine în mod exclusiv. Prin urmare CEB va trebui să rămână în primul rând „o asociaţie frăţească (fellowship) de Biserici” în căutarea aprofundării relaţiilor dintre ele, 42 43

44

În Biserica Ortodoxa in dialogul ecumenic, Vol. 2: 1987-2006, op.cit., p. 454. O primă consultaţie, într-un ţară majoritar ortodoxă, cu lideri ai iudeilor mesianici (aprox. 1.500.000 în lume), a avut loc la Mănăstirea Brâncoveanu, Sâmbăta de Sus, judeţul Braşov, în perioada 16-19 octombrie 2006. Este important să menţionăm Consultaţia internaţională pe tema reconfigurării mişcării ecumenice desfăşurată la Beirut, Liban, 16-21 noiembrie 2003. Consultaţia a avut loc la invitaţia CEB, lucrările desfăşurându-se la reşedinţa din Antelias, Beirut, a Î.P.S. Catolicosul Aram I al Ciliciei, care a fost, pentru două mandate consecutiv, şi moderatorul CEB (19912006). Un grup de 40 de persoane format din teologi, conducători de Biserici, sociologi şi personal al CEB, au reflectat asupra necesităţii unui proces prin care să se ajungă la reconfigurarea mişcării ecumenice. (A avut bucuria sa participe și semnatarul acestei prezentări).

„Ne rugăm pentru unirea tuturor“

131

spre o deplină comuniune în credinţă şi viaţă, mărturie şi slujire. În acelaşi, timp CEB va oferi posibilitatea participării şi altor parteneri la realizarea obiectivelor ecumenice. Documentul Common Understanding and Vision (CUV) a prilejuit iniţierea unei schimbări instituţionale în CEB, a oferit înţelegerea CEB ca o „asociaţie frăţească de Biserici” în drum spre comuniune în credinţă şi viaţă, mărturie şi slujire. Totodată, Comisia specială privind participarea ortodoxă la mişcarea ecumenică şi-a articulat viziunea sa despre: „un Consiliu care să ţină împreună Bisericile într-un spaţiu ecumenic: unde se poate construi încrederea; unde Bisericile pot experia şi dezvolta viziunea lor despre lume, practica lor socială, tradiţiile lor liturgice şi doctrinare, în acelaşi timp adâncind relaţiile dintre ele; unde Bisericile vor crea în mod liber reţele de sprijin pentru diverse categorii defavorizate şi servicii diaconice, făcându-şi resursele materiale disponibile reciproc; unde, prin dialog, Bisericile vor continua să desfiinţeze barierele care nu le permit să se recunoască reciproc în calitate de Biserici care mărturisesc credinţa cea una, celebrează un singur Botez şi administrează unica Euharistie, pentru ca să progreseze spre comuniunea în credinţă, viaţă sacramentală şi mărturisire”45.

Pe langă extinderea comuniunii, reconfigurarea mişcării ecumenice înseamnă şi aprofundarea acestei comuniuni şi întărirea relaţiilor dintre diferite organisme ecumenice, pentru a asigura o mai mare coerenţă şi eficacitate. Se vorbeşte despre regionalizare şi policentrism care ar putea reprezenta pivotul procesului de reconfigurare, deoarece ar asigura o participare mai extinsă şi o comuniune mai profundă. Separările și tensiunile dintre creştini reprezintă foarte grave contra-mărturii pentru misiunea și evanghelizarea mondială Din cele de mai sus putem desprinde ideea că, în pofida faptului că unitatea este vitală pentru toate Bisericile din cadrul mişcării ecumenice, lipseşte voinţa concretă, sau nu este încă timpul potrivit. Ezitările, tensiunile şi chiar contradicţiile din documente reflectă situaţia din Biserici. Să menţionăm două aspecte care ne privesc direct, primul pe plan local, al doilea pe plan panortodox. În timp ce Biserica Ortodoxă Română este membră a CEB, a CBE (Conferinţa Bisericilor Europene), a altor organisme ecumenice şi este parte oficială în dialoguri bilaterale şi multilaterale, există publicaţii bisericeşti locale şi centrale care adesea conţin materiale vădit anti-ecumenice. Foarte gravă este şi atitudinea anti-ecumenică prezentă în anumite comunităţi monahale. Din teama nefondată că s-ar relativiza adevărul de credinţă, este criticată virulent orice apropiere prin dialog de alţi creştini, fără să se ofere nici o alternativă pentru realizarea dorinţei Mântuitorului „ca toţi să fie una”. De fapt, nu există alternativă la dialogul teologic pentru realizarea unităţii văzute – ne rugăm mereu pentru „unitatea credinţei şi împărtăşirea (koinonia) Duhului Sfânt”- , iar separarea şi violenţele dintre noi creştinii reprezintă cea 45

În: Biserica Ortodoxa in dialogul ecumenic, Vol2: 1987-2006, Editura Presa Universitară Clujeană, 2014, p. 475.

132

Nicolae Moșoiu

mai gravă contra-mărturie. Și cei care se pretind a fi împotriva ecumenismului (greșit înțeles ca relativizare a credinței!) ar trebui să fie dominaţi de iubire faţă de întreaga creaţie a lui Dumnezeu şi de dorinţa „ca toţi să se mântuiască”. Ar trebui să înţeleagă că Biserica este revelarea iubirii lui Dumnezeu. Totodată, nu este destul să se gândească doar la „pastoraţia în aşteptare”, ci să plece, cel puţin temporar, în misiune, în sensul holistic al termenului, în afara ţării, în zone de risc unde mulţi „eretici” şi „schismatici” se expun diverselor pericole pentru a-L vesti pe Hristos, adesea indirect, prin asistenţă educaţională, asistenţă medicală, „advocacy”, ş.a. La Porto Alegre ( unde s-a desfășurat a IX Adunare Generală a CEB, februarie 2006) am fost şocaţi când, din raportul46 secretarului general de atunci al CEB, Dr. Samuel Kobia, am aflat că: „Ȋntr-o epocă în care ar putea fi suficientă hrana pentru toţi locuitorii planetei noastre, 852 de milioane de oameni suferă de inaniţie, mai mult cu 10 milioane decât în anul 2003, în fiecare zi 25.000 de persoane mor de foame şi de sete, dintre care 16.000 de copii, adică un copil la fiecare cinci secunde; în același timp se aruncă tone de hrană în țările bogate, mai precis echivalentul a două kilograme de hrană pe zi pentru fiecare om care moare de foame”!

Întotdeauna misiunea externă, care implică adesea martyria, este calea sigură pentru revigorarea unei Biserici. În acest sens, un ieromonah cu aleasă cultură şi viaţă duhovnicească îşi încheia una dintre valoroasele sale cărţi, prin cuvintele: „E foarte caracteristic pentru Ortodoxie faptul că nici o taină şi nici un act liturgic, în special Taina Sfintei Euharistii, nu se săvârşeşte fără să avem pe sfântul Altar Antimisul şi Evanghelia. Şi aceasta înseamnă coexistenţa Cuvântului lui Dumnezeu cu viaţa martirică a Bisericii. Dacă în lume morţile sunt spre disperare şi spre sfârşit şi spre întuneric, tot cel care îşi dă viaţă întrun fel sau altul pentru Hristos, fie pe calea ascetică şi duhovnicească a spiritualităţii, a ascezei, a misticii, a contemplaţiei, fie pe calea cealaltă, a martiriului şi a mărturisitorilor, o va câştiga înmiit în Dumnezeu, o va câştiga în Hristos, Cel Care ne va da tuturor Învierea: frumuseţea vocaţiei eshatologice”47.

Misiunea – factor determinant pentru dezvoltarea Teologiei S-a spus adesea și că împărţirea studiilor teologice în cele patru secţii clasice – biblică, istorică, sistematică şi practică - este depăşită şi trebuie reconsiderată. Între consecinţele negative ale acestei împărţiri, justificată mai curând de raţiuni didactice, este şi separarea diverselor domenii ale cercetării teologice şi dezvoltarea unor discursuri mai mult sau mai puţin paralele48. De fapt, întreg 46 47 48

www.wcc-assembly.info. Ieromonah Teofan Mada, Homo seculus. Antropologia filosofică a religiei, Sibiu, 2008, p. 261. Pr. Prof. dr. Constantin Coman, Dialog teologic, în: Studii Teologice, seria a III-a, anul II, nr. 2 (2006), p.181.

„Ne rugăm pentru unirea tuturor“

133

studiul teologic ar trebui făcut din perspectiva, şi în perspectiva misiunii. Poate de aceea misiunea a fost numită „mama teologiei”49, expresie folosită prima dată de teologul sistematician Martin Kahler. Teologia a apărut ca „o manifestare însoţitoare a misiunii creştine”, ca urmare a întâlnirii misionare cu lumea, era forţată să teologizeze50. Nici Teologia Dogmatică nu mai poate fi predată după o metodă comparatistă simplificatoare, cu accentuarea unor „diferenţe confesionale” care adesea nu mai sunt, sau nu au fost niciodată valabile integral51, ci fiind bine întemeiată biblic şi patristic, trebuie să descopere identitatea proprie a Ortodoxiei, cu deschidere ecumenică, în sensul cuceririi ( de aici apelativul cucernic și preacucernic!) „celorlalţi” prin adevăr, obiectivitate şi iubire, nu prin complex de superioritate şi desconsiderare. Astăzi sunt numeroşi, inclusiv în învăţământul teologic universitar, cei care cred că ecumenismul a intrat într-o fază delicată, cu semne accentuate de declin, situaţie amplificată şi de confundarea Misiologiei cu Sectologia şi de tratarea superficială a ecumenismului în învăţământul nostru teologic. Se resimt evenimentele dramatice care însoţesc schimbările din Europa (conflictele etnice, emigrarea şomajul, dezorientarea, tendinţele sincretiste, libertinajul, disoluţia familiei şi a eticii conjugale ş.a.). Bisericile, chiar din aceeaşi tradiţie, tind spre confruntare. Marile puteri nu au o viziune pentru o societate mai bună şi mai dreaptă, ci doar un plan pentru „o noua ordine mondială”, poate la fel de nedreaptă ca şi cea veche. Naţiunile şi popoarele nu doresc să convieţuiască în pace cu celelalte, ci doresc să se „purifice”. Procesul de unificare şi transformare a Europei într-o entitate multi-culturală va afecta întreaga omenire, nu doar locuitorii statelor membre. Europa este datoare să păstreze echilibrul spiritual, acum, când răul se strecoară tot mai insidios. Dacă vedem Biserica nu ca pe o instituţie, ci drept koinonia, poporul lui Dumnezeu chemat să descopere iubirea lui Dumnezeu, să ofere mărturie despre prezenţa Sa restauratoare, atunci şi concepţia despre învăţământul teologic trebuie restructurată. Scopul principal al educaţiei teologice nu este simpla „producere” de candidaţi la hirotonie şi la misiune, ci oferirea certitudinii că absolvenţii vor fi capabili să creeze comunităţi creştine autentice. De la 49 50 51

David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission. Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, Orbis Books, New York, 2005, p.15. Ibid., p.16. În acest sens considerăm că este important să se analizeze studiul scris de părintele Stăniloae: Doctrina luterană despre justificare şi cuvânt şi câteva reflecţii ortodoxe, (Ortodoxia nr. 4, 1983, p. 495-508) publicat atunci când părintele împlinea venerabila vârstă de optzeci de ani. De la început se arată că în pofida faptului că manualele de Dogmatică ortodoxă prezintă justificarea luterană ca un act prin care omul este asigurat că păcatele lui sunt iertate, fără a fi şterse (simul justus et peccator), sau fără a se produce vreo schimbare în fiinţa lui (actus forensis), din studiile teologilor protestanţi din epoca mai recentă şi chiar din textele din opera lui Luther pe care se bazează, se poate constata că „justificarea este înţeleasă de Luther adeseori ca un act care produce o viaţă nouă în fiinţa omului” (Ibidem, p.501).

134

Nicolae Moșoiu

începutul scolasticismului, şi chiar după Renaştere, Teologia a fost o disciplină care utiliza metodele logicii aristotelice, cunoaşterea raţională devenind singura formă de cunoaştere legitimă. Treptat, educaţia teologică şi-a mutat centrul din contextul euharistic/liturgic al comunitaţii locale, ajungând să pregătească doar „lideri” bisericeşti, nu întregul popor al lui Dumnezeu. Misiunea şi mişcarea ecumenică nu trebuie să fie „paralizate de instituţionalism”, căci în criză pot fi instituţiile misionare şi ecumenice, nu misiunea şi mişcarea ecumenică în sine, care sunt susţinute de nenumăraţi credincioşi care se roagă neîncetat „pentru unirea tuturor”. În concluzie, creația și Biserica, fiind darurile lui Dumnezeu Celui Unu în Treime, ar trebui să reflecte mereu unitatea ființială și diversitatea ipostatică a Preasfintei Treimi, Care le-a creat și le ține pe toate în ființare. Dezbinarea, ura, exploatarea nemiloasă a omului și a naturii, violența și războiul sunt semne clare ale căderii sub influența celui care dezbină (diaballo), a dușmanului celui mai mare al omului și al lumii, și ale ignorării operei de mântuire a omului și a creației, săvârșite de Domnul nostru Iisus Hristos, Cel care S-a rugat „ca toți să fie una hina pantes hen osin; ut omnes unus sint” (In17, 21) și Care le va recapitula pe toate întru Sine „ca toate să fie iarăşi unite în Hristos, cele din ceruri şi cele de pe pământ - toate întru El – anakephaleosasthai52 ta panta en to Hristo; instaurare omnia in Christo” (Efes1,10).

52

„Termenul apare în Noul Testament de două ori în Romani 13,9 (anakephalaioutai) şi în Efeseni 1,10 (anakephalaiosastai). Dacă în Epistola către Romani, Sfântul Apostol Pavel subliniază cuprinderea tuturor poruncilorbîn dragoste, în Epistola către Efeseni, subliniază recapitularea, întregii creaţii în Hristos. Dacă în Epistola către Coloseni, Sfântul Pavel prezintă pe Hristos ca fiind întâiul în ordinea creaţiei şi mântuirii (Coloseni 1, 15-20), în Epistola către Efeseni, Sfântul Pavel priveşte acest aspect dintr-o perspectivă eclesiologică numindu-L pe Hristos Cap al Bisericii, iar Biserica Trupul Său, care cuprinde întreg cosmosul înnoindu-l şi transfigurându-l. În aceste epistole întâlnim atât perspectiva cosmică a originilor, cât şi cea eshatologică în sensul de recapitulare a întregii creaţii în Hristos, Creatorul şi Mântuitorul.”, Pr. prof. Cristinel Ioja „Darul unităţii lumii și rolul Bisericii în unificarea și transfigurarea ei” în vol. Darul Unitații Bisericii și a Lumii, Implicatii Teologico-Dogmatice și Culturale, Al V-lea Colocviu National de Teologie Dogmatica, Facultatea de Teologie Sfântul Andrei Saguna, Sibiu 13-14 Mai 2014, Editura Astra Museum, Sibiu, 2015, p.202; ar fi important de văzut tot volumul pentru tematica abordată.

DEZVOLTAREA LITURGICĂ A BISERICII ÎN SECOLUL AL IV-LEA TEMEI ISTORIC ȘI LITURGIC AL DESCHIDERII ECUMENICE Dan Alexandru STREZA Facultatea de Teologie „Andrei Șaguna”, Universitatea „Lucian Blaga“ din Sibiu

Rezumat Creștinismul a cunoscut o dezvoltare lentă în primele patru secole, Biserica primară fiind împiedicată să se manifeste în plenitudinea ei şi să se dezvăluie lumii, ca bucurie a comuniunii omului cu Dumnezeu. Secolul al IV-lea a fost o perioadă decisivă pentru Biserică, fiind marcat de profunde schimbări şi transformări privind stabilitatea, siguranța şi consolidarea poziției Bisericii în diferitele contexte politice şi socio-culturale, în urma edictului de la Milan din 313. În urma acestui act istoric, împăratul Constantin cel Mare a ridicat creștinismul din ilegalitate civilă la statutul de cult legal, iar libertatea pe care Biserica a dobândit-o a fost în mod fundamental o libertate a cultului. Dezvoltarea liturgică în această perioadă reflectă o legătură organică între sărbătorile creștine şi ritmurile naturale, cosmice, și aceasta reprezintă o concretizare a conceptului cultural de timp sacru în contextul elenistic în care sa dezvoltat misiunea Bisericii primare. Misiunea aceasta presupune depășirea tuturor limitărilor civilizației umane, începând cu oscilația dintre credință şi necredință, și culminând cu transcenderea tuturor granițelor naționale, culturale și sociale. Secolul al IV-lea a fost o perioadă decisivă pentru Biserică, fiind marcat, de profunde schimbări şi transformări privind stabilitatea, siguranţa şi consolidarea poziţiei Bisericii în diferitele contexte politice şi socio-culturale, în urma edictului de la Milan din 313, prin care Constantin cel Mare a ridicat Biserica din ilegalitate civilă la statutul de cult legal, dar mai ales favorizat de puterea imperială, în dauna cultelor păgâne.1 Tranziţia de la cultul restrâns şi ascuns datorită persecuţiilor, al Bisericii din catacombe, la o manifestare liturgică publică în continuă dezvoltare, a avut ca rezultat următoarele procese fundamentale – dezvoltarea şi amplificarea ceremonialului extern al cultului legat mai întâi de construirea bisericilor, ca lăcaşuri consacrate în care comunităţile creştine tot mai numeroase au putut fi atrase la participarea liturgică;2 1 2

ROLL S. K., Towards Origins of Christmas, Kok Pharos, Kampen, 1995, p. 28-29. DIX, Gregory. The Shape of the Liturgy, reprint, Seabury, New York, 1983, p. 305-306.

136

Dan Alexandru Streza

– evoluţia şi diversificarea ciclurilor temporale liturgice prin apariţia ideii de an, săptămână şi zi liturgică, concepte ce stau la baza evoluţiei spirituale ale fiecărui creştin; – apariţia a noi sărbători ori a unui întreg ciclu de sărbători, acestea având menirea de a umple timpul obişnuit de prezenţa tainică, sacramentală a lui Hristos Cel mort şi înviat, devenind prilejuri specifice de a actualiza prin celebrarea euharistică această Taină mântuitoare; – înflorirea imnografiei religioase care a devenit treptat principalul element extern al cultului, având ca funcţie esenţială receptarea liturgică de către toţi credincioşii a marilor idei teologice exprimate de Părinţii Bisericii; – dezvoltarea tot mai accentuată a cultului martirilor şi al sfinţilor, care au devenit mijlocitori înaintea lui Dumnezeu pentru toată lumea şi făcători de minuni celor ce îi cinstesc prin evlavie în comemorarea liturgică, fiind în acelaşi timp adevărate modele de sfinţenie. De aici, închinarea la mormintele sfinţilor şi venerarea relicvelor acestora, precum şi a altor obiecte ce au aparţinut lor, au devenit practici comune întregii Biserici, având un caracter deosebit.3 Astfel, fiecare dintre aceste procese şi aspecte ale dezvoltării liturgice, par a fi o adevărată revoluţie ce a avut loc în Biserică odată cu pacea adusă de Constantin cel mare. Totuşi, o aprofundată analiză a lor scoate la iveală că nici una dintre aceste transformări radicale nu şi-a avut începutul absolut în epoca lui Constantin, ci toate au fost pregătite, într-un fel sau altul, în viaţa Bisericii din epoca precedentă. Este evident faptul că pacea lui Constantin a dat un nou avânt proceselor de dezvoltare, le-a grăbit şi le-a dat frecvent o semnificaţie mai bogată, însă, acest proces nu poate fi nicidecum caracterizat ca o reformare radicală, prin care un tip de cult ar fi fost pur şi simplu înlocuit cu un altul, ca rezultat al unei revoluţii liturgice.4 În ceea ce priveşte construirea de biserici, acest proces, deşi a fost o expresie dominantă în atitudinea lui Constantin faţă de Biserică şi a exercitat o influenţă covârşitoare în dezvoltarea cultului în toate epocile următoare, totuşi nu îşi are originea în zilele lui Constantin. Este binecunoscut faptul că spaţiul destinat cultului a avut o importanţa majoră în creştinismul primar, cunoscând o evoluţie de la casele private cu spaţiu suficient, puse la dispoziţia Bisericii de creştinii mai înstăriţi, la consacrarea acestor spaţii doar pentru întrebuinţare liturgică, urmând ca spre sfârşitul sec. al II-lea, şi începutul sec. al III-lea să fie atestat procesul de construire a primelor biserici creştine.5 3 4 5

SCHMEMANN A., Introducere în teologia liturgică, trad. rom. BÂRZU V., Sophia, Bucureşti, 2002, p. 145. Ibidem, p. 146. STREZA, L. Pr. Asist. Dr., Biserica - locaş de închinare, O XXXIV (1982), 4, p. 562-563; vezi şi: IDEM, The Mystagogy of Sacred Space, SL, 24, 1994, nr.1, p.84-90; BRANIŞTE E., Pr. Prof. Dr., Liturgica generală…, p. 282-286; MOISIU A., Pr. Prof. Dr., Biserica - locaş de închinare, în MA, XXIX (1972), 5-6, p. 413-419.

Dezvoltarea liturgică a Bisericii în secolul al IV-lea

137

Existenţa locaşurilor construite de creştini pentru cult, este atestată în toate oraşele şi regiunile Imperiului prin dovezi şi mărturii literare şi prin descoperiri arheologice. Dintre mărturiile literare în acest sens, Eusebiu de Cezareea, este cel care aminteşte în numeroase rânduri în Istoria sa faptul că, după anul 260, locaşurile de închinare ale creştinilor, devenind neîncăpătoare, au fost înlocuite cu altele, construite special în acest scop, fiind dărâmate apoi în timpul persecuţiilor lui Diocleţian.6 În acelaşi timp, edificiul public în care aveau loc judecăţile şi alte întruniri civile, numit basilica (din gr. Basileus oikia - casa Împăratului), a fost de asemenea folosită de creştini ca locaş de închinare, în numeroase ţinuturi ale Imperiului, în urma convertirii majorităţii membrilor unei comunităţi. Ca urmare a acestui fapt, denumirea de basilica este generalizată adesea pentru a desemna orice locaş creştin de închinare.7 Evoluţia dinamică a anului bisericesc prin apariţia a noi sărbători şi cicluri liturgice, deşi este una dintre cele mai caracteristice trăsături ale perioadei postconstantiniene, această înflorire a vieţii bisericeşti liturgice a fost în mod sigur pregătită înainte de Constantin.8 În acest sens, o dovadă o constituie tocmai apariţia şi stabilirea ciclului liturgic al Arătării lui Dumnezeu - Crăciunul şi Epifania în terminologia actuală - un proces foarte complicat, care, chiar ignorând ipoteza lansată de McArthur,9 ce datează acest ciclu din primul secol, este un fapt stabilit şi dovedit că sărbătorile Crăciunului şi Epifaniei, au o preistorie care datează din perioada pre-constantiniană.10 Acelaşi lucru poate fi spus şi privitor la celelalte aspecte ale dezvoltării liturgice din sec. al IV-lea. Apariţia de noi slujbe în ciclul zilnic şi evoluţia liturgică a zilelor speciale ale săptămânii nu distrug structura fundamentală a ciclurilor zilnice sau săptămânale, aşa cum s-au format până în secolul al IV-lea, păstrând o asemănare structurală faţă de cultul iudaic, nefiind dependent şi diferenţiinduse mereu de acesta prin conţinut.11 Tot astfel, şi dezvoltarea imnografiei, ce fost de la început o preocupare a Bisericii de a defini specificul tainic al experienţei creştine, cunoaşte un avânt 6 7 8 9 10 11

EUSEBIU al Cezareei, Istoria bisericească, VII,15, VIII,1-2, trad. rom. de Pr. BODOGAE T., în PSB 13, EIBMBOR, Bucureşti, 1987, p. 223-224, 248-249. BRANIŞTE E., Pr. Prof. Dr., Liturgica generală cu noţiuni de artă bisericească, arhitectură şi pictură creştină, IBMBOR, Bucureşti, 1993., p. 293-296. MARTINEZ G., Cult and Culture: the Structure of the Evolution of Worship, în Worship, 64/5 (Sept. 1990), p. 416-419. McARTHUR, A., The Evolution of the Christian Year, SCM, London, 1953, p. 38 . ROLL S. K., Towards Origins of Christmas…, p. 105-106. Vezi: OESTERLEY W.O.E., The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy, Oxford University Press, 1925; JEREMIAS J., The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, Biackwell, Oxford, 1955; DIX G., The Jew and the Creek: A Study in the Primitive Church, Dacre Press, Westminster,1953; GAVIN F., The Jewish Antecedents of the Christian Sacraments, , S.P.C.K., London, 1928; BAUMSTARK, Liturgie Comparée…; DUGMORE C.W., The Influence of the Synagogue on the Divine Office, The Faith Press, London, 1984.

138

Dan Alexandru Streza

puternic în sec. al IV-lea determinat şi de provocările controverselor doctrinare ca Biserica să-şi definească tot mai clar învăţătura şi doctrina ei. În cele din urmă, cultul sfinţilor, care se extinsese în proporţii uimitoare în perioada bizantină, a fost fixat direct în „natalia” martirilor, adică în comemorarea zilei morţii lor, ca zi a naşterii lor în ceruri.12 Pe lângă aceste considerente, trebuie menţionat faptul că în procesul schimbărilor liturgice care au avut loc începând cu sec. al IV-lea, libertatea pe care Biserica a dobândit-o prin Edictul de la Milan, a fost în mod fundamental o libertate a cultului, fiindcă acesta a fost principalul cap de acuzaţie pentru care creştinii au fost prigoniţi timp de două sute de ani de împăraţii păgâni. Din această cauză, în Biserica primară, cultul a fost în mod necesar secret şi, prin urmare, limitat şi schematic, deşi au fost şi perioade de pace între persecuţiile din primele trei secole, timp în care în multe locuri, chiar în secolul al III-lea, creştinii aveau propriile lor biserici şi cultul era îndeplinit mai mult sau mai puţin în mod public. Astfel, cultul a fost tolerat în aceste perioade, deşi a fost întotdeauna, cel puţin în mod teoretic, interzis.13 Oricum, această respingere mutuală dintre Biserică şi lume, ce a caracterizat primele veacuri ale creştinismului, este cauzată de legătura imperiului cu păgânismul, adică, din punct de vedere creştin, legătura imperiului cu o religie falsă şi demonică şi cu un cult fals. Iar dacă Imperiul i-a persecutat pe creştini pentru refuzul de a jertfi zeilor păgâni, Biserica a renunţat la lume numai în măsura în care lumea s-a alăturat ea însăşi păgânismului, supunându-se duhurilor răutăţii, după cum afirmă Sf. Ap. Pavel: Lupta noastră nu este împotriva trupului şi a sângelui... ci împotriva duhurilor răutăţii, care sunt în văzduhuri... (Efes. 6, 12). Aşadar, tragedia creştinismului primar, a constat în faptul că, datorită pătrunderii otrăvitoare a păgânismului în toate domeniile, Biserica primară a fost împiedicată să se manifeste în plenitudinea ei şi să se dezvăluie lumii, ca bucurie a comuniunii omului cu Dumnezeu, comuniune mărturisită însă în mod suprem prin martiraj. În acest sens merită menţionat de asemenea faptul că persecuţiile, conflictele şi izolarea creştinilor nu sunt menţionate aproape deloc în rugăciunile şi textele liturgice ale creştinismului primar, cultul Bisericii primare fiind caracterizat printr-un pronunţat caracter doxologic, ce îmbrăţişează întreaga creaţie şi întreaga istorie.14

12 13 14

DELEHAYE H., Les Origins du Culte des Martyrs, Societe des Bollandistes, Bruxelles, 1912, p. 29. SCHMEMANN A., Introducere în teologia liturgică…, p. 148. Ibidem, p. 149-150

Dezvoltarea liturgică a Bisericii în secolul al IV-lea

139

Misiunea Bisericii și adaptarea ei la timpul istoric Un efect mult mai controversat pe care pacea lui Constantin l-ar fi avut asupra Bisericii se referă la o schimbare ce ţine de esenţa şi conţinutul cultului: „reconcilierea cu timpul”, proces ce a constat în trecerea de la concepţia şi entuziasmul eshatologic al Bisericii primare, la noţiunea de anamneză, de comemorare liturgică a unor evenimente din istoria mântuirii. G. Dix este cel care a sintetizat această teorie, susţinând că acest prin acest proces orientarea eshatologică a cultului creştin din primele trei secole a fost înlocuită cu o conştiinţă istorică în raportarea la evenimentele mântuitoare. Aceasta înseamnă că evenimente separate ale istoriei mântuirii s-au evidenţiat în cadrul cultului ca prilejuri de comemorare cultică specială, a căror semnificaţie soteriologică a fost strâns legată de aspecte concrete ale vieţii istorice a Mântuitorului. Acest proces al contopirii eshatologiei cu istoria are ca rezultat rapida dezvoltare a ciclurilor de sărbători dedicate evenimentelor distincte din viaţa pământească a Mântuitorului. „În sec. al IV-lea, atitudinea privitoare la timp a fost asociată cu interpretarea istorică a cultului. Esenţa vechii concepţii a constat în înţelegerea eshatologică a Paştilor. Odată ce această sărbătoare a început să fie interpretată în primul rând ca o comemorare istorică a evenimentului Învierii Domnului, a devenit posibilă combinaţia şi fuziunea acestor două concepţii, cea istorică şi cea eshatologică…”15

Această teorie se bazează aşadar pe ideea că noţiunea de comemorare istorică a apărut oarecum abrupt, ca rezultat al unei schimbări interioare în atitudinea liturgică a Bisericii, această istoricizare fiind o diminuare a caracterului eshatologic al evenimentelor fundamentale ale credinţei creştine. Referitor la acest fenomen, A. Baumstark consideră că marile sărbători nu au fost instituite pentru a marca în primul rând evenimente din istoria mântuirii, ci pentru a exprima teologia profundă a Bisericii, aşa cum a fost cristalizată în scrierile Sfinţilor Părinţi, Ţara Sfântă fiind singurul ţinut în care originea sărbătorilor a putut fi asociată cu evenimentele biblice.16 Ca urmare a acestui fapt, apariţia concepţiei istoricizării a fost restrânsă la Biserica din Ierusalim, într-o perioadă anume: între anul 348, data scrierii Catehezelor Sf. Chiril, şi anul 385, când mărturia Egeriei17 atestă faptul că ciclul de sărbători comemorative a devenit o tradiţie liturgică larg răspândită şi acceptată. Din acest spaţiu, sărbătorile s-au răspândit în toate Bisericile locale,

15 16 17

DIX, The Shape of Liturgy…, p.348. BAUMSTARK, Liturgie Comparée…, p. 173. Textul poate fi găsit la MARAVAL P. (ed.), Egerie: journal de voyage, SC 296, Cerf, Paris, 1982; trad. rom.: PICIORUŞ D., Pelerina Egeria şi Cultul ortodox, Teologie pentru azi, Bucureşti, 2005; pentru traducerea în engleză şi alte referinţe bibliografice vezi: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mikef/durham/egeria.html

140

Dan Alexandru Streza

în mare parte datorită pelerinilor,18 fiindcă începând cu sec. al IV-lea s-a născut şi o nouă atitudine de venerare faţă de locurile sfinte, aceasta fiind favorizată de construirea de biserici în Ţara Sfântă, cu sprijin imperial.19 Ca urmare a acestui fapt, s-a produs o oarecare fragmentare a unităţii ciclului liturgic centrat pe caracterul eshatologic al Sărbătorii Pascale într-o suită de comemorări istorice, care deşi par a fi structuri liturgice independente,20 nu sunt altceva decât prilejuri de reactualizare a Tainei lui Hristos, Cel mort şi înviat.21 Această schemă a fost însă contestată şi combătută, atât în ceea ce priveşte existenţa unui astfel de fenomen al istoricizării, cât şi a factorilor care l-ar fi determinat. Concluziile la care ajunge T. Talley în urma cercetării evoluţiei ciclului pascal în primele patru secole, indică faptul că acest fenomen ar fi putut avea un sens opus celui descris anterior. Astfel, în Biserica pre-niceeană Paştile reprezentau comemorarea Patimilor şi a Învierii Domnului, fără a avea o semnificaţie eshatologică, trans-istorică. Această afirmaţie se bazează, printre altele, pe faptul că numeroşi scriitori patristici din primele patru secole fac uz de o etimologie alterată a termenului „Pascha”, care nu este utilizat în baza rădăcinii semantice iudaice, ci pornind de la verbul grecesc: „paschein”(a pătimi). Iar când Biserica a asociat Paştilor o semnificaţie soteriologică şi eshatologică universală, simpla raportare istorică la evenimentele mântuitoare nu a mai fost adecvată, întrucât prin Înviere se deschide timpul cel nou, Ziua a opta, dimensiune temporală ce este dincolo de orice limitare a liniarităţii sau ciclicităţii timpului obişnuit.22 Însă, evoluţia liturgică a sărbătorilor în primele patru secole, este, după cum afirmă şi R. Taft, un fenomen mult prea complex, având variabile locale foarte mari, pentru ca să poată fi definit prin acest concept al istoricizării. Aceasta se bazează pe faptul că aşteptarea eshatologică a creştinismului primar, nu numai că nu exclude semnificaţia şi importanţa istoriei mântuirii, ci este strâns legată de timpul istoric, cea de-a doua Venire urmând să aibă loc într-o noapte de Paşti.23 Pe lângă acest fapt, încă de la începutul sec. al III-lea se poate remarca în scrierile Sf. Clement al Alexandriei şi ale lui Origen o tendinţă de schimbare a percepţiei teologice asupra Învierii ca realitate spirituală accesibilă creştinilor, tendinţă ce presupune o de-istoricizare a misterului pascal, şi dezvoltarea unei semnificaţii teologice mai profunde. Această tendinţă este adoptată apoi de scriitorii patristici alexandrini ai sec. al IV-lea, ce propun o interpretare 18 19 20 21 22 23

FÖRSTER H., Die Anfänge von Weihnachten und Epiphanias, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2007, p. 120-132. BAUMSTARK, Liturgie Comparée…, p. 149-155; vezi şi: SCHMEMANN A., Introducere în teologia liturgică…, p. 172-175. DIX, The Shape of Liturgy…, p.348; ADAM Adolf, Das Kirchenjahr. Schlüssel zum Glauben. Betrachtungen, Herder, Freiburg im B./Basel/Wien, 1990, p. 30. CASEL O., Das christliches Festmysterium, Paderborn, 1941 p. 19-21. TALLEY, T. J., History and Eschatology in the Primitive Pascha, Worship 47/4 (April 1973), p. 214-215; HENNIG, J., Martyrologium and kalendarium…, p. 79; TAFT, Robert, Historicism Revisited, SL, 14/2, 3, 4 (1982), p. 98-104.

Dezvoltarea liturgică a Bisericii în secolul al IV-lea

141

spirituală, alegorică a Sf. Scripturi şi a evenimentelor istoriei mântuirii ce stau la baza cultului, astfel încât timpul liturgic dobândeşte rolul de a transcende timpul obişnuit pentru a actualiza şi a ridica astfel Biserica în timpul eshatologic al Împărăţiei cerurilor. Însă, în Antiohia, gândirea teologică a cunoscut nuanţe diferite, bazându-se pe o interpretare istoric-literală a Scripturii şi a Tradiţiei, astfel încât, între actul liturgic şi evenimentul istoric se creează o legătură strânsă ce stă la baza realismului liturgic. Aceasta denotă faptul că o generalizare a unor tendinţe istoricizante în atitudinea şi gândirea teologică a Bisericii rămâne foarte problematică.24 Astfel, acest aspect al dezvoltării liturgice post-constantiniene nu poate fi explicat ca un proces de dobândire a unei noi conştiinţe istorice, ci imperativul pentru instituirea şi răspândirea sărbătorilor este strâns legat de marile controverse teologice triadologice şi hristologice, care au marcat în mod atât de profund epoca bizantină timpurie.25 Concluzionând investigaţia sa minuţioasă asupra dezvoltării sărbătorilor Crăciunului şi Epifaniei, B. Botte scrie: „Aceste sărbători... s-au dezvoltat în secolele pline de controverse teologice şi hristologice. Ele au fost create în scop polemic, dar în mod indiscutabil au promovat asimilarea credinţei ortodoxe, a dogmelor de la Niceea, Efes şi Calcedon. Astfel, când mă refer la ele ca sărbători ale întrupării, vorbesc nu numai despre comemorarea faptului întrupării, ci, de asemenea, despre misterul şi dogma întrupării.”26

Deci, conform acestei teorii, esenţa comemorării liturgice nu se regăseşte în istorie, cât în semnificaţia dogmatică a sărbătorii: „Scopul sărbătorii şi ciclului Crăciunului nu a fost să reamintească în toate detaliile faptele vieţii lui Hristos, ci să arate, să înţeleagă şi să trăiască, pe cât posibil, misterul Cuvântului făcut trup.” 27

Însă, toate aceste teorii, deşi în mare parte argumentate, ele nu oferă decât o explicaţie parţială a originii şi dezvoltării sărbătorilor în Biserica primară. În primul rând, în ceea ce priveşte istoricismul cultului creştin timpuriu trebuie precizat că nu poate fi vorba de o lipsă totală a unui sens istoric în cult, ci mai degrabă de absenţa unor comemorări liturgice a tuturor evenimentelor biblice. Caracterul anamnetic inerent cultului încă de la instituirea sa de către Hristos, conferă orientării liturgice un sens istoric concret, prin cuvintele Mântuitorului de a reactualiza actele pe care El le-a săvârşit la Cina cea de Taină, şi prin acestea Jertfa şi Învierea Sa ca evenimente de importanţă unică în istorie. Însă, acest sens istoric nu a fost îndreptat spre detalii, ci spre caracterul mântuitor al întregii opere a lui Hristos. Acesta este şi sensul în care Sfântul Apostol Pavel a 24 25 26 27

ROLL K.S., Towards Origins of Chistmas…, p. 31-32. CULLMANN O., The Early Church, SCM, London,1956, p. 21-38; TAFT, Robert, Historicism Revisited, SL, 14/2, 3, 4 (1982), p. 97. BOTTE, Bernard, Les origines de la Noël et de l'Epiphanie, Textes et Études liturgiques, Mont César/Keizersberg Abbey, Louvain, 1932, p. 85. Ibidem, p. 86.

142

Dan Alexandru Streza

folosit termenul de mysterion - taina mântuirii care nu s-a revelat îngerilor, ci a fost arătată şi comunicată oamenilor în Hristos.28 Euharistia, ca act memorial obiectiv biblic, presupune împlinirea simultană a două iniţiative comemorative: prima, a omului care readuce înaintea lui Dumnezeu evenimentele împlinite de El în istorie ca acte ale iconomiei Sale ce garantează împlinirea tuturor făgăduinţelor de desăvârşire a creaţie, şi cea de-a doua, a lui Dumnezeu, Amintirea divină, singura capabilă să împlinească prin puterea ei, conţinutul şi efectul făgăduinţelor făcute poporului ales, ce au fost împlinite de Hristos şi urmează a fi desăvârşite în eshaton.29 Aşadar, actul memorial în sens biblic reprezintă în acelaşi timp comemorare, prezenţă dar şi anticipare, fiindcă el este expresia concretă a iniţiativei lui Dumnezeu de a împlini iconomia Sa mântuitoare şi revelatoare, Dumnezeu Cel viu şi personal, fiind Cel Care Se angajează efectiv în istorie, în tripla ei dimensiune: trecută, prezentă şi viitoare. Prin urmare, memorialul face prezent nu doar trecutul, cât mai ales viitorul, de unde şi porunca expresă a Mântuitorului la Cina cea de Taină: „Aceasta să o faceţi întru pomenirea Mea” (Lc. 22,19).30 Această poruncă nu trebuie interpretată însă din premise elenistice, ci din perspectiva gândirii iudaice, astfel încât pomenirea, anamneza nu are sensul unei porunci date Apostolilor de a-şi aduce aminte şi a nu uita actele săvârşite de Hristos („ca voi să vă aduceţi aminte de Mine”), ci cu cea mai mare probabilitate, de amintire a cărei Subiect este Dumnezeu („Aceasta să o faceţi ca Dumnezeu să-Şi aducă aminte de Mine” - adică de Hristos şi de ucenicii Săi). Astfel, porunca anamnezei nu aste o invitaţie ca ucenicii să păzească amintirea lui Iisus, ci o indicaţie eshatologic-orientată, ca prin adunarea şi săvârşirea în continuare a Euharistiei, Dumnezeu să fie zilnic implorat pentru desăvârşirea iconomiei mântuitoare în Biserică.31 Astfel, săvârşirea Euharistiei în Ziua Domnului, a devenit sărbătoarea prin excelenţă a creştinismului, şi, deşi nu reprezintă simbolizarea întregii drame a Crucii şi Învierii în toate detalii sale, aceste evenimente mântuitoare sunt cuprinse în mod sintetic în conţinutul şi structura ritualului euharistic. Deşi interesul pentru detaliile istoriei mântuirii a fost, în primele secole, mai mult de ordin subiectiv, ţinând de evlavia personală, totuşi raportarea individuală a stat la baza evlaviei liturgice ce a cunoscut o evoluţie surprinzătoare prin apariţia şi dezvoltarea sărbătorilor, odată cu libertatea acordată creştinismului. Este discutabil însă, în ce măsură evlavia personală, în special cea legată de persoana Maicii Domnului, ar fi putut avea ca urmare o dezvoltare specifică a memorialului liturgic, încă din timpuri apostolice, cel puţin în ceea ce priveşte 28 29

30 31

SCHMEMANN Al., Introducere în teologia liturgică…, p.181. STREZA C., Originea Anaforalei euharistice. I. Preistoria anaforalei euharistice: Centralitatea binecuvântării (berakah) în cultul iudaic, Revista Teologică VIII (1998) 4, p. 99-100. JEREMIAS J., Die Abendmahlworte Jesu, IV. Aufgesehene Auflage, Gottingen, 1967, p. 243. Ibidem, p. 244-245.

Dezvoltarea liturgică a Bisericii în secolul al IV-lea

143

comemorarea Naşterii Domnului. În acest sens, lipsa de documente, poate fi într-un fel o mărturie foarte preţioasă: Biserica bazându-se pe o tradiţie orală vie, nu a concretizat în scris doctrina creştină, decât atunci când au existat provocări şi ameninţări ce atentau la învăţătura şi practica ei, aceasta având ca urmare faptul că multe aspecte ale vieţii Bisericii ce au existat de la început şi au fost foarte cunoscute, au fost precizate în scris mult mai târziu. De aceea, un lucru despre care nu se vorbeşte, este adesea atât de cunoscut şi de comun contemporanilor, încât se presupune că e de la sine înţeles. Din păcate, însă, orice afirmaţie trebuie să aibă acoperire documentară pentru a fi considerată pertinentă. Astfel, cert rămâne doar faptul că, odată cu libertatea creştinismului şi cu creşterea masivă a numărului credincioşilor, s-a dezvoltat şi a crescut şi evlavia pentru locurile sfinte şi mai ales pentru actele mântuitoare ce s-au săvârşit în acele locuri. Unul dintre cele mai clare exemple de influenţă a acestei evoluţii a pietăţii manifestate liturgic, îl reprezintă istorie complicată a ciclului Naşterii Domnului si a instituirii sale liturgice, fiindcă, oricare ar fi fost preistoria sa, e clar că această sărbătoare s-a format treptat dintr-o sărbătoare sintetică a Epifaniei, incluzând pe lângă Naşterea Domnului, numeroase teme în combinaţii diferite în funcţie de fiecare spaţiu în care s-a dezvoltat: Închinarea magilor, Botezul, Nunta din Cana şi Înmulţirea pâinilor. Acestei sărbători îi sunt asociate concomitent comemorări liturgice adiacente, direct dependente evanghelic de tema Naşterii: sărbătoarea Tăierii Împrejur şi a Întâmpinării Domnului.32 Se poate observa aşadar o tendinţă fermă de detaliere ce este în mod clar legată expresivitatea liturgică a Bisericii în sec. al IV-lea. Aceasta însă, nu înseamnă că, în dezvoltarea ciclului Naşterii Domnului, ar trebui minimalizate importanţa oricărei controverse teologice - a arianismul în special - dar nici lupta Bisericii cu cultele păgâne ale soarelui, deşi acest aspect este foarte discutabil. Dar acesta este cu siguranţă punctul în care influenţele doctrinare şi-au găsit aplicare în cult, punctul în care cultul însuşi a devenit instrumentul şi, în acelaşi timp, expresia poziţiei Bisericii în lume, a menirii sale în relaţie cu lumea.33 Biserica și religiile păgâne – influențe și întrepătrunderi Personificare a timpului în cultul păgân al Egiptului antic, zeul Aion s-a bucurat de o cinstire aparte larg răspândită în toată lumea elenistică. Elementele rituale specifice cultului egiptean al zeului timpului ilustrează anumite constante antropologice în percepţia timpului şi a sărbătorilor caracteristice elenismului mediteranean din primele secole creştine. Interesant este faptul că practicile acestui cult păgân se aseamănă atât de mult cu ritualul liturgic al sărbătorii Epifaniei, astfel încât unii cercetători au ajuns la concluzia că Epifania îşi are un 32 33

ROLL K.S., Towards Origins of Chistmas…, p. 170-186. SCHMEMANN A., Introducere în teologia liturgică…, p. 182.

144

Dan Alexandru Streza

antecedent direct în sărbătoarea din 5-6 ianuarie a naşterii zeului timpului34, deşi nu se poate dovedi nici o legătură de cauzalitate directă între acestea. În gândirea filosofică grecească, „aion” este conceptul ce defineşte eternitatea, dimensiunea supra-temporală, transcendentă a existenţei, acest ideal al timpului contrastând cu timpul obişnuit, măsurabil şi divizibil, exprimat prin termenul mitologic grecesc: „chronos”.35 Totuşi, în filosofia elenistică târzie, în sec. IIIII, Aion se pare că a dobândit statutul de zeu întrupat, iar imaginea sa antropomorfică a fost exprimată, printr-o oarecare coincidenţă, în mitul naşterii sale ca prunc din fecioara Kore, fiind asociat în acelaşi timp cu Helios - zeul soarelui. Astfel, în anul 239, Decretul de la Canopus, prin care Ptolemeu al IIIlea a iniţiat o nouă reformă calendaristică, cuprinde o referire concisă în acest sens la data solstiţiului de iarnă: „Naşterea soarelui. Lumina va creşte.”36 Această menţiune este strâns legată de mitul renaşterii soarelui ca om, ce se pare că a cunoscut o răspândire largă în întreg Egiptul.37 Naşterea zeului Aion, este o sărbătoare atestată în Egipt, unde se pare că a fost o tradiţie locală cu rădăcini adânci în elenismul alexandrin, fiindcă acest zeu era considerat fondatorul şi protectorul marelui oraş Alexandria. Paradoxal, cea mai detaliată mărturie privind ritualul acestei sărbători păgâne, provine de la Sf. Epifanie al Salaminei (†403), care descrie procesiunea făcută în noaptea de 5-6 ianuarie, cu o statuetă de lemn, reprezentând zeul născut ca prunc de fecioara Kore, acest eveniment fiind corelat în mod explicit cu solstiţiul de iarnă.38 Însă, această sărbătoare păgână se pare că nu a fost specifică doar Egiptului, ci, tot Sf. Epifanie este cel care atestă şi în oraşul Petra, capitala pe atunci a regatului nabateenilor (pe teritoriul Iordaniei de astăzi), o sărbătoare asemănătoare, în care zeul Dusares este născut în aceeaşi zi a solstiţiului de către o fecioară. Acest cult este celebrat şi la Elusa, în nordul Arabiei: „…aceasta [sărbătoarea păgână a naşterii soarelui] are loc şi în oraşul Petra (ea este însă, capitala Arabiei; aceasta e numită «Edom» în scrieri), în templul de acolo, în acelaşi fel, şi în limba arabă ei cântă fecioarei - pe care o numesc în arabă, «Chaamu» - şi celui născut din ea - pe care îl numesc «Dusares» - adică 34 35 36

37 38

MANN, Friedhelm, Epiphaniasfest I. Kirchengeschichtlich, în Theologische Realenzyklopädie, vol 9. De Gruyter, Berlin/New York, 1982, p. 762 PETTAZZONI, R., Aion - (Kronos) Chronos in Egypt, în vol. Essays on the History of Religions, Brill, Leiden, 1967, p. 171. Pentru traducerea hieroglifelor vezi: BIRCH S., Records of the Past, Series 1, Vol. VIII, Samuel Bagster and Sons, London, 1876; disponibil şi pe internet la adresa: http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/canopus_decree.htm; privitor la sistemele calendaristice egiptene, vezi şi: PARKER R. A., The Calendars of Ancient Egypt, Chicago, 1950, p. 33-34, 164-175, A. SPALINGER, Three Studies on Egyptian Feasts and their Chronological Implications, Baltimore, 1992, p. 31; CIHO Miron, Civilizaţia Egiptului grecoroman. Plutarch „Despre Isis si Osiris“, Editura Universităţii din Bucureşti, 2000, p. 245-248 BAUMSTARK, Liturgie comparée…, p. 169. EPIFANIE al Salaminei, Panarion haeresis, 34-64, 51:22,4-6 în HOLL K., DUMMER J.(eds), Epiphanius II, GCS 58, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1980, p. 284

Dezvoltarea liturgică a Bisericii în secolul al IV-lea

145

«unicul-născut al stăpânului». Aceasta se întâmplă şi în oraşul Elusa, în aceeaşi noapte, ca în Petra şi în Alexandria…” 39

Pe lângă aceasta, şi scriitorul antic Macrobius, atestă existenţa unei sărbători păgâne la 25 dec. legate de solstiţiu de iarnă în Egipt, în sec. al IV-lea: „...diversitatea anotimpurilor este pusă în legătură cu soarele, astfel încât solstiţiul de iarnă este văzut drept un copil mic, pe care egiptenii îl scot în procesiune din Adytum, pentru că atunci datorită zilei celei mai mici [soarele] apare ca un copil nou-născut…”40

Deosebit de relevant e faptul că această paradigmă reprezentată de cultul lui Aion a fost larg răspândită în elenismul primelor secole creştine. Este interesantă, de asemenea, corespondenţa simbolică între naşterea şi evoluţia vieţii omului şi ciclul solar, ce începe cu solstiţiu de iarnă, dar şi faptul că timpul, ce devine în acest caz un principiu al reînnoirii vieţii, dobândeşte în percepţia religioasă umană o nouă conotaţie, nefiind doar cadrul istoric în care zeii intervin, ci devenind el însuşi un zeu, care se naşte ca un copil dintr-o fecioară. Accentuarea identității misionare a Bisericii, ca Trup al lui Hristos, pentru a vesti Evanghelia mântuirii, dobândește o importantă crescândă în condițiile secularizării alarmante a țărilor creștine și provocărilor răspândirii religiilor necreștine. Faptul că Biserica este misionară prin ființa sa şi, prin urmare, trebuie să se angajeze în diferite activități misionare, a devenit un punct central în educația teologică şi în slujirea preoțească, iar rolul laicilor în misiunea lui Dumnezeu trebuie, de asemenea, să primească o atenție sporită. Acest exemplu istoric al unei sărbători în cinstea personificării şi divinizării timpului reflectă o legătură organică între sărbătorile religioase în general şi ritmurile naturale, cosmice, fiind în acelaşi timp o concretizare a conceptului cultural de timp liturgic în contextul elenistic în care s-a dezvoltat misiunea Bisericii primare. Misiunea aceasta presupune depășirea tuturor limitărilor civilizației umane, începând cu oscilația dintre credință şi necredință, și culminând cu transcenderea tuturor granițelor naționale, culturale și sociale.

39 40

EPIFANIE al Salaminei, Panarion haeresis…, 51:22,11, p. 286-287. MACROBIUS, Saturnalia,I, 18,10, trad. rom. de: Gheorghe I. TOHĂNEANU, Bucureşti, Editura Academiei, 1961, p. 36.

„DIE KIRCHE MACHT SICH SELBST ZUM DIALOG“ EINE DARLEGUNG AUS KATHOLISCHER SICHT Bernhard KÖRNER Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät, Universität Graz

Dialog – für die einen fast ein Zauberwort, für andere eher ein Schreckgespenst. Für die einen eine Brücke, für die anderen eine Gefahr. Diese unterschiedlichen Einschätzungen finden sich gleichermaßen in der Gesellschaft und Politik wie in den Kirchen und Religionen. Die folgenden Ausführungen haben diese gegensätzlichen Sichtweisen im Blick, sie beschränken sich aber auf den Dialog im religiösen Bereich. Genauer: Sie wollen zeigen, wie der Dialog in der Römisch-katholischen Kirche Heimatrecht bekommen hat und heute auf der Basis kirchlicher Dokumente von einer ihnen verpflichteten Theologie gesehen werden kann und gesehen wird.1

1. Zwischen Abgrenzung und Öffnung In einer globalisierten Welt spricht vieles, wenn nicht alles dafür, den Dialog als eine Notwendigkeit zu verstehen. Die ‚anderen‘ – wer immer damit gemeint ist – sind durch die weltweite Kommunikation nicht anderswo, sondern im eigenen Haus. Alle begegnen allen, alles grenzt an alles. Das gilt auch für die Religionen und Weltanschauungen. Ja, in diesem Bereich kann es besonders brisant werden, weil es um grundlegende Ausrichtungen und die Identität geht, die man sicherstellen möchte. Und so stellt sich schon um eines friedlichen Miteinanders willen die Frage, wie sich eine feste Überzeugung und die Öffnung für die anderen, also der Dialog miteinander verbinden lassen. Denn auch wenn man den Dialog schätzt, muss man zugeben, dass die Begegnung mit den anderen und dem anderen auch verunsichern kann. Wenn man sich nicht durch rigorose Abwertung des anderen abschirmt, kann es zu einer Erosion der eigenen Überzeugung kommen. Und diese Verunsicherung 1

Als philosophischer Hintergrund ist der dialogische Personalismus anzusehen - vgl. dazu Bernhard Casper: Das dialogische Denken. Freiburg: Herder 1967; Georg Langemeyer: Der dialogische Personalismus in der evangelischen und katholischen Theologie. Paderborn: Bonifatius 1963. Zur Theologie des Dialogs (in Auswahl) vgl. Andreas Bsteh (Hg.): Dialog aus der Mitte christlicher Theologie. Mödling 1987; Annette Schavan (Hg.): Dialog statt Dialogverweigerung. Impulse für eine zukunftsfähige Kirche. Kevelaer: Butzon & Berker 1994; Lothar Ullrich: Dialog und Identität, in: W. Ernst–K. Feiereis (Hg.): Denkender Glaube. Erfurt 1992, 320-342.

148

Bernhard Körner

mag früher oder später dazu führen, dass man sich dem Dialog verweigert und die Abgrenzung verstärkt. So möchte man die eigene Identität sicherstellen und sich gegen Fremdbestimmung und Verwischung der Konturen zur Wehr setzen. Aber die Abgrenzung gelingt faktisch nicht mehr. Man weiß um die anderen und das Nebeneinander – selbst wenn man ihnen aus dem Weg geht oder daran gehindert wird, sich damit zu befassen. Und unterschiedliche politische und wirtschaftliche Gegebenheiten zwingen doch wieder zum Gespräch und zur Zusammenarbeit. Auch an der Geschichte der Katholischen Kirche lässt sich im Blick auf den Dialog ein Pro und Contra aufzeigen – mancherorts bis heute. Aber mit dem Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil fiel die grundsätzliche Entscheidung zu einer positiven Sicht des Dialogs. Das war kein geringer Einschnitt, denn im 19. und in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhundert hat die Kirche vor allem auf Abgrenzung gesetzt. Das hat seinen Ausdruck in Verurteilung gefunden, wie z.B. 1864 durch den sogenannten Syllabus, einer umfassenden Auflistung und Zurückweisung von Lehren, die als Irrtümer angesehen worden sind.2 Aber auch verschiedene Formen des Index der verbotenen Bücher sind zu nennen, mit dessen Hilfe man eine Ansteckung durch Irrlehren und den Abfall vom Glauben verhindern wollte. Nicht ohne Erfolg ist es auf diese Weise gelungen, in der Lehre und im Leben der Katholikinnen und Katholiken ein katholisches Profil zu bewahren. Allerdings musste dafür auch ein nicht geringer Preis gezahlt werden: Das katholische Milieu hatte mehr und mehr die Tendenz zu einem Ghetto, und der Druck für die Einzelnen, vor allem für Gebildete, konnte ziemlich groß werden, wenn ihr eigenes Urteil und die offizielle kirchliche Lehre auseinanderklafften. Im sogenannten Modernismus-Streit3 ist es durch den Antimodernismus-Eid und entsprechende disziplinäre Maßnahmen vor allem für den Klerus zu einer Verschärfung der Situation gekommen. In der Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts setzte allerdings innerkirchlich eine gegenläufige Entwicklung ein, deren Kraft schließlich den herkömmlichen Rahmen gesprengt hat, der schon längst als einengendes Korsett empfunden wurde.4 Im Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil hat diese Entwicklung die höchste offizielle Zustimmung erfahren. Und damit auch die Bestätigung, dass der vorkonziliare Katholizismus und seine neuscholastische Theologie nicht die einzig rechtgläubige Ausprägungen des

2

3

4

Zum Überblick zu den defensiven Entwicklungen in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts vgl. Hubert Jedin (Hg.): Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, Band 6.1 und 6.2. Freiburg: Herder 1985. Vgl. Hubert Wolf (Hg.), Antimodernismus und Modernismus in der Katholischen Kirche – Beiträge zum theologiegeschichtlichen Vorfeld des II. Vatikanums. Paderborn: Schöningh 1998. Vgl. dazu als ersten Hinweis mit den wichtigsten Namen und Stichwörtern: Albert Raffelt: Nouvelle Théologie, in: Walter Kasper u.a. (Hgg.): Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 3.Auflage, Band 7, 935-937 (Lit.).

„Die Kirche macht sich selbst zum Dialog“

149

kirchlichen Glaubens sind.5 Das für das Konzil programmatische ‚aggiornamento‘, also der Versuch, die Kirche auf neue und glaubwürdige Weise in der Gegenwart zu verorten, wurde dabei auf zwei Wegen angestrebt. Auf der eine Seite hat man durch den Rückgriff auf die Geschichte der Kirche und der Theologie zeigen können, dass Glaubens und Theologie im Laufe der Geschichte viel größere Spielräume in Anspruch genommen haben, als man in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts offiziell zugestanden hatte. Auf der anderen Seite hat man das Gespräch mit der zeitgenössischen Gegenwart gesucht, also den Dialog, um auf diese Weise ein im besten Sinn des Wortes zeitgemäßes theologisches Denken und Sprechen der Kirche zu ermöglichen.6 Wie kaum in einem anderen Dokument des Konzils ist das in der sogenannten Pastoral-Konstitution Gaudium et spes (1965) sichtbar geworden. Die verwickelte und lange Entstehungsgeschichte dieses Dokumentes mag vielleicht ein erstes Indiz dafür sein, wie ungewohnt die in diesem Dokument eingenommene Perspektive nicht nur damals gewesen ist. Der Konzilstheologe Joseph Ratzinger hat dieses Dokument „ein Gespräch des Christen mit dem Ungläubigen über die Frage, wer und was eigentlich der Mensch sei“7, genannt. Trotz der positiven Grundsatzentscheidung wirkt der Widerstreit der Meinungen, wie er auf dem Konzil sichtbar geworden ist, da und dort bis heute fort. Auf der einen Seite hat in der nach-konziliaren Zeit der Begriff Dialog eine steile Karriere gemacht , auf der anderen Seite werden Begriff und damit gemeinte Sache von bestimmten Kreisen bis heute eher skeptisch betrachtet und umschwiegen. Der Dialog wird als Öffnen einer Tür verstanden, durch die das andere wie ein troianisches Pferd in Lehre und Leben der Kirche eindringt und sie von innen her auflöst. Das ist eine Sorge, die nicht unberechtigt ist, aber in der offiziellen Lehre der Kirche hat man sich, wie noch zu zeigen sein wird, dennoch für den Dialog entschieden – alles spricht für den Dialog, der freilich seine Voraussetzungen hat und der mit entsprechender Kompetenz geführt werden muss.

2. „Die Kirche macht sich selbst zum Dialog“ Die erste Enzyklika eines Papstes ist keine Regierungserklärung. Aber sie wird doch zu Recht besonders aufmerksam zur Kenntnis genommen. Zweifelsohne kann man an ihr ablesen, was dem neuen Papst besonders wichtig ist. Das hat auch für Papst Paul VI. (1963-1978) gegolten, der dem charismatischen 5

6 7

Vgl. dazu die Skizzierung der Vorgeschichte des Konzils in: Otto-Hermann Pesch: Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil (1962-1965). Vorgeschichte–Verlauf–Ergebnisse–Nachgeschichte. Würzburg 1994, bes. 35-47. Pesch bietet dazu auch ausführliche Hinweise auf einschlägige Literatur. Vgl. Pesch: Das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil (Anm.5), bes. auch 228 ff. und 317 ff. Joseph Ratzinger: Kommentar zur Pastoralkonstitution Gaudium et spez., in: Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 2. Auflage, Band 14, 313-354, hier: 315.

150

Bernhard Körner

Johannes XXIII. gefolgt ist – und das mitten im zweitweise dramatischen Prozess des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils, das sein Vorgänger einberufen hat.8 Die Frage, die alle bewegt hat – ob er das Konzil fortführen werde – hat er schnell mit Ja beantwortet. Und die Orientierungspunkte, die ihm für Kirche und Konzil besonders wichtig erschienen, hat er seiner am 6. August 1964 Enzyklika Ecclesiam suam vorgelegt. Sie umfasst zwei Teile. Der erste Teil befasst sich mit der Kirche selbst, die er vor allem in ihrer sakramentalen und geistlichen Verbindung mit Jesus Christus darstellt. Im zweiten Teil geht es um die Erneuerung der Kirche. Dafür nennt der Papst drei Akzente: die Armut, die Liebe - und den Dialog. Das Thema Dialog schlägt der Papst in vollen Akkorden an. Er sieht seinen Ausgangspunkt in Gott – dort findet sich der „transzendente Ursprung“ (ES 729) des Dialogs, und die ganze Geschichte Gottes mit den Menschen kann als Dialog verstanden werden. An diesem Dialog liest der Papst ab, wie der kirchliche Dialog aussehen muss.10 Er wirft einen ausführlichen Blick auf vier Felder und Ausprägungen des Dialogs: auf den Dialog mit der Menschheit, den Dialog mit den Weltreligionen, den Dialog mit den christlichen Konfessionen und den Dialog innerhalb der Katholischen Kirche selbst11. So macht der Papst nicht nur die Aufgabe, sondern auch die Herausforderungen dieses Programms deutlich. Was ist das - Dialog? Für Papst Paul VI. ist der Dialog alles andere als eine Diskussion oder ein belangloser Gedankenaustausch. Er hat eminent theologische Qualität. Er hat sein Fundament im Wissen der Kirche, dass sie ihren Ursprung und ihr Leben in Jesus Christus hat. Von Christus hat sie auch ihre Sendung. Und deshalb könne die Kirche zur Welt sagen: „Ich habe das, was ihr sucht und was euch fehlt.“ (ES 99) Das Wesen der Kirche, dem der Papst den ersten Teil seiner Enzyklika gewidmet hat, unterscheidet sie deutlich von der Welt. Aber - so der Papst „Unterscheidung bedeutet nicht Trennung“ (ES 65). Der Ort der Kirche ist die Welt. Sie muss sich auf die Welt einlassen, mit ihr in Beziehung treten. Will die Kirche ihrer Sendung treu bleiben, dann genügen Papst Paul VI. unter den gegenwärtigen Zeitumständen „Bewahren“ und „Verteidigung“ (ES 66) des Glaubensgutes nicht. Es geht vielmehr darum, der Welt „nahezukommen, und zwar mit Ehrfurcht, Aufmerksamkeit und mit aller Liebe, um sie zu verstehen, 8 9

10 11

Zu Person und Pontifikat vgl. Jörg Ernesti: Paul VI. Der vergessene Papst. Freiburg: Herder 2012. Vgl. Papst Paul VI.: Enzyklika Ecclesiam suam (6.8.1964) [= ES]. Der deutsche Text ist übernommen aus: https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/de/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_ enc_06081964_ecclesiam.html. [2.4.2019]. Vgl. ES 73-79. Vgl. ES 101-119.

„Die Kirche macht sich selbst zum Dialog“

151

um ihr die Gaben der Wahrheit und der Gnade anzubieten“ (ES 71). Es geht um Solidarität in der Einstellung und in der Tat, denn „die Welt wird nicht von außen gerettet“ (ES 90). Die Sendung, die die Kirche von Christus erhalten hat, verlangt eine wirkliche Zuwendung zur Welt. Und so ergibt sich für Paul VI. eine Umschreibung des Dialogs: „Diesem innere Antrieb der Liebe, die danach strebt, sich zur äußeren Gabe der Liebe zu machen, wollen Wir den heute allgemein gewordenen Namen ‚Dialog’ geben.“ (ES 66) Und dieser Dialog ist für den Papst nicht eine beliebige Lebensäußerung der Kirche, auf die sie unter Umständen auch verzichten könnte, er gehört wesentlich zu ihr: „Die Kirche macht sich selbst zum Wort, zur Botschaft, zum Dialog.“ (ES 67) Unausweichlich und riskant Der Dialog der Kirche im Sinne einer entschiedenen Zuwendung zur Welt ist für Paul VI. ebenso unausweichlich wie riskant. Der Papst spricht eine „Mahnung zur Wachsamkeit“ (ES 21) aus, die den Dialog begleiten muss. Der Grund dafür liegt darin, dass „die Kirche in die Welt eingetaucht ist, an ihr teilhat, aus ihr ihre Glieder gewinnt“ (ES 28). Und die Menschen, „die sich ihr anvertrauen, sind stark beeinflusst von der Denkart der diesseitigen Welt; so sehr, dass eine Gefahr, einem Schwindel, einer Betäubung, einer Verirrung ähnlich, besteht, die ihre eigene Festigkeit erschüttern und viele verleiten kann, die sonderbarsten Gedankengänge anzunehmen, fast als ob die Kirche jemals sich selbst verleugnen und ganz neue und ungeahnte Lebensformen annehmen müsse.“ (ES 28) Die Reform der Kirche soll aber nicht Anpassung an die Welt sein, sondern sie kommt aus der „Verpflichtung, der Kirche das Antlitz zu erhalten, das Christus ihr verlieh“ (ES 49). Deshalb muss die Kirche auf die Gefahr einer falsch verstandenen „Anpassung“ und auf die Sogwirkung des „Konformismus“ (ES 50) reagieren. Und der Papst fügt hinzu: Auch der „Dialog kann uns nicht von der Verpflichtung gegenüber unserem Glauben entbinden“ (ES 91). Deshalb wendet er sich gegen ein Verschweigen der eigenen Überzeugung (Irenismus) und gegen die Vermischung von Vorstellungen unterschiedlicher Religionen (Synkretismus). Für den Papst sind alle unsachgemäßen Kompromisse und Verzerrungen des Glaubens „im Grunde nichts anderes als Formen des Skeptizismus hinsichtlich der Kraft und des Inhalts des Wort Gottes“ (ES 91) und daher unbedingt zu vermeiden. Gegen Ende seiner Enzyklika befasst sich Paul VI. mit dem innerkirchlichen Dialog, den er ganz offensichtlich nicht nur als sehr bedeutsam, sondern auch als eine Herausforderung ansieht. Der Papst wünscht, „den Beziehungen innerhalb der Kirche den Geist eines Dialogs zwischen Gliedern einer Gemeinschaft zu geben, deren Wesenselement die Liebe ist“ (ES 118). Wohl im Wissen um die Tendenzen, die in der Gesellschaft und in der Kirche immer unübersehbarer sind und in der Studentenrevolte des Jahres 1968 ihren markanten Ausdruck gefunden haben, unterstreicht Paul VI., dass es im

152

Bernhard Körner

innerkirchlichen Dialog auch die „Tugend des Gehorsams“ (ES 118) braucht. Auf Autorität und Gehorsam könne in der Kirche, freilich auch im gesellschaftlichen Leben nicht verzichtet werden. In der Kirche sind sie durch Christus begründet. Der Papst sieht die Probleme, die sich aus dieser Forderung des Gehorsams für manche ergeben, und verweist auf Grundhaltungen, in denen Dialog und Gehorsam miteinander verbunden und gelebt werden können: Die „Ausübung von Autorität“ müsse „ganz von dem Bewusstsein, im Dienste der Wahrheit und Liebe zu stehen, durchdrungen sein“, und „die Befolgung der kirchlichen Vorschriften und der Gehorsam gegenüber dem rechtmäßig Oberen“ müsse „bereitwillig und freudig sein“ (ES 119).

3. Dem anderen Raumgeben – Gewinn und Herausforderung In der nach-konziliaren Zeit entstehen unter der Überschrift ‚Dialog‘ viele Initiativen – in der Ökumene, auf dem weiten Feld der Weltreligionen, mit den Wissenschaften usw. Auch der Dialog selbst wird zum Thema gemacht. Beschränkt man sich auf die Wortmeldungen des Lehramtes der Römischkatholischen Kirche, dann ist vor allem das Dokument Dialog und Verkündigung (1991) zu nennen, das bezeichnenderweise von zwei Instanzen der römischen Kurie herausgegeben worden ist – vom Päpstlichen Rat für den Interreligiösen Dialog und der Kongregation für die Evangelisierung der Völker. Dialog und Evangelisierung – damit wird einerseits deutlich, dass man dem Gegenüber Raum geben will, aber dass andererseits doch das Zeugnis für den eigenen Glauben im Vordergrund steht. Das Dokument legt eine klärende Unterscheidung vor, die im Anschluss an die Umschreibung bei Paul VI. noch einmal klar macht, dass Dialog als ein umfassender Lebensvollzug der Kirche gesehen werden müsse. Und das Dokument entwickelt das Verständnis des Dialogs in Richtung Gegenseitigkeit weiter. Es nennt vier Formen des Dialogs12 – den Dialog des Lebens, „in dem Menschen in einer offenen und nachbarschaftlichen Atmosphäre zusammenleben wollen, indem sie Freude und Leid, ihre menschlichen Probleme und Beschwernisse miteinander teilen.“ Davon unterscheidet sich der Dialog des Handelns, „in dem Christen und Nichtchristen für eine umfassende Entwicklung und Befreiung des Menschen zusammenarbeiten.“ Dann folgt der Dialog des theologischen Austausches, „in dem Spezialisten ihr Verständnis ihres jeweiligen religiösen Erbes vertiefen und die geistlichen Werte gegenseitig zu schätzen lernen.“ Und schließlich wird der Dialog der religiösen Erfahrung genannt, „in dem Menschen, die in ihrer eigenen religiösen Tradition verwurzelt 12

Päpstlicher Rat für den Interreligiösen Dialog – Kongregation für die Evangelisierung der Völker: Dialog und Verkündigung - Überlegungen und Orientierungen zum Interreligiösen Dialog und zur Verkündigung des Evangeliums Jesu Christi (1991). Der Text ist zugänglich in: Deutsche Bischofskonferenz: Verlautbarungen des Apostolischen Stuhls 102. Alle folgenden Zitate finden sich in Nr. 42.

„Die Kirche macht sich selbst zum Dialog“

153

sind, ihren spirituellen Reichtum teilen, z.B. was Gebet und Betrachtung, Glaube und Suche nach Gott oder dem Absoluten angeht.“ Dialog statt Mission? In manchen Kreisen hat sich die Meinung durchgesetzt, dass durch das Konzil die Mission, historisch beladen mit negativen Erfahrungen, durch den Dialog ersetzt worden sei. Es gehe nicht um Weitergabe des eigenen Glaubens, sondern um das Gespräch mit anderen religiösen Überzeugungen. Das greift freilich zu kurz. Dabei wird übersehen, dass das Konzil der Mission ein eigenes Dokument, das Missions-Dekret Ad gentes (1965) gewidmet hat. Was die Sache betrifft ist auf den Konzilstheologen Yves Congar und seinen Kommentar zur Pastoralkonstitution zu verweisen.13 Er arbeitet deutlich heraus, dass es sich bei Mission und Dialog um zwei grundsätzlich verschiedene Dinge handelt. Die Mission der Kirche gegenüber der Welt bestehe in erster Linie darin, „sie zum Evangelium zu bekehren.“ Entscheidend ist das Ziel – Congar formuliert pointiert: Durch die Mission „wird die Welt zur Kirche“. Aber – so der Konzilstheologe – es gebe auch „ein anderes Handeln der Kirche auf die Welt hin“, wobei die Welt „Welt bleibt“. Dieses Handeln der Kirche ist die Zusammenarbeit in Aufgaben, die sich in der Welt ergeben: z.B. den Einsatz für Frieden, für eine gerechte Weltordnung, für die Bewahrung der Schöpfung usw. Das Ziel ist also die Lösung bestimmter Probleme, die alle betreffen und daher auch die Christen und die Kirche. Befürchtungen – nicht unbegründet Natürlich hat der Dialog hat auch seine Gefahren – eine realistische Einschätzung kommt um diese Feststellung nicht herum.14 An erster Stelle kann mit Papst Paul VI. der Synkretismus genannt werden, die unsachgemäße Vermischung von Glaubensvorstellungen und Lehren aus verschiedenen religiösen Gemeinschaften. Für eine universal ausgerichtete Religion wie das Christentum ist der Synkretismus eine Gefahr, die sie immer begleitet, denn das Christentum kommt mit den verschiedensten religiösen Traditionen in Berührung, und oft ist das Fremde verlockender als das Eigene. Es erscheint – nebenbei gesagt – einer sachgerechten Diskussion nicht förderlich zu sein, wenn man den Synkretismus-Begriff soweit ausdehnt, dass man das Christentum generell als synkretistisch bezeichnet, weil es Elemente aus anderen Religionen 13 14

Yves Congar: Kommentar zur Pastoralkonstitution Gaudium et spes, in: Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, 2. Auflage, Band 14, 397-422, die folgenden Zitate: 398. Vgl. dazu Francis A. Arinze: Begegnung mit Menschen anderen Glaubens. Den interreligiösen Dialog verstehen und gestalten. München: Neue Stadt 1999. Arinze gibt als zuständiger Kurienkardinal einen kompetenten Einblick in die Position der Römisch-katholischen Kirche; was die Gefahren des Dialogs betrifft vgl. bes. 29-36.

154

Bernhard Körner

übernommen hat. Entscheidend ist, ob durch eine solche Übernahme das Wesentliche des Glaubens verfälscht wird oder nicht. Auf jeden Fall rückt damit eine zweite Gefahr ins Blickfeld, die sich im Dialog ergeben kann: der Identitätsverlust. Die unsachgemäße Vermengung religiöser Vorstellungen aus verschiedenen Religionen und religiösen Gemeinschaften kann am Ende dazu führen, dass eine neue Form von Religion entsteht, eine Art Kunstprodukt, das weder von der einen, noch von der anderen Seite als authentisch angesehen werden kann. Eine andere Konsequenz des Dialogs kann – vor allem bei oberflächlicher Kenntnis der eigenen Lehre – der Relativismus sein, der aus der Existenz und Verschiedenheit religiöser Überzeugungen ableitet, dass alle Religionen prinzipiell gleichwertige Wege zu Gott sind und keine Religion einen Wahrheitsanspruch erheben dürfe, der andere in Frage stellt. In weiterer Folge kann die Konfrontation mit einer Vielzahl religiöser Überzeugungen dazu führen, dass man gegenüber religiösen Lehren überhaupt skeptisch und gleichgültig wird: Wenn es so viele, unterschiedliche und auch einander widersprechende religiöse Überzeugungen gibt, ist es dann nicht naheliegend, dass alle in gleicher Weise unwahr sind? So ist an letzter Stelle die Möglichkeit des Glaubensverlustes zu nennen – sei es in der Aufgabe einer religiösen Grundeinstellung überhaupt, sei es in der Aufgabe der bisherigen religiösen Überzeugung. Wenn man die Lehre der eigenen Glaubensgemeinschaft für wahr und erlösend hält, dann wird man, auch wenn man (wie die Römisch-Katholische Kirche) das Gewissen als letzte verbindliche Instanz ansieht, eine Preisgabe dieser Lehre nicht als Belanglosigkeit ansehen. Deshalb ist es nicht nur sinnvoll, sondern auch notwendig, alle, die sich auf den Dialog einlassen, dafür in jeder Hinsicht zu rüsten. Ja, es scheint allenfalls sogar angebracht, jemandem davon abzuraten, wenn er die notwendigen Voraussetzungen nicht mitbringt. Auch die Kirche gewinnt im Dialog Wie in ersten Ansätzen bereits die Enzyklika von Papst Paul VI. sichtbar gemacht hat, ist der Dialog nicht nur ein neuer Stil des kirchlichen Lebens oder ein freundlicheres Wort für Mission. In weiterer Folge wird noch deutlicher, dass der Dialog ernst gemeint ist. Man darf ihn nicht als Einbahnstraße verstehen, sondern als ein Geben und Empfangen. Trifft das auch für den Dialog der Kirche zu? Bereits im Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil gibt es Hinweise für eine positive Antwort auf diese Frage. So heißt es im Ökumenismus-Dekret, durch den ökumenischen Dialog werde „klarer zutage treten, was die wirkliche Situation der Kirche ist“15. Und in der 15

Zweites Vatikanisches Konzil: Dekret über den Ökumenismus Unitatis redintegratio (1964), Nr.9.

„Die Kirche macht sich selbst zum Dialog“

155

Pastoralkonstitution stellt die Kirche fest, dass sie eine Hilfe „von der heutigen Welt erfährt“, sodass sie „die geoffenbarte Wahrheit tiefer erfaßt, besser verstanden und passender verkündet werden kann“16. Aber auch die Verfassung der Kirche könne durch den Dialog „tiefer erkannt, besser zur Erscheinung gebracht und zeitgemäßer gestaltet werden“17. Jahre später wird Papst Johannes-Paul II. in seinem Buch Auf der Schwelle der Hoffnung im gleichen Geist über die Kirchenspaltung sagen: „Könnte es nicht auch so sein, daß diese Auseinanderentwicklungen ein Weg waren und sind, um die Kirche die vielfältigen Reichtümer entdecken zu lassen, die im Evangelium Christi und in der von Christus gewirkten Erlösung enthalten sind? Vielleicht hätten diese Reichtümer anders nicht ans Licht gelangen können?“18 Das aber heißt im Klartext, dass der Dialog unter Umständen einen Zugang zu diesen Reichtümern öffnet.

Auf die größere Wahrheit Gottes zu Dialog heißt dem anderen Raum geben. Dafür kann es im Einzelfall verschiedene Gründe geben. Was den Dialog zwischen Konfessionen und Religionen betrifft, verstößt der Dialog – so jedenfalls die offizielle kirchliche Lehre in der Römisch-katholischen Kirche – keineswegs gegen die Treue gegenüber der eigenen Überzeugung. Um das zu verstehen, ist es nicht nur sinnvoll, sondern auch notwendig, eine Unterscheidung in Erinnerung zu rufen – die Unterscheidung zwischen den Personen und den Überzeugungen, die sie vertreten.19 Auf der Ebene der Personen muss es uneingeschränkte Wertschätzung und Toleranz geben. Auf der Ebene der Überzeugungen geht es um die Standpunkte, die von Personen vertretenen werden. Auf dieser Ebene bin ich nicht gezwungen, die Meinung des anderen für ebenso wahr zu e wie meine eigene. In diesem Punkt kann man auch als Katholik Voltaire zustimmen, der gesagt haben soll: Ich teile Ihre Meinung überhaupt nicht, aber ich werde mich dafür einsetzen, dass Sie sie ungehindert vertreten können. Dialog heißt – darüber hinaus – in ein Gespräch eintreten in der Hoffnung, dass durch das Wirken des Geistes Gottes in vielen Bereichen des Lebens und auch

16 17 18 19

Zweites Vatikanisches Konzil: Pastoralkonstitution über die Kirche in der Welt von heute Gaudium et spes (1965), Nr.44. Ibid. Johannes-Paul II.: Die Schwelle der Hoffnung überschreiten, Hamburg: Hofmann und Campe 1994, 179f. Diese Unterscheidung hat es auf dem Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil ermöglicht, in der Erklärung über die Religionsfreiheit Dignitatis humanae (1965) die Religionsfreiheit positiv zu bewerten.

156

Bernhard Körner

der Religionen „Strahlen der Wahrheit“20 gefunden werden können, die auch eine tiefere Einsicht in den eigenen Glauben möglich machen. So wird der Dialog zu einer Dimension des Glaubens. Das setzt freilich nicht nur umfassende Kenntnis, sondern auch Unterscheidung der Geister voraus. Nach christlicher Überzeugung ist uns durch Christus die erlösende Wahrheit 21 geschenkt. Was allerdings unsere menschliche Einsicht in diese Wahrheit betrifft, müssen wir immer damit rechnen, dass die Wahrheit immer noch größer ist als das, was wir schon verstanden haben. Deshalb fordert Papst Franziskus in seinem Dokument über die kirchlichen Universitäten und Fakultäten Veritatis gaudium „ein offenes Denken“22. Ein solches Denken „ist nicht abgeschlossen, immer offen für das ‚maius‘ Gottes und der Wahrheit, immer in Entwicklung begriffen, jenem Gesetz entsprechend, das der heilige Vinzenz von Lérins folgendermaßen beschreibt: ‚annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate‘“23 Damit ist vielleicht das tiefste Fundament genannt, das im Dialog verbinden und ihn zu einer bereichernden Begegnung werden lassen kann – das Wissen um die immer größere Wahrheit, die Gott ist und der sich die Gesprächspartner trotz aller Differenzen verpflichtet wissen.

20 21 22 23

Vgl. Zweites Vatikanisches Konzil: Erklärung über das Verhältnis der Kirche zu den nichtchristlichen Religionen Nostra aetate (1965), 2. Vgl. Joh 14,6. Papst Franziskus: Apostolische Konstitution Veritatis gaudium (2018), Nr.3. Ibid. Papst Franziskus verweist auf Vinzenz von Lerin, Commonitorium I, 23: PL 50,668) – übersetzt: ‚durch die Jahre gefestigt, durch die Zeit geweitet, durch das Alter verfeinert‘.

THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH IN LIGHT OF THE NICENE-CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED: REFLECTIONS FROM WITHIN THE REFORMED TRADITION Phee Seng KANG Hong Kong Baptist University

I participated in the International Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the then World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) from 1992 in Kappel-am-Albis, Zürich to 2007 in Volos, Greece, representing the Reformed tradition. The general themes of the International Theological Dialogue, officially started in 1988, followed the articles of the NiceneConstantinopolitan Creed. I came to know Professor Dr. Dorin Oancea in September 2003 in Sibiu, Romania, and again in October 2005 in Beirut, Lebanon, respectively on the eighth and the ninth sessions of International Theological Dialogue. I have very pleasant memories of him as a gentle and well-spoken man, with quick wit and warm hospitality. I am pleased to learn that his students and colleagues are planning a Festschrift to honor him on the celebration of his 70th birthday. I am greatly honored to be invited to join a group of most prestigious scholars in this meaningful endeavor. This short essay will reflect on the mission of the Church in light of the Creed of Nicea-Constantinople. While the approach is not explicitly in light of the historic Confessions of the Reformed Churches, the content nevertheless lies squarely within the reformed theological tradition. I have chosen to focus my reflection on the mission of the Church on three subtopics, namely, (i) mission and the Church; (ii) mission and theology; (iii) catholicity and contextuality in mission.

Mission and the Church The Church as a believing and worshipping community sees itself, as defined in the ecumenical creed, as the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” grounded in the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Although the word missio or mission does not appear in the ancient Creed, it nevertheless is grounded in the dominical command: “And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have

158

Phee Seng Kang

commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.’” 1 (Matthew 28: 18-20, NRSV) Nevertheless, it is still legitimate to ask, why is the missio absent in the ancient Creed? Does its absence in the Creed indicate that it is alien to the Nicene faith or that it has become, after the first three centuries, theologically less important? How is it related to the major themes of the Creed? The Reformed tradition would categorically affirm, together with most if not all major Christian traditions that the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” cannot but be a mission Church. The 98th Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, puts it rightly: “The Church is the only society that exists for the benefit of those who are not its members.” The Christian Church is called into existence by the Word of God and is commissioned to proclaim the gospel of grace to the nations of the world. The Church is called in order to be sent, and it is sent after being called. The sending and the calling of the Church cannot be separated. Although the word “mission” is not mentioned in the Creed, it is not alien to the Nicene faith and it is nevertheless implied. Just like “catholicity” or even “trinity” are not found in the New Testament, they nevertheless lie at the heart of the New Testament faith. The apostles were commanded by the risen Lord to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28: 19) and be the Lord’s “witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1: 8) If the earliest Christian community were to remain in Jerusalem without being “scattered (and) went from place to place, proclaiming the word,” (Acts 8: 4) there would still be only one Church, the Church of Jerusalem, but there would be no need to affirm the oneness of the Church in the creed, and the Creed would not be called ecumenical. It is however necessary and meaningful to affirm the oneness of the Church, the unity of all churches as the one body of Christ in the Spirit, as the churches gathered together to affirm their catholic and apostolic faith in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The many are one because the Lord is one and the Spirit is one. The many have emerged because the Church in obedience to its calling has been engaging itself wholeheartedly since Pentecost in evangelical mission to all peoples of the earth, joyfully gathering together in the name of Jesus Christ into one body in union and communion. The unity of the Church therefore is a profound unity-in-diversity and an enriched diversity-in-unity. The Church is holy because in its midst the Holy One is present. At Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was poured out in fullness upon the Church, bringing to it the immediate presence of the Holy One in his being and power. Apart from the reconciling and mediating work of Christ, the holy presence of God can only be a threat to human existence. But at Pentecost, after the completion of the atoning work of Christ, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, instead of consuming the Church, sanctified it and made it holy. The holiness of the Church therefore points beyond itself to the holy love and the loving holiness of God who in 1

All scripture quotations are taken from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV, 1989).

The Mission of the Church

159

amazing grace draws near to all peoples and draws them near to himself. The Church is holy when it submits itself to the gospel of reconciliation as the indicative of the unconditional forgiveness of God and the imperative of the absolute obedience of the redeemed community. The Church in holiness gladly acknowledges that God alone is holy and admits the impossibility of its own holiness unless the Holy One makes it possible and real. In the holy service of the gospel, the Church recognizes its solidarity with all peoples in poverty, that we all are poor and wanting before the Lord, “that we have not found God and never will, that we can never do more than wait for God to find us”2. Bound up with all humanity, the Church is sent in holy mission to the world to proclaim joyfully God’s holy grace as abundant grace. The Christian Church is catholic because it is the “catholic counterpart” in history to the ever-widening movement of universalization of the Holy Spirit. At Pentecost, the Church was called into being. “What took place intensively in Jesus Christ, within the limits of his particular historical life, then began, ”by the power of the Holy Spirit, “to take place extensively, reaching out to all humanity [men] in all times and all places in a movement as expansive as the ascension of Christ to fill all things.”3 The Church cannot be catholic unless it is sent. It is sent with a mission to all peoples on earth. The mission of the Church presupposes its catholicity, and the catholicity of the Church implies its global outreach in history. Christianity has to be world religion in the truest sense of the word or else the Church cannot be said to be truly catholic. The catholicity of the Church is implied in its faith in one God, the Father almighty, who refuses to be domesticated in any one race or in any one place, and “from whom every family in heaven and on earth takes its name.” (Ephesians 3:15) The Christian gospel is thus uncompromisingly universal for it is truly good news for all humanity. In joy and humility, the missional Church shares its catholic faith with all peoples. The Church is apostolic because it is grounded on the apostolic faith. It was the apostles to whom Jesus Christ was sent and revealed. It was the apostles who were called and sent by the Lord to be his first witnesses. The apostles therefore embodied the Christian mission to the fullest. The Acts of the Apostles is, properly understood, The Acts of the Ones Being Sent, or simply, The Mission of the Apostles. The Church thus began its history as the mission Church. There was no other option. The early Church in “sending and being sent” grew at a phenomenal rate that the world had never seen before. The apostolic faith was heard and received by many. It spread like fire across all boundaries in every new believing community. It passed on from one place to the other and from 2

3

Karl Barth’s December 1931 article in the newspaper Zofinger Zentralblatt, reprinted in Karl Barth, “Fragen an das ‘Christentum’”, Theologische Fragen und Antworten (Zollikon, Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1957) and in A Karl Barth Reader, edited by Rolf Joachim Erler, Reiner Marquard (London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 1986), p.22. T. F. Torrance, “The Mission of the Church,” Scottish Journal of Theology, volume 19.2 (1966), p.132.

160

Phee Seng Kang

one generation to the next. The Christian Church in mission is apostolic when it follows faithfully the footsteps of the apostles who were faithful witnesses of the living Christ. Christian mission is thus essential to the Christian Church. When the Church affirms itself to be the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church”, it affirms in no uncertain terms its faith and action in mission to all peoples as the living community bearing faithful witness to the living Christ and his saving gospel.

Mission and Theology The Christian Church as a “called and sent” community exists in mission which lies at the heart of its ecclesiology and is implied in the NiceneConstantinopolitan Creed. That however should not be taken to mean that mission is only domesticated in ecclesiology. On the contrary, mission should be seen in all parts of theology and at the very centre of theology proper. Historically, the Reformed churches have been passionately concerned about mission. There are rich resources in the Reformed tradition for constructing a theology of mission. We will mention below only some of these resources without going into great details of expounding them. (1) The mission (missio) of the Son and the Spirit: The incarnational movement is the sending of the eternal Son by the Father and the Pentecostal renewal is the sending of the Holy Spirit by the Father in the name of the Son. Mission thus enshrines the doctrine of the trinity, the true knowledge of the triune God who so loves the world that he gives himself in the sending and coming of his Son and his Spirit. (2) The sovereignty of God: The sovereignty of God the Creator “of all things, visible and invisible” is the sovereignty of the triune God of love who has called all things, humans included, into existence, and will in love accomplish the telos of his creation at the eschaton. (3) The fall of creation: The gravity of the fall necessitates the mission of divine love because, without divine loving initiative, the lost will never find their way home and the wounded will never be healed. This by no means implies that God is acted upon by human misery or is compelled by it to make good the creation. Rather, God in his sovereign love is the initiator, author and finisher of salvation. The Christian mission thus carries within itself a two-fold absolute obedience to the sovereign Lord and Saviour. On the part of the sinners, it is the obedient response to accept God’s unconditional grace and lordship. On the part of the Church, it is the obedient discipleship of the redeemed community to be sent to all peoples to proclaim God’s saving grace. (4) The election of God: The Christian mission is grounded in the divine initiative, wisdom and action. It has its starting point in the divine election in eternity, not in the action of the Church at Pentecost. Thus, “with the starting

The Mission of the Church

161

point for the church’s action ‘not upon earth, but in heaven’ with God, the ultimate outcomes of all labours in the ministry of Jesus Christ belong to God.”4 (5) The people of God: Far from rendering human action as redundant or unnecessary, the election of God makes possible human responsibility with dedication for mission on the one hand, and human response with repentance to the proclamation on the other. John Calvin thus argues that “if election has as its goal holiness of life, it ought rather to arouse and goad us eagerly to set our mind upon it than to serve as a pretext for doing nothing. What a great difference there is between these two things: to cease well-doing because election is sufficient for salvation, and to devote ourselves to the pursuit of good as the appointed goal of election!” 5 (6) The kingdom of God on earth and Jesus Christ as the Lord of history: The coming of the kingdom of God rightly encapsulates the whole of the preaching of Jesus Christ which concerns the reign of God on earth and in history. The content of the kingdom of God is most vividly portrayed in the Sermon on the Mount. Over against the individual and legalistic concern of the religious teachers in Jesus’ time, one is startled to see the profound, radical social and personal concern in the Sermon, although it is true that Christians through the ages have usually found ways around the clear meaning of it. Following Calvin, the Reformed tradition has “envisioned no areas of human endeavor or thought as exempt from the reign of (God in) Christ. All are valid fields for mission and ministry.” 6 Here lies the violent and explosive nature of the gospel. Any spiritualization of the Christian mission without taking seriously the transformative and regenerative power of the gospel in cultures and societies fails to acknowledge properly Jesus Christ as the Lord of human history and the Lord of the Kingdom of God on earth. (7) Vocation and stewardship: The people of God are called to mission and are enabled to do the work of God according to his will. “An active life lived in obedience must obviously consist in a correspondence to divine action.” 7 “The basic form of the active life of obedience understood and affirmed as service of the cause of God is man’s direct or indirect co-operation in the fulfillment of the task of the Christian community.” 8

4

5 6 7

8

Donald K McKim, “A Reformed Perspective on the Mission of the Church in Society,” in Major Themes in the Reformed Tradition, edited by Donald K McKim (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1998), p.363. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by John T. McNeill (Philadelphia, Westminster, 1960), III.23.12. Donald K McKim, “A Reformed Perspective on the Mission of the Church in Society,” p.365. Karl Barth, The Church Dogmatics. The Doctrine of Creation. Part 4 - The Command of God the Creator, edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1960), III/4: 474. Karl Barth, The Church Dogmatics. The Doctrine of Creation, III/4: 483.

162

Phee Seng Kang

Mission thus lies at the heart of Christian theology, even though a distinctive theology of mission may be said to appear historically at a later time. It is an exceedingly important motif pervading virtually the entire course of biblical revelation. A full theology of mission should therefore draw resources from the full range of theological themes. Given the close connection between mission and theology, it is surprising that the subject matter of mission is generally absent from the treatments of systematic theology and is often neglected in thematic studies of biblical books. It is even possible to do ecclesiology without any reference to church mission. But mission should not be confined only to ecclesiology or missiology. Unfortunately, one hardly finds a volume, let alone a major wok, in systematic theology in which the theme of mission runs from cover to cover. Perhaps the main reason lies in the fact that for many centuries Christian Church has been accustomed to an era of Christendom in which practically everyone is baptised into the Church. This is also true of the Reformed tradition. Hence, the neglect of the centrality of mission in classical Reformed theology. We however are now in a post-Christian and post-modern world. There has been an increasing awareness among the Reformed theologians of the significance of mission for constructive theology. Some searching theological questions need to be raised here include, for example, What is the place of mission in theology? Can constructive theology do without engaging seriously the theme of mission? Should we not say, “theology arises out of mission” in a way similar to lex orandi, lex credendi, for mission, centred on the sovereignty of God and the lordship of Christ is indeed also a form of worship? What then is the outlook of a theology that is informed by mission? What is the impact of mission upon the Church’s theological selfunderstanding?

Catholicity and Contextuality in Mission The Christian Church is a spiritual community. It is spiritual because it was born of the Holy Spirit. It is a spirituality created in history at Pentecost. As the new humanity in this world, the Church exists in history and moves in history. The Christian spirituality therefore is not abstract but real, not imaginary but actual. It is fully embodied in concrete human lives and experiences, and is diversely expressed in different human cultures and contexts. In reaching out to all peoples, the catholic and apostolic Church finds itself present in all social and political matrixes and is challenged from within them to be true witness of Christ and his gospel. In responding to the challenges in their own particular contexts, young Christian churches, cannot simply repeat the theologies of the sending churches that were constructed earlier from within very different cultural contexts. Although belonging to the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, young Asian churches, in my own experience for instance, have to struggle intensely within

The Mission of the Church

163

their own specific cultural contexts so as to formulate new and constructive theologies to fulfil their own vocations as the witnesses of Christ. While being deeply appreciative of the evangelistic zeal of the sending churches in mission in earlier centuries, they nevertheless have good theological reasons to be increasingly critical of the assertions of the sending churches regarding the supremacy of their own cultures and languages and the normativity of their own theological traditions. The Reformed tradition has been attentive to these issues. It has been made aware of its errors of imposing, though unintentionally, cultural supremacy and theological normativity to its younger sister churches. It has fallen prey to Kulturprotestantismus (‘Cultural Protestantism’) by identifying the gospel with the culture in which it is embedded. It has learnt to appreciate the truth that if the gospel of Jesus Christ is to be heard and responded faithfully, it has to be incarnated, as it were, in the flesh and blood of the receiving communities. Or, as the American Reformed theologian Dawn DeVries puts it, “There is no group of people who are, by virtue of their human identity, separated from Jesus Christ, for in Christ ‘there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female.’ (Galatians 3:28)”9 In the final analysis, theology, mission and social ethics are not three distinct enterprises. They are but one interacting description of all the Christian church is and does in response to the work of the triune God in the world. A theology that is shaped by mission must therefore call for a hermeneutic of the gospel in the midst of concrete contexts and conditions of life, such as cultural identity and change, justice for the poor, encounter with human religions, building peace, caring for nature, and sharing the fruits, joys, and sufferings of life. There is of course a valid theological concern that what often happens in the name of contextualization is the substitution of socio-political ideologies for the gospel of Christ. The mandate of “the translatability of the gospel” can indeed become a temptation to subordinate the gospel and its witnessing church to cultural categories that ultimately distort God’s mission. “Contextualization” can and has often become “assimilation”, making compromises with human divisions based on race, language, social status, and possessions. The alternative, however, is not to turn our back to contextualization. It is rather to insist on the catholicity and apostolicity of the Christian faith. In other words, all genuine theologies are not done for themselves. They must seek to be catholic and apostolic. On the one hand, newly evangelized communities must not abandon the strict discipline of schooling with ancient ecumenical creeds, catholic traditions and apostolic faith. On the other hand, and more importantly, they must turn away from their own cultural and contextual particularities and 9

Dawn DeVries, “Catholicity in the Historic Self-understanding and Tradition of the Church.” Unpublished paper presented at the Ninth Session of the International Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) in Beirut, Lebanon in October 2005.

164

Phee Seng Kang

point beyond themselves to their catholic and apostolic reality in Jesus Christ. What is important here is the recognition that kat’ holon has to do with the holon – the apostolic witness to “the wholeness, the centre, the essential” that only Jesus Christ is. “Christian faith and theology have to do with a comprehensive reality: Jesus Christ, in whom and as whom God enacts his absolute liberty. Such a reality simply cannot be mapped out: it always as it were runs ahead of attempts to codify it.” Hence, “it is the proclamation of Jesus risen from the dead as Lord, and so the announcement of that which relativizes 10 all contexts but which is itself relativized by none.” One faith in the one Lord, but many voices of praise from all places. One apostolic faith at Pentecost, although many tongues. The Church is the body of Jesus Christ. The Church in mission is thus no less in communion. In communion as one body of Jesus Christ, no Reformed church should theologize or believe or worship alone. There arises in it a genuine humility and willingness to listen to and to learn from one another; the evangelical openness to one another for genuine possibilities to recognize one’s own cultural captivity, to repent of one’s assumptions of theological supremacy, and to re-formulate one’s theology so as to apply vigorously and extensively the gospel of Jesus Christ in all situations, especially to those who have been socially marginalized by virtue of their human identities. In that communion, the Reformed churches receive more than they can ever give. And, in that communion, indeed in mission, they are truly reformed. Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda.

10

John Webster “Locality and Catholicity: Reflections on Theology and the Church,” Scottish Journal of Theology, vol.45 (1992), pp.1-17; quotations from pp. 3, 5.

AN UPDATED ECUMENICAL THEOLOGY Martien E. BRINKMAN Free University of Amsterdam

Summary: The main thesis of this contribution is that classical ecumenical theology needs (in order to survive) to account more explicitly for the contextual embeddedness of its sources. Actually that could imply that especially non-Western ecumenical theology would give more priority to the integration of the results of the local inter-religious dialogue into its own reflection. In the Western world it could mean that on the basis of a hermeneutics of coherence more space would be given to enriching points brought in by the specific church traditions. Just as an example of that intention, this contribution concludes with some worthwhile points from the Reformed tradition. Introduction: In their introduction to ecumenical theology, Oecumene als leerproces [Ecumenism as a Process of Learning] the Dutch ecumenists Houtepen, Hoedemaker and Witvliet define ecumenism as “the interaction between confessional traditions within Christendom as an historical and contemporary process, in the perspective of unity and collective action of the church in the world”.1 This is a dynamic definition which presupposes movement and process. When such a process of interaction in fact begins, shifts in the way judgements are made can take place leading to a ‘reconciliation of memories’ of which the report on the international dialogue between the World Alliance of the Reformed Churches (WARC) and the Roman Catholic Church spoke.2 1 2

B. Hoedemaker, A. Houtepen & Th. Witvliet, Oecumene als leerproces, Zoetermeer: Meinema, (1993) 2005 (3rd pr.), pp. 5-27, esp. p. 9. The first chapter of the document ‘Towards a Common Understanding of the Church’ (TCUC), bears the title ‘Toward a Reconciliation of Memories’ (Nos 12-63). See for the text, J. Gross, H. Meyer and W. Rusch (eds), Growth in Agreement II: Reports and Agreed Statements of Ecumenical Conversations on a World Level (Faith and Order Paper No. 187), Geneva-Grand Rapids: WCC-Eerdmans, 2000, 780-818. For the method of ecumenical history writing applied here see, among others, E.M.V.M. Honée, ‘The Function of Church History in the Ecumenical Dialogue’ in: M.E. Brinkman and H. Witte (eds), From Roots to Fruits: Protestants and Catholics Towards a Common Understanding of the Church (European Studies from the WARC 3), Geneva: WARC, (1998) 2000 (2nd pr.) , pp. 16–32, G.R. Evans, Method in Ecumenical Theology: The Lessons So Far, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1996, pp.

Martien E. Brinkman

166

However, the definition of ecumenism employed by Houtepen and his colleagues in 1993 is under attack. “We are presently once again discovering our differences”, is the conclusion of the article by the French sociologist JeanPaul Willaime, bearing the telling title ‛L’Ultramodernité sonne-t-elle la Fin de l’œcuménisme?’ [Does ultramodernism announce the end of ecumenism?], written in 2001.3

Spiritual Ecumenism In addition to the institutional (focused on unity) and the ethical (focused on collective action in the world) definition of ecumenism presented by Houtepen and his colleagues, there are still other definitions in circulation. For instance, in its famous decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, the Second Vatican Council spoke of a “spiritual ecumenism”, and provided the following description of it: There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart. For it is from renewal of the inner life of our minds, from self-denial and an unstinted love that desires for unity take their rise and develop in a mature way. We should therefore pray to the Holy Spirit for the grace to be genuinely selfdenying, humble, gentle in the service of others, and to have an attitude of brotherly generosity towards them. (No. 7)

And No. 8 then follows: This change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name ‘spiritual ecumenism’. 4

Such ‘spiritual ecumenism’, with its emphasis upon self-denial and unstinted love, is clearly not intended as an alternative for a more institutional ecumenism, but is rather the prerequisite for it. This spiritual ecumenism would appear to be the pre-eminent source of inspiration from which the church draws to maintain its true identity. That is why the Groupe des Dombes, the influential, French-speaking ecumenical discussion group, with reference to the Protestant motto ecclesia

3

4

114–147 (‘Historical Method’) and I. Noble, “Three Complementary Methods” in: Idem, Essays in Ecumenical Theology I (Studies in Reformed Theology, Vol. 35), Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2019, pp. 25-35. J.-P. Willaime, ‘L’Ultramodernité sonne-t-elle la fin de l’œcuménisme?’, Recherches de Science Religieuse 89 (2001) pp. 177–204, esp. p.204: “Dans le domaine religieux comme dans d’autres domaines, on réinvente les différences et on valorise leur coexistence pacifiée.”[In the religious domain like in other domains one reinvents the differences and one valorises their peaceful co-existence] All the texts of Vatican II are easily available on internet.

An Updated Ecumenical Theology

167

semper reformanda5 and the Vatican’s speaking of semper purificanda,6 therefore terms the readiness to change, here consistently termed ‘conversion’, one of the most adequate ways in which the church protects its identity: ‘Rather than exclude one another, the concepts of identity and conversion assume each 7 other’ is one of their postulates. By this they mean that the readiness to change, in the sense of reformation, at its deepest has something to do with the essence of Christian existence: namely with the readiness as a church to die to the old Adam and rise to a new life with the new Adam, Jesus Christ. It is only working from an attitude of this sort that the Christian church finds its most basic identity. All the other things that contribute to the identity of the church are of subsidiary importance, as compared with this ‘baptismal experience’ of dying and rising with Christ. If this readiness for reformation is not sufficiently taken into account, and the peculiar identity of a church is formulated primarily in contrast with that of other churches rather than in relation to other churches, it can lead to absurdities of the sort found in this Lutheran cri de coeur I once came across in a discussion of the doctrine of justification: “I insist to be condemned by the decrees of the Council of Trent. If they do not condemn me, then I am not a real Lutheran!”8

Ecumenism of the Heart We encounter a third view of ecumenism in evangelical circles. There people like to talk about an ‘ecumenism of the heart’. What is important for them—at least if I understand them rightly—is primarily a spontaneous recognition and 5

6 7

8

This motto is often attributed to the Reformers, but actually comes from early Dutch Reformed pietism. We find it, for instance, in Jodocus van Lodensteijn (1620–1677), in his Beschouwinge van Zion [Reflections of Sion], Amsterdam: Hardenberg/Douci, 1729, 4th pr., p.241, in which he refers to the view of an otherwise unidentified ‘learned man’, that “the Reformed Church should not have been named Reformata, or Reformed, but Reformanda, or to be continually Reformed.” Lumen Gentium, no. 8: .... “[the] Church, embracing in its bosom sinners, at the same time holy and always in need of being purified, always follows the way of penance and renewal.” Groupe des Dombes, Pour la Conversion des Églises, Paris: Centurion, 1991, p. 21 (No. 8): “Bien loin de s’exclure, identité et conversion s’apellent l’une l’autre: ….” [Far from excluding each other, identity and conversion are the same] For the references to the Protestant motto, see op. cit,. p. 28 (No. 25); p. 34 (No. 42); p. 37 (No. 55) and p. 67 (No. 117). Cf. A. Blancy, ‘Can the Churches Convert? Should the Churches Convert?’, The Ecumenical Review 44(1992) pp. 419–428 and C.E. Clifford, The Groupe des Dombes: A Dialogue of Conversion, Bern: Peter Lang, 2005. See more generally on the pioneering work of the Groupe des Dombes, C.E. Clifford (ed.), For the Communion of the Churches: The Contribution of the Groupe des Dombes, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010 and A. Blancy, “The Group of Les Dombes”, One in Christ 23/3 (1987) 235-241.. An argument of this sort is cited and then contested in Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. A Commentary by the Institute for Ecumenical Research, Strasbourg, Strasbourg: Lutheran World Federation 1997, pp. 17–49, esp. p. 20.

168

Martien E. Brinkman

acknowledgement of the other as a fellow Christian. In evangelical circles such a spontaneous acknowledgement must always exorcise a threatening inclination toward sectarianism. In contrast to ‘spiritual ecumenism’, this ‘ecumenism of the heart’ is unmistakably intended to avoid all problematic questions surrounding a more institutional ecumenism. It is not so much a precondition for institutional ecumenism as an alternative to it. Institutional and spiritual ecumenism and ecumenism of the heart are the most important approaches in the current discussions on ecumenism, recently supplemented by the concept of apophatic and kataphatic ecumenism, elaborated by the Czech ecumenist Ivana Noble. In this kind of ecumenism we firstly endorse what God is not. It is a kind of intellectual and spiritual catharsis. This apophatic approach has always to be accompanied by a kataphatic way of speaking in which the hidden God grants us the narratives and symbols in which His revelation has taken place. It honors that in ecumenical conversations too there is a time for speaking and a time for being silent. It reminds us that even a conversation, as an action, grows out of silence.9

Ecumenism as Tradition Hermeneutics My own definition of ecumenism comes close to what the Faith and Order study A Treasure in Earthen Vessels terms a ‘hermeneutics of coherence’.10 In such a hermeneutics, people enter into discussions between Christian traditions from the trust in each other’s intention to pass on the heritage of faith in continuity with the Apostolic era. In other words, people proceed from the—to borrow a term from the conflict over heterodox baptism and use it is a new setting—recta intentio, the sincere intention to do what the church has always done.11 On this basis, people can advance to meet one another with the necessary trust. From that trust they can then also come to understand what from a more distrusting perspective might be called ‘heresy’ as an unnecessary emphasis on one pole of an argument, an unfortunate absolutizing of one’s own concept of faith. A hermeneutics of coherence, sometimes also labelled as a ‘hermeneutics of confidence’, will always lead to positions of faith being understood in the last analysis as complementary rather than contrasting. It is a hermeneutics in search of the coherence between articulations of faith which can diverge widely, both across time, and in the same era.

9 10 11

I. Noble, o.c., pp. 36-52 (“Apophatic Aspects of Theological Conversation”). A Treasure in Earthern Vessels (Faith and Order Paper No. 182), Geneva: WCC, 1998, p. 9 (No. 6); p. 10 (No. 8) and p. 21–23 (Nos 28–30). Cf. Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM) (Faith and Order Paper No. 111), Geneva: WCC, (1982) 1984 (14th pr.), p. 32 (M-52): “Churches in ecumenical conversations can recognize their respective ordained ministries if they are mutually assured of their intention to transmit the ministry of Word and sacrament in continuity with apostolic times.”

An Updated Ecumenical Theology

169

In this approach, it will be easier to appreciate the diverse, confessional colors in ecumenical conversations. Let me illustrate that more inviting attitude with an anecdote out of my own ecumenical biography. My very first international ecumenical conference was a small 1987 consultation of Faith and Order to evaluate the responses of the churches to the so-called Lima Text on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry.12 During a working group session a Bulgarian bishop suddenly asked me—because as a newcomer in that company I had not said much—“And you, Mister Brinkman, what’s your opinion as a Calvinist?” At that moment I realized with a shock that, if I wanted to function well in ecumenical conversations, at the very least I would have to be up to speed with my Calvinism as my starting point. After all, one can only discover the pearls of faith in the possession of another if one knows what pearls of faith are—or, in other words, if one has also himself discovered one or two such pearls in his own life and in his own church tradition. In this sense, it is fair to admit that real ecumenism primarily always assumes a process of reconfessionalization. I am fully aware of the fact that this is a risky formulation, which can easily be abused. I would like to emphasize however that if it is understood to mean becoming conscious of the treasures that lie hidden within one’s own tradition, there is nothing wrong with that – all the more when we together recognize that every sincere confession of our reliance on forgiveness puts much of what we from our history consider to be inviolable into the right perspective. Becoming aware of one’s own tradition – and perhaps also regaining a love for one’s own tradition – may therefore very well be counted as one of the necessary and worthwhile phases of ecumenical discussion. But it can never be the final phase, because the other then still only comes into the picture as a contrast. There is then neither recognition nor acknowledgement for the other. Actually, there is in practice a massive ‘hermeneutics of confidence’ and a ‘hermeneutics of complementarity’ between the Catholics and Protestants in the Netherlands. In fact, they employ the model of reconciled diversity. This seems a realistic end point for the time being. In the comparable Czechian church situation the Czechian ecumenist Ivana Noble sees opportunities to come to a kind of double church belonging especially for het ecclesiastically mixed married couples.13

Ecumenical and Inter-Religious Dialogues It is not necessary to separate the accomplishments of this intra-Christian dialogues sharply from those of inter-religious dialogues. The model of 12 13

See for the result of that conference, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry 1982-1990: Report on the Process and Responses (Faith and Order Paper No. 149), Geneva: WCC, 1990. I. Noble, o.c., pp. 182-202 (“Religious Belonging in a Changing Europe”) and pp. 203-217 (“A Journey towards Recognition”).

170

Martien E. Brinkman

reconciled diversity is also very usable in inter-religious dialogue. After all, the differences in beliefs within Christianity are also aspects which are impossible to gloss over in inter-religious dialogue. They do make it clear, however, that the inter-religious conversations will always be discussions between a multihued Christendom and an equally multi-hued Judaism, an equally multi-hued Islam, and so forth. The by now almost classic, threefold ecumenical method of (1) arriving at a reconciliation of memories, (2) noting and listing similarities and differences, and (3) creating structures and platforms for collective reflection and action, also seems to be proving productive in inter-religious dialogue. In this the diversity on both sides is more of a plus point than a disadvantage.14 As we noted at the beginning of this contribution, ecumenical studies are defined as the study of “the interaction between confessional traditions within Christendom as an historical and contemporary process, in the perspective of unity and collective action as the church in the world”. ‘Interaction’ is the key word here. The discovery of the last three decades is now that an even more fundamental interaction precedes the interaction between the various confessional traditions—namely, interaction with one’s own context. For many ecumenically engaged theologians in the southern hemisphere, the divisions among churches in their own countries are purely an historical phenomenon that has to do with the history of Western missions. The problems which they experience collectively as Christians, as members of a Christian minority over against a Muslim majority in Indonesia or a Hindu majority in India, are much more urgent for them. Despite the Western ‘export’ of its own ecclesiastical divisions, this minority status often means that in the southern hemisphere there are more bonds which bring various Christian denominations together than dividing lines which separate them. Their often complex minority status could also to a large extent be the explanation for a number of notable church unions, particularly in India, where they have led to the creation of the United Church of South India and the United

14

Instructive is the way in which the philosopher of religion, Marianne Moyaert, applies Paul Ricoeur’s theory of linguistic hospitality, originally articulated as translation theory, to the interreligious dialogue. She discerns eight steps: 1. an exposure of strangeness 2. a question for understanding and meaning transfer 3. the desire to understand the other in his/her otherness 4. the thrust that this possible 5. the recognition of the asymmetry between the ‘familiar’ and the ‘foreign’ 6. the violence of hermeneutics making way for the necessary meaning transfer 7. the recognition that complete and perfect understanding without residues is not possible and 8. the recognition that it is not possible to be ever fully at home in the religious language of the other, which makes way for what could be called hermeneutical hospitality or openness. See M. Moyaert, “The (Un-)translability of Religions? Ricoeur’s Linguistic Hospitality as Model for Inter-religious Dialogue”, Exchange 37 (2008) 337-364, esp. 357-358. Cf. P. Ricoeur, Sur la traduction, Paris: Bayard, 2004 [On Translation, London: Routledge, 2006].

An Updated Ecumenical Theology

171

Church of North India.15 All the great Protestant traditions have been united in these churches. In their situation as a minority, these churches often neither can nor would want to avoid inter-religious dialogue. For them this dialogue is not just an interesting theological exercise, but a bitter, practical necessity. Ultimately, practical basic rights with regard to family life, education, health care and festivals of the church must be arranged in this dialogue. This explicit or implicit dialogue also leaves an obvious stamp on their theology. The ‘Indian Jesus’ is unthinkable without interaction with the Hindu context16, and the ‘Japanese Jesus’ without interaction with the Buddhist context17, and the ‘African Jesus’ without interaction with the traditional African religious context.18 This development has huge consequences for the way ecumenical theology has to be taught in the next decades. They can be summed up in the following four points: (1) The history of the divisions within Christianity is to a large extent a Western history. The worthwhile effort to overcome these divisions therefore does not have to define the whole of the worldwide, ecumenical agenda. Elsewhere in the world there are also other, perhaps more urgent problems for Christianity. (2) The religious minority situation in which the majority of Christians lives, makes inter-religious dialogue necessary. (3) The present diversity in Christianity means that a more limited role should be given to Western textbooks. For instance, it is completely inadequate to deal with Christology exclusively from the classic approaches in the history of Western theology. Today the discussions on the history of Christological doctrine should be accompanied by discussions of the Christological models which prevail on the various continents. Especially in the discussions on the interpretation of the Council of Chalcedon (451), for example, more pride of place should be given to the approaches of the oriental churches.19

15

16 17

18

19

Cf. X. Koodapuzha, Oriental Churches: An Introduction, Kerala: Oriental Institute of Religious Studies, 1996 and M. Th. Haokip, A History of Ecumenical Movement in North East India: With Special reference to the North East India Christian Council, Delhi: ISPCK, 2015. Cf. J.P. Schouten, Jesus as Guru: The Image of Jesus Christ among Hindus and Christians in India (Currents of Encounter, 36), Leiden: Brill. 2008 Cf. S. Ueda, “Jesus in Contemporary Japanese Zen: With Special Regards to Keiji Nishitani” in: P. Schmidt-Leukel (eds), Buddhist Perspectives of Jesus, St. Ottilien: EOS-Verlag, 2001, 42-58. Cf. R.J. Schreiter (ed.), Faces of Jesus in Africa, Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991. Cf. also M.E. Brinkman, The Non-Western Jesus: Jesus as bodhisattva, avatara, guru, prophet, ancestor and healer? (Crosscultural Theologies, 8), London: Equinox, 2009. Cf. L. Vischer (ed.), Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ: Ecumenical Reflections of the Filioque Controversy (Faith and Order Paper No. 103), London-Geneva: SPCK-WCC, 1981 and P. Gregorios, W.H. Lazareth and N.A. Nissiotis (eds), Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite? Towards Convergence in Orthodox Christology, Geneva: WCC, 1981.

172

Martien E. Brinkman

(4) The acknowledgement of the way in which every form of theology is tied to its context comes back at Western theology like a boomerang, and requires that the analysis of its own culture becomes subject of research and instruction. It is therefore significant that at those universities where inter-religious dialogue plays a large role, there is also a growing interest in the relation between faith and Western culture.20

An Updated Ecumenical Theology Willaime has very well sensed and expressed with regard to ecumenism what had been in the air philosophically for decades already, namely the importance of recognizing the differences between individuals, and peoples. In the last decades we have observed, however, in many countries the bitter harvest from that recognition of differences. That is why in ecumenical theology there is an urgent need to have a clear picture of the goal of ecumenical dialogue, so that the ecumenical method with its three steps of reconciliation of memories, recognition and acknowledgement of similarities and differences and the structuring of collective commitment to reflection and action, will not be pushed aside at the same time along with their goals that are possibly no longer experienced as relevant. As an example of updating the goal of ecumenism (and at the same time also of inter-religious dialogue) 1 would like to persist to my plea for the indispensability of a hermeneutics of confidence and complementarity. Regarding the relationships among the various world religions, the Dutch philosopher of religion, Hendrikus Vroom, has strikingly visualized this complementary aspect with the image of the moving Olympic rings with their several centers.21 They overlap each other in part, and in part

20

21

Oxford, Tübingen and Amsterdam can serve as examples of this parallellism. Next to the study of the world religions, an increasing interest in the relation of the gospel and the own culture (literature) can here be observed. Cf. e.g. R. Harries, The Image of Christ in Modern Art, Farnham: Ashgate, 2013; P.S. Fiddes, The Promised End: Eschatology in Theology and Literature, Malden MA: Blackwell Publishers 2000; K..-J. Kuschel, Jesus in der DeutschSprachigen Gegenwartsliteratur, Zürich/Köln-Gütersloh: Benziger Verlag-Gerd Mohn, (1978) 1979 (3th pr.), Idem, Im Spiegel der Dichter: Mensch, Gott und Jesus in der Literatur des 20. Jahrhunderts, Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1997 [Engl. Transl. The Poet as Mirror: Human Nature, God and Jesus in Twentieth-Century Literature, London: SCM Press, 1999] and M.E. Brinkman, Jesus Incognito: The Hidden Christ in Western Art since 1960 (Currents of Encounter, 47), Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, 2013 and W. Stoker, Where heaven and Earth Meet: The Spiritual in the Art of Kandinsky, Rothko, Warhol and Kiefer (Currents of Encounter, 45), Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, 2012. See H.M. Vroom, Religions and the Truth: Philosophical Reflections and Perspectives, Grand Rapids/Amsterdam: Eerdmans/Rodopi, 1989. Cf. also Idem, Walking in a Widening World: Understanding Religious Diversity (Amsterdam Studies in Theology and Religion, 5), Amsterdam: VU University Press, 2013, pp. 145-165 (‘Do All Religious Traditions Worship the Same God?’)

An Updated Ecumenical Theology

173

they do not. Our world is crying out for an ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue of this sort. The developments in world Christianity, sketched above, make us aware of the fact, that the inner Christian dialogue has become, to a great extent, from within (namely from the local situation) an interreligious dialogue as well. If Christians intend, from their minority position, to become comprehensible to a Buddhist, Hindu or Islamic majority, they cannot escape searching for a common conceptual frame of reference, including, of course, always a vehement discussion on syncretism.22 That implies nowadays that e.g. the current Indian, Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Indonesian theology cannot be understood without some basic knowledge of the content of the sacred books of Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and Islam.23 That at this moment the interreligious dialogue in many regards can be regarded as an intrinsic part of the inner Christian dialogue, is a direct result of the inculturation of the Gospel in the non-western world.24 That implies an enormous increase of the diversity within world Christianity. And that prompts immediately the question: Who will be concerned about the bond of unity in the midst of all diversity? That will be one of the greatest challenges for the ecumenical movement in the next decades and for the World Council of Churches especially. There all the remotest corners of Christianity remain in conversation with one another, and there takes place a certain cross-fertilization. To some extent it is also the task of academic theology, the international character of which is increasingly taking on institutional form by worldwide periodicals, conferences, etc. But above all, it is the work of the Spirit of God, which blows where it will.

22

23

24

Cf. J.D. Gort a.O. (eds), Dialogue and Syncretism: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Currents of Encounter 1), Grand Rapids-Amsterdam: Eerdmans-Rodopi, 1989 and H.M. Vroom, “Is Not All Contextual Understanding of the Gospel Syncretism?”, Journal of Reformed Theology 3 (2009) 274-287. J. Parapally, Emerging Trends in Indian Christology, Bangalore: SFS Publications, 1995; Cf. P.S. Chung, “Intercultural Theology in East Asia: Bold Imagination and Hermeneutics”, Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 19/2 (2009) 179-194; Idem, “Inculturation and the Recognition of the Other: Matteo Ricci’s Legacy in the Christian-Confucian Context”, Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 20/1 (2010) 79-97; K.-S. Tan, “The Inter-Religious Frontier: A ‘Buddhist-Christian’ Contribution”, Mission Studies 31 (2014) 139-156; M.H. Oliai, The Japanese & Christianity: A Complex Relation, Amsterdam: Foundation Press, 2013; H.Y. Kim, Christ and the Tao, Hongkong: Christian Conference of Asia, 2003; J. Ji, Encounters between Chinese Culture and Christianity: A Hermeneutical Perspective, Berlin: LIT Verlag, 2007; B. Subandrijo, Eikon and Ayat. Points of Encounter between Indonesian Christian and Muslim Perspectives on Jesus, Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, 2007 and W.S. Wibowo, Jesus as Kurban: Christology in the Context of Islam in Indonesia, Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, 2014. Cf. M.E. Brinkman, The Non-Western Jesus, p. 187 and p. 23.

174

Martien E. Brinkman

Lessons to be Learned At present, it sometimes seems that institutional ecumenism has come to an end. Once challenging ecumenical dialogues have now solidified into frozen dialogues. The best thing the dialogue partners can do nowadays is to offer a fair image of each position. The same fate occurred in a certain sense also with inter-religious dialogue. The current situation in the Middle East especially does not create a stimulating setting for such dialogue. Yet there are some lessons that can be learned from half a century of ecumenical dialogues. It is part of the tragedy of ecumenism that many results of dialogues from the 1980s and 1990s are still not outdated. Sometimes, there is even not the beginning of an attempt to apply the results. In that sense, these results constitute a ‘treasure in earthern vessels’. They form a kind of modern depositum fidei that can be opened at any time. It belongs to the task of ecumenists time and again to point to this treasure, often hidden up to now in the desk drawers of many church leaders all over the world. Of course, this point can be interpreted in an ironic sense, but it is meant seriously: there is still something to be gained from it. Modern ecumenical theology has to point to these pearls. Especially the historical research carried out to offer the sources for these dialogues is often of high quality and groundbreaking. A second point has to do with the way the ecumenical movement dealt with differences up to now. Especially in a time of continuing contextualization, the differences in world Christianity will increase before they decrease. An Indian Christian will articulate his faith more and more with the help of Hindu concepts, an Indonesian Christian with the help of Muslim concepts, and an African Christian with the help of traditional African concepts, etc. They will confess Christ as their guru, avatar, bodhisattva, prophet, chief, ancestor, etc. That will probably imply that the thrust of modern ecumenical research shifts from the question how much diversity unity can bear to the question how much diversity is needed to maintain unity. That will require a colorful ecumenism eager to discover or to invent old and new identity markers preserving a fragile balance between centrifugal and centripetal efforts in world Christianity. Within the ecumenical movement, a whole range of highly differentiated dialogue models (models of unity) has been developed from the notion of ‘reconciled diversity’ to that of a ‘hermeneutics of complementarity’. This peaceful way of dealing with historical differences can, more than ever at this moment in world history, be an inspiring ‘sign and instrument of unity’ for the whole of humankind as well. Ecumenical theology embodies a model of human cooperation that, in spite of a lack of much success in church history, still remains worthwhile and even applicable in secular settings. It may be significant that, shortly after the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers in New York, the CEO of the Dutch-British multinational Unilever convened a small committee of experts in ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue at his headquarter in Rotterdam to discuss the different dialogue models. Apparently,

An Updated Ecumenical Theology

175

it was his intention to collect some guidelines for the discussions in his firms in the Christian and Muslim world. For him, ecumenical and interreligious dialogues were an inspiring example of how people can negotiate with one another in a peaceful way.

A Reformed Contribution As a delayed answer to the above-mentioned question of a Bulgarian Orthodox bishop, once put to me at my first ecumenical conference in 1987 (“And you, Mister Brinkman, what’s your opinion as a Calvinist?”), I am inclined, 27 years later, to summarize my own Reformed input in the ecumenical discussions into the following five points. (1) If we want to avoid the Reformed sola scriptura principle actually becoming nothing more than the absolutization of a specific interpretation of Scripture at a certain time and place, we have to emphasize, that the sola scriptura principle always presupposes another Reformed principle, namely that of the ecclesia semper reformanda. Both principles need each other. Hence, the Reformed Fathers added to the ecclesia semper reformanda principle always the words secundum verbum Dei.25 Without the sola scriptura, the ecclesia semper reformanda lacks any criterion, any norm. And without the ecclesia semper reformanda principle, the confessional character of any Scripture interpretation will not be sufficiently recognized. Therefore, we could state: no adequate biblical hermeneutics without a sound ecclesiology and (the other way around) no sound ecclesiology without adequate biblical hermeneutics. This allows us to recognize the ecclesial (ministerial) aspect of every kind of responsible exegesis. In the Reformed tradition, that was actually the case from the very beginning! That means that the Bible is the book of the church as a hermeneutical community.26 (2) According to Reformed doctrine, a radical separation of church and state is actually impossible. There cannot be any confusion but no strict separation either. A strict separation would constrain the prophetic, social role of the church and would grant the leaders of a state unrestricted freedom. Church and state need each other. The church needs the state for the protection of its free, unlimited proclamation of the Word of God and for its efforts to account for its hope for the advent of the Kingdom of God. And the state needs institutions like the church for the values that are constitutive of its very existence. It cannot establish these existential values by itself.27 25 26 27

Cf. G. van den Brink and J. Smits, ‘The Reformed Stance: Distinctive Commitments and Concerns’, Journal of Reformed Theology 9 (2015) 325-347, esp. 341. Cf. M.E. Brinkman, A Reformed Voice in the Ecumenical Discussion (Studies in Reformed Theology 31), Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2016, pp. 15-34 (“Unity: A Reformed Contribution”). Cf. E.-W. Böckenförde, “Die Entstehung des Staates als Vorgang der Säkularisation” in: Idem, Recht, Staat, Freiheit. Studien zur Rechtsphilosophie, Staatstheorie und

176

Martien E. Brinkman

It is inherent to the Christian faith that it cannot be restricted to individual experiences. There is an indispensable relation between the church and the kingdom of God. Without such a relation, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper lose a crucial aspect of their meaning. Every politician pleading for such a restriction is de facto imposing upon Christians a norm that is foreign to their faith. To articulate it paradoxically, to argue as a politician for a strict separation of church and state is actually a denial of his own argument. Such an argument presupposes that the politician knows better than the believer what the implications of the Christian faith are, i.e., that it has no political implications at all. That seems to be a clear example of political interference in church affairs and in that sense a denial by the state of the separation of church and state.28 (3) The Church can be called ‘sacrament of the kingdom of God’ if the word ‘sacrament’ alludes not just to an identification with or prolongation of Christ but to the simultaneousness of the disclosure and concealing character of Christ’s presence among us. In the sacramental symbol presence and distance, visibility and invisibility belong together. Only when this concept of the symbol is consistently applied to ecclesiology and when the Church is understood as sacrament of the kingdom of God according to this dialectic of negation and affirmation is the continuous threat of identification of Christ’s salvific work with the history of the Church completely expelled.29 Symbolic representation lies between commemoration (anamnesis) of the past (the saving work of Christ) and the expectation of the future (His coming in glory). In this way, the Christian sacramental symbols signify an absence, and only in this way do they evoke a presence. This non-identity refers to the radical difference or Otherness (transcendence) of the Risen One. The resurrection teaches us that Christ is never simply at our disposal. Only with the help of the Spirit can we experience his presence. The Reformed participants in ecumenical dialogues emphasized

28 29

Verfassungsgeschichte, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1991, pp. 92-114, esp. 112: “Der freiheitliche, säkularisierte Staat lebt von Voraussetzungen, die er selbst nicht garantieren kann.” [The liberal, secular state lives from presuppositions which he himself cannot guarantee] Cf. Idem, o.c., pp. 50-70 (“State and Church: The South African Case”). The Reformed-Catholic Dialogue document Towards a Common Understanding of the Church (TCUC), No. 107 refers to the way the Groupe des Dombes speaks about the sacrament and the church as “the place of presence and the place of distance”. See Groupe des Dombes, L’Esprit Saint, l’Église et les Sacrements, Taizé: Taizé Presse, 23-24 (No. 23). In its turn this dialogue group may be inspired by the dialectic interpretation of the meaning of symbols by the French Reformed philosopher Paul Ricoeur in his Symbols of Evil, London: Harper, 1976, p. 17. This dialectics has been elaborated also in the sacramentology of the French Roman-Catholic theologian Louis-Marie Chauvet in his Symbole et sacrament: Une relecture sacramentelle de l’existence chrétienne, Pais: Cerf, 188, pp. 85-115 and in his Du symbolique au symbole: Eassai sur les sacrements, Paris: Cerf, 1979, pp. 77-79 and pp. 91-93.

An Updated Ecumenical Theology

177

time and again this pneumatological aspect of the relation between Christ and his Church and between the Church and the kingdom of God.30 (4) The political implications of a sound theology of baptism are often underestimated in the Reformed tradition. It is often forgotten that infant baptism is only an adaptation of adult baptism, including the aspect of conversion, of a real change in one’s life. If, indeed, the baptized person is expected to show his reborn life, liberated of its sinful past, baptism will also have implications for the political attitude of the reborn person. By emphatically making the ritual of baptism a sign of a decisive turning point in human life – a real rebirth – the early church created an unprecedented latitude with regard to our collective and individual past. The perspective of another future is offered. In this way, the ritual of baptism shows that only that person to whom this latitude, vis-à-vis his own past and future, is granted is truly free. If our past is fixed, we have to carry it like a millstone around our neck as long as we live, and that will be the end of our freedom. If our future is fixed that is also the end of our freedom, and all that remains is to follow the course of life set by others. In baptism, it becomes clear to what extent past and future are connected to each other. Not until our past has been cleansed does our real future open. The process this opening creates, is death, i.e., death to sin. Thus, the essence of the whole history of salvation in Christ, and therefore also that of the Christian, lies hidden in a nutshell in baptism. In this interpretation baptism can become a constitutive building block of a sound public theology in which politicians are prepared to be liberated from their collective, sinful past and express their longing for their radical transformation of sometimes centuries-old fixed positions.31 (5) Reformed churches belong to the so-called synodal-presbyterial churches. Only in Hungary, the area of Transylvania in Romania, and in the Czech Republic do Reformed churches have bishops. Within the churches belonging to the (European) Leuenberg church fellowship, the recognition of the service of regional episkopè (oversight) is, therefore, embedded in the recognition of the priesthood of all believers and in synodical and presbyterial structures. Their bishops will always be chosen bishops, preferably for a certain term. In the West European Reformed churches, the episcopate is a contested issue. My own suggestion is that this issue be discussed preferably within the framework of a discussion on new forms of (personal) spiritual leadership in the Reformed churches.32 30 31 32

Cf. M.E. Brinkman, “The Church as Sacrament of the Kingdom: A Reformed Commentary”, Exchange 37/4 (2008) pp. 497-507. Cf. M.E. Brinkman, “The Rediscovery of the Meaning of Baptism: Its Contribution to a Public Theology”, Journal of Reformed Theology 2/3 (2008) pp. 266-274. Cf. M.E. Brinkman, “Episcopacy in the Ecumenical Discussion” in: J. Brosseder (ed.), Verborgener Gott – Verborgene Kirche? Die kenotische Theologie und ihre ekklesiologischen Konsequenzen (Forum Systematik: Beiträge zur Dogmatik, Ethik und Ökumenische Theologie, 14), Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2001, pp. 188-189.

178

Martien E. Brinkman

The question of universal leadership could be included in this debate. More and more Protestants seem to be convinced of the importance and need of universal structures of church unity. They are prepared to reflect creatively on the universal dimension of certain forms of personal oversight (episkopè). They do not exclude in advance the notion that a reinterpretation and restructuring of the primacy of the bishop of Rome can contribute to this aim. They are aware of the urgency of presenting a sign of unity and reconciliation to a divided and unreconciled world.33 So, in sum my Reformed ecumenical theology would at least include the plea to connect the sola scriptura and the ecclesia semper reformanda principles; not to separate church and state too strictly; to interpret the church always in relation to (as sacrament of) the kingdom of God; to reflect upon the social and political impact of the meaning of baptism and to be prepared to be engaged in new creative discussions on (personal) spiritual leadership in the Church. Martien E. Brinkman (1950) is emeritus professor of ecumenical/intercultural theology at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He belongs to the Reformed Tradition. From 2000 until 2004 he was president of the European Societas Oecumenica.

33

Cf. M.E. Brinkman, “An Emerging Consensus on Papal Primacy?”, Ecumenical Trends 27 (1998) pp. 6-10.

CHRISTLICHER ABSOLUTHEITSANSPRUCH UND DIALOG DER RELIGIONEN – THESEN ZUR GESPRÄCHSÖFFNUNG Bernd Jochen HILBERATH Universität Tübingen

(1) Der Absolutheitsanspruch, den das Christentum vertritt, ist der Absolutheitsanspruch Gottes auf die Menschheit: Gott, unser Retter, „will, dass alle Menschen gerettet werden und zur Erkenntnis der Wahrheit gelangen“ (1 Tim 2,4). Konsequenterweise dürfen wir annehmen, dass Gott seinen Willen auch durchzusetzen vermag. Fatalerweise meinten christliche Kirchen, hier und da bis heute, sie müssten dem göttlichen Willen zum Durchbruch verhelfen, sie müssten dafür sorgen, dass der Heilswille Gottes auch bei allen ankommt. Nur wer zur Kirche gehört, könne gerettet werden. Wer um das Evangelium weiß und ihm nicht folgt, hat sein ewiges Heil verspielt. (2) Spätestens mit der Entdeckung der „neuen Welt(en)“ musste das Christentum dazulernen – es waren zu viele Menschen, welche die frohe Botschaft nicht erreichte. Theologie/Kirchenlehre und Kanonistik konstruierten Auswege für einzelnen Menschen, die trotz der Zugehörigkeit zu einer „heidnischen“ Religion als Individuum gerettet werden könnten. Sollte Gott so selektiv seinen Heilsplan verwirklichen? (3) Die römisch-katholische Kirche hat im Prozess des Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzils nicht nur dazu-, sondern auch umgelernt. Nichtchristen können zum wahren Gottesglauben gelangen nicht nur trotz der Zugehörigkeit zu einer anderen Religion, sondern auch in diesem religiösen Milieu, denn: „Die katholische Kirche lehnt nichts von alledem ab, was in diesen Religionen wahr und heilig ist. Mit aufrichtigem Ernst betrachtet sie jene Handlungs- und Lebensweisen, jene Vorschriften und Lehren, die zwar in manchem von dem abweichen, was sie selber für wahr hält und lehrt, doch nicht selten einen Strahl jener Wahrheit erkennen lassen, die alle Menschen erleuchtet“ (Erklärung über die Haltung [habitudo] der Kirche zu den nichtchristlichen Religionen „Nostra Aetate 2). Im unmittelbar folgenden Satz bekennt sich das Konzil zur Verkündigung des Christus, der „der Weg, die Wahrheit und das Leben“ (Joh 14,6) ist. (4) Dieses Umlernen wird als der Weg vom Exklusivismus zum Inklusivismus bezeichnet: Alles, was „in diesen Religionen wahr und heilig ist“, ist in der christlichen Religion (bereits) eingeschlossen, inkludiert. Aber – so die Kritik – läuft das nicht auf einen religiösen Kolonialismus hinaus? Bedeutet Inkulturation des Evangeliums, unser theologisches Verständnis und unsere

180

Bernd Jochen Hilberath

Formen der Spiritualität, vor allem aber unseren Katechismus einer anderen Kultur aufzuzwingen? Muss nicht der Inklusivismus durch einen Pluralismus, durch eine pluralistische Religionstheologie abgelöst werden? (5) Damit ist der Diskussionsstand auf der theologisch-wissenschaftlichen Ebene gekennzeichnet. In der Perspektive der von mir zusammen mit Matthias Scharer und Mitarbeiterinnen entwickelten Kommunikativen Theologie bildet die wissenschaftlich arbeitende Theologie nur ein Großsubjekt der Glaubenskommunikation. Davon zu unterscheiden und darauf zu beziehen ist die Aufgabe des bischöflichen (und päpstlichen) Lehramtes. Beide Großsubjekte sind – und das ist auch in unserem Kontext von fundamentaler Bedeutung – dienend auf das Glaubensleben der Christgläubigen hingeordnet. Zu dieser Kommunikationsanordnung gehört wesentlich die wechselseitige Bezogenheit, d.h. Lehramt und Theologie haben nicht monologisch zu agieren und dem Gottesvolk zu sagen, „was Sache ist“; sie haben ebenso und nach Möglichkeit sogar zuerst zu hören, was die Gläubigen bewegt, was sie erfahren und reflektieren. Hierbei ist mit einer großen Ungleichzeitigkeit zu rechnen, die auch je nach konfessioneller Kultur nochmals unterschiedlich ausgeprägt sein kann. Nicht alle wollen in diesem Sinn mündig sein, andere müssen dazu ermuntert werden, auf wieder andere ist zuzugehen und mitzugehen. (6) In unserem Zusammenhang scheint mir diese Kommunikation unverzichtbar zu sein, soll es zu einer erfahrungsgetränkten und im Alltag erprobten Begegnung der Religionen kommen, die auch eine grundlegende Ebene für den theologischen Dialog ist. In der Kommunikativen Theologie unterscheiden wir und beziehen wir aufeinander: Erlebnisebene – Erfahrungsebene – Reflexionsebene. In einem gemeinsamen Text des Päpstlichen Rates für den interreligiösen Dialog und der Kongregation für die Evangelisierung der Völker „Dialog und Verkündigung“ von 1991 werden vier Ebenen des Dialogs unterschieden und aufeinander bezogen: Dialog des Lebens, des Handelns, des theologischen Austauschs und der religiösen (spirituellen) Erfahrung. Mit meinem muslimischen Kollegen und Freund Mahmoud Abdallah arbeite ich für eine „Theologie des Zusammenlebens“, die von der Überzeugung ausgeht: Menschen (zumal verschiedener Religionen) müssen sich im alltäglichen Leben wie in organisierten Dialogsituationen begegnen, um zu erfahren, wie der/die jeweils Andere empfindet, denkt, betet, glaubt usw. Nur so können Vorurteile, die ist auf allen Seiten gibt (und die nur dann ein Problem sind, wenn sie unbelehrbar machen), überwunden werden. (7) Im Bereich der Orthodoxie beheimatet ist die Unterscheidung von Dialog der Liebe und Dialog der Wahrheit. Dieses Gespann gilt auch hier und muss in jeder interreligiösen Begegnung gelten: In der Regel eröffnet der Dialog der Liebe das Forum für den Dialog der Wahrheit. Entgegen manchen Befürchtungen geht es nicht darum, die Wahrheitsfrage zu suspendieren, den Dialog auf Smalltalk und Unverbindliches zu reduzieren. Keine Theologin, kein

Christlicher Absolutheitsanspruch und Dialog der Religionen

181

Theologe, niemand, der sich als Christgläubiger versteht, klammert die Frage nach der Wahrheit aus, was ja einer Selbstaufgabe gleichkäme. (8) Hinsichtlich der Wahrheitsfrage sind konfessionsspezifische Akzentsetzung, möglicherweise gar unterschiedliche Konzeptionen zu beobachten (innerhalb der Konfessionskirchen freilich ebenso, wenn auch wieder in verschiedenem Maße). Hier könnten sich ökumenischer und interreligiöser Dialog gegenseitig anregen, was das Herangehen an „die Wahrheit“ jeweils bedeutet. Gewiss, Christus ist für alle Christen in ihren Kirchen die Wahrheit; er ist, lateinischschultheologisch formuliert: norma normans non normata. Aber in welcher norma normata begegnet mir die Offenbarung Christi? Hoffentlich im Herzen eines jeden Gläubigen. Doch wie gelangt sie dahin, wie geschieht die Vermittlung zur Unmittelbarkeit der Christusbegegnung, der Gotteserfahrung? Und woran orientiert sich die kirchliche Gemeinschaft, wenn nicht jeder nach seiner „je eigenen Gotteserfahrung“ monologisch selig werden will/soll? Hier setzen die Kirchen unterschiedliche Akzente, genauer: die Hierarchien der Bezeugungsinstanzen wie Schrift, Tradition, Lehramt (Synode, Konzil), Theologie, Erfahrung der Gläubigen (sensus fidei und consensus fidelium) differieren. In unterschiedlicher Weise haben die Konfessionskirchen gelernt bzw. müssen sie noch weiter lernen, wie sich Geschichte und Wahrheit, Wandel und Verbindlichkeit zueinander verhalten. (9) Hinsichtlich der Begegnung der Religionen und insbesondere des interreligiösen Dialogs verlangt dies vor allem Geduld und die Bereitschaft, überkommene Vor-Urteile auf ihren Sachgehalt und ihre Legitimität hin zu überprüfen. Maßstab bleibt immer das Evangelium Jesu Christi. Dessen Bezeugungsinstanzen dagegen sind dem geschichtlichen Wandel unterworfen. Das bedeutet nicht, dass wir immer mehr und immer besser verstehen, was wir in der Welt zu bezeugen haben. Immer wieder gab es Zeiten – und auch heute ist aufmerksam darauf zu schauen - , in denen das Evangelium eingeschränkt, verdunkelt und für (politische) Machtzwecke funktionalisiert wurde. Die Binsenwahrheit „nicht alles, was alt ist, ist gut und nicht alles, was neu ist, ist schlecht – oder umgekehrt“ hilft uns nur dann, wenn wir sie als Aufforderung nehmen, unsere Wahrheitskriterien je neu am Evangelium auszurichten, zu formulieren und anzuwenden. (10) Eine verantwortete „pluralistische Religionstheologie“ wird immer davon ausgehen, dass die Dialogpartner nicht bei Null anfangen und quasi gemeinsam eine Religion konstruieren. Nein, sie bringen ihre Glaubensüberzeugung mit, sie kommen nicht zusammen, um die anderen zu bekehren oder die eigene Überzeugung aufzugeben. Beides könnte passieren, würde dann aber aus umstürzenden Erfahrungen resultieren. Im Normalfall wird es darum gehen, einander kennen und schätzen zu lernen. Das schließt kritisches Nachfragen und unter Umständen Zurückweisung von Positionen ein. Nur wenn wir erfahren haben, wie die andere denkt und glaubt, können wir versuchen, unsere Überzeugung nahe zu bringen. Darin wird sich auch nochmal für uns erweisen,

182

Bernd Jochen Hilberath

unter Umständen neu zeigen, was die Wahrheit des Evangeliums für uns und alle bedeutet. Orthodoxe Theologie ist geradezu dazu prädestiniert, das Gespann von Dialog der Liebe – Dialog der Wahrheit pneumatologisch zu unterfüttern und zu konkretisieren. Dabei kann wichtig werden, was den Geist der Wahrheit auszeichnet: er bezeugt, aber drängt sich nicht auf; er gibt Raum, damit alle sich entfalten und zur Gemeinschaft werden können; das Pneuma ist nicht ein sich selbst unter allen Umständen behaupten wollendes autonomes und autarkes Subjekt, sondern ein verbindendes, zum Reden aus Glauben befähigendes, ein auch in Bedrängnis für uns sich einsetzendes – ein intersubjektives, kommunales Subjekt.

