St Justin (Popović)

“Da svi jedno budu, kao ti, Oče, što si u meni i ja u tebi, da i oni u nama jedno budu da svet veruje da si me ti poslao” (Jov 17,21).
Ove reči našeg Gospoda Isusa Hrista odzvanjaju u mislima onih koji tvrde da ga slede i učestvuju u ekumenskom dijalogu sa drugim hrišćanskim denominacijama. Težnja ka jedinstvu svih koji žele da prate našeg Gospoda, težnja ka boljem razumevanju naših bližnjih, nastojanje da se polako i postepeno počinje govoriti istim jezikom i najbitnije od svega, nastojanje, težnja da istinski volimo jedni druge. U zapadnom hrišćanskom svetu posle Velike Šizme, a pogotovo posle protestantske reforme, pitanje dijaloga između i unutar protestantskih crkava, kao i dijaloga između rimokatolika i protestanata, postalo je relevantno, posebno u  XX veku. Od Drugog vatikanskog sabora polovinom šezdesetih godina prošlog veka, rimokatolici su usvojili otvoreniji i pozitivniji stav prema dijalogu sa drugim hrišćanskim denominacijama, što je rezultiralo nizom godišnjih susreta i povećanom komunikacijom uopšte. Zapadno hrišćanstvo je iskusilo velike raskole i formiranja novih crkava u reformaciji, što je vodilo ka modernijim učenjima kako bi trebalo da se odvija dijalog. Pogotovo posle Vatikanskog sabora II, rimokatolici su imali jasne smernice kako bi dijalog trebalo da izgleda iz njihove perspektive. Međutim, nije isti slučaj kada je u pitanju Pravoslavna crkva, pravoslavna hrišćanska vera je drevna i pravila kojih se sve pomesne crkve pridržavaju datiraju uglavnom iz prvog milenijuma i sedam Vaseljenskih sabora. Sve ovo predstavlja velike izazove u modernom dobu, kada je pitanje ekumenskog dijaloga toliko relevantno. Da li je ekumenizam jeres? Da li je u pitanju zabludna ideja koja dolazi iz zapadne crkve, koja se odvojila od pravoslavne crkve i vere pre skoro hiljadu godina? Treba li Pravoslavna crkva da učestvuje u ekumenskom dijalogu uopšte? Ako bi trebalo, u kom pravcu i na koji način? Ova i mnoga druga pitanja okupiraju misli i srca mnogih, a odgovora je mnogo i ponekad se suštinski razlikuju jedni od drugih.

Justin Popovich underlines the importance of the Godman as archetype in creation of man, in later anthropology of the patristic theology and in Eucharist which is the core reality for the Church, the body of Godman of Christ. In his writings, the serbian saint uses more the term Godman instead of Christ, perhaps he does so in order to teach by this way that the incarnate Logos is perfect man and perfect God and to avoid people to adopt any of the heresies which have to do with Christ as only human being. This idea ruled in the Western Christian Ecumenism which affirms humanity at the expense of god-humanity, as panheresy and creates the form to forge Christian Church, Christian theology and panhuman unity through a dialogue of love, regardless the dogmatic differences based only on a humanist project instead of the teaching for the real Godman.
Popovich argues that the logosnost- logosality enables man to feel and
to live in the incarnate Son who reveals the Triune God in Himself and in the Economy. Because every word of God contains the eternal Word of God--the Logos-it has the power to give birth and regenerate men. And when a man is born of the Word, he is born of the Truth, he has a life full of logoness. He emphasizes very often the personality of the God-man Christ because the European culture had tuned to idolatry, recognizing Christ not as the incarnate Logos but as a perfect man whose characteristic is love. By this emphasis on Godman, Popovic tries to refute the teaching of a Neo-arianism that is not undermined by
the new humanistic ecumenism theology of Europeans but it has begun to be
backed up by many Christian theologians of the West. The Godman is removed
and in his place there is the man, the European man.
Moreover, for Popovic the sacrament of Holy Eucharist is the foundation
of the Church, because it unites Godman with man, a man with man expands to the whole nature and through the union with the Godman, the believer is united with the attributes of Triune God. It is the mystery that creates joy in man because it keeps him alive member in the body of Christ, the Church. In this way, the Godman manages to expand Himself through all ages and eternity. Finally, to sum up, Popovic’s theology follows systematically the Church Fathers’ teaching as Athanasius’ of Alexandria, John’s Chrysostomos, John’s Damascene and especially of the last great Father, St. Gregory Palamas, as Amfilohije (Radovic) the metropolitan notes

