What do you think?
Rate this book
Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to Maximus the Confessor
Maximus the Confessor, saint and martyr, is the theologian of of Rome and Byzantium, of Eastern and Western theology, of antiquity and the Middle Ages, reexcavating the great treasures of Christian tradition, which at that time had been buried by imperial and ecclesial censure. Von Balthasar was an authority on the Church Fathers—Irenaeus, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Evagrius Ponticus, Augustine, and above all, Maximus the Confessor. This masterpiece on Maximus broke new ground at that time. Subsequent editions included new material from decades of research. This is the first English translation of the latest edition of this acclaimed work. This book presents a powerful, attractive, religiously compelling portrait of the thought of a major Christian theologian who might, for this book, have remained only an obscure name in the handbooks of patrology. It is based on an intelligent and careful reading of Maximus’s own writings. Here the history of theology has become itself a way of theological reflection.
420 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
57 people are currently reading
511 people want to read
About the author
Hans Urs von Balthasar
457 books312 followersHans Urs von Balthasar was a Swiss theologian and priest who was nominated to be a cardinal of the Catholic Church. He is considered one of the most important theologians of the 20th century.
Born in Lucerne, Switzerland on 12 August 1905, he attended Stella Matutina (Jesuit school) in Feldkirch, Austria. He studied in Vienna, Berlin and Zurich, gaining a doctorate in German literature. He joined the Jesuits in 1929, and was ordained in 1936. He worked in Basel as a student chaplain. In 1950 he left the Jesuit order, feeling that God had called him to found a Secular Institute, a lay form of consecrated life that sought to work for the sanctification of the world especially from within. He joined the diocese of Chur. From the low point of being banned from teaching, his reputation eventually rose to the extent that John Paul II asked him to be a cardinal in 1988. However he died in his home in Basel on 26 June 1988, two days before the ceremony. Balthasar was interred in the Hofkirche cemetery in Lucern.
Along with Karl Rahner and Bernard Lonergan, Balthasar sought to offer an intellectual, faithful response to Western modernism. While Rahner offered a progressive, accommodating position on modernity and Lonergan worked out a philosophy of history that sought to critically appropriate modernity, Balthasar resisted the reductionism and human focus of modernity, wanting Christianity to challenge modern sensibilities.
Balthasar is very eclectic in his approach, sources, and interests and remains difficult to categorize. An example of his eclecticism was his long study and conversation with the influential Reformed Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, of whose work he wrote the first Catholic analysis and response. Although Balthasar's major points of analysis on Karl Barth's work have been disputed, his The Theology of Karl Barth: Exposition and Interpretation (1951) remains a classic work for its sensitivity and insight; Karl Barth himself agreed with its analysis of his own theological enterprise, calling it the best book on his own theology.
Balthasar's Theological Dramatic Theory has influenced the work of Raymund Schwager.
Born in Lucerne, Switzerland on 12 August 1905, he attended Stella Matutina (Jesuit school) in Feldkirch, Austria. He studied in Vienna, Berlin and Zurich, gaining a doctorate in German literature. He joined the Jesuits in 1929, and was ordained in 1936. He worked in Basel as a student chaplain. In 1950 he left the Jesuit order, feeling that God had called him to found a Secular Institute, a lay form of consecrated life that sought to work for the sanctification of the world especially from within. He joined the diocese of Chur. From the low point of being banned from teaching, his reputation eventually rose to the extent that John Paul II asked him to be a cardinal in 1988. However he died in his home in Basel on 26 June 1988, two days before the ceremony. Balthasar was interred in the Hofkirche cemetery in Lucern.
Along with Karl Rahner and Bernard Lonergan, Balthasar sought to offer an intellectual, faithful response to Western modernism. While Rahner offered a progressive, accommodating position on modernity and Lonergan worked out a philosophy of history that sought to critically appropriate modernity, Balthasar resisted the reductionism and human focus of modernity, wanting Christianity to challenge modern sensibilities.
Balthasar is very eclectic in his approach, sources, and interests and remains difficult to categorize. An example of his eclecticism was his long study and conversation with the influential Reformed Swiss theologian, Karl Barth, of whose work he wrote the first Catholic analysis and response. Although Balthasar's major points of analysis on Karl Barth's work have been disputed, his The Theology of Karl Barth: Exposition and Interpretation (1951) remains a classic work for its sensitivity and insight; Karl Barth himself agreed with its analysis of his own theological enterprise, calling it the best book on his own theology.
