Cappadocians
Rowan Greer
1/11/95
Paganism persisted in spite of Constantine . During his reign and immediately
after, only public pagan rites were prohibited; private ones were allowed. Julian became Emperor in 361. He was a pagan
then, and withdrew imperial patronage of Xnity. Xnity had only had 50 years of
such patronage and paganism has persisted, so it was feared that the progress
which Christianity had made would be undone. Christians had massacred Julian's
family, so it is no wonder that he was a pagan. Julian was a great General in Gaul , and took over Constantius' imperial court. He had
to face the Persian threat. His religious policy: withdrawl imperial patronage
from Xnity. Christians were forbidden to teach in the schools (because they
didn't believe in the gods of Homer--Julian thought one could not teach what
one did not believe!). Christians
regarded this as persecution. Julian also allowed the exiled (e.g. Arian,
Appolinarian) to return, hoping that the fighting bishops would destroy each
other. In competition with the Christians, Julian built hospitals. He tried to
organize Paganism from a local to an imperial level. Julian's view of
polytheism: the sun god holds the different gods together in a framework. He
saw himself as the prophet who would restore paganism. This never happened; no vast repudiation of
Xnity. He attempted to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem . A proof of Christianity had been that the
temple would not be rebuilt. That Julian failed to rebuild it was taken by the
Christians as a divine sign of Christianity's supremacy. In 363, Julian began his Persian campaign
during which he was killed.
On the alliance of Church and State: Basil the bishop and
Valans the emperor, Nicene and Arian respectively. The emperor Valans sent Modestius to get
Basil to accept Arianism. He didn't.
Modestius threatened him, and Basil gave a response just as Jesus had
given to Pilote. From the Church's point of view, the Church was above the
emperor in the alliance. For instance,
Armbrose had excommunicated an emperor. The state saw itself above the Church. Eventually in the East, the emperor came to
be seen as the master of a sacred society including the Church and empire. In
contrast, the bishops were civil authorities in the west--leading to Papal
power. Why this difference? The empire lasted in the east. The effect on the Western
Church of the alliance in Rome : wealth. It could build churches, hospitals, and
schools in the West. 'Liturgy'
originally meant 'work of the people'--taxation. Christian clergy were exempted from it for a
time by Constantine .
Thirdly, suddenly the Church went public. Public worship, rather than in houses. Processional and stational liturgies. Buildings
were meant at first as rallying places rather than churches.
Instead of being rallying places, they became houses of worship. The martyrs' relics passed into public
hands. Then, the Church could be 'this
worldly'.
Bishops had been
popularly elected--a matter of each local city.
But, the concecration of one needed to be done by at least three
bishops. Consensual arrangements--informal.
When the Church became public, canon law began. Rules and regulations began to replace
gentlemen's agreements and consenual arrangements.
The ascetical movement: Basil's monastary. A nature-oriented asceticism. Basil
appreciated his mountain and its streams and trees. Basil is attracted to have advocated the
ascetic life from his visit to Egypt .
This means that pilgrims were going to Egypt to visit monasteries. According to Greer, this monastic movement can be seen as a rejection of the
Constantinian revolution. The
genius of the Church of the fourth century is that it coopted this protest into
its system. Basil approves of the movement of protest in Egypt and brings it into his
diocese. It was not seen at that time as a special way of life, but as the Christian
way of life.
1/18/95
The early Church was like a mystery cult with Christ as its
focus. So, it was Chistocentric. It was
also monotheistic. So, a need to relate
Christ, the object of the cult, to God as one: The Trinitarian issue.
Origen: The Cappadocians and Arians were both
Origenists. To Origen, God the Father
eternally generates the Word of God. Rational beings focus attention on the
Word. In this beginning, there is no
matter; the rational beings are pre-existant souls. God the Word is explaining God the Father
(who is invisible) to the rational beings.
Only God the Father is absolute.
