Thinking about Church with Hope (the case of Wacław Hryniewicz)
1. Bio-biblioghraphy
1. Bio-biblioghraphy
Wacław Hryniewicz (1936-2020) belongs to the generation of Catholic theologians who developed their activity after the Second Vatican Council and under its influence. The large current of renewing theology with its dimensions of deepened biblical, liturgical, patristic and ecumenical studies had an important influence on his way of thinking and “doing” theology. On the other hand, Hryniewicz also contributed to this same current of theological research. In his writings, an attentive reader can find references to the most important Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic theologians of the twentieth century from whom he had learned and with whom he actively dialogues. In this context of such a multiform, contemporary theology it is also possible to identify some specific influences, which particularly characterize his theology.
Hryniewicz was born and raised in Poland, where he still lives. His youth was shadowed by the tragedy of the second world war, which can symbolically be indicated by the term “Auschwitz”. Although well known from a historical point of view, these events also had theological consequences.[1] The inhumane experiences and suffering challenged any kind of theological “theory” about the reality of history. The banality of death placed the question of hope in front of despair.
The post-war period in Poland was marked by a forced communist regime with its totalitarian politics and materialistic ideology. Humanists, philosophers, and theologians developed some specific intellectual attitudes in response. The result: the monologue society proposed by the totalitarian regime was faced with a dimension of “dialogue”;[2] and instead of a purely materialistic anthropology, special attention was given to the person.[3]
Poland must also be considered as a country between Christian East and West, between Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.[4] For the theologian, this situation presents a challenging question of unity and diversity of Christian Churches (Protestants, Orthodox and Catholic) in a context of somewhat “specifically” Polish catholicism. The situation reflects also that of the post-conciliar tension between an “open” and “closed” Church. The theology of Hryniewicz likewise moves in a similar context, influenced by the same tension.
In order to complete the image of the various influences on the theological formation of Hryniewicz, there are several that require specific mention. It was Wincent Granat (1900-1979), a great dogmatic theologian whose speculative theological system incorporated personalistic dimensions and comparative studies of Christian traditions, who directed Hryniewicz to study Eastern and Orthodox theology.[5] Another person of influence was the Polish, Orthodox priest and theologian, Jerzy Klinger.[6] Hryniewicz's role of teaching and directing the chair of the Catholic University of Lublin dedicated to ecumenical and comparative theology studies continues to shape his own thoughts. In addition, his involvement in many ecumenical conferences and meetings — for many years (from 1980) a member of the Catholic-Orthodox theological commission — rendered his theology open and ecumenical.[7]
Let us now briefly mention the main theological works of Hryniewicz (all written in Polish and not translated). In 1966, at the Catholic University of Lublin, he presented his dissertation, The Teaching of Contemporary Catholic Theologians about the Soteriological Role of the Resurrection of Christ.[8] Ten years later, he published a study entitled Tradition in the Theological Interpretation. Analysis of Contemporary Dogmatic and Ecumenical Theories.[9] These two books, written to fulfill university requirements, enabled our theologian to look at the whole theological tradition while centering his attention on the Resurrection. From then on, two elements — hermeneutics and dogmatics — would be strictly related in his theological reflections. Between 1987 and 1991, Hryniewicz published his monumental work, a Paschal trilogy (Christ is our Passover, 1987; Our Passover with Christ, 1987; The Passover of Christ in the History of Man and the Universe, 1991).[10] One of the most interesting and best theological syntheses in the post conciliar period, the trilogy — as the titles suggest — looks to the Paschal event as interpretative key in the systematic exposition of all Christian doctrine.
Accompanying his speculative work, Hryniewicz also developed his studies of sources by publishing an analytic study of Bishop Cyril of Turov Paschal homilies (An Old Russian Paschal Theology, 1993)[11] and a critical edition, translation and theological study on writings of Metropolitan Ilarion (Christ is Risen, 1995),[12] a very interesting, twelfth century, Ruthenian bishop. Both of this authors are still relatively unknown.
Hryniewicz is also known for his theology of hope, developed thus far in four volumes (The Hope of Salvation for All. From an Eschatology of Fear to an Eschatology of Hope, 1990; The Drama of Salvation for All, 1996; Pedagogy of Hope. Meditation about God, Church and Ecumenism, 1997; On the Way of Reconciliation. Ecumenical Meditations, 1998).[13] A general movement can be identified in these works as the author moves slowly from existential and individual dimensions of hope in the eschatological perspective to the ecclesiastical and ecumenical ones. He thus shows hope to be personal, "for me", only in as much as it is for all of us, "together".
Other ecclesiological and ecumenical reflections — with respect to Orthodox-Catholic dialogue — were developed by Hryniewicz in his two books: Sister Churches (1993) and Leave the Past to God. Union and Uniatism in the Ecumenical Perspective (1995).[14] Two volumes are comprised of various articles in which he addresses theological methods, tradition, the centrality of Christ’s Pascha, and hope, commenting his main works in the form of “glossa” (God of Our Hope, 1989; and Hermeneutic in Dialogue, 1998).[15]
As seen thus far, the work of this theologian is vast and rich. In addition to the above-mentioned books, he has published a large number of articles in various reviews.[16] It is too premature to attempt a synthesis since he continues to write. Nonetheless, this short bio- and bibliographical overview does offer the reader a general idea of his theology. In the pages that remain, we will explore some aspects of his ecclesiology, seen especially in light of his theology of hope.
2. Theological method — a way of thinking
Since the way of thinking specifically about the Church is rooted in the more general methods of thinking in theology, we can start by identifying several aspects which are characteristic for Wacław Hryniewicz and his ecclesiology. Four dimensions illustrate his approach.
a) Apophatic dynamism
Hryniewicz has a special affinity for the apophatic theology of the Fathers and of modern theologians, both Eastern and Western, which emphasizes the greatness of the mystery of God and the inadequacy of the human mind to reach Him. In his own words, “This way of thinking and talking about God is characterized first of all by the conviction that the deepest reality of God cannot be recognized and that it passes over all human concepts. God is the 'hidden One' unknown, mysterious and yet very close”.[17] However, as such, “knowing God” (or rather, un-knowing God) does not favor a skeptical attitude. Instead, it leads man to transcend concepts, speculations and turns to antinomy, paradox, experience and contemplation. Only then can eventual knowledge, understanding or talking about God result. The apophatic theology does not want to say that “man is by nature unable to know God, but rather point out the conviction that His deepest essence is transcendental”.[18] Hryniewicz finds a certain fascination standing before the mystery of God and trying to contemplate and express it. This fascination sometimes causes him to use poetic or imaginative language and fashions his understanding of the theologian's mission. For example, referring to John Chrysostom homilies De incomprehensibilitate Dei, he writes that “The theologian is like a man who walking in the fog reaches the high and steep edge of the ocean, feeling the unending horizon just beyond the edge which impregnates him with delight and fear”.[19]
Hryniewicz’s stance toward apophatic theology seems to develop over time. His earlier writings speak of apophaticism, though appreciated by him, as just one of the ways of “doing theology”, a complementary one among others. In his later and recent works, he privileges apophatism all the more as embracing all theological attitudes, considering it fundamental as a basis: “Apophatic theology is neither only a specific branch of theology nor a methodological introduction to it which considers the incomprehensibility of God. It is rather a dimension and method of all theological ways of thinking”.[20]
Yet this “hidden God” acts, interacting with man and man with Him. Hryniewicz sees all of human history and existence as having this apophatic God on the horizon or as its foundation. Such a God, and hence His history, are thus seen as not only unknown but also amazingly beyond our thoughts and expectations. The Resurrection — so central for Hryniewicz — initiated a dynamism and movement in history which is also “apophatic”. Rather God's apophaticism marks human and world history, opening it through “mirabilia Dei”, signs of the wonderful activity of a loving God who projects all creation toward its eschatological dimension. He writes about it with a characteristic theocentric conviction: “Deus semper maior. The eschatological dimension of salvation cannot be known by people living on this earth. Salus semper maior. If human love hides in itself an uncommon mystery of gift, the saving love of God is for everyone even more ineffably astonishing. Our God is an astonishing God”.[21] “Historic apophaticism” caused by a certain eschatological and theocentric primacy is typical for Hryniewicz and also determines his ecclesiology and overall theological attitude. His vision of Church cannot be separated from it, because “Our earthly theology, even very courageous, has to be limited by this eschatological apophatism”.[22]
b) Paschal way of the human mind
In his "Paschal trilogy", which seeks to present the “whole” Christian vision in light of the Paschal Mystery, Hryniewicz concludes that: “the Paschal perspective is the single dimension of all Christian theology – it is the basic sensibility which indicates what really is placed in the center of our faith, resolving all else. The paschal theology teaches a concentric way of thinking which constantly comes back to this essential truth and in its light penetrates the depth of the others questions”.[23] Hence it is clear that the Paschal dynamism, a movement from life through death to resurrection, is a basic movement which organized Hryniewicz's whole way of thinking and marked all of his theology.
This dynamism also applies to the human mind, and thus to theology, too. This is one of Hryniewicz’s most original insights. Taking inspiration mostly from the Byzantine and Slavic tradition, he talks about a “Pascha noeton, Pascha slovesnaja” which is “a specific way of the cross of the human mind which passes from death to spiritual resurrection”.[24] He describes the first stage in this movement as “positive”, in which the human mind is inspired by creation, Holy Scripture and tradition, reaching the level of Divine Wisdom (sophia). However, this is only the beginning stage, as it opens the way to the "negative" phase: “The real paschal experience of apophatic knowledge initiates when the human mind (united with heart) begins to have a foreboding of the insufficiency of the positive way”.[25] With this inner battle the human mind passes beyond images, ideas and logic to enter a period of real transformation (metanoia). An initial moment of “cross” gives way to silence and waiting: “It is necessary to suspend imagination and desire to see the truth. It is the silence of the crucified, denuded and emptied intellect — it is the stage of sacrifice which reaches the depths of the 'intellectual heart', the spiritual center of the whole person”.[26] Finally, the stage of resurrection is reached in “the meeting with God". Causing the human mind to spiritually rise up, this encounter creates an inner Passover which gives the experience of Divine light and its transforming presence”.[27] This final stage initiates the entire person to everlasting new life, an unending movement with the realm of God (epectasis). Yet, at the same time, it is constantly repeated, since it is brought "down" to a level of confrontation by the reality of creation and history and the message of Scripture and tradition.
With a paschal movement of the mind (pascha noeton), such an essential aspect of Hryniewicz's theological methodology, the entire person tends by its desire of God to the dimension of infinity. The way is begun by “doing theology”, but during the process of theological perception on a spiritual level, it is discovered that in order to reach the desired goal, one has to “die”. By “dying”, the mind is brought beyond itself and touches upon the reality of God. Completely transformed by this encounter, the mind returns to reality only to see it in a different light, recognizing all reality in what we call hope. The human mind can have this experience precisely because it all happened in Christ. I will eventually show how this "paschal way of the human mind" is key in Hryniewicz's approach to Church, as is thinking with hope.
c) Dialogical perichoresis
If the apophatic priority and the paschal dimension are the basis of all theology, it follows that the mystery of God can be and really is expressed by a multiplicity of traditions, systems and models. Hryniewicz explains that “Theologians today realize still more and more that it is impossible to talk about God using only one sentence, because someone immediately has to add more sentences which are complementary to the first one and which explain it better. This is the only way to be ‘honest in front of God’”.[28] Along the lines of sentences or systems, he uses the idea of “models”: “talking about God should be based on many models, united among themselves as much as possible. Because each of the models shows its real value in reciprocal relation. … Each of the models can be enriched and completed by being confronted with the others”.[29]
Such a conviction results in openness to other people and traditions, in an attitude of dialogue. In theology, it means the necessity to listen to others. According to Hryniewicz, anyone who wants to know and understand God and the mysteries He has intended for us must turn to others: to listen, to learn, and to appreciate the diversity which reveals the God who is completely Other. Inspired by M. Buber and E. Lévinas, Hryniewicz affirms the necessity today to rediscover “the priority of turning to the Other before speculating with concepts, of becoming an open person not dominated by 'self', and of modestly accepting the Other before the pride of one's own reason. This ethical dimension has priority over the ontological one”.[30] Continuing his reflection, he writes about the “Epiphany of Otherness”[31] which requires an attitude of attention and listening to the Other: person; tradition; and finally, God. In fact, he shows that the apophatism of God and apophatism of man are actually complementary and mutually revealing. He writes: “The extension of the mystery of the 'hidden God' (Is 45,15) is the mystery of the 'hidden man' whose value lies in his capacity to love others, in the depth of his heart open for others. In the earliest time of Christianity, the author of the first Letter of Peter was writing about this heart of man, hidden in the depth of his spirit and his own humanity. He used an expression very difficult to translate: ho kryptos tes kardias anthropos, ‘a hidden man of heart’ (1 Pt 3,4). These words contain, in fact, the essence of apophatic anthropology”.[32]
Hryniewicz’s thinking shows there to be a link between the mystery of God and the mystery of man, reaching the Truth by reaching God and man. The one and hidden mystery of God, so essential for man, a mystery which is so “far” and so “close”, a mystery never reached and never drawn out, is in a certain way dispersed and hidden in Others. Each expresses this mystery partially, and all together reflect and penetrate it with reciprocity and complementarity. In order to explain this essential dimension of being and doing theology, Hryniewicz refers to the ancient, traditional concept of “perichoresis”, applying it in a new and fruitful way: “The thinking which takes into consideration the entire Christian tradition as a source of inspiration can be called a thinking 'according to the whole (kat’holon), an integrative thinking. This way of thinking is characterized by the tendency to unite the lasting values which are present and alive in particular confessional traditions. It is a thinking animated by the principle of reciprocal penetration of consciousness (perichoresis). This principle was formed in ancient Christian teaching about the Holy Trinity, but it should also be used in the life and thinking of the Church as a community of human persons”.[33]
The profound bond between God and man, as well as the one between human persons, are in some way for Hryniewicz links creating the context or environment in which his theology is made. On the one hand, the incomprehensibility of God and, on the other, the dialogical toward other men and their traditions, all seen in the light of the paschal dimension, are an important basis for his way of thinking about the Church.
