In my last vignette, I tried to explain “why I mostly avoid modern theologians like the plague“. But what I did not explain is what a “theologian” was in original Christianity. But first, for contrast and, I admit, for a little fun, let’s see what Wikipedia has to say about this. This is so “perfect” that I will quote it in length the top paragraph: (emphasis added)
Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief. It is taught as an academic discipline, typically in universities and seminaries. It occupies itself with the unique content of analyzing the supernatural, but also deals with religious epistemology, asks and seeks to answer the question of revelation. Revelation pertains to the acceptance of God, gods, or deities, as not only transcendent or above the natural world, but also willing and able to interact with the natural world and, in particular, to reveal themselves to humankind. While theology has turned into a secular field, religious adherents still consider theology to be a discipline that helps them live and understand concepts such as life and love and that helps them lead lives of obedience to the deities they follow or worship.
Theologians use various forms of analysis and argument (experiential, philosophical, ethnographic, historical, and others) to help understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote any myriad of religious topics. As in philosophy of ethics and case law, arguments often assume the existence of previously resolved questions, and develop by making analogies from them to draw new inferences in new situations.
The study of theology may help a theologian more deeply understand their own religious tradition, another religious tradition, or it may enable them to explore the nature of divinity without reference to any specific tradition. Theology may be used to propagate, reform, or justify a religious tradition; or it may be used to compare, challenge (e.g. biblical criticism), or oppose (e.g. irreligion) a religious tradition or worldview. Theology might also help a theologian address some present situation or need through a religious tradition, or to explore possible ways of interpreting the world.
All of the above has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in common, not even remotely, with the real Christian theology and notions about who/what “theologians” are.
The short answer can be found in the Gospels, specifically in the Beatitudes, and even more specifically this one:
“Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God“. (Matt 5:8)
This, of course, begs the question, what does “pure in heart” mean and what does “see God” mean.
In another part of the Gospels, we read this:
The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light. (Luke 11:33-36)
Again, both of these metaphors point to the same realities:
- The spiritual condition of the “observer’s” soul directly determines his ability to “see” God and the Light
- God, and the Light, can be seen and, therefore, experienced.
Okay, before we go any further, I need to clarify one absolutely crucial thing and I will do that using simple language. I hope that this is helpful, but I need to warn you that what follows is as false as, say, the “orbital” structure of the atom we are taught in school: a nucleus surrounded by electrons “in orbit” “just like” the planets around a star. So I will deliberately grossly oversimplify an extremely complex reality. Please do not, repeat, NOT take what comes next literally. Having said that, let me try to put that in my own, clumsy, words.
God is infinitely different from us. He cannot be seen, or even imagined. One major Church Father (Saint Maximos the Confessor) went as far as to say that if we exist, then God does not. He was not denying the existence of God, of course, but the application of a very human concept of “existence” to God. You can flip that around if you want and say that if God exists, then we don’t. The key here is that we are part of God creation, while He is, obviously, not. And yes, of course, He is also everywhere, but not in a way we can speculate about. This is not a contradiction, but a paradox which cannot be solved speculatively, but can be experienced! In fact, according to Fathers, “negative theology” – the correct term is “apothatic” (saying what God is NOT) – is a much preferable path than any “positive theology” which describes God in any human terms/categories. But even “negative theology”, while preferable, is does not address the issue of the *purity* of the heart/soul/eye. Nor does it indicate HOW to achieve such a purity.
Furthermore, another logical question is this: if God is so infinitely different from us (much more different than, say, a virus and a human being), how can the Fathers then speak of “experiencing” God. Again, here we are touching upon a very complex issue which generated a lot of controversy. So rather than discussing it as the “distinction between essence and the uncreated energies of God”, I will quote the Old Testament:
And the Lord said to Moses, I will also do for thee this thing, which thou hast spoken; for thou hast found grace before me, and I know thee above all. And says, Manifest thyself to me. And said, I will pass by before thee with my glory, and I will call by my name, the Lord, before thee; and I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and will have pity on whom I will have pity. And said, Thou shalt not be able to see my face; for no man shall see my face, and live. And the Lord said, Behold, a place by me: thou shalt stand upon the rock; and when my glory shall pass by, then I will put thee into a hole of the rock; and I will cover thee over with my hand, until I shall have passed by.And I will remove my hand, and then shalt thou see my back parts; but my face shall not appear to thee (Exodus 33:17-23 LXX)
Needless to say, this is again a metaphor. But it shows that the “face” (or essence) of God cannot be seen by any human, but that His “back” can be seen. So what is this “back”? Here, again, the correct reply is “the uncreated energies of God”, but to keep this simple, let’s call it “God’s radiance”. This is also what the Apostles Peter, James, and John saw during the Transfiguration, and what uncounted number of saints have seen/experienced in their lives and are STILL experiencing even in our modern times! (just let that sink in for a minute!)
