|
0 members (),
395
guests, and
109
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,525
Posts417,643
Members6,178
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 12
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 12 |
Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory to Him Forever! I've decided in recent days to brush off on my apologetics skills my going over the Biblical, as well as the Patristic, basis for my Catholic faith. Lo and behold, today I come across the following Catholic Answers tract (“The Eternal Sonship of Christ”  that has peaked my interest: http://www.catholic.com/library/Eternal_Sonship_of_Christ.asp Here's the opening introduction to this Fathers Know Best tract: Some Evangelicals, such as John MacArthur, J. Oliver Buswell, and the late Walter Martin, have been abandoning the Trinitarian faith as defined by the First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325). Their abandonment of orthodox Trinitarianism consists in denying the eternal Sonship of Christ, the doctrine that the second person of the Trinity was the Son of God from all eternity. Instead, they claim that the second person of the Trinity only became the Son of God at his incarnation. Apart from the incarnation he was still God, but not the Son, just the second person.
This teaching destroys the internal relationships within the Trinity, because if the Son was not eternally begotten by the Father then neither did the Spirit eternally proceed from the Father through the Son. It also destroys the Fatherhood of the first person, since without a Son there is no Father. Thus the fundamental familial relations among the persons of the Godhead are destroyed and replaced by mere social relationships, a bare existence of three persons in the Godhead. Prior to the incarnation, there is no longer the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but simply Number One, Number Two, and Number Three—the numbers themselves being an arbitrary designation.
The Church Fathers who wrote the creeds had a different view. They recognized that the Bible depicts the Son as having his identity as the Son before his incarnation. In 1 John 4:9 we read, that "the love of God was made manifest among us [in] that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him." Thus, the second person of the Trinity was already the Son when he was sent into the world.
The same truth is taught under a different metaphor in John 1:1,14 where we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Here the Word (i.e., the second person of the Trinity) is pictured as having his identity as the Word from all eternity. Thus, from all eternity the Word of God proceeded from God, just as speech proceeds from a speaker; similarly, a Son proceeds from his Father. Under both metaphors, whether as the Son of God or the Word of God, the second person of the Trinity is depicted as eternally proceeding from the first person of the Trinity. What follows are a bunch of quotes which show, supposedly, that the Fathers recognized Christ as having an eternal sonship. All cool, right? Wrong. I decided to do more research into this topic, and came across David W. Bercot's A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565633571/qid%3D1022182188/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F0%5F1/103-0525939-6844666 Bercot is an Anglican priest, and this particular dictionary of his is rather well-written. One such entry, under “Christ, Divinity of”. I found it rather interesting, a stomach-wrenching. The Internal Logos and the External Son
. . . [T]he early church believed the Logos of God to be eternal. The statements of some of the writers, however--when taken out of context or read carelessly--make it sound as though they thought the Son came into existence from nothing. They sometimes speak of God the Father having originally been alone. They sometimes also speak of the Father as begetting the Word or the Son at some time or interval. Yet those same writers state that the Father has always had his Logos or Wisdom with him. [b]Upon more careful examination, one finds that those writers are distinguishing between the internal Logos and the external Word (who are one and the same person). They are saying that, technically speaking, the title of “Word” (and perhaps “Son” do [sic] not apply to the Logos until he went forth from the Father to create the universe. They will sometimes speak of this going forth from the Father as the begetting of the Son, distinguishing it from the eternal generation of the Logos from the Father. Bercot goes on to cite examples from Tatian, Tertullian, and Saint Hippolytus. I then went to the Catholic Encyclopedia and found the following: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm The Apostolic Fathers do not touch on the theology of the Logos; a short notice occurs in St. Ignatius only (Ad Magn. viii, 2). The Apologists, on the contrary, develop it, partly owing to their philosophic training, but more particularly to their desire to state their faith in a way familiar to their readers (St. Justin, for example, insists strongly on the theology of the Logos in his "Apology" meant for heathens, much less so in his "Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon"). This anxiety to adapt apologetic discussion to the circumstances of their hearers had its dangers, since it was possible that in this way the apologists might land well inside the lines of their adversaries.
