The reason why everyone is guilty of Original Sin is Because everyone Commit the Original Sin

So, I think its fair to say that only God himself is completely free. Now, in God, freedom and necessity coincide: it is necessary that he be free, but he freely embraces necessity. Divine simplicity. However in creatures, there is tension between freedom and necessity; in creatures, freedom and necessity are not the same thing. God wants to create us immediately in heaven, completely free, but this is not possible; we are creatures and therefore we must be created with a “history” of becoming and growing into our freedom.

Hence the story starts with humanity (represented by adam) in the garden of eden. God says to us “You may eat of any tree in the garden” – this corresponds to the modern idea of voluntarist, spontaneous freedom (which DBH rallies against so hard in all of his writings). Basically, any option is as good as any other; any tree in the garden we can explore, sample, experience, enjoy. But all of the trees are as good as any other, therefore there’s no real rhyhm or reason for why we would pick one rather than another. For this very reason it was not enough for God to give us this spontaneous freedom, because such a freedom is almost entirely “random” and therefore it is not appropriate to the sort of freedom that a “man made in the image of God” should have: God’s freedom is not random and spontaneous, therefore neither should man’s freedom be purely random and spontaneous.

Hence, God appends to his universal permission a single prohibition “But I command you: please do not eat from this tree, because if you do, you will die.” Now, the game has changed, rather than adam and eve being confronted with a field of arbitrary possibilities which they will randomly select between, all of a sudden the possibilities have a rational weighting. In other words, some possibilities are “better” than others. At this point, human freedom becomes one that does not merely randomly select from among equal options, but it must rationally deliberate and make a rational choice to select the best/the correct/the most good option. At this point, human freedom has been “shaped” by God so that it is not merely spontaneous and arbitrary but is rather rational and purposeful . So we are now getting much closer to a human freedom that accurately “images” divine freedom, because divine freedom is rational and purposeful, rather than merely being spontaneous and unconstrained/uncoerced.

So far so good. Adam and eve now have a collection of epistemic knowledge: 1.God is good, we can trust him. 2. Those trees are good and we should explore them. 3. That tree is bad and we should avoid it. 4. We are children made in our fathers image and he wants us to grow up to be just like him; this is our destiny.

Now, in order to grow up to be like God, this epistemic knowledge needs to become gnosis knowledge. So while adam and eve are aware that all the good trees contain hidden delights and pleasures, they do not have direct, experiental gnostic knowledge corresponding to their purely intellectual understanding. Hence God wants adam and eve to explore all of the good trees, and in doing so, accumulate more and more gnosis of both God and the creations inherent goodness.

The way God has set things up, everything should work smoothly to produce a divinised adam and eve who have maximum gnosis, and are therefore rendered incapable of sinning, because as they acquire more and more “direct knowledge” (gnosis), they will simply have less and less reason to act in a way contrary to that gnosis. Once adam and eve have eaten from ALL of the good trees in the garden, they would have ALL the gnosis, and therefore be fully and completely divinised, incapable of sinning, perfect children of the father existing in a state of perfect love and harmony from which no fall is possible. The reason why this is predetermined is because Adam and Eve would tend to always choose correctly on the basis of the gnosis they have already acquired, as well as the episteme which guides their choices (again, “These trees are good, those trees are bad. We should eat from these trees, not from those trees”). Basically, adam and eve have absolutely no reason to sin and misuse their freedom at this point, and therefore everything looks set to progress smoothly with no fall, no sin, no death, no pain.

But here comes the twist! Somehow, somewhere, some of the angelic beings had already fallen! Satan hijacks the snake and slithers into the garden, and introduces something of a “computer virus” into the whole order established by God. This computer virus takes the form of a well crafted lie. Adam and eve are doing well, they are on track, things are going smoothly. Adam and eve are eating from the good trees and accumulating gnosis, which is something of a “vaccine” against any possibility of sin. Their deliberative (gnomic) wills are operating just as God designed them to; they are making the correct decisions, avoiding the wrong decisions, because they simply have no reason to sin, so why would they? God is their loving father who has been nothing but a good dad, so why would they have any motivation to disobey him and eat from the bad tree?

So, Satan comes in under the guise of the snake, and introduces a great lie which serves to scramble Adam and Eve’s decision making. Adam epistemically knows that his purpose and destination is to be like God, and he epistemically knows that if he disobeys God, it will be really bad, leading to death. Adam epistemically knows that eating from the bad tree would be a bad idea. However Adam has not yet acquired the full amount of gnosis in order to see through a lie. So the snake comes in and tells an incredibly crafty lie: “God wants you to be like him right? and you want to be like God? well, you and I and God are all fully aware that if you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you will be like God, so why is God stopping you? Does he want you to be like him or not? Why is he making you wait? You are already very smart and enlightened, you have already eaten from all the good trees and have already learned so much: so why is God making you wait? Why not just take a shortcut to theosis and eat from the tree God has forbidden you?”

Short but relevant tangent: It is a popular opinion among the church fathers that adam and eve would have been permitted to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil later. So God’s prohibition was just a provisional thing for while they were “little children” (as it were). Once adam and eve had accumulated enough gnosis by eating from all the good trees, at such a stage the father would have said to them “Ok, you have learned everything, you are ready now; you may eat of the final tree and experience the gnosis of death.” So basically, the mission of adam and eve was to eat from ALL of the good trees, acquire ALL the gnosis, and only then would they be ready and permitted to confront death.

So, Satan slides in, and constructs a lie. Adam knows that his destiny is to become like God, so why is Father Yahweh not letting him eat from the forbidden tree, which allegedly will do just that? All of a sudden, Adam’s “deliberative” (gnomic) freedom has gone haywire, because it has become faced with a cognitive dissonance: Basically, should he continue to trust God the father, continue to accumulate gnosis in the slow and patient way? Or should he trust the snake, who has managed to make a compelling argument that it would be better to just cut to the chase and eat the forbidden fruit NOW .

Another short but relevant tangent: The story of adam and eve eating the apple is a typology for every individual human person ever. For more details, read Bulgakovs, “The bride of the Lamb”. Basically, all of us were in the garden, and all of us were individually tempted by the snake, and all of us individually succumbed to his lies, although in each case the lie was different and the fall was different (hence why each of us is born into different circumstances during our lives: some in better circumstances, some in much worse). Bulgakov calls this “meta-history.” During this meta-history, everyone become personally guilty of the original sing just because everyone personally commit the original sin. As such, every individual person has an individual and personalised original sin somewhere in their past, and we can’t do the augustinian thing and put all the blame on adam himself. All of us are personally culpable. At the point that each of us succumb to the snakes lies, that is the exact point that each of us are individually cast out of eden and born in this broken world. (However, the boundary between meta-history and history is a mind-blowing thing and hard to explain. again, read bulgakov)

Returning to adam and eve and the snake: The snake delivers a perfect lie, and all of a sudden the clear distinction between right and wrong, good and evil doesn’t seem so clear. All of a sudden adam is uncertain whether God the father really is completely trustworthy. At this point of confusion and indecision, the opportunity to disobery God becomes a live option. Now, some of us gave in to this lie sooner, some of us gave into this lie later. For some of us, we continued to trust God, continued to eat from the good trees, continued to accumulate gnosis of how good, loving and wonderful God really is. However, the snake kept coming back, and his lies became more and more elaborate: every time we grew in gnosis, the snake was able to use that very gnosis to construct an even better lie. Eventually, one by one, all of us ended up giving in and committing the original sin, and one by one each of us fell out of eden (metahistory) into this broken world (history).