Balthasar's Theological Dramatic Theory has influenced the work of Raymund Schwager.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
Currently reading
August 4, 2011As flawed as this book is at times, it is truly the work of a genius. Hans urs von Balthasar’s (hereafter HuvB) erudition is staggering. What sort of man could systemize such literature? Not only did this book help set the standard for Maximus studies, but it also was a new benchmark in Patristics and Christology.
HuvB sets Maximus as a figure who synthesized not only all of Patristic literature, but also the currents of East and West. Maximus took the best of St Dionysius, Origen, and St Gregory of Nyssa. According to HuvB, one can summarize Maximus along several principles: (1) the free origin of the ideas of God as creator (pro Dionysius and contra Origen); (2) the divinization of all creatures according to the Incarnation according to God’s decision—or more precisely, the Incarnation to use theosis to counter the work of the fall; (3) the rooting of the intelligible principles (logoi) of all individual things in the divine Logos (125).
HuvB next has an important chapter critiquing Origen’s idea of movement. (Interestingly, and this point is not made, the chapter on “movement” is a good counter to many Mormon apologetics that posit either a pre-existent fall or the fact that God the creator was once a creature; not that Origen believed this, but many Mormons do take his conclusions and reformulate them according to their system).
There is a good section on space, time, and extension (139-144). Maximus evidently anticipated the early Medieval debate on universals and particulars. According to HuvB, “Universals presuppose the expansion (diastole) of particulars, which in turn makes possible their own contraction (systole)” (160). This discussion will ultimately hinge the crucial discussion on hypostasis and ousia later in the book.
God Beyond Number and Outside Himself
While HuvB is often guilty of reading later philosophical debates back into earlier periods, he does suggest that Maximus’ understanding of “Being” and “motion” preserves the doctrine of God from later critiques (ala Hegel and Heidegger). Maximus rejects “simple being” (anticipating Jean-Luc Marion), noting that being is always marked by qualities and is limited therefore. That is why God stands outside of being (cf. David Bentley Hart and St John of Damascus).
As God is not “simple Being,” neither is God merely the numbers “3” and “1.” Yes God is a Trinity in unity, but numbers do not define God. Numbers are a sign that point towards something else. God is not the number 3/1, but those 2 numbers point towards God (cf. St Basil on the Holy Spirit). Thefore; God is beyond number.
HuvB then begins his section on humanity’s relation to God. After dealing with numerous problems, HuvB summarizes five syntheses: Christ unites “man and woman…unites the earth by abolishing the division between earthly paradise and rest of globe…unites earth and heaven…unites sensible and intelligible things…and ultimately unites created and uncreated nature” (273).
The “money-maker” of the book is his section on the two natures of Christ. HuvB raises the same problem that Sergius Bulgakov raised (more on that irony later!): how do we speak of the synthesis of natures without creating yet a third nature or a second hypostasis (214)? HuvB (or Maximus) says that Christ’s human nature is one that has been translated into a new manner of existing.
HuvB defines ousia as the real totality to which the universal concepts refer (217). The problem here is that ousia is generic. Does Christ take on a “generic” human nature? He might or might not, but at this level the language is ambiguous. How does Maximus move the discussion forward? I really don’t know. HuvB has a dense discussion on pp. 219-221.
Regarding prosopon, hupostasis, and person, HuvB/Maximus seems very close to Bulgakov and Sophia. The hypostasis is always incarnate in a nature (224). The discussion continues on the next five pages.
Evaluation
Now for the criticisms:
My criticisms of the book in no way detract from the scholarship of the book. HuvB has done groundbreaking work. The parts on Origen and the Areapogite are probably the best out there. His talk on number as sign pointing beyond probably cut the Gordian knot of postmodernism.
Problems with the book:
HuvB has an annoying habit of reading back into the Fathers current philosophical debates as though positions they held. He really wants to make St Maximus a proto-Hegelian, minus the errors of Hegel, and sees Maximus anticipating (if not secretly holding) all of the theology of St Thomas Aquinas.