As to the capital question of the generation of the Word, the orthodoxy of the Apologists is irreproachable: the Word was not created, as the Arians held later, but was born of the very Substance of the Father according to the later definition of Nicaea (Justin, "Dial.",128, Tatian, "Or.", v, Athenagoras, "Legat." x-xviii, Theophilus, "Ad Autolyc.", II, x; Tertullian "Adv. Prax.", vii). Their theology is less satisfactory as regards the eternity of this generation and its necessity; in fact, they represent the Word as uttered by the Father when the Father wished to create and in view of this creation (Justin, "II Apol.", 6; cf. "Dial.",6162; Tatian, "Or.", v, a corrupt and doubtful text; Athenagoras, "Legat.", x; Theophilus, "Ad Autolyc.", II, xxii Tertullian, "Adv. Prax.", v-vii). When we seek to understand what they meant by this "utterance", it is difficult to give the same answer for all Athenagoras seems to mean the role of the Son in the work of creation, the syncatabasis of the Nicene Fathers (Newman, "Causes of the Rise and Successes of Arianism" in "Tracts Theological and Ecclesiastical", London, 1902, 238), others, especially Theophilus and Tertullian (cf. Novatian, "De Trinit.", xxxi), seem quite certainly to understand this "utterance" as properly so called. Mental survivals of Stoic psychology seem to be responsible for this attitude: the philosophers of the Portico distinguished between the innate word (endiathetos) and the uttered word (prophorikos) bearing in mind this distinction the aforesaid apologists conceived a development in the Word of God after the same fashion. After this period, St. Irenaeus condemned very severely these attempts at psychological explanation (Adv. Haeres., II, xiii, 3-10, cf. II, xxviii, 4-6), and later Fathers rejected this unfortunate distinction between the Word endiathetos and proportions [Athanasius (?), "Expos. Fidei", i, in P. G., XXV, 201-cf. "Orat.", II, 35, in P. G., XXVI, 221; Cyril of Jerusalem "Cat.", IV, 8, in P. G., XXXIII, 465-cf. "Cat.", XI, 10, in P. G., XXXIII, 701-cf. Council of Sirmium, can. viii, in Athan., "De Synod.", 27-P. G., XXVI,
As to the Divine Nature of the Word, all apologists are agreed but to some of them, at least to St. Justin and Tertuilian, there seemed to be in this Divinity a certain subordination (Justin, "I Apol.", 13-cf. "II Apol.", 13; Tertullian, "Adv. Prax.", 9, 14, 26).
The Alexandrian theologians, themselves profound students of the Logos doctrine, avoided thc above mentioned errors concerning the dual conception of the Word (see, however, a fragment of the "Hypotyposes", of Clement of Alexandria, cited by Photius, in P. G., CIII, 384, and Zahn, "Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutest. Kanons", Erlangen, 1884, xiii 144) and the generation in time; for Clement and for Origen the Word is eternal like the Father (Clement "Strom.", VII, 1, 2, in P. G., IX, 404, 409, and "Adumbrat. in Joan.", i, 1, in P. G., IX, 734; Origen, "De Princip.", I, xxii, 2 sqq., in P. G., XI, 130 sqq.; "In Jer. Hom.", IX, 4, in P. G., XIII, 357, "In Jo. ', ii, 32, in P. G., XIV, 77; cf. Athanasius, "De decret. Nic. syn.", 27, in P. G., XXV, 465). As to the nature of the Word their teaching is less sure: in Clement, it is true, we find only a few traces of subordinationism ("Strom.", IV, 25, in P. G., VIII, 1365; "Strom.", VII, 3, in P. G., IX, 421; cf. "Strom.", VII, 2, in P. G., IX, 408); elsewhere he very explicitly affirms the equality of the Father and the Son and the unity (" Protrept.", 10, in P. G., VIII 228, "Paedag.", I, vi, in P. G., VIII, 280; I, viii, in P. G., VIII, 325 337 cf. I, ix, in P. G., VIII, 353; III, xii, in P. d., V*I, 680). Origen, on the contrary, frequently and formally defended subordinationist ideas (" De Princip.", I, iii, 5, in P. G., XI, 150; IV, xxxv, in P. G., XI, 409, 410; "In Jo." ii, 2, in P. G., XIV, 108, 109; ii, 18, in P. G., XIV, 153, 156; vi, 23, in P. G., XIV, 268; xiii, 25, in P. G., XIV, 44144; xxxii, 18, in P. G., XIV, 817-20; "In Matt.", xv, 10, in P. G., XIII, 1280, 1281; "De Orat.", 15, in P. G., XI,464, "Contra Cels.", V, xi, in P. G., XI,1197); his teaching concerning the Word evidently suffered from Hellenic speculation: in the order of religious knowledge and of prayer, the Word is for him an intermediary between God and the creature.
