| What precisely is this accusation which has been brought against Gregory? What is this opprobrium which some have attached to his name? Why have so many scholars labeled him “Origenist?” Chiefly on the basis of a purported eschatology he held in common with Origen: the doctrine of universal salvation, apokatastasis 129 ? Too many, however, have come to the study of St Gregory ready to cast his philosophia in a false light. Fatal to their undertaking is the failure to take seriously his anti-Platonic, anti-Origenist “Chalcedonian christology” or, what is the same thing, the Bishop of Nyssa’s Christian understanding of the beginning of, the course of and the end of created things. 1. Apokatastasis In the preface to his The Boundaries of Life. St Germanos of Constantinople (c. 635–733) rejected as false the charge of “Origenism” against St Gregory of Nyssa, maintaining that, in fact, his writings had been corrupted by heretics 130 . He may have been following the lead of St Anastasius Sinaitica (630–700) who was the first to suggest that St Gregory’s books had been altered, probably, in the workshop established in Alexandria by heretics, a workshop whose whole purpose was to adroitly change the writings of the Fathers, twisting for their “evil purposes (κακονοαν) their lofty teachings” (Via Dux PG 89 289D–292A). The Byzantine historian, Nikephoros Kailistos (fl. 1330), will later concur. Did St Maximus the Confessor (580–662) hear any rumors about the falsification of Gregorian manuscripts? Did he believe them? Maximos, so completely immersed in the controversies of his day, must have been aware that the disciples of the Monophysite, Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (d. 538), did not hesitate to “correct” any patristic text which employed the language of Chalcedon, among them a work entitled Peri arethns, “qui n’est autre que notre Vie de Moise.” 131 And certainly he knew and despised this Severian tactic to discredit St Gregory. Was it not heretics who attributed to the Saint the errors of Origen? Why, then, did he (and later St Theodore the Studite) refuse to disavow the so-called “incriminating passages” found among the writings of Gregory? What evidence did they possess 132 which led them to believe that the writings of St Gregory were not adulterated? |
| Basil died, worn out with his labors, in 379. His letters are major sources of information about the life of the church in the 4th century. His Hexaemeron, or interpretation of the creation through the Genesis account, is a masterpiece of early Christian scriptural theology, and shows him as a moderate Origenist, with a fine feel for the moral power of scripture. His treatise Against Eunomius was a major force revitalizing the Nicene resistance, and he did much in his time to persuade the Homoiousians that their position was in substance reconcilable with that of the Homoousians, something that historically speaking was a key element for the long-term success of the Nicene cause. His work in his church as teacher and public defender of his town, as well as his learned canonical writings (setting wise rules of governance that the Eastern Church formally endorsed as universal authorities at the Quinisext Council of 692), made Basil a model for future eastern bishops, and in Byzantine times he was designated along with Gregory Nazianzen and John Chrysostom as one of the “Three Holy Hierarchs,” the most important bishop theologians of the ancient period. His reputation as one of the most important early monastic theorists also gave him a reputation among the eastern ascetics akin to the greatest of the monastic theorists, Antony, and Theodore the Studite. SEE ALSO: Cappadocian Fathers; Monasti- cism; St. Gregory of Nazianzus (Gregory the Theologian) (329–390) REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Clarke, W. K. L. (1913) St. Basil the Great: A Study in Monasticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holman, S. R. (2001) The Hungry Are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackson, B. (1989) St. Basil: Letters and Select Works. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Rousseau, P. (1994) Basil of Caesarea. Berkeley: University of California Press. St. Constantine the Emperor (ca. 271–337) JULIA KONSTANTINOVSKY Constantine I was an enigmatic figure yet a unique saint in the Orthodox Church: the first Christian emperor (discounting the possible candidacy of Philip the Arab), Constantine abolished the persecution of Christians, making Christianity a favored state religion. |
