Early Byzantine Patristic Theology: Take Home Exam

Dimmitri Christou 1.

2. The focus of this essay is oriented toward gauging the ecclesial approach to St Cyril in contrast with that of secular scholarship. Similarly, the presuppositions of both the ecclesial and secular approach will be assessed. For the Eastern Orthodox Church, St Cyril is revered as Saint for his remarkable abilities and God-like manner. St Cyril was an exegete, bishop, theologian and pastorone that defined various tenets of Orthodoxy. Regarding the Orthodox view of St Cyril, J.A. McGuckin remarks For the Eastern Church he is the father of Orthodox Christology par excellence1 Accordingly, McGuckins remark is emphasized by St Cyrils doxology, as maintained in the Greek Orthodox Church, which says: Hail Translucent star, defending warrior to the Holy Virgin, while continuing on to state, Rejoice most blessed Cyril, spring of theology and river of the knowledge of God. [emphasis mine] Hence, the ecclesial approach is seemingly concerned with the personal character of St Cyril, as exemplified by the doxology pertaining to him. Nevertheless, St Cyrils Christological explanations became the standard for Chalcedonian thought, and as taken from the aforementioned doxology, it is clear that St Cyril is not simply understood as a champion of Orthodox dogma but equally as a Saint, being considered most blessed and as a river of the knowledge of God. Accordingly, the ecclesial approach might then be understood as concerned with St Cyril in virtue of himself and not external activities. There doesnt seem to be good reason to believe St Cyril maintained political-social interests as most important. Instead, as the ecclesial approach typifies, we see St Cyril as a pastor, concerned with the salvation of his flock, rather than the wellbeingor lack thereofof other individuals (i.e., Hypatia and Orestes).2 To paraphrase McGuckin, St Cyrils actions reveal the Saint as a reformer, who attempted to establish order, rather than control all matters.3 The presuppositions underlying the ecclesial approach might then be understood as informative in light of the experience of the Church. On the other hand, modern scholarship attempts to portray St Cyril, not as a Saint, or by the least pastor, but as the catalyst to a chain of unfortunate events. While this approach is not surprising, it is nevertheless an inadequate approach. Relative to the particular historical lens utilized (e.g., historicism) modern scholarship generally begins with an endeavour that a priori disregards the life of the Church, its divine particularities, and consideration of individuals as Saints, as the ecclesial approach presupposes. Even worse, modern scholarship has embarrassingly been influenced by Charles Kingsleys work of fiction titled Hypatia. Nevertheless, St Cyril tends to be portrayed as a politically and socially motivated totalitarian,
J.A McGuckin. Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy. (St Vladmirs Seminary Press, 2004.) p. 1. 2 As Ayers, Louth and Young maintain in their work The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature: First Edition. Cambridge, 2004., St Cyrils life has suffered from neglect as the Saints life has been identified primarily with the fictional work composed by Charles Kingsley, titled Hypatia (1853). Though as McGuckin contends while quoting Wickham, the accounts maintained by various scholars suggesting that St Cyril is responsible for Hypatias death are largely enshrined by myth (see: J.A. McGuckin. Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy. (St Vladmirs Seminary Press, 2004.) pp. 14-5.) 3 Ibid., 1. p. 7.
1

whos concern was primary personal rather than communal.4 This approach is simply false as it derives its conclusions from a mode of knowledge that is inherently conflictive with the ecclesial approach when operating independent from the witness of the Church.5 As such, one cannot maintain a holistic rendering of history as it pertains to St Cyril by divorcing the Archbishops life as a Saint from the historical occurrences that took place around him.

As Piercy and Wace argue, one cannot take into serious historical consideration the bias accounts (i.e., Damascius blame of St Cyril) pertaining to St Cyrils life as various accounts originate ove r a period of time 130 years subsequent to St Cyril (see: H. Wace and W.C. Piercy. A Dictionary of Christian Biography. (Massachusetts, 1994.) p. 236.) 5 Though it is not categorically true that all historians approach history using the lens of historicism, what is manifestly true is that historians approach history in accordance with their distinctive worldview (e.g., philosophical, political, societal, etc.) Accordingly Georges Florovsky in God, History, and Historians: An Anthology of Modern Christian Views of History describes that the virtue of a historian is impartiality from all extrinsic phenomena. However, the impartiality of a historian is as much a forensic title than an analytic description of ones being. For the virtue of a historian is in all situations contingent upon extrinsic and intrinsic factors rather than factors merely essential to ones being. Hence the impartiality Florovsky is speaking of is as much an optimistic title applied to a historian than an intrinsic description of a person.