He reads Maximus' appeal to the Pope has an early church endorsement of Papal Supremacy and probably infallibility. While it is true that all of the Fathers ascribed primacy to the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, first among equals, it is quite another thing to read Vatican I back into the Fathers!! HuvB also claims that Maximus held to the Filioque but aside from a vague reference to an untranslated section of Patrologia Graece, he offers no proof.
He tries to use St Maximus as a refutation of the Russian Sophiologists: Bulgakov, Florensky, and Solovyov. While Solovyov's gnosticism is fair game, HuvB's criticism of the other Russians is inaccurate at best and hypocritical at worst. I grant HuvB the right to point out ambiguities and weaknesses in 19th century Sophiology--I myself do that quite frequently. He does not have the right to call it Gnosticism when the same arguments that apply to Sophiology also apply to St Maximus--arguments that HuvB has listed as positives of St Maximus!!! LOL!!! Secondly, who is HuvB to criticize the Sophiologists for allegedly leading to the darkness of Muscovite Communism? Wait a minute--Hans urs von Balthasar, what nationality is that name? Sounds German and he wrote this around WWII; that means he's a Nazi! See how stupid this line of reasoning is? Thirdly, on the next page he praises Alyosha Karamazov for kissing the earth. He says (quite rightly, I might add) that is an extension of St Maximus's thought. There's only one problem with that. Fyodor Dostoevsky was a disciple of--you got it--Vladimir Solovyov and his Sophiological Godmanhood! Alyosha’s act is a Sophianic one.
Anyway, the book is dense and hard reading, yet it repays itself immensely.
HuvB sets Maximus as a figure who synthesized not only all of Patristic literature, but also the currents of East and West. Maximus took the best of St Dionysius, Origen, and St Gregory of Nyssa. According to HuvB, one can summarize Maximus along several principles: (1) the free origin of the ideas of God as creator (pro Dionysius and contra Origen); (2) the divinization of all creatures according to the Incarnation according to God’s decision—or more precisely, the Incarnation to use theosis to counter the work of the fall; (3) the rooting of the intelligible principles (logoi) of all individual things in the divine Logos (125).
HuvB next has an important chapter critiquing Origen’s idea of movement. (Interestingly, and this point is not made, the chapter on “movement” is a good counter to many Mormon apologetics that posit either a pre-existent fall or the fact that God the creator was once a creature; not that Origen believed this, but many Mormons do take his conclusions and reformulate them according to their system).
There is a good section on space, time, and extension (139-144). Maximus evidently anticipated the early Medieval debate on universals and particulars. According to HuvB, “Universals presuppose the expansion (diastole) of particulars, which in turn makes possible their own contraction (systole)” (160). This discussion will ultimately hinge the crucial discussion on hypostasis and ousia later in the book.
God Beyond Number and Outside Himself
While HuvB is often guilty of reading later philosophical debates back into earlier periods, he does suggest that Maximus’ understanding of “Being” and “motion” preserves the doctrine of God from later critiques (ala Hegel and Heidegger). Maximus rejects “simple being” (anticipating Jean-Luc Marion), noting that being is always marked by qualities and is limited therefore. That is why God stands outside of being (cf. David Bentley Hart and St John of Damascus).
As God is not “simple Being,” neither is God merely the numbers “3” and “1.” Yes God is a Trinity in unity, but numbers do not define God. Numbers are a sign that point towards something else. God is not the number 3/1, but those 2 numbers point towards God (cf. St Basil on the Holy Spirit). Thefore; God is beyond number.
HuvB then begins his section on humanity’s relation to God. After dealing with numerous problems, HuvB summarizes five syntheses: Christ unites “man and woman…unites the earth by abolishing the division between earthly paradise and rest of globe…unites earth and heaven…unites sensible and intelligible things…and ultimately unites created and uncreated nature” (273).
The “money-maker” of the book is his section on the two natures of Christ. HuvB raises the same problem that Sergius Bulgakov raised (more on that irony later!): how do we speak of the synthesis of natures without creating yet a third nature or a second hypostasis (214)? HuvB (or Maximus) says that Christ’s human nature is one that has been translated into a new manner of existing.
HuvB defines ousia as the real totality to which the universal concepts refer (217). The problem here is that ousia is generic. Does Christ take on a “generic” human nature? He might or might not, but at this level the language is ambiguous. How does Maximus move the discussion forward? I really don’t know. HuvB has a dense discussion on pp. 219-221.
Regarding prosopon, hupostasis, and person, HuvB/Maximus seems very close to Bulgakov and Sophia. The hypostasis is always incarnate in a nature (224). The discussion continues on the next five pages.
Evaluation
Now for the criticisms:
My criticisms of the book in no way detract from the scholarship of the book. HuvB has done groundbreaking work. The parts on Origen and the Areapogite are probably the best out there. His talk on number as sign pointing beyond probably cut the Gordian knot of postmodernism.
Problems with the book:
HuvB has an annoying habit of reading back into the Fathers current philosophical debates as though positions they held. He really wants to make St Maximus a proto-Hegelian, minus the errors of Hegel, and sees Maximus anticipating (if not secretly holding) all of the theology of St Thomas Aquinas.
He reads Maximus' appeal to the Pope has an early church endorsement of Papal Supremacy and probably infallibility. While it is true that all of the Fathers ascribed primacy to the Pope as the Bishop of Rome, first among equals, it is quite another thing to read Vatican I back into the Fathers!! HuvB also claims that Maximus held to the Filioque but aside from a vague reference to an untranslated section of Patrologia Graece, he offers no proof.
He tries to use St Maximus as a refutation of the Russian Sophiologists: Bulgakov, Florensky, and Solovyov. While Solovyov's gnosticism is fair game, HuvB's criticism of the other Russians is inaccurate at best and hypocritical at worst. I grant HuvB the right to point out ambiguities and weaknesses in 19th century Sophiology--I myself do that quite frequently. He does not have the right to call it Gnosticism when the same arguments that apply to Sophiology also apply to St Maximus--arguments that HuvB has listed as positives of St Maximus!!! LOL!!! Secondly, who is HuvB to criticize the Sophiologists for allegedly leading to the darkness of Muscovite Communism? Wait a minute--Hans urs von Balthasar, what nationality is that name? Sounds German and he wrote this around WWII; that means he's a Nazi! See how stupid this line of reasoning is? Thirdly, on the next page he praises Alyosha Karamazov for kissing the earth. He says (quite rightly, I might add) that is an extension of St Maximus's thought. There's only one problem with that. Fyodor Dostoevsky was a disciple of--you got it--Vladimir Solovyov and his Sophiological Godmanhood! Alyosha’s act is a Sophianic one.
Anyway, the book is dense and hard reading, yet it repays itself immensely.
October 24, 2024
Otrolig teolog + otrolig teolog + bok = otrolig bok
April 3, 2020
Maximus the Confessor was a theologian who played a huge role in opposing the monothelite controversy in the 600s.
Yeah, I don't even know if I spelled that controversy correctly. It was the that in the one person of Jesus there was only one (mono) will (thelite?) working. Maximus, following the Council of Chalcedon, argued that since Jesus is a unity of two persons (divine and human) then each person must have its own will and the two wills work together.
Honestly, this is not a controversy Christians in the west are familiar with. I mean, most aren't even familiar with Chalcedon and the Monophysite and Nestorian debates. Even in my church history classes, we glossed over Maximus. He was too late for the Early Church History class and too early for the Medieval class. Besides, as the story is told from a Western perspective, Augustine was the culmination of the early church and anything after him was lesser.
This is practically a tragedy. The more I have read eastern writers who came after Augustine, like Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximus, the more I realize these guys were brilliant and vitally important. Don't get me wrong, Augustine was also brilliant. But so much that was and is wrong with the western church (Catholic and Protestant) is rooted in the worst of Augustine (...eternal conscious torment, determinism). I mean, if Luther and Calvin had looked to people like Maximus, how much different would the Reformation have been?
I digress. Maximus is more than a footnote in a controversy. His writings are wonderful. I'm reading the 400 Chapters on Love for the second time as I slowly work through the Philokalia. A few months back I tackled his Ambigua. This book by the brilliant theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, is a fantastic analysis and summary of Maximus' work. Balthasar has a depth of understanding of the early church that is mind-boggling: he regularly cites Evagrius. the Cappadocians and others to place Maximus in his context.
