Saturday, October 31, 2009

Response to Perry Robinson on Corporeal Vision of Uncreated Light

Mirror link

Yesterday (10/30/2009), Energetic Procession webmaster Perry Robinson said the following in response to my 10/15/2009 post "God Cannot Be Seen with the Eyes of the Body":
But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.

Luke 9:32

I guess the glory isn't God.
Dear Perry,
1. The Apostles saw the Uncreated Light of His glory [Jn 1:14], but not by corporeal vision [Jn 1:18; 1 Tim 6:16]. With regard to the Transfiguration, St. Matthew uses the diction "Moses and Elijah appeared to them" [Mt 17:3] and quotes our Lord as instructing the Apostles to "do not tell the vision to anyone" [Mt 17:9], and mentions that after the manifestation, the disciples saw only Jesus with their eyes [Mt 17:8]. Perhaps this hints that the vision of the Uncreated Light was not with the bodily eyes.

2. But aside from this speculation, the authority of three Great Doctors of the West suffices to show that the uncreated light is not at all seen with the bodily eye: St. Augustine [Epistle 147], St. Jerome [On Isaiah 6:1], and St. Ambrose [On Luke 1:2].

Friday, October 30, 2009

Almost 20

It's amazing that by the time I wake up, I will no longer be a teenager. I thank God for the many blessings He gave me as a 19-year-old and I beg Him to forgive me for the many grave sins I've committed. St. Raphael the Archangel, pray for me, that God will make this year much better than the last, and that He will protect, strengthen, and sanctify my beloved family and friends. St. Joseph, pray for me. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of death. Amen. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

The Photian Robber Council of 879-880

Mirror link

Pope John VIII mercifully reinstated Patriarch Photius of Constantinople, but this was the extent of his approval of the acts of the 879-880 Council of Constantinople (Mann 270).{1} I don't know how people like Fr. George Dion Dragas can seriously maintain that this fraud-riddled council is a fully binding ecumenical council.

1. False Legates
(1) There were Eastern "legates" from sees unmentioned in any other council (266-267). (2) There is extreme doubt as to whether Cosmas and the other purported legates of the Eastern Patriarchates were duly credentialed representatives of those sees (267).

2. Alterations to Pope John VIII's Letter to Basil
(1) Photius embellishes Pope John VIII's praise of the emperors and changes the letter to say that the emperor consults Rome merely "for the sake of union" (Mann 258). (2) Photius omits everything about St. Ignatius and "the circumstances of the time," pretends Pope John VIII was yearning to restore him, and pretends that he was unwillingly restored by the emperor (259). (3) He eliminates the letter's statements that he has to ask for forgiveness before a council, and omits Pope John VIII's mention that he, as the supreme pastor with the plenitude of power, absolves Photius and all those condemned with him (259). (4) Photius adds self-praise and makes John condemn all the councils, including the Eighth Ecumenical Council, that condemned him (259). (5) Photius palliates John's conditions that after Photius dies, a Constantinopolitan cardinal priest or deacon (but not layman or court member) is elected Patriarch, that clerics are not to be speedily elevated, and that Photius relinquishes his pretensions to have jurisdiction over Bulgaria (260). (6) Photius omits John VIII's threat to excommunicate him should he receive any bishops the pope has condemned (260).

3. Alterations to Pope John VIII's Letter to Photius
(1) The Patriarch changes Pope VIII's praises of God to praises of Photius (261). (2) Photius makes Pope John VIII explicitly condemn the Eighth Ecumenical Council of 869-870 (261).

4. Alterations to Pope John VIII's Instructions to the Legates
(1) Photius changes the instructions to simply require Photius to appear in a council to be acknowledged by everyone (262). (2) Photius pretends that Pope John VIII recommends that the Ignatian bishops consecrated before the first Patriarchate of Photius should retain their sees, while the Ignatian bishops consecrated during the second Patriarchate of St. Ignatius should only get support from the bishops in possession (262). (3) Photius pretends that Pope John VIII instructed the legates to have Photius to preside along with them (262). (4) Photius pretends that the legates are to ask Photius not to interfere with Bulgaria (262). (5) Photius pretends that the legates are to annul the anti-Photian councils, including the Eighth Ecumenical Council (262).

5. Broken Promises
Photius and the council promised they would obey Pope John VIII's instructions on the Bulgarian jurisdiction, but later said that the boundary-marking was up to the emperor (268).

6. Absurd Statements About the Primacy of Constantinople
(1) The first of three canons from the council's fifth session said that the council did not mean to innovate concerning the prerogatives of the See of Rome, but this same canon and the rest of the acts of the council refer to the pope as a mere patriarch of the West with the same rank as the rest of the patriarchs (267). (2) In session five, Metropolitan Basil of Martyropolis, who allegedly represented the See of Antioch, said that Photius was the highest bishop by divine right (267). The acts record no one, not even the papal legates, protesting at this novelty (268). (3) The seventh session said that Photius "had the spiritual priority over the whole Church" (269). Where is the protest of the legates here?

7. False Quotes
In session one, the papal legate Eugenius says, "The soul of the Pope was so intimately united to that of Photius as to form, as it were, but one soul with it; and just as he desired to be united with God, so he desired to become one with Photius" (268). It is incredible that Eugenius would have said that (268).

8. Association with an Entirely Forged Letter
A forged anti-Filioque letter ascribed to Pope John VIII was added to the acts of the 879-880 council (269).

9. Very Limited Papal Approbation
Pope John VIII said that he does not approve of whatever his legates have done against his instructions (270), yet, if the acts of the council give a reliable record of what the papal legates did, they in fact acted against his instructions (270).

10. Later Actions of Photius Inexplicable if Rome Annulled 869-870 Council
In his ca. 885-886 letter to Emperor Basil I, Pope Stephen V says that Photius was still trying to have the 869-870 Council annulled, which would not make sense if Pope John VIII in fact abrogated the 869-870 Council.{2}

Notes & References
{1} Mann, Rev. Horace Kinder. The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages vol. III, 2nd ed. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., Ltd., 1925. 1 Nov. 2009 <>. Although the Rev. Mann of pious memory wrongly says, like the very learned Dr. Philip Blosser, that Pope John VIII excommunicated Photius in 881 (Fr. Francis Dvornik effectively disproves this), his other points about the atrocious fraud of the 879-880 council remain valid.
{2} Venance Grumel, "La Lettre du pape Étienne V à l'empereur Basile Ier," Revue des études byzantines 11 (1953) 129–55.

Ask, and ye shall receive

The other night I asked God to grant me the grace to avoid a particular sin. The good Lord heard my prayers, and that night I had a dream in which I was in a situation that filled me with the utmost shame for committing the sin. And still, thanks to the grace of God, I have not relapsed into this sin. Please Lord, give me an abundance of grace that I will never fall into this sin again. Please save me and keep me in the book of life! Thank you, Lord!

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Notes on McGuckin, "Autobiography As Apologia"

Monday, September 21, 2009
McGuckin: Autobiography as Apologia

Gregory uses poems to reconstruct himself & the way things ought to be
Key to understanding Gregory: Gregory left us three forms of writing (poetry, 43 orations [sermons once-delivered but actually heavily reconstructed after delivered], series of letters (a little over 200)): comparing the orations to the letters (the letters have fixed dates, but the final versions of the orations are undated) – able to parse out different layers to see what Gregory originally said (what his concern was), and what must have been added later (reflecting concerns in letters from a later period)
What can we learn from knowing the differences? See whether and how his ideas changed (esp. in dealing with the more theoretical/theological aspects), and how St. Gregory is able to craft his own persona by which people are to remember him
Gregory is far more sophisticated and politically alert/astute than the caricature that he himself created – only people committed to lesser pursuits/lower things are able to make it in the political sphere
Augustine writes the first Christian autobiography in prose, not the first autobiography simply

Second Ecumenical Council – most influential orthodox theologian in the West at the time is St. Ambrose the Great of Milan (like the Cappadocians in temperament & theology) – simultaneous parallel council in Aquilea: basically no Western bishops at Constantinople – Ambrose gets Aquilea to coincide with the theology of Constantinople – Ambrose has the same view of the Trinity as the Cappadocians – between the Council of Nicaea and Constantinople I that Constantinople becomes the new capital (New Rome) – Rome & Alexandria did not acknowledge canon three of Constantinople I (Constantinople being the second see after Rome) – Ambrose also uncomfortable with the capital leaving Italy
No one in the East cared – if the Bishop of Rome had disagreed with the outcome of Constantinople I, then there would have been a problem – there is no theologically significant pope until Leo I the Great in the fifth century
Scholars think that people read Gregory uncritically, taking his accounts of history at face-value, not cognizant of the fact that he was giving his own biography when he talks of the ideal Christian leader
Historians will privilege the letter
says that only trustworthy theologians are those who have achieved theosis

Basil said monks are supposed to be at the service of the larger world, not totally isolated from it – reading for next class: On the Renunciation of the World & Longer Rules (sections) – not like Benedict’s Rule; this is an after-the-fact (posthumous) collection of Basilian sayings & pieces of advice – most of these recommendations come from when St. Basil was no longer an abbot, but a bishop – disjointed but gives insight into Basilian model of monasticism – Longer Rules

