08.18.08
Patristic Theology
I’ve been trying to find good in Plato, and have so far. Simultaneously, I’m reading Father John Romanides’ Patristic Theology, which is hopefully putting Plato’s philosophy in perspective.
So far he has some very good things to say about noetic prayer, revelation, philosophy, and language. He draws from Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos, among others, to describe the stages of purification, illumination, and theosis.
So far here’s what he’s warned against Plato.
An Orthodox theologian is under no obligation to take the existence of a Platonic-style Frankish soul into consideration, because unlike the Franks who were followers of Plato on the question of the soul, the Fathers refused to follow Plato on this topic. (p. 65)
On language he says that it is an invention of humans, and not God. “People formed it in order to help them communicate and interact.” (p. 81) He then explains the platonic idea of archetypes/forms and how they lead to idolotry (p.82). The Hebrew Bible uses inanimate creation to describe God like “mountain, rock, stone, water, river, sky, sun, and so on.” Platonic expression are abstract like “nous, logos, intellect, hypostasis, substance, trinity, unity, and so forth.” “The energy of God is described as a cloud, fire, light, and so forth.” (p. 83)
We are free to borrow any name or concept and to attribute it to God as long as we do so on an apophatic way, because God does not have any likeness in the created world and because there are no concepts in the created world that can be attributed to God as a way of identifying Him. So on the one hand, we do attribute a name to God, but only if, on the other hand, we also take it away from Him. For example, although we say that God is Light, we negate this at the same time by saying that God is also darkness. We do not add this qualification because God is not Light, but because God transcends light. God does not lack anything but He exceeds everything.
He criticizes Western Scholastics because “for them these names are not taken away from God in order to avoid attributing them to Him, but in order to purify the names of their imperfections. But you will not find such a thing in the Church Fathers [...] Names are given and they are taken away. In other words, they make use of opposites. But when the Fathers speak about God and attribute opposites to Him, they negate Aristotle’s law of contradiction and in so doing overturn the entire edifice of Aristotelian philosophy. (p. 84-85)
[...] rules of logic are valid, in so far as they are valid, only for God’s creation. The rules of logic or philosophy are not applicable with God. There is not any philosophical system or system of logic that can be applied to God. The Fathers consider those who think that they can approach God via pure mathematics to be terribly naive, simply because there is no similarity between created and uncreated. (p.85)
He is saying that God can only be known through theosis, though words can motivate or point a person in that direction. I do not think that he means logic is wrong, but that it can only describe the created. The Incarnation united the created and uncreated maintaining the distinction yet without confusion or separation. Mysterious indeed.
Diakrisis said,
August 20, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I am grateful to our God that Fr. John’s University Lectures [Patristic Theology] are a blessing to you . . . [...]
Of course, there is nothing wrong with someone studying philosophy as long as he rejects philosophy’s teachings on the existence and nature of God. After all, philosophy trains the human mind. This is what all the hesychastic Fathers say, including Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nyssa, the Church Father whose ability to reason like a philosopher is unsurpassed. And if you read St. Dionysius the Areopagite, you will see that he even follows this same line of thought. So we can conclude that there is nothing wrong with someone spending his time with philosophy in order to train his mind, but it is sheer stupidity to accept the teachings of philosophy when it comes to theological subjects. (Chapter 61. – p. 229)
Andrea Elizabeth said,
August 20, 2008 at 3:37 pm
One reason I’m reading Plato, besides that a few people I respect suggest that everyone read Plato, is that many Orthodox theologians, like Father John Romanides, keep referencing him. And today I read on “A Vow of Conversation” (linked to the right), Andrew Louth referencing Kierkegaard, whom I also have recently perused. I feel that knowing who they are talking about will enrich my understanding of these theologians who have obviously studied them. I do not see a dialectic relationship between these unorthodox philosophers and the Truth, but an incomplete understanding that needs to be informed and corrected by the Orthodox Church. I’m glad you see value in studying philosophy as a mind-training exercise and I agree with you that they speak to human nature more than God, though even their human anthropology can be a little disturbing as I just pointed out in my last post, Plato 10.
I’ll jump to p. 229 hopefully later today. Thanks!