The biggest point I learned in this book is that Maximus' work is always rooted in the Council of Chalcedon's declaration that in Jesus the human and divine are united "without confusion". Through this, Maximus achieves a synthesis between East and West that is unique in the history of religion. Eastern thought focuses on the unity of all things in the one (think Hinduism or Buddhism where all of us are like drops being absorbed into the sea). Maximus works with this unity while at the same time, keeping the value on the individual which the West brings into play. Western thought, rooted in Greek philosophy (and Judaism) sees the value of the individual. Maximus sees these two truths (unity and individuality) as held together in Jesus. The incarnation reveals to us the One Unified God who is also Trinity. Through this, we humans are united to God but retain our individual personalities.
There is a lot more here. Maximus, following Dionysius, emphasizes we cannot ever fully know God. The language we use falls short. God is beyond all our understanding, even as God reveals to us. We cannot help but use words, though even these words fall short. In the face of the indescribable, all creation falls down in worship.
Maximus describes a God it is hard to imagine anyone not wanting to worship: a God from whom we call come and who is bringing us all back into relationship. A God who works all things to the Good, for God is Good. A God who is an outpouring of love, for God is love. A God bringing creation back. Within this, there are lots of questions Balthasar deals with which will give the reader a lot to think on (how Maximus is different from Origen plays a large role too, while Maximus also is a disciple of Origen). All that to say, if you like theology and want a feast, and want to learn from two brilliant writers (Maximus and Balthasar) then read this one.
Yeah, I don't even know if I spelled that controversy correctly. It was the that in the one person of Jesus there was only one (mono) will (thelite?) working. Maximus, following the Council of Chalcedon, argued that since Jesus is a unity of two persons (divine and human) then each person must have its own will and the two wills work together.
Honestly, this is not a controversy Christians in the west are familiar with. I mean, most aren't even familiar with Chalcedon and the Monophysite and Nestorian debates. Even in my church history classes, we glossed over Maximus. He was too late for the Early Church History class and too early for the Medieval class. Besides, as the story is told from a Western perspective, Augustine was the culmination of the early church and anything after him was lesser.
This is practically a tragedy. The more I have read eastern writers who came after Augustine, like Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximus, the more I realize these guys were brilliant and vitally important. Don't get me wrong, Augustine was also brilliant. But so much that was and is wrong with the western church (Catholic and Protestant) is rooted in the worst of Augustine (...eternal conscious torment, determinism). I mean, if Luther and Calvin had looked to people like Maximus, how much different would the Reformation have been?
I digress. Maximus is more than a footnote in a controversy. His writings are wonderful. I'm reading the 400 Chapters on Love for the second time as I slowly work through the Philokalia. A few months back I tackled his Ambigua. This book by the brilliant theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar, is a fantastic analysis and summary of Maximus' work. Balthasar has a depth of understanding of the early church that is mind-boggling: he regularly cites Evagrius. the Cappadocians and others to place Maximus in his context.
The biggest point I learned in this book is that Maximus' work is always rooted in the Council of Chalcedon's declaration that in Jesus the human and divine are united "without confusion". Through this, Maximus achieves a synthesis between East and West that is unique in the history of religion. Eastern thought focuses on the unity of all things in the one (think Hinduism or Buddhism where all of us are like drops being absorbed into the sea). Maximus works with this unity while at the same time, keeping the value on the individual which the West brings into play. Western thought, rooted in Greek philosophy (and Judaism) sees the value of the individual. Maximus sees these two truths (unity and individuality) as held together in Jesus. The incarnation reveals to us the One Unified God who is also Trinity. Through this, we humans are united to God but retain our individual personalities.
There is a lot more here. Maximus, following Dionysius, emphasizes we cannot ever fully know God. The language we use falls short. God is beyond all our understanding, even as God reveals to us. We cannot help but use words, though even these words fall short. In the face of the indescribable, all creation falls down in worship.
