History of My Ideas: 1995 - September 1999
From Catholic Apologetics to Cosmic Unity

After my conversion to the Catholic faith, my initial interest and reaction was to explore the depths of the Catholic faith through the study of patristics, and to use this study to engage in apologetics. This was not my only thought or desire, for I also had, and continue to have, an interest in the topic of purgatory as its own philosophical topic. On the one hand, exploring the issue of purgatory is certainly one which allows for apologetics, but on the other hand, purgatory is based upon a wide range of philosophical and theological views and they are important ideas of their own right. The question of purgatory is primarily one which deals with the following problem: how does one become pure of heart so that they can see God. My initial desire to enter into apologetic discussions was not unusual. Many who become Catholic, if they do so out of soul-searching or through an intellectual conversion, it seems, seek to engage in apologetics to explain themselves to friends and family. They do so usually with the hope of bringing others to the Catholic faith.

Combined with my interest in purgatory I also had an interest in the thought and teaching of the Christian East. Since I had entered into the Catholic Church as a Byzantine Catholic, I took it upon myself to understand the spiritually of the East. This included an interest in the history of the East as well as an examination of the key spiritual works of the East: from the writings of the patristics to St. Symeon the New Theologian; from to St. Gregory Palamas to the Philokalia. I also took an interest in Russia, and her history because I saw Russia represented, in some respects, the last remains of the Byzantine Empire. I have not abandoned these interests, for indeed, I find them a part of my own identification. I am a member of an Orthodox liturgical tradition which came from the Slavic lands and found itself in communion with Rome. Like St. Maximos the Confessor, I found that it was necessary to stay in communion with Rome, but also like him, I also found that I was in spirit an Easterner.

Combined with my interest in patristics, Eastern Spirituality, and the issue of purgatory, I also had an interest in philosophy. In philosophy, one of my major early interests was in the scholastic debate between realism and nominalism. This interest I received through Rolf.  He saw the debate as having an important role in history.  He thought that Protestantism took one side of the debate, nominalism, and thus it seemed to both of us that Protestantism in many respects was the outcome of the nominalistic side of that scholastic debate. This, of course, meant that I was interested in the debate, not only philosophically, but also within the area of apologetics: if one could understand where the Protestant error had originated, even if the Protestants themselves did not know it, it would be a good means to know what errors need to be corrected: it helps for one dealing with a problem to deal with its roots rather than all its symptoms.

For well over a year, my studies brought me to patristic and scholastic authors. One patristic author, whom I have had great interest in since before my chrismation, is St. Maximos the Confessor. The year after my chrismation saw me reading whatever works written by or on St. Maximos that I could find. They had a profound influence on my thoughts. St. Maximos was one of the systematic geniuses within the early Church, and he provided me the means of a deeper understanding of the relationship of man with the cosmos, and thus, a deeper understanding of the Incarnation. Previously, as a Baptist, I had believed that the major importance of the Incarnation was for the salvation of man; I initially did not get much deeper than that even after my Chrismation. St. Maximos, however, showed me that one who understood the Incarnation would understand how it helps not only man, but the whole cosmos. The whole of his thought rested on the notion that God became, not just a man, but also a creature; in becoming a creature, as in becoming a man, God has brought about the means of helping all of creation and not just man with the graces which were released from the Cross. St Maximos combined this notion with a new emphasis on the position of man: man is to be seen as a mediator to the cosmos at large. This can be understood in a couple ways: first man is sent out to help heal all unnatural division which has occurred in the cosmos since the fall; to St. Maximos, this includes the division between the sexes, the division of man with the natural world, and the division between the natural and angelic worlds. Secondly, in healing this division, he is also to imitate Christ, and bring not only unification, but man is supposed to be the means by that which is lower (for example, animals) shall be raised to something higher, just as man is himself raised from "man" to "deified man" in Christ. This outlook provided me the means by which I was able to understand the depth of the Incarnation and the role of humanity much deeper than I had previously done. It also was the beginning of my real entry into my own philosophical position, where I was beginning to try to understand the reality of the faith on a deeper level than as a defensive apologist (however, my abandonment of apologetics and complete turn towards systematic religious philosophy would be a little bit later).

The next major advance of my own views occurred around the summer of 1997. Up until that time, I had been studying patristics, scholastics, a few modern theological works, and books written by Platonists. I had developed an understanding, once again in relation with my godfather's influence, of Platonism and its importance in the early development of the Church. Instead of criticizing such an idea, instead of being frightened by it, I had accepted it and used it as a means of drawing deeper insights into Catholic theology. One work which had a profound influence on this topic, when it came out, was Jaroslav Pelikan's small work, What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?. This work addressed the issue of the relationship between Plato's Timaeus and Genesis within the earliest time period of the Church-- and brought out one fact which I felt (and still feel) was very important: Ossius of Cordova, the Bishop who presided over the Council of Nicea, was interested in the work of the Timaeus and had his archdeacon, Chalcidius, translate Timaeus (incompletely) into Latin. As I had already seen a connection of Platonism within Christianity, this fact in and of itself made the connection run even deeper-- and I believe, more demonstrable.