Once we fell into the world, our freedom became totally hijacked. Now our deliberative (gnomic) will is constantly making bad decisions, and where before the journey towards God was easy, now we struggle to continue to grow in gnosis of God, instead, we experience gnosis of suffering, sin, evil and death. Our freedom was always a combination of sponaneous/arbitrary freedom with the rational freedom oriented towards God, but now both of those aspects of our freedom have gone haywire. We deliberate, and we think we know what the best choice is, but as it turns out that’s actually not the best choice and just causes more problems. Basically, we end up in a severe “bondage of the will” situation.

But lets zoom out of history and return to the story happening in eden, in metahistory. Back in eden, humanity is being seduced by the snake one by one and falling into this history. But as mankind slowly apostatiss into a massa damnata, there are two souls who continue to trust Father Yahweh, despite being constantly and repeatedly lied to by the snake. No prizes for guessing who 🙂 Mama Mary and Christ Jesus.

Now, Mary is constantly being approached by the snake, and the snake is constantly tempting her to “cut to the chase” and just eat from the forbidden tree. But mary continues to eternally say her “fiat” and trust God, regardless of how convincing the snakes lies become. Mary knows that Father Yahweh is good and trustworthy, and has his reasons for making her wait. The struggle only continues to get more intense and the lies become ever more convincing, but Mary stalwartly trusts Yahweh and continues to accumulate gnosis by only eating from the good trees.

Eventually, it gets to the point where Mary has eaten from literally every good tree in the garden. In other words, Mary eventually achieves a full and complete gnosis. In other words, Mary manages to live an authentic human life without ever committing the original sin, like the rest of us do. We can imagine someone like St Isaac of Ninevah in the garden, resisting all the lies and onslaughts of the devil, and yet even he at some point was seduced by the serpent and ate the fruit of the forbidden tree, and therefore “fell” into this broken world (I personally tend to think that the lie the snake told St Isaac was something along the lines of “Look at all your brothers and sisters suffering on earth and in Hell: they need your help, right now; why is father God stopping you from going down to rescue them? He wants you to rescue them right? Look how much they are suffering: it would be so cruel of you to remain up here and continue your training in righteousness: you already know enough to rescue so many souls, why don’t you eat the fruit now and try to rescue as many of them as you can?” and of course, this appeal to love overcame st isaac, and he ate the fruit before the right time, commit the original sin, and fell into earth, just like the rest of us)

But unlike St isaac, Mary never gave in. She successfully became what all of us were called to be, by trusting in Father yahweh to the end. At this point, father yahweh entered the garden and spoke to her: “Mary my lovely daughter! You have been my best child! You are now ready to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You now know all that there is to know: you are prepared to experience the final gnosis: the gnosis of death, and because you have full gnosis of my love and goodness, you will not be overcome by it”. At this point, mary eats the fruit and yet does so without committing original sin. As such, Mary does not fall into history; rather, she obediently descends into history, so as to save all the rest of us who commit the original sin. By being recapitulated in Mary (the church), all humanity is obedient to the father, just like she was, with the same human obedience that she displayed.

Now, Jesus is different: Jesus was also in the garden, but Jesus, being the only-begotten, homoousian son of the Father, always had the gnosis necessary to avoid committing original sin. Jesus did not have to acquire and grow in gnosis of the father because he eternally possesses such gnosis. This is why, while the snake did indeed tempt and lie to Jesus just as much as he tempted and lied to mary; in Jesus case it was impossible that he could have fallen because he always had the full gnosis necessary to see right through the lies of satan. Whereas Mary was merely human and therefore had to grow in this gnosis. So while recapitulation and redemption was a real struggle and ordeal on the part of both Mary and Jesus, the human acheivement is thanks to Mary in a sense that it isn’t thanks to jesus, because Mary was a kierkgaardian “knight of faith” – constantly trusting God even in the face of the compelling lies of Satan. Whereas Jesus always had maximum gnosis, and therefore his obedience was always a foregone conclusion.

In any case, Jesus too eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, just like mary. And just like mary, for jesus it was not the original sin because he and mary had both “completed their training,” and therefore they were both ready to descend to the deepest depths of the gnosis of sin, suffering, evil and death, without being overcome by it. So Jesus and Mary do not fall into this broken history, instead, they obediently and joyfully descend into this history, so as to gather humanity up, redeem all of our mistakes and sins, and eventually bring us back into our final destination: blissful trinitarian union with God.

Returning to the “freedom” theme we started with: all humanity, one by one, was deceived by the lies of satan, and thus our freedom became hijacked and diverted from it’s proper course. Mary was the only one who never fell for it, and Jesus (being God) simply never could have fallen in the first place. So Mary is a type of all of us: eventually all of us become perfect in a synergistic struggle and attain to the full gnosis that we were all originally destined for, and it is only at that point that humanity finally becomes free in the sense that it was always destined for: we have finally achieved a full and comprehensive gnosis of everything, both good and bad, and therefore never again will it be possible to “choose wrongly.” Once we have experienced that full gnosis, never again will we ever sin. Finally we will be free in the same manner that God is free. We will always choose God, the highest good, and no lie of satan will ever again be able to interfere with that freedom. Just as jesus always and everywhere had full gnosis, and therefore it was logically impossible for him to fall for the lies of the devil, so too – in Mary (the church) – we will have also acquired that same full gnosis. Jesus – being God – always had the gnosis, whereas Mary – being merely human – had to acquire the gnosis. But she did, and in her, so shall we all. Our freedom is something that we grow into, through mary and into Christ.

So in summary, all of us are on a journey of becoming and none of us has ever really experienced “true” freedom yet. We are all on a journey, starting with the spontaneous and deliberative freedom of adam and eve, fighting forth into the victorious human freedom of Mary, and destined to finally emerge into the divine freedom of loving necessity and necessary love that we see in Christ. Every saint and every bodhisattva ate from the forbidden tree before the right time, out of compassion, so as to rescue humanity, but only Christ and Mary ate from the tree at the right time, once they had fully completed their training in gnosis. Mary and Jesus know enough to experience sin, death, evil and suffering to the full without being overcome by it, and for that reason, when we cling to them we are enabled to do the same. Eventually, apokatastasis will be achieved and it will be glorious.

