NR. 3 – 2009

S-a considerat că atitudinea Bisericilor Ortodoxe se datora dificultăților cu care acestea se confruntau în urma schimbărilor politice din țările lor de origine. În realitate, Bisericile Ortodoxe au avut dificultăți cu anumite concepții protestante din cadrul CEB și cu felul cum se organiza programul de rugăciune la întrunirile ecumenice încă de la început. La primele două conferințe mondiale ale Comisiei pentru Credință și Constituție din 1927 și, respectiv, 1937, reprezentanții ortodocși au adoptat câte o declarație aparte, prin care au arătat că nu pot fi de acord cu metodologia și rezultatele propuse de acele întruniri, care erau în contradicție cu tradiția Bisericii Ortodoxe. În anul 1952, patriarhul ecumenic Atenagoras a publicat o enciclică prin care recomanda, pe baza experienței înregistrate la întrunirile ecumenice de până atunci, ca clericii ortodocși să fie cât mai rezervați față de cultul organizat la întruniri ecumenice, întrucât acest fel de cult este în contradicție cu sfintele canoane ale Bisericii Ortodoxe.

În primăvara anului 1998 a avut loc la Tesaloniki, în Grecia, o întrunire interortodoxă, care a discutat dificultățile Bisericilor Ortodoxe în relațiile lor cu CEB. Această întrunire a recomandat înființarea unei comisii speciale, care să stabilească unele coordonate privitoare la participarea Bisericilor Ortodoxe în cadrul CEB. O serie de întruniri interortodoxe din același an, care au avut loc în Siria, Anglia și S.U.A., au formulat la rândul lor critici la adresa CEB, astfel că adunarea CEB de la Harare, din toamna aceluiași an, a aprobat recomandarea de înființare a unei comisii speciale. Această comisie, formată din 60 de membrii, jumătate fiind reprezentanți ai Bisericilor Ortodoxe și Vechi Orientale membre în CEB, iar cealaltă jumătate reprezentând diferite alte biserici membre ale CEB, și-a desfășurat lucrările ei între 1999-2002. La sfârșit, această comisie a prezentat Comitetului Central al CEB un raport final, care cuprindea 3 capitole și patru anexe, după cum urmează: Cap. A: descrie contextul în care și-a desfășurat activitatea această comisie; cap. B prezintă cele cinci teme pe care le-a studiat această comisie și cap C cuprinde o serie de măsuri pe care această comisie le-a propus spre a fi luate de către CEB. Cele patru anexe conțin: 1. Propuneri pentru cadrul în care ar urma să se desfășoare programul de rugăciune la adunările CEB; 2. Informații suplimentare cu privire la procesul de luare a deciziilor în cadrul CEB prin consens; 3. Propune schimbări în constituția CEB cu privire la noile criterii teologice, pe care trebuie să le îndeplinească Bisericile care doresc să devină membre ale CEB și 4 conține lista membrilor acestei comisii speciale, precum și a comitetului ei de conducere.

În partea privind rugăciunea la adunările CEB se precizează, mai întâi, unele aspecte biblice și teologice ale folosului rugăciunii, mai ales cu referire la situația cu care se confruntă Bisericile de astăzi. Acest raport precizează apoi că rugăciunile comune organizate la întrunirile CEB nu pot fi considerate drept slujbe religioase și în niciun caz nu se poate vorbi despre slujbe sau rugăciuni ecumenice. Orice slujbă religioasă creștină are un caracter eclesiologic și ca atare orice astfel de slujbă trebui să stea în legătură cu o anumită tradiție eclesiastică, de aceea nu se poate vorbi despre slujbe ecumenice, nici măcar rugăciuni comune ecumenice, căci nu există o Biserică ecumenică. Rugăciunile comune trebuie, mai întâi, să fie organizate potrivit uneia sau alteia din tradițiile bisericești prezente și în acest sens se numesc rugăciuni confesionale. Raportul final vorbește astfel despre rugăciuni confesionale, dar și interconfesionale la întrunirile CEB. Rugăciunile comune interconfesionale se pot organiza numai cu respectarea sensibilității fiecărei tradiții bisericești prezente, respectiv numai dacă aceste rugăciuni nu contravin uneia sau alteia din tradițiile respective. Acest document fixează, în sfârșit, o serie de alte criterii, potrivit cărora ar trebui să se organizeze rugăciunile comune la întruniri ecumenice, care astfel nu mai contravin tradiției Bisericii Ortodoxe.

