About

Wednesday, May 30, 2018

The Little Flower and the Dumb Ox on Deification

Theosis, or deification, is an Apostolic teaching. More than simply being saved from something, namely the eternal separation from God which is named hell, Christians are saved *for* something: to love with God's own love and live God's own life, to experience such deep Union with God that they start taking after his own qualities and experience a participation in his own nature. It is heavily prominent in the Eastern Orthodox ethos. While it has been less prominent in Catholicism, it has never wholly vanished, and has been discussed and taught by some of its most renowned saints.

Here are but two of them: St. Thérèse of Lisieux and St. Thomas Aquinas. The “Dumb Ox” and the “Little Flower” sort of represent two opposite ends of the spectrum. One is the Church's foremost scholastic theologian, well versed in the philosophy and in the Church Fathers, shaping and giving form to precise meanings within Catholic theology. The other, considerably more emotionally expressive in her writings, is a saint of simplicity and courage, merely seeking to live and love in the present moment. Yet both were intensely committed to God, Christ and the Church, both knew their Scriptures very well, and both practiced ascetism. Furthermore, they both taught that the destiny of those in Christ is divinization, being conformed to the likeness of God through the grace of Christ.


ST. THERESE OF LISIEUX
"If through weakness I should chance to fall, may a glance from Your Eyes straightway cleanse my soul, and consume all my imperfections – as fire transforms all things into itself." (Oblation to Merciful Love)

"He longs to give us a magnificent reward. I assure you it costs Him dearly to fill us with bitterness, but He knows it is the only way of preparing us to know Him as He knows Himself, and to become ourselves divine! Our soul is indeed great, and our destiny glorious." (Letter to Celine, May 8, 1888)

ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
"[There is no] limit imposed to the increase of man’s charity, while he is in the state of a wayfarer. For charity itself considered as such has no limit to its increase, since it is a participation of the infinite charity which is the Holy Ghost. In like manner the cause of the increase of charity, viz., God, is possessed of infinite power. Furthermore, on the part of its subject, no limit to this increase can be determined, because whenever charity increases, there is a corresponding increased ability to receive a further increase. It is therefore evident that it is not possible to fix any limits to the increase of charity in this life."

"Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness, as it is impossible that anything save fire should enkindle."


Icons by Nicholas Markell

Proposed Eastern Formulation of Papal Prerogatives (Aidan Nichols, OP)

"A 'GREEK' ECCLESIOLOGY FOR THE PETRINE OFFICE"

The Second Council of Lyons
For anyone interested in the subject of Christian East/West, and of Catholic/Orthodox relations, the Dominican priest Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP is a must-read author. I have read (most of) his excellent work Rome and the Eastern Churches (Second Edition), in which he (1) details the history between the two spheres of apostolic Christianity, (2) assesses their current state of affairs, and (3) proposes some reasonable steps forward for the two to make together in a path towards greater unity. In one part of this work, he  puts forward certain principles which could be of service towards Catholics and Orthodox arriving at a mutual understanding of the issue which has caused the deepest divide between them: the Roman Papacy.

