Dear Friends on the Byzantine Forum,
I am currently working on a translation of a very interesting book entitled "An Essay of Irenic Theology: Orthodoxy and Catholicism." The book was originally published in 1966 in Spain. The author is a Russian Orthodox lay theologian by the name of Alexis Stawrowsky. His original manuscript was written in Russian. I am in possession of a French translation of the work and it is indeed amazing. Mr. Stawrowsky clearly has a deep knowledge of the Fathers and the Eastern tradition as well as an intimate knowledge of Catholic tradition and scholarship. I hope to post some key quotations from the book as I translate them. Here is a little something from the introduction (please don't attribute my pitiful translation to the original author):
A NEW METHOD OF COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY
---IRENIC IN PLACE OF THE APOLOGETIC/POLEMICAL METHOD
"Confessional differences constitute the principal object of comparative theology, though they are also of concern to dogmatic theology and in part to apologetics. Comparative theology of itself is intimately linked as much to dogmatics and apologetics as to the history of the Church and to Canon Law. Exegesis, moral theology, patrology, and the liturgy also make up a specific part of comparative theology. So, this science encompasses within itself a very large part of theology in general. Sometimes this branch of theology is also called in Russian �oblitchitelnoie� or that which seeks to convince by proof, and its fundamental method, just as its principal goal, up to our own times, aims less at the defence of the orthodoxy of a given confession against the doctrine of the heterodox than at placing them in a bad light. To comparative theology there is also added, in Russia, Schismology or the study of the errors of Raskol, the schism of the Old Believers of the 17th century, and Sectology --- the study of the aberrations of the different sects.
All of these disciplines continually expressed the same apologetic and polemical character. The style and the degree of acuteness in the presentation depended, obviously, on the temperament of the author, but even in the case of the greatest objectivity, one remained always confined within polemics with its constant concern to demonstrate the absolute truth of orthodox doctrine and the absolute falsity of non-orthodox doctrine.
One always had in view the irreducibility of the positions, the absolute impossibility of reconciling the doctrines which were in opposition one with the other. One imagined nothing but the absolute positive of one side and the absolute negative of the other side. All possibility of including the least part of the negative within the positive doctrine or the idea that the positive might not be absolutely perfect was excluded a priori. Absolute truth was opposed to absolute falsehood."
Now it strikes me that some people, both Orthodox and Catholic, seem to have this mindset. Any and all attempts to incorporate another theological perspective into what one perceives as the "orthodox" perspective is viewed as tantamount to apostasy.
Mr. Stawrowsky's view, however, is that theology, especially that which concerns the relationship between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, should be a priori irenical. We should look for ways to understand one another's positions in the light of our own and vice-versa. This is precisely what Mr. Stawrowsky does in this book. He treats of the Filioque, the Papacy, and Ecclesiology in a masterly way. I hope to share some of his insights with you in the near future.
Ed