Among the factors accounting for the lack of interest in developing a hermeneutics that is representative for the Orthodox space, Rev. Prof. Constantin Coman enumerates: the limited interest in the advanced, scientific study of the Holy Scripture, manifest in the quasi-complete absence of exegetic preoccupations, and the lack of substantial studies of biblical theology; the increasingly vigorous radical rationalism of theological science – a rationalism which degenerates into a dogmatic fundamentalism, or a “dictatorship of dogmatism”; and last but not least, the “theological docetism” characteristic of our theology, somehow lacking interest in theological anthropology. The fallacy of Romanian biblical hermeneutics has been, and still is, its expressing a sort of biblical Arianism, as it is highly tempted to consider the scriptural text as a human, not a divine discourse, and although it asserts its distance from the Sola Scriptura principle, “it perceives, explains and interprets the Holy Scripture in itself, as if isolated and autonomous from any other reality, such as History itself, the Church, Tradition, the Liturgy, etc.” During the past decades, a few prominent Biblicists or theologians have endeavoured to free Orthodox hermeneutics from the “Occidental bondage” and develop a biblical hermeneutics proper to the Orthodox East. Among them, we mention Father George Florovsky, professors Savvas Agouridis, John Breck, Petros Vasiliadis, the dogmatists Nikolaos Matsoukas and Ioannis Romanidis. Their contributions emphasize “the hermeneutic function of the Church, of Church Tradition, of the Holy Liturgy and of the Church’s liturgical life at large”. In order to avoid any theological conceptualism (abstract thinking; operating with abstract, objectivized and autonomized concepts), we must consider the place of the human person in the hermeneutic act, “as the bearer of the ecclesial identity and event”. From this standpoint, biblical hermeneutics is an act of the divine revelation, which is essentially an act of interpersonal communication. “God does not reveal Himself in an abstract manner, but He does so within a dialogue with conscious, personal subjects who receive this revelation as a living dialogue”. The human subject must be aware of this divine revelation, “receive and understand it, ultimately, as a person’s addressing him, as an essential message conveyed by a Person”.

The hermeneutic function or work of the Holy Spirit, regrettably ignored by the treatises of dogmatic theology, is clearly asserted in the Eastern theology, from the Holy Scripture to the contemporary spiritual literature. The sanctifying Holy Spirit is also the “Spirit of wisdom and knowledge” and the “Spirit of understanding” (Exodus 28,3; 35,31; Deuteronomy 34, 9) which underscores the fact that this Divine Person is “the One who bestows divine revelation and inspiration, the intelligible dialogue between God and man”. The Holy Apostle Paul, in the second chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians – a brief but comprehensive treatise of theological gnoseology and hermeneutics – clearly asserts that the Gospel he preaches was revealed to him by God; it is the Spirit Himself who reveals the heavenly things to man and endows man with the ability to understand them: “Understanding the heavenly things, God’s mysteries, contained in the Holy Scripture, is only possible to those who have received the Spirit of God”. “The gnoseological and hermeneutical key is the Spirit of God: the revelation is accomplished through the Spirit, preaching is done in words taught by the Spirit, by people who have received the Spirit of God and to people who have received the Spirit of God”. Our Saviour Himself “describes the Spirit in terms that point out, almost exclusively, His gnoseological and hermeneutic action”. Patristic literature, in its turn, emphasizes that the revelation of the Spirit in man’s heart is a prerequisite to understanding the Holy Scripture. The conclusion is self-evident and clear: “there is no knowledge and no understanding outside the unmediated experience of the Divine Grace”. The consequence is that, “to the Orthodox East, the ultimate theological and hermeneutic criterion is the saint, that is, the one who has the unmediated experience of the divine. Charismatic theology, or experiential theology, is thus, the only able to express life with God, the life of the Church and the realities of the life to come”.

Rev. Prof. Coman concludes by summarizing the consequences or practical applications of spiritual hermeneutics, for an exegete (accepting and assuming the personal experience as a fundamental hermeneutic condition; undertaking the ascetic effort as a prerequisite for the exegesis; the experience of liturgical life and church life in general) as well as the exegetic tools or method (reference to liturgical experience and literature; resorting to philokalic experience and literature; introduction of special courses: “The Bible in Hymnography”, “The Bible in the Hagiological Literature”, “The Bible in Philokalic Literature”, “The History of Christian Literature”).