Maximus describes a God it is hard to imagine anyone not wanting to worship: a God from whom we call come and who is bringing us all back into relationship. A God who works all things to the Good, for God is Good. A God who is an outpouring of love, for God is love. A God bringing creation back. Within this, there are lots of questions Balthasar deals with which will give the reader a lot to think on (how Maximus is different from Origen plays a large role too, while Maximus also is a disciple of Origen). All that to say, if you like theology and want a feast, and want to learn from two brilliant writers (Maximus and Balthasar) then read this one.
February 11, 2017
I highly recommend this book to all who interested in Maximus the Confessor. Von Balthasar does an excellent job of assimilating and systematising Maximus' thought, showing the cosmic as well as the individual nature of God's relation to and purpose for us and the universe. This book is also definitely a must read for anyone interested in von Balthasar, especially if you're interested in seeing how he used and assimilated the Greek notion of theosis/deification.
Last Read
2013 (17-21 May)
2014 (9 October-15 December)
Last Read
2013 (17-21 May)
2014 (9 October-15 December)
September 16, 2025
We can give credit to Hans Urs Von Balthasar for reviving interest in the great ascetic and theologian, St Maximus the Confessor. We can also credit the former Jesuit for identifying Maximus as more than a fanciful defender of dyothelitism. Here the praise must stop. Von Balthasar in his first few paragraphs identifies why he bothered dredging up the at-the-time obscure Confessor maimed for his commitment to two wills in Christ. Von Balthasar wants to do to Hegel what he sees Maximus as having done for Origen. He wants to inoculate against Hegelianism by extracting what is good from Hegel and disposing of the carcass left over. To do this, Von Balthasar needs to argue that Maximus did the same thing for Origen in the same exact way. Since he wants to still leave Maximus open-ended for the Von Balthasar treatment of projecting his own work onto the past, he masterfully weaves together passages and paraphrases until Maximus is speaking German. Then as expected the final outcome is an appraisal Von Balthasar gives to himself, by appraising Maximus for all the doctrines he kicked out of him.
The work can be of service if you are familiar with Maximus and with Von Balthasar. Otherwise you will be sorely misled, and may end up becoming Von Balthasar's latest inadvertent disciple.
The work can be of service if you are familiar with Maximus and with Von Balthasar. Otherwise you will be sorely misled, and may end up becoming Von Balthasar's latest inadvertent disciple.
November 8, 2017
I'm not a total fan of St. Maximus, probably because his thinking is too great and marvelous for me. He creates this magnificent synthesis of the Fathers who came before him including some streams of thought that were in opposition (for example, Evagrius vs. Pseudo-Dionysus). He manages to keep together many neo-Platonic ideas/ ideals with Orthodox theology. But he often is addressing issues that are of little concern to me so I have a hard time appreciating his brilliance. Orthodoxy however often lives in the glory of its past, so he is upheld as a man who managed to create a synthesis of theological ideas needed in the 7th Century.
September 16, 2020
The book is a theological tour de force by von Balthasar. For anyone with a reasonable background in Christian theology and history, this is an essential book for their library. It requires a good background in Plato and Aristotle (e.g., "The Republic" and a few other dialogues of Plato are essential ground for understanding Christian theology). Tis good to have a bit of knowledge of Origen and the Cappadocian Fathers as well. These all provide ground for this clear presentation of a critical point in the defense of Apostolic Christianity and the clarification of certain questions arising from the collision of pagan philosophy (Plato and Aristotle) with Jewish-Gentile Christianity. This collision is not a late comer to Christianity (Maximus lives from 580 to 662CE), because Paul communicates the Christian Jewish understanding of God and Messiah to the Gentiles (non-Jews) using a lot of the concepts of the Stoics, of Plato, and some of Aristotle. As well, the first big extra-biblical theologian, Justin Martyr, was a Platonist and a Christian.
The complete joy of this book is the careful definition of the philosophical terms used to clarify the Trinity and humanity and the cosmos. The key words in the books are essence and ideas, nature and being, existence and hypostasis, etc. Wonderful presentation of these philosophical terms used in the early Church.
Maximus the Confessor stands at a point in Church history where political power tries to influence theological decisions. Maximus stands as an intellectual giant to defend the decisions of the Nicene and Chalcedon Councils. The understand of the second person of the Trinity, Jesus the Messiah, was at stake: two natures (Divine and Human), two wills (Divine and Human), and one Person of a Triune God (Jesus, Son of God, son of Mary), but unconfused in that one Person. The clarification Maximus makes is subtle but important because of the potential consequences at that point in history. These philosophical points are not as important to the modern mind maybe, but it was a critical juncture for the Church at that time.
