I have been studying the
early Church Fathers (I use the term "early" for the CFs who wrote
between the end of the first century and the end of fifth century) for over
three decades now. In addition to trying to understand what those CFs taught
within the framework of the period in which they wrote, I have also attempted
to understand how their writings relate to the developed theologies of the
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions.
Earlier today, I
discovered a comprehensive Eastern Orthodox site that is nothing short of a
'goldmine' of valuable information on Eastern Orthodoxy, the Church Fathers and
numerous other topics:
I
was led to this site via the following page concerning the Cappadocian fathers:
The
above page is part of the "Lessons on Christian Dogmatics" (link)
series, which is:
... the notes that were
taken from the lectures of Professor I. Zizioulas (current Metropolitan of
Pergamus and Chairman of the Athens Academy) at the Poemantic Division of
the Thessaloniki University’s School of Theology, during the academic year 1984-1985.
They are published with
the blessing and the permission of the reverend Metropolitan.
Given my in depth work on
the of the Monarchy
of God the Father, I found the following from above "Cappadocian
fathers" page to be of particular interest:
The third element that the Cappadocian Fathers contributed
was that they not only “endowed” a complete hypostasis to each of the three
persons, they in fact attributed the cause of God’s existence to the person
of the Father. In other words, they attributed the beginning of God’s
existence to the person of the Father – to a person.
In view of the fact that
they introduced these new elements (note: in the terminology, not in the
dogma), the Cappadocian Fathers utilized images and analogies when referring to
the Holy Trinity, which always had the characteristic of comprising complete
beings.
In the 1st
Ecumenical Council, with the theology of Saint Athanasius it was stressed very
much that the Son is born of the nature -or of the essence- of the Father. That
could have been misconstrued as an extension of the Father’s essence, and not
as a birth of a complete and independent entity. If we have three extensions of
God’s essence, then we are dangerously close to Savellianism [i,e,
Sabellianism/Patripassianism/modalism].
That is why such a huge reaction against the “homoousion” had been raised, by
those who were concerned that the “homoousion” -as defined in Nice- might
contain in it the danger of Savellianism.
Savellius viewed God as a
unit that extended itself; a unit that expanded and took on these three
separate roles, and that in the end, this group would again contract unto
itself, and become once again the original one unit. He saw God as a being that
extended itself and acquired three “offshoots” which had the same essence.
The Cappadocians wanted to
eliminate this interpretation, hence their insistence that these three persons
are not extensions of the one essence, but three independent, complete
entities, and that is the reason for their stressing the meaning of
“hypostasis”.
The images they used for
this purpose are characteristic. In both the 1st Ecumenical Council
as well as the Symbol of Faith (the Creed), we note the image of light, which
was used to portray the unity between the Father and the Son. There is the
image and the expression of: “light out of light”. Just as light
emanates rays that cannot be distinguished from their source, nor the source from
the rays, this proved itself to be a useful portrayal, to indicate that the Son
is united with the Father inseparably, as “light out of light”.
The Cappadocian Fathers
found this depiction inadequate, as it (the rays) could be construed, as the
extension of a body, also, the Son could be construed as an energy of
God. So, instead of saying: “light out of light”, they preferred the
concept of three suns. Not just a light that originates from a light, but
three individual suns, three lit torches.
These are the favored
depictions, by which it is illustrated that we have three self-existent,
complete persons, which, together with this depiction, are simultaneously
presented as united. But here is the critical point: What is that common thing
that unites those three suns? It is the common essence, the common energy
which they possess, because all three suns emanate the same heat and the same
light. Consequently, the energy is common to all three, and the Essence –which
goes along with the energy- is also common to all three. It is in this
manner that the presence of their hypostasis and the fullness of each person
and their unity are simultaneously depicted.
In the analogy used for
man, they used three persons in order to denote the three persons of the Holy
Trinity. Just as Basil, George and John are three persons, three people
joined by a common nature, a common essence, which is their human nature, so
can the three persons of the Holy Trinity be denoted by the image of three
people. In the instance of God, an adjustment of this depiction is
necessary, because it is different to the instance of three people. What
needs to be stressed as an introduction to what will follow, is that the
Cappadocian
Fathers insisted that each
person of the Holy Trinity comprises a complete entity, and that the depictions
we use should be depictions of complete entities and not extensions of a
body. Three suns, three torches, three people. This is the way to
denote the full hypostasis of each person.
And then a bit later, we
read the following provocative assessment:
Thus, in the East, the
Greek Fathers came to a halt at the Cappadocians, with regard to the dogma on
the Holy Trinity. Whoever is not acquainted with the Cappadocians, is
not acquainted with the dogma of the Holy Trinity. One cannot learn about
it from anyone else, only from the Cappadocians. Prior to the
Cappadocians, many ideas had been expressed, which, however, needed to be
supplemented by the Cappadocians. With the Cappadocian Fathers, the East possessed
the dogma on God in its completed form. (Bold emphasis mine.)
Though I have read a good
number of works by Eastern Orthodox theologians on the issue of the doctrine of
the Trinity, the above is the first time I have come across such a bold
assertion. I am left wondering if this a consensus view within the Eastern
Orthodox paradigm...
With
that said, I believe that the entire page worth reading—finding much of the
content in agreement with my own thought—though I suspect that a number of folk
will take issue with some of the content as I have (especially the author's
reflections on Augustine).
Off
to take in more of this site's content...
Grace
and peace,