The best known case is that of Ammonius Saccas. Admittedly, Ellisaeus is not as reputed as Ammonius, while Plethon is no Plotinus. However, to those acquainted with the history of the Byzantine Empire, especially its final period of the Paleologus dynasty, Georgios Gemistos (who subsequently called himself Plethon, a cognomen most likely assumed out of his admiration for his master Plato, and which means precisely γεμιστός, that is full, plenitude), is a well-known name.

This Plethon, the teacher of great personalities of his times such as St. Mark of Ephesus – the Eugenikos, or Bessarion (a former metropolitan of Nicea then cardinal of the Roman-Catholic Church, the founder of the most important collection of Greek manuscripts in Biblioteca Marciana of Venice), to cite only two major names, was deemed even during his lifetime to be a philosopher in disagreement with his own times, and later even a pagan one, especially after the discovery of his main work, the Treatise on Laws.

The well-known and widely appreciated Plethon, a counsellor of two Byzantine emperors, father and son, namely Manuel II and John VIII Paleologus, would not have become a pagan but for this Ellisaeus, who is mentioned by a single source – namely Plethon’s opponent, his archenemy Georgios Kurteses Scholarios (*ca. 1400/05-†1472/74), the first Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople after the 1453 demise of the Byzantine Empire – which has prompted certain scholars to consider Ellisaeus an invention of Scholarios.

The information is provided by a letter addressed by Scholarios to Theodora Asanina of Bulgaria (†1471), the second wife of the Mistra despot Demetrius Paleologus (1451-1460), as well as another letter addressed to the exarch Joseph and written after 1456. The discussion of Ellisaeus in these letters concerns the genesis of Plethon’s above-mentioned work, which in theological perspective, may be deemed the dogmatic Summa of his thought.

Given the non-Christian character of the text, the discussion is centered on the main reason which estranged Georgios Gemistos from the Church, turning him into Plethon Paganus. We learn that Ellisaeus was a Jewish scholar, one of those who interpreted and translated Aristotle or Averroes, but most likely not an adherent to the Law of Moses. He rather seemed to be a Greek (that is, a pagan).

Ellisaeus had been, supposedly, the one to introduce Plethon to the Zoroastrian thought, as he was the commentator of the Chaldean Oracles, which he ascribed, if not to Zoroaster himself, at least to his disciples, an opinion probably shared by Scholarios. Of course, these oracles are not of Zoroastrian origin, neither is Plethon’s thinking, but the philosophy developed in his commentary is obviously a neoplatonic one, thus raising the suspicions of his contemporaries. That Plethon did not learn this type or oracular philosophy from Ellisaeus, is proven by the edition of oracles issued by Michael Psellos centuries before, and his commentary attached to them.

Another issue for discussion was the time spent by Plethon in Adrianopolis. Plethon was attracted there by the cultural elite at the court of Murad I, a protector of arts and sciences, who like his predecessor Hārūn [Aaron] ar-Rašīd (786-805), had gathered around him scholars from across the world, each having different religious beliefs. This was certainly the place to be for Ellisaeus, as well the place for Plethon to meet such a man. But the place held by Ellisaeus among those scholars is a matter that has preoccupied many researchers. Franz Taeschner deemed him a member of the Bektaschi – Derwīsh (Darwīsh) fellowships, through which Plethon supposedly came into contact with a heretical Islam. François Masai tended to consider him a Jewish Cabbalist. To support this hypothesis, Solomon Gandz speaks of Plethon’s knowledge of Judaic astronomy. But Michel Tardieu issued a more convincing hypothesis, based on Scholarios’ assertions concerning the activity of Ellisaeus as an interpreter and translator of Arabian works. He considers that Ellisaeus might have been an adherent to the philosophy of Suhrawardī, a syncretic system of zoroastrian, hermetic, pythagorean and platonic elements, a stance for which he was killed and remembered by the posterity by the name of al-maqtūl (the killed one).

