| A.V. Nesteruk Bibliography A. Classical and Patristic Writers (with the source for the English translation) Athanasius of Alexandria Contra Gentes NPNF, series 2, vol.4. De Incarnatione Verbi Dei On the Incarnation. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998. De decretis (P.G. 25.411c) Quoted in Torrance, “The relation of the Incarnation to Space in Nicene Theology.” Contra Arianos Quoted in Torrance, “The relation of the Incarnation to Space in Nicene Theology.” Augustine of Hippo Confessions NPNF, series 1, vol. 1; or The Library of Christian Classics. Vol. 7. London: SCM Press, 1955; or Saint Augustine Confessions. Trans. H. Chadwick. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. City of God Augustine. Concerning the City of God against Pagaus. Trans. H. Bettenson New York: Penguin Books, 1980. Lettes to Consentius A fragment in Lindberg, “Science and the Early Church”. On Christian Doctrine NPNF, series 1, vol. 2. Enchiridion The Library of Christian Classics. Vol. 7. London: SCM Press, 1955. Epistolae Goldbacher, A., ed., Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 34. Vienna: Tempsky, 1895. On the Trinity NPNF, series 1, vol. 3: or Bourke V. J., ed. The Essential Augustine. Indianopolis: Hackett, 1975. The Literal Meaning of Genesis Tailor, J.H. St. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis. New York: Newman, 1982. Basil the Great (of Caesarea) The Hexaemeron NPNF, series 2, vol. 8. Letters NPNF, series 2, vol. 8. Clement of Alexandria The Stromata, or Miscellanies ANF, vol.2. Diadochos of Photiki On Spiritual Knowledge Palmer et al., eds., The Philokalia, vol. 1. Dionysius the Areopagite The Divine Names C.E. Rolt. “Dionysius the Areopagite, The Divine Names and The Mystical Theology.” Trans. C.E. Rolt. London: SPCK, 1979. Some quotations are from V. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. The Celestial Hierarchies The Mystical Theology and the Celestial Hierarchies of Dionysius the Areopagite. Godalming: The Shrine of Wisdom, 1965. |
| Александр Голицын Скачать epub pdf Это отрывки из книги Голицина Et Introibo ad altare Dei: the mystagogy of Dionysius Areopagita: with special reference to its predecessors in the Eastern Christian tradition (Analekta Blatadon 59; Thessalonike: Patriarchikon Idruma Paterikon Meleton ; George Dedousis, 1994). Это его докторская диссертация написанная в Охфорде с Kallistos Ware. Сочинения, вошедшие в историю под названием Corpus Areopagiticum, оказали значительное влияние на развитие мировой философии последних полутора тысяч лет. В «Corpus Areopagiticum» входят следующие сочинения: «О Божественных именах», «О церковной иерархии» («О церковном священноначалии»), «О таинственном богословии» («О мистической теологии»), «О небесной иерархии» («О небесном священноначалии»), десять Посланий (четыре Послания Гаию служителю, Послание Дорофею литургу, Сопатру иерею, Поликарпу иерарху, Димофилу служителю, Титу иерарху, Иоанну Богослову). Corpus Areopagiticum вызывал большой интерес уже в Средние века. Начиная с Константинопольского собора 533 г., он активно обсуждался. К нему обращались и крупнейший схоластик восточного христианства – Иоанн Дамаскин , и крупнейший схоластик западного мира – Фома Аквинский. На основе сочинений Дионисия Ареопагита развивали свои неоплатонические воззрения ирландец Иоанн Скот Эриугена, французские мыслители Алан Лилльский и Александр из Гэльса. Идеи Дионисия Ареопагита оказали значительное влияние на развитие философских исканий мыслителей Сен-викторской школы. С началом исихастских споров в Византии в XIV столетии на авторитет Дионисия Аореопагита ссылались как аскетически настроенные паламиты, так и их противники – варламиты. Дионисий Ареопагит оказал влияние на европейских мистиков, например, Майстера Экхарта. Дионисий Ареопагит вызвал большой интерес у неоплатоников эпохи Возрождения: Николая Кузанского, Марсилио Фичино, Джованни Пико делла Мирандола, который поставил Ареопагита выше Платона и Аристотеля. Идеи Ареопагита обсуждали Лоренцо Валла, Эразм Роттердамский, деятели Реформации. |
| John Anthony McGuckin St. Dionysius the Areopagite PETER C. BOUTENEFF Acts 17.34 mentions one Dionysius the Are- opagite among St. Paul’s converts. Eusebius (Church History 3.4) identifies this figure as the first bishop of Athens. Later on the name came to be identified with St. Denys, first bishop of Paris. Yet the most enduring legacy associated with Dionysius the Areopagite is a corpus of four larger works and ten letters, these latter also constituting something like a self-contained treatise. These writings, appearing for the first time in the 6th century under this authorship, place themselves (pseudepigraphically) in the apostolic context: they are addressed to personalities such as John the Evangelist and speak of witnessing the darkening of the sun at Christ’s crucifixion. Their provenance went virtually unquestioned until the late Middle Ages. Owing both to their content and their alleged sub-apostolic