The Doctrine of Immanent Realism in Maximus the Confessor (original) (raw)
Related papers
The notion of the λόγοι is of primary importance in understanding Maximus the Confessor’s thought and his ontology in particular and, quite naturally, there is ample bibliography on the subject. However, it is quite often the case that the relevant secondary literature can be misleading in some points. In this article, I will attempt to provide the reader with a brief introduction to understanding Maximus’ λόγοι doctrine from a philosophical and at times contemporary (i.e. deliberately anachronistic) perspective, within my limited means of doing so. My aim will be to address (or rather merely hint at) the numerous aspects that together comprise Maximus’ vision of the λόγοι: (a) the uncreated λόγοι as links between creation and the uncreated, (b) the relationship between the λόγοι and the Λόγος as well as the recapitulation of the many in the one Λόγος, (c) the importance of the λόγος of nature for the “according to nature”-“contrary to nature” distinction, (d) the λόγοι as the basis for a dialogical reciprocity between Creator and creatures/humanity, (e) the accomplishment of the contemplation of the λόγοι within asceticism, of the ability to clearly see God’s uncreated wills, utterances and intentions behind and within created beings, (f) the λόγοι as signifying a divine creative act of freedom, not of necessity or predetermination.
The Ontology of Theosis: Insights from Maximus the Confessor
Theological Research. The Journal of Systematic Theology, 2020
This article describes the ontological problem of theosis or deification in terms of two dimensions: the relationship between the finite and the infinite, and the relationship between human nature and sin. Both problems are clarified through the thinking of Saint Maximus the Confessor and his distinction between logos and tropos, that is, the constitutive nature of a thing and its existential mode of being. Theosis is presented not as a transformation of the human nature, but a transformation of our mode of being by its healing and elevation by divine grace. Maximus’ theological anthropology explains how the effects of sin should not be situated at the level of human nature but its mode of being. His conceptual distinctions may help to clarify the thought of Luther, at least as it is presented in the Finnish interpretation of Luther.
The Perichoretic Intersection of Theology and Philosophy in St. Maximus Confessor
During the Patristic Period, there was a profusion of perspectives on the given task and relationship between Theology and Philosophy. From Justin Martyr’s (c. 100 – c. 165) famous affirmation that Socrates was a Christian before Christ, or better that Christ was at least partially known by the Logos Spermatikos before the Incarnation, to the candid declaration of Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220), “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? What does the Academy have to do with the Church?”, there were differing opinions about how much the Church should, in the opinion of St. Augustine, “despoil the Egyptians.” Many of the Church Fathers saw all truth as the truth of God, and the Hellenic philosophers and literary figures had “unlawful possession of it.” Philo, commenting on Plato’s Timaeus, even said that Moses anticipated Plato in his account of the creation of the world through intellect and matter and thus was not original. In the apologetical maelstrom of Greek Hellenic thought with Christian theology, there emerged a perspective in which the insights of philosophy intersected the concerns of orthodox theology. More than just a “hand maiden,” philosophy was utilized in an essential way to give elocution to Christian metaphysics and truth. To present this union and distinction of philosophy and theology, I will discuss today the metaphysics of sixth and seventh century monk Maximus Confessor as a mature model of Christian theology intersecting Hellenic philosophy. We will first look at Maximus’ metaphysics of creation, then his Christology, and finally his ecclesiology. Maximus consistently uses a metaphysic of Neoplatonic participation in his theologizing on creation, Christ and the Church. In sum, Maximus’ philosophical theology weaves together philosophy and theology into an irreducible relationship that is still distinct because theology calls the Christian beyond the limits and boundaries of philosophic speculation.
THE USE OF THE DIVINE-HUMAN ANALOGY IN THE NICENO-CHALCEDONIAN TRADITION AND MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR
St Andrew's Orthodox Seminary 9th Patristic Symposium, 2022
A significant feature of the conciliar tradition up to the Council of Chalcedon was the use of ontological concepts and terminology developed with reference to humanity to explain the unity and plurality of the Trinity. The use of this analogy is embedded in the Definition of Chalcedon with its declaration of the dual consubstantiality of Christ. Over a century later, Maximus the Confessor continues to employ this analogy across his account of the incarnation, yet he is forced to break it off when applied to the Trinity, lest a heretical position obtain. The apparently arbitrary cessation of this analogy at the very point where it causes problems sheds light on an aporia several authors have identified at Chalcedon. Namely, the ontological apparatus developed to account for the divine and human in Christ Jesus cannot be consistently applied to the Trinity without error resulting, yet the logic of the conciliar tradition as it culminates in the Definition of Chalcedon invites us to do this very thing.