We are Legion

February 28, 2007

I am sure the title of the post will confirm some things people have thought about this blog and myself for some time. Of that I can do little or nothing to change. But I am very happy to know that our blog has now passed the 1,000 hits per day mark. Before the software switch over last year, I had no way to know who was linking to our site, who was visting or how many hits were were getting. Now I have a better idea.

Of course, I don’t know what other blogs get. Maybe 1,000 isn’t that much. I am sure sites like Pontifications probably get far more, but for our little blog, that seems like a good amount.

 Thank you all for your patronage. Now back to our regularly scheduled refutation of all heresies.

11 Comments | Personal | Permalink
Posted by Perry Robinson

When Tradition Doesn’t Matter Anymore

February 26, 2007

Michael Liccone has criticized by deployment of the canon of St. Vincent against the papacy. To be clear, I did not invoke the canon in terms of what every individual Christian professes. I am on board with Yohann Eck when he asked, “Do all believing Christians agree with one another? Never in a thousand years!” The VC refers I believe to the deposit of tradition made in specific churches founded by the Apostles-Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Ephesus.  This was to serve as a guide for the churches in what was genuinely of apostolic origin and what was an innovation. If something was discovered to have doctrinal content that was unique to a particular church, then it was an innovation. Consequently, this was meant as an aid to the principle teachers of the Church, specifically the bishops. Only secondarily was it meant as a guideline for “individuals.”  This view is expressed in early witnesses as Tertullian and Fathers like St. Ireneaus. Saint Vincent is not innovating when he invokes the rule. 

Consequently, pace Micheal, it is not very odd to invoke the canon as a guide to interpreting Scripture that presupposes the Church as a reference point because the canon, even prior to its utterance by St. Vincent, presupposed the possibility of specific churches misinterpreting Scriptures and that there were churches founded directly by apostles. What would be odd would be to invoke it against the entire church by say Protestants who would claim that the entire church erred.  In my view, all that the rule requires is that there are in fact churches that the apostles founded and that in their tradition we can discover that which is truly apostolic. (Incidently to deny this premise is to beg the question against Orthodoxy and advance an implicity argument agianst Orthodoxy.) It does not presuppose some general vague notion of “the Church.” So the rule does not assume that one can identify the faith apart from the church, but exactly the opposite. It is because these sees are the church that one can identify the faith from their consensus.    

Read the rest of this entry »

82 Comments | Augustine, Church Fathers, Dialectic and Theological Method, Filioque, Gnosticism, Papacy | Permalink
Posted by Perry Robinson

A Heterodox Twofer

February 25, 2007

I have been reading some Lutheran Scholasticism as of late, and the following snippet jumped out at me. I thought it was a good summation of the dialectic of Nestorianism/Eutychianism between Calvinists and the Lutherans in terms of of Biblical inspiration. It will be helpful to keep in mind that the author uses “Orthodox” to refer to the orthodox Lutheran theologians.

“Some divergence of interpretation concerning Scriptural inspiration may be observed between the Orthodox theologians of the Lutheran and those of the Reformed Confessions. Although the later stressed that Scripture was verbally inspired, they differed from the Lutheran writers in ascribing to it a merely instrumental function.  They stoutly maintained that the Holy Scriptures has no power in itself; instead, it resembles some inanimate tool, a saw or a hammer, which becomes effective only when the master-workman especially deigns to take it into his hands and operate with it. Thus the Holy Writings cannot work except through some special decision and operation of the Holy Spirit, who in this case ‘exalts’ the intrument and works with it upon the listener or reader.

Lutheran Orthodox theologians did not countenance such a restriction upon the efficacy of the Holy Scriptures. In their polemical writings they emphasized the organic character of the content, desitgnating it as a ‘thing which is alive (res animata) .  They preferred to compare the Scriptures to the ‘living incorruptible seed’ (1 Peter 1:23), a seed that grows by itself (Mark 4:26-29), penetrating fire (Jeremiah 23:29), oil and wine (Luke 10:34), bread and food, rain that refreshes the earth, shining light, and healing medicine. Here the intrinsic value of Scripture was strongly maintained. The understanding was that the divine revelation and its expression in the Scriptures are so completely united that to divorce them would create a serious distortion.  This view inspires greater confidence in the holy will of our Father in heaven than a view which leaves the inspiration of Scripture in suspense.”

