This is from the RDL forum, link

There it begins:


Then others and:



At the end of my post quoted above I originally had an additional comment; I removed it before posting because I thought it unfairly anticipated the worse. Fortunately I have it exactly as I wrote it:



There is a very well posed issue, the primacy of Scripture as the word of God. No other writings are accorded that distinction. And so I say again, in reference to the above post:



I would expect that everyone's answer would be an emphatic NO.


Dn. Anthony

Excluding PRJ's comments everything I have ever read or heard has stated that Jesus Christ is the New or Second Adam and his Most Pure Mother is the New or Second Eve.

I'm not sure what I I'm supposed to find in Lossky but what I am finding is:




Also from Vladimir Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978.



and more.

Dn. Anthony

You have misunderstood the issue as presented by the Fathers. You are confusing chronological order (as that which is found in Romans) with ontological order. The fact is that for the Fathers Adam was made in the image of Christ, not Christ in the image of Adam.

The key father to begin our study with is St Maximus the Confessor. I don't have time (or the energy) to develop his full Christology, but I can quote from Fr John Meyendorf's excellent summary:

"The Word, having taken a clod of the newly made earth, with immortal hands formed my image and imparted to it His life, because He sent into it His Spirit, which is the effluence of the unknown Divinity." (St Gregory of Nazianzus)

"Out of the dust and out of the breath, man was created in the image of the Immortal, for in both the spiritual nature reigns supreme." (St Gregory of Nazianzus)

"For the name Adam is not yet given to the human, as in the subsequent narratives. The human created has no particular name, but is universal human. Therefore by this general term for human nature, we are meant to understand that God by His providence and power, included all humanity in this first creation. ... For the image is not in a part of the nature, nor is grace in one individual among those it regards; this power extends to the whole human race ... In this respect there is no difference between the human made in the first creation of the world and the human who shall be made at the end of the world; both bear the same divine image." (St Gregory of Nyssa)



What St Gregory is saying is that Christ the Word created Adam in His own image -- as the Alpha and the Omega, ontologically, Christ comes first. As Constantine Tsirpanlis writes, "The first man, containing in himself all of human nature, has no special name. God's image, proper to Adam's and Eve's persons, relates to all of humanity, to 'universal man'. That is why in Adam's race the multiplicity of persons, in no way contradicts the ontological unity of the nature common to all men" (Introduction to Eastern Patristic Thought and Orthodox Theology, 46).

It is true that economically, Christ is seen by Scripture as the second Adam who comes "in historical time" to undo the damage done by Adam. But on a deeper level, the Fathers insist that Christ is the pattern after which every human being is created. This is why St. Nilus of Sinai taught his disciples to "regard, after God, every human being as God Himself."

Here I would quote from Lossky:



That this consideration has deep implications for our understanding of human gender can be seen by Lossky's comments:

Here is the translation from the "Church Fathers." It makes much more sense because there was no "universal human."



Greggory of Nyssa -- "On the Making of Man"

As noted in paragraph 15 supra, St. Gregory himself is very hesitant about his conclusions.

IM, I like my translation better lol

This is a fantastic passage and one that we would all do well to meditate upon:



P.S. The statement in paragraph 15 should not be understood to mean that St Gregory was hesitant or unsure of his conclusions. This is classic rhetoric employed during this time period by writers (both secular and religious) to indicate that they are introducing something that some of their readers will not understand or agree with. It is a rhetorical flourish -- so common in the fathers -- that has to be read in light of ancient rhetorical devices and not read "straight" as if it were a modern person stating these words.

I have been thinking of an example in our modern English to
make this point. Here is one; if someone begins to read
you a story and it starts with the words "Once upon a
time ..." you will immediately realize that this is a fairy
tale and should not be taken literally. Now, if someone
unfamiliar with our language read these words, they might
misunderstand them to mean "once upon a time" (i.e., a
reference to a historical event in the past). Now, in
modern English, we don't have many of these because our
language is not as polished and we don't teach rhetoric the
way the ancient Greeks did. But in ancient Greece, there
were many "rhetorical devices" that were routinely used by
the fathers. Part of learning how to read the fathers
means learning how to read ancient texts, etc.

