Petre Maican

Disability theology has long been an anglophone affair, with most debates taking place around lexical structures and semantic nuances specific to the English language. This paper claims that the Romanian word neputință – loosely translated into English as powerlessness – can make a significant contribution to the field. Drawing on interviews with Romanian Orthodox priests, the article argues that neputință can provide a Christological edge to popular concepts such as vulnerability and limits, while also adding an understanding of aging as a natural process that needs medical and social support, but not cure.

When persons with disabilities enter a room, they frequently elicit strong emotional reactions from their non-disabled peers. These reactions are well known in disability studies and often they are blamed for the difficulty of integrating persons with disabilities into communities. Theologians have interpreted this emotional shock as proof that persons with disabilities are revelatory of God's grace because they shatter our idolatrous anthropologies and socio-political constructs. What has been discussed less is why everybody does not recognize this presence of grace in persons with disabilities, nor how those who experience negative feelings such as anger or disgust could overcome them. This article addresses these questions by appealing to the Eastern Orthodox ascetic tradition, where the grace of God becomes visible for those who learn to control their emotions and purify their sight from self-interest.

Despite the strong interest of Eastern Orthodox theologians in the area of anthropology, their reflection almost never included intellectual disability. The article aims to take the discussion further by providing the contours of an inclusive anthropological ethics. In this sense, it will develop constructively the three main principles of Dumitru Stăniloae's dialogical anthropology: 1) that each human being is a person because she is called to dialogue with God from the womb of her mother; 2) that this dialogue with God is mediated by one's neighbour; 3) that the materiality of creation is meant to be transformed into a gift of communion with other humans and God.

Most disability theologians consider vulnerability the cornerstone of personal transformation and the development of inclusive communities. For them, being aware of one’s vulnerability is synonymous with learning to show solidarity with others, especially persons with disabilities. The article argues that while this can be the case, it is not the rule. Being vulnerable can also lead people to individualistic and selfish behaviour. What makes the difference is the a priori ethical framework in which people interpret vulnerability and not vulnerability itself. To make this argument, the article draws on two Eastern Orthodox sources: Savatie Baștovoi and Maria Skobstova.

This article seeks to formulate an Orthodox ecclesiological framework that sees the gift the disabled bring to the Church not in their disability, but in their interaction with the other members of the Church. In this sense, it argues that Dumitru Stăniloae’s view of the Holy Spirit as the gift of love between the Father and the Son opens the path towards an inclusive ecclesiological vision that uncovers the full humanity of the disabled. The argument develops in three stages. First, it discusses the origin and the Trinitarian assumptions of Stăniloae’s view of the Holy Spirit as the middle point between the Father and the Son. Then, it emphasises the importance of this position for understanding the Church as a communion of love participating in the Trinitarian love. Finally, in order to draw the implications of this pneumatic ecclesiology for an inclusive approach to disability, it brings Stăniloae in dialogue with Brian Brock’s inclusive reading of 1 Corinthians 12.

There is an increased tendency inside the Orthodox Churches to reject the socio-cultural changes brought about by postmodernity and seek the restoration of an idealised past. In this article, I argue against this trend and set the premises for a constructive Orthodox engagement with secular postmodernity. Initially, I point out that in the patristic frame of thought, the movement of history receives a positive value as part of God’s plan to lead humankind to deification. In order to show how this motion towards deification can be discerned in a modern setting, I turn to Dumitru Stăniloae, who interpreted and applied the patristic vision of history in the context of communist Romania. Using Stăniloae’s criteria for evaluating the communist regime, I suggest that Orthodoxy and postmodernity might have more in common than what was initially thought, and argue for a re-evaluation of the Orthodox approach to the major tropes of postmodernity.

My intention in this paper is to provide an alternative approach to ecumenism, one that accepts diversity, while it remains firmly anchored in tradition. This vision belongs to the Romanian theologian Dumitru Stăniloae (1903-1993) and sees the multitude of Christian denominations as a useful resource for Orthodox critical self-reflection and learning. The backbone of his positive appraisal of ecumenical diversity, I will argue further, is a different account of the role of theology.  Although a staunch traditionalist, Stăniloae sees the task of theology not simply as preserving the tradition of the Church, but of guiding the Church to deification throughout history. This process of discernment is based on two hermeneutical principles (advancement in the knowledge of God and greater union of human beings in Christ). These principles culminate in Stăniloae’s ecumenical model (open sobornicity), while also serving as hermeneutical foundations for sensitive ecumenical loci. Thus, the goal of this article is twofold: to reconsider the role assigned to theology and to propose Stăniloae’s interpretative principles as the bases of the Orthodox ecumenical hermeneutics.

