Syriac Theology: Past and Present (original) (raw)
Related papers
ST SYMEON OF THESSALONICA: HIS DOGMATIC THEOLOGY
St Symeon, bishop of Thessalonica, was born in the second half of the 14th century and died in September 1429 1. He is renowned in the Orthodox world, as well as in wider Christian circles, for his liturgical writings. These texts, published by Migne in Patrologia Graeca, have attracted the deserved attention of both Orthodox clergy as well as of people interested in Eastern liturgical theology and practice. Very little consideration has been given so far, however, to other aspects of St Symeon's thought, and notably to his dogmatic writings, to which this paper is devoted. The main focus of the paper will be St Symeon's dogmatic treatise known under the title Against All Heresies 2. This work is in the form of a dialogue. St Symeon presents the doctrinal teaching of the Orthodox Church through a conversation with a priest, who represents his clergy, and who asks him several questions, to which St Symeon replies. The treatise is a substantial well-rounded presentation of the orthodox doctrine, a concise exposition of orthodox dogmatics. It is not as detailed and technical as Saint John of Damascus' Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, but it is in many ways comparable to it. At any rate, it is one of the rare systematic presentations of most of the central aspects of orthodox theology written by a saint of the Church, and this makes its examination particularly interesting and important. I would like to begin by making two general remarks. First, whereas the first part of the exchange between St Symeon and his priest, namely the Against All Heresies, is dedicated to doctrine , later on the discussion turns to an examination of the sacraments and other liturgical matters. This is a reflection of the profound integration of lex credendi and lex orandi, of doctrine and liturgy , which is a typical characteristic of orthodox theology. The very word «orthodoxy» means right doxa, that is both right belief or faith and right praise or glory. Orthodoxy then denotes both right doctrine and the proper way of worshipping God. This integration of faith and worship is also found in the Orthodox Liturgy. Whereas its first part is the Liturgy of the Word, the second part is the Liturgy of the Sacrament. Faith, therefore, leads to worship. This movement is also reflected in the writings of St Symeon, this great theologian of the liturgy. The second general point which I would like to highlight is the dialogical character of the treatise. This reminds us that theology develops within a context of dialogue, love, and communion, and not so much at the desks of isolated intellectuals. With regard to its contents, Against All Heresies includes chapters against atheism, polytheism, other religions (notably Judaism and Islam) and several old and recent heresies. It refers to the knowledge of God, to divergences in ideas and practices between the Eastern and the Western Churches, to the hesychastic controversy of the 14 th century, and so on. It also presents the teaching of the seven Ecumenical Councils and of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. In general, most major doctrinal topics are dealt with in one way or another, under various headings. This work is a combination of dogmatics and apologetics. It aims at both presenting the Orthodox Christian doctrine and refuting the claims of other religions and heresies.
Doctoral thesis defended at the Catholic-Theological Faculty of the University of Tübingen. In this study I tried to show just how relative the term "orthodox teaching" really is by examining some of the negative effects of the triumph of the Christological doctrine of homoousios for the liturgy and the devotional practices of the church. That is to say, the doctrinal interpretation, which placed Christ at the same level as - of 'one being with' - God the Father. It is hoped that the extensive and detailed researches invested in this thesis (an analysis of over 200,000 pages of Latin and Greek texts from the period stretching between the 4th -7th centuries) will contribute in a constructive fashion to the current patristics but also ecumenical theology.
2022
The present short paper is devoted to the analysis of the mentioned paper of Theodor Yulaev, and considers not all the points and the conclusions of the author, but certain important inaccuracies, which could influence the general conclusions of the author. The present paper is a translation of my previous article 2 from Russian; the viewpoints of the author are quite characteristic for a considerable part of modern and historical Chalcedonian theologians, that is why I decided to concentrate on them in this short paper and publish it in English, hoping that it would be useful for the scholars who are interested in the course of dialogue between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches. It should be noted briefly that among the general conclusions of the author is that, according to his opinion, in the Joint Commission for the Dialogue between Eastern Orthodox & Oriental Orthodox Churches (1990) number of statements are absent from the Communiqué, such as 'two natural wills' and 'two natural energies' of Christ, expression 'composite hypostasis', 'unconditional dogmatic authority of Chalcedonian and further Ecumenical Councils' etc; on the basis of these and other arguments, Yulaev concludes that the Communiqué could not be considered as sufficient, and its use is not advisable as the basis of theological discussions with non-Chalcedonian Churches. Let us consider some of the Theodor Yulaev's arguments, by which he substantiates his views. In the beginning of his paper the author writes: 'Let us note as a beginning the inaccuracy in the translation of the English text of the Communiqué of the formula «µία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωµένη». The correct translation is not "one nature of the incarnate Logos" but "one incarnate nature of the Logos". Similar incorrect translation is met in the text of patriarch Shenouda III: "One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos." One can infer a conclusion that this inaccuracy is intentional. It directly gives unambiguous interpretation of the formula according to which there is one nature of the incarnate Logos, that is, of Christ. But in the formula, strictly speaking, one nature of God the Word is considered, which has incarnated, i.e. united with the human nature, which does not contradict the dyophysite interpretation.' 3 The idea that St. Cyril does not have the formula 'one nature of the incarnate Logos', most probably comes from John of Damascus (VIII AD), from his opus 'About the composite nature against acephalous (De natura composita contra Acephalos).' 4 1
