The Donation of Constantine and the Areopogite

[Climacus]

Dear Friends,

I was just reading through Michael Whelton's defense of Orthodox ecclesiology, namely, "Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims." (A fairly good book, by the way). In it he spends quite a bit of time explaining how and why the spurious texts known as the 'Donation of Constantine' and the Decretals of Pseudo Isidore were really forgeries created to further Papal supremacy over Europe. Whelton makes the point that the damage done to the thought and culture of the West because of these false documents was incalculable.

Along the same lines, my thoughts immediately went to other famous forgeries, namely the works of Pseudo-Dionysius, which have had a profound influence on the mystical thought of the Eastern churches. I have long had strong reservations against his texts, not only because they are forgeries, which would be enough to call their influence into question, but also because of their blatant neo-Platonism.

In response to my hesitations, I have often been told that it doesn't matter who wrote the works of Pseudo-Dionysius. What matters is that the churches agreed with the content of what was written.

This seems like a dangerously double-edged sword to wield for two reasons. First, this argument demeans the importance of truth, which I take to be sacrosanct. True, pseudonimity may have been an accepted convention at the time. Nonetheless, I would prefer to follow the example of the early fathers who rightly rejected the many spurious gospels and letters falsely claiming apostolic origins when they were confirming the canon of Scripture. It would seem the same principle should apply to Pseudo-Dionysius. Second, the same logic of the argument for Pseudo-Dionysius could be applied to the western churches' acceptance of texts such as the Donation of Constantine et al. regarding the essential truth of Papal supremacy.

Any thoughts?

-Climacus

[Pravoslavnik]

Climacus,

Code: Select all

  How shall we decide what is theologically true, if not by trusting the consensus opinion of the Fathers of the Holy Church?  In Protestantism, there has been a strong belief that we can discern what is "true" through a careful logical analysis of scriptures.  From this has come the entire corpus of "higher criticism" at Tubingen, and throughout the Protestant world, for centuries.  I have carefully studied some of this "higher criticism," and found much of it tainted by a strong positivistic bias--e.g., the writings of Walter Bauer on early documents of the Eastern Church.  In the Christian East, in contrast, there is a concept of theology as a "fabric woven on high," revealed to the saints.  Only a few Orthodox saints have even attained the venerable title of "Theologian," most recently, St. Gregory Palamas of Thessalonica--from the 14th century.  How can Protestants grasp this notion, since they do not even believe in the communion of the saints?

 In short, if the Holy Church has accepted the mystical writings of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, who are you and I to say that they are spurious--based upon some modern Protestant theory from text criticism?  You may as well argue that the Holy Church has not been guided by the Holy Spirit since Pentecost.

[Climacus]

Thank you for your answer, Pravoslavnik,

Two points come to mind in response.

First, I don't see how this is a 'Protestant' issue. Everyone agrees that the writings associated with the Areopagite are forgeries, whether Protestant, Catholic (see newadvent.org), Orthodox (see theandros.com) or secular. It is a fact of history, not a result of theological bias. So we need to treat the issue as such.

Second, that still leaves open the more important question, are these writings true? That is to say, even if they are pseudonymous fakes, might they still be true?

You suggest our standard for deciding truth should be the consensus of the Fathers of the Church. I agree, though I should add Biblical considerations should also come into play here. However, let me remind you of what that means. St. Vincent of Lerins said that only that doctrine is binding which is 'held everywhere, always and by all.' I don't think the thought of the Pseudo-Areopagite meets this criteria.

It is well known that his ideas were taken from a 5th c. neo-Platonist pagan named Proclus. Therefore, the substance of his thought is neither Biblical, a part of oral tradition, or shared by the apostles and fathers prior to the 5th c. In other words, his thought is decidedly pagan, and was not held everywhere, always, and by all, nor accepted by the Church at large.

Yes, the fathers living after the 5th c. were influenced by Pseudo Dionysius. But this is because they were under the false impression that he was a companion of Paul. Sadly, they were mistaken. In other words, they were not led by the Spirit in this matter, unless the Spirit approves of pagan thought, which I doubt very much.