origins, they were deeply influential on subsequent Christian authors, notably Maximos the Confessor, John Scotus Eriugena, John of Damascus, Thomas Aquinas, Gregory Palamas, and the anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing, the very title of which is taken from Dionysius’ Mystical Theology. Anachronisms in liturgical practice and in theologico-philosophical terminology have since conspired to make it impossible to date this corpus before the end of the 5th century or later. Certain liturgical details have suggested a Syrian monastic identity to an otherwise unidentified author. Orthodox theologians have tended to react ambivalently to the increasingly evident impossibility of identifying the 1st-century bishop with the written corpus, almost as if they ignore its significance. The Dionysian writings lose none of their credibility owing to the “problem” of authorship; they rise or fall in Orthodox esteem on the basis of their content alone. The feast day of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, October 3, officially commemorates one sole person, and the hymnography conflates the martyred bishop with the author-mystic. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Apophaticism JUSTIN M. LASSER The Greek term apophasis denotes a manner of doing theology by “not speaking.” As the alpha-privative prefix suggests, the term is concerned with a negating function. In some forms apophaticism exists as a check on kataphatic or assertive theology or philosophy. The style of apophatic theology was first developed by the Platonic school philosophers, and creatively used by Plotinus, as well as appearing in some of the Gnostic literature (Apocryphon of John, Trimorphic Protennoia). Apophaticism, stressing that God exceeds the boundaries of all terms that can be applied to the divinity by human mind or language, is above all else a means of preserving mystery amid a world of theological assertions. Apophaticism preserves the religious apprehension of the mystical in a more sophisticated way than the simple asseveration of dogmatic utterances. The Nag Hammadi writings (recovered in 1945) exhibit the earliest forms of Christian apophaticism. Clement and Origen of Alexandria both developed early Orthodox forms of apophaticism which were inherited and developed especially by St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Orations 27–8) and St. Gregory of Nyssa (Contra Eunomium) in their controversy with the Arian logicians Eunomius and Aetius. The theology of these radical Arians (Heterousiasts) against which the Cappadocians asserted apophaticism as a way of refuting their deductions about God’s nature (which Aetius had affirmed was simple and directly knowable through logical method and literal exegesis) was itself a form of apophaticism, since they posited the negation “un-originate” (agenetos) as the first principle of their doctrine of God. Evagrius of Ponticus, disciple of the Cappadocians, transformed Christian apophaticism into a theology of prayer, encouraging his disciples to pray without using any mental images. The first Orthodox Christian writer to employ apophaticism systematically was the great 5th-century Syrian theologian Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. His treatises on the Divine Names and the Mystical Theology stand at the very pinnacle of Orthodox apophatic theology. Dionysius believed that the descriptive (affirmative or positive-utterance) elements in revelation were intended to provide a ladder by which the initiate would climb by negating each descriptive assertion about God. Dionysius’ writings, considering the theological controversies that preceded them, were astoundingly thought provoking. Concerning the divinity, Dionysius wrote: “It is not a substance [ousia], nor is it eternity or time. ... It is not Sonship or Fatherhood ... it falls neither within the predicate of non-being nor of being” (Mystical Theology, in Rorem 1987: 141). Even so, Dionysius could still begin his treatise praying to the divine Trinity and would develop all his thought in the matrix of the divine liturgy. Such are the paradoxes of the apophatic approach. |
| Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson Скачать epub pdf THEOLOGY THEOLOGY. Theology in the Orthodox tradition has a considerably broader meaning than philosophical discourse about divinity. The latter applies, to be sure, when Christian thinkers were obliged to express and defend the faith in language borrowed from the Greek philosophical tradition of Plato and Neoplatonism (qq.v.). Nor, it must be added, did they feel the latter to be entirely at variance with the revelation in Christ. The history of Orthodox theology (as of Roman Catholic [qq.v.] and Protestant theology) is in great part the struggle against and in alliance with the inheritance of the great pagan Greeks. Borrowing a phrase from Fr. Georges Florovsky (q.v.), it is a wrestling with concepts in order to discover the