 Edmund Smits, The Doctrine of Man in Classical Lutheran Theology, xiii-xiv

Read the rest of this entry »

10 Comments | Biblical Exegesis, Calvinism, Dialectic and Theological Method, Lutheranism, The Incarnation | Permalink
Posted by Perry Robinson

Connect the Dots

February 21, 2007

What do you think is the relation, if any, between the following passages? 

 2 Cor 5:18-19 “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”

Eph 1:10-11 “That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” 

Acts 10:13ff “And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.”

25 Comments | Atonement, Dialectic and Theological Method, Recapitulation, The Incarnation, Theosis/Deification | Permalink
Posted by Perry Robinson

Jerusalem and Athens

February 19, 2007

“Thus, as briefly as possible I have set forth for you our love of wisdom, which is dogmatical and not dialectical, in the manner of the fishermen and not of Aristotle, spiritually and not cleverly woven, according to the rules of the Church and not of the marketplace.” 

Saint Gregory Nazianzen, Homily 22

58 Comments | Church Fathers, Dialectic and Theological Method | Permalink
Posted by Perry Robinson

Was Soloviev Orthodox?

February 19, 2007

“In the 1880’s we see a different approach to this question. V. S. Soloviev, who supported the union of Orthodoxy with the Roman Church, desiring to justify the dogmatic development of the Roman Church defended the idea of the development of the Church’s dogmatic consciousness. He argues thus: “The Body of Christ changes and is perfected” like every organism; the original “basis” of faith is uncovered and clarified in the history of Christianity; “Orthodoxy stands not merely by antiquity, but by the eternally living Spirit of God.”Soloviev was inspired to defend the point of view of “development” not only by his sympathies for the Roman church, but also by his own religious-philosophical outlook — his ideas on Sophia, the wisdom of God, on God-manhood as a historical process, etc. Carried along by his own metaphysical system, Soloviev in the 1890’s began to put forth the teaching of the “eternal feminine,” which, he says, “is not merely an inactive image in God’s mind, but a living spiritual being which possesses all the fullness of power and action. The whole process of the world and history is the process of its realization and incarnation in a great multiplicity of forms and degrees… The heavenly object of our love is only one, and it is always and for everyone one and the same, the eternal Femininity of God.” (Soloviev’s ideas might be superficially compared to the “women’s liberation” of today, whose latest attempt in religious circles has been to “desex” the Bible and remove all references to the “masculine” nature of God. Today’s movement, however, does not really touch on philosophy or theology, remaining a movement primarily of social “liberation”; whereas Soloviev’s thought is more serious, being a kind of resurrection of ancient Gnostic philosophy. Both of them, however, are equally outlandish in the forms their ideas take, and both are agreed in seeing a necessity to change traditional Christian dogmas and expressions.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off | Dialectic and Theological Method, Gnosticism, Papacy, Platonism | Permalink
Posted by Perry Robinson

When Being Catholic Isn’t.

February 16, 2007

Michael Liccone has taken issue with some of my comments on an Anglican blog. He has labeled them inappropriately, “ecclesiastical heckling.” Needless to say, I disagree.

For my readers here, this is how the story goes.  Once upon a time, Fr.Kimel would email me comments made both on his blog or somewhere else by some Protestant, usually regarding Sola Scriptura, Private Judgment and such matters. Then I would go over there and produce one of my famous “long bombs” of a post and annihilate the poor soul. This worked well for lots of reasons. Pontifications for a while was a kind of meeting house. And so it served Fr. Kimel’s interests to have someone who was not Catholic like myself pick apart Protestant arguments.  It also served my own interests. Some of those were to present as best I could a coherent and well argued defense of Orthodoxy. Embedded in my critiques of Protestantism, there always has been an implied critique of Catholicism as well.  I also got the opporutnity to refine my thinking and take ideas for a test run. Eventually it was a tool to advertise this blog that Daniel and I share. Once Fr. Kimel got over his stammering from the kinds of objections I raised and found his feet firmly planted back on Roman soil and was a confirmed adherent of Rome, his blog changed its character. It ceased to take on the feel of a meeting house and became the Pope’s house. 

