The Church Must Return to the Holy Fathers
We only need to dig deeper to discover it and to offer it in its pure form. This is the meaning of renewal. In the early 1900s, the Russians implemented such a renewal. The Russians of the diaspora, the educated, intellectual Russian Orthodox Christians, successfully carried out this experiment. When they left Russia, they founded schools and institutes and wrote and published books. They did nothing new. They returned to the Church Fathers and brought them to light. The reaction was amazing. Vladimir Lossky wrote The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, an extraordinary and valuable book, translated into Greek (I recommend it to everyone). You will see in the bibliography a lot of references to Saint Maximus the Confessor, but especially to Saint Isaac the Syrian. When Lossky presented this book in Paris (it was first published in French), the entire European intellectual community was amazed. European readers asked:
“So this is Orthodoxy?”
This is Orthodoxy. The information has always been there, always in the Church’s storage box, and which Russian theologians have brought out of hibernation. They translated it, worked on it, and presented it. The Fathers of our Church interpreted this treasure, stored by the Councils through the words of the Fathers and the Holy Scripture. That’s all. It shines and amazes, but only as long as it is offered in its pure state, in its entirety, without falsifications and innovations.
I also consider it necessary to add that renewal, as perceived by worldly-minded people, has terrible consequences. Even though I gave you an example before, I would like to add the following for research. When we begin to innovate, to reduce, to renew, and to reconsider, we begin to lose the measure and criteria of Truth. Then we suffer an immediate fall into secularization. This goes hand in hand with another theory of our day known as relative morality or circumstantial ethics. Circumstantial ethics has to do with a certain kind of dialogue about faith. It goes something like this: “You have your point of view, and I have mine.” So we discuss things and come to a new point of view, which must be taken up in a new discussion, perhaps a possible abrogation and further discussion. We hold conferences. We reach an impasse. We eliminate and subtract; we somehow reach a common ground. This is how a dialogue is conducted today. We follow this procedure in an attempt to renew and refresh the Church and the faith. I have told you that these attempts lead to a very rapid vertical fall of measures and criteria. I will just point out a classic example of this, which you have heard repeated many times. Many years ago – and, by the way, this misfortune is getting worse every day – when I heard that the Archbishop of Canterbury had taken part in the amnesty for homosexuality, I said to myself (and before 1960):
“I am sure that this man is very well educated. He has no doubt a number of degrees from prestigious universities. He is certainly wise. He has read treatises on sociology and the history of religions. I am sure he has done all these things. My question is: has he ever opened the Scriptures to read what they say about the sin of homosexuality? It is not a disease, but a sin. Why can’t he see it as a sin? Doesn’t he read the Scriptures?”
That is my question. Perhaps you can give me an answer. I think you have the same question. Very simply, when the method of dialogue enters the area of faith, the criterion of Truth disappears; everything becomes relative and negotiable. Truth is the key and the answer to the above question. This is the horrible consequence when we try to modify and modernize the faith.
The Church must return to the Holy Fathers - Archimandrite Athanasius of Mitilinaios
Comments
Post a Comment