On the second Sunday of Great Lent, the Orthodox Church celebrates the memory of St. Gregory Palamas. The Bogoslov.Ru portal publishes an article by the head of the Greek-Latin cabinet and teacher of the Moscow Theological Academy, hegumen Dionysius (Shlenov), dedicated to the saint.
life
The future saint was born in 1296, and received his education in Constantinople. After the early death of the father of his senator Constantine, which occurred in 1301, it fell to Gregory to be under the patronage of Emperor Andronicus II. Thus, the young man lived at the royal court for the first 20 years of his life, and later on, having various talents, he had a fast and successful career ahead of him. He studied secular disciplines and philosophy with the best teacher of the era, Theodore Metochites, who was a philologist and theologian, rector of the university and at the same time, as it is customary to call this position now, the prime minister. Gregory Palamas was the best of his students; he showed particular interest in the philosophy of Aristotle. At the age of 17, Gregory even gave a lecture in the palace on Aristotle's syllogistic method before the emperor and nobles. The lecture was so successful that at the end of it Metochites exclaimed: "And Aristotle himself, if he were here, would not fail to honor her with praise."
Despite all this, Gregory remained strikingly indifferent to politics and the world. Around 1316, at the age of 20, he left the palace and philosophical studies and retired to the Holy Mountain, where he devoted himself to an ascetic life and studies of esoteric theology. He began to get used to great feats while still in the palace. On Athos, Gregory asceticised in a cell not far from Vatopedi under the guidance of the Monk Nikodim, from whom he received monastic vows. After the death of his mentor (c. 1319), he moved to the Lavra of St. Athanasius, where he spent three years. Then, beginning in 1323, he asceticised in the skete of Glossia, where he spent all his time in vigils and prayers.
In 1325, due to Turkish attacks on the Holy Mountain, he, along with other monks, was forced to leave it. In Thessalonica, Gregory, at the request of his fellow monks, took the priesthood. From there he went to the region of Berea, the city where the apostle Paul once preached, where he continued his asceticism. Five days a week, shut up in a narrow cell-cave, located on the slope of a rock overgrown with dense thickets above a mountain stream, he indulged in mental prayer. On Saturday and Sunday, he left his seclusion to participate in the general divine service, which took place in the monastery katholikon.
However, the Slavic invasion, which also affected this area, prompted Gregory to return to the Holy Mountain again in 1331, where he continued his hermit life in the desert of St. Sava on the Athos foothills above the Lavra. This desert has survived to this day. “Washed”, as in the time of St. Gregory, by the winds of Athos, it amazes pilgrims with its absolute solitude and silence.
Then, for a short time, Gregory was elected abbot of the Esfigmen monastery. But, in spite of the cares he took upon himself, he constantly sought to return to the silence of the desert. And he would have achieved this if a learned monk from Calabria (Southern Italy) named Varlaam (1290-1350) had not prompted him to enter the polemical path. The dispute with Varlaam lasted for 6 years from 1335 to 1341.
Varlaam came from an Orthodox Greek family and knew the Greek language well. He visited Byzantium and eventually ended up in Thessaloniki. In the middle of the thirties of the XIV century. theological discussions between Greeks and Latins revived. In a number of his anti-Latin writings, directed in particular against the Latin doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son, Barlaam emphasized that God is incomprehensible and that judgments about God cannot be proved. Then Palamas wrote apodictic words against the Latin innovation, criticizing Barlaam's theological "agnosticism" and his excessive trust in the authority of pagan philosophy.
This was the first theological clash between the two husbands. The second happened in 1337, when Varlaam was informed by some simple and illiterate monks about a certain technical method that the hesychasts used when creating noetic prayer. Having also studied some of the writings of the Hesychast Fathers devoted to prayerful work, he furiously attacked the Hesychasts, calling them Messalians and "pupils" (ὀμφαλόψυχοι). Then it was entrusted to Palamas to refute Varlaam's attacks. A personal meeting of both husbands did not at all lead to a positive result, but it aggravated the contradiction even more. At the Council of Constantinople in 1341 (the meeting took place on June 10), Barlaam, who accused the Hesychasts of the wrong way of praying and refuted the doctrine of the uncreated Light of Tabor, was condemned. Barlaam, although he asked for forgiveness, left for Italy in June of the same year, where he then accepted Roman Catholicism and became Bishop of Ierak.
After the Council of 1341 and the removal of Varlaam, the first stage of the Palamite disputes ended.
At the second and third stages of the debate, Palamas was opposed by Gregory Akindin and Nicephorus Gregory, who, unlike Barlaam, did not criticize the psychosomatic method of prayer of the hesychasts. The dispute took on a theological character and concerned the question of Divine energies, grace, uncreated light.
The second stage of the dispute coincides with the civil war between John Cantacuzenus and John Palaiologos and took place between 1341 and 1347. On June 15, 1341, Emperor Andronicus III died. His successor, John V Palaiologos, was a minor, so great upheavals took place in the state as a result of a fierce struggle for power between the great domestic John Kantakuzen and the great Duke Alexei Apokavk. Patriarch John Kalek supported Apokaukos, while Palamas believed that the state could only be saved thanks to Cantacuzenus. Palamas' intervention in the political clash, although he was not particularly politically inclined, led to the fact that most of his later life was spent in captivity and dungeons.
Meanwhile, in July 1341, another council was convened, at which Akindin was condemned. At the end of 1341-1342, Palamas closed first in the monastery of St. Michael of Sosthenia, and then (after May 12, 1342) in one of its deserts. In May-June 1342, two councils were held to condemn Palamas, which, however, did not produce any results. Soon Gregory withdrew to Heraclius, from where, after 4 months, he was taken under escort to Constantinople, and imprisoned there in a monastery. After a two-month stay in the church of Hagia Sophia, where Saint Gregory, along with his disciples, enjoyed immunity by right of asylum, he was imprisoned in the palace prison. In November 1344, at the council of St. Gregory, Palamas was excommunicated from the Church, and Akindin, his main opponent, was ordained deacon and priest at the end of the same year. However, due to changes in the political situation at the council on February 2, 1347, Gregory Palamas was acquitted, and his opponents were convicted.
After the victory of John Cantacuzenus and his proclamation as emperor, the patriarchal throne was occupied (May 17, 1347) by Isidore Vukhir, a friend of the hesychasts, and Gregory Palamas was soon elected archbishop of Thessaloniki. Then the third stage of the Palamite controversy began. The main opponent of Palamas was Nikephoros Gregoras. Political unrest in Thessalonica prevented Gregory from entering the city to carry out his duties. The zealots, friends of the Palaiologos and opponents of Cantacuzenus, turned out to be the masters of the situation here. They prevented the arrival of Palamas, until the capture of Thessalonica by Kantakouzin in 1350. Until that time, Palamas had visited Athos and Lemnos. Once in Thessaloniki, he was able to pacify the city. However, his opponents did not stop arguing furiously. Because of this, in May-June and in July 1351, two councils were convened, which condemned his opponent Nicephorus Gregory and proclaimed Palamas "defender of piety." At the first of these councils, the doctrine of the unity of the Divine and the difference between essence and uncreated energies was approved. At the second council, six dogmatic definitions were adopted with the corresponding six anathemas, which immediately after the council were included in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy. In addition to the affirmation of the above distinction between essence and energy, the non-participation of the Divine essence and the possibility of communion with the Divine energies, which are uncreated, were proclaimed here.
Traveling to Constantinople in 1354 to mediate between Cantacuzenus and John Palaiologos, Palamas was captured by the Turks, who held him captive for about a year until they received the ransom they sought from the Serbs for his release. He considered his captivity an appropriate occasion for preaching the truth to the Turks, which he tried to do, as can be seen from the Epistle of the Thessalonian Church, as well as from two texts of Interviews with representatives from among the Turks. Seeing that the destruction of the empire by the Turks was almost inevitable, he believed that the Greeks should immediately begin to convert the Turks to Christianity.
After being freed from the Turks and returning to Thessaloniki, St. Gregory continued his pastoral activity in his diocese until 1359 or, according to the new dating, until 1357. Struck by one of his long-standing illnesses, which troubled him from time to time, Saint Gregory died on November 14 at the age of 63 (or 61). At first, he was glorified as a locally revered saint in Thessaloniki, but soon, in 1368, by a conciliar decision, he was officially entered into the calendar of Hagia Sophia by Patriarch Philotheus Kokkin, who compiled his meritorious life and service. First, the relics of St. Gregory were laid in the cathedral church of Hagia Sophia in Thessaloniki, now a particle of his relics is kept in the Metropolitan Cathedral in honor of Gregory Palamas near the city embankment.
Compositions
Gregory Palamas compiled numerous works of theological, polemical, ascetic and moral content, as well as numerous homily and epistles.
"The Life of Peter the Athos" - the very first work of St. Gregory Palamas, painted c. 1334
In the "new inscriptions" against those of John Beccus and in two apodictic words "Against the Latins" (written in 1334-1335 or according to the latest dates in 1355), the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit is considered. The Holy Spirit as a hypostasis proceeds "only from the Father". “The hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is not from the Son either; It is not given or accepted by anyone, but Divine grace and energy.” Similar to the teaching of Nicholas of Methon, the procession is a hypostatic property, while grace, which is energy, is common to the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Only in view of this commonality can we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and from the Son, and from Himself. This view of the procession is shared with the teachings of Nicephorus Vlemmids and Gregory of Cyprus, who, faithful to patristic tradition, placed their hopes on a theological dialogue between East and West.
The composition of the "Triad in Defense of the Holyly Silent" was written in order to repel Barlaam's attacks on the hesychasts, it also resolves all the theological issues that have become the subject of a dispute. The work is divided into three triads, each of which is subdivided into three treatises. The first triad, written in the spring of 1338 in Thessaloniki, is devoted to the question of the knowledge of God. Opposing the then just formulated position of Varlaam, Palamas insists that the way of knowing God is not an external philosophy, but a revelation in Christ. Christ has renewed the whole person, therefore the whole person, soul and body, can and must participate in prayer. A person, starting from the present life, partakes of the grace of God and tastes as a pledge the gift of deification, which he will taste in fullness in the future age.
In the second triad (composed in the spring-summer of 1339), he sharply criticizes Varlaam's assertion that knowledge of philosophy can bring salvation to a person. Man does not enter into communion with God by means of creaturely means, but only by Divine grace and through participation in the life of Christ.
In the third triad (written in the spring-summer of 1340), he deals with the issue of deification and the Light of Tabor as an uncreated Divine energy. Man does not partake of the essence of God, otherwise we would come to pantheism, but partake of the natural energy and grace of God. Here St. Gregory systematically explores the fundamental distinction between essence and energy that is fundamental to his teaching. The same questions are dealt with in the five epistles Epistles: three to Akindin and two to Barlaam, written at the beginning of the dispute.
In doctrinal writings (“Svyatogorsk Tomos”, spring-summer 1340; “Confession of Faith”, etc.), and in works directly related to the dispute (“On Divine Unity and Distinction”, summer 1341; “On Divine and deifying involvement", winter 1341-1342; "Dialogue of the Orthodox Theophan with Theotimos", autumn 1342, etc.) - as well as in 14 messages addressed to monastics, persons in holy orders and laity (the last letter was sent to Empress Anna Palaiologina) continue to discuss controversial issues between Palamas, on the one hand, and Barlaam and Akindin, on the other.
The seven "Antirriticus against Akindin" (1342-not earlier than the spring of 1345) were written in order to refute the corresponding antirritik against Palamas, compiled by Gregory Akindin. They talk about the consequences of not distinguishing between essence and energy in God. Akindin, not accepting that grace is the natural energy of the essence of God, but a creature, as a result falls into a heresy greater than that of Arius. The grace of God, says Palamas, is holy as an uncreated light, similar to that seen by the apostles during the Transfiguration of Christ. This uncreated light and in general all the energies of God are a common expression of the single essence of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
“Against Grigora” Palamas wrote 4 refuting words (1 and 2 - in 1355, 1356; 3 and 4 - in 1356-1357). Gregory accepted the theological theses of Varlaam, arguing that the grace of God, and especially the light of the Transfiguration, was created. Palamas refutes Grigora's arguments and argues that the light of the Transfiguration was neither a creature nor a symbol, but a reflection of the divine essence and confirmation of the actual communion between God and man.
All of the above-mentioned writings of Palamas are distinguished by a distinct polemical character, aimed at refuting the views of opponents. Palamas expresses his theological assertions with complete clarity in his less polemical theological and ascetic writings. In "150 theological, moral and practical chapters" (1349/1350), he sets out, using the method common to all ascetic writers of the East, the main topics of his teaching in short chapters. In some cases, he quotes entire passages from his previous writings. Having systematized his theological teaching, he expounds it with clarity and completeness, along with his philosophical views.
The essay “To Xenia on Passions and Virtues” (1345-1346) is addressed to a nun who was involved in raising the daughters of Emperor Andronicus III. This is an extensive ascetic treatise dedicated to the fight against passions and the acquisition of Christian virtues.
During his archpastorship in Thessaloniki, from the pulpit of the cathedral church of St. Gregory Palamas recited most of his 63 homily, confirming his deep spirituality, theological gifts and devotion to the Church. Although the homily is devoted primarily to ascetic-moral and socio-patriotic themes, there is also a place in them for speculation about the uncreated Light of Tabor (in homily 34, 35 "On the Transfiguration of the Lord"). Some of the listeners could not follow the thoughts of the homilies of St. Gregory because of a lack of education. However, he prefers to speak in a high style so that "it is better to raise up those who are prostrated on the ground than to bring down those who are on high because of them." However, any attentive listener can quite clearly understand what has been said.
Of the texts relating to the time of his captivity among the Turks, the most valuable is the “Letter to his [Thessalonian] Church”, which, in addition to various historical information, describes some of his interviews and describes a number of episodes where the Turks appear.
In addition to the above, many smaller works of a refuting, polemical, ascetic and theological content and four prayers have been preserved.
Doctrine
Saint Gregory Palamas, using creatively revised theological terminology, reported new directions in theological thought. His teaching was not determined only by philosophical concepts, but was formed on completely different principles. He theologizes on the basis of personal spiritual experience, which he lived through ascetic as a monk, and fought as a skilled fighter against those who distorted the faith, and which he substantiated from the theological side. Therefore, he began to write his compositions at a fairly mature age, and not at a young age.
1. Philosophy and theology
Varlaam likens knowledge to health, which is indivisible into health given by God and health acquired through a doctor. Also, knowledge, divine and human, theology and philosophy, according to the Calabrian thinker, are one: "philosophy and theology, as gifts of God, are equal in value before God." In response to the first comparison, St. Gregory wrote that doctors cannot heal incurable diseases, they cannot raise the dead.
Further, Palamas draws a very clear distinction between theology and philosophy, firmly relying on the previous patristic tradition. External knowledge is quite different from true and spiritual knowledge, it is impossible "from [external knowledge] to learn anything true about God." At the same time, there is not only a difference between external and spiritual knowledge, but also a contradiction: "it is hostile to true and spiritual knowledge."
According to Palamas, there are two wisdoms: the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God. When the wisdom of the world serves the Divine wisdom, they form a single tree, the first wisdom brings leaves, the second bears fruit. Also, "the kind of truth is double": one truth pertains to inspired writing, the other to external education or philosophy. These truths have not only different goals, but also different initial principles. Philosophy, beginning with sensory perception, ends with knowledge. The wisdom of God begins with the good at the expense of the purity of life, as well as with the true knowledge of beings, which comes not from learning, but from purity. “If you are without purity, even if you studied all natural philosophy from Adam to the end of the world, you will be a fool, or even worse, and not a wise man.” The end of wisdom is “a pledge of the future age, ignorance exceeding knowledge, secret communion with secret and inexpressible vision, mysterious and inexpressible contemplation and knowledge of eternal light.”
Representatives of external wisdom underestimate the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit, that is, they fight against the mysterious energies of the Spirit. The wisdom of the prophets and apostles is not acquired by teaching, but is taught by the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Paul, raptured up to the third heaven, was enlightened not by his thoughts and mind, but received the illumination of “the power of the good Spirit according to the hypostasis in the soul.” Illumination that occurs in a pure soul is not knowledge, because it transcends meaning and knowledge. "The main good" is sent from above, is a gift of grace, and not a natural gift.
2. Knowledge of God and vision of God
Varlaam ruled out any possibility of knowing God and presenting apodictic syllogisms about the Divine, because he considered God to be incomprehensible. He allowed only the symbolic knowledge of God, and then not in earthly life, but only after the separation of body and soul.
Palamas agrees that God is incomprehensible, but he attributes this incomprehensibility to the basic property of the Divine essence. In turn, he considers some knowledge possible when a person has certain prerequisites for the knowledge of God, Who becomes available through His energies. God is both comprehensible and incomprehensible, known and unknowable, recommended and ineffable. Knowledge of God is acquired by "theology," which is twofold: cataphatic and apophatic. Cataphatic theology, in turn, has two means: reason, which through the contemplation of beings comes to a certain knowledge, and Scripture with the Fathers.
In the Areopagite corpus, preference is given to apophatic theology, when the ascetic, having gone beyond the limits of everything sensual, plunges into the depths of Divine darkness. According to St. Gregory Palamas, what brings a person out of cataphatics is faith, which constitutes proof or super-proof of the Divine: “of any proof, the best and, as it were, some kind of proof-free beginning of sacred proof is faith.” P. Christou wrote that, according to Palamas, "apophatic theology is the supernatural acts of faith."
Spiritually-experienced confirmation of faith is contemplation, which crowns theology. Unlike Varlaam, for St. Gregory's contemplation is above everything, including apophatic theology. It is one thing to speak or remain silent about God, another to live, see and possess God. Apophatic theology does not cease to be "logos", but "contemplation is higher than logos". Varlaam spoke of a cataphatic and apophatic vision, and Palamas spoke of a vision above vision, connected with the supernatural, with the power of the mind as an action of the Holy Spirit.
In the vision above the vision, smart eyes participate, and not a thought, between which there is an insurmountable abyss. Palamas compares the possession of genuine contemplation with the possession of gold, it is one thing to think about it, another to have it in one's hands. “Theologizing is as inferior to this vision of God in light, and as far from communion with God, as knowledge is from possession. Talking about God and meeting God are not the same thing.” He emphasizes the special significance of "suffering" the Divine in comparison with "theologizing" cataphatic or apophatic. Those who are rewarded with the inexpressible vision will know that which is higher than vision, not apophatically, "but from seeing in the Spirit this deifying energy." "Unity and vision in darkness" is superior to "such a theology."
On the whole, it can be said that Palamas defends Orthodox theology from the "agnosticism" that Barlaam tried to impose. Christian theology, proceeding from the unity and difference of the Divine essence and energies, can also set forth apodictic syllogisms about God.
3. Essence and energies in God
God is incomprehensible in essence, but the objective value of the revelation of God in the history of man is known by His energies. The Being of God consists of His "self-existent" essence, which remains incomprehensible, and His actions or energies, uncreated and eternal. Through the difference in essence and energies, it became possible to achieve the cognition of God, unknowable in essence, but cognizable in energies by those who have reached a certain degree of spiritual perfection. The incomprehensibility and incomprehensibility of the divine essence excludes for man any direct participation in it.
The doctrine of the difference between essence and energies is most clearly represented in the works of the Cappadocian Fathers (4th century), in St. John Chrysostom (end of the 4th century - beginning of the 5th century), in the Areopagite Corpus (beginning of the 6th century) and in St. Maximus the Confessor ( 7th century). For the Cappadocian Fathers, the doctrine of the comprehensibility of the Divine Essence was unacceptable as one of the theses of Eunomius, who, affirming equal opportunities for the knowledge of God for people and our Lord Jesus Christ, thereby tried to belittle the Son of God. For the author of the Areopagitics, this doctrine was an organic consequence of the apophatic theology that developed in the corpus. The Monk Maximus the Confessor, by his lofty teaching on logoi, refuting from within the unexpired remnants of Origenism, also in many respects anticipated the teaching of the Thessalonian hierarch.