2003
Contribution to the International Theological Conference: The Sobornostic Approach of Orthodox Theology: its Roots and its Outcome over against the Global Illusions of Societies in Recent History, in AA. VV., Acts of the International Theological Conference. Contemporary Orthodox Theology: Visions and Perspectives, 9-12 November 2003 (A Tribute to Fr Dumitru Staniloae on the Occasion of his Centenary), Bucharest 2003, pp. (archivio, file SAOTROO1). This contribution is scheduled in the third part of our symposium: “Orthodox Theology and the Problems Faced by the Contemporary World”, focusing one of the items of the general problematics of this gathering in its title, “Contemporary Orthodox Theology: Visions and Perspectives” . This section should give an answer to the widespread idea, in western theological circles, that Orthodox theology is immobilistic and doesn’t offer anything specific after the Fathers of the Church . In the line of what Professor Stănilaoe wrote in his volumes on Dogmatics , a specific aspect of his insights has been chosen here, namely: the sobornostic approach in Orthodox Theology is not only the best way of expressing ecumenical catholicity of the Church but also to overcome in a Christian sense or to give an answer from the prospective of Christian faith to some major narrownesses in common human experience today (looking also at the recent past).
"Chalcedon was a stumbling block-and still is. It has been said that present day theology has put chalcedon in the dock. It is not difficult to find many utterances among contemporary theologians both Protestant and Catholic,"-- W. Kasper, Theology and the Church,1989, p. 95 Knowing the Christ No one knows who the Son is but ... the Father, or who the Father is but the Son, and those to whom the Son may choose to reveal Him (Luke 10:22). If so, those who knew Him starting with Simon the righteous taking the child Jesus in his arms saying; "Master, now dismiss your servant in peace, for my eyes have seen your salvation," (Luke 2:29,30) to the amazement of Mary His mother. How did Mary so firmly believe in her born as Lord Messiah, and thus asked him an early miracle in the wedding of Kana Galilee, even before He intended to start His charismatic healing ministry? Now the disciples having experienced Christ in his true humanity (without sin) confessed with Peter, "You are the Christ, Son of God," told by Jesus that this revelation is from God, and cannot be experienced through the flesh. Who do they say that I AM? Our lord asked His disciples (Luke 9:18), anticipating the debate of the unknowing, fighting among themselves on his 'nature,' or the functional relation of his humanity in regard to the Logos. Schismatic kept dissecting Almighty manifested in the flesh (1Ti 3:16), as St. Paul taught us, because some never really believed in the salvific love of the Father (John 3:16) who transcended through His only begotten to teach us the way of salvation. But, Who do you say that I, AM? Jesus is asking you, once you become a disciple, do you really know Him? Have you ever encountered Him in person, anytime, anywhere? The Samaritan woman met Him midday at the well, Zacchaeus had to climb the tree that afternoon to have a good look at Him, and the born blind begged him his sight, just hearing Him passing bye. But, did any of these know his person then? What about the Magdaline in the garden, after His resurrection, or the two on route to Emmaus, and the disciples near the shore, Peter and John on their fishing boat, did any of them identify him? To follow Jesus you have to know him, seeing Him with the eyes of your heart. To confess Him as Lord you have to believe in Him. To believe in Him you have to believe in the Salvific power of the Father demonstrated in the Sotereological grace of the redeemer. Miaphysite Christology The Christology of Alexandria was centered around soteriology, the saving act of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Logos. Athanasius stated; "God became man, in order that man might become god in Him," The notion of salvation through participation in divine life (Deification) was the anchor point in Cyril defense of the unity of the Person of Christ, in the Hypostatic (natural concrete) union of Divinity and humanity in Christ, the Pansoter (Universal Redeemer). Cyril spoke of both one hypostasis and of a "united incarnate nature of the Logos" to make it plain that Christ was a single personal being, countering the Antiochene term prospon with the "hypostatic union." Since hypostasis and nature were used synonymously, he often spoke of a united nature in Christ. His formula "united incarnate nature of the God-Word" was a genuine Alexandrine expression, used and vindicated by Athanasius, even if borrowed also by his friend Apollinarius, who studied in Alexandria. Therefore, the Fathers of the Church Affirmed that Jesus Christ is fully God and truly human, emphasizing that His Divinity is "indivisibly united" with His humanity in a "hypostatic, Personal" union that began at His conception and will continue ever after, as preserved in the Eucharistic confession of Alexandrian Orthodox Christology. The Hypostatic union Cyril spoke of both one hypostasis and of a "united incarnate nature of the Logos" to make it plain that Christ was a single personal being. Since hypostasis and nature were used synonymously, he often spoke of a united nature in Christ. His terminology seemed limiting the role played by Christ's humanity in salvation. Cyril did not deny a real full existence