The Emperor in the East preferred the Monophysite solution of the merging of the Divine and human natures into one nature within Jesus Christ (a unique divine-human mixture), with one will (a unique divine-human mixture), in the one Person, Jesus Christ. The Monophysite view had complications that suggested that Divine Nature of the Messiah would overwhelm the human nature to the point of meaninglessness of the Incarnation. It approximated the early gnostic heresy that the Messiah only appeared to be human, but was really the Divine Spiritual God. The two natures, two wills of the Chalcedon solution provides the incarnation of God to have an existential life as human (Divine and human natures remain intact). The Chalcedon solution also provides a picture of the interaction of humans and God's indwelling spirit. The indwelling of God's Spirit still respects the created nature of the human individual. The Monophysite solution tended towards a gnostic goal of sublimating individual humans back into a monolithic unity that erase individuals, that is, the Divine nature overpowers all created beings towards salvation by uniting all into the one. The experience of humans as individuals was interpreted as the condition of sin. Salvation was towards the merging of individuals into a unity with the Divine unity (Origen's ultimate eschatology.)
Maximus the Confessor defends the traditional teachings of the Apostles (Jewish Christians) that taught of the One God who created the cosmos and beings in the cosmos with inherent goodness. Individuals are born into the community of the cosmos with relational goodness (a relational unity of Shalom). Sin (evil) perverts the individuals and the relations in the community to break the Shalom. Salvation forgives and restores goodness to all creatures and creation into the community of goodness. The Divine nature and created nature remain separate but in an unconfused relational community.
This book carefully walks through the ideas and augments after the Council of Chalcedon, which produced the most widely accepted Creed of Christianity. Very readable.
The complete joy of this book is the careful definition of the philosophical terms used to clarify the Trinity and humanity and the cosmos. The key words in the books are essence and ideas, nature and being, existence and hypostasis, etc. Wonderful presentation of these philosophical terms used in the early Church.
Maximus the Confessor stands at a point in Church history where political power tries to influence theological decisions. Maximus stands as an intellectual giant to defend the decisions of the Nicene and Chalcedon Councils. The understand of the second person of the Trinity, Jesus the Messiah, was at stake: two natures (Divine and Human), two wills (Divine and Human), and one Person of a Triune God (Jesus, Son of God, son of Mary), but unconfused in that one Person. The clarification Maximus makes is subtle but important because of the potential consequences at that point in history. These philosophical points are not as important to the modern mind maybe, but it was a critical juncture for the Church at that time.
The Emperor in the East preferred the Monophysite solution of the merging of the Divine and human natures into one nature within Jesus Christ (a unique divine-human mixture), with one will (a unique divine-human mixture), in the one Person, Jesus Christ. The Monophysite view had complications that suggested that Divine Nature of the Messiah would overwhelm the human nature to the point of meaninglessness of the Incarnation. It approximated the early gnostic heresy that the Messiah only appeared to be human, but was really the Divine Spiritual God. The two natures, two wills of the Chalcedon solution provides the incarnation of God to have an existential life as human (Divine and human natures remain intact). The Chalcedon solution also provides a picture of the interaction of humans and God's indwelling spirit. The indwelling of God's Spirit still respects the created nature of the human individual. The Monophysite solution tended towards a gnostic goal of sublimating individual humans back into a monolithic unity that erase individuals, that is, the Divine nature overpowers all created beings towards salvation by uniting all into the one. The experience of humans as individuals was interpreted as the condition of sin. Salvation was towards the merging of individuals into a unity with the Divine unity (Origen's ultimate eschatology.)
Maximus the Confessor defends the traditional teachings of the Apostles (Jewish Christians) that taught of the One God who created the cosmos and beings in the cosmos with inherent goodness. Individuals are born into the community of the cosmos with relational goodness (a relational unity of Shalom). Sin (evil) perverts the individuals and the relations in the community to break the Shalom. Salvation forgives and restores goodness to all creatures and creation into the community of goodness. The Divine nature and created nature remain separate but in an unconfused relational community.
