For a Century of Pan-Orthodox Unit

The problems that we currently witness in Ukraine have been in the making for almost one century. Many have spoken from all sides on theological and canonical aspects and far better than I can even aspire to. The problem is complex and I pray to God it is solved with repentance and no schism, for these two things, repentance and schisms, cannot coexist. I want to bring another perspective to the table, more prosaic but in my estimation central not only to the problem of Ukraine but to a whole set of issues whose accumulation have brought us here.

What one leaves unattended tends to deteriorate. This law is so universal that it applies from human relationships to physical laws. Any system, of itself, will eventually deteriorate. Entropy is the mark of death in the cosmos. The Church is no exception. Even though Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail over His Body, it does not prevent entropy from acting in some way or another; it does not destroy the Church, but it disconnects individuals, communities and even entire regions from the Church. And Pan-Orthodox unit was unattended.

Yes, I know of all the pre-synodal conferences, the patriarchal synaxises. My contention here is precisely that these events not only are not sufficient, they are not even the bare minimum. The Church is the theoanthropic Body of the Christ and because of this formal cause, everything that pertains to being human also applies to the Church. The aspect of humanity that is important here is how the human being cultivates not merely a sense of community, but an actual community. Because even though in a sense a Russian Orthodox in a small village in Siberia is spiritually united to the hipster millennial Texan Orthodox, in a very human way they do not form one community. And that is not true of Americans and Russians only. It is true of Greeks and Slovaks, Romanians and Syrians and sometimes even inside the same country, a reality sadly palpable in the diaspora. The Brazilian philosopher Olavo de Carvalho says regarding nations that identity is the memory of great deeds accomplished together as one people: "What is love for motherland, when authentic and not just a convention, if not the memory of an epopee (an epic poem) lived in common?" asked the philosopher. 

Phyletism has risen - as did its rich cousin, cosmopolitanism - for the fact that countries offer this epopee lived in common - and cosmopolitanism offers an epopee of rising above the narrowness of nations and cultures, thus just creating another kind of identity, not so much over common history, but analogous experiences. But it does not mean that the "memory of great deeds accomplished together" is itself a bad thing. Quite the contrary, I contend that no community of human beings, from the friendship of two people to entire civilizations, can exist if in that relationship there is no such memory of great deeds accomplished together. If the two friends do not have their own little saga, they will not truly be friends yet. And if they forget they had it, or if it loses its meaning to one of them, they will cease to be friends.

The Orthodox Church has denied herself, and her faithful, this powerful community building reality. In so many forms and ways. First it is not enough that great deeds were accomplished together to form a community. There must be the memory of the great deeds and of the facts that they were accomplished together. Whilst for individuals memory requires only reflection and maybe annotations, for communities, specially large ones like the Church today, it requires broader tools: it requires a common language, common literature, common institutions. And here lies the temptation to build these common institutions putting them above the properly sacramental ones like other churches. That was the solution found by Rome, putting the Church of Rome as the unifying institution of all the local churches. Papal developments are more of a particular instance of this error than the core of the error. Protestantism on the other hand formed its identity on the second of the pillars just mentioned: common literature, Sola Scriptura, while allowing institutions to multiply to the point where not only "church" has become synonym with "institution" but it is scorned for this very reason. 

