| 262 Cf. John Damascene, Expositio fidei 8.204, ed. Kotter (pts 12): φαμν δ καστον τν τριν τελεαν χειν πστασιν. 266 I interpret χρσις in the same sense as χρται in 1.14. The lexicon of Lampe, however, gives a number of instances where χρσις can mean a saying taken from scripture or some author. Thus, the reference could be to Prov 8.30 . 267 I.e., all and any imperfection belongs to the world of being which is derived from and subsequent to Archetypal Goodness. 270 There is some uncertainty about how this sentence should be construed. Perhaps, Palamas wished to say that the serpent knew that at this time he could not use unfallen man " s faculty of imagination without fear of detection; whereas after the fall that would become one of his favoured avenues of attack. 273 Stewardship over earthly creation was considered a sign of God " s image in man, especially among Antiochene theologians. Cf. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Genesim 9.2, pg 54:67ab – ποισωμεν νθρωπον κατ» εκνα μετραν κα μοωσιν, τοτ» στιν, να ρχων και τν ρωμντων κα τν ν ατ τικτομνων παθν. να ρχ κα μ ρχηται [i.e., by Satan or by the passions]. 283 The three motives given here, namely, desire, knowledge and fear, are associated with the three powers of the soul: πιθυμητικν, λογιστικν, θυμητικν (cf. Palamas, Homily 9, pg 151:108c). 313 Gregory Nazianzen, Or. 40.5, pg 36:364b. Note that this quotation appears also in ca 6.9.21 (ps 3:399.9–10). 315 Cf. Palamas, Triad 3.2.13 (667.25–669.3): «How then can these illuminations without beginning or end not be other than the imparticipable substance of God, possessing distinction with respect to it even though they are inseparable from it? For, first of all, the substance is one but these illuminations are multiple; they are sent in a proportionate and proper manner to those who participate and they pass into multiplicity according to the distinct power that these have for receiving them.» 317 Cf. Homilia 56 in Matthaeum, pg 56:552–554; Pseudo-Chrysostom, In transfigurationem 7.46–49, ed. M. Sachot, L " homélie pseudo-chrysostomienne sur la Transfiguration (Europäische Hochschulschriften, Reihe 23, Theologie 151; Frankfurt am Main, 1981). |
| 219 There is s close parallel to the last section of this chapter in Palamas, Triad 1.1.18 (51.18–53.11). 221 This would be in contradiction to Aristotle, Cael. 1.3 (270a5–6), where the fifth or primary body is said to possess no lightness or heaviness at all. 222 For the common notion of the soul as νοερ οσα, see e.g., Pseudo-Athanasius, Quaestiones ad Antiochum 16, pg 28:608a; John Damascene, Expositio fidei 26.16–21, ed. B. Kotter (pts 12). 223 A distinction between the celestial body and the aether would be contrary to Aristotle, Cael. 1.3 (270b20–25). 227 But Aristotle, in Cael. 1.3 (270a5–6), notes that the primary body can possess no lightness or heaviness at all. 231 Cf. Cleomedes, De motu circulari corporum caelestium 1.2, ed. H. Ziegler (Leipzig, 1871). Further references can be found in the notes to the translation by R. Goulet, Cléomède, Théorie élémentaire (Histoire des doctrines de 1 " antiquité classique 3; Paris, 1980), pp. 187–190. 233 Pseudo-Aristotle, De mundo 3 (393a1–4). Note that Palamas mentioned only four elements. Similar confusion over the number of the elements continues into the next chapter. 235 E.g., Euclid, Elementa 12.18, ed. J. L Heiberg and E. S. Stamatis, 5 vols., 2nd edition (Leipzig, 1969–77), 4:134–136. 237 Cf. Palamas, Homily 53.36 (ed. Oikonomos, p. 174.1–2): φαντασα δ π τατης χει τν ρχν, νεργε δ τ αυτς κα ασθητν πντων. 238 Cf. idem, Homily 53.36 (ed. Oikonomos, p. 174.3–4): κα νος μν λγοιτ» ν, δχα τοτων νεργε παθητυς δ μως, ς οκ ξω μεριστν. 240 Even with all his polemic against profane wisdom, Palamas occasionally illustrated his arguments with surprisingly detailed descriptions of astronomical phenomena, and thereby he inadvertently reflected the contemporary revival of interest in astronomy. For another example see Ep I Akindynos 11 (ps 1:215.21–216.6). 241 Gen 1.1 . For θρον see Basil, Hexaemeron 1.6, pg 29:16c-17a (sc 26bis): τχα δι τ καριαον κα χρονον τς δημιουργας ερηται τ, ν ρχ ποησεν, πειδ μερς τι κα διςτατον ρχ... να τονυν διδαχθμεν μο τ βουλςει το θεο χρνως ςυνυφεςτναι τν κςμον ερηται τ, ν ρχ ποησεν...ν κεφαλα ποησεν θες, τουτστιν, θρως κα ν λγ In this last sentence Basil quotes Aquila " s version of Gen 1.1 . Compare Gregory of Nyssa, Hexaemeron, pg 44:72ab. |