As for the salvation of the ultimate liar and slanderer himself: who knows what he will do once there is no one left to fall for his lies. I think it’s fair to assume that at that point he will have gone through his own journey of gnosis, and discovered the utter pointlessness of evil and rebellion. At that point, perhaps the only person left to lie to will be he himself, and perhaps that will be the first time he has ever looked within himself and encountered the beautiful soul that he has been running from this entire time. Perhaps at that point, he too will have to concede defeat, and join us all singing hosannas and glorias and mahamantras to the loving God who created him.

The Riddle of the Universe

space-960x460[1].jpgI sublimate all that I hear, smell and feel.
Savour that taste which I see is not real,
Believe that by this, it all comes together
As Identity for now and forever.
The choices I make, the best I can be,
Both to myself and society,
Life, the universe and all are the same,
For I have met God, and absurd is his name.

And now my head is spinning round;
I fly up only to come plummeting down.
For the final Zenith of Absurdity
Is only a proud ode to Insanity.
As I fall under the gaze of eternity
I look back, and there’s nothing to see
Where is the truth? The Light? The life?
I’m cornered by sin, surrounded by strife

To dive down into deepest despair
Nothing makes sense, I’m gasping for air
Pulled down by my pride

A bible story
A man in the desert, Tempted by Satan
What does it mean?

Faith

Alex Herlihy – 2014

A Simple Rite of Marriage for Two True Believers

https://i2.wp.com/www.romeoandjuliet-weddings.com/images/rome/rome-church-wedding/medieval-church/slide/medieval-church-trastevere.jpg?resize=676%2C454&ssl=1

I take issue with the traditional western Christian understanding that the wedding vows are only in effect “until death do us part”. This would be appropriate in a Buddhist context, where there is a strong emphasis on the impermanence and conditioned nature of all phenomena, however I am utterly convinced that this sort of language is entirely inappropriate in a Christian context, which is supposed to give an absolute priority to the permanence and unconditionality of the eternal life that Christ has won for us all.

Appending “until death do us part” to your wedding vows strikes me as a blasphemy against the resurrection of Easter; as a denial of the total victory of life, love, light and grace over death, selfishness, darkness and sin; it is a repudiation of the conquering of evil, demons and damnation by goodness, angels and salvation; it is to renounce marriage and Heaven and embrace divorce and Hell; it is to substitute the obedience of Christ for the rebellion of Adam.

As far as I’m concerned, claiming that every marriage dissolves at death is strictly equivalent to denying that Christ has risen from the dead, and so even if this doesn’t make you a heretic in the eyes of Holy Mother Church, it renders you a heretic under the divine gaze of goodness, truth and beauty himself. If ever I find myself in the awkward and unfortunate situation where my conscience compels me to choose between God and Holy Mother Church, I will choose God every time. Thankfully it’s never come to that before, and I have confidence that it won’t happen over this issue either.

Of course, the Divine Liturgy is inspired and infallible, so there must be some reason why God allowed this troublesome phrase to be inserted into our wedding vows. Well, legal contracts dissolve at death, it is true. No law can compel you once you have passed from life into death. And in this sense, the “until death do us part” condition in the traditional Catholic vows is a valid summary of the legal situation we find ourselves in. But marriage is not merely a legal contract; it is also a holy and everlasting covenant, akin to the holy and everlasting covenant between Christ and Church.

DIVINE MASCULINE & FEMININE JAN 14 - 20, 2018 MULTIPLE ...According to the order of Law, marriage is understood in a legal and contractual sense and therefore divorce is possible and is in fact ultimately inevitable, as all sin and so all die. However according to the order of Grace, marriage is understood to be an unconditional covenant, and therefore once truly entered into, it is a divine relationship that never can and never will be broken by anything: On account of the resurrection, not even death is able to dissolve it. It is in this sense that marriage here on earth reflects the heavenly marriage between Christ and Church. Just as Christ will never abandon the church and the church always clings to Christ, and on account of the resurrection not even death can separate them, so too husband pursues wife and wife clings to husband, and on account of the victory of the resurrection, not even death can nullify this marital union.

In light of these reflections, I have composed a wedding liturgy complete with vows which better reflect the reality of the victorious Gospel.

The Wedding Liturgy

Twin Soul Ascension Report ~ Easter Gateway Divine ...

Groom:

I vow to you that I will love you and fight for you in every way, always and everywhere, whether we be together or apart,

I vow that as you ascend to Heaven, I will be your partner on the journey and assist you; and whenever you descend to Hell, I will be your companion in the darkness and rescue you,

I vow that neither death nor life, nor angels nor demons, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers nor rulers, nor height nor depth, nor Hell nor damnation, nor anything else whatsoever, will divorce me from you.

I vow that even if God himself should declare us to be divorced, I will not accept it and will wrestle with him until he allows me to continue loving you in peace.

Groom (or a trusted minister)

Do you have faith that these my/[Groom]’s vows are infallibly guaranteed by the unconditional promise of God himself, by the supreme victory of the resurrection, and by the eternal and everlasting life that the Lord Jesus Christ has won for us all?

Bride:

Just as I have faith in these holy and divine mysteries, and just as I have faith in God, so too I trust you and I trust your vows.

Groom:

Truly, I am now and forever married to you.

[Put a ring on her finger and kiss her on the cheek]

Bride:

I vow to you that I will love you and fight for you in every way, always and everywhere, whether we be together or apart,

I vow that as you ascend to Heaven, I will be your partner on the journey and assist you; and whenever you descend to Hell, I will be your companion in the darkness and rescue you,

I vow that neither death nor life, nor angels nor demons, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers nor rulers, nor height nor depth, nor Hell nor damnation, nor anything else whatsoever, will divorce me from you.

I vow that even if God himself should declare us to be divorced, I will not accept it and will wrestle with him until he allows me to continue loving you in peace.

Bride (or a trusted minister):

Do you have faith that these my/[Bride]’s vows are infallibly guaranteed by the unconditional promise of God himself, by the supreme victory of the resurrection, and by the eternal and everlasting life that the Lord Jesus Christ has won for us all?

Groom:

Just as I have faith in these holy and divine mysteries, and just as I have faith in God, so too I trust you and I trust your vows.

Bride:

Truly, I am now and forever married to you.

[Put a ring on his finger and kiss him on the cheek]

Trusted minister/witnesses:

I/we declare and recognise {Groom] and [Bride] to be truly and eternally married as husband and wife!

[Thunderous applause from the witnesses]

[The newlyweds share a kiss and then depart to the bedroom to get it on all night long like it’s the song of songs, baby]

catholicity and covenant: Song of Songs: rediscovering the ...