I believe we can learn with the mistakes of the past. First by admitting that, although the Orthodox Church remains the One undivided Body of Christ, it has been attacked by phyletism and cosmopolitanism (the equally unreasonable opposite reaction to phyletism) because, by loosing a common language, common literature and common institutions, it relied either on national or international institutions to organize itself in the world. The several local churches literally depend either on international organizations or on national state and non-state institutions to be able to organize themselves in worldly affairs. There is a World Council of Churches that several churches participate, or the American National Council of Churches, but where is a global Pan-Orthodox Forum where lay people, men and women, priests, deacons, bishops and even patriarchs can discuss the affairs of the Church? How can the key persons of the Church *not* be influenced by external forces if there is no internal stronger equivalent? And this is not a matter of being sold out or not. It is a matter of concrete circumstance: he who owns the means of actions decides what actions shall be taken. The institutional church has consistently relied on the means of actions of non-Church persons and institutions. At most, they have their own means for internal affairs, but we are talking about the global arena here. We simply do not have our own inter-orthodox means of action. I am not talking about any need for something like a standing council or synod, but the need for *several* different Pan-Orthodox institutions. One for example, could be a standing forum of Pan-Orthodox dialogue. Not a committee, not a pre-conciliar anything. Something like the WCC, but internal to the Orthodox Church to discuss, identify and propose solutions to misunderstandings and problems. Also Our theologians, priests and bishops teach in secular, Catholic, Protestant even Muslim universities with reasonable harmony, or teach in the several national seminaries and universities, but is there one Pan-Orthodox University in the world? A place of research and studies with academics and scholars formed in their respective countries and who come together bringing their view to form a common mind on things Orthodox and where all the issues would be openly and academically debated? And why have only one? Why not several Pan-Orthodox universities and seminaries each one with their own vocation and charisma? Can we really blame anyone if they get passionate when problems like Ukraine arise, if venues like these, which are the proper sources and educators of civilized productive debates do not even exist? 

And what to say of the fact that the Orthodox literature of one Orthodox country is as foreign to another Orthodox country as any heterodox or even non-Christian literature? Have you noticed how the great Orthodox writers of each country are classified as "Greek writers", "Russian writers", despite the fact that in them their faith is the driving aesthetic force and they would better be classified as "Orthodox writers" and their nationalities is just a local spin on that? With the transformation of English from a local language to become the global second language, we have a unique opportunity of, for the first time since Greek stopped being the sole second language of the Mediterranean, to build common literature and the memory of great deeds accomplished together. 

The greatest intellectual sin of the movers and shakers of the Orthodox world  is that there is not a massive effort through different institutions to translate into English the colossal amount of documents from the late first millennium and the whole of the second millennium. And I am not talking only about "great works". I am talking about *everything*: canons, homilies, writings of saints, even the ones who are not "popular", letters, treaties, debates, everything. There should be also efforts from several historians to write histories of the Orthodox Church precisely from this perspective of "great deeds accomplished together". Even under the Ottoman, the churches under the Turkocracy communicated among themselves and with the Slavic churches. Unfortunately, for most people, that is the history of the Greeks under the Ottomans, the history of the Serbs under the Ottomans,  the Russians, the Ukrainians under Constantinople and then under the Russians. What is the surprise that none of these people, even when recognizing spiritual union, cannot come to an agreement if those are their histories, with no memory of many other great deeds they accomplished together as the One Orthodox Church?

The Austrian author Hugo von Hofmannsthal stated two ideas that are very relevant. The first is that "nothing becomes reality in the political life of a nation that was not present in its literature as spirit". It is the political life of the Orthodox polis that is hurt and threatening sorrowful consequences. The very real and concrete theoanthropic unity of the Church, which does not rely on any single person, community or text, cannot be commonly imagined because there is no common literature, no common language and no common institutions. It means that even when lay people or even hierarchs meet, they are coming from very different memories, concerns and understandings, which lead to situations such as the one we currently witness, not to mention the different opinions on ecumenism and many other "hot topics". The second idea from Von Hofmannsthal is that "depth must be hidden on the surface". We have profound depths, but they must come to the surface. The absolute omission with the Fathers of the Church of the second millennium (from every Orthodox nation), the sepulchral silence about the Pan-Orthodox (ecumenical) councils after the Seventh, the non-existence of Pan-Orthodox Universities and seminaries, nay, of Pan-Orthodox departments of History, the lack of motivation to translate everything to English and make English the diplomatic and academic language of the Orthodox Church, these are in my opinion the root causes not of the problems of the Orthodox Church, but for the considerable delay in solving many of them, in a time when communications are almost instantaneous, when convening a council with less than 1,000 bishops from all over the world seems an impossible task although there are events and congresses with many times that amount of participants happening every day somewhere in the world. We do not have councils not because of this or that church, we do not have a common voice in the world because of any lack of a central authority be it second or third Rome, but simply because we did not bother to construct the pillars of a community: common institutions, common literature, common language, the memory of great deeds achieved together. 

