While we’re busy dealing with social encyclicals, here are two blog posts (about the meaning of communion, prayer, intercession) that are worth some serious consideration.
Here is the first, and here is the second.
And now, a theological problem
I have recently hit a snag in my thinking of Christology to which someone here might have an answer.
In Gregory Nazianzus’ christology, at the moment of the Incarnation Christ’s humanity is not only “created” but instanteously deified. This creation and deification happen right at the instant of deification (because Christ’s humanity nature does not exist before the Incarnation, and it is deified by a “mixture,” to use his words, with his Divine Nature). This relates to Gregory’s soteriology, because Gregory sees Christ’s humanity as being the first example of our own deification. Gregory is not concerned with the person of Mary, except insofar as it is from her that the Son of God takes his human nature. However, it would be implied, by this deification, that Mary needn’t be Immaculately Conceived, as the humanity that Christ takes from her is deified anyway. This would seem to put a Gregorian (Nazianzen) understanding of the Incarnation at odds with Catholic understanding.
I’m curious if this is still the teaching of the Orthodox Church? Or does anyone have any thoughts to chime in on this. It seems like an interesting theological problem to me.
July 7, 2009 at 9:43 PM
This is still the teaching of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox do not accept the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. To Orthodox understanding the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is too dependent on Augustinian understanding of Original Sin which is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church either.
July 7, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Thanks for responding! I figured our differences on Original Sin played into this issue.
Interestingly, I think brings into contention the act mixing water and wine in the preparation of the gifts before the Eucharist (in the Catholic rite). One interpretation of the act suggests that it is symbolic of the mixture of the divine and human in Christ. However, it also seems to be making a soteriological statement as well-the divine taking up our human nature in deification. I’m wondering if one can still say this in Catholicism, with our notions of Original Sin (and our de-emphasis on deification).
Or am I off here?
July 8, 2009 at 12:01 AM
I’m not sure how Catholicism would see it. Orthodoxy certainly sees the mixture of wine and water as representative of the two natures. Our bread is also baked with an upper and lower half, carrying the same meaning.
Probably some of the clearest writing on the Orthodox understanding of the incarnation is to be found in Fr. Georges Florovsky. Some of his stuff is on the web. His books are almost impossible to find. He died back in the latter part of the 20th century but was a theological giant. Very few write with his simplicity and clarity. I’ll see what I can come up with. I remember of couple of articles in particular.
July 8, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Here is some more to chew on. The deification of Christ’s humanity is by energy and not by essence. This is an old distinction and it comes in a variety of forms. For Plato in the Republic, THE cold and coldness are his prototypical example of essence and energy. In any case, there is no mingling of essences in the incarnation.
Second, there is another heresy, apthartodocetism, form the sixth century or so that stated that Christ’s humanity was fully deified from conception forward. If this were so, then he would be incapable of dying, suffering, etc. So it is importation that the theosis of Christ’s humanity admit of degrees. It is part of the process of recapitulation of all humanity in Christ.
I hope that helps.
July 10, 2009 at 5:31 AM
T,
Good point about mixing the water and wine. The priest’s private prayer, after all, is some variation on “by the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share our humanity.”
The immaculate conception is indeed drawn from Augustine and original sin. It’s as if Mary was baptized before she was born so that she could pass on a state of original sinlessness to Christ’s humanity. That makes some sense to me. My wonder is how to read Cyril of Alexandria in this respect. No one influenced him more than Greg Naz.
July 10, 2009 at 9:08 PM
I think the Catholic world is guilty of de-emphasizing the catechetical and doctrinal nature of liturgy. Certainly, post-Vatican II, several doctrinally questionable things have stumbled into the Catholic Mass (according to Rev. Cekada’s little book “The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass”).
(Rant: As well as this misguided notion that active participation at Mass requires doing *something* active, instead of actively attempting to understand the theology of the Mass, or active praying the Mass, interiorly, with the priest. Additionally the awful translations cause many problems, as does the odd belief of some priests and bishops that speaking so that people can understand means speaking down to them, or using boorish language, or both).
However, its important to look at liturgy in light of historical theological developments as well. In fact, liturgy can teach us much about the development of doctrine, if we let it…and raise interesting questions, such as the one I raised above.