NR. 4 – 2023

Venerable Nicetas emphasizes in the first hundred chapters, also called the Practical Chapters, the role of asceticism and the purification of passions in the process of deification. For Nicetas, the path to perfection means a turning of the senses from external things toward inner spiritual feelings. Thus, we can say that the beginning of the life in God and of salvation consists in the total departing from sin in the world as a prerequisite for our transfiguration from material humans into spiritual beings.

The second hundred chapters highlight the importance of knowing God through the mediation of the Holy Scriptures. In these chapters, Venerable Nicetas describes the role of purifying the heart and mind as vectors for the knowledge of God. At this stage of the spiritual process, the work of grace is essential. In other words, in the complex process of the spiritualization of the human being, not only human effort is required, but also the intervention of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, the process of perfection and deification of the human being is primarily sustained by the virtue of humility and by the power of spiritual prayer. Thus, the human being illuminated by the Holy Spirit participates in the mystery of contemplation through the renewal of the mind, and as a result, says Venerable Nicetas, God will be with us as with “gods”, for the restoration of the human being has been liturgized by Christ through His sacrifice and resurrection.

The third hundred chapters continue to detail the process of the deification of the human being by emphasizing knowledge and love, as well as the human capacity to collaborate with God as partner on the path to perfection. At this stage, the unity between God and the human being, which was once torn apart through rebellion and the division brought by sin, is re-established through the mystical Liturgy of the heavenly Altar and through the work of the mind under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The human being thus reaches the lost beauty of reason and is now able to see God (to contemplate), for this vision carries with it the seal of deification, which Venerable Nicetas defines as the liturgy or sacred service of the mind. As he himself attests, “deification in life is the holy service of the mind”. In this sense, Venerable Nicetas is justified in speaking of the ekstasis of the mind, since the human being now experiences a spiri­tual ecstasy as a divine and unfamiliar experience, living in God through the freedom of the Spirit. From this point onward, the spiritual man is able to ascend the Mount Tabor of contemplation, being capable of gazing upon the glory and radiance of the divine.

The external, manifest forms of liturgical-orthodox worship lead to its essence, which is the unceasing praise brought to God in the Church. This doxology is carried out through various rites and ordinances, well specified in the Tipikon, the worship being in fact a read and sung prayer. From the theological point of view, private prayer has been defined in many ways and has its importance in the acquisition of salvation by every Christian, but the prayer of public or public worship is much more powerful and “effective”; it is the community’s exercise to praise God incessantly. In the Church, prayer never stops, as in heaven the heavenly powers praise God forever, as the prophet Isaiah testifies, the one who received notice of this reality through a vision (Isaiah 6, 3), in a state of ecstasy. According to that heavenly model, during the Holy Liturgy we sing in a choir of souls and voices, clergy and people, people and angels, and the text of the liturgical Anaphora composed by Saint Basil the Great mentions that “[…] all creation […] raise songs of praise […] with unceasing words, with praises without silence […]”.

From its simple forms, from the apostolic age to its splendor today, the Orthodox cult has experienced an amazing enrichment, quantitative and qualitative, at the same time. Specialists talk about an organic development of the cult, a process of composition both of typical forms, of order, and above all of the composition of a hymnographic and euchological thesaurus of great refinement and beauty. The greatest theologians of the Church, who mastered the dogmas very well, down to the level of nuances, were also poets, hymnographers or eugraphists (composers of hymnography and prayers), since the hymnography and prayers of the Orthodox cult perfectly illustrate the entire teaching system of the Orthodox faith, “translating” it into the meaning of the people. In other words, the theological metaphor was – and has remained, until now – the best vehicle through which the “oros” of the Ecumenical Councils, the theologizing of the Holy Fathers, the high thinking of some enlightened minds, the feeling and living of some mystics were brought to the level of understanding of people without a theological school, but with a pure heart and a sense of sensitive spiritual acuity. Thus, during the 4^th-14^th centuries, then with certain shorter time segments and with fewer representatives even up to the 21^st century, the Orthodox spiritual treasure was continuously enriched, through the contribution of some composers, with hymnographic pieces (full services of saints) and prayers for various situations in the spiritual life of the faithful, starting with the adoration of God, continuing with the “hyperdoulia” for the Mother of God and the honouring of the saints and with other occasions of piety, in a local or universal context.