| 9243 Carson, «Paraclete,» 549,561. This view has not gained much support (cf. Bürge, Community, 209–10), and the more traditional view that the righteousness is that of Christ (e.g., Tribble, «Work,» 275) or his people is to be preferred. 9245 Bammel, «Paraklet,» 203, contends that this triad is comparable to similar triads summing up the law " s meaning in Judaism or that of secret knowledge in gnosticism but offers no compelling evidence for the case. Stanton, «Convince,» thinks that the last two clauses are less clear because John has compressed more expanded material, but the partial parallelism suggests that if the parallelism existed in John " s source at all, it was not more expansive than John has it here. 9246 Reading cm as «in that,» rather than «because,» against Bürge, Community, 209; Holwerda, Spirit, 56. 9248 Against Carson, «Paraclete,» 559–60; Carson, Discourse, 141; Hunt, «Paraclete,» 109 (although the idea of counterfeit righteousness is not unknown; cf. CD 4.15–17 and the Amoraim in Gen. Rab. 49:9). Carson " s main argument insists on parallel form, but as Berg, «Pneumatology,» points out, «the subjects of the subsidiary clauses are quite un-parallel» (p. 206). The revelation of the Tightness of the divine agent exposes the sin of the accusers, 9:41; 15:24. 9249 Cf. Dahl, «History,» 139: «The vindication of Jesus by his ascension.» Stenger, " Dikaiosyne» thinks δικαιοσνη here refers to Jesus» righteousness even before the incarnation (cf. 1 John 2:1,29, 3:7 ). But while the clause no doubt assumes the eternal Tightness of God " s side, it is Jesus» glorification that establishes this fact. Conversely, Porsch, Pneuma, 286; Potterie, «Paraclet,» 104, and others (cf. Tribble, «Work,» 275) are probably too narrow to limit this even to Jesus» righteousness; his exaltation establishes the rightness of his disciples before God " s court as well (1 John 2:1). 9250 Hatch, «Meaning,» 105, also defines it as the believers» justification, due to the Johannine Advocate with the Father. |
| Apollinarius von Laodicea und seine Schule. Tübingen, 1904. S. 250–253. Церковный писатель VI века Леонтий Византийский полагал, «что св. Кирилл принимал учение этого сочинения в православном смысле и, доверясь надписанию, bona fide пользовался этим свидетельством как свидетельством святого отца, а не еретика. Книги Аполлинария, очевидно, уже были пущены в ход под вымышленными именами, когда св. Кирилл выступил на литературно-догматическом поприще, и “Слово о Воплощении” далеко не было единственным примером, введшим св. Кирилла в ошибку» (Спасский А. Аполлинарий Лаодикийский. Историческая судьба сочинений Аполлинария с кратким очерком его жизни. Сергиев Посад, 1895. С. 189). 826 Подобного рода православные интерпретации указанной формулы у св. Кирилла заставили одного исследователя засомневаться в общераспространенной точке зрения на него как на «жертву аполлинаристских подлогов». См.: Diepen H. Douze dialogues de christologie ancienne. P. 13–48. Можно еще отметить, что на понимание «одной природы» Христа у св. Кирилла наложило отпечаток и представление о Нем как Посреднике между Богом и тварным миром (в первую очередь, конечно, миром человеческим), соединившем разделенное. См.: Kuhn R. Physis. Ein geschichtliche Beitrag zu ihrem Verständnis in der alten Theologie im Hinblick auf Chalcedon. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1970. S. 166–167. 830 См.: Boulnois M.-O. The Mystery of the Trinity according to Cyril of Alexandria: The Deployment of the Triad and Its Recapitulation into the Unity of Divinity//The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. A Critical Appreciation. London; N.Y., 2003. P. 78. 831 См.: Rehrmann A. Die Christologie des hl. Cyrillus von Alexandrien. Hildesheim, 1902, S. 11–42. 834 О датировке См.: Loon H., ran. The Dvophysite Christology of Cvril of Alexandria. Leiden; Boston, 2009. P. 259–261. Русский перевод этого диалога со вступительной статьей и примечаниями см.: Свт. Кирилл Александрийский . Диалог о Вочеловечении Единородного/Перевод с древнегреческого, вступительная статья и примечания К. |