Notes on St. Basil's "On Detachment" and Longer Rules

Thursday, September 24, 2009

St. Basil on Detachment
Audience: lay congregation that may have some monks (professional ascetics) in audience
Context: middle of 4th century, the separation between a monastic Christian and an ascetic Christian was not as sharp as it would be 100 years later – in Basil’s time, the distinction was starting to emerge – monks back then were not priests, Basil starts saying if you are a permanent, professional ascetic, then you need to live by certain rules
Words of Basil not hypocritical; they inspire zeal and contrition – he tries to save them from the tricks of Satan – Satan corrupts people stealthily – must be spiritually alert so as to avoid the many traps that Satan puts in our way – best to pay no attention to the worldly pleasures that can trap us – these are pitfalls, if we are attached to them, we will be dragged into Hell – the present life (while we are wayfarers) is a road, like King St. David says – always be vigilant because this life could end any day – we leave behind good things and keep evil things – even children know that these worldly pleasures are not truly had by us – wealthy men will not always have their large estates (mansions) – those thing’s don’t enter this life with us and they don’t leave this life with us –
Advises not to concern oneself with examining the divine judgments, but stresses that we must be grateful for divine providence
We will be greatly rewarded if we bear our trials with the patience of St. Job
Stoicism rooted in fatalism & cynicism (s*** happens, deal with it), everybody will suffer, so don’t become attached to things and you won’t suffer
St. Job is the only person in history to realize that he is not the owner, but the steward, of the things God have him

St. Basil's Longer Rules
Gregory the Theologian’s idea of asceticism was meditating on a couch
Asceticism = voluntary refraining from worldly pleasures
Demacopoulos's thesis: early Christianity the expectation was that all Christians would all be ascetic, without entailing that all of them must be celibate monks – not all ascetics are monks –
Asceticism denial of food, sleep, sex, talking – St. John Chrysostom destroyed his liver by staying up with chains to read the Gospel in a cave
Demacoupolos’s definition of asceticism = deliberate attempt by Christians to subvert those impulses that lead to temporal gratification (food, lust, power, reputation) and to rechannel one’s energy toward the praise of God – positive attribute (active striving for theosis, not just an active distancing from something)
Authors disagree on the inherent value of
For St. Augustine, the Gnostics are wrong because they suppress the body out of a belief that is evil – instead, the body must be directed toward good ends
Objective reading of St. Symeon Stylite would make us think he does not have a positive view of the body
Exhaustive description of all ways of conduct
How to receive married persons, what age to accept vows,
Context: this is not a coherent text, but a subsequent editorial process by Basil’s monastic communities who looked at the letters Basil sent them over a 20-year period
Benedict (†540) creates the four vows of chastity, poverty, obedience, and stability (once a monk, always a monk)
The Name of the Rose (book)
Spiritual fatherhood concept = monk has to demonstrate ascetic experience and spiritual discernment
Basil organizes on principle that there is an inner circle of fathers who serve as confessors for the younger monks, the highest father being the abbot, and the selection of the new abbot is normally from the ranks of the elders
In Basil's time one could be a father-confessor without being ordained

Notes on McLynn, "Gregory's Basil"

Oration 43 is the Theologian's masterpiece - Amplified version because it strains credulity to think that he would have delivered such a long and detailed speech to a live audience – longer than St. Gregory of Nyssa's tribute to his brother St. Basil
In Caesarea, Gregory was known more as a golden-mouthed preacher than as Basil’s friend
Stark contrast between Oration 43 opening paragraphs and Oration 43 closing paragraphs
Version designed to appeal to the cultural elite of Caesarea – 13 chapters devoted to the education of Basil, in which Gregory played a major part
St. Gregory was the St. Barnabas to the St. Paul of St. Basil (32) – St. Gregory the Elder played the central part in the election of St. Basil to the see of Caesarea, but St. Basil never mentions this in his works
Valens was trembling when he saw the Samuel-like Basil – most people didn’t see Valens tremble because he had his back to the congregation
Basil spoke to Gregory in his dreams (80), and now they will be partners in Heaven (82), like they were on earth
Basil often imitated, but St. Gregory is his true spiritual and intellectual heir
Gregory's compilation of correspondence not just routine, since he is the first Greek author to do so
Ep. 53 Gregory calls him “Basil the Great”
Gregory originally arranged his letters after (beneath) those of Basil
Paul Gallay’s arrangement destroys the close connection between the letters of the two saints (for example B71 answers G58)

Homoousios – St. Athanasios the Great coins this term in 325 to describe the Son’s relationship to the Father
Basil the first person to write book on the Spirit, without expressly calling Him God,
Picture of St. Gregory the Elder: non-Christian rich country bumpkin converted by his wife, becomes bishop
St. Gregory the Elder signed an Arian creed, fixed Church after the mistake of his unsophisticated father – orations 4, 5, & 6
Schism: Sizzm
St. Jerome mean-spirited & cruel, but we pay attention to him because he taught us how to interpret the Bible
All the saints he knew hated him because he always picked fights
Elder tricks younger Gregory into becoming a deacon
Basil and Gregory had different views of asceticism – Gregory’s is intellectual, whereas Basil's is eat grass and sleep on the ground
De facto/practically the bishop in his father’s place – Basil bishop of most important see of Asia Minor at the time (major metropolitan area) – bishops' jurisdictions are exactly the same as the secular provincial jurisdictions of the Roman Empire – emperor cuts Basil’s jurisdiction in half because Basil is, unlike him, not an Arian – Basil appointed many new bishops to gain numbers for the orthodox – Gregory too proud to accept bishopric of the dustbowl of Sasyma – lots of nasty letters back and forth – Gregory serves as a priest in convent for eight years, sipping wine and contemplating God – Constantinople now the center of the world – orthodox population in Constantinople almost extinct due to Arianism – evil Valens died – convinced Gregory to go to Constantinople – delivers five public orations, winning over everyone to orthodoxy – 381 Second Ecumenical Council – not going far enough for Gregory, who wants to extend homoousios to the Holy Spirit in the Creed, so he threatens to resign (rhetorical bluff) – goes home to Nazianzus after retiring in the middle of the most important Council in Christianity -
Gregory thought himself to be the rightful bishop of Constantinople, since he never celebrated Mass in Sasyma – very bitter because no one appreciates his life of service, and Basil died just before Constantinople I – question: Is Gregory just feeling sorry for himself? Is he blaming Basil unjustly?
Basil appointed him because they were best friends and he assumed Gregory would go with it –
Never trust a politician’s theology, because it is always politically motivated.
(1) thinks Sasyma is beneath him
(2) thinks Basil used him as a pawn
(3) thinks it undermines his efforts in Constantinople – political enemies in Constantinople got the better of him in 381

all formal education is in pagan texts – no other option except being homeschooled
defense of Basil’s and his education because that was the source of their authority
43:11 paraphrases Basil to defend education in pagan school – like a poisonous snake from which medicine can come

"din of wagons, laments, groans"
"the pretext was souls"

otium = Latin for leisure, allowing for unfettered contemplation, freedom from clerical responsibilities –

360s Athanasios changed hagiography by writing a biography of someone who was not a martyr
Gregory of Nyssa, as one who always thinks outside the box, writes of the Old Testament St. Moses, unbelievably allegorical and spiritual manner of writing –
Moses was well-educated (son of Pharaoh) and he was an ascetic (40 years in the desert) – Moses only becomes a good leader after those two criteria
Gregory spiritualizes the life of Moses for Christian living

Notes on St. Gregory the Theologian's "On Himself and the Bishops"

Thursday, September 17, 2009
Notes for
St. Gregory the Theologian's "On Himself and the Bishops"
Maybe he should imitate Christ and bear his sufferings patiently without a violent backlash of harsh words, so he can receive a greater reward – but somebody needs to condemn their wicked conduct – the bishops, whose fate is left to the final purging fire [1 Corinthians 3], are soul-destroying assassins (&mis-kree-uhnts) – not going to name names & violate privacy – leopards and lions are gentle compared to bad bishops – these wolves in sheep’s clothing have dignity of office but not the grace to do good works -

Cynical attitude: workers do not profit from their work; Gregory ascetic but the bad bishops worldly, yet they are successful & considered virtuous
The "upright" but anonymous Basil (with others) convinced him by all sorts of prayers and protestations to become the bishop of the minuscule Sasima – couldn't help but accept the appointment, or else he would sin by pride – totally unprepared, despite rumors, to rule at Sasima
His only faults over the last three years have been his toleration of the bad bishops and his exhausting anxiety
Early ministry 115-135
He instilled Trinitarian orthodoxy and living faith (charity) in the residents, as people in Rome knew (e.g., Emperor St. Theodosius [Theo-doh-shee-uss] the Great, commemorated January 17) – these great people who knew him well blame his opponents, not him
Resignation 136-175
Thrace, northeastern Greece, area of Thessalonica
Envious bishops exiled him just for being moderate in his outlook, but he accepted it because he, as the good wheat, would rather be separate from the tares
Snobbery (according to the footnote): he discredits them, explaining their iniquity in the context of their low backgrounds (social status) – they are immature in that they haven't yet graduated/separated themselves from their past careers – plenty of ad hominem attacks (dung beetles)
What a bishop is 176-191
Bishop “should be the very best” so they can be firm in the faith and protect/shepherd and not forfeit many souls; implies that his enemy bishops are from among the very worst
Apostles as Bishops 192-261
Counterargument: saintly apostles were bishops who converted many by their preaching, but they came from inferior backgrounds
A simple-minded man (without secular education) living in absolute poverty can be a bishop of angelic virtue
Real deal: the apostles wrote things upon which there are numerous commentaries, things which Gregory has to work very hard to understand
Ignorant bishops are venomous serpents
Well-formed, Candid Speakers
Composition is twofold: thought & expression (be straightforward with simple language rather than flowery without substance)
If you can’t even begin to explain the mysteries of the faith at all, you are blind and not worthy to be a bishop
The bishops collectively constitute a den of thieves – hard enough to achieve theosis with good role models who succeeded the apostles, and even worse when the bishops are evil
Hasty Choice 371-394
Bishops chosen not based on any credentials or merit, but the sole fact that they are willing to rule
Level of dignity does not correspond to the training/experience/testing the bishop had –
Examples 395-453
Former lawyer sins against chastity and sobriety by partying with dirty dancers and drinking too much wine – contrast Simon Peter with Simon Magnus
Ex-publican or ex-soldier now sins against justice by his hoarding and misappropriation of funds
Some bestowal of grace in the enthronement ceremony
Haggai (not Micah as Gregory mistakenly said) teaches us that it is easier to do evil than good: sanctified meat does not purify the things it touches, and profane things make common the holy things they touch
The bishops will scandalize unbelievers if they set a bad example, because unbelievers measure the quality of religious faith by good reputation alone
Is Grace Sufficient? 541-574
Cause for great concern when the flock is holier than the shepherd
The Good Shepherd 576-609
Bishops’ Fashions