Amid these speculations of apologists and Alexandrian theologians, elaborated not without danger or without error, the Church maintained her strict dogmatic teaching concerning the Word of God. This is particularly recognizable in the works of those Fathers more devoted to tradition than to philosophy, and especially in St. Irenaeus, who condemns every form of the Hellenic and Gnostic theory of intermediary beings (Adv. Haer., II, xxx, 9; II, ii, 4; III, viii, 3; IV, vii, 4, IV, xx, 1), and who affirms in the strongest terms the full comprehension of the Father by the Son and their identity of nature (Adv. Haer., II, xvii, 8; IV, iv, 2, IV, vi, 3, 6). We find it again with still greater authority in the letter of Pope St. Dionysius to his namesake, the Bishop of Alexandria (see Athan., "De decret. Nic. syn.", 26, in P. G., XXV,461-65): "They lie as to the generation of the Lord who dare to say that His Divine and ineffable generation is a creation. We must not divide the admirable and Divine unity into three divinities, we must not lower the dignity and sovereign grandeur of the Lord by the word creation, but we must believe in God the Father omnipotent, in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost, we must unite the Word to the God of the universe, for He has said: 'I and the Father are one', and again: 'I am in the Father, and the Father in me'. Thus we protect the Divine Trinity, and the holy avowal of the monarchy [unity of God]." The Council of Nicaea (325) had but to lend official consecration to this dogmatic teaching. In other words, Catholic Answers got it wrong. Neither Tertullian, Justin Martyr, or Hippolytus taught “The Eternal Sonship of Christ”. I find this disturbing for several reasons. First, it appears we have an entire era (The Age of the Apologists) where the Church was teaching, not an incomplete, but a false doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ! Nearly every Father of this era taught the “Logos heresy” (for lack of a better term). Not only that, but they appear to have been largely “subordinationist”. (While we're at it, what's the difference between Subordinationism and Arianism? Either Christ is God, or he isn't. I don't understand how the same Fathers who proclaimed Christ to be God can be said to be subordinationist. Did they see Christ as a kind of demi-god? Were they, in fact, ditheists?) Now, I know that individual Fathers are not infallible in everything they teach. But were this one Father teaching error I would not be worried. However, what we seem to have is a disproportionate number of Fathers teaching error, and they lived so close to the Apostolic Age! Why would they knowingly corrupt Apostolic teaching? I also find it hard to believe that these are all isolated cases. It would seem to me that the predominant teaching in the orthodox Catholic Church at one time was this “Logos Heresy”. Does anyone have any info for me that could reassure me that the Church has never officially sanctioned this heresy, either through dogmatic pronouncement or through the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” (which in this case seems to be a heretical consent)?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 12
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 12 |
Two more questions:
1) When did the Church first dogmatically condemn the "Logos Heresy" and teach the Eternal Sonship of Christ?
and
2) Scripture (and the Fathers) clearly teaches that Christ was Son before His Incarnation. But where does Scripture teach that Christ is eternally "Son"?
