OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 05:56:50 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Nicholas Cabasilas and the Latin West  (Read 6299 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« on: May 05, 2010, 01:37:54 PM »

Some Orthodox communities I know use Nicholas Cabasilas's The Life in Christ as the primary catechetical text for their catechumenate. 

On the other hand I have heard it said that Nicholas Cabasilas was a Latinizer in 14th century Byzantium.

Can anyone enlighten me on which is the dominant position in Orthodoxy concerning Nicholas Cabasilas?

M.
Logged

Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2010, 01:57:30 PM »

On the other hand I have heard it said that Nicholas Cabasilas was a Latinizer in 14th century Byzantium.

Where did you hear this?
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,651



« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2010, 02:01:30 PM »

On the other hand I have heard it said that Nicholas Cabasilas was a Latinizer in 14th century Byzantium.

Is there anyone in the whole Orthodox Church who has NOT been accused of being too Latin-minded?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2010, 02:03:27 PM »

On the other hand I have heard it said that Nicholas Cabasilas was a Latinizer in 14th century Byzantium.

Where did you hear this?

Somewhere in my travels over time...more than once if I remember correctly.  What reminded me is that there's a comment about it in the Translator's Foreward in my copy of the book.  So I thought I'd ask.

Also there's much in his sacramental theology that is very compatible with Catholic sacramental theology, in particular his understanding of and teaching concerning Baptism.  So I connected that with the recent discussion of the Immaculate Conception and the grace that illuminates the intellect and strengthens the will.  Cabasilius's section on Baptism is congruent with those Catholic understandings, so I ask if he is seen as a thoroughly Orthodox teacher or if he is seen as being tainted by western contacts.

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2010, 02:04:03 PM »

On the other hand I have heard it said that Nicholas Cabasilas was a Latinizer in 14th century Byzantium.

Is there anyone in the whole Orthodox Church who has NOT been accused of being too Latin-minded?

 Tongue

Well there is that!!....
Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,581



« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2010, 02:17:45 PM »

St. Nicholas Cabasilas never struck me as being particularly latinized. In his Commentary on the Divine Liturgy I remember him discussing differences between east and west at one point, though I don't recall him being overly polemical. I found his theology in The Life in Christ, including his ideas on free-will, the sacraments, etc. to be orthodox.
Logged
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2010, 02:20:49 PM »

Also there's much in his sacramental theology that is very compatible with Catholic sacramental theology, in particular his understanding of and teaching concerning Baptism.  So I connected that with the recent discussion of the Immaculate Conception and the grace that illuminates the intellect and strengthens the will.  Cabasilius's section on Baptism is congruent with those Catholic understandings, so I ask if he is seen as a thoroughly Orthodox teacher or if he is seen as being tainted by western contacts.

I'm really not qualified to comment because I have never read any of his full works.  I have read many selected quotes from him that I enjoy thoroughly.  Was he not a disciple of sorts of St Gregory Palamas?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2010, 02:46:25 PM »

Also there's much in his sacramental theology that is very compatible with Catholic sacramental theology, in particular his understanding of and teaching concerning Baptism.  So I connected that with the recent discussion of the Immaculate Conception and the grace that illuminates the intellect and strengthens the will.  Cabasilius's section on Baptism is congruent with those Catholic understandings, so I ask if he is seen as a thoroughly Orthodox teacher or if he is seen as being tainted by western contacts.

I'm really not qualified to comment because I have never read any of his full works.  I have read many selected quotes from him that I enjoy thoroughly.  Was he not a disciple of sorts of St Gregory Palamas?


There's no evidence that he was a disciple of St. Gregory and some have commented on the fact that Cabasilas does not explicitly use the essence/energies distinction, but I don't see where any of his theological or doctrinal discussion is antithetical to the hesychast experience at all.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2010, 02:48:01 PM »

St. Nicholas Cabasilas never struck me as being particularly latinized. In his Commentary on the Divine Liturgy I remember him discussing differences between east and west at one point, though I don't recall him being overly polemical. I found his theology in The Life in Christ, including his ideas on free-will, the sacraments, etc. to be orthodox.

Ah  That is the other thing I was going to ask.  Has he been recognized as a saint in Orthodoxy.  I don't know why I don't know that but I don't.

I enjoy his work very much and refer to it often.

M.
Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,581



« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2010, 02:53:49 PM »

Ah  That is the other thing I was going to ask.  Has he been recognized as a saint in Orthodoxy.  I don't know why I don't know that but I don't.

I enjoy his work very much and refer to it often.

I don't know if all the local Churches recognize his being a saint, but at least some do. Orthodoxwiki and Wikipedia both say that his feast day is June 20.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,101


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2010, 02:55:15 PM »

A member of oc.net, AMM I think, used St. Nicholas (and St. Gregory Palamas) as a supporter of a "juridical" view of salvation.  Perhaps, when reading his quotes on those, some Orthodox might have accused him of being a "Latinizer."
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2010, 02:58:08 PM »

Ah  That is the other thing I was going to ask.  Has he been recognized as a saint in Orthodoxy.  I don't know why I don't know that but I don't.

I enjoy his work very much and refer to it often.

I don't know if all the local Churches recognize his being a saint, but at least some do. Orthodoxwiki and Wikipedia both say that his feast day is June 20.

 Cool oh...I guess I never "wikkied" him!!  Cheesy
Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,101


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2010, 03:03:51 PM »

Found what I was talking about:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11389.msg154537.html#msg154537
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11389.msg154654.html#msg154654
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,581



« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2010, 03:13:45 PM »


Thanks for digging those up. I checked my copy of The Life in Christ and it does indeed say what he quoted it as saying. Interesting.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2010, 03:16:16 PM »


Oh my...well I didn't read the threads all the way through.  I can only comment that the Catholic Church rejects "substiutionary" atonement.  That is a reformed idea but it is always laid at the doorstep of the Catholic Church.

Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2010, 03:18:11 PM »


Oh my...well I didn't read the threads all the way through.  I can only comment that the Catholic Church rejects "substiutionary" atonement.  That is a reformed idea but it is always laid at the doorstep of the Catholic Church.


Agreed. I wonder why so many think we profess this Protestant dogma.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,467


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2010, 03:30:26 PM »


Oh my...well I didn't read the threads all the way through.  I can only comment that the Catholic Church rejects "substiutionary" atonement.  That is a reformed idea but it is always laid at the doorstep of the Catholic Church.