| Нам ещё предстоит вернуться к приведённому выше отрывку из «Амбигв» , пока же отметим, что на языке апофатического богословия «Ареопагитик» «отрицание», о котором говорит здесь прп. Максим, называется «превосходящим». Это понятие встречается в «Трудностях к Иоанну», например, в «Амбигвах» , относящихся к толкованию слов свт. Григория Богослова: «Ибо нет ничего выше, [чем Он], и даже вообще не будет» . Прп. Максим объясняет, что эти слова не следует понимать в «любом отношении (σχσεως), сравнительном (συγκριτικς), различительном (διακριτικς) или называемом как-либо ещё», то есть в смысле какого-либо отношения Бога к тварному. И дальше он говорит, что такое выражение «искусные в этой науке называют безотносительным (σχετον) — оно означает то же самое, как сказать: “[Бог] есть несравненно превыше всего”, ибо имеет ”значение превосходящего отрицания” (δναμιν… περοχικς ποφσεως)» . В данном случае выражение «имеющее значение (или силу) превосходящего отрицания» прп. Максим понимает в том смысле, что цитата из свт. Григория не есть утверждение, что Бог выше всех тварей, но подразумевает такое превосходство, которое отрицает даже утверждение о Боге как самом возвышенном из всего (так как такое утверждение означало бы сравнение и различение). Превосходство, таким образом, утверждается как безотносительное и превосходящее всякое сравнение . Maximus Confessor . Quaestiones et dubia 73//CCSG. 10. P. 53–54. Здесь и далее переводы, авторство которых не указано, принадлежат Д.А. Черноглазову (в этом и состоит его вклад в настоящую статью). Maximus Confessor . Ambigua 10, 22b//PG. 91. Col. 1149В1152А. Ibid . //PG. 91. Col. 1149В. Ibid. Maximus Confessor . Quaestiones et dubia 46//CCSG. 10. P. 37. На важность этого места для аргументации свт. Григория указал, в частности, Р.Е. Синкевич (см.: Sinkewicz R. The Concept of Spiritual Perception in Gregory Palamas. First Triad in Defense of the Holy Hesychasts//Христианский Восток. 1999. 1 (7). С. 380). Dionysius Areopagima . De divinis nominibus 7, 1//PG. 3. Col. 865C. Рус. пер.: Дионисий Ареопагит, Максим Исповедник . Сочинения. Толкования/пер. под ред. Г.М. Прохорова. СПб., 2002. С. 451. |
| S. Gregorius Nyssenus. De Perfecta Christiani Forma//PG 46: 251–288. S. Gregorius Nyssenus. De professione christiana//PG 46: 237–250. S. Gregorius Nyssenus. De Virginitate//PG 46: 317–416. S. Gregorius Nyssenus. De Vita Moysis//PG 44: 297–430. S. Gregorius Nyssenus. Epistola V//PG 46: 1029–1032. S. Gregorius Nyssenus. In Baptismum Christi// PG 46: 577–600. S. Gregorius Nyssenus. In Cantica canticorum. Homilia II–IV, VIII, X, XV//PG 44: 787–858, 939–952, 979–994, 1087–1120. S. Gregorius Nyssenus. In Ecclesiasten. Homilia I, V, VII, VIII//PG 44: 615–636, 679–696, 711–754. S. Gregorius Nyssenus. Ιn Hexaemeron Liber//PG 44: 61–124. S. Gregorius Nyssenus. In Psalmos//PG 44: 431–616. S. Gregorius Nyssenus. In S. Stephanum//PG 46: 701–722. S. Gregorius Nyssenus. In Verba, Faciamus Ηοminem, etc., Oratio I//PG 44: 257–278. S. Gregorius Nyssenus. Oratio Catechetica//PG 45: 9–106. S. Gregorius Nyssenus. Quod Νοn Sint Tres Dii, ad Ablabium//PG 45: 115–136. S. Gregorius Nyssenus. Quid sit, ad imaginem Dei, etc.//PG 44: 1327–1346. S. Gregorius Nyssenus. Testimonia adversus Judaeos//PG 46: 193–234. Γρηγορου το Παλαμ. ντιρρητικς//Γρηγορου το Παλαμ. Συγγρμματα. Θεσσαλονκη, 2010. Τ. Γ. Γρηγορου το Παλαμ. Λγοι ποδεικτικο Β//Ibidem. Τ. Α. S. Gregorius Palamas. Capita Physica, Theologica, Etc.//PG 150: 1121–1226. Grégoire Palamas. Défense dessaints hésychastes/J. Meyendorff (ed.). Louvain, 1959. V. III. S. Gregorius Palamas. Homiliae III, V, VIII, XII, XVI, XXI, XXIV, XXVIII//PG 151: 9–552. S. Gregorius Palamas. Homily 4//P. K. Chrestou (ed.). Γρηγορου το Παλαμ παντα τ ργα. Vol. 9 [λληνες Πατρες τς κκλησας 72. Thessalonica: Πατερικα κδσεις Γρηγριος Παλαμς, 1985]: 26–596 (TLG). S. Gregorius Palamas. Operum Argumenta//PG 150: 799–844. S. Gregorius Palamas. Pro hesychastis. Triad 2, 3//J. Meyendorff (ed.). Grégoire Palamas. Défense des saints hésychastes [Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense. Études et documents 30. Louvain, 1973]: 5–727 (TLG). S. Gregorius Palamas. Prosopopeiae//PG 150: 959–988. |