Nectarios (pronounce it Spanish-style) – first member of the senatorial committee to become bishop of Constantinople – no background in the Church – Gregory says he became bishop because he’s a politician – oftentimes he rants towards Nectarios
Gregory comes from the kind of money (rather than role) of the senatorial class (not actually a senatorial person, but he was indeed an aristocrat)
Assassination attempts from Arian mobs who threw stones at him and destroyed the altar of the churches at which he was preaching

In Pre-Constantinian Church (all bishops are ascetic), two criteria: (1) willing to accept martyrdom as a bishop; (2) sufficient education to be able to teach & convert (they knew the traditions)
4th century (total upheaval in the system): St. Constantine the Great makes the position of bishop a coveted position (all the upper classes want to become bishops)
unanticipated consequence of St. Constantine’s policy: mass conversions to monasticism -
post-Constantinian: split into the old Roman spirituality, and the ________
St. Gregory the Theologians wants to bring the two traditions back together, and he does this by arguing that the most qualified person for the episcopate is someone with the aristocratic background of wealth, privilege, and education (a fundamentally classist society), and only that aristocrat who has abandoned all these privileges
So Gregory critiques the non-aristocrats, and the aristocrats who are not ascetic
Beginning in the 4th century, a tradition began to circulate that celibacy was required for being a bishop – he, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose, and ______ are responsible for this tradition
People identified as saints tend to fit the profile

Cappadocian Fathers said that although rebaptism of Arians was theologically accurate, it was pastorally ineffective – instead they should have them recite the Nicene Creed
Ejected because he was too moderate with the Arians, bc he insisted so strenuously that homoousios be predicated of the Holy Spirit, and bc he did not play the political games
He thought he could outmaneuver them by announcing he would resign, but they called his bluff and forced him to resign in order to save his honor
Council of Chalcedon – person and essence redefined as categories – homoousios extended to the Spirit then, but not actually inserted into the Creed
Intention when it was written was to follow the advice of Basil in on the Holy Spirit: it is too contentious to insert, if we do, we will
His theology was why he was an ascetic
St. Gregory the Theologian is an utter perfectionist, which is why his writings are so beautiful

Notes on St. Gregory of Nyssa's "On the Making of Man"

Monday, October 19, 2009
Nyssa: On the Making of Man
Basil's is exegetical, Nyssa’s is philosophical/speculative
Hylomorphist? Knowledge through the senses,
This is much more philosophically oriented, goes into deep biological questions -
Three collectively always thought to be Neo-Platonist
(1) external truth that we can’t really get
(2) tripartite soul
(3) emotion & the senses are really bad things – elements that can be useful, but more often than not they will deceive you about what is (Boethius)
Nyssa’s statement about senses: any thing comes to us from multiple applications of the senses,
Not so anti-sensory as Plato or Boethius, but true knowledge, even of the world, requires something of an ascetic filter of the soul – senses corrupted for wrong purpose, but via ascetic discipline, then body, as a creation of God, is better able to bring in unsoiled information about the world
Nyssa is not Platonist, but Neoplatonist
Reading Plotinus (ploh-tyne-uss)
Nyssa more willing to appropriate Aristotelean ideas than Nazianzen was – latter said knowledge comes from contemplation of God, not observation of the world
Not Aristotelean, but more room in his view than in Nazianzen’s paradigm
Descartes uses dreams to undermine power/reliability of the senses – Nyssa does not do this, but the fact of dreams troubled him -
Nous = rational faculty of the soul
Can’t apply ascetic filter in dreams
Solution: improve character
Nyssa thinks dreams disconnect the rational control of the soul
Postlapsarian dreams are dangerous
Nyssa articulates the Trinity as we understand it better than anyone – only one of the three stays till the end of the Second Council
Nyssa sees birth pangs and menstruation are consequences of the fall, not result of personal faults

Cappadocian account of consequences: world transformed due to introduction of sin and our alienation from God – we are not individually culpable when we eat/have sex/have period
Nyssa seems to have prelapsarian gender distinction that is somehow distinct from physical/bodily distinction – for Nyssa, we can’t know what prelapsarian bodies looked like – it did look different, because they are only embarrassed at their nakedness afterward
For Basil, we are created in image of God but we have lost the likeness
Gregory talks about innate spiritual senses that somehow parallel physical senses
Nyssa the first Christian author to really talk about spiritual senses
Why are Adam and Eve allowed to eat if they don’t need to?
Ascetic hermeneutic – Tertullian said first sin was gluttony: eating something they did not need to it
Authors committed to seeing prelapsarian state as an ascetic one, whereas now we need asceticisim to bring us back to prelapsarian state – a lot of the earliest guys think the first sin was gluttony
Was he an environmentalist?
Environmental stewardship?
Nyssa said human populations would expand, but in a different way than they do now

Notes on Elm's "The Diagnostic Gaze"

Thursday, October 8, 2009
Elm, The Diagnostic Gaze

Most scholars see Gregory as incompetent and not a theorist of the ecclesiastic office, but when heresy became too tricky for good leaders to just have simple faith, it was St. Gregory the Theologian who was responsible for inventing the model of the ideal priest who was both an aristocrat and an ascetic philosopher with enough training to have the diagnostic gaze to discern heresy, appear credible, and heal souls.
When Gregory fled during the homoioan controversy in which his saintly father was involved, he had the opportunity to articulate this theory on the necessary characteristics of a good priest.
Harmonize Gregory and Athanasius: Gregory talks about post-fall while Athanasius talks about pre-fall human nature – George sees their anthropologies on the same page
Demacopoulos, Gregory Nazianzen’s Struggle of Synthesis
Gregory’s abandonment of Sasima essentially uncanonical
Failure as a politician
Upon his ascendancy to the see of Constantinople everyone, inc. Gregory, knew he was the wrong man for the job – even early orations, after multiple edits, have traces of bitterness about what transpired at Sasima & Constantinople
Gregory links the potential for Christian leadership to social class
Gregory did more than anyone before him to develop duties of spiritual direction – most creative attempt to synthesize the ascetic and clerical models and he was responsible for instilling the idea that this synthesis was not just possible, but necessary
Gregory more inclined to classical model of ascetic philosopher: attempts to be austere & avoid ambition, but still a life of leisure (something reserved to the aristocratic class), don’t go for fine food & sex, but drink wine and theologize – upbringing led him to this model as opposed to that of St. Symeon Stylites
Gregory’s classical model: not all aristocrats are philosophers, but the aristocrats on the right path become philosophers
Anthony in the Desert is a critique of the Nazianzen type of asceticism
Gregory did not like the idea of living in community – half of why he didn’t like Basil’s model may have been his distaste for being around people, other part may be because he didn’t like weaving baskets, etc. – but he definitely admired the Athanasian and Basilian ascetic models – everyone has a specific path to theosis
Gregory the first Christian writer to talk about theosis, mystical union with God – for everyone it will ultimately require silence, stillness, and asceticism but there will be different patterns for everyone
Never confuse early Christian leadership with Democracy – Dr. GD 3:12 P.M.
Is Gregory trying to protect his laity from error or trying to protect his own authority?
Seems sincere about his desire for the salvation of others because of his economy of receiving repentant heretics – whole
Tiny percentage of Syrian, Egyptian, and Palestinian literature is doctrinal – almost all practical -

Creed was Homoian: The Father and the Son are of a similar essence
Why did the Elder sign it? could be (1) emperor had gun to his head (lose jurisdiction, go into exile); (2) he believed it (difference between two wasn’t worth fight, bigger church with fuzzy understanding better than narrow church with precise understanding); (3) not sophisticated enough to understand the evil implications of the creed
Homoianism the dominant position for 40 years (two generations in antiquity); in hindsight, it gets dismissed rather quickly – no intellectual giant ever defended the creed – only had politicians advancing the middle position;
Group that breaks away from the Elder is essentially the monastic community;