It would seem, then, that there are good factual and theological reasons to reject Pseudo-Dionysius and his influence in the thought of the Church. Indeed, could it be that we should try and expunge his thinking from Orthodox beliefs for the very same reasons why we should try to expunge modernist and (certain) 'western' ways of thinking?

[Pravoslavnik]

You suggest our standard for deciding truth should be the consensus of the Fathers of the Church. I agree, though I should add Biblical considerations should also come into play here

Climacus,

Code: Select all

  Your last statement describes the very essence of Protestant epistemology.  It is a deeply-rooted notion that the Biblical scriptures contain truths which might possibly have been misunderstood or misinterpreted by the Church, if we simply analyze scripture carefully enough--forgetting for the moment that the scriptural canon of the Bible was selected (and much of it written) long after the first Pentecost, when the Orthodox Church came into existence through the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles.  And it is but a short step from this`Protestant concept to the whole field of rational philological inquiry and analysis that has been at the center of Protestant "theology" since the days of Martin Luther--Calvin, Wesley, F.C. Baur, etc.  Martin Luther simply assumed that he knew better than the Fathers of the Church what the Church was supposed to be--e.g., the Epistle of St. James was spurious, etc..  With it comes the notion that, with time and more philological data, we will understand the mysteries of God and the Church better and better, and will write better and more interesting works of "theology" for everyone to read.

    I know, partly from personal experience, that it is extremely difficult for people to change their paradigms.  For example, it is difficult for Protestants (and even Catholics) to acquire an Orthodox mindset, to immerse themselves with faith in the mystical wisdom and knowledge that is the Church.  And, it is no mere accident that the last (official) "Theologian" of the Church lived many centuries ago on the Holy Mountain.  (Hint: It was not Martin Luther, Frederich Nietzsche or the philologist Walter Bauer.)  The theological understanding that St. Gregory (Palamas) the Theologian imparted to the Church did not come through mere study and rational scriptural analysis--although St. Gregory was certainly scholarly, and familiar with scripture--but through theosis and the direct contemplation of the Divine energies.

     As for your comments about Dionysios the Areopagite and paganism, I would raise a few questions.  What is the basis for your belief that the writings of Dionysios were not the inspired works of a true Orthodox "saint," revealing aspects of mystical truth to the Church?  Can you define "forgery" in this regard?  Secondly, do you imagine that the wisdom of the Triune God was not imparted in some measure to the pagans of antiquity?  Why, for example, did the Sibylline prophetess in the time of Caesar Augustus claim that God would become a man?  (Augustus, of course, thought that this was a reference to himself.)  Or, to refer to your own deepest standard of theological truth, scripture, who was Melchisedek, and what was the source of his holiness? 

      Former Protestants, like myself, bring Protestant concepts into the Church--especially a reference to the canonized scripture of the Church (the Bible) as the central source of theological truth.  In time, many begin to contemplate the words of the divine liturgy, and the writings of the saints, and to develop a deeper understanding of the sources of Divine truth.   This vast mystical "literature" certainly resonates with, but also amplifies, the canonized scriptures of the Bible.  Hence, you will find references to the concepts of Dionysios the "Areopagite" in the ancient liturgical life of the Church--and, if I am not mistaken, even in the epistles of St. Paul from the mid-first century...

[Climacus]

Dear Pravoslavnik,

Thanks for your response.

Again you've brought up the issue of Protestantism, and I have to respectfully disagree with what you say. My epistemology is far from Protestant, as a Protestant would never admit the authority of tradition. The statement of mine that you quoted, is thoroughly Orthodox. As Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky has written: "It is clear that dogmas are not founded on the rational conceptions of separate individuals, even though these might be Fathers and Teachers of the Church, but, rather, on the teaching of Sacred Scripture and on the Apostolic Sacred Tradition. The truths of faith which are contained in the Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Sacred Tradition give the fullness of the teaching of faith which was called by the ancient Fathers of the Church the "catholic faith," the "catholic teaching" of the Church. The truths of Scripture and Tradition, harmoniously fused together into a single whole, define the "catholic consciousness" of the Church, a consciousness that is guided by the Holy Spirit" (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, pp. 24-25)

Or as another Orthodox writer has asked: "We greatly admire the early Fathers in the Orthodox Church. We have great reverence and respect for them. They are a part of our great tradition. But we need to ask ourselves: what made the Church Fathers so great? Was it not the fact that they drank heavily from the well of Scripture?" (Coniaris, Introducing the Orthodox Church, p. 162)

In sum, scripture and tradition must work together if our thinking is to be truly Orthodox. Scripture provides a check against false traditions, just as tradition serves as a check against false interpretations of scripture.