| 41 Text of Eusebius» letter in Nicephorus, Contra Eusebium, ed. J. B. Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense (Paris, 1852; repr. Graz, 1962), I, 383–386. 54 Theodore the Studite, Letter to Naucratius, II, 67; PG 99:1296AB; see also Antirrh., III; PG 99:420D. 64 E. Trubetskoi, Umozrenie v Kraskakh (Moscow, 1915–1916; repr. Paris: YMCA Press, 1965); trans. Icons: Theology in Color (New York: St. Vladimir " " s Seminary Press, 1973). 68 See, for example, S. Salaville, «La primaute de Saint Pierre et du pape d " apres Saint Thedore Studite (759–826),» Echos d " Orient 17 (1914), 23–42; and A. Marin, Saint Theodore (Paris: Lecoffre, 1906), p. 1, who calls Theodore «the last Catholic of Byzantium.» Similarly, in his letter to Leo Sacellarius (PG 99:1417C) he wrote: «And who are their [the Apostles " ] successors?he who occupies the throne of Rome and is the first; the one who sits upon the throne of Constantinople and is the second; after them, those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. That is the Pentarchic authority in the Church. It is to them that all decision belongs in divine dogmas» (quoted in F. Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy [New York: Fordham University Press, 1966], p. 101). 73 See the long article on Diodore of Tarsus, Library, codex 223, and his appreciation of Theodoret of Cyrus, ibid., codex 46. 74 See codices on Eulogius of Alexandria, 182, 208, 225–227, which, in fact, are detailed monographs on this author. On Ephrem of Antioch, see Library, codex 228. 76 See Akindynos, Against Palamas, in Codex Monacensis graecus 223, foll. 283 v , 293 v , 298 v , 305, 311 v , etc. 83 Michael Psellos, Address to His Negligent Disciples, ed. J. F. Boissonade (Nuremberg, 1838; repr. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1964), p. 151. 103 On Evagrius and Maximus, see Lars Thunberg, Microcosm and Mediator: The Theological Anthropology of Maximus the Confessor (Lund: Gleerup, 1965), pp. 317–325. 104 See P. Sherwood, in Maximus the Confessor, The Ascetic Life, ACW 21 (Westminster: Newman, 1955), p. 83. |
| 518 For the architectural history of the Holy Sepulchre see: Wilkinson J. The Tomb of Christ, An Outline of its Structural History//Levant 4 (1972), p. 83–97; Biddle, 1999, p. 20–28, 53–73. Corrigan, 1992, 99 ff, notes in general that the images of the Tomb in the psalter miniatures resemble representations of the Holy Sepulchre on objects associated with Palestine. She explains this fact, as well as the representation of other Palestinian loca sancta in the psalter miniatures, as an indication of the interest of the painter and his iconophile circle in the fate of these sanctuaries, at a time when the Arab conquest had created unfavourable conditions for their preservation (Corrigan, 1992, 94 ff.). 520 Wilkinson, 1972, p. 92–93, figs. 9–11. Also Wilkinson J., Barag D. The Monza-Bobbio flasks and the Holy Sepulchre//Levant 6 (1974), p. 179–187, fig. 1. For a list of the ampullae with a representation of the Tomb in the Myrophores scene, see n. 9 above. 521 Wilkinson, 1972, p. 92–93, figs. 9, 11; Wilkinson, Barag, 1974, fig. 2, presented here as fig. 10. 524 This marble, three-dimensional representation of the Holy Sepulchre has helped scholars in the reconstruction of the Constantinian Edicule, although it does not seem to be absolutely faithful to the original structure. See Wilkinson, 1972, p. 93–95, figs. 12, 13; Biddle, 1999, p. 22, 69, 100, figs. 16, 64C, 100. 525 Krautheimer R. Introduction to an ‘Iconography of Medieval Architecture’//Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 5 (1942), p. 1–33, repr. in idem, Studies in Early Christian, Medieval, and Renaissance Art. New York, 1969, p. 115–150. 527 That the Byzantines considered their art “life-like”, but not in our sense of literal and pictorial realism (for which no Byzantine term existed) is extensively discussed by: James L ., Webb R. ‘To understand ultimate things and enter secret places’: ekphrasis and art in Byzantium/I Art History 14 (1991), p. 1–17. It is suggested that images and their descriptions were principally appraised not for their accuracy or aesthetics, but for their ability to convey a deeper spiritual message. The term “life-like” could simply mean for the Byzantines that an image followed recognisable conventions (cf. Kazhdan A., Maguire H. Byzantine Hagiographical Texts as Sources on Art//DOP 45 (1991), p. 1–22, esp. 8–9), or that it was inspired by a real person (or object) rather than by an imaginary or mythological one (cf. Parry K. Theodore Studite and the Patriarch Nicephoros on Image-Making as a Christian Imperative//Byzantion 59 (1989), p. 164–83, esp. 180–81). See also Brubaker L. Perception and conception: art, theory and culture in ninth-century Byzantium//Word and Image 5 (1989), p. 19–32, esp. 24–26 with reference to Byzantine imagination as “the ability to transmit a resemblance, to comprehend the prototype behind the image, to see more than is present”. |