Notes on Oration 2 of St. Gregory the Theologian

Monday, October 5, 2009
Oration 2
No one had ever identified the real roles of priesthood, pointed out the pitfalls, and chartered a course for a successful priesthood
Not a systematic treatise; not a book on the priesthood like subsequent authors will write (Sts. Augustine, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, Ambrose)
Oration rhetorically & structurally styled as a defense of his flight, but within which there are series of theories about pastoral leadership – his theories are to be considered as advances –
Content: who should & who should not be a priest,
Previous lists about credentials of a bishop, but no one had really articulated the responsibilities of pastoral leadership
How a priest is best able to navigate
How Old Testament saints possessed the necessary pastoral virtues
Only Christian author Gregory the Great cites on pastoral care is Gregory the Theologian
What is Gregory actually saying:
No inexperienced pastor is qualified to give advice – experience: ascetic credentials, not desire anything, intellectual & theological sophistication to have all the answers,

Notes On St. Basil's On the Human Condition

Thursday, October 15, 2009
Aristotle: women was a not-yet-fully-formed man, so to some extent she was an imperfect human; Platonist model: one could only love/have a kinship with one’s equal –
Chrysostom: men & women can be equals in Christ – but Chrysostom's pastoral advice is completely laden with patriarchal roles
Basil is the least victimized by his era in terms of his view of male-female equality
Order of deaconess survives in the Eastern Church until the 10th century – order exploded in 4th century (trusted nuns could take active role in catechizing adult women converts, and baptism, which was done in the nude)
All clerics receive Eucharist in altar prior to reception by the laity (in the Orthodox rite), but there is debate on whether deaconesses receive at same time as clerics
Basil was ever the pragmatist
No "Jesus is my buddy" in the 4th century – horribly anachronistic – Apostles were not friends of Jesus, because they were not equals: Jesus was the Teacher and they were Disciples, so they were not friends in the classical Greek category of friendship
Susanna Elm argues that one of reasons for Basil pushing away from Eustathius is that the latter had women shave their heads – she argues that Basil was not willing to endorse something so politically radical; Basil was probably sufficiently radical to say that male & female souls are equal
All marriage in late antiquity is a political game – children were political pawns
Basil's family: "this is what a good girl does"
Long-time scholarly consensus: no question whatsoever that if you were a late-antiquity or middle age women and you wanted to move beyond birth status, asceticism was the ONLY path to doing so (only way to get authority, learning, etc.)
Migne = Minn-yuh
Modern environmental movement until last 15 years, saw Christianity as the enemy to the environment – British colonists understood injunctions in Genesis as “to subdue and tame the world”
Here in US the religious right is bedfellows with political right, & the latter are, for who knows what reason, staunchly anti-environmental
Rule, not tyranny
What is Basil doing with this text? How is the text functioning in his presentation?

Notes On Some of St. Basil's Hexaemeron

Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Basil's Hexaemeron: Homilies 2, 3, & 5

Septuagint (sep-too-ah-jint) – 3rd century B.C. translation of Old Testament into Greek – Christ quotes the Septuagint in the New Testament
None of the 20,000 medieval NT manuscripts are identical – there are only two identical manuscripts of the NT at all – textual criticism: attempt to guess what the original words were based on manuscript family trees – most people rely on Nestle-Olan edition (not the answer, but the best) – we have first century BC manuscript of Septuagint – before discovery Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew OT manuscript was from the 11th century A.D. – thousands of textual variants between the two – conclusively shown that the Septuagint was far more reliable, even in translation, than the 11th century Hebrew manuscripts that provide basis for all Old Testaments we have every read - Gospel authors quote the Septuagint
Unparalleled look into the way Basil's mind works – oldest extant thorough Christian commentary on creation – Ambrose does the same thing in Latin ten years later
Ephrem and Basil are contemporaries – might have had access
Motivation behind the homilies: Eight services a day in monastic -Eastern Christian liturgical cycle: beginning of Lent begins with Genesis – expected to preach on the daily readings – scribes in the audience thought his insights were worth saving for posterity – no way of knowing if they quote him verbatim
Lesson in exegesis: how to apply sciences to what the Bible says;
Basil does speculate on what the firmament is: goal is to condemn pagan errors about matter being eternal/uncreated
Basil's answer was that the first days are figures of speech: thousands of years; after day four, we get the 24-hour days
In sixth homily he says, before sun was created, God marked day and night in His own way
Before the Fall, nothing would die (true for Chrysostom, true for Basil if memory serves) – sin brings in death not just for humanity, for the universe – Chrysostom: no tidal waves/hurricanes
Chrysostom said it never rains until Noah; firmament breaks and there is enough water – Chrysostom: progressively worse until Christ’s First Coming
Gregory of Nyssa says that the physical markings of gender were not present until after the Fall
Evil = absence of goodness; we are the ones who are responsible for injecting evil into the world
Pastoral device: look to prevent sin within yourself

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Monika the Modernist Indeed

Mirror link

1. My very learned friend James Likoudis, President of Catholics United for the Faith, is right to call the late Monika K. Hellwig a Modernist. I have the 2002 second edition her book Understanding Catholicism, and it's hard to read it without thinking that she teaches some of the Modernist errors condemned in the 7/3/1907 encyclical Lamentibili Sane of Pope St. Pius X of Rome. Many of her statements seem infected with a disturbing ambiguity, and I was scandalized today when I read the following in Chapter 5: "The Death of Jesus, Our Liberation," pp. 88-89. I give the full context and have emboldened the poisonous statements:
Though the role of Messiah was in the first place a religious idea, the term was bound to be of interest to the Roman conquerors because it could be applied to a military leader, and indeed there were from time to time claimants to messiahship who tried to organize a rebellion. Actually, it appears that Jesus himself did not claim the role of Messiah during his lifetime. It was his disciples who later used that as the preferred and most common title, so that we know him as Christ (which means Messiah) almost as though that had been his surname, and it seems to us that he must always have been so named. If Jesus himself did not claim the title of Messiah, that may have been done for several reasons.
2. The 28th proposition the great Pope St. Pius X condemns reads, "While He was exercising His ministry, Jesus did not speak with the object of teaching He was the Messias..." However, on p. 89 Hellwig says, "Secondly, he was not concerned with claiming any titles, because his focus was not on himself but on the coming reign of God among human persons."

3. How can we take seriously someone who, while claiming to explain the teaching of the Church, doubts whether Christ called Himself the Messiah during His life on earth? Jn 4:25-26 says, "The woman said to him, 'I know that the Messiah is coming, the one called the Anointed; when He comes, He will tell us everything.' Jesus said to her, 'I am He, the One Who is speaking with you.'" Recall also what our Lord said in front of the High Priest in Mk 14:61-62. St. Mark the Evangelist (†4/25/68) narrates, "But He was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him and said to Him, 'Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?' Then Jesus answered, 'I am; and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of Heaven.'"

Current Projects

Right now I'm working on transcribing the Latin of three important works in Patrologia Graeca written to refute the anti-Filioque arguments of Mark of Ephesus. The transcription will take a long time. It's hard to tell apart the c's and e's in Migne. I'm also trying to give some extremely rough translations or at least approximations of the thoughts of the writers with what little knowledge I have of Latin (if anyone has the time or interest to translate, your help would be much appreciated!!!). Here are the links:
(1) Gregory III Mammas Refutes Mark of Ephesus on Filioque [PG 160:14A-110B]
(2) Georgios Scholarios Refutes Mark of Ephesus on Filioque [PG 161:11A-138B]
(3) Bessarion Refutes Mark of Ephesus on Filioque [PG 161:138C-248A]

So far here's what I've transcribed for each text (bold & underlined font indicates that I have attempted to give a very rough translation):
(1) GP, M1, G1, M2, G2, M3, M4, M5, M6, M7, M8, M9, M10, M11, M12, M13, M14, M15, M16, M17, M18, M19, M20
(2) M1, G1, M2, M3, M4, G4, M5, G5, M6, G6, M7, M8, G8, M9, G9, M11, G11, M12
(3) B1, M18, M19, M20, M21, M22, B22, M23, B23, M25, B25, M26, B26, M29, M30, M36

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Gregory III Mammas Refutes Mark of Ephesus on Filioque

Mirror link

Latin from Patrologia Graeca 160:14A-110B (some of the words are hard to read, so feel free to offer corrections; thanks and God bless you and yours!). I hope I can someday translate it; I plan on taking Latin and Greek classes in the coming years, because I will need to know those languages to get a Ph.D. If you or someone you know will translate it, even better! Still to come: 29B-110B.

