Orthodox Dogmatics leads to violence?

Dr. Peter Gilbert has responded to my post about Anastasius the Librarian here. He closed the combox so this is my final response to him:

Peter,

 

Let me be honest and frank here, I really don’t see a lot of familiarity with my thesis or Dr. Farrell’s thesis in what you write. I think you’re informed sensibilities are making much more than what I really am and you confuse my competitive edge and spirit with aggression. Really, the most that you confessed to have read is Farrell’s translation to Photios’ Mystagogy, which was his point of view at the time. Not that the later works would be a repudiation of this work, but there is some refinement, especially when one considers Dr. Farrell’s interpretive grid (we all have them).

 

“When I say that this is an ideology, I mean that it is maintained only through a kind of willful disregard of Christian history.”

 

What do you mean by this? Do you think Augustine holds to a Neoplatonic view of divine simplicity or not? I think that he does. A.H. Armstrong thinks so. In fact, many scholars think so. Where do you think I learned it from? A non-historical reading of Church History? Of course not, and neither did Farrell. Because of that, we have a reasoned basis to think so. Even someone like Gilson says, that Augustine made his “philosophical first principle one… with his religious first principle”(Etienne Gilson, God and Philosophy, p. 41) and that his notion of divine being was ultimately greek and pagan. Was Gilson wrong to think this or perhaps you think that elements of pagan notions of deity really are compatible? Perhaps they are, but I think otherwise. I think the Orthodox Church thinks otherwise.

 

“Neither the East, nor certainly the West, was ever as monolithically Photian in its understanding of the trinitarian mystery as you make it out to be. That is one of the things, in writing this blog, that I have tried to show.”

 

Of course not, nobody is claiming it to be so. What we believe to be the case is that there is a general confusion after the Apologists and Origen in which philosophy and theology and their relationship is fundamentally confused at times, and even so in many Orthodox Fathers. That is, there are movements towards and away from Hellenization up until the Triumph of Orthodoxy. Even after St. Justinian condemned Origenists and closed the Academy, these ideas still did not go away and sometimes these views never go away. So when one stands in the place of say a John Bekkos and attempts to read History without the awareness of these movements, one can be easily confused on what exactly is Orthodox. Compare Newman’s understanding to Joseph Farrell’s understanding of the Nicene crisis and Pre-Nicene theologians. I find Joseph’s account far superior as an explanatory model of why there were so many different views of Christ the Logos; he amplified some of the intuitive insights of Johannes Quasten in giving them real explanatory power where Quasten still seemed dumbfounded (as was I for many years) though spot on. Nicea to Constantinople III 879/880 (and on) is a purification of Theology and its autonomous divorce from philosophy as a handmaiden. St. Photios the Great’s Triadology is a long drawn out purification and retrospect of what all the heresies have in common: the confusion between Person and Nature.

 

I don’t know why you want to pick on St. Augustine or make him out to be my demon. I think a theologian like St. Justin Martyr’s Logos theology was wrong and was a stepping stone to Origen and then later the Nicene Crisis. What this means is that error, even extreme error, doesn’t exclude someone from being a Holy Man or even a Father. What constitutes heresy is a willful dogmatic posture towards the Church, which none of these men had. *In of themselves*, St. Justin’s speculations or Augustine’s speculations are quite healthy and good. I wish people felt the desire to speculate and felt more free to do so and that they would state that they are doing so when they are performing it. You want me to embrace the Fathers in some kind of doctrinal purity that fundamentally doesn’t exist, I’m quite happy excepting them warts and all (and leaving their warts at the door of dogmatics), and recognizing that some Fathers have more warts than others.

 

“Theoretically and rhetorically, the ideology of those who gave fuel to the Bosnian war.”

 

Again, how is this so? I mean why would you think a commitment to truth and that there has been those that are true and that there has been those that are wrong constitute violence. There is not a thing violent about my claim. What you say here could be predicated of any exclusive truth claim. C’mon.