One could argue that's because it was unknown in the East and developed in the West.  The Reformers did not just come up with things out of the blue.  Granted, they misunderstood things to the point where they threw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak, but the foundation for their own particular heresies can be found in Western Christianity.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2010, 04:46:00 PM »


Oh my...well I didn't read the threads all the way through.  I can only comment that the Catholic Church rejects "substiutionary" atonement.  That is a reformed idea but it is always laid at the doorstep of the Catholic Church.



One could argue that's because it was unknown in the East and developed in the West.  The Reformers did not just come up with things out of the blue.  Granted, they misunderstood things to the point where they threw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak, but the foundation for their own particular heresies can be found in Western Christianity.

Absolutely!!!  In fact most of the eastern heretics migrated west and were driven west so there's no doubt that most of the major heresies in the west came directly from the east and that is also why so many protestants prefer to migrate back to Orthodoxy...oh....wait... Smiley

In any event Nicholas Cabasilas had a firm grasp on the Byzantine Christian understanding of divine justice.

M.

Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,101


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2010, 05:19:40 PM »

I personally thought Anselm was a major player in spreading the idea of substitutionary atonement.  And many Orthodox Churches also put the blame on Aquinas.

« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 05:20:03 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 05, 2010, 05:23:09 PM »

I personally thought Anselm was a major player in spreading the idea of substitutionary atonement.  And many Orthodox Churches also put the blame on Aquinas.

Neither one...

M.
Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,101


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 05, 2010, 05:24:48 PM »

Okay, then there's something I'm not getting.

Anselm said that man by sinning robbed God's honor, thus angering Him.  In order to save man, Christ had to appease this wrath by taking this wrath upon Himself as man.

Am I misunderstanding anything from Anselm?  Maybe that's not what he said?
« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 05:25:48 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 05, 2010, 06:10:22 PM »

Okay, then there's something I'm not getting.

Anselm said that man by sinning robbed God's honor, thus angering Him.  In order to save man, Christ had to appease this wrath by taking this wrath upon Himself as man.

Am I misunderstanding anything from Anselm?  Maybe that's not what he said?

You are not alone.  

One of the things that Anselm says is that we can NOT add anything to God or take anything from Him.  He's very careful to say that in fact.

He says that when we do God's will we "honor" him as a child "honors" his or her parent by being respectful and obedient, but that adds to US not to Him!!  When we are not obedient or respectful the dishonor belongs to us, and if our parents are good parents they are angry with us not because we inconvenienced them but because by being disrespectful or disobedient we make ourselves the lesser.  We remove ourselves from the right order of being...and that being is the "good" of Genesis.

When I was a child learning about confession, I was told that one of the elements of making amends for my sins was that I must do whatever is necessary to restore who or whatever was touched by my sin back to its original state before I sinned.  

The easiest one was stealing.  If I stole then I must make restitution of some kind...either by giving what I stole back or working to replace it in kind if not directly.

If I swore at my mother then I was required to never again to anything to make her remember that moment so that she could forget and have her mind free again from that moment and its memory, but you can see that is not likely to happen given our habits as human beings.  So some sins are very very difficult to satisfy or restore.

Some sins are impossible to restore in our limited capacity and because there are always unintended consequences that we often know nothing about but they are there and we are responsible.  It is out of a responsibility to restore that comes the doctrine of purgation in fact.  We carry the weight of the responsibility for all of the consequences of our sins.  That does not go away with forgiveness of sin.  The consequences remain.

At any rate Jesus came to make satisfaction and restore the ancestral sin, which is a sin from which mankind cannot be restored to their former state of grace without the Son of God.

Catholic atonement is an atonement of satisfaction and restoration and this is how Anselm presents it.

It is more often than not, not the way that Anslem is presented.  I don't know why.

M.



« Last Edit: May 05, 2010, 06:12:05 PM by elijahmaria » Logged

Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2010, 08:23:39 AM »

many protestants prefer to migrate back to Orthodoxy...oh....wait... Smiley

It is always refreshing to see your wayward children (the protestants) coming home to the fullness of truth in the Holy Orthodox Church.  Grin
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2010, 08:26:32 AM »

many protestants prefer to migrate back to Orthodoxy...oh....wait... Smiley

It is always refreshing to see your wayward children (the protestants) coming home to the fullness of truth in the Holy Orthodox Church.  Grin

 Shocked...but then again, some think that it's better y'all have to deal with their baggage!!  Grin
Logged

FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #24 on: May 06, 2010, 10:42:05 AM »

Some Orthodox communities I know use Nicholas Cabasilas's The Life in Christ as the primary catechetical text for their catechumenate. 

<snip>


Dear Mary,

I've never heard of anyone using it.  Where is this 'community' you are speaking of?  Are you talking about a parish, diocese, etc.?
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Mickey
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Orthodoxy
Posts: 1,309



« Reply #25 on: May 06, 2010, 10:50:13 AM »

Shocked...but then again, some think that it's better y'all have to deal with their baggage!!  Grin

It is a great place for them to heal.  Smiley
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2010, 10:54:43 AM »

Some Orthodox communities I know use Nicholas Cabasilas's The Life in Christ as the primary catechetical text for their catechumenate. 

<snip>


Dear Mary,

I've never heard of anyone using it.  Where is this 'community' you are speaking of?  Are you talking about a parish, diocese, etc.?


Parishes, Father.  I don't know how many or who all any more.  I've been at this "dialogue" business for nearly 15 years so I store some things in a generic pile simply to save space in my head  Smiley.  And there was nothing too remarkable about the fact when I first encountered him.  I got his books and read them and liked them very much and used them to catechize when I've been asked to do that on occasion.

I've known of parishes in the OCA who use him, ACROD, ROCOR....and the Antiochians too, if I remember correctly...I don't remember any Greeks using him that I know of and I thought that was strange, but he's certainly not unheard of and he's on the shelves of loads of small Orthodox parish bookstores.  And I've heard priests recommend him as often as I've heard them recommend St. Theophan the Recluse.

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2010, 10:55:28 AM »

Shocked...but then again, some think that it's better y'all have to deal with their baggage!!  Grin

It is a great place for them to heal.  Smiley

I think you are right about that...all joking aside!!