This study suggests a comparison between Orthodox scholar Justin Popović and reformer Martin Luther and focuses on the methodology of how to evaluate Protestantism from the Orthodox perspective. First is explained a historical and a theological context in which Father Justin mentions Protestantism, then the hermeneutical presuppositions of his critique are introduced, third, his methodology is brought under scrutiny; finally, a closer assessment with German reformer Martin Luther is proposed, of their aims, methods, key concepts. It is claimed here that Popović and Luther should be considered brothers in arms and that they are much closer than Justin Popović has been aware of.

The paper deals with the study of genesis and the development of a specific philosophy based on patristic theology and aesthetics. Although this chapter of Russian culture is fairly written, the author thinks that a modern review is needed which will further confirm and outline the original lines of this school of thought. In order to define the concept and subject of visual art aesthetics in a specific time-historical context, it is necessary to point to the sources of inspiration on the basis of which Russian aesthetics developed their own system. These influences were more: from ancient, essentially pagan, philosophical cosmology, through Orthodox patristics, to the influence of German romanticism in culture and idealism in philosophy. As a result of these assumptions, a unique concept of the content of creature and figurative of the form – which is concerned with the philosophy of nature (cosmology) and philosophy of art (aesthetics) – has been formed – defining a Russian, religiously oriented, speculative thought to unite these themes. The author concludes that both are treated as ontological in Russian interpretation, and take on specific forms of a comprehensive gnoseology: “total-unity” and sophiology in the field of cosmology, as well as iconology and symbolism in the field of aesthetics.

The paper aims to examine St Justin’s usage of St Maximus’ doctrines of logoi and of five basic ontological divisions, as well as his usage of some of Maximus’ key concepts, such as the logos of being and the Mystery of Christ. The investigation is not limited to textual analysis of the aforementioned Maximian themes and concepts in the work of St. Justin. It also explores how Saint Justin, in-spired by St Maximus’ model of circle and radii, based his critique of humanism and humanistic ecumenism, substituting homo europeicus with the God-man, and the humanistic ecumenism with Theo-humanistic ecumenism.

This review essay brings a closer look at two books about Serbian saint and theologian Justin Popović, both were published in 2019 in Serbian. The first one, presented and analysed in this review, is the international thematic conference proceedings "Mission and thought of St Justin Popović", edited by Vladimir Cvetković and Bogdan Lubardić from the Orthodox Theological Faculty in Belgrade (Serbia). The second one is "Justin of Ćelije and England: Ways of Reception of British Theology, Literature and Science," written by Bogdan Lubardić. There is no need to introduce the life and work of Justin Popović (1894–1979) to the readers of this journal as it is generally known: monk and saint of the Orthodox Church (St Justin the New of Ćelije), professor at the University of Belgrade, co-founder of the Serbian Philosophical Society, one of the most prominent and important Orthodox theologians of the twentieth century. In my modest opinion, these two books open a new chapter in the research of Justin Popović’s legacy, in contrast to revival-apologetic and descriptive approach that previously dominated the reception of Justin Popović’s thoughts. This new approach is characterized by a non-ideological approach to Justin’s work and balances between two extremes, in a certain sense it proposes a middle path. The first extreme, pietistic and defensive-panegyric, considers any criticism of Justin’s work to be a direct attack on his holiness. The second extreme finds in Justin’s work a justification to reject the Serbian Church and all Orthodoxy due to their anti-modern and retrograde nature. The proposed middle ground no longer has as the starting point of whether Justin’s views are correct or not, but it considers the reasons and circumstances in which Justin’s work occurs.