After the summer of 1997, I went into a newer direction: Russian philosophy, or more specifically, the Russian philosophy of pan-unity and Sophiology. Previously, I had heard of Vladimir Solovyov (in a negative but yet not entirely negative light by Fr. Seraphim Rose). During the summer I found in a used book store several of his books which I bought and read. These works were eye-openers to me: I considered Solovyov at the time, and still consider him to be, an heir of the thought of St. Maximos. He was an heir to the thought, but Solovyov was not limited to the ideas of St. Maximos. Rather, Solovyov took on many currents of modern philosophical thought and combined them with the thought which underlined the writings of St. Maximos. Solovyov brought out a system of religious philosophy which influenced the next generation of Russian thinkers, and specifically Fr. Pavel Florensky, Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, S. L. Frank, and Nicholas Berdyaev-- all authors which I have sought out and read and learned from them. Neither S. L. Frank nor Nicholas Berdyaev agreed with Solovyov's Sophiology but even they had been influenced by the thoughts which are presupposed in Sophiology. Indeed, the basic thoughts of Sophiology, except for its "mythology" are readily seen in the writings of S. L. Frank. The ideas found in Russian philosophy, from Sophiology to discussions of pan-unity have influenced me and reshaped my own philosophical position into a more cosmic direction. They are deep and highly sophisticated, but nonetheless ones which address Christian issues and find its roots in theological positions of patristic writers. This is not the place for me to address all the issues within Sophiology. Still, I would like to point out a few of its basic premises: First, God is all-in all, and all that exists is found within God. Secondly, God in his essence is of course, one and united-- and in His creation, He brought about a reflection of His essence, that is, created Sophia. This created manifestation of Sophia fell, and this brought about the cosmic fall. Man is significant, because he is a representation of Sophia and of God-- for Sophia, being made in the image of God, is said to be found within man, who is in the image of God. Sophia is also said to be the "Eternal Feminine" which finds her greatest representation in Mary, the Mother of God. Pan-unity states that all things within the cosmos are inter-connected, and although the bonds of unity are weak because of the cosmic fall, they nonetheless continue to exist-- and they will be strengthened once again in the process of cosmic theosis.

One belief which is found within the writings of Vladimir Solovyov, and is established as one of the major tenets of Sophiology, is evolution. Previous to reading Solovyov's works, I had been against the theory of evolution, and could not understand its relationship with Christianity. Solovyov, who lived in the nineteenth century, not only accepted evolutionary thought, but produced one of the first, and one of the greatest syntheses of Christianity with evolutionary thought. This helped me examine my views on evolution, and begin to accept it as a possibility, and through the examination of further scientific evidence, accept it as the greatest likelihood. Solovyov's thought is indeed tied with his concept of Sophia, but nonetheless, I do think I should explain his concept, in a brief (and hence, incomplete and imperfect) way. After the fall of Sophia, the bonds of cosmic unity (Sophia) were shattered, and chaos ensued. Sophia, fallen and in disgrace, nonetheless sought to re-establish order, and to bring about a means to establish herself once again. Working with God (as the Wisdom books of Scripture establish), Sophia brought about the process of evolution on the earth, in order to bring about an image of herself. This process had many difficulties-- and brought about, as Scripture indicates, many "monsters." These monsters were replaced, one by one, in the process of evolution, while the earth was beginning to slowly form in such a way to be habitable for and inhabited by man, who became Sophia's greatest creation-- a rational animal, who thus forms the link between the intellectual (and Sophianic) world with the material, fallen world. Man was meant to be the mediator of creation, free from the stain of sin, so that man can help reshape the world in wisdom with God, so that the chaos resulting from the fall of Sophia will be halted. Instead, of course, as Christian theology teaches-- man rebelled from God, and fell.