From the entire treasury of prayers that the Orthodox Church has, a theological and spiritual analysis of a well-known text used in worship, within the Great Vigil and beyond, was chosen and carried out in this article: the prayer “Spotless, Undefiled, Incorrupt…”. Without a doubt, it is one of the most beautiful prayers dedicated to the Mother of God, being read by many Christians as part of their daily prayer program. On the other hand, it should also be emphasized that, although known, loved and read, this prayer has not benefited, until now, in Romanian theology, from any thorough analysis. The only one who mentions it and signals it, dedicating only a few lines to it in his Special Liturgical manual, is Rev. Prof. Dr. Ene Braniste.

The analysis presented above uses, through the method of comparative liturgy, the texts of the prayer in the Greek, Slavonic, English and French languages, in several editions, precisely in order to better understand the meanings of some words which, in Romanian, are either too restrictive or too little nuanced, or remaining in archaic or regional forms.

From the point of view of the supplicant, but also from that of the teaching staff, it must also be pointed out here that, in the Romanian language, the translation of this prayer suffered – in some places – certain changes and deviations from the meaning of the original Greek text. For this reason, in addition to the detailed commentary, on euhological phrases, some small corrections of this Romanian translation are also proposed, taking into account the original text and the variants translated into the mentioned languages.

Totodată, cercetarea temei dumnezeirii lui Iisus Hristos în Faptele lui Andrei se bazează pe abodarea hermeneutică a lui Larry Hurtado, exprimată în două din lucrările sale fundamentale (How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? Historical Questions About Earliest Devotion to Jesus și Lord Jesus Christ. Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity), potrivit căruia conceptualizarea dumnezeirii lui Iisus Hristos și receptarea ei consecventă de către creștini s-a realizat în cadrul unui proces foarte complex și de durată, în care au fost implicate multe generații care au succedat perioada vieții și activității pământești a lui Iisus. Analiza Faptelor lui Andrei din această perspectivă a arătat că dumnezeirea lui Iisus este exprimată atât direct, cât și indirect. Exprimarea directă a dumnezeirii Lui se realizează prin faptul că Iisus primește apelativul de Dumnezeu, împreună cu cel de Hristos și Domn. Indirect, dumnezeirea Lui este exprimată prin caracterizarea apostolului Andrei drept apostol și slujitor al acestui Dumnezeu, Iisus.

În același timp, calitatea sau însușirea de Dumnezeu a lui Iisus se exprimă, în Faptele lui Andrei, și în contexte care sugerează exclusivitatea acestei titulaturi a Lui. Cu alte cuvinte, Iisus nu este numit pur și simplu Dumnezeu, ci, mai mult decât atât, este numit singurul Dumnezeu sau Dumnezeul Cel viu, în comparație cu zeitățile locale, venerate de Aegeates, opozantul principal al apostolului Andrei și al misiunii acestuia în Patras.

Pe de altă parte, dumnezeirea lui Iisus se tematizează și în contextul în care Acesta este numit chiar de către apostolul Andrei Hristos, Dumnezeu și Tată. Caracterizarea primită de Iisus ca și Tată poate sugera faptul că diferențierile și precizările intra-trinitare cu care suntem obișnuiți astăzi nu au circulat de la începutul creștinismului, ci a fost nevoie de o perioadă considerabilă de timp pentru ca acestea să fie precizate. De aceea, a înțelege realitățile și totodată provocările teologice ale primelor generații de creștini ca fiind totalmente similare cu cele actuale, ar constitui o mare nedreptate, pentru că s-ar nega tocmai importanța procesului evolutiv teologic în care acestea au fost exprimate.