Gregory's Preface: Ephesiorum urbis antistes dominus Marcus, qui ex patronymia quadam vocatur Eugenicus, beati Pauli voce audita, quæ ita præcipit: Corde creditur ad justitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem, scripto confessionem consignavit, ut manifestam eam redderet non solum iis qui prope ipsi sunt, sed et iis qui longinqui et procul degunt. Ideo necessarium est iis, quibus ea ad manus venit, scrutari, an cum beatorum Patrum theologicis institutionibus concordet, ut omnes, si ita est, eam amplectantur velut illorum traditionibus consonantem; et gratias deinde agere ei qui illam conscripsit, etque [?] adhærere magis quam iis qui aliter prædicant; si vero aliter se habet et non secundum accuratam theologrum traditionem, id indicare in veritatis manifestationem oportebit. Et nos igitur cum illa nuper ad manus nostras pervenerit, perscrutani eam studebimus, et quidquid invenerimus bene recteque exponsitum et declaratum, uti dicet, libenter amplectemer; quiquid vero secus, i [?] doctorum et theologorum armis refutabimus. Neque vero hoc mirandum, si scripta viri, qui in grammatica disciplina et in scribendis libris celebre nomen adeptus est et scholæ [?] puerorum dicturno tempore præfuit, anneab indocto ac rudi homine subjiciuntur examini; oportet enim eum, qui illi jungitur et unitur, non simpliciter ei adhærere, nisi sententiam, quam tenet, explorarit, maxime cum et ad impugnandam œcumenicam synodum ipse insurgat. Si itaque et rudes sumus, novimus tamen eum qui divit, id quod sæpe perfectis non adfuit, puerum invenisse, et quod sapientes fugit, idiotis apparuisse, et quod magistrat latuit, discipulis affulsisse. Congruum itaque est, quæ ipse omisit, vel quæ eum latmerunt ac largerunt [?], exquirere ac diligenter animadvertere et notare; putamus enim et nos Spiritum Dei habere. Sed ne longius [?] sermonem protrabamus, ad ipsam Confessionem accedamus per partes eam pertractantes, primus [?] ex ipsa partem proponentes, consequenter vero defensionem, ipsamque ex Ecclesiæ docoribus ac theologis confirmantes. Verba vero honorabilis Ephesii sic se habent:
Mark: Ego, Dei gratia piis dogmatibus innutritus et sanctam et catholicam Ecclesiam sequens per omnia, credo et Confiteor Deum et Patrem solum ingenium et principii expertem, fontem vero et causam Filii et spiritus sancti; etenim Filius ex ipso [?] genitus est, et Spiritus ex ipso procedit, neque Filius quidquam confert ad processionem, quemadmodum neque Spiritus ad generationem; sive simul progressions fieri et secum invicem, ut Patres theologi docent; i circo enim et Spiritus sanctus per Filium procedere dicitur, hoc est cum Filio et sicut Filius, licet non per generationis modum ut ille; Filius vero non dicitur per Spiritum generari, propterea quod relativum est Filii nomen, ne Filius Spiritus esse videatur.
Gregory: Iste igitur hunc in modum hanc theologiam a sanctis semet accepisse ostendere nititur. Nos vero dicimus, quod si hæc fidei expositio intemeratam Patrum sequeretur doctrinam, facile et nobis videretur admittenda et digna quæ cum veneratione susciperetur. Quoniam vero statim atque in ipso exerdio sublesta quædam illi immiscuit, aqualia sunt ista [?]: «Nihil Filius confert ad processionem sive secundum simul fieri progressiones», deinde, «Idcirco enim et Spiritus sanctus per Filium procedere dicitur, hoc est cum Filio,» quæ manifeste novæ sunt assertiones et longe a doctorum mente alienæ, age jam per Ecclesiæ doctores contraria ipsius sententiæ proponamus in veræ theologiæ nostræ testimonium; exinde enim nobis dogmatum veritas fluit. Dicit namque magnus Athanasius: «Quæcunque habet Spiritus, hæc a Verbo habet accepta,» et Gregorius Nyssenus libro tertio contra Macedonianos ait: «In quibus enim quæ secundum bonum operatio est, nullam imminutionem aut immutationem habet; quomodo rationi consentaneum fuerit, ordinem secundum namerum imminutionis alicujus aut secundum naturam immutationis signum esse existimare? Quemadmodum si quis in tribus lampadibus subdivisam flammam conspiciens, causam vero tertii luminis supponamus esse primam flammam ex cum medio extremum inflammantem, postmodum astrueret, in prima flamma abundare calorem, eam vero quæ subsequitur, immutari et paulatim immunui, tertiam vero nec ignem amplius censendam esse, licet æqua ratione adurat et splendeat, omniaque quæ sunt ignis, operetur.» Ex hoc igitur sancti exemplo manifestum est, tertium ex primo per medium essentialiter habere exsistentiam; namque ex communicatione cum medio extremum inflammari dixit. Sanctus vero Damascenus capite tertio decimo Theologicorum, «Ipse igitur», inquit (videlicet Pater), Verbi abyssus, Verbi genitor et per Verbum revelantis et explanantis Spiritus productor,» unde apertum est, illud per Filium non idem significare ac cum Filio, etiamsi ipse (Eph.) hoc pertinaciter asserat. Sed neque progressiones sunt simul. Et confirmat hoc Gregorius Theologus dicens: «Apparitionis vel mutuæ habitudinis diversitas diversam quoque corum appellationem effecit;» perspicuum enim, quod si simul essent progressiones, hand dixisset diversum esse apparitionis modum [?]. Dicere idem quis poterit et clarius ex cæteris quoque Ecclesiæ theologis et doctoribus. Ait enim Athanasius libro tertio Contra Arianos: «Non Spiritus conjungit Patri Verbum, sed Spiritus a Verbo id accipit», et in epistola ad Serapionem: «Talem naturam et ordinem habet Spiritus ad Filium qualem Filius ad Patrem.» Alterum minime theologorum sententiæ expositio ista consonat; neque vox per Filium concordat illi voci cum Filio: nemo enim Sanctorum hanc exposuit theologiam. Nam si endem est præpositio per cum præpositione cum, ut iste dicit, «Procedit Spiritus per Filium, hoc est cum Filio,» licebit dicere et vice versa, generari et Filium ex Patre per Spiritum. Quod vero præpositio per non significat simul procedere Filium et Spiritum, ad id probandum procedant Ecclesiæ theologi, litem dirimant et hanc perversam judicent expositionem. Ait enim Nyssenus libro primo Adversus Eunomium, «Quemadmodum conjungitur Patri Filius et, licet ex illo originem ducat, tamen secundum exsistentiam non est posterior, ita et Unigenito adhæret sanctus Spiritus, sola ratione secundum causæ rationem præ Spiritus exsistentia præintellecto.» Et Basilius divus, t. XVII, ad Amphilochium dicet: «Sicut igitur se habet Filius ad Patrem, ita et ad Filium Spiritus secundum traditum a Verbo ordinem. Quod si Spiritus cum Filio una collocatur, et Filius cum Patre, collocabitur et Spiritus cum Patre.» Esse vero etiam ordinem in sancta Trinitate, quem omnes pic prædicantes custodiant oportet, ipse Basilius declarat epistola ad canonicas concludendo dicens: «Usque adeo hæc de ordine innovatio ipsius substantiæ annihilationem et fidei totius abnegationem habet. Æque ergo impium est et ad creaturas Spiritum detrudere et superiorem Filio vel Patre satuere sive secundum tempus sive secundum ordinem.» Et rursum idem epistola ad Gregorium fratem: «Quemadmodum in catena,» inquit, «qui unius annuli summitatem apprehendit, hoc ipso simul et alterum insterum attrahit, ita et hic Spiritum trahit, per ipsum et Filium et Patrem simul attraxit; et Filium si quis vere apprehenderit, habebit et ipsum utrinquehinc Patrem illius, illinc Spiritum sanctum una compactum.» Hac ratione sancti distinctionem in divinis personis prædicant et naturam divisionis expertem confitentur. Et Gregorius Nyssenus ait: «Immutabilem et per omnia similem naturam confitentes, discrimen causæ et causati non inficiamur, in quo solum disjungi alterum ab altero deprehendimus, cum credamus, hoc quidem causam esse, illud autem ex causa, et illius, quod ex causa est, aliud rursus discrimen comprehendimus; namque hoc quidem est immediate a primo, illud vero per id, quod contigue et immediate est ex primo, adeo ut Unigeniti natio absque dubio in Filio permaneat et ex Patre esse Spiritum nulli dubium sit, Filio, qui medius est, sibi ipsi Unigeniti rationem conservante et Spiritum a naturali ad Patrem habitudine minime arcente.» Idcirco et nos, mediationem Filii secundum Patrum scripta in sancta Trinitate asserentes, neque secundum localem quamdam distantiam, neque secundum ea, quæ in materia et corporum crassitie copulantur, eam intelligimus, verum secundum dignitatem substantiæ illius omnis materiæ expertis, quæ in tres personas immateriales et subsistentes distinguitur. Conjungitur enim in distinctione et in conjunctione distinguitur. Verum neque seipsum veretur honorabilis iste Ephesinus antistes post pauca sanctum Nyssenum adducens ita dicentem: «Filius Spiritus sancti neque est neque dicitur; neque contra vertitur relativa ista consequentia.» Propterea Spiritus sanctus imago Filii dicitur, ut ait divus Apostolus; ex quo desumptum idem dicit magnus Basilius, et Joannes Damascenus in canone in sanctum Basilium ait: «Imago Patris est Filius, et imago Filii Spiritus exsistit.» Eodem pacto et substantialis ac naturalis Filii operatio dicitur penes SS. Patres Spiritus sanctus, et ex essentia Filii; Filius autem neque imago Spiritus dicitur neque virtus neque operatio naturalis et substantialis, neque ex essentia Spiritus Filius. Quamobrem neque simultaneam progressionem quam dicit Ephesius, neque phrasis per Filium pro locutione cum Filio adhibitam unquam apud SS. Patres fuisse poterit ostendere, cum tamen «Spiritum ex Patre per Filium procedere» multi Patres prædicent, et ipsa sancta et œcumenica synodus. Verum sufficere censeo ea quæ dicta sunt ad demonstrandum locutionem per Filium procedere non significare procedere cum Filio vel una cum Filio, tum per (propter) diversum exsistentiæ modum, tum quia non distinctionem ista signifcant, sed unionem, et non ordinem.