words “most adequate” to the mystery of God (q.v.) become man (theoprepeis logoi). In this struggle one may discern two basic approaches in Orthodox Church Fathers, as the former were categorized by Dionysius the Areopagite (qq.v.). There is first and primarily apophatic theology. This phrase goes beyond the mere negation of concepts. It denotes the fact that the transcendent God (q.v.) is, indeed, transcendent, other, and thus “known,” in Dionysius’s famous phrase, only “by unknowing.” Classically apophatic theology insists on a particular content to this “unknowing,” i.e., the possibility of a genuine experience of the unknowable God revealed in the Incarnate Word and communicated to the believer in the action (energeia) of the Holy Spirit (q.v.). This is therefore the real mystical theology, the union beyond word and concept. The experience of the divine leads to the other approach of classical Eastern theology, affirmative or cataphatic theology. The Unknowable is revealed in his creation, in the words of the Scriptures (q.v.), and finally in the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ. These givens constitute the realm of the oikonomia, God’s self-extension into the universe for humanity’s creation and salvation. On the one hand, words and concepts must be assigned and accorded their full seriousness, though always with the proviso that they carry within themselves and point toward a presence that finally transcends both them and every artifice of the created intellect. On the other hand, certain concepts, or “names,” do carry a particular weight because they are revealed images, “notional icons” one might say, beyond which the believer cannot go. This applies with particular force to the names accorded the persons of the Trinity (q.v.). In the Trinity, and in the formulations of the Ecumenical Councils concerning Christology (qq.v.), apophatic and cataphatic can be seen to meet and fuse: not a man and a god, but the God-man, not One and not Three, but both, and beyond the categories of one and many. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Lossky, Vladimir (1903–1958) PAUL GAVRILYUK Together with Georges Florovsky, Vladimir Lossky is one of the main architects of the turn to the Greek fathers in recent Russian Orthodox theology. Born into the family of a well-known philosopher-intuitivist, Nicholas Lossky, Vladimir spent his childhood and began his university education in St. Petersburg, Russia. Expelled from the Soviet Union in 1922, the Lossky family first settled in Prague (1922–4) and then moved to Paris, where Vladimir Lossky was to spend the rest of his life. In Paris Lossky continued his education at the Sorbonne (1924–7), studying the history of western medieval philosophy under the supervision of Etienne Gilson. During this period Lossky developed what would become a lifelong interest in the mystical theology of Meister Eckhart, eventually resulting in a doctoral thesis posthumously published in French under the title Theologie negative et connaissance de Dieu chezMaitre Eckhart (1960). In 1928 Lossky became a member of the Brotherhood of St. Photius, a group which promoted the Orthodox Christian witness in Europe. In the 1930s Lossky became involved in the debate over Sergius Bulgakov’s Sophiology. As an intellectual of a younger generation, Lossky viewed the heritage of religious idealism, especially Vladimir Soloviev and the writers of the Silver Age, with suspicion. To the end of his life, Lossky would remain one of the most outspoken critics of Bulgakov’s system. In his essay The Sophia Debate (1935, original in Russian), Lossky faulted Bulgakov for converting Christian theism into a pantheistic system, for breaking down the fundamental ontological distinction between Creator and creation, for confusing nature and person in God, and for a “Gnostic” lack of apophatic reserve when speaking about the immanent Trinity. The condemnation of Bulgakov’s system issued by the Russian Orthodox Church was based to a large degree upon Lossky’s summary report. Lossky’s brief involvement with the French resistance movement is reflected in his autobiographic essay Sept jours sur les routes de France (1940). After the war Lossky taught, among other places, in the newly founded Institute of St. Dionysius the Areopagite. His Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (appearing first in French, 1944) is regarded as a classic exposition of Orthodox apophaticism. Using the work of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopa- gite as his starting point, Lossky argues that apophatic theology is more than a corrective to Kataphatic theology, that negative theology is rather a contemplative practice intended to purify the human mind from the idolatry of concepts with the purpose of bringing the human knower into union with God. The book also defends the Palamite essence-energies distinction in God against its Roman Catholic critics. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Incense JEFFREY B. PETTIS The word incense comes from the Latin incendere, “to burn.” According to Exodus 37.29 incense (Hebrew, qtrt; Greek, thymiama) consists of sweet spices made by an apothecary or skilled perfumer. In ancient Judaism the main ingredient for incense was frankincense or olibanum, a whitish resin from southern Arabia (see Pliny, Natural History xii.14; Jer. 11.20 ; Isa. 60.6). Other ingredients might include a combination of gum resins including stacte, onycha, and galbanum ( Ex. 30.34–35 ). Although burning incense was seen as a domestic luxury in ancient Israel, and sold by specialist perfume merchants (Song of Songs 3.6; 4.6, 14), incense had a particular liturgical use in the Temple as an offering to atone for the people’s sins and propitiate the wrath of God ( Num. 26.46–48 ; cf. Lev. 16.12–13 ; cf. Ps. 141 ). In this sense it was distinguished as being sacred and “holy for the Lord” ( Ex. 30.37 ). Incense was burned in portable censers in the Tent of Meeting ( Lev. 10.1; 16.12 ) and later the altar before the Holy of Holies in the Temple was used ( Ex. 40.26; 1 Kings 7.48). Only the High Priest burned incense, in the morning and in the evening ( Ex. 30.7–8 ). The scripture recounts the improper making and use of incense (referred to as “strange fire”) as exacting the divine wrath ( Num. 10.1–2 ). In the New Testament references to incense are predominantly connected with prayer and the concept of prayer arising like incense (see Psalm 141.2 , which is used in the Orthodox Vesperal service at the time of the incensing of the church). Zechariah enters the Temple of the Lord “praying in the sixth hour of the incense offering [thumiamatos]” (Luke 1.9–10). The use of incense in the funeral procession of St. Peter of Alexandria in 311 represents one of the earliest attestations in Christian liturgical practice. Earlier Greek Christian writers tended to frown upon it because of its associations with the veneration of the pagan gods (Tertullian, Apologeticus 42; cf. 30; Athenagoras, Supplication for the Christians 42). Its use in the West is attested only after the 9th century. In the Eastern Church the incensing of the altar, church, people, etc. is recorded in the 5th century by Dionysius the Pseudo- Areopagite. He explains how it symbolizes prayer and occurs as an invariable accompaniment to Orthodox services. The priestly prayer of blessing which precedes every burning of incense in church reads: “Incense we offer to Thee, O Christ our God, do Thou receive it on Thy heavenly throne, and send down on us in return the grace of Thy all-holy Spirit.” The prayer of incensing in the Presanctified liturgy also expresses the similar thought from Psalm 141 : “Let my prayer be directed to Thee as Incense before Thy presence.” |
| John Anthony McGuckin St. Maximos the Confessor (580–662) ANDREW LOUTH Monk and theologian. Born in Constantinople (though an alternative nearly contemporary Syriac life makes him a native of Palestine), in 610 Maximos became the head of the imperial chancery under Emperor Herakleios. Soon, he withdrew from public life and became a monk, first at Chrysopolis, opposite Constantinople, and later at Kyzikos, on the Erdek peninsula. When the Persians laid siege to Constantinople in 626, he fled with other monks to North Africa. As a monk he retained his contacts with the court, as his correspondence demonstrates, and quickly became a renowned theologian. His early works – up to the early 630s – are addressed primarily to monks, and are concerned with the ascetic life and the interpretation of Scripture and the fathers. One besetting problem in the monastic circles known to Maximos was Origenism, which had provided a metaphysical context for understanding monastic asceticism. In these early works, Maximos corrects Ori- genist errors and provides an alternative metaphysical understanding of the goal and purpose of asceticism. Drawing on the Cappadocian fathers and the Alexandrine tradition of Athanasius and Cyril, combining this with the ascetic wisdom of Evagrios Pontikos and the Egyptian desert, and also with Dionysius the Areopagite’s cosmic, liturgical vision, Maximos set out a theology cosmic in scope, with intensely practical ascetic implications, that focused on the church’s liturgy, where the drama of salvation drew in the participation of humankind. The Persian occupation of the eastern provinces of the empire in the 610s and 620s exposed the weakness of the empire caused by christological divisions, and led to attempts to reconcile those who accepted the Christology of Chalcedon (451) and those, called by their opponents “Monophy- sites,” who rejected it. In 633, during Maximos’ African sojourn, a dramatic reconciliation was achieved in Egypt, on the basis on the doctrine that Christ had a single “divine-human” (theandric) activity, the doctrine known as “Monoenergism.” This was opposed by Sophronios, Maximos’ abbot in North Africa, soon to be patriarch of Jerusalem. Next, a