In other words, we have loved more dialogue with national powers, with international organizations, with the heterodox than dialogue among ourselves. And this has cost us dearly. Despite negations from all sides, everybody knows that secular powers *do* influence hierarchy. This is not even a point of contention. There are professionals in governments trained to do specifically this kind of action. And *every country* does that, some more efficiently than others, but it is a constant. The real question is why the Orthodox Churches, despite centuries of being betrayed by their secular "allies", and being used by them to attack even other Orthodox in other countries, why we still look more for non-Orthodox cooperation and alliances than to our brethren. It is true that many of these organizations provide benefits that even the most rabidly "anti-worldly actions" gain from without suspecting. Moscow had to cooperate with Communism which is possibly the most evil regime of Human history, cornered into the difficult decision of producing martyrs or collaborators. Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople remained under Muslims and still have to deal with Muslim intolerance and lack of sovereignty for Christian nations in that region of the world. They have to go through a cycle much like that of domestic violence where there are periods of "peace" and "beatings" with the Muslim states and cultures around them, oscilating between just being left alone for some time and periods of outright marginalization and even persecution while all the time having to talk about coexistence, tolerance as if Islam could ever consider a status of equality to non-Muslims, that leading to a proximity with the Non-Chalcedonians that although laudable from a humanitarian perspective is disastrous in ecclesiological and dogmatic perspective. Constantinople in particular, seeks alleviation from that situation through its foreign connections; first with the European powers before the War and the US after, spent most of the 20th century trying to show the West it was open-minded, open to dialogue, eager to union one way or another with the heterodox in the name of love, that it could update itself and maybe the whole Church and finally sit at the table of the cool kids, sometimes at the cost of pushing entire groups into schism. Jerusalem happens to be on the very unpleasant situation of not being in a Christian country, with a Jewish government over it and a Palestine radicalized constituency under it that would love to be able to use the Patriarchate against the state of Israel. At the same time the Jewish state is less than impartial oftentimes, having much preference for the judaizing protestants over the Orthodox. Only God knows what complex political pressures the other newer jurisdictions have been through, but I am sure they have had their lot. I believe though that in face of all these problems and temptations we would do well to seek a much higher level of autonomy through the strengthening of Inter-orthodox institutions and relationships, that the Orthodox Church must become a global player that stands on her own legs and can dispense with with elites local and global threatening or giving favors. In short, that we must "love each other" as that sign that Christ promised through which His disciples would be recognized. These many forces can only prey on each of the churches because they insist on looking outside for help instead of uniting for mutual support.

When we have venues for internal dialogue that parallel and even surpass the venues for external dialogues that we participate on our own, we will learn that we *can* love our Orthodox brethren wherever they come from because we will remember how our predecessors achieved and sacrificed great things for us to be together. When each Orthodox can gain more support and leverage from a Pan-Orthodox Forum than from the WCC, when the help of the Orthodox Church as a whole brings more benefits than the help of the Roman Church, or the Anglicans, or of the UN, or the EU, or the US or Moscow, or Environmentalists, or Islam, or whatever local forces each jurisdiction must deal with, when we have an 18 volumes in English "History of the Church" written by Orthodox historians from different Orthodox countries, when we have an 83 volumes series of Orthodox Fathers from the 9th to the 19th century, in English, when we have the homilies, studies and treaties of these same Fathers and Mothers on the New and Old Testaments put together, only then we will be able to start studies that will be able to suggest what Orthodox exegesis proper is. And of course, Pan-Orthodox seminaries, studying the Liturgical traditions of all jurisdictions, Pan-Orthodox Colleges, Pan-Orthodox institutes of translations, Pan-Orthodox monasteries, books and movies showing the common history of the Orthodox with beauty, truth and intensity, then, *and only then* problems like petty political maneuvers during meetings, or issues like Ukraine will become unthinkable again. That is why the 21st century should be the century of Intra-Orthodox Dialogue, like the 20th was the century of Ecumenical Dialogue.

"Toda igreja adora o mesmo Cristo, toda religião adora o mesmo Deus"

Quem fica falando que toda igreja adora o mesmo Cristo não tem como reclamar do Bolsonaro recebendo "unção" do Edir Macedo.

Como presidente ele tem que receber e prestigiar todos os brasileiros, de todas as fé e falta de fé. Porém, *participar do ritual* de uma igreja que não é a sua *é errado sim*. Nada impede que ele assista o culto como mera audiência.