of the human nature of Christ, nor did he believe that the incarnate Logos was an admixture of Divine and the human, of a human nature being integrated with certain particulars of the Divine nature. Union after the Anathemas Meyendroff writes; "The great Alexandrian bishop refrained from demanding that the Antiochenes should adopt his terminology." The importance of Cyril's toil was the preservation of the real unity of Christ and accordingly the soteriological concept that Christ's humanity, appropriated by the Word, constituted the Alexandrine doctrine of deification (Athanasius) for all who are in Christ. Two years later, in 433, he signed the text of the agreement that restored unity between the two great Churches. Cyril remained the only criterion of Orthodoxy for the judges as for the accused, as proven in the synods of Constantinopolis (Eutyches), and in Chalcedon, no one challenged his absolute authority. Present Eastern Orthodox salvation by theosis of man by participation in God, is an impossibility under the Antiochene Christology, and became deficient in the Chaledonian complex nature, where man could at most cooperate with God for his salvation. Cyril's Ecumenical Christology - "Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad" for the partition wall has been taken away, and grief has been silenced, and all kind of difference of opinion has been removed; Christ the Savior of us all having awarded peace to his churches,"-- Cyril to John of Antioch - In "Nicene Christianity", David Yeago quotes St. Maximus the confessor words; "in the passion of the Father's reign that overcomes Jesus' fear in the garden of Gethsemane, we see human will and desire, formed and moved, by divine love with the sin of the world. It is precisely this fidelity, achieved against the grain of fear and horror, within the frailty of the flesh that the Son of God has truly made his own, that redeems the world." - In the recent ecumenical reproach the Armenian Catholicos stated;" We said that the well known Cyrillic formula of "One united nature of the Incarnate Word" has constituted the basis, the crux of our Christologies, for us the Oriental Orthodox, it was very important to put the emphasis on the fact that it was the Logos who assumed humanity. We always put the emphasis on the divinity of Christ and this is in line with the Alexandrian Christology. We also say "two natures" in theoria -- because we cannot speak about "two natures" after the "unity," after the incarnation. So, even though there are some differences of emphasis, essentially we are saying the same thing. Chalcedon Christology Today The definition of faith of Chalcedon led Dr. Albert Schweitzer to conclude that "its doctrine of the two natures dissolved the unity of the person, and thereby cut off the last possibility of a return to the historical Jesus... He was like Lazarus of old, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes; the grave-clothes of the dogma of the Dual Nature"-- J. Pelican, Credo - "Chalcedon was a stumbling block-and still is. It has been said that present day theology has put chalcedon in the dock. It is not difficult to find many utterances among contemporary theologians both Protestant and Catholic, which tend in the same direction. (of A. von Harnack) Almost everywhere we hear about the aporia, the impossible deadlock, presented by the so-called doctrine of the two natures -- in Tillich, in Rahner, in Pannenberg, in Schoonenberg, Kung, Wieerkehr and many others."--W. Kasper, Theology and the Church A thorn in the flesh! Cardinal W. Kasper, for many years professor of systematic theology at the university of Tubingen, writes in his book, "Theology & The Church," pp. 98, 99, following statement, "The brilliant investigations of Andre Halleux has put judgments about the council of Chalcedon on a new footing. ... On the basis of detailed analysis of the texts and sources (accepted by Grillmeier, Ritter and Abramowski) , Halleux has shown that the council's definition really contains no more than two word-for-word quotations from Leo's tome, a Leonine 'thorn in the flesh." http://willgwitt.org/the-christology-of-cyril-of-alexandria/ https://www.academia.edu/9847230/Christology\_after\_Chalcedon\_and\_the\_Transformation\_of\_the\_Philosophical\_Tradition
THE EASTERN ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF THEOSIS
It has been close to a millennium since the great schism of 1054, which officially split the church into two opposite camps, the western Roman Catholic and the eastern Greek Orthodox. Christian history has not known another event of such ecclesiastical resonance. However, theologically speaking, it seems that the apostolic fathers, the apologists, early Christian writers, teachers and theologians have always had a somewhat different approach and emphasis depending on what part of the Christian world they lived in and wrote to. Sometimes their theological argumentation paralleled, sometimes it differed drastically. As the chasm between the two branches of the Christian church widened it affected the theological dialogue between them. This lead to the fact that some theologians representing one school of Christian though emphasized certain truths and ideas, which were much less important or even foreign to those from across the ecclesiastical divide. One striking example of this historical reality is the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis or divinization. Especially, if one considers the fact that “it is not too much to say that the divinization of humanity is the central theme, chief aim, basic purpose, or primary religious ideal of Orthodoxy.” The goal of this paper is to provide an adequate analysis of this doctrine in light of its origin and development, as well as its historical and current role in Eastern and Western systematic theologies today. Several distinctive presuppositions of Eastern Orthodox thinkers in interpreting the text of Scripture and formulating theology will be emphasized. This analysis will be followed by a summary and an evaluation of this doctrine in light of Scripture, which, in turn, will be interpreted using literal historical-grammatical hermeneutics.