Diakrisis said,
August 21, 2008 at 12:38 pm
. . . my opinion has Protopresbyter John Romanides’ – PATRISTIC THEOLOGY – as a very fearful reading! For those Orthodox Christians that strive for inner growth . . . reading Fr. Romanides is very much like reading St. Symeon the New Theologian . . .
[...] THE SOCIAL AIMS OF ORTHODOXY
Now what is the social aspect of our present subject? Take any human being, any person whatsoever, who lives in society and must function as a healthy social entity.
Earlier we referred to the healing of the human sours noetic energy. The completion of this course of treatment automatically results in the creation of a social human being, a person whose soul is healthy and who is prepared for all aspects of social activity. And such healed people, automatically and implicitly, are “ordained” doctors for others whose souls are sick. Here, the medical science called Orthodoxy differs from other sciences: once patients have been healed, they automatically become people who can heal others. For this reason, it is inconceivable for people who have been healed not to have spiritual children – that is to say, other people who depend on them spiritually, other people whom they advise and guide towards healing.
In the early Church, there was no special or official healer, because every Christian was a healer. Healing was the mission of the early Church. The missionary effort of the early Church was not like that of today’s Orthodox Church, which sometimes consists of advertising our beautiful beliefs and traditional form of worship as though they were nothing but products for sale. For example, we talk like this: “Take a look, folks! We have the most beautiful doctrines, the most beautiful worship, the most beautiful chanting, and the most beautiful vestments. See what a beautiful robe the bishop is wearing today!” And that sort of thing. We try to dazzle them with our staffs, our robes, and our head coverings so that we can carry out our missionary work. Of course, there is some sense and some success in doing missionary work this way, but it is not genuine missionary work like that of the early Church.
Today’s missionary work consists mainly of this: we enlighten superstitious people and make them Orthodox Christians, without trying to heal them. By doing this, however, we are just replacing or exchanging their former beliefs with a new set of beliefs. We are replacing one superstition with another. And I say this because when Orthodoxy is presented in this way and is offered in this way, how is it different from superstition? After all, when Orthodoxy is presented and offered as a Christianity that does not heal �” despite the fact that healing is its primary task �” how is it different from superstition?
There are Christians in the West who also have Christian dogmas and accept certain councils. On the basis of outward appearance, there does not seem to be such a great difference between the dogmas of the heretics and those of the Orthodox. The difference is not as huge as it is between Christians and idolaters. On the surface, Orthodox doctrine is not so strikingly different from that of heterodox Christians, especially given the fact that Orthodox doctrine, as taught today in Greece, is unrelated to the therapeutic treatment found in Orthodox tradition. So from the perspective of doctrine, how is Orthodox tradition different from the tradition of the heterodox? And why should someone who is not Orthodox believe in Orthodoxy and not in some other Christian dogma? After all, in the way that they are presented, neither one of them is offered as a treatment or pathway towards healing, but as superstition.
These days we talk about changing our way of thinking, about changing our beliefs, about changing our outlook on life, and this is the way we view repentance. In other words, for Orthodoxy today repentance is identified merely with the acceptance of Christ. That is to say, we accept Christ. And because we accept Him, we go to Church, we light a candle or two, and we become good little boys and girls. If we are young, we go to Sunday school. If we are adults, we go to a religious meeting now and then. And supposedly we are living in repentance; supposedly we are repentant. Or else, if we have done something bad in our life, we show some regret and ask forgiveness and call what we are doing repentance. However, this is not repentance. It is simply regret. Regret is the beginning of repentance, but the human soul is not purified by mere regret. In order for one’s soul to be purified of the passions, the fear of God and repentance must first be present and continue throughout the stage of purification until it is completed with divine illumination, the illumination of our nous by the grace of the Holy Spirit.
Since the Orthodox do not put this therapeutic treatment into practice, what makes them different from those who are not Orthodox? Is it doctrine? And what good are Orthodox doctrines if they are not used for the healing of the soul? When used in such a way, doctrine offers no benefit whatsoever.
– - -
Lord have mercy !
Diakrisis said,
August 22, 2008 at 9:03 pm
cf. http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b16.en.saint_gregory_palamas_as_a_hagiorite.10.htm