Como dito, ele tem o *dever* de atender todos os brasileiros de qualquer religião que seja, então poderia até subir ali e dar uma palavra aos fiéis da Igreja Universal, como poderia fazer isso numa loja maçônica, num centro espírita, numa igreja romana ou ortodoxa, ou em um templo budista. Mas, se ele se diz fiel da Igreja Romana, só deve participar de ritos religiosos da Igreja Romana. Rito religioso não é cafezinho para oferecer para visita. É a forma mais íntima de amor. Mais do que amor carnal até (já reparou que o mesmo casal que não tem vergonha de fazer sexo, às vezes tem de rezar juntos? Pois é. Ritual não é só "ritual". É intimidade sim.)

Esse incidente é um retrato claro do principal problema religioso, especialmente entre cristãos no Brasil: a aparente incapacidade de discernir entre a *boa* e *desejável* convivência entre as religiões e as concessões e sincretismos que as desfiguram.

Uma coisa são duas famílias serem boas vizinhas e se darem bem. Isso podemos e devemos apoiar. Outra coisa é o marido de uma ficar de meros carinhos que sejam com a esposa do outro. O brasileiro, em questão de fé, escorrega pra isso com uma facilidade impressionante.

Não é à toa que já no Antigo Testamento os profetas usavam para essa promiscuidade religiosa o termo *adultério*. O adultério da fé e da carne sempre andam juntos numa sociedade. As pegações da balada, a filosofia do "vou beijar muito",a coabitação sem casamento e o pula-pula de igreja para igreja, o pertencer a uma igreja e ficar participando dos ritos de outras, ou ficar frequentando sem oficializar a pertença através do crisma ou batismo, são ambos frutos do mesmo entendimento frívolo e imaturo do amor.

Brazil and Orthodoxy

Written in the hope of redemption, this is a study of the spirituality of a country, the child of a fallen Europe, and of the vestiges of Orthodoxy in its culture. 

According to official history, Europeans discovered what is now called Brazil in 1500. However, some historians maintain that both Portugal and Spain had previously fought over the secret of ‘lands to the West’ and that a ‘Cold War’ and espionage had taken place in the race to claim these lands first. In fact, there is hardly any evidence that Portugal had reached South America before 1492 and Columbus’ arrival in America caught the Portuguese by surprise. Although Columbus’ had sought the sponsorship of the Portuguese crown before approaching Spain, he was turned down. This made the Portuguese crown, with the help of the Order of Christ [1], the Knights Templar, who had found refuge in Portugal, hurry to produce their own claim to the newly-discovered lands. 

Thus, in 1500, with ships bearing the cross of the Order of Christ on its sails (the Greek cross inserted into the Templar cross), the Portuguese landed on the future Brazilian lands. At first they called the land ‘The Island of the True Cross’. Between 1500 and 1517, the new country had several different names, most of them related to the Cross: ‘Island of the True Cross’ (1500), ‘New Land’ (1501), ‘Land of Parrots’ (1501), ‘Land of the True Cross’ (1503), ‘Land of the Holy Cross’ (1503), ‘Land of the Holy Cross of Brazil’ (1505), ‘Land of Brazil’ (1507) and finally, from 1517 on, ‘Brazil’.  

The origin of the name Brazil is controversial. Mainstream Brazilian historians ascribe it to the local Brazilwood trees, named after a certain shade of red that is found in them. This ‘Brazil-red’ is the colour of red-hot coal, which in Portuguese is ‘Brasa’ (connected with the English word ‘braise’), which gives us the word ‘Brasil’. This is contested by those [2] who think the name was inspired by an Irish legend, well-known among sailors, about the island of ‘Hy-Brazil’ (meaning ‘the great island’ in Gaelic), a mystical island that was even recorded on some maps. 

The first official act of the Portuguese on the ‘Island of the True Cross’ was a Roman Catholic Mass. It was held by the Franciscan Friar Henrique de Coimbra at Easter, 26 April 1500, and performed with a cross cut from local wood. Thus, Brazil was claimed by the spiritual heirs of the Knights Templar and ‘baptized’ by a Franciscan in a Mass. Young Brazil would come to receive a mainly Jesuit education through schools and religious plays. 