During the early Middle Ages there was a dispute between nominalists and realists about the existence of ideas, and consequently about the properties of God. Echoes of this dispute can also be seen in the Palamite dispute: the anti-Palamites denied the actual existence of properties, and Palamas during the early period of the controversy emphasized their existence even excessively, saying that one is the Deity, and the other is the kingdom, holiness, etc. They are essential in God , as they say in the saddle used by Palamas for the Transfiguration:
"Secret brilliance under the flesh
Your essential, Christ, and divine splendor
on the Holy Mountain revealed thou,
and in his own triads, where he spoke of "the light of divine and essential splendor".
Gregory Palamas himself repeatedly emphasized the unity of essence and energies. “Although the divine energy differs from the divine essence, in essence and energy there is one Deity of God.” The modern Greek specialist in church history and law, Vlasios Fidas, formulated the teaching of St. Gregory as follows: “[the difference] between the unparticipated divine essence and the participating energies does not separate the uncreated energies from the divine essence, since the whole of God is in each energy, because of the indivisibility of the divine essence.”
4. Deification and salvation
The distinction between essence and energy in God gave Palamas the basis for the correct description of the renewal of man that took place in Christ. While God remains inherently unapproachable, He enables man to enter into actual communion with Him with His energies. A person, partaking of divine energies or divine grace, receives by grace what God has in essence. By grace and through communion with God, man becomes immortal, uncreated, eternal, infinite, in one word becomes God. "Totally we become gods without identity in essence." All this is received by man from God as a gift of communion with Him, as grace emanating from the very essence of God, which always remains indifferent to man. “The deification of deified angels and people is not the superessential essence of God, but the superessential essence of God is the energy coexisting in the deified.”
If a person does not actively participate in the uncreated deifying grace, he remains the created result of the creative energy of God, and the only connection that connects with God remains the connection of creation with its Creator. While the natural life of man is the result of Divine energy, life in God is the communion of Divine energy, which leads to deification. The achievement of this deification is determined by two most important factors - the concentration and turning of the mind to the inner man and unceasing prayer in a kind of spiritual wakefulness, the culmination of which is communion with God. In this state, human forces retain their energy, despite the fact that they turn out to be above their usual measures. Just as God condescends to a person, so a person begins to ascend to God, so that this meeting of them will truly come true. In it, the whole person is embraced by the uncreated light of Divine glory, which is eternally sent from the Trinity, and the mind admires the Divine light and becomes light itself. And then in this way the mind, like the light, sees the light. “The deifying gift of the Spirit is an inexpressible light, and it creates with divine light those who are enriched by it.”
We are now in touch with one of the most important elements of Palamas' teaching. The experience of deification and the salvation of man are a possible reality, starting from present life, with a glorious combination of the historical with the supra-historical. The soul of man, through the acquisition of the Divine spirit again, anticipates from now on the experience of Divine light and Divine glory. The light that the disciples saw on Tabor, the light that pure hesychasts see now, and the existence of the blessings of the future age constitute three stages of one and the same event, merging into a single supratemporal reality. However, for the future reality, when death is abolished, the present reality is a simple pledge.
The identification of essence and energy in God, taught by the opponents of Palamas, destroys the very possibility of realizing salvation. If there is no uncreated grace and energy of God, then a person either partakes in the Divine essence, or cannot have any communion with God. In the first case, we come to pantheism; in the second, the very foundations of the Christian faith are destroyed, according to which a person is offered the possibility of real communion with God, which was realized in the God-human person of Jesus Christ. The uncreated grace of God does not free the soul of man from the fetters of the body, but renews the whole man and transfers him to where Christ raised human nature during His Ascension.
5. The doctrine of the uncreated light
Palamas's doctrine of the uncreated light of the divine Transfiguration is one of the most fundamental, dominating trends in his writings. He speaks on the basis of his own experience, which was the starting point for his theology. The light that shone on Christ during the Transfiguration was not a creature, but an expression of Divine majesty, the vision of which the disciples were granted, having received the opportunity to see after appropriate preparation by Divine grace. This light was not a created "symbol of the Divine", as Varlaam believed, but divine and uncreated. Saint Gregory wrote in response to Varlaam: “The whole face of the divine theologians was afraid to call the grace of this light a symbol, ... so that no one would consider this most divine light as created and alien to the Godhead ...”.
St. Maximus the Confessor really calls this light a symbol, but not in the sense of a sensual symbol, symbolizing something higher and spiritual, but in the sense of the higher “analogically and anagogically”, which remains completely incomprehensible to the human mind, but contains the knowledge of theology, and teaches it. able to see and perceive. Saint Maximus also writes about the light of Tabor as a "natural symbol of the Divinity" of Christ. Interpreting the thought of St. Maximus, Saint Gregory Palamas contrasts an unnatural symbol with a natural, sensual one - a feeling above feeling, when "the eye sees God not with the help of an alien symbol, but sees God as a symbol." “The Son, having been born from the Father without beginning, possesses without beginning the natural ray of Divinity; the glory of the Godhead becomes the glory of the body…”
So, the light of Tabor is the uncreated energy of God, which is contemplated by the intelligent eyes of a “purified and blessed” heart. God "as the light is seen, and by the light he creates the pure in heart, which is why he is called light." The Light of Tabor is higher than not only external knowledge, but also knowledge from the Scriptures. Knowledge from the Scriptures is like a lamp that can fall into a dark place, and the light of mysterious contemplation is like a bright star, "as is the sun." Even if the light of Tabor is compared with the sun, but this is only a comparison. The character of the Light of Tabor is higher than feeling. The light of Tabor was neither intelligible nor sensual, but it was beyond feeling and understanding. Therefore, he shone “not like the sun ... but higher than the sun. Although it is spoken of in likeness, there is no equality between them ... ".
This vision of light is authentic, real and perfect, the soul takes part in it, involving the entire mental and bodily composition of a person in the process of vision. The vision of light leads to union with God and is a sign of this union: “He who has that light inexpressibly and sees no more according to imagination, but a true vision and is above all creatures, knows and has God within himself, for he is never separated from eternal glory.” The vision of the uncreated light in earthly life is a precious gift, the threshold of eternity: "... the uncreated light is now given to the worthy as a pledge, and in the endless age it will overshadow them endlessly." This is the very light that genuine hesychasts see, to which Palamas himself has communed. That is why Saint Gregory Palamas himself became a great herald of grace and light.
The saint bore the rank of Archbishop of Thessaloniki, was a Christian mystic, theologian and religious philosopher. Gregory Palamas is revered as the father of the Church, the pious teacher of the followers of Jesus.
Path to monasticism
He was born in the majestic Constantinople in 1296, and here he received a good education. His parents came from a noble aristocratic family. When Gregory's father died, the virtuous king Andronicus II began to patronize the five-year-old boy. For two decades, young Palamas was at the imperial court. He was predicted a successful career, knowing about the innate various talents.
Saint Gregory Palamas of Thessaloniki
- Philosophy was taught to Gregory by F. Metochites, a famous philologist, theologian, the best teacher in all of Byzantium. During his studies, Palamas was interested in the teachings of Aristotle, delivering successful lectures on the syllogic method of this Greek sage.
- Despite recognition in academic circles, Gregory was completely uninterested in the political situation. In 1316, he left the imperial palace and settled on, where he practiced asceticism and spiritual theology. His teacher on the religious path was St. Nikodim, an elder who raised Gregory to the monks. After the death of his spiritual mentor, Palamas settled for three years in the Lavra of St. Athanasius. Soon he moved to the monastery of Glossia, where he practiced prayer reading. In 1325, Gregory, together with the brethren, left the Holy Mountain, which was continuously besieged by Turkish troops.
- After living for some time in Thessalonica, Palamas accepted the priesthood. The saint continued his asceticism in places where the Apostle Paul reverently preached the Christian doctrine. Living here, for five weeks Gregory closed himself in a cramped cave, located far from civilization, and indulged in prayers. On weekends, he attended common services.
- Soon this region was attacked by Slavic tribes, so in 1331 Palamas again returned to Holy Athos, where he continued his hermit life. The desert, in which he practiced, is permeated with an atmosphere of silence and divine peace, today pilgrims have the opportunity to visit it. For some time the saint interrupted his loneliness and became abbot of the monastery of Esfigmene.
After this miraculous event, Gregory felt the divine presence at any time and in any place.
Time of controversy and confinement
The educated monk Varlaam, a native of an Orthodox Greek family, prompted Gregory to enter into a controversy that lasted six years. Varlaam directed his own writings against certain theologians and authoritatively emphasized that the Lord is incomprehensible, and it is impossible to prove judgments about Him. Gregory, in turn, criticized Barlaam's frank "agnosticism" and his endless trust in the teachings of pagan philosophy.
- In 1337, Palamas refuted the attacks against the literature of the hesychast fathers (those who taught "intelligent prayer, vision"). The contradictions escalated after a personal meeting between Gregory and Varlaam. Four years later, the latter, who accused the hesychasts of an unconventional method of oral ministry, was condemned at the Council of Constantinople. Varlaam had to ask for forgiveness, after which he left for Italy and converted to Catholicism.
- Gregory was opposed by other opponents who criticized the teachings of the hesychasts about grace, the energies of the Lord and uncreated light. Unexpectedly for himself, Palamas entered into a political controversy, which led to his frequent imprisonment.
- In 1341 the saint retired to the monastery of St. Michael, and a year later he withstood accusations at two church councils. From Byzantine Heraclius, Gregory was sent under escort to the capital and imprisoned. In 1344, the Monk Palamas was unjustly excommunicated from Orthodoxy, and his opponent in theological disputes, Akindin, received the rank of clergyman. However, after the change in the political situation, Gregory received an acquittal.
- After Saint Isidore received the patriarchal throne, Gregory was elected hierarch of Thessaloniki. Once again, a controversy arose, but this time with the monk Nicephorus. Political unrest began in Thessalonica, which was resolved after the capture of the city by those who favored the Hesychasts. While in the city, Palamas helped to pacify the population.
- However, the religious opponents of Gregory did not think to stop in their criticism. Fortunately, at the next council, held in Constantinople, the name of Palamas was justified, calling him a "defender of piety." The Fathers of the Church officially accepted Gregory's teaching on the unity of God, and included 6 dogmas in the Synod of Orthodox Christianity.
Last years of life
Staying on Lemnos, Gregory surprised the population with signs and miraculous deeds, preached the Christian doctrine. However, soon the Thessalonian flock, orphaned without their shepherd, called their beloved hierarch to their side.
Articles about other saints:
The priesthood and the laity received Gregory with great cordiality, marking the arrival with solemn chants and hymns. Three days after his return, the monk made a religious procession and led.
Saint Gregory Palamas
During this period, Palamas healed a sick child and cured the blindness of a nun.
- In Thessalonica, a severe and prolonged illness lay in wait for the saint, the flock and priesthood feared for the life of the saint. However, the Lord prolonged the stay of Palamas in the earthly vale. Gregory was called to Constantinople to help resolve a political dilemma in the royal family.
- On the way to the capital, the Hagarites (Mohammedans) seized the saint and took him as a slave to Asia. Even in these places, the saint preached the true faith, revealing the truths of prayer and worship of the Lord. His opponents could not contain their surprise at the sight of such highly spiritual instructions.
- Many wanted to subject the saint to beatings, but the Agarian authorities intended to get a ransom for Palamas. A few years later the saint returned to Constantinople, as the kidnappers had received the money. The return was characterized by great celebrations and eulogies. Meek and humble, he continued the fight against heresy, ignored slander, showed a great soul and patience.
- During the last years, Saint Gregory worked healings, spreading the greatness of the Lord and the Orthodox faith. Feeling the impending death of the bodily shell, Palamas gathered his loved ones and announced his imminent departure to the Heavenly Spheres. He mentioned that he contemplated the long-dead Gregory, who came on the day of his last breath.
- When the saint was dying, those present saw that his lips whispered a prayer. After the separation of the soul, his face brightened, and the room lit up with a divine glow. The people watched this radiance and flocked to the place of the last kiss.
- And after death, Gregory tirelessly distributes the grace of healing to everyone who comes to his relics and sincerely asks for help. The Orthodox Church shows tremendous reverence for St. Palamas, remembering his sermons, teachings and miracles.
Gregory in his literary writings says that there are two different wisdoms: worldly and divine. When the first unquestioningly serves the second, the truth is recreated. Palamas argues that wisdom originates from the good received on the basis of the purity of life. The apostles and prophets receive it not through knowledge, but with the help of the Holy Spirit. The teaching of the world does not penetrate so deeply and stops at the struggle against the mysterious energies of this Spirit.
Role in Orthodoxy
Gregory Palamas gained great fame due to his theological treatises, where the practice of hesychasm (“intelligent prayer”) is comprehended, as well as after miracles and prophecies. Having received a good education, he did not remain in secular society, relics and be healed of any disease.
Attention! In Orthodoxy, the monk is revered in the host of saints, the memory is celebrated annually on November 14th.
Gregory compiled a large number of theological, ascetic and moral works, which deal with the themes of the descent of the Holy Spirit to earth, the communion of the human soul with natural energy, and also reflects attacks. His teachings are based on his own spiritual experience, which he received as a monk, waging a saving war against defilers of the faith.
(1296-1359) - a zealous defender of the theology of "enlightenment", a vivid exponent of the spiritually mystical ideas of Christianity.
G. P. comes from a noble family of the city of Constantinople, emigrated from Anatolia, fleeing the Turkish invasion. He grew up at the court of Emperor Andronicus II. In his youth he studied secular sciences and literature, however, he devoted even secular studies to God. In 1316 he went to Athos, where he took tonsure and spent twenty years in monasteries, and then in the sketes of Glossia. The theorist and defender of hesychasm G.P. gained fame for his polemics with representatives of theological rationalism, headed by Barlaam of Calabria. From 1347 G. P. was appointed Bishop of Thessaloniki, where his pastoral practice received the love and respect of the flock. Even during his summer stay in Turkish captivity, he does not leave attempts to achieve mutual understanding with Muslims in debates. In 1368 G.P. was canonized and remains one of the outstanding figures in the history of Orthodoxy.
Among the theological writings of G.P., a well-known work is “Triads in Defense of the Sacred Silent.” It is a synthesis of theological thought and monastic spiritual practice. Light of Tabor revealed to the apostles at the time of the Transfiguration of the Lord.
Teaching. God, according to G.P., is transcendent and therefore "more incomprehensible." Following Dionysius the Areopagite, believes that God is not an essence and not even a super-essence, but "infinitely higher than the essence from above", because the concept of "essence" corresponds to the meaning of the objective content. Therefore, it is better to speak of God not as an essence, but as a Being, and a personal one at that. He quotes the place in the Bible when, speaking with Moses, God does not say “I am the essence”, but “I am the being” (Ex. S, M), and explains: embraced all Being "(St. Gregory Palamas. Triads in defense of the sacredly silent. - M., 1995. - S. 316). So, essence is necessarily being, but being is not necessarily essence. Energies radiate from God as from the essence, but as from the “fully present” personal God, thanks to which we discover for ourselves both the divine energy as an uncreated reality, and the divine essence as an incomprehensible fullness. In the things of the created world, an invisible, eternal and uncreated meaning is realized, which turns into evidence in the chain of a continuous history of spiritual revelation, grows together in the hothouse of faith, in the sacred depths of the world. Yes, God, being transcendent, incomprehensible and inexpressive, ascends to man in order to be involved and invisibly visible. A believing person, in turn, should become ready for the contemplation of the invisible, little rational education, but ascetic righteousness and monasticism are needed, with the help of which the true meaning of the signs of the Divine presence in this world is revealed and explained at the level of the spirit. It was precisely this path as a way of preparing the believer that G. P. worked out with his ascetic life and theoretical activity, because it ensures the actual rebirth of the individual spirit in a person who understood the Divine and human nature of Christ, realized the Divine principle in all its fullness by her involvement in him. Remaining unknowable in essence, God reveals himself to a believing person in the energy of love through God the Son by the Holy Spirit. This triple energy is one and diverse in its manifestations. During the creation of the world, God is divided into numerous parts, without actually increasing. Adored in its identity with Christ, man rises to a "life-long height" and "begins to contemplate supra-cosmic reality, not moving away from matter, but bringing the whole created world through himself to God." Being a follower of the hesychasts of the patriotic day in general, and John of Sinai (Climacus) in particular, G.P. believed that human souls spiritualized by the Holy Spirit were given the opportunity to receive Divine experience.
The attitude to philosophy is not unambiguous, he proposes to distinguish philosophy into theoretical and practical on such a basis that it can be characterized by "mad and not wisdom, carnal and spiritual, refutable and irrefutable, temporal and eternal, and one is completely different from the other" (there same - S. 135). If we defend the fact of the existence of true knowledge, then we must recognize that such knowledge is the only one. However, simple wisdom, or worldly philosophy (on the example of Hellenic) cannot be called the only one. The "unity of truth" of philosophy provides the Divine light to which Lubomud may or may not be open. “The truth about the philosophy of external sciences should simply and briefly be expressed as follows: the philosophical content that exists in the writings or reasonings of INDIVIDUAL philosophers can be called private philosophy; what is observed by all philosophers - general; philosophy that has fallen away from the proper goal of any wisdom, knowledge of God, - Philosophy, with which this did not happen, and not turning into madness; and why would it go crazy if it reaches its natural goal, that is, it turns to the giver of nature to God? harmful, having taken away the useful ... and having come into perfect agreement with spiritual wisdom. In my opinion, the truth is here "(ibid. - P. 137).
PART TWO
SYSTEMATIC
Chapter Five
THE THEOLOGICAL TEACHING OF ST. GRIGORY PALAM
(brief essay)
Passing from the first, historical part of this work, to a systematic presentation of our topic, i.e. to the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas about man, we are aware of the need, at least briefly, for an outline of his theological views as a whole. Let this be a very superficial overview of his main theological views, but it is necessary to understand the anthropology of Palamas in the context of his entire mystical-theological doctrine. We confine the content of this chapter to a simple exposition of the theology of St. Gregory, without going into his critical assessment. This chapter can and should serve only as an introduction to the anthropology of the writer under study, and in itself it is outside the scope of our topic.
In the meager literature on Palamism, this gap has to a certain extent been filled in our time by two serious works on the theological teaching of Palamism: 1. articles: M. Jugie "Grégoire Pala-mas" and "Controverse palamite" in Diction. de Théologie Cathol., t. XI, Paris 1932, col. 1735–1818 and the work of Fr. Vasily (Krivoshein) “The ascetic and theological teaching of St. Gregory Palamas" in "Seminarium Kondakovianum", VIII, Praha, 1936,
The articles of the first of the authors mentioned are written with all the scientific thoroughness that distinguishes the Dictionary of Catholic Theology, but also with all the Latin confessional bias that characterizes this great specialist in Byzantine theology and Eastern ecclesiastical issues, Fr. M. Zhyuzhi. Work about. Krivosheina does not cover the entire theological concept of Palamism, paying more attention to the ascetic side of his teaching. This, however, is almost the only Russian exposition of the teachings of St. Gregory, written according to primary sources, with knowledge of the literature, theologically justified and completely in the spirit of Orthodox church life. The reader will find earlier works on hesychasm or references to Palamas in other books in the bibliographic index.