M.
Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,101


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2010, 10:56:20 AM »

I've asked this question many times before, but I haven't received an answer, let alone a satisfactory one.  Wasn't Anselm the one who started the idea of an "infinite sin?"  What's an "infinite sin?"  Why call it "infinite?"
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,101


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 06, 2010, 11:07:00 AM »

Okay, I think I see I'm understanding the differences.  Wiki seems to put the slight differences out, which seems to be what you are saying:

Quote
Anselm speaks of human sin as defrauding God of the honour he is due. Christ's death, the ultimate act of obedience, brings God great honour. As it was beyond the call of duty for Christ, it is more honour than he was obliged to give. Christ's surplus can therefore repay our deficit. Hence Christ's death is substitutionary; he pays the honour instead  of us. Penal substitution differs in that it sees Christ's death not as repaying God for lost honour but rather paying the penalty  of death that had always been the moral consequence for sin (e.g., Genesis 2:17; Romans 6:23). The key difference here is that for Anselm, satisfaction is an alternative  to punishment, "The honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow."  By Christ satisfying our debt of honor to God, we avoid punishment. In Calvinist Penal Substitution, it is the punishment which satisfies the demands of justice.

So Anselm says we owe God honor (even though He doesn't need it), which Christ paid, and Calvin is the one who introduced the idea that we owe punishment, which Christ took upon Himself. 

What's interesting though is that according to wiki, if "satisfaction" of the debt of honor due to God isn't paid, then punishment is due.  Is that true?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 06, 2010, 11:15:47 AM »

Okay, I think I see I'm understanding the differences.  Wiki seems to put the slight differences out, which seems to be what you are saying:

Quote
Anselm speaks of human sin as defrauding God of the honour he is due. Christ's death, the ultimate act of obedience, brings God great honour. As it was beyond the call of duty for Christ, it is more honour than he was obliged to give. Christ's surplus can therefore repay our deficit. Hence Christ's death is substitutionary; he pays the honour instead  of us. Penal substitution differs in that it sees Christ's death not as repaying God for lost honour but rather paying the penalty  of death that had always been the moral consequence for sin (e.g., Genesis 2:17; Romans 6:23). The key difference here is that for Anselm, satisfaction is an alternative  to punishment, "The honor taken away must be repaid, or punishment must follow."  By Christ satisfying our debt of honor to God, we avoid punishment. In Calvinist Penal Substitution, it is the punishment which satisfies the demands of justice.

So Anselm says we owe God honor (even though He doesn't need it), which Christ paid, and Calvin is the one who introduced the idea that we owe punishment, which Christ took upon Himself. 

What's interesting though is that according to wiki, if "satisfaction" of the debt of honor due to God isn't paid, then punishment is due.  Is that true?

Remembering always here that the Trinity is One, Father, Son and Holy Spirit...in the context of honor due and honor paid.

Do you remember hearing the quote from St. Irenaeus that paraphrases very much like this: 

The glory of God is man fully alive!! 

That is how we need to understand Anselm's talk of honor due and honor paid.  What undergirds it all is God's boundless love for his stiff necked children.  Without that baseline, Anselm's analogy falls apart before it get's going.  That and the fact that nothing can be added and nothing can be removed from the divine Trinity.

So yes...bearing that in mind...you are on the right path.

And then in this light only can one understand punishment.

Why did a loving God put Adam and Eve out of the Garden, and then KEEP every generation thereafter out until after our earthly death...Why would a loving God make us to suffer that loss?

As you think of these things then understand that poena in Latin means "loss"...and the most basic and theological meaning of punishment in the Latin Church is "loss"....

Get back to me if there's more...

M.

Logged

FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #31 on: May 06, 2010, 11:23:21 AM »

Parishes, Father.  I don't know how many or who all any more.  I've been at this "dialogue" business for nearly 15 years so I store some things in a generic pile simply to save space in my head  Smiley.  And there was nothing too remarkable about the fact when I first encountered him.  I got his books and read them and liked them very much and used them to catechize when I've been asked to do that on occasion.

I've known of parishes in the OCA who use him, ACROD, ROCOR....and the Antiochians too, if I remember correctly...I don't remember any Greeks using him that I know of and I thought that was strange, but he's certainly not unheard of and he's on the shelves of loads of small Orthodox parish bookstores.  And I've heard priests recommend him as often as I've heard them recommend St. Theophan the Recluse.

M.

Well, you must float in a very different circle than me!  Wink

Seriously, I've never heard the name come up outside seminary.

Most catechism debates I've been in seem to boil down to the 'Rainbow Series' versus the 'Carlton Series' versus the 'Ware Series' (I use the latter two).

Frankly, I don't find most catechumens willing or able to deal with translated materials.  The problem stems from the fact that most translations retain their original rhetorical styles which are foreign to modern Americans.  Plus, they don't get to the heart of the matters that concern modern converts and cause them the most hesitancy.

The other problem of interpretation with these works is that they can, because of the complexity of the argument in question, etc., be very easily misconstrued, either by original design or the lack of skill in the original translator.  I guess I'm saying that they are much more work than they are worth.  While these ancient books may be historical and commendable, they might also be a bit too complex for catechism.

I suppose then what I am saying is that if I ran across a priest who was using Cabasilas, I would probably grill him rather intensely to find out why.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 06, 2010, 11:41:23 AM »

Parishes, Father.  I don't know how many or who all any more.  I've been at this "dialogue" business for nearly 15 years so I store some things in a generic pile simply to save space in my head  Smiley.  And there was nothing too remarkable about the fact when I first encountered him.  I got his books and read them and liked them very much and used them to catechize when I've been asked to do that on occasion.

I've known of parishes in the OCA who use him, ACROD, ROCOR....and the Antiochians too, if I remember correctly...I don't remember any Greeks using him that I know of and I thought that was strange, but he's certainly not unheard of and he's on the shelves of loads of small Orthodox parish bookstores.  And I've heard priests recommend him as often as I've heard them recommend St. Theophan the Recluse.

M.

Well, you must float in a very different circle than me!  Wink

Seriously, I've never heard the name come up outside seminary.

