NR. 4 – 2012

În acest context intelectual și religios mai larg, conceptul paulin despre „principalități și puteri” a primit o atenție deosebită din partea bibliștilor și teologilor. S-a descoperit că Apostolul Pavel nu doar că a vorbit despre existența acestor „puteri” dar a și arătat că ele sunt parte din creația lui Dumnezeu, că joacă un rol important în interiorul structurilor sociale și că lucrarea lui Hristos a alterat existența lor. Lucrarea de față reprezintă o incursiune în interpretarea contemporană a conceptului paulin despre „principalități și puteri” și relevanța acestora pentru viața creștină în societate. După o scurtă privire de ansamblu asupra pasajelor biblice din corpusul paulin despre puteri, sunt prezentate argumentele centrale ale celor două direcții majore de interpretare  al conceptului de puteri in scrierile pauline. În primul rând este analizată interpretarea puterilor ca și entități spirituale (în mod special ca și Satana și îngerii lui), poziție reprezentată de lucrările exegetului Clinton Arnold. O a doua linie de interpretare oferă o înțelegere a puterilor ca și „structuri ale existenței umane” și este prezentată printr-o analiză detaliată a lucrărilor reprezentative a trei specialiști în domeniu: Hendrikus Berkhof, John H. Yoder și Walter Wink.

Argumentul central al lucrării arată că înțelegerea Apostolului Pavel cu privire la conceptul despre „principalități și puteri” în scrierile sale poate fi cuprins în trei adevăruri fundamentale: (1) puterile au fost create de Dumnezeu. A fost intenția lui Dumnezeu ca viața umana să fie structurată prin intermediul unor sisteme de legi, norme și tipare care să facă viața posiblă; (2) puterile s-au răzbunat împotriva lui Dumnezeu și sunt căzute. Ele au refuzat să se conformeze scopurilor creative ale lui Dumnezeu și se prezintă ca fiind ultima realitate, ultimul punct de referința. Valori și structuri care au fost instrumente necesare pentru o viață corespunzătoare în societate și-au arogat pentru ele însele un statut autonom și idolatru reușind astfel să înrobească umanitatea și s-o supună unor dumnezei străini; (3) împotriva stării lor căzute, puterile nu pot ieși de sub autoritatea finală a lui Dumnezeu. Ele sunt încă folosite de Dumnezeu pentru scopurile lui bune și, împotriva încercărilor lor permanente, ele nu pot să zădărnicească planul și voia lui Dumnezeu de a răscumpăra întreaga creație.

Incursiunea noastră în literatura de specialitate cu privire la intrepretarea conceptului de „principalități și puteri” în scrierile pauline a arătat că în viziunea răscumpărătoare a Apostolului Pavel, biserica – înțeleasă ca și comunitatea pardigmatică a noii creații în Hristos – este chemată să fie implicată activ în societate, să aibă o relație constructivă cu puterile și structurile de autoritate, mărturisind domnia lui Hristos asupra întregii realități în așteptarea și anticiparea răscumpărării finale a lui Dumnezeu. Astfel, conceptul paulin asupra puterilor nu este deloc demodat sau nerelevant ci dimpotrivă este o categorie foarte utilă pentru o analiză comprehensivă a bisericii în societate și istorie. Probabil nici un alt concept paulin nu ne poate ajuta mai mult să putem înțelege și menține simultan condiția căzută a umanității dar și providența și suveranitatea lui Dumnezeu. De asemenea, tot cest concept ne ajută să înțelegem modul în care structurile existenței umane își găsesc valoarea, înțelesul și coerența în Hristos. În alte cuvinte, conceptul paulin asupra puterilor ne oferă un adevărat fundal de pe care putem considera, defini și explica angajamentul social activ al creștinului în societate.