Given all this, it would be easy to conclude that, spiritually, Brazil is entirely the product of the Vatican. This is not the case. Indian religions and soon African religions came into play. These religions still exist and are influential, although today it can be said that most Brazilians actually practice some sort of syncretism rather than a single religion [3]. 

There was also the presence of ‘Cristãos Novos’, ‘new Christians’. These were Jews forced to convert. There were also some Muslim slaves from Africa, who in 1835 rose in rebellion against the newly-independent Brazilian government [4]. Dutch Protestant rule in Pernambuco, in the Northeast, lasted between 1630 and 1654 [5]. Curiously, Dutch rule in Brazil made the Jews emigrate to the United States, more specifically to New Amsterdam, later known as New York, where they began the history of Jewish immigration to the U.S. [6]. 

Brazil would long be influenced by what was happening in Europe through the Portuguese Universities. In the 19th century, when Brazil became an independent monarchy, Freemasonry played a very strong role. Later, in 1889, when the republic was proclaimed Positivism was at the center of the intellectual arena. It is no coincidence that the Positivist motto, ‘Love as a principle and Order as a basis, Progress as an aim’ figures on the present flag of the Republic of Brazil. Brazil is perhaps the only country in the world where a Positivist Church was set up [7]. The influence of Positivism can also be seen in certain religious notions and it opened the doors for the arrival of Allan Kardec’s French Spiritism [8]. This developed particular strongly among the middle-classes in the 20th century, especially through the activities of the medium Chico Xavier [9]. From the syncretism of Kardecism, Roman Catholicism, African and Indian religions, the religion of Umbanda [10] was born, as well as many other minor religions. 

Today, moreover, Brazil has been witnessing the rapid growth of Protestant churches [11], mainly Pentecostal and Neo-Pentecostals, but also other denominations. Interestingly, Pentecostals are the "blackest" religion in Brazil, having far more Blacks in its numbers than Afro-based religions[12]. The Assembly of God is the most widespread among the poor and the local-born mega-church Universal Church of God has already been imported, even to Europe [13], while its secular power in Brazil grows. Other denominations that have significant numbers are the Baptists, the Christian Congregation of Brazil, the Adventists, Foursquare Gospel Church, Methodists, Lutherans and Calvinists. As regards other religions, Brazil basically followed the syncretistic trend. 

Orthodoxy arrived in Brazil with waves of immigrants in the 19th and early 20th century [14]. Greeks, Syrians, Lebanese and Slavs have all come to Brazil, where they have cultivated their faith; in fact, there are more Lebanese-descended people in Brazil (6 million) than in the Lebanon itself (3 million). But not even they were immune to Brazil's push for syncretism and what some anthropologists call ‘cultural cannibalism’ [15] and it is not uncommon to find Roman Catholic devotions even among the Orthodox clergy [16]. By the early 20th century there were around 26,000 Orthodox in Brazil. According to the last census there are now 136,000, taking into account all ethnic origins as well as converts. Given that the Brazilian population was around 30 million in the early twentieth century and that it is over 210 million today, the proportion of Orthodox has decreased (from 0.87% to 0.65% of the whole population). 

The greatest spiritual difficulty for Orthodoxy in Brazil is that this country is the perfect product of fallen Western Christianity. What produced Brazil was an already spiritually fallen Portugal. While Europe may look back to its Orthodox roots, Brazil can only find some Orthodoxy in the veneration of a few Orthodox saints, which has remained in Roman Catholicism. Culturally, it is also very difficult to present the concept of hesychasm to the country of Carnival. 

On the other hand, Brazilians are honest and have a real interest in God. They are thirsty for something more substantial than the ‘anything goes’ attitude that forms the shallow ‘spirituality’ of so many. Many Brazilians want to convert. How sad it is that they find no support! Brazil's openness to religion, which takes it along so many perilous paths, is also a source of hope, because militant atheism has never found strong support here, apart from a small number of ‘intellectual’ cliques. In terms of religion, in many ways Brazil resembles more the pagans of ancient times than present-day atheist Europe. As C.S. Lewis put it, it is easier to convert a pagan than an atheist, for with the former there is at least some common ground in the belief in the metaphysical, while with the atheist the very basics of spirituality are lacking. 

