top

The Greek Australian VEMA - June 2005

Our Primate's View

THE MYSTERY OF THE ‘PERSON’

By Archbishop Stylianos of Australia

When we speak of a ‘mystery’, we usually mean something deeply sacred: The ‘mystery of God’. The ‘mystery of Jesus Christ’. The ‘mystery of the Virgin Mary’. The ‘mystery of salvation’.

At the same time, however, this very notion of the sacred, in a strange way also generates the syndrome of the ‘incomprehensible’, the ‘unfathomable’, the ‘labyrinthine’. It would appear that, because we recognize our ‘limits’ – and indeed because of our ancestral disobedience - our wounded and sinful nature misleads us into viewing the ‘sacred’ in our lives as a ‘foreign body’! As a result, we identify the ‘mystery’ rather with the ‘mysterious’, the ‘unknown’, perhaps even the ‘abominable’! Yet, if we turn to the original meaning of the word ‘mystery’ – which in antiquity also referred to liturgical and religious life – we shall recognize that, in the final analysis, all that God created as nature, as well as all that man actualizes naturally as history, always contain a faint, deeply hidden, ‘trait of holiness’.

This ‘trait of holiness’ at the depth of everything created, which constitutes the most gracious bond with the invisible Creator, is exactly what St Maximos the Confessor (7th cent.) sought to accentuate and project when teaching that every created thing has an inherent root of life, a molecule of the dynamic presence of ‘God the Word’ Himself! For this reason that great Theologian of Byzantium, in authentically expounding the ‘dazzling’ teaching of St Paul regarding the creation and the salvation of all things, spoke out about the ‘reasons (logoi) of beings’ which constitute the mystical foundation of the breathtaking ‘logicality’ of the universe.

Justifiably, the reader might enquire as to the purpose for such a rather theological article in a newspaper directed to the wider public. The answer is simple: we need to be reminded of the most characteristic and most basic Orthodox teaching which, especially in recent years, is in danger of being tarnished to the point of desecration. This concerns the ‘Mystery of the Person’, whether we are speaking about God, or whether we are speaking about the human person (having been created in the image of God!).

The Mystery of the Person, therefore, lies in the fact that its ‘essence’ must be distinguished fundamentally from its ‘energies’. In other words, while the ‘essence’ remains unknown and indefinable, all that we can ‘surmize’ about it emanates only from what its ‘energies’ express. Therefore, we may name and judge those energies which we ascertain. However, we do not have the right to identify them with the unknown ‘essence’. The energies are ‘calculable’; the essence remains ‘inexhaustible’.

According to this basic distinction, we are able to characterize specific ‘actions’ and the ‘thoughts’ expressed by the person. However, we cannot give a precise, let alone a definitive, characterization of the ‘person’. For example: if we have evidence of a theft, a murder or any other punishable action perpetrated by a fellow-human being, we shall deal with it in accordance with the prescribed disciplinary penalties, yet we should never call the offender a thief or a murderer! And this, simply because for as many years as he or she might live, the divine essence which God has entrusted to each human person (created in His image), will never be ‘exhausted’ through whatever past actions or thoughts.

From what we have said above, it becomes obvious that the human word, as a decisive ‘statement’ referring to the person of fellow human beings, should be ‘weighed’ with fear of God, so as not to serve an injustice or insult to the Mystery of the Person. This, in practice, means that we should not hasten to make generalized judgements and conclusions about fellow human beings, as much as we might believe that our criterion is ‘infallible’, that is, righteous and without prejudices. Before the absolute Unknown of the ‘essence’ of our fellow human, we are obliged to avoid ‘unmeasured’ praise, almost to the same degree that we should also avoid unjust blame (and, indeed, condemnation!).

And perhaps for reasons of moral solidarity (psychological or pedagogic), a degree of generosity in praise might sometimes be warranted for the encouragement of a striving fellow human being. Yet, even here, good measure should not be lost sight of, but should operate as a ‘restraint’ in both directions (towards the giver of praise as well to the recipient). Otherwise, inevitably, the person judging will digress to a ‘babble’ of flattery - something that will harm the person being judged in the first instance - and will scandalize the others who will not benefit from the example of either.