Mark: Exinde et Spiritus quidem Filii dicitur, quia ei secundum naturam proprius est et per ipsum apparet et datur [?] hominibus; Filius autem Spiritus neque est neque dicitur teste Nysseno Gregorio.
Editor: And furthermore they say the Spirit of the Son, because He is His according to nature and is manifested and delivered to men through Him; however, the Son neither is nor is said to be (the cause) of the Spirit in the testimony of Gregory of Nyssa.
Gregory: Convenit igitur hac in parte honorabili Ephesio dicere, ad modum præclaram esse inventionem et expositionem; nam per hoc dictum sustutisti illud, cum Filio et una cum Filio. Si enim locutio per Filium significaret, simul et una cum Filio procedere Spiritum, omnino et Filius per Spiritum esse diceretur. Verum summus iste Theologus: «Spiritus sanctu,» inquit, «neque est neque dicitur.» Sed et a junctum habent ea verba, quod ipse omisit; «Nec convertitur relativa ista sequela.» Itaque per hoc cum antea dictis et istud concordat et præclare omnino declarat vocem per Filium non significare cum Filio. Et illud, quod ex divo Basilio in medium affert, propterea quod secundum naturam proprius sit Filii, Spiritum Filii dici, recte dicit. Eunomius enim cum audiret eum una cum aliis, quæ dixit, ostendentem, ejusdem deitatis esse Spiritum sanctum, inimicus Deo ac male sentiens tertiæ naturæ cum esse contendit, ut Basilius libro primo patefacit ejus malam opinionem refellens atque dicens: «Spiritus Christi dicitur ut secundum naturam illi conjunctas,» atque plura profert testimonia tum per angelos tum per sidera et per cœlestes mansiones, ut demonstret, eos, licet ordine differant, non tamen substantia differre. Propterea et Spiritum Christi ut secundum naturam ipsi conjunctum dixit; hoc est: etsi et Filii est et dicitur Spiritus ipso Christo Spiritum veritatis appellante et Apostolo prædicante: Si quis Spiritum Christi non habet, non est ejus, tamen unus est natura et indivisus, et non sicut infelix Eunomius sentichat, qui solo Filio causam (Spiritus) ascripsit et eum effectum naturæ Filii vocavit et gradus induxit divinitatum, verum secundum naturam est in Filio cum una et indivisa natura ac deitas sit in Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto. Nam essentia et natura et deitas in tribus personis una est numero et velut [?] una res est in divinis personis, nullam omnino habens distinctionem, etsi divinæ personæ distinguuntur. Non enim ratione tantum natura et essentia et deitas est in divinis personis, sed ut res se liabet. Hoc explanat divus Maximus in disputatione Anomæi; cum enim iste sancto Maximo diceret: «Aliud essentia et aliud persona, ille ait: Aliud et aliud non unam rem dixerunt.» Si quis igitur putat, quia secundum naturam proprius est Filii, ideo solummodo Spiritum sanctum Filii esse dici, primo divinarum personarum naturam distinctam existimat, quod longe ab omni Christiano sensu aliest [?]; cum enim una sit numero, quomodo distinctionem habebit? Unum namque ad seipsum realem distinctionem non constituit. Quo itaque pacto iste hæc cogitet vel quonam consilio posuerit, haud perspicimus. Quod vero per Filium appareat Spiritus atque donetur, potius naturalem progressionem declarat; ideoque sancti etiam hac in re concordant; perspicuum namque ex eo id fit, quod theologi eodem utuntur vocabulo ad Filii quoque generationem declarandam. Etenim divus Cyrillus in Evangelii verba: In principio erat Verbum, «Quamvis, inquit, in Patre et ex Patre intelligatur et dicatur, tamen nobis minime ut alienus et peregrinus vel ut secundus post ipsum intrabit, sed ut in ipso exsistens et semper cum ipso exsistens et ex ipso apparens secundum divinæ generatio is ineffabilem modum.» Et rursus in idem dictum ait: «Necessario beatus Evangelista acrius in eos insurgit, qui diversa docent, et ab omni servitute Filium eximit, et ex libera rerumque omnium domina substantia apparentem ostendit, atque in ipsa naturaliter exsistere asseverat, dicens: In principio erat Verbum Et in illud: Et Deus erat Verbum, ita disserit, «Dominum, qui nos emit abnegantes propterea quod putant eum secundum naturam non esse Deum ex Deo et Patre apparens Verbum, sed quasi spurium quemdam et falsi nominis nobis intrudi.» Et rursum idem libro quinto ad Hermiam: «Deinde honorare se arbitrantur Patrem, dum Filium ex eo secundum naturam natum suis calculis ad minorem dignitatem dejiciunt.» Et divinus Basilius in Antirrheticis, «Spiritus, inquit, sanctus perfectissimus est, quapropter penes eum cuncta perfecta.» Et post pauca: «Nihil in se babet (Spiritus) ascititium, sed ab æterno omnia possidet ut Spiritus Dei et ex eo apparens, principium sui habens ut fontem sui ipsius et exinde fluens.» Et Cyrillus, in oratione quæ incipit: «Ejus quæ apud homines est gloriæ,» ait: «Proprius est Spiritus Filii, non ea ratione tantum, qua Verbum est apparens ex Patre, sed ea etiam, qua a nobis concipitur factus homo.» Quod vero ad illud spectat, quod Spiritus nobis datur per Filium, nisi et per Filium esse intelligatur, qui eum dat Filius minister potius statuitur. At istud non permittit beatus Cyrillus, qui in expositione evangelici illius dicti, Cum autem venerit Paracletus, Spiritus veritatis, hæc habet: «Nam sicuti Filii Spiritus est proprius, naturaliter in ipso exsistens et per ipsium progrediens, ita certe Patris quoque est proprius. Quibus autem Spiritus communis est, his [?] profecto et ea, quæ sunt substantiæ, separata et diversa esse nequeunt. Nemo enim eorum, qui impie sentire solent [?], nos ad ea, quæ intelligere nefas est, verbis suis ex imperitia profectis conetur impellere; nemo, inquam, credat, Spiritum Patris per Filium quasi famuli [?] ministerium adimplentem creaturis distribui. Nam id etiam nonnulli insipientes dicere veriti non sunt. Sed potius inde credendum est, quoniam Spiritus sic proprius Filii est, sicut sane ipsius quoque Dei et Patris, idcirco ad sanctificandos suos sanctos discipulos ab eo mitti.» Si igitur Spiritus proprius Filii naturaliter et in ipso exsistens, et per ipsium progrediens, et eodem pacto proprius, quo [?] Dei quoque Patris, et Spiritum sanctum apparere per Filium idem denotat atque esse eum ex Filio, et quia ex eodem esse et proprius ejus dicitur, per quem est proprius et per eum apparuit, idcirco et Filius sancti Spiritus neque est neque dicitur; nec convertitur relativa ista sequela secundum Gregorium Nyssenum, quia Filius cum Spiritus neque sit neque dicatur, non habet vel admittit relativam istam sequelam e converso, nec apparet nec datur per Spiritum. Si vero et illud prophetæ verbum proponunt quidam: Dominus misit me et Spiritus ejus, attanem magnus Basilius et hanc contradictionem præclare solvit libro tertio Adversus Eunomium, cujus initium: «Vix tandem exsatiatus.» Isaias vero ex Domini persona loquens secundum ejus humanitatem ea profert verba: Dominus missit me et Spiritus ejus. Nihil ergo ex dictis prodest venerabili Ephesino antistiti ad probandum, Spiritum sanctum non esse per Filium, imo ea magis confirmant dicta et male explanatum casus vocabulum, præpositio per pro cum, quod talis ejus interpretatio nullo modo quadrat in processionem sanctissimi Spiritus, sed potius contrarium, quam ipse voluit, ostensum est at adhuc ostendetur limatius atque manifestius procedente disquisitiona Quanquam et dicta sufficient ad probandum, prepositionam per magis pro ex apud sanctos sumi, nullo vero pacto pro præpositione cum.

Mark: Si vero dictio procedere per Filium causam denotaret, quemadmodum novi isiti dicunt theology, non autem per ipsum effulgere et apparere et prorsus simul eunc [?] eo prodire et cum concomitari secundum divinum Damascenum, neque theology omnes inde disertis verbis a Filio causæ rationem excluderent.

Mark: Alius dicit: «Unus fons, id est una causa superessentialis deitatis Pater et hoc a Filio et a Spiritu distinguitur» (Dionysius); alius vero (Athanasius): «Solus innascibilis et solus fons deitatis Pater,» id est solus causa, sicut et solus causæ expers; alius vero (Gregorius Theologus): «Quæcunque habet Pater, ea sunt Filii, excepta causa,» alius demum (Maximus): «Etiam Romani Filium non faciunt causam Spiritus sancti.»

Mark: Alius vero dicit: «Solus causa Pater;» et alibi: «Quæcunque convenient fonti, causæ, genitori, ea soli Patri aptanda sunt.» Neque tunc, in theologia acutissimus hic Damascenus præpositionem per poncret, dum [?] de Filio agit, et præpositionem ex rejiceret. Octavo enim Theologicorum capitum ait: «Ex Filio Spiritum non dicimus, Spiritum vero Filii nominamus, et per Filium manifestari nobisque suppeditari confitemur.» Et rursus idem capite decimo tertio: «Spiritus Filii, nun ut ex ipso, sed ut per ipsum ex Patre procedens; solus enim causa Pater.» Et in epistola ad Jordanem prope finem: «Spiritus personaliter subsistens spiraculum et productum, per Filium vero et non ex Filio, ut Spiritus oris Dei Verbi enuntians.» In oratione autem in Dominici corporis sepulturam ait: «Spiritus sanctus Dei et Patris, ut ex ipso procedens; qui et Filii esse dicitur ut per illum suppeditatuset creaturis communicatus, sed non ut ex ipso exsistentiam habens.»