The Word and pre-existant souls are good to the extend that they
participate in the Father(absolute being and good). This is Platonic. The Word is an image of the Father. The Word is in some sense identical with the
Father. To make any sense, revelation
must be made known to the rational beings. So, the Word must also be identical
to these beings. The rational beings are according to the image.
A division between the creator and creation is Jewish, rather
than Greco-Roman. Where does Origen make
this division? Which side is the Word on?
Arians: on the creation side. The Arian Word is the first of the
creatures. The Word, like the rational beings was created out of nothing. In
the incarnation. Jesus did not have a rational(human) soul, so he was neither
'divine' or 'human'. According to the Eunomians (second-generation Arians), the
Father can be known
To the Cappadocians, the Word is on the creator side. The
Word is eternally generated. The Word's consubstantiality with the Father puts
the Word on the creator side. Unlike
corporeal beings, nothing temporal or corporal about the generation of the
Word. So, an eternal, logical,
relationship or form of being such that the Word is eternally generated.
Around 318, the Arian controversy arose. This was soon after Constantine began to patronage Christianity.
He was concerned about the declining unity among the Christian bishops (and
perhaps feared that this disunity could spread to his empire itself). So, he
called the council of Nicea. At Nicea, Constantine came up with
one ousia (homoousia)--the Father and the Son are of the same essence, and
three hypostases-the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three modes of
being. After Nicea, there was fighting
over the use of the word homoousia (Son of one being with the Father). Specifically, the problem was that this word
was not in scripture. Also, if one ousia (one in being), then isn't this
Sabellianism (Father, Son, and Spirit are not three beings but three ways of
talking about God; three modes, one God--Also called Monism). According to Greer, Creator, Sustainer,
and Redeemer is wrong because it refers to the activities, rather than
essences, of God. Greer prefers Source, Word, and Spirit.[1] The doctrine of the trinity is meant
to protect the distinctness of the Word (this is not meant to refer to Jesus;
rather, to the Word--that which was incarnated in Jesus). Homoousia was a word that had been declared invalid
in the Sabellian ('Unitarian') controversy.
The Cappadocians found a way of talking about one ousia and
three hypostates. Two groups who talked
in terms of the former and the latter, respectively, were brought together in a
Synod of Alexandria in 362. The solution
came first, then had to be explained. Ousia as essentia (essence) and
hypostasis as substancia (substance).
Ousia can be viewed platonically as a form, being real. No reality to individual participations in
it. So, no reality to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Aristotle: ousias of
particulars are real, but not the abstraction of it. God would not be real in
this view. Basil does not look to
metaphysical schemas of Greek Philosophy to explain the solution. Greer: the Capp.s have a perspectival view.
Assp: God is incomprehensible.
According to Basil, God as incomprehensible--Moses asked to
see God: Moses went into a cloud, as saw the back-parts of God. To Basil, they are the majesty and glory of
the created order. If God is the ground
of being, he governs the created order, so his activity can be seen in the
created order. For the Stoics, the
cosmos is like an animal: a body pervade by a life-force. This life-force is the majesty and glory of
God (His back-side) to Basil. So, God is
transcendant in his being, but by his activity his presence may be found
everywhere in the created order.
As early as Origen, the spiritual life seen as three stages:
1. moral purification (Proverbs); 2. The world is seen as contingent, yet
informed by God. Imp: ability to discern
God's presence in the world (Ecclesiasties); 3. mystical unity with God (Song
of Songs). Basil: know God's presence by
His activity in this world (stage 2).
God
is incomprehensible according to Basil because or our finitude (our bodies?
