The Early Church worked tirelessly to establish a clear firm structure supported by

Transcription

1 Galdiz 1 Carolina Galdiz Professor Kirkpatrick RELG 223 Major Religious Thinkers of the West April 6, 2012 Paper 2: Aquinas and Eckhart, Heretical or Orthodox? The Early Church worked tirelessly to establish a clear firm structure supported by similarly immovable beliefs. With help from the writings of Augustine, as well as the documents and creeds compiled at various councils, the Early Church is able to set an indisputable uncompromising standard about what behavior is acceptable for Christians. Other voices emerge in subsequent years, defending their own understanding of the Christian faith with radical ideas, among them Thomas of Aquinas and Meister Eckhart. Though at the core of their theologies rests a desire to know God, their approaches are diametrically opposed. Aquinas employs a logical dualistic system of proofs and classification, placing intellect at the apex of human fulfillment. Eckhart commands an unconventional monist approach of abstractions, placing repose at the apex of human fulfillment. Both theologians are accused of being heretics for their implicit or clear opposition to the teachings of the Early Church. Thomas of Aquinas is a theologian commonly identified with Scholasticism. Although he criticizes many philosophers for falling short of true wisdom because faith did not inform their work, Aquinas theology is, in many regards, strongly influenced by Aristotelian thought. He defines theology as investigat[ion of] divine things for their own sakes as the subject of science (Aquinas 110). His definition reflects his confidence in his intellect and his belief that it is possible to form a logical relationship with God. In 1244, Aquinas joins the Dominicans who are dedicated to preaching and teaching. Although his parents strongly disapprove of his vocation, this introduction to the relationship between faith and reason informs much of his own theology. In 1250, he is finally ordained as a

2 Galdiz 2 priest and begins lecturing on Peter Lombard s Four Books of Sentences. This work offers an interpretation of Christian dogma that resonates with its time, at the peak of Scholastic study. Central to Aquinas theology is his dualistic conception of the world. Aquinas assumes that man is made up of two things: form (soul) and matter (body), which survive together. The soul is made up of intellect and will. Will is the human aspiration towards the good. Intellect wants to comprehend reality. For Aquinas, intellect is superior, as truth implies an inextricable unity between the person and the truth that they possess. On the other hand, will implies a difference between the being and that which he is willing. This disconnect weakens the bond between man and idea. Eckhart sought to eliminate these distinctions, as will be discussed below. Another dichotomy in Aquinas theology is his juxtaposition of contingent and necessary beings. He explains, Our experience includes things certainly capable of existing but apparently unnecessary, since they come and go, coming to birth or dying. But if it is unnecessary for a thing to exist, it did not exist once upon a time, and yet everything cannot be like this, for if everything is unnecessary, there was once nothing. But if such were the case, there would now be nothing, because a nonexistent can be brought into existence only by something already existing. So that if ever there was nothing, not a thing could be brought into existence, and there would be nothing now, which contradicts the facts. And so not everything can be an unnecessary kind of being; there must exist some being that necessarily exists [and] itself is the cause why other things exist (Aquinas 115-6). The implication is that God is the necessary being that causes, or creates, all other contingent beings. There is a clear distinction between God and the humanity; not only in essence, but also in capability. Humanity is dependent on God and God is responsible for humanity, as opposed to Eckhart s idea of unmovable disinterest discussed below. Therefore, causation, and not repose, is for Aquinas, the highest form of being. For Aquinas, causation and intellect are intimately related. Humans are capable, in a sense, of being essential to their contingent truths. Perhaps this is a reason that Aquinas is

3 Galdiz 3 perceived to be heretical. However, human power of understanding, though potent, must not be overestimated. Its inferiority to God s knowledge must be accepted and respected. In claiming that it is possible to know God logically, Aquinas limits God s mystery and power. In other words, Aquinas reduces God to that which can be understood by humans. Additionally, Aquinas rejects agape love because of its mindlessness. The Church, however, teaches that God feels agape love, or self-sacrificing love, towards humanity. To Aquinas, the idea that a being would forgo logic, his/her best chance at acquiring truth, is offensive. Rejecting the notion of agape love, however, places a limit of God s mercy and compassion for His people and is, therein, heretical. In contrast to Aquinas dualistic conception, Meister Eckhart is a monist. His monist cosmology is what makes him both highly heretical and most orthodox. Although his Dominican framework echoes Aquinas emphasis on intellect, Eckhart does not believe that it is possible to access God using human understanding because that implies a distinction between the understander and the understood. His proof and evidence, although often convoluted, are logical in that they faultlessly support what he set out to prove: the unity of all beings. Eckhart s work is informed by a variety of heretics. The work of John Scottus Eriugena, an Irish theologian who translated the work of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite from Greek to Latin, has a profound impact on Meister Eckhart s mysticism. Eriugena s cosmology divides reality into four parts: nature that creates, but is not created; nature that is created and creates; nature that is created and does not create; and nature that neither creates, nor is created. The final category supposedly refers to God, a conception which goes beyond merely seeing him as a creator and from which Eckhart will derive much of his beliefs. Eckhart also includes Pseudyonisius notion of apophasis, an inability to speak about God due to the lack of words

