Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Christology of Proclus

    Uploaded by

    ethnosimo
    16 views10 pages
    Christology of Proclus

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Christology of Proclus

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    16 views10 pages

    Christology of Proclus

    Uploaded by

    ethnosimo
    Christology of Proclus

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 10
    sf caren se fe was with me tke cloth om the loom: whit Iwas yet beioning, she that weaves dew nigh oct of the eread rom morning evea to ight thou wt make an end of me” 43). The selfempeying of Gd in the incarnation i the death of God, «voluntary cuca in ‘which the divinity is nae othe Hes, the ody ofthe Mother, ad thos one of Mary’ ateanigueencomias conf that “call her a (Cross, for dhe Lord was pended on her ousteched oly arms" Final locking meant the lor, andthe loom was an objet tha ‘oll be found in every home, and that eould move serve asa ever present reminder of the incarnation and passion. Such mien as. [ations were par ofthe comman homes tradon, and ithe fier points of the Theotokoscontoversy hal Been beyond the grasp of all tht fe; the metaphor ofthe lor, ad oer like helped to lar iy the ious by stating the objections to Nestoria? eacigs in sn ple terms understandable wo the pubic, Anyone sing a wom fr 4 man) producing a pice of loth could now ee Divine Wom weaving togeier the body of God from the wool of huranty coded together ‘with siegin eat Anyone wecing hom could now se the wa ofthe Virgin, who had fred the “aner workshop” of her body ft the fabication of the cule veil hat was Gods mode of manifestar ‘ion inthe weld It wana wil which stood bexween eeation and the Holy of Hols, ike an iideacent skin which the contrasting colors of vii and humanity alternately ahimmer and pay. Tt wa he plorous ‘lating ofthe naked God which covered he shame of uma and ‘granted acces to the heavenly sanctatry “bythe new and ving way ‘hat Crist opened fo trough the vel of his lsh” (He. 10.20, i nt ie Wires Sound ert tn the de tie ed ee mek ipocraanene nat eaemeeee ne Saieceniomcee ovate Beas eee eee dices pein tc wo Geode Te een oe Seneca Se ac ae corner estan cothemiterraror tn ‘THE CHRISTOLOGY OF PROCLUS OF ‘CONSTANTINOPLE, Ironton “This appendix onganiaes dhe echnical tems of Proc brisoogcal Yocabulary within a number of key semantic and conceptual Sel While some’ of this vocabulary it necesarily drawn fom the txt published in the main body ofthis book, an effort is made wo survey the works of Procas n der ene Two of Prous! most important ‘rial! woe, his fst sermon on the Theotokes (Homily) nd {he Time te Armen, are discussed in dealin chaps 2-3, and this appendix ir intended sta extended noe supplementary to those dtscassons ‘With the pole exception ofthe Tims, Proc didnot present his chrioogy in anything corresponding to the generic expectations ‘of modern aytemate theology. This i aot to say that his theological ‘inking was incoherent or lacking in precision, As we shall see, Pro ‘hs venue erieal refinement of contemporary crsologal la guage that greatly claried the baring faues ofthe day. As forthe formal presentation of his thenlogial ought i would be more aecir Tate and uminaing to understand notin eateries dered lors the alent study of thnlogy, but rather av an “exegetical dhealogy” dering closely tothe language and mazeative pater of ipa; ot ‘4 Tiga theology” ined within the womb of the tray ofthe ror and organized around the great feasts of the church. Exegesis nd liurgy ate themselves difreninedl aspect ofa single practice ot ‘tiv ease the inerpretation of acipure in. the pats period ‘eas the work of bishops speaking within the context ofthe euchar- tie aseniy, Moree in order to understand and express tbe con teat of srpeure and the experience of ry