...continued from part one.
1. Father George Florovsky on the Theologia crucis and Theologia gloriae
It is commonly assumed that, in counterdistinction from the West, Eastern theology is mainly concerned with Incarnation and Resurrection and that the “theology of the Cross”, theologia crucis, has been under-developed in the East. Indeed, Orthodox theology is emphatically a “theology of glory”, theologia gloriae, but only because it is primarily a “theology of the Cross”. The Cross itself is the sign of glory. The Cross itself is regarded not so much as a climax of Christ's humiliation, but rather as a disclosure of Divine might and glory. “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.” Or, in the words of a Sunday hymn, “it is by the Cross that great joy has come into the world”. On the one hand, the whole oikonomia of Redemption is summed up in one comprehensive vision: the victory of Life. On the other, this oikonomia is related to the basic predicament of fallen man, to his existential situation, culminating in his actualized “mortality”, and the “last enemy” is identified, accordingly, as “death”. It was this “last enemy” that had been defeated and abrogated on the tree of the Cross, in ara crucis. The Lord of Life did enter the dark abyss of death, and “death” was destroyed by the flashes of His glory. This is the main motive of the divine office on Easter Day in the Orthodox Church: “trampling down death by death”. The phrase itself is significant: Christ's death is itself a victory, Christ's death dismisses man's mortality.
According to the Fathers, Christ's Resurrection was not just a glorious sequel to the sad catastrophe of crucifixion, by which “humiliation” had been, by divine intervention, transmuted and transvaluated into “victory”. Christ was victorious precisely on the Cross. The Death on the Cross itself was a manifestation of Life. Good Friday in the Eastern Church is not a day of mourning. Indeed, it is a day of reverent silence, and the Church abstains from celebrating the Holy Eucharist on that day. Christ is resting in His tomb. But it is the Blessed Sabbath, requies Sabbati Magni, in the phrase of St. Ambrose. Or, in the words of an Eastern hymn, “this is the blessed Sabbath, this is the day of rest, whereon the Only Begotten Son of God has rested from all His deeds”. The Cross itself is regarded as an act of God. The act of Creation has been completed on the Cross.
According to the Fathers, the death on the Cross was effective not as a death of an Innocent One, not just as a sign of surrender and endurance, not just as a display of human obedience, but primarily as the death of the Incarnate God, as a disclosure of Christ’s Lordship. St. John Chrysostom put it admirably: “I call Him King, because I see Him crucified, for it is appropriate for a King to die for His subjects” (In crucem et latronem, hom. 1). Or, in the daring phrase of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, “we needed a God Incarnate, we needed God put to death, that we might live” (Hom. 45. 28). Two dangers must be cautiously avoided in the interpretation of the mystery of the Cross: docetic and kenotic. In both cases the paradoxical balance of the Chalcedonian definition is broken and distorted. Indeed, Christ’s death was a true death. The Incarnate did truly languish and suffer at Gethsemane and on Calvary: “by His stripes we are healed.” The utter reality of suffering must be duly acknowledged and emphasized, lest the Cross is dissolved into fiction: ut non evacuetur crux Christi. Yet, it was the Lord of Creation that died, the Son of God Incarnate, “One of the Holy Trinity”. The Hypostatic Union has not been broken, or even reduced, by Christ’s death. It may be properly said that God died on the Cross, but in His own humanity. “He who dwelleth in the highest is reckoned among the dead, and in the little grave findeth lodging” (Office of Good Saturday, Canon, Ode IX). Christ's death is a human death indeed, yet it is death within the hypostasis of the Word, the Incarnate Word. And therefore it is a resurrecting death, a disclosure of Life.
Only in this connection can we understand adequately the whole sacramental fabric of the Church, beginning with Baptism: one rises with Christ from the baptismal font precisely because this font represents the grave of Christ, His “life-bearing grave”, as it is usually described by the Orthodox. The mystery of the Cross can be understood only in the context of the total Christological vision. The mystery of Salvation can be adequately apprehended only in the contest of an accurate conception of Christ’s Person: One Person in two natures. One Person, and therefore one has to follow strictly the pattern of the Creed: it is the Son of God who came down, became man, suffered and died, and rose again. There was but One Divine Person acting in the story of salvation–yet Incarnate. Only out of this Chalcedonian vision can we understand the faith and devotion of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
-- From an article titled "Aspects of Church History" presented to the Faith and Order Orthodox Consultation in Kifissia, Greece, August 16–18, 1959.