Brazilians tend to love Christ, even though they are surrounded by misconceptions and demonic snares. How relieved they feel when they see the true light! Brazil was born from the European hopes of finding Paradise. Even the local Indians wandered around in search of ‘Yv Maran'ey’, ‘the Land Without Evil’ [17]. The only thing they knew was that this ‘Land Without Evil’ was to the East, on the other side of the ocean. When they saw the first Europeans, great expectations were raised, for they hoped that the white men would bring them the light. This could have been true, but only if the Portuguese had remained Orthodox. Brazilians like to talk about Brazil as ‘the land of the future’, but they have grown more and more impatient of ever seeing this future arrive. Certainly, many have material prosperity in mind when they look forward to this future. That is where they are wrong. Brazil will only have a future worth living, if it has a spiritual future in Jesus Christ, in the Orthodox Church. Though it is unlikely that we shall see Orthodoxy grow in Brazil today, it is no less unlikely than twelve men spreading the Good News to the whole world. 

In many ways, Brazilian culture is involved in sin. This is clearly reflected in many aspects of its culture, from the corruption of its politics to the sexualization of its greatest celebration, Carnival. It seems that Brazil's heart cannot be hard, because it can accept so many different “perspectives”. But in fact it is, because in so many cases it has been hardened by its attachment to frivolity, its lack of seriousness and lack of focus through multiplicity taken as higher value. The cure for this is in repentance, but we also need real confessor missionaries who must suffer and fight against the local tendency to ‘soften’ everything, until everything merges with its surroundings. 

Brazil’s best-known monument is the statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro. This is a symbol of hope for the redemption of Brazilian culture. A good way of bringing Brazilians to the Church is to use as seed the Orthodox veneration of saints, something that already exists. This is why I have compiled a list of Orthodox saints who are already known to Brazilians via the vestiges of Orthodoxy in Roman Catholicism. We must pray asking God for true missionaries, for a hierarchy that will heed this call of God, without letting traditional communities down by letting them be just Roman Catholics with icons. 

Notes:
[1] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Christ_%28Portugal%29

[2] See: https://www.irlandeses.org/0607.pdf  (p.157) 

[3] See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Brazil and http://www.seer-adventista.com.br/ojs/index.php/hermeneutica/article/download/205/198 

[4] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_Revolt 

[5] See: https://www.colonialvoyage.com/dutch-in-brazil/
[6]See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_United_States
[7] See: http://templodahumanidade.org.br/
[8] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritism
[9] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chico_Xavier
[10] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umbanda
[11] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism_in_Brazil
[12] See: https://www.amazon.com.br/Religiao-Mais-Negra-Do-Brasil/dp/8577791408/
[13] See: http://www.uckg.org/
[14]See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Brazil and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethnic_groups_in_Brazil
[15]See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_Antrop%C3%B3fago
[16]See: http://www.paroquiasantoexpedito.com.br/
[17] See: https://www.amazon.com/Land-without-Evil-Tupi-Guarani-Prophetism-Helene-Clastres/dp/0252063511


Orthodox Saints Venerated in Brazil
This is a list of Orthodox saints who are already venerated and loved in Brazil. This list was compiled from the book ‘O Livro de Ouro dos Santos’ by Nilza Botelho Megale, which lists the most venerated saints in Brazil, those who already have the love and reverence of the Brazilian people. The aim of this list is to serve as a reference for Orthodoxy in Brazil and for future missions, which may wish to establish links between what is already known and Orthodoxy.