What stirred researchers’ interest is Ellisaeus’ death. He was executed, more precisely burned at stake. The interest in the reason for this execution is high even today, and may be accounted for by the person who ordered this execution. Because burning at stake is unusual and even forbidden in the Islamic world, some scholars presume that the punishment occured outside the boundaries of the Ottoman state. Christopher Montague Woodhouse believes that Ellisaeus’ death by fire, if not an accident, might have been ordered by the Byzantines. Such punishment, however, was unusual in Byzantium as well, despite a few exceptions such that of the bogomil leader Basil, burned at stake at the orders of emperor Alexios I Comnenus (1081-1118). An execution at the hands of the Jews has been also considered. They, however, could not have executed him, as they were not the rulers of the empire. They could only have assassinated him for his anti-Judaic religious views.

In my opinion, the safest assumption is that of an execution at the orders of the sultan of any other high Ottoman official, since even within the Islamic world there are exceptions to this type of punishment (which Franz Taeschner enumerates in one of his articles), for Ellisaeus lived at the Adrianopolis Ottoman court, not in Byzantium. However, a question remains open: if this happened to Ellisaeus, then why is Plethon, his disciple, a fervent supporter of the punishment by fire for those guilty of sins against nature, and why doesn’t he mention his master, at least allusively? The influence of his Old Testament readings is obvious, as he mentions Sodom and Gomorrah.

Ellisaeus, this mysterious figure, never mentioned but probably pervasively present throughout Plethon’s works, did indeed have an overwhelming influence on the latter with regard to his change in religious stance; however, the crucial step was taken by the Byzantine scholar himself. Ellisaeus probably was a personality of the Ottoman court of Adrianopolis, a master among its masters; otherwise, no one (especially a man like Plethon) would have come from Constantinople, in order to become his disciple. Wherher real or imaginary, Ellisaeus reveals to us a world which was much more open to interreligious communication, hosted by the court of Murad I. By his death, Ellisaeus demonstrated that, nevertheless, there are limits even to astounding cultural openness, going far beyond mere tolerance.

One may talk, therefore, of a horizontal sense of communication, designating the extremely vast area of interpersonal relationships, seen from a psychological, sociological, cultural, or ethical point of view, but also of the vertical dimension of communication, that is man’s relationship with God, and conversely. Finally, we note the complementariness of the two fundamental aspects of communication.

The phenomenological horizon of communication cannot be understood correctly without analysing, in a global perspective as rigorous as possible, the components of communication: issuer or source, message, channel, code, receiver, context, feedback, effects. Each element’s „abilities” and action, closely related to the others’, constitute the communication process and ensure its functionality.

Public communication is a field of great interest, in a world enthusiastically cultivating the democratic ideal, in the conceptual denotation particular to the respective social-cultural and political area. The origin of public communication lies in the age-old art of rhetoric. It is the matrix of the new inter-disciplinary (according to some, trans-disciplinary) field of discourse analysis. The comprehensive discourse typology implied by the realm of public communication includes the sermon or, in a more complex vision, homiletic communication. It functions according to the general discourse mechanisms, but also involves certain peculiarities pertaining to its message, contents and purpose. There is etymological affinity between communication and homiletics, as the branch of church oratory borrows many of the communication principles. Actually, the study of homiletics from the perspective of the communication theory brings a novel, dynamic and much broader vision on the traditional forms of conveying Christian teachings.

Present-day Romanian society, deeply affected by secularization and rampant consumerism, needs an attitude advocating for re-assuming of evangelic commandments. Orthodoxy, essentially a way of relating to God and one’s fellow people, re-becomes the salvific alternative for the Romanian spirit. In this context the society needs the Christian kerygma, in a reliable, efficient manner, able to provide the required answers. Homiletic discourse has been and still is one of the major means of conveying the Christian message to the public realm. Therefore, we may talk of an ethical, cultural and social vocation of the sermon. Due to their pluri- and interdisciplinary character, as well as the cultural openness they imply, communication sciences may providee the binder necessary to the homily in exploring and tackling the social horizon it addresses.

Throughout the Orthodox Church history, sowers of tares have attempted to distort the understanding of the inspired/patristic text by either lionizing it or dissolving it in the „hypertext” of humanity, through subtle comparatist and deconstructivist devices.

In order to avoid such vacillation, and properly appreciate the value of the salvific divine message preserved – due to our hearts’ hardening and deficient memory – in the inspired biblical and patristic texts, we hereby present the authoritative teachings of the Orthodox Church (the holy canons) as well as modern theological syntheses, also providing at the end of the chapter a few partial remarks on patristic texts translation, entailed by the specific nature of patristic text. These traductological remarks are important for the patristic text translation theory, as they are sine qua non principle remarks derived from the Church’s teachings and its disciplinary position, based on the experience of the Holy Apostles and Church Fathers and Doctors.