Mark: Manifestum enim est, ubi mediationem causatem præpositio per denotat atque causam contignam, quemadmodum Latini volunt prorsus eam æquivalentem esse præpositioni ex et alteram alterius usum vicissim recipere; sicut illud: Possedi hominem per Deum, idem est atque ex Deo et vir per mulierem, hoc est ex muliere. Ubi igitur præpositio ex rejecta et exclusa est, liquet etiam, una cum ea causam rejectam esse et exclusam. Relinquitur ergo, ut ita ex Patre per Filium procedere Spiritus sanctus dicatur secundum theologiæ implicitæ modum, eo sensu quo Spiritus ex Patre procedens per Filium manifestari vel cognosci vel effulgere vel apparere intelligitur. «Hoc enim, iniquit magnus Basilius, hoc cognoscitivum suæ secundum hypostasin proprietatis habet signum, quod post Filium et cum Filio cognoscitur et quod ex Patre subsisit.» Hoc itaque et dictio per Filium sibi vult, nimirum cum Filio cognosci. Neque enim alia quædam proprietas Spiritus sancti ad Filium hoc loco assignata est, quam quod cum ipso cognoscitur, et non alia quædam Patrem, quam quod ex ipso subsistit.

Mark: Si itaque proprium accurate cum eo, cujus est proprium, convertibile sit necesse est, non ergo aliam habitudinem ad Filium habet Spiritus sanctus, nisi quod cum ipso cognoscitur, sicut ad Patrem, quod ex ipso subsistit. Non igitur ex Filio subsistit vel esse habet Spiritus sanctus. Nam quid prohibiuit, quominus per Filium procedere diceretur Spiritus sanctus eo modo quo per Filium omnia dicuntur esse facta? Sed illud quidem dicitur præpositione per loco ex accepta, hoc vero nullo modo. Neque invenire quis ullibi poterit per Filium dici absque Patris mentione, sed ex Patre per Filium dicitur. Hoc autem causam non necessario tribuit Filio. Idcirco et dictio ex Filio prorsus non invenitur et perspicue proscribitur.

Mark: Dicta vero Occidentalium Patrum atque doctorum, quæ causam Spiritus sancti Filio tribuunt, neque cognosco neque enim translata unquam sunt in nostram linguam, neque ab œcumenicis synodis probatæ fuerunt, neque recipio, conjuciens, ea corrupta esse atque supposita.
Editor: The words of the western Fathers and Doctors, which attribute to the Son the cause of the Spirit, I never recognize, for they have never been translated into our tongue nor approved by the ecumenical councils, nor do I admit them, presuming that they are corrupt and interpolated.

Mark: (Id conjicio) tum per multa alia tum per nuper ab illis prolatum volumen septimæ œcumenicæ synodi, definitionem continens una cum additamento in symbolo; quod cum prælegeretur, quanta cos ignominia asperserit, norunt qui tum præsentes errant.

Mark: Verum neque contraria œcumenicis synodis et communibus carumdem dogmatibus, sed neque prorsus non consentientia orientalibus doctoribus scripserunt Patres illi, neque iis non cohærentia, sicut per alia multa illorum dicta demonstratur.

Mark: Propterea ejusmodi periculosas voces de sancti Spiritus processione rejicio.
Editor: I therefore reject such perilous voices on the procession of the Holy Spirit.

Mark: Et concordans sancto Damasceno ex Filio Spiritum non dico, licet alius qualiscunque tandem id dicere videatur.
Editor: And we agree with St. Damascene "we do not say the Spirit is from the Son," although in the end they will say it is permitted to say so.

Mark: Neque dico Filium Spiritus sancti causam neque productorem, ne secundum principium in Trinitate et exinde [?] duæ causæ duoque principia intelligantur.

Mark: Neque enim essentialis hoc loco causa intelligitur, ita ut communis et in tribus personis exsistat. Et propterea duo principia nullo umquam pacto Latini effugient, quandiu Filium dixerint sancti Spiritus principium. Sed principium personale est et personas distinguens. Igitur secundum ista obsequens sanctis et œcumenicis septem synodis et a Deo illustrates Patribus, qui in iisdem claruerunt, Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, et quæ sequuntur in symbolo.

Mark: Hoc sacrum fidei institutum ac symbolum, quod a prima et secunda œcumenicarum synodorum expositum, a reliquis vero confirmatum corroboratumque est, tota anima recipiens et custodiens suscipio et amplector cum prædictis septem synodis etiam synodum post ipsas congregatam sub pio Basilio Romanorum imperatore et sanctissimo patriarcha Photio, œcumenicam quoque octavam nuncupatam, quæ etiam præsentibus legatis Joannis beatissimi papæ vetustioris Romæ, videlicet Paulo et Eugenio episcopis, et Petro presbytero et cardinali, confirmavit et promulgavit, septimam œcumenicam synodum eamque præcedentibus adjungendam esse decrevit, restituit vero propriæ sedi sanctissimum Photium, condemnavit deinde et anathemati subjecit non secus ac synodi œcumenicæ anteriores cos qui auderent additionem quamdam innovare vel detractionem vel universim alterationem aliquam in prædicto symbolo.

Mark: Nam «Si quis, iniquit, præter hoc sacrum Symbolium aliud conscribere ausus fuerit, vel addere vel detrabere aliquid, et definitionem hoc appellare, damnatus talis et ab omni Christiano censortio abjectus erit.» Eadem quoque papa Joannes in epistola ad sanctissimum Photium uberius et clarius dicit de hoc in Symbolo additamento.

Mark: Hæc synodus etiam canones edidit, qui in omnibus canonicis libiris reperiuntur. Secundum ipsius igitur sanctiones atqae synodorum ante ipsam habitarum sacrum fidei Symbolum immotum custodiendum esse judicans, prout editum fuit, atque eos, quos recipiunt, una cum iis recipiens, quosque abjiciunt simul cum cis abjiciens, nunquam in communionem admittam eos qui audent in sacro Symbolo innovationem addere de Spiritus sancti processione, quandin in ejusmodi innovatione persistent. Nam qui communicat, inquit, cum eo, cui communicandum non est, et ipse extra communionem esto.

Mark: Et divus Chrysostomus explanans Pauli verba: Si quis evangelizet vobis præter id quod acceptistis, anathema sit. «Non dixit, inquit, si contraria annuntient vel totum evertant, sed et si parvum quid evangelizent præter id quod accepistis, si quodcunque de loco moveant, sit anathema.» Et rurus idem: «Dispensatione utendum, ubi non prævaricandum.» Et magnus Basilius in Asceticis: «Manifesta fidei desertio et superbiæ crimen vel contemnere quid eorum, quæ scripta sunt, vel inducere quid non scriptum, cum Dominus noster Jesus Christus dicat: Oves meæ vocem meam audiunt, et jam antea dixerit: Alienum autem non sequenter sed fugient ab eo, quia non noverunt vocem alienorum.»

Mark: Et in epistola ad monachos: «Qui sanam fidem se confiteri simulant, communicant autem cum diversa sentientibus, tales, si post admonitionem non desistant, non solum communionis extorres habendos, sed nec fratrum nomine esse salutandos.» Et ante istos deifer Ignatius in litteris ad divum Polycarpum Smyrnæ episcopum ait: «Omnis qui loquitur præter constituta, etiamsi fide dignus sit, etiamsi jejunet, etiamsi virginitatem servet, etiamsi signa faciat, etiamsi prophetizet, lupus tibi censeatur, in pelle ovium perniciem ovium operans.» Et quid oportet plura dicere? Omnes Ecclesiæ doctores, omnes synodi et universæ divinæ Scripturæ ad aliter sentientes vitandos et u tab corum communione alieni simus nos cohortantur.

Mark: Egone itaque hisce omnibus spretis sequar eos, qui sub prætextu confletæ pacis onionem præcipiunt, eos qui sacrosanctum symbolum adulterant et Filium secundam sancti Spiritus causam inducunt? Nam reliquas absurditates in præsentia prætermitto. Quarum vel una sufficiens foret ad nos ab ipsis prorsus separandos. Ne id unquam patiar, o bone Paraclete, neque adco a memetipso et a decentibus cogitationibus unquam decidam, verum firmiter inhærens tuæ doctrinæ atque beatis viris a te inspiratis apponar ad patres meos, si non quid aliud adbhinc deferens, certe tamen pietatem.

Free Books You Should Read

Church History
*Darras, Joseph-Epiphane. A General History of the Catholic Church, vol. II. New York: P. O'Shea, 1865. <>.
*Parsons, Rev. Reuben, D.D. Studies in Church History: Volume III: Centuries XV-XVI 2nd ed. New York and Cincinnati: Fr. Pustet & Co., 1897. <>.

*Mansi, Gian Domenico. Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova Amplissima Collectio. 31 vols. <>.

Dogmatic Theology (General)
*Denzinger, Heinrich Joseph Dominicus. Sources of Catholic Dogma.