| It was the great Nicene fathers, Athanasius of Alexandria and the Cappadocians (Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa), who took up the cause to refute such views of the Spirit’s role in the Divine Trinity, and in the course of their efforts to establish Nicene Orthodoxy, greatly elaborated the church’s theological vocabulary about the Holy Spirit. The Nicene fathers argued against the Heterousian Arians that the Father’s causality was the very bond of the Trinity, not its dissolution; his gift of his own being as the common ousia of the Divine Triad establishing a perfect equality of nature among the three hypostases, and thereby demonstrating the full divinity of the Son and Spirit alongside the Father. They demonstrated that the divine attributes as described in human terms could refer legitimately to the operations of God in the world, but could never clearly express the inner life of God which is always a sublimely ineffable and transcendent mystery. St. Athanasius argued in his Letters to Serapion that the Spirit’s sanctifying functions in the church were consummated in the manner in which he deified believers through baptism. This making of the elect into sons and daughters of God, he argued, could not have been effected by one who was not himself divine. St. Basil argued strongly in the treatise On the Holy Spirit that the church’s ancient doxology demonstrated the Spirit’s divine status, and that his primary role in the church and the world was the sanctification and deification of believers. He describes the soul’s acquisition of the Holy Spirit beautifully as comparable to a glass lit up by the sun so as to become all light itself. St. Gregory the Theologian argued in his Theological Orations (27–31, especially Oration 31) that the Holy Spirit must be confessed as Homoousion in strict logic, and although the wider church was content to accept his teaching in the course of history, the fathers of the Council of Constantinople in 381 were content to follow |
| Come, O peoples, let us venerate the tri-hypostatic Deity, The Son in the Father, with the Holy Spirit. For before time the Father generated a Son, sharing His eternity and His Throne; And the Holy Spirit was in the Father, glorified together with the Son. One Power, One Essence, One Deity, whom we all venerate and say: Holy God, who created all things through the Son, with the cooperation of the Holy Spirit; Holy Mighty, through whom we knew the Father and the Holy Spirit dwelt in the world; Holy Immortal, the Spirit Comforter, who proceeds from the Father and abides in the Son, Holy Trinity, glory to Thee. 351 In the classical Latin Trinitarian doctrine, «Father, Son, and Spirit are only «relatively» distinct.» 352 Whatever the interpretation given to the idea of «relation» implied in this statement, it is clear that Western thought recognized the ontological primacy of essential unity over personal diversity in God; that is, that God is essentially one, except in the divine Persons, who are defined in terms of relations. In Byzantine thought, howeverto use an expression from Maximus the Confessor " God is identically monad and triad,» 353 and there is probably a tendency in both worship and philosophical formulations (as distinct from doctrinal statements) to give a certain preeminence to the personal diversity over essential unity. A reference to the Nicaean «consubstantial» was the Byzantine response to the accusation of «tritheism.»« This reference, however, could not be decisive in itself, simply because Greek patristic thought, and particularly that of the Cappadocians, always presupposed the starting point of apophatic theology: that God»«s being and, consequently, the ultimate meaning of hypostatic relations were understood to be totally above comprehension, definition, or argument. The very notion of God» " s being both Unity and Trinity was a revelation illustrating this incomprehensibility; for no reality, accessible to the mind, could be both «one» and «three.» As Vladimir Lossky puts it: «the Incomprehensible reveals Himself in the very fact of His being incomprehensible, for His incomprehensibility is rooted in the fact that God is not only Nature but also Three Persons.» 354 |