EXAMPLES FROM PAST AND PRESENT

INTERRELIGIOSITÄT IN DEN SAMUELBÜCHERN? Walter DIETRICH Universität Bern

Einleitung: Die mit dem Titel gestellte Frage1 scheint auf den ersten Blick wenig Ertrag zu versprechen, handeln doch die biblischen Samuelbücher in erster Linie nicht von Religion, gar von Religionen, sondern von geschichtlichen und politischen Themen: der Einführung des Königtums in Israel, den Neuerungen, welche die Staatswerdung mit sich brachte, den inneren und äußeren Kämpfen, die Israel seinerzeit zu überstehen hatte. Allerdings bekommen es die Helden der Samuelbücher – Samuel, Saul, Jonatan, David – nicht nur mit immanenten Problemen zu tun, sondern auch mit der Transzendenz. Doch der biblischen Darstellung nach ist es eindeutig und einzig Jhwh, der Gott Israels, der das Geschehen lenkt. Dabei hatte sich, religionsgeschichtliche gesehen, in der frühen Königszeit der Monotheismus in Israel noch keineswegs durchgesetzt, wohl nicht einmal die Monolatrie. Man war in jener Zeit – um die Wende vom 2. zum 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. – noch nicht überzeugt, dass es nur einen Gott gab, und man hielt sich offen für die Verehrung anderer Gottheiten neben Jhwh. Zudem war Israel schon damals nicht allein in Palästina. Die israelitischen Stämme siedelten vor allem im palästinischen Bergland, doch in den Ebenen gab es die Städte der Kanaaniter und Philister. Und auch dort verehrte man Götter – nicht nur einen – Baal, Schalem, Zedeq und Aschera in Kanaan und Dagon und Pythogaja (und wohl noch andere) in Philistäa. Hinzu kommen Nachbarvölker ringsum, die nicht Jhwh, sondern andere Gottheiten verehrten. Die ethnischen, ökonomischen, politischen und kulturellen Grenzen waren nicht sehr scharf gezogen, so dass die Nähe zu nichtisraelitischen Gruppen und Völkern auch die 1

Sie wurde gewählt in der Absicht, den von mir hochgeschätzten Kollegen Dorin Oancea zu erfreuen, dessen Hauptarbeitsbereich die Interreligiosität und Interkonfessionalität war und ist. Unvergessen ist eine Studienreise nach Siebenbürgen im Jahr 2003, auf der Dorin Oancea den evangelisch-reformierten Theologiestudierenden aus Bern die orthodoxe Theologie und Kirchlichkeit in unnachahmlicher Weise nahebrachte. Bei diesem Kollegen mischen sich ganz vorbildlich eine starke eigene Positionalität und eine undoktrinäre Offenheit gegen andere. Mit großer Freude und Dankbarkeit grüße ich ihn zu seinem 70. Geburtstag. Mein Beitrag ist bewusst in essayistischem Stil gehalten; ich verzichte auf Einzelnachweise und verweise dazu auf meinen Kommentar: Samuel. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament VIII, NeukirchenVluyn / Göttingen, Band 1: 2011; Band 2: 2015; Band 3: 2019.

186

Walter Dietrich

Nähe zu deren Göttern mit sich brachte – wenn diese nicht sogar, neben Jhwh, auch die eigenen waren.

1. Das Onomastikon der Samuelbücher als Hinweis auf einen religiösen Mix Die in den Samuelbüchern auftauchenden Personennamen deuten nicht auf eine reine Jhwh-Verehrung im Israel der Frühen Königszeit, sondern auf die Inkulturation auch nichtjahwistischer Kulte. Einerseits begegnen durchaus Jahwe-haltige Namen. Sauls ältester Sohn hieß Jonatan («Jhwh hat gegeben»), Davidsöhne trugen die Namen Adonija («Mein Herr ist Jhwh») und Schefatja («Jhwh hat Recht gesprochen», 2Sam 3,4), Davids Neffe – und Heerführer – war Joab («Jhwh ist Vater»). Andererseits finden sich auch Namen, die mit den Namen anderer Götter gebildet sind: Die Davidsöhne Abschalom und Salomo sind wohl nach Schalem, dem in Jerusalem (Jeru-schalem!) verehrten Gott der Verständigung und des Ausgleichs, benannt, sein Oberpriester heißt Zadok: nach der Gottheit Zädäq, der personalisierten bzw. deifizierten «Gerechtigkeit». Der Sohn und Nachfolger Sauls, Eschbaal, trägt «Baal» im Namen, ebenso wie Jonatans Sohn Meribaal – wobei Baal aber nicht unbedingt die gleichnamige Gottheit meinen muss, sondern vielleicht nur ein Titel ist: «Besitzer, Herr», was sogar ein Epitheton Jhwhs sein könnte. Immerhin wird deutlich: Die ersten Könige versuchten schon in der Namengebung innerhalb ihrer Familien den verschiedenen religiösen Strömungen und Glaubensrichtungen im Lande gerecht zu werden. Diese Absicht könnte auch hinter den vielen Namen stehen, die sozusagen religionspolitisch neutral sind. Wie «Baal» ein Epitheton sein kann, so ist «Ab» (d.h. «Vater») ein häufig gebrauchter Gottestitel, der völlig offenlässt, an welchen Gott dabei gedacht ist. Hierhin gehören die Namen Abinadab, Abner, Abischai, Abimelech und Abjatar. Ein Priester heißt Ahimelech ben Ahitub, «Mein-Bruder-ist-König, Sohn des Mein-Bruder-ist-Güte», wobei beide «Brüder» wieder eine Gottheit meinen können. Gewissermaßen neutral sind auch mit «El», dem Wort für «Gott», gebildete Namen wie derjenige Samuels oder der Davidsöhne Elischua, Elischama, Eljada, Elifelet (2Sam 5,14f). Auch der Name des David eng verbundenen Propheten Natan («Er hat gegeben») sagt nicht, wer da gegeben hat. In dieser frühen Zeit waren es in der Regel die Mütter, die den Kindern die Namen gaben. Diese Frauen und wohl auch ihre Familien waren, aufs Ganze gesehen, nicht auf einen einzigen Gott und seinen Kult festgelegt. Aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach gab es in den Städten und Dörfern der damaligen Zeit Heiligtümer verschiedenster Gottheiten und wurden auch in den Privathäusern und -palästen diverse Göttinnen und Götter verehrt. Nirgendwo verlautet etwas davon, dass es darüber zu Streit oder gar zu gewalttätigen Auseinandersetzungen gekommen wäre. Offenbar herrschte im

Interreligiosität in den Samuelbüchern?

187

frühkönigszeitlichen Israel ein schiedlich-friedliches Religionsgemisch. Vielleicht ließe sich von «Multireligiosität» sprechen – von «Interreligiosität» eher nicht, weil dafür die «Religionen» nicht klar genug definiert und voneinander abgegrenzt waren, weshalb eine bewusste Verhältnisbestimmung wohl kaum stattfand.

2. Erzählerische Zeugnisse scharfer religiöser Abgrenzung Nun gibt es in den Samuelbüchern freilich auch Zeugnisse einer klaren Abgrenzung Jhwhs von allen übrigen Gottheiten und Kulten im damaligen Palästina. Man muss sich dazu aber von vornherein klarmachen, dass die Texte nur zum geringsten Teil zeitgenössisch sind, also nur sehr bedingt die frühe Königszeit (die ins 10. vorchristliche Jahrhundert fällt) widerspiegeln. Ganz überwiegend sind sie später, manche sogar sehr viel später entstanden und projizieren die Überzeugungen späterer Zeiten in jene frühe Zeit zurück. Ganz markant ist dies beim Lied Hannas, der Mutter Samuels, der Fall (1Sam 2,1–10), das dann zur Vorlage für das Magnificat der Maria (Lk 1,46–55) werden sollte. Das Hannalied ist etwas wie eine den Samuelbüchern sehr spät erst vorangestellte Lesehilfe, welche die Leserschaft anleiten will, die Geschichten von den ersten Königen recht zu verstehen. Ein wichtiges Element im Hannalied ist die «Umkehrung der Werte», wie sie in der folgenden Beschreibung des Wesens Jhwhs vorgenommen wird: «Der Bogen von Starken zerbricht, und Strauchelnde gürten sich mit Kraft. Satte verdingen sich um Brot, und Hungrige ruhen sich aus für immer. Die Unfruchtbare gebiert Sieben, und die Kinderreiche verwelkt. Jhwh tötet und macht lebendig, schickt hinab ins Totenreich und führt herauf. Jhwh macht arm und macht reich, er bringt zu Fall und er erhöht; er lässt aufstehen aus dem Staub den Niederen, aus dem Kot erhöht er den Armen, um (ihnen) einen Platz zu geben bei den Edlen und sie einen Ehrenthron erben zu lassen» (1Sam 2,4–8). Jhwh ist also ein Gott, der die althergebrachten und scheinbar unumstößlichen gesellschaftlichen Hierarchien und Ordnungen umstürzen, der Obere hinab- und Untere hinaufbringen kann. Liest man durch diese Linse die Samuelbücher, dann leuchten in diesen sehr viele Facetten auf: Israel unterliegt im Krieg gegen die Philister (und verliert zugleich damit die Heilige Lade, die dann aber wieder den Philistern schwer zusetzt), Samuel steigt an dem Priester Eli und seinen Söhnen vorbei zum Leiter Israels auf; Saul wird sozusagen aus heiterem Himmel zum König gekürt, obwohl er dem sehr kleinen Stamm Benjamin angehört und sich nach dem Amt alles andere als gedrängt hat; David wird von Samuel bzw. von Gott seinen sieben älteren und stärkeren Brüdern vorgezogen; der unbesiegbar scheinende Philisterrecke Goliat fällt von der Hand des Hirtenknaben David; dieser namenlose Jüngling wird zum besten Truppenführer Sauls und zu seinem Schwiegersohn, verliert dann aber seine Gunst und muss sich gegen tausenderlei Widrigkeiten mühsam wieder nach oben arbeiten; Saul wandelt

188

Walter Dietrich

sich vom gefeierten König zum geistig umwölkten und glücklosen Despoten; David überlebt den Entscheidungskampf gegen die Philister als deren Vasall (!), während Saul zusammen mit den meisten seiner Söhne fällt; David überrundet Sauls Sohn und Nachfolger Eschbaal und wird, obwohl Judäer, König von Israel; ganz unerwartet verheißt ihm Gott durch den Propheten Natan eine «ewige Dynastie»; das neu gegründete Königreich Juda-Israel avanciert zur führenden Militärmacht der Levante; die erstgeborenen, hoffnungsvollen Söhne Davids versagen, einer nach dem andern, das Rennen um Davids Thronfolge macht ausgerechnet einer, der aus einer illegitimen Liaison hervorgegangen ist: Salomo. So demonstrieren die Erzählungen der Samuelbücher auf vielfältigste Weise die Wahrheit jener Aussagen des Hannaliedes, wonach Jhwh Gott im wahren Sinn des Wortes ein umstürzlerischer Gott ist. Es gibt aber noch eine zweite Aussagelinie im Hannalied, die man die «monotheistische» nennen könnte: «Es ist keiner heilig wie Jhwh, ja, es ist keiner außer dir und keiner ist ein Fels wie unser Gott … Jhwh zerbricht seinen Gegner, der Erhabene donnert im Himmel, Jhwh richtet die Enden der Erde» (1Sam 2,2.10). Jhwh, der alleinige Herr über Himmel und Erde, der einzig Heilige, ja der, «außer dem keiner», d. h. kein anderer Gott ist. Derart dezidiert monotheistische Aussagen finden sich sonst vor allem im Deuterojesajabuch. Israel bzw. das Judentum ist also erst in der Zeit des Babylonischen Exils zur Überzeugung durchgedrungen, es gebe nur einen einzigen Gott, und das sei Jhwh. Der Zeitpunkt dieser Entdeckung ist erstaunlich, schien Jhwh doch gerade damals geschlagen und überrundet durch die großen Götter Babylons, voran Marduk und Ischtar. Nein, nicht die Sieger haben die wahren Götter, das kleine, besiegte Israel kennt den einzigen Gott: Jhwh. Kein anderer als er war es, der den Babyloniern die Kraft zum Siegen verlieh, und er wird auch dafür sorgen, dass Israel nicht untergeht. Diese Aussage wurde, indem das Hannalied an den Anfang der Samuelbücher gestellt wurde, zur Deutekategorie auch für die frühere Geschichte Israels: Schon damals, zur Zeit der ersten Könige, war es Jhwh, der das Geschick Israels und seiner Nachbarvölker in Händen hielt. Eben er – und kein anderer, kein Zufall, keine Laune der Geschichte – war es, der sie alle aus dem Nichts aufsteigen ließ: Samuel, Saul, David, Salomo; und der diejenigen, die seinen Plänen im Weg standen, absteigen ließ. Die in die Samuelbücher eingestreuten Geschichten von der Heiligen Lade (1Sam 4–6; 2Sam 6) sind ein herausragendes Beispiel für die unbegrenzte Fähigkeit Jhwhs zur Geschichtslenkung. Dabei scheint sie in ihrem Anfang das gerade Gegenteil davon zu sein: Dieses heilige Kultobjekt, über dem der lebendige Gott anwesend geglaubt wurde, ging an die philistäischen Feinde verloren (1Sam 4). Jhwh schien besiegt (wie später wieder durch die Babylonier). Doch durch die scheinbare Niederlage hindurch entwickelte er eine unbändige, unheimliche Kraft, die zuallererst Dagon, einen Getreide- und Fruchtbarkeitsgott der Philister, wortwörtlich Kopf und Kragen kostete. In

Interreligiosität in den Samuelbüchern?

189

seinem Tempel zu Aschdod hatte man die Lade Jhwhs als Siegestrophäe aufgestellt, doch einmal, zweimal fiel vor ihr die Dagon-Statue zu Boden; beim zweiten Mal brachen ihr dabei Kopf und Hände ab (1Sam 5): das ungemein eindrückliche Bild einer Gottheit, die weder hören noch sehen noch sprechen noch denken und die auch nicht mehr handeln kann, zu Boden gestürzt vor einem unscheinbaren Kasten, über dem aber der lebendige Gott präsent ist. In einem komplizierten Divinationsverfahren finden die Philister dann heraus, dass diese Lade nichts Anderes als zurückwill in ihre israelitische Heimat (1Sam 6), womit die anfängliche Niederlage in einen triumphalen Erfolg verwandelt ist. Eine andere, parallel gelagerte Geschichte nimmt nicht ein solches Happy End. Als die Philister im Endkampf um die Vorherrschaft in Palästina das Israel des Königs Saul vernichtend besiegt haben, kommen am nächsten Tag die Leichenfledderer auf das Schlachtfeld: «Und die Philister kamen, um die Durchbohrten auszuplündern. Und sie fanden Saul und seine drei Söhne, gefallen auf dem Gebirge Gilboa. Und sie schnitten seinen Kopf ab und plünderten seine Ausrüstung und sandten diese umher im Land der Philister als frohe Botschaft für ihre (Götter)Bilder und ihr Volk. Und sie legten seine Ausrüstung im Haus der Aschtarte nieder, und seinen Leichnam spießten sie an die Mauer von Bet-Schean» (1Sam 31,8–10). Die Philister und ihre Götter feiern den triumphalen Sieg. Aschtarte, die weibliche Hauptgöttin der Region, wird mit Ausrüstungsgegenständen des getöteten feindlichen Königs beehrt: zum Zeichen des Dankes an sie und des Glaubens an ihre Überlegenheit – über Saul nicht nur, sondern auch über Jhwh. Es gelingt dann immerhin einigen tapferen Männern Israels, die «an die Stadtmauer von Bet-Schean gespießten» Leichname der Königsfamilie zu entwenden und ehrenvoll beizusetzen (1Sam 31,11f); doch die Schmach des Spektakels im Aschtarte-Tempel ist damit nicht abgewaschen. Andersherum verläuft die Geschichte vom Sieg Davids über Goliat. Der tapfere Jüngling sieht diesen monströsen Feind weniger als Krieger denn als einen, der Jhwh und seine Mannen verhöhnt. «Wer ist dieser unbeschnittene Philister, dass er die Schlachtreichen des lebendigen Gottes schmäht?», fragt David empört, und zu König Saul sagt er: «Den Löwen wie den Bären erschlug dein Knecht. Und dieser unbeschnittene Philister soll sein wie einer von ihnen, weil er die Schlachtreihen des lebendigen Gottes geschmäht hat» (1Sam 17,26.36). Und als er dann, bewaffnet bloß mit einer Schleuder, dem Feind entgegentritt, ruft er: «Du kommst zu mir mit Schwert, Spieß und Sichelschwert. Ich aber komme zu dir mit dem Namen Jhwh Zebaots, des Gottes der Schlachtreihen Israels, die du geschmäht hast» (1Sam 17,45). Der Ausgang der Geschichte ist bekannt – und ihre Lehre liegt auf der Hand: Wer sich mit dem Gott Israels anlegt, wird dafür büßen. Dass möglicherweise auch Goliat ein religiöser Mensch war (obgleich sich dies seinen Worten nicht entnehmen lässt), spielt dabei keine Rolle; wenn er gläubig war, dann eben falschgläubig. Von «Interreligiosität» ist da keine Spur.

190

Walter Dietrich

Als Saul in (vielleicht nicht einmal unbegründeter) Eifersucht David von seinem Hof gejagt und in verbissener Verfolgungswut durchs ganze Land getrieben hat, sieht dieser keinen anderen Ausweg mehr, als zu den Philistern überzutreten, wo er vor dem Zugriff Sauls sicher zu sein hofft. Das ist ein höchst verblüffender Zug der Daviderzählung: der Held als Überläufer zum Landesfeind. David, so sieht man, ist eben kein unverwundbarer Held; er ist ein Mensch aus Fleisch und Blut, bedroht und gefährdet und angesichts der unstillbaren Feindschaft Sauls zur Flucht gezwungen. Die politische Moral ist in einem solchen Fall zweitrangig. Schon bedenklicher fanden die Tradenten, dass David sich mit dem Schritt über die Landesgrenze in den Einflussbereich auch einer fremden Religion begab. Und so lassen sie ihn, bei der letzten Begegnung mit Saul, verzweifelt ausrufen: «Sie» – das heißt: die Menschen, die den König zur Verfolgung Davids angestiftet haben – «haben mich heute vertrieben aus der Zugehörigkeit zum Erbe Jhwhs, indem sie sagen: Geh, diene anderen Göttern!» (1Sam 26,19) Das bedeutet: Wenn David sich aus dem Wohngebiet Israels-Judas vielleicht 50 Kilometer westwärts, in die Philisterstadt Gat, begibt, befindet er sich nicht mehr im «Erbe Jhwhs» und hat «anderen Göttern» zu dienen. Jhwhs Macht, so die hier zugrundeliegende, deutlich noch nicht monotheistische Vorstellung, endet an der Landesgrenze. Drüben herrschen andere Götter (Dagon zum Beispiel), und es ist für einen Israeliten oder Judäer eine Katastrophe, ihnen ausgeliefert zu sein. Auch hier: keine Spur von Interreligiosität. Später, als David schon weit aufgestiegen und König zuerst von Juda, dann auch von Israel geworden ist, kommt es zu Kämpfen mit den Philistern, die eine solche Machtballung in ihrem Hinterland nicht dulden wollen. Zweimal rücken sie vor in die unmittelbare Umgebung von Jerusalem, wo David Residenz genommen hat, und zweimal besiegt David sie – ausdrücklich dank der Hilfe Jhwhs (2Sam 5,17–25). Nach der ersten verlorenen Schlacht im Tal Refaïm heißt es: Die Philister «ließen dort ihre Götter zurück. Und David und seine Männer nahmen sie mit» (2Sam 5,21). Welcher Gestalt diese «Götter» waren, ist unklar; vielleicht waren es Amulette, die die Krieger um den Hals trugen und in ihrer panischen Angst von sich warfen, oder es waren Feldzeichen mit Abbildungen der philistäischen Götter oder diesen geweihte Statuen, die man mit den Kampf führte und die nun dem Sieger in die Hände fielen. Jedenfalls wurden David und seine Leute religiöser Symbole des Gegners habhaft. Nach der Chronik-Parallele wurde mit ihnen «orthodox» verfahren, d. h., sie wurden auf Davids Anordnung «im Feuer verbrannt» (1Chr 14,12). In der SamuelVersion verlautet davon nichts. Sollte hier etwa daran gedacht sein, dass die Sieger die erbeuteten Kultgegenstände mitnahmen, um sie an eigenen Kultstätten oder Hausaltären mitzuverehren? Eher nicht. Sie werden – ähnlich wie einst die Lade oder Sauls Ausrüstungsgegenstände, nur diesmal auf der anderen Seite – Siegestrophäen gewesen sein, welche die Botschaft verkündeten: «So wenig nützt den Feinden ihre Religion!»

Interreligiosität in den Samuelbüchern?

191

3. Erzählerische Hinweise auf Interreligiosität Neben diesen Beispielen scharfer Abgrenzung gibt es in den Samuelbüchern aber auch Erzählungen, die von gegenseitigem Respekt und sogar Interaktion zwischen den Religionen wissen. Die schon erwähnte Ladegeschichte (1Sam 4–6; 2Sam 6) bezeugt nicht nur Fremdheit, sondern auch eine gewisse Nähe zwischen den religiösen Überzeugungen von Israeliten und Philistern. Die Schlacht von Eben-ha-eser, die für Israel so traumatisch endete, verlief in zwei Phasen. Zuerst hatten die Israeliten die Heilige Lade nicht dabei, verloren – und überlegten, ob das nicht eben am Fehlen der Lade gelegen haben könne. Sie schaffen den hochverehrten Kultgegenstand herbei – und dann erfährt man über die Reaktion in den beiden feindlichen Heerlagern Folgendes: «Und es geschah, als die Lade Jhwhs ins Lager kam, und da brach ganz Israel in ein großes Kriegsgeschrei aus, und es erzitterte die Erde. Und die Philister hörten das Geräusch des Kriegsgeschreis und sagten: ‘Was bedeutet das Geräusch des großen Kriegsgeschreis im Lager der Hebräer?’ Und sie erfuhren, dass die Lade Jhwhs ins Lager gekommen war. Und die Philister fürchteten sich, weil man gesagt hatte: ‘Ein Gott ist ins Lager gekommen.’ Und sie sagten: ‘Weh uns, denn das hat es noch nie gegeben. Weh uns, wer wird uns erretten aus der Hand dieser gewaltigen Götter? Dies sind (doch) die Götter, die Ägypten geschlagen haben mit allerlei Plagen und in der Wüste!’» (1Sam 4,5–8) Dass die Israeliten über die Ankunft der Lade begeistert sind und siegessicher werden, ist erwartbar. Dass aber die Philister sich zu fürchten beginnen, zeigt einen unerwarteten Respekt vor dem fremden Glauben. Offenbar hat man in Philistäa von den wunderhaften Ereignissen beim Exodus Israels aus Ägypten zu hören bekommen (sicher eher ein Wunschtraum der Israeliten als historische Realität) und befürchtet nun, Ähnliches könne sich wiederholen (was ja dann eben nicht der Fall sein wird). Die Philister wissen zwar nicht so genau, mit wem sie es da zu tun bekommen: ob mit einem Gott oder, wie sie es gewohnt sind, mit mehreren (natürlich mit einem, aber das weiß nur Israel). Doch so oder so jagt ihnen die Ankunft der Jhwh-Lade einen gehörigen Schreck ein. Man könnte dies einen Fall gelungener psychologische Kriegsführung nennen – wenn die Philister so reagieren würden, wie man es sich in Israel wohl wünschen mochte. Doch statt in Angst und Mutlosigkeit zu versinken, raffen sie sich zu Trotz und Heldenmut auf: «Seid mutig und erweist euch als Männer, Philister, damit ihr nicht den Hebräern dient, wie sie euch gedient haben. Und erweist euch als Männer und kämpft!» (1Sam 4,9) Und wie sie dann kämpfen! Sie gewinnen auch die zweite Schlacht, obwohl diesmal die Lade dabei ist, ja, sie können diese als Kriegsbeute abschleppen. War ihr Respekt vor dem Gott Israels verfehlt? Auf den ersten Blick könnte es so scheinen; hernach aber wird sich zeigen, dass sie – die Feinde Israels! – völlig im Recht waren. Jhwh wird zwar keinen neuen Exodus Israels inszenieren, aber seinen eigenen bzw. den Exodus seiner Lade aus dem Philisterland.

192

Walter Dietrich

Auch wie dieser Auszug vonstatten geht, zeugt wieder von Empathie der Philister (natürlich nur der literarischen Philister, nicht der historischen!) mit der Jhwh-Religion. Nachdem sie festgestellt haben, dass die Lade überall, wohin sie kommt, schweres Leid anrichtet, dämmert ihnen, dass diesem unheimlichen Kasten transzendente Kräfte innewohnen. Sie bieten ihre Priester und Mantiker auf und fragen diese: «Was sollen wir machen mit der Lade Jhwhs?» (1Sam 6,2) Die Antwort der nichtjahwistischen Religionsfachleute: «Warum wollt ihr euer Herz schwer machen, wie die Ägypter und der Pharao ihr Herz schwer gemacht haben? Hat er nicht, wie er sie gepeinigt hatte, sie dann ziehen lassen, und sie gingen davon?» (1Sam 6,6) Wieder also der Hinweis auf den Exodus aus Ägypten; in Philistäa ist man also wohlinformiert über den, der Ausdruck sei erlaubt, Hauptglaubensartikel Israels: «Jhwh führte uns aus Ägypten.» Aber so ganz genau wissen die Religionsspezialisten der Philister doch nicht, ob es mit der Lade wirklich diese Bewandtnis hat. Darum schlagen sie einen divinatorischen Test vor: Man möge die Lade auf einen neuen Rinderwagen stellen, vor den Wagen zwei säugende Kühe spannen, «auf die noch kein Joch gekommen ist», und dann abwarten, was geschieht: Laufen die Kühe, ihrem Muttertrieb folgend, zurück in Richtung Stall, dann war es nichts mit der göttlichen Kraft in der Lade; laufen sie aber, entgegen ihrem Muttertrieb, Richtung israelitische Grenze, dann muss eine transzendente Kraft sie treiben (1Sam 6,7–9). Volk und Fürsten der Philister lassen sich ein auf diesen Test und ziehen dann, wie in einer Prozession, hinter der Lade her nach Bet-Schemesch, der Grenzstadt zu Israel. Der Beweis ist erbracht: Über der Lade thront, unsichtbar, Jhwh. Und die das herausgefunden haben, sind Philister, sogar philistäische, also ‘heidnische’, Religionsfachleute. Diesen wird damit ein gutes Zeugnis ausgestellt: Die zeigen sich erstaunlich offen für die Lebendigkeit und Kraft einer fremden Religion. Noch eine weitere Erzählung über die Lade beinhaltet solch interreligiöse Züge. Nachdem der heilige Gegenstand irgendwo an der Grenze Israels stehengeblieben und vergessen worden war, besann sich König David auf ihn und beschloss, ihn nach Jerusalem zu holen (2Sam 6). Das war ein religionspolitisch wohlbedachter und folgenreicher Schritt. Jerusalem war bis dahin eine kanaanitische – oder wie es genauer heißt: jebusitische – Enklave zwischen den Siedlungsgebieten Israels und Judas. David, soeben zum König zuerst Judas, dann Israels erhoben, realisierte, welche Vorteile es ihm brachte, wenn er diese Stadt einnahm und zu seiner Residenz erhob. Er adelte damit eine nicht-israelitische Stadt, die zwischen den beiden von ihm in Personalunion zusammengeführten Regionen lag. Alle Städte Kanaans, bisher noch selbstständig, werden dies als einladende Geste verstanden haben. Die Judäer werden’s gleichfalls zufrieden gewesen sein, war doch David einer von ihnen und versprach, ihnen Bedeutung weit über ihr eigentliches Wohngebiet hinaus zu geben. Und die Israeliten? Sie wurden mit der Tatsache, dass ein judäischer Herrscher sie von einer kanaanitischen Stadt aus regierte, versöhnt, indem – ihre Lade nach dort gelangte. Denn von Haus aus stammte diese aus dem

Interreligiosität in den Samuelbüchern?

193

israelitischen Schilo, und nun kam sie, nach diversen Umwegen über das Philisterland, in die neue Metropole des davidischen Reiches. Angeblich geleiteten sie dorthin «alle Erlesenen in Israel, 30000 Mann» (2Sam 6,1), was bedeutet: Die Israeliten anerkannten Jerusalem, den neuen Standort der Lade, als ihre Hauptstadt an. Die Tragweite des Vorgangs ist kaum zu ermessen. Schon im vordavidischen Jerusalem wurde, selbstverständlich, eine Religion praktiziert: vielleicht, wie oben angedeutet, mit Zädäq und Schalem als Gottheiten; der Name der Letzteren ist nicht von ungefähr in «Jerusalem» enthalten. Infolge der Überführung der Lade gingen diese Götter bzw. ihre Aufgaben- und Wirkungsbereiche in Jhwh und sein Wirken über – und umgekehrt: Jhwh nahm gewissermaßen (auch) ihr Antlitz an. Es bildete sich eine Gottesgestalt heraus, die weiter und umfassender war als jeder ihrer vorigen Bestandteile. Insofern war die entstehende Monolatrie und später der Monotheismus Israels von Beginn an nicht exklusiv, sondern inklusiv; sein Wesen resultierte nicht aus dem Ausschluss alles Fremden, sondern aus dem Einschluss dessen, was an diesem Fremden als kompatibel erschien. In diesem Sinne nahm Jhwh auch Züge des im Orient allüberall verehrten Königsgottes an, oder solche von weiblichen, mütterlichen Gottheiten. Gewiss war und blieb er – soweit man das männliche Genus noch für angemessen halten mag – Einer und wurde niemals zu Vielen; doch der Eine schloss Viele in sich: eine besonders intensive Form der Interreligiosität. Während der Überführung der Lade von der israelitisch-philistäischen Grenze nach Jerusalem soll sich, schon nahe dem Ziel, ein Zwischenfall ereignet haben. Einer der begleitenden Priester habe, als der Wagen, auf dem die Lade transportiert wurde, ins Wanken geriet, nach dieser gegriffen: wohl in der guten Absicht, ihren Sturz zu verhindern. Doch Gott fasst man nicht an! Umgehend sank der Mann tot zu Boden. Die Prozession wurde abgebrochen, und David entschied, das offensichtlich gefährliche Kultgerät – diese Erfahrung hatten ja auch die Philister gemacht! – zumindest vorübergehend «im Haus des Gatiters Obed-Edom» abzustellen (2Sam 6,10). Die unscheinbare Notiz birgt in mehrfacher Hinsicht Sprengstoff: Gat ist eine, sogar die führende Philisterstadt, in deren Dienst David längere Zeit gestanden hatte (schon dies ja ein interethnischer Vorgang von großer Reichweite!); wenn er jetzt die Jhwh-Lade im Haus eines Philisters abstellt, dann erscheint das wie ein Sakrileg. Vielleicht ist es aber nur ein Zeichen interreligiöser Offenheit. Denn vermutlich war das «Haus Obed-Edoms» nicht nur ein profanes Wohnhaus, sondern barg auch ein Heiligtum: wenn, dann einer philistäischen, jedenfalls einer Gottheit, die nicht Jhwh hieß. (Bei allerneuesten Ausgrabungen hat man vor den Toren Jerusalems eine kleine Kultstätte gefunden, von der Fachleute annehmen, es könne sich just um das «Haus Obed-Edoms» handeln.) Obed-Edom heißt übersetzt «der Diener Edoms», wobei «Edom» vermutlich ein Gottesname ist, etymologisch verwandt mit dem semitischen Wort für «Erde», was auf eine Erd- und Fruchtbarkeitsgottheit hindeutet (man erinnere sich an den Getreidegott Dagon in Aschdod). Möglicherweise war Obed-Edom deren Priester – und nun hatte

194

Walter Dietrich

er, gewissermaßen per Zufall, auch als Priester Jhwhs zu amten. Und das bekam ihm gut! Laut dem biblischen Bericht «segnete Jhwh Obed-Edom und sein ganzes Haus» (2Sam 6,11). Man muss sich das ganz handfest vorstellen: Die Dinge des Lebens liefen diesem Mann plötzlich viel besser als vorher. Der Gott Jhwh war, was ethnische Zugehörigkeit anging, offenbar nicht wählerisch; auch ein Philister konnte Empfänger seines Segens werden. Als dies David gemeldet wurde, beschloss er, die Lade weitertransportieren zu lassen in seine Residenz: natürlich in dem Glauben, sie werde fortan dort ihre Segenskräfte entfalten. Im Reich Davids – das man sich nicht zu großmächtig und zu durchorganisiert vorstellen darf – gab es eine Reihe von «Ministern»: herausgehobene Führungskräfte, die David in administrativen und sonstigen staatlichen Aufgaben unterstützten. Die beiden einschlägigen Listen, 2Sam 8,16–18 und 20,23–26, kennen neben führenden Militärs und Verwaltungsbeamten («Sekretär», «Schreiber», «Verantwortlicher für den Frondienst») auch zwei Priester, die offenbar für religiöse Angelegenheiten im Staat und in der Hauptstadt zuständig waren. Einer von ihnen, Abjatar, ist aus den vorangehenden Davidgeschichten wohlbekannt; er entstammte einer Priesterfamilie, die am Staatsheiligtum Sauls Dienst tat (vgl. 1Sam 22,20–23) und insofern sicher «urisraelitisch», man darf auch annehmen: «jahwistisch», war. Der andere aber, Zadok, taucht erst auf, nachdem David sich in Jerusalem niedergelassen hat; sein Name verweist, wie oben bemerkt, auf eine Jerusalemer Stadtgottheit. Vermutlich amtete er schon vor der Übernahme Jerusalems durch David dort als Priester. Indem der König diese beiden Geistlichen miteinander in sein «Kabinett» beruft, setzt er ein markantes Signal: Ihm liegt die althergebrachte Religion der israelitischen Stämme ebenso am Herzen wie die in den kanaanitischen Städten gepflegte. Eben diese Haltung hat er ja auch, wie vorhin festgestellt, mit der Überführung der israelitischen Lade ins jebusitische Jerusalem gezeigt. Ob nun aus innerer Überzeugung oder aus Gründen politischer Taktik: David verfolgte eine Religionspolitik mit betont interreligiösem Akzent. Dazu passt eine Erzählung im letzten Kapitel der Samuelbücher. In 2Sam 24 wird berichtet, wie einst, infolge einer (von Jhwh offenbar nicht erwünschten!) Volkszählung, über das davidische Königreich schweres Unheil hereinbrach: Ein Pestengel dezimierte die Bevölkerung. Doch als er zum Schlag auch gegen Jerusalem ausholte, tat David ihm mit einer frommen Tat Einhalt. Auf Geheiß eines Propheten kaufte er von einem Jebusiter namens Arauna vor den Toren der Stadt eine «Tenne» und errichtete auf ihr einen Altar, auf dem er «Brandopfer und Heilsopfer» darbrachte; prompt legte sich Gottes Zorn und die Stadt war gerettet. Diese Erzählung ist stark legendenhaft und in Manchem rätselhaft. Zum Beispiel wird nicht klar, wer jener Arauna war: ob ein einfacher Bürger oder der jebusitische Stadtfürst; ob die gekaufte «Tenne» schon irgendwie als geheiligter Boden galt, auf dem ein Altarbau höchst angemessen war; erst recht, ob der Zusammenhang zwischen Volkszählung und Pest nicht ein bloßes Konstrukt ist, und ob damals wirklich in Israel eine Pest wütete. In

Interreligiosität in den Samuelbüchern?

195

jedem Fall aber kommt zum Ausdruck, dass David auf jebusitischem Land eine Opferstätte für den israelitischen Jhwh einrichtete. Vermutlich will die Erzählung darüber den späteren Tempelbau Salomos, der an eben dieser Stelle erfolgt sein dürfte, legitimieren. Das aber bedeutet zugleich, dass im Tempel von Jerusalem, dem Heiligtum des Königreichs Juda und des späteren Judentums, jebusitisches Erbe steckt. Diese Vermutung lässt sich noch aus anderen Texten erhärten, doch ist dies darzulegen hier nicht die Aufgabe. Es genügt der Hinweis auf das interreligiöse Kernelement in einer Erzählung wie 2Sam 24. Ein letzter, eher noch rätselhafterer Punkt sei genannt. In einem Abschnitt, der alle militärischen Erfolge Davids zusammenfasst (2Sam 8,1–14), ist überraschend auch von einem friedlichen diplomatischen Abkommen zwischen Israel-Juda und einem Staat weit im syrischen Nordwesten die Rede: dem «Königreich Hamat». Diese Stadt ist am unteren Orontes gelegen, und das dortige Königtum hatte seine Wurzeln in einer inzwischen versunkenen Großreichsbildung im anatolisch-syrischen Raum, dem Reich der Hetiter. Hamat nun, so erfährt man, lag im Krieg mit dem damals führenden aramäischen Fürstentum Zoba. Die Aramäer – nach der biblischen Erzelternerzählung waren sie mit den Israeliten recht eng verwandt (vgl. Gen 29–31) – setzten sich in Syrien etwa zur gleichen Zeit fest wie Israel in Palästina; auch sie organisierten sich zunächst in Stämmen und gingen dann zur Bildung von Staaten über. Der frühe aramäische Staat von Zoba und der von David begründete Staat Israel-Juda waren gewissermaßen natürliche Konkurrenten um die Vorherrschaft in der Levante. Der König von Hamat nun, angeblich mit Namen Toï, soll froh gewesen sein über militärische Erfolge Davids gegen Zoba und eine Delegation nach Jerusalem entsandt haben, die von seinem «Sohn» (es ist unsicher, ob es ein leiblicher oder ein Ziehsohn war) angeführt wurde. Der Name dieses Mannes nun lässt aufhorchen: «Joram» – ein klar jhwh-haltiger Name, der bedeutet: «Jhwh ist erhaben» (2Sam 8,10). Die Fachleute rätseln: Handelt es sich um eine bloß literarische «Israelisierung»? Oder wurde Jhwh etwa auch außerhalb Israels verehrt? Oder nahm jener Mann aus Respekt vor David (oder gar in Unterwürfigkeit gegen ihn) einen israelitischen Namen an? Ursprünglich dürfte er, das zeigen abweichende Textüberlieferungen, «Adoram» geheißen haben, worin der gut aramäische Gottesname «Hadad» steckt, also: «Hadad ist erhaben». Der doppelte Name Joram/Adoram ist, wenn letztlich auch unaufklärbar, doch ein leises Zeichen zumindest gedachter Interreligiosität.

Ergebnis Die Befragung der Samuelbücher auf Züge von Interreligiosität erbrachte ein zwiespältiges Ergebnis. Das Onomastikon spiegelt gewissermaßen «gemischtreligiöse» Verhältnisse in der frühen Königszeit. Es gibt Namen, die mit Jhwh,

196

Walter Dietrich

aber auch solche, die mit anderen Gottesnamen gebildet sind, dazu solche, die auf die göttliche Sphäre verweisen, ohne eine «konfessionelle» Festlegung erkennen zu lassen. Die Signale im Erzählstoff der Samuelbücher sind ebenfalls nicht eindeutig. Einige Erzählungen oder Erzählzüge scheinen eine scharfe Trennung zwischen der Jhwh-Religion und anderen Religionen vorauszusetzen bzw. zu propagieren. Andere dagegen gehen von einem Ineinander, gar einer Verschmelzung damals gelebter Religionsformen aus. Es ist, als habe man in Israel, als hätten jedenfalls die Autoren der Samuelbücher gerungen um die richtige Haltung zur Frage nach religiöser Abtrennung oder interreligiöser Offenheit. Israel entschied sich schließlich klar für die Alleinverehrung Jhwhs, am Ende sogar für einen strengen Jhwh-Monotheismus. Doch gerade die Samuelbücher in ihrer religiösen Weitherzigkeit zeigen, dass diese Entscheidung keine abweisend-exklusivistische war, dass vielmehr sehr verschiedene religiöse Prägungen und Haltungen in den Jhwh-Glauben eingegangen sind. Gerade so aber war dieser überlebens- und zukunftsfähig. Das Christentum ist nicht aus einer engen, gegen alles Fremde abgeschotteten Religion hervorgegangen – und es schottete sich, jedenfalls in seinen gewinnenderen Ausprägungen, auch seinerseits nicht ab, sondern war und blieb offen für interreligiöse Erfahrungen verschiedenster Art.

ENCOUNTER AT THE WELL BETWEEN JUDAISM AND SAMARITANISM. A LIFE CHANGING EXPERIENCE Lehel LÉSZAI University of Cluj-Napoca

In his gospel John relates several stories of personal encounters. Prior to the encounter that we will examine, John records the engagement between the priests and Levites and John the Baptist (John 1,19–28), then Jesus meets John the Baptist, his cousin (1,29–34), then John’s disciples encounter Jesus (1,35– 40), Andrew meets his brother, Peter (1,40–41), Peter meets Jesus (1,42), Jesus meets Philip (1,44), Philip meets Nathanael (1,43–46), and Nathanael meet Jesus (1,46–51). In the second chapter Jesus interacts with his mother, the servants and the people attending the wedding in Cana (2,1–12), and confronts the traders, the money changers and the Jews in the temple in Jerusalem (2,13– 25). In the third chapter the evangelist records the exchange between Nicodemus and Jesus (3,1–21), and we could continue with many encounters after the fourth chapter as well. The main point is that each encounter leaves a mark on both parties’ lives, even if they are not aware of it. The mark can be a positive or a negative one. Our text (John 4,1–42) commences with Jesus in Judea, where he learns that gossip about him baptizing and winning more disciples than John has reached the Pharisees. As he does not wish to compete with his cousin he departs for Galilee. During this journey he has to travel through Samaria. We must ask, what is Samaria and who are the Samaritans? We have an interest in this matter as two nations, two cultures and two religions meet at the well; they are not very far apart from each other, yet they are at enmity (4,9).

1. Samaritans Many scholars see the Samaritans as a branch, or a sect, of Judaism. The issue of the Samaritans’ identity is intimately connected with that of their origin.1 The Samaritans claim that they are the descendants of the northern tribes of Israel (particularly Ephraim and Manasseh) who were defeated by the Assyrians in 722 B.C.E. By contrast, the Jews are the descendants of the southern tribe of Judah. The Samaritan community is a subculture with a history of more than 1

Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans. A Profile. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, U.K., 2016. 15.

198

Lehel Lészai

two thousand years.2 Two classical approaches argue that the Samaritans were either false Israelites with a strange cult combining Yahwism with worship of foreign gods,3 or half Jews with a watered-down Torah. First, according to 2 Kings 17,28–40 MT, the settlers brought in from five nations (Babylon, Kuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim) after the deportation of Samaria in 721 B.C.E. had to learn some local Yahwism at Bethel, but still adhered to their early worship practices “until this very day” (Ant 9.290). It was not possible to deport all of the original Samaritans and some of them were left behind, resulting in them intermarrying with the newly-introduced foreigners. As far as the Israelites from the southern Kingdom were concerned, such behaviour was a disgrace. It marked the loss of their exclusive ethnic Israelite purity. Most Samaritans that were taken away to Media also never returned. In the process, on their part, they interbred with the Medes and adopted their alien habits as a result of which they are frequently referred to as the ‘lost ten tribes’. Those who stayed behind in Samaria and hybridised with the new inhabitants also lost their right to be called pure Israelites.4 Second, Josephus tells us (Ant. 11:302–45) that at the end of the Persian period, all those married to Samaritan women were expelled from Judea but welcomed by Sanballat, the governor of Samaria. Then the latter was granted the right to build the Gerizim temple by Alexander, who was besieging Tyre (332). The apostates of the Jewish nation moved there. Étienne Nodet rules out the second option because it is contradicted by archaeological discoveries.5 After examining these two classical views, a third approach emerges which argues that the Israelite-Samaritans and the foreigners brought in by the emperors of Assyria were two different groups. The first group continued the northern Israelite lineage and heritage. The main difference between Judaism and Samaritanism concerns the matter of the sacred centre: the Temple Mount of Judaism and Mount Gerizim in Samaritanism. This difference began with the different geographical origins of the two groups that became two distinct nations. The term ‘Samaritan’ is derived from the region of Samaria. Historical events thinned the Samaritan community to a mere 141 people by March1919.6 From a religio-historical perspective the Samaritans should not be neglected as 2 3

4 5

6

Robert T. Anderson, Terry Giles, The Keepers. An Introduction to the History and Culture of the Samaritans. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, 2002. 6. Ingrid Hjelm, Jerusalem’s Rise to Sovereignty. Zion and Gerizim in Competition. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 404. Copenhagen International Seminar 14. T & T Clark International, London – New York, 2004. 32. Jacobus (Kobus) Kok, New Perspectives on Healing, Restoration and Reconciliation in John’s Gospel. Biblical Interpretation Series, Vol. 149. Brill, Leiden – Boston, 2017. 253. Étienne Nodet, Editing the Bible: Alexandria or Babylon? In Thomas L.Thompson and Philippe Wajdenbaum (eds.) The Bible and Hellenism. Greek influence on Jewish and early Christian Literature. Copenhagen International Seminar. Acumen, Durham, 2014. 37–38. Benyamim Tsedaka, Understanding the Israelite-Samaritans from Ancient to Modern. Carta Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 2017. 5–7.

Encounter at the Well between Judaism and Samaritanism

199

they were an important and large religious community in ancient Palestine, alongside the Jews. They continue to exist to the present day,7 with a community of 800 members at the beginning of 2019. The Samaritans never lost their unique status and image as a people. They have their own form of writing, the ancient Hebrew script and they speak their own language, the ancient Hebrew dialect spoken by Jews until the beginning of the first millennium C.E. The Samaritans are convinced that they are the original and true Israelites, whereas the Jews have gone astray. In their medieval chronicles, the Samaritans call the Jews “the sons of Israel the erroneous ones,” “rebels,” “heretics,” or “the people of the error.”8 The Samaritans are guided by four principles of faith: a. one God, who is God of Israel; b. one prophet, Moses son of Amram; c. one holy book, the Pentateuch; d. one holy place, Mount Gerizim. To these is added belief in the Taheb, son of Joseph, the “Prophet like Moses” who will appear on the Day of Wrath and Judgement in the latter times.9 Robert T. Anderson and Terry Giles state that historical inquiry, archaeological excavation, and detailed textual investigation of the Qumran materials during the last decades of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty-first century call for a reassessment of presumed conclusions about the origin of the Samaritans. After extensive research they affirm that there are three competing narratives concerning the origin of the Samaritan religious community: that of the Samaritan community itself; that of the ancient Judean community, found in the Old Testament and particularly interpreted in the writings of Josephus; and that sustained by modern critical scholars. There are also several differences within these narratives. According to the Samaritan version, the Samaritan community represents the pure Israel, from which other factions broke off. In the same manner, the Mosaic Torah preserved by the Samaritans is considered the genuine text, while the text favoured by the majority of Judaism is viewed as a product of the heresy of Eli, the mentor of Samuel, promoted by the false cult centred in Jerusalem, and later extended further by the deceptive work of Ezra. Schur asserts that the Samaritans, like the Jews, were not only a religion, but a people and a nation.10 The emergence of two distinctive Pentateuchs is an integral part of a larger picture.11 The Samaritan biblical interpretation is characterised by an

7

8 9 10

11

Pieter W. van der Horst, Jews and Christians in Their Greco-Roman Context. Selected Essays on Early Judaism, Samritanism, Hellenism, and Christianity. Wissentschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 196. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2006. 134. Pummer, The Samaritans, 2016. 9. Tsedaka, 2017. 14. Nathan Schur, History of the Samaritans. Beitrage zur Erforschung des Alten Testaments und des Antiken Judentums, Band 18. Verlag Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main – Bern – New York – Paris, 1989. 11. Garry N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans. The Origins and History of Their Early Relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013. 216.

200

Lehel Lészai

inner conservatism.12 Étienne Nodet acknowledges that history is always recorded by the winners, in this case by the Jews from Judah.13 The Samaritans regard themselves as the “Keepers”14 or “Guardians” of the Israel’s traditions, which were neglected by the Jews.15 Nodet represents the historical-critical scholarship lending support to the central thesis of ancient Samaritan origins favoured by the traditional Samaritan community. He suggests that the Samaritan community has its roots in the distant past among northerners who were not exiled by the Babylonians and who constitute the original Israelites.16 He also argued that the Samaritans of Shechem are the heirs of the early Israelites and not a downgraded Jewish sect, as old Judean traditions and many modern scholars claim. Garry N. Knoppers concludes that in Samaritan tradition, the first fundamental break between the northern and southern tribes occurs during the early history of Israel some two and a half centuries after the entrance into the land. The chief instigator of dissent was the elderly priest Eli, who decided to break away from the worship at the central sanctuary located at Mount Gerizim. Eli’s decision to establish a new system of worship at Shiloh was a momentous one.17 The Gerizim temple seems to have been a major issue for the Jews regarding the significance of the Samaritans of Shechem. 18 Nodet finds that the early Samaritans related to a Yahweh cult centred in Shechem strongly tied to traditions associated with Jacob and Aaron, and transferred to nearby Gerizim not later than the mid-fourth century B.C.E. Interaction with the returning Babylonian exiles resulted in some shared customs (for instance, the weekly Sabbath) and a shared Pentateuch. Origen recognizes that the 12

13 14

15

16

17

18

Matthew Morgenstern, hrwtb tvlwvmh hkrbh The Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic Versions of the Samaritan Pentateuch. In Menachem Mor, Friedrich V. Reiterer (eds.), Samaritans: Past and Present. Current Studies. Studia Judaica Band 53, Studia Samaritana Band 5. De Gruyter, Berlin – New York, 2010. 134. Étienne Nodet, Samaritains, Juifs, Temples. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 74. J. Gabald et Cie Éditeurs, Pende, 2010. 79. Coggins mentiones that the Samaritans were self-consciously the real keepers of the Torah. R. J. Coggins, Samaritans and Jews. The Origins of Samaritanism Reconsidered. Growing Points in Theology. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1975. 12. Stefan Schorch, Die Vokale des Gesetzes. Die samaritanische Lesetradition als Textzeugin der Tora. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Band 339. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin – New York, 2004. 14. Étienne Nodet, A Search for the Origins of Judaism. From Joshua to the Mishnah. Transl. by Ed Crowley. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 248. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 1997. 200–201. Garry N. Knoppers, Samaritan Conceptions of Jewish Origin and Jewish Conceptions of Samaritan Origins: Any Common Ground? In Jörg Frey, Ursula Schattner-Rieser, Konrad Schmid (Hrsg.), Die Samaritaner und die Bibel. The Samaritans and the Bible. Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und samaritanischen Traditionen. Historical and Literary Interactions between Biblical and Samaritan Traditions. Studia Judaica Band 70. Studia Samaritana Band 7. De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2012. 81. Étienne Nodet, Israelites, Samaritans, Temples, Jews. In Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans. Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics. Studia Judaica Band 66. Studia Samaritana Band 6. Ed. by József Zsengellér. De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2011. 121–122.

Encounter at the Well between Judaism and Samaritanism

201

Samaritans revere the Pentateuch but not the Prophets.19 A rather long theological debate occurred regarding the historical origin of Deuteronomy. Schorch re-examined the matter and concluded that Deuteronomy originated in the Northern Kingdom, and was adopted in the South.20 Inevitably, tensions arose between the two groups over the Jerusalemites’ insistence that they alone were heirs of “all Israel”. The Judean approach to the same matters usually starts by reading 2 Kings 17,24–41, which gives an account of Samaritan origins. This reading traces the community back to forced immigrants from Mesopotamia, who adopted a heretical form of Yahwism. This view identifies the Samaritans as the subject of the story in verse 29. Anderson and Giles affirm that a closer inspection reveals that the “people of Samaria” – whose relationship to the Samaritan religious group is not clear – are not to be confused with the Samaritans. The same is view is stated by John Bowman.21 Josephus’s paraphrase of 2 Kings 17 (A.J. 9.288–291) has influenced the widespread perception that the author of Kings is referring to the Samaritans. He writes that the deportees in the region of Samaria are called Cutheans in the Hebrew tongue; but in the Greek, Samaritans. After assuming that there is a connection between the Cutheans and the Samaritans, he describes the conflict between the Jews and the Samaritans during the time of Darius (A.J. 11.84–119) and a reaffirmation of the schism during the reign of Antiochus “Epiphanes” (A.J. 12.257). Pummer states that rabbinic sources call the Samaritans by the pejorative name Kuthim (Cutheans)22 after one of the places where the foreign settlers originated from Cutha in Mesopotamia (50 km north-east of Babylon, modern Hila, which lies 85 km south of Baghdad). The Samaritans regard this appellation (Kuthim) as degrading to themselves.23 In fact the returnees of Ezra-Nehemiah rejected any contact with local Israelites (Ezra 4,1-3),24 including rejection of their help to rebuild the temple. That resulted in the erection of a new temple by the Samaritans. Josephus also mentions the existence of a Samaritan temple on 19 20

21

22 23

24

Robert T. Anderson and Terry Giles, Tradition Kept. The Literature of the Samaritans. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, 2005. 6. Stefan Schorch, The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the Origin of Deuteronomy. In Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans. Studies on Bible, History and Linguistics. Studia Judaica, Band 66. Studia Samaritana, Band 6. Ed. by József Zsengellér. De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2011. 35–36. John Bowman, The Samaritan Problem. Studies in the Relationship of Samaritanism, Judaism, and Early Christianitye. Trans. by Alfred M. Johnson jr. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 4. The Pickwick Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1975. 4. Pummer, 2016. 13. Jizhak Ben-Zvi, The Origin of the Samaritans and their Tribal Divisions. In Ferdinand Dexinger und Reihard Pummer (Hrsg.) Die Samaritaner. Wege der Forschung Band 604. Wissentschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1992. 187. Étienne Nodet, Editing the Bible: Alexandria or Babylon? In Thomas L.Thompson and Philippe Wajdenbaum (eds.) The Bible and Hellenism. Greek influence on Jewish and early Christian Literature. Copenhagen International Seminar. Acumen, Durham, 2014. 43.

202

Lehel Lészai

Mount Gerizim. He does not include the Samaritans in his listings of the Jewish “sects”, thereby indicating that he viewed the Samaritans as a separate nation (ethnos) (Ant. 10.184, 17.20, 18.85), fully parallel to, and independent of the Jews, with political aspirations of their own.25 After presenting the Samaritan and the Judean stories there now follows the scholar’s story. Recognizing the tendentious and inconsistent nature of the account provided by Josephus and the problems associated with 2 Kings 17, modern Samaritan scholarship has struggled to reconstruct a narrative of origins that fairly considers all the evidence and lack of it. Modern scholars have concluded that there was no schism between Samaritans and Jews in the fifth century B.C.E. The following reconstruction of Samaritan origins has enjoyed rather broad scholarly support. The city of Shechem was rebuilt by nobles from Samaria after a failed rebellion against their Greek overlords. This group, transplanted by the Assyrians (2 Kings 17), had a long history of antagonism toward Jerusalem, and were viewed suspiciously by the Judeans there because of their mixed ethnic and religious origins. While rebuilding Shechem, the Samaritans erected a sanctuary to JHWH on Gerizim, attaching themselves to ancient JHWH traditions. The priesthood established by the Samaritans at Gerizim was independent of the Jerusalemite priesthood. When relationships deteriorated between the Seleucids and Ptolemies in the second century B.C.E. a schism did take place between the Jews and Samaritans. Tensions came to the boil under the Hasmonean king John Hyrcanus, resulting in the destruction of the temple on Gerizim in 128 B.C.E. and of Shechem in 107. In the second century B.C.E. the Samaritans edited a version of the Pentateuch, claiming it to be the legitimate Pentateuch and rejecting the Judean literature (i.e. Prophets and writings). The competing textual versions finalized the schism between Jews and Samaritans. Not unlike Masoretic texts, ‘original’ Samaritan texts of the Pentateuch are not available from before late medieval times (1149, 1219 and 1345).26 The Samaritan literature is religious literature.27 We may read about Samaritans in the Qumran papyri as well. A text found in Qumran about Joseph (4Q372 1) speaks in a deprecating manner about Samaritans.28 Kartveit assumes that the idea of a separation or schism or split presupposes that there was a unity, which is doubtful. The returnees created the split or the separation 25 26

27

28

Louis H. Feldman, Studies in Hellenistic Judaism. Arbeiten zur Geschichte des Antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums XXX. E. J. Brill, Leiden – New York – Köln, 1996. 117. Ingrid Hjelm, The Samaritans and Early Judaism. A Literary Analysis. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 303. Copenhagen International Seminar 7. Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, 2000. 83. John Bowman (ed.), Samaritan Documents Relating to their History, Religion and Life. Trans. By John Bowman. Pittsburgh Original Texts and Translation Series 2. The Pickwick Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1977. i. Jürgen Zangenberg, SAMAREIA. Antike Quellen zur Geschichte und Kultur der Samaritaner in deutscher Übersetzung. Texte und Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 15. Francke Verlag, Tübingen und Basel, 1994. 333–334.

Encounter at the Well between Judaism and Samaritanism

203

by not cooperating with the people of the land.29 Progressively detailed excavations on Mount Gerizim, better understanding of Second Temple period relationships between Samaria and Judea and examination of the materials recovered at Qumran have all shed new light on the origins of the Samaritan religious sect. Most scholars accept that there was no split between the Samaritans and the Jews in the fifth century B.C.E. The split between the two groups was gradual, uneven and prolonged.30 Menachem Mor pushes the date of separation even further when he assumes that, following the demographic changes after the Bar Kokhbah revolt (132–135 C.E.), Jews began considering the Samaritans as pagans.31 Bob Becking rightly stated: “The origins of Samaritanism are still hidden under the dust of the past.” How, when and where this religion (closely akin to Judaism and still alive in Israel and Palestine) emerged will remain a topic for scholarly debate for quite some time. The well-known texts in the New Testament indicate that by the first century C.E. the parting of the ways had taken place (Luke 10,30–37; John 4). By the time of Jesus, Judaism and Samaritanism had developed into two separate religions.32

2. Dialogue between Jesus and the Samaritan woman In our particular passage two representatives of these two nations meet at Jacob’s well. This is the narrative in the New Testament that displays the greatest familiarity with the Samaritans and specifically contrasts the Samaritan and Jewish centres of worship, although it does not explicitly mention Mount Gerizim.33 The Jewish rabbi journeys through Samaria, a place which is traditionally hostile to Jews, for reasons mentioned at the outset of this study. At the town of Sychar (probably the modern day city of Ascar)34 Jesus decides to rest at the site where his ancestors also dwelled. Ashton argues that Jacob’s well is an ideal setting for a dialogue about water and the perfect place for a

29 30

31 32

33 34

Magnar Kartveit, The Origin of the Samaritans. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Vol. 128. Brill, Leiden – Boston, 2009. 370. Robert T. Anderson and Terry Giles, The Samaritan Pentateuch. An Introduction to Its Origin, History, and Significance for Biblical Studies. SBL Number 72. Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, 2012. 7–22. Menachem Mor, The Samaritans and the Bar-Kokhbah Revolt. In Alan D. Crown (ed.) The Samaritans. J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen, 1989. 31. Bob Becking, Do the Earliest Samaritan Inscriptions Already Indicate a Parting of the Ways? In Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers and Rainer Albertz (eds.) Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Winona Lake, Indiana, Eisenbrauns, 2007. 213. Pummer, 2016. 42. János Bolyki, „Igaz tanúvallomás”. Kommentár János evangéliumához. Kommentárok a Szentíráshoz. Osiris Kiadó, Budapest, 2001. 131.

204

Lehel Lészai

conciliatory conversation between a Jew and a Samaritan.35 The well is a mile distant from Sychar. They are two strangers, of opposite beliefs, a man and a woman, a Jewish rabbi and a Samaritan woman. They are social anathemas to each other.36 He is from Judea, she is a Samaritan. He is of noble heritage, she has a shameful past. Jews going from Judea to Galilee might travel east of the Jordan to avoid Samaria; Josephus mentions that for the festivals Galileans would usually travel through Samaria to Jerusalem (An 20.118). Jesus, however, seems to be under a divine imperative: he has to go (edei) through Samaria. He crosses geographical, ethnic, religious, social, and gender barriers in order to meet a Samaritan, a woman, and a social outcast.37 In Luke 9,51–55 we read that Jesus tried to find lodging in Samaria, but his disciples were refused, as his destination was Jerusalem. Luke 10,25–37 is the only passage where a Samaritan is presented in a favourable light. In John 8,48 Jesus is called a Samaritan because he does not represent a Jewish perspective. In Matthew 10,5–6 he himself forbade his disciples to go into the towns of the Samaritans because of the urgency of their mission, but at the end of the gospel, after his resurrection, Jesus sent them to “all the nations,” (28,19) including Samaritans. Acts 8,1–25 records how Philip preached the gospel in Samaria and how, when they were converted, Peter and John were sent there. The apostles prayed for them and the Holy Spirit was bestowed on them. After confronting Simon they returned to Jerusalem, passing through Samaritan villages where they also proclaimed the good news. In John chapter 4 we are presented with a one-on-one encounter between Jesus and a religious seeker, as is frequent in the Gospel of John.38 Culpepper suggests that when John refers to patriarchs, a well and a woman, he is evoking an Old Testament betrothal type-scene. We find such examples in Gen 24,1–66 (Abraham’s servant and Rebekah), Gen 29,1–30 (Jacob and Rachel), or Ex 39 2,15–22 (Moses and Zipporah). The woman is no marriageable maiden, for she has had five husbands, yet she receives Jesus as her Lord (and bridegroom). The Jews believed that the daughters of the Samaritans were menstruants from the cradle. Consequently, all Samaritan women, as well as the equipment they

35 36

37 38

39

John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Second edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 20172. 99. J. Eugene Botha, Jesus and the Samaritan Woman. A Speach Act Reading of John 4:1–12. Supplements to Novum Testamentum, Vol. LXV. E. J. Brill, Leiden – New York – Kǿbenhavn – Köln, 1991. 109–110. Cornelis Bennema, Encountering Jesus. Character Studies in the Gospel of John. Second edition. Fortress Press, Minneapolis, 20142. 162. Lynn Cohick, The „Woman at the Well”: Was the Samaritan Woman Really an Adulteress? In Sandra L. Glahn (ed.), Vindicating the Vixens. Revisiting Sexualized, Vilified, and Marginalized Women of the Bible. Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2017. 250. R. Alan Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel. A Study in Literary Design. Foundation and Facets: New Testament. Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1983. 136.

Encounter at the Well between Judaism and Samaritanism

205

handled, were believed to be impure. Therefore if Jesus were to drink from a jar used by a Samaritan woman, he would become impure and contaminated.40 Jesus starts his dialogue by asking (in the imperative case) for water from the woman. This reminds us of his words spoken on the cross (John 19,28), but here Jesus desires more than just water: he wishes to start a discussion.41 The woman’s answer shows the irregularity of the encounter. It also has a nuance of mockery. From a Samaritan point of view the woman begins her answer insultingly (pōs su Ioudaios). She is perplexed how a Jew (she could easily recognize him from his clothes) could ask for a drink from a Samaritan. She had never experienced such a thing. Only here in the Gospel of John is Jesus called Ioudaios. In chapter 4. v. 9. we learn about the antagonism between Jews and Samaritans.42 Even so Jesus starts to speak about living water.43 This conversation did not take place accidentally: the encounter exemplifies the principle that the people to whom Jesus gives the teaching of salvation are not selected on the basis of their merit.44 ‘Living water’ would normally mean water from a spring. In the arid land of Israel, such water was highly valued and would be contrasted with the still water of the cistern (Gen 26,19; Lev 14,5; Jer 2,13).45 Jesus says that, if the woman would ask, he would give her living water. The woman takes it to mean spring water. She then asks Jesus how he could get living water since he had no jar. Jesus explains that if she drinks the water he would give her, she would never thirst again and the water would become a well within her leading to eternal life.46 The woman, still taking the conversation on a purely physical level, is enthusiastic at the thought of never being thirsty and of not having to make daily trips to get water.47 Augustine writes about this passage: “He asks for a drink and about how to satisfy. >If you knew,< he says,

40 41

42 43 44 45 46

47

Kok, 2017. 254. Marion Moser, Schriftdiskurse im Johannesevangelium. Eine narrativ-intertextuelle Analyse am Paradigma von Joh 4 und Joh 7. Wissentschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe, 380. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2014. 55. Francis J. Moloney, The Gospel of John. Sacra Pagina Series, Vol. 4. A Michael Glazier Book, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1998. 117. Jean Zumstein, Évangile Selon Jean. Introdution et traduction de Jean Zumstein. Collection Sources. Presses Univesitaires de France, Fondation Martin Bodmer, 2008. 13. John Calvin, John. The Crossway Classic Commentaries. Crosway Books. Wheaton, Illinois – Nottingham, England, 1994. 93. Ernő Mátyás, János evangélioma. Írásmagyarázat. A Sárospataki Kollégium Kiadványai. Dolgozatok a bibliai theologiai tudományok köréből. 2. Sylvester, Sárospatak, 1950. 83. Nicole Chibici-Revneanu, Die Herrlichkeit des Verherrlichten. Der Verständnis der do,xa im Johannesevangelium. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe, 231. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2007. 118. Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John. Volume 2. Commentary on the Gospel of John. The Eerdmans Critical Commentary. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan – Cambridge, U.K. 2010. 172–179.