But for your questions...

First, why not think Dionysius was an inspired Orthodox saint? Well, I hestiate to think he was for two reasons. (i) Because he lied by claiming he was an associate of the apostles, in order to unjustly extend his influence (unfortunately his plan succeeded). (ii) Because some of his ideas are clearly pagan in character.

Second, was some of the wisdom of God imparted to the pagans? Yes, no doubt it was. They knew many truths relating to nature, mathmatics, logic, et cetera. But we need to distinguish between truths known to the pagans, and pagan beliefs. The Cappadocians, for example, made careful use of Platonic and Aristotelian concepts in their theological formulations (knowing full well these were pagan in origin) because they thought these were true and therefore not pagan in character.

What bothers me, on the other hand, is that we find the opposite happening in the case with Pseudo-Dionysius. People made use of his writings (and their pagan concepts) not because they thought it was true; rather they thought it was true because they were fooled into believing his writings were apostolic. There's a big difference. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Dionysius faked his identity precisely because he knew no one would accept his paganism if they didn't think it was apostolic in origin.

I am somewhat disturbed by your last statement that St. Paul made use of Dionysian "concepts." Clearly, this is historically and logically false. Rather, the opposite is true: Dionysius used Pauline concepts, mixing these with Proclus' paganism. But that is precisely the most objectionable feature of his work; namely, the dilution of true Biblical faith with pagan concepts. Hence, my suggestion that we need to expunge his influence from Orthodox belief.

[Pravoslavnik]

"the dilution of true Biblical faith"

Climacus,

Code: Select all

   Here is another precise example of your Protestantism--"the [b]true Biblical[/b] faith."  You have briefly read what I have written, but you have clearly not [i]understood[/i] what I have written about the paradigm shift from a Protestant to an Orthodox understanding of Divine revelation.  I say this not to be critical or demeaning of your excellent intentions, but to share something of what I have learned during my own long journey from Protestantism to Orthodoxy.  When I grew up as a Protestant, I had very little sense of the history of Divine revelation in the lives and teachings of the Orthodox saints.  My understanding was that, 1) the Holy Apostles established a somewhat vague "church" organization, as described in the [i]Acts of the Apostles[/i], 2) it was eventually corrupted by the Roman Papacy, and 3) then came Martin Luther 1,500 years later--with a Gutenburg Bible--and restored the "church" to conform more closely to that of the Apostles of the New Testament.  Christian revelation, in this view, essentially ended with the book of [i]Revelations.

[/i]
Although I was considered a scholar and an Ivy League man, attending a venerable institution in your city, I knew nothing of the Great Hierarchs of the Holy Church--St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, or St. John Chrysotomos--or the mystical theology formulated by these and other saints of the Church as the correct, quasi-Platonic understanding of the Hagia Sophia of Biblical scripture. When I first began to read St. John Chrysotomos' sermons, (many years later) I was utterly astonished by his explanations of the profound depth of the scriptures I had memorized as a young Protestant. For example, I had no previous notion--in my Protestant life-- that the "inn" in St. Luke's gospel story of the Good Samaritan was an exact description of the Orthodox Church and its sacraments! Did you?