Let’s not discuss any further what this “radiance” is or how exactly some people can “see” it (that is waaaaaaay beyond our modest scope). Let’s that sum it up, again grossly oversimplifying this, by saying that humans can, in some specific state/condition, actually really EXPERIENCE the reality and presence of God, in spite of not ever being able to even begin to imagine, nevermind experiencing, Him directly (aka His “essence”).
Of course, God also communicates with mankind through His prophets and His Church (which is His “modern prophet” if you wish) which is filled with His Holy Spirit. And, even more obviously, Christ is God Incarnate, but that I won’t discuss now. So let’s please set that aside, just for the time being. Let’s just say that God never “left” us in any way, nor did he “deputize” anybody to be His spokesman, caretaker, substitute or “vicar” (all which do logically imply that God somehow “left” us).
I think that I can stop here for today. My plan for the next vignette will be to outline what early Christians believed is the correct method/sequence to try become able to (re)acquire a “pure heart”. I will just say this: a pure heart is a virtue, not EVER an academic title or the result of philosophical speculations.
PS: we now have 88 registered members, and you still can sign up (here) if you want!
I, Andrei Raevsky, aka The Saker, have absolutely no authority whatsoever to teach anything to anyone. None. Zero. Ziltch. Nada! The “Christian Vignettes” are NOT a catechism, or a course in dogmatics or anything else formal. These vignettes are only one guy’s strictly personal musings on various topics. Nothing more.
Excellent! The usual Christian or Orthodox Christian pat answer is that a theologian is someone who prays or someone who has experience of the “radiance” (sometimes “effulgence” in some translations, or uncreated light) of God. It doesn’t hurt to know some of the academics, but academics are one thing and prayer is another and experiencing the energies of God I’m told is another still.
If I may suggest a further area of exploration: we’re created in the image and likeness of God. Though as you note, we’re created and God is not created (or uncreated). So, how can this be? One priest monk scholar once suggested that God’s image and likeness could be analogous to a seal for sealing wax or for stamping altar bread. God wants to “impress” (emboss?) us with his image, are we malleable enough to receive it? Or, that the image of a tiger on a calendar or poster is different from the image of a tiger sneaking up on you in a mirror while you are shaving in the jungle—images and likenesses need not be static!
Further, man and women are, in essence, both human, but if you’ve been married as long as I have you will learn that women are really different than men in how they think and approach the world and children can be very different from parents. Is it possible that since we’re to spend eternity with God, who is even more utterly different, that marriage and parenting are introductory or supplementary lessons in dealing with the uncreated God? Scripture, I suppose, is the introductory lesson.
The Orthodox Church has only called a few people “theologian” in the history of the church, but that doesn’t mean we can’t learn from other saints, and even the occasional modern academic, but choose with care who you follow!
It is my understanding that by image the Church means our *potential* for theosis (something we never loose no matter how corrupt, evil and even demonic our actions can be) whereas our “likeness” is our actual moral state, which we were born with but which we loose through our sins. Hence the need to be reunited to the Church/God by the Mysteries (“Sacraments”) on a regular basis (ideally every day).
Also, the question of “how” God does something is one I personally try to assiduously avoid. It makes me feel like a virus trying to understand human motives, except the difference between me and a virus is much smaller than the one between me and God.
As for marriage, may I refer you to my previous vignette: /christian-vignette-2-about-fathers-and-papayas/
Kind regards and thanks for your comment!
Saker,
Yes, agreed the image remains regardless of how we live as if we are trying to blot it out.
As you said in these vignettes, attempting to apply human categories to God is almost certainly wrong. Apophatic approaches are, perhaps better, or so I’ve been told. I’ve never made a lot of headway in the fathers who most use such language. I get a few pages in and read a phrase like “brilliant darkness” (Dionysius, I think) and have to stop. As someone who lives partly in the world of science I get stuck: two opposites generally can’t coexist, example positrons and electrons. I thought I read the previous vignette but I’m not recalling the reference so I’ll look again. Thanks for this service, I think you are spot on in your essays.
Ah, I think you meant Chrysostom on marriage, as opposed to my little speculative idea about marriage. Saint John Chrysostom is amazing. His depth of knowledge of Scripture and the life of his people and what (and we!) needed to learn and their ability to absorb it in measured doses was and is amazing. Yes, go read more of Saint John, don’t listen to me!
Fr. Mark.
two opposites generally can’t coexist, example positrons and electrons.
A couple of suggestions here: first, let remember these words “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness”.
The scientific method is correctly applied only to scientific questions.