Most catechism debates I've been in seem to boil down to the 'Rainbow Series' versus the 'Carlton Series' versus the 'Ware Series' (I use the latter two).

Frankly, I don't find most catechumens willing or able to deal with translated materials.  The problem stems from the fact that most translations retain their original rhetorical styles which are foreign to modern Americans.  Plus, they don't get to the heart of the matters that concern modern converts and cause them the most hesitancy.

The other problem of interpretation with these works is that they can, because of the complexity of the argument in question, etc., be very easily misconstrued, either by original design or the lack of skill in the original translator.  I guess I'm saying that they are much more work than they are worth.  While these ancient books may be historical and commendable, they might also be a bit too complex for catechism.

I suppose then what I am saying is that if I ran across a priest who was using Cabasilas, I would probably grill him rather intensely to find out why.

 laugh  Yea...I figured that from your question which is why I ain't namin' names!!... angel

Logged

FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #33 on: May 06, 2010, 11:49:27 AM »

laugh  Yea...I figured that from your question which is why I ain't namin' names!!... angel

Well, then, I think we have the answer to your question: the dominent interpretation amongst the Orthodox in the English-speaking world is that Cabasilas is relatively obscure and thus, no matter how you want to define him, it really doesn't matter to much.

Latinizer or not, he has very little effect on the overall theological teaching in the modern Church (English speaking compartment, the only one I am fit to comment on).

I imagine the same is true for the RCC and Anselm of Canterbury (subject on the other thread).
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #34 on: May 06, 2010, 11:56:17 AM »

Does anybody still recommend Fr Lev Gillet's "Orthodox Spirituality: An Outline of the Orthodox Ascetical and Mystical Tradition"?  He used to write while alive under the pseudonym of "A Monk of the Eastern Church." 

Back in the day it was a very common book to recommend to catechumens.  Mind you, that is so far 'back in the day' that we did not even refer to them as 'catechumens.'  We simply spoke of people"wanting to become Orthodox" and people "learning about Orthodoxy."
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 06, 2010, 12:06:26 PM »

laugh  Yea...I figured that from your question which is why I ain't namin' names!!... angel

Well, then, I think we have the answer to your question: the dominent interpretation amongst the Orthodox in the English-speaking world is that Cabasilas is relatively obscure and thus, no matter how you want to define him, it really doesn't matter to much.

Latinizer or not, he has very little effect on the overall theological teaching in the modern Church (English speaking compartment, the only one I am fit to comment on).

I imagine the same is true for the RCC and Anselm of Canterbury (subject on the other thread).

Well I spent my life in a Catholic school so I suppose we read a lot of books that other people never even heard of till later, if at all.

Mary
Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,101


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 06, 2010, 02:43:04 PM »

Dear Mary,

I was also wondering if you can also help me out with the issue of "infinite sin."
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 06, 2010, 02:56:07 PM »

Dear Mary,

I was also wondering if you can also help me out with the issue of "infinite sin."

I've been looking around to see if I could find anything to help me get started with that but I have no idea what it is and I haven't a clue what it might mean.

So I am stuck on this one.

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #38 on: May 06, 2010, 02:57:50 PM »

Dear Mary,

I was also wondering if you can also help me out with the issue of "infinite sin."
Aquinas argues that sin is not infinite in its essence, but that the person offended, namely God, is infinite.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 02:58:16 PM by Papist » Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #39 on: May 06, 2010, 03:03:13 PM »

Dear Mary,

I was also wondering if you can also help me out with the issue of "infinite sin."
Aquinas argues that sin is not infinite in its essence, but that the person offended, namely God, is infinite.

Oh...thank you.  That connection just never occurred to me!!  I was still thinking of Anselm and taking the phrase as it was given literally.  Thanks!

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #40 on: May 06, 2010, 03:05:17 PM »

Dear Mary,

I was also wondering if you can also help me out with the issue of "infinite sin."
Aquinas argues that sin is not infinite in its essence, but that the person offended, namely God, is infinite.

Oh...thank you.  That connection just never occurred to me!!  I was still thinking of Anselm and taking the phrase as it was given literally.  Thanks!

M.

PS:  I cannot say whether or not that phrase appears in Anselm anywhere.  I know I do not recognize it.  Just as a tie-up for that loose end.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #41 on: May 06, 2010, 03:19:48 PM »

HERE!!  I found something indeed!  Look at the bolded text.  Remember this is about Anselm and not Anselm's own writings,  and so imputes the substitutionary element in as well.  I have all of Anselm in translation so I'll look for the sections referenced here....M

ANSELM'S PHILOSOPHY.

AFTER WEBER.

    Weber's History of Philosophy. Trans. by F. Thilly. New York Scribner's. Price, $2 50

"The first really speculative thinker after Scotus is St. Anselm, the disciple of Lanfranc. He was born at Aosta (1033), entered the monastery of Bec in Normandy (1060), succeeded Lanfranc as Abbot (1078), and as Archbishop of Canterbury (1093). He died in 1109. He left a great number of writings, the most important of which are: the Dialogus de grammatico, the Monologium de divinitatis essentia sive Exemplum de ratione fidei, the Proslogium sive Fides quoerens intellectum, the De veritate, the De fide trinitatis, and the Cur Deus Homo?

"The second Augustine, as St. Anselm had been called, starts out from the same principle as the first; he holds that faith precedes all reflection and all discussion concerning religious things. The unbelievers, he says, strive to understand because they do not believe; we, on the contrary, strive to understand because we believe. They and we have the same object in view; but inasmuch as they do not believe, they cannot arrive at their goal, which is to understand the dogma. The unbeliever will never understand. In religion faith plays the part played by experience in the understanding of the things of this world. The blind man cannot see the light, and therefore does not understand it; the deaf-mute, who has never perceived sound, cannot have a clear idea of sound. Similarly, not to believe means not to perceive, and not to perceive means not to understand. Hence, we do not reflect in order that we may believe; on the contrary, we believe in order that we may arrive at knowledge. A Christian ought never to doubt the beliefs and teachings of the Holy Catholic Church. All he can do is to strive, as humbly as possible, to understand her teachings by believing them, to love them, and resolutely to observe them in his daily life. Should he succeed in understanding the Christian doctrine, let him render thanks to God, the source of all intelligence! In case he fails, that is no reason why he should obstinately attack the dogma, but a reason why he should bow his head in worship. Faith ought not merely to be the starting-point, --the Christian's aim is not to depart from faith but to remain in it, --but also the fixed rule and goal of thought, the beginning, the middle, and the end of all philosophy.