Literatura privitoare la viața, opera și activtiatea lui Alexios von Maltzew este extrem de redusă, informații privitoare la gândirea sa teologică și la pregătirea sa liturgică putând fi culese, indirect, doar din lucrările pe care le-a publicat de-a lungul timpului. Acesta este și un motiv pentru care lucrările de specialitate nu-l pomenesc sau ignoră contribuția sa de domeniu. Mai mult, opera sa contează nespus pentru spațiul ortodox german în care, încă din sec. al XVII-lea, comunitățile ortodoxe de greci sau ruși au avut nevoie de slujbe, la puțină vreme după aceea și în limba locală (spre exemplu, în anul 1838, o hotărâre a Sinodului rus permitea desfășurarea slujbelor bisericii rusești din Berlin în limba germană). Contribuția sa are de-a face totodată cu istoria comunității rusești în diaspora europeana in general și cu cea din Germania în special.

S-a născut în Jaroslavl (Rusia), ca fiu al unui preot al cărui nume nu ne este cunoscut. Faptul că aparținea unei familii preoțești „l-a obligat” atât să studieze, așa cum era tradiția, teologia, cât și i-a conferit un statut aparte la nivelul societății, pe care îl va nota potrivit la venirea sa în Germania prin acomodarea și înnobilarea numelui său (von Maltzew), acest lucru indicând și prețuirea pe care o avea pentru acest mediu (la data de 13 mai 1897, a primit oficial titlul de nobil din partea senatului statului rus). După absolvirea studiilor teologice, datorită performanțelor sale intelectuale, a fost numit profesor de Filosofie, Psihologie și Pedagogie la seminarul duhovnicesc din Petersburg. În anul 1882 a fost hirotonit preot, iar în 1886 a fost numit protoierej și a fost desemnat preot pe lângă biserica ambasadei ruse din Berlin, unde și-a și găsit chemarea vieții sale. La doar trei ani de la sosirea aici, i-a decedat soția, Marija Apllinarievna, născută Krylova, în vârstă de doar 28 de ani cu care avea 3 copii, un băiat, Vladimir, și două fiice. O activitate bogată avea să-i marcheze de acum înainte viața, nu numai în spațiul german, ci și în cel rus, unde a ajuns să fie membru de onoare al celor patru academii duhovnicești și să participe, între multe altele, în diverse comisii ale Bisericii din patria-mamă. Comunități științifice și teologice din Grecia, Serbia și America l-au avut și ele ca membru. Ca predicator ales a vorbit inclusiv înaintea credincioșilor de confesiune protestantă. A refuzat totodată multe titluri care i-au fost acordate între timp, între ele și cel de rector al Academiei din Petersburg sau scaunul episcopal al Americii de Nord. A murit, în urma suferințelor provocate de diabetul pe care îl avea, în localitatea Kislovodsk (Caucaz), de unde trupul său neînsuflețit a fost dus la Petersburg și îngropat în cimitirul lavrei Sf. Alexandr Nevskij.

Traducerile liturgice operate de către von Maltzew reprzintă o literatură fundamentală chiar și la mai mult de o sută de ani de la editarea lor și de mare interes, fie că sunt folosite la serviciul liturgic, fie pentru cercetare și studiu. Aceste lucrări prezintă nu numai textul liturgic, ci conțin și nenumărate informații și paralelisme operate prin raportarea la cultul celorlalte confesiuni creștine. Totodată, este urmărită evoluția liturgică prin raportarea la cultele alt-orientale. Până acum, aceste traduceri liturgice nu sunt depășite atât prin caracterul lor complet cât și prin ordonarea foarte practică a slujbelor pe care ele le conțin.

Motivația operării traducerii în limba germană a întregului corpus de texte liturgice a constat și în asigurarea slujbelor pentru creștinii ortodocși vorbitori de limbă germană. Așadar, grija pastorală pentru comunitatea de credincioși pe care o conducea îl obligă să purceadă la acest drum. Pentru Alexios von Maltzew slavona bisericească nu reprezintă o limbă sfântă, care nu poate fi înlocuită, înainte de toate pentru că participarea vie la slujbele bisericii are prioritate. O rugăciune în limba maternă este mai intensă, mai folositoare și mai lucrătoare decât într-o limbă străină. Pentru toate aceste motive s-a străduit ca traducerea textelor să fie una cât mai exactă, mai expresivă și mai majestuoasă, astfel încât să se reflecte în limba germană conținutul ideatic și de trăiri al textelor slave, verificate cu corespondentele lor grecești. Alexios von Maltzew era convins de necesitatea și folosul duhovnicesc al textelor liturgice. Iar acest lucru este încă perceptibil, cu toate că în mai mult de 100 de ani de la traducerea lor limba liturgică a evoluat și a luat noi forme, încât astăzi textele de atunci nu pot fi atât de ușor înțelese. Ele rămân însă un fundament pentru operarea unor noi traduceri dar și pentru slujbele ortodoxe în limba germană. Acest lucru și pentru faptul că traducătorul lor a dorit și încercat să fie complet și a urmărit inclusiv capacitatea textului de a fi cântat în forme bisericești.