Formal logic is correctly applied in logical, speculative, matters.
Trying to apply either one to something so extraordinarily and infinitely different from us as God makes no sense whatsoever.
Then there is something I alluded to: contradictions and paradoxes are not the same. The former is a human category while the latter is only a sign of our own, logical, limitations (at least when applied to theological issues).
By the way, the Fathers did not reject science or even pagan philosophy! They just knew what to take and what to set aside.
I would also note that “science” has made MANY more zig-zags in history than Christianity (from which many have lapsed, but which has remained unchanged in the Orthodox Church).
As for all our worldy wisdom, a quick look at the 20th century shows that it has TOTALLY failed us.
They promised us the end of history (all of them, Marxists, Nazis or Democrats) and all we got from them is hell on earth.
Finally, even modern science is deeply ideological (Darwinism) or based on pure speculation (String theory, the Single Electron or the “Atomic/nuclear lasagna” material inside Neutron Stars).
But lets not forget that early scientists were also sure that the world is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth. They even predicted the future on the basis of chicken guts (the fact that all this was cloaked in religious decoration does not change that this was the “science” of the times, accepted by the general public).
Since you are a physicist, you must know that time is an “effect” of matter (the warping of spacetime), right? In other words, no matter, no time. But there was a before the Big Bang, but how can that be even matter itself did not exist?
For CENTURIES the agnostics made fun of religion and the notion that God created the universe, then they hit the wall of the Big Bang and ended up having to explain it away.
How about a scientific refutation of irreducible complexity? So far, all I see is name calling and silence about that.
Finally, and most crucially this:
Let me ask you this (since you are a priest), are the Mysteries only blessed wine and bread, or the Body and Blood of Christ?
+early scientists were also sure that… the sun revolves around the earth+
And now – since the Relativity Theory – we know that they were not incorrect! ;)
Before seminary I trained and worked as a chemist, but there is some overlap with physics.
If I can reframe this a bit, truth is from God regardless of the labels we paste on the truth. By labels I mean science or theology.
Accordingly, fathers of the church like St. Basil the Great made use of natural philosophy or the science of his day to make his points. I have in mind especially his Hexaemeron.
I feel like you and I are using different definitions of science, but I may not be enough of a philosophy guy to explain it well. For example, Im not used to considering divination from animal entrails as science. Nor do I consider Marxism as particularly scientific.
If time is linked to matter or caused by it, then you can’t talk about “before” the Big Bang because time begins then because matter begins then.
Perhaps the writings of Alexei Nesteruk or Christopher Knight, two more philosophy trained Orthodox Christians who are also scientists would be helpful. I can’t claim they are easy reading though!
Darwin as applied to biology has great explanatory power, extrapolation of it to make Darwin apply to all aspects of human life is highly questionable. “Irreducible complexity” may not be real. Just as some scientists complain that as our knowledge through science grows, the need to use God to explain gaps in our understanding drops, the so-called irreducible complexities seen in biology may be more a description of our gaps of knowledge than reality. Stephen Meyer has tried to give some underpinning to this approach/reaction to Darwin via information theory and trying to claim that there’s too much information in DNA to have arisen by chance. Perhaps he’s right, and perhaps I’m too mired in more conventional science to see it, but I’m not totally persuaded. For one thing, it seems like all the irreducible complexity people are fundamental Protestants who’d really like the Bible to be a science textbook and it is not one and no amount of mental contortions are too much to save their fundamentalist point of view. The whole movement was founded by a lawyer, who gathered a few scientists. For another, we may not understand well enough what confers “fitness.” Our understanding of gene expression and regulation and epigenetics is young and growing. It is really complicated.
Science and zig zags: yes, of course. Science involves new ideas and supporting new ideas or old ones with data. There is also convergence too. The age of the universe is supported by a number of fields: biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry of isotopes, etc.
Contradictions and paradoxes, again, I may not be the right one to make fine distinctions between these. However, I think it was St. Sophrony of Athos/England who pointed out that the fact that the church insists on certain things that don’t fit human logic and that those ideas have been preserved (virgin birth, full humanity and full divinity of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity) is a strong indication (nearly proof) they are true.
A secular book on paradoxes or rather limits to human knowledge I enjoyed is Yanosky’s Outer Limits of Human Reason.
The nature of the Eucharist is something I’m not sure it is entirely wise to put on Internet forums. If St. Gregory the Theologian could say in one of his five Theological orations about a similar topic, “the topic is not so cheap and low as to shout from the rooftops,” and had to be persuaded to continue, who am I to dare to wade in?
That said, the text of the liturgy and Scripture etc tells us it is the body and blood of Christ and in faith I believe it is. To human senses and biochemistry it is still bread and wine. Can it be both at once? Why? Why not?