--because the soul is like God: Plato--same is known by same). Yet, the angels
don't know God fully, so it is our createdness (finitude) rather than our
corporeality(bodies) which keeps us from knowing God. As finite beings, we are locked into the
spacial-temporal continuum; God is outside of it, so we can't know him. So, the
doctrine of the trinity is not of God but about our understanding of Him as
both incomprehensible and known. The ousia aspect gets at the
incomprehensibility of God, whereas the hypostases get at the known aspect of
God. The Capp.s are worried about
anthrophomorphizing God, so they worry about talking about God in personal
terms. So, God is simultaneously transcendant and immanent. If God is irrelevant to a particular place
or time, He is relevant to all places and times. So, don't personalize God.
In the east, the supremacy of the Father over the Son and
Holy Spirit was more so than in the west.
Hypostasis: The Father begot the Son. 'Begotten' is a
metaphor. Without the element of time
that is in the metaphor, this is to say 'to be'. A
relation, or mode of being: hypostasis. In the west, 'aspect of'is used. According to Greer, Basil wouldn't mind this. He wouldn't mind 'manifestion of' either.
These are not too Sabellian. The
core (ousia) of God is incomprehensible; the hypostases are on the surface.
The Arians claim, If 'Father' = essence and if the Son came
from the Father, and if only one essence of God, then Son is of a different
essence. Basil: If this is so, then one
can't view a hypostasis as 'essence'. Sabellians view Father as an activity. So, to Basil, the Father is neither essence
or activity, but is relation. Of who
God is: He is one; Of what the Father does: that of the trinity. According to
Greer, this is deliberate nonsense. What
is between an essence and an activity?
Basil's solution seems artificial.
Seems philosophical, but isn't because of their view that God is
mysterious.
The above is on the form of the doctrine of the trinity. This
is different from the functions of the doctrine: protect the distinctiveness of
the Son and put its structure onto humans.
The Christological Issue for Gregory of Nazianzus is the
following. Lofty and lowly things said of Christ. The Lofty is attributed to the Word; the
lowly to the Word incarnate. One
subject: The prince (natural) and pauper(economic). Yet, he also attributes the
Lofty to divinity and the lowly to humanity--a two-nature approach. Two
different natures. Greer: confusing. Put
together, Christ is one subject of two natures.
1/25/95
Basil on the Holy Spirit
The East had been still oriented toward Arianism. Basil wrote his doxology on the Holy Spirit
against the Arians. In the 360's and 370's, some folks were arguing that the
Holy Spirit is a creature. Basil died in
379 before his view against that won.
Baptismal
doxology[2]:
In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the H.S.
Arian
doxology: Glory to the Father through the Son in the H.S.
Basil
introduces: Glory to the Father with the Son with the H.S.
Basil treats the three samely. The Arians didn't. Basil does not use the
term 'consubstantial' with the Holy Spirit vis
a vis the Father. Greer: this is
odd. This is the economy of Basil. The spirit is co-equal with the Father and
Son, but he doesn't use the technical language or say explicitly that the Holy
Spirit is God. What is the relation
between the language and the things themselves? Basil: language is merely
conventional; there is not a natural identity between the words used about something
and the essence of the thing itself. So, that scripture states 'of' the Father
and 'through' the Son does not mean that the Father and Son are of different
essences.
The Arians assume that
the difference in language pertaining to the Father and Son implies a
difference in essences. They use an
elaboration of Aristotle's five causes: the maker: by whom, the instrument:
through whom, the material: of, the design: according to, and time and place:
in. Various kinds of causes have various
prepositions. Arians referred to the Son
and Holy Spirit as different causes, subordinate to the Father, by using
different language to refer to them.
Basil argues that the Arian emphasis on terms on the Son and Holy Spirit
which them as causes does not go to their essences. Basil
shows that different prepositions are used in scripture for all of the persons
of the trinity. So, the Arians are
wrong: the scripture is much more flexible in how it refers to the persons of
the trinity. Basil's solution is using different
prepositions for a person of the trinity does not effect its nature, but is
merely a way of talking about it as to its nature or activity.
