Recruiting Maximus for a Goldilocks-Cyrillean Christology

how to affirm a communio naturarum beyond the communicatio idiomatum

Might we recruit Maximus for a Goldilocks-Cyrillean Christology?

Might we affirm a communio naturarum beyond the communicatio idiomatum?

Might we go beyond the in abstracto “Deus secundum humanitatem assumptam est passus” (God suffered according to the assumed humanity) to more robustly affirm the in concreto "Ipse Deus verus est passus," by, at least, using a chastened or thin passibilist account of divine immutability?

While in no way threatening any divine intrinsic perfections, at the same time, such a thin passibility might implicate God's being "really" affected by creation, i.e. beyond mere changes in Cambridge properties?


Per the Maximian formulae: "Christ is out of two natures, in two natures, and two natures" and "from which and in which and which he is," how might these passibility questions best be interpreted?

Clearly, those formulae are consistent with a "communicatio idiomatum," where truly only one person, ever-enessenced, indeed enjoys a hypostatic union, which is a union of distinct (in-kind) natures, ever-enhypostasized?

To what extent, though, might those formulae also entail a "communio naturarum," a reciprocal interpenetration of divine & human esse?

Rather than wholesale reject a "communio naturarum" interpretation of the Maximian formulae, might we employ a more supple & generous conception of same, such that, beyond perichoretic idiomata, we might also better describe participatory dynamics, which, when taken alone as mere analogical abstractions, leave us with unintelligible causal disjunctions?


Perhaps the perichoretic - participatory dynamics of our hypostatic logic can make more sense of a putative "communio naturarum" by employing a triplex conception of esse in terms of naturale, intentionale & secundarium?

We might then affirm that a putative Maximian "communio naturarum" would refer to the reciprocal interpenetration of the human esse naturale, intentionale & secundarium "by & into" the divine esse intentionale & secundarium (humanum), just not the divine esse naturale (divinum)? See note below, which discusses the analogical distinctions implicit in our references to esse secondarium, divine vs human.

Before cursorily dismissing this meta-ontic grammar as yet another mere abstraction, we best recognize that those intentionale & secundarium conceptions are very bound up in & integrally related to such distinctions as

Palamas' essence - energies,

Scotus' duplex esse,

Clarke's naturale - intentionale,

Maritain's esse secundarium,

Boyd's aesthetic intensity - scope and

Bracken's creatio ex Deo.


Creatio ex Deo would implicate Absolute Being & Infinite Perfection in relation to particular beings & relative perfections.

What's of decisive significance is that such a formulation, however dialectical & incorporating negations, does not reify nothingness; it does not oppose Being to nonbeing or the Perfect to the imperfect. Rather, the distinctions are between the Universal & particulars, Absolute & relative perfections, Infinite & finite, and go beyond the merely quantitative (to the extent it's even in play) to the clearly qualitative.

This is to suggest that God gratuitously gifts - not the nondeterminate, divine essential nature, but - the entirety of the self-determined, divine secondary nature. This is accomplished donatively per logoi that are thoroughgoingly cosmotheandric.

Christ thus incarnates cosmotheandrically, donatively gifting the whole of the self-determined, divine secondary nature per the cosmotheandric logoi & energeia.

"Creation as incarnation" via a creatio ex Deo would thus refer,

essentially, to the communio naturarum, i.e. interpenetration of logoi of divine secondary & human primary natures, and

idiomatically, to the communicatio idiomatum, i.e. via shared idiomata of personal tropoi. (This posits a bundle theory of idiomata, where some are, in principle, tropically un/shareable.)

Now, as to whose Christology might be hypo- or hyper-Cyrillean, I have no idea. I will say this, however unavoidable death, sin, excessive suffering & evil may have been, no coherent Christology would deem any such nonbeingnesses a necessity.

Neither perichoretic identities nor participatory quiddities need be "sealed" in death. Nonbeing's not integral to God.

Nor, on the other extreme, is a strong doctrine of Divine Simplicity necessary to preserve God's intrinsic perfections - for God simply reveals Himself in - without being essentially determined by - history.