1. Apophatic theology
In our cursory sketch of the theological views of the church writer under study, it is necessary to begin with a reminder of the apophatic method in theology, characteristic of the Eastern Church Fathers in general, and of the mystics in particular. As if the main and guiding principle for Orthodox mystical and theological intuition could be the words of the liturgical song: “Do not describe the Deity, do not lie to the blind: it is simple, invisible and invisibly is” 1409.
There were two approaches to apophatic theology in church consciousness, depending on which it receives one or another inner coloring. The first approach is, so to speak, rationalistic or deductive. It would be more correct to call it dialectical, but in order not to introduce ambiguity - since this term, as already accepted in the literature, is given a little later in a different description of apophatic theology - we say in this case: deductive, discursive. It is a simple conclusion from the concept of the transcendence of God. In fact, God, as a universal principle, cannot be enclosed in anything worldly and created, therefore, not in the human mind. He is so exalted and, like the Absolute, is inaccessible to the limited human mind. No thought can grasp Him; no logical definition is applicable to Him, for the concept is already a kind of limitation. Therefore, in the problematic of the name, one must completely abandon the attempt to find any name whatever for the very essence of God. Concepts are inapplicable to Her, and not a single name expresses Her in any way.
Philosophically, this was already clear to Plato. Timaeus considers it difficult to comprehend the Creator and Father of all things and impossible to pronounce Him. In Cratylus, the human mind is condemned to a complete inability in this respect. The names invented by people for the gods do not belong to them at all. This is also what Neoplatonic thought adopted. “About God we have neither knowledge nor understanding,” why we say that He is not, but we do not say that He is” 1413. “The One is a miracle that is non-existent, so as not to be defined by another, for truly for Him there is no corresponding name” 1414. The thought of Plotinus repeats Bliss. Augustine: “Deus ineffabilis est; fatilius dicimus quid nonest, quam quid est" 1415. God is "without quality" for Philo. And in general, this will become the foundation of all patristic theology and will be repeated many times with minor changes throughout the centuries of Christian thought. The apophatic approach to the problem of the name in general, and the name of God in particular, must, in its extreme sharpness, lead to nominalism. It is understandable, therefore, with what a sharp and resolute rebuff this thought must have met Eunomian self-confidence in the knowledge of the essence of God and its definition in words. The famous phrase of Eunomius: "I know God as well as I do not know myself" 1417 is the polar opposite of patristic negative theology. Eunomianism is in this sense the extreme assertion of the cataphatic method. Hence the approach of the holy fathers to the question is clear.
For St. Basil the Great “prohibitive names that deny in God this or that property borrowed from the created world, naturally, cannot determine the positive content of the concept of “God”. Essence is not something that does not belong to God, but the very being of God. St. Gregory the Theologian knows that "God exists, but not what He is" 1419. And although for him God is "above all essence", 1420, nevertheless, he asserts the same thing as St. Basil, namely, that the name God, whether θεος derives it from θέειν (to flee) or άίθειν (to burn), is a relative name; while it is necessary to find a name, “which would express the nature of God or originality and being, not connected with anything else, and the name “Sy”, indeed, belongs to God, and wholly to Him alone. But “the Deity itself is infinite and incomprehensible” 1422.
Also for St. Gregory of Nyssa, the biblical “I am the Behold” is the only sign of the true Deity” 1423. It is curious that the theological thought of the Cappadocians, while recognizing the transcendence of God to the world, still finds the only suitable name for Him to be “Existing”, “really Existing”, i.e. identifies God with true being, which is opposed to non-being. However, more mystical, St. Gregory of Nyssa stipulates that this divine "Sy" cannot be compared with any earthly existence. True being, by which one can define the nature of God, has nothing in common with the being of earthly beings, with the existence of creatures. “Of everything embraced by the senses and contemplated by the mind, there is nothing that exists in the real sense, except for the Essence that surpasses everything, Who is the cause of everything, and on Whom everything depends” 1424. Therefore, it is necessary to look for some Essence outside the surrounding entities. And here St. Gregory takes a step towards a mystical approach.
We should not think that we are dealing with two different, mutually exclusive currents. They both come to the same point in their theology, i.e. to the Divine Nothing. Only the paths that complement one another are different. In the first case, no conclusions are drawn from the incomprehensibility of the Deity. In the second, an enormous mystical experience is connected with apophatic theology. Apophaticism is approached not in a logical way, but according to one's own experience of mystical insights.
This second way is most vividly represented by the Areopagitics. For them, the Divine is both nameless and multi-named. None of the names of God found in Holy Scripture; such as: "I am this", Life, Light, God, Truth, Eternal, Ancient of Days, King of Kings, etc. does not express the essence; God is beyond all this. His name is wonderful (Judges XIII, 18), for He is above every name. Nothing from the world of the senses can help in finding even an approximate definition of God. God is “the cause of all things and above all. He is neither essence, nor life, nor mind, nor mind, nor body, nor image, nor appearance, nor quality, nor quantity. He is not any of the sensible things and has nothing of the kind in Himself. “God is not this, but not that either; not to eat in one place, but not to eat somewhere else. Everything in Him is affirmed at the same time, and again He is Nothing out of everything” 1427. God is not being, not because He is below being, but because He is outside of being, is not included in the causal series inherent in being. He is "true Nothing", as withdrawn from everything that exists" 1428. He is neither number, nor order, nor majesty, nor smallness, nor equality, nor inequality, neither likeness, nor unlikeness, neither movement, nor rest, nor age, nor time, etc. 1429 . God transcends all essence and is therefore withdrawn from all knowledge. He is beyond everything, inaccessible and incomprehensible. It is understandable, therefore, that the author of the book "Divine Names" calls "to honor the inexpressible with chaste silence" 1431 .
But this call to silence is not a refusal to theologize. This is only a different path in the knowledge of God, the path of mystical penetration into oneself through the ontological catharsis of one's soul, the path of human Eros, ecstatically going out to meet the Divine Eros, the path of all mystics of all ages: the path of Moses, the path of Plotinus' "spudei", the path of the "gnostic" Clement of Alexandria. Favorite image of the Areopagitics and St. Gregory of Nyssa, followed by St. Maximus the Confessor, and the later hesychasts, is the image of Moses entering darkness for knowledge “through ignorance”, for illumination by an inexpressible light shining from this darkness. Church experience knows that "The divinely veiled slow-tonguing darkness convoluted the divinely written law, for the mire shakes off the eyes of the intelligent, sees the Existing, and learns the spirit of reason" 1432. Therefore, the mystical "darkness of ignorance" is not the obscurantism of ignorance, and the apophaticism of pseudo-Dionysius is not a prohibition of dialectical theologizing. Apophaticism does not exclude positive theology. “It should not be supposed,” he says, “that negation is contrary to assertions, but that the First Cause Itself is more original and far above any negation or affirmation” 1433. For “God is known in everything and outside of everything; is known both in knowledge and in ignorance; about Him there is a concept, a word, knowledge, touch, feeling, opinion, idea, name and everything else, and at the same time He is not known, He is inexpressible and unnameable” 1434. Palamas would repeat the same later. Thus, the mystical experience of the Areopagitics harmoniously combines the tension of philosophizing with the blessed illumination of the Revelation from the Primary Source of Light. God's "appearances" (πρθοδοι) await the reciprocal darings of the human spirit.
For pseudo-Dionysius, the same position is occupied in the history of Christian thought by his commentator and follower, St. Maxim the Confessor. His apophatic theology is the result of the same mystical insights. The knowledge of God is by no means conceptual, but is accomplished through mystical intuition, as for the author of The Heavenly Hierarchy, in accordance with inner maturation and along the steps of spiritual growth. For this, first of all, purification of the heart is needed, and then reverent boldness. Then, from the lower level of a believer, and then a disciple, a Christian can rise to the level of an apostle. This is the path of active overcoming of perishable passions, the path of gradual ascent, and then entry into divine darkness, into the “formless and non-thingish place of knowledge,” like Moses. With such an approach to the Source of Light, God appears, and indeed is in fact, the Superessential and Incomprehensible Mind. Therefore, for Maximus, “God is known not by His essence, but by the splendor of His creations and His providence for them. In them, as in a mirror, we see His boundless goodness, wisdom and power. “God is inconceivable”, but from what is conceivable, cognizable, it is believed that He exists” 1438. "God is not an essence in the sense that we usually speak of essence"; He is neither force nor energy. In his apophatic method, St. Maximus goes so far as to say:
“Both propositions, that God is and that He is not, can be admitted in contemplations about God, and neither can be accepted together in the strict sense. Both can be admitted, and not without reason: one, as affirmatively believing that God is as the cause of existence; the other, as a proposition that denies in God, on account of His superiority as the cause of beings, everything that belongs to beings. And again, none of these propositions can be accepted in the strict sense: for none of them affirms positively, in its very essence and nature, whether this or that, which we are investigating, really is. Nothing, whether it exists or not, is united with God by the force of natural necessity. Everything that exists and what we say is truly far from Him, as well as everything that does not exist and what is not said. He has a simple being, surpassing all affirmation and negation.
Therefore, “The Deity and the divine are in some respects knowable, and in some respects unknowable. Known by contemplation of what is around Him; It is unknowable in that It is Itself in Itself” 1441. We find the same apophatic approach in St. John of Damascus and other church writers. It is probably superfluous to say that the desire to theologize and look for some formulas for the divine is characteristic not only of the mystical path of the Areopagitics and St. Maxim. The same striving and the same combination of apophatic and cataphatic are also found in the previously mentioned Church Fathers. This is especially well expressed by St. Vasily:
“There is not a single name that, embracing the whole nature of God, would be sufficient to express Him. But many and varied names, taken in their own meaning, constitute a concept, though obscure and very poor in comparison with the whole, but sufficient for us. Some names spoken about God show what is in God, while others, on the contrary, show what is not in Him. Thus, in these two ways, i.e. the denial of what is not, and the recognition of what is, forms in us, as it were, a certain imprint of God.
These two paths of apophatic theology that we have examined, while seeming different, are in essence only two aspects of the patristic thought about God, internally much more akin than different. They are united by the same perception of God as a completely Superexistent, outside of this being and being absolutely transcendent to him. But there may be something else, as Fr. S. N. Bulgakov, apophatic theology. It contrasts the following two negative approaches:
“1: the inexpressibility and indeterminacy of what is extinguished by negation, and in this sense coincides with the Greek “α privativum”, άπειρον, άοριστον, άμορφον; and 2. indeterminacy, as a state of potentiality, unclarification, and not as a fundamental indeterminacy, corresponding to the Greek μή which in this case should be rendered as “not yet” or “not yet.” In the first case, there is no logical transition from an unconditional non-negative theology to any kind of positive doctrine of God and the world, here the opposition is not dialectical, but antinomic; there is no bridge over the abyss, and one can only bow before incomprehensibility in the feat of faith. In the second case, "the meonal nothing-something does not conceal any antinomy; it is denied in the rational-mystical gnosis and the antinomy is replaced here by a dialectical contradiction. Nothing is in this case a certain divine primordial matter, in which and from which everything, both the deity and the world, naturally and dialectically arises , and man" 1444 .
It is important that the first approach gives rise to an antinomic theology. In the second case, “nothing constitutes the initial moment of the dialectic of being”; in other words: “nothing exists.” Here there is no unconditional antinomic transcendence from the absolute to the relative, from the Creator to the creature, these are only dialectical self-positions of one and the same beginning, taking place within it , transcensus of its modalities". Therefore, O. S. Bulgakov unites in one direction, antinomic, all church mystics and holy fathers: Clement, Origen, Cappadocians, Areopagitians, Maximus, Damascene, Palamas and even Nicholas of Cusa, while he is the representatives of dialectical apophaticism considers Eriugena, Eckhart, Boehme. If in our analysis we made a distinction between the apophaticism of the Cappadocians and theologians in general, on the one hand, and the Areopagitics and other mystics, on the other, this does not in the least contradict the opinion of the Russian learned theologian. or more precisely, the paths of theological knowledge, rational-discursive or, for the most part, the secret-mystical. But for Origen, the Cappadocians and Damascus on the one hand, as for the mystics on the other, God is absolutely out of this world; there is no dialectical relationship between Him and the world, and there cannot be. Therefore, the theology of all St. fathers was and remains antinomic. This is what our entire liturgical experience teaches, as will be discussed below.
And St. Gregory Palamas in his works develops the church mystical-grounded apophatic theology. In his methods and expressions, he largely repeats the experience of the Areopagitics. And for him, the essence of God is first of all "completely unnameable and completely incomprehensible to the mind" 1445 . And this is because "God transcends all that exists, and He is higher than all nature" 1446 . His nature is "superessential" 1447, "super-divine" 1448. And His essence is "essential" 1449 . Palamas says: "divine super-essence" 1450. As witnesses to himself, he calls all the same Dionysius; Chapter 87 directly refers to "De divin nomin.", V 1451.
How indisputable this approach to apophaticism is for Palamas, and how much he does not agree to call God the biblical "Sy", although, as indicated above, this is allowed by some fathers as the only acceptable name, is evident from the following passage:
“All nature is extremely remote and completely alien to the divine nature. For if God is nature, then everything else is not nature; and vice versa, if everything else is nature, then God is not nature. And God is not a being if everything else is a being. And if He is, then everything else is not. This refers to wisdom and goodness, and in general to everything that is around God or what is said about God, if theology is correct and in accordance with St. fathers. God, however, is and is called the nature of all beings, because all partake of him and by this communion hold on; communion, of course, not with the nature of God - away from such a thought! – but by the communion of His energy. Thus God is the essence of beings, and in images He is the image, because He is the archetype; and the wisdom of those who are wise, and in general He is all in all. But He is not nature, because He is above all nature. And He is not Existing, because He is above all Existing. And God is not an image and has no image, since He is above the image.
Elsewhere (Chapter 106) Palamas explains the same idea somewhat differently:
“The super-essential, super-living, supernatural, super-good Essence, since It is super-good, super-divine, etc., It is unnameable and unknowable, and in general it is not contemplated in any way, because, standing out from everything, It exceeds knowledge; but affirmed by an incomprehensible power above heavenly minds, It is for no one, never and in no way incomprehensible and inexpressible. There is no name for Him in the present convict, and in the future It is unnameable; there is no word for him composed in the soul or uttered by the tongue; there is no sensible or intelligible perception or participation for Him, and indeed no imagination at all. That is why theologians propose to define His unconditional incomprehensibility in sayings, for It is completely withdrawn from everything that is or is called in any way. Therefore, when naming, it is not allowed to give in the proper sense the name of the essence of God or nature, since here definitions are given to Truth, which exceeds all truth.
The incomprehensibility of the essence of God is unconditional, and not only for the human mind, but also for the angelic world, which is closer to God in its spirituality: “There is no one who would see or explain the essence of God and the nature of God. And not only none of the people, but none of the angels. And even the six-winged Seraphim cover their faces with their wings from an excess of radiance sent down from there” 1454.
Apophatic theology is closely connected with Palamas with the doctrine of the essence and energies in God, developed by him in detail. All negative theology refers precisely to the essence, while the manifestations of God in the world, His "appearances", energies, Old Testament theophany, are available to our naming. He writes: “The God-bearing Fathers say that there is something unknowable in God, i.e. his essence; something cognizable, i.e. everything that is around His essence, namely: goodness, wisdom, strength, divinity or greatness; this is what Paul called invisible, but what is visible through the consideration of creatures” 1455 . “The essence of God is certainly unnameable, since It is completely incomprehensible to the mind; it is named according to all its energies, and there none of the names differs in its meaning from the other. For each of them and all of them express nothing but that which is hidden, which is by no means unknowable. “The essence of God is absolutely unnameable, because it exceeds the name; in the same way it is non-participatory, for it transcends communion” 1457. But this is not the absolute incomprehensibility of the Divine. It is "incomprehensible and at the same time intelligible" 1458.
In this case, the favorite among the mystics, the image of the God-seer Moses is a vivid example of what has been said. Palamas compares two theophany, - the God-seer Moses and the theomachist Jacob:
“Are there really two Gods: One, having a face accessible to the vision of the saints, and the other, whose face is beyond all vision? Away from such wickedness! The visible face of God (Gen. XXXII, 30) is nothing but the energy and mercy of God, which is worthy, while the invisible face (Ex. XXXIII, 20) is called the nature of God, which is beyond all expression and vision. For, according to the Scriptures, no one stands before the face of the Lord (Jeremiah XXIII, 18) and has seen or explained the Nature of God” 1459 .
Like St. Basil (see above) noted that something that does not belong to God cannot be the essence of God, and St. Gregory Palamas explains this in somewhat more detail:
How could incorruptibility, invisibility, and in general all negative or restrictive determinations, all together or each separately, be an essence? That which is not this or that is not an essence. In addition, according to the language of theologians, the essence of God does not express properties that are positively combined with God, although, when necessary, we use all these names; the superessence of God remains completely unnamed.
Thus, God can only be known by what is around him, by his actions.
“It is not from the essence of energy, but from energy that the being of essence is known, but it is not known what it is. Likewise, the existence of God, according to the teachings of the theologians, is known not from essence, but from His thoughts. This is what distinguishes energy from essence, that through energies knowledge is accomplished, while what is known through it is essence.
The most striking example of such a "performance" of God is His creative energy, since He is the One Creator in the true sense of the word. “Positions, states, places, times, etc. not in the proper sense are used in a conversation about God, but figuratively” (metaphorically). And "creation" and "action" can only be said in relation to God in the truest sense of these words. Man, if it is given to create, then not from perfect non-existence, which is why this cannot be compared with the creative act of God. It is clear from what has been said that the possibility of knowing God is not taken away from man, but this knowledge of God is by no means rational. It can only be experienced, i.e. in the line of mystical revelations. The simplest way is a direct examination of the created world, in which that invisible God, His power and Divinity, about which St. Paul (Rom. I, 20). More difficult is deepening into oneself, purification of one's soul, ontological catharsis, i.e. simplification of the soul and sobriety, or, what is the same, ascent with the apostles to Tabor for an authentic experience of the Transfiguration. The Light of Tabor for the hesychast is the uncreated energy of God, different from His essence, the energy through which knowledge of God and communion with God becomes possible experimentally, existentially.
Apophaticism is not a ban on theologizing, and it does not exclude the cataphatic method:
“Negative, apophatic theology does not contradict or deny cataphatic theology, but shows that positive expressions about God, being true and pious, are not for God what they are for us. Just as God has knowledge of things that exist, we also have some knowledge; but we know everything as beings and appearances, while God does not recognize them as beings and appearances, for even before the existence of beings He knew this no worse. Therefore, whoever says that God does not know what is, as being, does not contradict the one who asserts that God knows what is, and knows him precisely as being. It may turn out that positive theology also acquires significance from negative theology, as it is said that all knowledge deals with some object (subject), i.e. with what is known, and knowledge of God does not speak of any subject. This is the same as saying that God does not know beings as beings and does not have the knowledge of things that we have. In the same way, one can say hyperbolically that God does not exist. But when expressed in such a way as to show that it is wrong to say that God exists, it is clear that, using apophatic theology, not hyperbolically, but from its imperfection, one comes to the conclusion that God never exists at all. This is already excessive wickedness" 1465.
It is clear from what has been said that the antinomies born in the apophatic method are not absurd.
“To affirm one thing and then the other, since both statements are true, is characteristic of every pious theologian, and to contradict oneself is characteristic of a completely devoid of reason” 1466.
These conflicts of reason and antinomy find their best solution in the living liturgical experience of the Church. In the theologizing about the dogmas of faith, boundless distances open up and dizzying abysses open up.