For instance, using 'with' (Basil's doxology) refers to their
natures (but does not effect its nature--language is not in a one-to-one
relationship to the essence) whereas 'through' and 'in' (the Arian doxology)
refers to their activities. Scripture is
loose as to what language it applies to the natures and the activities in the
case of each hypostasis.
Basil equates the Word of God with the
creator of the world. The Father is the
designer, but the Son is the builder. Viewing the second person as the one who
created the world is rare.
According to Basil, Equal honour should be accorded to the
three hypostases. According to Greer,
same as saying consubstantial. On his use of 'hypostases': prepositions used to
distinguish them. Yet, later, he used
the term implying that there is only one.
Greer: confusing. So, the Holy
Spirit is of the same nature as far as honour as the other(use Basil's
doxology). The same is true of
activities(Arian doxology): the gifts of the Holy Spirit. On the latter can be seen an influence of
Plotinus on Basil. Activities of the
Holy Spirit.: supplier of life and illunimator.
The Holy Spirit completes the divine activity. From 1 Cor.: a diversity
of gifts, but the same Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the distributor, the Son is
the sender, and the Father is the cause or fountain. So, the Holy Spirit actualizes the potential
of salvation which in turn is made possible by the Son and designed by the
Father. It follows that the Holy Spirit
would be associated with the sacraments. On the level of activity, the Father
remains the first cause (seems hierarchical but lies within a theology wherein
the three of the persons are of equal honour).
Augustine, assuming
God is one(absolute unity), asks how it can be three persons. The unity assumed inhibits a hierarchy
of the persons in activity. He argues that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are
equal in activities as well as natures. Basil,
assuming God is in three persons (not equal in activity but equal in nature),
asks how God is one(how God has unity).
How can God be one if there is a hierarchy (distinctions) of the persons
vis a vis their activities.
The Christian view of The Spirit is a mix of the spirit that
influenced the prophets in the O.T. and the spirit of Jesus. Basil: the Spirit can refer to what is in us,
as well as the place where one is sanctified. According to Basil, oral liturgical
traditions are as important as scripture.
For instance, facing east while praying (facing Eden ), standing up to pray on the seventh day
(in Greek, the word for resurrection
also means 'to stand'.), and kneeling (acknowledging our sin in bringing us
down).
2/1/95
Basil
on the Six Days of Creation:
I
a.m. Day 1: Heaven, earth
II
p.m. Day 1: Light, day and night
III
a.m. Day 2: Firmament=heaven
IV
p.m. Day 3: Gathering waters and dry land
V
Day 3: grass and trees
VI
a.m. Day 4: Luminaries
VII
p.m. Day 5: Fish
VIII
a.m. Day 5: Birds and water animals
IX
p.m. Day 5: Terestrial Animals
Day 6: Mankind
Basil draws morals from the creation of the different things.
Important: the conviction that God is the one Who created this. It is not a philosophical piece. He assumes the spontaneous generation of
animals. According to Greer, exigetical problems in Gen. 1. Some he doesn't
pick note. Secondly, what does Basil
understand as a doctrine of creation? He
equates 'the good' with beauty. Third,
he uses creation as a lesson for humanity.
Augustine wrote on Gen 1, treating the narrative as an account of
creation and allegorizing it as a lesson for the soul. Basil too.
Yet, he rejects allegorism but uses it.
Fourth, he argues on free-will.
According to Justin, creation as the forming of unformed
matter. Creation: the ordering of chaos. Augustine agrees. Basil: there is no such thing as unformed
matter. If there were, it would be a second principle (with God before creation).
Platonism: only one first principle(neo-Platonism is dualist, so wouldn't have
a problem with this). Aristotle: eternal creation--the world never had a
beginning or will have an end. For Basil, creation out of nothing rather than
out of chaos. He denies unformed matter. Augustine: unformed matter (i.e. in
chaos). Basil is reading the
Septuigent(out of nothing); Augustine read the Hebrew (waste and void--as
chaos). Augustine: what about the angels if nothing existed before creation? The creation of Angels is not in Gen 1. Basil: they were created before our world
because they are not subject to time (yet they are not in God's eternity
either). Gen. 1 is of our world. Augustine: the angels were created when light
was separated from darkness. So, difficulties in interpreting Scripture are
plentiful in Gen.1.