Thanx a bunch. I look forward to seeing where this discussion takes us!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
John,
I think one has to remember that the Trinity, and the relationships between the Divine Persons were not clearly defined. The same goes for Christ. Otherwise there would never have been Arianism, Sabellianism, Monarchism, Modalism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, or any other *isms. The Church until Constantine was much more concerned with persecution and unless a teaching was grossly heretical like Gnosticism there was great tolerance for different theological propositions. I do not think it is coincidence that as soon as Constantine established tolerance the Church turned to scrutinizing teachings more closely ushering in the era of the Councils.
So you are correct in saying the writings of some of the post-Apostolic fathers have elements of subordinationism in them, particularly, St. Justin, Tertullian, St. Clement of Alexandria and Origen. However, having elements is not the same as the heresy itself. This can also be seen in St. Cyril of Alexandria's definition of the one nature of God the Word incarnate. Many claim this planted the seeds of Monophysitism, others says it is perfectly orthodox, which is what the Catholic Church now teaches, see the joint Christological statements signed by the Popes and the Coptic, Syrian, and Armenian Orthodox Churches.
You omit the rest of the tract however, which I post below.
"Of special interest among the following passages are those in which the early Christians wrote of God as Father prior to the incarnation. Such passages imply the role of the second person as Son before the incarnation, since as we have noted, without a Son there is no Father, just a bare person.
Ignatius of Antioch
"Jesus Christ . . . was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed" (Letter to the Magnesians 6 [A.D. 110]).
Justin Martyr
"Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being his Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to his will, he taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race" (First Apology 23 [A.D. 151]).
"God begot before all creatures a beginning, who was a certain rational power from himself and whom the Holy Spirit calls . . . sometimes the Son
. . . sometimes Lord and Word. . . . We see things happen similarly among ourselves, for whenever we utter some word, we beget a word, yet not by any cutting off, which would diminish the word in us when we utter it. We see a similar occurrence when one fire enkindles another. It is not diminished through the enkindling of the other, but remains as it was" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 61 [A.D. 155]).
Irenaeus
"[The Gnostics] transfer the generation of the uttered word of men to the eternal Word of God, attributing to him a beginning of utterance and a coming into being . . . . In what manner, then, would the Word of God�indeed, the great God himself, since he is the Word�differ from the word of men?" (Against Heresies 2:13:8 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
"[W]hen God says, �Let there be light� [Gen. 1:3], this is the perfect nativity of the Word, while he is proceeding from God. . . . Thus, the Father makes him equal to himself, and the Son, by proceeding from him, was made the first-begotten, since he was begotten before all things, and the only-begotten, because he alone was begotten of God, in a manner peculiar to himself, from the womb of his own heart, to which even the Father himself gives witness: �My heart has poured forth my finest Word� [Ps. 45:1�2]" (Against Praxeas 7:1 [A.D. 216]).
Hippolytus
"Therefore, this sole and universal God, by reflecting, first brought forth the Word�not a word as in speech, but as a mental word, the reason for everything. . . . The Word was the cause of those things which came into existence, carrying out in himself the will of him by whom he was begotten. . . . Only [God�s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).
Origen
"So also Wisdom, since he proceeds from God, is generated from the very substance of God" (Commentary on Hebrews [A.D. 237]).
Gregory the Wonderworker
"There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).
Lactantius
"When we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate them, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father, since the name of �Father� cannot be given without the Son, nor can the Son be begotten without the Father. . . . [T]hey both have one mind, one spirit, one substance; but the former [the Father] is as it were an overflowing fountain, the latter [the Son] as a stream flowing forth from it. The former as the sun, the latter as it were a ray [of light] extended from the sun" (Divine Institutes 4:28�29 [A.D. 307]).
Council of Nicaea I
"We believe . . . in our one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, the only-begotten born of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, born, not made . . ." (The Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
"Believe also in the Son of God, the one and only, our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God begotten of God, who is life begotten of life, who is light begotten of light, who is in all things like unto the begetter, and who did not come to exist in time but was before all the ages, eternally and incomprehensibly begotten of the Father. He is the Wisdom of God" (Catechetical Lectures 4:7 [A.D. 350]).
The Long Ignatius
"[O]ur God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the Virgin. For �the Word was made flesh� [John 1:14]" (Letter to the Ephesians 7 [A.D. 350]).
Athanasius
"When these points have been demonstrated, then they [the Arians] speak even more impudently: �If there never was a time when the Son was not, and if he is eternal and coexists with the Father, then you are saying that he is not a Son at all, but the Father�s brother.� O dull and contentious men! Indeed, if we said only that he coexisted eternally and had not called him Son, their pretended difficulty would have some plausibility. But if while saying that he is eternal, we confess him as Son of the Father, how were it possible for him that is begotten to be called a brother of him that begets? . . . For the Father and the Son were not generated from some preexisting source, so that they might be accounted as brothers. Rather, the Father is the source and begetter of the Son. . . . It is proper for men to beget in time, because of the imperfections of their nature; but the offspring of God is eternal because God�s nature is ever perfect" (Discourses Against the Arians 1:14 [A.D. 360]).
Basil The Great
"What was in the beginning? �The Word,� he says.
. . . Why the Word? So that we might know that he proceeded from the mind. Why the Word? Because he was begotten without passion. Why the Word? Because he is image of the Father who begets him, showing forth the Father fully, in no way separated from him, and subsisting perfectly in himself, just as our word entirely befits our thought" (Eulogies and Sermons 16:3 [A.D. 368]).
Ambrose of Milan
"[The Arians] think that they must posit the objection of his [Christ] having said, �I live on account of the Father.� Certainly if they refer the saying to his divinity, the Son lives on account of the Father, because the Son is from the Father; on account of the Father, because he is of one substance with the Father; on account of the Father, because he is the Word given forth from the heart of the Father; because he proceeds from the Father" (The Faith 4:10:132 [A.D. 379]).
Gregory of Nazianz
"He is called Son because he is identical to the Father in essence; and not only this, but also because he is of him. He is called only-begotten not because he is a unique Son . . . but because he is Son in a unique fashion and not in a corporeal way. He is called Word because he is to the Father what a word is to the mind" (Orations 30:20 [A.D. 380]).
Council of Constantinople I
"We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father" (The Nicene Creed [A.D. 381]) .
Council of Rome
"If anyone does not say that the Son was begotten of the Father, that is, of the divine substance of him himself, he is a heretic" (Tome of Damasus, canon 11 [A.D. 382]).
The Athanasian Creed
"The Father is not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made or created, but begotten. . . . Let him who wishes to be saved, think thus concerning the Trinity. But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation. . . . He is God begotten of the substance of the Father before time, and he is man born of the substance of his mother in time.
. . . This is the Catholic faith; unless everyone believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved" (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).
Augustine
"In the way that you speak a word that you have in your heart and it is with you . . . that is how God issued the Word, that is to say, how he begot the Son. And you, indeed, beget a word too in your heart, without temporal preparation; God begot the Son outside of time, the Son through whom he created all things" (Homilies on John 14:7 [A.D. 416]).
Patrick of Ireland
"Jesus Christ, whom we . . . confess to have always been with the Father�before the world�s beginning, spiritually and ineffably [he was] begotten of the Father before all beginning" (Confession of St. Patrick 4 [A.D. 452]).
Council of Constantinople II
"If anyone does not confess that there are two generations of the Word of God, one from the Father before all ages, without time and incorporeally, the other in the last days when the same came down from heaven and was incarnate . . . let such a one be anathema" (Anathemas Concerning the Three Chapters, canon 2 [A.D. 553])."
So while it was probably wrong to use Origen, Tertullian, or St. Justin, the others are certainly Fathers and prove they did teach the eternal sonship..
It was not until SS. Athanasius, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine that the very clear doctrine we have today was formulated and codified by the Seven Great Councils.
As for your other questions I don't think any Logos heresy so named was condemned but all false teachings on the Trinity and Christ were addressed by the Seven Great Councils.
As for Scripture John 1:1-18 says it all, which is why it is read at The Divine Liturgy on Pascha.
In Christ,
Lance
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 12
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 12 |
Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory to Him Forever! So you are correct in saying the writings of some of the post-Apostolic fathers have elements of subordinationism in them, particularly, St. Justin, Tertullian, St. Clement of Alexandria and Origen. However, having elements is not the same as the heresy itself. This can also be seen in St. Cyril of Alexandria's definition of the one nature of God the Word incarnate. Many claim this planted the seeds of Monophysitism, others says it is perfectly orthodox, which is what the Catholic Church now teaches, see the joint Christological statements signed by the Popes and the Coptic, Syrian, and Armenian Orthodox Churches. Do you know where I can find the full text of these delarations? I have heard of them, but am extremely skeptical as to their weight. The Oriental Orthodox still call themselves "Mia-Physite' and still speak of the Incarnate Word as having one nature that is divine and human; Orthodox and Catholics profess the Word to have two natures, one divine and one human. Also, if this issue really were solved, I don't see what would be hindering a full union between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. You omit the rest of the tract however, which I post below. As I have shown, the tract is poorly written. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Hippolytus did not profess "The Eternal Sonship of Christ" (although they acknowledge that He did become Son sometime before the creation of the universe). So while it was probably wrong to use Origen, Tertullian, or St. Justin, the others are certainly Fathers and prove they did teach the eternal sonship.. We know the later Fathers did, but my point is that there was an era in the Church where, apparently, the orthodox Catholic faith was not being taught. As for your other questions I don't think any Logos heresy so named was condemned but all false teachings on the Trinity and Christ were addressed by the Seven Great Councils. Okay. Do you know when the first dogmatic pronouncement came about that affirmed the eternal Sonship? I would have thought that the first such would have been the Creed of Nicea. However, I have become confused over the translation of one article. In the English translation of the Roman Rite, we say: " . . . eternally begotten of the Father . . . " In the Greek translation of the Eastern Rites, however, we read " . . . begotten of the Father before all ages . . . " This second translation does not explicitly affirm the eternal sonship of Christ, since even Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Hippolytus believed Christ to have been begotten "before all ages", just not "eternally". As for Scripture John 1:1-18 says it all, which is why it is read at The Divine Liturgy on Pascha. Again, this does not indicate that Christ was begotten "eternally", just that He was Son sometime before His Incarnation. And one question I'm still confused over: What's the difference between subordinationism and Arianism? What makes subordinationism? If I recall, Saint Hippolytus was subordinationist, and was condemnded as a Ditheist by Pope Saint Callistus I because of it . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear John Cantius,
Welcome to the Byzantine Forum and best wishes to you and your new Society!
(I understand that new doctoral candidates of the Jagiellonian University are still "graduated" by having the mantle of St John Cantius placed on them - correct?).
I thought I'd add my two cents' worth to this interesting discussion, if I may.
The St Vladimir's Seminary Press has published the full texts of the joint Christological declarations between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.
Actually, "Miaphysite" is a term denoting a fully Orthodox understanding of the union of the Divine and the Human Natures in Christ - historically Greek Orthodox theologians refused to use it to describe the Oriental Orthodox Churches for that reason.
The OO Churches use this term however and deny they are "Monophysite" that suggests the Human Nature of Christ was somehow obliterated in the Union.
The main focus of this agreement is rooted in a new understanding not of any theological viewpoint, but of how both Churches have come to understand "Person."
It was during heated discussions that theologians from both sides came to realize that they were saying the same thing while using different meanings with the same terminology. It's all written up in the statements and in the book they've published with the actual commentary.
Not only the Fathers, but also our liturgy speaks of the Son being Begotten of the Father before all ages.
And, as you correctly show, our translation of the Creed, the original one, celebrates and confesses this.
The problem here is not with the Fathers or with the Creed, but with how you are interpreting a linguistic usage.
Something similar to this occurs when, for example, the Gospels speak of St Joseph not knowing Mary until she gave birth to Christ. Protestants have told me that this ABSOLUTELY means that St Joseph had sexual relations with Mary, the Mother of the Word, afterwards.
But that is NOT what that means. Their view is an imposition of a modern perspective on a way of speaking and thinking that is different from that of the contemporary English language. That is all.