The research highlights how books were not just tools for personal devotion but also instruments for broader cultural and intellectual development within monastic life. Monks were key participants in an extensive network of book production and distribution. Far from being isolated and uneducated, monks engaged in copying manuscripts and distributing them within monastic circles and beyond, establishing networks for exchanging books, which were essential for accessing spiritual texts and promoting Christian doctrine.

The research also explores the economic aspects of book production, noting the significant costs and labor involved in creating manuscripts. Books were highly valuable objects, with scribes, often monks themselves, being responsible for copying texts, ensuring their preservation, and maintaining their availability for future generations.

The study also addresses the mistaken perception that Saint Anthony, often considered the model of the ideal monk, was completely uneducated. Although he is described as not having learned formal letters, this is more a reflection of his rejection of classical pagan education, rather than illiteracy. In fact, many monks in these early communities were bilingual or trilingual, with some having the skills to translate texts from one language to another. The use of interpreters is noted in interactions between monks and scholars, further demonstrating the monks’ engagement with the intellectual currents of their time.

Furthermore, the study provides insight into the practical aspects of book production in monastic communities. Manuscripts were labour-intensive and costly to produce, with materials like papyrus and ink being expensive and the copying process taking considerable time. This made books precious commodities, often reserved for monastic libraries or shared among monks for communal reading. Despite these challenges, the research reveals that books were integral to monastic life, not only for personal spiritual development but also for educational purposes. Some monastic communities were even home to scribes who specialized in copying religious texts, ensuring that Christian teachings were preserved and transmitted to future generations.

The study concludes by illustrating the important cultural and intellectual contributions of monks in Late Antiquity. Far from being simple ascetics, these monks were part of a broader intellectual movement that saw the production and dissemination of Christian literature as vital to the spiritual and intellectual life of their communities. Monastic networks of book exchange and production played a crucial role in the survival and spread of Christian knowledge, challenging the notion of monasticism as a purely ascetic and unlearned way of life.

By examining historical records, such as letters and manuscripts, and by analysing archaeological findings, the research underscores the centrality of books in Egyptian monasticism. It highlights how these early monks were not only guardians of spiritual wisdom but also active participants in a vibrant intellectual and cultural exchange. In this context, the book was both a spiritual tool and a marker of intellectual engagement, essential for the growth and continuity of Christian teachings in Late Antiquity.

One of the constant concerns of the Orthodox Church in the three Principalities at that time was the gaining or recognition of Autocephaly. Saint Hierarch Andrei Șaguna focused all his efforts in this direction, succeeding in gaining the autocephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate of Transylvania in 1864. He wrote a series of works in which he analysed, from a canonical perspective, the issue of autonomy and autocephaly, insisting on the recognition of the Church’s internal autonomy by the state authority. Moreover, the great hierarch was deeply concerned with organizing and leading church life. He advocated for the active involvement of the laity in the life of the Church, giving “living expression to a fundamental canonical principle […], known as the organic principle or the ecclesiastical constitutional principle.”

While Saint Hierarch Andrei Șaguna distinguished himself as a man of action, Archimandrite Constantin Clementie Popovici stood out as a theoretician. The works he authored contributed significantly to the development of the study of the holy canons. He regulated the relationship between church law, theology, and civil law, while also highlighting the place of ecclesiastical law within theology and the general system of sciences. Furthermore, the great canonist was deeply concerned with the issue of ecclesiastical power. Another theme addressed by Archimandrite Constantin Clementie Popovici in his writings was that of marriage. The distinguished teacher proposed the following classification of impediments to marriage: impediments due to lack of consent; impediments due to the physical or moral inability to fulfil the purpose of marriage; and impediments due to the lack of essential formalities for concluding the marriage. Additionally, the renowned professor analysed in his writings how the date of Easter is calculated. The conclusion he reached is the same as that stated in Apostolic Canon 7: Easter is celebrated after the spring equinox, on the first Sunday after the full moon (if the feast day coincides with that of the Jews, the celebration is postponed by one week).