Origen and Basil agree that there was a spiritual
world before creation. Justin and
Augustine had unformed matter before creation. Basil: no unformed matter before
creation. Creation of angels before
creation. Greer claims that for Basil, the visible universe is like a school.
Creation: not perfection immediately; created being need to grow. The world of
the angels trains them for ours. Then,
God created our world.
Three views of the soul:
Origen--pre-existence; Creationism--God implants a soul into our body;
Traducionism: body and soul created together (Basil). Augustine never committed
himself to any view. Greer: his doctrine
of illumination would imply a transcendent aspect of the soul (pre-existence)
but original sin implies Traducionism.
All the Christians assumed the immortality of the soul and that the
world would end.
Basil has a literal view of Gen.1. Yet, he sees creation as being in one
moment. So, don't take the evening and
morning literally. The meaning: a movement
from lower to higher. When everything is
ready, humanity is created. Creation
grows, or develops, until it reaches fulfilment (when the world ends) The world
being the visible world of matter. Greer: if creation is an process, not an
event, and God presides at the beginning, then God presides through the process
but abandons this, voluntarily abandoning his power over us to give us freedom
(Greg. of Nyssa had this idea). In the
age to come, according to Gregory of Nyssa, all matter will be in that spirtual
world. The material world will have
ended. Gregory is a universalist.
Redemption as the completion of creation. Anti-gnostic.
Ancient Xn fathers thought this. Material creation will be deified, so it is
not that the material world will end, but will be transformed, existing so
in the spiritual world 'after' this material world.
Basil's morales: one can reason from the beauty and order of
creation to that of God. The created order as a route toward God.[3] Realize
God as the source of the order (rhythms) of nature. Augustine didn’t like this route. To
Augustine, to know your soul is to know God, as the former is a mirror
of the later. The Cappadocians' route is
external through knowing the material world, whereas Augustine's is internal
through knowing the soul. Basil:
meditating on creation is one way to get to the world of our hope. Basil, on
the origin of humanity, claimed it is difficult to know ourselves. Image and likeness of God are hinted at.
2/15/95
Gregory of Nyssa, "On the Making of Man"
Whereas Basil's work was oriented to the general public in
homiletic form, Gregory's work here is geared to the elite (not in homiletic
form). Gregory knows of Basil's homilies of the six days of creation. He edited
them and published the first nine. He
then continued Basil's work in a different genre. Some say that Gregory surpressed Basil's
tenth and eleventh homilies because he feared that Basil's view of likeness and
image would be used by the Eunomians (neo-Arians).
Gregory's treatise has two parts: what we believe has taken
place in the past and what we expect will take place. An equation between God's intension(eternal
purpose for humanity)--allegorizes the creation as God's intension for man, and
the eschatological hope. Humans are not
in the image of God in the actual but we do in the ideal. To resolve this, he
goes to scripture: Gen. 1-- v. 26 the ideal: Man in God's image; v. 27 the
actual: 'image' -as male and female.
These verses differ. The former:
God's intention. The latter: God's
actual creation. The eschatological
hope: the realization of God's intention-- Man in the image of God in the age
to come.
God's intension: the Trinity is the archetype and the image
would be in the sense of freedom, the soul, the psychosomatic unity of the
person, the plenitude of humanity, and the harmonizer and divinizer of
creation. So, humans are ideally modelled after the whole of the Trinity. The Capp.s were the first to come up with
this view. See Gen 1:26-'Let us make man
in our image'.
Creation as a totally harmonious order. Man was created last because he is a king
over the rest of creation. Also, God as
the good host who gets the banquet ready for his guest. Man's superior 'royal'
character in that it has a soul, is self-governed (free).[4]
Influences on the
Cappadocians include Origen, Philo, Plotinus.