As a reminder, I’m contributing here because I saw in your posts/vignettes as you call them someone making a case for Orthodox Christianity that I thought was very well done in a modern context and offering needed service by doing so. I’m not here in opposition. You don’t need to respect me, but I’m concerned by how the tone of “since you are a priest” could be interpreted by some as disrespectful of the office of the priesthood. I’m a parish priest not a KGB infiltrator impersonating a priest. Use of tools like science and belief in Jesus and Orthodox Christianity are not fundamentally opposed, either.
Dear Fr Mark
First, it was most definitely not my intention to disrespect you or the office of priesthood. Yet my poor choice of words clearly did not convey that, and I sincerely ask for your forgiveness!
The “since you are a priest” was meant literally, meaning “it is because you are a priest that I think I can ask you the following question” the same way that you could say, for example, “since you are a zoologist, can you explain to me how bats can fly in the dark, or electrical eels swim in opaque mud, do they see or do they not”?
I don’t think I suggested anything about the KGB (abolished 30 years ago) or any infiltration.
But, again, if my words caused ambiguity or offense, I ask for forgiveness.
As for my question itself, it was not intended to be a rooftop scream, but only an example where faith and the scientific method (or out rational thinking or discursive logic) directly collide.
I cannot judge myself the wisdom of discussing this topic on a blog, but since Saint John Chrysostome found it appropriate to include this sentence ” I believe that this is truly thine own precious Body, and that this is truly thine own precious Blood” in his prayer which all Christians read before partaking of the Mysteries and is also often also read by the priest before the faithful approach, I do not believe that as a question/topic I should avoid discussing in public.
Furthermore, there are so many *apparent* contradictions in our faith (the Triune God, the Incarnation, etc.) of whom most people are already at least generally aware of, that not speaking about them in public seems counter-productive to me. In fact, I think that the Fathers wrote about them at length precisely to address them and clarify that an apparent contradiction is only a paradox which can be clarified, either by metaphors or by simple words.
I am just a sinful layman, hence my disclaimer under each vignette about “I, Andrei Raevsky, aka The Saker, have absolutely no authority whatsoever to teach anything to anyone. None. Zero. Ziltch. Nada! The “Christian Vignettes” are NOT a catechism, or a course in dogmatics or anything else formal. These vignettes are only one guy’s strictly personal musings on various topics. Nothing more.” and my sole intention is to pass on that which was handed down to me by others. But while my intentions are good, my personal limitation have led me to offend you, and for that I apologize.
Kind regards
Andrei
PS: also, English is my 2nd 3rd or even 4th language, depending on how you count, in my head I think in Russian, and that can make me miss a nuance or misuse words in a way I did not intend, hence my “since you are” which might sound sarcastic/disingenuous in English.
I wasn’t offended, or not much, more I was concerned that it could be read/interpreted as being disrespectful. English is the only language in which I can easily make myself well understood, I’m impressed with your work across several languages.
Done well, both science and religion are about the truth or The Truth was a major point I was making.
Science often descends into what I might call “Scientism,” or the idea that science can be all knowing, eventually, which is false on several levels. Again, Yanosky’s book explores several reasonably well known cases where that’s not possible, ever.
Dear Father Mark
I have noticed that the written word, especially emails and comments, can often by ambiguous because they are by nature short, often quickly written. I wish we could all meet face to face, see each other’s expression and tone of voice, that would probably resolve many of not all ambiguities.
Thank you, Father, with your patience with me. As for me, I will try to write slower and more carefully.
Kindest regards
Andrei
Dear Fr. Mark,
I must say I was taken aback by the Saker’s asking you whether you believe in reality of the Eucharist. That’s a strange question to ask an Orthodox priest, to put it mildly… but as to your question “can it be both?” (Body and Blood as well as bread and wine) – may I answer by citing an authoritative Confession of Dositheus (http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html):
“Decree 17. …Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread…”
Clearly, this is formulated in terms of the Aristotelian philosophy (substance/accidents etc.), i.e. terms in which all Byzantine theology is formulated. Basically, the accidents (weight colour taste etc.) are that of the bread and the wine but the substance is not. I think modern science doesn’t study substance and doesn’t even believe there is such a thing; but theologically, the substance is what something “is” (which may be different from what something “looks like” etc.)…
“whether you believe in reality of the Eucharist”
Again, what I meant was to illustrate an apparent contradiction, not questioning anybody’s belief.
By the way, the Latin understanding of “transubstantiation” shows that this issue did perplex many people, especially in the West, even those who did believe in the reality of the Eucharist, but still felt compelled to somehow “explain a Mystery”.