3. A specific aspect pertaining to St Dionysius thought will be analyzed in contrast to how St Dionysius reinterpreted Neoplatonism. In particular St Dionysius understanding of theurgy (Gr. )6 will be contrasted with that of Proclus. For Proclus, soteriology was understood in light of the deification of lower forms of particulars in the higher. Simply, as one lower cause proceeds from the higher, so too then may the lower cause return to its higher cause by virtue of intrinsically participating in its shared individuating set. Burns identifies this relationship between the ascent of lower particulars and higher particulars as ,7 a principle which links the entirety of Proclus cosmos together.8 Accordingly, Proclus maintained that material objects also serve as symbols which elevate lower particulars unto the same set of higher particulars. For example, one is capable of manifesting this sympathy through the use of natural objects as symbol by replicating the works of the Demiurge by the act of fashioning a statue.9 In this case the act of creating is expressive of the sympathetic relationship a symbol has to its analogous higher particular, as appropriated by the lower particular, the person. Consequently, by gauging a symbols sympathetic relationship to its higher particular, the theurgist is elevateddeified in some sensewithin the Proclean universe, thus bringing the person as close to the One as possible. In contrast, St Dionysius understood theurgy in a variety of ways, though primarily as a mystical and soteriological operation. To cite one example, St Dionysius took Christ to be the ultimate elevating symbol, who mediates the unmediable boundary between Unity and Plurality.10 Christ, as such, is the One who bridges all metaphysical distinction, mediating what would otherwise be wholly transcendent. As St Dionysius states, And one differentiation is the benevolent theurgic act towards us through which the beyond-existent Word wholly and truly took on our human substance and suffered, as is eminently appropriate through his theurgy.11 [emphasis mine] Nevertheless, the Eucharist according to St Dionysius remained as the ultimate natural rite, whereas in Proclus understanding it is difficult to locate whether one particular symbol is of ultimate importance at all. Likewise, Perl explains that Dionysius can be distinguished from Proclus in that theurgia doesnt apply to the ritual acts themselves, as Proclus maintained, but to

Proclus provides a definition of theurgy as: a power higher than all human wisdom embracing the blessings of divination, the purifying powers of initiation, and in a word all the operations of divine possession.(see: Proclus. On the Theology of Plato. 1.26.63. Dodds., E. R. The Greeks and the Irrational. (University of California Press, 1959)). 7 The term ought to be understood as describing a principle s natural affiliation by virtue of its being with that of its specific cause. As such the term draws out the shared characteristics and degrees of being as characterized by their unifying properties rather than the contrary. Accordingly, the individual can possibly be elevated to the One by a hierarchical ascent of contemplation through the contemplation of the defining characteristics and degrees of being. 8 Dylan Burns. Proclus and the Theurgic Liturgy of Pseudo -Dionysius. (Dionysius, Vol. XXII, Dec 2004, 111-32), p. 115. 9 Ibid., p. 116. 10 Ibid., p. 125. 11 Pseudo-Dionysius, Divine Names, 592C.

the divine activities that these symbolize, especially the acts of God incarnate. 12 Still, participation in the Eucharist served as a symbol for participation in Jesus Christ according to St Dionysius.13 Specifically, St Dionysius reinterpretation of Neoplatonist cosmology between the emanative ascent of lower particulars to higher particulars is most obvious when the Eucharist is broken into pieces, thus descending into plurality, alike the lower particular forms as [] proceeding from the Proclean One, and, like these particulars, it is gathered back up into absolute Unitywith the laity in tow.14 Consequentially, St Dionysius use of Eucharist as the symbol, in conjunction with the language borrowed, i.e., theurgic and theurgy, are obviously Proclean in nature. What is distinct is the manner in which St Dionysius reinterpreted Neoplatonism; namely, by enhypostasizing the Proclean symbols of theurgia in the Person of Christ. As well, St Dionysius use of theurgy reinterpreted in light of Christ, demonstrates the consistency of Christian thinkers with that of the philosophical traditions of the time. 15 Nevertheless, St Dionysius construing of both Christian thought with philosophy, allows for the philosopher and laymen alike, the possibility to engage in spiritual transformation thus allowing contemporary culture to learn from previous Christian engagement.

12

Eric Perl. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2010), p.

786. Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, 124A. Ibid., 7. p. 126. 15 Rev. Dr. Doru Costache in his article The Transdisciplinary Carats of Patristic Byzantine Tradition. (Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 4 (2013) 131-140) makes the distinct point that the Byzantine tradition has been markedly flexible by virtue of exemplifying a series of transdisciplinary characteristics. St Dionysius use of Neoplatonist metaphysics seemingly serves as a type of contribution to the already multifaceted carats of the Byzantine tradition.
14 13