„Aurel Vlaicu” University of Arad „Ilarion V. Felea” Faculty of Theology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
„AUREL VLAICU” UNIVERSITY OF ARAD „ILARION V. FELEA” FACULTY OF THEOLOGY NICHIFOR CRAINIC AND DUMITRU STĂNILOAE – MYSTICS RELEVANCE IN RENEWAL OF ROMANIAN ORTHODOX DOGMATICS IN THE 20TH CENTURY THESIS SUMMARY SCIENTIFIC COORDINATOR Pr. prof. univ. dr. Ioan Tulcan PHD STUDENT: Diac. Paul-Sebastian P. Orădan ARAD 2016 CONTENTS Pag. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………… . 4 THE REASON ............................................................................................................................... 5 STATE OF RESEARCH THEME .............................................................................................. 6 METHOD ....................................................................................................................................... 8 RESEARCH OJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 8 CLARIFCATION OF TERMINOLOGY ................................................................................... 8 CHAPTER I ROMANIAN DOGMATIC THEOLOGY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY ................................................................................................................................... 11 1.1. The problem of Western influences ant the overcominf of dogmatic abstractisism....... ... 11 1.2. The matter of developing the own Dogmatic Theology textbooks.....................................28 1.3. The problem of identification and „method”assumption in Romanian Dogmatic Theology.. .................................................................................................................................. 34 1.4. Congress in Athens: the need to redescover the method and the spirit of Fathers............. 42 CHAPTER II REDISCOVERY EASTERN MYSTICISM AND ITS INTEGRATION IN ROMANIAN THEOLOGY................................................................................................................................ 53 2.1. Church’s thology ‒ mystical theology par excellence........................................................ 53 2.2. The difference between Eastern and Western mysticism................................................... 64 2.3. Nichifor Crainic and the Western mysticsm....................................................................... 78 2.3.1. Nichifor Crainic ‒ the redescovery of Eastern mysticism in the East....................... 78 2.3.2. Nichifor Crainic ‒ mystic theological branch........................................................... .. 88 2.3.3. Nichifor Crainic ‒ first mystic course in Romanian theology.............................. ...... 95 2.4. Eastern mysticism echoes of theology in Romanian theological education............... 106 2.4.1. Dumitru Stăniloae ‒ the mystical dogmatic approach.............................................. 106 2.4.2. Ioan Gh. Savin ‒ the mystical apological approach................................................ 115 2.4.3. Nicolae Mladin ‒ the mystic in the theological approach........................................ 119 2.4.4. Ilarion V. Felea ‒ the mystical expression of homiletics......................................... 121 CHAPTER III NICHIFOR CRAINIC AND DUMITRU STĂNILOAE ‒ RENEWAL OF ROMANIAN ORTHODOX DOGMATIC OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY ..................................... 124 3.1. Nichifor Crainic and Dumitru Stăniloae ‒ two theological personalities, twodestinies......................................................................................................................... .... 124 2 3.1.1. Two theologians, two destinies…………………………………………………...... 124 3.1.2. The theology-culture tryst and cooperation........................................... .................. 138 3.1.3. Mutual appreciation........................................................................... ...................... 148 3.2. Common vision over the renewal of Orthodox theology...................... ........................... 155 3.2.1. Overcoming scholastic method................................................................ ................. 155 3.2.2. Assuming pastristic method…............................................................... .................... 162 3.2.3. The unity between dogma and spirituality (mysticism).......................... ................... 172 3.2.4. The unity between dogma-spirituality and Romanian nation................... ................ 180 3.3. Eastern mystic renewing implications of Romanian Dogmatic Theology in the twentieth century…………………………………………………………… ......................................... 185 3.3.1. Overcomingt he schematism and abstracticism....................................... ................. 185 3.3.2. Asserting a shared vision between dogma and experience.......................... ............. 191 CHAPTER IV DOMINANT MYSTIC TOPICS IN THE THEOLOGICAL THOUGHT OF NICHIFOR CRAINIC AND DUMITRU STANILOAE.................................................................. ........... 200 4.1. The untribulation................................................................................................. ............. 200 4.2. Cleansing the mind.............................................................................................. ............. 203 4.3. The ecstasy............................................................................................................ ........... 213 4.4. The contemplation............................................................................................... ............. 225 4.5. The view of uncreated light................................................................................. ............. 244 4.6. The defication.................................................................................................. ................. 256 CHAPTER V MYSTICAL THEMES RELATED WITH KEY ASPECTS OF ORTHODOX DOGMATICS................................................................................................... ......................... 274 5.1. In gnoseology................................................................................................ ................... 274 5.2. In cosmology................................................................................................. ................... 283 5.3. In anthropology...................................................................................... .......................... 293 5.4. In eshathology.............................................................................................. .................... 298 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................ 305 BIBLIOGRAPHY….................................................................................................................. 319 3 NICHIFOR CRAINIC AND DUMITRU STĂNILOAE – MYSTICS RELEVANCE IN RENEWAL OF ROMANIAN ORTHODOX DOGMATICS IN THE 20TH CENTURY THESIS SUMMARY Mystics relevance in orthodox dogmatics, is a subject that we all should be aware regardless of the theological-cultural or hystorical-ecclesiastical context that we are into. The leck of the mystics in orthodox dogmatics means breaking this bond to the patristic Theology and with the model of patristic theologized, taking leading inevitably to a doctrine based solely on reason, detached from experience and liturgical experience. Fathers theology, although they used the technical machine thinking, as well as the benefits of science, it has not been closed to them. They were not only intellectually informed of God, but exceeded the commands of these rational schemes aimed at communion and participation in God, in other words the thesis or deification. The union with God does not mean knowing Him entirely, because we can never know God fully, He is shrouded in secrecy and mystery - hence the teaching of the Fathers will have a pronounced accent of mystery and enigma. If we want to follow this theology we will inevitably have to talk about the notion of mystery in theology or mystical theology, theology that owns to Christian East. In the Orthodox Church, the whole teaching is comprised of mystery and cannot be penetrated if the human rationality is not filled with contemplation and meditation. When theological teaching is subject exclusively to reason and is tried to be explain in detail the divine mystery, teaching becomes abstract and rationalist because it was removed the mystery. Thus God remains closed in His transcendence, He could not be accessible to rational human mind. This model of theologized has been used mainly in the West by scholastic theology and led to abstraction of theological teaching, turning it into a rationalistic and philosophical theology. This kind of theology influenced also the Romanian orthodox dogmatics, so at the beginning of the 20th century, it existed at theological schools, foreign to the spirit and patristic method of Christian East. Due to the lack of an original theology and practicing of a theology inspired by Western-scholastic, orthodox dogmatic was characterized at that time by anexcessive historicism, and a cold approach, theoretical and abstract, which led to the need for renewal of Romanian dogmatictheology and the repositioningthis on the vein of patristic and spiritual theology. This new orientation of theological discourse actually meant retrieving the Fathers spiritual theology and rediscover the mystical element in the treating and its presentation. The reason for developing this work is precisely the desire