d) Doxological dimension of dogma
Following the convictions of many contemporary theologians, Hryniewicz underlines the historical and somewhat “limited” dimension of dogmatic formulas. He writes, for example: “Dogma has a function of service to the testimony of Scripture. It is an open horizon in understanding the Scripture in the community of the faithful, and it is also a result of the Church's historical experience of trying to listen to the testimony of Scripture. Dogma directs the faith and hope of the Church to the reality that is bigger than any human approach or way of understanding divine truth. Hence, though on the one hand, dogma is decisive; on the other hand, it still has a provisional nature, as is everything that is earthly and not yet finally complete”.[34] In another place, he emphasizes the primacy of faith over dogmatic formulas, because “dogmas are only interpretations which should help the faith, but which were made in one precise moment of history and in a specific cultural context. The faith has to be one and unique for ever, because it is in its essence the hopeful trust in God. But the interpretations of it could be different, and the unity does not exclude diversity”.[35]
Because “the language of dogmatic formulas is provisional and metaphoric”[36] there is a paradox of power, greatness and weakness in them. They try to express something inexpressible. Hryniewicz writes: “The unusual dimension of the language of dogma is in its having to transmit a truth which is bigger and, from a religious point of view, more important than what the human language can express”.[37] In his understanding, dogma points to the truth but does not exhaust it. Dogma “is in a certain way the sign which indicates the way towards the truth, but on the other hand it is also a ‘narrow gate’ (Mt 7,13)”.[38] He refers to the teaching of P. Evdokimov to describe dogma as “an icon of truth made from words”.[39]
Understood in this perspective, all doctrine is considered open, not only for “new” interpretations but open to God Himself. The human mind, in fact, faces a paradox in dogmatic formulas, a certain “cross” as described above, as it learns the limitations and the unfeasibility of embracing God with human forms of expression. However, that would only be the negative function of dogma. There is also a positive one as dogma allows the mind to enter the dimension that it indicates. Purified, the mind then discovers its capacity to praise and glorify God. In fact, the term “ortho-doxy”, used so often in reference to doctrine and dogma, implies “the right way to praise”. Hence, the essential function of dogma is to praise God, to give Him glory. Hryniewicz calls this function “the doxological dimension of dogma”.
Referring to patristic concepts — seen, of course, in light of his own interpretations — he writes that in antiquity, “The dogmatic formulas were understood first of all as a doxological confessions of faith and were integrative parts of liturgy. Dogma was not understood as a static doctrinal formula, but first and foremost as an act of worship and thanksgiving for His saving work. The dogma was something much greater than the content pronounced in formula. It was also clear that it was reaching beyond the current and actual capacity to express it in a certain formula”.[40] Hryniewicz adamantly underlines that the ancient Church “realized early on that loyalty toward conciliar formulas consists in something more than a simple repetition of once established formulas. The Church was aware that dogma is not only being rooted in the past but also being open for the future”.[41]
It does not seem necessary to further elaborate this part of the presentation, interesting and important though it may be. The doxological dimension of dogma is one of the aspects deeply related to the apophatic, dialogical and paschal dimensions of Hryniewicz’s way of thinking. The whole system of his theology provides a solid basis for an open, dynamic and hopeful vision also of the Church, as we shall see on the following pages.
3. Thinking about Church
It cannot be said that ecclesiology is the main discipline elaborated by Hryniewicz in his theology. He is not an “ecclesiologist”, and he did not write any book exclusively dedicated to the topic of Church. Nonetheless, Church is the object of many of his reflections throughout his works. The second volume of his paschal trilogy contains a rather complete and synthetic presentation of his ecclesiology.[42] It was actually in this last decade that he developed various aspects and intuitions about the Church. His increasing ecclesiological interest in the last decade can be explained by his participation in ecumenical dialogues, which exposed him to questions that he wanted both to explore and address. Another reason can be found in the crisis in the life of the Church and in ecclesiology, which called him as a theologian to think and talk about the Church. Hryniewicz himself, makes it clear that he understands himself to be a theologian of the Church after the Second Vatican Council, insisting that the Church not only continue the way initiated by the Council but actually develop it and courageously proceed to face the future. Thus, his reflections about Church have a paschal background, while at the same time, they embrace a large number of topics concerning the ecumenical question of the unity of the Churches, as seen in the general perspective of an “open Church”.
It is not the purpose of this study to present a complete study of Hryniewicz’s ecclesiology. Rather, it aims to underline some of the more characteristic aspects of his ecclesiology, which are actually in the perspective of his theology of hope. In the interest of clarity, the following four sub-titles correspond to the previous sub-chapters explaining Hryniewicz’s way of thinking.
a) Church from and for God — ecclesiological apophatism and theocentrism Discussing the origin of the Church in order to understand her nature and mission, Hryniewicz emphasizes her Trinitarian roots. The Church is Corpus Trium.[43] This fact has some very important consequences both in the nature and understanding of the Church. The most important is the primacy of God “over” the Church, or as he prefers to express it: “God is bigger than the Church”.[44] In another place, he also writes that the Church “participates in the mystery of the Triune God to Whom belongs all priority”.[45] Thus, thewhole mission of the Church is caused by the Trinity, who revealed Its loving nature most perfectly in the Paschal Mystery. Hence, “it is not the Church which disposes of the Paschal Mystery of Christ. This mystery is bigger than the Church, which has only to serve it”.[46]
The extremely theocentric attitude of Hryniewicz in his thinking about the Church is of the same nature as his highly apophatic approach toward theology. To say that God is always greater — Deus semper maior -- not only means that everything in the Church (authority, discipline, sacraments, tradition, etc.) comes from and depends on Him, but also that nothing really corresponds perfectly to His perfection. In front of Him, everything in the Church is relative, even the Church, herself. Since all things are related to God, they can receive different forms, expressions and structures accordingly. In the Church — as in the case of dogma — the apophatic rule is essential: everything serves only to indicate, and imperfectly at that, God Himself. The Church is seen as a “small point” projecting toward the immense horizon of the infinite and mysterious Trinity. The Church is in a certain way hidden in God. In fact, this theocentrism gives Hryniewicz great freedom and courage in his being in and thinking about Church. It is also the basis of his hope. According to his understanding, God's gift of Self to all of creation finds its answer in the attitude of trusting faith and hope. The Church finds her importance in this space of hope. The hope is God Himself while the Church is along the way to that hope. As can be seen, Hryniewicz's theology is far away from any kind of eccelsio-centrism.
His theocentric approach to Church is not only because she came from God, but also because she has God Himself as her destination. Existing not only from but also for God, the Church is correctly understood when seen in its eschatological perspective. Hryniewicz bases his explanations of this dimension of Church on three texts: two from the Bible and one from the Second Vatican Council. Referring to the book of Revelation (Rev. 21:1) which talks of a “new heaven and earth” and the “New Jerusalem”, he writes: “It really makes one think that the eschatological perspective of the Bible does not end up with a new Church, but with a ‘new heaven and new earth’. … The creative power of God will be finally revealed in the form of a new creation and not a new Church”.[47] Commenting paragraph 48 of Lumen gentium where it is said that “until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells (cf. 2 Pet. 3:13) the pilgrim Church, in its sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of the world which passes”, Hryniewicz underlines with insistence that “the sacramental and institutional dimension of the Church belongs to the ‘present age’ and it will pass away with actual human history fulfilling its mission. … The awareness of the passing and temporary character of the Church’s institutions is one of the most important elements of paschal ecclesiology. … It is not the Church which is the center and content of the announcement of Good News. The mission of the Church is to pass over herself and indicate the mystery of the Triune God, thus giving an eschatological orientation to all human history. … She is neither the purpose and goal of human history, nor is she an ever-existing reality in her actual form”.[48] Referring to 1 Cor 7:31, he says: "Not only is the form of this world passing away, so also is the form of the Church passing away”.[49]
His thinking as such does not take any importance away from the Church. Rather it seeks to put the Church's importance in the right perspective, by pointing to the deepest relation between Christ and the Church, rooted in the paschal mystery of Christ. He compares the earthly existence of the Church with that of the Son of God, as a passage to the resurrection. The same dynamism indwells His ecclesial Body. Hryniewicz explains this analogy: “The paschal existence of Jesus becomes the model of the entire existence of the Church also in her institutional and hierarchical dimension. And just as some people have a tendency to glorify a specific form of the Church, others prefer to criticize her and be scandalized. But in both cases there is a danger of insisting too much that this concrete and passing form of the Church should exist forever and never be replaced by the eternal Kingdom of the incomprehensible God”.[50]
We can see how a theocentrical and eschatological orientation of ecclesiology gives Hryniewicz real freedom. Such thinking also requires profound courage and renunciation — courage to become a pilgrim and renunciation of any kind of earthly glory. His freedom results in being able to think about the Church with hope, because in any case Deus semper maior.
b) Paschal way of the Church Hryniewicz shows a certain dynamic in the nature of the Church, extended as she is between coming from God and tending toward Him. This movement occurs not only in the physical or historical realm, but also and even more importantly, in the dimension of holiness: the Church comes from the Holy God and must become holy for the final union with the Most Holy One. But historical reality shows the Church to be rather far from this desired perfection. According to Hryniewicz, who in this part of his ecclesiological reflection refers mostly to the protestant theological tradition, there is an urgent need to re-read in a new light the ecclesiology of glory which for so long dominated Catholic teaching, deforming the truth as a consequence. About this eclesiologia gloriae he writes: “Ecclesiology of glory is central to an ecclesiology of eschatological fulfillment. Without the eschatological dimension, it too easily forgets about the pilgrim nature of the Church composed of people, about the provisional and passing form of her existence which is marked by sufferance, service and human guilt”.[51] He proposes to balance the ecclesiology of glory with an ecclesiology of the cross: “Confessing the holiness of the Church (which automatically directs the vision of the Church towards the vision of the glorious Church — Ecclesia gloriae), the pilgrim existence of the sinful Church should not be forgotten (which directs thoughts to the Cross — Ecclesia crucis)”.[52] He further adds: “The mystery of the Church is paradoxical because it unites in itself two extremes. It is both a historical and eschatological reality, on the one hand marked by the memory of Christ Crucified, and on the other hand, by the presence of Christ Risen. But the Church remains the Church of Resurrection only when she is able to embrace the full truth of the Crucified”.[53] It is clear that what Hryniewicz is really doing in his theological reflection about the Church is putting the whole question of the Church's holiness and her sinfulness in the paschal perspective. He thus rejects any kind of ecclesiastical and ecclesiological glorification and tiumphalism. If there is an aspect of criticism in his thinking about the Church, it is mostly directed against any kind of ecclesiology of glory. He reasons that such a vision and practice lead the Church to miss the purpose of her mission, and so not to reach the hearts of the people. (He is very aware of the actual problems facing the Church in the world today.) More importantly, however, an ecclesiology of glory causes the Church to overlook her paschal roots.
Seeking to understand the Church in light of the Paschal Mystery seems to be one of his most original insights into the whole question of the holiness and sinfulness of the Church. This approach makes it possible to look, worried but never despairing, with hope on the Church and the world. With a solid paschal faith as the interpretative key in his theology, he can freely look at both the empty glory and the sinfulness of the Church, and direct his vision toward a “Christic” Church. Uniting Christ, Eucharist and the Church in one perspective, he says: “The Cross of Christ becomes a stumbling block and absurdity for many (cf. 1 Cor 1:23). Likewise, the sinfulness and weakness of the Church for many will be again and again a scandal. Behind the human dimension, it is not very easy to see the presence of Christ and the activity of the Holy Spirit in her. Nevertheless, the Church preserves her sacramental and eucharistic character in spite of sin. The comparison with Eucharist is not coincidental. Faith is necessary in order to recognize the presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine. A very deep faith is also necessary in order to recognize face of the Risen One under the appearance of the Church”[54]. This paschal approach allows Hryniewicz to take into consideration all the different aspects of the Church with depth, freedom and hope.
Reinterpreting the four traditional marks of the Church in light of the Paschal Mystery, Hryniewicz portrays the actual existence of the Church as marked by the Paschal Mystery. Continuing his reflections about the sinful dimension of the Church, he goes on to show her dimension of kenosis. Just as in Christ, whose existence can be characterized by His kenosis as part of His paschal way of being, the same occurs in the Church. In her actual state, she is in the state of kenosis as a consequence and sign of the real union with her Lord, but on the other hand the Church has to be still more and more kenotic in order to be faithful to her paschal dimension which is the “Christic” one par excellence.