We deliberately say "dizzying". This is exactly what the church hymn expresses with the words: “every language is perplexed to praise according to its property, but the mind and the most peaceful ...” 1467. "Amazes", suffers from dizziness. Complete "amazement" always covers our thought when it comes into contact with incompatible concepts: the combination of the Eternal in time, the connection of the Absolute Deity with human limitations, etc. The Church, in her mystical perception of the Chalcedonian dogma, in the stichera and canons of the Compline of the forefeast of the Nativity of Christ, pacifies our agitated thought with the bold insights of her liturgical theology about the combination of the bowels of the Holy Trinity with the wretched Nativity scene, Heaven with Bethlehem, the Incongruous Word with the Virgin's womb, etc.
How, for example, can reason accept and comprehend the full depth of the mystery of the Eucharist. As once on the banks of Tiberias this word about Heavenly Bread seemed to some “cruel” (σκληρός harsh, strange) and “multiply from His disciples go back” from that hour (John VI, 60-66), so now, but by the way and always this mystery does not fit into the consciousness, the mind "becomes astounded" and, agitated, seeks an answer to the "cruel" word.
And no speculation about the moment of the liturgical celebration, no formulas of theologians about the Eucharist, and scholastic divisions in the Holy Gifts into “substance” and “accidents” will calm our consciousness. The word remains “cruel”… Only in the direct experience of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, in Her service and communion, is this mystery fully comprehended, accepted, and the mind calms down. In the same way, when at Matins Vel. On Thursday we read these words, amazing in depth and beauty, about the “All-Guilty Immeasurable Wisdom”, which prepares a “soul-nourishing meal” and “convenes with a high sermon”, then we ourselves, in our direct church perception, completely merging with the words of this canon, go “high minds" to enjoy "the wanderings of the Lord and the immortal meal" prepared in the "high place". And we ourselves, together with the apostles, are preparing on the same mountainous place “Easter, by which the mind is affirmed.” In intuition, in that wholeness of church life, our mind, thanks to the direct liturgical experience of the Church, finds reconciliation and a combination of negative and affirmative theology.
We experience exactly the same thing in Vel. Saturday, when we sing to “Christ I died” and to the one who fell asleep in a “life-giving sleep” in the “small tomb”; when again and again the mind wonders and rises, when the uncombinable and unthinkable is seen by our spiritual gaze in the Shroud before us.
If the mystery of God-manhood is dizzying, if we are perplexed how the "Word was flesh", then the Cross of the Son of Man is truly madness for the Hellenes, both ancient and modern. The Terrible Judgment of the sons of men over the Son of God, the death and burial of the God-man, and at the same time His not leaving the world, is beyond the powers of our understanding. And when we prayerfully experience that “in the grave of the flesh, in hell with a soul like God, in paradise with a thief and on the throne you were, Christ, with the Father and the Spirit,” when we contemplate the Sabbath rest of the Creator of the Sabbath at the Shroud, fallen asleep on this great Saturday, then there is no more strength ... “A wave of the sea” rises in us and our liturgical perception of this Sabbath rest, and we sing “initial singing and a funeral song”. And even if we do not understand this rationalistically, let our head spin, nevertheless we not only believe, not only presumably trust that this can be, but we also know, we know from experience, we accept holistically with liturgical intuition that “the dead will rise and the beings will rise in coffins, and all earthlings will rejoice.” For a liturgical experience that does not know the boundaries of time, living in the past, present, and future as identical realities, this is so. The dead will rise. The God-man fell asleep in the Sabbath rest and rose up. The creature is still crying, the sun has hidden its rays, the stars have put off the light, but for us "this Saturday is blessed, in it Christ, having fallen asleep, is risen three days."
And in all this ecclesiastical consonance of the unspeakable richness of tunes, words and colors, in this “be terrified fearing the sky”, in this “do not weep for Me, Mati”, in this reading of Ezekiel’s amazing insights (ch. 37) about dry bones, “combining every to its composition”, in this everything is the real breath of “the Spirit that quickens the dead, coming from the four winds”. In all this, which is inexplicable to non-church consciousness, just as the radiance of light is inexplicable to the blind-born and the sweetness of consonance to the deaf, in all this is the reconciliation of all antinomies, the union of the abysses of heaven and hell, death and resurrection, the harmonious combination of apophaticism and affirmations. Antinomic theology is not a heap of absurdities and absurdities, but a holistic embracing of all the abysses and inaccessible depths that open up to the audacious vision of the theologian. The ecstatic Eros of theological thought goes out of itself and, having met in church life the Divine Eros coming towards it, plunges into Him, rests in Him and, dying for worldly rationalism and logic, is resurrected in these combinations of opposites. His light shines in this darkness, and his knowledge is born out of ignorance, just as life is born in a dying seed.
Let us return, however, to the theology of Palamas. Seeking a reconciliation of the unknowability and innocence of God with a possible partial communion with Him, he resorts to the terms of classical philosophy: essence, action and accident. These distinctions in God gave rise, as you know, to the burning disputes that divided the entire Byzantine society of the 14th century. into two irreconcilable camps.
The Aristotelian concepts of "essence" and "action" (energy) were repeatedly addressed by church writers even before Palamas. An example is: Athenagoras, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Areopagite, St. John of Damascus, St. Simeon the New Theologian and many others.
In what follows (see Chapter VII) we give those references from Palamas in which they apply these expressions of Peripatetic philosophy to anthropology and angelology. At this point, they interest us in relation to theology and, in particular, to the Trinitarian teaching.
Hesychast disputes, at first glance of a narrowly mystical content, directed to questions of purely personal asceticism and salvation, also touched upon deep dogmatic problems along the way. Their participants seem to have returned to the 4th and 5th centuries with their terminological subtleties about essence and Hypostases. Something that, it would seem, has already ceased to excite theological thought, has resurrected. And once again in the history of the Church it was confirmed that, firstly, dogmatics is not a doctrine of abstract theories, but has its own deep vital application in the moral sphere of every person; and secondly, that the dogmatic consciousness in the Church is expanding, living and enriching itself, being inextricably linked with patristic tradition.
It is not without interest to add to what has been said, in the form of a parallel, one of the episodes in the Western history of theological thought. Just at the same time when in Byzantium Palamas developed his doctrine of innocence and complete inaccessibility to the knowledge of the essence of God, in the West theological thought, through the mouth of its High Priest, professed a diametrically opposite opinion. We have in mind the theological teaching of Pope John XXII (the second of the Avignon popes), who ministered in the years 1316-1334. On All Saints' Day 1331, in the church of Notre-Dame-des Doms, the pope preached that the souls of the righteous before the Last Judgment would not see God in any way, and after the Judgment they would contemplate the divine essence. This sermon, accompanied by two more about the fate of the departed righteous and the fate of demons, attracted the attention of the most famous theologians, mainly from the ranks of the Franciscans, as well as the Sorbonne itself. A special meeting was called at Vincennes (December 19, 1333). Pope John XXII, on his deathbed, made some changes and clarifications to his opinion (December 3, 1334), and died the next day. In this amended form, the pope's opinion nevertheless concluded with the statement that "the righteous in the kingdom of God will see clearly and face to face the essence of God. Catholic scholars have to, in order not to come into conflict with the doctrine of papal infallibility "ex-cathedra", to emphasize that Pope John spoke as a "private theologian" ("théologien privé") and could freely defend the opinion that seemed probable to him" 1475 .
It is important to emphasize precisely this dogmatic idea that the contemplation of the essence of God is possible for the righteous. The "private opinion" of Pope John XXII was his heir Benedict XII confirmed by the special constitution "Benedictus Deus" of January 29, 1336:
"les âmes justes, n" ayant aucune faute à expier, voient l "essence divine d" une vision intuitive et même faciale" 1476.
2. DIFFERENCES IN THE DIVINE TRINITY
Trinitarian disputes of the 4th century. clarified the relationship of the Essence of God with the Hypostases, as images of being. The Councils of Palamites reminded the theological consciousness of the distinction in God and energy as images of the action and manifestation of the Holy Trinity. Palamas writes: “In God, one must distinguish between the concepts: essence, energies and Divine Hypostases of the Trinity” 1477. On the relation of the divine Ousia to the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, St. Gregory talks comparatively little. He confines himself to such remarks, for example: “God is Himself in Himself; and the Three Divine Hypostases are naturally, integrally, eternally, and non-originating, but nevertheless they hold each other unmixed and unconfused, and penetrate one another in such a way that their energy is one. About the relationship of Hypostases, incongruity and inseparability They were written at one time by St. Gregory the Theologian, Areopagitics and St. John of Damascus.
“Thanks to all these energies, God is known not in One, but in Three Hypostases” 1482. But these hypostases, i.e. the very Trinity of God is not His essence.
The doctrine of the relationship between energy and Hypostases has been developed in much greater detail. Referring to pseudo-Dionysius, our author writes:
“In God there are not only hypostatic differences, but also some others; and Dionysius, in contrast to the hypostatic one, calls this difference divine, for the difference according to the Hypostases is not a division of the Godhead. From these divine manifestations and energies, he says that God multiplies and increases; he calls the same manifestations and appearances. This does not increase the Divinity, away from such an opinion! — and that which is in God does not differ. After all, God for us is the Trinity, but it is not the Three Gods.
“Energy is something other than essence, different from it, but inseparable”, different from Hypostases.
“God,” says Palamas, “has also that which is not essence. But this does not mean that what is not essence is belonging (accident). It is not belonging, because it is completely unchangeable; but not essence either, because there is no original being.
Therefore, St. Gregory resorts to the definition of energy, which is not very successful in its inconsistency and obscurity, with the term “belonging, as it were”, “belonging in some way”, “accidens aliquatenus” 1486, “God has, therefore, both what is essence, and what is not essence, although it is not called belonging i.e. it is the divine will and energy” 1487.
Energies are that in the Absolute and Innocent Deity that is turned to the world, that is revealed to it and made available to perception. Palamas here, as in many other things, uses the terminology of the Areopagitics: distinctions, speeches, transmissions and participles. “Dionysius,” writes Palamas, “says also that in these divine manifestations and energies, the very divine principle increases. He calls to praise God, not as accepting something from outside - away from this! - but these are the speeches of God" 1488 . Further reference to the same theological writer: “absolute transmissions are combined into divine differences. “Here Dionysius calls transmissions in general all the appearances and energies of God, and adds that they are absolute, so that no one would think that they are the essence of the work” 1489. It should be noted that Palamas incorrectly quoted: έσχατοι μεταδοσεις instead of άσχατοι μεταδοσεις as it is in the original Areopagite, correcting, however, this inaccuracy in the same passage. In the next chapter, the energies are called, according to Dionysius, "participles and self-participations." They transcend all that exists, being prototypes of existence.
From all this it follows that energies or manifestations are not the very essence of God, but only that by which God is addressed to the world, that which is seen in creatures, that is, the wisdom, art and power of God. Therefore, one who, contemplating the splendor of creations, would think that he sees the essence of the Creator, would become like Eunomius, as St. Basil the Great.
3. NUMBER OF ENERGIES
The difference between energy and the essence of God leads to antinomy. Palamas comes to the same antinomic constructions when he talks about the quantity of energies. Sometimes he talks about multiple energies. “These energies Isaiah counts seven; among the Jews, the number "seven" means many" 1493. A very free paraphrase of Isaiah XI, 1-2 is given, and the very word "seven" is arbitrarily added, which is not in the original. Somewhat later, he refers to the authority of St. Basil, speaking about the many energies of the Spirit. He also refers to St. Maximus the Confessor, who speaks of the many and various providences of God, seeing in them all the same energies. In the quotation here, Palamas is not entirely accurate, attributing the entire saying of St. Maximus, while in a certain part it does not belong to him, but just to the place commented on by him from pseudo-Dionysius.
But next to all this, Palamas clearly teaches about the unity of energy, common to the entire Holy Trinity.
“In the Three Divine Hypostases, the energy is not as similar as ours, but it is truly one and in number. This cannot be said by our opponents, for they deny the existence of an uncreated energy common to all the Three Hypostases; in their opinion, each of the Hypostases has its own energy and there is no one common divine energy. Denying in this way one energy in the Three Hypostases, and thus excluding one another, they thereby turn the Tri-Hypostasic God into one without Hypostases” 1499.
Palamas draws a historical parallel: just as in ancient times Sabellius did not distinguish Hypostasis from essence, so now the barlaamites do not distinguish energy from essence.
From this it should be concluded that in God, in addition to His essence and Hypostases, it is necessary to distinguish the general divine energy, one in number, but diverse in its manifestations (performances, transmissions, communions), such as: industry, strength, goodness, foreknowledge , wonderworking, retribution, creation. “We honor the One indivisible Spirit in essence and Hypostasis, and we call Him many-parted in His sacred speeches” 1502. This energy is "inseparably divided" 1503 . It follows from this that if "the energy of Christ is indivisible, then so much more is His essence indivisible" 1504 .
4. ENERGIES AND HYPOSTASIES
This energy, united in number, but diverse in its manifestations to the world, is the common action of the entire Holy Trinity. It does not belong to any Hypostasis alone, but to all Three of Them. Just as the Divine essence is not something equally divided between the Three Persons, but "Three co-natural with each other and eternal, inextricably interpenetrating Hypostases" 1505, so the action of God is common to all Three Persons. "The common energy and strength of the Trinitarian Unity is divided in various ways and accordingly by Her partakers" 1506. The difference between Divine Hypostases and human individuals is very clear in this respect.
“Kind creatures have their own energy, but it acts on its own at each hypostasis. It is not so with those Three Divine and worshiped Hypostases, where truly everyone has the same energy. For in Them there is one movement of the Divine will, excited from the primary Cause - the Father, passing through the Son and manifesting in the Holy Spirit. This becomes clear from their writings, i.e. in them all natural energy becomes intelligible. Thus, for example, the swallow's nest does not curl at all in the same way, but one is different from the other; and are written off differently from one another by the scribe of the page, although they consist of the same constituent parts; in the same way, in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, one sees its own work from each Hypostasis; but the whole creation is one work of Their Three. And from here we are taught to think from the fathers that the Three worshiped Persons have the same divine energy, and not at all the same and subordinate to each of Them.
“The life and power that the Father has in Himself is nothing other than that of the Son, so that the Son has the same life and power with the Father. It is the same with the Son and the Holy Spirit” 1508 . “Father, Son and Holy Spirit are in each other unmixed and unmixed, and they have one movement and energy” 1509. The “single manifestation and energy” is also mentioned in the dialogue “Theophanes” 1510, and in the famous conversation 34 on the Transfiguration it is said that “the affinity of Hypostases is in the fullness and aspiration of Their merging” 1511. The very expression έξαλμα “aspiration”, “jump”, as well as this whole idea, is borrowed from Damascene: “There is both unity and identity of movement (Persons), for there is one aspiration and one movement of the Three Hypostases, which it is impossible to see in created nature” 1512, Just as both conversations on the Transfiguration were largely inspired by the corresponding conversation of Damascus, so the above thought about the different action of created Hypostases and Divine Hypostases is in full agreement, as we see, with the yardstick of Orthodoxy of St. John of Damascus,
“We confess the One God in Three Hypostases, having one essence, power and energy, and everything else that is contemplated around the essence, which is called in Scripture the totality and fullness of the Godhead, equally contemplated and theologised in each of the Three Holy Hypostases” 1513.
However, it is important not only that the energies are not the forces of One or another Hypostasis, but of the entire Trinity, but also that the energy of God, or that by which the Divinity is turned to the world, is not in itself any Hypostasis. “The energies of the Spirit are not hypostases” (scil do not exist in hypostasis) 1514 . This is important because it denies in God any hypostatic existence other than the Holy Trinity Itself. In addition, as we will see below, St. Thanks to this understanding of energy, Gregory avoids the temptation of hierarchical personalism in his cosmogonic constructions. If energy as the world of ideas (more on that below) would have its own hypostatic existence, then along with the Holy Trinity, some other Hypostasis will arise, or more precisely, from eternity there exists some other Hypostasis. “None of the energies is hypostatic, i.e. not self-hypostasic" 1515.
5. ENERGY AND ESSENCE
The doctrine of the relationship between the energy and the essence of God develops especially much and in detail. For the theology of Athos hermits of the XIV century. force and energy are correlative concepts, and in the literary monuments of that time, special attention was paid to the question of the involvement of energy and its non-creation. The Ousia of the Holy Trinity is the concept of God Who is in Himself, God transcendent to the world, but Who is turned to this world, and therefore to man, by His energy or power. This “inseparably divided” power of God is revealed in the world, reveals God to the world and is manifested either in His creative activity, or in separate Old Testament theophany, or in the graceful action of Providence and the management of the world. Certain actions of the impregnable Divinity are accessible to the human eye and mind, and, by virtue of the correlation mentioned above, it follows from this that the Divinity thereby exists in all Its impregnability.
This does not introduce any complexity into the Divine. The unity of God is in no way diminished by His Trinity, nor by the fact that grace and providential activity are inherent in God. (This cannot but be admitted by the Thomists, the critics of Palamism). Similarly, the manifold energy of God does not introduce any plurality into the concept of God. Antinomic expressions about God, about differences and various combinations united in Him. All that the God-enlightened consciousness of the mystics contemplated in Him, the language of theological formulations, due to its poverty, cannot put into any verbal symbols. Logic and rationalism are powerless here. And the mystical consciousness sings of this in its inexpressibility. This is that holy “darkness” of the deity, that “cognition through ignorance”, those words that sound in reverent peace of mental prayer quietly flowing in the heart ...
“This divine Super-Essence has never been called plural,” writes St. Gregory, - but the divine and uncreated grace, inseparably distributed like a sunbeam, both warms and shines, gives life and regenerates, sends its own radiance to those illuminated and appears to the gaze of those who see it. And in this, as it were, dark icon, the divine energy of God is not only one, but theologians, such as St. Basil the Great, calls it plural. “What,” he asks, “are the energies of Spirit? Unspeakable in their greatness; innumerable in number. For how shall we understand what is on the other side of the ages? What were the actions of the Spirit before the intelligible creature? 1516 . “Divine energy and divine essence are inseparably present everywhere. The energies of God are also available to us, created beings, since, according to the teachings of theologians, they are inseparably separated, and the divine nature remains completely inseparable.
The grace shared by people does not mean that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, is shared. "In God there is inseparable division and separate unity" 1518. "God is inseparably divided and separately combined" 1519. And from this "He does not tolerate either plurality or complexity."
Let us recall what was said about apophaticism. The essence of God is that incomprehensible thing that God is in Himself; It is not part of our forces and our religious knowledge; energies are involved in our cognition.
The entire dialogue "Theophanes, or about the Deity and about those who participate and those who do not participate in Him" is devoted to this. All knowledge of God and communion with Him is accomplished according to the dignity of man, κατ" "αναλογίαν, i.e. to the extent of its suitability. Revelation is not the mechanical manifestation of God alone; man actively participates in it, and since he has matured, he perceives. Under the line we indicate (in order not to multiply quotations) passages that speak of the hierarchy of cognition, i.e. o involvement "by analogy" 1520 .
Palamas writes: “we partake and think of all God through each of the energies, for the incorporeal is indivisible bodily” 1521. It follows from this that, although the essence of the Absolute is not cognizable, and there is no rational-cognitive communication with this essence, however, the mystical comprehension of even a partial truth attaches us to the universal consciousness. Thanks to his likeness to God and being cleansed spiritually through feat and unceasing prayer, a person in the energies of God partakes of the Divinity, impregnable in His hands, and in this sense really communicates with Him.
