Customer Reviews

The Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to Maximus the Confessor (Communio Books)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

"The spirituality of Maximus is pithily summarized in what is probably the most profound scholarly book ever written about Maximus, Cosmic Liturgy, by Hans Urs von Balthasar." Jeroslav Pelikan



Neo-Chaledonians:
The Christian East accepted the Chaledonian definitions with hesitation, under imperial pressure, and continually strove, if not to upgrade them, through the Henotikon of Zeno, or at least to view them in a 'Neo-Chalcedonian,' Cyrillian / Severian interpretation, as pursued by the imperial unifying policy of Justinian, represented in the enhypostasiac christology of Leontius of Byzantium.
Byzantium, while remaining adherent to the letter of the Chalcedonian definition, manifested throughout its political theology and generally in the character of its spirituality, the "Neo-Chalcedonian" standpoint which emphasizes the "divinizing" of the natural, and is therefore uneasy with the Chalcedonian duality of natures.

Apokatastasis & Maximus:
Alexandrian theology in the second/third century starts a particularly Eastern theological strand of eschatology, which Maximus followed that leads all the way to Mark of Ephesus (in the fifteenth century). Their eschatology differs from dominant Western views on the eternity of evil, and in particular on "where evil is to be found and therefore comes from." According to most accounts by the early Alexandrine Fathers that have written on the nature of evil, all of whom were Origen's students, Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory of Nyssa for instance, and even Augustine, evil does not have a real existence of its own, more so in the eschatological future; it exists only as a perversion of good, a deprivation of God, by the exercise of man's free will, and the jealousy of Satan.
Maximus' entire theology of cosmic salvation and his views on what exactly is restored in the kind of apokatastasis recognized by the Church, can give us a good insight to his views on the possibility of a final restoration of all.

Maximus' Thought:
As very ably written by the most eminent Orthodox Scholar, "Maximus' thought is scattered among the various chapters and letters of his corpus and does not appear systematically. However, there are some features, that can be consistently observed throughout the various literary texts; creation is good, the fall was a matter of free will that caused humanity death, this corruption was not of human nature (logoi) but occurred at the (level of) `mode' (tropos/ mode of abidance/action) of our existence. Furthermore our `mode' was restored to its inclination proper to nature (towards our creator) and deified in Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection. By Christ sharing in our human nature, which Maximus refers to as a Microcosm of the universe, he restored and perfected the entire cosmos (material and intelligible). Maximus also employed an apophatic method (negative theology) to describe how we know God. This is in contrast to participation in the inner being of the Trinity, which was generally an Evagrian/Origenist view. He inherited the mainstream monastic spiritual theology, principally from Evagrius but also Pseudo-Macarius. Maximus inherits his three graded view on the ascent to God from Evagrius. The categories of asceticism are graded first to last; the first is Practike; the second, Theoria; and the third is Theologia."(Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought)

Maximus' Origenism:
Maximus, who, opposing monothelites and monergists, was, as von Balthazar remarks, "a champion and even a martyr for orthodox christology as the Council of Chalcedon defined it," is a representative of this tension. The revision of Origen's philosophical theology by St. Maximus the Confessor resulted in an eschatology involving the replacement of the human ego by the divine presence, concludes Edward Moore, in his study, 'Origen of Alexandria and Maximus the Confessor', tracing the influence of Origen's eschatology through Evagrius Ponticus to Maximus. Origen's humanistic theology was misunderstood and wrongly interpreted throughout the latter Patristic era, culminating in the anti-personalistic system of Maximus.

Pioneering Study:
Based on an innovative and careful reading of Maximus's own writings, this analytical study of Maximus thought, broke new ground at the time, and promoted the interest in the confessor. Later editions included new material from years of research. This edition is the first English translation of the latest edition of Von Balthasar acclaimed study. This book presents an attractive, theologically compelling portrait of the thought of a major Byzantine theologian who remained only an obscure name in patristic theology.

Hans Urs von Balthasar:
Von Balthasar is an authority on the Church Fathers-Irenaeus, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Evagrius Ponticus, Augustine, and above all, Maximus the Confessor. His works include over a thousand books and articles. He was said, by Henri de Lubac, to be "perhaps the most cultured man of our time."
Karl Rahner described his achievements as really breathtaking. And it is my guess that history may well find him to be one of the most important theologians of the 20th century.

Hans Urs von Balthasar's Cosmic Liturgy is a good overview of St. Maximus' thought. I would have liked a bit more history and biography and a bit less interpretation, but then again, I'm more interested in those things than in the nuts and bolts of the Christological dilemma.
One thing I cannot fathom about the review that preceded mine is how its author (Didaskalex) read the same book I read. He says St. Maximus "is considered by contemporary miaphysites as a neo-Chaledonian who returned to Cyril Severus' Orthodox Christology." Huh? As Von Balthasar points out in the book, Maximus considered Severus of Antioch to be the fount of the Monothelite controversy and a dangerous Monophysite. He wrote works countering the arguments of Severus.
Anyway, read the book for yourself. It's worth the price.

