Eastern Christian Books: Scripture and Emotion in Maximus the Confessor

Eastern Christian Books: Scripture and Emotion in Maximus the Confessor

Brill: Divine Scripture and Human Emotion in Maximus the Confessor: Exegesis of the Human Heart by Andrew J. Summerson

Paul J. Griffiths, Regret

German theologians do not even know who #Griffith is rather read open theism articles from the 1980s. #German #theology #regret https://t.co/7qp2gyx9Jo

— Ulrich L. Lehner (@ulrichlehner) February 6, 2021

This. https://t.co/GnN82Wpo91

— Kyle (@home_grown_sanc) February 6, 2021

Not Apatheia

“In order to abide in the love of God it is essential for anger and ‘hate’ to attain their maximum intensity but be directed against the sin that lives in me, against the evil active in me – in me, not in my brother.”

~ Saint Silouan the Athonite pic.twitter.com/nQxLzXUC5Y

— The Orthodox View☦️ (@theorthodoxview) December 17, 2020

And Some Would Hold This Against Her?

as a sign of imperfection...

“Perhaps someone will say [of Mary]: “Had she not known before that he would not die?” Undoubtedly. “Did she not expect him to rise again at once?” Surely. “And still she grieved over her crucified Son?” Intensely.” —St. Bernard pic.twitter.com/Ax2JsMLo39

— Fr. David Paternostro, SJ (@DavidPaternostr) September 15, 2020

Speculation on Prelapsarian Human Nature

How far can one take it? And why should one take St. Maximos the Confessor as THE expression of Tradition on these points?

Orthodox Christian Theology: How Does Grief Demonstrate Our Original Sin?

If passions, like sadness (or "grief") is a consequence of the Fall, then it is because death is a consequence of the Fall and so we suffer loss and are sad as a result. But what does it mean that sadness is "blameworthy"? Are there no legitimate reasons for being sad, because we have suffered a loss? Is it only legitimate to feel sad out of compassion for the suffering for others? This seems too strict or rigorist to me. 

Saint Maximus taught that sadness is in fact a blameworthy passion that is the result of the fall—a stain of original sin. In the Questions to Thalassius he writes that after the Fall:

[T[he great and innumerable mob of passions was introduced into human life and corrupted it. Thus our life became filled with much groaning…If, on the other hand, our condition of self-love is distressed by pain, then we give birth to anger, envy, hate, enmity, remembrance of past injuries, reproach, slander, oppression, sorrow, hopelessness, despair, the denial of providence, torpor, negligence, despondency, discouragement, faint-heartedness, grief out of season, weeping and wailing, dejection, lamentation, envy, jealousy, spite, and whatever else is produced by our inner disposition when it is deprived of occasions for pleasure. (1.2.15)

Now, many may contend with Maximus’ teaching by saying Jesus “groaned” (John 11:34) and “wept” (John 11:35). We must be careful to read these passages in a Christologically orthodox way.

We know that Jesus “was tempted in every way,” but we also know that “God cannot be tempted by evil” (James 1:13). So, we must understand He was “tempted in every way, WITHOUT SIN” (the Greek does not necessarily include the word “but.”)

In other words, He was tempted in every blameless, without sin. sort of way—hunger, thirst, pain, privation—but not by sinful temptations such as sex, avarice, and the like. I have covered in detail elsewhere that Jesus Christ voluntarily assumed blameless passions, which were in fact not inherent to His sinless human nature as by nature flesh that is sinless, like Adam’s in paradise, experiences none of these things. However, Jesus did voluntarily experience these things as it was naturally possible for Him to. Adamite (prelapsarian) flesh is not glorified flesh—it can contain fallen aspects naturally because the fall did really occur in the prelapsarian flesh, turning it into postlapsarian flesh. Prelapsarian flesh tends towards immortality, but it is not truly immortal until it is glorified. Glorified flesh cannot experience the fall. So, Enoch, Elijah, Moses, Mary, and others (if they exist) with resurrected bodies cannot fall into sin like Adam and Eve, because they have glorified bodies. This, for them, would be an impossibility.