The relationship of the essence of God with His energy must be, as it rightly points out in his work with. Vasily Krivoshein, is understood not as a belittling of God in his energies, but as the relationship of cause to effect, to the cause. Just as “the Father is the Cause, Root and Source of the Deity contemplated in the Son and the Holy Spirit” 1523, so the essence is the cause of the caused energy, as the Cathedral Tomos 1351 1524 teaches in detail, without sharing the Divine simplicity and unity, and not understanding the reason and consequences, as something external to each other and separated spatially and temporally.
The main attention in all these theologizing is directed to: 1. innocence, impregnability and unknowability of the essence of God; 2. involvement of energy, and 3. uncreatedness and eternity of energy. Palamas refutes in detail the arguments of his contemporary opponents. He, admitting their positions, leads them to absurd conclusions, which fundamentally destroy the patristic teaching about the Holy Trinity.
Repeatedly Palamas spoke about the impregnable essence of God and Its non-participation in human forces and about the participation and cognizability of Divine energy. In God, His essence is unknowable, but His goodness, wisdom, power, greatness, i.e., are accessible to knowledge. everything that is visible "around God" in His creative and providential activity. In the same way, it is repeatedly said that, like all energies in general, and the Light of Tabor in particular, are uncreated.
Distinguishing three concepts in God - essence, hypostasis and energy, Palamas argues: according to the testimony of all Sts. fathers, in essence, God is not involved; according to the Hypostasis, the union took place only once in the person of the God-Man-Word; therefore, those who merit to be united with God are left with only the energy connection. The Spirit Himself descended upon the Ever-Virgin. and the Son, but the Son by hypostasis, and the Spirit only in His energy, why only the Son, and not the Spirit, became man. In addition to this communion, one can also talk about intellectual comprehension, about knowledge. “One and the same God, incomprehensible in essence, is comprehended in His creations, according to His Divine energy; in other words, it is comprehended according to His eternal desire for us, eternal providence for us, eternal wisdom about us ”1531, according to what is around Him.
Allowing the knowledge of God by essence, the Barlaamites must fall into Eunomianism, and daring to partake of the essence of God, they repeat the heresy of the Messalians or Euchites. St. Gregory in his dialectics wittily uses the method of "reductio ad absurdum", i.e., taking the point of view of his opponents, he brings it to absurdities that contradict dogmatic consciousness. Indeed, if the divine energy does not differ in any way from the divine essence, then the creativity inherent in the energy will not differ in any way from the birth of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit, which are characteristic of the essence. If, however, creativity does not differ from birth and outgoing, then the creation will not differ from the Begotten and Descended. This means that there will be no difference between God and creation.
It follows from this that if birth and procession do not differ from creativity, then since God the Father creates through the Son in the Holy Spirit, therefore He both gives birth and brings forth through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Then, from the same position that the essence is not different from energy, it follows that it is not different from desire (will), and then the One from the essence of the Father, Born, will obviously be created from desire. Therefore: since, on the basis of the patristic teaching, God has many energies (diverse energy) and, if the energy is the same as the essence, then there will be many essences in God.
Admitting the same indistinguishability between energy and essence, one must admit that the energies themselves do not differ from each other, i.e., that will is not different from foreknowledge, but foreknowledge from creativity. And if so, if the divine creative energy is not different from the divine foreknowledge, then the creatures will be co-eternal with this foreknowledge, i.e. beginningless, which means that the creation is eternal. From here, one has to conclude further about forced (and not free) creation.
If, finally, there is no difference between energy and essence, then by partaking of the whole essence of God, or only a part of it, a person would thereby become omnipotent and omnipotent. And then the essence, communicating to all people, is no longer trinitarian, but has an innumerable multitude of them. Thus consistent Barlaamism inevitably leads to the extreme conclusions of pantheism and antitrinitarian heresies.
This is all about the impregnability of the being of God, but the involvement of His energy. Along with this, the recognition of the creation of these energies can be brought to the point of absurdity. If energy is not eternal and not inherent in God's nature, if it is God's creation, then these are the conclusions Palamas makes his opponents come to.
“He Whose action (energy) is created, and He Himself is not uncreated” 1544. Quoting the Areopagitics, "appearances (i.e. energies) are absolute transmissions", St. Gregory naturally asks how they can be absolute if they are created? These same speeches are for pseudo-Dionysius "the pre-existing types in God, according to which He realizes being" 1547. What are these preexisting prototypes, and how are they, according to St. Maximus, never had the beginning of their being, how are those who exist around God, since they were created? If, however, the images of the creature, according to which it was created, are themselves the creation of another creator, then one must go in search of the creator of this latter, and then the creator of some other creator, and so on “to the last border of meaninglessness” 1549 .
St. Gregory the Theologian in his "Fifth theological discourse on the Holy Spirit" says: "our sages call Him (God): some - energy, others - creature, the third - God" 1550. "Hence. - Palamas argues, - "by contrasting the energies of the creature, the Theologian clearly shows that she is not a creature" 1551.
If energy is recognized as a creation, then the creative power of God is also created, “for it is impossible to act and create without energy, just as it is impossible to exist without a being” 1552. Creation is not the energy of God, inherent in His nature from time immemorial, but the product of divine energy. “If we admit the idea that the energies are created, then therefore the creative energy existed before creation, and thus it was not created, which is meaningless; or else that God had no energy before creation, which is impious, for He is omnipotent and active from eternity” 1553. Among the Varlaamites, God appears either uncreated in essence, or created in energy, and therefore is divided into opposites.
Speaking about these dogmatic subtleties in the Trinitarian teaching of Palamas, about the relationship between the essence and energies on the one hand, and the energies and Hypostases of the Holy Trinity on the other, one cannot but mention the fact that St. Gregory also wrote on the special issue of pneumatology. He, like most Byzantine writers of that time, paid tribute to the exciting question of the procession of the Holy Spirit. This is not a feature of his theological system; here he is not original, which is why we relieve ourselves of the obligation to state his arguments. He just follows the spirit of the times. Hostility against Latinism made many writers, starting with the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. Photius, to oppose the Roman doctrine of the "Filioque". And if some Byzantines, like Nicephorus Vlemmids, John Vekk, Demetrius Cydonius, Manuel the Cripple, Manuel Chrysolora, showed themselves to be supporters of the Latin view, then the majority took the opposite point of view. It should not be forgotten that in this matter Barlaam himself spoke at first against the Latin innovation; he wrote against the doctrine of descent "and from the Son", and only after his divergence from Palamas and the hesychasts, he turned towards Rome, following more of his usual scholasticism and the Western tradition of recent centuries.
6. COSMOLOGY
The teaching of St. Gregory about the world-existence follows from the same distinction in God between essence and energy. Energies are, as we have seen, God Himself in His address to the creature. His creative power, providential care for the world, all His appearances to the world and to man are not the very essence of God, which remains impregnable and unknowable, but Divine energies, or more precisely, a single, but diverse and many-part energy (action) of all Three Divine Hypostases.
In the cosmological problem, the cosmogonic question arises with particular acuteness. Here ancient, pre-Christian thought went its own way; from mythological fantasies to the construction of the first philosophical systems (Eleatics, atomists, Pythagoreans), and then to Plato and Aristotle. For Christianity, resting on the basis of "genesis ex nihilo", the biblical story served as a corrective to the philosophical doctrine of the world, which destroyed the myth of ancient Hellas. But if Christian theology was not satisfied with one ancient teaching about the world, then it could not rest on one narrative of the book of Genesis. Biblical cosmogony does not exhaust all the depth and acuteness of the issue, namely the theme of the eternity and temporality of this world. We must not forget that the Christian theology of the patristic era did not confine itself to a single story of the first chapters of the Bible, but boldly raised (starting with Origen) the question of the pre-temporal existence of the world on the ideological plane. Holistic attitude of St. the fathers were not afraid to call out from the darkness of past centuries the shadow of the great disciple of Socrates. The patristic cosmology was built on Platonism, combining it with all its modern data of the geocentric system of the world.
For the first time among theologians, Origen dared to say a clear word about the pretemporal existence of the world. In the name of the idea of God's omnipotence, which God could exercise over something even before the creation of the world, Origen teaches about the eternal existence of the world in terms of the mind. It would be impious to think of the inactivity of God and therefore of any change in the nature of God. Hence the teaching about the existence of the world in the ideological plane and the intelligible design of Divine Wisdom (Prov. VIII, 20) 1559 . This eternal world-existence in Origen, as is well known, has the character of God's forced creation of the world in time.
St. Gregory the Theologian taught that “The World-born Mind, in His great mental representations, considered the images of the world compiled by Him, which were subsequently produced, but for God even then they were real” 1560.
Pseudo-Dionysius called "patterns", "examples", "prototypes" those "realized logoi of beings that preexist the union in God, and which theologians call predestinations or divine and good desires, since they determine and create everything that exists, and according to which The Superexistent predetermined and produced everything that exists” 1561. These logoi, these principles and purposes of all things, are mysteriously contained in God, depend on Him and live by Him, as all living things depend on and live by the sun. These logos are "exemplaria" medieval scholastic thought. St. John of Damascus expresses the same thought and uses the expressions of the pseudo-Areopagite.
"Ideas" they are called in the corresponding scholia attributed to St. Maximus the Confessor. And the Rev. Maximus teaches about the pre-existence of this world, brought into reality by God through His love, when He Himself desired.
The pre-eternal existence of the prototypes of the created world was mystically known to St. Simeon the New Theologian. “Everything from God has its being and existence, and everything before being is in His creative mind; the archetypes of all things are there within" 1566. He contemplates that "invisible space, which is called everything and is a completely endless abyss, equally integral from all sides, and this all filled with the divine Deity" 1567. In the creatures remained "that immaterial light of God, which is not involved in anything from this world," says St. Simeon. In his ecstatic visions, he can contemplate the pre-peaceful state of this perfect creature and its final glorification.
St. Gregory Palamas, faithful to the tradition of St. teachers, also teaches about the ideological basis of the world. “God arranged this world as a kind of reflection of the superworldly world, so that through spiritual contemplation of it, we would, as it were, reach this world by some wonderful ladder” 1570. This is essentially a paraphrase of Neoplatonic thought: “this world is the creation of a higher nature that creates a lower world similar to its own nature. In another place, Palamas repeats pseudo-Dionysius: “God, in the excess of His goodness, separates from Himself and, being Himself outside of everything, brings Himself into everything by virtue of His super-essential ability to be outside Himself, not proceeding from Himself. Having humbly descended because He Himself wanted and because it was necessary, and having created this visible world in six days, God on the seventh day, as befits Him, returned to His height, which He did not leave ”1572. Palamas also refers to the thought cited above Areopagite ("De div. nomin." V, 8.) 1573. Palamas' teaching about the pretemporal existence of the world, we repeat, follows from his reasoning about the essence and energy in the Divine. Along with the eternal and transcendent essence of God in God, there is His eternal, uncreated, but directed energy to the world. It is hardly possible to say that the energies are the sphere of ideas about the world, but it is more correct to say that this world of ideas in its totality is contained in the divine energy.
"All", i.e. the whole world in its totality is indescribably pre-contained in the Divine Superessence. Divine desire is the reason for the existence of all created beings.
Palamas emphasizes that creation is an act of the Divine will, and not some essential necessity in Him. God might not have created the world. But since it was created, it was in God's plan from eternity. The totality of paradigms about the world enters into the fullness of the Divine. “We confess the One God in Three Persons, having one essence, power and energy, and everything that is contemplated around the essence, which is called in Scripture the totality and fullness of the Godhead” 1577. The world of paradigms "never had a beginning of its existence, and since it is essentially contemplated around God, there was no such time when they did not exist" 1578. He, this world of eternal logoi, "combinedly pre-existing in God," was not created. It is absurd to suppose the opposite: how can God's plans about creation be created? This energy that creates and unites created beings is the divine will, the absolute transmission of the Divine Super-essence” 1579. Creation is not energy, but what it produces.
It is important to conclude from this that ideas not only do not coincide with God and are not His essence, but they are not essence and essence in themselves. In relation to the becoming being of this world, it is in no way possible to recognize these paradigms as an essence, since they are not able to become the subject of this imperfect, becoming process. Here it is also wrong to merge the planes of being. The prototypes of God about the world are by no means the substance of this world existence. The archetype remains in its perfect ideality and outside this process of creative formation, just as it does not coincide with the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity themselves and with the Divine Essence Itself.
In order not to introduce damage and evil into the very plan of God about the world and in order to explain the possibility of a created-free life in the world, it is necessary for the correct solution of the cosmological theme to recognize the existence of “a double face in an ideal form: there is an ideal side in space that belongs to it and therefore created, but there is an ideal image of the world in God, co-belonging to His transcendent being” 1581. "God is transcendent not only to the real, but also to the ideal side of the cosmos" 1582.
It was precisely at this point that the weak side of Plato's doctrine of ideas was revealed: it does not explain the real process of evolution. The teaching of Aristotle, as is well known, introduced a certain correction into the mood of his teacher with his concepts of possible and actual being. Every genesis is a transition from the possible to the actual, from potential to actual being. Aristotle is a nominalist. Τό σύνολον is neither form nor matter, but actually existing concreteness. This is the path from the intelligible idea-potential to the idea realized in the phenomenon. "Plato's ideas are understood by the Stagirite primarily as tasks or norms of being, although immanently implemented, but transcendentally given" 1583.
Palamas did not draw up systematically integral Christian structure about ideas and their relation to the empirical world. Nevertheless, the mentioned philosophical concepts are found in him. He, as we have seen, not only distinguishes the essence of God from the world of ideas, but also distinguishes this world from created reality. In addition, he likes to use the concepts of potential being: “God did not create the earth completely empty and not without all the intermediate components. For the earth was mixed with water, and both of these elements, like air, were with germs (lit.: pregnant, - κυοφορν) of various types of animals and plants, while the sky, filled with various luminaries and fires, on which the whole universe is established. Thus, therefore, God first created the heavens and the earth, as something all-encompassing, containing in itself everything in possibility. “God has all-powerful energy. And in relation to the creature, it is said that He has "possibilities", and in relation to His nature, He cannot suffer in any way, while He can increase His creations if He wants to ”1585.
If the world of prototypes does not coincide with the essence of God, on the one hand, and is different from the essence of this created world, on the other, then we must remember (see above) that for Palamas he is not only one of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, but also in itself has no hypostatic existence.
This should have served as a warning to the hasty and unsubstantiated constructions of recent Russian theological thought based on church tradition.
7. WORLD SOUL
In his cosmological constructions - and 33 (out of 150) "Natural, theological, moral and active chapters" and the 3rd and 6th Conversations are devoted to them, Palamas also touches on the theme of the World Soul. But she did not meet with a favorable response in his reasoning about the world.
In the 3rd Chapter, he writes: "The Hellenic philosophers say that the sky revolves by the natural force of the World Soul." This, apparently, refers to the arguments of Plato and Plotinus about the animation of the world as an organic whole. Palamas disagrees with this for the following reasons. Firstly: “If the sky rotates by the natural force of the World Soul, then why does neither earth, nor water, nor air rotate? And although, in their opinion, this Soul is eternally moving, but the earth by its nature and water stand, occupying a lower place: in the same way, the sky, by its nature, is always moving, however, retains its upper place. Second: What is this Soul? Isn't she smart? “But in this case, it must be free, and therefore it cannot always move the celestial body with the same movements: for free beings move differently each time ...” Does it follow from this that the lower regions of being (earth) , water, air and even fire) is there such a World Soul? “How is it: some elements are animated, while others are not? … If they have a common soul, then why does the sky alone move by the power of the Soul, and not by its own? However, the soul, in their opinion, moving the celestial body is not intelligent. In that case, what is it? For if, as they say, it is the source of our souls, how can it not be rational, sensual, and natural? None of the bodies we see moves without the help of organs, and in this case we do not see a single organic member either on the earth, or on the sky, or on any other of the constituent elements, because every organ is composed of various constituent natural parts, while each of the elements, and especially the sky, are simple in nature. The soul is actually the driving force (entelechy) of the organic body, which has life in possibility (i.e., potential life). The sky, having no organic part or member, does not have the ability to live. Thirdly, Palamas opposes the position that “The Soul of the World is the root and source of our souls, and itself has its being from the Mind, and this Mind, as they assure, is different in its essence than the Supreme Being, Whom they themselves call God” . “Hence the conclusion: “The World and Star-bearing Soul does not exist, and indeed in no way and nowhere can it have its being, because it is an invention of a crazy mind” 1589. In the next, 4th chapter, he claims that “the movement of the sky occurs according to its own nature, and not by the natural power of the Soul ... There is no heavenly and universal Soul at all, but only the rational human soul; not heavenly, not above heavenly, not limited by place, but by its nature, for its essence is spiritual” 1590.
As we can see, Palamas does not allow the existence of the World Soul. The Holy Fathers were generally disapproving of this idea. They were frightened away by understandable pantheistic emanation, which, naturally, follows from the premise, like in Plotinus, that the Soul of the World is the ancestor and source of our personal souls. Indeed, in the "Enneads" we read: "The World Soul is not born anywhere and does not come from anywhere ... But other souls (i.e. the souls of individual beings) have their place of origin, and this is the World Soul" 1591. “How is the World Soul infinite? he asks elsewhere. “We can say that it contains everything, every life, every soul, every understanding ... Before our birth, we were in this World Soul” 1592.
From the words of Palamas about the World Soul, it is not difficult to understand who he has in mind and who are those “super-wise people in their thoughts”, who admit the existence of the Soul of the World, with whom he argues. These may be from the ancient writers Plato and Plotinus, in whose works ("Timaeus" and "Enneads") the idea of this Soul is developed; nevertheless, it is likely to assume that Palamas is referring to his contemporary and the most significant of his opponents in terms of his versatile education, Nicephorus Gregory. This most learned humanist, one of "the most spiritually outstanding people of the time of the Palaiologos" (1593), was much more dangerous to Orthodoxy in Hesychast disputes than Barlaam and Akindin. Grigora, in his interpretations of Synesius and in some places in his History, draws a parallel between the universe and the human body, considering the cosmos as a kind of organic whole with parts and members, and, without completely sharing the teachings of Plato and the Neoplatonists, he nevertheless recognizes existence of the World Soul. Palamas, of course, could not miss the opportunity not to. engage in polemics with their implacable enemy.
It is clear that with such a Plotinian understanding, the purity of the personalistic understanding of the personality naturally becomes clouded, and the Christian consciousness does not accept this.
But, on the other hand, the world cannot be a blind clutch of atoms, elements, forces, energies, elements, etc. He is one harmonious whole that came out of the hands of a single Creator. Deism's desire to hide behind the "laws of nature" does not explain everything. The modern state of science, discovering more and more new worlds and unknown spheres of being, more and more must recognize the whole non-absoluteness of these laws and the mystery of the entire world process, which nevertheless represents something One, some kind of majestic cosmic, animated All-Unity. It is governed not by blind laws, but by a rational will.
The fathers and teachers of the Church have always understood the world in this way, as a harmonious and organic whole, permeated with the rays of the building Logos and Wisdom. This "logosity" of the universe is found everywhere, it reflects the will of the Creator and Provider. The logoi of things, phenomena, elements are reflections of the Logos of God. References to patristic thoughts about this will be given in the next chapter (VI), in order to explain the symbolic realism that was inherent in the patristic worldview. Together with Christian theological thought, the philosophy of medieval rabbis also knew this. “Know,” says Maimonides at the end of the twelfth century, “that the whole universe, i. the highest sphere, with everything contained in it, is nothing but an individual whole, like the individuals Simeon and Reuben... One must imagine the universe as one living individual, moving through the soul that is contained in it. Such a presentation is very important; for, in the first place, it leads to a proof of the unity of God; secondly, it shows us that the One does indeed create the one” 1595. This organic unity of world harmony requires the recognition of a single Will that controls the entire world, the Provident Logos, the World Soul. The theological worldview also leads us to this. Deepening into the secrets of world art, resting in the creative "let there be" and the study of the mysterious depths of the increasingly revealing scientific natural science, confirms this. The blind "laws of nature" come to life and become rational, alive, animating this nature with force. God does not create ready-made facts, but factors that are given to carry out this creative task in reality, to create and produce. Nature is a living whole.
