I was curious what the position of the various EC’s here position on sytematic theology is.
Do you…?
- Subscribe to the popular notion put forth by a number of Concilliar press writers that “Orthodox” (Easterners) don’t have a systematic theogy! (The belief is that the Church has a patchwork of different genres of writings from creeds, apologies, mystical writings etc. that it uses)
No, I don’t. There is a deep consistency in Eastern thought.
A more accurate presentation of the anti-systematization polemicists is that our theology is rooted in prayer and love, and is not a merely intellectual “science” divorced from spirituality as Scholasticism is perceived (incorrectly, I think) to be. The objection is not to the unity of the origins of theology but rather to the method of presentation. As Fr. Stephen Freeman has pointed, you don’t write systematic treatises when you are standing at the foot of the Cross. You don’t write syllogisms when you are being martyred.
I disagree with them, because (a) Scholasticism was not divorced from prayer or spirituality, or from the Evagrian principle (“he who prays is a theologian, and the theologian is one who prays”), and (b) because organizing one’s thought is a good and useful thing, and so is using the faculties of a whole man (including reason), not just the “eye of the heart”. One should have his feet firmly planted on earth even while his head is in the clouds.
- You hold a classical writer or group of writers like St. Athanasius, On the Incarnation, St. John Of Damscus, St. Augustine to be your systematic theologian or group of theologians.
Orthodoxy believes in the unanimity of sanctity. All the saints taught the same Orthodox Faith, and none of them really contradict each other. So it makes no sense to hold “a classical writer or group of writers” to be our “systematic theologian”; our “group of writers” is all of them.
When a theologian does diverge from the consensus of sanctity, if he is regarded as having been pious he will be called “Blessed” rather than “Saint”. So Augustine in the East is called “Blessed Augustine” rather than “Saint Augustine” (note: Blessed Seraphim (Rose) of Platina is called “Blessed” for a different reason, namely that he has not been glorified by a synod and not venerated during services, but he nonetheless has a popular cult). I’m fine calling him “St. Augustine” because I don’t believe that the consensus of sanctity applies to every detail of theology (I would strongly disagree with the teachings of the Fathers on seven-day creationism as outlined by Blessed Seraphim of Platina in his book
Genesis, Creation, and Early Man, for example, as I am a scientist and therefore I accept the scientific method; I especially take issue with St. Gregory of Nyssa’s angelism in the name of the theology of the body). I think Orthodoxy in practice accepts the fact that saints will disagree with each other on details, especially since some of them were openly at odds with each other during their lifetimes (St. Nil Sorsky and St. Joseph of Volokolamsk, for example). The Holy Spirit illumines the saints in a revelation that unfolds and develops through history; the writings of the saints aren’t word-for-word dictation from God. Neither is Holy Scripture, in the Catholic and Orthodox understanding.
- subscribe to Thomism, or other medieval theologian?
- or do you have a modern Catholic Systemtic theologian or school of theology?
Thomas himself was not a systematic thinker. As a Dominican pointed out to me once, he didn’t simple draw out the consequences of a set of principles or of the thought of Aristotle, but drew from dozens of place to express truth wherever he found it. Which is what I try to do. I see lots of value in Thomas, marred by the bad physics underlying Aristotle’s metaphysics and which leaves Thomism badly in need of correction. I have a particular fondness for von Balthasar, for Wojtyla and Ratzinger, for Palamas and Cabasilas and St. Symeon the New Theologian and of St. Photios the Great, and of a number of modern Orthodox theologians (Florensky, Bulgakov, Lossky, Ouspensky, Staniloae, Zernov, Arseniev, St. Ignaty of Chernimore, Christos Yannaras, etc.). I like a number of old Roman Catholic systematic theologians - Ott and Tanquerey - and there are a number of Orthodox theologians that organize their work in a systematic manner, usually organized after the order of the Divine Liturgy - the
De Fide Orthodoxa of St. John Damascene, the
Catechism of Nicolaos Boulgaris (who was in communion with Rome, being an 18th-century Venetian), the
Dogmatic Theology (not “Systematic”, in the title at any rate) of Pomozansky, the
Orthodox Apologetic Theology of Andre’ev, and my favorite work of all time, the
Systematic Theology of Dumitru Staniloae, which the English translators re-named “The Experience of God” in order to avoid looking systematic. Apostolos Makrakis’
Catechism is also systematic, but heterodox.
For example, certain churches or bishops in certain churches have put out catechisms over the years that no one has really disputed. St. Filaret of Moscow’s catechism comes to mind, as does “These Truths We Hold” produced by a monk from St. Tikhon’s monastery in PA. Many parishes use that particular book in catechumen instruction.
). I enjoy Augustine,Thomas, John of Damascus, Gregory Palamas (who I guess is not strictly systematic…), modern theologians like Rahner, V.Lossky, Meyendroff.