| (b) The heresy of the Aphthartodocetae, whose leader was the sixth-century theologian Julian of Halicarnassus, conceived Christ»«s humanity as incorruptible, and they were accused of a docetic understanding of the Incarnation. As R. Draguet has shown, the issue was not so much the connection between hypostatic union and corruptibility, but the very nature of man. Is man naturally corruptible (as he is naturally ignorant), or did corruptibility come with sin? The Aphthartodocetae denied that man by nature was corruptible. Since Christ is the New Adam and the truly «natural» man, His humanity was indeed incorruptible. In rejecting Aphthartodocetism, the Orthodox affirmed (1) that the inheritance of mortality from Adam was not an inheritance of guilt, and (2) that the Logos voluntarily assumed, not an abstract ideal manhood, but our fallen humanity, with all the consequences of sin, including corruptibility. Opposition to Aphthartodocetism certainly contributed to preserving a clearer notion of Christ»«s real and full human nature. (c) Iconoclasm was certainly another way of denying that Christ is man in a concrete and individual manner. Patriarch Nicephorus, one of the leading Orthodox polemicists, called it Agraptodocetism because iconoclasts considered Jesus as «undescribable.» 277 In order to justify the possibility of painting an image of Christ, John of Damascus, and even more explicitly Theodore the Studite, insisted upon His individual human characteristics: «An indescribable Christ,» writes Theodore, » " would also be an incorporeal Christ; but Isaiah describes this as a male being, and only the forms of the body can make man and woman distinct from one another.» 278 Nicephorus, in order to defend the use of images, stresses very forcibly the human limitations of Jesus, His experience of tiredness, hunger, thirst: 279 «He acted, desired, was ignorant, and suffered as man.» 280 This means that He was man like all of us, and can be represented on an image. As interpreted by the Orthodox theologians of the eighth and ninth centuries who struggled against iconoclasm, the icon of Christ becomes a confession of faith in the Incarnation: |
| Philip G. Kreyenbroek, Yezidism – Its Background, Observances and Textual Tradition 63 . Michael Azkoul, St. Gregory of Nyssa and the Tradition of the Fathers 64 . John Fulton and Peter Gee (editors), Religion in Contemporary Europe 65 . Robert J. Forman, Augustine and the Making of a Christian Literature: Classical Tradition and Augustinian Aesthetics 66 . Ann Matheson, Theories of Rhetoric in the 18th-Century Scottish Sermon 2 See the July and October Feasts dedicated to the Fathers in the Menaion of the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. 3 St John of Damascus. Imag. II, 6 PG 94 1288C; St Theodore the Studite. Antirr. II, 18 PG 99 364C; and see the discussion in Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (vol. 3): The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600–1700) . Chicago, 1974, p. 15f. If only for this reason, it is incredible that the Greek Orthodox scholar, Constantine Tsirpanlis, counts heretics (e.g., Origen, Tertullian) among the Fathers of the Church, for then it would be impossible to speak of a patristic consensus “or agreement among the Fathers on the fundamental tenets and beliefs of a Christian Confession” (See his Introduction to Eastern Patristic Thought and Orthodox Theology. Collegeville [Minn.], 1991, pp. 21 –23). Such an “ecumenical” declaration could only fall from the lips of one who fails to recognize the doctrinal and ecclesiological boundaries set up by the Fathers. 5 Editor’s Foreword to Holy Transfiguration Monastery’s revised translation of St John Climacus’ The Ladder of Divine Ascent. Boston, 1991, xxix-xxx. Cf. C.N. Tsirpanlis, Introduction ..., p. 13. Lossky rightly states that it is unfair to speak of “the Platonism of the Fathers every time the subject of ’contemplation’ is raised. Contemplation is not the exclusive appanage of Platonism; and if it were, Platonism in a broad sense would simply mean spirituality which tends towards communion with eternal realities, where the degrees of contemplation correspond to the progressive deification of human beings immersed in the contingent. |