Nu în ultimul rând, dorința traducătorului a fost aceea de a se face folositor și credincioșilor și interesaților din celelalte confesiuni creștine, care aveau astfel posibilitatea să apeleze textele liturgice ale Bisericii Ortodoxe și să-și formeze o părere mai completă și mai potrivită a ceea ce se întâmplă în aceasta. Din această pricină a și abordat o explicare comparativistă a slujbelor bisericești specific ortodoxe. Traducerile sale s-au dorit și o contribuție la aducerea Ortodoxiei pe înțelesul tuturor și la oferirea de informații cu privire la aceasta. Și, bineînțeles, opera sa nu se reduce doar la traduceri, deși acestea copleșesc prin importanța și prin numărul lor. Numeroase alte teme au fost abordate în diverse materiale sau lucrări pe care el le-a publicat de-a lungul timpului și cu prezentarea cărora, mai mult sau mai puțin detaliată, se ocupă prima parte a acestui material, ale cărui informații sunt extrem de importate și pentru faptul că reprezintă, în literatura de specialitate o primă tratare a acestei teme.

Rom 9-11, however, is less known especially among the Orthodox, as they derive their Scriptural knowledge mainly from liturgical biblical readings, which include only Rom 10,1-10 as a Sunday pericope. Consequently the Pauline message conveyed by these three chapters is not adequately understood by the faithful.

The main difficulty posed by Rom 9-11 lies in recognizing these chapters’ unity, not merely as a fragment dwelling on a single topic but as the New Testament text that provides the most extensive theological argument on the relation of Israel with the new community of faith that was to become the Church. Once the unity and the logical connection of these chapters is acknowledged, the next step is to ascertain the Apostle’s message opening with the impassioned verses in 9, 1-5 and concluding with the exuberant doxology in 11, 33-36. It is a complex, arduous undertaking – this is the only topic to be developed by a biblical author over three full chapters – making it difficult to identify the focus or the climax of the Pauline argument. Hence the difficulties, hesitations, ambiguities and misinterpretations occasioned by this much-neglected fragment.

The present paper aims to provide an overview of Romanian research in Biblical scholarship centered on Rom 9-11. It is not concerned with occasional literary texts or homiletic interpretations, despite their possible relevance for a history of text perception among the larger readership. The literature investigated here begins with the first Romanian commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, issued in early 20th century by the University of Cernăuți where their authors were educated and then taught.

A former commentary was authored by Iosif Olariu in 1908, and the latter one was published by prof. Vasile Gheorghiu in a collective volume, thirty years later. Both commentaries are intended for biblical research carried out in theology schools and aim to meet the times’ academic standards. Today’s Romanian New Testament professors acknowledge, on the one hand, the immense importance and influence of authors such as V. Gheorghiu in the development of New Testament studies in our country (Prof. Vasile Mihoc), but on the other hand they deplore the fact that inter-war commentaries have never been updated (Prof. Stelian Tofană) and that generally their authors’ theology heavily relies on the contemporary Catholic and Protestant thinking (V. Mihoc).