This book carefully walks through the ideas and augments after the Council of Chalcedon, which produced the most widely accepted Creed of Christianity. Very readable.
Read
November 29, 2019The great summa and synthesis of Maximus Confessor, the thinker of the ultimate synthesis - of east and west, rome and byzanz, Plato and Aristotle, of the early Fathers per se, synthezising the 3 central poles of his thinking Evagrius, Origen and Dionysos Areopagite into one great christocentric cosmic vision, while at the same time purifying them of all heterodox temptations of the asian soul ("asiatische Auflösung"), with it's spiritualistic world-denial and neo-platonic emenations; a final great 'Aufhebung' of all pantheism, both eastern and western, from Buddha to Hegel, into a higher synthesis, written by Balthasar in a style that synthesizes the Areopagite apophaticism, the specifically german philosophic ductus reminiscent of Hegel and Heidegger and some genuinely lyrical passages - truely an 'epic' scholarly work in scope.
January 30, 2025
This book will be fascinating to anyone interested in the early Christian era and how various factions led and/or opposed by early church fathers and saints argued out ontological issues and how God should best be conceived and approached. Though concentrating on Maximus, who came fairly late in the game and who Balthasar credits with making the strongest, most successfully matured arguments, the book delves deeply into the views and systems of other major players like pseudo-Dionysius, Evagrius Ponticus, Origen, Plotinus, and John Scotus Eriugena.
Balthasar knows both the history and theology inside out and writes a silky narrative full of ideas. The only warning I'd offer is that the theology gets gnarlier as the author endeavors to lay out Maximus's thinking, with seemingly little left out; it will probably take most readers (myself included) more than one slow-paced reading if the aim is really to to try to digest it all.
Balthasar knows both the history and theology inside out and writes a silky narrative full of ideas. The only warning I'd offer is that the theology gets gnarlier as the author endeavors to lay out Maximus's thinking, with seemingly little left out; it will probably take most readers (myself included) more than one slow-paced reading if the aim is really to to try to digest it all.
October 9, 2022
Anyone who knows my thoughts on the discipline of historical theology has heard me say (probably more than once) that Gerald McKenny's The Analogy of Grace is everything a contemporary work of historical theology should be. In my mind, Hans Urs von Balthasar's Cosmic Liturgy is a close second. Second only because I think he trims and flattens one too many crinkles in the fabric of Maximus' thought. Such is wont to occur in the work of one who is not just a practitioner of the discipline but also a visionary. In that sense, his insight into Maximus' theology is unsurpassed, breathing new life into the past for the sake of the present, the kind of historical theology that is needed today.
December 25, 2024
საშობაოდ დავასრულე ჰანს ურს ფონ ბალთაზარის წიგნი მაქსიმე აღმსარებელზე. უბრალოდ, ენით აღუწერელი შრომაა ჩადებული ამ ტესტის შექმნაში და წიგნის დასრულებისას მადლიერების განცდა გიჩნდება ავტორისადმი, რადგან წარმოუდგენლად დიდი საჩუქარია ნებისმიერი ფილოსოფოსისთვის და, განსაკუთრებით, თეოლოგიის ბუნდოვან სიღრმეებში ჰიპოსტასური სინამდვილის წვდომის მსურველისთვის.
რა თქმა უნდა, კიდევ ბევრია სათქმელი, მაგრამ, უწინარეს ყოვლისა, უნდა ითქვას, რომ ბალთაზარის ეს წიგნი ერთი დიდი თავგადასავალია.
რა თქმა უნდა, კიდევ ბევრია სათქმელი, მაგრამ, უწინარეს ყოვლისა, უნდა ითქვას, რომ ბალთაზარის ეს წიგნი ერთი დიდი თავგადასავალია.
Read
December 12, 2019I wish I could rate and review this but it was so over my head I’ll have to wait for another reading - would love to read it with a group. That said, any low hanging fruit I managed to grasp and taste was delicious and inviting.
February 27, 2024
It is basically one of the best books ever written by far. I am in awe that we even have been blessed with such an incredible text.
February 27, 2008
Byzantine Christian perspective on anthropology
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews