New Life in Christ: Salvation in Orthodox Theology (1)

By Fr. Jоhn Meyendorff

Orthodox theology is, so to speak, a newcomer to the fabric of contemporary theology in the West. Today it is being rediscovered in the context of the ecumenical movement, but also – and perhaps even more importantly – within the framework of that return to the sources that has characterized Roman Catholicism in France and Germany since the end of the Second World War. This return includes a revival of interest in the Eastern Fathers of the Church and in worship as a living testimony to the continuous tradition of early Christianity.

Orthodox Christians do indeed live with the self-consciousness of being heirs of the Greek Fathers, and for them worship has always been the central, essential expression of the Catholic nature of the Church. During the long centuries following the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Orthodox communities in the Middle East and the Balkans had virtually no other sources from which to learn about their faith, nor any other means of witnessing to their Christian commitment than their liturgy, which, however, proved powerful enough to keep them spiritually alive. Meanwhile, in Russia, historical circumstances delayed for centuries the organic development of theological thought, which ultimately emerged in Modernity within the framework of the Western scholastic system and methodology, introduced in the eighteenth century by Emperor Peter the Great, and later adopted in other Orthodox countries. I will begin this study with a brief overview of theological trends as they unfolded during the period of Modernity. I believe that such an introduction is necessary to explain the picture of the theological diversity and liveliness characteristic of Orthodoxy today, but rarely seen in the West, where interest in Eastern Christianity is limited to a few specialists.

Trends in Soteriology

Coined by Father George Florovsky, the notion of the “Western captivity of Orthodox thought” is an inevitable and consistent characteristic of the theological realities in the Orthodox world in the period after the fall of Constantinople, which lasted practically until the nineteenth century. The Church of the East continues to live through its sacramental life, through its worship, through the spiritual tradition of only a few monastic centers, but the books and writers who claim to be able to present theology are captive to the categories determined by the problems and conflicts in Western thought: scholasticism, the Reformation, the Counter-Reformation, the Enlightenment. Writing about this period, Florovsky aptly, if sarcastically, notes: “The West theologizes while the East is silent or, what is worse, thoughtlessly and belatedly repeats Western doctrines.”[1] This is true of all the various “Orthodox confessions” that emerged in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and it would be a long time before the Orthodox learned how to use their own tradition creatively, without falling into the pernicious habit of using Protestant arguments against Roman Catholics and scholastic Latin ideas against Reformation thought. Indeed, the whole period was dominated by a defensive polemic which, in the case of Orthodoxy, had its origins outside the real context of the Orthodox mind.

The hopelessness of this de facto passivity of Orthodox theology was first formally recognized by Russian lay theologians, the so-called “Slavophiles,” in the 1950s and 1960s,[2] who began to discover that solutions to Western problems were to be sought in the Eastern tradition. Florovsky writes: “The older Slavophiles derived Russia’s tasks from European needs—from the unresolved or insoluble questions of the other half of the Christian world.” And for this reason, he continues, “a creative revival in the Orthodox world is a necessary condition for the solution of the ecumenical problem…”,[3] and most Orthodox theologians would agree with Father G. Florovsky that such a revival requires a recovery of basic patristic intuitions, which can then be applied to the problems of the present day.

It was inevitable that the Latinized, scholastic, essentially “Anselmian” view of salvation would not be reproduced in documents such as the Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogila (1640).[4] The Confession itself was, in fact, a reaction against another, Calvinistic in character, “Confession” – that of Patriarch Cyril (Lucaris), and is a good example of how arguments that had been adopted during the Counter-Reformation could be adapted – in an Orthodox environment – to combat Protestant thought. Even more remarkable is that the scholastic methodology survived even when the theological revival takes its place in the textbooks of systematic theology.[5] The reasons for this survival may all too often have been simply a matter of scholastic routine—that sense of security offered by an orderly and rational presentation, seemingly conservative and scientific in approach. In these textbooks—which remain rather good examples of the “Western supports” mentioned by Fr. Florovsky—no creative use is to be seen of the intellectual power contained in the medieval Latin systems.