After several months of studying Russian philosophy, I thought it was time again to start reading and researching Platonic philosophy. Russian philosophy was of course the major heir of Platonic philosophy, with Vladimir Solovyov himself saying outright that he was a Platonist. I started to research and buy all I could from Middle and Neo-Platonic stages of Platonic thought, but I also became fascinated with Renaissance Platonism. For  in studying Renaissance Platonism, I found something important about it: it was brought over to the West by those who in the East had rejoined communion with Rome. Eastern Catholicism, in some extent, had its formation within the Catholic Church by Platonists. The historical situation reads like this: in the East, the philosopher Plethon had started teaching Platonism, and one of his students and followers was Cardinal Bessarion. At the time, Cardinal Bessarion was an Eastern Orthodox Bishop and was one of Orthodoxy's major theologians. The Council of Florence convened. The Council was called so that the West and the East could establish reunion (partly as a way to defend Constantinople which was about to fall to the Turkish assault). At the Council of Florence, Bessarion became the leading Orthodox theologian in favor of reunion, and outside of the debates which were taking place at the Council itself, Plethon was also at the Council teaching Platonism in the streets of Florence. After the Council had succeeded in producing reunion, although it was a brief union, Bessarion was given by Pope Eugene IV the position of Cardinal. The Fall of Constantinople to the Turks resulted in the failure of the union, but Cardinal Bessarion had moved to Italy. The Pope gave Cardinal Bessarion the position of Patriarch of Constantinople (in opposition to a Turk-appointed Patriarch). Cardinal Bessarion, with his teacher Plethon at Florence,  helped spawn a new interest in Platonism in the West. This interest resulted in the foundation of a new Platonic Academy, underneath a "student" of Bessarion, Father Marsilio Ficino. Ficino's chief and most famous student, Pico della Mirandola, was also another major Platonist of the time (but he was not as committed to Platonism as Ficino). Side-by-side with this interest in Florence with Platonism, one Rome's major theologians, who had been instrumental in calling the Council of Florence, Nicholas of Cusa, was himself engaged in learning Platonism and adapting it philosophically and theologically to Catholic thought. Thus, in the time of the Renaissance, right before the Reformation, Platonism had become mainstream in Western philosophy and theology-- and several figures would continue to follow this lead, until it would be halted by the onslaught of the Reformation which put the Church in a defensive position.  Her theological studies were put to the efforts of defense, and philosophy took its own independent course. However, these figures have since the time of the Renaissance have been ones which have had some attention and interest to philosophers, and they were never completely forgotten; in the realm of philosophy, Pico became the most famous member of the Renaissance Platonists, while in the field of theology, it was of course Nicholas of Cusa, whose speculative thought would eventually be used in the advance of science and mathematics. These figures, being not unknown historically, were ones that would eventually draw my own attention, for not only are they monumental in East-West dialogues, but also for the fact that they were Platonists who were trying to use Platonic thought to gain a deeper understanding of Christian (and pagan) thought. Except for Nicholas of Cusa, I quickly started to research these figures, and read whatever I could find available in English. My interest in Nicholas of Cusa would begin only within the context of alien life, which is the next step of my adventure.

I have always been interested in science fiction, and with science fiction, the idea of alien life. Initially, I did not think alien life was probable. This was an outcome of my my pre-Catholic days. It did not seem as if Christ would be able to save aliens because he had become man and nothing else, therefore, God would not create them. Before the summer of 1998, I had read a few interesting and odd statements buried in patristic literature which discussed the possibility of other forms of rational animals ("humans") existing. My prime encounter with this was in the life of St. Paul the Hermit, when my own patron Saint, St. Anthony the Great, encountered and talked to a "satyr." I had thought that this provided the possibility of other forms of intelligent life, but I had no clue as to what to make of such forms of life. Then in the summer of 1998, my friends and I, through external reasons, began to discuss the concept of alien life and really ponder their existence. By that time, I had come to accept the possibility of their existence, but had yet to really explored the issue. It was at this time that I decided I should explore the issue of alien life, and so it became somewhat central to my intellectual pursuits. The first thing I knew I had to do is figure out-- could they exist within the Catholic stand point of soteriology; if they could, then I wanted to figure out if they would exist. The first question I found out the answer was simpler than I had thought before; St. Maximos the Confessor provided me the way. If God became a man to save and deify man, then Christ indeed became a creature, and if God became a creature, all creatures-- including alien entities-- could be saved in Christ. That difficulty out of the way, the question remained: would it be probable to say alien life existed. Thinking about it, my friends and I concluded it was probable -- the universe was too big for there not to be other forms of life. However, I knew that the philosophical position had to be grounded upon better grounds than this-- and so I decided to search out what I could find on the history of the debate of alien life. Initially, I searched modern works from authors like Drake and Sagan, and their books referenced the thoughts of earlier philosophers and theologians on this topic. I thought, if they had found such authors, such references, I would hope to see if I could find other philosophical works addressing the question of alien life. I was able to find several works which addressed the issue of the history of the debate of alien life which went back to pre-Christian times and went into modern history. By the time I had started reading the history on the debates on alien life, I had already come to believe alien life existed, but this helped find a solid ground for me to believe in their existence. It provided to me the names of key theologians who had discussed the topic, historically, in one way or another. The name which seemed to be key, the one who seemed to be the best "early" Christian exposition on the topic was Nicholas of Cusa, and so I saw it necessary to first read his work where he discussed alien life, On Learned Ignorance, to read what he said on the topic in relation to his overall theological philosophy. I finally started to read the works of Nicholas of Cusa in the Spring of 1999.. I found him to be a theologian who had already touched upon many issues I was researching and contemplating, and in doing so he provided some answers to questions I had and pointed me to new directions for my own personal research. Not only was Nicholas of Cusa influential and helpful on the discussion of alien life, for which I had started to read him, I had found him helpful in strengthening and enhancing my own philosophical thought, which I did not expect when I first started to read his works.