So, some Platonist influence. For instance, God alone is absolute
being. All created things change and
become. The created heavens change and
the created earth decays.
The soul passes
through the organs of senses 'sees' beyond. Even though the organs are
different, that which using them remains the same. Plotinus: the soul is that likeness to God
which enables us to know God. The soul as akin to God. Like is known by like. This is Neo-Platonism. God as the artist
paints humanity with the colors of virtue in His self-image. Also, imitiation in word, understanding, and
love. These correspond to the three
stages of the spiritual life: virtue (Proverbs), understanding(Ecclesiastes)
that God's mystery is found in the created order, and unification (Song of
Songs) which is love, contemplation, or mysticism. So, the soul is created in the image of God,
having the seeds of the spiritual life.
The Cappadocians are
almost Sabellian: the hypostases are 'modes' of being. If it were just 'modes',
it would be Sabellian. For example,
Gregory of Nyssa refers to the logos as an aspect of the whole God, rather than
as being one of its hypostaeses.
The first principle
is the beautiful and the good (platonic).
This is with God. The soul is as to God in so much as it is a mirror of
it. If in the right direction (facing
God), the soul reflects God. The body
can be a mirror of the mirror. The
function of the soul is not merely to reflect God, but to govern the body(a
stoic idea) such that the body may be the mirror of the mirror of God.
On the soul.
pre-existence (Origen), soul put into a pre-existing body (Platonists), or
psychosomatic union (Gregory).
On the plenitude of
humanity. Not a platonic form; rather,
the fullness of humanity speaks of all humans who will ever be. This is a limited number. When this number is arrived at, God will end
the world. So, people should multiply.
In this sense, humanity is corporate.
Image of God and human nature should refer to humanity rather than to
individual humans. Just as the trinity
is a single nature with individuation, so to is humanity. A theomorphic definition of human
beings. Humans are not centers of
consciousness but relations within the Body of Christ. Greer: the human nature
of Christ becomes related to the corporate humanity. The humanity is generic in character. In the
humanity of the age to come we will be relations. So, universal salvation. Even satin, in being punished, is being
educated. By tempting him with humanity, he lets satin be saved. Evil is
non-being not only in in not being good, but in not having a final status. Evil is a privation of good as well as of
being, which God can use for good. Greer: this does not account for harm by
accident (earthquakes). Also, could this
not lead to a nieve optimism. Also, it
may not get really get a sense of sin.
Evil does not always lead to good.
Not everyone learns by their mistakes.
See: Hick, "Evil and the God of Love".
Gregory believed that
the evil we suffer is due to our freedom to turn away from God. God has
voluntarily reliquished some of his sovereignty. So, God uses persuasion rather than orders.
He uses punishment to persuade us to voluntarily turn to Him. We need to grow from immaturity because we
are creatures. Gregory: God is not
omnipotent. The onipotence he does have
is seen as weak (persuation). Augustine, on the other hand, insists on God's
omnipotence and the related lack of human freedom. Also, evil does not end in
Augustine's view.
On the harmonizer and
divinizer of creation. The soul as an animated principle is in three
gradations: plants, animals, and humans(rational). intelligible order: the angels. sensible order: beasts, plants and lifeless
things. Humanity consists of body and
soul. Soul allies us to the intelligible
order and body allies us to the sensible order.
So, the dominion we have is not in terms of power, but in harmonizing
it. Holding out two hands, binding the
created order. Christ, as word and
humanity, is incarnated, thus allowing divination to occur for the whole of the
created order. Christ holding two hands
out: word and humanity. Humanity holding
two hands out: soul and body. By this
chain, a propetual progress of creation
toward God. Maximus: in the next world,
division will end but difference will not.