206

Lehel Lészai

>the gift of God.1, 2018, 116-130< 117. Thomas A. Robinson, Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting …, p. 41, n. 6. Robinson see in this fragment also an evidence of the interest of Gentiles to Judaism which is perceived by Ignatius as dangerous (p. 41). Thomas A. Robinson, Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting …, p. 41. For a similar approach see Dan Jaffé, The Concepts of Death and Circumcision …, p. 119-120

240

Daniel Buda

Later on, out of this tendency developed Ebionism, states the same explanatory note. R. J. Hoffman thinks that the“uncircumcised preaching Judaism” were Marcionites.”23 After a profound research, S. G. Wilson concludes: “It seems highly unlikely that these were heterodox Jews or Jewish Christians who had eschewed circumcision.”24 It remains only the possibility that the uncircumcised were Gentile Christians.25 An association of these Gentile Christians with a certain heresy like Ebionism or Marcionism seems to be difficult. They were simply Gentile Christians who preached a form of Christianity which was not acceptable to Ignatius.26 The reasoning for Ignatius' rejection was that it contained several Jewish elements; however, it is unlike circumcision. It is time to assess what is the role of circumcision in Ignatius of Antioch writings. As Cohen27 stated, Ignatius is not interested in circumcision or noncircumcision, but in the truth of faith. Looking at his position on Judaism and of Judaizers, one can affirm that his attitude towards circumcision is similar to his attitude regarding Judaism: it completed its role in the world and since Jesus Christ came to the world, there is no place for it. As bishop of Antioch, Ignatius followed the official position of the Church which decided around the middle of the previous Century that Judaism and its prescriptions, especially circumcision are not necessary to be practiced and observed. A necessary mention here is that Ignatius' attitude towards the Scriptures of the Old Testament is different: they are genuine revelation and therefore valuable. We may ask, together with Cohen: “If circumcision versus foreskin was not an issue for Ignatius, why does he mention the contrast?” The Response of Cohen is: “The simplest explanation is that “a man having circumcision” is a synonym for “a man favouring Judaism” and that “a foreskin man” is a synonym for “a man who favours a Christianity that is not Judaism.” “Circumcision” is a metonym for “the state of being a Jew.” 28

I would like to add one more thought here, which completes the answer of Cohen and brings an additional aspect: Ignatius use this particular situation of having circumcised preaching Christianity and uncircumcised preaching Judaism to send a strong message to the latest: even circumcised i.e. Jews

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Ibidem, Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting … n. 4, p. 85. R. J. Hoffmann, Marcion: On the Restitution of Christianity, Chica, 1984, p. 63. S. G. Wilson, Related Strangers. Jews and Christians 70-170 C.E., Minneapolis, 1995, p. 164. This hypothesis is supported by W. R. Schoedee, Ignatius of Antioch> A Commentary on the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch, Philadelphia, 1985, p. 123. S.J.D. Cohen, Judaism without Circumcision and “Judaism” without “Circumcision” in Ignatius, Harvard Theological Review 95 (2002), p. 404. Ibidem, p. 396. Ibidem, p. 405.

Circumcision in Ignatius of Antioch and Theophilus of Antioch

241

preach Christianity; you the uncircumcised, i.e. the non-Jews should do the same! Finally, I would like to bring into discussion another aspect which is secondary, but it proves, in my opinion, that for Ignatius, circumcision, played a marginal role. Everyone who is familiar with Ignatius' writings knows that he developed a theology of martyrdom. This theology is connected especially with his Christology and his conception of the Eucharist. In developing his theology of martyrdom, Ignatius uses several figures of speech, elements and motives. The element of circumcision is not used by Ignatius. While developing his theology of martyrdom, Ignatius could, in my opinion, make use of the motive of circumcision. For example, in his Epistle to the Romans, Ignatius speaks quite extensively about his wish to become a martyr. It seems like the Christian community in Rome was ready to try to free Ignatius. Ignatius asked them not to intervene, but let him die as a martyr. In his pleading for his own martyrdom he says: “Pardon me. I know what is expedient for me. Now I am beginning to be a disciple. May naught of things visible or invisible seek to allure me; that I may attain unto Jesus Christ. Come fire and cross and conflicts with wild beasts, wrenching of bones of bones, mangling of limbs, crushing of the whole body; come grievous torments of the devil upon me, - only may they aid me in attaining unto Jesus Christ.”29

In Ignatius' writings there is no place for metaphors like “spiritual circumcision” or “circumcision of hearth.” We can only guess the reason: as he is very critical to the Judaizers who, at least some of them, practiced circumcision, and circumcision is not for Christians, thus Ignatius seems to feel uncomfortable in developing any theology around circumcision.

Circumcision in St. Theophilus of Antioch Theophilus of Antioch30 was the sixth bishop of Antioch and the first one after Ignatius who left significant writings. However only of them called "The Apology to Autolycus" is preserved. Unlike Ignatius, Theophilus mentions in his work that he was of pagan origin, being born in the region of the rivers Tigris and Euphrates.31 and converted to Christianity after he reached maturity. As already mentioned, in his Apology, Theophilus, makes no reference to circumcision at all. Before asking why there are no references to circumcision, one must first respond to the question: Why should we expect any reference to circumcision in Theophilus writings? 29 30 31

Ibidem, p. 76-77. J. Quasten, Patrology…, p. 236-239. Theophilus of Antioch, Apology to Autolycus, II, 24, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, ed. By Phillip Schaff, Grand Rapids, p. 140.

242

Daniel Buda

The responses could be summarized as the following: (1) Judaism and the issue of Judaizers was still very actual in Antioch. The Jewish community might be even bigger in Antioch during Theophilus' time than in the time of Ignatius, because the revolt of Bar Kokhba (132-136 C.E.) forced surviving Jews to leave Palestine. Judaizers were still a missionary threat for the mainline Church in Antioch; (2) In his Apology Theophilus appeals extensively to the Old Testament. He speaks about the law given by God to the Jewish people and about Abraham and Moses as those who received the law, but circumcision is not mentioned at all; (3) Theophilus is a great sympathizer of the Jewish people. Why does he not mention circumcision, which plays such an important role in Judaism? The possible explanations of the lack of any reference to circumcision by Theophilus are: (1) The recipient of his Apology is Autolycus, an educated Greek. He focuses on other issues which are important for fulfilling the aims of the Apology. Circumcision is simply not part of his argumentation construct; (2) Perhaps Theophilus was aware of the Pagan criticism on the practice of circumcision. He was aware of some criticism made by the Egyptian Manetho to the Jews32 and knew very well the Pagan literature. We can only speculate that Theophilus did not mention circumcision in a work dedicated to an educated pagan like Autolycus, because he did not want to risk getting a response of the general pagan accusation that circumcision is in fact mutilation.

Conclusions Circumcision does not play an important role in Ignatius' epistolary corpus. There is only one reference to it. Therefore Prof. Manuel Vogel had enough reasons to leave out Ignatius reference to circumcision. Ignatius' reference shows the complexity of the relationships between Judaism and Christianity during his time. This complexity has been certainly influenced by the existence of the Judaizers which were also far from being a monolithic group. In Ignatius opinion, there is no place for circumcision in Christianity. It is a Jewish practice which belongs to the past, as Judaism belongs, in his opinion also to the past. Therefore, one cannot find by Ignatius any use of circumcision as an element to develop theology of martyrdom.

32

Ibidem, III, 21, p. 164.

Circumcision in Ignatius of Antioch and Theophilus of Antioch

243

Theophilus of Antioch makes no reference to circumcision at all. We can only guess the reasons for the lack of references to such an important practice of Judaism by a Christian author who certainly was a great admirer of Judaism. As the editor of the German volume on the circumcision debate states in his introduction, the valuable article of Manuel Vogel made clear that the modern debate on circumcision “is not a phenomenon of modernity.”33 Indeed, this debate has a long history and is complex. In case this small and humble contribution of mine was able to convince that the complexity of this debate is even deeper, than it's reached its goal. *** I met Prof. Dorin Oancea for the first time in 1996, when I went to Sibiu to study Orthodox Theology. In that time, he was teaching History of Philosophy and History and Philosophy of Religions, meaning that I attended his courses for 8 out of 10 semesters (two in the first year and the rest in the last two years of studying Orthodox Theology). His way of teaching was quite fluid, which caused some difficulties for a number of colleagues to take course notes in order to pass the exam. The subjects he formulated for his written exams were focused on details or demanded a good knowledge of the entire course and real abilities to synthesize the taught material. A good number of colleagues faced difficulties in passing his exams or in getting a reasonable mark. I felt always attracted by his teaching style and I had no complains about his way of examining. Also, his courses, especially those of History and Philosophy of Religions, were original. In fact, Prof. Oancea developed an original philosophy of religions which was exposed in his courses. His erudition and language skills always impressed me. In that time, Prof. Oancea, who was able to translate open lectures from English and German into Romanian, looked to me almost like a human being with supra-natural powers. Our more personal relationship, beyond his well-known kindness and openness to all students, developed through the mediation of my mentor, Prof. Auel Jivi, of blessed memory. Prof. Oancea encouraged and supported me to study in Heidelberg and Berlin. He wrote for me generous letters of recommendation which certainly contributed significantly for making my applications for scholarships in Germany successful. He also mediated the contact with Prof. Adolf Martin Ritter from Heidelberg who became my “German-Protestant mentor.” After Prof. Jivi passed away, he partly took over the role of a mentor and protector. In his period as dean of the Theological Faculty in Sibiu (20042008), he strongly supported me to be promoted from the humiliating position of teaching assistant (more or less the equivalent of a tutor in Western academic system), in which I was kept for four years, in spite of the fact that I got my doctorate soon after I was hired. This was possible due to some internal furious opposition combined with bureaucratic manipulations of the same circles. Prof. Oancea has made real efforts to open a position of lecturer to which I candidate. I was promoted to it, jumping, according to Romanian academic system of that time, over the position of an assistant. This was almost a miracle, made possible with his generous support. I hope I managed to be thankful enough for it! We remained in contact also after his retirement. In the last years, our relationship (I dare to say friendship) took a new phase, as we co-celebrated several times Holy Liturgy in the Romanian-Orthodox community in Basel, Switzerland. This new and perhaps unexpected dimension of our relationship is a real blessing, as we can experience on liturgical level some of the principals Prof. Oancea taught and stands for. As I write this humble article for his Festschrift, I can only say: Vielen und Besten Dank, Professor Oancea!

33

Michael Wermke (ed.), Säkulare Selbstbestimmung …, p. 8.

ORIGENES ALS BRÜCKENBAUER Adolf Martin RITTER Universität Heidelberg

Die Verdienste des Empfängers dieser Festschrift als „Ökumeniker und Brückenbauer“ sind so offensichtlich, dass darüber – eigentlich – kein Wort mehr zu verlieren ist. Höchstens ein kurzes Wort der dankbaren Erinnerung mag am Platze sein. In der Zeit unserer Zugehörigkeit zum von F. Heyer begründeten, seit meiner Berufung nach Heidelberg (1981) von mir geleiteten „Theologischen Südosteuropaseminar“ (seit dessen Tagung in Bukarest 1982) und später im – vielfach als besonders fruchtbar bezeichneten – bilateralen Dialog zwischen Rumänisch-Orthodoxer Kirche und Evangelischer Kirche in Deutschland (seit dem 6. Gespräch in Curtea de Argeş 1991) war eine wunderbare Gemeinschaft besonders mit Dorin Oancea zu erfahren. Ich erlebte ihn zunächst „nur“ als hochtalentierten Übersetzer und sprachlichen „Brückenbauer“ (auf demselben hohen Niveau wie später seine Schülerin und jetzt auch Nachfolgerin Alina Patru). Zunehmend wurde aber aus dem dolmetschenden Dialog„Assistenten“ ein gleichberechtigter, verständigungswilliger und -fähiger Dialog-Partner. Auf dieser Grundlage entwickelte sich, verstärkt nach Ende des Kalten Krieges und dem „Fall der eisernen Vorhänge“, ein reger akademischer Austausch mit Begegnungen in Siebenbürgen und anderswo, auch in Deutschland, wofür ich stets dankbar bleiben werde. Ihn innerhalb dieser Festschrift mit einem kirchenhistorischen Beitrag zu einem der großen Brückenbauer in der Geschichte des Christentums zu ehren liegt ebenfalls zu nahe, als dass es umständlicherer Begründung bedürfte. Wieso aber ausgerechnet Origenes, mag gefragt werden, wo sich doch bekanntlich schon in der Antike an ihm die Geister schieden? Diese Frage verlangt – dessen bin ich mir vollkommen bewusst – dringend nach einer überzeugenden Antwort. Ich hoffe, sie einigermaßen geben zu können, indem ich einleitend die aufschließende Wirkung skizziere, die die Neubegegnung mit dem Werk des ,Brückenbauers‘ Origenes in der Vorgeschichte des II. Vatikanischen Konzils spielte, um sodann, im Hauptteil meines Beitrages, zu versuchen aufzuzeigen, wie das unbefangene Suchen und Denken des Alexandriners in eine Neubestimmung des Verhältnisses von Philosophie und Theologie, und das heißt in seiner Zeit: einen „Brükkenbau“ zwischen Platonismus und Christentum mündete. Den Abschluss werden Überlegungen zur – möglichen – ökumenischen Relevanz des Vorgetragenen bilden.

246

Adolf Martin Ritter

Origenes, die „Nouvelle Théologie“ in Frankreich und die Botschaft des II. Vaticanum für die Welt (Gaudium et Spes) Es war nicht die erste Origenesrenaissance überhaupt, was sich da, theologisch, vor allem im krisengeschüttelten Frankreich der Zeit vor, in und nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg und damit in der Vorgeschichte des II. Vaticanum und dessen Ringens um eine Neubestimmung des Verhältnisses von katholischer Kirche und moderner Welt ereignete. Sondern wie schon in der Spätantike mindestens von einem Schwanken des Origenesbildes zwischen Bewunderung und schroffer Kritik an Person und Werk des Mannes zu sprechen ist und sich Spuren seiner Nachwirkung noch im lateinischen und erst recht im byzantinischen Mittelalter finden lassen, so muss man von einer wirklichen Wiederentdeckung, besonders seiner Freiheitslehre, erstmals in der frühen Neuzeit reden, genauer im Humanismus der Renaissance1 und in der Reformation, welche die folgende Zeit bis zur Aufklärung prägten; deutlichstes Anzeichen hierfür war die Bewegung der,Cambridge Platonists‘, bestehend aus lauter glühenden Bewunderern des Origenes.2 Welcher Wandel sich Jahrhunderte später in dessen Beurteilung – im 20. Jahrhundert, nach Vorbereitung im 19., in der „westlichen“ Welt, im römischen Katholizismus und später auch im Protestantismus, anbahnte und schließlich Zug um Zug durchsetzte, muss ein wenig ausführlicher beschrieben werden, wenngleich es auch hier – zunächst – mit wenigen Andeutungen sein Bewenden haben muss. Der kräftigste Anstoß ging wohl von der sog. „Nouvelle Théologie“ in Frankreich aus, vertreten durch Henri de Lubac (1896-1991), Jean Daniélou (1905-1974) und Henri Crouzel (1918-2003) sowie, in engem Austausch mit ihnen, durch den Schweizer H. Urs von Balthasar (1905-1988) und den deutschen Jesuiten H. Rahner (1900-1968), aber auch seinen Bruder und Orgensgenossen Karl (1904-1984). Im Denken aller Genannten spielte der Rückgriff auf Origenes eine zentrale Rolle. Es war vermutlich – auch – das „Vorkonstantinische“ an ihm, was jetzt auf die genannten Theologen anziehend wirkte. Kein Wunder deshalb, dass in ihrem Umkreis auch das Schlagwort vom „Ende des konstantinischen Zeitalters“ aufkam, womit die Aufkündigung der (im Wesentlichen im Mittelalter begründeten) Allianz von Religion und Macht, allenthalben, spätestens jetzt, im katastrophenreichen 20. Jahrhundert, gemeint war. Wichtig war ihnen vor allem aber die direkte Wiederanknüpfung an den Exegeten, den Prediger, den Mystiker, den Mann der Kirche (homo ecclesiasticus)3, der in der vorherrschenden, einseitig „systematisch“-philoso1 2

3

Vgl. dazu den von A. Fürst herausgegebenen Sammelband „Origenes Humanista: Pico della Mirandolas Traktat De salute Origenis disputatio“, Münster 2015. Gemeint ist die Bewegung um Henry More (1614-1687), Ralph Cudworth (1617-1688) und George Rust (gest. 1670); ihnen allen galt Origenes als ein „Wunder der christlichen Welt“, als „größtes Licht und Bollwerk des antiken Christentums“ (H. More); vgl. des näheren A. Fürst, Origenes. Grieche und Christ in römischer Zeit (Standorte in Antike und Christentum 9), Stuttgart 2017, 186-189. Vgl. seine Lukashomilien 16, 6 (97f. Rauer).

Origenes als Brückenbauer

247

phischen Origenesdeutung ihrer Zeit so gut wie gar nicht vorkam. Darüber wurde ihnen Origenes zum Patron und Kronzeugen einer kritischen Wendung gegen dogmatische Erstarrung, für ein umfassendes aggiornamento ihrer Kirche, für deren Zuwendung zur Lebenswirklichkeit der Menschen in der Welt. Erste, von aller Welt zunächst ungläubig bestaunte, Früchte trug dieser Anstoß, nach Überwindung heftigster Widerstände im Vorfeld, auf dem II. Vaticanum (1962-1965),4 einer Wende auch in der Geschichte der Ökumenischen Bewegung in der Moderne, wie jedermann weiß. – Ich komme darauf am Schluss zurück.

Platonismus und Christentum in der Spätantike: ein Überblick Ob es in spätantiker Zeit „christliche Philosophie“ in dem Sinne gegeben habe, dass von substantiellen Beiträgen christlicher Autoren zur Philosophie zu sprechen wäre, darüber wird – beileibe nicht nur unter Fachleuten – bis heute gestritten.5 Unstrittig aber ist, dass es (spätestens) seit Ende des 3. Jahrhunderts innerhalb des Römischen Reiches zu einer Neubelebung des Erziehungssystems kam, von der zunehmend auch die christliche Theologie profitierte. Diese Neubelebung scheint sich schneller und vollkommener als in anderen Bereichen des öffentlichen Lebens vollzogen zu haben, was teilweise sicherlich mit den günstigen Berufsperspektiven für Absolventen einer rhetorischen und juristischen Ausbildung in kaiserlichen Diensten zusammenhing.6 Wie sehr sich die literarische Kultur im Osten, weit über die „konstantinische Wende“ hinaus, außerordentlicher Hochschätzung erfreute, zeigt beispielhaft die herausragende Stellung des „heidnischen“ Philosophen Themistios (317388/89) noch in theodosianischer Zeit, sowohl im Senat von Konstantinopel als auch am kaiserlichen Hof. Und obwohl das überkommene, rhetorik-orientierte, System der klassischen παιδεία das „Heidentum“ insofern begünstigte, „als es 4

5

6

Davon handelt u.a. das Büchlein von G. Zamagni, Das „Ende des konstantinischen Zeitalters“ und die Modelle aus der Geschichte für eine „neue Christenheit“. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, Freiburg u.a. 2018, welches die Hintergründe des Konzilsgeschehens mit einer Studie über M.-D. Chenu, einen der Initiatoren der vatikanischen Konzilsbotschaft für die Welt (Gaudium et Spes) und wichtigen Mittler der „Nouvelle Théologie“, auszuleuchten versucht; vgl. dazu meine Besprechung in: Theologische Literaturzeitung 143 (2018) 1245f. Vgl. nur einerseits W. Pannenberg, Theologie und Philosophie. Ihr Verhältnis im Lichte ihrer gemeinsamen Geschichte, Göttingen 1996, bes. Kap. 5, andererseits C.G. Stead, Philosophie und Theologie I. Die Zeit der Alten Kirche, Stuttgart 1990 (Theologische Wissenschaft 14. 4), bes. Kap. 8; H. Dörrie, Die platonische Theologie des Kelsos in ihrer Auseinandersetzung mit der christlichen Theologie, auf Grund von Origenes, c. Celsum 7,42ff., (1967) wieder abgedr. in: Derselbe, Platonica Minora, München 1976, 229-262. W. Liebeschuetz, Art. Hochschule, in: Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum 15, Stuttgart 1991, 858–911, hier: 871; zum Verhältnis von Christentum und Bildung in der Spätantike allgemein s. bes. P. Gemeinhardt, Das lateinische Christentum und die antike pagane Bildung, Tübingen 2007 (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 41), Teil III passim.

248

Adolf Martin Ritter

pagane Schriften u[nd] Autoren mit großem Prestige versah“ und so „die Verbreitung des Christentums unter den rhetorisch Gebildeten, d. h. den Wohlhabenden, Kurialen u[nd] Senatoren“ sich verzögerte,7 verzichtete man noch immer weitgehend auf die Ausbildung eigener christlicher Strukturen und rekurrierte stattdessen in der Regel auf die herkömmlichen Schulformen. So sehen wir denn in der uns im Augenblick beschäftigenden Zeit in zunehmendem Maße auch junge Christen die bestehenden „höheren“ Ausbildungsstätten frequentieren und im Einzelfall nach ihrem Studium die Funktionen von Grammatik- und Rhetoriklehrern oder gar von „Scholarchen“ übernehmen.8 Wenn man sich fragt, ob die denkerischen Leistungen christlicher Autoren in der Spätantike – von wenigen (meist) unbestrittenen Ausnahmen wie Augustinus abgesehen – sonderlich hoch einzuschätzen seien, so dass eine seriöse Philosophiegeschichtsschreibung davon unbedingt Kenntnis zu nehmen hätte, dann sollte man nicht vorschnell und gar zu selbstverständlich unser heutiges Verständnis von Philosophie und unser eigenes historisch-kritisches Plato- oder Aristotelesbild zum Maßstab nehmen. Man sollte vielmehr in Rechnung stellen, dass in der Antike, zumal der Spätantike, „Philosophie“ weniger eine bestimmte Theorie oder Erkenntnisweise als vielmehr gelebte Weisheit, ein Leben gemäß der Vernunft, oder, christlich gesprochen, gemäß dem Logos war. So war es keine schiere Anmaßung, wenn einige Christen (in den Spuren des Apologeten Justin) das Christentum als eine oder gar die Philosophie bezeichneten, zumal sich im christlichen Bereich alsbald eine Exegese und eine Theologie entfaltete, die den Methoden des paganen Philosophiebetriebes zumindest ähnelten.9 Aus diesen Ansätzen entwickelte sich, als wohl eigentümlichste Blüte, was man – schon auf das Mittelalter vorausblickend – als „monastische Philosophie“ bezeichnen könnte. Sie spielt übrigens die Hauptrolle in P. Hadots Skizze des antiken Christentums als offenbarter Philosophie;10 und eingeschlossen sind darin die einflussreichen Versuche jener Verfechter einer „christlichen Philosophie“, die im übrigen selbst an der monastischen Lebensweise partizipierten; man kann daher mit Louis Bouyer von dieser Bewegung als dem „gelehrten Mönchtum“ sprechen.11

7 8

9

10 11

Liebeschuetz (wie Anm. 8), 880. S. A.M. Ritter, Die Schule von Gaza, im „Neuen Ueberweg“ (Ueberwegs Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Die Philosophie der Antike, Bd. V. Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike. Völlig neubearb. Aufl., hg. v. C. Riedweg/C. Horn/D. Wyrwa, Basel 2018, § 169-172. P. Hadot, Wege zur Weisheit oder Was lehrt uns die antike Philosophie. Aus dem Französischen von H. Pollmeier, Berlin 1999 (Französische Originalausgabe unter dem Titel: Qu’est-ce que la philosophie antique?, Paris 1995), 276f. Hadot (wie Anm. 7), 273-292. L. Bouyer, La spiritualité du Nouveau Testament et des Pères, Paris 1960 (Histoire de la spiritualité chrétienne 1), 400-472.

Origenes als Brückenbauer

249

Es hat, zugegebenermaßen, ganz unterschiedliche Formen und Niveaus der „Synthese“ oder doch wenigstens Begegnung zwischen paganer12 Philosophie, speziell Platonismus und christlicher Theologie zur Zeit der Spätantike gegeben. Man wird auch die weniger spektakulären Beiträge nicht geringschätzen oder gar völlig vergessen dürfen, weil sie auf ganz unterschiedliche Weise zumindest mitgeholfen haben, dass christliche Theologie in Ost wie West, über alle geschichtlichen Wechselfälle, ja Katastrophen hinweg, durch die antike Philosophie herausgefordert blieb, weil – ein angstfreier Umgang mit ihr möglich zu sein schien. Freilich, wie unsere Leitfrage zu beantworten ist, entscheidet sich letzten Endes an Gestalten wie Origenes und Gregor von Nyssa, Marius Victorinus und Augustinus sowie vielleicht – in Anbetracht seiner ganz ungewöhnlichen wirkungsgeschichtlichen Bedeutung – auch an dem unbekannten Autor des Corpus Areopagiticum.13

Platonismus und Christentum in der Sicht des Origenes (185-253/54) Als „frühchristlichen Philosophen“ etikettiert Origenes die m.E. gegenwärtig beste Gesamtdarstellung von Leben und Werk des Mannes, aus der „ Feder“ des römisch-katholischen Patristikers A. Fürst (Münster), ihren „Helden“ gleich im ersten Satz des Vorwortes. 14 Im Untertitel des Buches dagegen ist – unverfänglicher – von ihm als „Grieche(n) und Christ(en) in römischer Zeit“ die Rede, woran ja nun wirklich kein Zweifel bestehen kann. Wir werden sehen, ob wir am Ende zu dem Ergebnis gelangen, dass auch die erstgenannte Etikettierung nicht einfach in die Irre führt, fragen aber zunächst noch einmal:

Weshalb Origenes? Dass ich ihn als Beispiel gewählt habe, lässt sich so begründen. Er ist nicht nur „die überragende Gestalt der vornizänischen christlichen Theologie“.15 Was 12

13

14

15

Ich gebrauche diesen Begriff in demselben „nüchtern-deskriptiven“ Sinn – zur Bezeichnung nämlich der vor- bzw. nicht-christlichen Religion und Kultur – wie er heutzutage weithin gebräuchlich ist, während dem des „Heidnischen“ noch immer ein (ab-)wertender, „stark normativ aufgeladener“ Charakter anhaftet (so mit Recht W. Schröder, Athen und Jerusalem: die philosophische Kritik am Christentum in Antike und Neuzeit, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstadt 2011, 4). Vgl. zu ihm jetzt meine Jenaer Tria Corda -Vorlesungen: Dionys vom Areopag. Beiträge zu Werk und Wirkung eines philosophierenden Christen der Spätantike (Tria Corda 10), Tübingen 2018. A. Fürst, Origenes (wie Anm. 2), V; vgl. auch den Beginn der Darstellung (1f.), wo „nur“ von „Verknüpfung“ (von platonischer Philosophie und jüdisch-christlicher Bibel), einer „Verbindung“ von Antike und Christentum und einer „philosophisch informierten und formierten Theologie“ gesprochen wird, für die Origenes stehe. So der kundige M. Zambon in seinem Origenes-Paragraphen im „Neuen Ueberweg“ (wie Anm. 7 [§ 99]).

250

Adolf Martin Ritter

vielmehr das Ausmaß der produktiven Auseinandersetzung mit der paganphilosophischen Tradition anlangt, lässt er sich m.E. unter den christlichen Theologen der Antike nur mit Augustin vergleichen. Das steht jetzt aufgrund der intensiven Origenesforschung besonders in den letzten Jahrzehnten, denke ich, außer Frage. Er ist, mit C. Markschies, dem Herrmannstädter Ehrendoktor, zu reden, „gewissermaßen der Urahn aller wissenschaftlichen Theologie, also derjenigen Reflexion des christlichen Glaubens, der sich an zeitgenössischen Rationalitätsstandards orientiert“.16 Und wiewohl „sein Denken in der Spätantike verketzert“ wurde „und seine Schriften deshalb zum größten Teil vernichtet worden sind, hat er einen Einfluss auf die Gestaltwerdung der christlich-philosophischen Theologie ausgeübt, der gar nicht überschätzt werden kann“.17 Augustins Einfluss dagegen beschränkte sich bis über die Antike hinaus auf das Abendland.18 Der Schwerpunkt des Christentums jedoch lag, ebenfalls über die Antike hinaus, im städte- und bevölkerungsreicheren Ostteil des römischen Reiches und in den politischen Formationen im Osten und Südosten desselben (also blieb es fürs erste dabei: ex Oriente lux!).

Aus der Biographie des Mannes braucht für unsere Zwecke nur zweierlei erwähnt zu werden: einmal, dass Origenes, zusammen mit sechs Geschwistern als Christ in einer christlichen Familie, in einem gehobenen und gebildeten Milieu, aufgewachsen, nach dem Märtyrertod des Vaters (um 202) und der Konfiszierung seines Vermögens für die nun mittellose achtköpfige Familie, als Ältester unter den Kindern, zu sorgen hatte und darum, als γραμματικός, zu unterrichten begann, und zwar Grammatik und Rhetorik; und was er zunächst, zum Broterwerb für sich und die Seinen, auf sich nahm, dem hielt er aus Neigung und Begabung bis zu seinem Tod die Treue, anfangs, für annähernd drei Jahrzehnte (unterbrochen allerdings durch mehrere Reisen und längerdauernde auswärtige Aufenthalte), in seiner Vaterstadt Alexandrien und anschließend, für gut zwanzig Jahre, im palästinischen „Caesarea am Meer“. Seine Schultätigkeit weist Züge auf, die auch für die zeitgenössischen philosophischen Schulen typisch waren, obwohl hier nicht Platon, sondern die heilige Schrift Gegenstand der exegetischen Bemühungen von Lehrer und Schülern war: Der Lehrer, selbst Schüler eines namhaften Philosophen (Ammonios Sakkas?),19 führte ein asketisches und 16 17 18

19

C. Markschies, Origenes und sein Erbe. Gesammelte Studien (TU 160), Berlin-New York 2007, VII. Fürst (wie Anm. 12), V. Dem Thema des Einflusses des Origenes auf das westliche Denken (einschließlich dem Augustins) war der gesamte 11. internationale Origeneskongress von Aarhus 2013 gewidmet: s. A.-C. Jacobsen, Origeniana Undecima. Origen and Origenism in the History of Western Thought (Papers of the 11th International Origen Congress, Aarhus University, 26-31 August 2013, Leuven u.a. 2016 (BEThL 279). S. Euseb, Hist. eccl. 6,19,12–13.

Origenes als Brückenbauer

251

wirtschaftlich unabhängiges Leben;20 die Hörer kamen aus unterschiedlichen Kreisen;21 wenigstens einige unter ihnen hatten eine enge persönliche Beziehung mit ihrem Lehrer.22 Die von ihm eingerichtete christliche Schule in Caesarea stellte gewissermaßen eine „Privatuniversität“ (Markschies)23 in Verbindung mit einer reichhaltigen Bibliothek dar,24 „deren Zweck nicht Mission war, sondern in der er wie in Alexandria christliche Philosophie für einen offenen Kreis von Interessierten unterrichtete“.25 Das dort befolgte Unterrichtsprogramm, aus der „Dankrede an Origenes“ eines Schülers zu rekonstruieren,26 umfasste die enzyklopädischen Studien, die Ethik und als Höhepunkt die Theologie. Auf diese Weise setzte Origenes eine Schultradition fort, die den Christen in Alexandrien und anderswo bereits vertraut war. Ein zweites für uns noch wichtigeres biographisches Detail hat mit einem in der Forschung aufs intensivste diskutierten Porphyriosfragment27 zu tun, des 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Ebenda 6,3,8–13. Christen, Heiden, Juden, Häretiker: ebenda 6,3,13; 19,1–3; 19,12. Ebenda 6,3–5. C. Markschies, Kaiserzeitliche christliche Theologie und ihre Institutionen. Prolegomena zu einer Geschichte der antiken christlichen Theologie, Tübingen 2007, 102–107. Vgl. Euseb., hist. eccl. 6,30. Fürst (wie Anm. 12), 12 Des Gregor Thaumaturgos Dankrede an Origenes, ed. P. Koetschau, Freiburg/Leipzig 1894. Euseb., hist. eccl. VI 19 = Porphyr. Adv. Christ. III, fr. 6F Becker: [(19,4) Da einige, statt sich von der Kümmerlichkeit des jüdischen Schrifttums abzuwenden, dieses vielmehr zu retten versuchen, nahmen sie ihre Zuflucht zu unzusammenhängenden und den Texten nicht entsprechenden Erklärungen, die weniger zur Verteidigung gegen die fremde als auf Empfehlung und Anpreisung der eigenen Sache abzielten. Und zwar laufen ihre herangetragenen ,Auslegungen‘ darauf hinaus, dass sie hochtrabend die doch ganz klaren Moseworte als (verschlüsselte) Rätselreden behandeln und sie beschwören, als seien es Orakelsprüche (θεπίσματα) voll verborgener Geheimnisse; mit solchem Qualm (τύφος) vernebeln sie das gesunde Urteilsvermögen] (5) Später heißt es bei Porphyrios dann: „Diese ungereimte Methode ist auch bei einem Manne zu studieren, dem ich selbst in früher Jugend begegnet bin und der schon damals hoch angesehen war und es noch immer ist wegen des von ihm hinterlassenen Schrifttums; es ist Origenes, dessen großer Ruhm bei den Vertretern [,Lehrern‘] dieser Lehren noch immer andauert. (6) Dieser war einst Hörer des Ammonios, des verdientesten Philosophen unserer Zeit, und hatte von seinem Lehrer wissenschaftlich viel profitiert; was jedoch die Wahl der rechten Lebensführung (τὴν ὀρθὴν τοῦ βίου προαίρεσιν)betrifft, so schlug er genau den entgegengesetzten Weg ein wie jener. (7) Ammonios nämlich wandte sich, obwohl als Christ in einem christlichen Elternhaus aufgewachsen, sobald er zu denken und zu philosophieren begann, sogleich der gesetzeskonformen Lebensweise (τὴν κατὰ νόμους πολιτείαν) zu; Origenes hingegen irrte, obgleich als Grieche in griechischer Bildung erzogen, zur barbarischen Phantastik [sc. des jüdischen Schrifttums] ab. Ihr zuliebe verhökerte er sich selbst ebenso wie seine philosophische Bildung. Seine Lebensführung war fortan die eines Christen und damit gesetzwidrig; in seinen [theoretischen] Ansichten über die Welt des Seienden und das Göttliche jedoch gab er sich ganz als Grieche und schob den fremden Mythen [der Bibel] griechische Gedanken unter. (8) [Auch weiterhin] beschäftigte er sich beständig mit Platon (συνῆν τε γὰρ ἀεὶ τῷ Πλάτωνι); wie er auch vertraut war mit den Schriften des Numenios, Kronios, Apollophanes, Longinos, Moderatos, Nikomachos und mit denen der berühmten Pythagoreer. Er benutzte aber auch die

252

Adolf Martin Ritter

längsten überhaupt, das uns von seiner Christenpolemik im griechischen Original erhalten ist. Es geht um das Problem, ob der in diesem Fragment beschriebene Christ Origenes und der uns anderweitig als Verfasser zweier schulphilosophisch-„technischer“ Traktate bekannte Neuplatoniker Origenes identisch sind oder nicht. Ich kann auf diese Debatte leider nicht näher eingehen; denn das wäre ein Thema für einen eigenen Beitrag. Diesem Thema ist zuletzt ein ganzer Sammelband (unter dem Titel „Origenes der Christ und Origenes der Platoniker“) gewidmet, der Ende letzten Jahres im Druck erschienen ist;28 darunter befindet sich ein Beitrag von C. Riedweg (Zürich) mit dem Titel „Das Origenes-Problem aus der Sicht eines Klassischen Philologen“. R. kommt darin zu dem Ergebnis: „man kann angesichts der vertrackten Situation in guten Treuen“ (sc. „guten Gewissens“) „sowohl für wie gegen eine Identität der beiden Origeneis plädieren. Bemerkenswert ist jedenfalls, dass sich Porphyrios, unsere Hauptquelle, an keiner Stelle bemüßigt fühlt, zwei Origeneis (und Ammonioi) zu unterscheiden. Und dass ein Christ, der ohne Unterlass Platon studiert“ – so heißt es ja im bei Euseb überlieferten Porphyriosfragment: συνῆν τε γὰρ ἀεὶ τῷ Πλάτωνι – „und sich auch mit den Schriften der pythagoreisierenden Platoniker seiner Zeit intensiv auseinandersetzt ... , grundsätzlich dazu fähig war, philosophisch technische Traktate zu verfassen, welche die Beachtung seiner paganen Zeitgenossen gefunden haben, sollte man nicht vorschnell in Zweifel ziehen. Dies umso mehr, als die für den platonischen Origenes charakteristischen Züge der Platonauslegung aus christlicher Perspektive besonders einleuchtend erscheinen“.29 Mich hat dieser Beitrag in seiner sauberen Quelleninterpretation und auf der Basis einer umfassenden Literaturkenntnis insoweit völlig überzeugt, als die Identität der „beiden Origeneis“ (des Christen und des Platonikers Origenes) danach möglich bleibt, aber nicht beweisbar ist; dass man jedoch dem Christen O. die beiden Traktate des Philosophen O.30 überhaupt zutrauen kann, ist ja bezeichnend und wichtig genug. Umgekehrt stellt die Nicht-Identität, wie R. zu zeigen vermag, vor kaum minder große Probleme.

28

29 30

Schriften des Stoikers Chairemon und des Cornutus, von denen er die allegorische Auslegung der griechischen Mysterien lernte, und wandte diese Methode auf die jüdischen Schriften an. (9) [Dies sagt Porphyrios im 3. Buch seiner Schrift ,Wider die Christen‘] [...]“. B. Bäbler/H.-G. Nesselrath (Hg.), Origenes der Christ und Origenes der Platoniker (SERAPHIM 2), Tübingen 2018; zu dem Prophyriosfragment vgl. den ausführlichen Kommentar von M. Becker, Porphyrios, Contra Christianos. Neue Sammlung der Fragmente, Testimonien und Dubia mit Einleitung, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen (Texte und Kommentare 52), Berlin 2016, 132-167, besonders 151ff. C. Riedweg, Das Origenes-Problem aus der Sicht eines Klassischen Philologen, a. Anm. 47 a.O.,13–39; Zitat 33. Dieser habe, heißt es bei Porphyrios in seiner Vita Plotini (3,30-32), nichts Schriftliches hinterlassen außer einem Traktat „Über die Dämonen“ (Περὶ τῶν δαιμόνων) und einem weiteren, unter Kaiser Galienus verfassten, „Dass einziger Schöpfer der König ist“ (Ὅτι μόνος ποιητὴς ὁ βασιλεύς).

Origenes als Brückenbauer

253

Für uns hat dies Ergebnis zur Konsequenz, dass wir gut daran tun, dem Thema „Platonismus und Christentum in der Spätantike“ am Beispiel des Origenes weiter nachzugehen, als gäbe es das Porphyriosfragment und seine Probleme nicht. Erst am Schluss mag sich zeigen, ob die Identität der beiden Origeneis an Plausibilität gewonnen hat oder nicht.

Zum Werk des Origenes nur so viel: In dem – uns nur fragmentarisch erhaltenen – origeneischen Schrifttum können die philosophischen Beiträge nicht von den Schriften mit rein exegetisch-theologischem Interesse getrennt werden. Es ist also definitiv nichts mit der von Hieronymus in die Debatte geworfenen und seither gern benutzten Unterscheidung zwischen dem Bibelausleger und dem (durch zu starke Anlehnung an die zeitgenössische Philosophie angeblich diskreditierten31) Systematiker Origenes! Die philosophischen Fragen werden nämlich von diesem ganz überwiegend in Verbindung mit der Deutung der Bibel behandelt. Als eine der wichtigsten exegetischen Schriften voll philosophischen Gehalts hat sich gerade in letzter Zeit die Auslegung des Johannesevangeliums herausgestellt, in deren ersten beiden Büchern Origenes anhand der Auslegung von Joh. 1,1–7 „seine Freiheitsmetaphysik in einer Tiefe und Weite“ verhandelt wird, „die noch über ihre Grundlegung in der Prinzipienschrift hinausreichte“.32 Einige Schriften sind allerdings aufgrund ihrer Form und ihres Inhalts für die Philosophiegeschichte von größerer Bedeutung. Zu ihnen zählen die nur fragmentarisch erhaltenen Στρώματα („Teppiche“),33 ferner die für unsere Fragestellung – von einem theoretischen Standpunkt aus betrachtet – als bedeutendste anzusehende Schrift Περὶ ἀρχῶν (De principiis – „Von den Prinzipien“ oder „Grundlagen“), von der nur ein Teil im griechischen Original erhalten ist,34 während aus der Feder Rufins von Aquileja eine (398 angefertigte) vollständige lateinische Übersetzung vorliegt, die allerdings mit Umsicht zu benutzen ist.35 An Περὶ ἀρχῶν ist immer wieder aufgefallen, trifft 31 32

33 34

35

Vgl. Epiph., haer. 64,72,9: O. ist „von der hellenischen Bildung verblendet“ worden. Fürst (wie Anm. 12), 31. Vgl. zu Origenes’ Freiheitsmetaphysik besonders die großartige Darstellung von E. Schockenhoff, Zum Fest der Freiheit. Theologie des christlichen Handelns bei Origenes, Mainz 1990. Nach Euseb., hist. eccl. 6,24,3). Und zwar in der Philokalia, einer Anthologie aus Origenesschriften (3,1: „Abhandlung über die Willensfreiheit“; 4,1–3: „Abhandlung über die biblische Hermeneutik“), und bei anderen Zeugen (Markell von Ankyra, Justinian und anderen); maßgebliche Ausgabe: H. Görgemanns/H. Karpp (Hg.), Origenes Vier Bücher von den Prinzipien (Texte zur Forschung 24), 3., gegenüber der 2. unveränderte Auflage Darmstadt 1992. Sie ist im wesentlichen eine zuverlässige Wiedergabe, wenn auch Rufinus nicht als neutraler Übersetzer vorgegangen ist und teilweise Stellen verändert oder ausgelassen hat, die er für unecht hielt (Princ. 1 praef. Ruf. 3). Hieronymus verfasste, um die Ketzerei des Origenes zu beweisen (Adv. Rufin. 1,1. 6. 11), eine eigene lateinische Übersetzung, von der nur Auszüge

254

Adolf Martin Ritter

aber durchweg auf alle seine Schriften zu, dass Origenes weniger Lehren verkündigt, als vielmehr auf Probleme hinweist und Fragen stellt, zu denen er Antwortmöglichkeiten durchspielt und entweder eine bestimmte Option favorisiert oder mehrere Lösungen stehen lässt. H. Crouzel hat dies experimentelle Denken des Origenes auf die dann berühmt gewordene Formel einer „théologie en recherche“ gebracht.36 Das will, so A. Fürst wohl mit Recht, nicht so verstanden werden, als handele sich um eine „noch unsicher“ vorantastende Theologie in einem „noch nicht“ ausgereiften Anfangsstadium, die ,noch nicht‘ zum sicheren Gang der späteren Dogmatik gefunden hätte. Dass Origenes, obwohl er keineswegs die Enthaltung von jeglichem Urteil predigte, nicht „Dogmen“ verkünden, sondern „nur“ Probleme und mögliche Lösungen erörtern kann, begründete er „im Verweis auf die ‚Tiefe des Reichtums der Weisheit und Erkenntnis Gottes‘ und ,die Unerforschlichkeit seiner Wege‘ religiös-biblisch mit Röm. 11,33 und ähnlichen Bibelstellen.37 Demgemäß kritisierte er ... die Möglichkeit der Gotteserkenntnis für eine Elite, die Platon behauptet hatte.38 Aus seinem Hinweis darauf, ,dass wir unser Nichtwissen bezüglich der großen Dinge und derer, die über uns sind, nicht verkennen‘,39 geht aber zugleich hervor, dass hinter dieser Kritik an Platon das Wissen von dessen Lehrer Sokrates um sein Nichtwissen stand,40 Origenes also eine Aussage Platons mit einer anderen Stelle in Platons Werken kritisierte. Origenes betrieb theologische Forschung im Geiste der“ „zetetischen“ (suchenduntersuchenden) „Methode des Sokrates“,41 so dass wir von ihm als Origenes Socraticus zu sprechen hätten! – Eine sehr ernstzunehmende Erklärungsmöglichkeit, wie ich finde. Schließlich ist zu nennen Πρὸς τὸν ἐπιγεγραμμένον Κέλσου ἀληθῆ λόγον (Contra Celsum – „Gegen Celsus’ Schrift mit dem Titel ‘Wahre Lehre’“), in Caesarea nach dem Jahr 246 verfasst42 und, zum Glück, vollständig auf Griechisch erhalten. Origenes widerlegt darin in acht Büchern die „Wahre Lehre“ (Ἀληθὴς Λόγος) des Mittelplatonikers Kelsos (veröffentlicht um 160–180). Obwohl die apologetische Literatur in der jüdischen und christlichen Tradition schon verbreitet war, orientiert sich diese Schrift am Vorbild philosophischer polemischer Abhandlungen, wo nach einem Vorwort die Widerlegung eines Referenztextes durch Zitation eines

36

37 38 39 40 41 42

in seiner epist. 124 erhalten sind (vgl. H.J. Vogt, Origenes als Exeget, hg. v. W. Geerlings, Paderborn u. a. 1999, 269-276). H. Crouzelle, Qu’a voulu faire Origène en composant le Traité des Principes?, Bulletin de Littérature Eccléiastique 76 (1975) 161–186. 241–260 (hier: 248); zuletzt ders., Origène, Paris 1985, 216-223. Princ. IV 3,14. Plat., Tim. 28c (000). So Origenes bei Pamphil, apol. Orig., 7: ignorantiam nostri non ignoramus. Plat, apol., 21d: ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι. Fürst (wie Anm. 12), 90f. Vgl. Eus., hist. eccl. 6,36,2.

Origenes als Brückenbauer

255

Textabschnittes mit anschließender Gegenargumentation durchgeführt wird.43 Gerade dieses Werk aber, in dem sich Origenes ausdrücklich mit der Philosophie auseinandersetzt, enthält – aus polemischen Gründen und entsprechend den Gesetzen antiker Polemik – die strengste Beurteilung der griechischen Philosophie. Doch sollte sich dadurch niemand über die wahren Ansichten des Origenes hinwegtäuschen lassen. – Ich würde gern auf weitere Einzelheiten der genannten drei Origenesschriften eingehen, muss darauf aber des beschränkten Raums wegen verzichten. Stattdessen gehe ich gleich zur Frage über, wie nach allem sein Verhältnis zur griechischen Philosophie zu beschreiben sei.

Verhältnis zur Grichischen Philosophie In seinen programmatischen Aussagen über Philosophie und Philosophen wird die offenbar enge Verschränkung, wie sie zwischen Philosophie und Exegese bzw. Theologie in seiner Bibelauslegung und in seinem theologischen Denken tatsächlich anzutreffen ist, nicht greifbar. Er hat „wie andere christliche Theologen bestimmte philosophische Aussagen und Theorien verworfen, aber über die viel grundsätzlichere Frage, inwiefern die Denkform der Philosophen, besonders der Platoniker, sein christliches Denken beeinflusst hat, ist damit noch nichts gesagt“.44 Unbeschadet der Frage, ob Porphyrios einer irrtümlichen Identifizierung der beiden Origeneis (des Christen und des neuplatonischen Philosophen [s.o.]) erlegen war, was ich mit Riedweg für eher unwahrscheinlich halte, wird die von ihm dem Christen O. zugeschriebene Vertrautheit mit den heidnischen Philosophen mehrfach bestätigt: einmal sowohl von dessen Verehrer Euseb45 wie dessen scharfen Kritiker Hieronymus46 – bei der Beschreibung des Verfahrens, das Origenes in den Στρώματα anwendet –, zum andern, auf direkte Weise, von Origenes selbst, in einem Brief, in welchem er sich gegen die Kritik, er habe sich zu viel mit heidnischer Wissenschaft und Philosophie beschäftigt, verteidigt.47 Die von all diesen Genannten bezeugten gründlichen Kenntnisse der Philosophie können, wie G. Dorival gezeigt hat, an der Analyse seiner Werke nachgewiesen werden.48 43

44 45 46 47 48

Vgl. Plutarchs Adversus Colotem oder Galens Adversus Lycum und Adversus ea, quae Iuliano in Hippocratis aphorismos enuntiata sunt› („Gegen die von Julian gegenüber des Hippokrates ,Aphorismen‘ vorgebrachten Einwände). Fürst (wie Anm. 12), 82. Euseb., hist. eccl. 6,18,2-3) Hieron., epist. 70,4. Euseb., hist. eccl. VI 19,12-14. G. Dorival, L’apport d’Origène pour la connaissance de la philosophie grecque, in: Origeniana Quinta, Leuven 1992,189-216; ders., Origène d’Alexandrie, in: Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, IV (2005) 807-842 (hier: 830-842).

256

Adolf Martin Ritter

Und zwar lässt sich Origenes als Vertreter einer grundsätzlich vom Platonismus geprägten christlichen Philosophie bezeichnen, die im Bereich der Ethik und der Logik von der stoischen und peripatetischen Tradition beeinflusst war. Das hervorstechendste Kennzeichen seiner platonischen Gesamtorientierung ist in der Tat darin zu sehen, dass er grundsätzlich annimmt, die Weltwirklichkeit bestehe aus zwei Ebenen, einer niederen Ebene der sinnlich wahrnehmbaren Welt und einer höheren von intelligibler Ordnung, von der die niedere abhängig ist und von der sie, indem sie an ihr Anteil erhält, geordnet und geeint wird.49 Mit dieser Unterscheidung ist anthropologisch auch die Überlegenheit der Seele gegenüber dem Körper verbunden.50 Aber dass Platon trotz hochstehender Erkenntnisse nicht mit dem Polytheismus gebrochen habe, macht Origenes ihm, wie zahlreiche Christen (und Juden) vor ihm und nach ihm, zum schweren Vorwurf.51 Den Einwänden des Kelsos hinsichtlich des geringen sprachlichen und literarischen Wertes der Bibel (was im kulturellen Rahmen der Zweiten Sophistik als schwerer Mangel galt) begegnet Origenes mit der Beobachtung, dass die heidnische Kultur trotz allem stilistischen und wissenschaftlichen Glanz nur einer geistigen Elite – wenigen, wenn überhaupt jemandem – nütze.52 Sie ist „Weisheit dieser Welt“ (1. Kor. 1,20; 3,19); sie besitzt eine gewisse Macht, aber Origenes kann vor ihr warnen mit den Worten des Kolosserbriefes: „Seht zu, dass euch niemand einfange durch Philosophie und leeren Trug“ (Kol. 2,8).53 Dennoch anerkennt er die Fähigkeit der Philosophie, Begriffe zu klären sowie als Einführung in eine tugendhafte Lebensweise und in die Kenntnis der Wahrheit zu dienen.54 Wer in der menschlichen Weisheit nicht geübt sei, könne auch die göttliche nicht erreichen. Einige der Fragen, die Origenes erörterte, bekommen ihren vollen Sinn erst vor dem Hintergrund zeitgenössischer philosophischer Debatten.55

49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Princ. 1,1,7; Comm. in Ioh. 1,26,167. Princ. 3,4,1; 4,2,7; Cels. 7,38. Cels. 6,4. Cels. 6,1–3; Comm. in Rm. 9,2. Cels. prol. 5 Hom. in Gen. 6,2; 14,3. Die Frage z.B., ob die vernünftige Seele so tief herabsinken kann, dass sie sich in einem Tier verkörpert, geht aus einer Deutung einschlägiger Stellen aus Platons ‹Phaidon› (81e–82a) und ‹Timaios› (42c) hervor. Origenes lehnt diese Hypothese ab (Cels. 8,30), sie könne aber erklären, warum auch die Bibel einen Zusammenhang zwischen bestimmten Tieren (dem Drachen, dem Leviathan) und dem Teufel herstellt. Fragen wie die, ob die Materie ein ungeschaffenes Prinzip sei oder ob sie von Gott geschaffen wurde (Princ. 1,3,3; 2,1,4), oder die, ob das Weltall ewig sei oder nicht, stellte man sowohl in den Philosophenschulen bei der Erörterung der platonischen Prinzipienlehre als auch bei jüdisch-christlichen Bibelauslegern, wenn sie die Erzählung von der Welterschaffung in schöpferischer Auseinandersetzung mit Platons ‹Timaios› deuteten (Gen. 1–2; vgl. C. Köckert, Christliche Kosmologie und kaiserzeitliche Philosophie [STAC 56], Tübingen 2009, 224–228).

Origenes als Brückenbauer

257

Nach allem ist kaum verwunderlich, dass das von Origenes verfolgte Bildungsideal demjenigen der zeitgenössischen Philosophenschulen sehr ähnlich ist. Es wird am deutlichsten im Hohelied-Kommentar beschrieben.56 Das in Caesarea praktizierte Curriculum entspricht, soweit es rekonstruiert werden kann, diesem Konzept weitgehend.57 Den Höhepunkt des Lehrgangs bildete dort die Theologie, die Origenes anhand von philosophischen Werken und dem Studium der Bibel lehrte. Letzteres ist die bedeutendste Neuerung gegenüber der philosophischen Schulpraxis. Für den Erwerb von Wissen über Gott sind die Philosophen mithin keine selbständige Quelle mehr; eine vollständige Kenntnis der Theologie könne nur durch die biblische Offenbarung erlangt werden. So wird die Philosophie scheinbar auf ein „Hilfsmittel“ reduziert, das im Dienst einer Wahrheit steht, deren Ursprung außerhalb der „hellenischen“ Tradition liegt. Origenes sagt es ausdrücklich, die Philosophie sei im Blick auf das Christentum συνέριθος („Gehilfin“).58 Wäre sie unentbehrlich zur Erkenntnis und zum Empfang der Wahrheit aus Gottes Offenbarung, so hätte der Heiland, findet er, schwerlich ausgerechnet Fischer und Zöllner zu Aposteln erwählt!59 Der fortgeschrittene Christ allerdings und der zur Verteidigung des Christentums gegen Angriffe von außen Berufene müsse sie studieren, um den Sinn und die zugrunde liegenden Strukturen und Prinzipien der Offenbarung gedanklich zu durchdringen.60 Die Bibel verwehre dies keineswegs; sie verbiete auch nicht den Gebrauch der Dialektik,61 wenngleich die bei weitem wirksamsten Argumente zum Erweis der Wahrheit des Evangeliums nicht mit Hilfe der Dialektik geführt würden. Es seien vielmehr die Beweise „des Geistes und der Kraft“ (1. Kor. 2, 4), und d.h. nach Origenes: die in der Schrift bezeugten außerordentlichen Wunder, die erfüllten Weissagungen, endlich auch die wunderbare Ausbreitung der Kirche unerachtet eines machtvollen Vorurteils gegen sie.62 Er hat die Auswirkungen dieses Vorurteils nicht nur in der eigenen Familie, sondern auch am eigenen 56

57

58 59 60 61 62

Hier deutet Origenes die Folge der drei Salomon zugeschriebenen Bücher – Sprüche, Prediger und Hoheslied – als einen aufsteigenden Weg zur geistigen Vervollkommnung entsprechend der Abfolge der drei kanonischen philosophischen Disziplinen Ethik, Physik und Theologie. So macht er Salomon gewissermaßen zum Urheber des in den kaiserzeitlichen Philosophenschulen üblichen Bildungsplans. Vgl. die „Dankrede“, vermutlich des Gregorios Thaumaturgos (wie o., Anm. 50). Hiernach folgten auf das Studium der Logik und Dialektik (Kap. 7) das der „Physik“, Geometrie und Astronomie (Kap. 8), der Ethik, verbunden mit praktischer Ausübung der Tugend (Kap. 9-12) und von da aus über die Metaphysik als die Frage nach dem „Grund aller Dinge“, zu der eine ausgedehnte Lektüre der „alten Philosophen und Dichter“ (mit Ausnahme „atheistischer“ Schriften) als Hinführung diente (Kap. 13.14) das Studium der Theologie und die Erforschung der Bibel (Kap. 15). Orig., epist. ad Gregor. 1. Cels. I 62. Ebd. VI 14. Ebd. VI 7f i.Vgl. m. I 13; III 47f. Ebd. I 2.

258

Adolf Martin Ritter

Leibe erfahren. Denn vermutlich ist er an den Folgen von in der Verfolgung erlittenen Misshandlungen gestorben. Allein, man wird sich durch den betonten „Biblizismus“ des Origenes und sein scheinbar rein instrumentelles Verhältnis zur Philosophie nicht in die Irre führen lassen dürfen. Sieht man näher zu, so erweist er sich als viel stärker von der zeitgenössischen Philosophie abhängig, als seine betonten Distanzierungen erwarten lassen. So gewinnt auch das von Euseb aufbewahrte Zeugnis des Porphyrios63 an Glaubwürdigkeit, welcher in seiner Polemik „Gegen die Christen“, wie gesehen, Origenes vorwarf, er, der einstige Ammoniosschüler, sei hinsichtlich seiner (theoretischen) Ansichten „über die Welt des Seienden und das Göttliche“ Hellene geblieben (oder habe sich als Hellene ausgegeben); denn er habe hellenische Gedanken den fremden Mythen (der Bibel) untergeschoben. Dazu paßt schließlich die Weise, wie er sich in Contra Celsum mit der Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum auseinandersetzt. Insoweit erweist er sich darin als ein adäquater Gegner des Kelsos, als es die Widerlegung zahlreicher exegetisch-historischer Details betrifft. Bis zu einer gewissen Höhe erhebt er sich ferner da, wo er sich etwa gegenüber dem Vorwurf, die Christen besäßen weder den wahren Logos, noch den wahren Nomos, sie lösten sich vielmehr aus dem kulturellen Kontext der damaligen Welt, wie viele, Juden und Christen vor ihm, auf die Priorität der mosaischen Überlieferung (entsprechend dem jüdisch-christlichen „Altersbeweis“64) beruft oder wo er mit der geschichtslosen Logosphilosophie der Platoniker scharf ins Gericht geht, welche zudem kein allen darum Bemühten erreichbares Heil aufzuzeigen vermöge. Wo die Rede auf diesen Punkt kommt, wird Origenes grundsätzlich und leidenschaftlich und atmet seine Diktion in der Tat Geist vom Geiste Jesu, dessen, den da „jammerte“, da er „die Menge“ (τοὺς ὄχλους) sah (Mt. 9,36 parr.).65 Was jedoch das Zentrum der platonischen Philosophie des Kelsos anlangt, so nimmt er an keiner einzigen Stelle „den Ball auf, den Kelsos wirft“. Kein einziges der platonischen Grunddogmata greift er auf, „um es zu diskutieren oder es mit Begründung abzulehnen“,66 und zwar wohl nicht aus geistigem Unvermögen oder mangelnder philosophischer Schulung; eher deshalb, weil er sich in diesem Bereich zu grundsätzlichem Widerspruch nicht herausgefordert fühlte.67 63 64 65 66 67

S. o. Anm. 25. Vgl. P. Pilhofer, PRESBYTERON KREITTON. Der Altersbeweis der jüdischen und christlichen Apologeten und seine Vorgeschichte, Tübingen 1990 (WUNT 2/39). C. Cels. 1, 9 u.ö. H. Doerrie, Platonica minora (wie oben, Anm. 3), 256. Anders Doerrie a.a.O. – Origenes jedenfalls kann beispielsweise in seinen wohl nur wenig älteren Homilien über das Buch Genesis (Origen., hom. in Genes. 14,3) in aller Offenheit erklären: „Viele Philosophen [darunter, nach Meinung vieler mittelplatonischer Interpreten, auch Platon] schreiben, dass es einen Gott gebe, welcher das All erschuf. Darin stimmen sie mit dem Gesetz Gottes (sc. mit der Schöpfungsgeschichte des AT) überein. Einige haben überdies hinzugefügt, dass Gott alle Dinge durch sein WORT (verbum, griech. λόγος) erschaffen habe und (fernerhin) lenke und es sein Logos sei, durch den alle Dinge geleitet

Origenes als Brückenbauer

259

Ich schließe mit der Frage und kehre damit gewissermaßen zum Anfang meines Beitrages zurück:

Was könnte, ökumenisch gesehen, die Relevanz des gewählten geschichtlichen Bespiels sein? Denkanstöße müssen hier genügen. In dem Schlussabschnitt seines gelobten Buches, überschrieben „Origenes als Ressource für die Theologie der Gegenwart“, hält A. Fürst sehr richtig fest: einmal, dass sich die Wiederbelebung des Interesses an Origenes im 19. und 20.Jahrhundert „fast ausschließlich innerhalb der Theologie“ abgespielt habe, während „sich die Philosophie in dieser Zeit energisch aus ihren theologischen Verflechtungen löste und antike christliche Quellen in ihr – mit wenigen Ausnahmen wie Augustinus – keine Rolle mehr spielen“;68 warum aber Augustin und etwa Dionysios (Ps.-) Areopagites69 und nicht (in gleichem Maße) Origenes, müsste noch gefragt werden, doch nicht mehr an dieser Stelle. Zum anderen hat Fürst auch damit recht, wenn er feststellt, dass in der „gegenwärtigen theologischen Rezeption des Origenes … durchaus konfessionelle Unterschiede wahrzunehmen“ seien.70 Ich nehme das auf und spreche zunächst (1) über die Rezeption des Origenes im römischen Katholizismus der Gegenwart. Auch hier waren die Voraussetzungen unter der Vorherrschaft der Neuscholastik und den Bedingungen des lehramtlich verordneten Antimodernismus wenig günstig. So konnten sich auch die eingangs erwähnten Bemühungen der Repräsentanten der Nouvelle Théologie um eine Rehabilitation des – wie sie fanden, bislang weithin verkannten – Origenes und eine Neuorientierung von katholischer Kirche und Theologie unter Wiederanknüpfen an sein Wirken nur sehr langsam und unter großen persönlichen Opfern durchsetzen.71 Schließlich aber sollte es doch gelingen und davon sogar die Arbeit eines Weltkonzils (II. Vaticanum) befruchtet werden. War in der Folge einige Jahrzehnte lang die französische Origenesforschung tonangebend, so ist

68 69 70 71

würden. Darin stimmen ihre Äußerungen nicht nur mit dem Gesetz, sondern auch mit den Evangelien überein. Ferner denken, was Ethik und das Verständnis der natürlichen Dinge (moralis ... et physica, quae dicitur philosophia) betrifft, fast alle so wie wir (Christen). Dagegen befinden sie sich im Widerspruch zu uns, wenn sie (wie die Epikureer sowie, nach Meinung seiner Gegner, auch Aristoteles) leugnen, dass sich Gott um die Sterblichen kümmere und sich seine Vorsehung auch auf den sublunaren Bereich erstrecke. Sie sind mit uns uneins, wenn sie (wie die Stoiker) sich einbilden, die Macht der Gestirne bestimme die Lebensläufe; wenn sie die Materie (bzw. die materielle Welt) als gleichewig mit Gott ansehen und meinen, d(ies)er Kosmos komme niemals zu einem Ende“. Fürst (wie Anm. 2) 192-195; hier: 192. Vgl. meinen wirkungsgeschichtlichen Abriss in „Dionys vom Areopag“ (wie Anm. 13), 19-67; hier: 62ff. Wie Anm. 68. S. dazu nochmals das Büchlein von Zamagni (wie o., Anm. 4).

260

Adolf Martin Ritter

inzwischen von einem Polyzentrismus zu reden, wenn man nicht sogar sagen muss, dass Italien um eine Nasenlänge die Führung übernommen habe. Ich denke in erster Linie an die Arbeit von Philologen, Althistorikern und Theologen, die sich in der „Gruppo Italiano di Ricerca su ‚Origene e la tradizione allessandrina‘“ zusammengeschlossen haben und die Zeitschrift „Adamantius“ herausgeben; L. Perrone ist das wohl nicht nur in Deutschland, sondern auch in Rumänien bekannteste Mitglied dieser Arbeitsgemeinschaft. Ebenso wichtig wie, dass die Origenesrenaissance, von der in der Tat zu sprechen ist, längst nicht mehr nur als eine französische Angelegenheit gelten kann, ist in meinen Augen, dass sich die anfangs nicht von der Hand zu weisende Befürchtung, es könne lediglich eine Einseitigkeit in der Origenesdeutung durch eine andere ersetzt werden und über dem vorwiegenden Erkenntnisinteresse an dem großen Alexandriner, nämlich der erstrebten Wiederanknüpfung an ihn als Exegeten, Prediger, Mystiker und Mann der Kirche, der durch die zeitgenössische Philosophie ernsthaft herausgeforderte Glaubensdenker aus dem Blick geraten, inzwischen als weitgehend unbegründet erwiesen hat. (2) Viel ungünstiger war es um die Voraussetzungen für eine Origenesrezeption im Protestantismus, auch und gerade im deutschen, mehrheitlich lutherischen, bestellt.72 Auch hier muss man A. Fürst, der über die erwähnten katholischen Barrieren seltsamerweise kein Wort verliert, einfach zustimmen. Zwar sind die Verdienste protestantischer Patristik um die kritische Edition der literarischen Hinterlassenschaft des „Unermüdlichen“ (Adamantios) innerhalb der Reihe der „Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte“ unbestritten.73 Doch drei Barrieren standen hier fürs erste einem Verständnis für das von Origenes Geleistete oder gar einem Wiederanknüpfen daran im Wege; zwei davon hat Fürst ausgemacht: Zum einen habe sich das Urteil A. von Harnacks (1851-1930), mit dessen Namen sich der Aufschwung der wissenschaftlichen Beschäftigung mit den Kirchenvätern zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts nicht zuletzt verbindet, negativ ausgewirkt, dass dieser, und zwar „unter explizitem 72

73

Das hielt freilich Einzelgänger wie W. Völker nicht davon ab, sich ihren eigenen Reim auf Person und Werk des Mannes zu machen: s. ders., Das Vollkommenheitsideal des Origenes. Eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte und Frömmigkeit und zu den Anfängen christlicher Mystik, Tübingen 1931; von etwas anderen Voraussetzungen und mit etwas anderen Ergebnissen war später F. H. Kettler um ein positives Origenesverständnis bemüht, wie seine Monographie, Die ursprüngliche Sinn der Dogmatik des Origenes (BZNW 31), Berlin 1966, und etliche Festschriftbeiträge zeigen; und noch der junge W. Bienert, der mit einer Monographie über „Dionysius von Alexandrien. Zur Frage des Origenismus im dritten Jahrhundert“ (Berlin/New York 1978) auf sich aufmerksam machte, musste sich weithin wie ein einsamer Rufer in der Wüste vorkommen, als er sich intensiver mit Origenes und dem Origenismus zu beschäftigen begann. Bei mir selbst brauchte es noch lange Zeit, ehe auch bei mir der Verständnisknoten platzte. Vgl. C. Markschies, Origenes in Berlin: Schicksalswege eines Editionsunternehmens, sowie ders., Die Origenes-Editionen der Berliner Akademie. Geschichte und Gegenwart, in: ders., Origenes und sein Erbe (wie Anm. 16), 239-249. 251-263.