Parallel to and independent of the established theological schools, a revival of monastic spirituality was also observed in Orthodoxy, beginning in particular with the publication of the great patristic texts in the Philokalia of St. Nicodemus the Athonite (1782), the Slavonic translation of the Philokalia by St. Paisius (Velichkovsky; † 1794), and its Russian edition prepared by St. Theophanes the Recluse († 1894).[6] The tradition of Byzantine hesychasm and Byzantine spirituality, as represented in this movement, places strong emphasis on the concept of the spiritual elevation of man and of the community, which presupposes a synergy between divine grace and human freedom, and which rejects any legalistic understanding of redemption and sacramental grace, and therefore of salvation. Thus, the “Philokalean” revival contributes greatly to the contemporary developments of Orthodox theology.

Another development whose impact on theology was decisive and which could not have occurred without the influence exerted by the monastic revival on intellectually oriented laypeople was the emergence – initially in Russia, but later also in the Balkans and the Middle East – of a theological thought independent of the ecclesiastical-academic establishment. One dominant characteristic presented by this theology of the “lay” and adopted by the monastic tradition was a sharp criticism of rationalism and legalism. Figures such as Ivan Vasilievich Kireevsky (1806-1856) were born for philosophy under the influence of Schelling, but this same Kireevsky devoted much more of his energy to the publication and study of the Greek Fathers, published in collaboration with the famous elders of Optina. Which leads him to discover the Church and especially tradition – but not so much as an authority or as a criterion of truth, but rather essentially as a “medium” of a “comprehensive knowledge”, of communion with God and with the brothers – within a redeemed humanity. Usually better known is Kireevsky’s friend and contemporary, Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804-1860) – especially for his concept of catholicity, which practically refers to the same principle of communion between free individuals – as the context and as the condition for an authentic knowledge of God and truth. For Khomyakov, this communion can be found only in the One Church.[7]

The theology of these early Slavophiles was initially viewed with great suspicion by the scholastic establishment, but by the end of the nineteenth century some of their most significant ecclesiological and epistemological intuitions were gaining widespread acceptance, not only in Russia but also in Orthodox theology in general. This acceptance, which did not exclude criticism of some of the more romantic aspects of their thought, was based on the obvious fact that the Slavophiles were faithful to the idea of ​​”communion” which they had inherited from the early Christian and Greek patristic tradition, and that this communion – far more than any other juridical or rationalistic model – was in accordance with the Orthodox view of life in Christ and of salvation.

In Russia, the polemic against legalism and rationalism dominated the thought of such important and particularly authoritative theologians as Bishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky)[8] and Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky).[9] In his opposition to scholasticism, Bishop Anthony – a great admirer of Dostoevsky – reached certain extremes of moralism and psychologism that would have been to the taste of the pietistic tendencies in liberal Protestantism: the redemption – he believed – actually took place in Gethsemane – when, before His suffering, Jesus revealed to the full His “compassionate love” in His prayer for sinful humanity. This moralizing trend found its most consistent and decidedly liberal expression in the works of Mikhail Mikhailovich Tareev (1866-1934) – a well-known and influential professor of moral theology at the Moscow Theological Academy.[10]

Alongside the “moralists”, the anti-rationalist movement is also represented in a different philosophical school, inspired mainly by the task of overcoming philosophical secularism and atheism. Mainly originating from Vladimir Solovyov († 1900), this school – strongly dependent on German idealism – is known as sophiological. In sophiology, salvation is understood not historically, but cosmically – by postulating an ontological-divine nature of creation, together with the concept of Sophia or Divine Wisdom, revealing both the essence of God and the foundations of created beings. A system similar in its principled approaches to the thought of Paul Tillich or Teilhard de Chardin cannot avoid the danger of pantheism, although Solovyov’s main disciples – Archpriest Sergius Nikolaevich Bulgakov († 1949)[11] and especially Fr. Pavel Florensky († probably 1938)[12] – have tried to place sophiology in the context of the patristic tradition.

All these tendencies and currents are manifestations of a search, of attempts to express the Christian message of salvation in the context of contemporary needs and problems. However, it seems as if the contemporary consensus is emerging on the basis of a more rigorous approach to patristic thought and tradition, which is facilitated by the results of renewed patristic research. This neo-patristic theology prevails today in most Orthodox countries, as well as in the West. Its well-known representatives are theologians such as Archpriest George Florovsky,[13] as well as Archimandrite Justin (Popovich) in Serbia,[14] and especially Archpriest Dumitru Staniloae in Romania,[15] and in France – Vladimir Loski.[16] In Greece, the patristic revival found expression in a series of publications, and several younger theologians – Christos Yannaras,[17] Panagiotis Nelas[18] and others – creatively connected the Holy Fathers reflection on salvation with the problems of modernity.

In the context of the patristic revival, another trend – in direct connection with the questions of Christology and salvation – is represented in what is often referred to as eucharistic ecclesiology. This term was coined by protopresbyter Nikolai Afanasiev, whose main intuition consists in the identity of each local Catholic eucharistic community with the Church itself. The consequence of such an original ecclesiology (presented in the best way by St. Ignatius of Antioch – c. 100) is a permanent criterion for understanding not only ecclesiology itself, but also all aspects of soteriology.[19] The eschatological implications of eucharistic ecclesiology and its importance not only from the point of view of the church order, but also of Christology and pneumatology, are developed by Metropolitan John (Zizioulas).[20] Other dimensions of eucharistic ecclesiology, especially essential from the point of view of defining the Christian ethos, the Christian witness to the contemporary world and the mission of the Church, are formulated in the best way by Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann.[21]

Thus, despite their variability, all these currents in contemporary Orthodox theology show agreement that salvation should be understood as communion, sanctification and deification (in the Greek Fathers – θέωσις); that it is based on the synergy between divine grace and human freedom.[22] This general approach to the theology of redemption and salvation has its obvious implications also from the point of view of understanding the function of ecclesial institutions. Is this theology exposed – as its Western critics often note – to the danger of falling into a kind of Gnostic Monophysitism? The answer to this question could only come from our understanding (or from our misunderstanding) of the basic content of the Chalcedonian Creed, which declares that Jesus Christ is both God and man.

Christ the Savior

One of the most common fears among many is that the recognition of Christ’s divine nature entails a debasement of his human nature. The high Christology or Christology of condescension[23] from the Gospel of John and then throughout the patristic tradition is often seen today as a major danger not only to sound exegesis but also to spirituality. From an exegetical point of view, it gives primacy to supernatural, miraculous events – such as the Resurrection – and makes any demythologisation difficult. On the level of spirituality, it calls Christians to forget about what is humanum (human) and to seek mystical escapisms,[24] far from social and historical responsibilities. Indeed, if the purpose of faith is to seek Jesus—pre-existing as God—then his human life would be of no real interest: “He looked like a man, spoke like a man, suffered and died like a man. But underneath he remained divine, and his real humanity is suspect.”[25]

How can the real humanity of Christ be expressed? Some modern Christologies have recourse to schemes known as “kenotic.” Using—rather arbitrarily—the expression of the Apostle Paul in Phil. 2:7 (“he emptied himself”—ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν), giving it a specific philosophical interpretation, such Christologies imagine Christ as taking away his divinity in order to become more human. This “emptying” of divinity finds its ultimate point in his human death: the man Jesus dies, while God—immortal by nature—remains free from death.[26] His person is therefore seen as containing ever-changing levels of divinity and humanity, depending on whether he acts as God or as man. “The pre-existent,” writes John Knox, “is freed from such attributes of divinity as omnipotence and omniscience, but retains its more important qualities, and in so doing illustrates not only the core of divinity as such, but also what human nature really is.”[27] Those who share a similar concern for preserving the authentic and full humanity of Jesus attempt to rehabilitate the Antiochian school of Christology, as represented by Theodore of Mopsuestia and—ultimately—by Nestorius. In this tradition, the human attributes of Christ are predicated of Him as the “Son of Mary,” distinct from the Son of God. Although the historical Nestorianism of the fifth century refrained from categorically asserting the existence of “two Sons” in the person (πρόσωπον) of Christ, there is no doubt that such a conclusion logically follows from its premises. And this is acknowledged by those who, even to this day, interpret the Chalcedonian Creed of 451 as a timely posthumous rehabilitation of Theodore of Mopsuestia – after the victory of St. Cyril of Alexandria at Ephesus (431),[28] and for whom the reaffirmation of St. Cyril’s Christology by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553) was, in reality, a victory of Monophysitism in the East, under the guise of the artificial theory now called Neo-Chalcedonianism.[29]

The common characteristic of all these approaches is the belief that divinity and humanity are ontologically incompatible, and that concepts such as communion or deification – if taken literally and seriously – are in fact inappropriate borrowings from Neoplatonism, leading to a denial of the true human nature in Jesus, with all the implicit theological, ethical and historical consequences of such a denial. The problem here is evidently posed on two levels: at the level of anthropology and at the level of divine (and human) personality – as expressed in the concept of hypostasis (ὑπόστασις).[30] On both levels, the tradition that is expressed in post-Chalcedonian developments encounters several concerns of modern thought:

1. It has often been noted that the Eastern patristic tradition conceives of human nature, from the point of view of its participation in God, as – in a certain sense – its natural characteristic. The normal existence of man – as created by God – presupposes grace. When describing Adam before the Fall, St. Gregory of Nyssa writes of his “blessed immortality”, of his “righteousness” and his “purity”.[31] Jean Danielou, in his famous book on St. Gregory, notes: “Gregory identifies realities that Western theology considers to be different… Man, created “in the image [of God]”, is for Gregory what man is by nature (φύσιν). And the image includes what we call the life of the mind, νοῦς, and the supernatural life (πνεύμα).”[32] Walter Burghardt has revealed a similar dimension in the thought of St. Cyril of Alexandria[33] and there is no doubt that the thought of the Greek Fathers on this point is in agreement with the theocentric anthropology, which was expressed as early as the second century by St. Irenaeus of Lyons. In our day, theocentric anthropology is supported not only by Orthodox theologians – it is also a promising and widespread development among Roman Catholics, characteristic in particular, for example, of Karl Rahner.

The idea of ​​communion with God or deification (θέωσις), which in Greek patristic thought was used to define the true purpose of man – as that intention with which God created man, can be misunderstood as a kind of pantheistic vocabulary. Neoplatonic formulas and other philosophical expressions used by patristic writers are able to contribute to such misinterpretations. In reality, however, the idea of ​​deification (θέωσις) should be understood in the Christological context of redemption, which excludes pantheism.

It is significant that St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who coined the famous formula “The Logos assumed human nature so that we might become gods,”[34] also defended (against the Neoplatonic tradition of Origen) the absolute transcendence of the divine nature: creatures exist by the will of God, as distinct from the divine Logos, who is the Son of God by nature. “The nature of creatures,” he wrote, “is mutable, impotent, and composite,”[35] and “they can also cease to exist if the Creator so wishes.”[36] St. Athanasius’s way of thinking implies a radical rejection of Origen’s vision of God as the eternal Creator by nature, as well as of Origen’s view of the original (as well as the eschatological) state of created beings as participating in the very essence of God.[37] For St. Athanasius, therefore, theology can be based only on the historical fact of the Incarnation – on the assumption by the Logos, consubstantial with the Father (but not with creation), of mortal, limited and perishable human nature. This does not exclude a theology of the “logos of creations”, nor the idea that the Incarnate Logos is also that Logos through whom all that has been made has come into being,[38] but even God’s pre-existent plan for creation lies at the level of God’s will (or of His pre-eternal, uncreated energies), not at the level of His nature or essence. God – as Creator and as Savior – is a personal God, exercising the power of His love in absolute freedom.

The Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria is also based on the concept of the Self-giving God. St. Cyril has the theology of Emmanuel, “God with us” (Matt. 1:23), which affirms the personal perception by the divine Logos of all aspects of human nature in its fallen state, including death. Theopaschism, i.e. the confession of the fact that the Logos is the sole subject of the death of Golgotha,[39] is a crucial point in his polemic against Nestorius.[40] Theopaschism does not presuppose that God could suffer or die in His very nature or essence: the incarnate God suffered death—not the divine nature. St. Cyril’s aim was to affirm that God alone is the Savior—entirely by His own personal action and initiative (although this presupposes a free human response). In this regard, an interesting parallel can be drawn between St. Cyril’s Christology and the neo-orthodox thought of Karl Barth.[41]

If, however, the context of the doctrine of theosis is indeed this, how are we to understand theological anthropology and the idea to which we referred above: that participation in God is, in a certain sense, a natural characteristic of man? Were not kinship and participation elements of human nature – at the level of creation – independent of the historical incarnation of the Logos? The answer to this question has sometimes been found – unsatisfactory, in my opinion – in the view of an impersonal ontological kinship or continuity between the Creator and the creatures. Speaking of the Incarnation, Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov asks: “Do people sufficiently realize that this dogma is not primary, but derivative? It in itself requires the existence of dogmatic formulations preceding it, absolutely necessary, referring to a pre-eternal God-manhood.”[42] This approach has also seemed attractive to many in the modern West who were interested in overcoming the secular perception of the created universe – such as Paul Tillich or Teilhard de Chardin, for example.