A general-to-specific analysis reveals how the titles which the two authors assign to these three chapters (9-11) of the epistle, as well as each chapter’s subtitles, provide the reader with clear guidelines for understanding the text; subsequently each exegete provides detailed commentaries. Both these titles and the exegesis proper clearly evince a preference of Romanian authors – in keeping with Western commentaries – for chapter 10 and the prophetic criticism addressed by the Apostle to Israel through a profusion of Old Testament quotations included in the three chapters; on the other hand, the reader recognizes the difficulty posed to exegetes by the following verses in chapter 11, that seem to overthrow the situation described by Apostle Paul in chapter 10 in favor of eventual salvation (11,26) and the irrevocable choice of Israel as God’s people (11,29), then going on to emphasize divine love for all people alike (11,32).

Commentators’ harsh criticism is compounded by their attitude towards Judaism, peculiar to their historical context. V. Gheorghiu for instance asserts that unless Israel converts, the „mean nature of Jews” will prevent the Church’s „triumph” in the fullness of moral life. Our authors seem unable to fully grasp the positive Pauline message concerning the future of Israel in chapter 11. The very translation of Rom 11,26 is questionable, and equating the πᾶς Ἰσραήλ in this verse with the remnant of Israel’s faithful, whom the Apostle mentions at the beginning of chapter 9 or even in chapter 11, demonstrates that they failed to comprehend the gradual unfolding of the Pauline argument.

This unperceptiveness towards Ap. Paul’s optimism regarding the future of Israel dominated Romanian biblical scholarship for nearly 70 years. During the communist times, virtually nothing was written on this topic, except for an introductory text providing elements of New Testament Studies (²1977), that oversimplified the stance of V. Gheorghiu, and an article authored by rev. PhDc. Ioan Bude, who confined himself to quoting key verses of Rom 11, without any in-depth analysis.

It was only in 2009 that brought about a major change in this respect, with several studies published both by the Orthodox Church and the Protestant or Roman-Catholic milieu. In this year was published a bok by rev. Ilie Melniciuc-Puică („Răbdarea și mângâierea care vin din Scripturi. Argumentația veterotestamentară în Epistola către Romani” [The patience and confort brought about by the Scriptures. Old Testament argumentation in the Epistle to the Romans]), the first Orthodox to reach the correct conclusion – while insisting on the Old Testament quotations included in the entire epistle. Contrary to earlier commentaries, he concludes that Rom 9-11 speaks of unfaithful Israel and that the Apostle’s intention in his argument is to convey to Christians both the mystery of Israel’s callousness and its eventual salvation.

The article written by Ciprian Terinte („Raportul dintre Israel și Biserică în calitate de popor al lui Dumnezeu în Romani 9-11” [The relationship between Israel and Church as people of God in Romans 9-11]), his first paper dwelling exclusively on Rom 9-11 published in Romanian, disproved the so-called „Supersessionist” or „Replacement” theology positing Israel’s replacement by the Church. It thus marks one of the most important points in an adequate reception of the Pauline text. The work of these two authors is taken further by other scholars, such as Corneliu Constantineanu who grounds his writings in St. Paul’s theology of reconciliation, or sister Éliane Poirot, with her challenging article on Byzantine liturgical hymns with anti-Judaic undertones.

The existing commentaries on Rom 9-11 show that the development of Romanian biblical scholarship imitated the Western one by employing the literature available in Western Europe, from the earliest exegetes to the latest writings of biblicists educated in Western universities. Acknowledging the importance of this text within the corpus of Pauline theology, awareness of the necessity to renounce the triumphalist theology of Israel’s replacement and accept the apostolic message of the mystery of Israel’s salvation in the divine economy, challenges the Orthodox church to  rethinking its ecclesiology. The present paper concludes that  an Orthodox response requires an enormous undertaking to reconsider Tradition, that is, both Patristic commentaries and liturgical texts. A small but exemplary step was taken in this direction by rev. prof. V. Mihoc („Saint Paul and the Jews according to Saint John Chrysostom’s Commentary on Romans 9–11”); however, this undertaking so relevant to the entire Christian ecclesiology is only at its beginning.