4 Galdiz 4 capable of describing Him, as support for his monistic cosmology. Among these heretics featured in his work, Eckhart also appeals to Abelard s assertions about the relevance of intentionality when identifying an action as sinful. He uses that definition of sin to absolve himself from heresy, since he does not intend to be heretical. Eriugena s rejection of God as a creator seeps into Eckhart s writings. He writes, There is something in the soul that is uncreated and not capable of creation; if the whole soul were such, it would be uncreated and not capable of creation, and this is the intellect (Eckhart 80). Here he makes two important points. The first supports his monistic cosmology in that, humans, even in our spatial-temporal life of illusions, are unified with God because there is a piece of us, like God, that neither creates nor is created. Second, this assertion is heretical in that it claims that there is a part of humans that is completely self-determining and independent; that was not created or granted by God. The Christian tradition accepts God as a Creator and asserts human dependence on God in all aspects. Aquinas notion of necessary and contingent beings differs from this view in deeming God a necessary being that causes all other beings. Eckhart rejects the language of dualism and the creeds as inadequate to describe God because the limits they place on Him make it impossible to effectively describe reality. He says, God is nameless, because no one can say anything or understand anything about him (Eckhart 206). Essentially, he discusses the necessity for human unification with God, who is the only being that has achieved unmovable disinterest, while simultaneously denying a distinction between the two parties. Humans only sense a distinction because they are imperfect and their minds are still trapped in a world of illusions. He writes, Every distinction is foreign to God, both in nature and in Persons. The proof is that the nature itself is one and this one thing, and

5 Galdiz 5 each Person is one and that same thing that the nature is (Eckhart 79). This stands in direct opposition to Aquinas notion of necessary and contingent beings. Additionally, it is certainly heretical, as the basis of Christian theology is the presence of a distinction between sinful humanity and a perfect God. Implicitly, the Church is a necessary liaison that facilitates a relationship between humans and God. Eckhart goes so far as to criticize the institutions and sacraments as obstacles to knowing God, writing, Whoever is seeking God by ways is finding ways and losing God, who in ways is hidden (Eckhart 183). This supports his rejection of distinctions: differentiating between methods for unifying with God takes away from the ultimate goal of unmovable disinterest because one is vulnerable to the process and those controlling the process. Simple repose and disinterest, independent of intermediaries, are the only authentic ways through which to transcend the spatial-temporal world and unify with God. In implicitly dismissing grace, Eckhart acutely threatens the authority of the Church. This dismissal is heretical because it empowers humans to independently save themselves without Divine Intervention. It diminishes the meaning of Jesus life and crucifixion, central to Christian doctrine, by connoting that humans are capable of unifying with God without his help and love. This critical distinction between Eckhart s ideas and those of the Church, illuminates the appeal of monism. There is no risk involved with buying into Eckhart s cosmology. Total detachment isolates one from vulnerability. Without distinctions, relationships are superfluous; there is nothing to attract one to another being. In contrast, Christianity emblematizes agape love. This kind of communion with Christ requires absolute mutual investment on the parts of God and His people. Each party, in selflessly putting the needs of the other before their own, has everything to lose. God is vulnerable to disappointment in the choices His people make. The people are vulnerable to God s mercy for eternal salvation.

6 Galdiz 6 To analyze the dynamics of a relationship, it is necessary to draw distinctions between the two parties, which conflicts with idea of unity asserted by Eckhart. He draws out his idea about the absence of differences while discussing cause and effect. In every natural action or production that is directed to what is outside the one who produces and which implies a passage from something that is not an existing being to something that is, the principle of such a production has the nature of a cause and that which is produced has the name and nature of an external effect (Eckhart 96). Eckhart uses Aristotle s definition of a cause, which is that to which or from which something follows (Eckhart 96). Immediately, the reader can be sure that Eckhart will refute this concept because of its dichotomous nature. He defines effect as made outside the maker (Eckhart 96). God is portrayed in a Gnostic conception, in a state of repose. Eckhart explains his rejection of cause and effect, The producer does not have the nature of a creator or a cause, and that what is produced do not have the nature of a creator or a cause and that what is producer is not outside the producer and is not different from it, but is one with it (Eckhart 96). This notion has the potential to be somewhat orthodox in reference to the Trinity. Eckhart refers to the language used in creeds to illuminate the lack of cause and effect relationships among the three entities: God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Eckhart steps into heresy, by ignoring the Church doctrine that the Trinity is simultaneously one unified and three distinct beings. He believes that all beings exist homogenously. In conclusion, both Aquinas and Eckhart ultimately seek to unify with God. Aquinas strives to do so using God s gift of intellect, recognizing a distinction between himself and God. In contrast, Eckhart seeks to do so by disengaging from the world completely. He does not recognize a distinction between himself and God except that God has already escaped from the world of illusion. This disregard for differentiation is what pushes Eckhart into heresy. Aquinas

7 Galdiz 7 and Eckhart s shared dedication to unifying with God reconciles them with orthodoxy, despite the other unconventional tenets of their theologies.