Or some Protestants affirm that Christ MUST have had brothers and sisters who were Mary's children because Christ is called Mary's "First-born."
And that means He was first in a set of children, right? Wrong again!
And there are many other such examples.
"Before all ages" does not pinpoint a moment in time - at all.
"Ages" is a term denoting "time." Before or outside the ages means being outside time, or in "timelessness" or "eternity."
If Christ was the Son of God before His Incarnation, this means He was God before His Incarnation, correct?
And that means He was eternal before His Incarnation, Only-Begotten and Eternal Son and Word of God the Father.
Arianism is in fact a form of subordinationism, to be sure.
There were actually several versions of Arianism, all of which had one thing in common, they taught that Christ was less than the Father, but more than man.
Arians worshipped Christ, to be sure. The Arian bishop and missionary, Ulfilas (who wrote an Arian creed) was a true subordinationist who could write that Christ was a "Great God" and yet less than the Father. The issue of ditheism or tritheism seems not to have disturbed him.
St Hippolytus actually got into trouble more for church politics than theology - as you know, he was pope and then became an antipope, and was reconciled with his main protagonist in the great leveller of theological arguments - the punitive salt mines of Rome.
At no time was the Orthodox Catholic Faith not taught in its pristine entirety and its purity.
Again, I think we need to be careful about language and how it is used today - and in history.
Forgive me, but I think you are working with understandings of verbal expressions that are different from those used or intended in history by the Church.
The Church is led by the Spirit and therefore cannot err.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698 |
Dear John C.,
Welcome. Check your profile, you've got a private message.
I didn't intend on breaking out of lurker mode to post, but I had to respond to what you wrote.
Do you know where I can find the full text of these delarations? I have heard of them, but am extremely skeptical as to their weight. The Oriental Orthodox still call themselves "Mia-Physite' and still speak of the Incarnate Word as having one nature that is divine and human; Orthodox and Catholics profess the Word to have two natures, one divine and one human. Also, if this issue really were solved, I don't see what would be hindering a full union between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox.
Don't be skeptical as to their weight. They affirm what we have always known; namely, that we have held fast to the Orthodox faith, only we used a different formula. Latins and Greeks profess one divine person in two natures. OO's, embracing the theology of Saint Cyril of Alexandria, profess "One Incarnate Nature of God the Word". This terminology speaks of one nature, this is true, but an incarnate one. It inherently implies complete and full divinity and complete and full humanity, as the "two natures" formula of the Latins and Greeks believes. In this, terms are different, but the faith is one and the same. Similar statements of agreement on matters of Christology exist between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox as well. The issues which, I would think, prevent an actual corporate union are the ecumenical councils. OO's don't recognise the ecumenical nature of Councils 4-7, which EO's hold as ecumenical. With the current agreements on Christology, I think it is safe to say we recognise their orthodoxy, but to us they are not ecumenical, only the first Three.
Also, with regard to the Creed, I would think "begotten of the Father before all ages" does indeed mean "eternally". When I read "before all ages", I see "before time ever was". Now if there was not time, then what was there? The eternity of God, Who Is, without beginning or end.
The terms mean the same, I am sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,698 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear John, I would listen to what Mor Ephrem the Catholicos has to say!  One can simply never have one's "Phil" of his wisdom (and wit). Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 12
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 12 |
Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory to Him Foever! (I understand that new doctoral candidates of the Jagiellonian University are still "graduated" by having the mantle of St John Cantius placed on them - correct?). Yes, this is my understanding as well. "Before all ages" does not pinpoint a moment in time - at all.