This sensitivity, which the Fathers referred to as ‘discernment’, is the obligation of every honourable person, even more so of those ‘bearing prime responsibility’ in the Church and the State. It is not unknown that, even in the most developed human societies, all citizens justifiably expect their ‘Leaders’ to set the more convincing example.

Since we speak of a collective ‘verdict’ and evaluation with regard to the person of our fellow human being, we should recall here and comment on the relevant and fundamental command of Christ ‘judge not, that you be not judged’ (Matt. 7:1). One asks, initially, whether this categorically phrased command requires a complete and unconditional resignation from whatever judgement generally, or whether it seeks simply to render us eminently cautious in the formulation of axiological judgements about our fellow human. The former instance, of course, should be excluded even as a simple probability. Because, undoubtedly, this would denote either moral indifference, or cowardice (through self-interest and ulterior motive), since the phrase ‘that you be not judged’ is given as the reason for not judging. However, since Christ Himself stated ‘for this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth’ (Jn. 18:37), it would be inconsistent to prohibit His followers from ‘imitating’ Him, and this as far as is humanly possible. On the contrary, having the firm conviction that they are depositing a ‘witness to the truth’, they might, at least, be comforted in the thought that they are demonstrating ‘obedience to the faith’ (Rom. 1:5).

Conclusively, ‘judge not, that you not be judged’ in no way prohibits a documented witness to ‘truth’ and ‘righteousness’. Otherwise, the ‘Beatitudes of Christ’ would be incomprehensible for those who are to be persecuted in the present life, precisely on account of their struggle for truth and righteousness (see Mth. 5:3-12).

An even deeper reason for stating ‘judge not, that you be not judged’ is to ‘reveal’ to us, almost in a word, the ‘pre-established’ moral order pertaining to ‘interpersonal’ relationships in which he who judges the other is also judged himself, by that very judgement. Indeed, there is a wise German proverb which demonstrates quite vividly that, when we point to someone with our finger (rendering him ‘finger-poked’!) then, if we exclude the thumb, only one finger (the index) points to the accused, whilst the other three fingers of the same hand point to the accuser!

The above analysis relating to the ‘Mystery of the Person’ was necessary in order to secure a firm spiritual ‘basis’ in our attempt to judge ‘without condemnation’ (!) the scandalous and acutely contradictory events unfolding before us in recent times.

And we do not refer, in the first instance, to the unprecedented financial and sexual scandals of ‘collusion’ by leading officials of the Church, the State, the Justice System, the Police, the Education Department, and others. These, in final analysis – precisely because they are so ‘blatant’ – are dealt with to a lesser or greater degree by existing legislation and the relevant authorities. In contrast, for the benefit of all, we have the utmost duty to censure those scandals which are in danger of being ‘glossed over’ because, unfortunately, due to ‘conditioning’, the majority do not appear to be affected. Given that the more ‘silent’ the steps by which those ‘reputed to be pillars’ in the Church lead us ‘down hill’, the more they convince us that, unfortunately, in critical times they consider it almost self-evident to resort rather to the prescriptions of Machiavelli, than to the to Gospel of Christ!
|
The grounds for such bitter observations lie in the strange recent statements made by certain Ecclesiastical ‘leaders’ following the deaths of two particularly ‘well-known’ figures of global popularity, the late former Archbishop Iakovos (Koukouzis) of America and the late Pope John Paul II. Without the ‘dimensions’ of these two personalities even vaguely rating a comparison, we are obliged to accept that they both had strong resemblances to contemporary ‘rock stars’.

a) The late Archbishop Iakovos was, by nature, a truly ‘bright’ person. But this exactly stood as his greatest ‘temptation’ as well. He displayed aspects of human ‘statesmanship’ which could impress any uninformed conversationalist and could ‘captivate’ an audience of average urban piety. Till the end, however, he retained the ‘pose’ of an ecclesiastical leader that has no relation to Orthodox Theology and Tradition. Otherwise, he would not have reached the point not only of fostering – at quite an advanced age – ambitions that were unrealistic, but also of provoking by blackmail the Mother Church of Constantinople, from which he originated, with the most unholy coup d’etat imaginable, in the push towards Autocephaly. And this from a graduate of our common Nurturer, the Theological College of Halki (Constantinople), who was honoured throughout life more than any other.