My point is not anybody’s faith or beliefs, but a well-known *APPARENT* “contradiction between what our physical eyes see and what our noetic faculties perceive. That’s all.
The distinction between the senses and the noetic faculties is the salient point. Without awareness of the noetic faculties, the spiritual intellect, theology is impossible. That is why the wikipedia passage quoted above is so tragic. The author doesn’t seem to have any idea that there is a spiritual intellect, and reduces theology to the realm of rational discourse.
The discussion between Andre and Fr. Mark about the difference between science and theology would make for an interesting future topic; the difference between traditional Orthodox cosmology and the modern, essentially materialistic, perspective.
Thank you again for this fascinating forum.
Thomas
I’m not qualified to write about Aristotle, other than to say that he is much less influential in Orthodoxy than in the Western churches.
There was a period of time when Orthodox education was more/less captive to western thinking. It is hard to say when this was or if it has, indeed, ended. Definitely with the fall of Constantinople in 1453 it was underway and we didn’t start to find it’s way out in earnest until the 20th C when we start to have people like Florovsky urging us to get back to the sources.
So, w/o knowing who this Dositheus is and when and where his creed were written, I’m not inclined to consider him or his creed authoritative of anything other than himself whenever and wherever he was bishop.
I’m particularly concerned with words like “species, accidents, form, substance” as being Western terminology imposed on Orthodox thinking from the outside.
Having said all that, yes, the Orthodox believe the bread and wine start as bread and wine and during the liturgy they become the body and blood, and they continue to look and feel like and act like, biochemically speaking, bread and wine. Well, some people see them as they truly are, but that’s a rare blessing, rarely reported during the lifetime of the person who does see them that way.
If someone were so impious as to take a sample of the eucharist to the lab, you would not find the “essence” or God, you’d much more likely have a report showing water, alcohol, sugar, salt, etc.
Dear Fr. Mark,
Philip Sherrard has a fascinating exposition on the influence of both Aristotle and Plato on Western and Eastern Christianity in his book, “The Greek East and the Latin West”. One of his points is that the Aristotlean influence on Scholasticism, which he sees and leading to the modern world view, did not occur in Orthodoxy because Aristotle had already been “baptized”, that is his doctrines had been subsumed into Christianity, by theologians such as St. John Damascene. I highly recommend the book which I just finished.
Andrei I apologize for misspelling your name!
Thomas
Dear Fr. Mark,
First of all, the confession of Dositheos, patriarch of Jerusalem, was approved by the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Jerusalem_(1672). It is a very authoritative creed in the Orthodox tradition and in particular has to do with refutation of some of the Calvinist doctrine which was at the time attributed to the Orthodox by some. If it’s not authoritative to you… I don’t even know what to say…
In terms of Aristotle, – I hope that St. John Damascene is authoritative for you. He is one of the best dogmatists ever. And yet his very prominent work, Philosophical Chapters, a logical foundation of theology, is almost entirely based on Aristotelian concepts. Fathers such as St.Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian and many others studied Aristotle. Of course the Fathers didn’t follow his metaphysics, but they used his logic and philosophical terminology to explain theological concepts. It was the scientific language of their day. This was way before the West strayed from Orthodoxy.
While I respect the contribution of Fr. George Florovsky, a picture that all Ortodox theology after 1453 was captive to Western thinking is, to put it mildly, somewhat exaggerated. Latin influence was prominent in Russia unfortunately, but it never led to a break with the Orthodox tradition; other Eastern patriarchates never abandoned the Byzantine tradition even though education did decline under Turkish empire.
his logic and philosophical terminology to explain theological concepts
True, and I would only add that they often also *redefined* philosophical concepts and adapted them to the Christian context.
Kind regards and thank you
Andrei
The approved confession of the faith was generated in 325 and 381 at ecumenical councils which further was acclaimed by later ones.
The last such council was in 787 if memory serves. Later councils sometimes have significant authority, true. Many were convened to deal with regional issues, however.
As I think I said, I don’t have any particular knowledge about this Dositheseos, but the terminology seems very foreign. The Eucharist is a mystery and to approach it with a bunch of logical categories is to miss the point. I think the math term for this is orthogonal (not parallel not intersecting?) from what you indicate, based on date and audience, this interlocutor with the west was likely educated in the west or under that influence and moreover was trying to reach for terms his recipients might understand.
Yes, I’m aware that many of the fathers were steeped in pagan philosophy. However, they tended to give those terms and ideas Christian meanings or repurposing. I’m not a philosopher, but my impression is that this new usage is significantly different from how those terms were discussed and used and continue to be used in the West.
A better source on this topic than me is the book “Thinking Orthodox,” which also describes some of the perils of writing on line for an audience you don’t know and its general futility!