*Pusey, Rev. Edward Bouverie, D.D. On the clause "and the Son" in regard to the Eastern church and the Bonn Conference: a letter to the Rev. H.P. Liddon, D.D. New York: Pott, Young, & Co., 1876. <>.

Immaculate Conception
*Bryant, John Delavau, M.D. The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God: A Dogma of the Catholic Church. Boston: Patrick Donahoe, 1855. <>.
*Lambruschini, Cardinal Luigi. A Polemical Treatise on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. New York: D. & J. Sadlier & Co., 1855. <>.
*Ullathorne, Archbishop William Bernard. The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God: An Exposition. London: Richardson & Son, 1855. <>.

*Del Val, Archbishop Raphael Merry, D.D. The Truth of Papal Claims. St. Louis, Missouri: B. Herder, 1904. <>.
*Kenrick, Francis Patrick. The Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated. Baltimore: John Murphy & Co., 1855. <>.
*Mann, Rev. Horace Kinder. The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, vol. III, 2nd ed. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., Ltd., 1925. 1 Nov. 2009 <>.
*Mann, Rev. Horace Kinder. The Lives of the Popes In The Early Middle Ages, vol. IV. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., Ltd., 1910. <>.
*Pastor, Dr. Ludwig. The History of the Popes From the Close of the Middle Ages, vol. VI, 2nd ed. London: Kegan, Paul, Trench, Trübner, & Co., Ltd., 1901. <>.
*Rivington, Rev. Luke, M.A. The Primitive Church and the See of Peter. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1894. <>.
*Weninger, Rev. Francis Xavier, S.J., D.D. On the Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope, When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, 2nd ed. New York: D. & J. Sadlier & Co., 1869. <>.

*Darboy, Georges. Œuvres de Saint Denys l'Aréopagite. Paris: Sagnier et Bray, 1845. <>.

Patrologia Latina
*PL 98.

Patrologia Graeca
*PG 76 (St. Cyril of Alexandria).
*PG 160 (Patriarch Gregory III Mammas of Constantinople, Patriarch Gennadios II Scholarios of Constantinople, Georgius Gemistus Plethon, Matthew Camariota, Metropolitan Mark Eugenikos of Ephesus, Pope Nicholas V of Rome.

Patrologia Orientalis
*PO 17.

Systematic Theology
*Aquinas, St. Thomas. Summa Contra Gentiles: On God and His Creatures. Trans. Joseph Rickaby, S.J., M.A. London: Burnes and Oates, 1905. <>.
*Aquinas, St. Thomas. Summa Theologica. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 2nd ed. New York: Bensiger Brothers, 1920. <>.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Two Cool Books in the Mail

Thanks Mom & Dad!

God Cannot Be Seen with the Eyes of the Body

Mirror link

God is invisible to the corporeal eye in this life and the next since He is incorporeal. The corporeal eye can see only corporeal substances. When we receive our glorified bodies in the resurrection, our material flesh will not receive powers proper to spiritual substances, but will be transfigured so that the soul is not pulled down to the level of the senses.{1} There is no such thing as seeing the Uncreated Light with the eyes of the body.

Notes & References
{1} See p. 86 of Pohle, Rev. Joseph, Ph.D, D.D. God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes - A Dogmatic Treatise. St. Louis, Missouri: B. Herder, 1911.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Philosophical Ethics Midterm Review

For the midterm examination tomorrow, Thursday, October 15, 2009.

Mill, Utilitarianism
*Does Mill believe that an action is good or bad (1) depending on the nature of the action itself, or (2) depending on the results the actions produces? Explain. An action is good if it produces happiness (for the greatest number of people).
*What is the Principle of Utilitarianism? We should always perform the action, out of those actions available, that will bring the most happiness (or the least unhappiness), to the greatest number of people, keeping in mind that some forms of happiness/pleasure are more valuable/"higher" than others.
*What does Mill mean when he says that pleasure is the only thing desirable as an end?
*What does he mean when he says everything else is desirable as a means to this end?
*When Mill says that all human beings desire pleasure above all else, does he mean that we only desire "animalistic" pleasures? Why or why not?
*How do we determine which are "higher" and which are "lower" pleasures, according to Mill?
*What is the difference between happiness and contentment? Contentment (satisfaction) means having all desires fulfilled.
*Why do human beings sometimes choose lower pleasures over the higher ones?
*Does Mill think it is okay to lie, if this will bring about the most happiness for the liar and the person being lied to? Why or why not?
*Does Mill think that we need to know the precise outcome of each of our actions (e.g. exactly how much happiness will be produced, both now and in the future) if we are to correctly decide how to act?
*According to Mill, what are some of the "external sanctions" that make us feel obligated to promote the happiness of others? Rewards & punishments bestowed by others.
*How does Mill describe our "internal sanctions," duty and the conscience? Feeling of pain that would happen from the failure to fulfill duty.
*Does Mill think our feelings of right and wrong are innate? No.
*Where do such feelings come from, according to Mill? Mill thinks that conscience is acquired via education, upbringing, & habits.
*What feeling does Mill think leads us to form a society? The natural desire to be in unity with fellow humans.
*How does living in a society with others serve to reinforce this feeling?
*Explain what Mill means when he says that the will is born out of desire.

Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
*Be able to define: a priori, a posteriori, laws of nature, laws of freedom, maxim, universal law, imperative, hypothetical, and categorical. A priori = learned without/apart from experience. A posteriori = learned from experience. Laws of nature = laws of physics, biological-chemical laws, emotions, desires, instincts, any way in which a human is "programmed," any way in which we are conditioned by our upbringing/society/habits. We have control over none of these actions, so none of them are moral actions. Laws of freedom = laws that we impose on ourselves through our reasoning. Maxim = personal rule that I use to guide my own actions. Universal law = rule that applies to everybody. Imperative = A duty, a command statement. Hypothetical = if-then statement. Categorical = not an if-then statement.
*Does Kant believe that an action is good or bad (1) depending on the nature of the action itself, or (2) depending on the results the actions produces? Explain. Depending on the nature of the action itself.
*Why must a person's will be governed by reason if it is to be good?
*Why couldn't a will governed by emotion or instinct be good, according to Kant?
*Be able to explain his "merchant" example. Merchant with a blind customer
-Overcharges the person/desires more money
-does not overcharge/fear of getting caught
-does not overcharge/loves his customers & enjoys being honest
-does not overcharge/rationally recognizes that he has a duty to be fair
*How do we know if we are being purely motivated by duty?
*Be able to state Kant's Categorical Imperative. Never act except in such a way that you could will that your maxim become a universal law.
*Why does Kant think that the moral principle guiding our actions must be an imperative?
*Why does he think that is must be categorical? Hypothetical imperatives cannot be universal (they can't apply to everyone). Actions motivated by hypothetical imperatives fall into the laws of nature, so they are not free and thus have no moral value.
*Be able to explain each step in the process of using the Categorical Imperative, and be able to go through this process using Kant's examples of (1) making a false promise and (2) helping another human being in need. Step 1. Formulate your maxim. Ex. 1: "I will make a false promise to get some cash." Ex. 2: "It is permissible to ignore someone in dire need." Step 2. Formulate the universal law. Ex. 1: "Everyone will make a false promise when they need cash." Ex. 2: "I will ignore someone in need." Step 3: Imagine a world where everyone acted according to this law, everybody must act according to this law. Step 4: Ask, does a contradiction arise?
*What is the difference between a logical contradiction and a contradiction in the will? A contradiction of the will is a world that I cannot will to live in.
*Be able to state and explain Kant's second version of the Categorical Imperative. So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means (treating someone as a "thing").
*Why does Kant think that human beings are unconditionally valuable? We are valuable not just for our use, but for our own sake. We are valuable because we are the source of values; we deem what is valuable and what is not.
*What does he mean when he describes human beings as "ends in themselves"?
*What does it mean to say that a human being is both subject and sovereign in a Kingdom of Ends?

Singer, Famine, Affluence, and Morality
*If someone can use his $$$ to reduce suffering without significantly decreasing his own quality of life or other people's quality of life, it is immoral not to use the $$$ to reduce suffering.
*Doesn't matter if the person in need is a few yards away or all the way across the world – the obligation is just as urgent in both cases
*Analogy: rich people not donating excess $$$ to famine relief is like when someone sees a child drowning in a shallow pond and can save the child but chooses not to.
*This ethical principle doesn't distinguish between cases where you are the only person who can help and cases when you are one of millions of people who can help.

Hobbes, Hobbes' Moral and Political Philosophy
*desire for self-preservation (& fear of death) – We ask, "What do I need to survive?" → food, shelter, money, etc. → How much of these do I need? (Hobbes: we will not answer this question impartially); we think "I have a right to all things" – this leads to violent competition, every-man-for-himself b/c there are no laws: a state of war with all against all
*How do I get out of the state of war? → Social contract: I will give up my "right to all things" in exchange for protection from an authority.
*Hobbes believes in absolutism – always obey the one ruler
*Prisoner's Dilemma [police interviewing two criminals in separate rooms]: (1) Confess to having trying to rob the bank: You go free but your accomplice gets a heavy sentence. (2) Remain silent and accomplice confesses: Accomplice goes free but you get a heavy sentence. (3) Both remain silent: both get a small sentence since the lack of confession prevents a conviction of a more serious offense. (4) Both confess: both get heavy sentences.
* (1) is in individual's best interest; (2)

O'Neill, A Simplified Version of Kant's Ethics