As flawed as this book is at times, it is truly the work of a genius. Hans urs von Balthasar's (hereafter HuvB) erudition is staggering. What sort of man could systemize such literature? Not only did this book help set the standard for Maximus studies, but it also was a new benchmark in Patristics and Christology.

HuvB sets Maximus as a figure who synthesized not only all of Patristic literature, but also the currents of East and West. Maximus took the best of St Dionysius, Origen, and St Gregory of Nyssa. According to HuvB, one can summarize Maximus along several principles: (1) the free origin of the ideas of God as creator (pro Dionysius and contra Origen); (2) the divinization of all creatures according to the Incarnation according to God's decision--or more precisely, the Incarnation to use theosis to counter the work of the fall; (3) the rooting of the intelligible principles (logoi) of all individual things in the divine Logos (125).

HuvB next has an important chapter critiquing Origen's idea of movement. (Interestingly, and this point is not made, the chapter on "movement" is a good counter to many Mormon apologetics that posit either a pre-existent fall or the fact that God the creator was once a creature; not that Origen believed this, but many Mormons do take his conclusions and reformulate them according to their system).

There is a good section on space, time, and extension (139-144). Maximus evidently anticipated the early Medieval debate on universals and particulars. According to HuvB, "Universals presuppose the expansion (diastole) of particulars, which in turn makes possible their own contraction (systole)" (160). This discussion will ultimately hinge the crucial discussion on hypostasis and ousia later in the book.

God Beyond Number and Outside Himself
While HuvB is often guilty of reading later philosophical debates back into earlier periods, he does suggest that Maximus' understanding of "Being" and "motion" preserves the doctrine of God from later critiques (ala Hegel and Heidegger). Maximus rejects "simple being" (anticipating Jean-Luc Marion), noting that being is always marked by qualities and is limited therefore. That is why God stands outside of being (cf. David Bentley Hart and St John of Damascus).

As God is not "simple Being," neither is God merely the numbers "3" and "1." Yes God is a Trinity in unity, but numbers do not define God. Numbers are a sign that point towards something else. God is not the number 3/1, but those 2 numbers point towards God (cf. St Basil on the Holy Spirit). Thefore; God is beyond number.

HuvB then begins his section on humanity's relation to God. After dealing with numerous problems, HuvB summarizes five syntheses: Christ unites "man and woman...unites the earth by abolishing the division between earthly paradise and rest of globe...unites earth and heaven...unites sensible and intelligible things...and ultimately unites created and uncreated nature" (273).

The "money-maker" of the book is his section on the two natures of Christ. HuvB raises the same problem that Sergius Bulgakov raised (more on that irony later!): how do we speak of the synthesis of natures without creating yet a third nature or a second hypostasis (214)? HuvB (or Maximus) says that Christ's human nature is one that has been translated into a new manner of existing.

HuvB defines ousia as the real totality to which the universal concepts refer (217). The problem here is that ousia is generic. Does Christ take on a "generic" human nature? He might or might not, but at this level the language is ambiguous. How does Maximus move the discussion forward? I really don't know. HuvB has a dense discussion on pp. 219-221.

Regarding prosopon, hupostasis, and person, HuvB/Maximus seems very close to Bulgakov and Sophia. The hypostasis is always incarnate in a nature (224). The discussion continues on the next five pages.

Evaluation
Now for the criticisms:
My criticisms of the book in no way detract from the scholarship of the book. HuvB has done groundbreaking work. The parts on Origen and the Areapogite are probably the best out there. His talk on number as sign pointing beyond probably cut the Gordian knot of postmodernism.

Problems with the book:
HuvB has an annoying habit of reading back into the Fathers current philosophical debates as though positions they held. He really wants to make St Maximus a proto-Hegelian, minus the errors of Hegel, and sees Maximus anticipating (if not secretly holding) all of the theology of St Thomas Aquinas.

He reads Maximus' appeal to the Pope has an early church endorsement of Papal Supremacy and probably infallibility. While it is true that all of the Fathers ascribed primacy to the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, first among equals, it is quite another thing to read Vatican I back into the Fathers!! HuvB also claims that Maximus held to the Filioque but aside from a vague reference to an untranslated section of Patrologia Graece, he offers no proof.

He tries to use St Maximus as a refutation of the Russian Sophiologists: Bulgakov, Florensky, and Solovyov. While Solovyov's gnosticism is fair game, HuvB's criticism of the other Russians is inaccurate at best. I grant HuvB the right to point out ambiguities and weaknesses in 19th century Sophiology--I myself do that quite frequently. He does not have the right to call it Gnosticism when the same arguments that apply to Sophiology also apply to St Maximus--arguments that HuvB has listed as positives of St Maximus!!! LOL!!! , on the next page he praises Alyosha Karamazov for kissing the earth. He says (quite rightly, I might add) that is an extension of St Maximus's thought. There's only one problem with that. Fyodor Dostoevsky was a disciple of--you got it--Vladimir Solovyov and his Sophiological Godmanhood! Alyosha's act is a Sophianic one.

Anyway, the book is dense and hard reading, yet it repays itself immensely.

It would be difficult to overpraise this book. No monograph on Maximus, that I have seen, captures the breadth and depth of the Confessor's thought more ably than this one. Brian Daley, the translator, has done us a great service by translating this book into English. In Cosmic Liturgy, Balthasar's tremendous erudition is immediately obvious, but whereas many scholars of his stature write rather timidly and seem reluctant to stick their necks out, Balthasar writes with great boldness and high enthusiasm. As one of the other reviewers noted, there is inevitably some admixture from Balthasar himself, if only in terms of those aspects of Maximus that he chooses to emphasize. But no author, no matter how avowedly neutral, can avoid putting something of his own stamp on his subject. Balthasar's intellectual portrait of Maximus, as contained in this book, has been a wellspring for students of Maximus and Maximian studies ever since it first appeared (in 1941), and its fecundity shows no signs of diminishing. If you are just beginning to be interested in Maximus, besides reading Maximus' own words, and there is no substitute for that, you simply must read this book.

"The heavens declare the glory of God;
and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Day unto day uttereth speech,
and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3There is no speech nor language,
where their voice is not heard." Ps 19:1-3



Maximus the Confessor:
Born around 580, this Eastern Orthodox Byzantine theologian, and ascetic writer received education, rare in his time. He was first secretary to emperor Heraclius for a while before recognizing his calling in 614 to a monastery in Turkey. He visited Carthage as a refugee were he befriended Sophronius of Jerusalem. They journeyed to Alexandria together meeting with Cyrus, the last Melekite Patriarch/Governer of Egypt, trying to overturn the union agreement with the miaphysite Egyptians, since Maximus was a staunch opponent to monothelite movement. He was opposed to monophysitism but is considered by contemporary miaphysites as a neo-Chaledonian who returned to Cyril Severus' Orthodox Christology. His masters were those of the Alexandrines, Origen, Evagrius, and Dionysius pseudo-Areopagite. His most beautiful and authentic Orthodox expression on icons: "Love is the best icon for Christ."

Cosmic Liturgy:
Written by Balthasar over sixty years ago, won an able translator, Fr. Daley wrote a most compelling forward relating the thought of the author and the subject, that made this work vivid, inviting and rewarding. In his own words, "a work combining historical interpretation with constructive argument in a way seldom encountered today," The serious study of the fathers including this work influenced the resurgence of Neo-Catholicism of Vatican II.
Maximus "chapters on knowledge," defined the promise and danger of Neo-Platonism of Alexandria, and earlier of Balthasar research revealed John of Scythopolis as the writer and Maximus the editor of the commentaries of our great master mystic Dionysius Areopagiutum. Not being an expert, I may still dare say that there was no better person to analyze, and comment on Maximus work, expose and resynthesize his thought like Urs von Balthasar, including the confessor himself.

Hans Urs von Balthasar:
Hans Urs von Balthasar is certainly one of the greatest, and most influential Catholic theologians, and is said to be the most cultured of the twentieth century, with amazing breadth of literary, philosophic and religious tradition. He was born in Lucerne, studied in Vienna, Berlin and Zurich universities. Henri de Lubac and Pryzwara influenced him, and with Danielou studied the fathers of the Church Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine and Maximus. He was so versatile and innovative, wrote over a hundred books, one with a title, "Truth is Symphonic" He was active in editorial activities, publishing especially works of the mystic Dr. Von Speyr. He was awarded Paul VI Prize for theology and designated a Cardinal just before he passed away in 1988. Balthasar's writings together with Karl Rahner have clearly shaped Tubingen reconstruction of Catholic theology.

Brian Daley's expert warning:
"The dangers inherent in this kind of historical-theological study are obvious. Evenscholars willing to acknowledge the magnitude and interpretive brilliance of this book, especially in reviews of its second edition in 1961, suggested weaknesses in von Balthasar's approach: the questions he asks of Maximus are modern questions, set by situation of French and German Catholic theology in the mid-twentieth century, and the picture of Maximus he draws is, in the end, an incorporation of substantial and authentic elements of maximus' thought into the proportions and shadings of von Balthasar' own theological enterprise.'

incomparable, in the treatment and the value of the thought of the subject, Maximus, whose thought and obedience to thought challenges the reader