Santo Amaro (St Maurus) (+ 15 January 548) A spiritual child of St Benedict. Santa Ana (St Ann) The Mother of the Ever-Virgin Mary. Santo André (St.Andrew the Apostle) Santa Apolônia of Alexandria (St Apollonia) (+ 249) São Baltazar (St Balthazar) One of the three wise men. In Brazil, some black congregations say that he was a King of the Congo. Santa Bárbara (St Barbara of Nicomedia) (+ 235) Santo Bartolomeu (St Bartholomew) Mentioned in the New Testament, the Lord said he was ‘a true and honest Israelite’. São Bento (St. Benedict) (+ 543) Father of Western monasticism. 9 São Bras (St Blaise) (+ 316) Santa Catarina de Alexandria (St Catherine of Alexandria) Santa Cecília (+ c. 223) São Clemente (St Clement I, Pope) São Cosme e São Damião (St Cosmas and St Damian) (+ 295) São Cristóvão (St Christopher) (+ c. 250) São Dimas (St Dimas) The Good Thief Santa Escolástica (St Scholastica, twin sister of St. Benedict) (+ 543) Santo Estevão (St Stephen) Santa Helena (St Helen, mother of St Constantine) Santa Ifigênia (St Iphigenia of Ethiopia) Baptized by St Matthew Santa Inês (St Agnes) (c. 304) São Jerônimo (St Jerome) 10 São João Batista (St John the Baptist) São João Evangelista (St John the Evangelist) São Joaquim (St Joachim) Father of the Mother of God. São Jorge (St George) São José (St Joseph) Protector of the Son of God. São Judas Tadeu (St Jude Thaddeus, the Apostle) São Lázaro (St Lazarus) São Longuinho (St Longinus) The Roman soldier who pierced Christ’s side while he was on the Cross and was later converted). São Lourenço (St Lawrence) One of the first seven deacons São Lucas (St Luke) Santa Luzia (St Lucy of Syracuse) São Marcos (St Mark) Santa Maria do Egito (St Mary of Egypt) Santa Maria Madalena (St Mary Magdalene) 11 São Mateus (St Matthew) São Miguel (St Michael the Archangel) Santo Onofre (St Onuphrius) São Paulo (St Paul) São Pedro (St Peter) Santa Quitéria ( St Quitéria, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiteria ) São Sebastião (St Sebastian) São Silvestre (St Sylvester, Pope Sylvester I) São Tomé (St Thomas the Apostle)

Aristóteles na Teologia Bizantina

Filósofos Gregos representados como precursores do Messias no ícone "A Árvore de Jessé", Bucovina, Romênia

Qualquer tentativa de pesquisar o lugar de Aristóteles na teologia bizantina deve começar com o reconhecimento de que a categoria "teologia bizantina" é ela mesma um construto moderno. Os bizantinos não se pensavam como bizantinos, mas como romanos. Esse fato não é uma questão de mera nomeclatura, mas um lembrete do forte senso de continuidade com o passado clássico e o cristianismo primitivo. Quanto à teologia, em particular, os bizantinos não viam nenhuma divisão entre seu próprio tempo e a era de fundação do Cristianismo. Embora reconhecessem a autoridade dos Pais da Igreja, eles não pensavam em termos de uma "era dos Pais da Igreja" fechada e completa(1). Os santos e teóforos(NT) Pais, como os "bizantinos" os chamavam, não estavam limitados a um tempo ou lugar, mas incluíam todos que tinham fielmente recebido e explicado a Verdadeira Fé, particularmente como resposta à heresia. Do ponto de vista "bizantino", que ainda é o da Igreja Católica Ortodoxa hoje em dia, tais pessoas nunca deixaram de existir dentro da Igreja, pois eles constituem o selo vivo de seu guiamento pelo Espírito Santo.

Para compreender o papel de Aristóteles na teologia bizantina, portanto, temos que começar com uma visão de seu papel no pensamento dos primeiros séculos do cristianismo. Esse papel era bem mínimo. Aristóteles nunca fora considerado, por cristãos ou pagãos, como um guia da vida espiritual da ordem de Pitágoras ou Platão. Vários dos Pais da Igreja achavam os escritos destes dois últimos tão impressionantes que chegavam a supor que eles deviam ter lido os livros de Moisés durante suas viagens ao Egito.(2) Nunca ninguém sugeriu algo sequer semelhante sobre Aristóteles. Quando ele é mencionado pelos Pais, frequentemente é com o propósito de denunciar certos ensinamentos seus que consideravam ímpios, tais como a mortalidade da alma, a restrição da providência divina aos céus, e a visão da felicidade humana como dependente de objetos externos.(3) Ocasionalmente ele era criticado por defender que o universo seria eterno e incriado, embora como esse entendimento era difundido na antiguidade, nem sempre associavam-no especificamente a Aristóteles. Além de seus ensinos errôneos, Aristóteles era também visto com suspeita por ter fundado a lógica, uma disciplina ordinariamente usada e abusada pelos hereges, tais como o "neo-ariano" Aécio no século IV. Quando Gregório de Nazianzo ressalta que escreve "como um pescador e não como Aristóteles", quer dizer duas coisas: indica tanto que falou de modo direto e sem tecnicalidades desnecessárias, e que falou com honestidade, sem engodos sofisticados.(4)