A Dance

rsz_a1-5-740x555[1].jpg

Walking, talking,
Rushing off in excitement and me not pursuing.
A cross between a train station, my year nine camp accommodation sleeping quarters, and the bubblers outside at my primary school.
I let you go,
Head inside to the hall, meet people,
Talk to a troll for some reason that escapes me.
The troll provides some bogan philosophy,
I head back out,
try to find you,
looking through walls windows and mirrors,
they’re all the same anyway,
find you,
your face is just as happy as before,
but it has a falseness about it which I don’t know if it was there the whole time and I just didn’t notice or it is a new development.
I ask what is wrong, you say “nothing” and are so sincere.
You aren’t even acting; you ARE sincere,
and yet I know you are false.
“Alright… but just in case, I want to hug you to make sure”.
She does and falls asleep;

You slept with your head on my shoulder and your arms and legs wrapped around me.
As tall as me, and only a little younger, yet you were lighter than a feather,
and I held you as I would hold my one year old sister.

I walked and the world moved around us in a way that didn’t match up with how my legs were telling it to move.
Down the middle of a busy street,
across crossings that were lacking lights and painted stripes,
one second, or five, or a minute no cars, the next one hundred.
I moved out of their way, understanding the danger, but not feeling it.
Too calm, and you slept as if nothing at all were happening.

The scene changed to become more grassy,
and you flickered in and out of existence on my shoulder.
I carried you across the suburban Noork’s elbow.
Street, turned to bridge,
bridge over train tracks,
and before I had even stepped onto the bend, you had disappeared,
I forgot all about you, and the dream flowed on into the morning.

Only when my eyes open did I remember that,
and realise what a strange,
amazing dance we had just performed.

But you’ll never remember it.

The last message I received from you was sent before our dance, but only received after;
Dream about cruise ships and ball pit rooms.
Usually you are there, always there in case I need you. But not today.
I don’t remember my dance involving any juggling.
It wasn’t a dance of love, sadness, joy, happiness. It wasn’t a dance of the night, it wasn’t a dance of the morning, it wasn’t a dance of light, or of the moon falling. No guns were firing no swords were drawn, it wasn’t a dance of bullets or skin torn.
No words were said, but it was no dance of silence.
In simplicity lies beauty and perfection.
It was a pure dance, no more.
I dreamt of the cruise ship, but not the ball pit.
I dreamt a dance, we danced a dance,
And you’ll never remember it.
In simplicity lies beauty and perfection.
To walk while the world runs?
It was a pure dance, no more.
And you’ll never remember it.

Alex Herlihy – 2010 (Mildly edited)

St Maximus the Confessor and Apokatastasis

St Maximus the confessor draws a distinction between the “wanting” of God and the “willing” of God. Importantly, this maps directly onto the “wanting” of the soul and the “willing” of the soul. This is very important for understanding how universal Salvation is compatible with the popular understanding of free will.

The Willing and Wanting of God

God wants to save everyone: According to Catholics this is indisputable and fundamental. Because God is love, how could he ever want to damn someone? However, just because God wants something doesn’t mean he wills it. Wanting is a desire, whereas willing is an active manifestation of an intention, aimed at the satisfaction of a desire.

So on the one hand, God loves us all and wants to save us all. However, we abuse our freedom, and therefore God wills to punish us. The analogy of the father and the child helps to make sense of this.

A good father never wants to punish his child. So too, God never wants to punish us. However, the father sometimes feels compelled to punish his child, so as to “teach the child a lesson”. This should be both a corrective and a retributive punishment – which is to say, the punishment should be fitting and in proportion to the crime, but the punishment should also be aimed at educating and correcting the child and encouraging him to return to the right path.

Now, all of us have sinned, and therefore even though God wants to save us all, his will is compelled by his perfection of justice to condemn all mankind to damnation in Hell (Samsara). So there’s two things happening here: there is the Apokatastasis (Universal Salvation), in which both God’s willing and God’s wanting are in perfect harmony, and then there is the Massa Damnata, in which God’s willing is out of sync with God’s wanting: In the Apokatastasis, God both wants and wills all to be saved, and so all are saved. Whereas in the Massa Damnata, God wants to save everyone, and he does not want to punish anyone, but his will is compelled by his perfect justice to punish us all.

The summary with respect to God is that God always wants to save us all, however because all of us sin, he wills to damn us all.

The Willing and Wanting of The Soul

The analysis of willing and wanting with respect to God maps directly onto the willing and wanting of the Soul.

Every soul wants and desires God, and every action that a soul undertakes is aimed at trying to move that soul towards God. However due to our limited perspective, we often make mistakes, due to lack of prayer and mindfulness of what is right and wrong in any given situation. With our will we make choices which we think will satisfy our wanting, but often we are mistaken and our choice has the opposite effect.

In this way, with our wanting, we always seek after God, but with our willing we often fall short of God and find ourselves deeper in the darkness.

Synergism and Predestination

Now, the doctrine of synergism states that there is a perfect harmony between the wanting of the soul and the wanting of God, as well as – startlingly – perfect accord between the willing of the soul and the willing of God. That is to say, the soul always wants God, and God always wants the soul.

However when the willing of the soul is not directed towards that which will truly satisfy it’s wanting, then so too the willing of God will not be in accord with that which truly satisfies his wanting. Both God and the soul always want the soul to move towards God, but sometimes the soul wills to move away from God, and whenever it does this, God accordingly wills to move away from the soul.

In this way when someone sins they have failed to act correctly and have chosen wrongly. The result is an explosion of justice from God in the form of an increase of retributive punishment. And so when we reject God, we are punished, but the key thing is that this is not the punishment of a king towards a slave; it is instead the punishment of a father towards a son.

As such, God’s justice is a merciful justice: it aims at the salvation of the sinner. But God’s justice is also a retributive justice: his punishment always fits the crime.

Lets take things to the extremes: When the soul definitively rejects God (and St Maximus firmly maintains – along with popular catholic tradition – that this is possible), God’s justice responds with definitive rejection of the soul.

According to Paul in his letter to the Romans, all of us have definitively rejected God and we all continue and persist in this rejection. And so all of us have tasted Hell. In a sense, St Augustine was right about the massa damnata: all of us will be damned forever.

But there’s a rubber band effect in play here. It is just because all of us are damned, that all of us will be saved; the punishment of Hell (Samsara) is the very means by which God educates us to be able to make the right choices. Sometimes it takes total damnation of a soul; it requires a soul to hit rock bottom, in order for that soul to finally realise the truth of his situation and repent.

So even if a soul ends up in Hell by means of it’s own mistaken willing, that soul still desires to be in heaven by it’s infallible wanting. Everlasting damnation is the educative means by which God will bring that soul back to heaven.

If a soul ends up in Hell, that soul’s wanting and willing are out of sync. They are willing the wrong things in an attempt to satisfy their wanting. Similarly with God; when a soul ends up in Hell, God does not want the soul to be in hell, but he does will that the soul be in Hell.