It was during this time, when I was investigating the idea of  alien life and its relationship to Christian thought,  that I also took an interest in reading works from Henri de Lubac and Hans Urs Von Balthasar. I knew they were influential in modern Catholic theology and thus should be studied. I had previously read some works by Balthasar, and did not find him too appealing-- and I still find his writing style to be very unappealing. I decided that I wanted to read Henri de Lubac's book Catholicism primarily because it was a basic work on Catholicism, but I had also decided to read it because I had seen it in a collection of books which belonged to J. R. R. Tolkien (a writer I have respect for and find very influential as well) and considered it as some sort of sign that I should not neglect modern theology. When I read the book, one major notion I got out of it was from his discussion on apologetics: he stated that those who engage in apologetics tend to get stained, that is, they allow the ones who they are debating to take the lead and guide the principles of the debate and thus influence the apologist. The apologists having unknowingly became influenced by Protestants had Protestant thought slowly brought within the Catholic Church. A major way he demonstrated this was with the advent of individualism within the Church, and with it the denial of the universal ecclesiology:  this is a point I could easily see with my interest in the pan-unity philosophy of Russia. It was here that my final rift with writing apologetics ended. Sometimes, in a work which I write or research, it will have a minor theme-- because theology and philosophy try to explain itself against objections, but instead of being the primary concern, it is only secondary at best. Henri de Lubac also mentioned the fact that no serious theologian took upon himself the role of apologetics: apologetics was not theology, it was at best, a defensive posture, and one which allowed too much advantage to the opponents of Catholicism.

By the time I had read my first work of Nicholas of Cusa, I was also ready to work upon my "Cosmic Century." This work I had begun after reading St. Maximos, Solovyov, and Florensky, but I did not get too far. The idea was one which I had wanted to work on, and continue with-- but for over a year, the progress was stopped. Reading Nicholas of Cusa became the catalyst which helped bring the work back into shape, and allowed me to finish it in the summer of 1999. This work, to date, is my most profound philosophical work, and touches upon many issues which I have been reflecting upon for five years. It is the synthesis of thoughts which had not always been joined together in this fashion, from works which span from St. Anthony the Great's letters to St. Pavel Florensky's monumental work, The Pillar and Ground of Truth. Previous to writing this, I had outlined two elements of my own philosophical position: the role of the Catholic Church in the Cosmos (which follows Russian ideas of pan-unity and cosmology), and a small outline of my own Sophiological concepts. I had also written a small piece of spiritual anthropology, which helped me reflect upon the nature of man-- which is indeed, still at the heart of the "Cosmic Century."

        Another aspect of my thought and progress, which has taken place at the same time as I have read Nicholas of Cusa, is my exploration into Buddhism during the Spring of 1999. I explored works on Buddhist Cosmology, Buddhist philosophy, and Buddhist religious thought-- especially within the context of Tibetan Buddhism. Through this reading, I grew to appreciate Buddhist insights on nature, and consider it a useful took in exploring the issues of the "realm of becoming" (which they reflect upon) vs. the "realm of being." Buddhism can end up nihilistic, if the realm of being is neglected-- and it perhaps has been neglected in several traditions, but at its root, it needs not be nihilistic, and nihilism was itself rejected by Buddha. Buddha had been found transformed into a Christian in the Christian legends of Sts. Barlaam and Josaphat, and for good reason: his holiness. Can we really say Buddha is any different in holiness than, say, St. Job, both who are pre-Christian pagan Saints? My interest in Buddhism has supplemented my interest in Hindu philosophy, especially its Advaita Vedanta theology (the non-dualist theology of Hinduism). Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are inter-related, and complement each other. I could easily say, as our Pope John Paul II said in Fides et Ratio, that the metaphysics of India have a wealth of inspiration within that can help, not only within India, but within the context of Christian philosophy and theology. Thus, I ended this period of thought beginning to stretch out further philosophically, looking at some ground-working philosophical works of Christianity in the writings of the Sophiologists, and adding to it the wealth of insight found within Buddhist and Hindu thought.

Return to the Previous Page