The Nature-Grace Distinction as a Foundation of Macarian Spirituality (original) (raw)

Abstract

The contemporary debate over 'natura pura' is as much a battle about ressourcement as about metaphysics. As theologians have sought to determine the limits and the potencies of human nature in light of the Fall and of grace, they have turned to the Fathers of the Church and the fontes of Thomistic thought in order to discover an authentic Christian anthropology. As is often the case, these conversations have tended to center on the inheritance of St. Augustine, whose anti-Pelagian writings have understandably dominated Western theological discourse. Yet, the problem of the nature-grace relationship also forms a central concern of the influential corpus of writings ascribed to Makarios-Symeon, which have the potential to broaden the scope of the present debate concerning the nature-grace distinction. This paper argues that a conception of 'natura pura' is indeed present in Makarios, for whom it is an important metaphysical foundation supporting his ascetical theology. Though Makarios rejects any dichotomy between nature and grace that would fail to make creation wholly dependent on God, he does not see the ultimate synthesis and continuity between them as absolute. The ontological dimension of the nature-grace relationship in Makarios centers on the basic intelligibility of human nature as a discrete reality distinct not only from God’s sanctifying and saving operation, but from the evil which permeates fallen humanity and haunts it even after baptism. This basic distinction, which grants to nature a kind of autonomy, is intended to preserve both the gratuity of grace and the ultimate integrity of human nature in the face of both deification and the indwelling of evil. For this reason Makarios adheres in his ascetical teaching to a conception similar to 'natura pura,' which grants to human nature a qualified self-determination and independence even before its Creator. The result is a spirituality marked by the possibility of a true union of human and divine in the deified, without however resulting in a confusion of natures. The integration of Makarios into the debate over natura pura has the potential to harmonize the extreme positions dependent, ostensibly, on the Greek Fathers, on one side, and the Thomistic commentators, on the other.

Key takeaways

sparkles

AI

  1. Makarios's concept of 'natura pura' underpins his ascetical theology, distinguishing nature from grace.
  2. The nature-grace relationship in Makarios avoids absolute synthesis, allowing for human autonomy and divine grace.
  3. Makarios emphasizes human effort in salvation, arguing for cooperation with grace despite human insufficiency.
  4. He preserves the distinction between human nature and sin, asserting purity despite the fall.
  5. The integration of Makarios's teachings can harmonize opposing theological perspectives on nature and grace.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (24)

