MaintainMe: AngelaRayner/InTheImageAndLikenessOfGod?? Or is this for public discussion - if so, can we have a bit more context? ;) - a vaguely curious MoonShadow
I get the impression she's typing lecture notes at this moment, and so your comment will have given her an EditConflict now! I suggest wait an hour or two. I do like the idea of taking lecture notes straight into a medium where my friends can comment, though :) --AlexChurchill (but yes, moving to a subpage of AngelaRayner seems a good idea once the content has arrived)
Vladimir Lossky - Notes on Chs 10,11 and 12 (Not for public discussion. If you want to publically discuss, can you form another page as I want to copy/paste these to Word and to others at some point... I've no provlem w/ re-factoring).
Chapter 10:
Catholicity is an intrinsic quality, not a spatial term. Frs used it as a noun. (C) exists in world, which cannot contain her.
No differences of created nature can affect unity of (C). Thus “national Church” is a heretical term. There is only one X, the Head of the new creation to which members of one Body are linked.
Our unity in X is not only primordial unity of human race, w/ one origin, but final realisation of this unity. This eschat. reality is not an ideal, but the condition of existence of (C), w/out which (C) wdn’t be sacramental.
Anth. usually talked about from pov of Xology, but when we use words like “person” or “will”, they lose character as theolog. terms and find selves w/ philos. content. So, we will need to speak of (C) after having purified the ant. concepts. Theolog. anth. must be constructed from top down, beginning from Trin & Xological dogma in order to discover in human reality the unity of nature and will which is a function of common nature... then... one will understand extent to which anth.. realities of everyday are deformed by sin.
Not the properties of an individ. nature, but unique relat. of each being w/ God – a relat. confirmed by HS and realised in grace is what constitutes uniqueness of human person.
When we speak of consciousness, it’s not that of individ. or group aside from whole Body. But... what will become of particular consciousness of a member of the (C)? That’s not an easy qn to solve. We need to look at concept of “consciousness! in Xological or Trin. implicats.
In Xological aspect, (C) is presented as complement of glorified humanity of X, as continuation of incarnation. Can we affirm of (C) everything we affirm of the God-man?
The God-Man has 2 wills, operations, natures, and 1 consciousness. We can't affirm the same of (C) as of God-Man because it wd be necessary to see the (C) as one person, the person of X. The consciousness of (C) wd only be consciousness of Son and human consciousness and persons, distinct from one another and from X wd fade away. 2 further reasons not to affirm the same of (C) as God-Man: 1. Theological notion of hypostasis or person implies absiolute difference and imposs. to admit a person or persons might be contained in supra-person, as its parts. 2. Another reason to oppose uniquely Xological soln is that image of (C) is Body of X, where X as Head is represented as Bridegroom. If two are united to form "one flesh", He has beside Him another hypostasis of this one nature: the Bride. If so, if in Body of X there is one, or many hypostases of creatred nature which are not the hypostasis of X or contained in His hypostasis, then members of Body of X can;t be reduced to unity. Therefore (C) displays natural unity and personal diversity in image of Trin. If so, there's need for another dispensation directed to each person - this is dispensation of HS.
Dispensations of Son and Spirit inseparable. That's why two sacs of Xian initation - baptism and chrismation are linked.
So if we say consciousness of (C) is not the consciousness of X, can we attribute consciousness to third Hypostasis? This appears attractive, but both of these ecclesiologies are close to one another. Both express well the organic aspect of (C), but neither takes into account anth. realities which make of consciousness of (C) a function of 2nd or 3rd person of Trin. Conclusions are analagous: persons are in each instance absorbed in a supra-person - X or Sp. We don't want to do that.
But both these theses are valuable. First presents (C) as Xological organism. 2nd emphasises role of HS who bears witness to Truth w/in the (C).
Rest of Lossky's argument turns to Jn 15:26-27 - "He [HS] will bear witness to me" and "You are also witnesses". If humans been w/ X from beginning, why do we need HS? Jn 14:26 "He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you".
If opening of consciousness on interior evidence of Truth is brought about by HS in each person, it is not uniform. The evidence of Truth, the memory or trad. of (C) (the content of consciousness) is one and same for all, but that does not mean there is one single consciousness of (C) which is imposed uniformally on all. One must recognise /not only unity of nature/, but a multiplicity of hypostases, multiplicity of consciousnesses w/ different degrees of actualisation in different persons. Persons more deeply rooted in (C), conscious of unity in Body are more free of individual limits. and their personal consciousness more open to truth. Thus Truth which one confesses is presented in all objectivity: not as one's own opinion, but as possession of the (C) as catholic Truth.
The consciousness of some, free from subjectivity make Truth triumph in (C) - consciousness of those who speak not in own name, but in name of (C), positing (C) as unique subject of multiple personal consciousnesses.
Chapter 11: Panagia
Orth. (C) not made Mariology into indep. dogmatic theme. It's always based on Xology, but has strong Pneum. element and through double economy of Son & Sp. it's bound up in ecclesiological reality.
If we limit selves to dogmatic data, all we have is work theotokos - God bearer. Again it's Xological. If you don't affirm that, you're not a Xian as you'd be opposing true doctrine of Incarnation of Word.
We know instances of Xians, who recognise maternity of Virgin, but abstain from special devotion, desiring to know no other mediator than God-Man JC. This demonstrates that Xological dogma taken in abstracto, apart from vital connection between it and devotion paid by (C) wd not be enough to assign her Quuen of Heaven, to whom Orthodox liturgy ascribes "the glory which is appropriate to God". Imposs. to separate dogmatic data from data of (C)'s cultus, in a theolog. exposition of doctrine. Dogma sd throw light on devotion and devotion sd enrich dogma.
In same position re. scriptural data. If we considered scripture apart from (C)'s devotion, we sd be obliged to limit selves to few NT passages and one direct reference in Isaiah. But through eyes of (C)'s devotion, sacred books of Old and New Tests. will supply us w/ innumerable texts to glorify Mother of God.
Some passages appear to contradict. J. refers to JtB? as "greatest of those born of women". So to him the highest position sd belong? Also, he opposes in Lk 11:27-28 the "Blessed is the womb" w/ "Blessed are those who hear the word of God". But this passage is read on feasts of Mother as tho under negative form, it held a greater act of praise.
Script. evidence teaches us glory of Mother doesn't reside in corporal maternity... THe Church's Trad. of those who "hear and keep" words of revelation gives to C) the assurance w/ which she exalts the Mother of God, ascribing her unlimited glory. Apart from Church Trad, theology wd be dumb on subject. *That is why Xian communites whichj reject any idea of Tradition are alien to veneration of Mother of God.*
Close connection between Trad and all that concerns Mother of GOd is not due to fact that events of early life are celebrated... Tradition tells us not only what we must hear, but how we must keep what we hear. The (C)'s unlimited veneration of Mother of God, which viewed externally, might seem in contrad. w/ scriptural data is spread far and wide in Trad of (C) and is most precious fruit of Trad. But... it's not only fruit of Trad... It's germ and stem of Trad. Let's try and see glory of mother of God beneath the veil of silence in Scrip:
St Lk shows X refusing to see His Mother and brethren (8:19-21)... This occurs just after the parable of Sower. It is faculty of keeping words heard concerning X in honest and good heart (exalted above maternity (Lk 11:28) that is attributed to no individ. except Mother of the Lord. Lk mentions it twice in infancy narratives. But meanings had not been realised by her.
![[Home]](/img/text_logo.jpg){kind=logo}
AngelaRaynerNotesInProgress/VladimirLossky-InTheImageAndLikenessOfGod