late-antige bishops har fiewed the power of contemporary shetore nd exploited the leary tnd oraorial resources of the ancient word, Inerest in marae ie Chal and etre ha recent etrne othe center of modern thal: ty, prosiking the development of tool snd methods dry apposite so sevens ‘othe leer and spit of patrisic theology. ‘To the eter who has uaversed dhe entre core of thi oki wil be obvious that fr Prochs of Constantinople the dacourse of ‘hse 09) isinextrcablyiacerewined wth the veneration ofthe Vegn. There it no Chrit without Mary and thus no chrisology without marilogy The reverse holds re as well Ihe aim af the preceding chapters was to explore and sad withthe tools of exegesiy nara, lang, and tori) the sams web joining "God? and the “one who gave bith to God this append slates and unravels some of is consent strands, arranging them according to 4 numberof key chrsological ‘ategories daw some of tes eateries from the work of Greer, being filly aware oftheir Himited usefulness and conscious of the ert cal voices dat have been raed agunet the "analy “schemas sd “extrinsic «othe text” are among the mote enie charges that hve been brought forward! My use of thew diputed categories fot intended as farther rection ofa dubios interpretive Remework, bot rater to gesture woward att of inguisic and intelectual comtours ‘enabling a suramary glance at Proc chrioogical semantics While this concluding appendix is not the place for a major study employ ing the exegetical larga, and rhetorical hermenestcs mentioned above, it will nevertheless demonstrate tat, whatever degree of traction Grileier's categories may hae withthe sources, Pros’ polial and ‘rtological agenda was to move the dalete forward in the ayhetic ‘meres othe Gres Church of Constantinople Prosser of One Hpac in hist In the period before the Councl of Ephesus, dheologial speculation was dominated by the question of the Son tlio to God the Fhe the so-called ‘Trniaran debate® When this debate had been formally concluded atthe Second Beumenieal Counc (Constantino. ple, i) ie was genealy recognized thatthe Som exis om the sane level of being a God, that he in the word of the Nicene ced “ne as ies of Gree, Oi Cin Tin, cB, “Zar Lge Cig haan Mean” fmt 6, ‘ip cho nin nog a "ratty ns eH Pe Side hen wouter eS ra comsococy of pao oo in sence withthe Father yootas x xara). However, according tothe faith ofthe char, the ene who was esentally identical to the Fer "came down fom heaven, became flesh, was cries, steed, land was buried” How cold thse apparently paraxial afgmations be reconciled? Hove in other words could & divine subject appropri 1te human predicates? Was ie pole thatthe one whom the ceed lllemed to be the ‘Only Begotten Son of God, the one ‘born from the Father before all age the “Light Bom Light” and the “Tue God from Truc God: could become the subject of the human experiences predated of Jets of Nazareth in the New Testament? And if not he Transcendent Word of Go who, the, of what was the prope subject of thow experiences? Respoacs to these questions were varied and provoked the second rea thelial debate ofthe eaty church known asthe crixlagal Controversy. Throughout the controversy the ine of bate were drawn Tetween the dheolgial rains generally associated wit the schoo a Antioch and Alexandia. For the Antochenes, the immutable Word ‘of God could not poly be regarded atthe mediate subjet of the birth, growth, and death of Chis. For the Alexandrian, on the toter hand the subject of those experiences was preiely the Word of God whose voluntary assumption of such conditions was pst of the innermost mystery ofthe Cristian fits ‘When the Antochene presbyter Nestorius was appointed by Theo- osu IT the see of Constantinople city whose chief theologians, Inling Prcls, were paral tothe theologial tains of Asan dria the two school squarely confronted acs oder