In summary, the willing of the soul is directed towards the satisfaction of the wanting of the soul. So too, the willing of God is directed towards the satisfaction of the wanting of God.

The implication of this is that everything God wills, ultimately has the purpose of satisfying his wanting. So if God wills that someone be everlastingly and eternally damned forever and ever, then in a most mysterious way this act of will has the purpose of satisfying God’s want to save that soul. In other words, everlasting and eternal damnation is sometimes exactly what it takes in order for the soul to ultimately get what it wants, and also for God to ultimately get what he wants.

Conclusion – God or Hell: Which is More Eternal?

St Gregory of Nyssa – who was a firm universalist – pondered these ideas, and speculated that for most souls the stay in Hell would be a temporary one, but for some souls (for example perhaps Satan and/or Judas) their damnation will be so complete that their purification will “extend into infinity”.

But he also remembered that “God is infinitely more infinite than infinity and eternally more eternal than eternity”, and so he had the wisdom to ask “What happens after forever?” and his answer was αποκαταστασις; the final and universal rest of all souls in paradise . Those who find themselves stuck in Hell forever will finally begin to repent after a forever has elapsed. For the forever of Hell cannot compare to the forever of God. Hell may very well feel like forever to a soul who is stuck there, but to God, the punishments of Hell do not last even as long as the blink of an eye.

In this way, we have both the massa damnata and the Universal Salvation shown to be compatible with each other. Everyone will be damned for all eternity, and everyone will be saved for all eternity, and the key to understanding how this can be, is St Maximus’ distinction between willing and wanting.

Footnote

Just as the Catholics are correct to insist that “God loves everyone and desires to save all without exception”, so too, the Calvinists are correct to insist that “God is just and actively wills to send sinners to Hell”: When a soul finds itself stuck in the torments of Hell, this is because God wills it, but not because he wants it.

The COVID Sessions – Online Interfaith Exchange #1

A Hindu, a Buddhist and a Christian discuss politics, coronavirus, and comparative theology.

Notes on a Mitch Pacwa Debate Concerning Justification

Initial Thoughts

I’m uncomfortable with the way he frames the catholic position. The way he talks, it sounds as if God does 99% of the work of our salvation and then leaves the final 1% up to us. He says something like “we have to say ‘yes’ to God”, as if the saying yes is spontaneously produced by an individual and God just steps back and has nothing to do with it. This can’t be right. The understanding that I’ve inherited over the years is articulated by British Orthodox Metropolitan Bishop Kalistos Ware as “The work of our salvation is completely and entirely an act of Grace, but in that act of grace we remain completely and entirely free”.

This would probably sit will with Aquinas, who had a strong and robust doctrine of efficacious grace. A summary of my understanding of efficacious grace is “God can guarantee that a sinner will be saved without in anyway violating that sinners freedom”. Compare this with the current popular catholic understanding of “sufficient” grace, which I understand to be something more like “God gives us everything we need to be saved, but then steps back and leaves it up to us”. In my opinion this popular understanding has fatal implications for Christian Hope, Faith and Joy; it turns the work of salvation back on the sinners own efforts, which of course will never be enough. This leads to despair and angst of the sort that Luther experienced.

What makes most sense to me is that all of the following propositions are true, even if at face value they may appear to some to be irreconcilable:

Salvation is an offer that we may or may not accept: We have free will and no one can coerce us to do anything – not even God. (The standard Catholic understanding)
Salvation is also an unconditional promise: God is able to guarantee that we will be saved (ie, that we will at some point accept his offer), without in any way violating our freedom (The Catholic doctrine of predestination and election and the Thomistic doctrine of efficacious grace)

The idea of unconditional promise is interesting, because it raises the question “To whom is the promise spoken and how/when/where?” According to Lutheran sacramental theology, the promise is primarily spoken via the seven sacraments, with particular emphasis on Baptism and Confession. At the moment when you are baptised, God has sacramentally spoken his promise of salvation to you and you are counted among the elect; you have passed from death to life and there is no possibility of going back. The sacrament of Confession and words of absolution are simply a reminder of this new reality and basically are a shorthand way of saying “Remember that you have been baptised and are not guilty, so stop feeling like it and stop acting like it!”

This is incidentally where the idea of “Sola Fide” actually makes sense. It’s not possible to respond to an unconditional promise with works, but only with either trust or apathy. If salvation is an unconditional promise, you either trust that promise or you don’t, but regardless of whether you trust it or not it’s going to come true because God is the one making the promise and God’s promises do not fail. However if you do trust the promise, life comes alive in ways that you never thought possible before, and the lyrics of the popular protestant hymn “Amazing Grace” cease to seem so heretical. “I once was lost but now am found; was blind but now I see”.

Most Catholics in my experience tend to disagree with this whole understanding by completely denying that salvation is a promise and doubling down on it’s nature as an offer instead, thus rendering the “unconditional” dimension of salvation null. Such people tend to be hyper-attached to a particular understanding of libertarian human free will and get triggered by anything that even slightly appears to contradict it. The fact that we humans have the power and right to deny God becomes the most crucial issue of our day and if anyone dares to question this they are dismissed and ignored as a heretic. And so “Freedom” becomes the central and decisive dogma of the faith, rather than the love of Christ for sinners and his glorious and total defeat of sin, suffering, Hell and death. I don’t find the supposed fact that I have the ‘freedom’ to damn myself inspires much faith, hope and love in my life; instead it tends to just produce scrupulosity and a judgemental pharisee/tribal attitude in which I’m trying super hard to save myself but it’s never enough and I look down on others who aren’t trying as hard as me. Whereas the idea that Christ has already saved me and everyone who I love, and that I need not fear being ultimately lost, is incredibly inspiring. Rather than being crippled with fear of hell and focusing on saving myself, I’m empowered to carry the light of christ out into the world and focus on saving everyone else.

This is arguably why Justification is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. A church that sees salvation as a mere offer, to be responded to primarily with effort, is going to be completely crippled as it’s members turn inwards and focus on trying to save themselves. Whereas a church that sees salvation as the unconditional promise which can only be responded to with faith (which is exactly what it is), has been liberated to get out there and announce to the world its own salvation, which is the original meaning of evangelism: to announce the good news of Christ’s victory over all the pains and problems that confront us in our lives.

Around the 10 Minute Mark

Pacwa gives a great and passionate description of the catholic position on assurance and perseverance. He seems to be saying that you can be sure that you are in the state of grace in any given moment, but you cannot be sure that you will persevere in this state of grace all the way until the end of your life.