| Absolute uniqueness, as the norm of Christian marriage, is also affirmed in the fact that in Byzantine canon law it is strictly required from clergy; a man who was married twice, or was married to a widow or a divorcee, is not eligible for-ordination to the diaconate or to the priesthood. 395 But laymen, after a period of penitence and abstention from the sacraments, are re-admitted to full communion with the Church, even after a second or third marriage; understanding and toleration is extended to them, when they cannot agree to remaining single, or would like to have a second chance to build up a true Christian marriage. Obviously, Byzantine tradition approaches the problem of remarriageafter widowhood or divorcein terms of penitential discipline. Marriage, as a sacrament, implies the bestowing of God " " s grace; but this grace, to be effective, requires human cooperation («synergy»). This is true of all the sacraments, but particularly of baptism, whose fruits can be dispersed through sin and then restored through repentance. In the case of marriage, which presupposes personal understanding and psychological adjustment, Byzantine tradition accepts the possibility of an initial mistake, as well as the fact that single life, in cases of death or the simple absence of the partner, is a greater evil than remarriage for those who cannot «bear» it. The possibility of divorce remained an integral part of Byzantine civil legislation at all times. In the framework of the «symphony» between Church and state, it was never challenged, a fact which cannot be explained simply by reference to caesaropapism. The Byzantine Church never lacked saints who were ready to castigate imperial despotism, social injustice, and other evils contrary to the Gospel. John Chrysostom (398–404), Theodore the Studite (820), or Patriarch Polyeuktos (956–970) were able to challenge the power of the state without fear; none of them, however, protested against the legislation concerning divorce. Obviously, they considered it as an inevitable factor of human life in the fallen world, where man can accept grace and refuse it; where sin is inevitable, but repentance always accessible; where the Church« " s function is never to compromise the norms of the Gospel, but to show compassion and mercy to human weakness. |
| The apostolic claim of Rome, but also the no less real, but much less effective, claims of the other Eastern patriarchs, provided him with arguments in his fight against the Byzantine state and Church hierarchies. Still, there is no reason to doubt that his view of the unity of the Church, which he never systematically developed, was not radically different from that of his contemporaries, including Patriarch Photius, who, as we shall see, was always ready to acknowledge the prominent position of Peter among the apostles, but also considered that the authority of Peter " " s Roman successors was dependent upon, not the foundation of, their orthodoxy. In Rome, Theodore the Studite saw that foremost support of the true faith, and expressed his vision and his hope in the best tradition of the Byzantine superlative style. The ancient monastic opposition to secular philosophy does not appear in Theodoré " s writings. Theodore himself seemed even to have liked exercises in dialectics, as his early correspondence with John the Grammarian, a humanist and later an iconoclastic patriarch, seems to show. But the anti-humanist tendency would clearly appear among his immediate disciples, the anti-Photians of the ninth century. Photius (ca. 820-ca. 891) The dominant figure in Byzantine religious, social, and political life in the ninth century, Photius is also the father of what is generally called Byzantine «humanism.» In his famous Library, an original and tremendously important compilation of literary criticism, he covers Christian writers of the early centuries, as well as a number of secular authors; similarly, in his Responses to Amphilochius, a collection of theological and philosophical essays, he displays a wide secular knowledge and an extensive training in patristic theology. In all his writings Photius remains essentially a university professor. In philosophy his main interest is logic and dialectics; hence, his very clear predisposition to Aristotle, rather than to Plato. |
