Athens – Three years have passed since the death of the great Orthodox theologian Ioannis Zizioulas, Metropolitan of Pergamon. He died on February 2, 2023, at the age of 92.
Zizioulas was among the most outstanding Christian theologians of the 20th and 21st centuries. This was also the opinion of, among others, the great Catholic theologians Yves Congar and Joseph Ratzinger , as well as Pope Francis. The originality and theological depth of Ioannis Zizioulas stemmed from an intense and consistent reading of the Tradition of the Greek Fathers of the Church. From this, he derived his teachings on the sacramental nature of the Church, as well as the central importance he recognized of eschatology, the focus that must always be on the “last things,” on the salvation of the individual soul and of humanity. For the resurrection of Christ is not merely an event buried in the past, but a promised goal. And the Church is not born and enlivened on its journey by the remembrance of Christ’s death, but by drawing near to the risen Christ, “in remembrance of the future.” “Remembering the Future” was the title of Zizioulas’s last published book, with a preface by Pope Francis.
On January 30, 2023, Ioannis Zizioulas was scheduled to deliver a homily in Peristeri, the largest Orthodox diocese in Athens. To offer his perspective on the state of the Church and the world in our time, Zizioulas planned to draw on the teachings of Saint Basil, Saint John Chrysostom, and Saint Gregory of Nazianzus. Two days earlier, on January 28, Zizioulas was hospitalized with COVID-19, where he died on February 2.
The following is the complete text of this unpublished homily, which the great theologian was unable to deliver.
***
Studying the works of the three great Fathers of the Church, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom, leads us to certain conclusions about the state of the Church in the world. There is no doubt that the three great Fathers of the Church we honor today profoundly influenced the culture of their time and beyond. In particular, they influenced so-called Byzantine culture and the culture of the peoples who predominantly belong to the Orthodox Church, and not only them. Among the effects of its influence was not only respect for the Church and its officials, which in the past, and perhaps even today, has never been diminished by the unworthiness of individuals .
On a social level, the Church introduced communitarianism into the organization of public life, thereby strengthening the spirit of “democracy” in its authentic form. It also fostered a human ethic of tolerance toward human weaknesses by avoiding all forms of “holy trials” and “witch hunts” and by cultivating an ethic of sharing in the suffering and joy of others. All of this would be unthinkable in our culture without the profound influence of the Church, as evidenced by the fact that all these values are slowly disappearing from our societies with advancing Westernization.
Society continues on its path, following a course that apparently cannot be interrupted by the flames of our passionate social sermons. The terrible thing is that the Church itself, without realizing it, is ceasing to be the salt that serves to preserve, even in the form of a “small remnant,” a way of life that points to the Triune God, as taught by the Fathers we honor today.
The signs of the changing identity of our Church are, unfortunately, numerous today. I would like to mention three of them as examples.
a) The psychologism that is increasingly undermining our Church. Our faithful no longer go to church to meet others, as they once did, but rather to “experience” an individual sense of connection with the “Divine.” This kind of psychological religiosity – purely individual and subjective – is now cultivated by the Church itself in the form of an artificial “contemplation” – small, dimly lit churches, a preference for monasteries, a desire to escape the crowds of religious festivals, etc. This even extends to confession itself, which has been transformed from a means of restoring our relationship to society and the community of the Church, as it was in the early Church. The Church seems to be transforming into a “healing center” for the psychic—that is, psychological—wounds of the individual. Psychoanalysis—this individualistic construct of introversion par excellence—is now conquering even Orthodox theology, transforming the Church into a “hospital” or a healing center for individuals, as if the community of the Church were not sufficient to heal people and transform them from introverts into social beings.
b) Moralism threatens to shake the very foundations of the Church. Moralism, which must be clearly distinguished from ethics, is based on the promotion of moral norms that always align with what a society judges and accepts as “moral.” In this way, the universal sinfulness that governs our fallen nature is obscured, and a distinction is introduced between more or less sinful people, as if it were possible to classify or quantify them. Thus, the number of those who hold the stone of anathema and are ready to stone those more sinful than themselves increases. In this stoning scene, Christ is absent , who would say, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” In his place appears the Church itself, like another Saul before his conversion, to direct, or pretend to direct, the purifying stoning. Thus, repentance, final penance, is now replaced by the Pharisaic “οὐκ ειμί ὥσπερ οἱ λοιποί” . And while Christ, the head of the Church, though without sin, identifies himself with sinners on the cross, his body, the Church, today avoids this identification, unable to bear the cross of his Head. Thus, Chrysostom’s ecclesiology, quoted above, is reversed in practice: the Head is crucified, while the Body refuses to be crucified. But any separation of the body from the head, Chrysostom emphasizes, signifies the death of the body. The identity of the Church, as understood by these three great Fathers of the Church, is in danger.
c) The identity of the Church is threatened by its fusion with the technological culture of our time. This point is very sensitive and requires special attention. Technology poses a threat to the identity of the Church because it introduces a particular and dangerous form of individualism that negates physical communion between people and promotes a form of communication devoid of material possessions. Primarily through the internet, but also through television, the physical encounter of people “ἐπί τό αὐτό”, which constitutes the essence of the Church, is being replaced by a “spiritual” contact in which all the material symbols of the Church, through which the iconography of relationships is expressed, are being abolished. In this way, the local gathering of the people and the physical embrace of images or clergy are no longer necessary, since the Divine Liturgy can now be broadcast on television—sometimes at the Church’s own request . And let no one say that this is being done to accommodate the sick or other disabled people. For what is being offered to these groups is by no means the reality of the celebration , but a visual image, that is, a “virtual reality,” a caricature of the Sacred Liturgy. In this way, people are offered only psychological gratification, but the Church alters the ontological reality of its identity, since the liturgy is Synaxis “ἐπί τό αὐτό” and the Church is communion. The “sacred things” are, in good conscience, left to the “profane.” In the name of adapting the Church to the needs of modern man, the Church’s identity is being changed rapidly and dangerously.
The three points mentioned above are particularly important to emphasize today. The three great Fathers of the Church of Christ were ecumenical teachers. Their significance is not limited to Greek culture, as is often claimed today. Their teaching is directed to every person and concerns the way in which humanity generally exists as the image of the Triune God. This way of being is exemplified and highlighted by the Church in an outstanding way, not through what it teaches, but through what it is, through its very identity. That is why it is so important that the Church’s identity is not distorted or altered. The danger of such distortion seems great in our time. The points mentioned above are indicative. Many more could perhaps be added. These three points are enough to awaken our conscience, especially those responsible for the Church’s leadership and the education of the people, as the highest expression of diakonia, not despotism. We need nothing else if we wish to preserve the identity of the Church as conceived by the Fathers of the Church, in order to fulfill our duty to God and humanity, as well as to these three great Fathers of the Church of Christ, whom we honor today. These three great Fathers of the early Church, whom we solemnly honor today, composed Divine Liturgies. This is no coincidence. In the Holy Eucharist, the identity of the Church is most fully expressed. There, the Church reveals itself and realizes itself as the Body of Christ, the image of the Most Holy Trinity, the anticipation of the Kingdom of God. There, humanity lives out its relationship with the Triune God in Christ, with other people, and with material Creation itself. From this relationship, it draws inspiration and guidance for life. It would be enough to analyze the Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil or Saint Chrysostom to convey today the essence of what these Fathers offered to the Church and to people of all times, including our own.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.