I think it really depends whether you take “state of Grace” and “justification” in a subjective or objective sense (which is another popular Lutheran distinction). In an objective sense, the entire world was justified by the cross and resurrection. The job is done; The entire world is objectively saved and in the state of grace and will be forever. However subjectively speaking not all of us experience this salvation that has been won for us. In a subjective sense, many of us remain in our sins and feel guilty and scrupulous. So in the subjective sense, Pacwa is completely correct to follow Trent and say that no one can know that they will persevere to the end of their life in the (subjective) state of grace. However in an objective sense (which is what most protestants are more concerned with), you can definitely be assured of your ultimate salvation: this is the essence of the gospel and exactly what makes it “good news” for me, for you, and for all of our relatives who are currently dying from coronavirus. “Christ died for you: You have been saved” is the kerygma that we must announce. Mitch Pacwa and the council of Trent didn’t get any of it’s theology wrong, but it simply is missing the evangelical point of the whole affair.

“Declaration of Righteousness” and “Reality of Righteousness”.

Justification is indeed a declaration, as per Luther, but this does not make it a “legal fiction”, as Catholics commonly caricature the protestant understanding.

Consider: If I look at a desk and see a book, but Jesus looks at the same desk and doesn’t see the book, Then is the book really there? Are you delusional or is Jesus delusional? Who’s perspective has epistemological primacy in this situation? Who should you trust?

In case the answer isn’t obvious: God’s perspective always trumps the sinners perspective.

With this in mind, consider what it means for God to “declare” that a certain state of affairs holds. If God declares that I am righteous, then despite all evidence to the contrary I am righteous. Because if that is how God sees me then that is how it is, even if I can’t understand how this may be.

The idea is somewhat platonic. God has a perspective of reality “with all the lights on” as it were, whereas we are wandering through reality as a child wanders in the dark. In other words, we are not omniscient and don’t have access to all the data, whereas God is omniscient and therefore his perspective is fully informed in a way that ours isn’t. The implication of this is that when God declares you to be righteous, you are really righteous, even despite all evidence to the contrary.

This is again where faith comes in. Do you trust your own perspective, under which you are condemned as a dirty filthy sinner? Or do you trust God’s perspective, which he reveals to you via his unconditional promise and declaration that in the reality which he is perceiving, you are ok and he accepts you? It’s a question of where you place your faith: in yourself or in God? In your own perspective, or in the divine perspective of God which he reveals to you through the announcing of the gospel and the proclamation of the promise in word and sacrament?

Faith and Works

The inevitable faith versus works debate pops up in the video towards the end. The conflict isn’t so hard to resolve in my view. The protestant fella is insistent that the fact of our election (which he refers to as “salvation”) does not depend in any way on the works and efforts that we perform, and he is completely correct to insist on this. Whereas Pacwa is insisting that works of love and a purified, perfected soul are necessary components of salvation, not optional, and he is also correct to dig his heels in and insist on this.

The resolution comes by recognising that salvation is both an event and a journey: The entire cosmos and everyone and everything in it was justified/elected/saved/predestined at the cross and resurrection. For this reason we as Christians should sing praises and rejoice. However there’s also a journey involved: we still remain here in this life, and our mission is to be little Christs and announce the Gospel to the world, as well as stamp out any sins and imperfections that appear to remain in the world. We’re all on this journey together and until we are all fully saved and made perfect, none of us are.

In this way you do justice to the Catholic insistence that works of love are essential to the process towards and state of salvation, but you also do justice to the deep protestant conviction that there is literally nothing we can do to secure our election.

A helpful thing to remember is that when a protestant says “I am saved”, often what they really mean (even if they don’t realise it) is “I am elect and chosen”. They are fully confident that in the end, they are going to make it, because they know that Jesus died for their sins and rose again for their salvation.

In this way, works are an essential part of salvation, but they have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with predestination or election.

A helpful point to drive this home is the fact that under both a lutheran and calvinist analysis, not even faith contributes anything to our election. We are chosen because God loves us, not because we have faith or try really hard to fulfill the commandment to love; not even if we succeed at fufilling the commandment to love (but who does?). The reason for this is that this simply turns faith into a work. If election depends on our faith, then no one can be saved, because no one has perfect faith, no matter how hard they try. Whereas if election depends on God’s love and what he did for us on the cross, then it doesn’t depend on us at all, not even on our faith, and therefore we can have peace and assurance knowing that everything is going to be ok, which frees our wills and liberates us to go and do the good works that are necessary to make the journey to heaven. But without this faith and assurance, we will be utterly paralyzed,

In summary, the cross unconditionally secured election for the whole world and everyone in it, but our love and good works are how we “make the journey” to heaven both individually and as a church community.

Pacwa also raises the issue of mortal sin, and how it is possible to lose justification. Again, understanding the difference between election/predestination and salvation/justification is helpful. Of course it is possible to lose your salvation and justification by apostasy and mortal sin, however your election is still secure and there is nothing you can do to escape your election; ultimately no matter how far the lost sheep runs into the outer darkness, Christ the good shepherd will leave his Church, descend to Hell and rescue that sinner.

In other words, not even Hell and everlasting damnation can or will prevent Christ from saving us, which is incidentally what the whole point of Holy Saturday and the harrowing of Hades is about.

So yes, you can compromise your current salvation by mortal sin, but there is nothing you can do to jeopardize your election

Beautiful Heresy 101 – Religious Pluralism: “A Deductive Proof of the Incarnation”

Proof

0. A. Only God is uncreated and everything that is not God is created by God (Assumption)
0. B. God is not logic (Assumption)

1. A. God created logic and determines how it operates (Implication of 0A and 0B)
1. B. God is prior to logic and not bound by it (Implication of 1A)
1. C. God is not required to conform to the law of non contradiction (Implication of 1B)
1. D. God is able to actualise contradictions and impossibilities (Implication of 1C)

2. Anything which is subject to logic must necessarily have a nature which consists of created attributes. (Assumption)

Many theologians (especially Muslims of the Ash’ari school) insist that: 3. A. God is bound by logic (Assumption)
3. B. God has actualised his nature in such a way that it includes created attributes (Implication of 1D, 2 and 3A. Proof of incarnation complete. Note that as our Muslim friends never tire of telling us, this point is a contradiction)

4. A. God is subject to logic and in particular the law of non contradiction (Implication of 3A or 3B)
4. B. Everything God has done must in actual fact not be contradictory (Implication of 4A)

5. A. God is the source of all things, whether contradictory or non-contradictory (Assumption)
5. B. But God does not actualise contradictions even if he is able to (Implication of 4B)
5. C. We have established that God has actualised at least one contradiction (restatement of 3B)

6. A. All actual contradictions are merely apparent and not real (Implication of 5A and 5B)
6. B. all contradictions are logically reconcilable via semantic distinction and elaboration (Implication of 6A)
6. C. There are no actual contradictions between religious traditions, only apparent ones. (Implication of 6B)

7. A. The incarnation is only an apparent contradiction, not a real one (Implication of 6A and 5C)
7. B. All religions are Simultaneously True (Implication of 6C. Proof of Pluralism Complete)

Tl;dr:

1. If God is subject to logic, then he necessarily has a human (created) nature alongside (or in a perichoretic miaphysis with) his divine nature.
2. When you jettison the law of non contradiction, everything follows, including the law of non contradiction! also religious pluralism.