"The above almost literal quotations might give one the impression that St. Anselm belongs exclusively to the history of theology. Such is not the case, however. This fervent Catholic is more independent, more of an investigator and philosopher than be himself imagines. He is a typical scholastic doctor and a fine exponent of the alliance between reason and faith which forms the characteristic trait of mediaeval philosophy. He assumes, a priori, that revelation and reason are in perfect accord. These two manifestations of one and the same Supreme Intelligence cannot possibly contradict each other. Hence, his point of view is diametrically opposed to the credo quia absurdum. Moreover, he too had been besieged by doubt. Indeed, the extreme ardor which impels him to search everywhere for arguments favorable to the dogma, is a confession on his part that the dogma needs support, that it is debatable, that it lacks self-evidence, the criterion of truth. Even as a monk, it was his chief concern to find a simple and conclusive argument in support of the existence of God and of all the doctrines of the Church concerning the Supreme Being. Mere affirmation did not satisfy him; he demanded proofs. This thought was continually before his mind; it caused him to forget his meals, and pursued him even during the solemn moments of worship. He comes to the conclusion that it is a temptation of Satan, and seeks deliverance from it. But in vain. After a night spent in meditation, he at last discovers what be has been seeking for years: the incontrovertible argument in favor of the Christian dogma, and he regards himself as fortunate in having found, not only the proof of the existence of God, but his peace of soul. His demonstrations are like the premises of modern rationalism.

"Everything that exists, he says, has its cause, and this cause may be one or many. If it is one, then we have what we are looking for: God, the unitary being to whom all other beings owe their origin. If it is manifold, there are three possibilities: (1) The manifold may depend on unity as its cause; or (2) Each thing composing the manifold may be self-caused; or (3) Each thing may owe its existence to all the other things. The first case is identical with the hypothesis that everything proceeds from a single cause; for to depend on several causes, all of which depend on a single cause, means to depend on this single cause. In the second case, we must assume that there is a power, force, or faculty of self-existence common to all the particular causes assumed by the hypothesis; a power in which all participate and are comprised. But that would give us what we had in the first case, an absolute unitary cause. The third supposition, which makes each of the 'first causes' depend on all the rest, is absurd; for we cannot hold that a thing has for its cause and condition of existence a thing of which it is itself the cause and condition. Hence we are compelled to believe in a being which is the cause of every existing thing, without being caused by anything itself, and which for that very reason is infinitely more perfect than anything else: it is the most real (ens realissimum), most powerful, and best being. Since it does not depend on any being or on any condition of existence other than itself it is a se and per se; it exists, not because something else exists, but it exists because it exists; that is, it exists necessarily, it is necessary being.

"It would be an easy matter to deduce pantheism from the arguments of the Monologium. Anselm, it is true, protests against such an interpretation of his theology. With St. Augustine he assumes that the world is created ex nihilo. But though accepting this teaching, he modifies it. Before the creation, he says, things did not exist by themselves, independently of God; hence we say they were derived from non-being. But they existed eternally for God and in God, as ideas; they existed before their creation in the sense that the Creator foresaw them and predestined them for existence.

"The existence of God, the unitary and absolute cause of the world, being proved, the question is to determine his nature and attributes. God's perfections are like human perfections; with this difference, however, that they are essential to him, which is not the case with us. Man has received a share of certain perfections, but there is no necessary correlation between him and these perfections; it would have been possible for him not to receive them; he could have existed without them. God, on the contrary, does not get his perfections from without: he has not received them, and we cannot say that he has them; he is and must be everything that these perfections imply; his attributes are identical with his essence. Justice, an attribute of God, and God are not two separate things. We cannot say of God that be has justice or goodness; we cannot even say that be is just; for to be just is to participate in justice after the manner of creatures. God is justice as such, goodness as such, wisdom as such, happiness as such, truth as such, being as such. Moreover, all of God's attributes constitute but a single attribute, by virtue of the unity of his essence (unum est quidquid essentialiter de summa substantia dicitur).

"All this is pure Platonism. But, not content with spiritualising theism, Anselm really discredits it when, like a new Carneades, he enumerates the difficulties which he finds in the conception. God is a simple being and at the same time eternal, that is, diffused over infinite points of time; he is omnipresent, that is, distributed over all points of space. Shall we say that God is omnipresent and eternal? This proposition contradicts the notion of the simplicity of the divine essence. Shall we say that he is nowhere in space and nowhere in time? But that would be equivalent to denying his existence. Let us therefore reconcile these two extremes and say that God is omnipresent and eternal, without being limited by space or time. The following is an equally serious difficulty: In God there is no change and consequently nothing accidental. Now, there is no substance without accidents. Hence God is not a substance; he transcends all substance. Anselm is alarmed at these dangerous consequences of his logic, and he therefore prudently adds that, though the term 'substance' may be incorrect, it is, nevertheless, the best we can apply to God --si quid digne dici potest --and that to avoid or condemn it might perhaps jeopardise our faith in the reality of the Divine Being.

"The most formidable theological antinomy is the doctrine of the trinity of persons in the unity of the divine essence. The Word is the object of eternal thought; it is God in so far as he is thought, conceived, or comprehended by himself. The Holy Spirit is the love of God for the Word, and of the Word for God, the love which God bears himself. But is this explanation satisfactory? And does it not sacrifice the dogma which it professes to explain to the conception of unity? St. Anselm sees in the Trinity and the notion of God insurmountable difficulties and contradictions, which the human mind cannot reconcile. In his discouragement be is obliged to confess, with Scotus Erigena, St. Augustine, and the Neo-Platonists, that no human word can adequately express the essence of the All-High. Even the words 'wisdom' (sapientia) and 'being' (essentia) are but imperfect expressions of what he imagines to be the essence of God. All theological phrases are analogies, figures of speech, and mere approximations.