I would also note that, as both Meyendorf and Lossky point out, St Gregory's understanding of the division of the sexes as "added later" and thus not part of the original creation becomes the standard interpretation of gender relations in later fathers, especially St Maximus the Confessor and St John of Damascus. Some fathers even suggest that the sexual organs did not exist prior to the fall. And, following this through, there is a suggestion among some fathers that there will be no sexual differentation in paradise but that all "will be as the angels". This is an interesting concept and raises questions about the relationship of gender to the human person. I would encourage you to read the writings of Sister Nona Harrison (among others) on these subjects.

Dear Fr. John,

Thank you for all the quotes, but the one thing missing from this theological smorgasbord,

etc.

etc.

is the promised main course:



Interesting stuff, but when I tally it all up I get, yes, the ontological priority of the divine Logos (of course) "through Whom all things were made" (of course), and Man made in the image of God (of course) and etc. (of course), but NOT "Christ is the first and Adam the second man."

There is, however:



that is, the actual (biblical) usage (again): "first man...Adam's race" (and also, as a bonus, a very nice example of men used in an "inclusive" sense).

I do see your point (I think), but "Christ is the first and Adam the second man" is not the way of saying it.


Dn. Anthony

Deacon Anthony, the source for my statement can be found in the writings of Bishop Kalistos -- I just happen to have misplaced my "Orthodox Way" and can't find the quotes ... but I will.

I do encourage you however to explore the recapitulation theology of both St Gregory of Nyssa and then St Maximus the Confessor to flesh this out. They argue that humanity was made in the image of Christ who was already in the mind of God as fully human and fully divine.

The problem is that we are talking "cross-purposes." You are using "first and second" in a chronological sense and I am using them in an ontological sense.

ALthough I run a risk in simplifying intricate theological truths, perhaps the best and simplest way to explain this is to assert that in the mind of God, the incarnation came first and then the path to that incarnation included the creation of Adam and Eve. Thus, Adam and Eve as the first humans were created in the image of the Incarnate Christ. In this way, theologically Christ is the first Adam and Adam is the second -- even though in human time, Adam came first and Christ second.

Why is this important? I think the Fathers would argue that we must always begin and end with Christ in all whom all things dwell, etc.

Interesting thread.
I think I've got what you're saying here Father.
From the first book, "Let us make man in Our own image, after Our likeness...". (Genesis 1:26)
From the last book, "I am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end". (Revelation 22:13)
The Fall of Adam necessitates the earthly incarnation of Christ, (the first),as the "second" Adam.
Does this make any sense?

Very nicely summarized. Thanks.

Although I would add another statement:

The incarnation of Christ makes necessary the creation of humanity.

As Bishop Kallistos notes, the Fathers seem to say that Christ would have become incarnate even if humanity had not fallen into sin. Deification required the incarnation. And since God's plan was always the deification of humanity, Christ would have become incarnate. It was the Cross (not the Incarnation) which was made "necessary" by the Fall.

"It was the Cross (not the Incarnation) which was made "necessary" by the Fall."

Thanks for this clarification!

Dear PrJ:

I think I would rather take my instruction from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church than Sister Nona.

Here is the Catechism:



A little note on Sister Nona:






And I do recall that Thomas Aquinas rejects Gregory's interpretation because the command to be fruitful and multiply came before the fall.

I know Sister Nona well and can testify to her outstanding commitment to Christ and His Church. Why do people feel the need to attack those with whom they disagree? I still do not understand this.

As far as I know, with a few exceptions, St. Thomas Aquinas is not recognized as a theological authority within the Eastern Church. St. Gregory is -- and I would much rather adopt his positions.

And how did I attack Sr. Nona? I think it is fairly well known that she is in favor of women's ordination. Women's ordination doesn't comport with Catholic teaching by which you and I are bound.

I think St. Thomas is a wonderful interpreter of the Fathers. While I know the East and the Orthodox do not generally like his writings (because they serve as a refutation of Palamite principles), that may be because of a fault of the East and not a fault in St. Thomas.

To answer your question, it is a logical fallacy. I teach this in my Argument and Reason class. The fallacy even goes by an official name: the fallacy of Personal Attacks.

