In some circles both Orthodox and Protestant, the modern Marian definitions dogmatically promulgated by the popes of Rome in 1854 and 1950 are thought to be problematic. I have never once found the theology behind either definition to be remotely problematic because of ample precedent in the hymnody of the East and the theology of the early Church in not only the West but especially the East. (One can, however, raise the problem of whether these needed to be defined when they were, and whether the pope of Rome has the authority to do so. But those are quite separate discussions.) Of the two definitions, the Immaculate Conception from 1854 is more often held up by certain Orthodox apologists as being questionable for its reliance on, as is regularly said, an Augustinian doctrine of original sin totally at odds, we are led to believe, with Eastern theology.
Those arguments are going to have to be revised in light of the most recent and impressive scholarship, some of which is contained in a compelling new historical work just published by Christiaan Kappes: The Immaculate Conception: Why Thomas Aquinas Denied, While John Duns Scotus, Gregory Palamas, and Mark Eugenicus Professed the Absolute Immaculate Existence of Mary (Academy of the Immaculate Press, 2014), xx+252pp.
I recently made contact with Fr. Christiaan, whose related scholarly work on such figures as Mark Eugenicus ("of Ephesus") is featured in part in an essay in the spring issue of Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies (details here). We had a chance for an interview to discuss his new book. Here are his thoughts.
AD: Tell us a bit
about your background:
First, let me say, I am overjoyed with your interest in the
book and must thank Dr. Daniel Galadza (Vienna) for putting us into contact,
without whose communication we may have never crossed paths.
I am a Latin rite Roman Catholic priest. I have had various priestly
assignments (e.g., in the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, in Guadalajara, Mexico).
Before I began to know and appreciate Orthodoxy, I was studying Scholastic
philosophy and liturgiology in Rome from 2006 to 2009. Before moving to Greece
in 2008, eventually finding myself under the direction of Metropolitan Elpidophoros
Lambriniadis, my aspirations were merely to learn and repeat traditional
neo-Thomist talking points (I distinguish those from the real Thomas Aquinas).
Later, upon studying in Italy under wonderful Dominicans (for example, Walter
Senner, OP [formerly on the Leonine
Commission]), I viewed Aquinas with an historical and contextual eye.
However, even before then, many unanswered questions prevented me from adopting
his “system.” I found myself often siding with John Duns Scotus. So, I sought
out the renowned Bonaventuran and Scotist scholar, Fr. Peter Damian Fehlner,
FI. I am grateful to him for allowing me to sit at his feet and hear not a few satisfactory
explanations to questions I had about metaphysics. I could have never guessed
that this would lead to me embrace the Greek patristic tradition--until I
encountered two famous Orthodox theologians, namely, Gennadios Scholarios and
Gregory Palamas. Upon reading their work, I found it strange that they seemed
to be saying very similar things to Scotus, whose views were allegedly “modern”
according to several contemporary scholars. Simultaneously, I was exploring
Byzantine Scholasticism and contacted Dr. Athanasia Glycofrydi-Leontsini at the
University of Athens. She was very generous with her time and showed me her
work on the Greek edition of the Summa
Theologiae, translated by Demetrius Cydones (c. 1358). My professor, Fr.
Charles Morerod, OP, (now Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and
Fribourg, whose books on ecumenism, Adam, you have reviewed in the past!)
further encouraged my study of Byzantine Scholasticism. He eventually
recommended me for a scholarship in Greece for this end. It was there that I
met Bishop Kyrillos Katerelos, who urged me to finish my doctorate in Liturgy
at Sant’Anselmo in Rome. Bishop Kyrillos helped me to go to Thessaloniki to study
the relation betweeen Byzantine Scholasticism and Palamism. There, at Aristotle
University, despite his numerous burdens, Metropolitan Elpidophoros kindly
agreed to guide my thesis intending to exonerate Gennadios Scholarius from
unfair neo-Thomistic evaluations stemming from the dissertation of Sebastian
Guichardan in the 1930s. I still hope to finish this thesis.