The distinction between image and likeness is one of the recurring themes in the patristic writings and one of the main building blocks of modern Orthodox theology. But is this distinction useful for answering the anthropological question from the perspective of disability? Is it useful to speak about image and likeness in the cases of persons with profound intellectual disabilities? I think not. Especially, when the main requirement for attaining likeness is ethical freedom. As I will point out further, since the movement from image to likeness is dependent on the use of freedom, persons with profound cognitive disabilities are excluded from attaining the goal of their own existence, perfection in Christ.

One of the temptations of Eastern Orthodox spirituality is to promote a stereotypical understanding of holiness as overcoming one’s nature in a monastic setting. This limited approach to holiness has two main pitfalls: 1) the marginalisation of atypical forms of holiness and 2) the exclusion of human vocation from the ideal of holiness.  My intention, however, is not to diminish the importance of this particular approach of holiness, but rather to provide a more inclusive account that will recognise the importance of human distinctiveness and encourage the laity to strive for holiness in their own context. In this sense, I will argue that holiness is the incorporation of the saint with his or her personality into the unfolding symphony of salvation. To make this argument I will appeal to the Roman Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar and his understanding of holiness.

Una dintre cele mai mari realizări ale teologiei ortodoxe moderne o
reprezintă dezvoltarea conceptului de persoană. Acest concept apare pentru prima data în secolul al IV-lea, când Părinții Capadocieni sunt nevoiți să diferențieze între două sinonime: natura (ousia) și ipostas (hypostasis) pentru a apăra atât consubstanțialitatea dintre Tatăl, Fiul și Duhul Sfânt, cât și unicitatea lui Dumnezeu. Termenul de persoană (prosopon) se referea în acel moment la masca purtată pe scenă de actorii de teatru. El devine acceptat în forma lui latină ca sinonim pentru ipostas datorită dificultăților de traducere a distincției grecești dintre ousia și hipostasis. În ultimele două secole însă, sub influența diferitelor contexte sociale și curente filosofice, centrul de greutate al acestei noțiuni se mută de la aria trinitară la cea antropologică. Din ce în ce mai mulți teologi încep să se întrebe ce înseamnă pentru ființa umană să fie considerată o persoană. Răspunsul vine adesea însoțit de o nouă distincție, cea dintre persoană și individ. Individul este doar un membru al speciei umane, prins în monotonia luptei pentru supraviețuire și egoism. În schimb, persoana este unică, irepetabilă și spirituală.

One of the highest achievements of modern Orthodox theology has been the development of the notion of person.1 This notion can be traced back to the fourth century when, in the heat of Trinitarian debates, the Cappadocian Fathers needed to distinguish between two synonyms: nature (ousia) and person (hypostasis) in order to defend the consubstantiality between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and the oneness of God. In the past two centuries, under the influence of various philosophical movements, this notion’s centre of gravity shifted from the Trinitarian to the anthropological realm. Theologians began to ask what does it mean to be a person and they often answered by differentiating between person and individual. The individual is just another member of the human species caught in the monotonous fight for survival and selfishness. By contrast, the person is unique, unrepeatable, and spiritual.

This paper seeks to formulate an Orthodox ecclesiological framework that sees the gift the disabled bring to the Church not in their disability, but in their interaction with the other members of the Church. In this sense, it argues that Dumitru Stăniloae’s view of the Holy Spirit as the gift of love between the Father and the Son opens the path towards an inclusive ecclesiological vision that uncovers the full humanity of the disabled. The argument develops in three stages. First, it discusses the origin and the Trinitarian assumptions of Stăniloae’s view of the Holy Spirit as the middle point between the Father and the Son. Then, it emphasises the importance of this position for understanding the Church as a communion of love participating in the Trinitarian love. Finally, in order to draw the implications of this pneumatic ecclesiology for an inclusive approach to disability, it brings Stăniloae in dialogue with Brian Brock’s inclusive reading of 1 Corinthians 12.

An extensive part of the Eastern Orthodox public is becoming more and more anxious about the ecumenical engagement of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The main reason behind this unease is the growth in influence of fundamentalist voices inside many Eastern Orthodox countries.  The fundamentalists oppose Eastern Orthodox involvement in the ecumenical movement on the grounds that there is nothing Eastern Orthodoxy can learn from other confessions – labelled as heretics. Most Eastern Orthodox ecumenists often appear to inadvertently endorse this position themselves, when insisting the main reason for Eastern Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement is to proclaim the truth of the Gospel and Patristic tradition, as it is preserved and lived within the Eastern Orthodox boundaries. What both of these approaches fail to see is that Eastern Orthodox theology could benefit from embracing diversity and inter-confessional dialogue. In this confrontation of the extremes, the public’s reluctant reaction comes as no surprise. It is the intention of this paper to argue – to an Eastern Orthodox audience and from an Eastern Orthodox standpoint – that the ecumenical dialogue represents an inner necessity for Eastern Orthodox theology. Only by engaging in conversation with other churches can Eastern Orthodoxy gain a better understanding of its own heritage and lead its members closer in the knowledge of God. To strengthen this position, this paper will draw on the ecumenical vision of the Romanian theologian Dumitru Stăniloae. For Stăniloae, the church, in its historical existence, is an imperfect reality progressing through time towards eschatological fulfilment. Although the present church has been given the sight of its ultimate perfection through Scripture, the teachings of the Fathers, and the sacraments, its knowledge of God remains partial. To advance in the knowledge of God, the church has to deepen its thesaurus of faith – and this can only be achieved through dialogue. The knowledge of God is not the product of self-reflexion, but of an active and loving engagement with other humans. Furthermore, due to the universal presence of God, these dialogues cannot be exclusively Pan-Orthodox; they need to embrace the entirety of human society, from science and arts to other religions and Christian confessions. As long as all parties are inspired by genuine love and the Eastern Orthodox tenets are not affected, the dialogue can forge a more profound understanding of the Eastern Orthodox faith and God’s will in the world. By highlighting the importance of ecumenical dialogue for spiritual advancement into God, the fear of otherness that generates anti-ecumenical feelings is dissipated, and the basis for a positive reinterpretation of the differences among churches – as reflections of God’s manifold manifestation in human existence – is set.