Finally, we needn't freight our conceptions of kenosis with overly thick notions of DDS, for surely God's self-determined, self-emptying creation will, ultimately, leave no room in eternity for any imperfections or any parasitic existence of any evil. Indeed, God eternally wills only the true, beautiful, good, liberative & unitive, that is, only our eternal well being.

Ones & their Manys

A synthetic unity of any oneness with its "many," at least of a oneness which would neither obliterate nor be exhausted by any of its particulars, requires more than a condition, a conditioned & a concept / reality arising from their union.

Such a oneness would manifest, primarily, as unconditioned, & secondarily & triadically as - not only both a condition & conditioned, but - their unity.

In Trinitology, the MOF refers to such an unconditioned One, Who generates the triad & emanatively originates (vertically causes) both His own & all mutually constituted others' conditions (horizontal relations).

In Christology, the Logos refers to such an unconditioned One, Who emanatively originates (vertically causes) both His own & all mutually constituted others' (tropoi) conditions (logoi). Christ, Himself (as tropos), is thus both also conditioned (horizontally) as well as a unitary microcosm of all logoi & the unitive macranthropos of all tropoi.

Anthropologically, while each person's primary nature is conditioned by logoi, they vertically (tropically) co-cause the conditions of their own secondary nature vis a vis how they will relate (horizontally by mutual conditioning) to - not only all other persons as microcosms & the cosmos as macranthropos, but - unitively & cosmotheandrically, for all are both originated by (the primary nature) & mutually constituted as (the secondary nature of) the Body of Christ.

Conclusion

In a meta-noetic sense, vis a vis perichoretic & revelatory dynamics, I could affirm a tapeinoticon of the communio naturarum (human to divine directionality), where the communitarian life of the three divine persons is conditioned (affected) by the lower-order systems proper to the
world of creation.

Even in a meta-ontic sense, vis a vis evolving quidditative dynamics, I could affirm a tapeinoticon of the communio naturarum (human to divine directionality), where - not only noetic & volitional, but - natural or essential aspects (not just the hownesses but whatnesses) of our cosmotheandric communitarian life are synergetically & co-creatively co-determined. The Son's secondary nature would, indeed, thus be mutually conditioned by the Logos, Himself, and by the tropoi of the lower-order systems proper to the logoi of the world of creation.

This is to suggest that, while any genus tapeinoticon or theogony vis a vis the Son's primary nature would certainly be repugnant to divine simplicity, a properly nuanced Christogony needn't be. Further, it seems there could be ways to appropriate Luther, Jenson & even the German idealists that are most congenial to Cyril, Maximus & Damascene.

What would all of this mean vis a vis a concrete Christ?

I commend the thoughts of Joseph Bracken & Robert Jenson, especially as influenced by the legacies of the German idealists.

See A Neo-Chalcedonian, Franciscan Cosmotheandrism

Note regarding the analogical distinctions implicit in our references to esse secondarium, divine vs human.

The Son primarily (nondeterminately) enhypostasizes the divine nature & secondarily (self-determinately) enhypostasizes the human nature, i.e. His esse secundarium, exemplifying both as immanent universals.

Per a bundle theory of idiomata, His personally willing to be thus secondarily enessenced refers to an idioma of His divine nature, peculiar to His hypostasis and thus distinct from the hypostases of the Father & Spirit.

Created persons enhypostasize the very same human nature, so are primarily enessenced by the eternally conceived logoi, as incarnately revealed & creatively multiplied by the Logos.

The esse secundarium of human persons is analogous to esse secundarium of the Son in that it refers to - not a secondary enessencing, but - to individually distinct modal manifestations of the logoi, as are incarnate in each human person's individually instantiated essential nature.

The human esse secundarium thus refers modally to - not logoi, but - tropoi, which are ordered to each person's dynamical transformation, as we grow from merely "signifying" to clearly "exemplifying" a divinized human nature. We will thus theotically realize our essential nature in the very same way & to the very same degree that it was enessenced in & expressed by Jesus.

When theotically realized, we are no longer mere shadows, vestiges & images of God, for once we dynamically & tropically realize our full humanity, we'll then fully exemplify Jesus' humanity and robustly signify Jesus' divinity, as we become similitudes of God. For His part, of course, Jesus exemplifies both.