refinement of Mono- energism known as “Monothelitism,” the doctrine that Christ had a single (divine) will, became the favored imperial christolog- ical compromise, and from the end of the 630s Maximos took on Sophronios’ mantle and became the principal theological opponent of Monothelitism, arguing that it compromised Christ’s perfect human nature. He sought to solve the problems raised by Christ’s having two wills by distinguishing between the natural will (Christ having both a divine and human natural will) and the gnomic will (gnome: Greek for “opinion”) involved in deliberating over moral decisions, that was absent in Christ. His attack on Monothelitism eventually took him to Rome, where the christological heresies were condemned at the Lateran |
| Niketas is an important but neglected Byzantine writer who composed treatises on mystical prayer, as well as being involved with the troubled relations between Patriarch Michael Caerularios and the papal legates leading up the rupture of communion between Rome and Constantinople in 1054. Niketas entered the Stoudios monastery as a young man and eventually became its higumen (after 1076). In his youth he met St. Symeon the New Theologian (d. 1022). After the latter’s death in exile, he became a dedicated follower, attributing the change to a vision he had of the saint (ca. 1035). He zealously defended Symeon’s memory and teaching, publishing and editing his Discourses and Hymns, as well as composing a Life of the Saint, and arranging for the return of the saint’s relics to the capital. In his own spiritual teachings (Three Centuries of Practical and Gnostic Chapters) Niketas largely follows Symeon in laying stress on the importance of the gift of tears, and on the role of the spiritual father. He also composed apologetic works against the Latins, the Armenians, and the Jews. In his minor works he often discusses the nature of the soul and the afterlife, and is thought to be part of the wider reaction to controversies initiated by Michael Psellos. Niketas’ theology is very aware of the concept of hierarchy as mediated by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and in this sense (emphasizing the parallels between heavenly and earthly hierarchy) he moderated Symeon’s public hostility to the patriarchate and court. He is influenced by the spiritual tradition of Evagrios Pontike and St. Maximos the Confessor, mixing metaphors of divine union as brilliant illumination, with references to the Dionysian darkness of unknowing. He also has resonances from some of the teaching of Isaac the Syrian. Some think that he gained his nickname Stethatos (“big-heart” or “courageous one”) because of his criticism in ca. 1040 of the relations between Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos and his mistress Skliraina. |
| А. Конев Библиография Фундаментальные источники Григорий Палама , Триады в защиту священно-безмолвствующих, Москва 1995 idem, Сто пятьдесят глав, Краснодар 2006 idem, Трактаты, Краснодар 2007 idem, Избранные творения, Москва 2008 Фома Аквинский, Сумма Теологии, Москва 2006 idem, Сумма против язычников, Долгопрудный 2000 Литература Жильсон Этьен, Избранное: Том 1. Томизм. Введение в философию св. Фомы Аквинского, Москва – Санкт-Петербург 2000 idem, Избранное: христианская философия, Москва 2004 Зайцев Евгений, Учение В. Лосского о теозисе, Москва 2007 Керн Киприан, Антропология св. Григория Паламы , Москва 1996 Лосский Владимир , Богословие и боговидение, Москва 2000 idem, Очерк мистического богословия Восточной Церкви. Догматическое богословие, Москва 1991 Мандзаридис Георгий , Обожение человека, Свято-Троицкая Сергиевская Лавра 2003 Мейендорф Иоанн , Византийское богословие: Исторические тенденции и доктринальные темы, Минск 2001 idem, Жизнь и труды свт. Григория Паламы . Введение в изучение, Санкт-Петербург 1997 idem, Святой Григорий Палама и православная мистика, Православный Свято-Тихоновский Богословский институт, 2003 Рансимен Стивен, Великая Церковь в пленении, Санкт-Петербург 2006 Уильямс Роуэн, Богословие В. Н. Лосского : изложение и критика, Киев 2009 Bradshaw DaVId, Aristotle East and West: Metaphisics and the DiVIsion of Christendom, Cambridge 2007 Chae Isaac, Justification and Deification in Augustine, Illinois 1999 Clucas Lowell, The Hesychast Controversy in Byzantium in the Fourteenth Century: A Consideration of the Basic EVIdence, University of California 1975 Himmerich Mauris, Deification in John of Damascus, Milwaukee 1985 Kharlamov Vladimir, “The Beauty of the Unity and the Harmony of the Whole”: Concept of Theosis in the Theology of Pseudo-Dionysius The Areopagite, New York 2006 Owen William, Seeing God: Theology, Beatitude and Cognition in the Thirteenth Century, Iowa City 2006 Pentecost Scott F., Quest for the DiVIne Presence: Metaphysics of Participation and the Relation of Philosophy to Theology in St. Gregory Palamas " s Triads and One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, Washington 1999 |
|
|
