The Dialectic forms post-liturgical politics

Currently reading E. H. Kantorowicz’s The King’s Two  Bodies.  Fascinating thesis but some difficulties at first.  EHK claims that later Western medieval theology and politics operates around a Christian heresy:  monophysitism.  While he is correct to note that the dialectic forms (deconstructs) Western political theology, much of the book seems to point that Nestorianism, not monophytism, is the heresy in question.

It may not be that big a deal, though.    If as St John of Damascus said, “Heretics confuse person and nature,” then it follows that all heresies deconstruct on that particular point.  If that is true, call it either monophytism or Nestorianism–it’s the same end game.

7 comments on “The Dialectic forms post-liturgical politics

  1. tesla ,

    You appear to have a definite war with Western theology; but then you are an EO.

    • tesla1389 says:

      No, I only have a definite war with post-schism Western theology and even then only to the degree it departed from the apostolic deposit. My previous blog was actually built around the beauty and praise of ancient Western liturgies (I still have that blog up but I no longer post there because blogger is a terrible hosting site).

      Secondly, I am not EO (yet). I mentioned that to Bobby on a previous post (in the comments).

      Thirdly, Kantorowicz is not Orthodox (probably not even Christian of any sort; I think he was a Nazi Jew, actually!) and wrote from within the heart of the Western tradition. I am simply quoting him on this point.

      • tesla,

        Somehow I bet you were once Reformed, yes? I have myself been very close to Orthodoxy in my Anglican past. And like Letham I am closer to the Orthodox on Christology and the Trinity of God, but I also realize that even Creedal truth can become only mental. So understanding an early Jewish monotheism and a NT Christology, at least in the NT itself, is a biblical effort, but also spiritual growth also. We can see this in the very life of the Church itself, from the Apostolic time on thru to the 4th century. Note, J.N.D. Kelly’s fine book: Early Christian Doctrines.

  2. tesla1389 says:

    I was educated at a conservative Calvinist seminary in North America, yes (it was there I read Torrance and NT Wright, against the wishes of my teachers).

    You are correct that creeds can become merely mental, but so can anything in life, including the scriptures.

    Kelly is okay, but for interwining both the “hebraic” nature of the faith with a passion for the early fathers, Joseph Farrell’s *God, History, and Dialectic* hits many of the same points, albeit more directly.

    • I have read Farrell myself, not a “biblical” communicator for me. But Kelly, he was more than a scholar, but a Christian example in his person.

      • tesla1389 says:

        well, that’s probably a difference of opinion there. Kelly is okay. I don’t like the format of the book and I think he misunderstands a few doctrines (and so it’s not my first ‘go-to’). But it is rightly a standard in its field.

  3. Yes, our presuppositions do come out! 🙂 I admit I always fall back toward an Augustinianism. I did my Th.D. (years back now) on Romans 7, and Roman studies.

Comments are closed.