Beautiful Heresy 101 – The Great Apostasy: “Bride of Christ and Whore of Babylon. Infallible Church and Harlot of Adultery”

220px-Burgkmair_whore_babylon_color[1].jpgI don’t think Jesus ever said the church will never fail. (In fact he said just the opposite in a couple of parts of the bible). What he did say is that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church.

So the church is the army of God, and the image is not one of defence, it is one of offence. Christ’s army is attacking the prison/stronghold/gates of hell. The prophecy of God is good news! Hell will be (has been) conquered. There is a victory to both rejoice at right now and also work towards in the future. But there’s nothing to ultimately worry about. There might be a hell, but not in any way or sense which contradicts Gods sovereignty, power, love or goodness. Hell is a prison, and Jesus has just orchestrated the ultimate jailbreak. Not one soul remains left in the grave. All things, all people, become saved and glorified. O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your victory?

That message sounds so much better and so much more “gospel” and so much more “good news” than anything anyone in the catholic church ever told me. Then again no one from any church told me that, I had to work it out myself through prayer and direct mystical insight. The messages of the churches are constantly mixed with this great lie that God isn’t good enough, or god isn’t powerful enough, or even if he IS good and powerful enough we simply don’t know whether he will act on his power and goodness, and therefore some/many/most people would burn in hell forever and ever and the ending of the story would be complete tragedy. No church ever explicitly says any of this, because if they were to do that they would be instantly recognised for the satanic hoax that they are. However pay attention to what they’re telling you and you should be able to discern this fundamental nihilism that permeates it.

Surely we all know on some level that can’t be right. But out of fear and obligation to “the church”(aka the priests, bishops, and other Pharisaical figures), we find ourselves defending this narrative again and again against those who are in the worst and most dire circumstances. Which do you reckon will energise them to fight the most? The idea that they, their friends and family will all probably be damned forever? The idea that God gives them the “opportunity” to be saved and now it’s up to them and their freedom to do the rest (hah! Good luck!)? Or the revolutionary “gospel” idea that because of the cross and resurrection, their eternal future is secure and there is ultimately nothing to be afraid of.

Maybe all of these “churches” are actually the whore of Babylon. The catholic church, the Mormon church, whatever. They are flirting with Satan and misleading people to hell. They keep mixing the “good news” of the gospel with this toxic pessimism and then wrongly invoking the authority of God over the false teaching in order to keep the people in fear and subservient to the prince of darkness himself. People end up blindly defending and serving the very thing that they thought they were fighting against.

Perhaps the solution is to be always listening. Look out for an individual who has a new, energising perspective. A prophet with fresh revelation. For example a Muhammad, or a Joseph Smith. God speaks to individuals well before he speaks to institutions. Listen out for the voice of the living prophets in our age: they may very well be prophesying your own doom and warning you to repent.

Can anything these prophets say actually contradict the truth? Of course not. The “mystical” church is the holy and infallible bride of Christ. But the “institutional” church is the harlot, drunk with the wine of adultery. Regardless of whether your church is called Mormon, Catholic, Anglican, Muslim, Reformed, Adventist or whatever; your church has fundamentally betrayed you. And to go on insisting otherwise is to simply be an agent of evil and to do the devils work for him.

The solution is throw off institutional shackles and human authorities: to pray harder and to seek guidance from God directly into your soul. I’m sure that if you pray about it, God will verify the essence of his Gospel: he sent his son in love, we murdered him in rejection, his son descended to the worst possible depths of hell and damnation, in order to rise again to resurrection and new life, and that this grand gospel narrative is a reassurance of the promise that our final future (heaven) is secure and there’s nothing we need to worry about. If only we would just trust that promise, the joys of heaven would be ours right at this very moment.

The surrounding details are optional: we can come to an agreement on whether the pope is the head of the church or Joseph Smith was a prophet later. What is essential for us to agree on right now is that the gospel really is “good news”: Jesus really has conquered evil, death, hell, sin and the powers of darkness. And until someone hears that message and believes it, they are just yet another soul thrashing about in hell while being under the illusion that they are devoutly serving God.

Praise God that the gates of hell wont prevail against the assault of his church. Praise God that eventually everyone will hear the message and respond to it with faith and true repentance. Praise God that in the eschaton, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, and neither principalities nor powers, hell; freedom or rebellion can prevent God from fulfilling his loving plans for us all.

Beautiful Heresy 101 – Catholic Idolatry: “Venerate by your Hands; Worship in your Heart”

00-catholic-christmas-05-vatican-pope-francisco-28-12-14

Idolatry

Catholics cop a lot of crap from fundamentalists for having statues in their churches. According to these fundamentalists, Catholics are committing the grave sin of idolatry by doing this. Even more damnable in the eyes of these heathen Protestants is the fact that Catholics bow down to the statues and some Catholics even go so far as kissing them. This seems like clear and undeniable evidence that Catholics disregard and stand in contradiction to the scriptures; our good God’s infallible words:

Exodus 20:1-6 RSV-CE

And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.“You shall have no other gods before me.You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

The basic moral principle that both Catholics and Protestants (and Jews and Muslims) agree on is that it is inappropriate to worship anyone but God alone. To worship something that is not God as God is the grave sin of Idolatry.

So, why do Catholics do this? Why do Catholics bow down to statues? There are lots of things to consider.

Veneration versus Worship: Which one is related to Idolatry?

A very helpful distinction to keep in mind is that between veneration and worship. Simply stated, veneration is a physical action that someone performs with their body towards some other physical object, whereas worship is an attitude in the heart of a person towards an object that may or may not be physical. In this way, it becomes possible to venerate an object without worshipping it, as well as to worship something without venerating it, and finally to both venerate and worship an object simultaneously. To worship anything other than God is Idolatry, however it is permissible to venerate almost anything without any Idolatry being committed.

DQX4wCuW0AAVTqK.jpg

Idolatry

Some examples may be helpful. If you were ever to meet someone of royalty, for example a Saudi Arabian prince or the Queen of England, etiquette would require that you make some sign of deep respect towards the monarch, for example by genuflecting or kissing a ring. Now, some fundamentalist Muslims and Christians would get uncomfortable about this and their overclocked idolatry detectors would be pinging deep in the red end of the scale. However the vast majority of both Protestants and Catholics would consider this to be a socially acceptable expression of respect towards the Monarch. Reasonable people would not consider these actions of veneration to be idolatrous, because it is understood that we are not worshipping the monarch, we are merely venerating them.