| All these aspects of the doctrine of God will, in fact, be faced simultaneously during the controversies between Gregory Palamas and his adversaries in the fourteenth century. His conclusion, necessarily, is that «three elements belong to God: essence, energy, and the triad of the divine hypostases.» 360 This triple distinction is rendered inescapable, as soon as one rejects the Augustinian option of Trinitarianism in favor of the Cappadocian. For, indeed, if the Persons are only relations internal to the essence, the revelation of God, if any, is a revelation either of the «essence» or of «analogous» created symbols; the «energies,» then, are either the «essence» of God or created signs, and there is no real distinction in God. But if, on the contrary, the Persons are distinct from the essence, which is common to them but transcendent and inaccessible to man, and if in Christ man meets God «face to face,» so that there is a real «participation» in divine existence, this participated divine existence can only be a free gift from God, which safeguards the inaccessible character of the essence and the transcendence of God. This God-giving-Himself is the divine " " energy»; a living and personal God is indeed an acting God. We have seen that the doctrine of the «energies» in the Byzantine tradition is central both to the understanding of creation and to Christology. Refusing to reduce the being of God to the philosophical concept of simple «essence,» Byzantine thought affirms the full and distinct reality of the Triune hypostatic life of God ad intra, as well as His «multiplication» as creator ad extra. These two «multiplicities» do not, however, coincide. The terminology which the doctrine of energies received, in its relation to the three hypostases, was stabilized in the Palamite synthesis of the fourteenth century: The proper appellations of the divine hypostases are common to the energies; whereas appellations common to the hypostases are particular to each of the divine energies. |
| The Doukhobors (Spirit-Wrestlers) began as an 18th c. Ukrainian sect that combined Socinian doctrine (16th-c. unitarianism of the Italian Faustus Socinius), Freemasonry (q.v.), and Khlyst teachings. They believe in one God manifest in the soul as memory (Father), reason (Son), and will (Holy Spirit), while Jesus was not God but possessed the ultimate divine reason. (For the triad memory, reason, will, see Augustine; Trinity.) Scripture and dogma (qq.v.) are to be interpreted allegorically (q.v.), and the eternal human soul undergoes transmigration or metempsychosis. They were and are organized in strict pacifist communes, which prosper through hard work and sober living. The sect made contacts with famous people including Grigorii Skovoroda and Lev Tolstoy. Tolstoy and the Quakers provided funds in 1899 for a large group to emigrate to Cyprus and Western Canada where they live, but refuse to own land or register vital statistics. An early moderate offshoot of the Doukhobors were the Molokans (“Milk-Drinkers”), who altered their doctrine to resemble Protestant evangelical sectarians (i.e., the Bible as the sole authority for faith), and reject the cult, icons, and fasting (qq.v.)-and drink milk on fast days. They evolved further in the early 19th c. under the influence of the Russian Bible (q.v.) Society, holding that the Bible alone was the means of salvation, giving up sacraments and patristic writings. A sizable group of Molokans emigrated to San Francisco in the 19th c. and continue their community there today on Potrero Hill. The sect of the Stranniki (“Wanderers”) was founded by a man named Evfimii in the 18th c. They regarded the other Old Believer groups (soglasie) as worshipers of the golden calf and prisoners of Antichrist. Taking vows as pilgrims, they wandered the highways and byways, avoiding any officials of the Russian government, regarding them as agents of the Antichrist. Another fanatical sect, the Za-poshchevantsy, was characterized by extreme asceticism and ritual suicide. |
|
|
