07.24.07
“For it knows itself to be wholly embraced”
From St. Maximus’ Ambigua
It belongs to creatures to be moved toward that end which is without beginning, and to come to rest in the perfect end which is without end and to experience that which is without definition, but not to be such or become such in essence.
…If (the intellectual being’s) motion is intensified (through loving), it does not come to rest until it is embraced wholly by the object of its desire. It no longer wants anything from itself, for it knows itself to be wholly embraced, and intentionally and by choice it wholly receives the lifegiving delimitation. In the same way air is illumined by light and iron is wholly inflamed by fire….
07.20.07
Restlessness
I have grown weary of opposition. I suppose this is partly from thinking it my responsibility to change people’s minds. What folly, pride, and self-idolatry that is. Yet I know that conflict is a motivator to strengthen one’s position and so I have dug deeper as a result than I probably would have done. But now conflict isn’t pushing me. I avoid it. I am so weary of debates that only cause the opposition to strengthen their side or to insult and condemn when it doesn’t work. I’m probably doing the same. So I let them go. If I’m right and they’re wrong, then I’m causing them to sin by strengthening themselves in error. If vice versa, then if I do have some influence on them, better not lead them astray. So I’ll just stay on my side of the fence and mind my own business. How does that poem go, better fences make better neighbors?
So what does this have to do with St. Maximus’ Cosmic Transfiguration? As with many of the writings and statements of the Church Fathers, the Ambigua is largely a defense of the truth against opposition, namely the incorrect teachings of Origen (or more kindly, he provided a “critical rehabilitation of Origen’s masterful insight”). Maximus is considered very steeped in Patrisitic teaching, drawing from the Bible, the Alexandrians, and the Cappadocians, and from the beginning was sought after for appointments and answers, though some of them got him into ultimately life threatening trouble. I will leave it to him to defeat the opposers and I will not concentrate on them as it gives me stress. So if you don’t mind, (or if you do, you may purchase your own copy of this book, which I heartily recommend anyway) I will skip over the sometimes wrong propositions of Origen and the monothelites and focus mainly on joining the cosmos in Christ’s Recapitulative work by God’s mercy and grace.
Back to Restlessness. From Ambigua 7,
[1069B] But they do not realize how untenable their views and how improbable their conjectures, as a more reasonable argument will surely demonstrate (!). For if the divine is unmoved, since it fills all things, and everything that was brought from non-being to being is moved (because it tends toward some end), then nothing that moves is yet at rest. For movement driven by desire has not yet come to rest in that which is ultimately desirable. Unless that which is ultimately desirable is possessed, nothing else is of such a nature as to bring to rest what is being driven by desire. Therefore if something moves it has not come to rest, for it has not yet attained the ultimately desirable. Those who are tending toward that which is ultimately desirable have not yet reached the end, since they have not yet come to rest.
[ 1069C] But if it is the case, as some hold, that rational beings had in fact reached this end, and afterward were moved from their secure abode in what is ultimately desirable, with the result that they were scattered…, if reasonable beings are thus to be carried about and have no place to rest and cannot hope to have any abiding steadfastness in the good, what could be greater reason to despair?
Oh this is getting deep. I must pause. In one sense I can see Origen as being right about the fall in the Garden, but of course not in his preexistent soul in the monolith. But Maximus is saying, contrary to my understanding of Protestant thought, that man had not achieved rest in the Garden before he fell or else he would not have moved from it. He did move from the uncreated Object of our ultimate desire, but before he united fully to Him, by accepting a quick fix, devastating substitute.
I said a while back on Energetic Procession (I think it was on A Good Question) that perhaps evil is necessary to show us what God is not. St. Maximus takes me in hand on that!