Concerning being in actuality in
the image of God as male and female. Why
did God add the body (male and female as standing for the body)? Rather than seeing the body as positive in
including the corporeal in deification (Greer wishes he would have written),
Gregory: the inclusion of the body
because we would need to multiply. Due to the Fall? A cause or remedy of the Fall? Or both?
Implication: no sex had they not fallen.
Augustine: there could have been sex before the fall. It would have been
without lust and shame. So, Augustine
give a more positive role for the body than does Gregory.
2/22/95
Gregory of Nyssa
God's eternal
intension for humanity is in binding the whole of creation to Himself in a
transfigured humanity as relations in Christ. The human soul bridges out
to intelligibles (angels) and the body reaches out to sensibles (beasts,
plants, lifeless). Creation must become,
so God's purpose must be actualized along a time-line beginning with creation,
then the incarnation when the word becomes human. This enables the divine to be linked via
humanity to the intelligibles and sensibles.
A theomorphic definition of humanity: we are relations in Christ, rather
than centers of consciousness, in the age to come.
For Gregory, unlike
Augustine, our fate is not sealed at our death. There is a sort of pergatory in which the remaining souls will be
purified via divine punishments that heal. Moreover, Augustine is oriented to
the world of our experience: the impact of the Christian story on us here
(freedom, election, salvation). Gregory does not accord primary reality to our
world in that he is oriented to God's purpose which lies beyond our world.
Gregory, on the
resurrection, claimed it involves not
merely immortality of the soul but the resurrected body as well. The soul: includes our personality,
intellectual reason, and our moral capacity. The West tends to divide the will
(emotive and moral) and the intellect.
Gregory: does not have such demarcations. Denial of the soul's immortality is tied to
the denial of virtue and God. The soul is considered in relation to the
body, rather than being separate. Greeks
tried to separate them. He puts immortality
of the soul(Greek belief) and bodily resurrection(Jewish and Xn belief)
together to say that our bodies are given eternal life.
Irenaeus believed
that the resurrection of the body is in a physical sense. The incarnation's point is to give
this to us. Origen views salvation as
seeing God face to face. The
resurrection body is a symbol or outward sign of that vision. From Athanaeus on, an attempt to keep these
two in tension.
According to Gregory,
as for physical (earthly) bodily resurrection, what about those which
are mutilated. Yet, if another body,
then the one raised is another. The resurrection is the reconstitution of our
physical nature in its original intention of God. Augustine: at our peak: 30 years old. The
consensus: the body transformed.
Evil: is a deprivation of in that it is not only that of
being and of good, but in that it has no final status. Greer: he is restricting
this to the evils that we do (in moral terms) rather than in what happens to
us. Also, sin here is merely a mistake about the good. This theology comes from Origen. He talks about freedom, probably because they
did not feel free in the third century. The soul in relation to the passions: Passions of
the soul which are not in the image of God such as anger that is not good are
diseases. So, when used correctly(under
the guidance of the personality), an emotion is virtuous. Otherwise, not of God. An emotion itself is neutral. Key: the personality governing the emotions
as well as the body. And yet, the
ultimate destiny of the soul is stripped of emotions. In the age to come, enjoyment takes the place
of desire. So, the emotions (and desire
per se) are necessary only on the journey to God which is ultimately enjoyed as
the beautiful; they are not necessary in the age to come. Yet, the ascent is
infinite(becoming never becomes 'being'). A platonic thought here: God is the
good which is the beautiful. Only love
remains. Faith and hope, as well as the
emotions, are no longer needed. And yet
it is a perpetual ascent. Gregory recognizes the paradox. The soul in relation to the body and senses (not in a moral
sense): The soul pervades the body throughout.
The body is made up of atoms.
What happens to the soul when the atoms break up? Like a sailor and his ship. The soul is incapable of dissolution. Yet, Gregory does not want to say that the
soul leaves the body. His solution: the
soul hangs over all the atoms. Greer:
this is odd. Gregory is concerned with the psychosomatic condition of the soul and
body (traducianist). Augustine, on the
other hand, has no problem talking about the soul being apart from the body.