"The Proslogium sive Fides quoerens intellectum has the same aim as the Monologium: to prove the existence of God. Our author draws the elements of his argument from St. Augustine and Platonism. He sets out from the idea of a perfect being, from which he infers the existence of such a being. We have in ourselves, he says, the idea of an absolutely perfect being. Now, perfection implies existence. Hence God exists. This argument, which has been termed the ontological argument, found an opponent worthy of Anselm in Gaunilo, a monk of Marmoutiers in Touraine. Gaunilo emphasises the difference between thought and being, and points out the fact that we may conceive and imagine a being, and yet that being may not exist. We have as much right to conclude from our idea of an enchanted island in the middle of the ocean that such an island actually exists. The criticism is just. Indeed, the ontological argument would be conclusive, only in case the idea of God and the existence of God in the human mind were identical. If our idea of God is God himself, it is evident that this idea is the immediate and incontrovertible proof of the existence of God. But what the theologian aims to prove is not the existence of the God-Idea of Plato and Hegel, but the existence of the personal God. However that may be, we hardly know what to admire most, --St. Anselm's broad and profound conception, or the sagacity of his opponent who, in the seclusion of his cell, anticipates the Transcendental Dialectic of Kant.

"The rationalistic tendency which we have just noticed in the Monologium and the Proslogium meets us again in the Cur Deus Homo? Why did God become man? The first word of the title sufficiently indicates the philosophical trend of the treatise. The object is to search for the causes of the incarnation. The incarnation, according to St. Anselm, necessarily foIlows from the necessity of redemption. Sin is an offence against the majesty of God. In spite of his goodness, God cannot pardon sin without compounding with honor and justice. On the other hand, he cannot revenge himself on man for his offended honor; for sin is an offence of infinite degree and therefore demands infinite satisfaction; which means that he must either destroy humanity or inflict upon it the eternal punishments of hell. Now, in either case, the goal of creation, the happiness of his creatures, would be missed and the honor of the Creator compromised. There is but one way for God to escape this dilemma without affecting his honor, and that is to arrange for some kind of satisfaction. He must have infinite satisfaction, because the offence is immeasurable. Now, in so far as man is a finite being and incapable of satisfying divine justice in an infinite measure, the infinite being himself must take the matter in charge; he must have recourse to substitution. Hence, the necessity of the incarnation. God becomes man in Christ; Christ suffers and dies in our stead; thus he acquires an infinite merit and the right to an equivalent recompense. But since the world belongs to the Creator, and nothing can be added to its treasures, the recompense which by right belongs to Christ falls to the lot of the human race in which he is incorporated: humanity is pardoned, forgiven, and saved.

"Theological criticism has repudiated Anselm's theory, which bears the stamp of the spirit of chivalry and of feudal customs. But, notwithstanding the attacks of a superficial rationalism, there is an abiding element of truth in it: over and above each personal and variable will there is an absolute, immutable, and incorruptible will, called justice, honor, and duty, in conformity with the customs of the times."

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[Note: As of 1902 - Do not rely on this!]

Patrologioe Cursus Completus. Series Secunda. Tomi CLVIIICLIX. S. Anselm. [Ed. ABBE MIGNE]. Paris, 1853.

CHURCH. A. W. St. Anselm. [Third Edition]. London, 1873

FRANCK, G F. Anselm von Canterbury. Tubingen, 1842.

HASSE, F. R. Anselm von Canterbury. Leipzig, 1843. 2 volumes.

-The same. Translated and abridged by W. Turner. London, 1850.

REMUSAT, CHARLES DE. Anselme de Canterbury. Paris, 1854; 2nd ed., 1868.

RIGG, J. M. St. Anselm of Canterbury. London, 1896.

RULE M. The Ltfe and Times of St. Anselm. London, 1883. 2 volumes.

DE VOSGES, LE COMTE DOMET. Saint Anselme, in the series Les Grands Philosophes. Paris, 1901.

WELCH, A. C. Anselm and His Work. Edinburgh, 1901.

BAUR, F. C. Vorlesungen uber die christliche Dogmengeschichte. Leipzig, 1866. Zweiter Band, 249-251, 298 ff.

ERDMANN, J. E. A History of Philosophy. English Translation [Ed. W. S. HOUGH]. London, 1891. Vol I., 303-314.

HEGEL, G. W. F. Lectures on the History of Philosophy. Translated from the German by E. S. Haldane and F. H. Simson. London, 1896. Vol. III., 61-67.

HOOK, W. T. Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury. London, 1862. Vol. VIII., 169-276.

MAURICE, F.D. Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy. London, 1882. Vol. I., 507-533.

PFLEIDERER, 0. The Philosophy of Religion. Translated by A. Menzies. London, 1888. Vol. III., 27I-276.

UEBERWEG, F.1 History of Philosophy. Translated by G. S. Morris. New York, 1892. Vol. I., 377-386.
Ueberweg gives the titles of German and Latin dissertations on Anselm not included in this list.

 
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #42 on: May 06, 2010, 04:28:52 PM »

HERE!!  I found something indeed!  Look at the bolded text.  Remember this is about Anselm and not Anselm's own writings,  and so imputes the substitutionary element in as well.  I have all of Anselm in translation so I'll look for the sections referenced here....M

ANSELM'S PHILOSOPHY.

AFTER WEBER.

    Weber's History of Philosophy. Trans. by F. Thilly. New York Scribner's. Price, $2 50

"The first really speculative thinker after Scotus is St. Anselm, the disciple of Lanfranc. He was born at Aosta (1033), entered the monastery of Bec in Normandy (1060), succeeded Lanfranc as Abbot (1078), and as Archbishop of Canterbury (1093). He died in 1109. He left a great number of writings, the most important of which are: the Dialogus de grammatico, the Monologium de divinitatis essentia sive Exemplum de ratione fidei, the Proslogium sive Fides quoerens intellectum, the De veritate, the De fide trinitatis, and the Cur Deus Homo?