Professor Constantin Erbiceanu also distinguished himself as a theoretician. Unfortunately, the great academician was unable to publish the manuscript of his church law course, but he authored other works in which he addressed some of the most important issues in the life of the Church. For example, Constantin Erbiceanu paid special attention to the relationship between the State and the Church, indicating as a model a distinct cooperation in a spirit of mutual respect. Professor Constantin Erbiceanu was also concerned with the actual study of the holy canons. In this regard, he translated the text and commentary of the Apostolic Canons and the canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils, making them available to all Romanians. However, the primary focus of the great academician was the research and translation of materials with Nomo-canonical content. Through this endeavour, which involved diligent work, Constantin Erbiceanu was able to provide a comprehensive view of the Byzantine legal norms dedicated to church life.

As a successor to Professor Constantin Erbiceanu, Dimitrie G. Boroianu continued to seriously address contemporary issues in the life of the Church, composing valuable works that stand out for their clear presentation of information, the logical connection between ideas, and thorough documentation. In these works, the distinguished teacher analysed a wide range of aspects concerning church life. For instance, the professor from Bucharest addressed the issue of autocephaly, showing that while there are multiple autocephalous Churches, they should not be considered as separate entities, but rather as members of the same body (1 Corinthians 12:20), based on the dogmatic, canonical, and liturgical unity of the entire Orthodox Church. Another issue that Dimitrie G. Boroianu analyses in his writings is that of marriage. He points out that since the individuals who wish to marry are both citizens of the State and children of the Church, the bond between them creates obligations both toward the Church and toward the State. At the same time, Dimitrie G. Boroianu emphasizes the role of the bishop within the Church. Another key topic treated by the renowned professor is the right of patronage (κτητορικὸν δίκαιον), that is, the right of the faithful to build Churches and endow them with the necessary means for service. According to the great canonist, in ancient times, the right of patronage was granted by patriarchs, metropolitans, or bishops to the faithful within their dioceses for building churches (whether in cities or in rural areas); for constructing monasteries; and for establishing charitable institutions. Therefore, without the bishop’s approval, no such work could be undertaken, meaning that the right of patronage highlights one of the fundamental canonical principles, namely, the autonomy of the diocese.

The last canonist analysed in this article, who distinguished himself during the period we are focusing on, paid special attention to the issues faced by the Romanian Orthodox Church in the first half of the 20^th century. Following the path of his contemporaries, Professor Lazăr Iacob authored numerous legal writings in which he analysed, based on legislative documents, various aspects related to the general regime of religious denominations, such as: religious freedom; the protection of religious denominations by the Romanian State; the rights of religious denominations; the recognition of religious denominations by the Romanian State; the obligations of religious denominations toward the State; and the relationships between religious denominations. Professor Lazăr Iacob’s plan of analysing the general regime of religious denominations was a reaction against the measures taken by the Romanian State, measures that, in his view, were unjust to the religious denominations active within Romania’s territory. In order to address the needs of the Church, Professor Lazăr Iacob also tackled the issue of the second marriage of clergy, a topic that was intensely discussed during that period, as noted by Father Liviu Stan. In this regard, the great canonist composed a remarkable work in which he concludes that the second marriage of priests does not contradict the evangelical precepts, nor the dogmatic teaching of the Church. Therefore, the author concludes, the decision of the Holy Fathers to prohibit the second marriage of clergy is based on moral norms and aims to enhance the quality of spiritual life within the sacramental hierarchy.

Thus, the work of the above-mentioned Romanian canonists made a substantial contribution to the development of the study of the holy canons, both through its originality and its canonical, juridical, and theological value. It represents a precious treasure of ideas that elevated specialized research to a higher level, benefiting both the Romanian Orthodox Church and the entire Orthodoxy.