Whatever partial truth there may be in their perfectly legitimate concern to establish an authentic theocentric conception of creation, they miss the personal or hypostatic dimension in both God and humanity. Indeed, in the Incarnation it is precisely this hypostatic dimension that is manifested – as a unique manifestation of divinity and humanity united in one concrete and historical person.

Notes:

[1] Florovsky, G. Paths of Russian Theology, Paris: YMCA Press, 21981, p. 515.

In the Russian original of this work, the expression of Fr. Florovsky says: “The West theologizes when the East is silent, – or, worst of all, thoughtlessly and belatedly repeats the western backs…”; in this case, the word “zady” (plural of “zad”) – in the figurative sense “foreign samples”, “models”, “clichés” – in the English text of Fr. Johann Mayendorff is rendered with “backlogs” – figuratively: “supports”, “stocks”, “reserves”.

[2] We are talking about the nineteenth century.

[3] Florovsky, G. Cit. 514.

[4] Published by Peter Mohila, Metropolitan of Kiev, and later approved (with some modifications) by the Eastern patriarchs, this Confession, originally written in Latin, was translated into Greek and Slavonic (see the English translation by Ronald Peter Popivchak in: Popivchak, R. P. Peter Mohila, Metropolitan of Kiev (1633-1647): Translation and evaluation of his “Orthodox Confession of Faith” (1640), Washington, DC, 1975). It was intended as a counteraction to the Calvinist Confession of Cyril (Lucaris), Patriarch of Constantinople (1629), but in substance and form it represents a document of the Latin Counter-Reformation (“… le plan, la matière… les expressions mêmes de la CO lui sont venues de l’Occident” [“… the plan, the content… and the very expressions of the Orthodox Confession came from the West”] – see: Malvy, A., Viller, M. La Confession orthodoxe de Pierre Moghila, Rome: “Oriental Institute”, 1927, p. xciv).

[5] Starting with the Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) – Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (in five volumes, published in St. Petersburg between 1849 and 1853; anonymous French translation: Macaire, évêque de Charkoff – Théologie dogmatic Orthodoxe, vol. 1-2, Paris, 1859-1860), and ending with the Greek textbooks of Christos Andrutsos – Ἀνδρούτσος, Χρ. Δογματική τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἀνατολικής Ἐκκλησίας, Ἀθήναι, 1907, and Panagiotis Trembelas – Τρεμπέλας, Π. N. Δογματική τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Καθολικάς Ἐκκλησίας. Ἀθήναι, 1958 (French translation: Trembelas, P. N. Dogmatique de L’Église orthodoxe catholique, tr. P. Dumont, 3 vols., Chévetogne, 1966-1968).

[6] There are several expanded, multi-volume modern editions of the Benevolence, accompanied by commentaries and annotated – Romanian (by Archpriest Dumitru Stăniloă – 1947 onwards), French (by Abbaye de Bellefontaine – 1979 ff.) and English (by Gerald Palmer, Philip Sherrard and Bishop Callistos (Ware) – London: “Faber and Faber”, 1979 ff.) versions of this collection are in the process of publication.

[7] For a recent review and full bibliography of these two authors, see: Christoff, P. K. An Introduction to Nineteenth-Century Russian Slavophilism: A Study in Ideas – 1: “A. S. Xomjakov” (The Hague: “Mouton”, 1961); 2: “V. Kireevsky” (The Hague: “Mouton”, 1972).

[8] His works were originally published in Kazan, 1909 (reprinted in Jordanville, NY, 1956-1969). Particularly controversial is his work Dogmat of Redemption (in: Богословский вестник, 8-9, 1917, pp. 155-167; 10-12, 1917, pp. 285-315). Later, Metropolitan Anthony of Kiev († 1936) headed the Russian Synod Abroad in Yugoslavia.