Partial principles of patristic text translation, established so far, to which will add the principles derived from the study of particular translations, are the following: 1. the translation is to be performed after a critical edition, or if such edition is missing, after a reliable version of the source text. The translator must compare, if lacking a critical edition, all available editions of the source text and compare his own translation to other translations either into the same language or into other modern languages; 2. quotes from the biblical text are to be provided only from Church-endorsed translations. It is preferable to employ the same Bible translation within a translation project/program, in order for the critical apparatus to be uniform. It is recommended that within the same Church an authoritative biblical translation should be designated, from which the translators of the patristic text should provide their translations; 3. In translating the patristic text, the Church’s traditional language must be observed, as it can be found in religious service books, biblical language, theological works contemporary with the translator, and other texts that are representative for the Church ethos; 4. the language in which the patristic text is translated must be comprehensible to the larger readership, as the patristic text translation is an act of preaching God’s word; 5. a patristic text’s translation must be correct from the theological, linguistic and historical standpoint; 6. in compliance with modern traductological trends, the translation of a patristic text must endeavour to render its spirit, not idolize its letter; 7. the stylistic option in translating a patristic text, should be that of reducing the neological element with a view to the denominational and cultural identification; 8. theological terms must be rendered by the best possible equivalent Romanian terminological constructs. There must be maximal correspondence between contextual and cultural theological terminology;  9. the translator of a patristic text must take into account the systemic character of the vocabulary. Thus, the translator must be cognizant of all nuances and occurences of contextual specialized terminology (TLS) and render it by adapting or creating a cultural terminology (TLT). With both terminologies, the consistency factor is probative of the quality of translation; 10. TLT editing and printing must be exemplary.

Conceptul de unire a dumnezeirii și umanității după ipostas/ipostatică (henōsis kath’ hypostasin) originează în teologia Sfântului Chiril al Alexandriei (c. 370-444). Pentru Sfântul Chiril, sintagma de „unire ipostatică” constituie mijlocul de a exprima unirea naturilor dumnezeiască și umană în singura realitate ipostatică a lui Iisus Hristos, Fiul și Cuvântul Întrupat. În hristologia chiriliană, „unirea ipostatică” era esențială pentru exprimarea Întrupării Cuvântului. Conceptul de „unire după ipostas” semnifica eminamente modul de ființare teandric a lui Hristos, în care persoana lui Hristos era văzută ca un singur subiect. În acest context, Sfântul Chiril folosește formula hristologică „o singură fire întrupată a lui Dumnezeu Cuvântul” (mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkōmenē”).

Paternitatea controversatei formule mia physis este apolinaristă. Însușirea de către Sfântul Chiril a acestei formule i-a atras acuzația de monofizitism și apolinarism, întrucât Nestorie și Teodoret de Cyr interpretau acest concept în sensul unei amestecări/mixis, confundări/sygchisis sau fuziuni/krasis a umanității și dumnezeirii în Hristos. Potrivit lui Nestorie, acest amestec al naturilor implica o natură hibridă care nu era nici dumnezeiască, nici omenească. Sf. Chiril afirmă deslușit că nu există decât un singur hypostasis/prosôpon, în care umanitatea și dumnezeirea sunt unite; această unire după ipostas petrecându-se „fără amestecarea” (asyghytōs), „fără schimbarea” (atreptōs) și „fără alterarea” (ametablytōs) firilor. Formula mia physis, așa cum este folosită de Sf. Chiril, afirmă cu tărie unitatea și identitatea realității ipostatice a lui Hristos, Cuvântul Întrupat.

Formula „o singură fire întrupată a lui Dumnezeu Cuvântul” (mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkōmenē) are o semnificație teologică profundă, indicând modul de existență teandrică a Logosului. În Persoana lui Iisus Hristos două naturi sunt unite și prezervate în ipostasul unul, divino-uman/teandric, ca urmare a unirii după ipostas (henosis kath’ hypostasin) a umanității și dumnezeirii. Din pricina unirii după ipostas a naturilor, modul ființării (tropos hyparxeōs) Logosului Întrupat este teandric. În Hristos nu există decât o realitate personală, un singur subiect, cel al Logosului; Hristos este însă Logosul care a intrat în viața umană, Dumnezeu-Omul. Însușită de teologii monofiziți pentru a-și justifica perspectiva hristologică, formula „o singură fire întrupată” a fost apărată de calcedonenii chirilieni, întrucât se referea la un Hristos „compus”, deopotrivă Dumnezeu și Om, nu la o singură natură a Ipostasului Logosului Întrupat.