On the other hand, if our opponents should say that intellects could have adhered to the divine goodness, but did not, because theywanted to experience something different, then the beautiful would of necessity be loved not for itself, but because of what had been learned of it from its opposite. That would mean the beautiful is loved for some other reason than that it is itself lovable by nature. What is not good and lovable in itself, and does not draw all movement toward it simply because it is good and lovable, cannot properly be the beautiful.[1069D] Such beauty would be incapable of satisfying the desire of those who find delight in it. In fact those who hold this view would have to be grateful to evil, because it taught them what is right and how to hold firmly to the beautiful. [1072A] If our opponents are consistent, they would say that evil brought things into being and is more useful than nature itself, because in their view evil teaches what is fitting and allows one to attain the most precious possession, I mean love, by which all things made by God are brought back to abide in God forever.
I look forward to finding out his stance on universalism. And was Lucifer not fully in God? Do angels move toward or away? When does one reach eternal security?
I used to think I was eternally secure because I could not and cannot imagine turning my back on God. Yet every sin and neglect is movement away from Him. Lord have mercy and help it to at least always be three steps forward and only two steps back.
07.18.07
Maximus Ambitious!
From the introduction:
Maximus, Theologian of the Transfigured Cosmos
George Florovsky quite appropriately described the theological achievement of Maximus the Confessor in terms of a “grand symphony of experience” rather than a perfectly contoured and self-enclosed doctrinal system. More recently Cyril O’Regan, again using the analogy of a “symphonic theology”, has suggested that Maximus’ work is an extended and richly textured gloss on the Chalcedonian Definition, which functions for him as “a dense knot of implication, both visionary and interpretive,” that holds the mysterious key to the world and its salvation…. Yet all the while theologia – as the aspiration to intimate knowledge of the Holy Trinity that must always remain grounded in, and integrated with, the contemplative and ascetic life of the Christian – entails for this Byzantine sage an intensive,ongoing, multifaceted “intellectual quest” into the foundations and future of the world created by God, recreated through the work of Jesus Christ, sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and summoned to an unprecedented and glorious deification. “Questing after” this grand mystery, as Maximus indicates in Ad Thalassium 59 on 1 Peter 1:10-11, was the labor of the ancient prophets, from Abraham through Zachariah, and now is the vocation of every Christian whose natural intellectual and moral faculties are continually being stretched by the grace of the Holy Spirit.
And there you have works + grace = salvation, even if the main part of working is continuous prayer and response. Lord have mercy on my oversimplifications.
Maximus has been called a cosmic theologian, and rightly so…. Both the cosmos and the Bible tell the same glorious story of the Logos who, in his historical incarnation and in his gradual eschatological epiphany “in all things” (cf 1 Cor 15:28), discloses through the logoi, the providential “principles” of creation and Scripture, the magnificent intricacy and beauty of the transfigured cosmos. At the center of this cosmic drama, the true play-within-the-play, is the hypostatic union of divine and human natures and wills that is not only operative “in” Jesus Christ but which truly is Jesus Christ.
I can tell I’m going to want to quote this whole book.
Goodness led me not
From the Title pages of On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ(!) – St. Maximus the Confessor
The Pulley (1633)
by George Herbert
When God at first made man,
Having a glass of blessings standing by;
Let us (said he) pour on him all we can;
Let the world’s riches, which dispersed lie,
Contract into a span.
So strength first made a way;
Then beauty flowed, then wisdom, honor, pleasure:
When almost all was out, God made a stay,
Perceiving that alone of all his treasure
Rest in the bottom lay.
For if I should (said he)
Bestow this jewel also on my creature,
He would adore my gifts instead of me,
And rest in Nature, not the God of Nature;
So both should losers be.
Yet let him keep the rest,
But keep them with repining restlessness:
Let him be rich and weary, that at least,
If goodness lead him not, yet weariness
May toss him to my breast
07.11.07
#1 on my wishlist
I hope I can overcome my distractions and order and read this book:
On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ
by St. Maximus the Confessor
Translated by Robert Wilken and Paul Blowers;
St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press 184 pp, $13.95
The last half of the twentieth century saw the recognition of St. Maximus the Confessor as one of the greatest of Byzantine theologians, with a wholeness of vision that speaks directly to many of our concerns today. Until recently, however, little of his work has been available in English translation.