Origenes als Brückenbauer

261

Rekurs auf die diesbezügliche Kritik des Porphyrius“, in dem Alexandriner, bei aller Anerkennung seiner großen „Bedeutung für die Formung der frühchristlichen Theologie“, den „Hauptschuldigen für die aus seiner Sicht damit einhergehende ,Hellenisierung‘ des Christentums“ erkannte;74 zum anderen sei ganz generell „die protestantische Theologie weniger von der Religionsphilosophie des Origenes geprägt, weil sie sich traditionell im Fahrwasser der augustinisch-lutherischen Paulusdeutung“ bewege „und Vorbehalte gegen starke Begriffe von Vernunft und Freiheit“ habe.75 Ich lasse das einmal so stehen und füge noch eine dritte Verständnisbarriere hinzu. Gerade weil die Schriftauslegung eine so große Rolle im Werk des Origenes spielt, darum musste die Tatsache, dass sie auf der Theorie eines mehrfachen Schriftsinns aufruht, seine Theologie insgesamt ins Zwielicht rücken. Doch ist an allen drei Konfliktpunkten inzwischen vieles in Bewegung geraten. Um mit dem Letzteren zu beginnen, so hat „die Rehabilitierung mehrfacher Schriftsinne in der allgemeinen philosophischen Hermeneutik“76 auch in der protestantischen Theologie für eine Hebung des lädierten Ansehens des Exegeten Origenes zu sorgen begonnen, und fehlt es dort nicht an Stimmen gerade aus dem Bereich der biblischen Exegese, die die Alleingeltung von Literalsinn und historisch-kritischer Bibelexegese in Frage stellen.77 Was ferner 74 75 76 77

Fürst (wie Anm. 2), 192, unter Berufung auf A. v. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte I. Die Entstehung des kirchlichen Dogmas, Tübingen 31931, 657-666. Fürst (wie Anm. 2), 193. C. Markschies, Origenes und sein Erbe (wie Anm. 16), 13. Vgl. jüngst etwa den Sammelband „SOLA SCRIPTURA. Das Neue Testament in Universität, Schule und Gesellschaft“, hg. v. S. Alkier u. a., Zeitschrift für Neues Testament H. 39/40 = Jahrg. 20 (2017), und zuvor besonders die umfangreiche „Theologische Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments“ von U. Luz (Neukirchen 2014) samt dessen 4-bändigem Kommentar zum Matthäusevangelium, Neukirchen 1985-2002 (seither sind die einzelnen Bände mehrfach, z. T. gründlich überarbeitet, neu aufgelegt worden). An diesem Kommentar ist zurecht hervorgehoben worden, dass er, obwohl auf dem aktuellsten Stand historisch-kritischer Exegese, auch die Exegeten aus „vorkritischer“ Zeit wieder in ihr Recht setzt (so wird Origenes mit äußerstem Respekt behandelt) und sich das Evangelium in seiner „Wirkungsgeschichte“ entfalten sieht; vgl. meinen Beitrag „Das Matthäusevangelium als ökumenische Herausforderung. Zu Ulrich Luzens vierbändigem Matthäuskommentar“ (Evangelische Theologie 65 [2005] 398-408). Von kundigen Exegetenfreunden beraten und ermuntert habe ich deshalb, ohne das Gefühl, eine Außenseitermeinung zu vertreten, einen Aufsatz über „Protestantische Identität in der Begegnung von östlicher und westlicher Kirche“ verfassen können (zuerst erschienen in: Cistercienser Chronik 104 [1997] 259-271), worin ich ein mögliches „Wiederentdecken der Einheit in der Begegnung von östlicher und westlicher Kirche“ abschließend an einem einzigen Beispiel zu verdeutlichen suchte, indem ich fünf „Thesen zur Schriftauslegung der Orthodoxen Kirche aus der Sicht eines evangelischen … Theologen“ aufstellte und erläuterte. Die Thesen lauteten: „1. Schriftauslegung ist mehr als wissenschaftliche Bibelexegese; 2. Die Verständnisbarrieren des 16. Jh. sind zu überwinden!“ (d. h. die Barrieren, beispielhaft in Erscheinung getreten an der Korrespondenz zwischen Theologen der Tübinger Universität und dem Ökumenischen Patriarchen von Konstantinopel, müssen und können überwunden werden); „3. Schriftauslegung, namentlich die der orthodoxen Kirche, geschieht in Predigt und Liturgie; 4. ,Geistliche‘ und historisch-kritische

262

Adolf Martin Ritter

die traditionelle Bewegung protestantischer Theologie „im Fahrwasser der augustinisch-lutherischen Paulusdeutung“ anlangt, so hat ebenfalls seit längerem ein Umdenken begonnen.78 Und dass „Vorbehalte gegen starke Begriffe von Vernunft und Freiheit“ ein Charakteristicum gerade des Protestantismus seien, lässt sich nur aufrecht erhalten, wenn sich der Blick auf die Zeit der Vorherrschaft der „Dialektischen Theologie“ Barthscher Prägung verengt und der zunehmende Einfluss Schleiermachers, des von Barth in spöttischer Absicht so genannten „Kirchenvaters des 19. Jahrhunderts“, auf die protestantische Theologie in der Gegenwart übersehen wird. Bleibt als letzte Barriere die verhängnisvolle Wirkung, die, Fürst zufolge, von Harnacks Urteil über Origenes als „Hauptschuldigen für die aus seiner Sicht damit einhergehende „Hellenisierung“ des Christentums“ ausging. Auch das ist allenfalls bedingt richtig. Schon die Weise, wie vor mehr als einem halben Jahrhundert W. Pannenberg in einem der substantiellsten und zu Recht meistbeachteten Beiträge zur Diskussion über das – in Wahrheit uralte79 – Problem der „Hellenisierung des Christentums“ votierte80 und sein Votum seinerzeit zumindest unter protestantischen Patristikern des In- und Auslandes nahezu mit einhelligem Jubel begrüßt wurde, spricht für sich. „Schien es doch eine Möglichkeit aufzuzeigen, wie man sich auf die frühchristliche Theologie ernsthaft einlassen könne, ohne auf ein kritisches Urteil … zu verzichten, aber auch ohne dass dieses Urteil von vornherein feststünde“.81

78

79

80

81

Schriftauslegung dürfen einander nie aus dem Blick verlieren und können einander nie ersetzen; 5. Schriftauslegung muss in der Tat in Ausrichtung an ,Schrift und Tradition‘ geschehen oder Wider ein falsch (,sektiererisch‘) verstandenes sola scriptura“ (266-271). Ausschlagend waren dafür mehrere Motive, wenn ich recht sehe: einmal haben je länger, desto mehr exegetische Einsichten Zweifel an der Alleingeltung der „augustinisch-lutherischen Paulusdeutung“ genährt und stattdessen zu einer Aufwertung besonders des Matthäusevangeliums (vgl. dazu außer dem Kommentar von U. Luz [s. vorige Anmerkung] etwa den von M. Konradt [Das Neue Testament Deutsch, Bd. 1, Göttingen 2015] und des Jakobusbriefes geführt (bahnbrechend hier das Wirken von C. Burchard, der 2000 auch einen Kommentar vorlegte [Handbuch zum NT 15, 1]); zum andern haben der ökumenische Dialog, besonders der zwischen evangelischen und orthodoxen Kirchen, zum Nachdenken über ein „ameritorisches“ Verständnis des Synergismus, jenseits des Gegensatzes von „Verdienst“ und ungeschuldeter „Gnade“, und endlich die christlich-jüdischen Gespräche zum Nachdenken über ein nicht-antithetisches Verständnis des „Gesetzes“ im Verhältnis zum „Evangelium“ geführt. S. vor allem W. Glawe, Die Hellenisierung des Christentums in der Geschichte der Theologie von Luther bis auf die Gegenwart, Berlin 1912; vgl. dazu A. M. Ritter, Das Verhältnis von Platonismus und Christentum in der französischen und deutschen Patristik in der Zeit zwischen 1870 und 1930 am Beispiel der Quaestio Dionysiana, in: Patristique et Antiquité tardive en Allemagne et en France de 1870-1930, Paris 1993, 40-51; D. Wyrwa, Über die Begegnung des biblischen Glaubens mit dem griechischen Geist, Zeitschr. f. Theol. u. Kirche 88 (1991) 29-67. W. Pannenberg, Die Aufnahme des philosophischen Gottesbegriffes als dogmatisches Problem der frühchristlichen Theologie, Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. 70 (1959) 1-45; wieder abgedr. in: ders., Grundfragen systematischer Theologie, Göttingen (1967) 21971, 296-346. A. M. Ritter, Platonismus und Christentum in der Spätantike, Theol. Rundschau 49 (1984) 3156; hier: 41; vgl. ders., Ulrich Wickert, Wolfhart Pannenberg und das Problem „Hellenisierung

Origenes als Brückenbauer

263

(3) Und was ist mit der Orthodoxie? Von ihr ist in Fürsts Schlussgedanken über „Origenes als Ressource für die Theologie der Gegenwart“ mit keinem Wort die Rede. Und das kommt nicht von ungefähr, wie überhaupt in seinem ganzen Buch nichts zufällig und völlig unbegründet ist. Denn tatsächlich wird niemand bestreiten können, dass orthodoxe Beiträge zur neueren Origenesdebatte eher Seltenheitswert haben.82 Wie wohl jedermann weiß, hängt diese auffällige Zurückhaltung damit zusammen, dass Origenes in der byzantinischen Orthodoxie seit 553, dem 5. Ökumenischen Konzil von Konstantinopel (Kanon 11), als verurteilter Ketzer gilt. Das ist zweifellos ernst zu nehmen. Ich wage gleichwohl, die Frage zu stellen, ob nicht auch ein langes, intensives ökumenisches Gespräch über Motive, Hintergründe und Konsequenzen dieser Verurteilung neue Zugänge eröffnen könnte. Auf den freundlichen Hinweis Ihres Herrn Dekans und meines Kirchenhistorikerkollegen Nicolae Chifar hin, der mich über Frau Kollegin Alina Patru erreichte, habe ich in der Patrologie des verstorbenen Constantin Voicu nachgeschaut und festgestellt, dass in der rumänischen Patristik schon einmal Vorstöße zu einer Rehabilitierung des Glaubensdenkers Origenes unternommen wurden. Vor allem auf eine Aufsatzserie von Theodor M. Popescu in den 20er Jahren des vergangenen Jahrhunderts sowie später auf Beiträge des großen Wissenschaftlers Ioan G. Coman, den ich noch das Glück hatte, auf dem Jubiläumssymposium in Bukarest (1981) persönlich kennenzulernen wäre hinzuweisen.83 Daran könnte in der Gegenwart angeknüpft werden.84 Falls dies gelänge, könnte zum einen die Einsicht Platz greifen, dass die Verurteilungen in der Antike, gipfelnd in dem Spruch des Constantinoplitanum III, nachweislich die Christologie des Evagrios Pontikos trafen und durchweg das „Tentative“, „Sokratische“ im Denken des Origenes nicht wahrnahmen. Es würde zum anderen möglich, die Freiheitslehre des Origenes, wie sie im Katholizismus und im Protestantismus der Gegenwart mehr und mehr erkannt und anerkannt wird, als ein großartiges Reservoir zu entdecken, aus dem auch

82

83

84

des Christentums“, in: Die Weltlichkeit des Glaubens in der Alten Kirche (Festschrift für U. Wickert), hg. v. D. Wyrwa, Berlin 1997 (Beiheft zur Zeitschr. f. Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 85), 301-318. Es ist bezeichnend, dass in der umfangreichen Bibliographie von Fürsts gelobtem Buch als einer der wenigen bekannten orthodoxen Autoren A. Louth mit einem Artikel über die Origenesrezeption in der abendländischen Mystik aufgeführt ist (The Reception of Origen‘s Thought in Western Mysticism, in: A.-Ch. Jacobsen [Hg.], Origeniana Undecima. Origen and Origenism in the History of Western Thought, Leuven u. a. 2016, 615-628). Th. M. Popescu, Denaturarea istoriei lui Origen, II. Origen eretic, in: Biserica Ortodoxa Romana 1926, 246-264. 378-383. 580-586. 631-635. 710-718; I. G. Coman, Eusebiu al Cezareei si Ieronim despre Origen, in: Studii Teologice 1960, 595-626; derselbe, Origen despre Logos, Biserica si suflet in Comentariul sau la Cantarea Cantarilor, in: ebenda 1973, 165-172; ferner ders., Patrologie, Bd. I, 1956, 94-104; Bd. II, 292-378. Umso mehr, als Folgen von beider Bemühungen in Gestalt der Übersetzungsbände in der Reihe „Parinti si Scriitori Bisericesti (Bd. 6-9) vorliegen, erarbeitet von dem bekannten Patristiker T. Bodogae u. a.

264

Adolf Martin Ritter

die orthodoxe Theologie schöpfen könnte und – vielleicht – sollte. Würden ferner Augustin und Origenes als die beiden entscheidenden Pole und Impulsgeber gleichen Ranges für ein im patristischen Erbe begründetes theologisches Denken begriffen werden können, die sich gegenseitig erläutern und begrenzen, so könnte das enorme Spielräume aufschließen und die Dialoge zwischen „Ost“ und „West“ wesentlich erleichtern. Konkret könnte sich dabei herausstellen, dass im geduldigen Nachdenken über „freien“ oder „gebundenen Willen“ (liberum oder servum arbitrium), auch über „Allversöhnung“ oder „Gnadenwahl“ (verbunden mit dem grauenhaften Gedanken einer massa perditionis) „östliche“ und „westliche“ Theologen sich hätten einige Um- und Irrwege ersparen können, wären sie den Intuitionen des Origenes öfter gefolgt. Ich schließe mit einem „Bekenntnis“: Ich bin fest überzeugt, dass Origenes, mit seinem Brückenschlag zur platonischen Philosophie seiner Zeit hin, einen wesentlichen Anteil hat an der Rezeption der „negativen Theologie“ der Griechen im Christentum. Deren Einfluss auf das Christentum wie auf jede Offenbarungsreligion aber habe ich im Laufe meines Lebens immer positiver einzuschätzen gelernt. „Es könnte in der Tat so sein, dass die ,Revolten‘ nicht nur gegen die traditionelle Metaphysik, sondern gegen jegliche Form eines theistischen Glaubens, wie sie im geistigen Leben unserer Zeit eine so bemerkenswerte Rolle gespielt haben, im gewissen Umfang jedenfalls der Missachtung und schließlich dem praktischen Verschwinden der negativen Theologie zuzuschreiben‘ sind. ,Sind sie‘, könnte man fragen, ,teilweise zumindest Reaktionen auf Ansprüche, welche zu viel von Gott zu wissen behaupten‘?“85

85

Ritter, Dionys (wie Anm. 13), 145f., mit einem Zitat von A. H. Armstrong, The Negative Theology in Later Platonism, in: H. D. Blume/F. Mann (Hg.), Platonismus und Christentum (FS f. H. Dörrie), Münster 1983 (JAC.E 10), 31-37. Ähnlich beurteilt den „Segen“ einer Begegnung zwischen Platonismus und Christentum – nach und neben Nikolaus von Kues (zit. Ritter, ebenda 147f. mit Anm. 80f.) – J. Lauster, Plato Noster. Zur Bedeutung des Platonismus für das christliche Gottesverständnis. Origenes – Nikolaus von Kues – Marsilio Ficino, in: ders./B. Oberdorfer (Hg.), Der Gott der Vernunft. Protestantismus und vernünftiger Gottesgedanke (RPT 41), Tübingen 2009, 17-34, hier: 19. 31f.

ENCOUNTERING THE OTHER ON THE WAY EGERIA AND MARCHING TOWARDS THE HOLY Pablo ARGÁRATE Catholic Theological Faculty, University of Graz

I would like to dedicate the following piece of research to my colleague Prof. Dorin Oancea, in recognition of his significant contributions to the field of ecumenical and interreligious studies. At our institute for Ecumenical Theology, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Patristics at the Catholic Theological Faculty in the University of Graz we were honoured to have him as a visiting professor for several times and profit not only of his scholarship but not least of his wonderful human aspects. The present Festschrift has the title of Gott im Anderen begegnen, “Encountering God in the Other”. It deeply reflects Prof. Oancea’s approach. The Other can only be approached in and by the other, making the experience of alterity, of leaving the own borders and limits and setting out in this difficult journey to the Otherness. From Antiquity and in the most various religious and philosophical traditions, life has been portrayed with help of the image of the voyage; a voyage to the unknown or even to the Unknown. This understanding of life as pilgrimage is not new. We find it, among other, in the writings that we consider holy. The people of God are the people that accept the harshness of walking through history towards a goal that is beyond; to a city that is not in history. In their way, however, this people is accompanied by God’s mysterious presence in the cloud, in fire, in the Tent of Encounter, in the prophets and in the Temple, and eventually in the flesh of Jesus Christ, the sancta sanctorum, the “holy place” par excellence. In the fourth century, we assist to the emergence of the new idea of “holy places” and even a “holy land” in Christianity. Until then, Christians had neither temple nor holy places. In this regard, they were an exception not having developed yet a sacred topography, present for instance in Judaism, especially in its “place”, the maqom, the Temple. It is true, that to some extent certain connection between topos and hagios was emerging for the martyria, the place where Christ in his martyrs offers again his only testimony/martyrion. The establishment of a sacred geography starts and turns around the Anastasis, the place that actually is a “not-place”, an absence rather than a presence. Gradually other topoi connected to Jesus, the apostles and the prophets emerge and progressively constitute a network of places, interconnected especially by processions and liturgies. Biblical passages are read in situ, at least according to

266

Pablo Argárate

old traditions that connect those places with the biblical events. In this context, develops the liturgical time, chiefly the liturgical year. Against this background, Christians from all the oikoumene, i.e. the now Christian empire, flow to those holy places. It is the origin of Christian pilgrimage. The world is now centered in the empty cave of the Resurrection and women and men all throughout the Roman Empire come to do the experience of the Holy in a concrete topography. Instrumental to this construction of the Holy Land, which is not limited to Palestine, is a woman coming at the end of the fourth century from the other extreme, from the Atlantic, crossing the (then known) world to experience the holy and to report in her Itinerarium those experiences to her sisters back in Galicia, the end of the world. If we leave aside the brief information provided in 333 by the Pilgrim of Bordeaux, this woman, Egeria is the first one to offer a developed presentation of the Holy Places. In this sense, she is the first to furnish us with an Ostkunde. The Itinerarium1 is part of a series of travels and pilgrimages to Palestine2. Around 160, we already find that of Meliton of Sardis. During the 3rd century, 1

L’editio princeps is by G.F. Gamurrini, S. Hilarii Tractatus de mysteriis et hymni et S. Silviae Aquitanae Peregrinatio ad loca sancta quae inedita ex codices Arretino deprompsit... Roma 1887. After that, there is the edition by P. Geyer (ed.), S. Silviae quae fertur Peregrinatio ad loca sancta, in Itinera Hierosolymitana saeculi III-VIIII (CSEL 39), Vienna 1898, 35-101; Another critical edition is that by E. Franceschini, Aetheriae Peregrinatio ad loca sancta. Padua 1940, reworked and improved in E. Franceschini and R. Weber, Itinerarium Egeriae, in Itineraria et alia geographica. Turnholti 1958, p. 29-103 (CCL 175). Sources Chrétiennes published two editions with a French translation. First, in 1944 that by H. Pétré. Éthérie. Journal de voyage. Latin text, introduction and translation. Paris 1948; the second edition is that by P. Maraval, based on the collation of the manuscript made by R. Weber. Égérie. Journal de voyage. Introduction, texte critique, traduction, notes, index et cartes par Pierre Maraval (Sources chrétiennes 296). Paris 1982, reprinted 1997. W. Heraeus, Silviae uel potius Aetheriae Peregriantio ad loca sancta, Heidelberg 1908. 19394. O. Prinz, Itinerarium Egeriae (Peregrinatio Aetheriae). Heidelberg 1960. Another edition and German translation can be found in Itinerarium = Reisebericht. Mit Auszügen aus De locis sanctis = Die heiligen Stätten von Petrus Diaconus; übersetzt und eingeleitet von Georg Röwekamp unter Mitarbeit von Dietmar Thönnes. Freiburg; New York: Herder, 20172. Also W. Heraeus, Silviae uel potius Aetheriae Peregriantio ad loca sancta, Heidelberg 1908. 19394. O. Prinz, Itinerarium Egeriae (Peregrinatio Aetheriae). Heidelberg 1960, and K. Brodersen (ed.), Aetheria/Egeria, Reise ins heilige Land (Sammlung Tusculum), Berlín-Boston, 2016. Edition and Spanish translation by A. Arce, Egeria. Itinerario de la virgen Egeria (381-384) (Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 416). Madrid 1980. In Italian, Egeria. Diario di viaggio. Introduzione, traduzione e note di Elena Giannarelli. Torino: Edizioni Paoline, 1992 et P. Siniscalco-L. Scarampi, Egeria. Pellegrinaggio in Terra Santa (Collana di Testi patristici 48), Roma 1985. In Catalan, S. Janeras, Egèria. Pelegrinatge. Barcelona 1986. In Portuguese, Maria Cristina da Silva Martins, Peregrinação de Egéria. Uma narrativa de viagem aos lugares santos, Uberlândia-MG 2017. In Romanian, M. Runcan– C. L. Frisan, Egeria, Pelerinaj în Locuri Sfinte. Itinerariu și Liturghie AD 381-384, Tărgu Lapuș 20092. In English, Egeria's travels, newly translated with supporting documents and notes by John Wilkinson. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1999. The

Encountering the Other on the Way

267

Origen will show an interest in these places, but from a particularly scientific perspective. In the 4th century, we have the story of the Pilgrim of Bordeaux who provides a brief account (the Burdigalense Itinerarium) containing rather little detail on what he finds in 333 in the biblical places. His testimony is, however, useful for a comparison to what Egeria describes fifty years later. Between these two dates, the baptismal catecheses of Bishop Cyril from the middle of the century contain some information on the situation in Jerusalem. The mystagogical catecheses of the same Cyril or his successor John in the eighties and later provide a complement to the journal of Egeria. Finally, we must mention the rich testimony of the Armenian Lectionary of Jerusalem, written in the period after the death of John (417-438). The journal3 of Egeria4 disappeared for seven centuries, but in 1884, the anonymous manuscript5 was found6 (regrettably, only a third of the entire text7)

2

3 4 5 6 7

last English translation, which I use in this article, is the one by A. McGowan and P. Bradshaw, The Pilgrimage of Egeria. A New Translation of the Itinerarium Egeriae with Introduction and Commentary. Collegeville, MN, 2018. The Itinerarium has been translated so far into the following languages: Russian, French, Italian, English, Danish, Greek, German, Spanish, Bulgarian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Catalan, Galician, Dutch, Norwegian, Arabic, Hungarian, Hebrew, Swedish and Serbian. Cf. S. Janeras i Vilaró, “Nova bibliografia Egeriana”, in Revista Catalana de Teología 3/1 (2018), 196-197. Cf. H. Drobner, Die Palästina-Itinerarien der Alten Kirche, Augustinianum 38 (1998), 293354; Dietz, Maribel. Itinerant Spirituality and the Late Antique Origins of Christian Pilgrimage, in Travel, communication and geography in late antiquity: sacred and profane, edited by Linda Ellis and Frank L. Kidner. Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2004, 125-134; Dietz, Maribel. Wandering monks, virgins, and pilgrims: ascetic travel in the Mediterranean world, A.D. 300-800. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005; E. Hunt, Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Later Roman Empire 312-460. Oxford: Claredon, 1982; P. Maraval, Lieux saints et pèlerinages d’Orient. Histoire et géographie des origines a la conquête arabe. Paris, 1982; H. Sivan, “Holy Land Pilgrimage and Western Audiences: Some Reflections on Egeria and Her Circle,” in The Classical Quarterly, New Series, 38, 2 (1988), 528-535; H. Sivan, Palestine in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008; J. Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades. Warminster, England : Aris & Phillips, 2002; P. Maraval, Égérie et Grégoire de Nysse, pèlerins aux lieux saints de Palestine, 315-332. F. Cardini, La Gerusalemme di Egeria e il pellegrinaggio dei cristiani d’Occidente in Terrasanta fra IV e V secolo, Atti del convegno internazionale sulla Peregrinatio Egeriae. Nel centenario della pubblicazione del Codex Aretinus 405 (già Aretinus VI, 3). Arezzo 23-25 ottobre 1987. Arezzo 1990, 333-343. While the early editions are entitled peregrinatio, today the preference is for itinerarium. Cf. F. Fabrini, La cornice storica della „Peregrinatio Egeriae“, Atti, 21-75. The manuscript also contains Tractatus de mysteriis and the Hymni of S. Hilarius. For the manuscript, cf. A. Arce, Itinerario, pp. 35-62. A. Campana, La storia della scoperta del codice aretino nel carteggio Gamurrini-De Rossi, Atti, 77-84; L. Melani, Sul ms. 405 della Biblioteca di Arezzo, Atti, 85-92. Beginning and end miss as well as a page at 25,6 between Pentecost and the beginning of Epiphany. There are also some missing fragments. Regarding the lost part, cf. P. Maraval, Égérie, 56-117. Regarding structure, P. Smiraglia, Il testo di Egeria: problemi di struttura, Atti, 93-108.

268

Pablo Argárate

and published soon after by Gamurrini8. Although the publisher attributed the work to a certain Sylvia, scholars quickly identified Egeria9 (or Etheria) as the author of the text, from the letter of the Galician eremite Valerius to the monks of Bierzo in the seventh century10. Egeria addresses the dominae sorores11, a community of nuns (or perhaps members of a circle of religious women of high society12) by informing them about the holy places and the holy people she comes across during her pilgrimage. She is a woman 13 who, coming from Galicia (rather than from Aquitaine)14, visited Palestine and the Biblical places in the period of years 381-38415, that means during the last years of Cyril's episcopate. Let us see now how Valerius, who had the entire Itinerarium, introduces and portrays Egeria. First, he praises the “manly” deeds of the “beatissime Egerie” 8

9

10

11

12

13 14

15

G.F. Gamurrini, S. Hilarii Tractatus de mysteriis et hymni et S. Silviae Aquitanae Peregrinatio ad loca sancta quae inedita ex codices Arretino deprompsit... Roma 1887; G.F. Gamurrini, S. Silviae Aquitanae Peregrinatio ad loca sancta, in Studi e Documenti di Storia e Diritto 9, 1988, 97-174. Cf. H. Sivan. “Who Was Egeria? Piety and Pilgrimage in the Age of Gratian,” in: The Harvard Theological Review, 81,1 (1988), 59-72; S. Janeras, Contributo alla bibliografia egeriana, Atti, 355-366. Epistola beatissime Egerie lauvde conscripta fratrum bergidensium monachorum a Valerio conlata. Valérius du Bierzo. Lettre sur la Bse Égérie. Introduction, texte et traduction par Manuel C. Díaz y Díaz, in Égérie, 321-349. Regarding linguistic aspects, cf. V. Väänänen, Le Journal-Épitre d'Égérie (Itinerarium Egeriae): Étude linguistique. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987; C. Milani, Note di linguistica egeriana, Atti, 109-136; A. Nocentini, L’uso dei dimostrativi nella Peregrinatio Egeriae e la genesi dell’articolo romanzo, Atti, 137-158; V. Väänänen, I due livelli del linguaggio orale nell’Itinerarium Egeriae, Atti, 159-166. G.F.M. Vermeer, Observations sur le vocabulaire du pèlerinage chez Égérie et chez Antonin de Plaisance. Utrecht 1965. J.J. Iso Echegoyen, La “Peregrinatio Egeriae”: Una concordancia. Zaragoza 1987. Cf. P. Maraval. Égérie, 27: Tout cela permet au moins de se demander si Égérie n’est pas plutôt, elle aussi, de ces dames pieuses que nous évoquions plus haut, plus ou moins rattachées à un de ces cercles qui souvent, certes, évolueront vers la vie monastique, mais qu’on ne peut encore appeler des religieuses au sens strict ». On p. 38 he adds : « Restent en discussion sa patrie – le dus de la Gaule ou la Galice -, ses liens avec des personnages connus, sa véritable condition – simple religieuse, abbesse ou grande dame attirée par la vie monastique ». Beatissima sanctimonialis. Valérius, epist. I,10-11. However, her way of life and of traveling is not easily reconciled with ascetic life. In the Itinerarium 19,5 at Edessa the bishop addresses Egeria, saying : ''As I see, daughter, that you have taken on yourself such great labor for the sake of piety that you have come to these places from the farthest distant lands (de extremis porro terris uenires ad haec loca)…” Valerius writes about Egeria : « though a native of Ocean’s western shore, she became familiar with the East (Que extremo occidui maris oceani litore exorta, Orienti facta est cognita ) » (V, 7-8). Cf. E.D. Hunt, “The Date of the Itinerarium Egeriae”, St. Patr 38 (2001), 410-416. Also, P. Devos, "La date du voyage d'Égérie." Analecta Bollandiana 85 (1967): 165-194; P. Devos, Il y a vingt ans. Les années du pèlerinage d’Égerie 381-384. Souvenirs du mois de février 1967, Atti, 305-314.

Encountering the Other on the Way

269

We revere the valorous achievements of the mighty saints who were men, but we are amazed when still more courageous deeds are achieved by weak womanhood, such deeds as are indeed described in the remarkable history of the most blessed Egeria, who by her courage outdid the men of any age whatever16

He introduces her as a nun (sanctimonialis), who coming from the extreme West, has crossed the world in an immensum iter, an immense journey. At that point of time when at length the gracious dawn of the catholic faith was seen, and after long delay our holy religion arrived with its bright and endless light at this part of the furthest West, a longing for God's grace set on fire the heart of this most blessed nun Egeria. In the strength of the glorious Lord she fearlessly set out on an immense journey to the other side of the world. 17

This journey is, however, biblically motivated. Having prepared herself for a long time through a profound reading of the biblical books, Egeria finally undertakes this many-years trip towards the biblical places First with great industry she perused all the books of the Old and New Testaments, and discovered all its descriptions of the holy wonders of the world; and its regions, provinces, cities, mountains, and deserts. Then in eager haste (though it was to take many years) she set out, with God's help, to explore them18. Valerius expresses always throughout his letter Egeria’s longing for those places that are portrayed as “holy”, the loca sancta. These relate to the salvation history, culminating in the life of Jesus Christ. However, true to the content of the Itinerarium, the monk of Bierzo adds here the martyria, the tombs of the martyrs, as goal of Egeria’s journey alongside the biblical sites. Guided by God she pressed on until after a time she reached what she had longed for, the most holy places of the birth, passion, and resurrection of the Lord (peruenit ad sacratissima et desiderabilia loca natiuitatis, passionis et resurrectionis Domini), and of the bodies of countless holy martyrs in many different provinces and cities19.

Carrying with her the Bible20 (and sometimes showing knowledge of the Onomastikon of Eusebius of Caesarea) among other sources21 and centered on

16 17

18 19 20

Valerius, Epist, 1, 3-7. J. Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land. Warminster 1981, 174. Valerius, Epist, 1, 10-13. Wilkinson, 174: Itaque dum olim almifica fidei catholice crepundia lucifluaque sacre religionis inmensa claritas huius occidue plage sera processione tandem refulsisset extremitas, idem beatissima sanctimonialis Egeria flamma desiderii gratie diuine succensa, maiestatis Domini opitulante uirtute, totis nisibus intrepido corde inmensum totius orbis arripuit iter. Valerius, Epist, 1, 20-26. Wilkinson, 175 Valerius, Epist, 1, 13-18. Wilkinson, 174. Egeria quotes from the Bible one hundred times. A. Tafi, Egeria e la Bibblia, Atti,167-176; R. Gelsomino, Egeria 381-384 d.C.: dalle Radici Romane alle Radici bibliche, Atti, 243-304.

270

Pablo Argárate

Jerusalem, Egeria also visits Egypt twice, the various regions of Palestine and, before returning to Constantinople, she takes a detour to Antioch to go to Edessa22. Indeed, the Itinerarium provides an organized account of these journeys (to Sinai and back [1,1-9,7], to Mount Nebo [10,1-12,11], to the tomb of Job [13,1-16,7], and to Mesopotamia [17,1-21,5] and back to Constantinople [22,1-23,10]). They occupy the first part of the text (1-23) that has come down to us. They witness to the deep interest of Egeria in the biblical places and, very importantly, the strong relation between sacred text and topography. The texts are thus re-placed in their own biblical location. The events of the sacred history are re-connected to their geography. Throughout this first part Egeria repeats again and again what is her “custom” in this regard23. “For it was anyway our custom (consuetudinis) that whenever we were about to visit places we desired, first prayer was made there, then the reading was read from the codex, also one psalm relevant to the matter (pertinens ad rem) was recited and prayer was made there again. So, by God’s will we have always kept this custom whenever we have been able to arrive at places we desired”24

In this first part of the Itinerarium, Egeria places main emphasis upon the loca, attempting to re-create in situ the experience of the biblical text, which is now located by its reading in situ at the locum sanctum25. In this sense we could speak of a certain topical mimesis. Coming to the places – at least as she or they believed to be26 - the scriptural passage was read. However, this remembrance is more than this since the reading is preceded and followed by prayers; the passage is placed now within a liturgical context. In the above-quoted text, 21 22

23

24 25

26

Arce suggests that is possible that Egeria was also familiar with the Historia Ecclesiastica of the same Eusebius and in some instances with the Vita constantinii. A. Arce, Itinerario, 43-46. Cf. M. Piccirillo, Il pellegrinaggio di Egeria al Monte Nebo in Arabia, Atti, 193-214; P. Testini, Egeria e il S. Sepolcro di Gerusalemme. Qualche appunto per il traduttore, Atti, 215230; A. M. di Nino, Sul Sinai con Egeria, 343-354. Itinerarium,1,2; 3,6; 4,3 (“whenever we came, the [relevant] passage from the book should always be read); 4,5 (“So, that passage from the book of Moses was read there and one psalm appropriate to the place [aptus loco] was recited; and then having made prayer, we descended from there”); 10,7; 11,3;12,3; 15,4 (“Then at that spring, as also in every place, prayer was made and the reading read, a suitable psalm [psalmus competens] was also recited and we also did there everything that it was our custom to do wherever we came to holy places [ad loca sancta])”. Itinerarium,10,7. P. Walker, Holy City, Holy Places? Christian Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the Fourth Century, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990; P. Walker, “Jerusalem and the Holy Land in the 4th Century”, in: Anthony O’Mahony, Goran Gunner and Kevork Hintlian (eds.), The Christian Heritage in the Holy Land. London, 1995, 22-34; MacCormack, Sabine. « ‘Loca Sancta’: The Organization of Sacred Topography in Late Antiquity », in Robert Ousterhout (ed.), The Blessing of Pilgrimage. Urbana/Chicago, 1990, 7-40. Although not always Egeria or better her informants are able to identify the right spot. Some other times, Egeria points out that changes either in topography or in the names had taken place between the biblical event and the place visited by her.

Encountering the Other on the Way

271

Egeria relates the psalm (and the reading as well) to the place. There is an inner relation between both. This is expressed here with the expression pertinens ad rem. The biblical text (regular reading or psalm) and even the preceding and closing prayers co-respond each other. They refer mutually. The biblical passage is re-enacted and actualized by its reading in its “pertinent” or natural space. Even more significant is a previous passage, when Egeria has reach at the Horeb to the place where Aaron stayed with seventy elders while Moses has been receiving the Law. In this context, she writes: So, that passage from the book of Moses was read there and one psalm appropriate to the place (dictus unus psalmus aptus loco) was recited; and then having made prayer, we descended from there 27

The inner relation is now described with the adjective aptus. Having this in mind, we will clearly find a continuity with the second part of the Itinerarium. In the first part of the Itinerarium, it is clearly the loca which stand in the center. The Itinerarium is the report of a pilgrim. In the locus, access to the biblical event is provided through the medium of the biblical reading, which turns into a sort of liturgical event. In this part, time remains in the background of space and is clearly secondary, limited to describe the movements from one to another biblical site, the period Egeria stayed in one place28 or even implicitly the period that Egeria has ahead in her life in the hope of carrying out her remaining journeys29. In the second part of the Itinerarium that has come down to us (24-49), Egeria is no longer journeying outside Jerusalem but inside it through the its stational liturgy and processions. Topography is here explicitly liturgical. The ritual actions create a network of dynamic sacred topography in Jerusalem and its surroundings. Subjects are no longer only Egeria and her reduced entourage but the entire and complex local population with many other pilgrims as well. Indeed, beyond Egeria’s information about the biblical sites outside Jerusalem and surroundings (that were described in the first part of the Itinerarium), it is the second part that provides the fundamental relevance of Egeria’s diary. This is much more than a travel dairy but mainly a liturgical journey to what became few decades before Egeria the center of the Christian world. It allows us to know the status of the liturgy in Jerusalem at the end of the fourth century. This liturgy although clearly Antiochene shows in the meantime some divergences from this general type. Considered in itself, it displays also a clear evolution from the situation described by the pilgrim of Bordeaux (333) or also by the baptismal catechesis of Cyril (349) and showing some differences with the later 27 28

29

Itinerarium, 4,4. For instance, her sojourn in Jerusalem of three years in Itinerarium, 17,1 (“Then in the name of God, having passed some time, when there had now been three full years since I came to Jerusalem, also having seen all the holy places to which I had headed for the sake of prayer, my intention was to return to my country”) or some stops in her journey cf. 19,3. Cf. Itinerarium, 23,10.

272

Pablo Argárate

Armenian Lectionary30. This evolution patent in Egeria must be related to the liturgical activity of Bishop Cyril. For example, the Itinerarium shows that the role of monks and ascetics has developed significantly. From a cathedral rite, we are clearly moving, through the multiplication of offices, to a monastic rite. In order to name only one example, we can see the Saturday mass of Lent, which was held very early due to the fast of the ascetics. At the same time, the liturgy described by Egeria is very close to the context of the Mystagogical Catecheses and the Armenian lectionary, and this relation allows us to fill the gaps in the text of the Itinerarium with information proceeding form these two documents. The liturgical section (i.e. the second part of the Itinerarium), at least in the present state of the text, is also divided into two further sections. In the first and shorter one (24-25,6), Egeria describes the various liturgical offices of the week. In this framework, she begins by stating the main purpose of the entire second part of the Itinerarium: “So that your affection may know what is the regular ritual each day in the holy places (operatio singulis diebus cotidie in locis sanctis), I must make you aware, knowing that you would eagerly wish to know this” 31

From the very outset besides the traditional locis sanctis, which constituted the center of the first part, reference is made here to time (diebus cotidie). Both provide the framework, in which liturgical actions take place. I have already pointed out in reference to the first part, how even the mere biblical reading at the diverse sites had an implicit liturgical character. Now, in this second part, this liturgical dimension becomes explicit. It is the liturgical action, which also through the biblical reading re-enacts the biblical event. The liturgical action, presented in the above-quoted passage as operatio, constitutes one main interest of Egeria’s readers back home. In her description, she will provide the daily, weekly, and annual cycle as celebrated in Jerusalem. Regarding the daily cycle32, we have the vigil (expressed with the verb vigilare)33, after which hymns, psalms and antiphons are recited. With the coming of light, “morning hymns” (matutinos ymnos)34 take place. Later on, we find the minor “hours” of sexta and nona35. A more detailed presentation refers to vespers (transcribing Greek licinicon or in Latin lucernare), which, starting at the tenth hour, takes place also at the Anastasis and, concluding by a procession to the Cross and after blessings and prayers there, everybody goes behind the 30

31 32 33 34 35

Cf. Athanase Renoux (Hg.), Le codex arménien Jérusalem 121. II. Édition comparée du texte et de deux autres manuscrits. Introduction, textes, traduction et notes (PO 36/2 = 168), Turnhout 1971. Itinerarium, 24,1. Cf. Itinerarium, 24, 1-7. Cf. Itinerarium, 24, 1 Corresponding to our Laudes or morning prayer. Cf. Itinerarium, 24, 2. Cf. Itinerarium, 24, 3.

Encountering the Other on the Way

273

Cross, finally returning to the Anastasis36. Egeria closes this section, by stating that these rituals take place every day except Sunday: “This regular ritual (haec operatio cotidie) is held on the six days at the Cross and at the Anastasis”.37

Liturgy was celebrated on Sundays and Saturdays, with the addition of Wednesday and Friday afternoon during the Lent time. Those days were fasting time throughout the year, with the exception of the Easter time. It has been noticed that Egeria pays in this part relatively little attention to the celebration of the Eucharist (which is referred to by different names, mostly oblatio, but also missa and sacramenta38), perhaps because its structure was already known to her readers39. Afterwards (24,8-25,6), she describes the services on Sunday (and with this -at least partially - the weekly cycle): vigils40, morning prayer with a first Eucharist at the Martyrium and then another41 at the Anastasis; ending the whole office around noon. Egeria continues briefly describing the Lucernare,42 preannouncing afterwards the section on the liturgical year. “So this custom is observed every day throughout the whole year, except on feast days, and how it is done on those days we will describe below” 43.

The second section (25,7-49,3) contains the first evidence of a fairly developed state of the liturgical year. The influence of the development of the liturgy of Jerusalem, and especially of its holy week upon the Christian world since the fourth century was enormous. Indeed, Egeria refers to the feast of the Epiphany44 (there is still no Nativity45), its octave46 and the Lord's Presentation to the Temple, though without using that name, but simply stating: Sane quadragesimae de epiphania ualde cum summo honore hic celebrantur47. After that, the text deals with Easter48 including its preparation, Lent49, especially of the Holy Week 50(preceded by Lazarus’ Saturday51), fasting52, and the Easter 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Cf. Itinerarium, 24, 4-7. Itinerarium, 24,7. Cf. C. Basevi, Vocabulario Litúrgico del “Itinerarium Egeriae”, Helmantica. Salamanca XXXVI (1985), 33-34. Cf. Röwekamp, 74. Itinerarium, 24,8-12. Or perhaps two parts of the same Eucharist. Itinerarium, 25, 5-6. Itinerarium, 26,5. Cf. Itinerarium, 25, 6-10. Although this appears to be celebrated in Antioch at that time. Cf. Itinerarium, 25, 11-12. Cf. Itinerarium, 25. Cf. Itinerarium, 39. Cf. Itinerarium, 27-38. Cf. Itinerarium, 30-38 Cf. Itinerarium, 29,2-6.

274

Pablo Argárate

celebration throughout the fifty days (here there is a mention of a feast on the fortieth day53, which is not the Ascension because this feast is celebrated with the outpouring of the Spirit on the fiftieth day of Easter54), and the return to regular time. The diary closes with the description of the baptismal preparation process55, the baptismal and mystagogical catecheses56 and, finally, the celebration of the consecration (the Encaenia) of the Golgotha Church, the Martyrium57. After this long introduction, I will focus now upon the first part and concretely in Egeria’s trip to Egypt. Egeria will not be the only one to pilgrim to Egypt. Among others we will have the Pilgrim of Piacenza (ca. 570) and before him, Jerome and Paula, already established in Palestine. We have also the detailed and rich information provided by the Historia monachorum in Aegypto58. Besides both provinces of Thebaid, some have gone even southern to Tabennese or the great Oasis; in the entire country there are monastic communities. The main goal of these kind of journeys is foremost monastic. However, at least in the case of Egeria, the biblical sites are also included and have a great relevance. As already stated, the first part of Egeria’s Itinerarium (1-23), at least in the form of the text that has come down to us, deals with Egeria’s journeys outside Jerusalem (to Sinai and back [1,1-9,7], to Mount Nebo [10,1-12,11], to the tomb of Job [13,1-16,7], and to Mesopotamia [17,1-21,5] and back to Constantinople [22,1-23,10]). The first section of this part reports Egeria’s trip to the Sinai and back [1,19,7]59. Due to the fact that the first part of the Itinerarium is missing, the extant text begins with Egeria already at the valley in front of Sinai. From there, the travelogue presents her visit to the Sinai and her way back through Pharan to Clysma. Having arrived back to Clysma, she wants to make a slight detour in order to pay a visit to Goshem. In this context, she writes: Although I had indeed already known the land of Goshen, that is, when I was first in Egypt, yet so that I might look at all the places that the children of Israel had reached on their way when leaving Rameses until they arrived at the Red 52

53 54 55 56 57 58 59

Cf. Itinerarium, 27, 9-28,4. Cf. P. Argárate, “Unusquisque ut potest id facit. Les pratiques de jeûne à Jérusalem d’après le témoignage de l’Itinerarium Aegeriae”, in A. Lossky & G. Sekulovski,(eds), Jeûne et pratiques de repentance: dimension communautaires et liturgiques. Semaines d´Études Liturgiques Saint Serge, 58. Münster 2015, 115-128. Cf. Itinerarium, 42. Cf. Itinerarium, 43. Cf. Itinerarium, 45. Cf. Itinerarium, 46-47. Cf. Itinerarium, 48-49. Cf. P. Maraval,“Les itinéraires de pèlerinage en Orient (entre le IVe et le VIIe s.),” JAC Supplement 20 (1995), 297. According to Wilkinson, 29, this journey should have taken place from November 383 until January 384.

Encountering the Other on the Way

275

Sea, at the place that is called Oysma from the fort that is there, so it was my desire that we should go from Clysma to the land of Goshen, that is, to the city that is called Arabia, which is in the land of Goshen; for from that the territory itself is so called, that is, "the land of Arabia, the land of Goshen," although it is part of the land of Egypt, but is much better than all Egypt 60.

Two chapters below, when Egeria returns to the city of “Arabia”, the text says: By chance it turned out very gratifyingly for us that the day when we came to the staging post in Arabia was the day before the most blessed day of the Epiphany; for on that same day a vigil was to be held in the church, Thus, the holy bishop, a holy and true man of God, well known to me already from the time I had been in the Thebaid, kept us there some two days 61.

Few lines afterwards, she continues: And although I had already known those places, as I said above, that is, when I had been in Alexandria and the Thebaid (et licet ea loca, ut superius dixi, iam nosse, id est quando Alexandriam vel ad Thebaidem fueram), yet because I 62 wished to learn fully about the places where the children of Israel journeyed .

In this way, it is clear that Egeria has visited Egypt twice. The trip to Sinai, which will not be studied here63 and with which the Itinerarium begins, is preceded by another journey to the main country rather than to “God’s mountain”. That first visit is, nevertheless, not recorded in the extant part of the Itinerarium and should have been described in the lost section at the very beginning of the book. From the above-quoted passages we know at least that Egeria had been in this land of Goshen and also in Alexandria and the Thebaid. Beyond these affirmations, the extant part of the travelogue says nothing else. As for other missing information, we need also here to rely upon other sources, chiefly the letter of the monk Valerius of Bierzo and De locis sanctis of Peter the Deacon of the twelfth century64. Valerius presents indeed in the second chapter of his letter, Egeria’s journey to the Sinai, following the way of the Israelites out of Egypt, assisted by the book of Exodus. Then at length, moved by the longing for a pilgrimage to pray at the most sacred Mount of the Lord (posthec sacratissimi montis Domini, gratia orationis, desiderio denique inflammata), she followed in the footsteps of the children of Israel when they went forth from Egypt. She travelled into each of the vast wildernesses and tracts of desert which are set forth in the Book of Exodus 65 60 61 62 63 64

65

Itinerarium,7,1. Itinerarium,9,1. Itinerarium, 9,5-7. Cf. for instance Z. Rubin, Sinai in the Itinerarium Egeriae, Atti, 177-192 R. Weber (ed.), Petri Diaconi liber de locis sanctis, in Itineraria et alia Geographica (CCL 175) Turnholt, 1965, 93-103.English Translation in John Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land. Warminster 19812, 179-210. None of them, however, refer to Alexandria in their reports. Valerius, Epist, 2, 1-5. Wilkinson175

Pablo Argárate

276

In the previous chapter of his letter, he makes reference to a trip to the Thebaid, whose purpose was to meet there the monks. Valerius speaks of a “great desire of the saints of the Thebaid”. At length she penetrated the East, and there, according to her earnest desire, she visited the coenobia of the glorious congregations of holy monks in the Thebaid (sanctorum summo cum desiderio Thebeorum), and likewise the holy cells of the anachoretae. Much fortified by the blessings of so many saints, and refreshed by the sweet nourishment of their charity, she left them, and went on to visit all the provinces of Egypt (ad cunctas Egypti conuerit prouincias). With the greatest application she sought out, and then elegantly described, all the places where the children of Israel had lived during their ardent wanderings, the extent of each province, the marvellous fertility of the land, and the remarkable buildings and other sights in the cities66. In this way, Valerius does not mention any other activity of Egeria in Egypt (excluding her trip to Sinai) besides her monastic journey to the Thebaid, although he stated that she visited all the provinces. Further information on the first trip to Egypt can be obtained from Peter the Deacon, who presents the journey from Jerusalem to Egypt and back67. In it, he begins by introducing four sites of Palestine (the place where David killed Goliath, and close to Eleutheropolis the tombs of three prophets: Habakkuk, Esdras and Micah). And twenty-two miles from Jerusalem, between Socoh of Judah and Zecara Mahel, David slew Goliath the Philistine. At Bycoyca in Eleutheropolis is the tomb of the prophet Habakkuk. Fifteen miles from Eleutheropolis, at the place called Asoa, is the tomb of the holy prophet Ezra, and three miles away, at the place now called Chariasati but once Morasthi, is the tomb of the holy prophet Micah68.

After this, the report mentions the following sites in Egypt: Tanis, Memphis, the pyramids between Memphis and Babylon (Old Cairo), Heliopolis, concluding with general remarks on Egypt. Unlike Valerius, Peter does not mention any encounter with monastics but limits his report to biblical sites. In any case, the description follows the traditional way to Egypt from Jerusalem, that is through Ascalon and Pelusum, arriving to Tanis on the Nile Delta. From there on, the report follows the inverse way, moving from South to North (Memphis – Babylon – Heliopolis). Egeria seems to be coming from Upper Egypt, i.e. from the Thebaid. From Tanis, Peter refers the palace of the Pharaoh, where Moses lived, and the fields of Tanis, where Moses performed miracles in front of the Pharaoh69. 66 67 68 69

Valerius, Epist, 1, 21-36, Wilkinson, 175 Petrus Diaconus, V7-Y3. Wilkinson, 202-203. Petrus Diaconus, V9. Cf. Ex 7-11; Ps 78,12: LXX Ps 77,12.

Encountering the Other on the Way

277

Another palace is situated in Memphis, this time linked to Joseph70, and six miles away from that city the so-called “throne of Moses and Aaron” (which are situated on the top of a huge mountain), the fields where the Israelites manufactured bricks and, close to them, the place where St. Mary lived with the Lord, when they were in Egypt. Taphnis is on the bank of the River Nile. The palace of Pharaoh is there, where Moses was when they took him to be the son of Pharaoh's daughter. Also in that place are the fields of Taphnis (et ca[m]pi Tanei sunt) 71 where holy Moses worked his wonders before Pharaoh72.

Egeria seems to have entered Egypt through Pelusium (Tell el-Farama) and have gone to Taphnis, which stood on the Pelusiac arm of the Nile, which has since dried up. It was also on the main road from Pelusium to Memphis73. Taphnis comes in Jer 43, 8-9 as Tahpanhes: Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah in Tahpanhes: “Take in your hands large stones and hide them in the mortar in the pavement that is at the entrance to Pharaoh’s palace in Tahpanhes, in the sight of the men of Judah.

Egeria herself, returning from Sinai, had already referred to Taphnis, stating that it was there the birthplace of Moses as well as capital of the Pharaoh. Thus, making our way from the city of Arabia for two days entirely through the land of Goshen, we arrived at Tathnis (Tatnis), the city where holy Moses was born. This is the city of Tathnis, which was once the capital city of Pharaoh. And although I had already known those places, as I said above, that is, when I had been in Alexandria and the Thebaid (et licet ea loca, ut superius dixi, iam nosse, id est quando Alexandriam vel ad Thebaidem fueram), yet because I wished to learn fully about the places where the children of Israel journeyed when setting out from Rameses as far as the mountain of God, holy Sinai, it was necessary also then to return to the land of Goshen and from there to Tathnis. So, setting out from Tathnis, journeying by the route I already knew (ambulans per iter iam notum), I arrived at Pelusium. And then, setting out from there, making my way through each of the staging posts of Egypt through which we had been before (per quas iter habueramus), I arrived at the border of Palestine. And from there in the name of Christ our God, stopping then at several staging posts across Palestine, I returned to Aelia, that is, to Jerusalem74.

70 71

72 73 74

Cf. Gen 41. Wilkinson translates here: “is the head-quarters” following the manuscript reading “capitaney”. However, Marval, referring to Ps 78,12 corrects the text to campi Tanei. Jerome in his letter 108,14 speaks of: transeam… campos Taneos. Cf. Röwekamp, 345, note 97. Petrus Diaconus, V 9. Wilkinson 203. Cf. Wilkinson, 203 footnote 3. Itinerarium, 9,5-7.

278

Pablo Argárate

Egeria seems to mistake Taphnis (today Tell Defenneh) with the biblical Tanis/Zoan75 (today identified with the ruins of San el-Hagar) that is 30 km Northwest from Tell Defenneh. Egeria identifies it with the birthplace of Moses due to the fact that it was the residence place of the Pharaoh76. Peter the Deacon makes the same connection. Taphnis is on the bank of the River Nile. The palace of Pharaoh is there, where Moses was when they took him to be the son of Pharaoh's daughter (ubi sanctus Moyses pro filio filie Pharaonis habebatur) 77.

The next place to be mentioned is Memphis, in the South and, as already expressed, the direction of the narrative is now northbound. Three sites are introduced: the Pharao’s palace, the “thrones” and the village of Mary. Also Memphis still contains the palace where holy Joseph so often used to go. Six miles from there, facing the bank of the River Nile, is the throne of Moses and Aaron. These thrones are on a lofty mountain where there are two turrets with many steps leading to the top. One of them has a roof, but it was to the top of the other one (which has no roof) that Moses used to climb when he encouraged the children of Israel during their oppression (cum deprimerentur). In the other he prayed (in alia vero orabat)78. All round is the plain where the children of Israel made bricks, and a mile away on the river bank is the village where holy Mary stayed with the Lord when she went to Egypt (ubi sancta Maria cum Domino fuit, quando in Egyptum perrexit) 79.

The Pharao’s palace is linked to Joseph’s attendance to it and his interpretation of Pharao’s dreams in Gen 41. In addition to this, although there is no archaeological evidence for the mentioned turrets, the plain between Memphis and Gizeh is full of the remains of ancient and more recent brick buildings 80. The reference to Israel making bricks is Ex 1:14. The Bible, however, does not provide the location neither for the palace nor for the place of oppression of Israel. Locating Moses at Tanis or at Memphis could be due to concurrent local traditions81. Finally, Peter refers to the holy Family’s sojourn in Egypt. Other authors of the 4th-5th centuries such as Palladius82 or Sozomenus83, however, situated this site in southern Hermopolis or even in Cairo, Heracleopolis, Heliopolis and other places84. 75

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

Cf. Num 13:22: “They went up into the Negeb and came to Hebron. Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the descendants of Anak, were there. (Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt)”. Röwekamp, 158-159, note 63. Petrus Diaconus, V 9. Wilkinson 203. Better than Wilkinson’s: “The other one he used for prayer”. Petrus Diaconus, Y1. Wilkinson, 203-204 Cf. Wilkinson, 204, note 3 Cf. Maraval, Égérie, 83, note 3. Hist. Monach, 8,6. Hist. Eccl. V,21,9 Cf. J.Maspero, Histoire des patriarches d’Alexandrie. Paris, 1923, 25. See also P. Maraval, Égérie, 84, note 1.

Encountering the Other on the Way

279

The next stage brings the pyramids and, in Heliopolis, the houses of Potiphar and Assenec, as well as the “Garden of the Sun” with its column. In the twelve-mile stretch between Memphis and Babylonia are many pyramids, which Joseph made in order to store corn. Heliopolis is twelve miles from Babylonia, and has in the centre a large piece of ground which contains the Temple of the Sun. Potiphar's (Petefre) house is there, and between this and the Temple is Asenath's (Asennec) house. The inner wall of the city is of a considerable age, as old as the Temple, or the houses of Asenath and Potiphar, and like them it is made of stone. In the same place is the Garden of the Sun, with the great column called the Bomon, where the Phoenix used to settle after five hundred years85.

Babylonia is the name of an ancient Roman castrum. Old Cairo (Fustat from fossatum, “moated”) is built around it. Strabo ca. 20 B.C. is the first to mention Babylonia. The connection between the pyramids and Joseph is made by several early Christian authors such as Julius Honorius, Cosmographia, Palladius86 or even later Gregory of Tours87, and it may be the explanation given by the Christian guides. Heliopolis, situated 20 km north of Babylon, is the Greek name of On, mentioned in Gen 41:45. And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphenath-paneah. And he gave him in marriage Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On (ἱερέως ῾Ηλίου πόλεως). So Joseph went out over the land of Egypt.

Regarding the information provided about Heliopolis, it clearly proceeds from Egeria since Peter is copying verbatim the names of the Septuaginta (Πετεφρης in Gen 39:1 and for his wife Ασεννεθ in Gen 41:45). Heliopolis was the city of the god Re, whose symbol was the obelisk, on which he settled. Herodotus referred to the legend of the Phoenix bird, according to which it burns itself on a column and rises again88. Christians, already with Clement’s First Letter89, saw in this story a type of Christ’s resurrection. In any case, Peter’s narrative seems to identify, or at least relate, Re to Phoenix. After describing all these different sites, Peter offers a summarizing statement and refers to two points before leaving to Palestine: Arabia and Pelusium. Egypt is very fertile (ubertissima), but even so the places where the children of Israel lived are better still (sunt meliora). The part of Arabia (pars Arabie) which joins up with Palestine has a road, but it is impassable (inaccessibile iter habet), since its fifteen staging-posts are in waterless areas. From Jerusalem to the holy Mount Sinai it is twenty-two staging-posts (mansiones). Pelusium is

85 86 87 88 89

Petrus Diaconus, Y2. Wilkinson, 204. Hist. Monach. 18,3: „In the region around Babylon and Memphis… I have seen Joseph’s barns, where he collected the grains at that time” Histor. I, 10. Historiae 2,73 25f.

Pablo Argárate

280

the capital of the province Augustamnica (Augustamnyca), which is a province of Egypt, and from Pelusium to Mount Sinai it is twelve staging-posts90.

About the fertility of the region, Egeria had already written: So, setting out from there, we made our way entirely through the land of Goshen, constantly among vineyards that produce wine and vineyards that produce balsam and among orchards and cultivated fields and fine gardens; we had our route entirely along the bank of the River Nile among very fertile estates that had once been the farms of the children of Israel and-what more [shall I say]?-I think I had never seen a more beautiful country than the land of Goshen91.

Biblical basis for this praise is Gen 47:6: Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Your father and your brothers have come to you,and the land of Egypt is before you; settle your father and your brothers in the best part of the land. Let them live in Goshen. And if you know of any among them with special ability, put them in charge of my own livestock.”

Peter’s mention of pars Arabie raises a problem. Does he confuse the province or Arabia with the city of that name? According to the context, it would be easier to see here the city. However highly problematic are the “fifteen stagingposts” between Arabia and Palestine since they are too much for this road. In case of being the province of Arabia the road (through the Neguev and Transjordania) is other and the staging-posts could match. Why would Egeria take though this much longer way? After this long and detailed description of the different sites in Egypt connected to Egeria, it seems time for conclusions. First of all, in the extant part of the text of the Itinerarium there are only few indirect references to Egypt, excluding the journey to Sinai. In them, Egeria mentions that she has already been in Egypt, especially in the land of Goshem and that her interest is to follow the route of Israel to the Red Sea (and eventually to Sinai). In addition to this, she mentions having been in Alexandria and the Thebaid (the last one is referred twice), from where she knew the bishop of Rameses, whom he met at this city. To this information, Valerius will delve into Egeria’s visit to the Thebaid and her interaction there with the monks, informing his readers that she continued “to visit all the provinces of Egypt”. Goal of this further visits seems to be again the sites where Israel sojourned rather than other monastic places. Peter the Deacon, on his turn, will provide a more detailed account of several places of Egypt. First of all, Tanis in the north, but afterwards moving northwards Memphis, the pyramids, Heliopolis, Arabia and the capital of the province of Augustamnica, 90 91

Petrus Diaconus, Y3-4. Wilkinson, 205. 9,4: Proficiscentes ergo inde totum per terram Gessen iter fecimus semper inter vineas, quae dant vinum, et vineas, quae dant balsamum, et inter pomaria et agros cultissimos et hortos plurimos iter habuimus totum super ripam fluminis Nili inter fundos frequentissimos, quae fuerant quondam villae filiorum Israhel. et quid plura? pulchriorem territorium puto me nusquam vidisse quam est terra Iessen.

Encountering the Other on the Way

281

Pelusium, before exiting the country. A visit to Alexandria is only mentioned by Egeria herself. Valerius and especially Peter appear to be trustworthy witnesses to the text of the Itinerarium. Egeria is following an “itinerarium” on the basis of her Bible (which seems to be close to the Vetus Latina, which is close to the Septuaginta, especially in rendering the sites names) and local guides, among which are monks, priests and bishops. Evidently, biblical Egypt is dominated by Moses, but also Joseph and eventually Mary with the Lord will appear connected to the different sites. Alongside this biblical framework, extrabiblical information comes either connected to the Bible, as the case of the pyramids, or to Egyptian religion, as the case of Phoenix. Not last, very useful information is provided about the roads and the staging-posts at that time; information which will be highly relevant for later pilgrims. I have already pointed out that the identification of the biblical sites is much more complex than one would expect and mistakes happen. Much time has passed between the events of the Bible and the visit of Egeria. Here, she fully depends on the information onsite, which is not necessarily objective. Topography and even names have changed. Local Christian traditions have come to place and these are provided to the visitorspilgrims. It is the biblical Egypt alongside the contemporary phenomenon of monasticism, and its predecessor, martyrdom, that attracted Egeria to Egypt, as will be the case also for the rest of her journeys throughout all the East. This Orient that through the “invention” of the loca sancta in the fourth century has become the center of the world, especially for somebody who came from the extremes of the world, “from the farthest distant lands”92. In her journey, pilgriming towards the holy places, marching towards the Holy, Egeria encounters in Egypt the other Christians, with their traditions that to a great extent are strange to her, even with the non-Christians: the Jews and the ancient Egyptians, at least in the past. These encounters occur on the way, in via. Connected to the journey is the exhausting march, walking towards a goal that often remains mysterious and unknown. Travelers are ex-posed or even expose themselves by leaving their comfort area, their acquaintance, with the hope that only by experiencing the other(s) they could know themselves. On their way, they fully depend of the other, of their hospitality, in other words, on the mercy of the other; in being received and nourished, not only bodily but, even more, existentially. This acquires special actuality in the current context of migrants and refugees fleeing from war and death, entirely exposed to the other, to those who like the Good Samaritan (a foreigner and an excluded himself), recognize in their dis-figuration the beauty of God’s face.

92

Itinerarium, 19,5.

LEGILE CONSTANTINIENE PRIVIND STATUTUL IUDEILOR DIN IMPERIUL ROMAN (CODEX THEODOSIANUS 16.8.1-16.8.5) Dragoş BOICU Facultatea de Teologie Ortodoxă, Universitatea „Lucian Blaga” din Sibiu

Cursurile Părintelui Profesor Dorin Oancea au reprezentat întotdeauna o provocare aparte pentru fiecare dintre studenții săi, atât prin natura inedită a temelor dezbătute – abordate dintr-o perspectivă revoluționară și transdisciplinară –, cât mai ales prin modul de prezentare, adesea foarte solicitant pentru mințile obșinuite cu livrarea unui răspuns facil și nu cu problematizarea efectivă a subiectelor. Dar dincolo de toate virtuțile intelectuale și morale ale ilustrului dascăl, am fost marcat de delicatețea cu care se oprea asupra fiecărei teme, o delicatețe străină de tonul triumfalist al Apologeticii creștine pe care o preda. Modul elegant în care se referea la celelalte confesiuni și religii, legate între ele prin succesiunea făgăduințelor divine, lăsa să se întrevadă nu doar o formă de diplomație, ci mai curând convingerea că respectul mutual între oamenii formați în diferite spații culturale, spirituale și geografice este baza oricărui dialog autentic, dar și afirmare a vocației universale a fiecărui om de a deveni fiu al lui Dumnezeu. Cu recunoştinţă pentru tot ne-aţi învăţat, vă doresc mulţi ani sănătoşi alături de cei dragi, Părinte Profesor! *** Codex Theodosianus reprezintă încă un document insuficient cunoscut și cu atât mai puțin înțeles în contextul epocii sale: referirile la colecția de legi sunt mai degrabă conjuncturale și nu există o preocupare deosebită pentru descoperirea realităților care au determinat apariția respectivelor documente. Lăsând la o parte aspectele ce țin de istoricul alcătuirii respectivului Codex1, subliniem încă o dată2 faptul că jurisconsulții cooptați pentru realizarea acestui

1

Cu privire la aspectele generale ale legislației teodosiene foarte instructivă se dovedește introducerea la Codex Theodosianus realizată de către Theodor Mommsen („Prolegomena in Theodosianum” în Theodosiani Libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis, vol. 1.1., Berlin – 1905). Pentru o bibliografie detaliată pe marginea subiectului a se vedea Dragoș Boicu,

284

Dragoş Boicu

proiect legislativ au inclus în Cartea XVI-a teme care tratează Biserica în sine cu învățătura (De fide catholica; De religione), clerul și lăcașurile de cult (De episcopis, ecclesiis et clericis; De monachis), dar și relațiile creștinilor cu ereticii (De haereticis), iudeii (De iudaeis, caelicolis et samaritanis; Ne christianum mancipium iudaeus habeat) și păgânii (De paganis, sacrificiis et templis). Temele evidențiază indubitabil că întreaga carte a XVI-a este determinată de existența unei organizări ecleziale bine definită, pe care o urmează îndeaproape, dar și de dorința de a impune creștinismul de o anumită factură (niceeană) în întregul Imperiu3. Textele relevă faptul că deja se conturase o dezvoltare instituțională a Bisericii, creștinii constituindu-și o elaborată structură birocratică care o urma îndeaproape pe cea imperială, ceea ce garanta și sprijinul autorităților civile4. Pe de altă parte Liber XVI a Codexului a fost acceptat de Biserică, fiind considerat un izvor autoritativ al dreptului canonic5. Între cele 11 teme ale cărții a XVI-a care încheie Codicele Teodosian se numără o secțiune extrem de interesantă privind legislația romană ce reglementa aspectele vieții religioase ale comunităților iudaice din Imperiu. Am putea spune că deși existau prevederi dedicate evreilor încă de la începutul perioadei principatului, totuși, abia în timpul domniei împăratului Teodosie al II-lea, aceste dispoziții sunt selecționate și sistematizate, iar cele cu conținut religios ajung să alcătuiască una dintre cele mai vaste secțiuni din Liber XVI: De Juddaeis, Caelicolis et Samaritanis (Cu privire la iudei, adoratorii cerului și samariteni)6.

2

3 4

5 6

Împăratul teodosian – patronul universalismului roman și al ecumenicității Bisericii, teză de doctorat, Doxologia, Iași, 2018, p. 39-40. Aceste elemente au fost abordate pe larg în introducerea pregătită pentru o altă secțiune. A se vedea Dragoș Boicu, „Codex Theodosianus. Liber XVI.11: De religione”, în RT 3/2019, p. 219-245. Foarte importante sunt contribuțiile lui Roland Delmaire („Introduction” în Les lois religieuses des empereures romains de Constantin à Théodose II (312-438): Code Théodosien Livre XVI, în col. SC 497, Du Cerf, Paris, 2005, p. 13-107) și Amnon Linder (The Jews in Roman imperial legislation, Wayne State University Press /·The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Detroit/Jerusalem 1987, p. 18-53). Adriaan Johan Boudewijn Sirks, The Theodosian Code: A Study, Tortuga, Amsterdam, 2007, p. 52. Caroline Humfress, „Defining the politico-religious sphere case-by-case: a comparative aproach to Late Roman and Ecclesiastical Law”, în Giovanni Alberti Cecconi (edit.), Politiche religiose nel mondo antico e tardoantico. Poteri e indirizzi, forme del controllo, idee e prassi di tolleranza, Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Firenze, 24-26 settembre 2009, Edipuglia, Bari, 2011, p. 308. Amnon Linder, op. cit., p. 33. Pe lângă monografia lui Amnon Linder, trebuie menționate pe acest subiect: Karl Leo Noethlichs, Die gesetzgeberischen Massnahmen der christlichen Kaiser des 4. Jahrhunderts gegen Haretiker, Heiden und Juden, Cologne 1971; Idem, Die Juden im christlichen Imperium Romanum (4. -6. Jahrhundert). Studienbücher Geschichte und Kultur der Alten Welt, Berlin, 2001; Giovanni De Bonfils, Gli ebrei dell'impero di Roma, editore Cacucci, Bari, 2005;

Legile constantiniene privind statutul iudeilor din Imperiul Roman

285

Aceste 29 de dispoziții sau fragmente de legi din capitolul 8, alături de cele 5 din grupajul următor dedicat raportului dintre sclavii creștini și proprietarii evrei (Ne christianum mancipium iudaeus habeat) însumează împreună cu documentele din celelalte cărți ale Codexului un număr de 45 de legi dedicate iudeilor. La rândul lor, cele 45 de decrete și rescripte se regăsesc în 68 de texte7 în funcție de subiect, fiind fragmentate și organizate tematic – așa cum ceruse împăratul Teodosie al II-lea8. Acest fapt evidențiază o dată în plus importanța comunităților evreiești Imperiul Roman. Încă de la finele secolului al III-lea iudaismul prospera, iar instituția patriarhatului devenise o emblemă pentru întreaga diasporă din Imperiul Roman și chiar din cel sasanid9. Potrivit tradiției rabinice, patriarhul era descentul lui Hillel cel Bătrân care a condus alături de Shammai10 partidul fariseilor și școala rabinică. După distrugerea Ierusalimului în anul 70 d.Hr., dar mai ales după răscoala lui Bar Kokhba (132-135 d.Hr.), familiile rabinilor din Iudea au fost relocate la Diocaesarea-Sepphoris, în Galileea, și acest centru va deveni reședința etnarhilor până în timpul lui Iuda II Nessiah (230-286 d.Hr.), care va muta sediul școlii rabinice și reședința patriarhului pe malul Lacului Ghenizaret la Tiberias11. Din secolul al II-lea termenul legal utilizat în documentele imperiale pentru liderii religioşi ai evreilor era cel de „etnarh”, ceea ce reflectă îndeosebi îndatoririle seculare ale acestora, iar folosirea discreționară a gărzilor de corp gote indică puterea și încrederea de care se bucura din partea autorității imperiale12. În timpul domniei împăratului Constantin cel Mare li se va acorda titlul de patriarhi, reliefând mai degrabă atribuțiile religioase ale etnarhilor. Ei devin prezențe însemnate în ierarhia și birocrația imperială, fiind asimilați clasei senatoriale, așa cum reiese din titulaturile întrebuințate (spectabilis, clarissimus, illustris) și primesc chiar funcția onorifică de prefect13.

7 8

9

10 11 12 13

Capucine Nemo-Pekelman, Rome et ses citoyens juifs: IVe-Ve siècles, Honoré Champion Éditeur, Paris, 2010. Amnon Linder, op. cit., p. 37-39. CTh. 1.1.6 pr.: „toate constituțiile și edictele generale care au fost valabile în anumite provincii sau locuri și decretele propuse, pe care divinul Constantin și împărații ulteriori și noi le-am emis, să fie separate prin titluri ce indică conținutul astfel ca cele mai recente (texte) să poată fi găsite nu doar după ordinea cronologică [lit. – prin calculul zilelor consulilor], ci chiar prin ordinea structurii (tematice). Și dacă una dintre ele (legi) ar viza mai multe teme, să fie separată fiecare în parte, să fie adusă sub titlul corespunzător și să fie tăiate din acel decret cele ce nu fac referire la forța sancțiunii [și] să fie lăsată doar legea” (20 decembrie 435). Robert Drews, „Chapter Eighteen: Judaism in Late Antiquity (ca. 250 to 565)”, în idem, Coursebook, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, to the Beginnings of Modern Civilization , p. 7 https://my.vanderbilt.edu/robertdrews/files/2014/01/Chapter-Eighteen.-Judaism-in-LateAntiquity-ca.-250-to-565.pdf (30.04.2019). Samuele Rocca, „In the Shadow of the Patriarch: The Organization of the Jewish Communities in Roman Italy in Late Antiquity”, în La Rassegna mensile di Israel 83 (2/3), p. 97-98. Robert Drews, art. cit., p. 7. Samuele Rocca, art. cit., p. 98-99. Ibidem, p. 99-100.