AD: What led you to write this book?
Early in 2012, in appreciation of Fr. Peter’s guidance in my
studies, I asked him if there was something I could do to help the Franciscan
mission of promoting Mary’s role in the economy of salvation. Fr. Peter
suggested to me a contribution that would comprise a chapter within a
collection of essays in a Marian series that he had recently inaugurated for
Academy of the Immaculate Press. I suggested studying a very odd reference to
Mary within the metaphysical and trinitarian treatise of Mark of Ephesus, The First Antirrhetic against Manuel Kalekas
(scripsit 1430s). Mark but once
referred to Mary in this moderately sized work. When he spoke of the Theotokos, he referred to her as the
“prokathartheisa” or “prepurified” virgin. I was driven mad by the fact that no
scholars seemed to understand this sobriquet, which Mark mentioned as something
obvious to the eyes of his Byzantine reader. So, Fr. Peter and I agreed that
I’d make my “small” contribution on this topic. As it turned out, a vast world
of Palamite, and even patristic, Mariology opened up to me that seemed to have
no terminus until I arrived at Gregory Nazianzen. This necessitate a full
monograph on the subject.
AD: The preface to your book notes
that "one particular title of Mary, Prepurified,common in the East from
earliest times, [was] a synonym for Immaculate Conception" (xvi). Tell us
a bit more about what your
research has uncovered as to the meaning, history, and usage of
"prepurified."
First, Adam, I think it is important to emphasis the superior
richness of this Greek title in Palamite thought. Whereas “Immaculate
Conception” is a laser focus on a biological point of time in Mary’s life in utero, “prepurified” denotes
something temporally expansive –in fact, timeless as we shall see. Latin
theologians initially focused on justifying Mary’s privileged grace at her
physical conception, gradually relating this privilege to subsequent events of
her life and death. They also moved backwards in time until arriving at moment
of creation and the prior contingent choice of Mary’s privilege within the
divine mind. Hence, Orthodox might be surprised to know that “Immaculate
Conception” is employed in the Franciscan school as something that refers to
more than just that moment of physical conception.
Diversely, Palamites saw the Incarnation during
Mary’s “prepurification” at the Annuciation as the optic through which all of Mary’s other historico-liturgical feasts
could be understood. Since Jesus and Mary were “purified” in some manner in
Luke’s Gospel (Luke 2: 22),
in Christology and Mariology, purification (counterintuitively) primarily came
to mean (with Nazianzen and his followers): (a.) external glory as a sign of
predestination (b.) and internal grace so intense that only a perfect human
nature participated it. In Mary’s case (unlike Jesus) she was also called “pre”-purified, which points out her
moments of grace and glory before the
historico-liturgical event of the Annuciation. Now, if we think of pre-Incarnational
Marian feasts of the Byzantine liturgical calendar (e.g., Conception, Birth,
and Presentation of Mary), one of those feasts happens to be the conception of St. Ann. Hence, as one of several
pre-Incarnational events in the life of Mary, her conception also ranks as an
event where this totally pure and perfect instance of human nature was granted
unequalled participation in the divine energies.
A last point is in order. Following Maximus the Confessor’s
sense of predestination and predetermination, Palamites saw the plan of Mary’s
grace and glory as preselected along with the Incarnate Christ prior to any
other temporal being or creation itself was selected in the contingent order.
The Theotokos is the highest thought
in the eternal divine mind before any actually created being was made in time.
This does not threaten the sovereignty of Christ, for “Theotokos” only derives meaning
from the fact that Mary bears something, namely, the Incarnate Word.