This sacrament was jointly performed with the Holy Liturgy and was administered to the sick, who after confessing and receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord, were anointed with the chrism sanctified by seven priests. In time, the Holy Unction service received additional chants and prayers, and towards the end of the first Christian millennium it reached the liturgical form still in use today. It includes a preparatory part, the Orthros service centered on the canon composed by St Arsenios, archbishop of Kerkyra in the 10th century, abounding in dogmatic tenets that emphasize the Saviour’s sanctifying and healing work within the Church, as well as the intercession and healing granted by the Holy Virgin and the saints to those who beseech them for aid, with a clean, faithful heart. The Holy Unction chants reveal that Lord Jesus Christ, our Doctor and Healer, works in the Church by His grace, through the prayers uttered by priests, granting remission of sins and recovery of health when those afflicted because of their sins implore His mercy and aid. It is not the oil in itself that heals, but Christ Himself is present through the Holy Spirit in the chrism anointing the sick. These chants point out that Christ heals the body as well as the soul,that is man in his entirety, since any sinful act of the soul has repercussions on the body. Therefore bodily healing has to start with the soul and then be extended onto the body; thus the body becomes the arena of an encounter between man and God. The Holy Unction is also the saintly and sanctifying act by which the Church beseeches God’s mercy for all her children. Chants and prayers implore this mercy and the divine blessing. The healing grace, however, is active only within those who devoutedly ask for God’s mercy and aid. The ailing one is not alone but his own prayers are joined by the intercessory prayers of the saints, as well  as the love and prayers of all Church members, clergy and laypeople, who intercede for the bestowing of grace and the santification of the oil, so that it may impart forgiveness and healing. The role of communion is repeatedly emphasized by the sacrament’s chants and prayers, thus stressing the ecclesial character of this mystery. The sign of the cross made over the suffering ones with holy oil imparts forgiveness and good health, but the cross is also the sign of life renewal and a weapon to overcome the power of the devil. Therefore the man anointed with healing oil is granted protection and power to resist the temptations of the enemy. The chants also stress that Christ is active in the Church even now, and His work is the same as it was in the Apostles’ times, while apostolic succession is the argument or foundation of the continuous sacramental and pastoral activity of priests.

The first Greek-Romanian manuscript (306 pages), no. 215, contains a full Anastasimatarion with  Romanian text (the first page is torn, therefore the beginning of tone I is missing), the full service of the Lamentation at the Tomb of Lord Jesus Christ, also in Romanian, as well as several other hymns in both Greek and Romanian language.

The second Greek-Romanian manuscript (276 pages), no. 212, is an Irmologion-Anthologion, including the year-round catavasias, recorded both in Greek (Peter Lampadarios’ version) and Romanian. Beside these chants, the manuscript contains many other Greek- and Romanian-language hymns, written by various authors: Peter Lampadarios the Peloponnesian, Germanos „archbishop of the new homeland”,  Anastasiou, Radulos the Ungrovlachian, Balasios, Chrisaph, Mihalake Moldoveanu, Iosif of Neamt, Daniel the Protopsalti [head chanter]. They are calligraphically written in black and red ink, and are in good condition.

The chants included in these two manuscripts have a number of original elements. The hymns (mainly those of ms.215) are accompanied by many notes added on the page’s margins or at its the bottom, in the same handwriting, as well as other notes added on the margin in a smaller handwriting, in black ink. Thus ms. 215, with all these additions and alternative versions provided on the margins or superscribed, provides a new, complete melodic version of the Anastasimatarion.

The most interesting piece of information is a note on the first manuscript, no. 215, f.204^v, mentioning it was written by „monk Januarius” at Neamt Monastery, in 1803. We thus have a first manuscript note documenting the work of this Januarius mentioned by Anton Pann. The same name appears in a note written by a different hand, at the end of the second manuscript, recording the fact that the manuscript had belonged to archimandrite Januarius Glavacioceanu (of Glavacioc Monastery); the same note tells us that the manuscript was lost in 1816 and recovered in 1835, when it was returned to Januarius.

The similarities between these two manuscripts (handwriting, layout, general aspect), lead to the conclusion that they were written by the same person, namely Januarius, at Neamt Monastery, between 1802-1804. This Januarius can only be the one mentioned by Anton Pann, as this name is extremely rare in Romanian monastic onomastics, especially among the authors of church music.