De asemenea, celebra definiție dogmatică a Sinodului al IV-lea Ecumenic formulează principiul teandricității, afirmând deslușit realitatea unității teandrice a ipostasului. Sinodalii au formulat prezervarea ambelor naturi după unire, firile unite după ipostas rămânând neamestecate și neschimbate. Definiția de la Calcedon a fost uneori criticată pentru o pretinsă compromitere a deplinătății umanității lui Hristos: dacă nu există o natură anipostatică (ouk esti physis anhypostatos), susțin unii teologi moderni, atunci umanitatea, nefiind subiectivată de un ipostas uman, apare ca fiind „mai puțin reală/autentică”. Teologia post-calcedoneană a respins o atare interpretare; în Hristos natura (ousia) umană a fost concretizată/ipostaziată nu de un ipostas uman, ci de ipostasul dumnezeiesc: Logosul a subiectivat natura umană. Conceptul de „enipostaziere” încerca să ofere o soluție problemei „anipostazierii”, afirmând, prin urmare, taina teandricității lui Iisus Hristos.

Conceptul de hypostasis synthetos este o altă importantă articulare a principiului tenadric. Teologul monofizit Sever de Antiohia (c. 465-538), însușindu-și formula mia physis a Sf. Chiril și conceptul dionisian de energie teandrică, a afirmat că Iisus Hristos nu a avut decât o singură natură compusă, divino-umană (mia synthetos physis) sau teandrică (mia physis theandrike). Pentru teologia post-calcedoneană, hypostasis semnifica existența concretă, ipostasul subzistent, în timp ce physis semnifica natura (ousia), firea (physis), substanța (substantia). Așadar, Iisus Hristos, Cuvântul făcut trup, nu era o singură natură compusă, fuziune a umanității și dumnezeirii, ci un ipostas/persoană compus/compusă, o singură realitate ipostatică deopotrivă om desăvârșit și Dumnezeu desăvârșit. Împăratul teolog Iustinian și Sinodul al V-lea Ecumenic de la Constantinopol (II Constantinopol, 553) afirmă cu tărie conceptul de hypostasis synthetos. Din momentul Întrupării, ipostasul Cuvântului nu mai este simplu, ci compus (synthetos); unirea ipostatică/după ipostas (hē kath’ hypostasin henōsis) produce un ipostas compus al celor unite (mian hypostasin tōn hēnoumenōn apotelei syntheton).

Sf. Dionisie Areopagitul, geniul teologic al sec. al VI-lea, a lansat sintagma de „nouă energie teandrică” (kainēn theandrikēn energeia) a „Dumnezeului făcut om”. Sintagma de lucrare „divino-umană” (theanthropikē) sau teandrică (theandrikē) apăruse pentru prima dată într-o scriere atribuită Sfântului Chiril, însă Sf. Maxim Mărturisitorul atestă mai degrabă că îi aparține Sf. Dionisie Areopagitul, poate sugerată de o altă sintagmă chiriliană: „o singură lucrare care are înrudire cu ambele [firi]” (mian syggenē energeian). Ambele sintagme pun în evidență lucrarea teandrică în Hristos, nicidecum nu distrug diferența substanțială dintre lucrările naturale, ci prezervă unirea lor. Această formulă, „noua energie teandrică”, a fost însușită de doctrinarii monoenergismului și monotelismului. Monoenergismul, aprobat de Heraclius în 633, și monotelismul, devenit dogmă oficială în Ekthesis-ul (638) aceluiași împărat, au fost condamnate ca erezii de Sinodul al VI-lea ecumenic (680-681).

În persoana lui Iisus Hristos există două voințe și două lucrări corespunzătoare celor două naturi; cele două voințe și lucrări nu acționează independent, ci în asociere/unire una cu alta, manifestând astfel unica lucrare teandrică a ipostasului teandric în Iisus Hristos. Taina lui Hristos teandric are o enormă semnificație existențială; Mântuitorul Iisus Hristos inaugurează un nou mod de ființare în care făpturile umane pot experia plinătatea vieții și iubirii dumnezeiești.