Again, I’m not an expert, but my impression is that the Greeks barely hung onto a separate culture as a conquered people for 600 years. Education was very ad hoc and higher education meant RC schools in places like Venice for many centuries. The effect was not subtle. The contributions on heterodox to patristics in the 19th and 20th C were enormous but what little of it I’ve read reflects a very different mindset/phronema from Orthodoxy.
As a parish priest, I’ve seen in other clergy and otherwise highly educated laypeople a profound ignorance of science and also a non-Orthodox fundamentalist reaction to it, often centered in extreme biblical literalism but not limited to it. As Saker has already done a good job on that topic, I’ll only mention again that Christopher Knights relatively recent book is quite good in dealing with a lot of those errors.
Anyway, based on that very Protestant-like fundamentalism (among other reasons) I’m not convinced that the Western intellectual captivity of the Eastern church is over yet!
This probably needs editing and I’m afraid I’ve muddied more than I’ve clarified. I can see I’m going to have to be more careful with the time I invest here. Forgive me for being headstrong and not more knowledgeable and not understanding the questions better and if I’ve offended anyone.
Dear Fr. Mark,
The very last thing I want is to attack someone’s lack of knowledge; this is not a problem and no one can know everything. The trouble I have is with discarding the Orthodox theology of the period of its *relative* decline after the Byzantine period as being “subject to Western influence”. This, to me, borders with saying that Orthodox theology ceased to be Orthodox, implying the same about the Church. The concept of “Babylon captivity” of the Church (or of its theology) was not invented by Fr. George Florovsky; it was invented by Luther and is, essentially, a Protestant concept. It does not seem a great idea to me to fight the RC influence in Orthodoxy using Protestant ideas.
It is true that there was a RC influence as, for a period, both Greeks (as you mention) and Russians went to the RC schools in the West to study, as there were no or little local alternatives up until the end of XVII c. But those people never forgot about the differences and, for many of them (especially in the Ukraine&Belarus which were under Poland), the purpose was exacty to obtain the tools to fight the RC and Protestant influences. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say that they subscribed to any of the heretical doctrines of the West; they were only too aware of those. The influence was subtle, in the methodology, terminology and perhaps some less obvious details of the Church teaching, – the major victim was, I believe, the theology of St. Gregory Palamas, which was very much unknown in Russia in the synodal period, at least in the seminaries and academies; it only found its way to Russia through the spread of Philokalia-related monasticism (St. Seraphim of Sarov, the elders of Optina, St. Ignatios (Bryanchaninov) and others).
Nevertheless, though the Second Nicaean Council of 787 is the last commonly accepted Ecumenical Council, there were further Councils, which, while not accepted in the West, are commonly accepted throughout all the Eastern Church. New challenges to Orthodoxy continue to arise, to which theological answers have to be given. Of particular importance are the “Palamite” Councils of Constantinople in XIV c. Even after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Orthodox theology continued to address new challenges such as Protestantism (here, the Jerusalem Synod of 1672 that I mentioned is very relevant; much of its creed was then repeated in the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1723 addressed to the English Non-juror bishops) and new RC doctrines (here, an important creed is the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848). A drive towards a return to the Byzantine theology in XX c. – in Greece, Russia, Serbia, the West – is very welcome, but the Byzantine theology has never been abandoned, even if it was not studied as closely in some periods.
For me is here Paul in I Corinthians 1:18ff the main orientation:
“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
All attemps to explaine here lead astray. A theologian is (for me) one who sees the devine light and no longer needs explanations.
Dear André
I fully agree with the quote (of course!) and with your using it as an example of Patristic phronema (“spirit”).
And, of course, I very much agree with your last sentence :-)
Thank you,
Andrei
Thankfully, at least a few who saw the divine light had the audacity to try to put into words what they ?absorbed? for the rest of us!
yes, sure, its good that they share there experience. The problems beginn when the word (or the picture) is held for the light. Word and picture illustrate the light or the encounter of the light, but they also obscure it. The sanctuary is behind the iconostasis.
Since the first Vignette I have been confronted, internally as much as “externally” with this subject of Theologians. I certainly would have saved myself much trouble had I done the Google search and probably land at Wikipedia. I will try to explain.