An ecclesiology and attitude of kenosis is, according to Hryniewicz, first of all an option that the Church has to constantly choose in order to be faithful to Christ who “did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at. Rather, he emptied himself" (Phil 2:6-7). Hence, he is able to say that the “kenosis of Christ gives the most proper mode of existence for the community of faithful, which is the Church. It is not an event related only to the Christ. It is not limited only to Him. By choosing kenosis as the way of salvation for humanity, God determined once and for all the way of acting for the Church. It is first of all the way of disinterested service, freely accepted weaknesses and resignation from earthly success”.[55] Once more here Hryniewicz’s vision of the Church is far from any triumphalism, which he considers a form of treason of her mission, infidelity to the humble Christ and consequently a loss. Transforming the words of M. Buber who said that “success is not among the names of God”, Hryniewicz underlines that “success is not the norm for the Church”.[56] Because of this he insists that “Church has to be defenseless if she wants correctly to accomplish her mission. The power of the Church cannot be based on a temporary position in society. The Church should not use her power to seek only human security”.[57]
His intuitions bear great insight into the changing role of the Church in today's society. He is writing from within the Roman Catholic Church which sometimes tends to take pride in a triumphalistic vision and attitude of the Church. However, with the changes in the modern world, the Church is actually becoming less “important” and numerous. Although some could be saddened or discouraged by such a diminished role of the Church, this theologian affirms that the Church has nothing to lose by becoming a poor, humble, humiliated and, humanly speaking, a meaningless community. Hryniewicz seems to be preparing the way for a new understanding and way of being Church. Aware of this “ecclesiological news” of our times, he writes: “It is not easy for the faithful to accept the vision of the Church as defenseless and disinterested from a human point of view. We desire, rather, a big, great and victorious Church. That kind of Church is more conformed to human imagination. Triumphalism is closer to the criteria of efficacy and power than to the difficult demands of the Gospel”.[58]
It follows that Hryniewicz develops the whole teaching about authority, hierarchy and primacy in the same perspective. They are to be marked by service, poverty and the courage to empty oneself. Becoming evermore a pilgrim in this world, the Church should always be ready to reject or sacrifice the treasures of the past, abandon them into the hands of God, and with this nakedness face the unknown future. Only by living this dimension of kenosis, as the prolongation of the paschal one, can the Church be a sign of hope for the world. This is how Hryniewicz can think about the Church with hope. Kenosis is part of the movement toward resurrection, which is the real basis of hope also for the Church.
c) Dialogical perichoresis of the Sister Churches For as much as Hryniewicz’s ecclesiology is formed by its paschal character, it is also marked by its ecumenical dimension. There is no doubt that for Hryniewiecz, to think about the Church is tantamount to thinking about the churches; and thinking with hope about the churches is for him to think about them in the prospective of unity. Reviewing these elements essential to his reflection, we can see how he is able to approach the dramatic situation of divided Churches with hope.
Hryniewicz is convinced that the unity of the Church is basically a gift of God which cannot be removed by any kind of human activity — even by sin, which only removes this unity from sight. He is adamantly convinced that where there is Christ, there is Church (one Church!). Hence, even if there are different churches, which he refers to as confessional differences, he emphasizes that there is only one Church of churches. He affirms the need to distinguish “the ontological unity of the Church from the empirical and visible one. The first one is the more fundamental. The second one is only derivative. The ontological and invisible unity of the Church has never been destroyed. The divided Church remains still the one Church of the Risen Christ, Lord of human history. But human community and brotherhood do not find their visible expression. Human weakness and sinfulness hide the full dimension of the divine-human mystery of the Church”.[59] Analyzing the history of Christianity, Hryniewicz underlines the fact that the Church on an “institutional and dogmatic level has never reached in history her full, complete and perfect unity”.[60] Of course, that does not mean such effort and the search for unity are not necessary, especially since division continues in a certain way the passion of Christ and creates scandal for the world. For this reason, he proposes the questions: How should the division of the churches really be considered? How are we to think about the churches of the Church; and how are we to act in front of this reality?
The one concept which often surfaces in his ecclesiological reflection is the patristic and conciliar (DE 14) concept of “Sister Churches”, affirming that “the expression ‘Sister Churches’ is something more than just terminology. It includes in itself the essential element of the Christian way of seeing the Church and living her mystery. … The ancient Christian idea of ‘Sister Churches’ indicated a logic of brotherhood in the context of ecclesiology. The question of the primacy of the bishop of Rome must also be considered in light of this logic. The particular authority of the Roman See does not elevate it over the other Churches. Rome still remains a Sister Church in front of all the others”.[61] Of course, Hryniewicz is writing from the point of view of his own, Roman-Catholic perspective and trying to place himself in the position of the other Churches, which are often not in agreement with the concept and practice of Roman primacy. But his point is also clear: if we are recognizing the concept of “Sister Churches” as an important one for ecclesiology, it also means that we — each of the churches — have to reject the vision that eventual unity will be made by the return of one church’s community to that of another, to the “Mother Church”. In this case, there are many mothers (it is not just the Roman Catholic Church that thinks of herself in front of the other churches as the “mother”), and it would no longer be possible to speak of “Sister Churches”, but about “Mother Churches”. It would make no sense, because there can only be one mother. But where is she? I think that it is possible to say that according to Hryniewicz, this One Church is hidden yet present, somewhere between the mystery of the ontological unity, rooted in the Trinity and in the origin of the Church, and the final, eschatological unity which encompasses all creation, much beyond actual human forces and ideas of unity. The Mother Church is, in fact, the Heavenly Jerusalem, the New Creation, the new heavens and earth from the Book of Revelation. Once again, a solid Trinitarian theology and a strong eschatological intuition enables this theologian to think about the Church with hope and courage.
But the reality here and now shows that the Church is divided, like a prolongation of Christ's agony. A scandal for the world, such division deprives each ecclesial community of the other's treasures, resulting in a poverty for each. He writes: “Each division makes us become poorer. The exchange of the gifts and charisms proper to each of the churches is broken. And without this reciprocal penetration of charisms (perichoresis ton charismaton) the life of the Church is deprived of its fullness of catholicity”.[62] The division between Christians is thus considered a sign that there is still much to be accomplished in the evangelization or christianization of the world. In the words of Hryniewicz: “Division is a blemish of the lack of christianization. Christianity is not easily rooted in man. History bears witness to the reality of christianization and de-christianization. This not only applies to people who were not deeply penetrated by the spirit of Christianity. It can also be said of each individual person who believes in Christ. We are destined to become more and more Christian”.[63] His assertion shows a logical connection: if division is a sign of the lack of Christianity in each Christian and Christian community, and evangelization includes the effort to combat division and build up unity, then an ecumenical attitude can be seen as an essential dimension of the Christian mission and evangelization process.
Hryniewicz underlines the necessity that all the churches turn to one another as a result of their ontological unity, their relation as Sister Churches, and their own impoverishment without each other. In his vision, each of the churches can both enrich and be enriched by the other. Not an easy task, as he says: “perhaps the most difficult challenge is for the churches to turn to one another. Something must change. The Bible refers to this process of changing as renunciation, kenosis; and it happens when someone rejects everything that does not contribute to unity. Many may perceive this as stupidity. But it is the foolishness of God Himself”.[64] Hryniewicz says in many places that the churches should reject their pride in front of the others; they should even be able to reject the treasures of their own particular traditions if they do not build unity. Moreover, in order to re-establish unity, the churches should try to study, understand, and appreciate more each other's traditions. Then, from this gained perspective, learn also how to see her own tradition. Hryniewicz calls this attitude a spirituality of wholeness, a dialogical perichoresis in which one church enriches another: “The spirituality of wholeness comes from the conviction that the one ‘catholic’ Church is bigger in her spiritual richness then each of the particular and confessional ones. … The spirituality of wholeness helps each church understand that it has to accept help from the others. Each needs to be completed and corrected in some of her own ways of acting and thinking. … This allows each to see its own confessional tradition from a certain distance, from outside; yet, on the other hand, it helps to see the common reference point of apostolic testimony. Without this kind of ecumenical capacity, the future is at risk. ‘The holy mystery of unity’ (DE 2) requires not only that the churches turn to Christ, but also that they turn one to another”.[65]
In his thinking about the unity of the churches, Hryniewicz also emphasizes that Christians should be more creative and imaginative in their search for unity. If the Spirit of God acts, if the churches are sisters, and if there is a constant dynamism of history which surpasses our way of thinking, why then is it impossible — he asks — to imagine a completely different structure of the whole Church. He writes: “We do not know what kind of form united Christianity would have. The concept of the Sister Churches expresses the great hope to reach a stable unity which is not threatened by the domination of one church over another or with one impoverishing the other”.[66] And in another place, referring to the reflections of Y. Congar and from his position as a theologian in the Catholic Church, he adds: “It is possible to imagine the structure of the Church once more united in the form of the very concrete collegiality of the existing patriarchates (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, Rumania, Serbia, Bulgaria) as well as those which should be created — for example, Canterbury, Africa, South America, India and others. Is that utopia? … Not, if we look on this problem from the perspective of ancient ecclesiology. Perhaps in the future, the Roman Church will have the courage to begin that kind of reform which requires such a different logic. Concretely, it means that autonomy has to be given to the local and regional churches and direct jurisdiction over these churches rejected, a jurisdiction which still dominates today. Doing so would show the way in which primacy is understood as service for unity. For now, however, it is rather only a dream of the future… Nothing indicates that it could happen soon. … On this point, we do not have enough courage and theological imagination”.[67]
Yet, even when human imagination and possibility in the churches fail, there is still God, whom Hryniewicz never loses from the horizon of his thinking. And this God is always greater (Deus semper maior) — also in the case of ecumenism and the divided churches. He writes with insistence: “God is infinitely greater than our divisions and our never-ending disputes. Divine ecumenism is always bigger than the human one. Human ecumenism on earth is the ecumenism of sinful human beings, which all the time lack love and generosity. But nevertheless, God calls everyone to His divine ecumenism. So, why should we not accept one another”.[68] It seems that Hryniewicz never gives up, never wants to enclose the open space of hope.
d) Thinking about the Church with hope The horizon of Hryniewicz’s reflection in all its dimensions is extremely open and (or thus!) courageously rooted in God and in hope. Far from being naive, he is deeply aware and concerned about the problems of the Church and the dramatic situation of the world. Yet, his hope — which he cannot understand until the end — seems almost to oblige him to remain open, free and trustful. He writes about the hope that he has: “I think that life with hope reaches the depth of the human being. And this hope is the basis of trust and confidence. Each person experiences hope from within. It is difficult to experience it from without, just accepting already-made formulas. Hope, in a certain way, is where we find our link with tomorrow, with the future, with God and with others. … The light of hope comes from certain inner enlightenment, and it cannot be understood in any other way”.[69] It is with this inner light of hope that Hryniewicz looks on the Church and thinks about her. Because of this inner “constraint” of hope, he prefers “to light one small candle than to curse the darkness”.[70]
It was this inner movement that commanded him to think about the Church with hope. From within “the hope of salvation for all” , he views the Church as participating in the universal salvation. The Church, together with the whole creation, tends toward God and his Kingdom. This historical and eternal future of the Church and the world remains “apophatic”, because: “We do not know where God finally leads us. This mystery can be penetrated only by faith and hope, and both of them reach farther than we can comprehend”.[71] On the other hand, Hryniewicz — especially thinking about the Church — tries to be concrete, because: “Her face of tomorrow is formed today. The Church, hence the Church of tomorrow, has to be closer to people. Has to be wiser … As a living organism composed of living people who have hope, the Church has to learn how to discern spiritually with wisdom, how to see deeper and farther in the light of her faith and hope; has to be open to continuous renewal and reform”.[72] It is in this perspective that his ecumenical desires and “dreams” return, as he writes: “Ecumenical hope finds its beautiful and deep expression in the formula ‘Sister Churches’. We need more of the spirit of unity and brotherhood between Christians. Then the wisdom of the many churches will become larger than that of the one based on the confessional wisdom of one particular church. We learn one from another. Together we can better face the problems that our Christianity faces today — in front of the challenges of nationalism, ideologies and the human aggressiveness. The purpose of Christianity is to bring the ferment of reconciliation, to call for a change of hearts and way of thinking. The churches must turn to one another. Without this, Christianity will not be able to give a good word of hope — a hope tested and made wise which could reveal the beautiful face of a unified Christianity. … Maybe the Christianity of tomorrow will become smaller and smaller, perhaps a Christianity of diaspora. It may be only then that we will try to find brotherhood among us”.[73] So, the horizon of Hryniewicz’s reflection is rather dramatic on the historic level and full of hope on the level of faith. One may be tempted to ask: But what if nothing happens? What if the division and antagonism among the churches remain? What if our Christianity remains tepid and without expression? What if our hope is deceived? His answer — based on old Irish proverb — is: “God is even more powerful than hope (Is treise Dia na dochas)”.[74] Of course, the proverb also applies in the case of the Church.
Conclusion
These pages were intended to introduce the reader to some dimensions of Wacław Hryniewicz's theology, especially concerning his way of approaching the mystery of the Church. His thoughts are insightful, courageous and non-conformist. Many places in his writings reveal strong inspirations from Orthodox theology, though his reflections are not limited to this source. He seems to be a theologian convinced of his mission and service in the Church — a mission deeply moved by his experience of hope and directed in its main dimension to the unity of Christian churches. He is able to see the world, the Church of the churches and their unity in the light of hope only because he sees them in the horizon of God and in the perspective of the paschal mystery of Christ. Is he right? Is his vision of the Church as seen through his very original theology of hope true? He is searching, and, as W. de Pater points out, the “theologian is a detective who proves which theory corresponds the best to the facts”.[75] Hryniewicz is aware that talking about God and the Church “is not directed toward demonstration but rather, seeks to ‘open eyes’ and indicate the Mystery which — even if not all the time seen — is placed in the very center of human existence”.[76] In a certain way, the same inner desire to live and to know God, serving Him and His Church, has likewise directed G. Lafont's theological search, a search also marked by hope and courageous imagination.
P.S. Some texts of Hryniewicz in english are published in the book The Challenge of Our Hope: Christian Faith in Dialogue (link)
Abbreviations:
NPC – Nasza Pascha z Chrystusem, Lublin 1987.
BNN – Bóg naszej nadziei, Opole 1989.
NZW – Nadzieja zbawienia dla wszystkich, Warszawa 1990.
PC – Pascha Chrystusa w dziejach człowieka i wszechświata, Lublin 1991.
KS – Kościoły Siostrzane. Dialog katolicko-prawosławny, Warszawa 1993.
DNZ – Dramat nadziei zbawienia, Warszawa 1996.
PN – Pedagogia nadziei, Warszawa 1997.