A novel element is the Anastasimatarion in ms. 215, a full copy of Mihalache Moldoveanu’s Anastasimatarion, mentioned by Anton Pann. Ms. 212 contains several chants ascribed to Mihalache Moldoveanu, some of them also included in ms. 215.

The Anastasimatarion written by Januarius in 1803 cannot be the one which Anton Pann saw in 1821, and which was a copy made after Mihalache Moldoveanu’s (which Anton Pann knew). The available data allow us to conclude that this Anastasimatarion was possibly employed by Januarius, who having copied Mihalache’s version, then produced his own version which Anton Pann saw in 1821.

The kinship between Januarius and Mihalache is obvious in ms. 212, which contains many of the latter’s chants, whose titles point to his life and activity: „reader Mihalache from Moldavia”, „Mihalache of Bucharest”, „the worthy of remembrance Mihalache”, „the late Mihalache”.

These appellations allow us to place the death of Mihalache Moldoveanu around 1802-1804, when these manuscripts were written, most likely in 1802. According to information recently discovered by Deacon Răzvan Stefan, he died in an earthquake (1802 saw the greatest earthquake in the history of our country).

The two manuscripts held by the museum of Cernica Monastery shed new light on two personalities of Romanian church music history, dating from the times when chants were being translated into Romanian.

The former is Mihalache Moldoveanu, ms. 215, with a full copy of his Anastasimatarion.

The latter is Januarius the „Protosyncellos”, so far known to us only thanks to Anton Pann. Januarius is the author of one of the manuscripts; he is mentioned as a possessor of the other one, and lived between 1803-1835. His activity is important as it provided a link between the works of Mihalache and those of  Hieromonk Makarios, written in the new notation; he stands out among many other chanters who remain still unknown. His two manuscripts contain over 1000 pages of music, plus a possible original version of the Anastasimatarion, as well as a Doxastikarion mentioned by Anton Pann. Januarius thus belongs to the spiritual filiation of Mihalache Moldoveanu, and inquiry into his works extends the scope of music manuscripts research undertaken in Romania.

The Roman world knew such a time under emperor Octavian Augustus, who assumed the prerogatives of supreme pontiff of all religions within the Empire (13 B.C.), to supervise personally, as pontifex maximus, the administration and enforcement of the prescriptions of the so-called „jus divinum”, which dictated the sacrifices and expiatory rituals for epidemics and cataclysms, the consecration of temples, the updating and re-calculation of the calendar, as well as the observance of public ethical norms. Thus the monarch became a referee and a guarantor of morality, achieving a quasi-divine status consolidating his political authority.

Although it provides important answers concerning the ideological and political context in which the Church’s teachings of faith developed, the issue of pagan pontificate (pontifex maximus) is often given scant attention by Romanian ecclesiastical historiography, being cursorily mentioned only in relation to the religious policy of emperor Constantine the Great (†337) or in the ambiguous context of the rejection of this office by Theodosius the Great (†395). However, the only historical source attesting such refusal (Historia Nova authored by Zosimus) is so controversial that one can hardly reconstruct the actual historical context, the original significance of this act, or the author’s intention in narrating the event. According to the pagan author, it was not Theodosius, but Gratian who declined the prerogatives of pontifex maximus. The text contains a number of questionable elements, such as the pagan author’s digression attempting to provide an etymological explanation for the term pontifex and its Greek counterpart γεφυραίος. In the past, Zosimus’ statements and puns, either intentional or not, enjoyed undeserved appreciation, while today they are deemed to be at most post factum inventions or rhetorical aberrations.

An important aspect is the dating of the event described in Historia Nova: the proposed interval is relatively long (375-383), and the expression κατὰ τὸ συνηθές (according to the custom) has caused confusion among scholars. Even if the arrival of the senatorial commission before Gratian is placed in late 382, or even early 383, this does not suffice to rule out the hypotheses of Karl Leo Noethlichs and Jean Rémy Palanque, adopted by rev. professors Ioan Rămureanu and Vasile Munteanu, who claim that pagan pontificate was turned down by the emperor of the West only after he was persuaded by the similar gesture of Theodosius, most likely upon his enthronement (January 19, 379).