"The second Augustine, as St. Anselm had been called, starts out from the same principle as the first; he holds that faith precedes all reflection and all discussion concerning religious things. The unbelievers, he says, strive to understand because they do not believe; we, on the contrary, strive to understand because we believe. They and we have the same object in view; but inasmuch as they do not believe, they cannot arrive at their goal, which is to understand the dogma. The unbeliever will never understand. In religion faith plays the part played by experience in the understanding of the things of this world. The blind man cannot see the light, and therefore does not understand it; the deaf-mute, who has never perceived sound, cannot have a clear idea of sound. Similarly, not to believe means not to perceive, and not to perceive means not to understand. Hence, we do not reflect in order that we may believe; on the contrary, we believe in order that we may arrive at knowledge. A Christian ought never to doubt the beliefs and teachings of the Holy Catholic Church. All he can do is to strive, as humbly as possible, to understand her teachings by believing them, to love them, and resolutely to observe them in his daily life. Should he succeed in understanding the Christian doctrine, let him render thanks to God, the source of all intelligence! In case he fails, that is no reason why he should obstinately attack the dogma, but a reason why he should bow his head in worship. Faith ought not merely to be the starting-point, --the Christian's aim is not to depart from faith but to remain in it, --but also the fixed rule and goal of thought, the beginning, the middle, and the end of all philosophy.

"The above almost literal quotations might give one the impression that St. Anselm belongs exclusively to the history of theology. Such is not the case, however. This fervent Catholic is more independent, more of an investigator and philosopher than be himself imagines. He is a typical scholastic doctor and a fine exponent of the alliance between reason and faith which forms the characteristic trait of mediaeval philosophy. He assumes, a priori, that revelation and reason are in perfect accord. These two manifestations of one and the same Supreme Intelligence cannot possibly contradict each other. Hence, his point of view is diametrically opposed to the credo quia absurdum. Moreover, he too had been besieged by doubt. Indeed, the extreme ardor which impels him to search everywhere for arguments favorable to the dogma, is a confession on his part that the dogma needs support, that it is debatable, that it lacks self-evidence, the criterion of truth. Even as a monk, it was his chief concern to find a simple and conclusive argument in support of the existence of God and of all the doctrines of the Church concerning the Supreme Being. Mere affirmation did not satisfy him; he demanded proofs. This thought was continually before his mind; it caused him to forget his meals, and pursued him even during the solemn moments of worship. He comes to the conclusion that it is a temptation of Satan, and seeks deliverance from it. But in vain. After a night spent in meditation, he at last discovers what be has been seeking for years: the incontrovertible argument in favor of the Christian dogma, and he regards himself as fortunate in having found, not only the proof of the existence of God, but his peace of soul. His demonstrations are like the premises of modern rationalism.

"Everything that exists, he says, has its cause, and this cause may be one or many. If it is one, then we have what we are looking for: God, the unitary being to whom all other beings owe their origin. If it is manifold, there are three possibilities: (1) The manifold may depend on unity as its cause; or (2) Each thing composing the manifold may be self-caused; or (3) Each thing may owe its existence to all the other things. The first case is identical with the hypothesis that everything proceeds from a single cause; for to depend on several causes, all of which depend on a single cause, means to depend on this single cause. In the second case, we must assume that there is a power, force, or faculty of self-existence common to all the particular causes assumed by the hypothesis; a power in which all participate and are comprised. But that would give us what we had in the first case, an absolute unitary cause. The third supposition, which makes each of the 'first causes' depend on all the rest, is absurd; for we cannot hold that a thing has for its cause and condition of existence a thing of which it is itself the cause and condition. Hence we are compelled to believe in a being which is the cause of every existing thing, without being caused by anything itself, and which for that very reason is infinitely more perfect than anything else: it is the most real (ens realissimum), most powerful, and best being. Since it does not depend on any being or on any condition of existence other than itself it is a se and per se; it exists, not because something else exists, but it exists because it exists; that is, it exists necessarily, it is necessary being.

"It would be an easy matter to deduce pantheism from the arguments of the Monologium. Anselm, it is true, protests against such an interpretation of his theology. With St. Augustine he assumes that the world is created ex nihilo. But though accepting this teaching, he modifies it. Before the creation, he says, things did not exist by themselves, independently of God; hence we say they were derived from non-being. But they existed eternally for God and in God, as ideas; they existed before their creation in the sense that the Creator foresaw them and predestined them for existence.

"The existence of God, the unitary and absolute cause of the world, being proved, the question is to determine his nature and attributes. God's perfections are like human perfections; with this difference, however, that they are essential to him, which is not the case with us. Man has received a share of certain perfections, but there is no necessary correlation between him and these perfections; it would have been possible for him not to receive them; he could have existed without them. God, on the contrary, does not get his perfections from without: he has not received them, and we cannot say that he has them; he is and must be everything that these perfections imply; his attributes are identical with his essence. Justice, an attribute of God, and God are not two separate things. We cannot say of God that be has justice or goodness; we cannot even say that be is just; for to be just is to participate in justice after the manner of creatures. God is justice as such, goodness as such, wisdom as such, happiness as such, truth as such, being as such. Moreover, all of God's attributes constitute but a single attribute, by virtue of the unity of his essence (unum est quidquid essentialiter de summa substantia dicitur).

"All this is pure Platonism. But, not content with spiritualising theism, Anselm really discredits it when, like a new Carneades, he enumerates the difficulties which he finds in the conception. God is a simple being and at the same time eternal, that is, diffused over infinite points of time; he is omnipresent, that is, distributed over all points of space. Shall we say that God is omnipresent and eternal? This proposition contradicts the notion of the simplicity of the divine essence. Shall we say that he is nowhere in space and nowhere in time? But that would be equivalent to denying his existence. Let us therefore reconcile these two extremes and say that God is omnipresent and eternal, without being limited by space or time. The following is an equally serious difficulty: In God there is no change and consequently nothing accidental. Now, there is no substance without accidents. Hence God is not a substance; he transcends all substance. Anselm is alarmed at these dangerous consequences of his logic, and he therefore prudently adds that, though the term 'substance' may be incorrect, it is, nevertheless, the best we can apply to God --si quid digne dici potest --and that to avoid or condemn it might perhaps jeopardise our faith in the reality of the Divine Being.

"The most formidable theological antinomy is the doctrine of the trinity of persons in the unity of the divine essence. The Word is the object of eternal thought; it is God in so far as he is thought, conceived, or comprehended by himself. The Holy Spirit is the love of God for the Word, and of the Word for God, the love which God bears himself. But is this explanation satisfactory? And does it not sacrifice the dogma which it professes to explain to the conception of unity? St. Anselm sees in the Trinity and the notion of God insurmountable difficulties and contradictions, which the human mind cannot reconcile. In his discouragement be is obliged to confess, with Scotus Erigena, St. Augustine, and the Neo-Platonists, that no human word can adequately express the essence of the All-High. Even the words 'wisdom' (sapientia) and 'being' (essentia) are but imperfect expressions of what he imagines to be the essence of God. All theological phrases are analogies, figures of speech, and mere approximations.