In conclusion, the similarity between the Latin doctrine and
the Greek doctrine does not lie in the method, neither is there direct, nor
indirect influence of the Latin thinking upon Palamism. Instead, Palamism takes
the patristic and liturgical tradition of Byzantium and sees every instance of
visible divine intervention in the lives of Jesus and Mary as a manifestation
of predestined and peculiar moments of participation in the divine energies for
the human natures of Jesus and Mary. Palamas even went so far to argue that the
mystery of the Resurrection was a feast where Mary was first witness of the
divine light, wherein she was purified to see the Lord in his glory. Palamas is
truly a genius in this respect, for without doing violence to the biblical
narrative, he sees the Resurrection as a moment of glory shared between Jesus
and Mary as is ought. Truly, Palamas represents the apex of Byzantine
Mariology!
So, the Latin “Immaculate Conception” coincides with one of
the many graceful and miraculous moments in the life of Jesus and Mary, but
should not be isolated from the series of salvific events along the course of
her life (including her mental conception before creation within the divine
mind).
You note that several classically
"Eastern" theologians (Sts. Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory Palamas, Mark
Eugenicus) are absolutely central to your argument. Tell us a bit about each of
them. Your research, it seems to me, has uncovered very different, much fuller
understandings of each--especially Palamas and Eugenicus--that seem to be at
odds with the figures one often finds portrayed in popular Orthodox
apologetics. Aren't Palamas, and especially Eugenicus, supposedly hostile to
Latin theology ("scholasticism" above all) while being the great
defenders of Orthodoxy since Ferrara-Florence?
Thanks for this question. I have found Nazianzen to be
grappling with how to make sense of Jesus’ (and Mary’s) purification in the
temple. Gregory seems to have actually suggested a “Copernican revolution” in
theological wordview. We use “purification” primarily to clean something
soiled. For Nazianzen, the primary meaning of purification derives from
meditation on Christ’s experiences of being “purified.” Whether in the temple
or at his baptism, we must take the “dove’s-eye-view” of purification, i.e.,
from the Spirit’s perspective. The Spirit descends not to take away sin but to
add grace and glory. Furthemore, Jesus and Mary were conjointly purified within
the temple, so each experienced a manifestiation of grace and glory according
to the capacities of their respective natures.
Gregory Palamas never lost sight of this sense of
purification that was handed down by St. Sophronius of Jerusalem and St. John
Damascene. Since the tradition was monastic, it is all the more appropriate
that it was absorbed and exalted in Palamas. Naturally, Mark of Ephesus
devotedly followed his “master” Palamas. For this reason, Mark applied his very
profound understanding of predestination and predetermination in the divine
mind to Mary’s role in the economy of salvation. He came up with a flawless
summary of Maximus’ sense of the primacy of the Incarnation and linked it to
the Theotokos.
Finally, with respect to Palamas’ and Mark’s
opposition to Latin theology, I think that it is safe to say that Palamite
theology clearly adopted select points from Augustine (true for both Palamas
and Mark). Factually, Mark employed select arguments from Aquinas to bolster
his apologetics on certain topics (e.g., proofs for the reasonability of the
resurrection of the body). We find in both authors an openmindedness toward Latin
sources. This does not negate the fact that both opposed exchanging the Greek
patristic heritage and traditional tenents for Latin peculiarities. Mark used
extreme caution and held numerous reservations about Aquinas. Frankly, Mark
correctly assessed and unabashedly opposed Thomistic theology’s approach to a
“distinction of reason” within the Godhead. I wish that there was a middle way
to resolve the differences but I find no reason to believe that Dominicans and
Palamites misunderstood each other on the question of the divine
essence-energies, even if numerous historical misunderstandings about the Filioque existed.
You speak at one point of the
"interplay between the Byzantino-Palamite and Immaculitist-Scotistic
Tradition." These are not terms, I admit, that I expected to see brought
together! And yet you show evidence of the "astonishingly compatible"
Mariologies of Palamas, Eugenicus, and Scotus even while noting in your
conclusion that we need more research to demonstrate "Latin-Greek
intellectual interchange (or lack thereof) in the 15th century" (195). Who
else is doing that kind of research and intellectual genealogy today? What
other projects have you worked on in
this regard?
Your astonishment is well-founded, Adam. Generally speaking,
since the late nineteenth century until after the Second Vatican Council
(1965), neo-Thomism reigned supreme and unfortunately led to a sort of
“mathematization” of theology. Authors who did not attempt to uphold mainline
interpretation of Aquinas and subject the theological tradition to agreement
with this caricaturized “Thomism” were typically persecuted in the Latin Church.
In this environment, it was difficult for Franciscans to publish anything that
might be interpreted as a “slight” to the au
courant interpretation of the Angelic Doctor. However, there has been some gradually
increasing interest in Franciscan theology and Mariology. I wonder if the post-conciliar
collapse of Mariology (with its slow recovery), and perhaps undue caution toward
Mariology among modern Orthodox (after the Immaculate Conception and Assumption
dogmas), have retarded studies in this field. I myself only stumbled across
this because of the Palamite essence-energies question. I have found only
seminal interest on this subject in the works of Martin Jugie and other
Mariologists from the early and mid-twentieth century.
AD: A few years ago I
reviewed a new translation of the Russian Orthodox theologian Sergius
Bulgakov's book about the Theotokos, The Burning Bush: On the Orthodox Veneration of the Mother of God, and in there he
spends a great deal of time on the Immaculate Conception, saying bluntly at one
point that “the Catholic dogma is an incorrect expression of a correct idea
about the personal sinlessness of the Mother of God.” Bulgakov objects for
three reasons, the most serious being that if the Theotokos has neither
original nor personal sin, then she would not suffer the effect of sin,
viz., death, and thus she would be something other than a human being. What are
your thoughts and what do you think the Fathers and Doctors you survey would
say were they somehow able to debate Bulgakov?
I think that we must take Orthodox concerns seriously. I
think your question is framed correctly. We must look to the Fathers for a
solution. Although I would insist that Bulgakov’s conclusion falls outside of
the patristic lineage leading to the Palamite synthesis, I must acknowledge
that scholarship still affirms that Chrysostom held a theologoumenon that coincided with Bulgakov’s thoughts on Mary. If
I were to use Mark of Ephesus’ mode of reading the Fathers, however, I would
emphasize that Mark believed that no particular Father was inerrant (adiaptôtos).
He looked at the whole of the received tradition of the canons, Fathers, and
liturgy together. For this reason, I think that Mark’s patristico-liturgical
arguments convince far more than Bulgakov’s “reasonings.” If we agree with
Bulgakov’s premises, then we will undoubtedly arrive at his conclusions.
However, this is precisely what I sought to leave behind when I abandoned
neo-Thomism.
What role does St. Augustine of Hippo play in this
debate, both about the prepurified/Immacuate mother of God and about ideas of
original sin?
Excellent question! Though overly zealous apologists in
Orthodoxy sometimes overemphasize the question of Original Sin, I sympathize on
two points. First, Augustine’s physicalist theory of traducianism is to be
rejected entirely. Indeed, some papal pronouncements of the first millennium use
Augustine’s language of “ancestral guilt.” Also, St. Fulgentius of Ruspe
(translated into Greek under as a pseudepigraphal work of Augustine) repeated
this harsh “guilt centered” theory. The closest Greek Father to Augustine’s
theory, Maximus the Confessor, recognizes Adam’s guilt (i.e., an interiorly
personal and moral defect), but does not employ this concept to the children of
Adam. They are subject to an extrinsic “curse” and various corollary effects
thereof. However, there is no transmission of an intrinsic “guilt,” justifying
our designation as “children of wrath.”
In my upcoming monograph on the
Mariology of Gennadius Scholarius, I will show that Scholarius unfortunately
adopted this language of “guilt” common to Aquinas and Augustine. Nonetheless,
we shouldn’t be too harsh on Scholarius, for I have already cited Macarius Makrês in my present monograph as the likely the inspiration for
Scholarius sense of “ancestral guilt.” Scholarius’ short-lived instructor Macarius
(perhaps influenced by Aquinas) probably taught Scholarius this terminology. Mark
of Ephesus called a Macarius, nonetheless, “a champion of Orthodoxy.”
