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 ]
|