“Not what you think, nature,
Not a cast, not a soulless face.
It has a soul, it has freedom,
It has love, it has language."
The Right Reverend Theophan the Recluse, in one of his letters, writes to some person, apparently educated and seeking theological justification for various phenomena, a person: “... I allow a ladder of immaterial forces of a spiritual nature. Mutual attraction, chemical affinity, crystallization, plants, animals - are produced by the corresponding immaterial forces, which go, rising gradually. The substratum of all these forces is the soul of the world. God, having created this immaterial soul, put into it the ideas of all creatures, and it instinctively, as they say, manufactures them, at the beckoning and excitation of God ... ”He then talks about various kinds of souls rising in hierarchical gradualness: vegetable souls, animals, rational the human soul with its manifestations; “It is also possible,” says the saint, “between the soul and the spirit to place soul-spirituality: an ideal mind, a will that rebuilds everything anew, and creativity (in the arts). This is genius from the intellectual, practical and artistic side. And, finally, with regard to the personalistic unity and indispensability of our soul, which could, of course, be embarrassing, as we have pointed out, with Plotinus' conception, Bishop. Theophanes adds: “souls, lower than spirit and man, are immersed in the soul of the world. And the soul of a person cannot sink into it, but grief is carried away by the spirit - this is after death. 1596 In another place, our same writer writes to his correspondent about the unsatisfactory nature of many natural scientific conclusions and assumptions.
“What is matter? - We do not know. We know only elements or elements that are indecomposable. They are composed and decomposed, as a result of which things are different. Addition and decomposition is a chemical process. The visible side of the process is movement... But... movement is a completely external matter. It can't lead to anything. And I don't understand how they expose him as a doer when it is an action? ... Not in motion is strength, but in the driving force. The direction of movement is addition and decomposition is a chemical process. It is in the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms. But addition and decomposition are also external forms. Tell me: who composes and decomposes? … And How? … And why is that? … Is the chemical process independent, not dependent? The chemical process itself is the same everywhere. How does it happen that in one case a dead thing comes out of it, in another a vegetable thing, in a third an animal thing? ... In the formation of things of a dead nature, the chemical process is under one power, in the vegetable kingdom under another, in the animal under a third. Therefore, you must ascend to these authorities. Otherwise, everything will remain in the old way - unclear. Who are these authorities? Immaterial forces of a spiritual nature, with an instinct to produce this and that, according to the norm invested in them by God, accompanied by a certain dark instinct. These are the Leibniz monads. Every such force is subject to light, gravity, heat, electricity, magnetism and your chemistry, by means of which it sets the elements in motion and builds a thing that carries the norm in itself. Look here. In one inch of the earth: grass, lily of the valley, some kind of bottle ... Air, earth with elements, and so on, everything is the same. How does it turn out that different plants are produced from the same ones, according to the same chemical process, and also the goats are different here? Do not explain this without assuming the forces of a spiritual nature he indicated ... Just as every person has his own soul, so every thing has its own immaterial force that forms and holds it, as it was supposed to be by God when creating it ... There are many of these forces. As they are not original, they need stands - a substrate on which they hold. There is also a need for a common guide... I think it is much more convenient to lay the soul of the world, also immaterial, of a spiritual quality, as a substrate for them. She manages those small forces and directs them according to the norm invested in her.
In connection with the universe and questions about the World Soul, Palamas devotes enough attention to purely natural-philosophical problems about the structure of the cosmos, the elements, the movements of the stars, etc. Here he is entirely dependent on the contemporary geocentric system of the universe and, in essence, differs little from the descriptions of the universe that have survived before him. In his reasoning, one can easily find borrowings either from Plato’s Timaeus and Phaedrus, or from Aristotle’s Meteorology, On Heaven, and other treatises of natural science content, or from Plotinus’s Enneads, or from Six Days St. Basil the Great, from Nemesius of Emesa or from St. John of Damascus.
This world, being, as we have seen, eternal according to God's plan, is limited by the temporal limits of being. It has a beginning and will have an end. Like our bodies, it will be changed by the power of the Divine Spirit and, liberated for a more divine state and transformed in its basic elements, will correspond to them.
In the center of his cosmos stands the earth, like an immovable foundation; above it is established the sky, which is lighter than all bodies. Due to this lightness and subtlety, the sky cannot rise anywhere higher, even if such a space exists above it. “No body is higher than the heavenly; but not because it is impossible to imagine a body higher than it, but because the sky embraces every body and there is no other body beyond it.
8. CHRISTOLOGY
After all that has been said, let us turn to the Christology of St. Gregory Palamas. In his works we find quite a few thoughts on the issue of interest to us.
The incarnation of the Son of God is considered by him from different angles, and, of course, mainly in relation to the salvation of the human race. Therefore, it is natural to begin the analysis of this topic, so to speak, traditionally, i.e. since the fall of Adam.
The state of the first man before sin is depicted as very sublime, like that of other Church Fathers.
“Adam was created by God at first immaculate and young, until he voluntarily submitted to the devil, turned to carnal pleasures and became dilapidated, fell into sinful filth and fell into the unnatural” 1604. “Adam, being before the transgression of the commandment a partaker of divine light and radiance, as truly clothed in glorious clothes, was not naked, did not feel the shame of nakedness, but was more adorned than it can be said and than those who are now clothed with many gold and crowns adorned with semi-precious stones » 1605 .
The fall into sin thus is the deprivation of that glory with which man was adorned by the Creator Himself, and which was later shown by the Savior on Tabor. “By the miracle of Tabor, the Lord showed what the clothes of glory will be, in which those close to God will be clothed in the next century, and what the robe of sinlessness, having lost which, Adam saw that he was naked and was ashamed” 1606.
Help from above is not immediately available to people. God makes you go gradually a long propaedeutic way. For the purposes of a special divine pedagogy, God acts with humanity according to a special plan.
“In order for us to fully recognize the excess of humanity and the depth of wisdom, ... God, delaying the limits of death, gives a person to live for quite a while. First of all, He punishes (that is, educates) with mercy, or rather, He allows punishment with righteousness, so that we do not completely despair. From the very beginning He gave time for repentance and favorable living conditions for that. They eased the grief of death for later generations. He increased the offspring of heirs so that the multitude of those born from the very beginning outnumbered the number of those who died from the very beginning. Instead of one Adam, who became unhappy and miserable, thanks to the sensual beauty of the tree, God through the senses showed a multitude of people who were blessedly enriched in theology, virtue, knowledge and divine reverence: the witness Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noah. Melchizedek, Abraham, and those in between, before and after them, discovered these and similar qualities. But since among so many and such husbands, not one lived completely sinless and could not correct the well-known mistake of the forefathers, and heal the ulcer of the root of the human race ..., then God ... chose in time ... that from which a wonderful branch emerged (i.e. the Virgin Mary ), from which the color again grew, from which the saving dispensation was to be completed ”1607.
Therefore, “not an angel, not a man, but the Lord Himself deigned to save and recreate us in this way, Himself remaining unchanging God, He came and a perfect man like us” 1608.
God, of course, in His omnipotence, had other ways to save us. “The Son of God could in every way, and without His incarnation, free a person from death and from slavery to the devil ... But more appropriate for our nature and weakness and more decent for the active Word of God, was this method, i.e.: incarnation of the Left, as carrying with it righteousness, without which nothing is done by God" 1609.
This idea is not new. It was developed at one time: St. Athanasius the Great: “God could only say a word, and thus destroy the oath” 1610; St. Gregory the Theologian: “The Savior could, like God, save by one will” 1611; St. Gregory of Nyssa: “He Who composed everything by His will and affirmed the unbearable with one movement of His will, could not He restore man with His divine power?” 1612; blissful Theodoret: “It was very easy for God to accomplish the salvation of people without incarnation, and with one will to destroy the dominion of death, and to completely consume the source of death - wickedness ... But He wanted to show not His power, but the truth of Providence” 1613. Palamas himself, developing the last thought of Blessed. ep. Kirsky, devotes a whole conversation to her, said on Great Saturday (dem. 16th).
The incarnation presupposes such purity and perfect superiority of the flesh as would enable it to become a vessel, a temple of the Divine. The human body must be capable and designed for this. If it were unworthy of this, then the incarnation could not take place. “God perceives human nature to show that it is so free from sin and so pure that it can be united with Him in hypostasis and inseparably abide with Him in eternity” 1614.
“The Son of God became a man ... to show that human nature, unlike all creatures, was created in the image of God, that it is so akin to God that it can unite with Him in one hypostasis” 1615. "The Lord gives Himself and makes those who believe into vessels capable of receiving His Divinity" 1616. “God adorned our nature as His future shell, in which He desired to put on” 1617. “This is how human nature is justified, for it is not evil in itself. God is also justified, since He is neither the originator nor the creator of any evil.
Salvation had to be accomplished, therefore, not by violence against nature, but first of all, by righteousness, righteousness. The human race needed the educational guidance of the Old Law. Let us remember that for the Apostle Paul the Law was also a schoolmaster, a “teacher” for the coming of Christ (Gal. II, 24). Man needed to experience the divine wrath, i.e. abandonment by God. Therefore, it was also necessary to reconcile God with the human race. “There was no other liberation from this slavery. So the sacrifice of the Most High Father was needed, a sacrifice reconciling and sanctifying us, defiled by communion with sin. A clean and cleansing sacrifice was needed, but a clean and sinless priest was also needed” 1620. Hence the Cross and the Calvary sacrifice. Its prototype Palamas sees in the Old Testament. This idea is also not new: we find it already in pseudo-Barnabas (chapters XI-XII). Such a prototype of Golgotha for Palamas is Isaac, who was sacrificed, which was especially common among Western fathers. The cruciform laying on of hands on Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen. XLVIII, 13-20) also appears as such a type. Here Palamas follows Ven. Nile of Sinai and Our Liturgical Theology. The raised hands of Moses against Amalek also symbolize salvation through the cross, which is also found in St. Gregory the Theologian. Palamas sees the same in the actions of Joshua (X, 12-13) when the sun stops over Gibeon. Although the Bible does not say anything about the cruciform raising of hands, but, apparently, this is also borrowed from the liturgical tradition.
Thus, “The one sinless Son and Word of God becomes a son of man; immutable in divinity, immaculate in humanity” 1628 redeems the human race.
“Christ justified us each hypostatically and returned us to obedience to the Heavenly Father; and the very nature that He received from us, He renewed, showed it to the Father sanctified and justified obedience in everything ... He makes our nature obedient to the Father in everything, heals our disobedience in it and changes in it a curse into a blessing, for, as nature was in Adam, so it is all in Christ; and how all those who took birth from the earthly Adam returned to the earth and, oh horror! rushed to hell, so through Heavenly Adam, according to the Apostle (1 Corinth. XV, 48-49), we are all called to heaven and awarded heavenly glory ”1629.
In explaining the redemption itself, Palamas uses the thought of St. Gregory of Nyssa about the body of Christ as a bait on which the devil pounced, swallowed it and was thus deceived. “The Word… took on the flesh and wisely lured it and caught the evil serpent on the cross, and freed the entire human race, enslaved by it” 1631. It was necessary to "defeat the winner and outwit the deceiver" 1632. It would be necessary that "the deceiver was righteously deceived" 1633. Except, like St. Gregory of Nyssa, we find the same thought in liturgical theology: “You were clothed in flesh, as if on the rod of flattery, by Thy divine power you brought down the serpent, raising up those crying: God, blessed be you” 1634.
The redemptive feat includes not only the Calvary sacrifice. The work of the Savior is not limited to the sufferings of the Cross. The Lord had to be resurrected for our salvation, and His resurrection is of a very special nature in comparison with the former cases of resurrection before Him. All the Old and New Testament cases of the resurrection of the dead did not free them from death a second time. And after the resurrection of Christ, who resurrected Himself, and not by someone else, death no longer dominates him. And most importantly, the Lord grants us the possibility of the same resurrection, and “we needed the resurrection not only of the soul, but also of the body, and the next generations needed the same. Therefore, it was necessary not only to grant, but also to assure us of our deliverance and resurrection; for this and ascension and endless life in heaven. All this was necessary not only for the contemporaries of Christ and for future generations, but especially for those born from the beginning of time. Hence the need to go to hell. Christ's resurrection is not "simply the resurrection of human nature in general, but the resurrection of everyone who believes in Christ and shows his faith by deeds" 1637.
If, as was indicated above, the state of Adam before sin was bright and radiant, if a prototype of the future glory of the resurrection was given on Tabor, and partly already on earth Moses the God-seer was awarded this “good of the future life”, which the sons of Israel could not look at, just as they were unable to look at the face of St. torment. Stephen; that resurrection of Christ showed people this glory in full, repeated before Mary, who came to the tomb, the miracle of Tabor. The cave of the Holy Sepulcher was filled with the light of the resurrection, which poured out on Mary, who stood at the Sepulcher. After the resurrection, the body of the Lord was already in a state of glorification, overcame the determinism of the laws of nature and did not need what is customary in the language of the Church fathers to call “impeccable” or “blameless” passions, i.e., the natural needs of the body (hunger, thirst, fatigue , sleep, etc.) “That undamaged body was fed after the resurrection, not because it needed food, but in order to confirm its own resurrection and show that it is now the same body that even before the suffering ate with them (with apostles). And it destroyed food not according to the nature of the mortal body, but by the power of divine energy, as if someone said that like fire destroys wax, with the difference, however, that fire needs combustible material to maintain itself, and immortal bodies do not need food. for its existence" 1642.
Palamas sometimes calls this resurrection of ours “apokatastasis” in heaven, for we were enriched with the firstfruits of immortality, were called to heaven, and our nature was seated on a throne above all principality and power at the right hand of majesty in heaven. “The body in which I am now (i.e., after the resurrection) clothed is more easily carried and stronger than fire, and can not only ascend to heaven, but also to the Supercelestial Father Himself” 1645. “Insofar as before the incarnation of the Word of God heaven stood far from the earth, so far was the Kingdom of Heaven from us. And as soon as the King of Heaven settled among us and deigned to unite with us, then the Kingdom of Heaven approached all of us. The Kingdom of Heaven is shown to us transformatively in the Miracle of Tabor. All this gives St. Gregory has the right to speak about the special honor that our nature has been awarded.
But all this requires ascetic exploits from us and work on our inner man, for the Kingdom of God is within us. And then, using Aristotelian and Plotinian terms, Palamas says that we can become children of God - δυναμει, i.e. potentially we have been given adoption by God, but we must strive for this and in reality - ένεργεία, actual.
The fate of the bodies of sinners is another matter. “And the dead bodies of the wicked will be raised, but not in the glory of heaven; for they will not conform to the body of Christ's glory, nor will they see the vision of God promised to the faithful, which is called the Kingdom of God. Prop. Isaiah says, "Let the wicked perish, lest they see the glory of God" 1651.
Such is the soteriological meaning of the incarnation of the Word. But, of course, the matter is not limited to this.
“God, out of overwhelming love for mankind, descends to us from on high, without changing in any way in His Divinity, and having lived with us. He offers Himself to us as an example of the return to life. And not only this! But He becomes our Teacher, showing with a word the path leading to life, and confirming the word of His teaching with great miracles. These last words repeat the thought of the prayer at Vespers of Pentecost: "Even first teaching words, then showing deeds." Thus, the incarnation of the Word is the most complete and perfect revelation of Truth, not only theoretical, but the most real, so to speak, ontological. The Savior gives us an example of personal life. In moral following Him, in "monasticism", i.e. in likeness to Him we grow “to the measure of the stature of the fulfillment of Christ” (Eph. IV, 13). This is the moral and pedagogical significance of the coming of the Word in the flesh. The sermon of the Savior, His personal example, miracles, commandments, parables, teaching - all this leads us to perfection and restores our fallen image, and by this we assimilate the fruits of Christ's redemptive feat. And behind all this, of course, is the mystical-sacramental life in the church, impossible without the incarnation of the Word and the Sacrifice of Golgotha, renewed in every liturgy and in every sacrament.
The Incarnation of God, His immeasurable kenosis also shows an exceptional love for our race. “If He had not been incarnate, had not suffered in the flesh, had not been resurrected, and had not ascended for us, then we would not have known the excess of God's love for us. And if He had not been incarnated for us ungodly and had not endured suffering, then we would not have been so exalted by Him and would not have moved away from humiliating arrogance. Following these words, Palamas, in the same conversation, once again enumerates the fruits of salvific atonement and, one might say, sings a real hymn to the incarnation of the Word, to human nature itself and to that flesh, which, it would seem, in the eyes of false ascetic spiritualism should have been revered as nothing but the source of sin and all kinds of temptations. Here is the passage:
“So the Son of God became a man in order to show to what height He raises us;
lest we should be arrogant, as if we ourselves had conquered the enslavement of the devil;
so that He, as being purely by nature, becomes a mediator, proportionately harmonize the properties of both natures;
to loose the bonds of sin;
to show God's love for us;
to show what abyss of evil we have fallen into, that it took the incarnation of God;
to become for us an example of the humiliation that is associated with the flesh and suffering;
to become a remedy against pride;
to show that God created our nature to be good;
to become the head of the new life, to confirm the resurrection and end hopelessness;
so that, having become the Son of Man and partaking of death, to make people sons of God and participants in divine immortality;
to show that human nature, unlike all creatures, was created in the image of God; that it is so akin that it can unite with Him in one Hypostasis;
TO HONOR THE FLESH, AND MORE DEATH FLESH;
THAT THE arrogant spirits should not dare to think ABOUT THEM THAT THEY ARE HONEST HUMAN, AND THAT THEY CAN BE DUE TO THEIR INDEPENDENCE AND APPEARING IMMORTALITY;
to combine people separated by nature and God. Christ Himself becomes the mediator in both natures" 1655.
By the growth of pathos, by the authoritativeness with which this is said, and by the belief in our high purpose, this passage must be recognized as one of the best in Byzantine literature.
Thus, the incarnation of the Logos brought innumerable blessings to the world. The condescension of God to earth and His indwelling in a created being must be recognized in no way less, if not a greater act of God's love than the creation of the world. By the love pouring out of the Holy Trinity, God from non-existence calls the creature to existence. Out of love, the sacrifice of the incarnation is also offered. This is the most complete revelation of God to the world, this is the most perfect epiphany, before which all the earlier revelations of the Old Testament are only weak and imperfect shadows.
In the incarnation of the Logos, people for the first time came to know the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians II, 9) and learned from Him how one should live in the Church of the living God, which is the pillar and affirmation of the Truth (I Tim. III, 15). “A mystery hidden from time immemorial and unknown to angels” was revealed, the great mystery of piety, “God appeared in the flesh, justified Himself in the Spirit, showed Himself to angels, was preached among the nations, accepted by faith in the world, ascended in glory” (I Tim. III, sixteen).
In the incarnation of the Logos, a perfect example is given to us for likening; the perfect Man is shown, the New Adam, better than the old one, and from Him we now trace our new genealogy. The image of God, dimmed, but not completely disappeared in the fall, not revealed by Adam, as it was given to him to do according to the plan of constructive Wisdom, must be revealed by us in likeness to God, in likeness to Christ. To imitate, - the fathers of the Church teach us, and with them St. Gregory Palamas, it means to be and live in the image of the Creator, i.e., to create. What this creativity consists of is shown by us in a special chapter. “God, as a wise architect, laid the foundation, and another builds on it; but everyone is watching how to build. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (I Corinth III. 10-11).