I would note that logically even if Sr Nona is in favor of women's ordination, this does not necessarily mean that she cannot be relied upon for her patristic commentary. In point of fact, Sr Nona is a brilliant academic whose commentaries on the fathers are universally recognized as outstanding. I would also note that she is a disciple of Bishop Kallistos Ware who is also universally recognized as one of the greatest patristic scholars of our age.

Logically, however, the fact is that if she is in favor of women's ordiantion, she undoubtedly does not hold to the faith of the Fathers and hence whatever commentary she may have is very likely skewed in some way. If I recall your book on, "The Ladder," you quote John Climacus who tells his disciples to be wary of Origen because of the fundamental error in his thinking. I simply the suggest that the same line of thinking be applied to anyone who dabbles in the thought of women's ordination which of course is contrary to the Divine Economy as expressed in Ephesians and elsewhere.

In any event, as Catholics, we have a living magisterium! And we know what it has said on the issue.

Inclusive language and women's ordination to the Orthodox priesthood...hmmm I would pay to listen and watch that discussion, make sure that there is representation from the MP and ROCOR...

Amazing...

james

The poster Im simply gave a quote and a source. How is the quote an attack? Is it inaccurate?


Certainly, as you will. Aquinas is a Catholic theologian and Doctor of the Church, and the Truth doesn't distinguish between East and West.

Dn. Anthony

"I think it is fairly well known that she is in favor of women's ordination. Women's ordination doesn't comport with Catholic teaching by which you and I are bound."

I am not in favor of ordaining women, but I do believe that one can be in favor of the ordination of women and remain a Catholic in good standing, as long as one complies with and accepts the present laws, rulings (or however you want to phrase it) of the Pope and the magisterium.

I stand in favor of a married priesthood in the Roman Church as well as the Eastern Churches. Does that make me not Catholic or less of a Catholic as long as I accept the decisions of the Church?

Bill

Bill, you are buying the feminist anti-Catholic party line. The ordination of married/celibates to priesthood is a discipline of the Church that can be changed, removed, lifted, etc. That women cannot be ordained to the priesthood is unchangeable doctrine.
The two have nothing in common.

Dear Micael,
"That women cannot be ordained to the priesthood is unchangeable doctrine."

I'm not buying into anything. As I said, I don't agree with the ordination of women. People who do think that women should be ordained are as welcome in the church as I am as long as they abide by the rules.

I can be a Democrat and still be against abortion, can't I.

Bill

Just wondering why did you mention it in relation to the married-celibate priesthood discussion?

Dear Michael,

I mentioned it for no reason other than a married priesthood in the Roman Church is, at the present time, as likely as allowing women to the priesthood. I'm not implying anything or trying to go deeper than what you read on the surface.

God Bless,
Bill

rcguest:

Actually this position was formally repudiated in 1994 by HH JP2 of blessed memory. He issued a formal statement that clearly binds all Catholics as a matter of faith. The statement clearly states that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood and that Catholics can no longer argue this point and still consider themselves in good standing as far as the Faith is concerned. He even included a statement that this teaching of his was to bind all Catholics in conscience to submission.

We Catholics have lost the idea that when Rome speaks, the case is closed. I believe this started to go by the boards in 1968 when Humanae Vitae was issued and the idea took hold that "conscientious dissent" ought to be allowed if one made the claim of personal conscience. That, too, is a shaky argument because Catholics are to form their conscience in conformity with the Magisterium and its official teaching in all areas.

But we don't have the right to hold positions like this just because we think we can for one reason or another.

In Christ,

BOB

Is Sister Nona in favor of women's ordination as deaconesses or priests. In the Eastern Church there is a world of difference between the support for one versus the other and most Orthodox women who are criticized for being for the ordination of women have, in my readings, been only for the restoration of the order of deaconess, not for the ordination of women to presbyterate.

Fr. Deacon Lance

There is an icon that portrays Christ creating Adam in the Garden, they are presented as identical, so our iconographic tradition would seem to support Fr. John's statement because to produce a type, Adam, one must have the prototype, Christ.

Dogmatically, how does the "iconographic tradition" serve as a source of revelation compared to the words of Sacred Scripture? Which has precedence?