"The Proslogium sive Fides quoerens intellectum has the same aim as the Monologium: to prove the existence of God. Our author draws the elements of his argument from St. Augustine and Platonism. He sets out from the idea of a perfect being, from which he infers the existence of such a being. We have in ourselves, he says, the idea of an absolutely perfect being. Now, perfection implies existence. Hence God exists. This argument, which has been termed the ontological argument, found an opponent worthy of Anselm in Gaunilo, a monk of Marmoutiers in Touraine. Gaunilo emphasises the difference between thought and being, and points out the fact that we may conceive and imagine a being, and yet that being may not exist. We have as much right to conclude from our idea of an enchanted island in the middle of the ocean that such an island actually exists. The criticism is just. Indeed, the ontological argument would be conclusive, only in case the idea of God and the existence of God in the human mind were identical. If our idea of God is God himself, it is evident that this idea is the immediate and incontrovertible proof of the existence of God. But what the theologian aims to prove is not the existence of the God-Idea of Plato and Hegel, but the existence of the personal God. However that may be, we hardly know what to admire most, --St. Anselm's broad and profound conception, or the sagacity of his opponent who, in the seclusion of his cell, anticipates the Transcendental Dialectic of Kant.

"The rationalistic tendency which we have just noticed in the Monologium and the Proslogium meets us again in the Cur Deus Homo? Why did God become man? The first word of the title sufficiently indicates the philosophical trend of the treatise. The object is to search for the causes of the incarnation. The incarnation, according to St. Anselm, necessarily foIlows from the necessity of redemption. Sin is an offence against the majesty of God. In spite of his goodness, God cannot pardon sin without compounding with honor and justice. On the other hand, he cannot revenge himself on man for his offended honor; for sin is an offence of infinite degree and therefore demands infinite satisfaction; which means that he must either destroy humanity or inflict upon it the eternal punishments of hell. Now, in either case, the goal of creation, the happiness of his creatures, would be missed and the honor of the Creator compromised. There is but one way for God to escape this dilemma without affecting his honor, and that is to arrange for some kind of satisfaction. He must have infinite satisfaction, because the offence is immeasurable. Now, in so far as man is a finite being and incapable of satisfying divine justice in an infinite measure, the infinite being himself must take the matter in charge; he must have recourse to substitution. Hence, the necessity of the incarnation. God becomes man in Christ; Christ suffers and dies in our stead; thus he acquires an infinite merit and the right to an equivalent recompense. But since the world belongs to the Creator, and nothing can be added to its treasures, the recompense which by right belongs to Christ falls to the lot of the human race in which he is incorporated: humanity is pardoned, forgiven, and saved.

"Theological criticism has repudiated Anselm's theory, which bears the stamp of the spirit of chivalry and of feudal customs. But, notwithstanding the attacks of a superficial rationalism, there is an abiding element of truth in it: over and above each personal and variable will there is an absolute, immutable, and incorruptible will, called justice, honor, and duty, in conformity with the customs of the times."

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[Note: As of 1902 - Do not rely on this!]

Patrologioe Cursus Completus. Series Secunda. Tomi CLVIIICLIX. S. Anselm. [Ed. ABBE MIGNE]. Paris, 1853.

CHURCH. A. W. St. Anselm. [Third Edition]. London, 1873

FRANCK, G F. Anselm von Canterbury. Tubingen, 1842.

HASSE, F. R. Anselm von Canterbury. Leipzig, 1843. 2 volumes.

-The same. Translated and abridged by W. Turner. London, 1850.

REMUSAT, CHARLES DE. Anselme de Canterbury. Paris, 1854; 2nd ed., 1868.

RIGG, J. M. St. Anselm of Canterbury. London, 1896.

RULE M. The Ltfe and Times of St. Anselm. London, 1883. 2 volumes.

DE VOSGES, LE COMTE DOMET. Saint Anselme, in the series Les Grands Philosophes. Paris, 1901.

WELCH, A. C. Anselm and His Work. Edinburgh, 1901.

BAUR, F. C. Vorlesungen uber die christliche Dogmengeschichte. Leipzig, 1866. Zweiter Band, 249-251, 298 ff.

ERDMANN, J. E. A History of Philosophy. English Translation [Ed. W. S. HOUGH]. London, 1891. Vol I., 303-314.

HEGEL, G. W. F. Lectures on the History of Philosophy. Translated from the German by E. S. Haldane and F. H. Simson. London, 1896. Vol. III., 61-67.

HOOK, W. T. Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury. London, 1862. Vol. VIII., 169-276.

MAURICE, F.D. Moral and Metaphysical Philosophy. London, 1882. Vol. I., 507-533.

PFLEIDERER, 0. The Philosophy of Religion. Translated by A. Menzies. London, 1888. Vol. III., 27I-276.

UEBERWEG, F.1 History of Philosophy. Translated by G. S. Morris. New York, 1892. Vol. I., 377-386.
Ueberweg gives the titles of German and Latin dissertations on Anselm not included in this list.

 
Good article. I do enjoy some of Anslem's work but I fear that he tends too far in the direction of rationalism. Further, I agree with the critque of his theory of atonement. Aquinas, I believe, holds a better view: God could have redeemed us in another way, but he chose the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ because it was the supreme way to do so.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #43 on: May 06, 2010, 04:30:10 PM »

I personally thought Anselm was a major player in spreading the idea of substitutionary atonement.  And many Orthodox Churches also put the blame on Aquinas.


I am not certain why the blame St. Thomas Aquinas. His view is dissonant with the theory of substitutionary atonement.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 06, 2010, 05:08:50 PM »

I personally thought Anselm was a major player in spreading the idea of substitutionary atonement.  And many Orthodox Churches also put the blame on Aquinas.


I am not certain why the blame St. Thomas Aquinas. His view is dissonant with the theory of substitutionary atonement.

So is Anselm's actually. One has to put penal substitution into Anselm...It is not there naturally.

M.
Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.173 seconds with 72 queries.