In the incarnation of the Logos, in His acceptance and sanctification of our body, this Body of Christ is given to be offered as a perfect sacrifice to God, mysterious, holy, eternal. Forefather Abraham, after the “slaughter of Khodolomogorsk” (Genesis, XIV, 17) meets in the valley of Shaveh, “which is now the royal valley,” the Salem king Melchizedek. And this one “without a father, without a mother, without a parable of a generation, having no beginning during the day, not having an end to the life: he is likened to the Son of God, the priest is taken out” (Heb. VII, 3), this mysterious stranger from another world, the king of Salem, i.e. That is, the king of the world brought to Abraham bread and wine, a prototype of the future Eucharist, the prototype of which is eternal and original. This priest of the Most High God (Heb. VII, 1) transfigures another “Priest with an oath, of whom it is said: The Lord swears and does not repent. You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. VII, 21; Psalm 109:4), i.e., the Lord Savior, the Great Hierarch, who sacrificed Himself. He sat down at the right hand of the throne of Majesty in heaven: a holy servant and the true tabernacle, which is set up by God, and not by man. (Heb. VIII, 1-2).
Bread and wine are the blessing of the world from the king of the world in the Shave valley.
The bread and wine of “the journey of the Lady and the immortal meal in a high place” prepared for us by the incarnate Wisdom, which “created for Herself a house and established seven pillars, slaughtered her sacrifices and dissolved the wine” (Prov. IX, 1-2).
The sacrifice of perfect love is offered by the Perfect Priest, not according to the order of Aaron, not according to the order of man, but according to the order of Melchizedek, going from eternity. He is the perfect Bishop and the perfect Sacrifice, "Offering and Offering, Receiving and Distributing" 1656, the incarnate Word of the Eternal God. In every Eucharistic offering “about everyone and for everything”, we remember this “saving commandment and everything that was about us: the cross, the tomb, the three-day resurrection, the right-hand seat, the second and glorious coming again” 1657, when He again appears the Savior of the world , not “in the likeness of the flesh of sin” (Rom. VIII, 3), but in the radiance of glory, in the rays of the uncreated Tabor light. He will come to judge the living and the dead, His kingdom will have no end. To Him, not only to GOD the Word, but to Christ our God-MAN, to Him, the bearer of burnt flesh, we pray and cry out: “Come, Lord Jesus! Maranatha!"
* * *
Now it is quite appropriate to ask what is the significance of Palamas for the history of Eastern theological thought.
The end of the iconoclastic disputes was crowned with the universal and all-church recognition of icon veneration. The Church liturgically fixed this in her Triumph of Orthodoxy. The first week of Great Lent, liturgically affirming the purity and steadfastness of Orthodox theological teaching, glorifies its defenders and anathematizes its distorters, but does not, however, impose a ban on theological thought. The triumph of Orthodoxy is not the stamp of silence on the theological lips. Preserving the purity of faith does not mean being inactive in the field of theology. The treasury of church tradition is not a museum and an archive of obsolete antiquities. The Church lives and continues to think in her tradition. Church consciousness is working on the discovery hitherto in this sacristy of hidden wealth. With the end of the iconoclastic disputes, church life in Byzantium did not die, and cannot die in the Orthodox Church in general, which is the Pillar and Affirmation of the Truth, but the Truth is alive, not dried up. No matter how they want to present the period of the VIII-IX centuries. the last splendor of the Great Empire, this is not true. Catholic science would even like to present the matter in such a way that after the break with Rome, Byzantium died not only culturally, but also theologically, ecclesiastical. This is contrary to the history of the church. The era of the Kingdom of Nicaea, the Komnenos and Palaiologos testifies just the opposite. Vlemmids, Psellos, John Itala, Palamas, Pletho, not to mention Nicephorus Gregory, Demetrius Kydonius, John Vekka - all this speaks of a great flowering of ecclesiastical and scientific consciousness. 14th century controversy showed Orthodoxy and new ways of theologizing. The apophatic and antinomian trend in theology, the integrity that encompasses both the philosophy of the ancients, and the tradition of the fathers, and living mystical experience (the Light of Tabor) showed that the thought of Eastern Orthodoxy is alive and creates. That is why the Church, in addition to its liturgical glorification of the defenders of the Orthodox teaching against the iconoclasts, added a new glorification of those who defended Orthodoxy in the period of hesychast disputes that followed. The Church canonized Palamas among the saints, despite the fact that in the eyes of Latin theologians (Jugy, Petavia) they are regarded as heretics, as she once canonized St. Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, so hated by the Latins. The second week of Great Lent is dedicated to the liturgical glorification of Palamas and his companions. The triumph of Orthodoxy in 842 did not seal the books of theological knowledge and searching. Of course, the Palamite disputes of the 14th century did not seal it either. Palamas raised a number of problems and calls for their ecclesiastical disclosure and elaboration in the spirit of Orthodox living tradition.
A detailed critical assessment of the system of Palamism is beyond the narrow scope of this chapter, but, nevertheless, it is impossible not to touch on some of the characteristic features of this teaching.
Palamas was repeatedly accused of many things, not understanding the basic methods and some aspects of his theology. But most of all, it seems, he was reproached for the novelty of his teaching. Already a younger contemporary of St. Gregory, Demetrius Cydonius, brother of Prochorus Cydonius, well-known in the history of hesychast disputes, accuses Palamas in his letters to various persons of the “new theological teaching” of 1658. The same is repeated by all his contemporaries; Palamas is accused of the same by his best Western researcher, Jugie:
"Le système de Palamas est incotestablement une nouveauté dans l "histoire de la théologie byzantine; on n" en trouve nulle part l "équivalent dans la période antérieure" 1659.
But one has only to carefully check all the countless references of Palamas himself and the Tomos of the Svyatogorsk and Synodal to patristic works in order to see the full validity of his theological views.
Western scholasticism accuses Palamas mainly of violating unity and simplicity in the concept of Deity. Energies other than essence allegedly bring division in God. Understood as "actus purus," the Deity must not be divided into two. But is not the scholarly critic of Palamism, Guichardon, introducing a division in the following words?
“Nous avons été amenés… à distinguer entre ce qu"il est convenu d"appeler l"Essence physique de Dieu et son Essence métaphysique. La première est ce que Dieu est en réalité. La seconde n"est que l"attribut dont, selon notre manière de comprendre nous pouvons logiquement déduire pour les autres" 1660.
Further, isn't there a division by what Guichardon distinguishes between les attributs quiescents, les attributs opératifs, les attributs communs? 1661 . Besides, is not the simple concept of the Deity violated (as if everything is so simple in God, and as if everything becomes clear if the Deity is defined as "actus purus"!) by seeing in God distinctions réelles and distinctions de raison; and the former are distinguished into: distinctions réelles majeures, réelles mineures, modales, formelles, distinctions de raison virtuelles and de pur raison 1662. If for Zhyuzhi the teaching of St. Gregory is “strange” (“une étrange théologie” 1663 and “philosophical nonsense” 1664, this is because, starting from Thomism, the learned critic does not accept antinomism and apophaticism, which is fundamental to Orthodox theology. Simplifying all theology with the narrow Latin rationalization of Aquinas and Tridentine cathedral, Zhugy cannot, of course, perceive what is fundamental in the patristic tradition of Orthodox theology, not refracted through the prism of Thomism.To be orthodox, he must be a Thomist.In addition, the paradoxicality of language so characteristic of mysticism is completely alien to this learned critic.
But be that as it may, Orthodoxy canonized Palamism as a true doctrine. St. Gregory is numbered among the saints. The second week of Lent is sealed with his name and is prayerfully honored throughout the Orthodox world.
In his article "Controverse palamite," Jugie cites a number of references from Russian church training courses in which Palamas's teaching is either not developed or even disapprovingly expounded. (Arch. Anthony Amfiteatrov, Archbishop Macarius Bulgakov, Bishop Sylvester Malevansky, not to talk about Theophylact of Gorsky and Sylvester Lebedinsky). Zhyugi wants to prove that the Russian Church allegedly does not recognize the doctrine of Palamism as Orthodox. Confusion about. Zhyugi about the supposedly unstable attitude towards Palamism is understandable and easily explained. No wonder that the seminary and academic courses of the XVIII and XIX centuries. 1666, written not only in Latin, but also under the clear influence of Latin scholasticism, spoke disapprovingly of Palamite theology. We cannot but confess with great regret the long-term scholastic captivity of our theological science.
However, it must be admitted, speaking of the peculiarity of the language of St. Gregory that some of his expressions were too bold, not to say unsuccessful, and, as such, did not take root. As an example, let us cite at least his famous “overlying and underlying deity” ύπερκειμένη καί ύφειρένη θεοτηç. 1667. The expression is undeniably inconvenient for theological language. But we need only remember that St. Gregory the Theologian called our soul "the outflow of the Divine", which St. Athanasius spoke of "a single Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity", that St. Cyril of Alexandria for a long time adhered to the ambiguous Apollinarian formula "the one incarnate nature of God the Word" - all expressions are inaccurate and left later. In addition, the language of the Areopagitic, St. Maximus the Confessor and St. Simeon N. Theologian is replete with bold expressions that can only be accepted as figurative terms. Moreover, Jugy himself testifies that this Palamite expression did not hold on later and was not adopted by his followers.
Moreover, one cannot help but reproach Palamas with such inconsistent and inaccurate expressions. For example, distinguishing between essence and belongings (accidents), he says: “theologians who want to show that this is not essence, it is called as if belonging" 1669. This “as if” does not correspond to the exact language of theology; it is misleading by its ambiguity. Or another phrase in the dialogue "Theophanes": "Is it not clear that the Deity of the One God is one, but in another sense not one?" 1670 . And further: “when we use the name “Divinity” to name an entity that surpasses any name, then the Divinity of God is One, simple, indivisible, inseparable, inconceivable ... One Divinity of Three Persons Which all, except for hypostatic features, have in equal measure ... If you call Divinity either force and energy, or essence, then it is one among the Three... one essence of the Three Persons and that which is contemplated and theologised around the essence ... When we call any divine power or energy the Divine, many divine energies acquire this name of the Divine, whether it be contemplative energy, or purifying, or secretly active, or actions omnipresence, or incomprehensibility, or ever-moving and on Tabor enlightening the chosen disciples of the light ... "Or else in the explanation of 2 Peter 1, 4:" From St. Theologians have given us both statements, namely: 1. that the essence of God is not involved and in some sense is involved, and 2. that we partake of the divine nature and at the same time do not partake in any way ”1671. Or: “the measure of faith establishes that the essence of God is both involved and unparticipated, and not that it is involved for some, but not for others” (as the Messalians thought).
But most of all adjustments to Palamas, starting from Dimitri Kitsonius and up to Zhyuzhi, were made for his difference in the concepts of "God" and "Deity". Both in Theophanes of 1674 and mainly in the Synodal volume of 1351, this distinction is made: God is the essence, it is the agent, and the Deity is the essence of His energies. "Divine and uncreated energy is called by the holy fathers Divinity" 1676. This difference should by no means be understood as some kind of division in the Holy Trinity, or as ditheism and polytheism, for which Palamas and contemporary and contemporary critics constantly reproached him.
It cannot, of course, be denied that this distinction between God and the Deity Palamas has not been sufficiently elucidated. In this, as we have seen, there is a lot of inconsistent and terminologically unfinished. But in any case, there is nothing heretical in this. Even though Jugy does not try to suspect Palamas of unbelief even in the Trinitarian doctrine, bringing him closer to Gilbert de la Porree, condemned at the Council of Reims in 1148, this remains unconvincing. Palamas's terminology is also quite different from the distinction between "Gott" and "Gottheit" made by Meister Eckhart, a contemporary of Palamas (1260-1327). If for Meister Eckhart God and Deity are "as distinct as heaven and earth", and God is something derived from Deity; if "ohne die Welt war die Gottheit nicht Gott", and thus "God" is a correlative concept with creation and a product of Deity; if between God and creation there is only a hierarchical, but not an ontological difference; if, therefore, the Trinitarian teaching of the famous German mystic is colored by a peculiar cosmological subordinationism and pantheism; - there is nothing like this in Palamas. The deity, if it differs from the concept of God, is only in the dialectical order. This is one of his ways of expressing himself. “Deity” is what God has always been and is addressed to the creature. The Deity, or in other words the energy of God is eternal and uncreated, it does not differ significantly from God in any way. Palamas can never say that the Deity is impersonal, that “Gott wird und vergeht.
Hence, quite different practical conclusions from both views. Eckhart has acosmism. He has an immersion of the soul in the nirvana of the Divine. In his soul even God is cast off (“Ahgeschiedenheit”). Palamas has an enlightened attitude to the world and the deification of man, i.e. his union with God, without losing his personal, independent and eternally existing life.
From what has been said, one can draw a conclusion about the precepts of Palamas to Orthodox theology.
- The question is central in the entire controversy with Varlaam, the problem of essence and energy hides in itself not only a refinement of the trinitarian dogma, but, more importantly, the attitude of God to the world. If the energy of God is His address to the creature, and if the question of the cosmos is not sufficiently developed in theology, then this problem acquires special significance for the Russian theological consciousness, which in general is very turned to the world and to the question of the creature. It is also a serious warning for the new Russian theological thought on behalf of Sts. Fathers of the Church.
The same doctrine of ousia and energy, brought into connection with the apophatic method of theologizing, deepens the work of thought in the field of antinomic theology.
- The mystical perception of the Light of Tabor, the intensity of inner work (intelligent prayer), brought into connection with the same doctrine of essence and energy and with a premonition of future bliss even in this life, give a special direction to Orthodox asceticism.
- But, what is especially important for us, the anthropology of Palamas, faithful to the patristic tradition in asceticism, gives us a sublime concept of man, free from any false spiritualism, full of pure faith in the future glorification of man in heaven and his high creative purpose here on earth, which is what the following chapters of this work are devoted to.
In general, it should be borne in mind that Palamas, thanks to all that has just been indicated, opens up new paths and possibilities in theology. It is this combination of the apophatic principle, as the starting point of all theology, with the data of reason, on the one hand, and the consistency of mystical experience with the arguments of philosophy, on the other, that allow Palamas to touch and overcome those difficult problems of theology that, with a different approach, would be insoluble. The fact that scholasticism led to rationalistic conclusions, in which everything must be logically clear, or else to a dead end, this gave in the theology of Palamism the answer in antinomy. The fearless acceptance of precisely this antinomy has always allowed Orthodoxy, of which Palamas is the expression, not to be afraid of the dizziness of theological constructs, always remembering that in the depths of this abyss lies a mystery, before which our mind humbly languishes.
Hegumen Dionysius (Shlenov).
ST. GREGORY PALAM: LIFE, CREATIONS, TEACHING.
life .
The future saint was born in 1296, and received his education in Constantinople. After the early death of his father, Senator Constantine, in 1301, Gregory fell under the protection of Emperor Andronicus II. Thus, for the first 20 years of his life, the young man lived at the royal court, and later on, having various talents, he had a quick and successful career. He studied secular disciplines and philosophy with the best teacher of the era - Theodore Metochites, who was a philologist and theologian, rector of the university and, as it is customary to call this position now, the prime minister. Gregory Palamas was the best of his students; he showed particular interest in the philosophy of Aristotle. At the age of 17, Gregory even gave a lecture in the palace on Aristotle's syllogistic method before the emperor and nobles. The lecture was so successful that at the end of it Metochites exclaimed: "And Aristotle himself, if he were here, would not fail to honor her with praise."
Despite all this, Gregory remained strikingly indifferent to politics and the world. Around 1316, at the age of 20, he left the palace and philosophical studies and retired to the Holy Mountain, where he devoted himself to an ascetic life and studies, esoteric theology. He began to get used to great feats while still in the palace. On Athos, Gregory asceticised in a cell not far from Vatopedi under the guidance of the Monk Nikodim, from whom he received monastic vows. After the death of his mentor (c. 1319), he moved to the Lavra of St. Athanasius, where he spent three years. Then, beginning in 1323, he asceticised in the skete of Glossia, where he spent all his time in vigils and prayers.
In 1325, due to Turkish attacks on the Holy Mountain, he, along with other monks, was forced to leave it. In Thessalonica, Gregory, at the request of his fellow monks, took the priesthood. From there he went to the region of Berea, the city in which the apostle Paul once preached, where he continued his asceticism. Five days a week, shut up in a narrow cell-cave, located on the slope of a rock overgrown with dense thickets above a mountain stream, he indulged in mental prayer. On Saturday and Sunday, he left his seclusion to participate in the general divine service, which took place in the monastery katholikon.
However, the Slavic invasion, which also affected this area, prompted Gregory to return to the Holy Mountain again in 1331, where he continued his hermit life in the desert of St. Sava on the Athos foothills above the Lavra. This desert has survived to this day. “Washed”, as in the time of St. Gregory, by the winds of Athos, it amazes pilgrims with its absolute solitude and silence.
Then, for a short time, Gregory was elected abbot of the Esfigmen monastery. But, in spite of the cares he took upon himself, he constantly sought to return to the silence of the desert. And he would have achieved this if a learned monk from Calabria (Southern Italy) named Varlaam (1290-1350) had not prompted him to embark on a polemical path. The dispute with Varlaam lasted for 6 years from 1335 to 1341.
Varlaam came from an Orthodox Greek family and knew the Greek language well. He visited Byzantium and eventually ended up in Thessaloniki. In the middle of the thirties of the XIV century. theological discussions between Greeks and Latins revived. In a number of his anti-Latin writings, directed, in particular, against the Latin doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son, Varlaam emphasized that God is incomprehensible and that judgments about God are not provable. Then Palamas wrote apodictic words against the Latin innovation, criticizing Barlaam's theological "agnosticism" and his excessive trust in the authority of pagan philosophy.
This was the first theological clash between the two husbands. The second happened in 1337, when Varlaam was informed by some simple and illiterate monks about a certain technical method that the hesychasts used when creating noetic prayer. Having also studied some of the writings of the Hesychast Fathers devoted to prayerful work, he furiously attacked the Hesychasts, calling them Messalians and "pupils" (?μφαλ?ψυχοι). Then it was entrusted to Palamas to refute Varlaam's attacks. A personal meeting of both husbands did not at all lead to a positive result, but it aggravated the contradiction even more. At the Council of Constantinople in 1341 (the meeting took place on June 10), Barlaam, who accused the Hesychasts of the wrong way of praying and refuted the doctrine of the uncreated Light of Tabor, was condemned. Barlaam, although he asked for forgiveness, left for Italy in June of the same year, where he then accepted Roman Catholicism and became Bishop of Ierak.
After the Council of 1341 and the removal of Varlaam, the first stage of the Palamite disputes ended.
At the second and third stages of the debate, Palamas was opposed by Gregory Akindin and Nicephorus Gregory, who, unlike Barlaam, did not criticize the psychosomatic method of prayer of the hesychasts. The dispute took on a theological character and concerned the question of Divine energies, grace, uncreated light.
The second stage of the dispute coincides with the civil war between John Cantacuzenus and John Palaiologos and took place between 1341 and 1347. On June 15, 1341, Emperor Andronicus III died. His successor, John V Palaiologos, was a minor, so great upheavals took place in the state as a result of a fierce struggle for power between the great domestic John Kantakuzen and the great Duke Alexei Apokavk. Patriarch John Kalek supported Apokaukos, while Palamas believed that the state could only be saved thanks to Cantacuzenus. Palamas' intervention in the political clash, although he was not particularly politically inclined, led to the fact that most of his later life was spent in captivity and dungeons.
