Cristinel Ioja, O istorie a Dogmaticii în teologia ortodoxă română [A

History of Dogmatics in Romanian Orthodox Theology] vol. 2, Pro

Universitaria, Bucharest, 2013, 622 p.

Ciprian Iulian Toroczkai*

This book is part of a planned trilogy that presents “a history of dog-

matics in Romanian Orthodox theology”, as indicated by the title. This sec-
ond volume covers the period from the beginning of theological seminary
education in Romania until the establishment of communism, i.e. from the
beginning of the 19th century until 1945.
The author, professor at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology in Arad,
begins with an overview of Orthodox dogmatic theology during this period.
Unfortunately, the rediscovery of the patristic spirituality of the Philokalia
in Paisianism did not have any impact upon the crystallization of Orthodox
dogmatics in Russia, Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria. This was also characteristic
of the teaching of dogmatics in Romania (see page 44 and following), first in
seminaries and later in institutes, academies and faculties of theology; regard-
less of type of institution, theological education was marked by “abstraction”,
and characterized by dogmatic rationalism and liturgical formalism (pages
141–144).
A radical change occurred only in the first half of the 20th century. This
change is generally thought to have originated with the call to “return to the
Fathers” launched by the theologian from the Russian emigration, Georges V.
Florovsky (1893–1979), at The First Congress of the Faculties of Theology
in Athens (1936). However, the author shows that, in fact, “the return to the
Fathers was decided in Bucharest”, during a meeting of delegates representing
faculties of theology from the Orthodox world. The delegates approved the
program of the future congress in Athens, while also mentioning topics which
were to be addressed by G. Florovsky in his essays (he was not present in Bu-
charest). Therefore, the author wonders: “Would it seem audacious to suggest
that other scholars have urged people to return to the Fathers, before Georg-
es Florovsky did?” (page 147). Moreover, some Romanian scholars, such as
Ioan G. Savin, have questioned Florovsky’s thesis of “pseudomorphosis” in
a manner which is strikingly similar to that of other modern scholars (see,
for example, Dorothea Wendebourg, ‘“Pseudomorphosis” – ein theologisches

* Ciprian Iulian Toroczkai, PhD Assistant Professor at the Andrei Şaguna Faculty of Otho-
dox Theololgy, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania; e-mail: torocipri@gmail.com.

RES 6 (2/2014), p. 318-321 DOI: 10.2478/ress-2014-0126

Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 04.11.19 13:24 UTC
 Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

Urteil als Axiom der kirchen- und theologiegeschichtlichen Forschung’, in

Robert Taft SJ (ed.), The Christian East. Its Institutions and its Thought. A
Critical Reflexion. Papers of the International Scholarly Congress for the 75th
Anniversary of the Pontifical Oriental Institute Rome, 30 May – 5 June 1993,
Rome, 1996, p. 565–589; George E. Demacopoulos and Aristotle Papaniko-
laou (eds.), Orthodox Constructions of the West, Fordham University Press,
New York, 2013).
It is notable that Romanian scholars of the first half of the 20th centu-
ry had comprehensive knowledge of their contemporary Orthodox theology.
Their command of Russian and Greek allowed them to review the most im-
portant theological works published in the entire Orthodox space as soon as
they were brought out. Some of these reviews include critical engagement
with the works they discuss; Ioja analyses some of these critical examina-
tions, such as Dumitru Stăniloae’s analysis of Vl. Solovyov, S. Bulgakov and
V. Zenkovsky, Nichifor Crainic’s discussion of S. Bulgakov, Şerban Ionescu’s
discussion of V. Zenkovsky, and Nicolae Nicolae Chiţescu’s reflections on
Demetrios S. Balanos (see pages 180–187 and 192–194).
However, it must be admitted that Romanian dogmatic theology was
“scholastic”, and profoundly indebted, in style and content, to Greek and
Russian theological writings. It is no coincidence that The Catechism of Met-
ropolitan Platon of Moscow, The Confession of Peter Moghila and The Dog-
matics of Makarie Bulgakov, Sylvester of Caneva or Christos Androutsos have
been translated into Romanian. Analyzing these works in terms of method,
structure and content, the author finds many commonalities with The Dog-
matics published within the Romanian Orthodox tradition from the second
half of the 19th century until the 1930s, such as The Dogmatics for seminaries
by Melchisedec Ștefănescu (1855), Calistrat Coca (1898), Ștefan Călinescu
(1903) and Ioan Mihălcescu (1916), and The Dogmatics for theological fac-
ulties and institutes/ academies by Alexiu Comoroşan (1887–1889), Dimitrie
Boroianu (1893), Iosif I. Olariu (1907) and Irineu Mihălcescu (1926).
The renewal of Orthodox dogmatics in Romania is connected to the
activity of Nichifor Crainic, Dumitru Stăniloae, Nicolae Chițescu and Ilarion
V. Felea. (Even though it is not explicitly stated, the most important contribu-
tion was brought by Father Stăniloae.) These names deserve to be mentioned
because, in the author’s and in our opinion, they are models to be followed by
contemporary Romanian Orthodox theologians. The value of these theolo-
gians’ dogmatic-theological works is primarily due to: 1) the rediscovery and
the reappraisal of the Church Fathers’ thinking, especially the (re)evaluation
of Palamite theology, and 2) the promotion of a holistic vision of theology, i.e.
refocusing it on the unity between dogma, spirituality, and worship.

319
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 04.11.19 13:24 UTC
Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

On the other hand, Cristinel Ioja reminds us that, despite these obvi-
ous influences, Romanian Orthodox dogmatics cannot be considered inde-
pendently of the Romanian confessional and cultural-apologetic context that
it emerged in and developed from. Thus, one can find apologetic aspects in
the work of the main Romanian theologians that developed a systematic the-
ology in the late 19th century and the early 20th century: Vasile Găină, Con-
stantin Erbiceanu, Ioan (Irineu) Mihălcescu, Ioan G. Savin, Nichifor Crainic,
Emilian Vasilescu, Ilarion V. Felea, and Petru Rezuş. The apologetic character
of Romanian dogmatics is obvious in the case of the most well-known Ro-
manian Orthodox theologian of the 20th century, Dumitru Stăniloae (1903–
1993), and in his debates with philosophers such as Constantin Radules-
cu-Motru and Lucian Blaga (1895–1961). In full awareness of the fact that
dogma means “border” in Greek, Romanian theologians have tried hard to
defend the true doctrine of faith of the Orthodox Church from the excesses
and deviations of religious philosophy. For the first time in a systematic work,
Cristinel Ioja gathers reactions from Romanian theologians to the challenges
of their contemporary Romanian philosophers and sociologists. One has to
mention here the divergent positions of Nichifor Crainic and Lucian Blaga,
and Petru P. Ionescu’s attempt to reconcile the two positions; Petru Rezuş’ ar-
gument with Romanian philosophy; Emilian Vasilescu’s criticism of the mate-
rialist philosophy of Vasile Conta, Petre P. Negulescu and Alexandru Popescu
(pages 477–498). These philosophical and theological disputes are supple-
mented with other disputes which have a theological-missionary character,
such as the one between the poet Octavian Goga and Metropolitan Nicolae
Bălan, and some debates which have a confessional character (the author re-
ferring particularly to the didebates between the Orthodox and the Uniates
on theological topics such as the immaculate conception) (pages 499–530).
The last chapter of the book is dedicated to the establishment of the
Bolshevik Communist regime in Romania, a regime which was hostile to
the Church. For over half a century, the Romanian Orthodox Church had to
survive oppression without betraying its mission and losing hope. The pub-
lication of the Philokalia in Romanian, edited and translated by Dumitru
Stăniloae, was a glimmer of light in the communist darkness: “But the stifling
atmosphere of this period, redolent of the darkness of concentration camps,
bore within itself the hope-filled light of the Philokalia, the vital power of
the Church, and the explosive force of the Tradition, like seeds buried in the
ground, awaiting Resurrection” (page 549).
The conclusion of the book, available both in English and in French
(pages 556–561 and 562–567), reasserts the efforts made by Romanian Or-

320
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 04.11.19 13:24 UTC
 Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

thodox theologians during the period under discussion to overcome the in-
fluences of Western “scholastic” theology and to shape a dogmatic theology
specific to Orthodoxy, based on biblical and patristic realities. With reference
to the most important Romanian Orthodox theologian, the author wrote:
„Recovering Palamas’ theology in Father Stăniloae’s thinking and articulating
it in interwar Romanian theology and culture demonstrates the capabilities
of Romanian Orthodox theology to return to its origins, to inter-connect
dogma and life, to look uniformly at dogma–spirituality–worship, to deepen
the reflection on key questions and dogmas of systematic theology. The fun-
daments of dogmatic thinking, which were laid in the first half of the 20th
century by the rediscovery the Fathers, the ecclesiastical experience in the re-
lationship between dogma and spirituality, the importance of people in com-
munion, the paradoxical thinking on dogmas and the relationship between
God and the world, were deepened in the second half of the 20th century. An
eloquent example is Father Dumitru Stăniloae, who covered a whole century
in his theological-dogmatic thinking” (page 554).
The volume’s rich bibliography (pages 568-616) demonstrates the au-
thor’s extensive efforts to read and summarize the most important contribu-
tions of Romanian Orthodox theologians to the articulation of a dogmatic
theology in the late 19th century and early 20th century. We are certain that
the publication of the two other volumes, and especially their translation into
a world language, will be a crucial step in promoting in-depth knowledge of
the Romanian Orthodox theology of the last three centuries. For this reason,
the shortcomings of the book certainly pale compared to the complex work
started by Cristinel Ioja. We mention here two such omissions: firstly, other
Romanian works on dogmatics dating back to the period under discussion
exist as manuscripts (see, for example, the early 20th century Dogmatics of
Metropolitan Nicolae Bălan, held in the library of the Faculty of Theology in
Sibiu). The second issue concerns the fact that there is no analysis of the in-
fluences of Western scholars on the development of Romanian dogmatic the-
ology (since these influences should be mentioned along with the influences
of Slavonic-Greek theologians, which are discussed by the author). Also, the
elaboration of an index of names and topics would greatly facilitate the recep-
tion of the book in the Romanian and international academic world.

321
Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 04.11.19 13:24 UTC