Gregory is correcting for Origen who treats the body as something the soul
escapes from.
3/1/95
Gregory of Nazianzus
He wrote his Orations
in 362 when Julian the apostate was emperor.
Oration two is on his refusal to accept ordination and then his change
of mind. So, it is on the priesthood. On his refusal, he was surprised that he had
been asked, he loved quiet (the monastic life), he felt unqualified to do the
work of a priest(specifically, the authority of--it makes one more subject to
being judged), and he was ashamed of the priests in his region.
According to Greer,
monasticism as a movement really began in earnest as a protest to Constintine
making the Church public. There was aestheticism in Christianity from the
beginning. Also, Rabbinic Judaism rejected celebacy. So, probably an in-flow
from there, as a protext against Rabbinic Judaism within Judaism. In the early church, the typical view was
that marriage is good, but celebacy is better.
For example, the Corinthians, who thought they were already living in
the age to come, did not think that marriage would be appropriate. Jesus said: no marriage in the age to
come. Paul: neither male nor female in
Christ.
On Gregory's
change-of-mind in becoming a priest, it was obedience to God and to his
parents.
On the work of the
priest, just as in the body there is the soul that rules, so too in the
churches one is ordained to rule--the priest.
Those who are relatively virtuous and close to God should be the priest. Such a person functions as a physician of souls.
Equality at baptism(equal status), and an inequality of gifts to
people(operation). An equality of
status, though not in function. So, the
priesthood indicates further progress as a Christian. So, equality does not mean that we are all
the same. Greer: the proper priest is of
the same sort as the flock, and yet is set before the flock. Identifies with
the flock, and yet rules over them. The issue: authority and ordination.
Servant leadership?
The difficulty in
teaching virtue: It has to be done in a persuasive way. The pastoral art is one of persuasion. People are different, so different approaches
needed.
The difficulty in being the
physician of souls: most spiritually sick people don't recognize it
(denial). We tend to love our own
darkness. Easier than changing. Function of the physician of souls: to deify;
to ascend to God. Key: the human soul of
Jesus, otherwise, nothing linking man to God. We are fellow-workers of the
healing. Only Christ is the healed
healer. Yet, Gregory did not believe in
the wounded healer.
According to Greer,
during the Arian controversy, it was not a fight between the orthodox and
Arians. There were also the eastern moderates, who felt that both the Nicenes
and Arians were erring in bringing in new language. So, a period without a clear doctrine of God.
The character of the
priest: Paul is his role model. Imitate
Christ. Live not for oneself but to
Christ. Gregory also looks to how the prophets
treated the priests. Then, he suggests that a priest must be cleansed before
one can cleanse. Also, don't point out
the impiety of others.
Gregory of Nyssa's
letter on Pilgrimages: He was sent to order the Arab churches in Southwest Palestine .
On his way, he went through Jerusalem .
He found the situation there to be scandalous.
Greer: before Constantine , the only Jerusalem of interest to
Xns was the one above. Constantine 's building projects drew
attention to the earthly city. Churches
built on holy sites. Also, a repitition
of the events of holy week there. Became
fashionable to go there then. Gregory:
don't venerate places, especially if one is doing so instead of people (e.g.
martyrs).
According to Greer,
the Cappadocians value free-will. Grace
is only persuasive, rather than ordering.
The priest seen as such. Not in
terms of power. Yet, the Cappadocians took the relics seriously in working
wonders (miracles, cult of the saints)--power seen in them. Gregory of Nyssa is committed to both.
[1]
I prefer Source(of Ultimacy, reality or
being), Christ (Compassion and Truth), and Spirit(Life).
[2]From the Gospel of Matthew.
[3]See:
Basil, The Hexaemeron.
[4]
See Gen 1:28.