[9] Orthodox Teaching on Salvation (St. Petersburg, 1895). Metropolitan Sergius led the Russian Church during the tragic years of persecution [by the Bolsheviks – after 1917], and in 1943 was elected Patriarch.

[10] On Mikhail M. Tareev, there is a recent unpublished dissertation by Paul Vallier, defended at Columbia University. See also: Vallière, P. “The Liberal Tradition in Russian Orthodox Tradition” – in: The Legacy of St Vladimir, Crestwood, NY: “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press”, 1989.

[11] A renegade seminarian, Marxist professor of economics, then a convert, priest and dean of a seminary, Sergius N. Bulgakov is the author of a series of monumental treatises that have recently been translated into French – see, for example: Du Verbe incarné (Paris: “Aubier”, 1982); Philosophie de l’économie (Paris: “Aubier”, 1987); see also in English: A Bulgakov Anthology, ed. J. Pain and N. Zernov (Philadelphia: “Westminster Press”, 1976).

[12] Author of a theological synthesis, The Pillar and the Foundation of Truth (Moscow, 1914; French translation: La colonne et le fondement de la vérité, Paris: Aubier, 1975), as well as many other works that are gradually being published today, Father Florensky—sometimes considered the Russian Teilhard—died as a confessor of the faith in a concentration camp. Today, posthumously, he exerts a particularly strong influence on intellectuals returning to the faith.

The date of the martyrdom of Father Pavel Florensky, which Prot. Mayendorf was conditionally released in 1938, was established as December 8, 1937, when he was shot by order issued on November 25, 1937. Later, his relatives were informed of a fictitious date of his death – December 15, 1943. Subsequently, Father Florensky was rehabilitated twice for the sentences issued during his lifetime: in 1958 and in 1959.

[13] Cf.: Florovsky, G. Collected Works (in several volumes, published in Belmont, MA: “Nordland”, 1972 ff.).

[14] Cf.: Justin (Popovic), Archimandrite Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1-3, Belgrade, 1932.

[15] Author of a comprehensive work on dogmatics, Father Dumitru Staniloae manages to connect patristic theology with modern philosophical thought in a truly original way. A representative collection of his texts has appeared in English in the edition: Staniloae, D. Theology and the Church, Crestwood, NY: “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press”, 1980 [On October 4, 2025, Archpriest Dumitru Staniloae was canonized by the Romanian Orthodox Church in the rank of confessors of the faith].

[16] The works of Vladimir Lossky (with the exception of his monumental dissertation on Meister Eckhart – Théologie négative et connaissance de Dieu chez Maître Eckhart, Paris: “Aubier”, 1960) have also been translated into English and published by “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press” – see: The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, 1976; In the Image and Likeness of God, 1974; Orthodox Theology, 1978.

[17] See: Yannaras, S. The Freedom of Morality, Crestwood, NY: “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press”, 1984.

[18] See: Nellas, P. Deification in Christ: The Nature of the Human Person, Crestwood, NY: “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press”, 1987.

[19] The theological legacy of prot. Nikolai Afanasiev is collected in his book The Church of the Holy Spirit (L’Église du Saint-Esprit, Paris: “Cerf”, 1983).

Translated into Bulgarian, some of the most key texts from the work of Protopresbyter Nikolai Afanasiev are available in the Living Tradition project: examples of contemporary Orthodox theology – here (note transl.).

[20] For an easily accessible collection of his studies, see: Zizioulas, J. Being as Communion, Crestwood, NY: “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press”, 1985.

See the Bulgarian translation in: Zizioulas, I. D. Being as Communion. Studies on Personality and the Church, trans. Slava Yanakieva, ed. Kalin Yanakiev, S.: “Communitas”, 2013 (note transl.).

[21] See in particular: Schmemann, A. For the Life of the World. Sacraments and Orthodoxy, Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1973.

[22] Italics mine.

[23] This refers to the emphasis on Christ as the pre-eternal Logos of God, Who descended from Heaven to earth, assumed human nature, and dwelt among men; as such the Christology of the Prologue of the Gospel of John is defined, in contrast to the ascending Christology of the Synoptic Gospels, in which the story of Christ begins with His earthly lineage.