This being said, we must be careful not to assume Jesus weeps for the same reason we grieve. We often grieve because we feel an intense, sorrow due to personal loss or some sort of self-love. Jesus did not experience this sort of sorrow, which Maximus states is from the passions.

Weeping that arises from the blameless passions is much different. For example, weeping from laughter is not the same as grief. Weeping from hitting one’s thumb with a hammer also is not the same as grief. Weeping out of compassion and empathy is also not the same as grief.

When Jesus wept, this does not mean he was weeping from grief—which clearly the
Theotokos did during her son’s crucifixion.

As a brief aside, while grief and weeping from such are blameworthy passions, only the consent of the will to despondency is sin. So, our Orthodox icons of the Theotokos and Saint John weeping at the crucifixion is not a terrible example of sin—this would be absurd. It is a demonstration of God’s people, with postlapsarian flesh, experiencing grief as we all do. They were not despondent and so did not sin. Saint Basil (Letter 260, Par 9) and Saint Maximus (Life of the Virgin, Par 53) both speak of the Theotokos having instant healing from precisely this predicament.

The preceding being said, how did Jesus weep? First, let’s plainly look at what the Scriptures indicate. In John 11:31 there are “Jews” consoling Mary and Martha. It is not clear whether they were professional mourners (Jer 9:17), but they wept with Mary and Martha (John 11:33) akin to those wailing for a ruler’s dead daughter in Matt 9:23. Clearly, community-mourning was some sort of social custom in Judea. Contextually, we must understand that Jesus was joining in this social custom, which He was obviously accustomed to. What he was not doing was grieving the death of Lazarus, as He was calm four days beforehand being fully cognizant of its occurrence. Clearly, Jesus was showing pity for Mary and those there, joining in the community mourning.

Eastern Christian Books: Passion and Compassion in Early Christianity

Eastern Christian Books: Passion and Compassion in Early Christianity

Ordered passion/emotion? Or some variation of the care ethic?

Heard Dr. Ray Guarendi tonight for TOT SV -- he did a typical Latin apologetic, "Why Be Catholic?" I think it might have been more beneficial if he had talked about the emotions and their relation to the spiritual life, especially since he mentioned in his talk that one of our current problems is that people think that emotions mean everything (my very poor paraphrase, as I don't remember his exact words at the moment). It would be good to explain how the emotions are good and how they need to be regulated.

Harsh Words?

Post by Orthodoxy and the World.

Is to think that one should be free from sadness a feeling of entitlement or its result, only a symptom of narcissism or disordered self-love? Is sadness an evil, not just a sensible reaction to some evil or to a privation/deprivation? (Let us focus exclusively on the privation of necessary goods, rather than what is superfluous. We would not feel sad if we did not attain something we desired that was not truly necessary for our well-being.) Did God desire for us to feel or experience sadness? In a creation rightly ordered, would there be sadness? Everyone would be acting virtuously, and there would be no physical evils. There is no feeling or experience of sadness in heaven. What of feeling sad because of social discord or enmity? Are friends luxuries rather than a good that is necessary to us and our flourishing?

"Emotion and Virtue in Thomas Aquinas," by Fr. Nicholas Lombardo

Lumen Christi Institute

TEDxMileHighSalon - Michael Huemer - The Irrationality of Politics

In his talk earlier this month at the DSPT, Fr. Sherwin discussed the impact of emotional development on moral development, using the work of Lewis, Amini and Lannon in A General Theory of Love. He also talked about John Senior, and the sort of [emotional] preparation that a solid Christian spiritual life requires. There was some disagreement between him and Dennis de Rougemont on the origin of romantic love, as Fr. Sherwin cited Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde as a counter.

What new insights would Conrad Baars have into our affective life if he were alive today?

The current model of catechesis (CCD class) doesn't seem to be effective. We need something like Dr. Senior's integrated humanities program. (Of course the discussion got me thinking about the topic of poetic knowledge, as well.)