Discussing a topic like the one
mentioned above makes sense, only in an ontological and existential
perspective. We discuss ecclesiological problems, only because
they pertain opportunely to man's Being and the Being of the world.
Linking ecclesiology to ontology itself is a tremendous lesson,
which springs from the depths of Patristic tradition - a teaching
that undoubtedly culminated in the work of one Dionysios the
Areopagite and was completed in the work of one Maximus the
Confessor.
Our topic - the way it is formulated
- entails a differentiation, initially, between two elements in each
and every ecclesiology and we are obliged to seek out its source.
Indeed, in ancient ecclesiology, we encounter that fundamental
tension - which we could describe by using contemporary terminology
- as a tension between Subject and Structure; or, more
theologically, between Charisma and Institution.
Of decisive significance were the
neo-Platonic origin of the dilemma and the equally Platonic texture
of both the solutions that had been proposed originally - that is,
before either of them was incorporated in the Areopagite
ecclesiological model which prevailed in the West and the East from
that time on.
The splitting apart of Subject and
Structure - or Charisma and Institution - acquired its
characteristic form with Origen (for the East) and with Augustine
(for the West). With Origen, a factitious distinction was
created, between a celestial or intelligible Church on the one hand
and a terrestrial one on the other. In the former (with a
characteristically Platonic and Stoic and a prematurely
individualistic notion) belong all the chosen ones who cultivate
their inwardness by pursuing the celestial flight of the Logos after
His Resurrection, in which case, His union with human nature proves
to be unstable, inasmuch as only His soul can follow an upward
course. The terrestrial Church is the one that pertains to the
many, who need Mysteries and Hierarchy in order to approach God.
Institutionalism and Individualism are thus born simultaneously - a
thing that occurs in the West in a like manner, through Augustine.
It is absolutely certain that this
split never existed in ancient ecclesiology. However, it is
delusional to not notice this split thereafter and attribute the
whole affair (as contemporary Orthodox ecclesiologists do) to
a deceitful Protestant concoction. In the history of Patristic
theology, there has since been a series of attempts to bridge the
chasm that we described. Beyond the attempt by Cyprian of
Carthage (which one of the other speakers will be expounding), the
attempt in this direction by Makarios of Egypt is also extremely
significant. Indeed, Makarios wants an "inside pitch" by the
Church - as an existential and ontological event - so that personal
ascesis be equaled to the personal "churchification" of the
faithful, beyond psychologisms and pietisms.
However, the most astounding attempt
of all was the one by saint Dionysios the Areopagite. The
Areopagite transfers into ecclesiology the fundamental neo-Platonic
idea that the ideal terrestrial reality is a replica and an image of
the celestial reality; that the ecclesiastic Hierarchy is an image
of the celestial Hierarchy. This implies a seeking of
Trinitarian structures everywhere - both in the angelic ranks (for
example), as well as in the ecclesiastic ones. In this context
are Bishop-Presbyter-Deacon; likewise, the deified-the enlightened
one-the one being cleansed, or, the Eucharist-Chrism-Baptism - all
of which comprise such ecclesiastic triads which are completely
existentially linked to each other, and with the obligation, at
every level, that the energy or the knowledge or the existential
fullness that corresponds to the specific order, coincide. Of
course the Areopagite does not regard the ecclesiastic ranks as
self-illuminated and he furthermore wants them to be dependent
existentially and lovingly, thus surpassing the neo-Platonic
Hierarchies. Every rank (according to the Areopagite) ascribes
its energy and its knowledge to God Himself, and not themselves.
It is in this manner that Structure exists and is ontologically
absolute; however, it is necessary for it to also be verified
existentially. There is a very serious problem in the
Areopagitic writings on this point, in that we cannot finally know -
once again - which of the two elements is the more fundamental one.
Of course in history the element of a sanctified Structure weighed
more (at least for roman catholic and Orthodox ecclesiology) - the
consequence of which was an overstressing of the canonical structure
in these churches.
In the area of theological research,
the vast magnitude of Maximos the Confessor's work has not yet been
appreciated, even though he was the one who resolved this crushing
problem. It is on the basis of his theology that we are able to
speak of an "Apophatic Ecclesiology on the Homoousion
(+)", which
transcends both the problem of "bishop-monism" - that is,
an
absolute priority of Structure in ecclesiology - as well as the
problem of "populism" (laicism) - that is, an unrestrained and uncontrolled
individualism. To saint Maximos, therefore, every ecclesiastic
charisma is an "emulation" of an analogous, uncreated energy of God
(the term "emulation" here implies a partaking). The whole of
those uncreated energies constitutes the one Body of Christ, and
each one of them is Christ Himself, in a different manifestation of
His. Each faithful person is charismatic, partaking thus in
Christ Himself, with his charisma. Just as all uncreated
energies are united between each other and simultaneously unify
Creation, in the exact same way does every charisma unify the
Church, by being consubstantially united to all the other charismas.
The charisma of the Bishop is to ensure that none of the other
charismas is lost, as also is the initiation into the homoousion
(+) fullness of every charisma. The unity of the Church,
therefore, does not occur solely "in the Bishop", but also in every
charisma, simultaneously. The Church is thus a given (from the
part of God); however She is actualized, only to the degree of a
freely willed "emulation" - by the charismatics - of the specific
uncreated energies of God. We refer to the Church only "apophatically"
(because it is impossible to regard Her as an objectified structure
and supposedly a fixed image of the Kingdom of God) - that is, only
as an evolving Church - to the degree that "emulation" of the divine
energies already actualizes "end events" in History, even from now.
(+)
"Homoousios" is
a Greek word meaning "same
substance" or "same essence." It is used in the Nicene Creed to say
that Jesus Christ is of one essence with the Father. Although it
does not appear in the Bible, the fathers of the First Ecumenical
Council ultimately decided that this was the best language to use
concerning the Holy Trinity. The competing term at that council was
homoiousios
meaning "similar
essence"; it was favored by the moderates among the Arians, the
Semi-Arians. Because of how close these two words are in the Greek,
it has been said that there was only "one iota" of difference
between them."
(*) Father Nicholas Loudovikos was
born in Volos. He studied Psychology, Pedagogics,
Theology and Philosophy, in Athens,
Thessaloniki, Paris (Sorbonne Paris 4 and the
Institute Catholique de Paris)
and Cambridge. He has a Doctorate in Theology of
the University of Thessaloniki, and has also
worked at the “research center for Primeval
Christianity”, Tyndale
House, Cambridge. He has taught at the
Cambridge University’s School of Theology (C.A.R.T.S.)
as well as the University of Durham. He is a
Professor of Dogmatics and Philosophy at the
Higher Ecclesiastic School of Thessaloniki; a
scientific associate at the post-graduate
Theological program of the Open Hellenic
University and also a part-time lector at the
Orthodox Institute of the University of
Cambridge. Works in book form by him:
Eucharistic Ontology (Domos, Athens, 1992);
Closed Spirituality and the Meaning if Self
(Hellenic Letters, Athens, 1992) and The
Apophatic ecclesiology of the Homoousion. The
primeval Church today (Athens, 2002).