This volume provides translations of the two main collections of theological reflections by St. Maximus, his Ambigua (or Difficulties) and his Questions to Thalassius, plus one of his Christological opuscula, hitherto unavailable in English. The translations are accompanied by helpful notes, and prefaced by an excellent introduction to the theology of Maximus. This is the ideal volume from which to learn at first hand the depth and insight of St. Maximus’ cosmic vision and grasp of the complexities of human nature, as he patiently explores the nature and consequences of the renewal of all things in Christ.
– Fr. Andrew Louth
07.09.07
A Treasury of Wisdom
I’m adding Benedict Seraphim’s other blog, Wisdom!: Readings from the Fathers of the Church to my blogroll as a great resource to consult.
07.06.07
What I meant by Le Grande Inquisiteur in another blog
I meant that Dostoevsky has written, though vicariously through a Brother Karamazov, a piece called The Grand Inquisitor in which he critiques people’s motives and free will. I was reminded of it when I read about how the referenced person in Energetic Procession was struggling with which Church to stay in or switch to. I was not implying that I am the Grand Inquisitor, just that that “poem” might help clarify things.
07.05.07
Becoming Uncreated
St. Maximus cont.
“Τhe third law, i.e. that of grace, prevailing pre-eminently on the field of virtue, teaches the immediate imitation of God and leads to divinization through transformation of nature. Virtue is not a good within the nature or according to nature, but above nature; it is a surpassing of nature and fights against nature, in order to remain unsubdued, as the true theory fights against time and age. The divine likeness comes forth from these two powers, i.e. θεωρία and αρετή, theory (or gnosis) and virtue(37).
“Αll virtues contribute to the divine eros, and most of all pure prayer, through which the mind obtains wings to pass outside all things and to be elevated from the human things to the divine. So man becomes able to follow Jesus Christ in his ascent to heavens(38). The οne who has been purified by practical philosophy, was taught by natural theory and lastly was led to mystical theology, meets God ineffably in ignorance as within γνόφος, obscurity. Such a one has already become Moses: a spiritual Moses(39).
“Not all things cease to move, howeνer, but only those governed by time while the things of virtue, being outside time, proceed for ever and, even if they be terminated, move again towards a new increase, for the ends become beginnings of other advances.
“Transition to eternity is not just an eschatological question for it belongs to the sphere of spiritual operation, which is independent of temporal or non-temporal conditions. Time and space may be abolished at any point of human life, even οn earth, if they are surpassed by reason and virtue. The gulf between God and man is bridged, even when man is still within this world of change and corruption, within the flesh, οn the sole condition that he has been removed through his own will from flesh and world(44).
“He abandoned these, for the sake of the better, the divine and eternal life of the Logos who dwelled in him(47). Being released from the bonds of time, he is freed in both extremes and so he becomes not only without end -an aspect easily understandable- but also without beginning, since beginning falls into the frame of time which was abolished. The end of times and ages is the complete unity of the genuine beginning with the genuine end within man who is saved. And since genuine beginning and end are just God, unity between these two elements within men who are saved constitutes a unity with God. Therefore, we observe first the choosing of things, then the complete unity between beginning and end, and finally theosis(48).
The one who receives the gifts of the incarnated Logos once, through the sacraments, is forever united with him and keeps his hypostasis forever inside his sοιιl. For Christ is all the time begotten in him secretly and he makes of the soul who begets him a virgin mother(49). Having the God-man permanently within himself, he is in a continuous and perfect contact with the divine.”
St. Maximus undividing male and female into “bare man”
Here he goes again, brace yourself.
“The fιve great divisions οf nature(27Uncreated and created, reasonable and perceptible, heaven and earth, paradise and oecumene, male and female.) (see also) were put before man as a labor for unification “by the proper use of the natιιral faculties”(28). Beginning with his own division into male and female, he should by an apathetic relation to the divine virtue shake off his nature and become simply “bare man”; then, proceeding through the other divisions he could, at the end, unite the created nature to the uncreated, revealing these two as one and the same by virtue of grace(29)…. Gοd makes himself man out of love for men as much as man deifies himself οut of loνe for God; and God lifts up man to the unknowable as much as man manifests God, invisible by nature, through his virtues(33). There is one person that imparts grace and another that receives grace; on the other hand, man in general and also each person separately is the one that has given to Christ humanity and Christ is the person that has accepted it.”