Is it Fr. John who has it "backwards,"



or St. Paul,



???????????????????

So far, ALL explicit quotes from the indicated and other references have adhered to the terminology of Scripture, i.e. the terminology of St. Paul and not Fr. John.

Dn. Anthony

Dear Bob,

I thank You too for this clarification!

My use of the word "welcome" is my mistake.
I accept the teachings of the Church. This does not mitigate the fact there are people out there who would accept the ordination of women just like I would accept the ordination of married men to the Roman Catholic priesthood. The point I was trying to make is that as long as they accept the teachings of the church they are still Catholics in good standing. Because some of these people attended a conference and applauded a nun(whom I know nothing about, nor do I know anything about the conference) who spoke on women's ordination, does not necessarily put them outside the church.

I do not fear for my Church and its decisions. I do fear much of what the "Neo-Con Traditionalist" movement that is afoot spews all over the internet.

In the past forty or so odd years much of the Latin Church's laundry has been hung out to dry. I, for one, am grateful for this and being an optimist believe things can and will only get better.

In Christ,
Bill

Bill:

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The danger from the "neo-Con Traditionalist" is every bit as much as that fromt he liberal who would throw out everything except the latest fad idea.

OTOH, I think the danger is that in listening to the radical nun, one can come away with confusion--there are still many who think that anyone in religious life must somehow be an authority figure to listen to--and may pick up some of the arguments that are made. Remember that many who go to such talks are spiritually hungry people who go hoping to add to their faith growth. They are not usually prepared to critically assess what is being said and are often not able to be say to the speaker that she is off the mark and not in line with Church teaching. Then if they do say something, they are often ridiculed about not being "up to date" and back off because no one wants to be thought of as "out of date": part of the damage of the "spirit of Vatican II thinking."

BOB

BOB

Dear Bob,

In regard to your remarks above, one must learn to discern the teachings of Vatican II from what some regard to be the "the spirit of Vatican II".

I have read so much about what is wrong with the "modern Catholic Church" from all of my inquiries thoughout the years and from the internet that I started to buy into it. I finally asked my 83 year old father, who has been throughout my lifetime an examplary of the Catholic Christian faith(I can count on one hand the times I've heard him use a cuss word, and less many times heard him gossip about others), what he thought of the Church today as compared to "the way it was". His answer, "Go forward, not backward". That was all I needed to hear.

Borrrowing from a hymn from our Protestant brethren....
Onward Christian Soldiers!

Bill

This appears to be nothing more than clashing imagery. Adam was the first man, but was created in the image and likeness of Christ. Because Christ’s image and likeness preceded Adam from eternity He is first. One can put forth an argument that since the incarnation was known before time Christ is first and Adam is second. But one can also look at it in time, and this is how the Church presents Christ as “the new Adam”. Our liturgical texts are full of such references to Christ as the “new Adam” and the “Second Adam” just as they liken the Mother of God as the “New Eve” and the “Second Eve”. Both images are logical and correct. But you can't mix them.


This liturgical reference includes “spiritually” but others do not..

St. John Chrysostom is interesting:


Nicholas Cabasilas:


And we have from Vatican II:

Deacon Anthony-

Sacred Scripture, liturgy, the Patristic teachings (as found in sermons, creeds, council decrees, and hynms), iconography, etc, form our Holy Tradition. Certainly, Sacred Scripture has a pride of place. It's not a question of Sacred Scripture's trumping another valid aspects of Holy Tradition, but how these other aspects of Holy Tradition express the nature and meaning of the presence of the Holy Trinity among us as found in Sacred Scripture.

Luke-

it will be quite interesting to see how the Holy Father reconciles both St. Thomas Aquinas and St Gregory Palamas. Both are to be topics of the Holy Father's Wednesday catechetical instruction sometime after Pascha.