Read the rest of this entry »

42 Comments | Church Fathers, Filioque, Papacy | Permalink
Posted by Perry Robinson

Breaking Dialectic in History

February 14, 2007

“Lori Branch comments that the “cultural formations of western Christianity” grew out of “binary, Protestant-Catholic debates.” But this binarism is disrupted by the entry of a third, Eastern Orthodoxy.

When the church history of the last century is written, the revitalization of Orthodoxy in the West will be seen as a, perhaps the, crucial factor in the transformations of Western Catholicism and Protestantism.”

HT to Peter Leithart

46 Comments | Dialectic and Theological Method | Permalink
Posted by Perry Robinson

Directing the Course: The “of” equals “from” argument of the filioque revisited.

February 10, 2007

Mike Liccione has offered some answers to some of my questions over at Sacramentum Vitae on the filioque: The filioque issue narrowed.

I think he is getting much closer in understanding Orthodox triadology and in finding ways that are harmonious, but I still have a few criticisms that I think should be addressed to avoid problems and reductios to what he is proposing.

Mike states: 

“The generation of the Son and the spiration of the Holy Spirit by the Father, which are the primordial instances of ekporeusis…”

I recognize that the Father is the sole source and origin for both, but I’m uncertain when you say that the Son and Spirit are the primordial instances of ekporeusis. Are you suggesting that genesis is an instance of ekporeusis? In our view, genesis and ekporeusis refer to completely different relations of origin which we do not understand the content of. 

Moving along:

“[A] necessary condition of the breathing forth of the Spirit is that there be a perichoretic, and thus “energetic,” relationship between the Father and the Son…”

I still don’t understand how you can have a perichoretic relationship between the Father and Son and not also include the Holy Spirit. Is perichoresis a property of the nature or isn’t it? If so, then there cannot be an interposition of perichoresis as a logical priority between Father – Son and Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would have to be included, as person, in that perichoretic relationship.

The purpose of the Taxis order, which I don’t think is the reason for the Person’s relation of origin to the Father, is to illustrates the Person’s “logical” priority from the Father. If this is what it means for the Spirit to be the Spirit of the Father and Spirit of the Son, in a way that the Son is not Son of the Father and Son, I have no issue, but I think you might mean more.

I think you imply the “of” equals “from” scenario. The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of wisdom, of truth and so on. Does this mean that the Holy Spirit proceeds from these attributes too as a “relation of origin?” Now we can begin to see where we can plug in my criticism as a reductio: If there is a perichoretic relationship that [only] the Father and the Son share in such that it is considered a necessary condition to spirate the Spirit, could we not also consider the Holy Spirit the Spirit of perichoresis? To take this a step further, the Spirit is also called Spirit of Christ and Christ is the Annointed One. The Spirit anoints the Person of the Son according to His human nature. Here we start to see the “of” equals “from” argument break-down. If the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ and Christ is the anointed one, either the Holy Spirit proceeds from Christ according to His humanity and He is a creature, or the Holy Spirit proceeds from Christ according to His humanity and humanity is in fact “eternal” because the Holy Spirit is “eternal.” 

Does the “of” equals “from” argument reproduce the Origenist dialectic at this point?

“And so He must proceed from Christ… not from Christ’s Deiety, but from that which he took from us and commingled with Himself.  If therefore the Spirit, as God, proceeds from the Son, from Christ, according to the humanity which Christ commingled with us, then the human nature must be concluded as being consubstantial with the Son and indeed may be spoken of as ‘of Christ’.  For you would make Him proceed both before and during His Incarnation, and not cast off His consubstantiality with either.” – Mystagogia 92

Hat tip to JPF for teaching me what this text meant.

61 Comments | Dialectic and Theological Method, Filioque | Permalink
Posted by photios

Coveting Is a Sin!

February 9, 2007

I have and am in the process of expanding our bibliography. Give me a few weeks. If there is something not up there that you think should be, let me know.

Perry

9 Comments | Books | Permalink
Posted by Perry Robinson

« Previous Entries