I have two lady friends, whom I love and respect. Both are Thelogy students at the University. Both are Protestants. One of them works as volunteer in the Reformed Church in the town we used to live until one year ago. We used to be part of the Roman Catholic group at the time we lived there. But have converted to Orthodoxy only 3 years ago, and precisely the relationship with the local Church did play a great role in our conversion. We often discuss religious topics together, and since my friend works there we get to hear about the work they do as recently they work intensively together with Roman Catholics on a project to bring both churches closer together. Being this a new and unknown approach to me, I asked why was this happening and what could be the benefit. My friend explained to me that she has started this activity to offer the kids the chance to have a place to gather and be together. Bringing people together is certainly a good deed, no question, but I realized during this conversation that there was no mention of any involvement of Our Lord Jesus Christ in any of the motives or activities. I spent a couple of days busy with his thought and why this disturbed me, but I was not able to order my thoughts clearly enough. After the appearance of the Vignette #2 I was then invited to my next theologian friend. Her husband asked why were we converted to Orthodox, they were curious as it is not a common religion in Switzerland, not for swiss at least. So during our conversation my Theology student lady friend said that she was anti-trinitarian and that she had a lot of trouble reading the New Testament, being it very difficult for her to accept it. Her husband, who is the organist of the Ref church there since many years went on trying to teach me that all religions fulfill the same duty and are equivalent, and so on. I then replied that a Christian is someone who believes that Our Lord is Jesus, God and Man and that this is what we believe, and therefore we cannot believe that there can be an equivalence there. He then went on to tell me I was dogmatic, which is not an insult to me at all, as to me this means that I abide to the Holy Church teachings. And then something happened which was very surprising as well to me. I told him that this (their) way of thinking was a negation of Christ and therefore Anti-Christian. I think they were shocked, but I do not know, as they really think and see everything so differently I cannot tell if they felt offended.
What I can tell out of this short experience is that I think Wikipedia is quite correct and the new theologians do not include Christ as God in their studies and they can be theologians and be openly contrary to His teachings.
Dear Andrei, thanks y lot for the opportunity of being part of this project and please do not ever feel clumsy, as you may see what clumsy really looks like (!). I learn a lot with every Vignette, as well as of the wonderful contributions of such knowledgeable participants as Fr. Mark, whose comments I highly enjoyed.
Hugs
ana
Dear Ana
You raise another very interesting topic: modern “Ecumenism” as opposed to how the Fathers dealt with heterodox ideas. I have no plans to discuss that topic in the foreseeable future (I am offending enough people already), but if that is topic of interest to you, I can certainly recommend some very good readings about this (drop me an email if you want). All I will do is quote Christ Himself “every tree is known by his own fruit” and leave it at that.
Hugs and thanks!
Andrei
Thanks for letting me know you appreciate the effort. :-)
Layman,
I’m still stuck at the wording describing the Eucharist in terms of substance and accidents.
I didn’t want to bring Palamas into the discussion, but yes, I’ve seen RC resistance to him, which is part of why I no longer bother with RC/Orthodox dialog. I’m content to leave that to the Bishops for now. I’d commend Christopher Veniamin’s book on Palamas’s sermons and I’ve done a smattering of reading of St. GP’s other writings. One of my boys is named after that saint!
Nor do I particularly want to bring into the discussion the on-going Western influence on the thinking of the Orthodox beyond the 17th C. I could feel some of it in seminary the first time I went in the mid 1990s from a certain professor trained in E. Europe during the Communist era.
Perhaps it is myopic of me, but as opposed to what happened vis a vis Cyril Lucaris and Dositheus I’m more interested in issues of current pastoral care like the disastrous US “war on drugs” which is racist in its roots and application and hasn’t worked and won’t work and criminalizes compassion on the part of some of the people trying to reduce the harm done to others.
Or the on-going US disaster of foreign policy in general and against Christians, especially Eastern ones, and the crazy (wrong) equation of modern Israel with the Israel of God in the Scriptures.
Or, the U.S. war on the unborn which strikes me as demonic.
Or the erosion of the idea of truth in the public square. Or that we’ve gotten to a point at which the secular and the sacred essentially have nothing to do with each other in most people’s minds in place of mutually supporting each other (deep past when Christianity started) or uneasy coexistence (up to the first 1/2 of the 20th C?).
Or the concentration of wealth and power in so few hands in the U.S. and its subversion of the Gov’t and frequent insistence that falsehood is truth.
Or, the intersection between science and religion particularly reproductive biology and end of life care.
Or, the intersection between science and art and spirituality.
As our host said above this dialog might work better in person when we can more readily ask in real time “when you said X did you mean…?” Or, can see each other’s expression and tone. This medium is fraught with perils including writing while eating breakfast, running late to a couple of appointments if I’m not careful which is what I’m doing!
I’m serving in a small parish and have a secular university staff job in addition to a family, a house, and some non-church interests like visual astronomy and print making (with or without film cameras) that I’m trying to keep going too, for my own sanity. Likely, I’m going to have to severely restrict the time I put into this forum just as I found I had to do with other social media.