After the schism between Rome and Constantinople became a fact, various political factors (and sometimes genuinely theological ones) brought forth initiatives for the two churches to resume union. The two councils which attempted this have both since been rejected by Orthodoxy, and received as Ecumenical by Catholicism; Lyons II (1272-1274) and Florence (1431-1449). On this issue of Papal primacy discussed at these councils, a frustration existed which prevented the Eastern Churches from accepting Rome's position, and this frustration is that it was not the least bit Greek. The form in which the Roman Church expounded its doctrines on the papacy was a foreign way of thinking to the East, not native to it, and thus could not truly resonate within an Eastern ethos, an Eastern conscience. As Nichols states it,
The affirmations of the Second Council of Lyons, and of Florence, on the Roman primacy were counted in terms too thoroughly Latin in origin to carry lasting conviction to the Greek mind... the description of primacy at Florence, even more than that of the first Vaticanum [the First Vatican Council], is a Roman answer to a Latin question. (Rome and the Eastern Churches, p. 314)
What, then, is needed for the advancement of ecumenism and reconciliation in this most mammoth area? Fr. Nichols pontificates for the Pontificate, builds a bridge for the bridge builder, in that he suggests what is needed is a presentation of the papal doctrines and rights which is communicated from and within an Orthodox understanding. He tackles the question:
How can the pope be seen in Orthodox perspective and yet remain the pope in Catholic eyes? A "Greek" ecclesiology of the Petrine office must set out from the premise that the Pope is the first patriarch and as such occupies the first place in the taxis, that is, the ordering, of bishops. (p. 315)
This starting point poses no threat or alteration to Orthodox sensitivities; this much would be acknowledged even were the pope to assume a mere "prima inter pares", that is, "first among equals." By virtue of "first", he would take up the most prominent role among the bishops. But it is from this starting premise as first patriarch and first among the bishops that our author begins to flesh out a Byzantine format for the Roman doctrine. The promised meat of this blog post, here is Nichols' proposal, in his own words.
* * * 
This is where we must begin: as first patriarch, the bishop of Rome is the first bishop in the Church's taxis. Primacy of honour, here, however, is a red herring; there can be no honor in the Church of the Servant, Jesus Christ, that is not based on service—and therefore on ministerial function. The first bishop of the taxis has a primacy of function, of role, within the episcopal order, and so within the communion of churches over which the bishops preside. 
But then is the pope only a patriarch, albeit the first? ... We can say that, as first patriarch, the Roman bishop is not simply within the taxis, though he is indeed within it for many purposes. Nevertheless, as the bishop responsible for maintaining the entire taxis in its integrity, for assuring the rights and duties of its members (and in particular of its patriarchal members), the Roman patriarch cannot be said to be just one member is the taxis. Insofar as he has responsibility for the whole taxis, he is also above it. He is not "universal primate" in the sense of being every suffragan's surrogate metropolitan or every metropolitan's surrogate patriarch. He is universal primate in the sense that he is entrusted (by Christ through Peter) with responsibility for the right functioning of the entire episcopal—and so patriarchal—order throughout the world. 
. . . So far [this has] been concerned with the pastoral rôle of the pope in jurisdiction. What of his prophetic rôle as teacher? At one level, as one bishop among many, the pope stands among within the corporate realm of the magisterium of the Church's bishops. In this sense he stands among his equals, with all those who, through the grace of the sacrament of orders in its plenary form, have inherited the promise of Christ to the apostles "He who hears you, hears me." (Lk. 10:16) But, just as the ecclesial taxis has a first bishop, primus, prôtos, with a special function or rôle of leadership, a "first" who is also entrusted with the defense of its total corporate integrity, so too here the didaskalia or teaching activity of the episcopate has a first teacher and one who is responsible for the authenticity of the bishops' teaching authority as a whole. 
In normal times, the rôle of the universal primate as teacher is simply to be the mouthpiece of the corporate episcopate in their teaching activity, articulating for all what each is saying. But, in cases where the episcopate is too divided to speak with one voice, ...the universal primate can speak for it in the heightened sense of speaking in place of it—speaking because it cannot speak. 
In some such way, the teaching of Florence can thus be "re-received" in terms more congenial to the East and, thus recontextualised, have its own authoritative meaning illumined and confirmed, not obscured and weakened. (Rome and the Eastern Churches, p. 317-318)
* * * 
Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP, author
of Rome and the Eastern Churches
One thing that stands out to me in Nichols' language is how focused he is on the Pope's extraordinary prerogatives existing for the sake of what's ordinary: that is, it assumes the harmony of catholic faith and practice among the bishops and the Pope, and thus the Pope's prerogatives are advantageous precisely in those moments where maintaining or attaining that harmony is not achievable otherwise. His effective primacy exists for the sake of conciliarity -- conciliarity being that which is most prized and integral to the Orthodox understanding of the Church. His authority over the church exists for security of peace across the church, his vertical privileges being serviceable towards horizontal ideals.

In my mind, this is very good ecumenism. Whether or not the Orthodox accept such a formulation, the attempt in itself captures a necessary spirit towards the task of reconciliation: a spirit which assumes familiarity with the Other. Rather than merely issuing a mandate which demands ascent in order to assent, it "goes another mile" (cf. Matthew 5:41), first descending and first meeting the Other where the Other is at, paving a way for them and walking with them together.

If we can never really build this bridge, the best can do is love one other for trying. May our efforts be God pleasing and bear fruit towards the ending of quarrel, in the effort of love, and if God wills it, in the resumption of Communion between the Churches.