 

Photios

The Condemnation of John Beccus

Exposition of the Tomus of Faith Against Beccus

From Aristeides Papadakis: Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289)

 By the most holy and ecumenical patriarch, Lord Gregory of Cyprus, who was attacked by certain individuals, and for whom this vigorous reply was given. The disturbance and storm, which occurred in the Church a short while ago, had, as it were, for its father and leader, the Adversary himself, who is forever stricken with envy of man’s salvation, and who is always seeking to do that which would prevent it. Even so, he also had individuals who, although they were, at first, not the major leaders at fault, but only worked as so many servants and instruments, by preference, did for the disturbance whatever he wanted done. But, since from the beginning, the union [of 1274], the certain harmless accommodation, and the alleged benefit to us were not, in reality, what they claimed, their actual intention was made clear by their actions. And this was proposed as a bait, drawing men’s souls to that which was hidden; it was, further, proposed with promises, with the most terrible imprecations, and with solemn oaths, to the effect that they had nothing else in mind other than that which these very things signified — harmlessness, safety, that is, irreproachability. Shortly afterward, however, these imprecations and oaths were forgotten, as if they had been made for some purpose other than that for which they were intended. And the union and accommodation, and their hitherto seemingly important undertaking, are, as it were, cast down, while the words and the deeds of evil are raised up. And someone This “someone” is clearly John Beccus. The account here is historically accurate, and refers to the fact that initially the Union of Lyons, as sponsored by Michael VIII, was grounded on the principle οίκονομία. However, Beccus’ attempt to justify the Filioque theologically, shortly after his accession, transferred the issue from the plane of accommodation to that of theology. What was being threatened was the integrity of Byzantine theological tradition and custom, which Michael had promised to retain undisturbed. dares to declare in our midst that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, just as it does, indeed, from the Father, and that the only-begotten Son — like the Father, who begets the Son — is its cause. This, then, is how the disturbance begins, how the great struggle against the Church is rekindled.

Almost everyone knows (there is no need to explain it again) that this alien doctrine, which disturbed us lately, was not a recent development, but had its genesis with others, not with us. All the same, it was brought here like a foreign plague, and flourished for quite some time. And it was John Beccus who gave it the strength to grow so much and he accepted it and became the suitable ground, as it were, for its growth; and he nourished it, in my opinion, from the rivers of evil and lawlessness, or, as he falsely said, from Holy Scriptures, interpreting it wrongly, spreading babble from there, and committing sacrilege, while, at the same time robbing the meaning of Scripture, and the sense of those who listened superficially or of those who had an eye on his wealth. Yet, this evil man was almost in his eighth Beccus’ patriarchate: 26 May 1275 to 26 December 1282. year of office and residence in this city; for this is how long he had been established on the patriarchal throne, the prize for a bad crop. And all this time God allowed the Church to suffer and endure the worst because of the multitude of the sins of everyone, by which we alone provoke the anger of Him who is without passion.

Mike Liccione’s filioque doctrine…Orthodox?

Mike Liccione has posted his latest installment of our on going dialogue on the filioque doctrine. You can find it here. Mike has, what is in my opinion a very unique understanding of the filioque. Well, laying aside the problems that Orthodoxy has with natural theology, divine simplicity (which is based on natural theology), and theological method (ordo theologiae), I think he comes the closest to an Orthodox standing on the procession of the Holy Spirit. Why is it unique? I believe Mike has such a commitment to the Monarchy of the Father that I find him transcending both the Carolingian and Scholastic understanding. Carolingian doctrine saw the procession of the Spirit moving in a straight line like the following:

 Father —–> Son ——> Holy Spirit

The taxical order of the persons seems hardened in this view. That is, the Father is the principle without principle (or Uncaused Cause) and the Son as the principle with principle (a Mediated or Caused-Cause). The Monarchy  is viewed as a straight line Monarchy. Thomas Aquinas, though holding to the “one principle” doctrine, affirms this too when he states:

“But if we consider the persons themselves spirating, then, as the Holy Ghost proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father immediately, as from Him, and mediately, as from the Son” ST Ia Q.36A.3

St. Photios the Great’s criticism of this view is that the Holy Spirit lacks a property that is common to the Father and Son, thus, either the Spirit is also the cause of Himself or He must Cause another divine person ad infinitum. The former he called Semi-Sebellianism and the latter He expressed as polytheism. The Latins on this question later at Lyon and Florence confessed that the Spirit does not come forth from two principles but in fact One principle and spiration when the document states:

“In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.”

Confusion in the West: West vs. West on the Filioque

The Orthodox View

 

“Moreover, we have from the letter written by the same Saint Maximus to the priest Marinus concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit, where he implies that the Greeks tried, in vain, to make a case against us, since we do not say that the Son is a cause or principle of the Holy Spirit, as they assert. But, not incognizant of the unity of substance between Father and the Son, as he proceeds from the Father, we confess that he proceeds from the Son, understanding processionem, of course, as “mission.” Interpreting piously, he instructs those skilled in both languages to peace, while he teaches both us and the Greeks that in one sense the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and in another sense he does not proceed, showing the difficulty of expressing the idiosyncrasies of one language in another.”

 

–Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Anastasius Ad Ioannem Diaconum, PL 129, 560-61

 

“It is from the person [substantia] of the Father that the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds.”

 

– John Scotus Erigena, De Divisione Naturae, PL 122, 613

 

Note: John follows the older Latin understanding of substantia is hypostasis and essentia is ousia which is why I translate substantia as “person” here.

 

The view of the Heterodox

 

“The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father because he flows from his substance…and just as the Son received his substance from the Father by being begotten, so also he received from the Father the ability to send the Spirit of Truth from himself through proceeding…For just as the Father and the Son are of one substance, so too by procession from both did the Holy Spirit receive his consubstantial existence.”

 

–Ratramnus of Corbie, Contra Graecorum Opposita Romanam Ecclesiam Inflamantium, PL 121, 229

 

Ratramnus’ assumption that there is only one manner of coming forth from the Father echoing his presupposition on absolute divine simplicity:

 

“Therefore if the Son proceeds from God the Father and the Holy Spirit also proceeds, what will keep the Arians silent, not blaspheming that the Holy Spirit is also the Son of the Father.”

 

– Ibid., PL 121, 247

How Many?

“This heresy [filioque], which has united to itself many innovations, as has been said, appeared about the middle of the seventh century, at first and secretly, and then under various disguises, over the Western Provinces of Europe, until by degrees, creeping along for four or five centuries, it obtained precedence over the ancient orthodoxy of those parts, through the heedlessness of Pastors and the countenance of Princes. Little by little it overspread not only the hitherto orthodox Churches of Spain, but also the German, and French, and Italian Churches, whose orthodoxy at one time was sounded throughout the world, with whom our divine Fathers such as the great Athanasius and heavenly Basil conferred, and whose sympathy and fellowship with us until the seventh Ecumenical Council, preserved unharmed the doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. But in process of time, by envy of the devil, the novelties respecting the sound and orthodox doctrine of the Holy Ghost, the blasphemy of whom shall not be forgiven unto men either in this world or the next, according to the saying of our Lord (Matt. xii. 32), and others that succeeded respecting the divine Mysteries, particularly that of the world-saving Baptism, and the Holy Communion, and the Priesthood, like prodigious births, overspread even Old Rome; and thus sprung, by assumption of special distinctions in the Church as a badge and title, the Papacy. Some of the Bishops of that City, styled Popes, for example Leo III and John VIII, did indeed, as has been said, denounce the innovation, and published the denunciation to the world, the former by those silver plates, the latter by his letter to the holy Photius at the eighth Ecumenical Council, and another to Sphendopulcrus, by the hands of Methodius, Bishop of Moravia. The greater part, however, of their successors, the Popes of Rome, enticed by the antisynodical privileges offered them for the oppression of the Churches of God, and finding in them much worldly advantage, and “much gain,” and conceiving a Monarchy in the Catholic Church and a monopoly of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, changed the ancient worship at will, separating themselves by novelties from the old received Christian Polity. Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.”

Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848, sec. 6.

Signed, Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

Saint Mark of Ephesus on False Union and the Filioque

“To those who have ensnared us in an evil captivity and desire to lead us away into Babylon of Latin rites and dogmas could not, of course completely accomplish this seeing immediately that there is little chance of it, in fact that it was simply impossible but having stopped somewhere in the middle, both they and those who followed after them, they neither remained any longer what they were, nor became anything else. For having quit Jerusalem, a firm and unwavering faith, but being in no condition and not wishing to become and to be called Babylonians, they thus called themselves, as if by right, ‘Greco-Latins,’ and among the people are called ‘Latinizers.’ And so these split people, like the mythical centaurs, confess together with the Latins that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son and has the Son as Cause of His existence, and yet together with us confess that He proceeds from the Father. And they say together with them that the addition to the Creed was done canonically and with blessing, and yet together with us do not permit it to be uttered. (Besides, who would turn away from what was canonical and blessed?) And they say together with them that the unleavened bread is the Body of Christ, and yet together with us do not dare accept it. Is this not sufficient to reveal their spirit, and how that it was not in quest of the Truth (which having in their hands, they betrayed) that they came together with the Latins, but from a desire to enrich themselves and to conclude not a true, but a false union.

Hilary of Poitiers on the ordo theologiae and commentary by Joseph Farrell

“The term homoousios (of one substance) may express a grasp of the true faith; but it lends itself to deception.  If we apply it to a combination of distinction and likeness of nature, to insist that the ‘likeness’ asserts not a likeness in mere externals (speciem) but in underlying reality (genus), then our teaching accords with the truth of our religion: providing that we take ‘one substance’ as meaning a likeness of distinct entities, so that unity means not numerical singularity but equality…. If ‘Father and Son or one substance’ is taken as implying a single entity, though signified by two names, we may confess the Son in name, but we do not acknowledge him in thought, if by confessing ‘one substance’ we are asserting that one single being is himself both Father and Son.  Again, there is a foothold for the error which supposes the Father to have divided himself, to have cut off a part of himself to be his Son…. There is also a third error, which takes ‘Father and Son of one substance’ to indicate a prior substance, which the two share equally.  The orthodox will assert ‘one substance of Father and son’; but he must not start from that: nor must he hold this as the chief truth, as if there could be no true faith without it.  HE will assert ‘one substance’ without danger, when he has first said, ‘The Father is ingenerate; the Son has his origin and existence from the Father; he is like the Father in goodness, honour, and nature.’  He us subject to his Father, as the origin of his being…. He does not come from nothing; he is generate.  He is not unborn; but he shares in timelessness.  he is not the Father, but the Son derived from him.  He is not a portion, he is a whole: not the Creator himself, but his image; the image of God, born of God, from God: he is not a creature; he is God.  But he is not another God in underlying substance, but one God through essence of undiffering substance.  God is one, not in person, but in nature.”(De synodiis 67-69)