It is the same with Catholics and their statues. When Catholics kiss, genuflect before and bow down to statues of Saints, Mary or Jesus, they are simply Venerating the depicted figures, but they are definitely not Worshipping them. There is therefore no idolatry occuring.

Another example may help. When a mystic sits completely still for an extended period and focuses his mind on union with God, his heart may very easily slip into a state of extremely intense and ecstatic worship of the good God on high. In this case, he is sitting completely still and so is not demonstrating any evidence of veneration, however within himself there is occurring extremely strong and delightful waves of love and worship towards God. It is appropriate that there be no act of veneration in this case because acts of veneration always have to be directed towards some physical object or location, however God does not have a physical location; he is simultaneously omnipresent and located nowhere. For this reason even if the mystic wanted to venerate God, he wouldn’t be able to. Instead he must direct his worship towards God in an abstract sense. So in this case, there is worship without veneration.

An interesting example for Muslims is the fact that during their five daily prayers they prostrate towards the Kaabaah in Mecca. Prostration is an extremely profound movement of veneration, so it is rather telling that Muslims pray towards a physical location, despite their intense aversion to idolatry. The explanation in this case is that their action of veneration – the Salat prostrations – are directed towards Mecca, however their attitude of worship is directed towards God alone, who has no physical location.

POS-906_Monstrance_18x24__84910__25046__65923.1452778507__42607.1527101330.jpg

Idolatry

A final example is appropriate. When Catholics engage in adoration of the Eucharist, this is an example of a simultaneous veneration and worship, because the Catholic belief is that the bread they are staring at has literally been transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ himself. The Catholics believe they are literally staring at God, and so they may bow down towards the Eucharist as an act of veneration whilst simultaneously confessing the divinity of that towards which they bow in their hearts as an attitude of worship. In this case, there is both veneration and worship. Whether you believe that this is idolatry depends on your view of the Eucharist.

The crucial point is that veneration and worship are distinct. It is permissible to venerate pretty much anything, but it is only appropriate to worship God. In summary, veneration is an action of the hands, whereas worship is an attitude of the heart. Idolatry is the worship of anything other than God, but veneration of pretty much anything is always permissible.

Dulia, Hyperdulia and Latria

The doctrine of theosis declares that God became man so that man might become God. According to theosis, the saints all participate in divinity to different degrees, and therefore it is appropriate to “worship” the saint to the exact degree that they participate in divinity. Of course, Mary participates in Divinity to the maximal possible extent, so it is appropriate to direct maximal worship towards her. However, it is an established principle that worship is to be directed to God alone, and while Mary and all the saints have been truly “divinized”, when push comes to shove they are fundamentally human and not divine. The water is muddied: should we or should we not worship these saints who have attained to a combination of created and divine natures?

hqdefault

Idolatry

It is helpful to introduce a helpful historical distinction at this point. There are three different kinds of worship: Dulia, Hyperdulia and Latria.

Dulia is worship reserved for a divinized saint. To the extent that the saint is united to God and has divinity permeating his soul, it is appropriate to worship the saint. The reason why is that you are not actually worshipping the saint as a created being, but are instead worshipping the divinity that is united to that saint. To the extent that the saint is divine, we worship them, to the extent that the saint is created, we do not worship. The technical term for this mixture of worship and non-worship is the word Dulia.

Now, Mary has achieved maximum theosis. She is as closely united to God as it is possible to be. As such, it becomes appropriate to direct maximal worship towards her. However, the fact remains that Mary is essentially human before she is divine, and therefore it would be inappropriate to give her the fullness of worship reserved for God himself. In this way, the worship we give to Mary is also the worship of Dulia, just as with all the other saints. However on account of the fact that Mary has achieved maximum theosis, she also receives maximum Dulia. Theologians invented a new term for this maximal level of worship: Hyperdulia. In essence, it is still just the worship of Dulia, however due to it’s maximal nature, it is called hyperdulia.

Finally, there is the worship reserved for God himself. This is the worship of Latria. To give Latria to anything but God would be the deepest idolatry, for this is the form of worship reserved for him and him alone. Catholics direct their Latria towards the Eucharist during adoration, or towards God in the abstract during deep prayer. To direct Latria towards Mary or a Saint would be gravely sinful, because regardless of how deep their experience of divinity, they are fundamentally human before they are God. Whereas God himself is Divine before he is human, and it is therefore appropriate to give him the infinitely elevated worship of Latria, rather than the lower and lesser worship of Dulia.

In summary, it is appropriate to worship anything that is divine just to the extent that it is divine, however it is important to pay attention to the essential nature of the object you are worshipping: If the object is fundamentally created before it is divine, then we should only give it the worship of Dulia, whereas if the object if fundamentally divine before it is created (ie, God himself) then we should give it the worship of Latria.

But what about the commandments against statues, images and idolatry?

Someone might be reading this and think “That’s all well and good, but in scripture doesn’t God explicitly say that it is not permissible to make statues and bow down to them? All the arguments in the world can’t change that brute fact.”

This is true, so it is helpful to examine the status of the law in Christianity. The idea is that there is the Moral law and the Mosaic law. Jesus abolished the Mosaic law when he died and resurrected, however the Moral law is still in force. It can sometimes be hard to tell which commandment belongs to which law. However in this case the church has identified the commandment concerning statues as belonging to the Mosaic law, and as therefore having been abrogated by Christ along with the laws concerning ritual cleanliness, clean and unclean foods, sacrificial rituals and so on. Whereas the moral law against idolatry remains in force in the sense that it is inappropriate for Christians to worship anything that is not divine, and it is inappropriate to give the worship of Latria to anything but God himself.

Idolatry

Idolatry

It is interesting to revisit the arguments that were put forward at the seventh ecumenical council, which was primarily concerned with this very debate. The fathers of the council claimed that God abrogated the commandment against images when he became incarnate: When God took on the form and image of the man Jesus, he for all time made it permissible to make use of created images as an aid to worship. God represented himself with flesh, and in doing so made it lawful for Christians to represent the divine via other created images. If the commandment against representing God with images were still in effect, it would imply that God had broken his own commandment by becoming incarnate! This is clearly an impossibility, and the only possible conclusion is that God has abrogated the commandment in question by his incarnation.

One final consideration from the seventh ecumenical council is worthwhile touching upon. When a Christian venerates a statue and directs his worship of Dulia towards the depicted saint, they are not actually worshipping the statue; they are instead worshipping the saint whom the statue depicts. In the language of the council fathers, the worship directed towards a statue or image travels through the image to the “prototype”. In this way it is not the statue being worshipped, but the saint that the statue depicts.

Conclusion

An easy to remember way of expressing the principles outlined in this post is the following: Veneration is an action of the hands; Worship is an attitude of the heart. Also, we only worship an object to the extent that it is divine; Saints receive Dulia, Mary receives Hyperdulia, and only God himself receives Latria.