"Ages" is a term denoting "time." Before or outside the ages means being outside time, or in "timelessness" or "eternity." I'm not so sure. Indeed, I am aware of the dangers of imposing modern meanings on past terminology. But I'm not sure if that applies in this case. Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Hippolytus all held the Son to the "begotten before all ages", and still held to the "Logos Heresy". [qiote]Arians worshipped Christ, to be sure. The Arian bishop and missionary, Ulfilas (who wrote an Arian creed) was a true subordinationist who could write that Christ was a "Great God" and yet less than the Father. The issue of ditheism or tritheism seems not to have disturbed him.[/quote] If it is not di- or tritheism, then what exactly is heterodox about subordinationism? Isn't there a sense, in both order and personal attributes, that we orthodox consider Christ to be less than the Father? (While, of course, being equal in divinity.) St Hippolytus actually got into trouble more for church politics than theology - as you know, he was pope and then became an antipope, and was reconciled with his main protagonist in the great leveller of theological arguments - the punitive salt mines of Rome. Saint Hippolytus was never pope., although he was anti-pope. My understanding is that the schism was over theology. Saint Hippolytus accuse Pope Saints Zephrynus and Callistus I to be Sabaellians, and they in turn accused him of ditheism. (There was also the issue of laxity in administering pennances.) That's sort of another discussion entirely . . . The Church is led by the Spirit and therefore cannot err. Of course, I hold to this conviction. Hardly a day goes by when I don't come across a difficulty in understanding soem aspect of my Catholic faith (it is sooo rich and deep!). However, my past experience has taught me that in the end the Church is always right, and my difficulties are soon dealt away with once I understand the facts. So I always give the Church the benefit of the doubt, and go by the assumption that there's something I'm just not getting at this particular moment. In Christ, Eric http://www.societycantius.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
Eric, I concur with Alex and Phil and really don't have too much more to add. Origen and Tertullian are bad examples peroid. They are not Fathers, and held many defective views that prevents them from being honored as saints. St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Gregory the Wonderworker were pre-Nicene and affirmed the Eternal Sonship of Christ. I believe the Nicene Creed is the first "official" pronouncement, although for it to be pronounced the fathers of that Council as well as others must have implicitly believed and taught it. As Alex has said, we Easterners believe "before all ages" and "unto the ages of ages" = eternity. So for us there is no problem in translation. Again, I refer to John 1:1-18. If the Word is God, and God is Eternal, the Word is Eternal. If the Word is the only Son, he is the Son from Eternity. I believe subordinationism is Semi-Arianism. Arianism teaches the Son is of a different substance than the Father. Semi-Arianism teaches the Son is of like substance with the Father. So he can be at the same time eternal but less than the Father, which I know doesn't make sense but this was around. The documents are found at the following sites: Catholic-Oriental Orthodox Statement: http://sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/RC.html Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox Statement: http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/orthodox_and_oriental.shtml In Christ, Lance
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Eric,
Remember what John Henry Newman once said, "A thousand difficulties do not equal one doubt!"
Well, yes St Hippolytus was never "pope" as his papacy was never recognized.
What is truly interesting for me in the study of saints is how the Fathers often read the lives of antipopes and others who may have been implicated in heresies (or not) to obtain edification from their Christian lives (Holweck: Dictionary of Saints, 1923).
The Eastern Church has ALWAYS used the phrases in question to indicate "eternity" and indeed it cannot be otherwise.
Certainly, as the Quicumque Vult teaches, Christ is equal to the Father as touching His Divinity, but inferior to the Father as touching His Humanity.
Subordinationism, like all other heresies, relates to a lack of nerve in believing in the full implications of the Divine Incarnation of our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Before time, or before the ages, Christ was One with God the Father and the Holy Spirit as the Son of God.
This is the faith of the Church, East and West, no matter how it is expressed.
Again, usage of a term by an historical community is what determines its meaning or how the community intends for it to mean.
Some Protestants I know have always had difficulty with how the Eastern Church views Christ as God in the first instance, as "Other" rather than "Brother."
And He is certainly both. For the East, the "essence" of the Incarnation is precisely in that God Himself became Man and so transfigured the Cosmos with His Holy Spirit through His life, death and resurrection to the glory of God the Father.
Your sense of difficulty MIGHT be related to a religious emotion that MAY still be lingering in your spirit from a previous spiritual life of yours - POSSIBLY.
If so, I am in the same boat as well. But God uses our experiences collectively to bring us to a heightened awareness and appreciation of His Truth.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