There are a number of different approaches towards ecumenism within the Eastern Orthodox spectrum,  but the common denominator for all of them is that differences are difficulties to confront on the road to Christian unity. This premise obstructs any fruitful ecumenical engagement and it is this paper’s intention to challenge it, by arguing for a positive understanding of the differences between churches. In this sense, the paper will turn to the work of Eastern Orthodox theologian Dumitru Stăniloae, whose concept of “open sobornicity” embraces all denominations as providing valid theological insights into divine revelation. The paper will engage critically with this notion pointing out its limits, as well as its advantages for ecumenical discussions. Finally, Stăniloae’s vision will be will be put in conversation outside the Orthodox boundaries with the underlying principles of Receptive Ecumenism, emphasizing the benefits such an approach can have for contemporary Eastern Orthodox theology.

The relationship between body and the mystical visions of the medieval women has been widely discussed, from various perspectives: aesthetic, historical, psychoanalytical, socio-cultural, or as gender studies. With some exceptions, most theologians have avoided to engage in the debate, dismissing the feminine experiences of God as emotional and unreliable. Instead, they have constructed their approach towards mysticism based on the unemotional masculine tradition of apophaticism. The task of this paper is to fill this gap and analyse the relationship between body and mystical vision from a systematic perspective, pointing out that the connection between body and the visual experience of God is not of psychological nature, or contrary to the Dionysian tradition but part of it. The focus of the analysis will be the experience of Angela  of Foligno, a medieval mystic, connected with Franciscan spirituality. The paper will be looking at how the participation of the body in the visions grows in intensity with each stage and how, at the last stage, the visions disappear once the body goes numb. It will be argued that the visions Angela are not self-induced or psychotic, but the external projection of the body’s experience of God’s embrace. In conclusion, this paper aims to recover for the systematic theologian the visionary experience of God, not as contrary to the apophatic tradition, but as integral of it, emphasizing that the body plays an important role in the Christian mysticism, even if often unrecognised.

Classical Christian theology applies the term idol to all the visual representations of God, belonging to other religions. The term distinguishes between icons or any other images used in Christian worship and Non-Christian depictions, claiming the former are just the products of human imagination and void of any sacred presence. This approach raises a series of difficulties for the modern world engaged in inter-faith dialogue, and recent theologians like Paul Tillich have challenged it. Tillich calls all these visual representations symbols and considers they are participating in the reality they point to, namely God. Nevertheless, this unifying statement bringing together Christian and non-Christian images has attracted a fair amount of criticism, despite all the attempts Tillich made to defend it. It is my intention in the present paper to examine how Tillich changes the classical perspective on idols with his notion of symbol, and how he tries to bring Christianity into dialogue with other religions, through the mediation of visual imagery. The analysis will highlight the most criticised aspects of Tillich’s theory of symbol and will seek to show how these weak points can be strengthened by the complementary input of the Eastern Orthodox theology of icons, best illustrated in the work of Romanian theologian Dumitru Stăniloae. The purpose of this argument is twofold: it aims, on the one hand, to be a piece of constructive theology, recovering the Tillichian concept of symbol through inter-denominational dialogue, while on the other hand reassessing the notion of idol and transforming it into a bridge between Christianity and non-Abrahamic religions.

Modern Orthodox identity is deeply interwoven with the notion of deification or union with God. For some theologians, deification represents the lens through which most, if not all, theological questions should be engaged. In this volume, Petre Maican undertakes the task of critically examining the extent to which deification informs the main debates inside Orthodox theology, focusing on four essential loci: anthropology, the Trinity, epistemology, and ecclesiology. Maican argues that while deification remains central to anthropology and the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity, it seems less relevant in the areas of ecclesiology and complexifies the Orthodox approach to Scripture and Tradition.