www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Ecumenical Councils: Are there 21 or only 7?

Well, I'm glad you're glad. But, I'm unsure whether I agree or not, there's still much I need to learn about all this. However, I believe the council of Trent though it says: "not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped" it does not intend to exclude the idea of "divine energy." The word "divinity" is intended to emphasize that material objects are not the "Divine Nature" that we worship [latria] as the Second Council of Nicaea formulated it. As for virtue, it was intended to eliminate superstitions such as possibly believing that the objects themselves give you great strength, power, or luck for combat or gambling, etc. Sacred articles are not magical charms.

May God bless you.

Alex, Todd:

I am following the discussion of icon theology with some interest. Some good points have been made about the relative development of this theology in the East and the Latin West and of its connection with theosis. I do, however, want to comment on Todd's remark about the "rationalism" of Latin theology.

As you well know, it is a commonplace that Western theology is "rationalistic" or "scholastic" whereas Eastern theology is "mystical." This can be very misleading and therefore, I suggest, such contrast should be avoided. After all, theology is a science--that is, it is the intellectual articulation of revelation. At the very least, this means that theology is a rational or dialectical activity whether done in the West or the East, in Latin or in Greek. I am sure that you, Todd, would not want to characterize John Damascene's treatise on the images as less rational than, say, Thomas Aquinas' treatment of images in ST.

I am not sure what you have in mind, Todd, by calling Western theology of images as more "reductionistic" than eastern theology--that requires some explanation. In any case, I would suggest that calling it more "rationalistic" is somewhat misleading.

Dr. Michael

Dear Dr Michael,

If your comment about "some good points" refers to me, I thank you!

Dr Alex

Any discussion of iconoclasm among Christians, regardless of when or where the iconoclasm may occur, is certainly a discussion about the Seventh Council.

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

Sometimes, that discussion will invariably be about you as well . . .

Kidding, kidding . . .

Alex

Dr. Michael,

My criticisms of Western theology as rationalistic (and I was Western for almost 17 years) are based upon the views expressed by men like Christos Yannaras, Vladimir Lossky, Philip Sherrard, Scot Douglas, and David Bradshaw (author of "Aristotle: East and West"). Nevertheless, the criticisms are not meant to indicate that Western theology as a whole is heretical or anything like that, but that Western theology has overemphasized the light of natural reason, and even reduced God at times to a being among beings within the metaphysical outlook discernible through natural reason. God is beyond being, and so He cannot in essence be found in the philosophical speculations of ancient Greece or of modern philosophy. My criticisms of the Schoolmen are founded upon their overemphasis on Aristotle and on his views of first principles. St. Gregory of Nyssa, and the Fathers of the East in general, understood that God is adiastemic and as such it is not possible to predicate things to the divine nature as one would do with created things. In other words, there is no analogy of being between God and the world, between the uncreated essence and created essences, and that is one of the most important errors of the Scholastics, but not their only error, because their views on the divine simplicity, in which all of God's attributes are identical with His essence, are irreconcilable with the position of the Cappadocian Fathers. In Byzantine theology God's attributes (energeiai) are not identical with His essence; instead, there is a real distinction in God between His essence, which is incommunicable and totally transcendent, and His energies, which as St. Basil said, "come down to us." Again, I am not saying that everything within Western theology is wrong, there are even some good things within the Scholastic system, but in my opinion scholastic methods in theology have caused many of the problems presently affecting the Western Church. Including an overemphasis upon the intellect, and the reduction of the vision of God itself to an act of the intellect achieved through a "created" light of glory.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Divine energy is divinity. Thus, the Tridentine formulation is imprecise and could never be applied within the theological tradition of the Byzantine Churches without involving a denial of the truth that man becomes God by his participation in the divine energies. As St. Gregory Palamas indicated, there are three different realities within the Godhead: "essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostases."

Thus, the divine energy, and not simply as the sanctifying, illuminating, and purifying energies, but as deifying grace is present in those who have been redeemed by Christ, and that is why the saints are truly divinized, that is, the saints have become gods. As St. Athanasios said, "God became man so that man might become God."

Daniel,

You have misunderstood my clarification, and perhaps that is my own fault, but there most certainly is a hypostatic relationship between an icon and its prototype, because it is the hypostasis, not the essence, nor the energy of a hypostasis, which is depicted in an icon. The infusion of the divine energies (purifying, sanctifying, and illuminating) within the icon makes it possible for the image to manifest the presence of the hypostasis of the saint. Thus, there is a hypostatic relationship between the image and its prototype, but this hypostatic relation is achieved through the power of the divine energies, and not by the assumption of the materials out of which the image is made by the saint depicted in the icon. The icon and its prototype are not consubstantial; instead, they are hypostatically one, for the icon is an image of the hypostasis of the individual depicted in it. To deny this fact borders on the Nestorian heresy.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Dear Alex,
You write "Sometimes, that discussion will invariably be about you as well". This seems problematic - surely that which only happens sometimes is not invariable!