over the question of whether or not the Son of God had tly become the sn of the ‘Virgin. The confrontation began afer Nestorius and his reign a series of contoversial sermons, insisted that "No ane must all Mary “Thotoko or Mary was but» human being and is impossble that God coud be bor rom human being In his defense ofthe Marian ple “Theotchos’Prolis was ultimately led to articulate and dene 7 Net sina gions wee len wp ty tania ibn ie ender nen nati wes ena rl and ‘Sal ey and ps ed or cmp Pekan Bad ue [RTL arming EEE Camis Mag ye ao cae Sue ‘Min Gu ol © Hersh got Cee Monee Seen ey vp fou ee soe aon he noon of single nara abet or hypoxia Chis that lone oud esplain the Vigna ng bith God Afr hacer Sion wo the sce of Contannopl 4, rock comtinned 0 develop the chiologialfrmals of a sg Incarnate pans, which hs ‘coor inte conveyed tothe cove of Caledon “The word hypo we tial er dered rm the the ogy ofthe Tiny ol afi intodced tthe deur fee {ogy by Apoliara af Ladi (e599 Apalinaris beeved that every iteligbe enti such a he Word of God ohana being was an india Ippon with iq eof india ig Sct Ae eee ited to pos atin the cave of two spate youres of mind ad will auld not ene witout one yor ing against he ‘her To etiinae the poy of auch cnc ling place in the incarnate Word, Aplin found it nececary wo deny te ex tence of a human sol fr ming) i Cs Consequently, he com ‘ton of he itigbie Word with ianinate Be ted gle Typos or'mare"T the Annee the Apeliaran Chr as 2 seca monstoniy and theydewpd cilgy he om Sree Theo Mp ach oe Chrselgy and the lege teacher of Netra, iterpreted the con cept of pon as an rede natural uaiy fr ore in which murs sss, and aged tha Crit had two compte natures, then he eerily ad two canpleteIypostsess ‘The dc fl crisps of Apolinara and Theor, decribed bet ine ‘eof utes repeat he exe poston that ave come he ‘Sac wth the sale hs of Alexia ad Aor ‘rch contrtion to ths debe waste deveopmen of ca ima betwcen thse Fal tations of tough Drawing on te chs ‘sinogy seta hough two Bu of Camano rds Pan wo Rae une peti tld bl gt Rom a 985 "Gras of Cet [FTEs tat ele ome oH, Gian Do fg Ox PSone i ot dry eae ap sn camstoL20 or moc as tology of Alexandria, Procas firme single lypostas in response to the chrisoogical dua of dhe Nestrans. Reteving the christ fy of Antioch, Proc aocated a “daly of nature ring oa the ‘tive monopysis of the Apoinarins.Procls was the fst to propose rich aaion stich he ave tia his defense of Mary ls Theotokoe” When propery understood, the confession ofthe Mar ian epithet coon of ith in ingle Pypontasis in a dual of| rates, In a homily onthe incarnation, Prochas ows that he sme one (ss Gn dma, ry with Father ih whom te ecomsa ikein alway @ua n mo)wto ‘ath ext he dine nature unerete, ad the nate the ane om unaerated oe And els the Soh cue hs to nature rat dred into pont 8 2 60 "gman nai Begone bt i) ae dipesaon avn the wo tres mage yp eB yom es oan Ect ae In this pasag, Prous careily balances the unity of Chri’ person with the duality of is matures, The "ame one, that i, the sae {ijt or person, isd to be both “God and man.” Moreover, the tues of cvinity and hunny are presented in thelr fl tee ntact and unpaired by dei union in the inarnaion. The divine ‘nature i ‘uncreated’ and ‘consubtanial with the Father? whereas the Thuan nature is "unadulterated, having Deen assumed in its entirety (cn excepted) from the humanity ofthe Virgin. The duals of “wo hypostace is explcly rejected, and both nates area oe ited inthe “one hyposasis" ofthe Son of God, who is oe) wih the Father” “The afimaton ofa “Single hypotasi’ appears again in Proc’ Tne tobe Ameo, where ha tained the level of a doctrinal formula: owing at having tren seer sagt aly one So, cont ny one Inpho God the Werd made Beh a Soy {os onguawo Boe Aso Examen the Se one whe in th ‘Ste the pasion a waked mice” a ”LTL™Lrlrté

    You might also like