Also, seminary degrees take 3 years, medicine 4 plus 3 years apprenticeship, minimum. There’s not enough time to cover everything in seminary that needs to be covered, true. Dositheus may seem authoritative from a certain angle, but in a 3 year seminary program, I’m not sure he always gets mentioned, let alone studied. I’d heard of Cyril Lucaris in church history or maybe because an off hand comment by the professor prompted me to eventually read (after seminary) Runciman’s Great Church in Captivity when I was able to buy it used for less than a dollar (25+ years ago).
That’s all I have for now. I have a busy day beckoning. Best regards to all, perhaps I will see you when I notice the next vignette posted.
Dear Fr. Mark,
As I said in no way did I intend to dwell on any lack of knowledge from your side; in no way does this impair my respect to you. I know more or less what priests study here in Russia, and I wouldn’t expect any greater knowledge from them, either (except for those who graduated from an academy, that is). Clearly as a parish priest you are concerned with the practical issues applicable to your parish. Still, I believe the correct theology (Ortho-doxia, right thinking) is the foundation for the right life, as even martyrdom does not absolve from heresy. Therefore, I think it is worth studying, just to make sure we do not fall into error.
And clearly I agree with you and with the Saker that the true theologian is the one who sees the Divine light; but the rest of us, we can study what’s been said and written by such people…
Asking for your blessing,
Dimitry
I like your basic take on theology as ability to see God. It points directly to the heart of the matter. Matters of religion have much more to do with attitudes, ability to listen and willingness to take responsibility of your own shortcomings than with intelligence or lack of it. Your other point in trying to define theology is also very relevant. How can a created being know anything about his creator. Even if the painting could think, how could the painting understand the intentions or message the painter had. It would truly be like a worm or virus listening on the conversation of humans. Of course there is also the academic discipline of theology, but your points illustrate nicely the difference. I try to put here a few thougths that I hope are constructive and helpfull. I know the meaning of a few greek and latin words, but I am not familiar with the Orthodox jargon about theological matters and English is my third language, so please forgive me if I choose wrong terminology.
Firstly let me take up an example of an objection to the consept of all powerfull God as a question, that you migth hear in some form or another:
“Can god create such a stone that he cannot lift it”
The idea is ofcourse that by answering YES you defeat the consept of an allpowerfull god as there is something he cannot do. If you choose to answer NO you also defeat the consept by admitting there is something he cannot do. So the question it quite similar to what Jesus had to deal with at few times.
The problem with this is that the person making the question is not really discussing or even asking enything he is asserting his own convictions by the way he is presenting the case. In the question the definion of allpowerfullnes is above god not the other way around. This internally contradictory consept is used to measure if god fulfills the standard of the given concept or not. As a consequence the whole question looses any rationality and ability to convey any message.
One possible answer to the question migth be: “Yes he can and that stone is You. By choise God has limited the things he does by giving you a free will. ”
Some say Christianity is irrational, or that you would have to deny all scientific knowledge to believe in a creator God or the Gospel. The problem the academic science of theology is that behind the academics there is a lot of stuff that affects the outcome. If the academic pursuit is bound by the basic assumptions of naturalism it will determine the outcome of the pursuit. Naturalism denies the existence ot the transendent and therefore is quite problematic in handling things that are it by definition. Christianity is not contrary to science. Actually its the other way around, the basic assumptions of christianity and the gospel was the basis for the developement of modern science.
Also in any communication the outcome is determined by the concepts used. To be meaningfull any exchange of ideas must have enough common ground for conceps. So for example to talk about what really happens in eucharist there must be a clear mutual understanding about the concepts that are used in the conversation. The early christians were accused of cannibalism and human sacrifices probably because someone originally overheard christians talking about eucharist. Not much more is needed to spread rumors. Luther defined sacraments as something that involved something physical that was bound by Christs command. So water, bread and wine became something similar to the preached word, because of the associated word. I dont know enough details of either Roman or Orthodox theology to evaluate the differences, but from what i know i think all three are trying to assure us that Christ is somehow truly present in the sacraments. How this is possbile is beyond our understanding. Everybody admits that, but still tend to make extremely much of our sligthly different attempts to formulate it in our concepts.
Early christians had to formulate their beliefs with the words that were used around them. Necessarily through these words both platonism and aristotelism crept in to the formulations. Ofcourse they did their best to figth these wrong interpretations. Both understood the world through the lence of a dichotomy. Platonism favored ideas and tended to think that material things were less true. Aristelism tended to favour the material. Christology and trinitarian formulations had to therefore figth both of these tendensies and the heresies that reflected the basic presuppositions of the age. In most of the formulations they had to express essential dogmas in ways that appeared to their contemporaties to be contradictory and irrational.
After roughly 2000 years our theological and philosophical vocabulary is much broader, but the basic problems are the same. I would not look down on the academic endeavor. You just have to remember that the heart must be pure.