(N.B. – Not all Russian post – revolutionary theologians are neo – theologians. There are also those of the old (Orthodox) school, of which Fr. Michael Pomazansky is of eternal memory.)
The new theologians of the Russian emigration are widely seen as a sign of the rebirth of the Orthodox theology after centuries of “Western captivity” of the thought and communist oppression in the Orthodox old countries. According to those very theologians, out of whom Georges Florovsky emerges predominantly, the Western captivity began with the fall of Constantinople to the Turks. As a consequence, generations of Orthodox theologians had to be educated in Western Universities, and thus they became corrupted by the Latin and Protestant thought, which is manifest in their later works and in the Synodal decrees, up to well in the XX-th Century, when alleged independent theological schools were founded, ironically, in Catholic and Protestant countries (in France and in the USA).
These new theologians uphold a return to the purity of the Church Fathers’ teachings by dismissing later Tradition, especially that of the XVII-th Century, and they are very bold at making the point:
“The Seventeenth century was a critical age in the history of Eastern theology. The teaching of theology had deviated at that time from the traditional patristic pattern and had undergone influence from the West. Theological habits and schemes were borrowed from the West, rather eclectically, both from the late Roman Scholasticism of Post-Tridentine times and from the various theologies of the Reformation. These borrowings affected heavily the theology of the alleged “Symbolic books” of the Eastern Church, which cannot be regarded as an authentic voice of the Christian East.” (Georges Florovsky, The Ethos of the Orthodox Church, p. 191)
“In the 17th century, as a counterpart to the various “confessions” of the Reformation, there appeared several “Orthodox confessions,” endorsed by local councils but, in fact, associated with individual authors (e.g., Metrophanes Critopoulos, 1625; Peter Mogila, 1638; Dosítheos of Jerusalem, 1672). None of these confessions would be recognized today as having anything but historical importance. When expressing the beliefs of his church, the Orthodox theologian, rather than seeking literal conformity with any of these particular confessions, will rather look for consistency with Scripture and tradition, as it has been expressed in the ancient councils, the early Fathers, and the uninterrupted life of the liturgy. He will not shy away from new formulations if consistency and continuity of tradition are preserved.” (John Meyendorff, Eastern Orthodoxy, Doctrine, Councils and Confessions)
At a first look, regardless if they are right or not about the Western Captivity, that seems to be a welcome and possible needed course of action to preserve the Orthodoxy. However, if we remember that they were not at all shy towards the Protestant Ecumenism, it makes us question their intentions and the honesty of their advocacy. It may very well be that the return to the Holy Fathers’ writings is a deceiving move to get under the unquestionable cover of those pillars of the Orthodoxy in order to “safely” dispose of the bothering Tradition from after 1453, as speculatively alleged to be contaminated by the Western thought. In truth, the latter is many times the direct Orthodox answer to the modern Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, that can’t be found at the Holy Fathers, who were not confronted with the more recent heresies. The Church literature and the Synodal decisions of the XVII-th Century are the most problematic, as they became more restrictive with the advance of the novelties from the West. A good example would be to see how the baptism of the heretics was considered by the Orthodox, confronted with both the Unia and the Reform in the XVII-th Century, and, then, by the Roman Catholics confronting the Reform in the XVI-th Century:
“But this Mystery being once received, is not to be again repeated; provided the Person who administered the Baptism believed orthodoxly in Three Persons In One God, and accurately, and without any alteration, pronounced the afore – mentioned Words; namely, In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. As the Holy Catholic and Orthodox Church directs.” (Met. Peter Mogila, Orthodox Confession, Part I, Question 76)
“If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, On Baptism, Canon IV)
It should be clear now that the Orthodox, far from being influenced by the West, became uncompromisingly defensive against the Western heresies. Believing orthodoxly in the Three Persons means that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, and that the two natures of our Lord Jesus Christ are united, which excludes everything Roman Catholic, Protestant, and the Monophysitism of the East, dearly called “Oriental Orthodoxy” in the Ecumenist circles. The same “Orthodox Confession” does away with the Roman Catholic teaching of the Purgatory by calling it “fable”; and it clears its own house of the “aerial toll – houses” theologumenon.
A return to only the patristic writings, as envisioned by the new “Orthodox” theologians, is not needed and impossible. The “Western Captivity” is an invented concept used to neutralize the Church teachings of the late few centuries, that confront the modern Protestant Ecumenism. The Church may have formulated answers in Latin terms or Protestant patterns not because many of Her theologians were educated in Western Universities, but because She was confronted with new ideologies to which She had to replay by using the same language. It was not for the first time in history; following the same logic, we would be obliged to invent Jewish and Pagan captivities for the Church of the first centuries. Most Holy Fathers were highly educated in the Pagan schools of thought, and they used the acquired knowledge and language to write Christian theology. Should we do away with them and just restrict our consideration to the Holy Apostles, I’m afraid we could not avoid also suspecting them of close ties to the Jewish thought:
“I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers.” (Acts 3:3)
It may be argued that the Church was in error for a few hundred years, as it was the case with the Russian Church that spun off the Old Believers. Such comparison would not be proper, as the “Western Captivity” claims the whole Church, not just a Local Church, and, from an Orthodox standpoint, the Church of Christ can’t be in error and drifting for centuries. Those who corrected the Russian Church were able to show the Holy Tradition as it had been kept uninterrupted by all the other Local Churches. The new theologians can only try to make us believe that the Church of old, although fiercely Orthodox, was accommodating the Protestant Ecumenism. Their challenge is not from the Holy Fathers, for whom the Church was one, with no other particular specification, but from later Fathers, who fought the modern heresies. Those later Fathers are the more dangerous enemy of Ecumenism, as they reformulated the Holy Fathers’ teachings in such a way as to clearly and exactly answer the errors coming from the West.
Those brought up Orthodox and in an Orthodox environment have a natural sense of what is right and wrong in Orthodoxy, a sense deeply rooted in Tradition. A few years ago, a heresy was brought in the Church, and I remember what Met. Chrysostom of Attica and Boeotia’s answer was when asked in a meeting what he thought about that novelty: “My mother, who is not a theologian, has never told me about it.” Not having that sense is not an handicap; an educated understanding of the Orthodoxy is always a very good substitution. Either way or the other, as true Orthodox we know that nobody can add to or take from the Holy Tradition, which, we firmly believe, is the very work of God the Holy Spirit. This is why the return to the Holy Fathers’ writings by denying the later Holy Tradition is impossible from within Orthodoxy. It is, however, perfectly doable from outside, and in good Protestant tradition.
“Wherefore thou oughtest to believe, that whatsoever the holy Fathers have decreed, in general and particular Councils, wheresoever they were held, is taught by the Holy Ghost.” (Orthodox Confession, Part I, Question 72)
The new theology is a fraud that can’t escape to the honest individual with a clear understanding of what Orthodoxy is. Such a person would know that no part of the Holy Tradition can be overlooked without Scriptural reason and without a synodal decision to cancel and condemn the errors of the past. Yet as transparent as it is, it may be the best that the theologians of St. Serge, St Vladimir, or any European and American Universities, where they might have worked undercover as Orthodox, could produce to steer the Orthodox Church to more Protestant Ecumenism. If that is the case, then I am wrong, and the neo – theologians of the Russian Diaspora and all those like them do not fall in between foolishness and Protestantism, but only on the latter. Their exact reason is not important, but the Orthodox who conveniently do not know that God is reason, and give credit to the new theology, deserve to make the subject of another, but silent, post.
godisreason 