Porém essa não é a história toda. A despeito de sua antipatia quanto a Aristóteles, os autores cristãos antigos eram participantes de uma cultura na qual as idéias de Aristóteles já de muito haviam tornado-se lugares comuns. E eles estavam perfeitamente confortáveis em utilizar essas idéias, tipicamente sem reconhecimento, e talvez sem consciência, de sua origem aristotélica. Sem que tentemos algo como um catálogo completo, vale destacar alguns poucos exemplos de empréstimos indiretos antes de entrarmos na era bizantina. Isso ajudará tanto como forma de explorar as variedades da influência aristotélica quanto porque as idéias em questão continuaram vitalmente importante para os bizantinos.

Um exemplo relativamente simples é a análise dos seres criados como matéria e forma. Ao tempo dos Pais da Igreja, esse tipo de análise tornara-se parte do conjunto de idéias compartilhadas nas classes educadas. Já no segundo século, encontramos Tatiano asseverando que Deus é o criador tanto da matéria quanto da forma, uma fórmula que se tornou padrão da afirmação da criação ex nihilo.(5) Os pais geralmente pressupunham, em boa forma aristotélica, que a matéria é necessária para que haja mudança e diversidade numérica.  Aplicar essa premissa em sua crença decididamente não-aristotélica na imortalidade da alma, assim como em sua crença em anjos, levou a uma teoria conhecida como "hilomorfismo pneumático", o qual é o entendimento que todas as criaturas, incluindo anjos e almas, são compostos de forma e matéria, embora obviamente a matéria dos anjos e almas seja altamente refinada em comparação com a dos corpos sensíveis. Essa visão parece ter sido mais ou menos universalmente aceita na Igreja primitiva, especialmente porque aplicava-se bem a passagens bíblicas como a parábola de Lázaro e as diversas aparições de anjos.(6) Continuou a ser o entendimento comum dos bizantinos, que geralmente entendiam daí que devem existir gradações de materialidade. João Damasceno, por exemplo, afirma que os anjos são "incorpóreos e imateriais" em relação aos seres humanos, mas "densos e materiais" em relação a Deus.(7)

Prof. David Bradshaw, trecho de seu ensaio “The Presence of Aristotle in Byzantine Theology” in The Cambridge Intellectual History of Byzantium, KALDELLIS, Anthony e SINIOSSOGLOU, Niketas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017).

[1] Veja o Capítulo 17.

[2] Justino Mártir, Apologia I 59–60; pseudo-Justino, Exortação aos Gregos 22, 25–27, 29, 31–33;Clemente de Alexandria, Stromata 1.15, 1.25, 5.14; Eusébio de Cesaréa, Preparação para o Evangelho 10.4, e livros 11–12; Cirilo de Alexandria, Contra Juliano 1.18.

[3] Festugière 1932: 221–263; Runia 1989.

[4] Gregório de Nazianzo, Oração 23 12.

[5] Taciano, Aos Gregos 4–5. Veja também Ireneu, Contra Heresias 2.10, 2.16.3, 4.20.1; Orígenes, Dos Primeiros Princípios 2.1.4; Basílio de Cesaréa, Hexameron 2.2.

[6] P.ex. Justino Mártir, Diálogo com Trifo 5; Taciano, Aos Gregos  4, 12–13; Ireneu, Contra Heresias 2.34; Atanásio, Vida de Antão 31; Basílio de Cesaréa, Carta 8 (provavelmente por Evágrio); Gregório de Nazianzo, Orações 28.31, 38.9; veja a discussão em Jacobs 2012.

[7] João Damasceno, Exposição da Fé Ortodoxa 17 (p. 45); cf. seus Três Tratados sobre as Imagens Divinas 3.24–25.

(NT) Teóforo - portador de Deus, aquele que carrega Deus dentro de si.

Traduzido de https://byzantinephilosophy.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-presence-of-aristotle-in-byzantine.html