I guess this is about women being created in God’s image too. His image transcends male and female distinctions. Ah, distinctions vs. oppositions – must transcend the dialectic and let distinct energies remain in unity. Or it could be Garrison Keillor’s way, “Where all the women are strong, and the men are good-lookin’, and the children are above average”. : )
I’m not pushing for feminist inclusive language, or even participation, I just wish there was a different word for “man” where we are included. So much of the Church language gives the first impression of being for males, yet saying “he or she” or “humankind” or “people” calls too much attention and sounds too political, agendaish, and awkward. So “man” is the lesser of two evils – Pah!
07.04.07
Back to “Maximus the Confessor on the Infinity of Man”
I’m going back to this paper by Panayiotis Christou
Question going in: Deified things/creation/matter/or just humans (later says “especially rational beings”) become uncreated when they participate in the uncreated energies of God by grace?
from note #7, God and man, Uncreated and the created exist on parallel lines between which is a gulf.
“He especially thinks of man as one who combines and mediates between the two extremes (divine and worldly) and who by beginning with the removal of his own division into male and female might unite all the other divisions in the universe and reach God as the cause of all(8).”
Me: Again the reference to uniting male and female. What does Maximus mean by that since he is a monk? St. Silouan refered to his soul as a she, maybe that has something to do with it.
“The divine as being eros and agape, is moved, while as an object of eros and agape, it moves towards itself those who are capable of receiving eros and agape.”
Me: How to be able to be moved and perfected by God’s love?
Our “reasons (distinguished from intellect) preexist eternally” within the one Logos, their corresponding source. We “rush” to return to God for its perfection in His likeness.
“Every man remains (a partical of God) as long as he moves according to his logos, otherwise he collapses and may return again to non-being”(14).”
“Everything which moves is subject to change and naturally God being immovable is unchangeable(16).”
“A basic category of movement is time, which is unfolded alongside movement, and measures the life of the world. Time and perpetuity are categories of creation while eternity is a category of God. Being above any relation, God is above time and age. He is eternal “as are all His energies”(17).
“Now this movement belongs to the nature of created things, the rational as well as the perceptible ones, though different in each case(18). In rational beings, it is combined with the distinction between the categories of nature and person. As we proceed from nature to person it is transformed into energy.”
Movement becomes energy when “we proceed from nature to person”.
The natural will is connected with nature and movement, while the gnomic will is connected with person and energy. Likewise “image” corresponds to nature, and “likeness” corresponds to person and perfection.
“being and ever-being are offered to essence (nature/image). Goodness and wisdom are offered to gnomic capacity (person to attain likeness) …through free operation by grace… through hard struggle. To form his personality means to transfer his movement to energy, it means to be elevated to the level of God and converse with him, person to person.”
“The purpose put in front of man illuminates clearer Maximos’ aspect of a close connection between man and God. The fact that man was made as a particle of God is not a sufficient property and, if this is not accompanied by a participation in divine glory, it remains meaningless. The Confessor clearly defines man’s purpose in analysing the mystery of Christ. He says that the great and hidden mystery is the (greek word) for the sake of which God produced the essence of beings. It is, namely, the hypostatic union of God and man in Christ (25). Certainly, the exact meaning of this passage is given a reverse interpretation, when one concludes that the purpose of man’s creation is his union with God of which the hypostatic union in Christ was to be the archetype.”
_____
Processing: Christ has a dual nature – God and man. We have a single nature. But through participation in Christ’s dual nature yet singular person, we can participate in God’s energies and be raised to His level by grace. We don’t copy Him, we become Him, uncreated. So through God’s uniting the divine and human in Christ, through the same way, through baptism, maintenance and nurture (movement), we become united to Him. Yet our humanity has its roots in Him so we are returning to our source, not becoming something we weren’t. We become what we are in essence.