PART THREE
1. Father George Florovsky on the Theologia crucis and Theologia gloriae
It is commonly assumed that, in counterdistinction from the West, Eastern theology is mainly concerned with Incarnation and Resurrection and that the “theology of the Cross”, theologia crucis, has been under-developed in the East. Indeed, Orthodox theology is emphatically a “theology of glory”, theologia gloriae, but only because it is primarily a “theology of the Cross”. The Cross itself is the sign of glory. The Cross itself is regarded not so much as a climax of Christ's humiliation, but rather as a disclosure of Divine might and glory. “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.” Or, in the words of a Sunday hymn, “it is by the Cross that great joy has come into the world”. On the one hand, the whole oikonomia of Redemption is summed up in one comprehensive vision: the victory of Life. On the other, this oikonomia is related to the basic predicament of fallen man, to his existential situation, culminating in his actualized “mortality”, and the “last enemy” is identified, accordingly, as “death”. It was this “last enemy” that had been defeated and abrogated on the tree of the Cross, in ara crucis. The Lord of Life did enter the dark abyss of death, and “death” was destroyed by the flashes of His glory. This is the main motive of the divine office on Easter Day in the Orthodox Church: “trampling down death by death”. The phrase itself is significant: Christ's death is itself a victory, Christ's death dismisses man's mortality.
According to the Fathers, Christ's Resurrection was not just a glorious sequel to the sad catastrophe of crucifixion, by which “humiliation” had been, by divine intervention, transmuted and transvaluated into “victory”. Christ was victorious precisely on the Cross. The Death on the Cross itself was a manifestation of Life. Good Friday in the Eastern Church is not a day of mourning. Indeed, it is a day of reverent silence, and the Church abstains from celebrating the Holy Eucharist on that day. Christ is resting in His tomb. But it is the Blessed Sabbath, requies Sabbati Magni, in the phrase of St. Ambrose. Or, in the words of an Eastern hymn, “this is the blessed Sabbath, this is the day of rest, whereon the Only Begotten Son of God has rested from all His deeds”. The Cross itself is regarded as an act of God. The act of Creation has been completed on the Cross.
According to the Fathers, the death on the Cross was effective not as a death of an Innocent One, not just as a sign of surrender and endurance, not just as a display of human obedience, but primarily as the death of the Incarnate God, as a disclosure of Christ’s Lordship. St. John Chrysostom put it admirably: “I call Him King, because I see Him crucified, for it is appropriate for a King to die for His subjects” (In crucem et latronem, hom. 1). Or, in the daring phrase of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, “we needed a God Incarnate, we needed God put to death, that we might live” (Hom. 45. 28). Two dangers must be cautiously avoided in the interpretation of the mystery of the Cross: docetic and kenotic. In both cases the paradoxical balance of the Chalcedonian definition is broken and distorted. Indeed, Christ’s death was a true death. The Incarnate did truly languish and suffer at Gethsemane and on Calvary: “by His stripes we are healed.” The utter reality of suffering must be duly acknowledged and emphasized, lest the Cross is dissolved into fiction: ut non evacuetur crux Christi. Yet, it was the Lord of Creation that died, the Son of God Incarnate, “One of the Holy Trinity”. The Hypostatic Union has not been broken, or even reduced, by Christ’s death. It may be properly said that God died on the Cross, but in His own humanity. “He who dwelleth in the highest is reckoned among the dead, and in the little grave findeth lodging” (Office of Good Saturday, Canon, Ode IX). Christ's death is a human death indeed, yet it is death within the hypostasis of the Word, the Incarnate Word. And therefore it is a resurrecting death, a disclosure of Life.
Only in this connection can we understand adequately the whole sacramental fabric of the Church, beginning with Baptism: one rises with Christ from the baptismal font precisely because this font represents the grave of Christ, His “life-bearing grave”, as it is usually described by the Orthodox. The mystery of the Cross can be understood only in the context of the total Christological vision. The mystery of Salvation can be adequately apprehended only in the contest of an accurate conception of Christ’s Person: One Person in two natures. One Person, and therefore one has to follow strictly the pattern of the Creed: it is the Son of God who came down, became man, suffered and died, and rose again. There was but One Divine Person acting in the story of salvation–yet Incarnate. Only out of this Chalcedonian vision can we understand the faith and devotion of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
-- From an article titled "Aspects of Church History" presented to the Faith and Order Orthodox Consultation in Kifissia, Greece, August 16–18, 1959.
PART THREE