The manner of this rejection raises even more questions than its dating. A number of documents authored by Pierre Batiffol almost a century ago were discussed by Alan Cameron, who launched a new theory concerning the rejection of pagan pontificate. The reputed British scholar denies the abolition of the pontifex maximus office and postulates a transformation of this pontificate into a political sacerdotium, as attest the full titles of emperors Valentinian III († 455), Marcian († 457) and Anasthasios († 518), which included the term pontifex inclitus [inclutus]. Most likely, as early as the first half of the 5th century, the adjective maximus (the greatest/ very great) was gradually replaced by the term inclitus (famous, renowned), and thus the phrase pontifex inclitus supplanted the traditional title of pontifex maximus. This fact, corroborated by an 8th-century text of a Byzantine fake, ascribed to pope Gregory II (713-731), and mentioning the pontificate of Constantine the Great, Theodosius the Great, Valentinian the Great (the III^rd) and Constantine, the father of Justinian II, seems to support this theory of conversion and survival of the pontifex office among imperial attributes.

Mentioning Theodosius in this document among the emperors who stood out for their „priestly” or „pontifical” activity indicates that he also held such a political sacerdotium. Even though there is no explicit evidence of Theodosius’ pontificate, it may be inferred from the monarch’s involvement in issuing a very detailed Christian legislation, regulating various aspects of religious life. Most likely, one may speak of a interpretatio christiana of the dignity of pontifex maximus, lending it a Christian character. In this sense we may assert that supreme pontificate was refused by Gratian and even by Theodosius, however not by rejecting it, but rather by redefining it.

His teaching about the three coordinates of spiritual life – Baptism, faith, observance of commandments – is grounded in the Holy Scripture and naturally stems from the thought of the Holy Fathers preceding the archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Although the essential elements of this doctrine had been anticipated by previous Holy Fathers, St. Basil put forth new, personal ideas, which demonstrate the speculative skills and the genius of the great Cappadocian thinker. St. Basil the Great asserted that fallen man could not, by himself, restore communion with God and that this restoration was the purpose of the Son’s Incarnation. A complementary goal was man’s deification. Christ deified, within Himself, our human nature weakened by sin, and our own efforts must pursue the same direction: deification. Union with God becomes possible through the Holy Mysteries, whose role is to restore the original nature of the human person. The Mystery of Baptism, the gateway allowing access into the Church, symbolizing Christ’s death and resurrection, effects the shedding of the „skin garments”, the sign of lewdness, of sinful sensuality. With this mystery starts the process by which man achieves likeness to God, culminating in the supreme union with Him in the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist. Faith is another prerequisite for salvation, and defines the affirmative answer to the Creator’s calling. Its most authentic expression is doxology, by which we praise and glorify the Creator for all His gifts. Faith is perfected through Baptism, while the Baptism is grounded in faith. The third condition for salvation is living in accordance with the Lord’s commandments. Observance is twofold: it has a negative aspect, namely avoiding whatever hinders communion with the Creator, and a positive one, that is doing God’s will, expressed in His commandments. All commandments are normative for spiritual life and by observing them, we become receptive to the work of divine grace. They may be summed up in the love for God and our neighbour; renouncing our own will as self-sacrifice in order to follow Christ is an important token of this love. The deeds prompted by love and faith shape us according to the Model and enable us to become deified.

These coordinates of St. Basil the Great’s theological thought allowed him to put forth a doctrinal conception of the divine Logos that deifies man, through the sacramental work of the Church – a fundamental tenet for the Orthodox East. Orthodox theology is fulfilled only in the personal, living experience of the dogmas, and not merely in a speculative statement of the faith. According to the bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, the restoration of man lies in his regaining the edenic state, followed by the process of deification, which „has no end”.

The present survey, conducted among 400 students of the Faculties of Theology in Alba Iulia, Sibiu and Timișoara, attending the Pastoral and Social Work departments, addresses a highly relevant issue: the values and attitudes evinced by the future clergymen, during times of economic crisis. We have investigated the causal relationship between the crisis manifest in individual religious and moral life, and various aspects of social, economic and political life, as well as the personal response of young theologians, based on the knowledge and experience they had gained during their academic education.

The multitude and variety of the aspects revealed by questionnaire items have allowed quality and quantity investigations concerning the self, God, membership groups (family, friends, colleagues), the Romanian society and people. Data analysis allows the identification of aspects that may be improved, both in regard to the theological academic curriculum (in its cognitive and formative aspects), and the student-professor relations.

The first item aimed to identify matters of inward spiritual life, and it is directly relevant since present-day students will become opinion formers and advisers of Christians of all ages. More than half of the respondents evinced states of mind that are potentially conducive to distress. This calls for an analysis of the psychological formation of the future priests, their awareness of the stages in faith experience, so that they may overcome their own limitations or the obstacles that challenge their academic development and their ability to support others. 

One of the most important questionnaire items aimed to ascertain how the respondents relate to religious and moral values. Out of ten statements concerning religious and ethical values, respectively non-values, students in Theology were requested to select the statements they deemed to be true. The data evinced options appropriate to theologians, but also misunderstandings over fundamental theological matters. For instance, none of the academic years unanimously agreed with the statements: “The world is created by God”, “I believe that there are saints, angels, devils”, as there were options for the statement “Man has evolved from monkey as a species.” The same trend is evinced regarding the ethical values: distrust of the regenerative character of ethical values, both individually and in relation to their impact on society; the existence of a number of students who do not regard abortion as murder, who justify theft, etc.

The third item aimed to reveal respondents’ attitude towards family life. The collected data reveal that almost three quarters of students belong to families that foster Christian values – love, unity and mutual respect as the foundation of religious-moral life and the model for the future families of the families. Here also to a proportion of students fidelity in the family (and family itself) is irrelevant.

Attitude towards schooling was the object of the following item, as the necessity to understand school as a fundamental institution in the formation of human personality is universally acknowledged. Our investigation aimed to ascertain student’s perception of school, their relationship with their professors, as well as their appreciation of the formal curriculum. Over ten percent of the students find no value in schooling, and the percentage of students valuing education decreases gradually as students approach graduation from university.

All items display an increase in the percentage describing negative aspects in the case of third-year students, which evinces an identity and relational crisis affecting up to 40% of them.

In order to ascertain how they relate to their fellow students, item no.5 required them to select one out of three statements describing their own generation. The results indicate that two thirds of the students feel they belong to their generation, however without entirely accepting its values and behaviour. The remaining third includes the extremes, as well as students who cannot tell whether they share values with their own generation. 

Three quarters of the respondents show by their answers to item no. 6 their awareness of  the negative aspects of Romanian public arena and mass-media. The same proportion frequently use the Internet for information and communication (item no.7), which demonstrates that the classical sources of information are increasingly paralleled by the electronic ones.

Item no.8 was designed to reveal the attitude of students in Theology towards Romanian society and people. Most options evince commitment to national values, to a great extent associated with Orthodoxy. Positive answers peaked for the first- and second-year respondents, who study these notions under the history-centered disciplines.

The way in which the economic crisis had affected respondents’ life over the period preceding the survey was investigated by item no.9. One third of the students stated that they were not affected by the crisis. One fifth of the students consider the crisis as artificial and the result of a manipulation campaign. Thus the current crisis has caused no negative effects on approximately half of the students. The other half shows both how they have been affected by the crisis, and the solutions by which they attempted to overcome it.

One last aspect investigated by item no.10 concerned responsibility students took for themselves, their families and society. Two thirds of the respondents felt most responsible for themselves and their families. Accountability for society ranked second, for over one tenth of the respondents. Both percentages display a linear growth from the first to the fourth year of study, demonstrating increased responsibility as well as the results of the education received within a theological academic environment.

The conclusion reached by processing the data supplied in this questionairre filled out by 400 students in Theology confirms the assumption underlying our survey: the set of values accepted and promoted during times of economic crisis depends on the depth of religious experience as well as a number of factors related to academic development or the influence of family, mass-media and societal views.