286

Dragoş Boicu

Ca și celelalte izvoare juridice romane, Codicele Teodosian dezvăluie o serie de aspecte ale identității iudaice, fără a-și propune însă o clarificare a ei. Nu există nevoia de a explica cine sunt cei ce alcătuiesc acest grup distinct care își are propriile instituții și legi, calendar aparte și ritualuri religioase deosebite. Ceea ce este specific Codexului este faptul că nu încearcă să armonizeze legislația pe care o reunește pe acest subiect și, în consecință, se prezintă ca un amestec curios de privilegii, respect, onestitate scrupuloasă, discriminare și chiar dispreț14. Publicate în intervalul 315-429, cele 29 de documente vizează câteva teme recurente: – includerea iudeilor în curie și afirmarea obligativității de a presta sarcinile municipale adecvate rangului lor (16.8.3); – scutirea de o serie de servicii civile pentru anumite categorii de evrei (16.8.2, 16.8.4); – reconfirmarea privilegiilor și sporirea autorității liderilor respectivelor comunități iudaice (16.8.8, 16.8.11, 16.8.13, 16.8.15); – retragerea privilegiilor, problema colectării impozitului pentru patriarhi, revocarea unor titluri onorifice și interdicții de a construi noi sinagogi (16.8.14, 16.8.17, 16.8.22, 16.8.27, 16.8.29); – afirmarea protecției în fața discriminărilor sau abuzurilor comise de creștini (16.8.9, 16.8.10, 16.8.12, 16.8.20, 16.8.21, 16.8.25, 16.8.26); – relația cu creștinii și cu iudeii convertiți la creștinism (16.8.1, 16.8.5, 16.8.6, 16.8.7, 16.8.18, 16.8.23, 16.8.28); – situația iudeilor din structurile militare (16.8.16, 16.8.24). Simpla enumerare a temelor ne arată că raportarea autorităților față de comunitățile iudaice din imperiu a fost nuanțată și nu tocmai consecventă, reflectând preferințele personale ale împăraților, dar și presiunile crescânde ale episcopilor creștini. Ocazional interesele imperiului și cele ale Bisericii s-au suprapus, dar cel mai adesea se poate observa o neconcordanță și uneori chiar sau luptat fățiș pe subiectul populației evreiești și a instituțiilor ei15. Chiar și așa legislația inclusă în secțiunile 8 și 9 ale cărții a XVI-a, dar și documentele publicate în restul cărților reprezintă o primă expunere mai mult sau mai puțin sistematică a contextului în care comunitățile iudaice sunt deplin recunoscute de

14

15

Nicholas de Lange, „Reflections on Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity”, în Envisioning Judaism. Studies in Honor of Peter Schäfer on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, vol. I, edit. Racanan S. Boustan et al., Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen, 2013, p. 168. Joseph E. Sanzo and Ra‘anan Boustan, „Mediterranean Jews in a Christianizing Empire”, în The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Attila, (ed.) Michael Maas, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2014, p. 359.

Legile constantiniene privind statutul iudeilor din Imperiul Roman

287

autoritatea romană ca entități parțial autonome și privilegiate, care aveau dreptul de a se organiza potrivit propriilor legi16. Dar dacă la finele secolului al IV-lea se ajunge la un apogeu al privilegiilor acordate iudeilor din imperiu, în prima jumătate a veacului următor au fost emise tot mai multe legi care aveau menirea de a le restricționa activitatea cu atât mai mult cu cât practicile și influența comunităților evreiești erau percepute ca amenințări la hegemonia creștinismului sau la stabilitatea politică17 a unei monarhii care se erija în protectoarea Bisericii și al intereselor ei. Ținând cont de aceste premise devine limpede că secțiunea De iudaeis, caelicolis et samaritanis încă mai poate oferi o suită de elemente interesante privind relația dintre creștinism și iudaism în secolele IV și V, iar revizitarea respectivelor texte poate oferi un suport suplimentar pentru viitoarele cercetări ale temei. Dintre acestea ne vom referi doar la documentele emise din autoritatea împăratului Constantin cel Mare (16.8.1-16.8.5), întrucât fixează reperele raportării imperiului creştin la comunităţile iudaice din cuprinsul său.

Cu privire la iudei, adoratorii cerului și samariteni Text18 și comentariu CTh.16.8.1pr. Împăratul Constantin august către Evagrie. Dorim să le fie arătat iudeilor, mai-marilor lor și patriarhilor că dacă după (publicarea) acestei legi cineva ar ataca cu pietre sau cu alt fel de nebunie pe careva, care ar evita funesta lor sectă și s-ar îngriji de cinstirea lui Dumnezeu – cum am aflat că se petrece acum –, cel ce îndrăznește să comită un astfel de atac să fie îndată dat flăcărilor și să fie ars împreună cu toți complicii lui. 1. Iar dacă cineva din popor s-ar apropia de nebuneasca lor sectă și s-ar alipi adunărilor lor va suferi împreună cu ei meritatele pedepse. Dat în a cincisprezecea zi dinainte de calendele lui noiembrie la Murgillum în timpul celui de-al patrulea consulat al lui Constantin august și al patrulea consulat al lui Liciniu (18 octombrie 315)19. 16 17 18

19

Daniel Boyarin, „The Christian Invention of Judaism: The Theodosian Empire and the Rabbinic Refusal of Religion”, în Representations, No. 85 (Winter, 2004), p. 33. Joseph E. Sanzo and Ra‘anan Boustan, art. cit., p. 364 Traducere după Theodosiani libri 16 cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis et Leges Novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes, ed. Theodor Mommsen & Paulus Meyer, Berlin, 1905. Pentru acest capitol a se vedea şi extrasul comentat Iacobus Gothofredus, Codex Theodosianus 16,8,1-29: Über Juden, Himmelsverehrer und Samaritaner, Übersetzt und bearbeitet von Renate Frohne, Peter Lang, Bern, 1991. CTh. 16.8.1pr. „Imp. Constantinus a. ad Evagrium. Iudaeis et maioribus eorum et patriarchis volumus intimari, quod, si quis post hanc legem aliquem, qui eorum feralem fugerit sectam et ad dei cultum respexerit, saxis aut alio furoris genere, quod nunc fieri cognovimus, ausus fuerit adtemptare, mox flammis dedendus est et cum omnibus suis participibus concremandus. 1. Si quis vero ex populo ad eorum nefariam sectam accesserit et conciliabulis eorum se

288

Dragoş Boicu

Primul document care deschide această secțiune ridică ab initio o serie de probleme. Întâi de toate este vorba de datarea sa, fixată de compilatori în mod eronat la 18 octombrie 315, dată infirmată de menționarea destinatarului. Pentru a soluţiona neconcordanţa Karl Leo Noethlichs acceptă data considerând că legea a fost adresată vicarului Italiei20. Totuși, cel mai probabil respectivul Evagrie21 a deţinut funcția de prefect pretorian al Orientului în anul 326 pentru câteva luni, fiind numit din nou în aceeaşi demnitate în intervalul 329-331, dar şi între 336 şi 337. Pornind de la acest detaliu şi coroborându-l cu itinerarul împăratului Constantin cel Mare, mult mai plauzibilă este datarea în luna octombrie a anului 329. Pe de altă parte locul emiterii documentului se dovedește la fel de problematic, nefiind cunoscută nicio localitate antică cu numele Murgillum. Acest fapt l-a determinat pe Jacques Godefroy (Iacobus Gothofredus), unul dintre primii editori ai Codicelui Teodosian să sugereze că este vorba de o formă coruptă a municipiului Mursella (ablativus loci Murgillo devine Mursillo) din Pannonia Superior, ipoteză care a fost îmbrățișată de autorii enciclopediilor geografice din perioada iluministă22. Amnon Linder consideră și el că este vorba de o formă coruptă, provenită din Bergulla (ulterior Arkadioupolis, azi Lüleburgaz în Turcia), localitate situată între Heraclea și Adrianopol, ceea ce ar corespunde itinerarului constantinian din 329, așa cum poate fi dedus din alte documente emise în acea toamnă23. Această variantă pare mult mai plauzibilă. Nu în ultimul rând conținutul textului de lege este de o duritate ieșită din comun și face notă discordantă cu tonul moderat din restul documentelor constantiniene pe această temă, anunţând pedepse capitale şi arderea pe rug a iudeilor care îi persecută pe evreii convertiţi la creştinism, precum şi restricţii pentru creştinii care s-ar lăsa atraşi în sinagogi şi ar devenii adepţii cultului mozaic. Nu se precizează dacă lapidările ce vor fi răzbunate au survenit ca urmare a senţinţelor date de tribunalele rabinice ori s-au iscat dintr-un linşaj al mulţimii, dovadă că circumstanţele erau indiferente autorităţii legislative. Iar modul în care aceasta îşi manifestă indignarea este considerat o „reacţie disproporţională”: se menționează moartea prin crematio, o pedeapsă dezonorantă, ca și răstignirea,

20 21

22

23

adplicaverit, cum ipsis poenas meritas sustinebit. Dat. XV kal. nov. Murgillo Constantino a. IIII et Licinio IIII conss.”. Karl Leo Noethlichs, Die gesetzgeberischen Massnahmen…, p. 33-34. Evagrius 2, în A.H.M. Jones, J.R. Martindale & J. Morris, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (PLRE), Vol. 1 (A.D. 260-395), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1971, vol. I, p. 284-285. Alexander MacBean, A Dictionary of Ancient Geography: Explaining the Local Appellations in Sacred Graecian and Roman History, London, 1773; Antoine Augustin Bruzen de La Martinière, Le grand dictionnaire géographique et critique, Volumul 4, Paris, 1768, p. 447; Totius Latinitatis Lexicon, edit. de Egidio Forcellini, Jacobus Bailey, Londra, 1828 , p. 1077. Amnon Linder, op. cit., p. 125.

Legile constantiniene privind statutul iudeilor din Imperiul Roman

289

destinată delictelor foarte grave, precum dezertarea, sacrilegiul, otrăvirea sau magia24. Caracterul inedit s-ar datora potrivit lui Linder faptului că textul nu-i aparţine propriu-zis lui Constantin cel Mare, ci unui episcop25 desemnat să formuleze, probabil în linii mai vagi, o ameninţare la adresa celor ce stau în calea convertirii iudeilor. Mark Edwards consideră şi el că formularea textului pare a fi mai degrabă opera unui episcop decât a împăratului Constantin26, iar Capucine Nemo-Pekelman argumentează aceeaşi idee pornind de la contrastul atât de mare faţă de spiritul toleranţei cuprins în Edictul de la Mediolanum (313), de vreme ce noua lege atenta la liberta religioasă a supuşilor din Imperiu care s-ar fi arătat interesaţi de iudaism27. La nivel terminologic se disting sintagmele „eorum feralem sectam” şi „eorum nefariam sectam”, ceea ce implică mult mai mult decât simpla delimitare a grupului care face opinie separată28. Este vorba de înfierarea iudaismului şi etichetatea lui ca „sectă” cu sensul utilizat în Biserică, cu mult înainte ca acesta să fie preluat și în limbajul juridic. Chiar dacă în legislaţia Republicii sau a Imperiului timpuriu existau prevederi ce vizau actele de impietate faţă de religiile tradiţionale romane, doar după convertirea lui Constantin cel Mare a apărut necesitatea constituirii de noi categorii juridice (inovaţii postconstantiniene), cum ar fi cea de păgân, eretic, schismatic sau apostat29, precum şi nevoia de a stabili de măsuri legale împotriva lor. Desigur, epitetele ce însoțesc termenul subliniază și mai mult disprețul pe care autorul textului îl nutrește față de funesta și nebuneasca grupare, dar în acelaşi timp ele trebuie privite şi ca mărci ale unui anume fel de a denunţa alteritatea, invective specifice Antichităţii târzii, când, sub înrâurirea creştinismului, se va construi un stereotip al intimidării. Capucine NemoPekelman vede aici chiar o opoziție explicită a „sectei” cu creștinismul, autentica cinstire a lui Dumnezeu30, anticipând contrastul dintre superstitio și religio din documentele ulterioare. Dincolo de ameninţarea cu pedeapsa capitală reţinem că este interzis prozelitismul iudaic, devenit un delict care îşi atrage supliciul cuvenit (poenas meritas) pentru crima convertirii la iudaism. Roland Delmaire atrage atenţia asupra unui detaliu care trebuie evidenţiat, şi anume: faptul că termenul „patriarcha” este utilizat la plural în 11 instanțe în vreme ce în forma de singular îl găsim în doar două cazuri (16.8.14 și 24 25 26 27 28 29

30

Capucine Nemo-Pekelman, op. cit., p. 125, 127. Amnon Linder, op. cit., p. 125. Mark Edwards, „The Beginnings of Christianization”, în The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, ed. by Noel Lenski, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006, p. 143. Capucine Nemo-Pekelman, op. cit., p. 126. Sensurile inițiale: cale, direcție, partid politic, doctrină filosofică. Caroline Humfress, „Roman Law, forensic argument and the formation of Christian Orthodoxy (III-IV Century)”, în Susana Elm, Éric Rebillard, Antonella Romano (edit.), Orthodoxie, Christianisme, Histoire, École Française de Rome, 2000, p. 128. Capucine Nemo-Pekelman, op. cit., p. 127.

Dragoş Boicu

290

16.8.29)31. Jacques Godefroy încerca să explice recurența pluralului ca referință la „patriarchae minores” – reprezentanţi în teritoriu sau liderii comunităţilor locale32, ipoteză respinsă cu totul de Amnon Linder care consideră existenţa unei astfel de instituţii extrem de improbabilă şi nefondată pe nicio dovadă. Potrivit lui Linder avem de-a face doar cu forme corupte de „patres” derivate din sintagma „patres synagogarum”33, destul de comună în această secţiune a Codexului. Totuşi, Capucine Nemo-Pekelman reia ideea lui Jacques Godefroy şi consideră că pluralul patriarchae nu îl vizează în nici un caz pe patriarhul din Tiberias, ci indică persoane de rang inferior acestuia34. CTh.16.8.2 Același august (Constantin) către Ablabius, prefectul pretorian. Aceia care, în calitate de patriarhi sau prezbiteri, s-ar dedica cu deplină devoțiune sinagogilor iudeilor și, trăind în secta amintită, ei înșiși ar administra legea (lor)35, să fie scutiți în continuare de toate sarcinile (obligatorii) atât personale, cât și civile, astfel ca aceia care din întâmplare sunt deja decurioni în nici un caz să nu fie repartizați responsabilităţilor corespunzătoare, de vreme ce astfel de oameni sub nici un motiv nu trebuie să fie obligați să părăsească locurile în care se găsesc. Iar aceia care nu sunt membri ai curiei să obțină scutire perpetuă de (slujba) decurionatului. Dat în a treia zi dinainte de calendele lui decembrie la Constantinopol în vremea consulatului lui Gallicanus și Symmachus (29 noiembrie 330)36

Și de această dată avem un text care conține o serie de neclarități. Decretul trimis prefectului pretorian Flavius Ablabius37 începe cu confirmarea unor vechi privilegii și imunități deja obținute – cum ar fi cel menționat în documentul următor 16.8.3 – a căror respectare trebuie „să continue” (perseverent). Acestea sunt menite atât patriarhilor, cât şi prezbiterilor. Theodor Mommsen consideră că menționarea „patriarhilor” este de prisos și ar putea fi ștearsă38, pentru că 31

32 33 34 35 36

37

38

Les Lois religieuses des empereurs romains de Constantin à Théodose II, 312-438, Vol. I : Code Théodosien, Livre XVI. Réédition du texte de Th. Mommsen, avec traduction française de Jean Rougé et notes de Roland Delmaire, SC 497, Cerf, Paris, 2005, nota 2, p. 368-369 Iacobus Gothofredus, Codex Theodosianus 16,8,1-29, p. 95-103. Amnon Linder, op. cit., nota 5, p. 203. Capucine Nemo-Pekelman, op. cit., p. 38. Lit. – ar avea control asupra legii. CTh. 16.8.2 „Idem a. ad Ablavium praefectum praetorio. Qui devotione tota synagogis iudaeorum patriarchis vel presbyteris se dederunt et in memorata secta degentes legi ipsi praesident, inmunes ab omnibus tam personalibus quam civilibus muneribus perseverent, ita ut illi, qui iam forsitan decuriones sunt, nequaquam ad prosecutiones aliquas destinentur, cum oporteat istiusmodi homines a locis in quibus sunt nulla compelli ratione discedere. Hi autem, qui minime curiales sunt, perpetua decurionatus immunitate potiantur. Dat. III kal. decemb. Constantinopoli Gallicano et Symmacho conss.”. Ablabius (Avlavie), originar din Creta, vicar în Asiana (324-326), demnitar de încredere al împăratului Constantin cel Mare, care îl numește prefect pretorian al Orientului între 329 și 337 cf. Fl. Ablabius 4, în PLRE, vol. I, p. 3-4. Theodosiani libri 16 cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis, p. 887.

Legile constantiniene privind statutul iudeilor din Imperiul Roman

291

imunitatea îi avea în vedere pe prezbiteri. Pe de altă parte funcția copulativă a conjuncției „vel” indică faptul că și aceștia se bucurau de privilegiile patriarhilor. Semnificația termenului „prezbiter” ridică și ea semne de întrebare: în mod cert nu se referă la „preoți” (kohanim), iar potrivit lui Amnon Linder îi indică pe membrii Sanhedrinului39, în vreme ce Capucine Nemo-Pekelman exclude această posibilitate și îl rezervă liderilor sinagogilor locale și conducătorii religioși din Diaspora în ansamblul său40. Totuşi potrivit lui Linder aceste căpetenii ale comunităţilor din Diaspora alcătuiau așa-numita „gerusia” sau adunarea bătrânilor, iar asocierea prezbiterilor cu patriarhii în fruntea clerului iudaic este un argument hotărâtor să respingă orice referire la oficialii de rang inferior ai sinagogilor și, prin urmare, prezbiterii trebuie identificați cu membrii Sanhedrinului palestinian41. Pe de altă parte, Lucio de Giovanni crede că termenul poate fi rezervat doar acelora care mai erau numiţi şi maiores sau seniores42. Acestora li se oferă scutire de serviciului decurionatului în baza unui privilegiu, prevăzând ca şi cei ce au fost deja convocaţi şi înregistraţi în acest oficiu să nu fie obligaţi să îşi părăsească locurile în care rezidau pentru efectuarea misiunilor de pază și escortare43. Şi mai important este caracterul „perpetuu” al acestei înlesniri, ceea ce înseamnă că imunitatea putea fi transmisă descendenţilor lor pe linie masculină, dând naştere unor veritabile dinastii de privilegiaţi. În acelaşi timp trebuie să ţinem cont şi de faptul că împăratul Constantin oferă astfel de scutiri şi celorlalţi lideri religioşi, fie ei sacerdoţi păgâni sau episcopi creştini44, care „se dedică cultului divin”, aşa cum reiese din dispoziţia publicată la 21 octombrie 319 (CTh. 16.2.2). Capucine Nemo-Pekelman duce ideea mai departe şi afirmă că aplicarea privilegiilor avea menirea de a stabili raporturi clientelare cu liderii religioşi pentru a se asigura prin respectiva recunoaştere oficială şi instituţională de colaborarea lor în timpul viitoarelor momente de criză45. Se cuvine și o scurtă clarificare a termenului „sectă”, care spre deosebire de textul precedent este lipsit de orice conotație negativă, referindu-se strict la caracterul separat sau aparte al unui grup care insistă să îşi păstreze identitatea etnică şi religioasă.

39 40 41 42 43

44 45

Amnon Linder, op. cit., p. 133. Capucine Nemo-Pekelman, op. cit., p. 38. Cf. Amnon Linder, op. cit., nota 4, p. 135 Lucio de Giovanni, Chiesa, e stato nel codice Teodosiano: saggio sul libro XVI, Napoli, 1980, p. 115 Decurionatul poate trimite fie la subunitățile de cavalerie în armata romană, formată din zece soldați, fie la colegii administrative de mici funcționari ai municipiilor romane. Întrucât se specifică deplasarea în misiuni, în cazul de față este vorba de militari. Amnon Linder, op. cit., p. 133, Capucine Nemo-Pekelman, op. cit., p. 41. Capucine Nemo-Pekelman, op. cit., p. 40

292

Dragoş Boicu

Pornind de la observaţia lui Otto Seeck46, Amnon Linder consideră acest document este păstrat şi în versiunea primită de către comunităţile iudaice din Orient: CTh.16.8.4 Același august (Constantin) către preoții și mai-marii sinagogilor și părinții sinagogilor și ceilalți, care slujesc în același loc. Poruncim ca preoții, mai-marii sinagogilor și părinții sinagogilor și ceilalți care se îngrijesc de sinagogi să fie slobozi de toate sarcinile fizice (cetățenești obligatorii). Dat la calendele lui decembrie la Constantinopol în vremea consulatului lui Bassus și Ablabius (1 dec. 331)47.

Acest document ar putea fi o variantă abreviată care precizează un singur aspect al imunităţii acordate clerului iudaic. Se poate spune că fixează un regim de scutiri diferit de cel indicat anterior pentru că îi vizează şi pe oficialii de rang inferior, extinzând privilegiul şi în cazul preoţilor – este folosit termenul grecesc în transcriere latină, hiereos –, mai-marilor sinagogilor (archisynagogos)48 și părinților sinagogilor (patres synagogarum)49, precum și tuturor celor ce deservesc sinagogile. Acest lucru înseamnă fără îndoială şi recunoaşterea oficială a funcţiilor lor religioase. Capucine Nemo-Pekelman consideră că diferența dintre celor două variante este doar aparentă și explicabilă prin logica interioară a transmiterii surselor50, iar Linder se dovedește cel mai aprig susținător al originii comune acestor două texte, motiv pentru care și încearcă să armonizeze datele reținute de compilatorii Codexului: 29 noiembrie 330, respectiv la 1 decembrie 331. De aceea afirmă că datarea la 1 decembrie 331 este eronată, pentru că încearcă să combine două date diferite: cea a emiterii legi și cea a promulgării51, iar forma pe care o propune, puternic influențat de opinia lui Otto Seeck, este următoarea:

46

47

48

49

50 51

Otto Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste für die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr: Vorarbeit zu einer Prosopographie der Christlichen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart, 1919, p. 83. Opinia este împărtăşită de Lucio de Giovanni, op. cit., p. 115. CTh. 16.8.4 „Idem a. hiereis et archisynagogis et patribus synagogarum et ceteris, qui in eodem loco deserviunt. Hiereos et archisynagogos et patres synagogarum et ceteros, qui synagogis deserviunt, ab omni corporali munere liberos esse praecipimus. Dat. kal. dec. Constantinopoli Basso et Ablavio conss.”. Deși li se recunoaște o funcție în sfera spirituală, aveau și atribuții practice ce țineau de clădirile și proprietățile sinagogilor, fiind mai ales responsabili pentru organizarea cultului, cf. Amnon Linder, op. cit., nota 10, p. 137. Titlu mai degrabă onorific, lipsit de o funcţie propriu-zisă, cf. Amnon Linder, op. cit., nota 11, p. 137. Lucio de Giovanni este totuşi de opinie că această poziţie a fost creată în mod analog celor din comunităţile păgâne, unde existau aşa-numiţii pater et mater colegii, cf. op. cit., p. 115. Capucine Nemo-Pekelman, op. cit., p. 40. Amnon Linder, op. cit., p. 132-133.

Legile constantiniene privind statutul iudeilor din Imperiul Roman

293

Dat la 1 decembrie în Constantinopol, în vremea consulatului lui Gallicanus și Symmachus (330) și promulgat în vremea consulatului lui Bassus și Ablabius (331)52

Valabilitatea acestor privilegii nu a fost nicidecum perpetuă, întrucât împăratul Teodosie cel Mare va abroga aceste legi, anulând imunitatea clericilor evrei în fața serviciilor publice obligatorii la 18 aprilie 383 (CTh. 12.1.99), măsură reluată și de fiii săi: întâi Honorius – ad complenda suarum civitatum munia teneantur – la 13 februarie 398 (CTh. 12.1.158), urmat de Arcadie – curiae mancipentur – la 28/30 decembrie 399 (CTh. 12.1.165). Necesitatea acestor scutiri este clarificată de documentul următor, adresat de Constantin cel Mare oficiilor administrative din Colonia (Köln), după ce autorizase în anul 321 stabilirea unei comunități evreiești care să se bucure de toate libertățile cetățenilor romani. CTh.16.8.3 Același împărat (Constantin) către decurionii din Agrippinensis Colonia. Prin legea generală îngăduim tuturor claselor (consiliilor municipale) să-i numească pe evrei în serviciul curial. Dar pentru a le fi lăsat drept compensație ceva din vechea rânduială, îngăduim ca doi sau trei (dintre ei) să fie liberi de orice numire în baza privilegiului perpetuu. Dat în a treia zi dinaintea idelor lui decembrie în vremea celui de-al doilea consulat al lui Crispus și al doilea consulat al lui Constantin (11 decembrie 321)53.

Actul adresat de Constantin decurionilor din Colonia, pe când stăpânea peste provinciile apusene ale imperiului, a fost plasat de compilatorii Codexului după textul din 29 noiembrie 330, cel mai probabil dintr-o eroare cronologică. La o primă vedere acest document pare să reprezinte o suspendare a imunităților și impunerea obligativității sarcinilor curiale pentru iudei, ceea ce ar justifica acordarea scutirilor din CTh. 16.8.2 și 16.8.4. Este vorba de numirea evreilor în aparatul administrativ al consiliilor municipale sau senatelor din municipiae și coloniae, care purta și numele de ordo decurionum. Dacă în timpul Republicii și a Imperiului timpuriu, această slujbă era foarte atractivă, iar cetățenii se ofereau candidați pentru funcția de decurion, considerată de mare onoare54, în vremea tetrarhiei, declinul municipalităților și pierderea autonomiei acestor funcționari au transformat-o într-o corvoadă. Deveniți indispensabili pentru colectarea taxelor, dar și responsabili pentru orice încercare de evaziune, membrii curiei erau obligați să îndeplinească acestă sarcină fără vreo plată și cu mari sacrificii financiare din buzunarul propriu. Din acest motiv tot mai mulți cetățeni se 52 53

54

Ibidem, nota 13, p. 138. CTh. 16.8.3, „Idem a. decurionibus Agrippiniensibus. Cunctis ordinibus generali lege concedimus iudaeos vocari ad curiam. Verum ut aliquid ipsis ad solacium pristinae observationis relinquatur, binos vel ternos privilegio perpeti patimur nullis nominationibus occupari. Dat. III id. dec. Crispo II et Constantino II cc. conss.”. Jean Gaudemet, „Constantin et les curies municipales”, în Jura, vol. II, 1951, p. 45, n. 3

Dragoş Boicu

294

eschivau și se refugiau în diverse locuri, fiind căutați, arestați, aduși înapoi și obligați să își exercite funcțiile. Teama de a nu-i pierde pe membrii curiei a mers până la interdiciția călătoriilor, pentru ca aceștia să nu aibă vreun prilej de a fugi și de a scăpa de respectivele sarcini55. Fără îndoială că şi la momentul emiterii acestei legi situaţia decurionilor era una nefavorabilă. Motivul pentru care evreii sunt solicitaţi să se alăture curiei îl constituie nevoia de a redistribui numeroasele obligaţii56. Expresia pristina observatio ne poate induce în eroare, lăsând să se creadă că exista deja o rânduială anterioară care prevedea scutirea evreilor de sarcinile curiale. Atât Amnon Linder57, cât și Capucine Nemo-Pekelman58 consideră că vechiul obicei trimite cel mai probabil la o lege de tipul celei publicate de Severus și Antoninus Caracalla, prin care iudeii primiți în oficiile municipale erau scutiți de slujbele ce contraveneau prescripțiilor lor religioase şi le-ar putea ofensa credința59. Pe de altă parte însăşi utilizarea termenului observatio în loc de constitutio sau lex – folosiţi de obicei pentru a indica normele în vigoare impuse de puterea centrală – sugerează că respectiva practică era la acel moment mai mult orientativă60. Capucine Nemo-Pekelman speculează mai departe că pristina observatio ar putea fi un decret obținut de evrei de la guvernatorul provinciei Germania Secunda sau de la magistrații coloniali, care erau mult mai sensibili la solicitările acestora61. Acordarea unei mici compensații cu valoare simbolică62 (ad solacium) prin scutirea a doi sau trei iudei de noile obligații curiale, ar indica și ea o limitare a libertății autorităților locale care obișnuia să extindă privilegiul scutirilor în urma unor aranjamente ignobile. Acum doar „puterea centrală este singura care are puterea de atenua (placare) și de ușura (lenire) rigorile legii (rigor iuris)”63. Ultimul decret constantinian păstrat de compilatorii Codexului în această secţiune este un fragment dintr-un text mai amplu cules din arhivele Cartaginei: CTh.16.8.5 Împăratul Constantin august către Felix, prefectul pretorian.

55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

The Theodosian code and novels: and the Sirmondian constitutions, edit. Clyde Pharr, Princeton University Press, 1952, p. 578-579. Capucine Nemo-Pekelman, op. cit., p. 33. Amnon Linder, op. cit., p. 121. Capucine Nemo-Pekelman este ceva mai spceptic în această privinţă cf. op. cit., nota 50, p. 32 Digesta, 50:2:3:3, ed. Mommsen & Krueger, Berlin, 1888, p. 896: honores adipisci permiserunt, sed et necessitates eis imposuerunt, qui superstitionem eorum non loederent. Capucine Nemo-Pekelman, op. cit., p. 35. Ibidem, p. 36. Lucio de Giovanni, op. cit., p. 116. Ibidem.

Legile constantiniene privind statutul iudeilor din Imperiul Roman

295

După altele: nu este permis ca iudeii să-l hărțuiască, nici să-l atace cu altă insultă pe cel care s-a convertit de la iudaism la creștinism64. Ofensa trebuie pedepsită în mod adecvat după natura faptei. Și celelalte. Dat în ziua a douăsprezecea dinaintea calendelor lui noiembrie în Constantinopol (22 octombrie 335), publicată în a opta zi dinaintea idelor lui mai la Cartagina în vremea consulatului lui Nepotianus și Facundus (9 mai 336). Această lege nu necesită interpretare65.

Așa cum indică introducerea (post alia) și finalul (et cetera) textul este doar un fragment din documentul adresat lui Valerius Felix, un apropiat al lui Constantin de vreme ce îl numește „parens carissime”, menționat ca prefect pretorian al Africii între 18 aprilie 333 și 21 iulie 33666. Cel mai probabil este vorba de o lege generală, ale cărei copii au fost trimise oficialilor și guvernatorilor din tot cuprinsul Imperiului, păstrată integral în colecția Constitutiones Sirmondianae (4). Importată este datarea actului (Data XII kal. novemb. proposita VII id. mart. – 21 octombrie 335 / 9 martie 336), ceea ce impune corectarea datei afişării în Cartagina cu două luni mai devreme. Editorii Codexului au împărțit respectivul decret, delimitând tematic pasajele lui. Astfel un alt fragment al aceleiași legi a fost păstrat în secțiunea Ne christianum mancipium iudaeus habeat (16.9.1) CTh.16.9.1 Împăratul Constantin august către Felix, prefectul pretorian. Dacă vreunul dintre iudei după ce a cumpărat un sclav creştin sau unul (aparţinând) oricărei alte secte l-ar circumcide, să nu-l păstreze în sclavie pe cel circumcis, ci cel care ar fi suferit aceasta să dobândească privilegiile dreptăţii. Interpretare: Dacă vreunul dintre iudei ar cumpăra şi ar circumcide un sclav creştin sau aparţinând oricărei alte secte, acel (sclav) să rămână în libertate, (fiind) ridicat din puterea aceluiaşi iudeu67. În vreme ce primul fragment anunță amenințarea cu pedepse pe măsură a iudeilor care îi persecută pe coreligionarii convertiţi la creştinism, cel de-al doilea interzice circumciderea sclavilor deținuți de evrei, în caz contrar fiind prevăzută eliberarea respectivilor robi. Din aceste reglementări reiese faptul că 64 65

66 67

Lit. – care devine din iudeu creștin. CTh.16.8.5 „Imp. Constantinus a. ad Felicem praefecto praetorio. Post alia: eum, qui ex iudaeo christianus factus est, inquietare iudaeos non liceat vel aliqua pulsare iniuria: pro qualitate commissi istius modi contumelia punienda etc. Dat. XII. kal. nov. Constantinopoli. pp. VIII. id. mai. Karthagine, Nepotiano et facundo coss. Haec lex interpretatione non eget”. Felix 2 cf. PLRE, vol. I, p. 331-332. Imp. Constantinus a. ad Felicem praefecto praetorio. Si quis iudaeorum christianum mancipium vel cuiuslibet alterius sectae mercatus circumciderit, minime in servitute retineat circumcisum, sed libertatis privilegiis, qui hoc sustinuerit, potiatur etc. Dat. XII. kal. N. Interpretatio. Si quis iudaeorum servum christianum vel cuiuslibet alterius sectae emerit et circumciderit, a iudaei ipsius potestate sublatus in libertate permaneat.

296

Dragoş Boicu

împăratul Constantin a susţinut foarte mult cauza creştină şi a vrut să-i protejeze pe cei convertiţi la creştinism, stopând în acelaşi timp prozelitismul iudaic în rândul slavilor deţinuţi de evrei68. Se creează astfel un precedent important, pe care urmașii săi îl vor folosi ca fundament pentru măsuri mult mai aspre, care interziceau cu desăvârşire achiziţionarea de către iudei a sclavilor creştini69. Întrucât Codicele Teodosian reunește documentele juridice din timpul împăratului Constantin cel Mare, căruia îi aparțin și primele acte din secțiunea pe care o avem în vedere se ridică oarecum firesc întrebarea dacă legislația sa cu privire la iudei trebuie apreciată în termenii de continuitate sau discontinuitate cu măsurile anterioare70. Acest aspect se dovedește crucial întrucât aruncă o lumină nouă asupra documetelor ulterioare, respectiv asupra modului în care a evoluat atitudinea împăraților din secolele IV-V față de iudaism, provocările întâmpinate și particularitățile care îi determină pe aceeași auguști să alterneze dispozițiile restrictive cu privilegiile.

68

69 70

Matthias Armgardt, „Jews in Early Byzantine Law: Theory and Practice”, în Catherine Hezser (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Jews and Judaism in Late Antiquity, Taylor & Francis, în curs de tipărire, vers. nepublicată, p. 6. CTh. 16.9.2; 3.1.5. Matthias Armgardt, art. cit., p. 5.

IUBIREA CA PARTICIPARE LA TAINA LUI DUMNEZEU ȘI LA TAINA SEMENULUI ÎN GÂNDIREA DUHOVNICEASCĂ A SFÂNTULUI IOAN SCĂRARUL Ioan Mircea IELCIU Facultatea de Teologie Ortodoxă, Universitatea „Lucian Blaga” din Sibiu

1. Preliminarii Sinaiul — prin configurația geografică aparte și inconfundabilă, este o regiune într-un anumit mod diferită de restul centrelor monastice ale perimetrului mediteranean răsăritean, situată suficient de aproape de Palestina și Egipt, pentru a fi influențată de ambele.1 Peisajul impresionant — de-a dreptul năucitor – este compus din paradoxuri profunde. Pe drept cuvânt s-a afirmat că: „geografia aspră a acestui loc îl va intimida până și pe cel mai avizat și pregătit călător, după cum priveliștea lui fascinantă îl va copleși până și pe cel mai apatic pelerin”2. Creștinismul a fost multă vreme cucerit de acest loc, perceput ca ”un loc al spaimei și al teofaniei ... loc care transmite în mod sacramental măreția maiestății lui Dumnezeu”3.

Monahii erau prezenți deja aici4, atunci când Egeria consemna, spre sfârșitul secolului al IV-lea (aproximativ 383-384) existența a numeroase chilii plasate 1

2 3 4

Vezi excelentul studiu al lui R. Devreese, „Le Christianisme dans le Peninsule Sinaitique, des origines a l’arivée des Musulmans’’, în Revue Biblique, nr. 49, (1940), p. 205-223. Pentru alte aspect se vedea: J. D. Chitty, The Desert a City. An Introduction to the Study of Egiptian and Palestinian Monasticism under the Christian Empire, Oxford: Mowbrays, 1966, p. 168-178 ; U. Dahari, Monastic Settlements in South Sinai in the Byzantine Period: the archeological remains, Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2000 ; H. Skrobucha, Sinai, Transaltion by G. Hunt, London, 1966, p. 19-47. John Chryssavgis, Sfântul Ioan Scărarul. De la Pustia egipteană la Muntele Sinaiului, Traducere din limba engleză de Gheorghe Fedorovici, Editura Sofia, București, 2005, p. 11. Cf. B. Lane, The Solace of Fierce Landscapes: exploring desert and mountain spirituality, Oxford: Oxford Univerity Press, 1998, p. 100-112. Pe la mijlocul secolului al IV-lea, ascetul de origine siriacă, Iulian Sava, a ajuns în “pustia inaccesibilă a muntelui sinaitic” și a ridicat o biserică de mici dimensiuni pe Sfântul Vârf al Muntelui lui Moise, “unde Moise, cel mai mare prooroc se ascunsese pentru a fi vrednic să-L vadă pe Dumnezeu”. Apoi, Iulian Sava s-a întors în Siria (Cf. Ephraim, Hymni de Juliano Saba, XIX-XX, în vol. Hymny et Sermones, ed. T. Lamy, vol III, Mechliniae, 1882-1902, p. 907-914). Istoricul Teodoret al Cirului menționează un alt sirian, Simion cel Vechi, care, în secolul al IV-lea a vizitat Sinaiul, pentru a vedea locul în care Moise l-a întâlnit pe Dumnezeu. Teodoret afirmă că desi Dumnezeu e pretutindeni, totuși “cei care iubesc fierbinte nu se

298

Ioan Mircea Ielciu

neregulat la poalele și în împrejurimile Muntelui principal, locuite de asceți care proveneau din toate părțile. Se poate vorbi deci de o ”prezență internațională”, impusă de geografia însăși a regiunii, după cum rezultă și din descrierea Sinaiului făcută de Egeria: „Din acel loc (adică ‹‹Muntele central››) puteam vedea Egiptul, Palestina, Marea Roșie și Marea Parteriană care ajunge la Alexandria, precum și locurile nesfârșite ale sarazinilor; toate acestea se arătau sub noi atât de aproape, că mai că nu-ți venea să crezi, dacă n-ar fi fost sfinții bărbați care să ni le arate pe fiecare în chip deslușit”.5

Asceții creștini au înființat un număr de comunități ale pustiei în regiunea Sinaiului. Așezările cenobitice mai mari erau totodată în legătură strânsă cu diverși sihaștri, oferindu-le acestora sprijin. Cele mai importante două centre erau Mănăstirea Raithu de pe coasta Mării Roșii și Mănăstirea Rugul Aprins situată la poalele Muntelui Sinai. Amândouă mănăstirile „slujeau ca punct central al unei vii culturi ascetice”.6 În contextul unei instabilități politice în creștere în pustia Egiptului și de declin al monahismului cândva înfloritor aici, împăratul Justinian a autorizat fortificarea masivă a Mănăstirii Sinai. Fortificațiile și clădirile au rămas până astăzi ca o remarcabilă mărturie a creștinismului bizantin din secolul al VI-lea.7 Opera lui Justinian a făcut ca Mănăstirea din Sinai să rămână o vie prezență calcedoniană chiar și după ce Imperiul bizantin a pierdut stăpânirea asupra Egiptului. Clerul din Sinai a păstrat legături mai strânse cu Ierusalimul decât cu Alexandria. Cu toate că regiunea Sinaiului a fost întotdeauna minusculă, ea a primit statutul de Biserică autocefală, fiind condusă de un stareț care de atunci a fost mereu arhiepiscop.

5

6

7

mulțumesc doar cu vederea feței celor iubiți, ci se închină până și locurilor în care viețuiesc aceștia” (Cf. Historia Religiosa, IV, în P.G., t. 82, col 1361). Egerie, Journal de voyage (Itineraire), Introduction, texte critique, traductiones, index et cartes par Pierre Maraval, în Soures Chretiennes, Nr. 296, Les Editions du Cerf, Paris, 1982, p. 137. În contextual celor afirmate mai sus, menționăm că un pelerin anonim din Palestina, sosit în regiune în 570 se referă la trei călugări de acolo care puteau vorbi latină, greacă, siriacă, coptă și bezică, precum și numeroși vorbitori de alte limbi. Biblioteca mănăstirii reflectă până astăzi aceeași istorie internațională. (Cf. Itinera Hierosolymitana, Saeculi IV-VIII, Ed. P. Geyer, col. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. XXIX, Leipzig-Praga, 1898, p. 184-186. Vezi și Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades, Jerusalem, 1977, p. 78-89). Pr. John Antony McGuckin, Dicționar de Teologie Patristică, Traducere din limba engleză de Dragoș Dâscă și Alin-Bogdan Mihăilescu, Ediție îngrijită de Dragoș Mîrșanu, Editura Doxologia, Iași, 2014, p. 451. Hramul initial al Mănăstirii a fost “Rugul Aprins”, fiind dedicată Maicii lui Dumnezeu. Rugul Aprins fiind văzut ca un simbol al unui “tip” al Fecioarei Maria și omagia în special rolul ei de Theotokos (Cf. J. D. Chitty, The Desert a City..., p. 169). De o abia în secolul al XIV-lea, entuziasmul pentru cultul muceniței fecioare Ecaterina, al cărei mormânt se păstrează încă în mănăstire, a făcut ca numele așezământului să fie schimbat (Cf. H. Skrobucha, Sinai, p. 65). Pentru alte detalii și amănunte vezi: George H. Forsyth, Kurt Weitzmann, The Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai: The Church and Fortress of Justinian, Univerity of Michigan Press, Aron Arbor, 1973, 20 pages of text and 198 plates și Oriana Baddeley, Earleen Brunner, The Monastery of St. Catherine, Published by St. Catherine Fundation, London, 1996, 119 p.

Iubirea ca participare la taina lui Dumnezeu

299

Mănăstirea Sinai din zilele noastre, deține o serie de capodopere ale iconografiei creștine timpurii,8 precum și colecții de manuscrise de o importanță inestimabilă. Mozaicul maiestuos din absida bisericii mănăstirii construită cu aproape un secol înainte de perioada în care Ioan era stareț și care există și astăzi, înfățișează scena Schimbării la Față a Mântuitorului,9 asociind astfel celălalt munte al slavei – Taborul – cu piscul Sinaiului (din moment ce Moise sa arătat pe ambele). Episcopul Kalistos Ware în Introducerea pe care o face la una din edițiile în limba engleză a Scării, afirmă despre autorul ei, că: „atât în sens figurativ cât și în sens spiritual, imaginația lui Ioan a fost dominată de acești doi munți: Sinaiul și Taborul, ambii fiind ilustrați în cartea pe care a scris-o”.10

De Sinai – pentru că a trăit atât de aproape de el, iar vecinătatea aspră trebuie să-i fi amintit adesea de scena din Ieșire, cap. 20; de Tabor – ca loc al arătării și al anunțării slavei lui Hristos, scena la care probabil medita fiind cea a Schimbării la Față a Mântuitorului (Matei 17,1).11 Ca egumen, Sfântul Ioan trebuie să fi petrecut multe ceasuri contemplând această reprezentare la care se va fi uitat din scaunul său în timpul lungilor slujbe de priveghere.12 Am afirmat că Mănăstirea din Sinai a devenit punctul central al unei vii culturi ascetice, fapt atestat de Scara Raiului ce aparține Sfântului Ioan Scărarul, unul dintre cei mai reprezentativi stareți de la Sinai. Scara dumnezeiescului urcuș a Sfântului Ioan, este considerată capodopera îndrumării duhovnicești bizantine,13 în contextul ascetic al predecesorilor monastici. Firește, cunoașterea și asimilarea de către Sfântul Ioan a unei vaste literaturi ascetico-monastice nu trebuie ignorată, dar importantă este mai ales linia de gândire – de la învățăturile 8

9

10

11 12

13

J. A. McGuckin “The Enigma of Christ Panel at St. Catherine’s at Sinai: A Call for the ReAppraisal”, în Union Seminary Quaterly Review (52), nr. 3-4 (1999), p. 29-47. Vezi și Kurt Weitzmann, Studies in the Arts at Sinai, Princeton, N.J., 1982. Mozaicul a fost realizat la nouă ani după contruirea bisericii mănăstirii, probabil în 565-566 (Vezi: V. Beneševič, “Sur le date de la mosaique de la Transfiguration au Mont Sinai”, în Byzantion, 1 (1924), p. 145-172). John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Edited and translated by Colm Luibheid and Norman Russel. Notes on translation by Norman Russell, în col. “The Classics of West Spirituality. A Library of the Great Spiritual Masters”, Paulist Press, New York, 1982, Introduction, p. 2. Ibidem. Întreaga viață a Sfântului Ioan Scărarul “a fost o rugăciune oferită lui Dumnezeu, o exemplară viață de iubire. Lumina din el reflecta lumina văzută de Moise pe Muntele Sinai și de cei trei Apostoli pe Tabor. Ioan însuși a ieșit din lume din iubire pentru Dumnezeu, asemenea felului în care Moise și Apostolii au ieșit dintre ai lor, însă lumina dumnezeiască experiată de acești văzători nu putea rămâne ascunsa (Matei 5, 14-15) tocmai din iubire pentru lumină. În viața lui Ioan, ca și în viețile multor pustnici, poate fi văzută o luptă creatoare între singurătate și slujirea celorlalți ” (John Chryssavgis, op. cit. p. 39-40). Cf. P. Brown, Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, Columbia Univerity Press, New York, 1990, p. 237

300

Ioan Mircea Ielciu

de bază ale pustiei egiptene la îndrumarea formatoare a bătrânilor din Gaza – pe care Sfântul Ioan a încredințat-o succesorilor lui din Sinai. Sfântul Ioan a fost capabil, într-un mod remarcabil de ingenios, să transforme într-o formă unică și într-o voce proprie învățăturile pe care le primise și care vor fi identificate ca sinaite, modelând pentru totdeauna gândirea și scrisul monastic. Literatura ascetică în general și Scara Sfântului Ioan în special, ne prezintă ocazii generoase și mai concrete pentru descoperirea lumii interioare a ființei umane, decât o fac alte scrieri patristice, mai teoretice și mai discursive. 14 Sfântul Ioan Scărarul – indiferent cine ar fi fost predecesorii săi egipteni sau palestinieni și care ar fi fost influențele acestora asupra lui – este unul dintre cei mai importanți autori care oferă aprecieri de o subtilitate remarcabilă în privința vieții duhovnicești și sufletești a ființei umane. Sfântul Ioan ocupă în teologia ascetică poziția similară pe care o ocupă în hristologie ”contemporanul său” – Sfântul Maxim Mărturisitorul. Amândoi sunt subtili sintetizatori, unind împreună și întregrând în mod creator elemente disparate din tradițiile anterioare. De aceea lucrarea sa – Scara dumnezeiescului urcuș, este în acest sens prima, remarcabilă și reușită încercare de realizare al unui ”ghid al spiritualității monastice”.15 Atunci când citim Scara, trebuie să avem în vedere două aspecte foarte importante: în primul rând, că lucrarea a fost scrisă pentru monahii dintr-o mănăstire de obște anume (cenobium); iar apoi, că scrierea este relevantă și pentru credincioșii laici.16 Într-adevăr, Scara i-a influențat de-a lungul veacurilor deopotrivă pe monahi și pe cei căsătoriți. Nichita Stithatul, biograful Sfântului Simeon Noul Teolog, ne dă amănuntul semnificativ că Sfântul Simeon a descoperit Scara în biblioteca tatălui său, un laic din aristocrația secolului al X-lea și mărturisește că ”i-a devenit foarte familiară și asemenea unui pământ bun a primit sămânța cuvântului în inima sa”.17

14

15

16

17

Detalii la B. S. Salaville, “St. Jean Climaque”, în Echos d’Orient, 20, (1923), p. 400-454, A, Saudreau, “La doctrine spirituelle de St. Jean Climaque”, în La Vie Spirituelle, 9, (1924), p. 352-370; P. Pourrat, La Spiritaulite chretienne, Paris, 1947, p. 453-469 și F. Von Lilienfeld, «Anthropos Pneumatikos» - «Pater Pneumatophoros»: Neues Testament und Apophtegmata Patrum”, în Studia Patristica, 5, (1962), p. 382-392. Kalistos Ware, The origins of the Jesus Prayer: Diadochus, Gaza, Sinai, în vol. The Study of Spirituality, Edited by Cheslyn Jones, Geoffrey Wainwright, Edward Yarrnold SJ, Student edition, Printed in the United States of America, 2000, p. 181 K. Ware precizează: “Cu excepția Sfintei Scripturi și a cărților de cult, nu există în Creștinismul răsăritean carte care să fi fost studiată, copiată și tradusă mai mult ca și Scara Sf. Ioan. În mănăstirile ortodoxe, pe parcurusl Postului Mare, ea este citită cu voce tare în biserică sau la trapeză. Astfel un călugăr ajuge să o asculte de cincizeci sau șaizeci de ori pe parcurul viețuirii sale monahale” (John Climachus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent..., Introduction, p. 1). Cf. I. Hausherr, Un grand mistique byzantine: Vie de St. Symion le Nouveau Theologien [par Nicetas Stethates], în Orientalia Christiana, XII, 45, Roma, 1928, p. 12

Iubirea ca participare la taina lui Dumnezeu

301

Precizăm faptul că viața monahală a fost înțeleasă de Sfinții Părinți ca ”viețuire potrivit cu Evanghelia”,18 în sensul că toți oamenii sunt chemati să răspundă chemării lui Hristos la mântuire și desăvârșire. Dacă modalitățile sau formele răspunsului pot diferi la exterior, totuși calea propriu-zisă este una singură. S-a spus că ”Scara este o invitație la pelerinaj”,19 o invitație extinsă la toți cei care vor să se mântuiască, cu condiția că această dorință să fie sinceră. Sfântul Ioan afirmă că dorința sa este, în primul rând, să relateze experiența sa personală, acumulată în cei 40 de ani petrecuți în pustia sinaită, iar această relatare să determine o experiență similară și în cadrul credincioșilor. De aceea putem spune că lucrarea este adresată în mod direct tuturor categoriilor de cititori. Experiența personală este, așadar, lucrul în permanență subliniat de Sfântul Ioan, în provocarea unui ”răspuns”, în determinarea cititorilor la un salt calitativ în credință, în aducerea lor la stadiul unei angajări și întâniri personale cu Dumnezeu.20 De la un capăt la altul al Scării experiența personală se întrețese cu apelul permanent la tradiția părinților anteriori.21 Putem afirma că Scara dumnezeiescului urcuș este o lucrare existențială, preocupată de experiența concretă. Deși dedicată monahilor, ea este relevantă în egală măsură pentru fiecare cititor, inclusiv pentru laici, pentru oricine este hotărât să „urce” pe treptele ei. Acei cititori care o vor lectura, într-un mod existențial îi vor aprecia valoarea.22

2. Iubirea Pe ultima traptă a Scării, Sf. Ioan pune iubirea: iubirea de Dumnezeu şi de oameni şi de toată făptura. Iubirea sau dragostea nu este analizată singură, ci în conexiune cu nădejdea şi credinţa, ele formând:

18 19 20

21

22

Sfântul Vasile cel Mare, Epistola 207, 2, în P.G., t. 32, col. 761B. G. Florovsky, Questions Disputees, Paris, 1935, p. 105-106. John Climacus, The Ladder od Divine Ascent..., Introduction, p. 10. Pentru Sfântul Ioan, scopul vieții ascetice se află dincolo de simpla acceptare a unor doctrine și reguli anume. El este în mai degrabă unul duhovnicesc și pastoral, decât didactic si mormativ. Sf. Ioan afirma: „După cum este cu neputință să dobândești vederea după cuvinte, căci acestea sunt ale gurii, iar vedera a ochilor, tot așa este cu neputință să dobândești frumusețea rugăciunii după cele auzite de la alții” (Scala Paradisi, 28, 63, în P.G., t. 28, col. 1140C; Sfântul Ioan Scărarul, Scara, Traducere, introducere și note de Pr. Prof. Dr. Dumitru Stăniloae, Editura Institutului Biblic și de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, București, 1992, p. 448. Vezi dezbaterea pe larg al acestui aspect la: K. Ware, „Tradition and Personal Experience in Later Byzantine Theology”, în Eastern Church Review, 3, (1970), p. 131-141; John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Introduction, p. 59. Ibidem, Introduction, p. 10

Ioan Mircea Ielciu

302

„legătura care strânge toate… dar mai mare decât toate este dragostea. Căci Dumnezeu se numeşte Dragoste” (I Cor. 13, 13)23.

a) „Treimea virtuţilor” sau legătura dintre dragoste, nădejde şi credinţă. Legătura dintre cele trei virtuţi, Sf. Ioan o exprimă metaforic: „Dar eu (pe cât pot să înţeleg), pe una o văd ca rază, pe alta ca lumină, iar pe cealaltă ca şi cerc”, adică „credinţa este raza soarelui, nădejdea este lumina lui, iar dragostea este cercul lui”24.

Dragostea este semnul înălţării rugăciunii şi al condescendenţei divine. După ce te-ai lepădat de toate şi i-ai făcut loc lui Dumnezeu, făcându-te apt pentru pogorârea Lui, întâlnirea cu Dumnezeu se consumă în dragoste. Sf. Ioan spune: „Cel ce voieşte să vorbească despre dragostea lui Dumnezeu încearcă să vorbească despre Dumnezeu Îmnsuşi. Dar a vorbi despre Dumnezeu prin cuvinte este greşit şi primejdios pentru cei ce nu iau aminte” 25.

E primejdios a vorbi despre Dumnezeu fără a te simţi copleşit de iubirea Lui, adică a vorbi cu indiferenţă, cu mândria că-L poţi cuprinde sau chiar în bătaie de joc. Sf. Ioan consideră că: „forţa sau tăria iubirii este nădejdea, căci prin aceasta aşteptăm plata iubirii” 26.

Plata iubirii nu poate fi decât iubirea. Iubim, nădăjduind că vom iubi tot mai mult şi că vom fi şi noi iubiţi mai mult. Printr-o serie de definiţii aforistice, Sf. Ioan scoate în evidenţă paleta variată de sensuri a virtuţii nădejdii: „Nădejdea este o bogăţie a bogăţiei celei nearătate. Nădejdea este o comoară sigură pe care şi-o câştigă sufletul în viaţa de aici, mai înainte de a dobândi comoara nepieritoare în ceruri… este odihnitoarea ostenelilor, este uşa iubirii, ea omoară deznădejdea şi e icoană a bunurilor care nu sunt de faţă” 27.

Ceea ce produce sau naşte nădejdea în suflet este procesul de experimentare a darurilor Domnului, iar ceea ce risipeşte nădejdea este mânia28. „Lipsa nădejdii este pieirea iubirii”29. Se evidenţiază faptul că virtutea nădejdii este o armă redutabilă pentru monah în războiul duhovnicesc: 23

24 25 26 27 28

29

Sfântul Ioan Scărarul, Scara, Treapta a XXX-a, 1, Traducere, introducere și note de Pr.Prof.Dr. Dumitru Stăniloae, editura Institutului Biblic și de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, București, 1992, p. 424. De aici înainte vom cita: Scara.....Treapta a ....., p..... . Ibidem, Scholia 946, p. 424. Ibidem, 2, p. 425. Ibidem, 16, p. 429. Ibidem. „Experimentarea darurilor Domnului naşte nădejdea, căci cel ce nu le-a experimentat este îndoielnic în credinţă. Mânia risipeşte nădejdea…nădejdea nu se ruşinează pe când bărbatul mânios îşi schimonoseşte faţa.” (Ibidem). Ibidem.

Iubirea ca participare la taina lui Dumnezeu

303

„Buna nădejde este ca şi o sabie de care se foloseşte monahul spre a junghia şi înlătura trândăvia”30.

b) Iubirea ca participare la taina lui Dumnezeu şi la taina semenului: puterea transformatoare a iubirii. Omul nu poate cuprinde în sine toată iubirea lui Dumnezeu. Dar o dată avânduo în sine o simte ca pe ceva ce nu se mai sfârşeşte. Această iubire creşte în măsura exerciţiului şi a voinţei de a o intensifica. În măsura în care îşi deschide inima faţă de oameni, omul devine capabil de a se împărtăşi de oceanul dragostei dumnezeieşti. „După calitatea ei – spune Sf. Ioan Scărarul – iubirea este asemănarea cu Dumnezeu pe cât este cu putinţă muritorilor, iar după lucrare este o beţie a sufletului31. După însuşire e izvorul credinţei, adâncul fără fund al îndelungii răbdări, oceanul smereniei”32.

Iubirea uneşte fără să confunde. Ea este sentimentul participării şi nu al asimilării. Dumnezeu fiind persoană şi omul tot persoană, persoanele nu se desfiinţează în iubire. Ele se iubesc ca persoane distincte şi numai întrucât sunt persoane. Sf. Ioan aduce apoi o serie de exemple din viaţa oamenilor, pentru a sublinia dorinţa, teama, sârguinţa, râvna, supunerea şi iubirea pe care trebuie să o manifestăm faşă de Dumnezeu: „Fericit este cel ce are o aşa dragoste faţă de Dumnezeu precum are cel nebun îndrăgostit faţă de iubita sa. Fericit este cel care se teme de Domnul, precum se tem osândiţii de judecătorul lor… Cel care iubeşte cu adevărat are mereu înaintea ochilor minţii chipul celui îndrăgit şi cu atâta plăcere îl priveşte înaintea gândului său încât şi noaptea în vis nu-şi poate stăpâni elanul ce-l atrage spre cel dorit, ci vorbeşte cu dânsul. Acest lucru se întâmplă atât fiinţelor trupeşti cât şi celor fără de trup”33.

Mai interesantă este observaţia Sf. Ioan Scărarul, că iubind noi faţa celui iubit, aceasta are putere să ne transforme, deci, cu atât mai mult faţa Domnului:

30

Ibidem, p. 430. Numindu-o la fel ca şi Sf. Ioan Scărarul «o beţie a sufletului», Sf. Isaac caracterizează în felul următor această stare: „De această beţie duhovnicească au fost beţi apostolii şi martirii, cei dintâi străbătând toată lumea întru osteneală şi osândire, ceilalţi vărsându-şi sângele ca pe o apă din mădularele tăiate şi suferind chinurile cele mai mari fără să slăbească cu trupul”. (Cf. Filocalia, vol. VII, p. 198-199). Iubirea duhovnicească e numită de părinţii duhovniceşti beţie, întrucât depăşeşte cu entuziasmul ei judecata lumească a minţii şi simţirea trupului. Ea îl mută pe cel părtaş la ea, pe alt plan al realităţii. 32 Scara…, Treapta a XXX-a, 3, p. 425. 33 Ibidem, 5-6, p. 425-426. 31

304

Ioan Mircea Ielciu

„Dacă faţa celui iubit ne preface în chip vădit în întregime şi ne face radioşi, fericiţi şi neîntristaţi, ce nu poate face faţă Stăpânului când vine în chip nevăzut în sufletul curat?”34

Sf. Ioan declară că iubirea divină produce o transformare lăuntrică a omului: „Când omul întreg se amestecă cu iubirea lui Dumnezeu atunci strălucirea sufletului se arată în trup ca într-o oglindă…Cei ce au atins această treaptă deopotrivă cu a îngerilor, uită de multe ori de hrana trupească” 35. Iubirea este o forţă care alimentând spiritul revarsă în trup putere, încât acesta nu mai are nevoie de mâncare regulată pentru a-şi menţine forţa vitală, „căci focul ceresc obişnuieşte să hrănească sufletele acestora aidoma cum hrăneşte apa de sub pământ rădăcina plantei”36.

După cum afirmă Sf. Ioan Scărarul, dacă faţa celui iubit ne preface în întregime după chipul ei şi ne umple faţa noastră de bucurie şi de farmec înseamnă că o energie a lui este transmisă şi în noi şi lucrează asupra noastră, dar nu în mod fizic sau subconştient, ci prin voia, afecţiunea şi conştiinţa noastră37. Cum e şi firesc, Sf. Ioan vede o legătură foarte strânsă între iubirea faţă de Dumnezeu şi iubirea faţă de aproapele. De fapt ele se intercondiţionează una pe alta: „Cel ce iubeşte pe Domnul a iubit mai înainte pe semenul său. Dovada celei dintâi o face cea de-a doua. Cel care iubeşte pe aproapele său nu mai suferă pe cei care îl grăiesc de rău, ci va fugi de dânşii mai vârtos decât de foc. Cel care spune că iubeşte pe Domnul, dar pe fratele său se mânie este asemenea celui ce aleargă în vis” 38.

Iubirea faţă de semenii noştri creşte din obişnuinţa iubirii faţă de Dumnezeu şi mai ales din trăirea ei ca extaz pe treapta culminantă a rugăciunii, iar 34 35 36 37

38

Ibidem, 10, p.427. Ibidem, 11, p. 427. Ibidem, p. 428. „Între cei ce se iubesc - afirmă părintele Stăniloae, nu este separaţie. Pe de altă parte ar fi simplist să să concepem iubirea numai ca o comunicare de energie de la unul la altul, precum ar fi cu totul greşit să fie considerată ca o identificare de euri. Energia care se comunică de la unul la altul în cei ce se iubesc, nu are un caracter fizic. Într-un anumit sens, cel iubit nu-şi trimite numai o energie în fiinţa celui iubitor, ci pe sine însuşi întreg, fără să înceteze de a rămâne în sine. E o proiectare a fiinţei sale întregi prin energia sa în sufletul celui iubitor. Iar chipul celui iubit nu se impune silnic, ci e primit şi păstrat cu bucurie, este absorbit, mai bine zis, de cel iubitor, încât nu ştii care trimite odată cu chipul său mai multă energie de la sine în celălalt: cel iubit sau cel ce iubeşte”. (Cf. Teologia Morală Ortodoxă, vol. III: Spiritualitatea Ortodoxă…, p. 260-261). Cel ce urăşte sau se mânie pe fratele său nu înaintează în mod real, ci doar i se pare că se mişcă (Ibidem, 15, p. 429 şi Scholia 961). Pentru detalieri vezi: T. Barrosse, „The Unity of the Two Charities in Greek Patristic Exegesis”, în Theological Studies, t. 15, (1954), p. 355-388; I. Hausherr, „La charité fraternelle”, în Christus, 8, (1961), nr. 31, p. 291-305; J. Farges-M. Viller, „La charité chez les Peres”, în Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, t. II, 1, Paris, 1953, col. 523-569; A. H. Armstron-R.A. Markus, Christian Faith and Greek Philosophy, London, 1960, p. 79-96.

Iubirea ca participare la taina lui Dumnezeu

305

iubirea faţă de Dumnezeu devine mai accesibilă prin obişnuinţa cu iubirea faţă de semeni. Sufletul plin de iubirea adevărată se comportă la fel faţă de Dumnezeu şi faţă de toţi oamenii. Fără iubirea faţă de semeni ne este foarte greu să înţelegem ceva din taina iubirii lui Dumnezeu faţă de noi. Dumnezeu doreşte să-i răspundem personal cu iubirea noastră la iubirea Sa, dar nu trebuie să uităm căci consistenţa acestui răspuns este dată de puterea cu care iubim pe semenul nostru. În această taină ni se revelează un fapt deosebit de important pentru existenţa noastră şi anume, că nici o persoană nu se poate mulţumi cu propriul sine, fără comuniunea cu altul şi că existenţa sa devine bogată şi profundă prin altul. „Nimeni nu-şi poate da seama cât de mult valorează el pentru altul, dar îşi dă seama cât valorează altul pentru el”39. În felul acesta „iubirea este dovada existenţei noastre eterne şi mijlocul desăvârşirii noastre”40. c) Iubire şi cunoaştere. Aspectul cognitiv al iubirii La temelia iubirii, Sf. Ioan aşază teama: „Sporirea temerii41 este începutul dragostei, iar desăvârşirea întru virtute este pricinuitoarea cunoaşterii lui Dumnezeu şi a cuvântării de Dumnezeu (adică a teologiei)42. Cel ce s-a unit cu Dumnezeu prin toată puterea simţirii sale este împărtăşit de Dânsul într-un chip tainic de cunoaştere a tainelor Sale negrăite. Cel care însă nu s-a unit cu El, îi este cu anevoie a grăi despre Dumnezeu. Cuvântul (Logosul) consubstanţial Tatălui desăvârşeşte neprihănirea după ce prin venirea Sa a ucis moartea (adică senzualitatea trupului). Ucigându-o pe aceasta, ucenicul teologiei începe să fie luminat”43.

Iubirea are un profund caracter cognitiv44. Sf. Ioan scoate în evidenţă cu multă claritate acest aspect atunci când afirmă că:

39 40 41

42

43 44

Pr. Prof. Dr. Dumitru Stăniloae, Teologia Morală Ortodoxă, vol. III: Spiritualitatea ortodoxă…, p. 265. Ibidem. Nu este vorba aici de frica brută, de ceea ce latinii exprimau prin timor, ci de acel tremendum, de acea cutremurare a fiinţei umane, când are conştiinţa că se află în faţa Sacrului, a Divinităţii. Sub numele de teologie se înţelege în text desigur al treilea stadiu al vieţii mistice, cunoscut în Apus sub numele de „via unitiva”. În acest caz însă «Theologhia», nu are sensul de participare intelectuală la tezaurul revelaţiei, ci pe acela de participare harică şi personală la viaţa intimă şi tainică a lui Dumnezeu. În limbaj bisericesc „a teologhisi”, nu are sensul de a dezbate probleme teologice, ci a trăi în Dumnezeu, a-L experimenta în mod viu, nemijlocit şi personal. (Vezi şi Diadoch al Foticeii, Capita de perfectione spirituali, 67, în P.G., t. 65, col. 1190D-1191A; Filocalia, vol. I, ed. a II-a, p. 363-364). Scara…, Treapta a XXX-a, 12-13, p. 428-429. Pr. Prof. Dr. Dumitru Stăniloae, Teologia Morală Ortodoxă, vol. III: Spiritualitatea ortodoxă…, p. 267.

Ioan Mircea Ielciu

306

„iubirea ne dăruieşte harul proorociei şi putinţa de a săvârşi minuni… Iubirea este adâncul sau abisul iluminării. Iubirea este o stare a îngerilor. Iubirea este o sporire a veacurilor”45.

Pe cât de infinită este iubirea, pe atât de infinită este cunoaşterea pe care aceasta o conferă. Întrucât iubirea este a persoanei, subiectul ei este persoana. Separată de persoană, iubirea nu poate fi înţeleasă şi de fapt nu poate exista. La fel, nici persoana nu poate fi înţeleasă în existenţa ei sănătoasă şi în indefinitul ei, fără iubire. „Iubirea este oprire a veacurilor”, în sensul că, fără ea, însăşi „eternitatea ar fi încremenită. Iubirea este o continuă noutate şi totuşi ea este stabilitate neschimbată…prin iubire progresăm aici şi ne vom odihni dincolo, în viaţa îngerească”46.

*** Iubirea ne ridică la acea stare care împlineşte şi desăvârşeşte destinul omului şi anume acela de a fi după „asemănarea” lui Dumnezeu. Căci „Dumnezeu este iubire şi cel ce rămâne în iubire rămâne în Dumnezeu şi Dumnezeu rămâne întru el” (I In 4, 16).

Ca icoană a iubirii desăvârşite, Sfânta Treime este „structura supremei iubiri”47, deoarece în Dumnezeu iubirea este absolută, datorită desfăşurării depline a tuturor aspectelor ei între trei Persoane48. Mântuitorul Iisus Hristos concentrează toate poruncile într-una singură: Să iubeşti! Fără iubire chiar dacă am avea toate celelalte virtuţi, după expresia marelui Apostol Pavel, „suntem aramă sunătoare”. Sfânta Treime „este o iubire fără de început şi urmăreşte o extindere a iubirii”49. Această extindere însă nu se poate realiza decât acolo unde iubirea este întâmpinată cu iubire şi i se răspunde cu iubire. Sf. Apostol Pavel sesizează foarte bine aspectul existenţial al iubirii: „de aş avea atâta credinţă încât să mut şi munţii, iar dragoste nu am , nimic nu sunt” (I Cor. 13, 2). 45 46 47 48

49

Scara…, Treapta a XXX-a, 18, p. 430. Ibidem, Scholia 964. Pr. Prof. Dr. Dumitru Stăniloae, Teologia Morală Ortodoxă, vol. III: Spiritualitatea ortodoxă…, p. 195. „O iubire care se închide între doi pune o margine a lor, rămâne indiferentă faţă de cel de al treilea, producând chiar gelozie între cei doi, când unul dintre ei se interesează şi de un al treilea. Dimpotrivă, când un al treilea se bucură cu mine de cel de-al doilea al meu, bucuria mea pentru cel de-al doilea este sporită. De aceea în suprema şi unica existenţă, supremă fără de început (Sfânta Treime), dragostea desăvârşită se realizează în trei, întărind totodată unitea între ei şi evidenţiind nemărginirea lor”. (Cf. Idem, Iisus Hristos lumina lumii şi îndumnezeitorul umanului, Editura Anastasia, Bucureşti, 1993, p. 179). Idem, Sfânta Treime sau La început a fost iubirea, Editura Institutului Biblic și de Misiune a Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, Bucureşti, 1993, p. 7.