A joyful and holy Christmas to you.

Incognitus

Todd:

I was not concerned that you were claiming that scholastic theology is heretical or bad. I assume that this is not your position. I was only addressing your claim, made by so many others, that Latin scholastic theology is rationalistic whereas Greek theology is not. This claim is most misleading.

Many of the points you make are, in my view, rather controversial. For example, the claim that Latin scholasticism overemphasizes Aristotle overlooks the fact that Aristotle is also an important source for many theologians of the Greek tradition. I grant that there are important differences between many Latin and Greek thinkers on their use of Aristotle, but it certainly is not the case that one can simply characterize Latin theology as "Aristotelian" and Greek theology as "Platonic" or "mystical." (Bradshaw's study certainly makes this clear.) Another example is that the claim that the intellectualization of Latin theologians compromises God's transcendence. Again, this is too bald a statement and flies in the face of explicit claims to the contrary of many Latin theologians (Aquinas, for example).

The issues of divine energies and the analogy of being are difficult and complex and I cannot go into them here in detail. Let me simply say that if you mean to suggest that the Cappadocian Fathers deny the analogy of being per se, I disagree. As Christian Platonists they certainly have a notion of ontological participation which is precisely the foundation for the analogy of being. Moreover, it is worth noting that the primary source for the treatment of divine ideas and analogy for late medieval Latin scholastics was a Greek source: the Dionysian tradition. I am not denying the differences in formulation and even some philosophical differences, I am simply pointing out that the differences are not quite as absolute as you seem to suggest. Nonetheless, all this requires more discussion and clarification. (I am, for example, still working through Bradshaw's impressive book.)

In any case, my primary point in my original post was simply that it is not useful to use the language of "rationalistic" vs. "non-rationalistic" or "intellectual" vs. "mystical" in contrasting Latin and Greek theology. All theology is rational--how not? Basil and Gregory are just as much engaged in attempting to provide an intellectual articulation of divine nature--as far as this can be done--as is Thomas Aquinas. If they were not, then they would never have written anything--there would be no point.

One of the reasons why I am so concerned with this issue is the modern temptation to fideism. Now, I know this is NOT your view, but many today are misled by the rational-nonrational contrast into the view that faith is somehow contrary to or outside of reason. I recall the sermon of a priest I know who, on the feast of the Council Fathers, claimed that the teaching of the Fathers is that nothing can be said about the Holy Trinity, because it is a mystery. Now, it is a mystery to be sure, but that hardly means that nothing can be said, for if it did, there was no point to the Councils, the Christological teachings of the Fathers are completely vacuous, and there is no distinction between orthodoxy and heresy!

The upshot is that we need a more accurate and less misleading way of contrasting Latin and Greek theology. Also, we should not overlook the similarities simply because of differing formulations.

Dr. Michael

Bless, Father Incognitus!

A Holy Nativity to you as well!

It would depend on the context - and then the discussion would invariably be about you too! :p

Alex

Dr. Michael,

Clearly we disagree on the nature of Scholastic theology and its overemphasis on the intellect. But so far you have not addressed my concerns, that is, in connection with the analogy of being, the divine energies, or the Scholastic views on the divine simplicity; instead, you have simply stated that to talk about these issues is complex. I grant that the issues are complex, but they are fundamental to our disagreement, and to -- yes I will say it -- the disagreements between the East and the West; and so, at present you have simply expressed your opinion that the West does not hold positions that are problematic or rationalistic, and that I have simply misunderstood the West. That being said, I am more than willing to have a detailed conversation about these topics with you.

Let me begin by saying that I am compelled to disagree with you when you call the Cappadocian Fathers, "Christian Platonists." Now certainly there are Platonic influences evident in their writings, but you have oversimplified this as scholars have commonly done for more than a century. But taking St. Gregory of Nyssa as an example, it is important to note that, as you've indicated, his theological views were initially quite Platonic, but that over time he moved away from Platonism, and this has been clearly shown by authors like Dr. Mosshammer (and others), who have highlighted the fact that St. Gregory's theology developed and moved consistently away from the theological positions of his youth. In St. Gregory's more mature writings (i.e., his writings which dealt with, and which were written after, his Contra Eunomium) he overcame the Platonic hierarchy of being and accepted only one distinction, that is, the distinction between uncreated and created. Thus, for St. Gregory, God is utterly transcendent in His essence, and this ontological gap is, and will always be, unbridgeable. God is hetero-essential in relation to the world and nothing can overcome this reality. In other words, the world is a diastemic and kinetic reality, while God is not. Even in the eschaton the world will remain diastemic and kinetic in its essential being, constantly moving (epektasis) toward its end, but never reaching it, while God is beyond this type of existence. God is not eternal, He is pre-eternal, that is, He is beyond eternity, and He is beyond infinity. That is why I still hold that the West has tended to reduce God to a being among beings, certainly a supreme being, but a being among beings nonetheless, and this is especially true when Western theologians emphasize the analogia entis, for as Fr. Florovsky said, ". . . there is no similarity between that which comes forth from nothing and the Creator Who verily is, Who brings creatures out of nothing." [Fr. Florovsky, Creation and Redemption, page 48] The East rejects the idea that there can be an analogy between the uncreated essence and created essences, and you have not addressed this problem, you have simply admitted that it is a complex issue.

The following questions are just some of the things that need to be answered if East and West are to overcome their present division: Are God's attributes identical with His essence; or are God's attributes (energies) really distinct from His essence? Are essence and existence identical in God as St. Thomas Aquinas asserts; or are they distinct as the Cappadocians (and other Eastern Fathers) hold? Does the divine simplicity involve the perichoresis of the divine essence (that is, its simultaneous presence and indivisibility) in the triad of divine hypostases and the uncreated energies as St. Maximos (and others) taught; or does it concern a Neo-Platonic conception of the One, which involves the identification of the energies with the divine essence as St. Augustine and the Scholastic advocated? In addition, are the three divine hypostases identical with the divine essence as St. Thomas Aquinas asserts in the Summa (Prima Pars, Q. 39, A. 1 and A. 2; and Q. 40, A. 1; and Tertia Pars, Q. 2, A. 2), only differing in "our way of thinking"; or is there a real distinction between essence and hypostasis as St. Basil clearly taught (Letter 236)? Does the Spirit proceed as to His hypostatic origin from the Father alone, as the East has always taught; or does the Spirit take His origin by proceeding from the Father and the Son, as the West believes? Is the vision of God a vision of the divine essence through a "created" light of glory, as St. Thomas Aquinas held (Summa, Prima Pars, Q. 12, A. 7); or does the vision of God entail a participation in the uncreated divine energies as St. Gregory Palamas stated so clearly in his writings? In connection with the fall of man, was man created perfect, as St. Augustine and the later Scholastics believed, or was he created in a state of immaturity in which he was called to live virtuously through ascesis and in the process achieve theosis, as St. Maximos taught? Moreover, does the ancestral sin affect man by the transmission of some type of hereditary guilt; or is original sin simply the cause of mortality (of both body and soul), meaning that Adam's descendants are not "guilty" of anything until they actually commit, through an act of their own wills, a sin?

These are only a few of the questions that I want to see you answer, and I am more than willing to have an extended conversation with you on these and many other topics, either on this forum or privately through email, but simply brushing aside the problems that I have raised by saying that the issues are complex will not suffice. Moreover, I do not believe that the things I have read present a caricature of the Western position; instead, they present problems which must be answered if the East and West are to ever have a real rapprochement.

Blessings to you,
Todd

P.S. - I am not modern fideist, nor are my criticisms of the West based on that view of the world.

Todd:

I fear that we may be talking past each other. I grant you that there are many theological differences between the Latin West and the East. In fact, there are many differences among Latin theologians just as there are among Greek theologians.

My only point really was that the contrast of intellectual vs. non-intellectual or rationalistic vs. non-rationalistic is misleading. Whatever the differences between East and West on those issues you mention, they are not distinctions regarding theology as a rational enterprise. Whether one comes down on the "Latin" or "Greek" side of a particular theological question, one is engaged in an intellectual enterprise.

Thus, my only point really is that we need a better way of talking about the differences between East and West.

Regarding your disclaimer about fideism, I do not at all attribute this position to you. (If you look back at my previous post you will find that I explicitly say that I know that YOU are not a fideist.) Again, I was only saying that one of the ways in which your way of speaking about Eastern and Western theology can be misleading is that it prompts some (not you) to fideism.

If we could find a different way of distinguishing Eastern and Western thought that avoids the problem that concerns me, then I suspect that we would find that we are closer on many issues that you think.

Dr. Michael

Dr. Michael,

You may want to re-read my previous posts, because nowhere in them have I said that Eastern theology is "non-intellectual"; instead, I have asserted that Western theology -- particularly in its Scholastic form -- is rationalistic, and I stand by my earlier comments. Moreover, nothing that you have said to this point in our conversation has refuted my position, and my position is held by many sound theologians within the Byzantine tradition.

Byzantine theology is not rationalistic, it is experiential, that is, it involves the whole man, unlike Scholastic theology, which tends to see theology as a "speculative" science, in which it tries to answer the unanswerable. Once again, nowhere have I said that Byzantine theology is "non-intellectual"; but I do not hold that the intellect can conceptualize the divine essence, which of course Aquinas does believe is possible. Until you address my concerns I stand by my comments, because platitudes in defense of Scholastic methods in theology will not suffice to counter what I have said so far.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Yes, I read your post, but even though you were saying that I am not a fideist, the mere mentioning of that position was, in my opinion, meant to draw attention to it, and that is why I said what I said. Fideism is not relevant to our conversation.

Blessings to you,
Todd