Thank you Cormac. Very helpful and in depth. I think that a dialectical approach is a natural consequence of not rooting thinking in Trinitarian theology. Within the Trinity, one of the divine Hypostasis (Persons) cannot be described in terms of not being like one of the others, since there are two hypostases not like the other. The divine Persons can therefore only be described relationally, by the nature of their relationship with the other two. This means that characteristics and 'roles' of any one created reality (be it male, female, earth, heaven or whatever) cannot be understood in terms of opposition to another i.e. dialectically, but only by love and relation. So, for example, love for one other human person can only operate in a healthy way if it includes a third 'party' (ultimately God, but also one's neighbour). Aidan Hart
This is really helpful, Cormac. Thank you. Your explanations of dialectical thinking are making this issue clearer and clearer to me. As always I love the little flares of humor in your writing. I loled at "longtime readers of my month-old newsletter."
Do you have any thoughts on the relationship or anagogical complementarity between marriage and monasticism in this light? It seems in some places to be presented dialectically, but while the Church confesses virginity the higher mode, it also steadfastly retains the doctrine of the holiness of marriage, and the synergy and common telos of both paths. Any deeper insights? Forgive me if I am unclear or misrepresent the teaching of the Church.
Thank you for the fascinating article: analogical and not dialectical. Most important is the differentiation between hierarchy as commonly understood and Christian hierarchy.
Dr. Timothy Patitsas talks quite a bit about love reconciling the opposites in his Ethics of Beauty. We're so used to thinking that things have to be either/or and it's hard to get used to the idea that we can have them be both/and.
If you think about it, every single relationship is mediated by a third element - it's never just I/Thou - there's always the spirit (Spirit?) of the relationship that turns it from 2 separate individuals, "me" and " you", into "us".
Thank you Cormac. Very helpful and in depth. I think that a dialectical approach is a natural consequence of not rooting thinking in Trinitarian theology. Within the Trinity, one of the divine Hypostasis (Persons) cannot be described in terms of not being like one of the others, since there are two hypostases not like the other. The divine Persons can therefore only be described relationally, by the nature of their relationship with the other two. This means that characteristics and 'roles' of any one created reality (be it male, female, earth, heaven or whatever) cannot be understood in terms of opposition to another i.e. dialectically, but only by love and relation. So, for example, love for one other human person can only operate in a healthy way if it includes a third 'party' (ultimately God, but also one's neighbour). Aidan Hart
Thank you Cormac. Very helpful and in depth. I think that a dialectical approach is a natural consequence of not rooting thinking in Trinitarian theology. Within the Trinity, one of the divine Hypostasis (Persons) cannot be described in terms of not being like one of the others, since there are two hypostases not like the other. The divine Persons can therefore only be described relationally, by the nature of their relationship with the other two. This means that characteristics and 'roles' of any one created reality (be it male, female, earth, heaven or whatever) cannot be understood in terms of opposition to another i.e. dialectically, but only by love and relation. So, for example, love for one other human person can only operate in a healthy way if it includes a third 'party' (ultimately God, but also one's neighbour). Aidan Hart
This is really helpful, Cormac. Thank you. Your explanations of dialectical thinking are making this issue clearer and clearer to me. As always I love the little flares of humor in your writing. I loled at "longtime readers of my month-old newsletter."
Do you have any thoughts on the relationship or anagogical complementarity between marriage and monasticism in this light? It seems in some places to be presented dialectically, but while the Church confesses virginity the higher mode, it also steadfastly retains the doctrine of the holiness of marriage, and the synergy and common telos of both paths. Any deeper insights? Forgive me if I am unclear or misrepresent the teaching of the Church.
Thank you for the fascinating article: analogical and not dialectical. Most important is the differentiation between hierarchy as commonly understood and Christian hierarchy.
Dr. Timothy Patitsas talks quite a bit about love reconciling the opposites in his Ethics of Beauty. We're so used to thinking that things have to be either/or and it's hard to get used to the idea that we can have them be both/and.
If you think about it, every single relationship is mediated by a third element - it's never just I/Thou - there's always the spirit (Spirit?) of the relationship that turns it from 2 separate individuals, "me" and " you", into "us".
Thank you Cormac. Very helpful and in depth. I think that a dialectical approach is a natural consequence of not rooting thinking in Trinitarian theology. Within the Trinity, one of the divine Hypostasis (Persons) cannot be described in terms of not being like one of the others, since there are two hypostases not like the other. The divine Persons can therefore only be described relationally, by the nature of their relationship with the other two. This means that characteristics and 'roles' of any one created reality (be it male, female, earth, heaven or whatever) cannot be understood in terms of opposition to another i.e. dialectically, but only by love and relation. So, for example, love for one other human person can only operate in a healthy way if it includes a third 'party' (ultimately God, but also one's neighbour). Aidan Hart