HD – Hermeneutyka w dialogu, Opole 1998.
NDP- Na drogach pojednania, Warszawa 1998.
[1] Cf. G. Tangorra, Credere dopo Auschwitz?, Edizioni San Lorenzo, Reggio Emilia 1996.
[2] Some of the best studies regarding the whole question of anthropology in a totalitarian stystem — unfortunately not translated — were done by the Polish philosopher, J. Tischner, in his: Etyka solidarności oraz Homo sovieticus, Znak, Kraków 1992; Świat ludzkiej nadziei, Znak, Kraków 1992; Myślenie według wartości, Znak, Kraków 1993; Nieszczęsny dar wolności, Znak, Kraków 1993; W karainie schorowanej wyobraźni, Znak, Kraków 1997; Filozofia dramatu, Znak, Kraków 1998; Spór o istnienie człowieka, Znak, Kraków 1998.
[3] In this context, several works written in Poland should be mentioned: W. Granat, Osoba ludzka. Próba definicji, Sandomierz 1961; Idem, Personalizm chrześcijański. Teologia osoby ludzkiej, Poznań 1985; K. Wojtyla, Osoba i czyn, Kraków 1969.
[4] Cf. J. S. Gajek, “Mille anni dell’incontro della tradizione bizantina con la tradizione latina nella cultura religiosa polacca”, in A. E. N. Tachiaos (ed.), The Legacy of Saints Cyril and Methodius to Kiev and Moscow, Hellenistic Assitiation for Slavic Studies, Tessaloniki 1992, 185-193.
[5] Cf. W. Hryniewicz, „Doctor Humanus. Teologiczne horyzonty ks. Profesora Wincentego Granata (1900-1979)”, Znak 32 (1980) 586-602; Idem, „Teolog osoby ludzkiej. Refleksje nad teologicznym dziełem ks. prof. Wincentego Granata”, Ateneum Kapłańskie 72 (1980) n. 95, 424-433.
[6] Cf. W. Hryniewicz, “Wprowadzenie do teologii ks. Jerzego Klingera”, in: Jerzy Klinger, O istocie Prawosławia, Pax, Warszawa 1983, 5-27.
[7] Cf. D. Salachas, Dialogo teologico ufficiale tra la Chiesa Cattolico-Romana e Ortodossa, Quaderni di O Odigos, Bari 1994.
[8] Cf. W. Hryniewicz, Nauka współczesnych teologów katolickich o roli zbawczej Zmartwychwstania Chrystusa, Lublin 1966 (mps BKUL).
[9] Cf. Idem, Rola Tradycji w interpretacji teologicznej. Analiza współczesnych poglądów dogmatyczno-ekumenicznych, Lublin 1976.
[10] Cf. Idem, Chrystus nasza Pascha, t. 1, Lublin 1987; Nasza pascha z Chrystusem, t. 2, Lublin 1987; Pascha Chrystusa w dziejach człowieka i wszechświata, t. 3, Lublin 1991.
[11] Cf. Idem, Staroruska teologia paschalna w świetle pism św. Cyryla Turowskiego, Warszawa 1993
[12] Cf. Idem, Chrystus zmartwychwstał. Motywy paschalne w pismach metropolity Iłariona (XI w.), Warszawa 1995.
[13] Cf. Idem, Nadzieja zbawienia dla wszystkich. Od eschatologii lęku do eschatologii nadziei, Warszawa 1990; Dramat nadziei zbawienia. Medytacje eschatologiczne, Warszawa 1996; Pedagogia nadziei. Medytacje o Bogu, Kościele i ekumenii, Warszawa 1997; Na drodze pojednania. Medytacje ekumeniczne, Warszawa 1998.
[14] Cf. Idem, Kościoły siostrzane. Dialog katolicko-prawosławny 1980 – 1991, Warszawa 1993; Przeszłość zostawić Bogu. Unia i uniatyzm w perspektywie ekumenicznej, Opole 1995.
[15] Cf. Idem, Bóg naszej nadziei. Szkice teologiczno-ekumeniczne, t. 1, Opole 1989; Hermeneutyka w dialogu. Szkice teologiczno-ekumeniczne, t. 2, Opole 1998.
[16] Some of them have been published in other languages: “La Tradition comme principe d'unité de l'enseignement théologique”, Seminarium 23 (1971) 372-394; “ Die ekklesiale Rezeption in der Sicht der orthodoxen Theologie”, ThG 65 (1975) 250-266; “ The Centrality of Christ in Orthodox Theology”, Collectanea Theologica 46: (1976) 153-168; “Der pneumatologische Aspekt der Kirche aus orthodoxer Sicht”, Catholica [Paderborn] 31 (1977) n. 2, 122-150; “La hiérarchie des vérités. Implications oecuméniques d'une idée chrétienne”, Irénikon 51 (1978) n. 4, 470-491; Hiérarchie des vérités et dialogue oecuménique, ZNKUL 21 (1978) 58-70; “Un inno all'uomo redento. Riflessioni sulla novità della 'Redemptor hominis'”, CSEO-Documentazione 14 (1980) n. 146, 11-24; “Le mystére de la divino-humanité. Signification herméneutique d'une notion de l'anthropologie orthodoxe”, Istina 25 (1980) 350-364; “Oriente e Occidente all'incontro. Mille anni dopo”, CSEO-Documentazione 15 (1981) n. 159,107-119 and 141; “Die Vertrautheit des Menschen mit dem Heiligen Geist (Oikeíosis Pneúmatos) nach Basilius dem Grossen” in: Basilius, Heiliger der Einen Kirche. Regensburger Ökumenisches Symposion 1979, (red. A. Rauch), P. Imhof. Verlagsgesellschaft Gerhard Kaffke mbH, München 1981, 98-108; “Ökumenische Rezeption und konfessionelle Identität”, Una Sancta 36 (1981) 116-131; “Le Dieu souffrant? Réflexions sur la notion chrétienne de Dieu”, Eglise et théologie 12 (1981) 333-356; “La souffrance de Dieu. Quelques réflexions préliminaires”, Collectanea Theologica 51 (1981) 115-135; “La riforma di Lutero e la Chiesa ortodossa. Riflessioni su un dialogo mancato”, Il Nuovo Areopago 2 (1983) n. 4, 130-150; “Il mistero della speranza. Dimensioni escatologische della speranza cristiana alla luce della tradizione orientale”, Il Nuovo Areopago 4 (1985) n. 3, 145-165; n. 4, 114-134; “Theologischer Dialog und ökumenische Hoffnung”, Ostkirchliche Studien 35 (1986) 17-29; “Metropolitan Stylianos Harkianakis: Bishop and Theologian in the Service of Reconciling the Churches”, Ostkirchliche Studien 35 (1986) 183-192; “Der Dialog ist ein heiliges Werk. Überlegungen nach der Session von Bari”, Ostkirchliche Studien 35 (1986) 319-337; “Trinitarisches Kirchenverständnis und Priestertum. Einige Überlegungen zum katholisch-orthodoxen Dialog” in: Das Priester tum in der Einen Kirche. Diakonat, Presbyterat und Episkopat. Regensburger Ökumenisches Symposion 1985, Hrsg. von A. Rauch und P.Imhof., Aschaffenburg 1987, 236-255; “Martin Luther und die Orthodoxie. Ökumenische Erwägungen”, Ostkirchliche Studien 36 (1987) 154-177; “Der Dialog der Schwesterkirchen. Nach dem wiederholten Treffen der Katholisch-Orthodoxen Kommission in Bari”, Ostkirchliche Studien 36 (1987) 311-326; “Praktische Aufgaben einer ökumenischen Reich-Gottes-Theologie”, Signalia. Rundbrief der Societas Oecumenica, 1988, n. 6, 1-3; “Uusi Valamo 1988. Nach dem katholisch-orthodoxen Treffen in Finnland”, Ostkirchliche Studien 37 (1988) 315-327; “Dialog als Vertrauenssache. Überlegungen zum katholisch-orthodoxen Dialog”, Der christliche Osten 43 (1988) 255-268; “Österliche Motive in den Schriften des hl. Kyrill von Turow”, in: Tausend Jahre zwischen Wolga und Rhein. Internationales Symposion zum Millennium der Taufe der Rus...Regensburg 21-26 April 1987, München-Zürich 1988, 304-323; “Le dialogue orthodoxe-catholique”, Unité chrétienne (1990) n. 97-98, 89-112; “’Christus hat gesiegt’. Das Gedächtnis der Taufe der Rus' in den Schriften des Metropoliten Ilarion und des hl. Kirill von Turov, Ostkirchliche Studien 39 (1990) 22-39; “Theologischer Dialog und ökumenische Hoffnung”, in: Im Dialog der Wahrheit (Pro Oriente Bd.XII), Innsbruck-Wien 1990, 139-149; “Uusi Valamo 1988. Nach dem katholisch-orthodoxen Treffen in Finnland”, in: Im Dialog der Wahrheit, Innsbruck-Wien 1990, 194-204; “Tareas practicas para una teologia ecumenica del Reino de Dios. Tesis”, Dialogo ecumenico 25 (1990) n. 82-83 and456-458; “Der ‘Uniatismus’ im katholisch-orthodoxen Dialog, Ostkirchliche Studien 39 (1990) 319-335; “The Florentine Union: Reception and Rejection. Some Reflections on Unionist Tendencies among Ruthenians”, in: Christian Unity. The Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438/39-1989, (ed. G. Alberigo), Leuven 1991, 521-554; “Der ‘Uniatismus’ und die Zukunft des katholisch-orthodoxen Dialogs”, Ostkirchliche Studien 40 (1991) 210-221; “Hoffnung, den Dialog zu retten. Nach der Session des katholisch-orthodoxen Koordinationskomitees in Ariccia”, Ostkirchliche Studien 40 (1991) 306-323; “Ecumenical lessons from the past: soteriological exclusivism at the basis of uniatism”, in: Kirchen im Kontext unterschiedlicher Kulturen. Auf dem Weg ins dritte Jahrtausend. Hrsg. von K.Ch. Felmy u.a. - Aleksandr Meñ in memoriam (1935-1990), Göttingen 1991,.521-533; “Gnade und Wahrheit in der Menschheitsgeschichte. Die geschichtstheologische Sicht in den Schriften des Metropoliten Ilarion”, Ostkirchliche Studien 41 (1992) 301-321; “Katholiken und Orthodoxe in den östlichen Ländern. Probleme, Erfahrungen und Chancen”, Lebendiges Zeugnis 48 (1993) n. 2, 101-109; “Unio sine destructione. Ein Unionsdokument des Metropoliten Petr Mogila (1644/45)”, Ostkirchliche Studien 42 (1993) 172-187; “Uniatismus - einst und jetzt. Reflexionen zum Dokument von Balamand (1993)”, Ostkirchliche Studien 43 (1994) 328-339; “Labour and Hope: Fifteen Years of catholic-Orthodox Dialogue”, St. Vladimir’s Theological Queartely 39 (1995) n. 4, 339-360; “Reconsiliation and Ecclesiology of Sister Churches”, Eastern Churches Journal 2 (1995) n. 3, 55-72; “Orthodoxy and the Union of Brest. The Ecumenical Significance of the Memorial of Metropolitan Peter (Mohyla) to Pope Urban VIII (1644), Eastern Churches Journal 3 (1996) n. 7, 51-66; “Auf dem Weg zur Zweiten Europäischen Ökumenischen Versammlung. Versöhnung und die Ekklesiologie der Schwesterkirchen”, Der Christliche Osten 51 (1996) 13-23; “Outliving the Schism”, Eastern Churches Journal 3 (1996) n. 2, 43-52; “Hoffnung der Heiligen. Das Zeugnis Isaaks des Syrers”, Ostkirchliche Studien 45 (1996) 21-41; “The ‘Union’ of Brest and the Ecclesiology of Sister Churches”, Eastern Churches Journal 4 (1997) n. 1, 107-124; “Can Non-Belivers Be Redeemed? Soteriological Universalism”, Dialogue and Universalism 8 (1998) n. 1-2, 61-74; “Identité et tolérance dans une perspective théologico-oecuménique”, in J. Kłoczowski, S. Łukasiewicz (ed.), Tożsamość, odmienność, tolerancja a kultura pokoju, Lublin 1998, 318-331; „Versöhung im trinitarischen Glaunen? Zur römischen Klarstellung über den Ausgang del Heiligen Geistes”, in A. Stirnemann, G. Wilflinger (ed.), Vom Heiligen Geist. Der gemeinsame trinitarische Glaube und das Problem des Filioque (Pro oriente, Bd. XXI), Innsbruck-Wien 1998, 53-71; see also “Aufgaben einer ökumenischen Theologie des Reiches Gottes. Thesen von Waclaw Hryniewicz”, Una Sancta 44 (1989) 56-58.
[17] BNN 25 (all translations by Maciej Bielawski).
[18] BNN 25.
[19] HD 54.
[20] HD 51.
[21] NZW 168.
[22] NZW 167.
[23] PC 493.
[24] NDP 60.
[25] NDP 62.
[26] NDP 64.
[27] NDP 64.
[28] BNN 29.
[29] BNN 30.
[30] HD 30.
[31] HD 27.
[32] HD 32-33.
[33] PN 141.
[34] PN 90.
[35] PN 92.
[36] PN 87.
[37] PN 87.
[38] NDP 66.
[39] HD 93.
[40] PN 84.
[41] PN 87.
[42] NPC 51 - 283.
[43] Cf. NPC 61-62.
[44] NPC 61.
[45] NPC 61.
[46] NPC 61.
[47] NPC 172-173.
[48] NPC 173-174.
[49] NPC 173.
[50] NPC 173.
[51] NPC 132.
[52] NPC 133.
[53] NPC 133.
[54] NPC 144.
[55] PN 61.
[56] PN 66.
[57] PN 67.
[58] PN 69.
[59] PN 158.
[60] PN 159.
[61] KS 341.
[62] KS 350.
[63] PN 128.
[64] PN 157.
[65] KS 353-355.
[66] KS 343.
[67] NPJ 190.
[68] HD 286.
[69] PN 182.
[70] PN 174.
[71] PN 183.
[72] PN 185-186.
[73] PN 186.
[74] DNZ 225.
[75] BNN 31.
[76] BNN 31.
© Maciej Bielawski (1999)
The post-war period in Poland was marked by a forced communist regime with its totalitarian politics and materialistic ideology. Humanists, philosophers, and theologians developed some specific intellectual attitudes in response. The result: the monologue society proposed by the totalitarian regime was faced with a dimension of “dialogue”;[2] and instead of a purely materialistic anthropology, special attention was given to the person.[3]
Poland must also be considered as a country between Christian East and West, between Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.[4] For the theologian, this situation presents a challenging question of unity and diversity of Christian Churches (Protestants, Orthodox and Catholic) in a context of somewhat “specifically” Polish catholicism. The situation reflects also that of the post-conciliar tension between an “open” and “closed” Church. The theology of Hryniewicz likewise moves in a similar context, influenced by the same tension.
In order to complete the image of the various influences on the theological formation of Hryniewicz, there are several that require specific mention. It was Wincent Granat (1900-1979), a great dogmatic theologian whose speculative theological system incorporated personalistic dimensions and comparative studies of Christian traditions, who directed Hryniewicz to study Eastern and Orthodox theology.[5] Another person of influence was the Polish, Orthodox priest and theologian, Jerzy Klinger.[6] Hryniewicz's role of teaching and directing the chair of the Catholic University of Lublin dedicated to ecumenical and comparative theology studies continues to shape his own thoughts. In addition, his involvement in many ecumenical conferences and meetings — for many years (from 1980) a member of the Catholic-Orthodox theological commission — rendered his theology open and ecumenical.[7]
Let us now briefly mention the main theological works of Hryniewicz (all written in Polish and not translated). In 1966, at the Catholic University of Lublin, he presented his dissertation, The Teaching of Contemporary Catholic Theologians about the Soteriological Role of the Resurrection of Christ.[8] Ten years later, he published a study entitled Tradition in the Theological Interpretation. Analysis of Contemporary Dogmatic and Ecumenical Theories.[9] These two books, written to fulfill university requirements, enabled our theologian to look at the whole theological tradition while centering his attention on the Resurrection. From then on, two elements — hermeneutics and dogmatics — would be strictly related in his theological reflections. Between 1987 and 1991, Hryniewicz published his monumental work, a Paschal trilogy (Christ is our Passover, 1987; Our Passover with Christ, 1987; The Passover of Christ in the History of Man and the Universe, 1991).[10] One of the most interesting and best theological syntheses in the post conciliar period, the trilogy — as the titles suggest — looks to the Paschal event as interpretative key in the systematic exposition of all Christian doctrine.
Accompanying his speculative work, Hryniewicz also developed his studies of sources by publishing an analytic study of Bishop Cyril of Turov Paschal homilies (An Old Russian Paschal Theology, 1993)[11] and a critical edition, translation and theological study on writings of Metropolitan Ilarion (Christ is Risen, 1995),[12] a very interesting, twelfth century, Ruthenian bishop. Both of this authors are still relatively unknown.
Hryniewicz is also known for his theology of hope, developed thus far in four volumes (The Hope of Salvation for All. From an Eschatology of Fear to an Eschatology of Hope, 1990; The Drama of Salvation for All, 1996; Pedagogy of Hope. Meditation about God, Church and Ecumenism, 1997; On the Way of Reconciliation. Ecumenical Meditations, 1998).[13] A general movement can be identified in these works as the author moves slowly from existential and individual dimensions of hope in the eschatological perspective to the ecclesiastical and ecumenical ones. He thus shows hope to be personal, "for me", only in as much as it is for all of us, "together".
Other ecclesiological and ecumenical reflections — with respect to Orthodox-Catholic dialogue — were developed by Hryniewicz in his two books: Sister Churches (1993) and Leave the Past to God. Union and Uniatism in the Ecumenical Perspective (1995).[14] Two volumes are comprised of various articles in which he addresses theological methods, tradition, the centrality of Christ’s Pascha, and hope, commenting his main works in the form of “glossa” (God of Our Hope, 1989; and Hermeneutic in Dialogue, 1998).[15]
As seen thus far, the work of this theologian is vast and rich. In addition to the above-mentioned books, he has published a large number of articles in various reviews.[16] It is too premature to attempt a synthesis since he continues to write. Nonetheless, this short bio- and bibliographical overview does offer the reader a general idea of his theology. In the pages that remain, we will explore some aspects of his ecclesiology, seen especially in light of his theology of hope.
2. Theological method — a way of thinking
Since the way of thinking specifically about the Church is rooted in the more general methods of thinking in theology, we can start by identifying several aspects which are characteristic for Wacław Hryniewicz and his ecclesiology. Four dimensions illustrate his approach.
a) Apophatic dynamism
Hryniewicz has a special affinity for the apophatic theology of the Fathers and of modern theologians, both Eastern and Western, which emphasizes the greatness of the mystery of God and the inadequacy of the human mind to reach Him. In his own words, “This way of thinking and talking about God is characterized first of all by the conviction that the deepest reality of God cannot be recognized and that it passes over all human concepts. God is the 'hidden One' unknown, mysterious and yet very close”.[17] However, as such, “knowing God” (or rather, un-knowing God) does not favor a skeptical attitude. Instead, it leads man to transcend concepts, speculations and turns to antinomy, paradox, experience and contemplation. Only then can eventual knowledge, understanding or talking about God result. The apophatic theology does not want to say that “man is by nature unable to know God, but rather point out the conviction that His deepest essence is transcendental”.[18] Hryniewicz finds a certain fascination standing before the mystery of God and trying to contemplate and express it. This fascination sometimes causes him to use poetic or imaginative language and fashions his understanding of the theologian's mission. For example, referring to John Chrysostom homilies De incomprehensibilitate Dei, he writes that “The theologian is like a man who walking in the fog reaches the high and steep edge of the ocean, feeling the unending horizon just beyond the edge which impregnates him with delight and fear”.[19]
Hryniewicz’s stance toward apophatic theology seems to develop over time. His earlier writings speak of apophaticism, though appreciated by him, as just one of the ways of “doing theology”, a complementary one among others. In his later and recent works, he privileges apophatism all the more as embracing all theological attitudes, considering it fundamental as a basis: “Apophatic theology is neither only a specific branch of theology nor a methodological introduction to it which considers the incomprehensibility of God. It is rather a dimension and method of all theological ways of thinking”.[20]
Yet this “hidden God” acts, interacting with man and man with Him. Hryniewicz sees all of human history and existence as having this apophatic God on the horizon or as its foundation. Such a God, and hence His history, are thus seen as not only unknown but also amazingly beyond our thoughts and expectations. The Resurrection — so central for Hryniewicz — initiated a dynamism and movement in history which is also “apophatic”. Rather God's apophaticism marks human and world history, opening it through “mirabilia Dei”, signs of the wonderful activity of a loving God who projects all creation toward its eschatological dimension. He writes about it with a characteristic theocentric conviction: “Deus semper maior. The eschatological dimension of salvation cannot be known by people living on this earth. Salus semper maior. If human love hides in itself an uncommon mystery of gift, the saving love of God is for everyone even more ineffably astonishing. Our God is an astonishing God”.[21] “Historic apophaticism” caused by a certain eschatological and theocentric primacy is typical for Hryniewicz and also determines his ecclesiology and overall theological attitude. His vision of Church cannot be separated from it, because “Our earthly theology, even very courageous, has to be limited by this eschatological apophatism”.[22]
b) Paschal way of the human mind
In his "Paschal trilogy", which seeks to present the “whole” Christian vision in light of the Paschal Mystery, Hryniewicz concludes that: “the Paschal perspective is the single dimension of all Christian theology – it is the basic sensibility which indicates what really is placed in the center of our faith, resolving all else. The paschal theology teaches a concentric way of thinking which constantly comes back to this essential truth and in its light penetrates the depth of the others questions”.[23] Hence it is clear that the Paschal dynamism, a movement from life through death to resurrection, is a basic movement which organized Hryniewicz's whole way of thinking and marked all of his theology.
This dynamism also applies to the human mind, and thus to theology, too. This is one of Hryniewicz’s most original insights. Taking inspiration mostly from the Byzantine and Slavic tradition, he talks about a “Pascha noeton, Pascha slovesnaja” which is “a specific way of the cross of the human mind which passes from death to spiritual resurrection”.[24] He describes the first stage in this movement as “positive”, in which the human mind is inspired by creation, Holy Scripture and tradition, reaching the level of Divine Wisdom (sophia). However, this is only the beginning stage, as it opens the way to the "negative" phase: “The real paschal experience of apophatic knowledge initiates when the human mind (united with heart) begins to have a foreboding of the insufficiency of the positive way”.[25] With this inner battle the human mind passes beyond images, ideas and logic to enter a period of real transformation (metanoia). An initial moment of “cross” gives way to silence and waiting: “It is necessary to suspend imagination and desire to see the truth. It is the silence of the crucified, denuded and emptied intellect — it is the stage of sacrifice which reaches the depths of the 'intellectual heart', the spiritual center of the whole person”.[26] Finally, the stage of resurrection is reached in “the meeting with God". Causing the human mind to spiritually rise up, this encounter creates an inner Passover which gives the experience of Divine light and its transforming presence”.[27] This final stage initiates the entire person to everlasting new life, an unending movement with the realm of God (epectasis). Yet, at the same time, it is constantly repeated, since it is brought "down" to a level of confrontation by the reality of creation and history and the message of Scripture and tradition.
With a paschal movement of the mind (pascha noeton), such an essential aspect of Hryniewicz's theological methodology, the entire person tends by its desire of God to the dimension of infinity. The way is begun by “doing theology”, but during the process of theological perception on a spiritual level, it is discovered that in order to reach the desired goal, one has to “die”. By “dying”, the mind is brought beyond itself and touches upon the reality of God. Completely transformed by this encounter, the mind returns to reality only to see it in a different light, recognizing all reality in what we call hope. The human mind can have this experience precisely because it all happened in Christ. I will eventually show how this "paschal way of the human mind" is key in Hryniewicz's approach to Church, as is thinking with hope.
c) Dialogical perichoresis
If the apophatic priority and the paschal dimension are the basis of all theology, it follows that the mystery of God can be and really is expressed by a multiplicity of traditions, systems and models. Hryniewicz explains that “Theologians today realize still more and more that it is impossible to talk about God using only one sentence, because someone immediately has to add more sentences which are complementary to the first one and which explain it better. This is the only way to be ‘honest in front of God’”.[28] Along the lines of sentences or systems, he uses the idea of “models”: “talking about God should be based on many models, united among themselves as much as possible. Because each of the models shows its real value in reciprocal relation. … Each of the models can be enriched and completed by being confronted with the others”.[29]
Such a conviction results in openness to other people and traditions, in an attitude of dialogue. In theology, it means the necessity to listen to others. According to Hryniewicz, anyone who wants to know and understand God and the mysteries He has intended for us must turn to others: to listen, to learn, and to appreciate the diversity which reveals the God who is completely Other. Inspired by M. Buber and E. Lévinas, Hryniewicz affirms the necessity today to rediscover “the priority of turning to the Other before speculating with concepts, of becoming an open person not dominated by 'self', and of modestly accepting the Other before the pride of one's own reason. This ethical dimension has priority over the ontological one”.[30] Continuing his reflection, he writes about the “Epiphany of Otherness”[31] which requires an attitude of attention and listening to the Other: person; tradition; and finally, God. In fact, he shows that the apophatism of God and apophatism of man are actually complementary and mutually revealing. He writes: “The extension of the mystery of the 'hidden God' (Is 45,15) is the mystery of the 'hidden man' whose value lies in his capacity to love others, in the depth of his heart open for others. In the earliest time of Christianity, the author of the first Letter of Peter was writing about this heart of man, hidden in the depth of his spirit and his own humanity. He used an expression very difficult to translate: ho kryptos tes kardias anthropos, ‘a hidden man of heart’ (1 Pt 3,4). These words contain, in fact, the essence of apophatic anthropology”.[32]
Hryniewicz’s thinking shows there to be a link between the mystery of God and the mystery of man, reaching the Truth by reaching God and man. The one and hidden mystery of God, so essential for man, a mystery which is so “far” and so “close”, a mystery never reached and never drawn out, is in a certain way dispersed and hidden in Others. Each expresses this mystery partially, and all together reflect and penetrate it with reciprocity and complementarity. In order to explain this essential dimension of being and doing theology, Hryniewicz refers to the ancient, traditional concept of “perichoresis”, applying it in a new and fruitful way: “The thinking which takes into consideration the entire Christian tradition as a source of inspiration can be called a thinking 'according to the whole (kat’holon), an integrative thinking. This way of thinking is characterized by the tendency to unite the lasting values which are present and alive in particular confessional traditions. It is a thinking animated by the principle of reciprocal penetration of consciousness (perichoresis). This principle was formed in ancient Christian teaching about the Holy Trinity, but it should also be used in the life and thinking of the Church as a community of human persons”.[33]
The profound bond between God and man, as well as the one between human persons, are in some way for Hryniewicz links creating the context or environment in which his theology is made. On the one hand, the incomprehensibility of God and, on the other, the dialogical toward other men and their traditions, all seen in the light of the paschal dimension, are an important basis for his way of thinking about the Church.
d) Doxological dimension of dogma
Following the convictions of many contemporary theologians, Hryniewicz underlines the historical and somewhat “limited” dimension of dogmatic formulas. He writes, for example: “Dogma has a function of service to the testimony of Scripture. It is an open horizon in understanding the Scripture in the community of the faithful, and it is also a result of the Church's historical experience of trying to listen to the testimony of Scripture. Dogma directs the faith and hope of the Church to the reality that is bigger than any human approach or way of understanding divine truth. Hence, though on the one hand, dogma is decisive; on the other hand, it still has a provisional nature, as is everything that is earthly and not yet finally complete”.[34] In another place, he emphasizes the primacy of faith over dogmatic formulas, because “dogmas are only interpretations which should help the faith, but which were made in one precise moment of history and in a specific cultural context. The faith has to be one and unique for ever, because it is in its essence the hopeful trust in God. But the interpretations of it could be different, and the unity does not exclude diversity”.[35]
Because “the language of dogmatic formulas is provisional and metaphoric”[36] there is a paradox of power, greatness and weakness in them. They try to express something inexpressible. Hryniewicz writes: “The unusual dimension of the language of dogma is in its having to transmit a truth which is bigger and, from a religious point of view, more important than what the human language can express”.[37] In his understanding, dogma points to the truth but does not exhaust it. Dogma “is in a certain way the sign which indicates the way towards the truth, but on the other hand it is also a ‘narrow gate’ (Mt 7,13)”.[38] He refers to the teaching of P. Evdokimov to describe dogma as “an icon of truth made from words”.[39]
Understood in this perspective, all doctrine is considered open, not only for “new” interpretations but open to God Himself. The human mind, in fact, faces a paradox in dogmatic formulas, a certain “cross” as described above, as it learns the limitations and the unfeasibility of embracing God with human forms of expression. However, that would only be the negative function of dogma. There is also a positive one as dogma allows the mind to enter the dimension that it indicates. Purified, the mind then discovers its capacity to praise and glorify God. In fact, the term “ortho-doxy”, used so often in reference to doctrine and dogma, implies “the right way to praise”. Hence, the essential function of dogma is to praise God, to give Him glory. Hryniewicz calls this function “the doxological dimension of dogma”.
