Petros

Archpr. Constantine Jincharadze critically examines the theological current to which Romanides is indebted in Traces of the Paris School in Contemporary Theology published by the Georgian Patriarchate in 2017, and explicitly repudiates Romanides by name in Anatomy of Modernism. Are he and the Georgian Church just a bunch of “perverted academics”, or is it time to face the music? ‘According to the modernists (for example, Christos Yannaras), Archpriest John Romanides’ work The Ancestral Sin («Грех предков») is of the greatest importance, since it “liberates Orthodox consciousness from captivity to original sin, Western intellectualism, and theological juridicism”. They (the modernists) believe that it is precisely upon this foundation (the repudiation of the essence of original sin) that the anthropological polemic against Orthodox supporters of “juridicism” begins. But the question arises: if the doctrine of original sin was infected with “juridicism”, first in Western teaching and subsequently in that of the Eastern Orthodox Church, did the Holy Fathers distinguished for their anti-Latin polemics (St. Photius, St. Mark of Ephesus, St. Gregory Palamas, and other Fathers) really fail to notice this? Furthermore, would there not have been some indication of it in the significant Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848), or in the other “Creedal Books” (Confessions)? On the contrary, it was precisely they who confirmed the dogmatic definition concerning original sin and the fate of unbaptised infants adopted at the Local Council of Carthage. We have repeatedly indicated what the Church teaches concerning original sin. St. Gregory Palamas writes: “If anyone should dare to say that this teaching was unknown to those who lived according to true theology, then we shall reject them as the greatest blasphemers.”¹ Many contemporary theologians boast of their knowledge of the writings of St. Gregory Palamas (Romanides, Vlachos, and others). In reality, their approach is exceedingly selective. In the aforementioned work (The Ancestral Sin), Romanides asserts, without argument or substantiation, that “sin is simply a disease and not a transgression of the law”, which constitutes an audacious rejection of the words of Holy Scripture: “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law”(1 Jhn. 3:4). Such theses open the door wide to “Orthodox psychotherapy” (as we have witnessed in the demonstration of “psychotherapy” by Romanides’ disciple, Metropolitan Hierotheos [Vlachos]). Here the significance of repentance is substantially overshadowed by “psychotherapy” (“healing”). This is clearly apparent in Romanides’ words: “The Greek Fathers considered the question of salvation within the biblical perspective and understood salvation as the healing of human nature from death, which had been damaged by Satan.”² Romanides paints a picture in which human culpability in original sin appears not to exist, and in which healing from sin is preferable to excessive, endless “lamentation” over it. In reality, this is the “philosophy of Eve”: “The serpent deceived me; what have I to do with it?” We have also repeatedly observed that “we all sinned in Adam”, and that “without Christ’s redeeming sacrifice” no one could have been saved. Here is what St. Basil the Great says concerning Adam’s fall: “Having sinned through the exercise of an evil will, Adam also died because of sin, ‘for the wages of sin is death’(Rom. 6:23). To the extent that he departed from life, he approached death, because God is life, and deprivation of life is death. Thus, by separating himself from God, he pronounced upon himself the sentence of death, according to Scripture: ‘For behold, they that remove themselves far from Thee shall perish’(Ps. 72:27).”³ Romanides continues: “In the West, salvation means, in the first instance, deliverance not from death, but from divine wrath.”⁴ From this, too, it is evident that the modernist theologian formulates his soteriological teaching in manifest disregard of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Holy Scripture expressly declares: “Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him”(Rom. 5:9). Absolutely all the Holy Fathers affirm that, through Christ’s sacrifice, we have been delivered from divine wrath. It is precisely this teaching that Romanides (and other modernists) calls a “Western doctrine”, “juridicism”, and the like. It was Romanides who brought about a “grandiose upheaval” in Greek theology, so as to present Orthodox teaching as being of “Western origin”, whilst proclaiming his own neo-Pelagian teaching to be Orthodoxy. Romanides leaves the reader with the impression that Orthodox theology became incomprehensible at some point: when did it sever its connection with apostolic and patristic teaching in its interpretation of such important questions as original sin and redemption? In Romanides’ opinion, this is “a problem of the Orthodox Church”, whereas it is he himself who constitutes a danger to Orthodox theology. Teaching of a similar character is found amongst other prominent theologians: Yannaras, Vlachos, Metallinos, Kalomiros, and others. But the “irony of fate” is that, in this false teaching (anti-juridicism), Greek theologians are not original. Long before them, Russian theologians (Khomyakov, Solovyov, Berdyaev, Khrapovitsky) had begun to discuss these questions, distinguishing themselves by their skilful “Orthodoxisation” of German idealists. Despite the considerable efforts of the Greeks, it is clearly the Russian modernists who set the tone for modernist theology. This is also confirmed by the fact that Romanides’ teacher was Archpr. Georges Florovsky. In general, the ideologists of the Russian émigré modernist movement, the so-called “Paris Theological Institute”, vigorously introduced modernism into the Orthodox Church. One thing, however, must be observed: although modernism was not condemned synodically in the Russian Church, it was nevertheless exposed through the individual confessional labours of Abp. Theophan of Poltava, Abp. Seraphim Sobolev, Abp. Averky Taushev, Archpr. Michael Pomazansky, Fr. Seraphim Rose, and many others. Unfortunately, the Greek theological schools did not produce comparable critical assessments. This had corresponding consequences. For example, on 14 April 2014, the theological school of Piraeus published an epistle exposing Papism, in which, amongst the papist errors enumerated (23 points), appeared the following: “The teaching of original sin and juridicism, arising from the satisfaction of divine justice, predominates in Papism.”⁵ As we have observed, such a teaching is unknown to the Holy Fathers and to the Orthodox Church in its entirety. But the Greeks have had no one in recent centuries “greater” than Romanides. He is their mother and father, their Alpha and Omega—for modernists and, unfortunately, for conservatives as well.’ –Fr. Constantine (Jincharadze), Anatomy of Modernism, Chapter II, “The Juridical Theory of Redemption”, pg. 73–78

‘Remember the moment in the Lord's Passion when He exclaimed, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46). At that point everything became dark, as if an impenetrable cloud covered the sun. This shows us that our sins, which the Lord took upon Himself, separated Him from the Father, and He felt forsaken by Him. And so, when man transgressed God's commandment, he not only did not become god, but he fell away from God. However, the Lord in His ineffable goodness did not want to abandon His Creation, and devised a special plan for his salvation. Man was undeniably guilty and had fallen away from God, but the Wisdom of God made a plan to save him whereby the Lord Himself would come down to the earth and become man, or “Son of Man,” as He liked to call Himself. He could then be accessible to man as God-Man.’ bl. Philaret of New York, Sermon on Christmas Eve