Yet,
I have found no evidence that Mark ever weighed in on Augustinian Original Sin.
I suspect that Mark simply followed the extrinsic “curse” doctrine of Maximus. In
my upcoming monograph on Scholarius, I hope to show where Palamas textually cited
Augustine for “Original Sin.” However, even if Palamas relied on an Augustinian
work for his relevant discussion, Palamas systematically changed Augustine’s
term “guilt” and replaced it with the vocabulary of Maximus the Confessor. For
this reason, Mark was all the more unlikely influenced by Augustine’s doctrine
of “guilt,” for Mark was typically under the spell of Palamas.
Lastly, Orthodox are not incorrect
to criticize Aquinas’ use of this language of guilt. Nonetheless, I think that--even if Aquinas is inconsistent in the Summa
Theologiae with the meaning of this term--Thomas is not committed to a
litteral intrinsic sense of “guilt” in all men, and usually supports the notion
of a privation of grace. From the citations in my present monograph, the
Franciscan tradition clearly focuses on Original Sin as a privation of grace in
the will. Still, even the Franciscans did not always rid themselves of the
confusing guiltladen terminology, to which the primary referent is typically some
real intrinsic defect. For this reason I think it is wrong to simply dismiss
Orthodox criticisms grosso modo.
One of
Bulgakov's other objections (and it is, I must admit, a question I have myself
never found a good answer to) is that dogmatic definitions were once thought to
be a stern necessity finally resorted to only in cases of major crisis--a
widespread outbreak of heresy, say. But there seems to have been no crisis, no
heresy, in the mid-19th century. So how, then, are we to understand Pope Pius
IX in 1854 promulgating, as Bulgakov puts it, “dogmatic laws where life
does not in the least require them”?
Well, Adam, my knee-jerk response is to start
using Scholastic parsing. For example, just because something manifests a new manner
of operating does not call into question the virtual reality of the power
within the agent. Doxa tô
Theô, logical parsing need not have the last word. Adam,
you have already drawn attention to Benedict XVI’s reflection (pace Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects of East-West Unity) on the
necessity to reassess the manner in which papal primacy has been exercised in
recent centuries. I agree with your hints and suggestions and only add that we need
to explore the Council of Florence’s original decree of papal primacy, which
explicitly guarded and preserved all the canonical and traditional rights and
privileges of the other four Patriarchates. Nowadays, we like to concentrate on
what the Papacy’s raw power (posse)
can do instead of what it ought to do in charity and justice (decet). I myself am at a loss to give
historical precedents for unilateral pontifical acts in more recent centuries. Still,
I need to study the question more.
Sum up what your hopes are for this book.
I sincerely hope Catholics will be inspired to use the common
Greek patristic language and Palamite tradition to speak of Mary. The effect of
this common language should make the Immaculate Conception a question of
emphasis, since differences prove to be methodological. I hope Orthodox see
that the real commonalities between the scotistic and Palamite approaches do
not threaten Greek-patristic and contemporary Orthodox emphasis on the fact
that Mary underwent physical death. Yet, we should not forget that the
reasonings behind the necessity of Mary’s death rank for both sides as a theologoumena.
What projects--books, articles--are you at work on
now?
Currently, I am finishing a monograph to resolve the question
of the epiclesis debate between Byzantine and Latin theology based upon Mark of
Ephesus´ libellus on the question at
Florence. Surprisingly, Latin treatment of the question did not accurately cite
or even recognize the historical sources to resolve the question. I believe
Mark´s liturgiology will resolve the question definitively. Secondly, I am hoping to gradually
finish the monograph on the Mariology of Gennadius Scholarius next year. Lastly, I am still attempting to
complete my thesis on the essence-energies question in the Palamite metaphysics
of Gennadius Scholarius by the end of the year. As far as articles go, the next
issue of Missio Immaculatae 10.3
(2014), reveals the patristic and liturgical foundations in the East and West
for Palamas’ convinction that Mary was first witness of the Resurrection.