Code: Select all

     I have gradually learned through these, and other more "mystical" liturgical experiences, to respect and trust the profound wisdom of the saints of the Orthodox Church, rather than falling into demonic prelest--through intellectual pride--and assuming, like Martin Luther and most modern Protestants, that I understand the mysteries of Christ and His Church better than the saints.  (At the very least, I need to acknowledge that the Evil One is much smarter than I am!)  So, before we embrace the modern, heterodox philological theories about the erroneous "forgeries" of "pseudo-Dionysios" regarding the "thrones and dominions, principalities and powers" of the bodiless hosts, we should finish quoting the Orthodox theologian, Father Michael Pomazansky, on this subject:

 [i]"In the Orthodox world...there is no difficulty in seeing these works (of Dionysios the Areopagite) in the [i][b]tradition[/b][/i] of St. Dionysios--and, through him, of St. Paul."  ([u]Orthodox Dogmatic Theology[/u].  St Hermans Press  (1994) p.382[/i]

[Climacus]

Thanks again for your response and I am grateful to be able to speak about these things with you. But again I would have to respectfully disagree with your interpretation of my post as one deeply entrenched in Protestant thought. When I mentioned true 'Biblical faith' I was contrasting this with neo-Platonism and other forms of pagan belief. All Orthodox theologians would make a similar distinction.

I'm glad that you quoted Protopresbyter Michael Pomozansky's assertion that (at least some) Orthodox people have no trouble thinking of Pseudo-Dionysius as being in the tradition of the real Dionysius. In point of fact, Pomazansky's book is the one that called my attention to the problem of Pseudo-Dionysius in the first place. It is precisely this kind of (mistaken) thinking that I would like to call into question. Not only is his assertion about Dionysius historically false, it also contradicts what he wrote earlier in his magnificent book.

For example, though Pomazansky says that the issue of "authorship" is not so restricted in the Orthodox world, I would beg to disagree. He himself cites the careful way the early church distinguished between gospels and epistles that were truly apostolic and those spurious forgeries that only pretended to apostolic authorship. Clearly, contra Pomazansky, the Orthodox world does indeed care very much about authorship, and I suggest the same standard be applied consistently to Pseudo-Dionysius' work in order to guard the faith. Not only is this the practice of tradition, I think it is also a matter of common sense.

As an important aside, you raise an interesting point about how far we should take the opinions of any one teacher as being sacrosanct. You write: "For example, I had no previous notion--in my Protestant life-- that the "inn" in St. Luke's gospel story of the Good Samaritan was an exact description of the Orthodox Church and its sacraments! Did you?"

No I did not, and I imagine I would not. That is to say, before I could accept St. Chrysostom's understanding of this passage as anything other than the private opinions of one teacher, I would have to consult (a) the grammatical-historical reading of this passage, as well as look at (b) how the church fathers as a body interpreted this passage. If Chrysostom's interpretation agreed with (a) and (b), then I would accept it as true. If not, I would only consider it as one man's opinion and not binding upon my conscience, however enlightened he may be. In Orthodoxy, authority is never vested in the views of any one person, as much as it is vested in Holy Spirit forming the consensus of the Church.

This approach has nothing to do with prelest or pride. Rather, it is the Orthodox way of interpreting scripture. Orthodox believers are not called to forgo their reason and accept truth claims on blind faith. Otherwise, there would be no way to distinguish between conflicts within tradition.

For instance, I'm sure that preceding your conversion you read several works that debated Orthodox and Roman Catholic claims? Then I'm sure you would have found that wherever the interpretation of a certain Biblical (or Patristic) passage was under dispute (ex: Peter and the keys) the Orthodox apologist would defend his interpretation using grammatical-historical exegesis and consulting the consensus of the fathers, showing how the Catholic writer has misinterpreted one or both streams of evidence. (see Whelton's "Popes and Patriarchs" or Maximovitch's "Orthodox Veneration of Mary" as examples).

As to some of the other things that you wrote, I would agree with you. I'm thankful to have been immersed in the writings of the church fathers (such as the Cappadocians) relatively early in my walk of faith, and I readily acknowledge their authority, especially the authority of the ecumenical councils, over my own private interpretations, and certainly over later Protestant writers (where they disagree). But there is a danger in accepting the views of spiritual teachers on the strength of their own authority. This was obviously a problem in the church (and still continues to be), which is why St. Vincent of Lerins insisted on his canon in the first place. A canon which, I have tried to argue, gives us reason to forgo appealing to the thought of Pseudo-Dionysius.