Fr. Deacon Lance makes a good point. The Eastern Orthodox Church has had a number of Pan-Orthodox Conferences and meetings regarding the participation of women in the ministry of the Eastern Orthodox Church and has approved the restoration of deaconesses. We have discussed on this forum the revivial of deaconesses in the Greek orthodox Church.
I went to the web site mentioned as proof by lm: This is a news item written by Lesley Payne. Thus, there is no way of knowing if what he or she is reporting is true. It is his/her interpretation only of event. I also do not know if the Catholic Theological Society of America makes recordings of their convention meetings or publishes their proceedings. A lot of academic societies do both. Thus, I think there are too many unanswered questions here and I do not accept a news article as proof of the slander agaginst Sister Nona Harrison.
I would also appeal to the moderator to please watch these attacks on personal character.
As someone else has written here, let us please stick to disecting the written work or opinions of a scholar or writer and not attack personal character or insult people.

Fr. Deacon Lance's question is a good one:



What's the answer.

I've asked before and ask again:



However,



There are unanswered questions, and I certainly am wary of the press, but where is the "slander agaginst Sister Nona Harrison...[and]... attacks on personal character"? Who is slandering and attacking and where?

This issue is off topic, certainly a side topic, but in fairness to all especially Sr. Nona, what was her position then, ca. 1996, and what is her position now regarding Dn. Lance's question?

Dn. Anthony

Thank you for commenting Deacon John. If I may respond for your and other’s consideration:




I would nuance this differently but I think I understand the intent. Speaking of Tradition and traditions etc. can be tricky. A difficulty regarding the specific issue of this thread is that the Patristic teachings, for instance, are hardly monolithic and the Fathers can be, properly, speculative. Their speculation can be an informative and true guide, good theology, that still does not supersede or contradict the intrinsic teaching passed on to us, as we sing: “The preaching (kerugma) of the Apostles and the decisions (Gk: dogmata; Sl: dogmaty) of the Fathers have established the one (Gk: mian; Sl: jedinu) faith of the church.” [Kontakion of the Council Fathers: Sunday of the Fathers of the First Council (7th Paschal Sunday) and Sunday of the Holy Fathers of the First Six Ecumenical Councils (Sunday between 13-19 July). Cf 2 Tm 2:14, 1 Tm 3:16.]

I could have asked in this thread: Is it correct that “According to the Eastern Church Fathers, Christ is the first and Adam the second man”? What then is the criterion for the validity of that assertion: one Father, said it once, or many times, explicitly or implicitly, stating more or less as was asserted that “You have it backwards” i.e. “...Christ is the first and Adam the second man. The Fathers state that Adam was made in the image of Christ -- not the other way around”; or was this stated by some or many, prominent or obscure Fathers, some or many times, etc.? How was the man/Adam/Christ/first/last language actually used?

So far, from the indicated sources supposedly supporting the assertion, all explicit instances have followed the vocabulary of Scripture and not that it is “backwards.”



Since I have used the trump terminology before, just to be clear, what I said about trumping:

The distinction I have in mind is illustrated for instance in VCII’s Dei Verbum:



The Fathers “witness to the presence of this living tradition” — Yes.

The Fathers and “Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God” – No.



One of my favorite icons is the Mystical Supper that has two representations of Christ, one giving His body, the other His blood. For me, this is a profound statement, but I do not conclude that Scripture has it “backwards.”

There are a number of issues here and I’m certainly not objecting to the concept that we are made in the image of God and that through the divine Word/Logos all things were made. I am objecting to some of the terminology, how the concepts are expressed and understood, and the priority of those concepts and expressions in relation to the words and imagery and associations presented explicitly in Holy Scripture.

For instance, I think all purposes are better served by understanding the difference between archetype and prototype. In common usage the two terms are sometimes (properly) used interchangeably. Theologically, however, there is a distinction to be made for the case under consideration. The Divine Logos, Christ, is the Archetype; Adam is the Prototype (the protoplastos, the first-formed-one). The radical aspect of the Incarnation is the kenosis, the condescension – the realization that the Archetype actually takes the form of the Prototype; and with that terminology we also maintain conformity with the language found in Holy Scripture.

Dn. Anthony

Deacon John,

Christ is Risen!

Thank you for pointing this out. I look forward to the Holy Father's insights. He is a very smart man and speaks with a certain authority. As you may know, the pallium he wears is modeled after that of another German Pope, Leo IX who reigned from 1049-1054 (an important time in the history of the Church).

For some interesting reading, see this site by an Orthodox friend who greatly desires union.

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/category/palamism/