Meanwhile, in July 1341, another council was convened, at which Akindin was condemned. At the end of 1341-1342, Palamas closed first in the monastery of St. Michael of Sosthenia, and then (after May 12, 1342) in one of its deserts. In May-June 1342, two councils were held to condemn Palamas, which, however, did not produce any results. Soon Gregory withdrew to Heraclius, from where, after 4 months, he was taken under escort to Constantinople, and imprisoned there in a monastery. After a two-month stay in the church of Hagia Sophia, where Saint Gregory, along with his disciples, enjoyed immunity by right of asylum, he was imprisoned in the palace prison. In November 1344, at the council of St. Gregory, Palamas was excommunicated from the Church, and Akindin, his main opponent, was ordained deacon and priest at the end of the same year. However, due to changes in the political situation at the council on February 2, 1347, Gregory Palamas was acquitted, and his opponents were convicted.
After the victory of John Cantacuzenus and his proclamation as emperor, the patriarchal throne was occupied (May 17, 1347) by Isidore Vukhir, a friend of the hesychasts, and Gregory Palamas was soon elected archbishop of Thessaloniki. Then the third stage of the Palamite controversy began. The main opponent of Palamas was Nikephoros Gregoras. Political unrest in Thessalonica prevented Gregory from entering the city to carry out his duties. The zealots, friends of the Palaiologos and opponents of Cantacuzenus, turned out to be the masters of the situation here. They prevented the arrival of Palamas, until the capture of Thessalonica by Kantakouzin in 1350. Until that time, Palamas had visited Athos and Lemnos. Once in Thessaloniki, he was able to pacify the city. However, his opponents did not stop arguing furiously. Because of this, in May-June and in July 1351, two councils were convened, which condemned his opponent Nicephorus Gregory and proclaimed Palamas "defender of piety." At the first of these councils, the doctrine of the unity of the Divine and the difference between essence and uncreated energies was approved. At the second council, six dogmatic definitions were adopted with the corresponding six anathemas, which immediately after the council were included in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy. In addition to the affirmation of the above distinction between essence and energy, the non-participation of the Divine essence and the possibility of communion with the Divine energies, which are uncreated, were proclaimed here.
Traveling to Constantinople in 1354 to mediate between Cantacuzenus and John Palaiologos, Palamas was captured by the Turks, who held him captive for about a year until they received the ransom they sought from the Serbs for his release. He considered his captivity an appropriate occasion for preaching the truth to the Turks, which he tried to do, as can be seen from the Epistle of the Thessalonian Church, as well as from two texts of Interviews with representatives from among the Turks. Seeing that the destruction of the empire by the Turks was almost inevitable, he believed that the Greeks should immediately begin to convert the Turks to Christianity.
After being freed from the Turks and returning to Thessaloniki, St. Gregory continued his pastoral activity in his diocese until 1359 or, according to the new dating, until 1357. Struck by one of his long-standing illnesses, which troubled him from time to time, Saint Gregory died on November 14 at the age of 63 (or 61). At first, he was glorified as a locally revered saint in Thessaloniki, but soon, in 1368, by a conciliar decision, he was officially entered into the calendar of Hagia Sophia by Patriarch Philotheus Kokkin, who compiled his meritorious life and service. At first, the relics of St. Gregory were laid in the cathedral church of Hagia Sophia in Thessaloniki, now a particle of his relics is kept in the Metropolitan Cathedral in honor of Gregory Palamas near the city embankment.
Compositions
Gregory Palamas compiled numerous works of theological, polemical, ascetic and moral content, as well as numerous homily and epistles.
"The Life of Peter the Athos" - the very first work of St. Gregory Palamas, painted c. 1334
In the "new inscriptions" against those of John Beccus and in two apodictic words "Against the Latins" (written in 1334-1335 or according to the latest dates in 1355), the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit is considered. The Holy Spirit as a hypostasis proceeds "only from the Father". “The hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is not from the Son either; It is not given or accepted by anyone, but Divine grace and energy. Similar to the teaching of Nicholas of Methon, the procession is a hypostatic property, while grace, which is energy, is common to the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Only in view of this commonality can we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and from the Son, and from Himself. This view of the procession is shared with the teachings of Nicephorus Vlemmids and Gregory of Cyprus, who, faithful to patristic tradition, placed their hopes on a theological dialogue between East and West.
The composition of the "Triad in Defense of the Holyly Silent" was written in order to repel Barlaam's attacks on the hesychasts, it also resolves all the theological issues that have become the subject of a dispute. The work is divided into three triads, each of which is subdivided into three treatises. The first triad, written in the spring of 1338 in Thessaloniki, is devoted to the question of the knowledge of God. Opposing the then just formulated position of Varlaam, Palamas insists that the way of knowing God is not an external philosophy, but a revelation in Christ. Christ has renewed the whole person, therefore the whole person, soul and body, can and must participate in prayer. A person, starting from the present life, partakes of the grace of God and tastes as a pledge the gift of deification, which he will taste in fullness in the future age.
In the second triad (composed in the spring-summer of 1339), he sharply criticizes Varlaam's assertion that knowledge of philosophy can bring salvation to a person. Man does not enter into communion with God by means of creaturely means, but only by Divine grace and through participation in the life of Christ.
In the third triad (written in the spring-summer of 1340), he deals with the issue of deification and the Light of Tabor as an uncreated Divine energy. Man does not partake of the essence of God, otherwise we would come to pantheism, but partake of the natural energy and grace of God. Here St. Gregory systematically explores the fundamental distinction between essence and energy that is fundamental to his teaching. The same questions are considered in five epistles: three to Akindin and two to Varlaam, written at the beginning of the dispute.
In doctrinal writings (“Svyatogorsk Tomos”, spring-summer 1340; “Confession of Faith”, etc.), and in works directly related to the dispute (“On Divine Unity and Distinction”, summer 1341; “On Divine and deifying involvement", winter 1341-1342; "Dialogue of the Orthodox Theophan with Theotimos", autumn 1342, etc.) - as well as in 14 messages addressed to monastics, persons in holy orders and laity (the last letter was sent to Empress Anna Palaiologina) continue to discuss controversial issues between Palamas, on the one hand, and Barlaam and Akindin, on the other.
The seven "Antirriticus against Akindin" (1342-not earlier than the spring of 1345) were written in order to refute the corresponding antirritik against Palamas, compiled by Gregory Akindin. They talk about the consequences of not distinguishing between essence and energy in God. Akindin, not accepting that grace is the natural energy of the essence of God, but a creature, as a result falls into a heresy greater than that of Arius. The grace of God, says Palamas, is holy as an uncreated light, similar to that seen by the apostles during the Transfiguration of Christ. This uncreated light and in general all the energies of God are a common expression of the single essence of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
“Against Grigora” Palamas wrote 4 refuting words (1 and 2 - in 1355, 1356; 3 and 4 - in 1356-1357). Gregory accepted the theological theses of Varlaam, arguing that the grace of God, and especially the light of the Transfiguration, was created. Palamas refutes Grigora's arguments and argues that the light of the Transfiguration was neither a creature nor a symbol, but a reflection of the divine essence and confirmation of the actual communion between God and man.
All of the above-mentioned writings of Palamas are distinguished by a distinct polemical character, aimed at refuting the views of opponents. Palamas expresses his theological assertions with complete clarity in his less polemical theological and ascetic writings. In "150 theological, moral and practical chapters" (1349/1350), he sets out, using the method common to all ascetic writers of the East, the main topics of his teaching in short chapters. In some cases, he quotes entire passages from his previous writings. Having systematized his theological teaching, he expounds it with clarity and completeness, along with his philosophical views.
The essay “To Xenia on Passions and Virtues” (1345-1346) is addressed to a nun who was involved in raising the daughters of Emperor Andronicus III. This is an extensive ascetic treatise dedicated to the fight against passions and the acquisition of Christian virtues.
During his archpastorship in Thessaloniki, from the pulpit of the cathedral church of St. Gregory Palamas recited most of his 63 homily, confirming his deep spirituality, theological gifts and devotion to the Church. Although the homily is devoted primarily to ascetic-moral and socio-patriotic themes, there is also a place in them for speculation about the uncreated Light of Tabor (in homily 34, 35 "On the Transfiguration of the Lord"). Some of the listeners could not follow the thoughts of the homilies of St. Gregory because of a lack of education. However, he prefers to speak in a high style so that "it is better to raise up those who are prostrated on the ground than to bring down those who are on high because of them." However, any attentive listener can quite clearly understand what has been said.
Of the texts relating to the time of his captivity among the Turks, the most valuable is the “Letter to his [Thessalonian] Church”, which, in addition to various historical information, describes some of his interviews and describes a number of episodes where the Turks appear.
In addition to the above, many smaller works of a refuting, polemical, ascetic and theological content and four prayers have been preserved.
Doctrine
Saint Gregory Palamas, using creatively revised theological terminology, reported new directions in theological thought. His teaching was not determined only by philosophical concepts, but was formed on completely different principles. He theologizes on the basis of personal spiritual experience, which he lived through ascetic as a monk, and fought as a skilled fighter against those who distorted the faith, and which he substantiated from the theological side. Therefore, he began to write his compositions at a fairly mature age, and not at a young age.
1. Philosophy and theology
Varlaam likens knowledge to health, which is indivisible into health given by God and health acquired through a doctor. Also, knowledge, divine and human, theology and philosophy, according to the Calabrian thinker, are one: "philosophy and theology, as gifts of God, are equal in value before God." In response to the first comparison, St. Gregory wrote that doctors cannot heal incurable diseases, they cannot raise the dead.
Further, Palamas draws a very clear distinction between theology and philosophy, firmly relying on the previous patristic tradition. External knowledge is quite different from true and spiritual knowledge, it is impossible "from [external knowledge] to learn anything true about God". At the same time, there is not only a difference between external and spiritual knowledge, but also a contradiction: “it is hostile to true and spiritual knowledge.”
According to Palamas, there are two wisdoms: the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God. When the wisdom of the world serves the Divine wisdom, they form a single tree, the first wisdom brings leaves, the second fruits. Also, "the kind of truth is double": one truth pertains to inspired writing, the other to external education or philosophy. These truths have not only different goals, but also different initial principles. Philosophy, beginning with sensory perception, ends with knowledge. The wisdom of God begins with the good at the expense of the purity of life, as well as with the true knowledge of beings, which comes not from learning, but from purity. “If you are without purity, even if you studied all natural philosophy from Adam to the end of the world, you will be a fool, or even worse, and not a sage.” The end of wisdom is “a pledge of the future age, ignorance exceeding knowledge, secret communion with secret and inexpressible vision, mysterious and inexpressible contemplation and knowledge of eternal light.”
Representatives of external wisdom underestimate the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit, that is, they fight against the mysterious energies of the Spirit. The wisdom of the prophets and apostles is not acquired by teaching, but is taught by the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Paul, raptured up to the third heaven, was enlightened not with thoughts and mind, but received the illumination of “the power of the good Spirit according to the hypostasis in the soul.” Illumination that occurs in a pure soul is not knowledge, since it transcends meaning and knowledge. "The main good" is sent from above, is a gift of grace, and not a natural gift.
2. Knowledge of God and vision of God
Varlaam ruled out any possibility of knowing God and presenting apodictic syllogisms about the Divine, because he considered God to be incomprehensible. He allowed only the symbolic knowledge of God, and then not in earthly life, but only after the separation of body and soul.
Palamas agrees that God is incomprehensible, but he attributes this incomprehensibility to the basic property of the Divine essence. In turn, he considers some knowledge possible when a person has certain prerequisites for the knowledge of God, Who becomes available through His energies. God is both comprehensible and incomprehensible, known and unknowable, recommended and ineffable. Knowledge of God is acquired by "theology," which is twofold: cataphatic and apophatic. Cataphatic theology, in turn, has two means: reason, which through the contemplation of beings comes to a certain knowledge, and Scripture with the Fathers.
In the Areopagite corpus, preference is given to apophatic theology, when the ascetic, having gone beyond the limits of everything sensual, plunges into the depths of Divine darkness. According to St. Gregory Palamas, what brings a person out of cataphatics is faith, which constitutes proof or super-proof of the Divine: “... of any proof, the best and, as it were, some kind of proof-free beginning of sacred proof is faith.” P. Christou wrote that, according to the teachings of Palamas, "apophatic theology is the supernatural acts of faith".
Spiritually-experienced confirmation of faith is contemplation, which crowns theology. Unlike Varlaam, for St. Gregory's contemplation is above everything, including apophatic theology. It is one thing to speak or remain silent about God, another to live, see and possess God. Apophatic theology does not cease to be "logos", but "contemplation is higher than logos". Varlaam spoke of cataphatic and apophatic vision, and Palamas spoke of vision above vision, connected with the supernatural, with the power of the mind as an action of the Holy Spirit.
In the vision above the vision, smart eyes participate, and not a thought, between which there is an insurmountable abyss. Palamas compares the possession of genuine contemplation with the possession of gold, it is one thing to think about it, another to have it in one's hands. “Theologizing is as inferior to this vision of God in light, and as far from communion with God, as knowledge is from possession. Talking about God and meeting God are not the same." He emphasizes the special significance of "suffering" the Divine in comparison with "theologizing" cataphatic or apophatic. Those who are rewarded with the inexpressible vision will know that which is higher than vision, not apophatically, "but from the vision in the Spirit of this idolizing energy." "Unity and vision in darkness" is superior to "such a theology".
On the whole, it can be said that Palamas defends Orthodox theology from the "agnosticism" that Barlaam tried to impose. Christian theology, proceeding from the unity and difference of the Divine essence and energies, can also set forth apodictic syllogisms about God.
3. Essence and energies in God
God is incomprehensible in essence, but the objective value of the revelation of God in the history of man is known by His energies. The Being of God consists of His "self-existent" essence, which remains incomprehensible, and His actions or energies, uncreated and eternal. Through the difference in essence and energies, it became possible to achieve the cognition of God, unknowable in essence, but cognizable in energies by those who have reached a certain degree of spiritual perfection. The incomprehensibility and incomprehensibility of the divine essence excludes for man any direct participation in it.
The doctrine of the difference between essence and energies is most clearly represented in the works of the Cappadocian Fathers (4th century), in St. John Chrysostom (end of the 4th century - beginning of the 5th century), in the Areopagite Corpus (beginning of the 6th century) and in St. Maximus the Confessor ( 7th century). For the Cappadocian Fathers, the doctrine of the comprehensibility of the Divine Essence was unacceptable as one of the theses of Eunomius, who, affirming equal opportunities for the knowledge of God for people and our Lord Jesus Christ, thereby tried to belittle the Son of God. For the author of the Areopagitics, this doctrine was an organic consequence of the apophatic theology that developed in the corpus. The Monk Maximus the Confessor, by his lofty teaching on logoi, refuting from within the unexpired remnants of Origenism, also in many respects anticipated the teaching of the Thessalonian hierarch.
During the early Middle Ages there was a dispute between nominalists and realists about the existence of ideas, and consequently about the properties of God. Echoes of this dispute can also be seen in the Palamite dispute: the anti-Palamites denied the actual existence of properties, and Palamas during the early period of the controversy emphasized their existence even excessively, saying that one is the Deity, and the other is the kingdom, holiness, etc. They are essential in God , as they say in the saddle used by Palamas for the Transfiguration: “The secret brilliance under the flesh of Your essential, Christ, and divine splendor on the Holy Mountain was revealed” - and in his own triads, where he spoke about “the light of divine and essential splendor”.
Gregory Palamas himself repeatedly emphasized the unity of essence and energies. "Although the divine energy differs from the divine essence, in essence and energy the one Deity of God" . The modern Greek specialist in church history and law, Blasius Fidas, formulated the teaching of St. Gregory as follows: “... [the difference] between the unparticipated divine essence and the participating energies does not separate the uncreated energies from the divine essence, since the whole of God is in each energy, due to the indivisibility of the divine essence » .
4. Deification and salvation
The distinction between essence and energy in God gave Palamas the basis for the correct description of the renewal of man that took place in Christ. While God remains inherently unapproachable, He enables man to enter into actual communion with Him with His energies. A person, partaking of divine energies or divine grace, receives by grace what God has in essence. By grace and through communion with God, man becomes immortal, uncreated, eternal, infinite, in one word becomes God. "Overall we become gods without identity in essence". All this is received by man from God as a gift of communion with Him, as grace emanating from the very essence of God, which always remains indifferent to man. “The deification of deified angels and people is not the superessential essence of God, but the superessential essence of God is the energy coexisting in the deified.”
If a person does not actively participate in the uncreated deifying grace, he remains the created result of the creative energy of God, and the only connection that connects with God remains the connection of creation with its Creator. While the natural life of man is the result of Divine energy, life in God is the communion of Divine energy, which leads to deification. The achievement of this deification is determined by two most important factors - the concentration and turning of the mind to the inner man and unceasing prayer in a kind of spiritual wakefulness, the culmination of which is communion with God. In this state, human forces retain their energy, despite the fact that they turn out to be above their usual measures. Just as God condescends to a person, so a person begins to ascend to God, so that this meeting of them will truly come true. In it, the whole person is embraced by the uncreated light of Divine glory, which is eternally sent from the Trinity, and the mind admires the Divine light and becomes light itself. And then in this way the mind, like the light, sees the light. “The deifying gift of the Spirit is an inexpressible light, and it creates with divine light those who are enriched by it.”
We are now in touch with one of the most important elements of Palamas' teaching. The experience of deification and the salvation of man are a possible reality, starting from present life, with a glorious combination of the historical with the supra-historical. The soul of man, through the acquisition of the Divine spirit again, anticipates from now on the experience of Divine light and Divine glory. The light that the disciples saw on Tabor, the light that pure hesychasts see now, and the existence of the blessings of the future age, constitute three stages of one and the same event, merging into a single supratemporal reality. However, for the future reality, when death is abolished, the present reality is a simple guarantee.
The identification of essence and energy in God, taught by the opponents of Palamas, destroys the very possibility of realizing salvation. If there is no uncreated grace and energy of God, then a person either partakes in the Divine essence, or cannot have any communion with God. In the first case, we come to pantheism; in the second, the very foundations of the Christian faith are destroyed, according to which a person is offered the possibility of real communion with God, which was realized in the God-human person of Jesus Christ. The uncreated grace of God does not free the soul of man from the fetters of the body, but renews the whole man and transfers him to where Christ raised human nature during His Ascension.
5. The doctrine of the uncreated light
Palamas's doctrine of the uncreated light of the divine Transfiguration is one of the most fundamental, dominating trends in his writings. He speaks on the basis of his own experience, which was the starting point for his theology. The light that shone on Christ during the Transfiguration was not a creature, but an expression of Divine majesty, the vision of which the disciples were granted, having received the opportunity to see after appropriate preparation by Divine grace. This light was not a created "symbol of the Divine", as Varlaam believed, but divine and uncreated. St. Gregory wrote in response to Varlaam: “The whole face of the divine theologians was afraid to call the grace of this light a symbol ... so that no one would consider this most divine light as created and alien to the Godhead ...”
St. Maximus the Confessor really calls this light a symbol, but not in the sense of a sensual symbol, symbolizing something higher and spiritual, but in the sense of the higher “analogically and anagogically”, which remains completely incomprehensible to the human mind, but contains the knowledge of theology, and teaches it. able to see and perceive. Saint Maximus also writes about the Light of Tabor as a “natural symbol of the Divinity” of Christ.
Why dream of stealing a car and is it worth being afraid of a repetition of this in reality?
What is transmitted genetically to the child from the mother and what is the father From whom the genes are transmitted to the child
How to get rid of snails in the garden forever with folk remedies?
Lavender tea drinking: benefits and recipes of lavender tea
Economic strategies review and description House building games