On the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology — trans. C. E. Rolt
The translator’s English as printed (C. E. Rolt). The original-language text is not held; names are romanised as the translator printed them.
A third modern critic of Dionysius is the Lutheran theologian, Dorner. Dorner was concerned only with the bearing of the Areopagite principles on the doctrine of the Person of Christ.
In Dorner’s opinion the mystical Christology of the Areopagite “forms an important link of connection between Monophysitism and the doctrine of the Church.” “Not that we mean to affirm that the Areopagite was a declared Monophysite; certainly, however, that his entire mode of viewing the world and God belong to this family.”
With regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, Dorner holds that on the principles of Dionysius “seeing that God is the One Who is at once in all and above all— yea, outweighs the negation of the many by the Divine Unity—all idea of distinct hypostasis in God ought consistently to be renounced; in the Super-Essential God everything sinks down into unity without distinctions. Much is said, indeed, of the Many, along with the One; but the Trinity in God retains merely a completely precarious position.”
Dorner adds: “The result as far as Christology is concerned is very plain; after laying down such premises, it was impossible for the Areopagite to justify, either anthropologically or theologically, a specific incarnation in one individual. If he taught it at all, it was because he had adopted it from the Creeds of the Church, and he was quite unable to put himself into a sincere and true relation towards 2
To these criticisms may be added the remarks of a fourth modern writer, this time from the standpoint of the Roman Church. Bach, in his very able History of Dogma in the Middle Ages, says that, in the works of the Areopagite, Christ is frequently treated in so idealistic a fashion that the concrete personality of the God-man is driven into the shade. The mysticism of Dionysius is not founded on the historical person of Christ, nor on the work of Redemption as a fact once actualized in time.
* Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Div. II. i. 157 ff.
A third modern critic of Dionysius is the Lutheran theologian Dorner. Dorner was concerned only with the bearing of the Areopagite’s principles on the doctrine of the Person of Christ.
In Dorner’s opinion the mystical Christology of the Areopagite “forms an important link of connection between Monophysitism and the doctrine of the Church.” “Not that we mean to affirm that the Areopagite was a declared Monophysite; but certainly that his entire way of viewing the world and God belongs to this family.”
With regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, Dorner holds that on the principles of Dionysius, “seeing that God is the One Who is at once in all and above all — indeed, the negation of the many by the Divine Unity outweighs everything — all idea of distinct hypostasis in God ought consistently to be given up; in the Super-Essential God everything sinks down into unity without distinctions. Much is said, indeed, of the Many alongside the One; but the Trinity in God retains a merely precarious position.”
Dorner adds: “The result as far as Christology is concerned is very plain. Having laid down such premises, the Areopagite could not possibly justify, either anthropologically or theologically, a specific incarnation in one individual. If he taught it at all, it was because he had adopted it from the Creeds of the Church, and he was quite unable to place himself in a sincere and true relation towards 2
To these criticisms may be added the remarks of a fourth modern writer, this time from the standpoint of the Roman Church. Bach, in his very able History of Dogma in the Middle Ages, says that in the works of the Areopagite Christ is often treated so idealistically that the concrete personality of the God-man is pushed into the shade. The mysticism of Dionysius is founded neither on the historical person of Christ nor on the work of Redemption as a fact once actualized in time.
* Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Div. II. i. 157 ff.