Iubirea ca participare la taina lui Dumnezeu

307

Ceea ce avem aşadar avem prin credinţă, dar ceea ce suntem, suntem prin iubire. Iubirea este comuniune, dăruire, împărtăşire de cineva, dar şi responsabilitate. Iubirea este totodată şi suprema responsabilitate pentru altul. Tocmai din aceste considerenste Sf. Ioan Scărarul a pus iubirea pe ultima treaptă a Scării sale50. Este cu adevărat semnificativ faptul că Sf. Ioan consideră iubirea ca cea mai înaltă expresie a spiritualităţii. Să-L cunoşti pe Dumnezeu înseamnă să cunoşti iubirea. Iubirea nu e o simplă însuşire a lui Dumnezeu care îşi află locul printre celelalte „însuşiri” ale Sale. „Tot ceea ce face Dumnezeu, chiar şi ceea ce noi percepem ca pedeapsă sau ură împotriva păcatului, sunt expresii ale iubirii Sale”51.

Iubirea este flacăra ce urcă până la Dumnezeu şi ne îndumnezeieşte, căci a fi mântuit şi îndumnezeit, înseamnă să trăieşti iubirea în forma ei cea mai pură şi mai deplină52. Procesul de creştere în iubire nu se termină niciodată pentru că urcuşul duhovnicesc spre Dumnezeu este infinit atât în această viaţă cât şi în comuniunea din Împărăţia cerurilor53. Aşadar, îndumnezeirea este desăvârşirea şi deplina pătrundere a omului de Dumnezeu, dat fiind că în alt chip el nu poate ajunge la desăvârşire şi la deplina spiritualizare.

50 51

52

53

Ibidem. „Eu doresc cu tărie să aflu o prea sfântă virtute, în ce fel Te-a văzut Iacob rezemându-se puternic de vârful Scării (Cf. Fac. 28, 13). Lămureşte-mi mie, celui ce te întreb, felul în care se poate face şi care sunt virtuţile prin care pot să se urce la tine cei ce te iubesc, ca pe nişte trepte. Însetat-am de dorinţa de a cunoaşte care este numărul treptelor acestora şi în câtă vreme se ajunge la ultima. Cel care s-a luptat şi a văzut această Scară, adică Iacob, ne-a lămurit îndeajuns că îngerii sunt aceia care ne călăuzesc urcuşul. Celelalte taine ale acestei arătări însă, nu mi le-a explicat sau mai bine zis nu a putut. Iar dragostea mi s-a înfăţişat ca o regină ieşind din cer şi vorbindu-mi parcă la urechea sufletului, îmi zice: până nu te vei dezlipi de trup nu vei putea să mă vezi în toată deplinătatea mea. Această scară însă, îţi arată felul în care virtuţile urmează una alteia; eu sunt cea care mă aflu în vârful ei precum a spus cel care m-a cunoscut atât de bine «Şi acum rămân acestea trei: credinţa, nădejdea şi dragostea; iar cea mai mare dintre toate este dragostea» (Cf. I. Cor. 13,13)” (Scara…, Treapta a XXX-a, 18, p. 431-432) Cf. Pr. John Mack, Calea către cer. O tălcuire pentru cei din lume a Scării Sfântului Ioan Scărarul, Prefaţă: Arhim. Teofil Părăian, Traducere Silviu Podariu şi Lucian Craşovan, Ed. Teognost, Cluj-Napoca, 2002, p. 102. Florin Mihaescu, Simbol şi Ortodoxie, Bucureşti, 2000, p. 77. Facem precizarea că Părintele Stăniloae distinge în iubire trei trepte: a) tendinţele de simpatie naturală din starea de sub natură; b) dragostea creştină care folosind aceste tendinţe creşte neîncetat prin harul divin şi prin eforturile proprii; c) dragostea ca extaz, sau ca dar exclusiv de sus. Aceasta din urmă vine după o pregătire prealabilă şi îndelungată prin a doua şi ţine clipe scurte, scopul ei fiind ca din ea să câştige forţă nouă cea de-a doua şi să-şi continue creşterea (Pr. Prof. dr. Dumitru Stăniloae, Ascetica şi mistica creştină sau Teologia vieţii spirituale, Cluj, 1993, p. 286).

FROM PERSIA TO CHINA, AMONG MUSLIMS AND MONGOLS: RESEARCH ON THE “CHURCH OF THE EAST” AND ITS ENVIRONMENT Dietmar W. WINKLER Paris-Lodron University of Salzburg

The Church of the East is not just a “Nestorian” episode in the history of early Christianity within the Roman Empire.1 This Church has a long history of interreligious encounter and acculturation of which we will give only some examples in this paper. Today, there are four main denominations being the heirs of the “Church of the East” and its missionary activities. Although there are no accurate statistics, the following numbers may give at least an idea of their size and spreading at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The “Assyrian Church of the East” has approximately 385,000 members. The “Ancient Church of the East” numbers perhaps 50-70,000 faithful in total. The “Chaldean Catholic Church”, with about 630,000 members2, which is in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and in line with the original patriarchal succession. And, last but not least, the Indian Catholics who follow the East Syriac rite, the “Syro-Malabar Church”, who are by far the largest group. They have about 4.3 Million members3. Historical research on Christianity commonly focuses on the areas within the Roman Empire, the Mediterranean and Europe, where Christianity eventually became the religion of the majority. There is awareness that already in the first two centuries, Christianity spread with remarkable rapidity in Syria, Egypt and north-westwards into Asia Minor, Cappadocia and Greece, Italy and Spain, that growing Christian communities could be found in Gaul and Britain as well as in Roman Africa with Carthage as its centre. However, little consideration has been shown on the fact that also the Roman imperial frontier and language barrier in the northeast had been crossed. By the first century there were already Christian communities in Mesopotamia, which was part of the Persian empire of the Parthians, superseded by the Sassanians in the third century. As early as the fifth century this “Persian Church” had crossed the Oxus, and Sogdians and Turks, as well as the South 1

2 3

Cf. W. BAUM/D.W. WINKLER, The Church of the East. A concise history. London 2003. German: Idem., Die Apostolische Kirche des Ostens. Geschichte der sogenannten Nestorianer. Klagenfurt 2000. Romanian and Chinese translations are in preparation. Cf. CONGREGAZIONE PER LE CHIESE ORIENTALI (ed.), Oriente Cattoloco Tomo I. Rome 2017, 270. Cf. ibid., 383.

310

Dietmar W. Winkler

Indian Malabar coast, had been reached. East Syriac Christianity gained a foothold on the Arabian Peninsula and reached the Chinese imperial court of the Tang Dynasty in the seventh century. From the perspective of Christianity in the Roman Empire of the late antique world, Christianity in Persia was seen as belonging to the church of the “East”. From the Persian perspective Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem are considered “West”. The Persian Church never was part of the Roman Imperial Church and of the ecclesial politics of the emperors of the Roman Empire. The “Church of the East” achieved the greatest geographical scope of any Christian church until the Middle Ages. It always regarded itself as part of Syriac Christianity, but the permanent wars between the Roman and the Persian empires had cut the Aramean world into two. And it was on the eastern side of the political demarcation that Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the capital of the Persian Sassanian Empire, was to become the patriarchate of East-Syriac Christianity.

1. The “Loss” of the Orient Although the Gospel has its origin in a Syro-Aramaic setting, and there has been continually throughout history a Christian Aramaic tradition – which we encounter in the various Syriac Churches – this has moved to the background and has been largely forgotten in theological discourse. In many cases the discussion addresses only the “Latin West” (including the churches of the Reformation and the Anglicans) and the “Greek East” (including Slavic Orthodoxy), while the third important tradition, the “Orient” with its Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopian traditions receives no consideration.4 Knowledge of this branch of Christendom is slight, although Oriental Christianity constitutes its third strand, alongside the Latin-Western and GreekByzantine traditions. A first reason, why Church History and Theology has been looking mainly towards the west, is the Ecclesial History of Eusebius of Caesarea († 339) whose perspective became the model for nearly every subsequent foray into church history until the twentieth century. Eusebius – and before him already Luke in his Acts – concentrated on an account of Christianity in the Roman Empire, which led him to pay heightened attention to Europe. This “Eurocentrism” overlooked the fact that a large part of Christianity took hold outside of the Roman Empire and spread across all of Asia and parts of Africa. The main reason to expel Oriental Christianity from our books of Church History is, however the Christological discussion of the 5th century within the Roman Empire. On the basis of the fifth-century controversies over Christology, those churches which accepted the definition of faith established by the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) judged Oriental 4

Cf. S. BROCK, „Relevance of Syriac Studies”, in: The Harp 1 (1988) No. 2/3, 10-12.

From Persia to China, among Muslims and Mongols

311

Christianity either as “Monophysite”5 or “Nestorian”6, as schismatic at best but in most instances as heretical. Both is theologically not accurate. Within western academic theology the Oriental tradition continued to be disregarded, on the one hand because the decisions of the Imperial Councils led to a concentration on the Latin West and Greek East and on the other hand because Oriental languages such as Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopian and Armenian were studied more often in academic programs at institutes of Oriental Studies and Philology than in theological schools. Although most of that literature is comprised of religious texts, yet the study of Oriental Christianity was almost totally ignored by the other Christian traditions. Both, the so-called Nestorian and the so-called Monophysite Churches, are often “straw men” in western Systematic Theology and Church History knocked down early in a chapter on Christology. But they are still alive and preserving a rich heritage of theology, history, and spirituality.

2. The beginnings of the East Syriac Church or “Church of the East” Up to now the Church of the East has been called the “Nestorian Church”. Encyclopedia information is generally under this entry. From a theological point of view this term must be rejected today, because “Nestorian” refers to a heresy which is regarded to separate the humanity and divinity in the one Jesus Christ. This does not reflect the Christological teachings of this Church. Moreover, it is a heresy the Church of the East itself has rejected as incorrect since at least the 6th century. In 1298, the distinguished East Syrian author and canonist Abdisho bar Brika († 1318) wrote in his book Marganitha (The Pearl) that East Syrian Christians of the Church of the East “never changed their faith and preserved it as they had received it from the apostles, and they are called Nestorians unjustly, especially since Nestorius was not their Patriarch, and they did not understand his language”7. Somewhat better therefore is the expression “pre-Ephesian Church”, because the Church of the East accepts only the first two imperial synods, the Councils of Nicea (325) and Constantinople (381), as ecumenical. But this part of 5

6

7

Cf. D.W. WINKLER, „‚Miaphysitismus‘. Anmerkungen zur ökumenischen Sinnhaftigkeit eines Neologismus“, in: Cristianesimo nella Storia 37 (2016) 19-29, Idem., “Miaphysitism. A new Term for Use in the History of Dogma and in Ecumenical Theology”, in: The Harp 10 (1997) No. 1/2, 33-4; Idem, “Monophysitism”, in: G. W. BOWERSOCK/P. BROWN/O. GRABAR (Eds.), Late Antiquity. A Guide to the Postclassical World. Cambridge/MA 1999, 586-588. Cf. D.W. WINKLER, Ostsyrisches Christentum. Untersuchungen zu Christologie, Ekklesiologie und zu den ökumenischen Beziehungen der Assyrischen Kirche des Ostens (Studien zur Orientalischen Kirchengeschichte 26). Münster 2004, 42-80; Idem, „Nestorius (um 381451/453)“, in: G.M. HOFF/U.H.J. KÖRTNER (eds.), Arbeitsbuch Theologiegeschichte. DiskurseAkteure-Wissensformen. Vol. 1: 2.-15. Jh. Stuttgart 2012, 148-165. Abdisho bar Brika, Marganitha III.4. Quote from G.P. BADGER, The Nestorians and their Rituals Vol II. London 1852 (reprint 1987), 400.

312

Dietmar W. Winkler

Christianity expanded outside the bounds of the Roman Empire. Therefore the term East Syriac or Syro-Oriental Church is more appropriate than a name which refers to the reception of Councils of the Roman Empire.8 Better yet, is to name them, how they have been called according to their synodical records in the 5th and 6th centuries, i.e. the (Apostolic) “Church of the East”, whose patriarch (catholicos) had his See to the east of the Roman Empire at the Persian capital Seleucia-Ctesiphon. While Christianity in the Roman Empire was subjected to persecutions prior to 313 (Edict of Milan), it could for a time develop in peace on the other side of the Euphrates in the Persian kingdom of the Parthians (until 224).9 Presumably Christianity found its way into the regions east of the Tigris – Adiabene and Khuzistan – as early as the second half of the first century and beginning of the second century.10 However, the historical sources are scanty. In contrast, at the end of the second century/beginning of the early third century, Christianity can be well explored in both literary and archeological sources in Parthia, Kushan, Persia, Media, Edessa, Hatra, and Fars, among other places. On the island of Kharg, third-century Christian graves testify with Syriac inscriptions from Christian communities around the Persian Gulf.11 One can assume that Christianity spread from Osrhoene and its capital Edessa (Urfa) and from the region surrounding Nisibis (Nusaybin) into the Parthian Empire.12 The chronicle of Edessa offers a series of dates from the earliest history of Christianity in that city.13 This source allows us to conclude that Christianity gained a foothold in Osrhoene in the second century.14 Very probably, the first to bring Christianity to the East were those who traveled the trade routes from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf and across Central Asia to China.15 As Edessa occupied a position where significant trade routes intersected, and Antioch on the Mediterranean was the most influential metropolis of the Roman province of Syria, the Gospel traveled a route from 8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15

Cf. D.W. WINKLER, „Zur Rezeption ‚Ökumenischer Konzilien‘ am Beispiel der persischen und armenischen Kirche“, in: P. BRUNS / H.O. LUTHE (Hg.), Orientalia Christiana. FS für H. Kaufhold zum 70. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden 2013, 615-636. Cf. M.-L. CHAUMONT, Christianisme de l’Empire Iranien des origins aux grandes persecutions du IVe siècle. Louvain 1988 (CSCO 499, Subs. 80) 1-53; W. HAGE, “The Roman Church of Constantine the Great and Christianity in the Persian Empire”, in: Idem., Syriac Christianity in the East. Kottayam 1988 (Môrân ‘Eth’ô 1) 3f. Cf. W. SCHWAIGERT, Das Christentum in Huzistan im Rahmen der frühen Kirchengeschichte Persiens bis zur Synode von Seleukia-Ktesiphon im Jahre 410. Marburg 1989. Cf. Bardesanes, Liber Legum Regionum. Ed. F. NAU. Paris 1907 (PO 2) 46, 606-609; M.-L. CHAUMONT, “Les Sassanides”, in: Revue de l’histoire des religions 165 (1964) 179. Cf. CHAUMONT, Christianisme de l’Empire Iranien 4-6. Cf. H.J.W. DRIJVERS, “Edessa”, in: Theologische Realenzyklopädie 9 (1982) 281-284. Cf. S. GERO, “Kirche des Ostens. Zum Christentum in Persien in der Spätantike”, in: Ostkirchliche Studien 30 (1981) 22-27. Cf. SCHWAIGERT, Das Christentum in Huzistan 10f.

From Persia to China, among Muslims and Mongols

313

Jerusalem through Antioch and Edessa to Mesopotamia. Edessa’s significance for Syriac Christianity extends finally to the fact that the Aramaic dialect of this city (i.e. “Syriac”) became the definitive biblical and liturgical language of this important branch of Christianity. An additional factor contributing to the development of Christianity in Persia was the expanding movement of refugees. Wartime deportations are reported up to the sixth century. With the strengthening of the Persian Empire under the Sassanians (224), a state of perpetual conflict arose between the Persians and the Roman Empire. This situation had consequences for the spread of the Gospel above all during the reign of Shapur I (240-272). Shapur I and his army advanced far into Roman territory and finally reached Antioch in 260. Many Christians from Antioch, Cappadocia, Cilicia, and Syria were deported to Persian provinces and established as tradesmen and artisans in Babylonia, Persia, Parthia, and Susiana.16 Among them was Bishop Demetrius of Antioch, who subsequently served as the first bishop of Beth Lapat (Gundeshapur).17 Persian martyrologies provide further clues to the Persian ecclesiastical structure of the time.18 While in the times of the Parthians, because of their liberal religious policies, Persia was a refuge for Christians persecuted by the Roman Empire in its outlying provinces, Christians at times also endured various forms of repression under the succeeding Sassanians and the dominance of Zoroastrian religion. Violent persecution tormented Christians most notably between 339 and 379 under Shapur II (309-379).19 Causes of the persecution included not only the increasing strength of the Zoroastrian religion but also the political circumstances. The Roman ruler Constantine considered himself a Christian emperor and true lord of the Church. In a 337 letter preserved by Eusebius, he wrote to Shapur II that the Christians ought to be protected.20 The undiplomatic letter of Constantine, who as earthly leader of the Church considered all Christians his subjects, could attract little sympathy in Persia. Moreover, the Roman-Persian conflict also involved Armenia, which had been a Christian state since 301. Thus the Sassanian rulers of the time, recognizing that Christianity in the Roman Empire was on its way to becoming the state religion, saw the Christians of Persia as a threat to their interests. The major developments of the Church of the Roman Empire since the Edict of Milan, such as the Arian controversy at the Council of Nicea (325), had no impact whatsoever on the Persian Church. On the contrary, while under the 16 17 18 19

20

Cf. CHAUMONT, Christianisme de l’Empire Iranien 59f. Cf. M.-L. CHAUMONT, “L’inscription de Katîr à la ‘Ka’bah de Zoroastre’ (Texte, Traduction, Commentaire)”, in: Journal Asiatique 248 (1960) 339-380. Cf. Persische Märtyrerakten. Ed. O. BRAUN. Kempten, München 1915 (Bibliothek der Kirchenväter 22). These events are reflected in the Syriac writings of a contemporary witness, the theologian Aphrahat († 350), called the “Persian Sage”. Cf. for example Aphrahat, Demonstratio 5 and Demonstratio 21, Paris 1894 (Patrologia Syriaca 1) and Paris 1907 (Patrologia Syriaca 2). Cf. Eusebius, Vita Constantini IV, 9-13.

314

Dietmar W. Winkler

Parthians the attitude toward the Christians was tolerant, and under the first Sasanians there were only isolated, localized persecutions for apostasy from Zoroastrianism, the reign of Shapur II brought, in response to developments in the Roman Empire, the first systematic persecutions of the region’s Christians. This is the reverse side of the coin of the history of Christianity: While the politics of Constantine had the well-known positive impact for Christians in the Roman Empire, it lead to persecution of Christians in Persia in the context of the Persian-Roman clash. These persecutions, as well as the destruction of churches in the fourth century, are described in detail in the Persian martyrologies, which most likely were collected in the first decades of the 5 th century. Even if the martyrologies include legendary characteristics and tend toward exaggeration, they nonetheless offer sufficient material to grasp the scale of the persecutions. As a consequence of the deaths of Shapur II (379) and his successor Ardeshir II († 383), the situation of the Christians improved toward the end of the fourth century. Above all king Yazdgird I (399-421) sought to ease political tensions with the Roman Empire and began to integrate Christians into imperial politics. Thus began the period of diplomatic exchanges between the two great empires of late antiquity, exchanges in which the Christian hierarchy of Persia played an essential role.21 Several Persian diplomatic missions to the neighboring Christian empire were led by bishops of the Church of the East. Likewise the Roman Empire was represented by delegates at Persian courts. It was at that time, that the Church of the East could start its “synodical period”. With the first Synod of Seleucia-Ctesiphon (410), the Persian Church got not only reorganized after the persecutions, but also brought into harmony with the faith of the West by the reception of the faith of Nicea (325).22 Like the councils of the Roman Empire, the first synod of the whole Church of the East was called and supported by the state authorities. With further synods in the 5 th century the Persian Church established its ecclesial and theological independence. However, contact with the Roman imperial Church was in no way broken off. In the 6th century the ecclesial organization and the primacy of the Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon was perfectly established. The Church developed a strong Antiochene Christology and flourished spiritually and with its rich scholarly activities centered on the famous School of Nisibis.

21 22

Cf. L. SAKO, Le rôle de la hiérarchie syriaque orientale dans les rapports diplomatiques entre la Perse et Byzance aux Ve-VIIe siècles. Paris 1986. Cf. WINKLER, „Zur Rezeption ‚Ökumenischer Konzilien‘ am Beispiel der persischen und armenischen Kirche“, esp. 623-629.

From Persia to China, among Muslims and Mongols

315

3. Among Muslims: Early encounter with Islam In the first century of their empire, the Arabs had turned the political map of the Middle East inside out. The province boundaries of the Eastern Roman empire largely disappeared as well as the frontier between the old rivals Persia and Byzantium. The Middle East in the 7th and 8th centuries became not only at once a vast common market23, but also were the various Christian denominations – Orthodox (Melkite), Syrian Orthodox, Coptic and Church of the East communities – under the same rule, without any privileges. The fact that within a century of the death of Muhammad (632) Islam had spread across much of the known world was for many Christians inexplicable, frightening, and theologically incomprehensible. Muslims, on their part, on the basis of the Quranic revelations, found it impossible to understand why Christians insisted on impugning the oneness of God by their affirmation of the divinity of Jesus and the use of Trinitarian formulas.24 The different Christian denominations had diverging perspectives about the conquest.25 Christian responses to Islam were far from monolithic: Various strategies were employed by different authors at different times.26 Although the life within the Orthodox (Melkite/Imperial) Church was only little disrupted during the conquest, the life after the conquest was not the same. The Patriarchates of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem were cut off Constantinople and the Imperial Byzantine Church. It now stood equal to the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Copts and Syrians, so-called “Monophysites”) and the Church of the East (so-called “Nestorians”) as religious minorities in an Islamic land. The Orthodox (Melkites) were disconnected from their compatriots in Constantinople and now at the same level as those Christian Churches who were seen as heretics within the Roman Empire.27 The Syriac Churches as well as the Copts in Egypt appear to have looked upon the Muslim conquests with a guarded hope of increased freedom. The bonds and duties of the Christian empire of Byzantium were no longer of importance. And it was in the early 23 24 25

26

27

Cf. D.C. DENNETT, Conversion and Poll-Tax in Early Islam. Cambridge/MA 1950. Cf. J.V. TOLAN, Saracens. Islam in the Medieval European Imagination. New York 2002, esp. 40-67. Cf. S.H. GRIFFITH, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque. Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam. 4th ed. Princeton 2010. D.W. WINKLER, “Christian Responses to Islam in the Umayyad Period“, in: D.W. WINKLER (ed.), Syriac Churches encountering Islam. Past experiences and future perspectives (Pro Oriente Studies in Syriac Tradition 1). Piscataway 2010, 66-84. Cf. J. JAKOB, Syrisches Christentum und früher Islam. Theologische Reaktionen in syrischsprachigen Texten vom 7. bis 9. Jahrhundert (Theol. Diss). Salzburg 2018. Die Dissertation wurde mit dem Karl-Rahner-Preis 2019 ausgezeichnet und erscheint in den Innsbrucker theologischen Studien. Cf. H. KENNEDY, The Melkite Church from the Islamic Conquest to the Crusades: Continuity and Adaptation in the Byzantine Legacy 325-343. E. HONIGMANN, Le couvent de Barsauma et le Patriarcat Jacobite d’Antioche et de Syrie. Louvain 1954 (CSCO 146 Subs. 7).

316

Dietmar W. Winkler

Umayyad period that the “Church of the East” could build monasteries in Palestine, like the one in Tell Masos, which was founded sometimes before 700, or the Monastery of the Mount of Olives, which is first attested in 739.28 However, in time, the “liberated” find that they have not been liberated very much, whereas those who have lost power find that they have not lost so much as they thought. Once the Arabs had established their power, they immediately imposed land and head taxes upon all non-Muslim inhabitants, while the Muslims themselves had a lighter set of taxes. In the last half of the Umayyad dynasty – especially beginning with caliph al-Malik (685-705) – Christians were dismissed from administrative posts, destruction of images was taking place in the Churches of Syro-Palestine, and, as the West Syriac Scholar Bar Hebraeus reports, a decate later, in the reign of ‛Umar II, Christians were forbidden to ring their bells, pray loudly and to use saddles when riding. 29 The effect of all these actions was that at the end of the Umayyad period (750) Christians were using only half of the Churches that they had used in 600.30 Christian reactions were not only diverse because of the Christian divisions, and the different social and political realities, but also somewhat ignorant. Christian authors had unfavourable stereotypes of Arabs. The invaders were seen as a scourge of God or as punishment for sins, but not as a theological challenge. On the one hand, the Orthodox (Melkites) ascribed the success of the Muslims to sins of the heretics (“Monophysites”, “Nestorians”), and on the other hand, as the ninth-century (West) Syriac chronicler Dionysius of Tel-Mahrē shows, the scourge is seen as sent against the Byzantine church as punishment for its (chalcedonian dyophysite) heresy and for its persecution of the Syrian Orthodox.31 Islam as a religion was not taken seriously. Early Christian commentators have little to say about Islam and its prophet. Only when it became clear that the new Muslim rulers were here to stay, affirmed their power, build Mosques etc. Christians started to react theologically. While Syriac, Greek and Coptic Christians still would use their languages, nevertheless toward the end of the eight century, Christian thinkers began to compose works of theology and of Christian edification in Arabic. The reason for abandoning the ancient languages and using the language of the conqueror was the new socio-economic environment and that the Christians challenged in 28

29 30 31

Cf. J.C. LAMOREAUX, “Early Eastern Christian Responses to Islam”, in: J.V. TOLAN (ed.), Medevial Christian Perceptions of Islam. A book of Essays. New York-London 1996, 7; D.C. BARAMKI / S.H. STEPHAN, “A Nestorian Hermitage between Jericho and the Jordan”, in: Quaterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 4 (1935) 81-86; V. FRITZ / A. KEMPINSKI, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet el-Mšāš (Tel Māśōś). Wiesbaden 1972-1975. Cf. Bar Hebraeus, The Chronicle of Gregory Abû’l Faraj. Vol. I. Ed. E.A.W. BUDGE. London 1932; Reprint Piscataway 2003, 109. Cf. LAMOREAUX, “Early Eastern Christian Responses to Islam” 9. Cf. TOLAN, Saracens 40; S. BROCK, “Syriac Views of Emergent Islam” in: G.H.A. JUYNBOLL, (ed.), Studies on the First Century of Islamic Society. Carbondale-Edwardsville 1982, 10f.

From Persia to China, among Muslims and Mongols

317

their faith, needed Arabic in the defence of their religion and in affirming the faith of wavering believers. It was inevitable that Christians within the dar alIslam (whether they were Syriac, Coptic or Greek speaking) would themselves learn Arabic and teach it to their children, to prosper better within the New Islamic World Order; Arabic had become a Christian language and a most exciting body of Christian Arabic Literature started to get created.32 While Coptic was not widley used after the 10th century, Syriac maintained an important position as a liturgical and literary language until the fourteenth century. The Arab conquest did not interrupt the creation of Syriac literature. However, Christian academics started to write Arabic treatises and apologies on the Trinity, on Christology and other topics of faith, which were accessible to Christians and Muslims alike. These texts did not only encourage interreligious dialogue, but also draw the lines of disagreement more clearly.

4. The translation movement in Baghdad Between 750 and 850 A.D. the Arab world was the scene of one of the most spectacular and momentous movements in the history of thought. The movement was marked by translations into Arabic from Persian, Greek, and Syriac.33 Almost all secular Greek books that were available throughout the Eastern Roman and the Persian Empires were translated into Arabic. i.e. astrology, astronomy, arithmetic, geometry, alchemy, theory of music, the entire corpus of Aristotelian philosophy, metaphysics, ethics, zoology, botany, logic, medicine, pharmacology, veterinary science, military science, wisdom sayings etc. passed through the hands of translators. Just to imagine the extent of the effort: The edition of Galen’s complete medical works, which only form a small part of the whole translation movement, comprise seventy four large volumes.34 In the Fertile Crescent, the Arabian Muslims, who had not brought with them art, science, and philosophy, fell heir to Hellenistic and Persian science, which 32

33

34

Cf. among others: S.K. SAMIR, Christian Arabic Literature in the Abbasid Period, in: M. YOUNG / J. LATHAM / R. SERJEANT (Eds.), Religion, Learning and Science in the 'Abbasid Period (The Cambridge History of Arabic Literature). Cambridge 1990, 446-46; S.K. SAMIR / J.S. NIELSEN (eds.), Christian Arabic Apologetics during the Abbasid Period (750-1258). Leiden 1994; R.Y EBIED / H. TEULE (eds.), Studies on the Christian Arabic Heritage in Honour of Father Prof. Dr. Samir Khalil SAMIR S.I. at the Occasion of his sixty-fifth Birthday (Eastern Christian Studies 5). Leuven 2004. Cf. GRIFFITH, The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque 106-128; De Lacy O’LEARY, How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs. Chicago 1951. E.-I. YOUSIF, Les philosophes et traducteurs syriaques: d’Athènes à Bagdad. Paris 1997. H. HUGONNARD-ROCHE, „Contributions syriaques aux études arabes de logique à l’époque Abbaside“, in: Aram 3 (1991) 193-210; R. HOYLAND, „Arabic, Syriac and Greek historiography in the first Abbasid century: an inquiry to inter-cultural traffic”, in: Aram 3 (1991) 111-234. Cf. S. BROCK / D. TAYLOR, The Hidden Pearl. Vol. II: The Heirs of the Ancient Aramaic Heritage. Rome 2001, 128-136.

318

Dietmar W. Winkler

were unquestionably the most precious intellectual treasure at hand. In a few decades after the foundation of Baghdad (762 A.D.) the Arabic-reading public found at its disposal the major philosophical works of Aristotle and the NeoPlatonic commentators, the chief medical writings of Hippocrates and Galen, the main mathematical compositions of Euclid and the geographical masterpiece of Ptolemy. – How could that happen? The Abbasid revolution was a turning point in Muslim history, not only by shifting the capital from Damascus to Mesopotamia.35 A few miles up the Tigris River from the ruins of the Sassanian capital Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the early Abbasids build the new capital and centre of Islamic power: Baghdad. Caliph al-Mansur chose the place in 762, where the Euphrates and Tigris come close together and where the Muslim empire could link trade routes between Europe and Asia. While the Umayyads had seen themselves as superior men, the Abbasids included more people and started a more egalitarian form of government. Hundreds of Persians and Christians rose to high positions within the army and civil administration. Muslim life was placed now in the centre of the old Sassanian Empire; in an area were Persian and Aramaic/Syriac culture remained strong. Strong elements of Sassanian culture ranging from the religious to the secular survived among these peoples and their elite occupied prominent positions in Abbasid administration. The Abbasids used Sassanian culture probably to consolidate their power.36 The translation of texts and by that of knowledge, into Arabic was part of the process to form an imperial ideology since translations had to support the political and religious ideas of the caliphs. The political message is that the caliph and Islam are the true heirs to ancient Greece and all the human sciences. Intellectual centres were built, i.e. several schools, astronomical observatories in Baghdad and Damascus, an immense library in Baghdad, facilities for the translation of scientific and philosophical works from Persian, Greek and Syriac into Arabic. The Arab conquest had brought together people of diverse religions, cultures and languages. The result was a flowering of artistic and intellectual creativity. Christians were excellent in polemical and apologetical literature since its beginnings. Their religion was acculturated in the Greco-Roman world and had taken over their literary and philosophical education and tools. Therefore Christians were very much trained in dispute and discussion. Since Christianity had begun, it had to be in constant discussion: at first with Jews, then with pagan philosophy and last but not least with fellow Christians, especially in the Christological disputes since the 5th century. 35

36

Cf. B. SORO, The Contribution of Mesopotamian Christianity during the Abbasid Period, in: D.W. WINKLER (ed.), Syriac Churches encountering Islam. Past experiences and future perspectives (Pro Oriente Studies in Syriac Tradition 1). Piscataway 2010, 86-109. Cf. D. GUTAS, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture. The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early Abbasid Society. London-New York 1998.

From Persia to China, among Muslims and Mongols

319

Dialogue was a widely used literary form among Christians in the seventh century. When they now started to dialogue for polemic and apologetic purposes with the Muslims, they had a long pre-existing tradition as their background. Caliph al-Mahdi realized that Christians and Jews were formidable intellectual opponents with century long experience. To face the intellectual problem of debate, a handbook in Arabic that teaches the art of argumentation and disputations was clearly needed. Caliph Al-Mahdi commissioned the translation of Aristotle’s Topics. The work was done around 782 by Patriarch Timothy I with the help of the Christian secretary of the governor of Mosul, Abu-Nuh.37 Later on this translation was made more and more perfect. The Topics teach dialectic, the art of argumentation, on a systematic basis and lists about three hundred test cases that provide approaches to arguments or their topics (topoi). The Topics were relevant for the Abbasids in interfaith dialogue, but also in Muslim-Muslim dialogue. Excellence in disputation was politically significant. Eventually the dispute became the practice par excellence in Muslim legal studies and methodology. Syriacspeaking Christians contributed more than any other people to this general cultural awakening and intellectual renaissance in Abbasid Baghdad. For at least two centuries before the appearance of Islam, Syriac scholars had already been translating Greek works into Syriac. While Arabians did not know Greek thought, Syriac Christians had been in contact with the Greek world for over a millennium. They provided the continuity of scholarship in the fields of medicine and philosophy during the period between the end of the Byzantine and Persian rule and the time of the Abbasids. Christian translators tended to know at least three languages: Syriac, Greek and Arabic. Because it was easier to translate from one Semitic language into another, many Christian translators worked in two stages: First translating from Greek into Syriac and then from Syriac into Arabic. However, not all translators were Christian. There were also Jews and Persians. As time went on, Muslim scholars also became proficient in the work of translation, working directly from Greek. For a period during the ninth century, amidst the intellectual excitement, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars all collaborated in the massive undertaking. This translation movement was to prove immensely important for subsequent intellectual and cultural history, not only in the Islamic world, but also in Western Europe. Greek works translated into Arabic entered the Western world through Spain (and Sicily) even before the Greek originals were known in Europe. The translation movement with its main contributers – scholars from 37

H. SUERMANN, „Timothy and his Dialogue with Muslims“, in: The Harp 8/9 (1995/96) 263275; Idem., “Der nestorianische Patriarch Timotheos I. und seine theologischen Briefe im Kontext des Islam“, in: M. TAMCKE / A. HEINZ (ed.), Zu Geschichte, Theologie, Liturgie und Gegenwartslage der syrischen Kirchen (Studien zur orientalischen Kirchengeschichte 9). Hamburg 2000, 217-230.

320

Dietmar W. Winkler

the Church of the East whether cleric or lay – did not only gave birth to and shape Classical Islamic Civilization, intellectual life and society, but influenced European philosophy, theology and culture of the Middle Ages. The Greek heritage was now available in Arabic and then translated from Arabic into Latin thanks to famous Muslim scholars Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and others in 12th century Spain. However, Muslim unity became more and more a fiction. During the late ninth and tenth centuries, various Muslim dynasties took control of the various parts of the Muslim Empire. The power of the Abbasid caliphs ebbed away, although the dynasty was alive in Baghdad until 1258, when the Mongols took over.

5. Among Mongols: Missionary Enterprise in Central Asia and China Already in the 7th century, while the Arabs conquered the Middle East, East Syriac missionaries reached the court of the Emperor of China, and in the European Middle Ages the Church of the East was geographically far larger than the Roman Catholic Church. At times of Ishoyahb II (628-646), who was the last Catholicos-Patriarch under the Sassanians and the first of the era of the Arabs, the expansion of East Syriac Christianity reached China. 38 As the 781 stele of Xian (Changan, Singan-fu), the capital of China under the Tang Dynasty, recorded, a group of missionaries sent by Ishoyahb II reached China in 635.39 Additional metropolitanates were subsequently founded by Ishoyahb II at Hulwan (Iran), Herat (Afghanistan), Samarkand (Uzbekistan), China (with Sees at Xian and Lo-yang), and eventually also in India, whose Christians had already been mentioned by Cosmas Indicopleustes and which had been under the influence of the Church of the East since at least the end of the third century. At the time of the prominent East Syriac Catholicos-Patriarch Timothy I (780832) a significant well organized missionary enterprise towards the East took place. He might also serve as a symbol of the Church of the East’s encounter with Asian as well as Arabic culture and religion. Famous is the so-called dispute between Timothy I and caliph al- Mahdī (775-785).40 The caliph had 38

39 40

Cf. among others: L. TANG, A Study of the History of Nestorian Christianity in China and its Literature in Chinese together with a new English translation of the Dunghuang Nestorian documents. Frankfurt/Main 2002; W. HAGE, “Missionary Enterprise of the Church of the East in Central and East Asia”, in: Idem., Syriac Christianity in the East, 14-26. Cf. M. DEEG, Die Strahlende Lehre. Die Stele von Xi’an (orientalia-patristica-oecumenica 12). Wien 2018. Cf. M. HEIMGARTNER (ed.), Timotheos I., ostsyrischer Patriarch: Disputation mit dem Kalifen al-Mahdi: Textedition, (CSCO 631 Syr 244) Löwen 2011. Einleitung, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen, (CSCO 632 Syr 245) Louvain 2011. Idem., Die Briefe 42–58 des ostsyrischen Patriarchen Timotheos (780–823): Textedition, (CSCO 644 Syr 248) Löwen 2012. Einleitung, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen, (CSCO 645 Syr 249) Löwen 2012. Idem., Die Briefe 30–39

From Persia to China, among Muslims and Mongols

321

permitted Timothy to move his See to Baghdad, an honour permitted to the East Syriac Christians alone. Patriarch Timothy was friends with the caliph and his son Hārūn ar-Rašīd and had every once in a while talks with them on philosophy and theology. The dispute probably took place in 782/83 for two days, when the caliph raises the standard objections to Christian doctrines and practices the Patriarch provides suitable replies to Christology, Trinity, Liturgy, and Scriptures. The text, originally written in Syriac and soon translated into Arabic, was very popular and in wide circulation. But under this energetic Catholicos-Patriarch and promoter of missionary activities Christianity also spread along the Silk Roads together with Aramaic culture and liturgy and reached peoples of Persia, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Mongolia, China, Tibet, and India. For the first time in the history of Syrian mission there is evidence about monks and bishops who were specifically equipped for their missionary work and sent out. They obviously followed the trade routes of Persian and Iranian merchants towards Central Asia and China and one may suppose that the staging posts of those Christian merchants in cities like Merv, Bukhara and Samarqand or like the Turfan oasis grew into the first missionary bases among the native peoples. In 1928 Edgar Wallis Budge (1857-1934) published an English translation of a Syriac narrative that goes back to the 14th century and called the book ‘The Monks of Kublai Khan, Emperor of China”.41 This most fascinating text, originally written in Persian, gives us an impression of the extraordinary expansion of the Church of the East, the most successful missionary church in the Middle Ages. It recounts the travels of two Turkic-speaking (whether Uighur or Ongut) Christian monks from China in the 13th century. Bar Sauma from Cambalic (today’s Beijing) and Markos from Kawshang set out for Jerusalem in order to pray at the tomb of the Lord. They travelled along the Silk Roads through China and Central Asia and reached Kurdistan and today’s Iraq, where the See of their Patriarch was. They were unable to proceed farther west because fighting blocked all roads. In the end, Bar Sauma and Markos stayed with the Patriarch in Bagdad and never reached Jerusalem. The elder monk, Bar Sauma, became Visitor-General for congregations in the East, and ambassador of the Persian Mongolian Il-Khan to the emperor of Byzantium, Andronicus II, the king of France, Philip IV, the king of England, Edward I, and Pope Nicholas IV.42 Markos, the younger monk, found himself consecrated a Metropolitan of

41

42

des ostsyrischen Patriarchen Timotheos: Textedition, (CSCO 661 Syr 256) Louvain 2016; Einleitung, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen, (CSCO 662 Syr 257) Louvain 2016. Cf. E. A. Wallis BUDGE, The Monks of Kublai Khan, Emperor of China. Trans.. London 1928. Earlier French trans.: J.B. CHABOT, Histoire de Mar Jabalaha III, Patriarche des Nestoriens (1281-1317) et du moine Rabban Çauma Paris 1895. German trans.: Alexander TOEPEL, Die Mönche des Kublai Khan. Die Reise der Pilger Mar Yahballaha und Rabban Sauma nach Europa. Darmstadt 2008. Cf. among others J.-M. FIEY, “Le Grand Catholicos turco-mongol Yahwalaha III (12811317),” in: Proche-Orient Chrétien 38 (1988) 209-220; P.G. BORBONE, Storia di Mar

322

Dietmar W. Winkler

China and received the Name Yahballaha. When the Patriarch died in 1281, Yahballaha was elected Patriarch of the Church of the East, becoming spiritual head of the faithful in Mesopotamia, Syria, Persia, Armenia, India, Central Asia (e.g. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan) and China. The area includes the Himalaya Mountains in the South and South Siberia with Lakes Balkhash and Baykal in the North. Syriac as a literary and liturgical language was used by Christians of different ethnic origins across Eurasia, such as Persians, Turcic peoples, Sogdians, Mongols (Uighurs, Onguts, Kerait, Naiman etc.) and Chinese. There are mainly two periods of missionary activities toward Central Asia and China. In the first period – as inscribed at the famous monument of Xi’anfu – Christianity reached the capital of the ruling Tang dynasty in 635. That means that Central Asia with the cities Merv, Bukhara, and Samarkand had been crossed, the Turfan oasis and Dunghuan had been reached as well as Tibetan country. In the middle of the 9th century the Chinese Emperor opposed foreign religion and Christianity after a history of two hundred years disappeared with the expulsion of Christian monks. At about the same time Christianity among the Tibetans declined because of strong Buddhist reactions. A second but more successful period is related to the Mongol peoples. Syrian monks and merchants were still on their way along the silk roads and messengers of the Christian faith. In the 11th century the Kerait south of Lake Baykal were converted. The conversion of the prince of the Mongol Kerait gave a new impetus. When Temujin, called Genghis-Khan, established his power in the 13th century, Christianity has not only spread among the Kerait, but also among other Mongol tribes, e.g. Naiman, Karakitai, Ongut, Merkit, Oirat and others.43 From the beginning of the growing Mongol Empire, Christians were included and some Khans had Christian wives. Generally the Church of the East flourished under Mongol rule. In its heyday, the 13th and 14th centuries, bishoprics and metropolitan sees stretched from the Oxus to the Yellow Sea. However, in the 1368 the Mongol-Yuan dynasty was expelled by the Ming and after the long period of foreign rulers, the Turco-Mongol people and anybody non-Chinese were expelled as a reaction and by that the Christian faith as well. This second decline was so complete that the Jesuits, who reached China more than two hundred years later, were regarded as the very first Christians there. In this period also in Central Asia Buddhism in the form of Lamaism won the Turco-Mongol people and the Mongols of the Il-Khanate in Persia started to embrace Islam. These developments were supported by the problem of

43

Yahballaha e di Rabban Sauma: Un orientale in Occidente ai tempi di Marco Polo. Torino 2000. W. HAGE, „Yahballaha III“, in: Martin GRESCHAT (Hg.), Gestalten der Kirchengeschichte Bd. 4: Mittelalter II. Stuttgart 1983, 92-101; D.W. WINKLER, “Theological Transfer: How Did Monks from China Influence East Syriac Sacramental Theology?”, in: L. TANG / D.W. WINKLER (eds.), Winds of Jingjiao. Studies on Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia. (orientalia – patristica – oecumenica vol. 9). Wien 2016, 407-417. Cf. L. TANG, East Syriac Christianity in Mongol-Yuan China (Orientalia biblica et christiana 18). Wiesbaden 2011.

From Persia to China, among Muslims and Mongols

323

communication within the Church of the East. It was a vast geographic area of about nine thousand kilometres expansion from the See of the Catholicos in Baghdad to Khanbaliq/Beijing in China. The Christian communities were usually small, scattered and not well interconnected. The Church government was complicated because Christianity included very different peoples with different languages which led to wide-ranging independence of the Metropolitans, although they were bound together by their liturgical language and their consecration by the Catholicos-Patriarch.44 To these inner factors two major external factors contributed to the decline: First, the murderous plague in Innermost Asia in the 14th century, and second the devastating campaigns of the Muslim conqueror Timur Lenkh (Tamerlane), which destroyed the Church of the East in Central Asia. It became a small community in the Hakkari mountains of Northern Mesopotamia.

6. Ongoing research and future perspectives While Christianity in the West is generally well studied, there are still enormous lacunae of Central Asian Christianity in the so-called Middle Ages, to use a Western term of periodization. The Church of the East was not the only form of Christianity along the silk roads. We know about Syrian Orthodox, Armenians, Russian Orthodox and Latin Missionaries of the Franciscan order in Central Asia and the Far East. But the Church of the East was the most successful with considerable converts also among native people. It is evident that this missionary activity covering mountains, deserts, steppes, fertile valleys and oasis implicates also complex processes of acculturation. The International Dunghang Project45 with participation of European (German, French, British), Russian, Japanese and Chinese scholars, is working to make manuscripts, paintings, textiles and artefacts from Dunhuang and archaeological sites of the Eastern Silk Road freely available on the Internet. The Christian texts are in Syriac, Soghdian (Iranian), Persian and Uighur (Turkish). An on-going project focusses on the editing of the Christian library of Turfan.46 The aim is to catalogue some 900 manuscripts. The texts are from dating from the 9th–12th centuries and include liturgical texts, Bible readings, hymns and psalters, as well as ascetical texts like translations from Evagrius Ponticus, the Apophthegmata Patrum and several East Syrian writers.47 This might give 44 45 46 47

W. HAGE, “Eastern Christianity in the Central Asian Environment”, in: Idem., Syriac Christianity in the East, 27-41. Cf. http://idp.bl.uk/ (as of July 19, 2019) Cf. e.g. E.C.D. HUNTER, “The Christian Library from Turfan: Syr HAT 41-42-43: An Early Exemplar of the Hudra“, in: Hugoye. Journal of Syriac Studies 15 (2012) 301-351. Cf. among others: N. SIMS-WILLIAMS, Iranian manuscripts in Syriac script in the Berlin Turfan collection. Stuttgart 2012; E.C.D. HUNTER / M. DICKENS, Syriac texts from the Berlin Turfan collection. Stuttgart 2014; C. BARBATI, The Christian Sogdian gospel lectionary E5 in context. Vienna 2016; C. RECK, Berliner Turfanfragmente Christlichen Inhalts und Varia in

324

Dietmar W. Winkler

further sources to get at least a basic idea of liturgy, prayer, life, and structure of that Christianity. But there are also other thrilling text found there, like those folios from Xaraxoto, which include Syriac and Soghdian and Uighur texts in Syriac Script, or – interesting enough, a Syriac text written in Uighur.48 These are some examples of current research. As we have seen, the Church of the East positively encountered Islam at first in the Middle East and had its most successful mission in China and Central Asia during the Tang (618-907) and Mongol-Yuan (12th -14th centuries) periods. Studies done on these periods are based on Inscriptions, Chinese documents e.g. from Dunhuang, gravestones e.g. in Kirghizstan, in northwest and southeast China, mediaeval travelogues of western missionaries etc. What is even less known is a wider spread of the Church of the East in furthermost Asia such as Tibet, Western China, Ceylon and Southeast Asia. Evidences in multifarious forms such as rock inscription in Ladakh, Tibet; manuscripts from Dunhuang Grottos; Syro-Turkic epitaphs in Xinjiang, Western China and medieval travelogues on Southeast Asia, etc., have all suggested East Syriac presence in these areas prior to the arrival of Roman Catholic and Protestant missions. Studying the spread of East Syriac Christianity in Tibet, West China, Ceylon and Southeast Asia before 1500 would also give an idea of inter-religious encounters between Christians and peoples of other faiths along the Silk Road, e.g. Buddhism, Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism and Islam. There is still a lot to do in the field. The Salzburg International Conferences “Research on Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia” try to bring together the various expert scholars of different disciplines. The extraordinary and amazing expansion of the “Church of the East”, its inculturation in different cultures and ethnicities, its interrelation with different religions as well as with the West require interdisciplinary collaboration and exchange. The Center for the Study of the Christian East (ZECO – Zentrumn zur Erforschung des Christlichen Ostens) of Salzburg University organized so far six Conferences, which took place in 2003, 2006, 2009, 2013, 2016 in Salzburg and 2019 in Almaty (Kazachstan).49

48

49

soghdischer Schrift. Stuttgart 2018, N. SIMS-WILLIAMS, From Liturgy to Pharmacology. Christian Sogdian texts from the Turfan Collection. Turnhout 2019. Cf. P. ZIEME, Altuigurische Texte der Kirche des Ostens aus Zentralasien. Piscataway 2015; Idem., “Notes on a Bilingual Prayer from Bulayik, in: D.W. WINKLER / L. TANG (eds.), Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters. Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia. (orientalia – patristica – oecumenical vol. 1). Berlin 2009, 168-180. So far four Volumes are published (the fifth is forthcoming 2019): cf. R. MALEK (ed.), Jingjiao. The Church of the East in China and Central Asia. Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica 2006; D.W. Winkler / L. TANG (eds.), Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters. Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia. (orientalia – patristica – oecumenical vol. 1). Berlin 2009; L. TANG / D.W. WINKLER (eds.,), From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores. Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia. (orientalia – patristica – oecumenical vol. 5). Berlin 2013; L. TANG / D.W. WINKLER (ed.),

From Persia to China, among Muslims and Mongols

325

With the step to Central Asia the new archaeological findings and Central Asian archaeologists and scholars could be involved. Besides the European and American collaborations we are involved in, we also started to cooperate with the UNESCO International Institute for Central Asian Studies and the Archaeological Institute of the Kazakh Academy of Sciences to explore and get more insight to this part of Christendom.

(eds.), Winds of Jingjiao. Studies on Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia. (orientalia – patristica – oecumenica vol. 9). Wien 2016.

GAB ES EIN GROßES SCHISMA ZWISCHEN DER ORTHODOXEN UND DER RÖMISCH-KATHOLISCHEN KIRCHE? Grigorios LARENTZAKIS Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät, Universität Graz

Gerne entspreche ich der freundlichen Einladung, bei dieser Festschrift für den lieben Kollegen Dorin Oancea mich mit einem Beitrag zu beteiligen. Und weil er auch den weiten Horizont der Ökumene aus voller Überzeugung und mit voller Kraft gefördert hat, werde ich mich bemühen, mit meinem Beitrag gerade diesem wichtigen heiligen Anliegen der Wiederherstellung der vollen kirchlichen und sakramentalen Gemeinschaft unserer christlichen Kirchen zu dienen. Ich werde mich bemühen, nicht einzelne Vorschläge für detaillierte ökumenische Fragen zu machen, die auch sehr wichtig sind, sondern die grundsätzliche Frage zu beantworten, ob und wann das Große Schisma zwischen der Ost- und der Westkirche, also zwischen der Orthodoxen und der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche, entstanden ist. Dabei hoffe ich, dass viele festgefahrene Meinungen und daraus viele entstandene Vorurteile hinterfragt und korrigiert werden, damit wir die grundsätzliche ökumenische Frage auf ein neues Fundament setzen. So hoffe ich, dass wir uns als christliche Schwesterkirchen, die sich noch nicht in Communio befinden, mit anderem Blickwinkel betrachten und das ersehnte Ziel erreichen und verwirklichen.

Die gegenseitigen Exkommunikationen von 1054 Ereignisse und Bedeutung Um die erwähnten Themen festzustellen, müssen wir die Ereignisse selbst, ihre Tragweite damals und ihre beabsichtigte Wirkung herausfinden. Kommen wir also zu den Problemen während der Zeit von Michael Kerullarios, Patriarchen von Konstantinopel und von Leo IX. des Papstes von Rom (10491054). Den Anstoß zu den traurigen Ereignissen gaben kirchenpolitische Spannungen besonders in Süditalien, die in Verbindung mit der Reformbewegung von Cluny stehen. Dabei spielte der Kardinal von Silva Candida, Humbert, Anhänger von Cluny, eine zentrale Rolle. Er war der Leiter einer Delegation, die in Konstantinopel die Verhandlungen mit dem Kaiser und mit dem Patriarchen zur gemeinsamen Abwehr der Normannen führen sollte, die vom Norden Richtung Süden in Italien unterwegs waren, um sich das ganze Gebiet zu eigen zu

328

Grigorios Larentzakis

machen. Es war also die Absicht, eine Koalition zu erreichen, da in Süditalien und Sizilien byzantinische Gemeinden existierten. Das war der Auftrag und das Ziel der Reise nach Konstantinopel.

Meinte die Exkommunikation des Kardinals Humbert die ganze Ostkirche? Die Vorgangsweise des Kardinals Humbert in Konstantinopel verletzte die Gefühle seiner Gesprächspartner, die entsprechend zurückhaltend reagierten. Der Kardinal glaubte, dass in Konstantinopel der Kaiser die stärkste Persönlichkeit sei, weshalb er den Kaiser zunächst aufsuchte und nicht den Patriarchen. Bei allen Vorkommnissen in Konstantinopel fühlte sich dann der Kardinal nicht würdig genug vom Patriarchen empfangen, verlor die Geduld, und obwohl er vom Tod des Papstes erfahren hatte, legte er ein Schreiben auf den Altar der Hagia Sophia nieder, mit dem er gegen den Patriarchen die Exkommunikation aussprach (16. Juli 1054). Die von Humbert verfasste Exkommunikationsbulle zeigt deutlich, in welchem Umfang die Mentalität der römischen Kirche unter dem Einfluss der Reformbewegung von Cluny sich gewandelt hatte. Humbert „beschuldigte die Byzantiner sogar, das Filioque im Credo gestrichen zu haben, wodurch er seine Unwissenheit auf dem Gebiet der Kirchengeschichte bewies.“1 Aber auch der Kardinal selbst wollte nicht die Gesamtkirche des Ostens exkommunizieren, wie auch der frühere Professor Joseph Ratzinger, der spätere Papst Benedikt XVI. festgestellt hat: „Immerhin hat noch im Jahr 1054 Humbert von Silva Candida in derselben Bulle, in der er den Patriarchen Kerullarios exkommunizierte und damit das Schisma zwischen Ost und West einleitete, Kaiser und Bürger von Konstantinopel als sehr christlich und rechtgläubig bezeichnet, obgleich deren Vorstellung vom römischen Primat sicher von der des Kerullarios weit weniger unterschieden worden war...“2. 1

2

Franz Dvornik, Byzanz und der römische Primat, Stuttgart 1965, 159f.: „Die von Humbert verfaßte Exkommunikationsbulle zeigt deutlich, in welchem Umfang die Mentalität der römischen Kirche unter dem Einfluß der Reformbewegung sich gewandelt hatte und wie wenig die Männer dieser Bewegung von der Kirche des Ostens und ihren Gebräuchen und Gewohnheiten begriffen hatten. Humbert wollte in ihr die Spuren aller groben Häresien entdecken, er warf ihr simonistische Umtriebe vor –obwohl die Simonie nicht im Osten, sondern in der Kirche des Westens in höchster Blüte stand–, er verurteilte ihre verehelichten Priester, ihre Bärte und ihre langen Haare, und er beschuldigte die Byzantiner sogar, das Filioque im Credo gestrichen zu haben, wodurch er seine Unwissenheit auf dem Gebiet der Kirchengeschichte bewies“. Joseph Ratzinger, Prognosen für die Zukunft des Ökumenismus, in: Ökumenisches Forum 1 (1977)36: „Immerhin hat noch im Jahr 1054 Humbert von Silva Candida in derselben Bulle, in der er den Patriarchen Kerullarios exkommunizierte und damit das Schisma zwischen Ost und West einleitete, Kaiser und Bürger von Konstantinopel als, sehr christlich und rechtgläubig bezeichnet, obgleich deren Vorstellung vom römischen Primat sicher von der des Kerullarios weit weniger unterschieden worden war...“

Schisma zwischen der Orthodoxen und Katholischen Kirche

329

Mit Sicherheit muss festgehalten werden, dass die Exkommunikation des Kardinals Humbert gegen den Patriarchen Michael Kerullarios nicht die Gesamtkirche des Ostens betroffen hat. Der Patriarch und der Kaiser versuchten die päpstliche Delegation zurückzuholen und eine Synode einzuberufen, aber ohne Erfolg. Der Kaiser war dem Kardinal gegenüber sogar sehr freundlich und gab ihm Gastgeschenke für den päpstlichen Thron.3 Diese Exkommunikation von Kardinal Humbert wird als illegitim betrachtet, 1. weil der Papst gestorben war, also hatte der Kardinal keine Delegation mehr, was er bereits gewusst hat.4 Diesbezüglich gibt die Auffassung, dass der päpstliche Primat „ruht“, wenn der päpstliche Thron vakant ist, wie der Kirchenrechtler Professor Hugo Schwendenwein von Graz mit Verweis auch auf R. Metz. feststellt.5 Obwohl diesbezüglich die Meinungen auseinandergehen.6 2. Auch wenn der Papst noch gelebt hätte, weil der Kardinal vom Papst keinen Auftrag bekommen hatte, den Patriarchen von Konstantinopel zu exkommunizieren, sondern eine Allianz zu erreichen. Er führte also die Delegation zu keinem Erfolg, sondern zu einer Katastrophe, wofür er „im höchsten Maß verantwortlich war„, wie Franz Dvornik feststellt. 7 3. Auch wenn die Exkommunikation gegen den Patriarchen Michael Keroullarios gültig ausgesprochen wäre, hat die Exkommunikation, gemäß dem römisch-katholischen Kirchenrecht, aufgehört zu existieren, weil die Hauptakteure schon längst gestorben sind. Der Exkommunizierte wird der Gerechtigkeit Gottes überlassen.8 Das bedeutet, wie Kardinal Alfons Stickler, Mitglied der römisch-katholischen Vorbereitungskommission für die „Aufhebung“ der Exkommunikationen, feststellt, dass die Römisch-Katholische 3 4

5 6

7

8

Vgl.. Axel Bayer, Spaltung der Christenheit. Das sogenannte Morgenländische Schisma von 1054. (Beiheft zum Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 53), Köln Weimar Wien 2002. Franz Dvornik, Byzanz und der römische Primat: „Da verlor Humbert die Geduld und schrieb, obwohl er vom Tod des Papstes erfahren hatte, seinen berühmten Brief, in dem er gegen den Patriarchen die Exkommunikation aussprach, legte ihn auf den Altar der Hagia Sophia nieder und verließ die Stadt (16. Juli 1054).“ Hugo Schwendenwein, Das neue Kirchenrecht. Gesamtdarstellung, Graz Wien Köln 1983, 558, Anm. 32. Πρβλ. Axel Bayer, Spaltung der Christenheit. Das sogenannte Morgenländische Schisma von 1054. (Beiheft zum Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 53), Köln Weimar Wien 2002, 99, mit Hinweisen Pro und contra. Franz Dvornik, Byzanz und der römische Primat, 161: “So endete die Gesandtschaft, die einen Bündnisvertrag zwischen Byzanz und dem Papsttum zustande bringen sollte, in einem tragischen Bruch. Die Legaten, vor allem Humbert, waren im höchsten Maß dafür verantwortlich.“ Πρβλ. Peter Neuner, Die Tilgung des Bannes (1965) und ihre theologische Relevanz. Ein ökumenischer Versuch aus römisch-katholischer Sicht, in: Das Schisma zwischen Ost- und Westkirche. 950 bzw. 800 Jahre danach (1054 und 1204), Herausgegeben von Theodor Nikolaou, in Zusammenarbeit mit Peter Neuner und Gunther Wenz, 191.

330

Grigorios Larentzakis

Kirche nichts hatte zum Aufheben, gemäß ihrem Kanonischen Recht, denn die Kirche urteilt nicht über Tote.9 Trotzdem hat die Römisch-Katholische Kirche den Vorschlag des Ökumenischen Patriarchates zur „Aufhebung“ der Exkommunikationen akzeptiert, weil diese Exkommunikationen im Gedächtnis der Kirche weiterhin existieren und zum Symbol der Trennung geworden ist.

Meinte die Exkommunkation des Patriarchen Michael Kerullarios die ganze Westkirche? Am 24. Juli 1054 exkommunizierte dann eine Synode unter Patriarch Michael Kerullarios den Verfasser dieser Exkommunikation, also den Kardinal und alle, die damit einverstanden waren. Man kann sagen, dass der Patriarch in einer Art Verteidigung handelte, er blieb aber auch bei der persönlichen Verurteilung, ohne den Papst oder die westliche Kirche zu verurteilen. Es gab auch keine Entscheidung der Unterbrechung der Beziehungen mit der westlichen Kirche, also war es kein Akt des Abbruchs der kirchlichen Koinonia.10 Der heilige Nektarios Bischof von Pentapolis stellt mit aller Klarheit fest, dass „weder ein Ökumenisches Konzil einberufen wurde, noch eine größere Synode, noch wurde der Papst exkommuniziert, noch ist bestätigt worden, dass die Patriarchen zugestimmt hätten.11“

Vlassios Pheidas stellt fest, dass der Patriarch Michael sogar meinte, die Delegation sei überhaupt nicht vom Papst, sondern von seinem persönlichen Feind in Rom Argyros und die Briefe des Papstes seien gefälscht. (PG 120, 741)12. Der Patriarch misstraute zwar der Delegation, aber er kontaktierte nicht Rom, um Klarheit zu schaffen, was er hätte machen müssen.13 9

10

12

Alsons M. Kardinal Stickler, Die Beziehungen zwischen West- und Ostkirche im Lichte der Quellen, in: Ein Laboratorium für die Einheit. 25 Jahre PRO ORIENTE, hg. im Auftrag der Stiftung Pro Oriente, Wien, von Rudolf Kirchschläger und Alfred Stirnemann, InnsbruckWien1989, 173: „Die Kirche hat über Tote keine Jurisdiktion mehr: sie kann höchstens nachträglich für den irdischen Folgenbereich absolvieren…“ Aristeidis Panotis , Ἡ -ἄρσις τῶν Ἀναθεμάτων μεταξύ Ρώμης καί Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Ἀπό τήν πολεμικήν εἰς τόν Διάλογον, in :Ὀρθόδοξος Παρουσία, Heft 2΄, Τεῦχος 7&8, 1965 : «ἀποφυγοῦσα (ἡ Σύνοδος) νά ἐπεκτείνει ἀμέσως ἤ ἐμμέσως τό ἀνάθεμα καί εἰς τόν πάπαν ἤ νά συντάξῃ πρᾶξιν ἐπισήμου διακοπῆς τῶν σχέσεων τήν ὁποίαν νά κοινοποιήσῃ εἰς τήν Δυτικήν Ἐκκλησίαν, ἀκριβῶς διά νά ἀφεθῇ ἡ θύρα τῆς συνδιαλλαγῆς ἀνοικτή.» Nektarios Kefalas, Μελέτη ἱστορική περί τῶν αἰτίων τοῦ σχίσματος, τ. Β΄, 33, 34, 79f.. «οὔτε Οἰκουμενική συνεκροτήθη σύνοδος, οὔτε πολυπληθής ἦτο, οὔτε τόν πάπαν ἀνεθεμάτισεν, οὔτε οἱ πατριάρχαι βεβαιοῦται ὅτι ἐπεψηφίσαντο.» Vlassios Phidas, Anathema und Schisma-Folgen der Aufhebung der Anathemata, in: Auf dem Weg zur Einhgeit des Glaubens, Koinonia-Erstes ekklesiologisches Kolloquium zwischen orthodoxen und römisch-katholischen Theologen, veranstaltet vom Stiftungsfonds PRO ORIENTE in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Orthodoxen Zentrum des Ökumenischen Patriarchates, Chambésy, und dem Sekretariat für die Einheit der Christen, Rom. Referate und Protokolle,

Schisma zwischen der Orthodoxen und Katholischen Kirche

331

Papst Paul VI. und die römisch-katholische Kommission bei der Vorbereitung der „Aufhebung“ der Exkommunikationen und der Charakter der Exkommunikationen Was war aber die Meinung der Mitglieder der römisch-katholischen Kommission bei den Vorbereitungen der Aufhebung der Exkommunikationen im Jahre 1965? Ihre Meinung war, dass keine gültige Exkommunkation des Kardinals gegen den Patriarchen Michael Kerullarios bzw. gegen die Ostkirche existierte. Deshalb stellt der bekannte römisch-katholische Wissenschaftler P. Michael Makkarrone, Mitglied der Vorbereitungskommission fest, dass die intensiven Gespräche im Geiste der Freiheit und der Ehrlichkeit stattgefunden haben, mit der Absicht, dass alle eventuellen Auffassungen zum Thema untersucht werden auf der Basis der Kirchengeschichte und des Kirchenrechtes. Die Kommissionen wollten die Exkommunikationen nicht bewerten, weshalb sie auch nicht über Rehabilitation gesprochen haben. Niemand hat über Aufhebung im kanonischen Sinne gesprochen, eine Tatsache, die die Existenz von gültigen Anathemata voraussetzte.14 Papst Paul VI. schrieb in seinem Breve „Ambulate in dilectione“ vom 7. Dezember 1965: „Wir überdenken die traurigen Ereignisse, die nach nicht wenigen Verstimmungen im Jahre1054 dazu geführt haben, dass zwischen der Kirche von Rom und der von Konstantinopel eine schwere Spannung entstand. Nicht ohne Grund hat der heilige Papst Gregor VII., unser Vorgänger, später geschrieben: ‚Sosehr… zuerst die Eintracht von Nutzen gewesen ist, sosehr hat nachher geschadet, dass beiderseits… die Liebe erkaltete‘ (Brief an Kaiser Michael von Konstantinopel, Reg. I, 18, Ausgabe Gaspar, S. 30). Ja, es ist soweit gekommen, dass die päpstlichen Legaten gegen Michael Kerularios, den Patriarchen von Konstantinopel, und zwei andere Männer der Kirche die Exkommunikationssentenz aussprachen, und dieser und sein Synod trafen gegen sie die gleiche Maßnahme.“15 In der gemeinsamen Erklärung des Papstes Paul VI. und des Ökumenischen Patriarchen Athenagoras vom 7. Dezember 1965 wird diesbezüglich die Meinung der gemeinsamen Kommission zu eigen gemacht, d.h. Papst und Patriarch akzeptieren noch konkreter, dass diese Exkommunikationen nicht die ganze Kirche betroffen haben. Sie beabsichtigten auch nicht den Abbruch der kirchlichen Koinonia: Die Vorkommnisse des

13 14

15

Wien-Lainz, 1-7. April 1974, hg. im Auftrag des Stiftungsfonds PRO ORIENTE, Wien, Innsbruck-Wien, München 1976, 93. Vlassios Phidas, Anathema und Schisma, ebd. Der Text in: P. Grigotiou, Πορεία πρός τήν ἑνότητα, τόμος Β΄, Ἀθῆναι 1978, 21: «Αἱ ἐντατικαί συνομιλίαι ἐγένοντο μέ πνεῦμα ἐλευθερίας καί εἰλικρινείας, τό ὁποῖον ἐπέτρεψε νά συγκριθοῦν αἱ ἀμοιβαῖαι θέσεις καί νά ἐξετασθοῦν ὅλαι αἱ ἀπόψεις τοῦ ζητήματος συμφώνως πρός τήν ἱστορίαν καί τό Κανονικόν Δίκαιον. Αἱ ἐπιτροπαί δέν ἠθέλησαν νά εἰσέλθουν εἰς τό θέμα τῆς ἀξίας τῶν δύο ἀναθεμάτων διά τοῦτο οὐδέν ἐλέχθη περί ἐπανορθώσεως. Οὐδείς ὡμίλησε περί ἀκυρώσεως ἐν κανονικῇ ἐννοίᾳ, ἡ ὁποία θά προϋπέθετεν ὅτι τά ἀναθέματα θά ἦσαν ἐν ἐνεργείᾳ....» In: Tomos Agapis, Nr. 128, Deutsche Ausgabe S. 88.

332

Grigorios Larentzakis

Jahres 1054 „die, soweit wir es beurteilen können, über die Absichten und Annahmen ihrer Urheber hinausgingen, deren Zensuren sich auf die angezielten Personen und nicht auf die Kirchen erstreckten und nicht beabsichtigten, die kirchliche Gemeinschaft zwischen den Sitzen von Rom und von Konstantinopel aufzuheben.“16 Also, sowohl durch die Studien der Kommissionen, als auch durch die Meinung des Papstes Paul VI. und durch die gemeinsame Erklärung von Patriarch Athenagoras und von Papst Paul VI. (7.Dezember 1965) muss festgestellt werden, dass diese Exkommunikationen keine kirchlichen Exkommunikationen der einen Hälfte der Kirche gegen die andere und umgekehrt waren und keine Absicht des Abbruchs der kirchlichen Koinonia. Das bedeutet, in beiden Fällen, dass der Kardinal Humbertus nicht die ganze Ostkirche exkommunizierte, wie auch der Patriarch Michael nicht die ganze westliche Kirche. Es darf aber auch nicht geleugnet werden, dass trotzdem diese Ereignisse, obwohl sie eine Friedensschließung beabsichtigten, in einem Klima des Misstrauens und der Entfremdung stattgefunden haben und natürlich wegen der einseitigen Veränderungen in der westlichen Ekklesiologie und in den kirchlichen Strukturen ohne eine gemeinsame kirchliche Basis. Dem Kardinal Humbertus waren deshalb auch die Kirchlichkeit und die Strukturen der Ostkirche nicht mehr vertraut. Es war eine schwierige Situation mit traurigen und schmerzlichen Folgen.