[24] From the English “escape”, “escapism” – in this case an escape from reality.

[25] O’Collins, G. What Are They Saying about Jesus?, New York: “Paulist Press”, 1977, p. 2.

[26] The kenontic scheme is also used in the sophiology of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov, who considers the theories of kenosis as “the most important current in Christological thought since the Ecumenical Councils”. He writes: “The eternal God becomes God, transforming himself into the God-man. He takes off from Himself His eternal divinity, descends to the level of human life and, in this life and through this life, makes man capable of perceiving God” (Du Verbe incarné, p. 146-147).

[27] Knox, J. The Humanity and Divinity of Christ, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967, p. 104. One wonders who can define the “more important” qualities of God. [28] See, for example: “To reduce the humanity of Christ to a mere non-hypostatic nature is contrary to the intentions of the Council of Chalcedon, which never intended to attempt to save the divinity of Christ by reducing His humanity to a pure nature” (Van Veesk, F. J. Christ Proclaimed: Christology in Rhetoric, New York: Paulist Press, 1979, p. 51). Also: “How can the humanity of Jesus be perfectly consubstantial with ours if it is devoid of human hypostasis?” (Moeller, Ch. “Le Chalcédonisme et le Néo-Chalcédonisme en orient de 451 à la fin du VIe siècle” – In: Konzil von Chalkedon, Bd. 1, Würzburg: “Echter”, 1951, S. 697). For a more modern critical review see: Havrilak, G. “Chalcedon and Orthodox Christology Today” – In: St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 33, 1989, p. 127-145.

[29] Neo-Chalcedonism is a concept born in the tradition of Western theological thought (Roman Catholic and Protestant), through which the idea is expressed that between the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria – which triumphed at the Third Ecumenical Council, and that of the Fourth Ecumenical Council there were some essential contradictions, which were artificially reconciled at the insistence of the imp. Justinian I the Great at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 553.

[30] These positions are briefly stated by John Breck in his article: Breck, J. “Reflections on the “Problem” of Chalcedonian Christology” – In: St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 33, 1989, p. 147-157. They are developed in more detail in my book Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Crestwood, NY: “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press”, 1975).

[31] De hominis opificio, 16 – PG 44, 177D-185.

[32] Daniélou, J. Platonisme et théologie mystique: Essai sur la doctrine spirituelle de saint Grégoire de Nysse, Paris: “Aubier”, 1944, p. 54.

[33] Burghardt, W. J. The Image of God in Man according to Cyril of Alexandria, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1957, p. 38.

[34] De incarnatione Verbi, 54 – PG 25, 192 B.

[35] Contra gentes, 41 – PG 25, 81CD.

[36] Contra arianos, 1, 20 – PG 26, 55A.

[37] On this subject see: Florovsky, G. “The Concept of Creation in St. Athanasius” – in: Studia Patristica, 6, part 4 (= Texte und Untersuchungen, 81; Berlin, 1962), pp. 36-67; cf. Meyendorff, J. “Creation in the History of Orthodox Theology” – In: St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 27, 1983, p. 27-37.

[38] Cf.: John 1:3; Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, 2.

[39] “If anyone does not confess that the Logos of God suffered in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, … let him be anathema” (Third Epistle to Nestorius – in: Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta, ed. J. Alberigo et al., Basel: “Herder”, 31962, p. 61).

[40] Cf. Meyendorff, J. Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, pp. 13-28, 69-89.

[41] Or at least the “early” Barth – the author of the Römerbrief and the first parts of the Dogmatik.

[42] A Bulgakov Anthology, p. 152. For Fr. Bulgakov and other students of Vladimir Solovyov – such as Fr. Pavel Florensky, the “pre-eternal God-manhood” is, of course, Sophia – the Wisdom of God, in her uncreated and created aspects.

Source: Meyendorff, J. “New Life in Christ: Salvation in Orthodox Theology” – In: Theological Studies, Vol. 50, No. 3, 1989, pp. 481-499; the text is also printed in: Meyendorff, J. Rome, Constantinople, Moscow: Historical and Theological Studies, Crestwood, NY: “St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press” 1996, pp. 149-168.

(to be continued)