Referring to patristic concepts — seen, of course, in light of his own interpretations — he writes that in antiquity, “The dogmatic formulas were understood first of all as a doxological confessions of faith and were integrative parts of liturgy. Dogma was not understood as a static doctrinal formula, but first and foremost as an act of worship and thanksgiving for His saving work. The dogma was something much greater than the content pronounced in formula. It was also clear that it was reaching beyond the current and actual capacity to express it in a certain formula”.[40] Hryniewicz adamantly underlines that the ancient Church “realized early on that loyalty toward conciliar formulas consists in something more than a simple repetition of once established formulas. The Church was aware that dogma is not only being rooted in the past but also being open for the future”.[41]
It does not seem necessary to further elaborate this part of the presentation, interesting and important though it may be. The doxological dimension of dogma is one of the aspects deeply related to the apophatic, dialogical and paschal dimensions of Hryniewicz’s way of thinking. The whole system of his theology provides a solid basis for an open, dynamic and hopeful vision also of the Church, as we shall see on the following pages.
3. Thinking about Church
It cannot be said that ecclesiology is the main discipline elaborated by Hryniewicz in his theology. He is not an “ecclesiologist”, and he did not write any book exclusively dedicated to the topic of Church. Nonetheless, Church is the object of many of his reflections throughout his works. The second volume of his paschal trilogy contains a rather complete and synthetic presentation of his ecclesiology.[42] It was actually in this last decade that he developed various aspects and intuitions about the Church. His increasing ecclesiological interest in the last decade can be explained by his participation in ecumenical dialogues, which exposed him to questions that he wanted both to explore and address. Another reason can be found in the crisis in the life of the Church and in ecclesiology, which called him as a theologian to think and talk about the Church. Hryniewicz himself, makes it clear that he understands himself to be a theologian of the Church after the Second Vatican Council, insisting that the Church not only continue the way initiated by the Council but actually develop it and courageously proceed to face the future. Thus, his reflections about Church have a paschal background, while at the same time, they embrace a large number of topics concerning the ecumenical question of the unity of the Churches, as seen in the general perspective of an “open Church”.
It is not the purpose of this study to present a complete study of Hryniewicz’s ecclesiology. Rather, it aims to underline some of the more characteristic aspects of his ecclesiology, which are actually in the perspective of his theology of hope. In the interest of clarity, the following four sub-titles correspond to the previous sub-chapters explaining Hryniewicz’s way of thinking.
a) Church from and for God — ecclesiological apophatism and theocentrism Discussing the origin of the Church in order to understand her nature and mission, Hryniewicz emphasizes her Trinitarian roots. The Church is Corpus Trium.[43] This fact has some very important consequences both in the nature and understanding of the Church. The most important is the primacy of God “over” the Church, or as he prefers to express it: “God is bigger than the Church”.[44] In another place, he also writes that the Church “participates in the mystery of the Triune God to Whom belongs all priority”.[45] Thus, thewhole mission of the Church is caused by the Trinity, who revealed Its loving nature most perfectly in the Paschal Mystery. Hence, “it is not the Church which disposes of the Paschal Mystery of Christ. This mystery is bigger than the Church, which has only to serve it”.[46]
The extremely theocentric attitude of Hryniewicz in his thinking about the Church is of the same nature as his highly apophatic approach toward theology. To say that God is always greater — Deus semper maior -- not only means that everything in the Church (authority, discipline, sacraments, tradition, etc.) comes from and depends on Him, but also that nothing really corresponds perfectly to His perfection. In front of Him, everything in the Church is relative, even the Church, herself. Since all things are related to God, they can receive different forms, expressions and structures accordingly. In the Church — as in the case of dogma — the apophatic rule is essential: everything serves only to indicate, and imperfectly at that, God Himself. The Church is seen as a “small point” projecting toward the immense horizon of the infinite and mysterious Trinity. The Church is in a certain way hidden in God. In fact, this theocentrism gives Hryniewicz great freedom and courage in his being in and thinking about Church. It is also the basis of his hope. According to his understanding, God's gift of Self to all of creation finds its answer in the attitude of trusting faith and hope. The Church finds her importance in this space of hope. The hope is God Himself while the Church is along the way to that hope. As can be seen, Hryniewicz's theology is far away from any kind of eccelsio-centrism.
His theocentric approach to Church is not only because she came from God, but also because she has God Himself as her destination. Existing not only from but also for God, the Church is correctly understood when seen in its eschatological perspective. Hryniewicz bases his explanations of this dimension of Church on three texts: two from the Bible and one from the Second Vatican Council. Referring to the book of Revelation (Rev. 21:1) which talks of a “new heaven and earth” and the “New Jerusalem”, he writes: “It really makes one think that the eschatological perspective of the Bible does not end up with a new Church, but with a ‘new heaven and new earth’. … The creative power of God will be finally revealed in the form of a new creation and not a new Church”.[47] Commenting paragraph 48 of Lumen gentium where it is said that “until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells (cf. 2 Pet. 3:13) the pilgrim Church, in its sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of the world which passes”, Hryniewicz underlines with insistence that “the sacramental and institutional dimension of the Church belongs to the ‘present age’ and it will pass away with actual human history fulfilling its mission. … The awareness of the passing and temporary character of the Church’s institutions is one of the most important elements of paschal ecclesiology. … It is not the Church which is the center and content of the announcement of Good News. The mission of the Church is to pass over herself and indicate the mystery of the Triune God, thus giving an eschatological orientation to all human history. … She is neither the purpose and goal of human history, nor is she an ever-existing reality in her actual form”.[48] Referring to 1 Cor 7:31, he says: "Not only is the form of this world passing away, so also is the form of the Church passing away”.[49]
His thinking as such does not take any importance away from the Church. Rather it seeks to put the Church's importance in the right perspective, by pointing to the deepest relation between Christ and the Church, rooted in the paschal mystery of Christ. He compares the earthly existence of the Church with that of the Son of God, as a passage to the resurrection. The same dynamism indwells His ecclesial Body. Hryniewicz explains this analogy: “The paschal existence of Jesus becomes the model of the entire existence of the Church also in her institutional and hierarchical dimension. And just as some people have a tendency to glorify a specific form of the Church, others prefer to criticize her and be scandalized. But in both cases there is a danger of insisting too much that this concrete and passing form of the Church should exist forever and never be replaced by the eternal Kingdom of the incomprehensible God”.[50]
We can see how a theocentrical and eschatological orientation of ecclesiology gives Hryniewicz real freedom. Such thinking also requires profound courage and renunciation — courage to become a pilgrim and renunciation of any kind of earthly glory. His freedom results in being able to think about the Church with hope, because in any case Deus semper maior.
b) Paschal way of the Church Hryniewicz shows a certain dynamic in the nature of the Church, extended as she is between coming from God and tending toward Him. This movement occurs not only in the physical or historical realm, but also and even more importantly, in the dimension of holiness: the Church comes from the Holy God and must become holy for the final union with the Most Holy One. But historical reality shows the Church to be rather far from this desired perfection. According to Hryniewicz, who in this part of his ecclesiological reflection refers mostly to the protestant theological tradition, there is an urgent need to re-read in a new light the ecclesiology of glory which for so long dominated Catholic teaching, deforming the truth as a consequence. About this eclesiologia gloriae he writes: “Ecclesiology of glory is central to an ecclesiology of eschatological fulfillment. Without the eschatological dimension, it too easily forgets about the pilgrim nature of the Church composed of people, about the provisional and passing form of her existence which is marked by sufferance, service and human guilt”.[51] He proposes to balance the ecclesiology of glory with an ecclesiology of the cross: “Confessing the holiness of the Church (which automatically directs the vision of the Church towards the vision of the glorious Church — Ecclesia gloriae), the pilgrim existence of the sinful Church should not be forgotten (which directs thoughts to the Cross — Ecclesia crucis)”.[52] He further adds: “The mystery of the Church is paradoxical because it unites in itself two extremes. It is both a historical and eschatological reality, on the one hand marked by the memory of Christ Crucified, and on the other hand, by the presence of Christ Risen. But the Church remains the Church of Resurrection only when she is able to embrace the full truth of the Crucified”.[53] It is clear that what Hryniewicz is really doing in his theological reflection about the Church is putting the whole question of the Church's holiness and her sinfulness in the paschal perspective. He thus rejects any kind of ecclesiastical and ecclesiological glorification and tiumphalism. If there is an aspect of criticism in his thinking about the Church, it is mostly directed against any kind of ecclesiology of glory. He reasons that such a vision and practice lead the Church to miss the purpose of her mission, and so not to reach the hearts of the people. (He is very aware of the actual problems facing the Church in the world today.) More importantly, however, an ecclesiology of glory causes the Church to overlook her paschal roots.
Seeking to understand the Church in light of the Paschal Mystery seems to be one of his most original insights into the whole question of the holiness and sinfulness of the Church. This approach makes it possible to look, worried but never despairing, with hope on the Church and the world. With a solid paschal faith as the interpretative key in his theology, he can freely look at both the empty glory and the sinfulness of the Church, and direct his vision toward a “Christic” Church. Uniting Christ, Eucharist and the Church in one perspective, he says: “The Cross of Christ becomes a stumbling block and absurdity for many (cf. 1 Cor 1:23). Likewise, the sinfulness and weakness of the Church for many will be again and again a scandal. Behind the human dimension, it is not very easy to see the presence of Christ and the activity of the Holy Spirit in her. Nevertheless, the Church preserves her sacramental and eucharistic character in spite of sin. The comparison with Eucharist is not coincidental. Faith is necessary in order to recognize the presence of Christ under the species of bread and wine. A very deep faith is also necessary in order to recognize face of the Risen One under the appearance of the Church”[54]. This paschal approach allows Hryniewicz to take into consideration all the different aspects of the Church with depth, freedom and hope.
Reinterpreting the four traditional marks of the Church in light of the Paschal Mystery, Hryniewicz portrays the actual existence of the Church as marked by the Paschal Mystery. Continuing his reflections about the sinful dimension of the Church, he goes on to show her dimension of kenosis. Just as in Christ, whose existence can be characterized by His kenosis as part of His paschal way of being, the same occurs in the Church. In her actual state, she is in the state of kenosis as a consequence and sign of the real union with her Lord, but on the other hand the Church has to be still more and more kenotic in order to be faithful to her paschal dimension which is the “Christic” one par excellence.
An ecclesiology and attitude of kenosis is, according to Hryniewicz, first of all an option that the Church has to constantly choose in order to be faithful to Christ who “did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at. Rather, he emptied himself" (Phil 2:6-7). Hence, he is able to say that the “kenosis of Christ gives the most proper mode of existence for the community of faithful, which is the Church. It is not an event related only to the Christ. It is not limited only to Him. By choosing kenosis as the way of salvation for humanity, God determined once and for all the way of acting for the Church. It is first of all the way of disinterested service, freely accepted weaknesses and resignation from earthly success”.[55] Once more here Hryniewicz’s vision of the Church is far from any triumphalism, which he considers a form of treason of her mission, infidelity to the humble Christ and consequently a loss. Transforming the words of M. Buber who said that “success is not among the names of God”, Hryniewicz underlines that “success is not the norm for the Church”.[56] Because of this he insists that “Church has to be defenseless if she wants correctly to accomplish her mission. The power of the Church cannot be based on a temporary position in society. The Church should not use her power to seek only human security”.[57]
His intuitions bear great insight into the changing role of the Church in today's society. He is writing from within the Roman Catholic Church which sometimes tends to take pride in a triumphalistic vision and attitude of the Church. However, with the changes in the modern world, the Church is actually becoming less “important” and numerous. Although some could be saddened or discouraged by such a diminished role of the Church, this theologian affirms that the Church has nothing to lose by becoming a poor, humble, humiliated and, humanly speaking, a meaningless community. Hryniewicz seems to be preparing the way for a new understanding and way of being Church. Aware of this “ecclesiological news” of our times, he writes: “It is not easy for the faithful to accept the vision of the Church as defenseless and disinterested from a human point of view. We desire, rather, a big, great and victorious Church. That kind of Church is more conformed to human imagination. Triumphalism is closer to the criteria of efficacy and power than to the difficult demands of the Gospel”.[58]
It follows that Hryniewicz develops the whole teaching about authority, hierarchy and primacy in the same perspective. They are to be marked by service, poverty and the courage to empty oneself. Becoming evermore a pilgrim in this world, the Church should always be ready to reject or sacrifice the treasures of the past, abandon them into the hands of God, and with this nakedness face the unknown future. Only by living this dimension of kenosis, as the prolongation of the paschal one, can the Church be a sign of hope for the world. This is how Hryniewicz can think about the Church with hope. Kenosis is part of the movement toward resurrection, which is the real basis of hope also for the Church.
c) Dialogical perichoresis of the Sister Churches For as much as Hryniewicz’s ecclesiology is formed by its paschal character, it is also marked by its ecumenical dimension. There is no doubt that for Hryniewiecz, to think about the Church is tantamount to thinking about the churches; and thinking with hope about the churches is for him to think about them in the prospective of unity. Reviewing these elements essential to his reflection, we can see how he is able to approach the dramatic situation of divided Churches with hope.