Following the above, which is common knowledge to most, how was it possible for that whirlwind and acutely urgent Patriarchal Exarchate (Representation) to which the writer was conscripted in 1995 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople (Phanar) to be ‘forgotten’ and ‘pardoned’ so quickly and, furthermore, for the same Holy Centre to project the deceased as an exemplary model of a luminous and great Hierarch who more or less benefited the whole of Orthodoxy and especially the Ecumenical Throne?

Only those ‘residing in Jerusalem’ and those who know from first hand and from the relevant written documentation regarding what truly transpired in this whole painful story (as well as the more painful results to date) is in a position to appreciate the historical truth. And, primarily, to appreciate whether, in final analysis, there could have been a more considerate and more decent ‘judge’ of the ‘bolting’ Elder Prelate of the two Americas than he who, in his capacity as President of that historic Patriarchal Exarchate, laboured for a whole month in America with humility and fear of God. Precisely in the name of that official report to the Church and to the Orthodox faithful, and in the name of his entirely unselfish contribution at the time, the writer had a duty to formulate these unfortunate lines, in order to hinder any further provocative ‘distortion’ of the contemporary historical truth in the Church regarding this matter.

b) The indisputably most ‘courageous’ and ‘insightful’ of Popes, at least of the last century, John Paul II (from Poland), is justifiably considered, for his tireless work in the development of dialogue and communication of good will, as a most ‘luminous’ and courteous figure of contemporary Christianity. However, judged from the perspective of theological coherence as to the most essential ‘openings’ of the Vatican II Council for the reunion of Christians, and especially Roman Catholics and Orthodox, it must be stated unequivocally that he was found to be less than the expectations he inspired!

No other Pope remained so monolithically inconvincible in accepting the unprejudiced historical truth and the ‘screaming ecclesiological anomaly’ of ‘Uniatism’ which, in the end, is censured as the most provocative contradiction to the quintessence of the Christian message, which is the ‘communion’ of free ‘persons’ in God.

It is not a secret, despite what has been disseminated to the contrary, that the official Theological Dialogue between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, which was conducted for 20 years (1980-2000) with significant blessings from God in the ascertainment of commonly acceptable fundamental truths, was ultimately ‘doomed’ to sink, unfortunately, precisely because of the Uniate issue, during the last General Meeting of the Joint Theological Committee held in Baltimore, USA, in July 2000.

Following this, no one can understand the haste with which the incomparably superior, in theological terms, immediate successor of John Paul II, Benedict XVI (from Bavaria) urgently desires to ‘beatify’ his predecessor.

Even more difficult to comprehend is how suddenly the views and institutionally formulated positions on Papism have changed within the majority of mainly Greek Orthodox leaders, and prominent theologians on Mount Athos (!) who, in other times, were steadfast in their adherence to dogmatic truth and ecclesiastical integrity, even to the point of discontinuing the ‘Commemoration’ of the Ecumenical Patriarch, in essence often arguing over ‘a donkey’s shadow’!

And whilst Uniatism is acting outrageously at present, demonstrating militancy across the length and breadth of the earth, we have an elderly Orthodox Hierarch who, though relishing in his title of ‘Professor of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology’, has stated that the only unpleasant issue left in abeyance by the deceased Pope John Paul II is the ‘case of… low-lying Uniatism!’. It is here that one asks oneself not only what has become of the inviolable ‘Mystery of the Person’, but also of the non-negotiable meanings of terminology in Orthodox Dogmatics.

[ The Greek Australian VEMA - June 2005 - pp. 23-24 ]