Als was wurden die Exkommunikationen des Jahres 1054 im Osten und im Westen gehalten, damals und in der Folgenzeit? Die Nachforschungen haben gezeigt, dass damals weder im Osten noch im Westen die Überzeugung entstand, dass durch die genannten Exkommunikationen das endgültige Große Schisma zwischen den beiden kirchlichen Welten des Ostens und des Westens entstanden sei!17 Charakteristisch ist z.B. die Reaktion des Patriarchen von Antiochien Petros in seiner Korrespondenz mit dem Patriarchen von Konstantinopel Michale Kerullarios, indem er Mäßigung gegenüber den Christen im Westen empfohlen hat. Mit ganz dringlichen Formulierungen mahnt er den Patriarchen Michael Kerullarios: Wir sollen mit gutem Willen die Dinge betrachten und dort, da der Glaube an Gott nicht in Gefahr ist, sollen wir immer den Frieden und die 16 17

In: Tomos Agapis, Nr. 128, Deutsche Ausgabe S. 87. Aus diesem Grunde wurde bei der „Aufhebung“ der Exkommunikationen am 7. Dezember 1965 bewusst festgestellt, dass damit auch nicht automatisch die Kirchengemeinschaft wiederhergestellt wurde, weil eben durch die Exkommunikationen das Große Schisma auch nicht entstanden ist! Gleich welche Bedeutung diese Exkommunkationen hatten, sie wurden eben am 7. Dezember 1965 „aus der Mitte und dem Gedächtnis der Kirche entsfernt“.( In: Tomos Agapis, 122, S.. 281).

Schisma zwischen der Orthodoxen und Katholischen Kirche

333

Brüderlichkeit in den Vordergrund stellen, denn sie, die Christen im Westen, sind unsere Brüder und sie glauben auch an die Heilige Trinität und sie bekennen genauso wie wir das Mysterium der Menschwerdung Christi. Patriarch Petros stellt auch etwas fest, das nicht selten sehr einseitig passiert. Wir übersehen gerne unsere Fehler, beurteilen die der Anderen aber zu genau und übertrieben. Er ersucht, er bittet, er fleht ihn an, sich zu mäßigen, damit das Problem der Entfremdung nicht noch größer wird. Und wenn du meinst, die Spannungen zu überwinden, wenn du meinst das Zerrissene zusammenzunähen kann es passieren, dass die Spaltung noch größer wird, (Δέος γάρ μήποτε ράψαι τό διερρωγός βουλομένη χεῖρον τό σχίσμα ποιήσῃ), dass alles noch schwieriger wird.18 Patriarch Petros sieht also bei allen diesen Auseinandersetzungen doch nicht den Vollzug des endgültigen Großen Schismas, sondern er warnt, dass die vorhandene Spannung und Spaltung nicht größer wird und der apostolische Thron von der Kirche getrennt wird, womit viele Übel nachfolgen werden. Und in diesem Schreiben betont er: „sie sind doch unsere Brüder“! Auch Axel Bayer betont, dass die Untersuchungen des orientalischen Schismas übereinstimmen, dass alle kirchlichen Auseinandersetzungen des 11. Jahrhunderts die Überzeugung nicht zerstört haben, dass doch nur eine gemeinsame Christenheit existiert.19 Axel Bayer hat auch die Haltung der nachfolgenden Päpste, nämlich nach dem Datum 1054 untersucht und stellt fest: „Keiner von ihnen berührte den Konflikt von 1054. Etwaige Angaben über den Beginn der Spaltung blieben vielmehr allgemein, ohne dass ein Zeitpunkt genannt wurde. Rom sah die beiden Bannflüche offensichtlich als die 18

19

Vgl. Die Texte der Korrespondenz in: Methodios Fougias, Früherer Erzbischof von Thyateira und Großbritanien, dann Metropolit von Pissidia, Ἡ ἐκκλησιαστική ἀντιπαράθεσις Ἑλλήνων καί Λατίνων ἀπό τῆς ἐποχῆς τοῦ Μεγάλου Φωτίου μέχρι τῆς Συνόδου τῆς Φλωρεντίας (8581439), ἔκδ. Β΄, Athen 1994, 240: «XIV. Καλόν γάρ πρός τό καλοθελές ὁρῶντας ἡμᾶς καί μᾶλλον, ἔνθα μή Θεός ἤ πίστις τό κινδυνευόμενον, νεύειν ἀεί πρός τό εἰρηνικόν τε καί φιλάδελφον, ἀδελφοί γάρ καί ἡμῶν οὗτοι....μέγα γάρ κἄν παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἀσφαλῶς ἡ ζωαρχική τριάς ἀνακηρύττοιτο καί τό τῆς ἐνσάρκου οἰκονομίας κατά τήν ἡμετέραν δόξαν ἀνομολογεῖται μυστήριον. «XVII. Καί ἴδε, τιμιώτατε δέσποτα, ὅπως τά πολλά τῶν παρά τοῖς ἡμετέροις πεπλημμελημένων περιφρονοῦντες, ἤ καί παραθεωροῦντες ἐμμελέστερον σπερμολογοῦμεν καί πολυπραγμονοῦμεν τά ἀλλότρια.», , S. 241. «XXI.Καί παρακαλῶ καί ἱκετεύω καί δέομαι καί νοερῶς τῶν σῶν ἁγίων ἐφάπτομαι ποδῶν, ἵνα τοῦ ἄγαν άκριβοῦς ἡ θεοειδής ἐνδοῦσα μακαριότης σου συνέλθῃ τοῖς πράγμασι. Δέος γάρ μήποτε ράψαι τό διερρωγός βουλομένη χεῖρον τό σχίσμα ποιήσῃ καί τό καταπεπτωκός ἀνορθῶσαι σπουδάζουσα μείζονα τήν πτῶσιν ἐργάζηται. Σκόπησον δέ, εἰ μή φανερῶς ἐντεῦθεν ἤγουν ἐκ τῆς μακρᾶς ταύτης διαστάσεως καί διχονοίας καί τοῦ τῆς καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας τόν μέγαν τοῦτον καί πρῶτον καί ἀποστολικόν θρόνον ἀπορραγῆναι συνέβη πᾶσαν ἐν τῷ βίῳ κακίαν πληθυνθῆναι καί σύμπαντα κόσμον ἔχειν κακῶς καί ὅπως αἱ βασιλεῖαι πάσης τῆς γῆς τεταραγμέναι εἰσί καί πανταχοῦ θρῆνος καί οὐαί πολύ καί λιμοί καί λοιμοί (καί) συνεχεῖς κατά χώραν καί πόλιν καί οὐδαμῇ οὐδαμῶς ὡς ἐπί πάντα τά ἡμέτερα εὐοδοῦνται στρατόπεδα.» «XXV. Παρακαλῶν παρακαλέσαι τήν σήν ἡγιασμένην ψυχήν. Καί πεῖσαι, μετριώτερόν τε καί συγκαταβατικώτερον συνελθεῖν σε τοῖς πράγμασι, καί μᾶλλον, οῠ μή ἐστι θεός, ὡς ἔφθην εἰπών, τό περιφρονούμενον.» Vgl. auch PG 120, 800. Axel Bayer, Spaltung der Christenheit., 5.

334

Grigorios Larentzakis

Eskalation einer Auseinandersetzung an, die ein Schisma nicht begründete. Dass die Kanonisten über die Ereignisse von 1054 schwiegen steht mit einer solchen Erklärung in Einklang.“20

Bayer stellt auch fest, dass die Kanonisten des Westens die Ereignisse von 1054 nicht erwähnen. Ebenfalls stellt er fest, in keinem Dokument wird festgehalten, dass die Delegierten des Papstes von der Exkommunikation des Patriarchen Michael Kerullarios gegen sie informiert wurden.21 Auch Kardinal Alfons M. Stickler macht eine ähnliche Feststellung, nämlich, dass die Nachfolger Päpste von Leo III. “…. in keiner Weise sich in einem Schisma mit dem Orient verwickelt fühlten. Die Bannbullen der beiden Gegner sprechen nie von den beiden Kirchen und schon gar nicht vom Papst, was übrigens ganz bewusst und gewollt vermieden wurde.“22

Prof. Joseph Ratzinger, der spätere Papst Benedikt XVI. untersuchte auch diese Ereignisse des Jahres 1054 und mit Verweis auf den orthodoxen bekannten Theologen John Meyendorff, der ebenfalls die Dokumente der Ereignisse des genannten Jahres untersuchte, und er kam auch zum gleichen Ergebnis, nämlich, dass von römisch-katholischer Seite und aus kirchenrechtlicher Sicht das Jahr 1054 nicht als das Jahr des großen Schismas zwischen Osten und Westen charakterisiert werden kann.23 Prof. Vlassios Feidas verweist auf die Haltung des Patriarchen von Konstantinopel Nikolaos III. Grammatikos (10841111) mit der Feststellung, dass diese Ereignisse des Jahres 1054 nicht in das Bewusstsein der Kirchen aufgenommen wurden: „So hat der Patriarch von Konstantinopel Nikolaos III., Grammatikos (1084 bis 1111), im Geist der um ihn versammelten Synode einen versöhnlichen Brief (1089) an Papst Urban II. gerichtet, worin er das Fehlen des päpstlichen Namens in den Diptychen der Kirche von Konstantinopel auf das Versäumnis des Papstes zurückführt, den nach der kanonischen Ordnung vorgesehenen Synodal- oder Gemeinschaftsbrief an den Patriarchen von Konstantinopel zu schicken…. Die gemäßigte Haltung des Patriarchen fünfunddreißig Jahre nach den Bannflüchen von 1054 zeigt deutlich den anfänglich beschränkten Widerhall der Anathemata und den ihnen nicht sofort beigelegten Ernst, den sie später erhielten. Dazu haben unglückliche Ereignisse beigetragen, die nicht nur den Wunsch zur Wiederherstellung der Kircheneinheit verfälschten, sondern auch die Kluft zwischen Ost und West so erweiterten, dass die Unterschiede Anhaltspunkte gegen die Einheit und nicht für einigende Bemühungen boten.“24 20 21 22 23

24

Axel Bayer, Spaltung der Christenheit, 109. Axel Bayer, Spaltung der Christenheit. 109, Anm. 23. Alfons M. Kardinal Stickler, Die Beziehungen zwischen West, 171f. Johannes Meyendorf, Schwesterkirchen-Ekklesiologische Folgerungern aus dem Tomas Agapis, in: Auf dem Weg zur Einheit des Glaubens, hg. v. Pro Oriente, Innsbruch-WienMünchen 1976, 42. Vlassios Phidas, Anathema und Schisma, 96f.

Schisma zwischen der Orthodoxen und Katholischen Kirche

335

Tatsächlich war das allgemeine Klima der Beziehungen so vergiftet, dass jede Unionsbemühung und die theologischen Gespräche nicht in erster Linie Verständigunsbemühungen waren, sondern Verteidigungskämpfe, die das Eigene hervorhoben und das Andere herabsetzten und verurteilten! Es entwickelte sich einerseits eine regelrechte polemische und andererseits apologetische Literatur, die die Entfremdung vertiefte. Trotzdem muss darauf hingewiesen werden, dass in den späteren Jahrhunderten und bei allen theologischen Gesprächen und Unionsverhandlungen die Exkommunikationen des Jahres 1054 an sich keine Rolle gespielt haben. Z. B. bei solchen Versuchen von einzelnen Theologen und Kaisern, bei offizielleren Begegnungen, wie auch bei den zwei wichtigen synodalen Versuchen in Lyon II im Jahre 1274 und in Ferrara-Florenz 1438/1439. Es wurde nicht festgestellt, dass durch die Exkommunikationen des Jahres 1054 das absolute Schisma und der vollkommene Abbruch der kirchlichen Kommunio vollzogen wurde, auch nicht für notwendig gehalten, zunächst diese Exkommunkationen aufzuheben, um danach die theologischen Gespräche zu führen. Diese Exkommunikationen wurden kaum erwähnt und sicherlich nicht als das Datum des endgültigen Großen Schismas zwischen der Ost- und der Westkirche betrachtet. Die Verschlechterung der Beziehungen wurde danach in Verbindung mit dem Problem der Hinzufügung des Filioque gebracht, das wie Kardinal Humbert gemeint hat, die Ostkirche aus dem Glaubensbekenntnis gestrichen habe! Jedoch: „Trotz der Verbindung der Anathemata mit dem Filioque hielt die orientalische Kirche die römischkatholische nicht für ‚dem völligen Bann verfallen‘.“25 Auf alle Fälle haben wir also hier eine allmähliche negative Weiterentwicklung, die nicht mit dem Datum 1054 gleichgesetzt werden darf. Interessant ist auch in diesem Sinn das, was im Sammelband über das Schisma zwischen Ost- und Westkirche beinhaltet wird, den Prof. Theodoros Nikolaou gemeinsam mit dem römisch-katholischen Professor Peter Neuner und dem evangelischen Professor Günter Wenz herausgegeben hat. 26 Axel Bayer zeigte schon mit dem Titel, vor allem mit dem Untertitel seiner Abhandlung „Spaltung der Christenheit. Das sogenannte Morgenländische Schisma von 1054“, dass das morgenländische Schisma im Jahre 1054 kein wirkliches Schisma war.27. Franz Tinnefeld betont, dass mit diesem Buch von Axel Bayer eindeutig festgestellt wurde, dass das Jahr 1054 mit seinen traurigen Ereignissen bloß ein Ereignis unter vielen in der Geschichte der Entfremdung der beiden Kirchen 25 26

27

Vlassios Pheidas, Anathema und Schisma, 97. Das Schisma zwischen Ost- und Westkirche, 950 bzw. 800 Jahre danach (1054 und 1204), Herausgegeben von Theodor Nikolaou in Zusammenarbeit mit Peter Neuner und Gunther Wenz, Beiträge aus dem Zentrum für Ökumenische Forschung München, Bd. 2, Verlag Lit, Münster 2004. Axel Bayer, Spaltung der Christenheit. Das sogenannte morgenländische Schisma von 1054, Köln-Weimar-Wien 2002.

336

Grigorios Larentzakis

darstellt.28. Und Johannes Meyendorf betont, dass die Ereignisse im Jahr 1054 nur ein «Zwischenfall zwischen Rom und Konstantinopel» war. 29. Der römisch-katholische Theologe, Professor Ernst Christoph Suttner spricht sogar vom „Mythos vom Großen Schisma im Jahr 1054“30 Mit Nachdruck wiederholt er immer wieder: „1054 gab es keine Exkommunikation der lateinischen gegen die griechische Kirche und keine solche der griechischen gegen die lateinische Kirche.“

Nur auf einzelne Persönlichkeiten bezogen sich die Exkommunikationsbullen von 1054.“31 Aristeidis Panotis bringt die Schlußfolgerung zum Ausdruck: Also irren sich alle diejenigen, die entweder aus Ignoranz oder negativer Einstellung behaupten, dass durch die Endemousa Synode (d.h. von April 1054 in Konstantinopel) endgültig der römische Stuhl von der Orthodoxie abgeschnitten wurde.32 Also:

Gab es im Jahre 1054 das endgültige Schisma zwischen der Ost- und der Westkirche? Aus allen diesen Gründen kann man nicht behaupten, dass die Exkommunikationen von 1054 das endgültige kirchliche Schisma zwischen Osten und Westen beabsichtigten, was auch nicht geschehen ist und nicht als solche ins Bewusstsein der Kirchen damals durchdrungen war. Das Jahr 1054 ist ein markantes Datum und die Ereignisse der Exkommunikationen dieses Jahres sind sehr bedauerlich. Ein symbolisches Datum, das Symbol der Spaltung. Von beiden Seiten wächst nun tatsächlich die historisch korrekte Überzeugung, dass die traurigen Ereignisse des Jahres 1054 und konkreter die damals 28

29 30

31

32

Franz Tinnefeld, Die Ereignisse von 1054 und ihre Bedeutung für das Schisma zwischen Ostund Westkirche, in: Das Schisma zwischen Ost- und Westkirche. 950 bzw. 800 Jahre danach (1054 und 1204), Herausgegeben von Theodor Nikolaou, in Zusammenarbeit mit Peter Neuner und Gunther Wenz, 13. Johannes Meyendorf, Die orthodoxe Kirche gestern und heute, Salzburg 1963, 64. Ernst Christoph Suttner, Der Mythos vom Großen Schisma im Jahr 1054. Zum Verhältnis zwischen den Kirchen lateinischer und byzantnischer Tradition vor und nach dem angeblichen Wendepunkt, in. Catholica 58(2004) 105-114. Vl. Pheidas betont sogar, dass das Schisma viel früher passierte, als Papst Sergios das Filoque in das Glaubensbekenntnis hinzufügte. Vlassiow Pheidas, Anathema und Schisma, 92. Ernst Christoph Suttner, Das wechselvolle Verhältnis zwischen den Kirchen des Ostens und des Westens im Laufe der Kirchengeschichte, Verlag „Der Christliche Osten“, Würzburg 19972,48: „1054 gab es keine Exkommunikation der lateinischen gegen die griechische Kirche und keine solche der griechischen gegen die lateinische Kirche. Nur auf einzelne Persönlichkeiten bezogen sich die Exkommunikationsbullen von 1054.“ Aristeidis Panotis, ¨Η ἄρσις τῶν Ἀναθεμάτων μεταξύ Ρώμης καί Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Ἀπό τήν πολεμικήν εἰς τόν Διάλογον, ἐν:Ὀρθόδοξος Παρουσία, Τόμ. Β΄, Heft 7&8, 1965, 283.

Schisma zwischen der Orthodoxen und Katholischen Kirche

337

ausgesprochenen gegenseitigen Exkommunikationen nicht den Vollzug des endgültigen Schismas verursachten, als ob vor diesem Jahr eine ideale volle kirchliche und sakramentale Kirchengemeinschaft existiert hätte, während nach diesem Datum ein endgültiger und voller Abbruch dieser Gemeinschaft und eine qualitative gegenseitige Ablehnung, sogar eine Aberkennung der Kirchlichkeit der Anderen. Dem Jahr 1054 und den damals erfolgten gegenseitigen Exkommunikationen wurde eine unhistorische und übertriebene Bedeutung zuerkannt, die sie nicht hatten. Diese historische Wirklichkeit muss wieder ins Bewusstsein unserer Kirchen Platz greifen, damit nicht mehr die Behauptung bis heute perpetuiert wird, dass das Jahr 1054 mit seinen traurigen Ereignissen das Große und endgültige Schisma zwischen der Römisch-Katholischen und der Orthodoxen Kirche darstellt, weil es einfach den historischen Tatsachen nicht entspricht. Aus diesem Grunde ist es erforderlich, dass nicht nur die benutzte Sprache korrigiert wird, sondern auch unsere Lehrbücher in unseren theologischen Ausbildungsstätten, unseren Theologischen Fakultäten, aber auch in unseren Schulbüchern. Dementsprechend müssen auch die Perioden unserer Kirchengeschichte: Bis zum Schisma 1054 und Nach dem Schisma ebenfalls korrigiert werden. Ebenfalls müssen alle fanatischen Erwähnungen und feindseligen Hinweise auf dieses Datum, sogar mit der falschen Darstellung, dass „der Papst“ die Orthodoxe Kirche verurteilt habe und umgekehrt, dass der Patriarch von Konstantinopel Michael Kerullarios den Papst und die Römisch-Katholische Kirche aus der Gemeinschaft mit der Kirche Christi exkommuniziert hätte, womit diese häretische Kirche überhaupt nicht mehr als Kirche bezeichnet werden darf, vermieden werden. Alle unhistorischen und antiökumenischen Handlungen vertiefen die Feindschaft und erschweren die Verständigung. Nun wird aber die Frage gestellt:

Gab es überhaupt ein Großes und endgültiges Schisma zwischen der Ost- und der Westkirche? Und wenn ja, wann? Die Antwort wird auch kurz und klar sein, die aber zu begründen sein wird: Wann das endgültige Schisma zwischen unseren Kirchen vollzogen wurde ist unklar und es gibt m.E. kein zwingendes offizielles Datum eines solchen Ereignisses, das die Wende der Beziehungen so radikal gestaltete, dass keine Kommunio mehr möglich geworden ist. Ich suche also nach einem zwingenden Datum, vor dem die volle kirchliche und sakramentale Gemeinschaft zwischen der Ost- und der Westkirche existiert habe und nach dem aus irgendeinem Grund diese volle kirchliche und sakramentale Gemeinschaft ekklesiologisch und kirchenrechtlich völlig abgebrochen worden sei, so dass man von zwei fast ontologisch entfremdeten Kirchen sprechen musste. Oder, wie manche meinen: ein großer Teil der Kirche von Millionen Gläubigen wie ein abgestorbener Zweig aus dem

338

Grigorios Larentzakis

Baum der wahren Kirche abgefallen sei und sich sogar außerhalb des Gnadenbereiches, außerhalb der Heilsmöglichkeit befinde (d. h.: er wäre zur „Nicht-Kirche“ geworden, wie diese meinen). Bis zum 17. und 18. Jh. stellt man in manchen Gegenden fest, dass zwischen den beiden Kirchen immer wieder sakramentale und kirchliche Gemeinschaft praktiziert wurde. Die Gläubigen der zwei Kirchen „verhielten sie so in ihren religiösen Beziehungen, als ob kein Schisma existiert hätte“.33 Als Ergebnis der Untersuchung der Kirchengeschichte unserer Kirchen kann erwähnt werden, dass die Entfremdung unserer Kirchen und schließlich der Abbruch der kirchlichen Koinonia nicht auf einmal und an einem konkreten Datum erfolgt ist, sondern allmählich und stufenweise34 und jeweils aus Anlass von vielen historischen Ereignissen durch die Jahrhunderte hindurch, die die Spaltung vertieften. Historisch ist nachweisbar, dass vor dem Jahr 1054 nicht nur ein Idealzustand der Einheit und der Harmonie innerhalb der Gesamtkirche existierte, sondern immer wieder die kirchliche Einheit durch verschiedene und unterschiedlich lange Zeit andauernde Schismen unterbrochen war.35 Yves Congar stellte fest, dass im ersten Jahrtausend insgesamt ca 200 Jahre Schismen und Unterbrechung der kirchlichen Einheit im Osten und im Westen die Harmonie in der Kirche erschütterten, wie Forscher herausgefunden haben.36 All das geschah auch nicht immer aus feindlichen und polemischen Gründen, wie z.B. die Unterbrechung der Kirchengemeinschaft durch Innozenz I. als Unterstützung des Bischofs von Konstantinopel Johannes Chrysostomos, wegen seiner ungerechten Verurteilung.37 Alle diese Spaltungen im ersten Jahrtausend wurden aber immer wieder überwunden und die Überzeugung der Existenz einer Kirche im Osten und im Westen ging nicht verloren. Sogar die Einheit in 33

34

35

36

37

Vgl. M. I. Manakou, Ἡ Σύνοδος τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ ἔτους 1755. Ἱστορικοκανονική προσέγγιση, Μεταπτυχιακή ἐργασία στήν Θεολογική Σχολή Θεσσαλονίκης, Τμῆμα Ποιμαντικῆς, Σύμβουλος Καθηγητἠς Θεόδωρος Γιάγκου, Katerinι 2008, 51: „... Λειτουργοῦσαν, λοιπόν, στίς μεταξύ τους σχέσεις σάν νά μήν ὑφίσταται σχίσμα“. Πρβλ. καί Athanasios Vletsis, Die „Aufhebung“ des Schismas im Jahre 1965 aus orthodoxer Sicht, in: Das Schisma zwischen Ost- und Westkirche, 950 bzw. 800 Jahre danach (1054 und 1204), Herausgegeben von Theodor Nikolaou in Zusammenarbeit mit Peter Neuner und Gunther Wenz, 160ἑξ. Sehr interessant und aufschlussreich ist die Aufzählung von verschiedenen Schismen während des ersten Jahrtausends, wie sie Niketas Chartophylax von Nikaeos beschreibt Κατά ποίους καιρούς καί διά ποία αἰτιάματα ἐσχίσθη ἀπό τῆς ἘκκλησίαςΚωνσταντινουπόλεως ἡ τῶν Ρωμαίων Ἐκκλησία, PG 120, 713ἑξ. Πρβλ. Yves Congar, Zerrissene Christenheit, Wien 1959, 111.Aristeidis Panotis, Ἡ ἄρσις τῶν Ἀναθεμάτων μεταξύ Ρώμης καί Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Ἀπό τήν πολεμικήν εἰς τόν Διάλογον, in:Ὀρθόδοξος Παρουσία, Τόμ. Β΄, Τεῦχος 7&8, 1965, 277mit vielen Belegen.. Vgl. Grigorios Larentzakis, Johannes Chrysostomos und die Beziehungen zwischen Rom und Konstantinopel. Ein Beitrag über die Rolle des Bischofs von Rom in der Communio Ecclesiarum der Gesamtkirche im ersten Jahrtausend: Orthodoxes Forum 22(2008)27-42.

Schisma zwischen der Orthodoxen und Katholischen Kirche

339

der Vielfalt wurde als legitim angesehen in der Praxis innerhalb der Gesamtkirche, sogar durch einen Synodalen Beschluss bestätigt, beim Konzil des Jahres 879/880 in Konstantinopel unter dem Vorsitz des Patriarchen von Konstantinopel Photios und unter der Mitwirkung der päpstlichen Legaten. Diese Synode muss sogar als das 8 letzte gemeinsame Ökumenische Konzil von beiden Kirchen anerkannt werden, das auch als Unionskonzil zwischen den beiden Kirchen betrachtet wird, in dem die kirchliche Gemeinschaft zwischen dem Osten und dem Westen wiederhergestellt wurde. Der Patriarch Photios ist in voller Kirchengemeinschaft mit Rom gestorben. Auch nach dem Jahr 1054 kam es nicht zu einer vollen und endgültigen Unterbrechung der kirchlichen und sakramentalen Beziehungen zwischen den Kirchen des Ostens und des Westens. Es gibt zahlreiche solche historische Fakten, die wir in Erinnerung bringen müssen, damit noch einmal die tatsächliche Situation der Beziehungen unserer Kirchen bewusster wird und die Haupttendenz der gegenseitigen Entfremdung allmählich überwunden wird. Der Kirchenhistoriker Erzbischof Chrystomos Papadopoulos schreibt über die Situation in Jerusalem, als die Kreuzfahrer nach Jerusalem kamen, seien viele sakramentale Handlungen erfolgt, gemeinsam gebetet in der Auferstehungskirche, usw. Trotz der Ereignisse in Konstantinopel im Jahre 1054 waren die kirchlichen Beziehungen zwischen den Lateinern und den Griechen nicht gänzlich unterbrochen. Die Lesungen wurden sowohl auf Latein als auch auf Griechisch gelesen.38 Wir stellen fest, dass viele Ereignisse stattgefunden haben, die auch die kirchlichen Beziehungen je nachdem beeinflusst haben, sogar die Anerkennung der Sakramente oder nicht. Z.B. auch die Anerkennung der Taufe der Anderen oder nicht. Es war eigentlich inkonsequent, wenn die Beziehungen der zwei Kirchen gut waren, wurde bei Kirchenübertritten die katholische Taufe anerkannt und keine neue Taufe in der Orthodoxen Kirche verlangt. Wenn die Beziehungen schlecht waren, wurde eine neue Taufe verlangt. Daraus ergibt sich die Frage: Ist das Sakrament der Taufe innerhalb der RömischKatholischen Kirche gültig oder nicht? Trotz dieser unterschiedlichen Praxis muss man natürlich von der Auffassung ausgehen, dass diese Taufe gültig ist. Trotz der unterschiedlichen Spannungen müsste man von der Wirklichkeit ausgehen, dass wir alle Mitglieder einer Kirche sind, genauso wie in einer Familie die Blutsverwandtschaft nicht verloren gehen kann, auch wenn zwischen den Familienmitgliedern keine echte familiäre Gemeinschaft besteht. 38

Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, Erzbischof von Athen, Ἱσορία τῆς Ἐκκλησίας Ἱεροσολύμων, 2. Auflage, Athen 1970, 425: «...ἀλλ’ ἐπειδή, καθ’ ὅν χρόνον ἐγκαθιδρύθησαν ἐν Ἱερουσαλήμ οἱ σταυτοφόροι, παρά τά ἐν Κ/πόλει συμβάντα τοῦ 1054, δέν εἶχε παντελῶς διακοπῆ ἡ ἐκκλησιαστική ἐπικοινωνία μεταξύ Ἑλλήνων καί λατίνων, οἱ Ἕλληνες τῆς Ἱερουσαλήμ, κατά λατινικάς εἰδήσεις, συμπροσηύχοντο, ἐνίοτε, ἐν τῷ Ναῷ τῆς Ἀναστάσεως, ἄλλως τε ἐν αὐτῷ, κατά τάς αὐτάς εἰδήσεις, τ’ ἀναγνώσματα τῆς Ἁγίας Γραφῆς ἐγίνοντο κατ’ ἀρχάς λατινιστί, ὑπό λατίνου, ὕστερον δ’ ἑλληνιστί, ὑπό ἕλληνος ἱερέως, χάριν τοῦ λαοῦ...»

340

Grigorios Larentzakis

Diesbezüglich ist es erforderlich, dass manche Situationen genauer untersucht werden, damit diese Realität noch deutlicher wird. In der weiteren Entwicklung ist ein Ereignis, das die Beziehungen der zwei Kirchen nachhaltig beeinflusst hat: Die Kreuzzüge, die unterschiedliche Zielsetzungen hatten, aber zu verschiedenen Ergebnissen geführt haben. Sicherlich kann festgestellt werden, dass die negativen Folgen durch die Kreuzzüge, insbesondere durch den vierten Kreuzzug im Jahre 1204 mit der Eroberung und Plünderung Konstantinopels, stärker waren als die Folgen sogar der gegenseitigen Exkommunikationen aus dem Jahre 1054. Sie wurden als Befreiungsbewegungen für die Unterstützung des Christentums im Osten geführt, verwandelten sich aber in manchen Regionen als Eroberungszüge mit katastrophalen Folgen, sogar für längere Zeit und bis heute mit bleibenden Traumata. Es besteht kein Zweifel, dass durch die Verdoppelung der Hierarchie und die zwangsweise Einführung des Obödienzeids der Orthodoxen Kleriker den Lateinischen Bischöfen gegenüber das religiöse Leben der Orthodoxen sich äußerst schwierig gestaltete. Die Haltung des Papstes Innozenz III., die die Gräueltaten der Kreuzfahrer im Osten verurteilte, zugleich aber seine triumphierende Feststellung, dass die Griechen endlich dem Bischof von Rom unterstellt wurden, sind bekannt. Die Latinisierungsversuche sind ebenfalls bekannt.39 Die schmerzhaften Verletzungen und die tiefe Entfremdung, die dadurch verursacht wurden, haben die zwei kirchlichen Welten am stärksten entfremdet. Aber auch bei dieser katastrophalen und kritischen Situation gab es keine theologische, ekklesiologische oder kirchenrechtliche Handlung, wodurch die beiden Kirchen ekklesiologisch und sakramental völlig getrennt wurden. D.h. dass diese Ereignisse der Kreuzzüge nicht das Große Schisma verursacht haben,40 obwohl sie schismatische Situationen begünstigt und gefördert, d. h. die innere Entfremdung vertieft haben. Auch in dieser katastrophalen Situation wird festgestellt, dass zwischen den beiden Kirchen und insbesondere auch im Osten nicht das Gefühl herrschte, dass es sich dabei um zwei völlig getrennte und nicht in kirchlicher Gemeinschaft stehende Kirchen handelt. In vielen Fällen gab es sogar eine gemeinsame Pastoral und selbstverständlich auch eine sakramentale Koinonia mit gegenseitiger Anerkennung der Sakramente. Die Kirchlichkeit wurde nicht gegenseitig aberkannt und trotz der unterdrückenden Lebensweise durch den Gehorsamseid den lateinischen Bischöfen gegenüber, wurden Sakramente gefeiert und gespendet, ohne deren Gültigkeit in Frage zu stellen! Prof Ernst Christoph Suttner stellt auch fest, dass durch die Kreuzzüge und insbesondere durch den vierten Kreuzzug und durch die Installation von lateinischen Bischöfen die kirchliche Identität der Ostkirche nicht in Frage 39 40

Grigorios Larentzakis, Der 4. Kreuzzug und die Einheit der Kirchen, in: Salzburger Theologische Zeitschrift 8 (2004) 137-149. Ernst Christoph Suttner, Geht das gegenwärtige Schisma zwischen Katholiken und Orthodoxen auf den 4. Kreuzzug zurück?

Schisma zwischen der Orthodoxen und Katholischen Kirche

341

gestellt wurde, auch nicht die Gültigkeit ihrer Sakramente und konkreter das Sakrament der Priesterweihe, nachdem die Kleriker in ihren Amtsstellen geblieben sind, in ihren Pfarreien, allerdings unter einem lateinischen Bischof, der zuständig war für Griechen und Lateiner.41 Außerdem ist es ein Faktum, dass durch die Erlaubnis von griechischen, sprich orthodoxen Bischöfen, lateinische Kleriker auch kirchliche Dienste für die Orthodoxen übernommen haben, u.a. als Prediger, Beichtväter usw. Solche Beispiele haben wir auf den griechischen Inseln, z. B. auf der Insel Tinos u.a. nach der Zeit der Kreuzzüge, eigentlich bis in die späteren Jahrhunderte. U.a. hat der Metropolit von Sebaste und Präsident von Paronaxia Josef Doxas mit einer Urkunde die Aufgaben der Beichtväter und Prediger an Kapuziner übertragen.42 Apostolos Bakalopoulos beschreibt das religiöse Leben der kirchlich gemischten Bevölkerung und stellt ebenfalls fest, dass es nicht ungewöhnlich war, dass Orthodoxe den Lateinern ihre Kirchen für ihre Gottesdienste zur Verfügung gestellt haben, bei denen auch lateinische Altäre installiert wurden, sie für die Predigt eingeladen haben, bei der auch orthodoxe Bischöfe zugehört haben. Orthodoxe haben an den religiösen Festen der Lateiner teilgenommen und auch bei Prozessionen, wie z.B. bei der Fronleichnamsprozession und bei Bittprozessionen wegen Dürre, bei denen lateinische und griechische Kleriker gemeinsam für Regen gebetet haben.43. Zahlreiche Beispiele einer sakramentalen und kirchlichen Gemeinschaft im zweiten Jahrtausend liefert uns Prof. Enst Christof Suttner44

41 42

43

Ernst Christoph Suttner, Das wechselvolle Verhältnis zwischen den Kirchen des Ostens und des Westens, 50ἑξ. P. Grigorios, Σχέσεις Καθολικῶν καί Ὀρθοδόξων, Athen, 1958, 11f. Vgl. Grigorios Larentzakis,. Συμπροσευχή μεταξύ ὀρθοδόξων καί μή ὀρθοδόξων χριστιανῶν. Ἡ πορεία πρός ἀποκατάστασιν τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς κοινωνίας καί οἱ ἐκκλησιαστικοί κανόνες σήμερον, in: G. Larentzakis, K. Skouteris, Vl. Pheidas, Ἡ συμπροσευχή μέ τούς ἑτεροδόξους κατά τήν ὀρθόδοξη θεολογική παράδοση, Thessaloniki 2011, 9-87. Vgl. Apostolos Bakalopoulos, Ἱστορία τοῦ Νέου Ἑλληνισμοῦ, Bd. 3, Thessaloniki, 1968.: «οἱ ἐντόπιοι ὀρθόδοξοι κληρικοί ἦταν ἀνεκτικοί καί οἱ σχέσεις τους μέ τούς μισσιοναρίους μᾶλλον ἀγαθές: τούς ἐπέτρεπαν νά λειτουργοῦν στίς ἐκκλησίες τους καί ἔρχονταν ἐλεύθερα νά τούς ἀκούσουν ἤ τούς ἄφηναν, ἀλλά συχνά τούς καλούσαν νά κηρύττουν τόν θεῖο λόγο κατά τήν μέθοδο τοῦ ἱδρυτῆ τοῦ τάγματος Ἰγνατίου Loyola (1495 - 1556) (τά κηρύγματά τους τά παρακολουθούσαν καί οἱ ἴδιοι ἀκόμη οἱ ὀρθόδοξοι ἐπίσκοποι) καί νἀ ἐξομολογοῦν. Ἔτσι μέσα στούς ὀρθόδοξους ναούς ὑπῆρχαν καί Ἱερά βήματα κατά τόν λατινικό λειτουργικό τῦπο, τά ὁποῖα σώζονταν ὡς τίς ἀρχές ἀκόμη τοῦ 19ου αἰ. .... Ἔτσι π. χ. Ἕλληνες τῆς Χίου καί τῶν Κυκλάδων παρακολουθοῦν μέ μεγάλο ἐνδιαφέρον, συμμετέχουν ψυχικά, θα έλεγε κανείς, στήν γιορτή τῆς Ἁγίας Δωρεᾶς (S. Sacrement), ὅταν ἡ ὑποβλητική λιτανεία περνᾶ μέσα ἀπό τούς δρόμους. Κανείς ὀρθόδοξος δέν ἐργάζεται ἤ δέν τολμᾶ νά ἐργαστῆ τήν ἡμέρα ἐκείνη. Πολλοί ξαπλώνονται κατά γῆς γιά νά περάση τό ἀρτοφόριο ἀπό πάνω τους, οἱ ἄρρωστοι πιάνουν θέσεις στούς δρόμους, ἀπό που θά περάση ἡ πομπή καί παρακαλοῦν μεγαλόφωνα τόν Χριστό νά τούς θεραπεύση. Ὅλοι φιλοῦν μέ σεβασμό τό σκεῦος καί τό ἐγγίζουν μέ λουλούδια καί κλαδιά μυρτιάς, πού τα φέρνουν ἔπειτα στά σπίτια τους καί τά σκορπίζουν στά κτήματά τους.Ἐπίσης σέ στιγμές κρίσιμες δέν παραλείπουν οἱ ὀρθόδοξοι καί οἱ καθολικοί ἱερεῖς νά ἐνώσουν τίς δεήσεις τους στόν Θεό, γιά νά πετύχουν τό ποθούμενο, ὅπως π. χ. μέ κοινή

342

Grigorios Larentzakis

Ein eigenes Kapitel bilden die Mischehen zwischen Lateinern und Griechen, zwischen den Katholiken und den Orthodoxen durch die Jahrhunderte hindurch und zwar bis heute, die kirchlich erlaubt sind, ob gemäß Oikonomia oder Akribie ist sekundär. Sie wurden erlaubt und bis heute praktiziert als sakramentale Eheschließung zwischen getauften Christen mit allen Konsequenzen. Dazu gehören auch die Mischehen von gekrönten Oberhäuptern oder von Mitgliedern königlicher und kaiserlicher Familien, wenn sie sogar mit dem orthodoxen liturgischen Ritus geschlossen wurden. Liturgisch ist auch interessant kurz zu erwähnen, dass mindestens bis zum 13. Jahrhundert in westlichen Liturgien orthodoxe griechische Hymnen übernommen wurden und in die westliche Liturgie eingebaut wurden und zwar sowohl original Griechisch oder in lateinischen Übersetzungen. Hätte es eine absolute Spaltung ohne die gegenseitige Anerkennung von Kirchlichkeit, wäre eine solche Praxis der Übernahme von Liturgischen Hymnen von den „Häretikern“ nicht denkbar. Diese Position der noch vorhandenen Kirchlichkeit mit konkreten Fällen der sakramentalen und religiösen Gemeinschaft findet sich also sowohl im Osten als auch im Westen. Erwähnenswert ist auch, dass bei den Unionskonzilien von Lyon (1274) und von Ferrara/Florenz (1438/39) die Teilnehmer-Synodalen aus der Ost- und der Westkirche zusammengefunden haben, um die gemeinsamen Probleme zu lösen. Sicherlich haben sie nicht als zwei Gruppen teilgenommen, eine rechtgläubig und eine häretische oder schismatische, nicht eine klagende und eine angeklagte. Während bei der Synode von Lyon keine echte theologische Diskussion stattgefunden hat, sondern die Lateiner versucht haben, ohne Dialog den Griechen die im Westen einseitig entwickelte Ekklesiologie bzw. Theologie aufzuzwingen, womit das Scheitern vorprogrammiert war, wie Papst Paul VI. feststellt.45 In der Synode von Ferrara/Florenz fand dagegen ein echter Theologischer Dialog von gleichberechtigten Partnern statt. Bei diesem Konzil haben die Vertreter der westlichen Kirche unter Papst Eugenios IV. und der östlichen Kirche unter dem Ökumenischen Patriarchen Joseph II. als gleichberechtigte Partner im schwierigen theologischen Dialog teilgenommen. Dass dieses „Pseudokonzil“46 zu keinem positiven Ergebnis geführt hat, stellt ein anderes Problem dar. Trotzdem bezeichnete damals Metropolit von Ephesos Markos Eugenikos, der eine der wichtigsten Persönlichkeiten bei diesem Konzil war und das Hauptgewicht der theologischen Diskussionen getragen hat, die

44 45 46

λιτανεία στήν Σαντορίνη γιά νά παρακαλέσουν τόν Θεό νά βρέξῃ. Ἡ συστηματική διερεύνηση τῶν ἀμοιβαίων σχέσεων ἀποτελεῖ ἐνδιαφέρον θέμα τῆς ἱστορίας τοῦ νέου ἑλληνισμοῦ» Vgl. Ernst Christoph Suttner, Die Christenheit aus Ost und West auf der Such nach dem sichtbaren Ausdruck für ihre Einheit, Würzburg 1999, 145-156. Der Text des Papstes in: 20 Jahre Ökumenismus, hg. v. Pro Oriente, Innsbruck-Wien 1984, 132. Vgl. Grigorios Larentzakis, Ferrara-Florenz im Urteil der heutigen Orthodoxie, in: Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 22 (1990) 199-218.

Schisma zwischen der Orthodoxen und Katholischen Kirche

343

westliche Kirche als „Schwesterkirche“47 und Patriarch Photios II. den Papst als „Bruder“.48 Der heilige Nektarios verlegt das Datum des Schismas der beiden Kirchen bei diesem Konzil von Ferrara/Florenz gerade wegen ihres Misserfolgs.49 Trotz der vorhandenen theologischen und ekklesiologischen Differenzen konnte aber damals ein gemeinsames Konzil einberufen und abgehalten werden, während später, z. B. in der Zeit des II. Vatikanums nicht.50 Natürlich war es auch nicht möglich bei der Heiligen und Großen Synode der Orthodoxen Kirche auf Kreta im Juni 2016. Dort wurde sogar ernsthaft diskutiert, ob überhaupt auch nichtorthodoxe Beobachter eingeladen werden dürfen!51 Prof. Georg Galitis hat sich schon früher gefragt, was machen wir mit der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche, wenn ein Gesamtorthodoxes Konzil einberufen wird, nachdem sie, wie auch andere Kirchen nicht offiziell verurteilt wurden?52 Gibt es Ereignisse, die die Entfremdung vertieften? Einige Hinweise: Im Jahre 1553 begann Rom die Theorie der Unterwerfung der „Schismatischen Kirchen des Ostens“ unter der Kirche von Rom anzuwenden, stellt Wilhelm de Vries fest.53 Allmählich wird die Theorie der ekklesiologischen und soteriologischen Exklusivität der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche entwickelt und praktiziert. „In den Jahrzehnten vor der Brester Union von 1595/96 hatten in Polen bestimmte Jesuiten, darunter ihr führender Theologe Petrus Skarga, begonnen, je länger 47

48 49 50

51

52 53

Vgl. Grigorios Larentzakis, Συμπροσευχή μεταξύ ὀρθοδόξων καί μή ὀρθοδόξων χριστιανῶν, in: G. Larentzakis, K. Skouteris, Vl. Pheidas, Ἡ συμπροσευχή μέ τούς ἑτεροδόξους κατά τήν ὀρθόδοξη θεολογική παράδοση, Thessaloniki 2011, 62. Grigorios Larentzakis, Ὁ Ἅγιος Μᾶρκος ὁ Εὐγενικός καί ἡ ἑνότητα τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν Ἀνατολῆς καί Δύσεως, Κατερίνη 1999. Nektarios Kefalas, Μελέτη ἱστορική περί τῶν αἰτίων τοῦ σχίσματος, Bd. 2, 79. Ernst Christoph Suttner, Das wechselvolle Verhältnis zwischen den Kirchen des Ostens und des Westens im Laufe der Kirchengeschichte, Verlag „Der Christliche Osten“, Würzburg 19972, 61: „…Damals aber feierte man das gemeinsame Konzil trotz dieser Unterschiede.“ Es wurde jedoch mit einer panorthodoxen Entscheidung beschlossen, nichtorthodoxe Beobachter einzuladen. Ich hatte die Ehre, und dazu wurde ich beauftragt, der offizieller Begleiter der nicht-orthodoxen Beobachter während der Zeit der Synode zu sein. Georgios Galitis, Παρατηρήσεις ἐπί τοῦ καταλόγου θεμάτων τῆς μελλούσης Ἁγίας καί Μεγάλης Συνόδου τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας, Ἐκκλησία 1, 15(1976)400. W. de Vries, Die «nationalen Kirchen» des Nahen Ostens und das «Uniatenproblem», in: Handuch der Ostkirchenkunde, hg. v. E. v. Ivanka, J. Tyciak, P. Wiertz, D¸sseldorf 1971, 207. „Wir haben hier also noch genau die Geisteshaltung wie im Mittelalter: Das Ideal wäre die absolute Einheitlichkeit im Ritus und in den Gebräuchen, aber man ist bereit, Konzessionen zu machen und die Verschiedenheit, weil es eben nicht anders geht, in Gottes Namen zu tolerieren. Die Ostkirche, die sich hier der universalen Kirche eingliedert, wird also nicht mehr als eine dem lateinischen Westen gleichberechtigte Teilkirche verstanden, die organisch zum ganzen gehört, sondern der lateinische Westen setzt sich selbst mit der universalen Kirche gleich und möchte den Osten in die so uniformierte Gesamtkirche hinein absorbieren. Da dies nicht restlos durchzuführen ist, betrachtet man ihn als ein Anhängsel an die Kirche, dessen Eigenart toleriert wird“.

344

Grigorios Larentzakis

desto deutlicher zu lehren, dass es für die Christen nach Gottes heiligem Willen unabdingbar sei und für sie sogar ein Heilserfordernis darstelle, unter der Obhut des obersten Hirten von Rom, des Nachfolgers Petri, zu stehen. Die wirkliche Befähigung der nicht auf Rom bezogenen östlichen Kirchen zum Dienst für das Heil der Seelen wurde von ihnen infrage gestellt.“54. Im Jahre 1622 wurd die Congregatio de Propaganda Fidei gegründet mit dem Auftrag, im Osten Mission zu betreiben, um die Abgefallenen in die wahre Kirche zurückzuholen, damit sie zu ihrem Heil gelangen.55 Am 5. Juli 1729 hat die Congregatio de Propaganda Fidei, nicht der Papst, jede liturgische und sakramentale Gemeinschaft mit den Orthodoxen verboten (Mansi 46, 99-104). Die wahre Kirchlichkeit und die Einheit seien also nur unter dem Bischof von Rom, dem Papst denkbar. Stellt dieses Datum, diese Handlung der Congregatio de Propaganda Fidei die Verwirklichung des Großen und endgültigen Schismas am Beginn des 18. Jahrhunderts dar? Bis zu diesem Datum gab es keine so radikale Formulierung gegen die Ostkirche. Die Römisch-Katholische Kirche hat sich aber nicht daran gehalten und dies bis heute, indem wir immer wieder sakramentale Gemeinschaft erleben. Sogar das II. Vatikanum spricht von der Gültigkeit der Sakramente in der Orthodoxen Kirche und sie empfiehlt sogar in bestimmten Fällen die Praktizierung der sakramentalen Gemeinschaft für Katholiken und Orthodoxe und dies auch, wenn in der Nähe ein katholischer Priester sei. Im Ökumenismusdekret heißt es: „Da (die orientalischen) Kirchen trotz ihrer Trennung wahre Sakramente besitzen, vor allem aber in der Kraft der apostolischen Sukzession das Priestertum und die Eucharistie, wodurch sie in ganz enger Verwandtschaft bis heute mit uns verbunden sind, so ist eine gewisse Gottesdienstgemeinschaft unter gegebenen geeigneten Umständen mit Billigung der kirchlichen Autorität nicht nur möglich, sondern auch ratsam.“56

Die Reaktion der Orthodoxen auf die Entscheidung von 1729 kam 20 Jahre später im Jahre 1755 durch einen synodalen Beschluss, womit die Gültigkeit der Sakramente der Häretiker generell in Frage gestellt wurde: „wir verwerfen in gemeinsamem Beschluss die Sakramente der Häretiker als verkehrt, als der apostolischen Überlieferung fremd und als Erfindungen verdorbener Menschen… und wir nehmen die Konvertiten, die zu uns kommen, als Ungeheiligte und Ungetaufte auf …“57

Hier wird das Ekklesiologische und das Soteriologische zusammen verstanden. Stellt dieses Datum aus dem 18. Jahrhundert, auch aus orthodoxer Sicht, das 54 55 56 57

Ernst Christoph Suttner, Der Mythos vom, Groflen Schisma im Jahr 1054, 108. W. de Vries, Die «nationalen Kirchen» des Nahen Ostens und das «Uniatenproblem», 207. Unitatis redintegratio, Art. 15. Die Akten der Patriarchensynode in Mansi XXXVIII, 575-644: Synodi Constantinopolitani de iterando baptismo a Latinis collato 1755 a mense ianuario ad iulium; der zitierte Passus: Mansi XXXVIII, 619. Vgl. Ernst Christoph Suttner, Die eine Taufe zur Vergebung der Sünden bei Rappert (Hg.), Kirche in einer zueinander rückenden Welt, Würzburg 2003, S. 249-295.

Schisma zwischen der Orthodoxen und Katholischen Kirche

345

endgültige Große Schisma zwischen Osten und Westen dar? Sicherlich nicht, denn auch in diesem Jahr gibt es Dokumente, die die Häretiker differenzieren, z.B. einer Synode in Konstantinopel: Häretiker, die an die Heilige Trinität nicht glauben, deren Taufe auch nicht als richtig anerkannt wird, und die, die an die Hl. Trinität glauben, wie die Lateiner, also die römisch-katholischen, deren Taufe deshalb anerkannt wird und, wenn sie zur Orthodoxie kommen nicht wieder getauft werden dürfen.58 Eine detaillierte. Darstellung der Ereignisse wäre sinnvoll und hilfreich, aber sie kann hier nicht angeboten werden. Die ekklesiologische und sogar die soteriologische Exklusivität, von beiden Kirchen immer wieder beansprucht und von manchen Kreisen leider bis heute, begann also erst nach dem 18. Jahrhundert. Trotzdem gibt es orthodoxerseits auch die Überzeugung, die auch das Kirche-sein und die Sakramente der Römisch-Katholischen Kirche bis heute anerkennen. Hier möchte ich nur eine offizielle Position des Moskauer-Patriarchates erwähnen: Im Jahre 1902 hat das Ökumenische Patriarchat eine Enzyklika an alle Orthodoxen Autokephalen Kirchen gerichtet, mit der Aufforderung u.a. das Anliegen der Wiederherstellung der kirchlichen Einheit mit den anderen nicht-orthodoxen Kirchen in Angriff zu nehmen. Das Moskau-Patriarchat stellte in seiner Antwort u.a. fest: „Wir glauben an die Ehrlichkeit ihres (der Lateiner und der Protestanten) Glaubens an die heilige und lebendige Trinität, weshalb wir auch ihre Taufe anerkennen.“ Weiter: „Wir ehren die Apostolische Sukzession der lateinischen Hierarchie und diejenigen von denen, die zu unserer Kirche kommen, akzeptieren in dem Weihegrad, den sie hatten (so akzeptieren wir auch die Armenier, die Kopten, Nestorianer usw., die die Apostolische Sukzession nicht verloren haben.“59 Die gleiche Antwort gab damals auch die 58

59

Mansi XXXVIII, 613 Synode von Konstantinopel unter Patriarch Kyrillos, 28. April 1755,; Οἱ Λατῖνοι «....κατακρίνονται ὡς σχισματικοί καί ὡς ἀπορραγέντες τοῦ ὀρθοδόξου καθολικοῦ συστήματοςν οὐ μόνον διά τήν καινοτομία, ἀλλά καί.... οὐ μέντοι κατεγνώσθησαν πώποτε ὑπό τινος συνόδου ἤ τῶν καθ’ἡμᾶς ἁγίων πατέρων ὡς ἀβάπτιστοι καί χρήζοντες ἀναβαπτισμοῦ, ὅταν ἐπιστρέφωσι εἰς τήν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἐκκλησίαν τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, ἀλλά ἐξ ἔθους καί παραδόσεως ἀρχαίας σωζομένης καί ἀνενεργουμένης μέχρι τοῦ νῦν, μύρῳ μόνῳ χριόμενοι, ὑπεδέχοντο ἐπιστρέφοντες μετανοοῦντες καί τάς σχισματικάς αὐτῶν λατινικας κακοδοξίας ἁπάσας διά λιβέλλου ἀναθέματι καθυποβάλλοντες.» Hier wird auch auf die Meinung von Gennadios Scholarios und auf die Patriarchen von Jerusalem Dositheos und Chrysanthos verwiesen. Ἡ περί τῶν σχέσεων τῶν Αὐτοκεφάλων Ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκκλησιῶν καί περί ἄλλων γενικῶν ζητημάτων Πατριαρχική καί Συνοδική Ἐγκύκλιος τοῦ 1902. Αἱ εἰς αὐτήν Ἀπαντήσεις τῶν Ἁγίων Αὐτοκεφάλων Ὀρθοδόξων Ἐκκλησιῶν καί ἡ Ἀνταπάντησις τοῦ Οἰκουμενικοῦ Πατριαρχείου, Ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει ἐκ τοῦ Πατριαρχικοῦ Τυπογραφείου, Konstantinopel 1904, 27ἑξ. Ἐπ’ αὐτοῦ ἀπήντησε ἡ Ἐκκλησία τῆς Ρωσίας τό 1903 τά ἑξῆς: «Πιστεύομεν ἐπί τήν εἰλικρίνειαν τῆς πίστεως αὐτῶν ( δηλ. τῶν Λατίνων καί τῶν διαμαρτυρομένων) εἰς τήν παναγίαν καί ζωαρχικήν Τριάδα, διό καί δεχόμεθα τό βάπτισμα τούτων τε καί ἐκείνων.» Γιά τήν ἀναγνώριση τῆς ἱερωσύνης καί τῆς ἀποστολικῆς Διαδοχῆς ἀνάφερε: «Τιμῶμεν τήν ἀποστολικήν διαδοχήν τῆς λατινικῆς ἱεραρχίας καί τούς εἰς τήν ἡμετέραν Ἐκκλησίαν ἐρχομένους ἐξ αὐτῆς κληρικούς παραδεχόμεθα ἐν τῷ ὅν φέρουσι βαθμῷ (ὡς παραδεχόμεθα

346

Grigorios Larentzakis

Autonome Kirche von Montenegro.60 Kein Wort hier von Häretikern.61 Das ist also die Auffassung der Orthodoxen Kirche heute und die Praxis in den letzten Jahrhunderten, auch wenn manche das Gegenteil behaupten! Im Jahre 1969 hat sogar die Synode des Russisch-Orthodoxen Patriarchates die sakramentale Gemeinschaft mit den Katholiken erlaubt, was sie später wieder zurückgenommen hat. Grundsätzlich muss festgestellt werden, auch wenn immer wieder da und dort negative Urteile über die Römisch-Katholische Kirche laut geworden sind, dass „die Römischen Katholiken, die Altkatholiken, die Anglikaner und die Protestanden von der Orthodoxen Kirche durch eine offizielle kirchliche Handlung nicht als Häretiker verurteilt worden sind, höchstwahrscheinlich gemäß dem Prinzip der Oikonomia und in der Hoffnung auf Wiederherstellung der kirchlichen Gemeinschaft. Aus diesem Grunde sind die von manchen von ihnen gemachten Charakterismen als Häretiker unbegründet. Außerdem kann nur die Kirche offiziell durch einen kirchlichen Akt alle diejenigen, die sich außerhalb ihrer Grenzen befinden, als Häteriker oder Schismatiker verurteilen,“ um mit den Worten von Prof. Vlassios Pheidas zu formulieren.62 Auf der anderen Seite gibt es auch keine offizielle Verurteilung der Orthodoxen Kirche durch die Römisch-Katholische Kirche, auch nicht durch das II. Vatikanum, das die Kirchlichkeit der Orthodoxen Kirche grundsätzlich anerkannte, wie auch die Gültigkeit ihrer Sakramente.63 Es wäre also besser und historisch korrekter, von einer allmählichen tiefen Entfremdung der zwei Kirchen des Ostens und des Westens zu sprechen, die aber eine schmerzliche Realität der ἀκοινωνησία der Nicht-Communio der zwei Kirchen geschaffen hat! Aber der Neologismus der negativen Position von manchen Orthodoxen heute für die Ablehnung auch des Begriffs Kirche für die Römisch-Katholische Kirche muss abgelehnt und als unrichtig verworfen werden.

60 61

62

63

καί τούς Ἀρμενίους, Κόπτας, Νεστοριανούς κλπ. τούς μή ἀπολέσαντας τήν ἀποστολικήν διαδοχήν).» Ἡ περί τῶν σχέσεων τῶν Αὐτοκεφάλων Ὀρθοδόξων, 66. Kann man heute die Bezeichnung Häretiker oder Schismatiker für die Heterodoxen Kirchen z.B. für die Römisch-Katholische Kirche ohne weiteres verwenden? Sicherlich nicht. Dazu vgl. Grigorios Larentzakis, Αἵρεση καί σχίσμα, in: Σύναξη, Τεῦχος 143, Ἰούλιος-Σεπτέμβριος 2017, 5-18 Vlassios Pheidas, Τό ζήτημα τῆς συμπροσευχῆς μετά τῶν ἑτεροδόξων κατά τούς ἱερούς κανόνας, ἐν Γρηγορίου Λαρεντζάκη, Κων. Σκουτέρη, Βλ. Φειδᾶ, Ἡ συμπροσευχή μέ τούς ἑτεροδόξους κατά τήν ὀρθόδοξη θεολογική Παράδοση, Θεσσαλονίκη 2011, 143. Grigorios Larentzakis, Das Vaticanum II nach 25 Jahren aus dem Blickwinkel eines orthodoxen Theologen, in: Catholica 45 (1991), 214-235. Derselbe, Das II. Vaticanum als ökumenische Wegweisung. Bleibende Aufgaben für die Ökumene aus orthodoxer Sicht, in: Wolfgang Thönissen (Hg.), „Unitatis redintegratio“. 40 Jahre Ökumenismusdekret - Erbe und Auftrag, Paderborn 2005, 193-214.

Schisma zwischen der Orthodoxen und Katholischen Kirche

347

Deshalb ist es wichtig, geeignete vertrauensbildende Maßnahmen zu ergreifen, um diesen Zustand zwischen den Heterodoxen Schwesterkirchen zu beenden und durch den Dialog der Liebe und der Wahrheit die vorhandenen Probleme zu lösen und alle Voraussetzungen zu schaffen, um die volle kirchliche und sakramentale Gemeinschaft zu erreichen. Das ist notwendig, aber auch möglich!

TESTIMONIUM PATRUM DIE BEDEUTUNG DES ZEUGNISSES DER KIRCHENVÄTER FÜR DIE LUTHERISCHEN BEKENNTNISSCHRIFTEN Hermann PITTERS Sibiu / Hermannstadt

Dass die Heilige Schrift allein die Quelle der kirchlichen Lehre sein darf, dass also der Grundsatz „Sola scriptura“ für die in der Kirche geltenden Glaubensaussagen unbedingt einzuhalten sei, gehört bekanntlich zu den Voraussetzungen reformatorischer Theologie. Da nimmt es vielleicht Wunder, dass in den lutherischen Bekenntnisschriften an vielen entscheidenden Stellen neben der Heiligen Schrift auch auf das Glaubenszeugnis der Kirchenväter als Glaubensnorm hingewiesen wird. Offenbar bedeutet das „Sola scriptura“ also doch nicht in exklusiver Weise ein „Sine traditione“ oder „sine testimonio patrum“. Dieses freilich in dem Sinne, dass es hier eine Einheit von Schrift und Tradition, von Schriftzeugnis und Väterzeugnis gibt, sofern die biblische Überlieferung und das Glaubensbekenntnis der Väter inhaltlich harmonieren, insofern also die spätere kirchliche Weitergabe der Lehre mit der ursprünglichen apostolischen Verkündigung, die sich ja mit dem Schriftzeugnis deckt, übereinstimmt. Die Ergänzung der Exklusivbestimmung „Sola scriptura“ durch den Hinweis auf die Väter hat den Sinn, darauf zu weisen, dass die reformatorische Verkündigung an sich im damaligen kirchlichen Umfeld keine irrtümliche Neuerung darstellt, sondern als reine Lehre sich nicht nur an der Heiligen Schrift sondern auch an der dieser Schrift entsprechenden Überlieferung ausrichtet. Im Glaubenszeugnis der als Autoritäten anerkannten Kirchenväter wird die apostolische Botschaft in die jeweils spätere Zeit und Situation weitergereicht. Die Väter sind Zeugen der dem kanonischen Schriftzeugnis entsprechenden kirchlichen Überlieferung. So kann man sich auch in der Gegenwart auf sie beziehen, wenn es gilt, die Glaubenslehre im Streit der Meinungen neu und gültig zu formulieren. Die Berufung auf Lehre und Väter der Vergangenheit als auf Zeugen der unverfälschten Überlieferung ist bei dieser Neuformulierung durchaus legitim. Einerseits musste man sich in der Zeit der Reformation neu und begründet von den mittelalterlichen Fehlentwicklungen der bestehenden Kirchenlehre und kirchlichen Praxis abgrenzen. Andererseits setzten nach Luthers Tod bald auch innerprotestantische Lehrstreitigkeiten ein, die für die Evangelischen erst 1577

350

Hermann Pitters

im Abschluss der „Konkordienformel“ und 1580 in der Herausgabe des „Konkordienbuches“ ihr Ende fanden. Es galt also auch innerhalb des eigenen reformatorischen Lagers auftretende lehrmäßige Fehlentwicklungen auszuschließen, Spaltungen zu vermeiden und ein klares gemeinsames Bekenntnis zu formulieren. Das Konkordienbuch enthält neben den drei altkirchlichen Bekenntnissen (Apostolicum, Nicaenum, Athanasianum), die beiden Katechismen Luthers, die Confessio Augustana samt deren Apologie, die Schmalkaldischen Artikel aus dem Jahr 1536 samt Melanchthons Zusatz über den Primat und die Gewalt des Papstes und die Konkordienformel. Diese zehn unterschiedlichen Dokumente, die im Konkordienbuch zusammengefasst sind, bilden das gemeinsame Lehrbekenntnis der lutherischen Kirchen1. Im Konkordienbuch, das also die lutherischen Bekenntnisschiften offiziell zusammenfasst, finden sich nun, wie schon gesagt, an vielen Stellen Hinweise nicht nur auf die klassischen lateinischen Kirchenväter (besonders auf Augustin), sondern in betonter Weise auch auf einen großen Chor griechischer Väter. Es werden also zahlreiche patristisch Zeugnisse angeführt und so tritt gleichsam neben den „Schriftbeweis“ auch der „Väterbeweis“. Es ist übrigens erstaunlich, dass das Studium dieser Kirchenväter im evangelischen Bereich schon in der Reformationszeit merklich verbreitet war. Das hängt wohl auch mit dem humanistischen Interesse an den antiken Quellen zusammen. Auch in Siebenbürgen hatten Honterus und sein Mitarbeiter Valentin Wagner griechische Vätertexte, die sie als Manuskripte in rumänischen Klosterbibliotheken entdeckt hatten, sorgfältig im Druck herausgegeben (Nilus, Talassius, Gregor von Nazianz)2. Es gab einen richtigen Aufbruch, die alten Quellen wissenschaftlich zu erforschen. Nicht zufällig ist die Patrologie als Wissenschaft in diesem Umfeld von evangelischen Gelehrten auch später weiter ausgebaut worden. Die patrologische Forschung und die kritische Ausgabe der Quellen gehen besonders auch auf evangelische Gelehrte zurück, die sich in dogmatischem Interesse um das Väterzeugnis bemühten. Auch die Bezeichnung „Patrologie“ als Benennung der Wissenschaft für die Erforschung des Lebens 1

2

Sie wurden 1930 zum 500. Gedenkjahr der Augsburger Konfession als wissenschaftliche Quellensammlung in Göttingen herausgegeben (2 Bände mit fortlaufenden Seitenzahlen, 1218 Seiten) Auf diese Ausgabe beziehen sich in unserem Text alle Anmerkungen unter dem Kürzel „Bkschr“. Eine Neubearbeitung für die Gemeinde nur deutsch und textlich etwas gekürzt wurde 1987 in Gütersloh herausgegeben unter dem Titel „Unser Glaube. Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche“( 875 Seiten) Vgl. hiezu: Pitters Hermann, Patristische Dichtung in den Veröffentlichungen des Johannes Honterus, in: Bewahrung und Erneuerung, FS Albert Klein, Sibiu-Hermannstadt 1980, S. 58 ff; Ders. Honterus als Herausgeber der Sinnsprüche des Thalassius, in: Im Kraftfeld des Evangeliums, FS Hermann Binder, Sibiu-Hermannstadt 1981; Ders. Doua poeme morale ale Sf. Grigorie Teologul publicate in 1555 de Valentin Wagner la Brasov, in: Teologie, Slujire, Ecumenism, FS Antonie Plamadeala, Sibiu-Hermannstadt,1996, S. 395 ff und Ders. Scrieri ale unor Sf. Parinti greci pastrate in biblioteci manastiresti in Tara Romaneasca si Moldova in secolele XIV si XV, in: Istorie bisericeasca, Misiune crestina si Viata culturala II Galati 2010, S. 532 ff.

Testimunium Patrum

351

und der Lehre der altchristlichen Kirchenväter geht auf den lutherischen Theologen Johannes Gerhard (1582-1637)zurück3. Schon in der Vorrede zu seinem Großen Katechismus (1529) hatte Luther ganz allgemein auf die „heiligen Väter“ (sancti patres) hingewiesen, für die die drei Grundtexte christlicher Lehre, nämlich der Text des Credo, der zehn Gebote und des Vaterunsers zum unbedingten geistigen Eigentum eines jeden Christen gehören müssen4. An anderen Stellen verweist Luther auf Augustin und auf sein Sakramentsverständnis5, ebenso erwähnt er den Bischof Hilarius von Poitiers im Zusammenhang mit der Gemeindeordnung und der Zulassung zum Abendmahl6. Auch in den Schmalkaldischen Artikeln nimmt Luther mehrfach auf Vätertexte Bezug. Interessant ist, dass Augustin dieses Mal im Zusammenhang mit der unbiblischen Vorstellung vom Fegefeuer als negatives Beispiel, dem man nicht folgen soll, angeführt wird. „Ex patrum enim verbis et factis non sunt exstruendi articuli fidei“7. Im Artikel über das Papstamt, wo die päpstlich Suprematie zurückgewiesen wird, nimmt Luther Bezug auf die ersten christlichen Konzilien und auf den Kirchenvater Cyprian, der in seinen Briefen an den römischen Bischof Cornelius diesen von gleich zu gleich einfach als „Bruder“ anredet8. Auch nach dem Zeugnis des Hieronymus, das Luther hier anführt, gehört der Papst in die Reihe der Bischöfe, ohne irgendeine geistliche Sonderstellung, höchstens mit einer solchen weltlicher, organisatorischer Art9. Im Artikel über die Buße (III/3) wird im Abschnitt „Von der falschen Buß des Papisten“ ausführlich auf die unrichtige Beichtpraxis der römischen Kirche verwiesen die ein sehr detailliertes Sündenbekenntnis für nötig hält. Dieser Auffassung wird jene der morgenländischen Kirche, vertreten von Johannes Chrysostomus, gegenübergestellt, der ausführlich zitiert wird10. Im Abschnitt über die Ordination und Berufung der Priester deutet Luther nochmals auf Hieronymus und auf dessen zeitgenössischen Bericht über die Praxis der Bischofswahl in Alexandria und betont dann wieder ganz allgemein „sicut vetera exempla ecclesiae et patrum nos docent, idoneos ad hoc officium ipsi ordinare debemus et volemus“. Die alten Beispiele der Kirche und der Väter

3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

Vgl. Altaner, B./Stuiber, A., Patrologie. Leben, Lehre und Schriften der Kirchenväter. Freiburg 1978 S.1 Bkschr II, S. 557,28 „advenit verbum ad elementum e fit sacrantum“, Bkschr II, S.694, 28f und S. 709,10f. Dieses Zitatführt Luther auch in den Schmalkaldischen Artikel im Abschnitt über die Taufe an. Bkschr I S.249,42 Bkschr II, S. 719,46f Bkschr I, S. 421,38 Bkschr I,S.427,21 Bkschr.S.430,10 Es sind Zitate aus seiner 2. Homilie „De poenitentia“. MSG 49,285f und aus der Homilie „De beato Philogonio“ MSG 48, 754

352

Hermann Pitters

sind Vorbilder für die eigene Praxis11. Hierin wird deutlich, dass es eine klare Kontinuität gibt zwischen der alten Väterkirche und dem Neuansatz kirchlicher Lebensgestaltung im Sinne der Reformation. Das gilt auch für die Position Melanchthons, wie sie uns in der wichtigsten Bekenntnisschrift, in der Confessio Augustana aus dem Jahr 1530 entgegentritt. Fast wie ein roter Faden zieht sich durch die ganze Schrift der Rekurs auf die rechte Lehre der „scriptores ecclesiastici“12 oder noch klarer, die Lehre der „veteres scriptores ecclesiastici“13. Es wird auf das „testimonium patrum“ verwiesen14. Deutlich wird z.B. gesagt, dass man den Empfang des Abendmahles unter beiden Gestalten „durch die Historien und der Väter Schriften erweisen“ kann. Hierfür wird der Kirchenvater Cyprian angeführt15. Dieser erscheint ebenso als klarer Beweisträger bei der Verteidigung des Ehestandes der Priester16. Auch für das rechte Gestalten der Beichte gilt das Väterzeugnis „testantur et veteres scriptores“. Kronzeuge dafür ist Johannes Crysostomus17 , und über das freie Üben des Fastens wird gesagt: „Libertas in vitibus humanis non fuit ignota patribus“, wobei der