Hryniewicz is convinced that the unity of the Church is basically a gift of God which cannot be removed by any kind of human activity — even by sin, which only removes this unity from sight. He is adamantly convinced that where there is Christ, there is Church (one Church!). Hence, even if there are different churches, which he refers to as confessional differences, he emphasizes that there is only one Church of churches. He affirms the need to distinguish “the ontological unity of the Church from the empirical and visible one. The first one is the more fundamental. The second one is only derivative. The ontological and invisible unity of the Church has never been destroyed. The divided Church remains still the one Church of the Risen Christ, Lord of human history. But human community and brotherhood do not find their visible expression. Human weakness and sinfulness hide the full dimension of the divine-human mystery of the Church”.[59] Analyzing the history of Christianity, Hryniewicz underlines the fact that the Church on an “institutional and dogmatic level has never reached in history her full, complete and perfect unity”.[60] Of course, that does not mean such effort and the search for unity are not necessary, especially since division continues in a certain way the passion of Christ and creates scandal for the world. For this reason, he proposes the questions: How should the division of the churches really be considered? How are we to think about the churches of the Church; and how are we to act in front of this reality?
The one concept which often surfaces in his ecclesiological reflection is the patristic and conciliar (DE 14) concept of “Sister Churches”, affirming that “the expression ‘Sister Churches’ is something more than just terminology. It includes in itself the essential element of the Christian way of seeing the Church and living her mystery. … The ancient Christian idea of ‘Sister Churches’ indicated a logic of brotherhood in the context of ecclesiology. The question of the primacy of the bishop of Rome must also be considered in light of this logic. The particular authority of the Roman See does not elevate it over the other Churches. Rome still remains a Sister Church in front of all the others”.[61] Of course, Hryniewicz is writing from the point of view of his own, Roman-Catholic perspective and trying to place himself in the position of the other Churches, which are often not in agreement with the concept and practice of Roman primacy. But his point is also clear: if we are recognizing the concept of “Sister Churches” as an important one for ecclesiology, it also means that we — each of the churches — have to reject the vision that eventual unity will be made by the return of one church’s community to that of another, to the “Mother Church”. In this case, there are many mothers (it is not just the Roman Catholic Church that thinks of herself in front of the other churches as the “mother”), and it would no longer be possible to speak of “Sister Churches”, but about “Mother Churches”. It would make no sense, because there can only be one mother. But where is she? I think that it is possible to say that according to Hryniewicz, this One Church is hidden yet present, somewhere between the mystery of the ontological unity, rooted in the Trinity and in the origin of the Church, and the final, eschatological unity which encompasses all creation, much beyond actual human forces and ideas of unity. The Mother Church is, in fact, the Heavenly Jerusalem, the New Creation, the new heavens and earth from the Book of Revelation. Once again, a solid Trinitarian theology and a strong eschatological intuition enables this theologian to think about the Church with hope and courage.
But the reality here and now shows that the Church is divided, like a prolongation of Christ's agony. A scandal for the world, such division deprives each ecclesial community of the other's treasures, resulting in a poverty for each. He writes: “Each division makes us become poorer. The exchange of the gifts and charisms proper to each of the churches is broken. And without this reciprocal penetration of charisms (perichoresis ton charismaton) the life of the Church is deprived of its fullness of catholicity”.[62] The division between Christians is thus considered a sign that there is still much to be accomplished in the evangelization or christianization of the world. In the words of Hryniewicz: “Division is a blemish of the lack of christianization. Christianity is not easily rooted in man. History bears witness to the reality of christianization and de-christianization. This not only applies to people who were not deeply penetrated by the spirit of Christianity. It can also be said of each individual person who believes in Christ. We are destined to become more and more Christian”.[63] His assertion shows a logical connection: if division is a sign of the lack of Christianity in each Christian and Christian community, and evangelization includes the effort to combat division and build up unity, then an ecumenical attitude can be seen as an essential dimension of the Christian mission and evangelization process.
Hryniewicz underlines the necessity that all the churches turn to one another as a result of their ontological unity, their relation as Sister Churches, and their own impoverishment without each other. In his vision, each of the churches can both enrich and be enriched by the other. Not an easy task, as he says: “perhaps the most difficult challenge is for the churches to turn to one another. Something must change. The Bible refers to this process of changing as renunciation, kenosis; and it happens when someone rejects everything that does not contribute to unity. Many may perceive this as stupidity. But it is the foolishness of God Himself”.[64] Hryniewicz says in many places that the churches should reject their pride in front of the others; they should even be able to reject the treasures of their own particular traditions if they do not build unity. Moreover, in order to re-establish unity, the churches should try to study, understand, and appreciate more each other's traditions. Then, from this gained perspective, learn also how to see her own tradition. Hryniewicz calls this attitude a spirituality of wholeness, a dialogical perichoresis in which one church enriches another: “The spirituality of wholeness comes from the conviction that the one ‘catholic’ Church is bigger in her spiritual richness then each of the particular and confessional ones. … The spirituality of wholeness helps each church understand that it has to accept help from the others. Each needs to be completed and corrected in some of her own ways of acting and thinking. … This allows each to see its own confessional tradition from a certain distance, from outside; yet, on the other hand, it helps to see the common reference point of apostolic testimony. Without this kind of ecumenical capacity, the future is at risk. ‘The holy mystery of unity’ (DE 2) requires not only that the churches turn to Christ, but also that they turn one to another”.[65]
In his thinking about the unity of the churches, Hryniewicz also emphasizes that Christians should be more creative and imaginative in their search for unity. If the Spirit of God acts, if the churches are sisters, and if there is a constant dynamism of history which surpasses our way of thinking, why then is it impossible — he asks — to imagine a completely different structure of the whole Church. He writes: “We do not know what kind of form united Christianity would have. The concept of the Sister Churches expresses the great hope to reach a stable unity which is not threatened by the domination of one church over another or with one impoverishing the other”.[66] And in another place, referring to the reflections of Y. Congar and from his position as a theologian in the Catholic Church, he adds: “It is possible to imagine the structure of the Church once more united in the form of the very concrete collegiality of the existing patriarchates (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, Rumania, Serbia, Bulgaria) as well as those which should be created — for example, Canterbury, Africa, South America, India and others. Is that utopia? … Not, if we look on this problem from the perspective of ancient ecclesiology. Perhaps in the future, the Roman Church will have the courage to begin that kind of reform which requires such a different logic. Concretely, it means that autonomy has to be given to the local and regional churches and direct jurisdiction over these churches rejected, a jurisdiction which still dominates today. Doing so would show the way in which primacy is understood as service for unity. For now, however, it is rather only a dream of the future… Nothing indicates that it could happen soon. … On this point, we do not have enough courage and theological imagination”.[67]
Yet, even when human imagination and possibility in the churches fail, there is still God, whom Hryniewicz never loses from the horizon of his thinking. And this God is always greater (Deus semper maior) — also in the case of ecumenism and the divided churches. He writes with insistence: “God is infinitely greater than our divisions and our never-ending disputes. Divine ecumenism is always bigger than the human one. Human ecumenism on earth is the ecumenism of sinful human beings, which all the time lack love and generosity. But nevertheless, God calls everyone to His divine ecumenism. So, why should we not accept one another”.[68] It seems that Hryniewicz never gives up, never wants to enclose the open space of hope.
d) Thinking about the Church with hope The horizon of Hryniewicz’s reflection in all its dimensions is extremely open and (or thus!) courageously rooted in God and in hope. Far from being naive, he is deeply aware and concerned about the problems of the Church and the dramatic situation of the world. Yet, his hope — which he cannot understand until the end — seems almost to oblige him to remain open, free and trustful. He writes about the hope that he has: “I think that life with hope reaches the depth of the human being. And this hope is the basis of trust and confidence. Each person experiences hope from within. It is difficult to experience it from without, just accepting already-made formulas. Hope, in a certain way, is where we find our link with tomorrow, with the future, with God and with others. … The light of hope comes from certain inner enlightenment, and it cannot be understood in any other way”.[69] It is with this inner light of hope that Hryniewicz looks on the Church and thinks about her. Because of this inner “constraint” of hope, he prefers “to light one small candle than to curse the darkness”.[70]
It was this inner movement that commanded him to think about the Church with hope. From within “the hope of salvation for all” , he views the Church as participating in the universal salvation. The Church, together with the whole creation, tends toward God and his Kingdom. This historical and eternal future of the Church and the world remains “apophatic”, because: “We do not know where God finally leads us. This mystery can be penetrated only by faith and hope, and both of them reach farther than we can comprehend”.[71] On the other hand, Hryniewicz — especially thinking about the Church — tries to be concrete, because: “Her face of tomorrow is formed today. The Church, hence the Church of tomorrow, has to be closer to people. Has to be wiser … As a living organism composed of living people who have hope, the Church has to learn how to discern spiritually with wisdom, how to see deeper and farther in the light of her faith and hope; has to be open to continuous renewal and reform”.[72] It is in this perspective that his ecumenical desires and “dreams” return, as he writes: “Ecumenical hope finds its beautiful and deep expression in the formula ‘Sister Churches’. We need more of the spirit of unity and brotherhood between Christians. Then the wisdom of the many churches will become larger than that of the one based on the confessional wisdom of one particular church. We learn one from another. Together we can better face the problems that our Christianity faces today — in front of the challenges of nationalism, ideologies and the human aggressiveness. The purpose of Christianity is to bring the ferment of reconciliation, to call for a change of hearts and way of thinking. The churches must turn to one another. Without this, Christianity will not be able to give a good word of hope — a hope tested and made wise which could reveal the beautiful face of a unified Christianity. … Maybe the Christianity of tomorrow will become smaller and smaller, perhaps a Christianity of diaspora. It may be only then that we will try to find brotherhood among us”.[73] So, the horizon of Hryniewicz’s reflection is rather dramatic on the historic level and full of hope on the level of faith. One may be tempted to ask: But what if nothing happens? What if the division and antagonism among the churches remain? What if our Christianity remains tepid and without expression? What if our hope is deceived? His answer — based on old Irish proverb — is: “God is even more powerful than hope (Is treise Dia na dochas)”.[74] Of course, the proverb also applies in the case of the Church.
Conclusion
These pages were intended to introduce the reader to some dimensions of Wacław Hryniewicz's theology, especially concerning his way of approaching the mystery of the Church. His thoughts are insightful, courageous and non-conformist. Many places in his writings reveal strong inspirations from Orthodox theology, though his reflections are not limited to this source. He seems to be a theologian convinced of his mission and service in the Church — a mission deeply moved by his experience of hope and directed in its main dimension to the unity of Christian churches. He is able to see the world, the Church of the churches and their unity in the light of hope only because he sees them in the horizon of God and in the perspective of the paschal mystery of Christ. Is he right? Is his vision of the Church as seen through his very original theology of hope true? He is searching, and, as W. de Pater points out, the “theologian is a detective who proves which theory corresponds the best to the facts”.[75] Hryniewicz is aware that talking about God and the Church “is not directed toward demonstration but rather, seeks to ‘open eyes’ and indicate the Mystery which — even if not all the time seen — is placed in the very center of human existence”.[76] In a certain way, the same inner desire to live and to know God, serving Him and His Church, has likewise directed G. Lafont's theological search, a search also marked by hope and courageous imagination.
P.S. Some texts of Hryniewicz in english are published in the book The Challenge of Our Hope: Christian Faith in Dialogue (link)
Abbreviations:
NPC – Nasza Pascha z Chrystusem, Lublin 1987.
BNN – Bóg naszej nadziei, Opole 1989.
NZW – Nadzieja zbawienia dla wszystkich, Warszawa 1990.
PC – Pascha Chrystusa w dziejach człowieka i wszechświata, Lublin 1991.
KS – Kościoły Siostrzane. Dialog katolicko-prawosławny, Warszawa 1993.
DNZ – Dramat nadziei zbawienia, Warszawa 1996.
PN – Pedagogia nadziei, Warszawa 1997.
HD – Hermeneutyka w dialogu, Opole 1998.
NDP- Na drogach pojednania, Warszawa 1998.
[1] Cf. G. Tangorra, Credere dopo Auschwitz?, Edizioni San Lorenzo, Reggio Emilia 1996.