| The article begins with a close look at the controversies that shook the patriarchate of Constantinople in the 1040s – 1060s, and were caused by, at first, inaction, and later by decisive actions of emperor Manuel I Comnenos. A close study of these controversies sheds light on the struggle of the two ecclesiastical parties, both composed mostly of former and current deacons of Hagia Sophia. The first of these parties sought to preserve the status quo in the Orthodox Church as it took shape under the first Comnenoi emperors, particularly in relation to the fasting discipline that conformed to the old Studite tradition. This party was represented by Patriarchs Cosmas II Atticus and Nicholas IV Muzalon, metropolitan Eustathius of Dyrrhachium, and by such intellectuals as Michael of Thessalonica, Nicephoros Basilakes, Soterichos Panteugenes, and possibly by John Tzetzes. The other party sought to revise the rules of fasting and asceticism, seeing it as a return to the ancient “apostolic” norms, while being guided by the reformed monastic tradition (i. e., of the so-called “Evergetine Reform Movement”). Among its supporters, one can count the patriarchs Michael II Kourkouas and Theodotus II, such prominent officials as Leo Hicanatus and John Pantechnes, deacon Basil-“Bagoas”, metropolitan of Ephesus, George Tornikos, and metropolitan of Rus’, Constantine I. In their mutual struggle, these parties used all possible means and took turns in deposing the patriarchs who did not share their views, denouncing their opponents as heretics and persecuting them, if such opportunity arose. The second of these parties was especially successful in using these means. At last, at the 1156–1157 Church councils of Constantinople, the second party succeeded in dealing the final blow to their opponents, which allowed Constantine I and his followers to impose without reservation the new rules of asceticism in Rus». However, after the 1166 council, when Manuel I started to be inclined towards the ecclesiastical union with Rome, those who just a decade earlier celebrated victory became subject of persecution. |
| Hail, O earth unsown! Hail, O bush which burned, yet was not consumed! Hail, O abyss unfathomable! Hail, O bridge leading to heaven, and lofty ladder, which Jacob saw! Hail, O divine container of manna! Hail, O abrogation of the curse! Hail, O recall of Adam! The Lord is with you [Annunciation vespers]. The Marian emotionalism displayed by Byzantine hymnographersthe same ones who were able to use the strictest possible theological language in other textsis often an expression of liturgical wisdom and common sense. The liturgy of the Church, a sacred play involving the whole of man, must assume and transform all forms of human feeling and must not be restricted to satisfying only his intellectual capacity. The alternation and correlation between the various aspects of religious experience is probably the secret of the lasting impact exercised by Byzantine Church hymnography upon generations of human souls. This humaneness of Byzantine hymnography is also shown in the Triodion, a book for use during the Lenten period, composed in large part by Theodore the Studite and his immediate disciples. A monument of monastic spirituality, the Triodion assumes a patristic system of anthropology according to which man is truly man only when he is in real communion with God: then also is he truly free. In his present fallen state, however, man is a prisoner of Satan and, as we saw in connection with the spiritual doctrine of Evagrius, his liberation and salvation presuppose the suppression of his «passions " i.e., of that which makes him love creatures rather than God. The way to «passionlessness» (apatheia) is through repentance: O how many are the good things I miss! How beautiful the Kingdom I lost through my passions! I spent the wealth I once possessed by transgressing the commandment. Alas, O impassionate soul! You were condemned to fire eternal. But, before end comes, call on Christ, our God. Accept me as the prodigal son, O God, and have mercy on me [Sunday of the prodigal son, vespers]. |
|
|