  1. GOTR 63:1-2 2018
  2. εὐπρέπειαν καὶ ἐργασίαν ἀποδεικνυμένου, εἰς τύπον τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως ἐξ ἑαυτῆς μόνης τὴν διακόσμησιν τῶν τελείων ἀρετῶν καὶ τὴν πνευματικὴν εὐπρέπειαν τῆς ὡραιότητος ἄνευ τῆς θείας καὶ οὐρανίου δυνάμεως ἀδυνάτως ἐχούσης ἐπιδείξασθαι (GCS 55:123.14-23).
  3. Cf. the Paraphrasis of Symeon: "These visible realities are figures (τύπους) and shadows of hidden things" (Chapters 113; On Charity 29) (Φιλοκαλία 3:217; PG 34:932BC).
  4. Logos 7.9.1 (GCS 55:101.19): οἷον ἀγαπᾷς σὺ τὸν θεόν.
  5. Spiritual Homilies 4.6, 89-94 (PTS 4:31).
  6. Cf. Spiritual Homilies 4.6, 100-109 (PTS 4:31-32).
  7. Homily 26.7 (TU 72:149.4-17); cf. Spiritual Homilies 46.5-6 (PTS 4:304.84-96); Logos 54.5.
  8. Chapters 118 (Philokalia 3:338); cf. Logos 8.4.3-4 (GCS 55:122.18- 25).
  9. On the unity of human nature in this regard, see Logos 33.2.1 (GCS 56:29.6-7): πενθοῦσι γὰρ ἑαυτοὺς καὶ ὅλον τὸν Ἀδάμ, ἐπειδὴ μία ἐστι φύσις ἀνθρώπων.
  10. Logos 12.2.5 (GCS 55:153.8-12). Cf. Homily 18.1 (TU 72:96.1-6): "For from Adam's transgression the whole human race received the bit- ter medicine of death, darkness, and sin. It was catapulted into all man- ner of sin; and no one is able to heal it, rescue it, or cure humanity and put our murderer to death. Or, rather, only the Spirit of God can do this."
  11. Cf. Logos 36.4.3 (GCS 56:49.22-24): οὐ γὰρ τὸ ἴδιον ἔργον σῴζει τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλ' ὁ χαρισάμενος τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τὴν δύναμιν.
  12. See, e.g., Gregory Palamas, Triads 1.3.17. For a comparison of Pela- gian and Messalian tendencies, see Andrew Louth, "Messalianism and Pelagianism," Studia Patristica 17 (1982): 127-351; and Plested, "East is East," esp. pp. 28-29. The fact that, as Plested notes, Pelagianism failed to make "grace exterior to nature" a necessary factor of Christian life after baptism puts it directly in the cross-hairs of Makarios's theological program. For a discussion of how the problem of natura pura relates to Pelagianism, see Tracey Rowland, Culture and the Thomist Tradition after Vatican II (London: Routledge, 2003), 94. 35 Chapters 123 (Philokalia 3:339-340); cf. Logos 51.1.6; 54.5.1-2; Spiri- tual Homilies 10.
  13. Logos 7.8.4 (GCS 55:101.6-14): γέγραπται γάρ, ὅτι ὁ γεωργός, ὅταν ἴδῃ τὸ κλῆμα φέρον καρπούς, καθαρίζει αὐτό, ἵνα πλεῖον ἐξενέγκῃ, 52 Homily 6.2 (TU 72:24.15). Cf. Logos 25.1.13: τοῖς γὰρ φυσικοῖς λογισμοῖς καὶ τοῖς φυσικοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς κινήμασιν ἐπιτηρεῖ ὁ πονηρός, ὥστε τὰ ἴδια τῆς κακίας πάθη ἐπιμιγνύειν, ἵνα φυσικῶν ἀποπληρώσεων δῆθεν χάριν τὸν ἄνθρωπον εὐλογοφανῶς ἀπατᾶν δύνηται. 53 Homily 6.2 (TU 72:24.11-13).
  14. Logos 2.9.1 (GCS 55:19.11-12): δύναται γὰρ καὶ ἀπὸ ἰδίων καὶ φυσικῶν λογισμῶν πλανᾶσθαι ὁ ἄνθρωπος.
  15. Logos 2.9.1 (GCS 55:19.9-11); cf. ibid., line 18. 57 Chapters 59 (Philokalia 3:310). Cf. Logos 8.4.3 (GCS 55:122.16): "The opposing power," Makarios says, "works by persuasion, not by compulsion;" Logos 32.8.9: ὁρᾷς, πῶς τρεπτὴ καὶ αὐτή ἐστιν ἡ φύσις τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ καὶ τοῦ κακοῦ. προτρεπτικὴ δὲ καὶ ἡ θεία χάρις καὶ ἡ ἐναντία δύναμις, ἀλλ' οὐκ ἀναγκαστική (GCS 56:24.1-3).
  16. Cf. Homily 3.4 (TU 72:15.1-5).
  17. Chapters 150 (Philokalia 3:353); cf. Logos 61.1.1.
  18. Cf. Logos 25.1.12 (GCS 55:240.27-28): ἵνα τῇ δυνάμει τῆς χάριτος εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν τῆς καθαρότητος φύσιν τὴν ψυχὴν ἀποκαταστήσῃ; Logos 61.1.1 (GCS 56:198.1-2): Τίς ἡ οἰκονομία τῆς παρουσίας τοῦ σωτῆρος; πρώτη μὲν καὶ μεγίστη ἡ τῆς καθαρᾶς φύσεως ἀποκατάστασις καὶ δωρεά.
  19. See Logos 16.1.1-2 (GCS 55:178.7-8): "These too are Sons and Lords and Gods."
  20. See Logos 26.1.15-16.
  21. Logos 6.6.1 (GCS 55:89.6-8): τὸ ἐν ὑποστάσει καὶ ἔργῳ καὶ πληροφορίᾳ ἐν τῷ ἐνδοτάτῳ ἀνθρώπῳ καὶ ἐν τῷ νῷ ἔχειν τὸν θησαυρὸν καὶ τὴν χάριν καὶ τὴν γεῦσιν καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. Cf. Logos 25.2.3-5
  22. Logos 28.2.4 (GCS 55:258.23-26): «οὕτω γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς» τὴν ψυχὴν τὴν κατ' εἰκόνα αὐτοῦ κτισθεῖσαν, ὥστε ἑαυτὸν χαρίσασθαι αὐτῇ ποικίλως ἐν αὐτῇ κοσμούμενον καὶ τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως κοινωνὸν αὐτὴν καθιστῶντα, καὶ οὕτω συνανακραθεῖσα ἑνοῦται τῷ κυρίῳ, πνεῦμα καὶ αὐτὴ γινομένη.
  23. Makarios speaks of this openly as a "change" in nature; see Logos 18.4.6-8 (GCS 55:198.13-21).
  24. Logos 14.1.1 (GCS 55:161.1-10). Cf. Logos 16.1.1 (GCS 55:178.4- 18); 49.2.1-2.