[2] Some of the best studies regarding the whole question of anthropology in a totalitarian stystem — unfortunately not translated — were done by the Polish philosopher, J. Tischner, in his: Etyka solidarności oraz Homo sovieticus, Znak, Kraków 1992; Świat ludzkiej nadziei, Znak, Kraków 1992; Myślenie według wartości, Znak, Kraków 1993; Nieszczęsny dar wolności, Znak, Kraków 1993; W karainie schorowanej wyobraźni, Znak, Kraków 1997; Filozofia dramatu, Znak, Kraków 1998; Spór o istnienie człowieka, Znak, Kraków 1998.
[3] In this context, several works written in Poland should be mentioned: W. Granat, Osoba ludzka. Próba definicji, Sandomierz 1961; Idem, Personalizm chrześcijański. Teologia osoby ludzkiej, Poznań 1985; K. Wojtyla, Osoba i czyn, Kraków 1969.
[4] Cf. J. S. Gajek, “Mille anni dell’incontro della tradizione bizantina con la tradizione latina nella cultura religiosa polacca”, in A. E. N. Tachiaos (ed.), The Legacy of Saints Cyril and Methodius to Kiev and Moscow, Hellenistic Assitiation for Slavic Studies, Tessaloniki 1992, 185-193.
[5] Cf. W. Hryniewicz, „Doctor Humanus. Teologiczne horyzonty ks. Profesora Wincentego Granata (1900-1979)”, Znak 32 (1980) 586-602; Idem, „Teolog osoby ludzkiej. Refleksje nad teologicznym dziełem ks. prof. Wincentego Granata”, Ateneum Kapłańskie 72 (1980) n. 95, 424-433.
[6] Cf. W. Hryniewicz, “Wprowadzenie do teologii ks. Jerzego Klingera”, in: Jerzy Klinger, O istocie Prawosławia, Pax, Warszawa 1983, 5-27.
[7] Cf. D. Salachas, Dialogo teologico ufficiale tra la Chiesa Cattolico-Romana e Ortodossa, Quaderni di O Odigos, Bari 1994.
[8] Cf. W. Hryniewicz, Nauka współczesnych teologów katolickich o roli zbawczej Zmartwychwstania Chrystusa, Lublin 1966 (mps BKUL).
[9] Cf. Idem, Rola Tradycji w interpretacji teologicznej. Analiza współczesnych poglądów dogmatyczno-ekumenicznych, Lublin 1976.
[10] Cf. Idem, Chrystus nasza Pascha, t. 1, Lublin 1987; Nasza pascha z Chrystusem, t. 2, Lublin 1987; Pascha Chrystusa w dziejach człowieka i wszechświata, t. 3, Lublin 1991.
[11] Cf. Idem, Staroruska teologia paschalna w świetle pism św. Cyryla Turowskiego, Warszawa 1993
[12] Cf. Idem, Chrystus zmartwychwstał. Motywy paschalne w pismach metropolity Iłariona (XI w.), Warszawa 1995.
[13] Cf. Idem, Nadzieja zbawienia dla wszystkich. Od eschatologii lęku do eschatologii nadziei, Warszawa 1990; Dramat nadziei zbawienia. Medytacje eschatologiczne, Warszawa 1996; Pedagogia nadziei. Medytacje o Bogu, Kościele i ekumenii, Warszawa 1997; Na drodze pojednania. Medytacje ekumeniczne, Warszawa 1998.
[14] Cf. Idem, Kościoły siostrzane. Dialog katolicko-prawosławny 1980 – 1991, Warszawa 1993; Przeszłość zostawić Bogu. Unia i uniatyzm w perspektywie ekumenicznej, Opole 1995.
[15] Cf. Idem, Bóg naszej nadziei. Szkice teologiczno-ekumeniczne, t. 1, Opole 1989; Hermeneutyka w dialogu. Szkice teologiczno-ekumeniczne, t. 2, Opole 1998.
[16] Some of them have been published in other languages: “La Tradition comme principe d'unité de l'enseignement théologique”, Seminarium 23 (1971) 372-394; “ Die ekklesiale Rezeption in der Sicht der orthodoxen Theologie”, ThG 65 (1975) 250-266; “ The Centrality of Christ in Orthodox Theology”, Collectanea Theologica 46: (1976) 153-168; “Der pneumatologische Aspekt der Kirche aus orthodoxer Sicht”, Catholica [Paderborn] 31 (1977) n. 2, 122-150; “La hiérarchie des vérités. Implications oecuméniques d'une idée chrétienne”, Irénikon 51 (1978) n. 4, 470-491; Hiérarchie des vérités et dialogue oecuménique, ZNKUL 21 (1978) 58-70; “Un inno all'uomo redento. Riflessioni sulla novità della 'Redemptor hominis'”, CSEO-Documentazione 14 (1980) n. 146, 11-24; “Le mystére de la divino-humanité. Signification herméneutique d'une notion de l'anthropologie orthodoxe”, Istina 25 (1980) 350-364; “Oriente e Occidente all'incontro. Mille anni dopo”, CSEO-Documentazione 15 (1981) n. 159,107-119 and 141; “Die Vertrautheit des Menschen mit dem Heiligen Geist (Oikeíosis Pneúmatos) nach Basilius dem Grossen” in: Basilius, Heiliger der Einen Kirche. Regensburger Ökumenisches Symposion 1979, (red. A. Rauch), P. Imhof. Verlagsgesellschaft Gerhard Kaffke mbH, München 1981, 98-108; “Ökumenische Rezeption und konfessionelle Identität”, Una Sancta 36 (1981) 116-131; “Le Dieu souffrant? Réflexions sur la notion chrétienne de Dieu”, Eglise et théologie 12 (1981) 333-356; “La souffrance de Dieu. Quelques réflexions préliminaires”, Collectanea Theologica 51 (1981) 115-135; “La riforma di Lutero e la Chiesa ortodossa. Riflessioni su un dialogo mancato”, Il Nuovo Areopago 2 (1983) n. 4, 130-150; “Il mistero della speranza. Dimensioni escatologische della speranza cristiana alla luce della tradizione orientale”, Il Nuovo Areopago 4 (1985) n. 3, 145-165; n. 4, 114-134; “Theologischer Dialog und ökumenische Hoffnung”, Ostkirchliche Studien 35 (1986) 17-29; “Metropolitan Stylianos Harkianakis: Bishop and Theologian in the Service of Reconciling the Churches”, Ostkirchliche Studien 35 (1986) 183-192; “Der Dialog ist ein heiliges Werk. Überlegungen nach der Session von Bari”, Ostkirchliche Studien 35 (1986) 319-337; “Trinitarisches Kirchenverständnis und Priestertum. Einige Überlegungen zum katholisch-orthodoxen Dialog” in: Das Priester tum in der Einen Kirche. Diakonat, Presbyterat und Episkopat. Regensburger Ökumenisches Symposion 1985, Hrsg. von A. Rauch und P.Imhof., Aschaffenburg 1987, 236-255; “Martin Luther und die Orthodoxie. Ökumenische Erwägungen”, Ostkirchliche Studien 36 (1987) 154-177; “Der Dialog der Schwesterkirchen. Nach dem wiederholten Treffen der Katholisch-Orthodoxen Kommission in Bari”, Ostkirchliche Studien 36 (1987) 311-326; “Praktische Aufgaben einer ökumenischen Reich-Gottes-Theologie”, Signalia. Rundbrief der Societas Oecumenica, 1988, n. 6, 1-3; “Uusi Valamo 1988. Nach dem katholisch-orthodoxen Treffen in Finnland”, Ostkirchliche Studien 37 (1988) 315-327; “Dialog als Vertrauenssache. Überlegungen zum katholisch-orthodoxen Dialog”, Der christliche Osten 43 (1988) 255-268; “Österliche Motive in den Schriften des hl. Kyrill von Turow”, in: Tausend Jahre zwischen Wolga und Rhein. Internationales Symposion zum Millennium der Taufe der Rus...Regensburg 21-26 April 1987, München-Zürich 1988, 304-323; “Le dialogue orthodoxe-catholique”, Unité chrétienne (1990) n. 97-98, 89-112; “’Christus hat gesiegt’. Das Gedächtnis der Taufe der Rus' in den Schriften des Metropoliten Ilarion und des hl. Kirill von Turov, Ostkirchliche Studien 39 (1990) 22-39; “Theologischer Dialog und ökumenische Hoffnung”, in: Im Dialog der Wahrheit (Pro Oriente Bd.XII), Innsbruck-Wien 1990, 139-149; “Uusi Valamo 1988. Nach dem katholisch-orthodoxen Treffen in Finnland”, in: Im Dialog der Wahrheit, Innsbruck-Wien 1990, 194-204; “Tareas practicas para una teologia ecumenica del Reino de Dios. Tesis”, Dialogo ecumenico 25 (1990) n. 82-83 and456-458; “Der ‘Uniatismus’ im katholisch-orthodoxen Dialog, Ostkirchliche Studien 39 (1990) 319-335; “The Florentine Union: Reception and Rejection. Some Reflections on Unionist Tendencies among Ruthenians”, in: Christian Unity. The Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438/39-1989, (ed. G. Alberigo), Leuven 1991, 521-554; “Der ‘Uniatismus’ und die Zukunft des katholisch-orthodoxen Dialogs”, Ostkirchliche Studien 40 (1991) 210-221; “Hoffnung, den Dialog zu retten. Nach der Session des katholisch-orthodoxen Koordinationskomitees in Ariccia”, Ostkirchliche Studien 40 (1991) 306-323; “Ecumenical lessons from the past: soteriological exclusivism at the basis of uniatism”, in: Kirchen im Kontext unterschiedlicher Kulturen. Auf dem Weg ins dritte Jahrtausend. Hrsg. von K.Ch. Felmy u.a. - Aleksandr Meñ in memoriam (1935-1990), Göttingen 1991,.521-533; “Gnade und Wahrheit in der Menschheitsgeschichte. Die geschichtstheologische Sicht in den Schriften des Metropoliten Ilarion”, Ostkirchliche Studien 41 (1992) 301-321; “Katholiken und Orthodoxe in den östlichen Ländern. Probleme, Erfahrungen und Chancen”, Lebendiges Zeugnis 48 (1993) n. 2, 101-109; “Unio sine destructione. Ein Unionsdokument des Metropoliten Petr Mogila (1644/45)”, Ostkirchliche Studien 42 (1993) 172-187; “Uniatismus - einst und jetzt. Reflexionen zum Dokument von Balamand (1993)”, Ostkirchliche Studien 43 (1994) 328-339; “Labour and Hope: Fifteen Years of catholic-Orthodox Dialogue”, St. Vladimir’s Theological Queartely 39 (1995) n. 4, 339-360; “Reconsiliation and Ecclesiology of Sister Churches”, Eastern Churches Journal 2 (1995) n. 3, 55-72; “Orthodoxy and the Union of Brest. The Ecumenical Significance of the Memorial of Metropolitan Peter (Mohyla) to Pope Urban VIII (1644), Eastern Churches Journal 3 (1996) n. 7, 51-66; “Auf dem Weg zur Zweiten Europäischen Ökumenischen Versammlung. Versöhnung und die Ekklesiologie der Schwesterkirchen”, Der Christliche Osten 51 (1996) 13-23; “Outliving the Schism”, Eastern Churches Journal 3 (1996) n. 2, 43-52; “Hoffnung der Heiligen. Das Zeugnis Isaaks des Syrers”, Ostkirchliche Studien 45 (1996) 21-41; “The ‘Union’ of Brest and the Ecclesiology of Sister Churches”, Eastern Churches Journal 4 (1997) n. 1, 107-124; “Can Non-Belivers Be Redeemed? Soteriological Universalism”, Dialogue and Universalism 8 (1998) n. 1-2, 61-74; “Identité et tolérance dans une perspective théologico-oecuménique”, in J. Kłoczowski, S. Łukasiewicz (ed.), Tożsamość, odmienność, tolerancja a kultura pokoju, Lublin 1998, 318-331; „Versöhung im trinitarischen Glaunen? Zur römischen Klarstellung über den Ausgang del Heiligen Geistes”, in A. Stirnemann, G. Wilflinger (ed.), Vom Heiligen Geist. Der gemeinsame trinitarische Glaube und das Problem des Filioque (Pro oriente, Bd. XXI), Innsbruck-Wien 1998, 53-71; see also “Aufgaben einer ökumenischen Theologie des Reiches Gottes. Thesen von Waclaw Hryniewicz”, Una Sancta 44 (1989) 56-58.
[17] BNN 25 (all translations by Maciej Bielawski).
[18] BNN 25.
[19] HD 54.
[20] HD 51.
[21] NZW 168.
[22] NZW 167.
[23] PC 493.
[24] NDP 60.
[25] NDP 62.
[26] NDP 64.
[27] NDP 64.
[28] BNN 29.
[29] BNN 30.
[30] HD 30.
[31] HD 27.
[32] HD 32-33.
[33] PN 141.
[34] PN 90.
[35] PN 92.
[36] PN 87.
[37] PN 87.
[38] NDP 66.
[39] HD 93.
[40] PN 84.
[41] PN 87.
[42] NPC 51 - 283.
[43] Cf. NPC 61-62.
[44] NPC 61.
[45] NPC 61.
[46] NPC 61.
[47] NPC 172-173.
[48] NPC 173-174.
[49] NPC 173.
[50] NPC 173.
[51] NPC 132.
[52] NPC 133.
[53] NPC 133.
[54] NPC 144.
[55] PN 61.
[56] PN 66.
[57] PN 67.
[58] PN 69.
[59] PN 158.
[60] PN 159.
[61] KS 341.
[62] KS 350.
[63] PN 128.
[64] PN 157.
[65] KS 353-355.
[66] KS 343.
[67] NPJ 190.
[68] HD 286.
[69] PN 182.
[70] PN 174.
[71] PN 183.
[72] PN 185-186.
[73] PN 186.
[74] DNZ 225.
[75] BNN 31.
[76] BNN 31.
© Maciej Bielawski (1999)