St John of Damascus on Divine Names

“The following, then, are the mysteries which we have learned from the holy oracles, as the divine Dionysius the Areopagite said: that God is the cause and beginning of all: the essence of all that have essence: the life of the living: the reason of all rational beings: the intellect of all intelligent beings: the recalling and restoring of those who fall away from Him: the renovation and transformation of those that corrupt that which is natural: the holy foundation of those who are tossed in unholiness: the steadfastness of those who have stood firm: the way of those whose course is directed to Him and the hand stretched forth to guide them upwards. And I shall add He is also the Father of all His creatures (for God, Who brought us into being out of nothing, is in a stricter sense our Father than are our parents who have derived both being and begetting from Him): the shepherd of those who follow and are tended by Him: the radiance of those who are enlightened: the initiation of the initiated: the deification of the deified: the peace of those at discord: the simplicity of those who love simplicity: the unity of those who worship unity: of all beginning the beginning, super-essential because above all beginnings: and the good revelation of what is hidden, that is, of the knowledge of Him so far as that is lawful for and attainable by each. Deity being incomprehensible is also assuredly nameless. Therefore since we know not His essence, let us not seek for a name for His essence. For names are explanations of actual things. But God, Who is good and brought us out of nothing into being that we might share in His goodness, and Who gave us the faculty of knowledge, not only did not impart to us His essence, but did not even grant us the knowledge of His essence. For it is impossible for nature to understand fully the supernatural. Moreover, if knowledge is of things that are, how can there be knowledge of the super-essential? Through His unspeakable goodness, then, it pleased Him to be called by names that we could understand, that we might not be altogether cut off from the knowledge of Him but should have some notion of Him, however vague. Inasmuch, then, as He is incomprehensible, He is also unnamable. But inasmuch as He is the cause of all and contains in Himself the reasons and causes of all that is, He receives names drawn from all that is, even from opposites: for example, He is called light and darkness, water and fire: in order that we may know that these are not of His essence but that He is super-essential and unnamable: but inasmuch as He is the cause of all, He receives names from all His effects.

These Aren’t the Droids You’re Looking For: James White and John 6:39

I admit it. I am a Star Wars fan. Of course since I was a kid when episode 4 came out I am prejudiced into thinking that 4 and 5 were the best. This doesn’t mean that I go to conventions or collect unopened toys as a long term investment. Truth be told I blew up most of them with fire crackers or shot them to death with my BB gun.

Of course it seems that James White is also something of a fan of Star Wars. He keeps trying to use Obi-Wan’s Jedi mind tricks on me. Simply wave the hand and repeat after me. (This of course is similar to the underworld witch in the Silver Chair.) Of course, since it isn’t possible to learn the kinds of powers I am interested in from a Jedi, his mind tricks just won’t work on me. ( Episode 3 Anakin: “Is it possible to learn this power?” Palpatine: “Not from a Jedi.”)

In another forum I argued that John 6:37ff was to be interpreted Christologically as Christ the center of the text and the key to its correct interpretation. White thinks I am mistaken. Foolish me for thinking that Jesus was the center and hermenutical key of Scriptures! (John 5:39)

St John of Damascus on the Place of God and more

“Bodily place is the limit of that which contains, by which that which is contained is contained: for example, the air contains but the body is contained. But it is not the whole of the containing air which is the place of the contained body, but the limit of the containing air, where it comes into contact with the contained body: and the reason is clearly because that which contains is not within that which it contains.

But there is also mental place where mind is active, and mental and incorporeal nature exists: where mind dwells and energizes and is contained not in a bodily but in a mental fashion. For it is without form, and so cannot be contained as a body is. God, then, being immaterial and uncircumscribed, has not place. For He is His own place, filling all things and being above all things, and Himself maintaining all things. Yet we speak of God having place and the place of God where His energy becomes manifest. For He penetrates everything without mixing with it, and imparts to all His energy in proportion to the fitness and receptive power of each: and by this I mean, a purity both natural and voluntary. For the immaterial is purer than the material, and that which is virtuous than that which is linked with vice. Wherefore by the place of God is meant that which has a greater share in His energy and grace. For this reason the Heaven is His throne. For in it are the angels who do His will and are always glorifying Him. For this is His rest and the earth is His footstool. For in it He dwelt in the flesh among men. And His sacred flesh has been named the foot of God. The Church, too, is spoken of as the place of God: for we have set this apart for the glorifying of God as a sort of consecrated place wherein we also hold converse with Him. Likewise also the places in which His energy becomes manifest to us, whether through the flesh or apart from flesh, are spoken of as the places of God.