Showing posts with label Fr. John McGuckin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fr. John McGuckin. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Fr. John McGuckin-The Church of Today


At the end of January the Fr. Alexander Schmemann lecture was given this year (2014) by Fr. John McGuckin. Fr. John spoke about the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church and the following excerpt was his conclusion to the talk. He concluded on what the church is today and tomorrow.

I believe, the future of Orthodox theology is neither Sophianism or Neo-Patristic synthesis; neither Neo-Palamism nor ressourciement, not Nouvelle theologieor even ancienne theologie for that matter; not progressivism or conservatism. The future of Orthodox theology is fidelity to the Gospel lived out in the interim as we approach the eschaton. We have always known this; and accordingly have always known that we were supposed to resist the isms and secessions, scholasticisms, denominations, and all other sorts of factions that mark off a sectarian mentality from the ecclesial spirit. Now there have been endless temptations of the Christian church in recent generations to dissect itself in ever-diminishing circles. The ecumenical movement that once shone so radiantly in the early post-war years when these Orthodox thinkers of Lossky’s time were in their prime, excited and energized, is now a squeaking ghost of itself because of that spirit of divisionism that is rife. Conservative Christians can hardly speak to progressives. But when we Orthodox are being specifically conscious about our mode of discourse today, I think we should remember that the church has always used philosophical method very eclectically to exegete the Gospel; applying a purely utilitarian principle. It can never wed itself to any method or school or system except that which Gregory the Theologian calls ‘a fisherman’s dialectic.’   

Orthodox have sometimes begun to imagine themselves as a denomination alongside other multiple churches in a pluralist world, and to speak of themselves in that way. But Orthodoxy’s role is not to be a subaltern in a post-colonial ambit: to appear quaint when we speak to some putative West, as some putative East. On the contrary, we have to hold an important line: the church is not a sect. It contains within its living body, conservatives and progressives, liberal reformists and die-hard traditionalists, not to mention saints and sinners. Within Orthodoxy those who want to ‘synthesize’ for the future, and those who want to keep everything intact as it was in the past, both have to learn the hard reality that it is only God’s eschaton that makes the correct judgement on what is right and what is wrong with the Church. The spotless Bride who contains all that is necessary for salvation in her trousseau, is ever the same (just seen in a different light) as that annoying baggage that is the Church on earth, which is comprised of an awful lot of flawed and compromised individuals trying to do their best to make their pilgrimage to the Kingdom. The Orthodox always attempt to be ever faithful to the evangelical tradition they have received and which they seek tp preserve in the canons and the writings of the dogmatic and spiritual fathers, but above all they are called to live it out, live out that is the resurrectional presence of Christ, through his Spirit, in the largely unseen holiness of the ecclesial community.

Fr. John McGuckin      

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Christology and the Council of Chalcedon-Book Review


The following is a book review by Fr. John McGuckin on the new book by Fr. Shenouda Maher. This is quite the read and the first of its kind. This will become an important work and I hope we can all get a copy and digest it and break down everything Fr. Shenouda has to say. If you are an academic, a priest, or someone who simply likes to read this is the book for you. Enjoy. 

Fr. Shenouda M. Ishak. Christology and the Council of Chalcedon. Outskirts Press. Denver Co. 2013, 681pp.

Fr. Ishak has, for many years past, been one of the world’s leading Coptic theologians in the international ecumenical dialogue with both the Catholic and Orthodox churches. He is a familiar and much respected figure in the counsels of the WCC. His studies over so many years bore fruit in this present work: a magnum opus summing up an immense set of journeys. The study represents his notes and analyses of a breath-taking array of Miaphysite theologians as well as learned presentations on why the Oriental family of churches will not accept the settlements of the Council of Chalcedon (451) and its doctrine of the two physeis of Christ running into consilience in the single divine hypostasis. This is no work that suggests that the refusal of Chalcedon was a result of political or geographical isolation (arguments that are often found in modern text from historians who have clearly never read the theologians carefully). The study progresses from the well-known characters of the Miaphysite tradition-Dioscorus and Severus of Antioch for example, and goes on in a wonderfully rich manner to outline the whole topography of the ecclesial tradition of “the Orientals”. 

It carefully distances this from any suspicion of Eutychianism (Monophysitis). The work is unique and irreplaceable. If I have a critical remark on its undoubted achievements it would, perhaps, be to say that it is often better in what it affirms (of its own sensus fidei) that in what it condemns about that of others. The work gathers together much previously existing scholarship in handy synoptic form, but it is priceless for the intimate way it expounds the theologians of the Miaphysite tradition whom the western text books rarely ever refer to. It opens with a critical attack on Nestorian and Syrian thought (chapters 1-2) and gives detailed documentary evidence of the synodical condemnations Nestorianism called down upon itself. Chapter 3 sets side by side the manner in which the Byzantine synodical tradition from Chalcedon to the Synod in Trullo (692), and the Anti-Chalcedonian Miaphysites respectively attack the Nestorian premises (namely: Peter the Iberian, Timothy Aleuros, Philoxenos, Severus of Antioch, Jacob of Serug, Theodosios, Theodore, Damian and Benjamin of Alexandria, and the Armenian Church). There is a close study of the history of the Council of Ephesus (431) and the Christological significance of the Theotokos title. 

Important sections treat the issue of the “one complete nature and hypostasis” of the word made flesh, which should be required reading for all concerned with historical Christology. Fr. Ishak’s studies of St. Cyril’s Eucharistic soteriology and the analysis of the “two natures only in contemplation” (the gnorizomenin of Chalcedon) are rare and finely detailed and much too be welcomed. Here is a theologian who understands the issues of Mono-Energism and Monothelitism, and how both were important “acts” in the whole Christological process: a perspective largely missing from most commonly available textbooks of Christology. 

His work makes it clear why these were attempts by Chalcedonian theologians doomed to failure from the outset if they were hoping to reconcile the Orientals. The work ends with a series of the Miaphysite theologians and synods which have condemned the Council of Chalcedon. This is a source of immense erudition and will be required reading for anyone involved in future dialogues, and all who wish to understand the great issues involved in the crisis of expressing the international Christological faith o the Church in the 5th century, which sadly remain to divide us.


Fr. John Anthony McGuckin.  

The following is a link to the Amazon page to Fr. Shenouda's book: