| These confusions were certainly manifested in the 4th century during what became known as the “Messalian controversy” (from the Syriac messalum, “prayers”). Though the controversy was primarily the result of linguistic and cultural confusion, there were particular Syrian elements that caused a stir in Byzantine quarters. It seems the Syrian distinction between the “Perfect” and the “Upright” did not translate well into the established hierarchal church structures at Antioch or other Byzantine centers on the border with Syriac speaking lands. That the controversy was primarily linguistic is evinced by the extraordinary influence of the writings of St. Macarius. Most scholars agree that the writings of St. Macarius (Fifty Spiritual Homilies and the Great Letter) were actually written by a Syrian Orthodox Christian, which has led many to prefix Macarius’ name with “pseudo,” thereby dubbing him “Pseudo- Macarius.” If so-called “Messalian” spirituality was unorthodox it would be difficult to make sense of Pseudo-Macarius’ popularity among so many later mainline Orthodox mystics and saints, from the time of St. Gregory of Nyssa to St. Symeon the New Theologian. The primary linguistic misunderstanding derived from the Syrian proclivity to describe the spiritual struggle of the Christian in terms of the coexistent dwelling of both a demon (tendency to evil) and the Spirit of God (tendency to holiness) within the heart. Another important difference between Syrian and Greek spiritual traditions relates to the state of apatheia, or the advanced ascetic’s release from the tyranny of the passions. This state, which many Greeks assumed was impossible – or at least delusional – was for the Syrians, the natural progression of the “Perfect.” This association between perceived pride and Syrian spirituality eventually produced a unique spiritual experiment in the form of the “holy fool” as expressed, for example, in the Life of St. Symeon the Holy Fool. The holy fool combined the severity of Syrian spirituality with a guard against the “demon” of pride. |
| Il fallut renoncer au « Concile universel »... Durant le siècle qui s’est écoulé depuis, la position du patriarche œcuménique ne s’est nullement améliorée. Au contraire, la population grecque du Phanar a fortement diminué. Aujourd’hui, sur le territoire canonique que le Concile de Chalcédoine avait subordonné à Constantinople il y a 1570 ans, le patriarche œcuménique n’a presque plus de paroissiens. La majeure partie de ses fidèles vit en Amérique ou en Europe de l’Ouest. Il fallait justifier cette situation. Les canonistes constantinopolitains, d’abord timidement, puis de plus en plus ouvertement, ont défendu l’idée que le hiérarque portant le titre de patriarche « universel » devait avoir juridiction « universelle ». Des épisodes du passé, des précédents antiques arrachés à leur contexte servent à appuyer cette thèse, des canons ecclésiastiques dont l’interprétation est claire depuis longtemps, sont détournés à son profit. Il est surtout fait une exploitation maximale du titre ancien. En 2008, s’adressant à l’Assemblée du Parlement européen, le patriarche Bartholomée disait : « En tant qu’institut purement spirituel, notre Patriarcat œcuménique exerce véritablement un ministère apostolique mondial, s’efforçant d’affermir et d’élargir la conscience des hommes d’appartenir à une même famille humaine, de les aider à comprendre que nous habitons une même maison. Tel est le sens basique du terme « œcuménique », car « l’écoumène » est le monde habité, la terre, conçue comme une maison dans laquelle coexistent tous les peuples, les tribus et les langues. » Le mot « œcuménique », qui fait partie du titre patriarcal de Bartholomée, a une connotation particulière pour l’auditoire européen, renvoyant au mouvement protestant en faveur de l’unité des chrétiens. Si, dans le vocabulaire ecclésiastique russe, vselenski – « œcuménique » au sens d’universel – et ekoumenitcheski – « œcuménique » se rapportant à l’unité des chrétiens – sont plutôt antithétiques, l’anglais ou le nouveau grec emploient le même mot. |
| Ces scientifiques ont aussi discuté de l’existence de mondes parallèles, de savoir si notre univers, avec ses planètes et ses galaxies, est le seul à exister. Les uns disaient que oui, il existe sans doute des univers parallèles, et il serait très agréable de découvrir que nous ne sommes pas seuls. D’autres affirmaient le contraire : il ne peut exister d’univers parallèle. Les croyants ont une réponse très simple à ces questions : Dieu a créé le monde. Le monde a été créé en plusieurs étapes, qu’on appelle « jours » de la création, bien qu’il ne soit absolument pas nécessaire d’entendre le terme « jour » au sens des journées du calendrier. Il s’agit d’étapes, d’une évolution voulue par le Créateur. Existe-t-il un monde parallèle ? Oui, bien sûr. C’est le monde spirituel, qui n’est pas peuplé d’extra-terrestres ni d’humanoïdes, ni des créatures décrites dans les romans fantastiques, certaines théories scientifiques allant même jusqu’à affirmer leur existence. Le monde parallèle qui est nous révélé est peuplé d’anges, de saints, des défunts, les hommes qui, une fois finie leur vie terrestre, sont passé à un autre monde après avoir tranchi le seuil de la mort. Chacun a son monde parallèle, avec lequel il communique par la prière, par la participation aux sacrements, car la présence invisible des anges se fait sentir pendant l’office divin, comme celle de ceux qui sont passé à l’autre monde. Deux mondes parallèles coexistent, interagissant. Il existe entre eux une compénétration, ils ne sont pas isolés l’un de l’autre. Dès la vie terrestre, nous pouvons toucher à ce monde spirituel parallèle. L’incroyant ne peut percevoir que l’univers qui l’entoure, le monde matériel. Il ne sent pas au-delà de ce monde matériel, il ne voit ni ne connaît la réalité du monde spirituel, à la différence du croyant qui ne croit pas seulement qu’il y a quelque part aux cieux un autre principe, mais qui vit une vie religieuse, prie, participe aux sacrements de l’Église. Le croyant ne doute pas de l’existence d’un monde parallèle. La question est seulement de savoir comment il se nomme. |
| J’espère que le développement des bonnes relations entre la Russie et les pays d’Afrique servira le maintien ultérieur des valeurs traditionnelles dans le monde. Un autre instrument criminel de la politique contemporaine est l’incitation à la haine interreligieuse. J’ai le regret de constater que ce phénomène est particulièrement répandu sur le continent africain. Malheureusement, les chrétiens sont le plus fréquemment soumis aux persécutions. En tant que primat de l’Église orthodoxe russe, le cœur lourd, je profite de l’occasion pour appeler ardemment tous ceux qui disposent de la possibilité et du pouvoir réel d’influer sur cette tragique situation, de faire leur possible pour défendre les chrétiens opprimés d’Afrique. La triste expérience des dernières décennies et l’histoire de nombreux conflits régionaux montrent que les provocations sur le terrain religieux sont souvent initiées et financées par ceux qui souhaitent l’affaiblissement du pays de l’intérieur et agissent suivant le fameux principe « diviser pour régner ». Il est extrêmement important de ne pas permettre l’éclatement de conflits religieux. A plus forte raison dans le contexte multiconfessionnel et multiethnique de la plupart des pays d’Afrique. La diversité culturelle et nationale constitue la richesse de tout pays, et elle doit être soigneusement préservée. La Russie est prête à partager sa précieuse expérience multiséculaire dans ce domaine. Plus de cents nationalités vivent dans notre pays, les représentants de différentes religions et confessions y coexistent harmonieusement : chrétiens orthodoxes, catholiques et protestants, musulmans, juifs, bouddhistes. Nous ne vivons pas seulement côte à côte depuis des siècles, nous professons librement notre foi et coopérons dans les domaines éducatif et social, s’agissant d’aide humanitaire, de soutien à la paix, etc. Quant à l’Église orthodoxe russe, consciente de sa responsabilité particulière dans la destinée des peuples qui la composent historiquement, elle aspire à faire son possible pour éduquer les hommes dans la fidélité à la vérité divine, le respect des traditions et l’amour du pays. |
| Having reached this point in our treatise, we must now explain why the saints call this deifying grace and divine light «enhypostatic». 18 Clearly, this term is not used to affirm that it possesses its own hypostasis. 412 ... By contrast, one calls «anhypostatic» not only nonbeing or hallucination, but also everything which quickly disintegrates and runs away, which disappears and straightway ceases to be, such as, for example, thunder and lightning, and our own words and thoughts. The Fathers have done well, then, to call this light enhypostatic, in order to show its permanence and stability, because it remains in being, and does not elude the gaze, as does lightning, or words, or thoughts.... 413 If then this light, which shone from the Saviour on the Mountain, is a natural symbol, it is not so in respect of both the natures in Him, for the natural characteristics of each nature are different. 414 This light cannot pertain to His human nature, for our nature is not light, let alone a light such as this. The Saviour did not ascend Thabor, accompanied by the chosen disciples, in order to show them that He was a man. For during the three years previous to this, they had seen Him living with them and taking part in their way of life; as Scripture puts it, «in company» with them. 415 No, He went up to show them «that he was the radiance of the Father». 416 In view of this, no one could say the light was a symbol of his humanity. If then it was a natural symbol ... this light naturally symbolises the divinity of the Only Begotten, as John of Damascus has clearly taught: «The Son eternally begotten of the Father possesses the natural and eternal ray of divinity; yet the glory of the divinity has become also the glory of the body.» 417 This glory did not appear or begin, it has no end, for natural symbols are always coexistent with the natures of which they are symbols.... As Maximus says, «All the realities which are by essence contemplated around God have neither beginning nor end.» 418 But since as he says, these realities ... are numerous yet in no way diminish the notion of simplicity, no more will |
| God’s will is creative (τ βολημα ατο ποιητικν στι), ‘and His will is effective, and suffices for the consistence of the things that come to be’ (‘πρς σστασιν τν γινομνων’). 63 And His Word is creative and powerful, and this Word is certainly the living will of the Father, essential activity, the true Word through which all has come into being and is perfectly handled. From the Christian perspective, both the first creation ‘out of nothing’ and man’s restoration in the second Adam, reveal infinite goodness and care of the One supreme God Himself for His creation. God the Father, with His coexistent Logos, is ‘over all and in all revealing His own providence’. 64 The fullness of the Providence of the Creator Himself relates not only to the things in heaven, but also to the things on earth (‘ν τ γ πρνοιαν ατο’). 65 The very substance of God is referred to as ‘Good and Exceedingly beautiful’ (‘γαθς κα πρκαλος’), 66 as well as ‘the source of goodness’, 67 ‘the source of mercy and love of mankind’. 68 In De incarnatione verbi alone, St Athanasius makes use of nearly 30 expressions related to goodness and God’s love of mankind (‘το Θεο γαθτητος κα φιλανθρωπας’) 69 and asserts such goodness is the main cause of the Saviour’s Incarnation. This Saviour is no representative of ‘minor gods’, but the Consubstantial and the Only Begotten Son of God. 70 Despite the utter dissimilarity of His divine nature, He comes into the world to annihilate the force of the law of corruption and degradation, the slow slide of the humanity towards non-existence. 71 Furthermore, according to St Athanasius the creature is assigned with the task of running the course of maturing in its existence and the grace of God. The saint’s works give little direct teaching, yet it is clearly traceable in his system. In the saint’s view, the first man was assigned with the task of maturing in grace, and especially in respect to the corporeal part of his being. Hence, apart from the logically dependent principles of absolute non-being against created being as rooted in the Creator’s good will, the notion of matter’s ‘meonism’ is complemented by the thesis of the anthropocentricity of God’s design and His providence for the material world. |
| 391 Cf. ibid., 1165BC. Maximus means that the higher reality (the divine light) can symbolise the lower reality, i.e., the theologies which struggle to adumbrate it. 392 Ibid., 1168C. This is the opposite case, a created entity used to symbolise a divine quality. The point here is that even in a case such as this, the symbol can be a reality in its own right, not something imagined or a passing phenomenon. 393 In practice, of course, most symbols of higher reality are created things, and this is why the Fathers tend to avoid describing the uncreated light as a symbol. 394 Palamas now pauses to define the only sense in which this light is a symbol: It is a natural symbol of the divinity (cf. note 5, above), connatural and coexistent with God, analogous to the inseparable relationship between the sun and its rays. Symbols not participating in the nature of what they symbolise either have an independent existence from that symbolised (e.g., Moses and providence), or exist only notionally, as an illustration (e.g., a conflagration as symbol of a military onslaught). Since the light of Thabor is identical with the eternal glory of Christ, it must be a natural symbol, not a created or imaginary one, and itself truly existing and eternal. Further on this topic, vid. infra, chapters 19–21. 398 Hom. in Transfig. 12–13, PG XCIV, 564C-565A. It is not Christ who is changed into something new in the Transfiguration, but the disciples. The Transfiguration reveals the divine glory He possessed from all eternity, but which was hidden under the veils of the flesh in His Incarnation. For the apostles, these veils are momentarily drawn aside on Thabor. 401 An important theological point: The very assumption of our human nature by the Logos had the effect of healing and transforming it. Even in terms of Christ " s humanity, then, what is shown forth at the Transfiguration is not something new at that moment; it is a revelation of the divinised human nature of Christ, which potentially may be appropriated by all who share that nature. |
| 260 Since the transcendently and absolutely perfect goodness is mind, what else but a word could ever proceed from it as from a source? 261 But it is not a word in the sense we use of a word expressed orally, for that does not belong to the mind but to the body moved by the mind. Nor is it in the sense we use of a word immanent in us, for that too is so disposed within us to correspond to types of sounds. But nor is it in the sense of a word in our discursive intellect, even though it be without sounds and is produced entirely by incorporeal mental impulses, for that too is posterior to us and requires both intervals and not a few extensions of time since it comes forth gradually and is brought from incompletion in the beginning towards its completion in the end. Rather, it is in the sense of the word naturally stored up within our mind, whereby we have come into being from the one who created us according to his own image, namely, that knowledge which is always coexistent with the mind. The knowledge also present there in a special way in the supreme mind of the absolutely and transcendently perfect goodness, in which there is nothing imperfect except that this knowledge is derived from it, is indistinguishably all things that goodness is. Therefore, the supreme Word is also the Son and is so named by us, in order that we may recognize him as being perfect in a perfect and proper hypostasis, 262 since he is derived from the Father and is in no way inferior to the Father " s substance but is indistinguishably identical with him, though not in hypostasis, which indicates that the Word is derived from him by generation in a divinely fitting manner. 36. Since the goodness which proceeds by generation from intellectual goodness as from a source is the Word, and since no intelligent person could conceive of a word without spirit, for this reason the Word, God from God, possesses also the Holy Spirit proceeding together with him from the Father. But this is spirit not in the sense of the breath which accompanies the word passing through our lips (for this is a body and is adapted to our word through bodily organs); nor is it spirit in the sense of that which accompanies the immanent and the discursive word within us, even though it does so incorporeally, for that too entails a certain motion of the mind which involves a temporal extension in conjunction with our word and requires the same intervals and proceeds from incomplete on to completion. |
| In this way, the messianic prophecies of David, recorded in his God-inspired psalms, laid the foundation for faith in the Messiah as a true and coexistent Son of God, King, High Priest and Expiator of Mankind. The influence of the psalms on the faith of the Old Testament Jews was particularly great, thanks to the wide use of psalms in private life and religious services of the Hebrew people. The Prophecies of Isaiah A s we mentioned earlier, the Old Testament prophets had the immense task of keeping the Hebrew nation believing in One God, and to prepare the foundation for faith in the coming Messiah as a Being who had, besides the human, also a Godly nature. The prophets had to speak about the Godliness of Christ in such a way that it would not be understood by the Jews in heathen terms, that is, as polytheism. For this reason the Old Testament prophets revealed the secret of the Godliness of the Messiah gradually, in keeping with the measure of belief in One God instilled in the Hebrew nation. King David was the first to prophesy about the Godliness of Christ. After him there began a 250 year lull in prophecies, and the prophet Isaiah, living over seven centuries before the birth of Christ, began a new series of prophecies about Christ, in which His Godly nature is greatly manifested. Isaiah is the most outstanding prophet in the Old Testament. The book written by him, includes such a great number of prophecies about Christ and about occurrences in the New Testament, that many call Isaiah the Old Testament Evangelist. Isaiah prophesied within the bounds of Jerusalem during the reign of the Judean king Ozziah, Ahaz, Hezekiah and Manasseh. The defeat of the Israeli army occurred during Isaiah’s lifetime in 722 BC, when the Assyrian king Sargon took the Hebrew nation occupying Israel into captivity. The Judean empire existed another 135 years after this tragedy. The prophet Isaiah suffered martyrdom during the reign of Manasseh, being sawed in half with a wooden saw. The book of the prophet Isaiah is noted for elegant Hebrew and possesses high literary merits, which is carried over even in translations of his book into different languages. |
| 100 . He who through virtue and spiritual knowledge has brought his body into harmony with his soul has become a harp, a flute and a temple of God. He has become a harp by preserving the harmony of the virtues; a flute by receiving the inspiration of the Spirit through divine contemplation; and a temple by becoming a dwelling place of the Logos through the purity of his intellect. Various Texts on Theology, the Divine Economy, and Virtue and Vice First Century 1 . The Good that is beyond being and beyond the unoriginate is one, the holy unity of three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is an infinite union of three infinites. Its principle of being, together with the mode, the nature and the quality of its being, is altogether inaccessible to creatures. For it eludes every intellection of intellective beings, in no way issuing from its natural hidden inwardness, and infinitely transcending the summit of all spiritual knowledge. 2 . The substantive and essential Good is that which has no origin, no consummation, no cause of being and no motion whatsoever, so far as its being is concerned, towards any final cause. The goodness to which such terms apply is not substantive since it has an origin, a consummation, a cause of being, and motion, so far as its being is concerned, towards some fi nal cause. Even if what is not being in the substantive sense is said to be, it exists and is said to be by participation, through the will of substantive being. 3 . Not only is the divine Logos prior to the genesis of created beings, but there neither was nor is nor will be a principle superior to the Logos. The Logos is not without intellect or bereft of life; He possesses intellect and life because the Father is the essentially subsistent intellect that begets Him, and the Holy Spirit is His essentially subsistent and coexistent life. 4 . There is one God, because the Father is the begetter of the unique Son and the fount of the Holy Spirit: one without confusion and three without division. The Father is unoriginate Intellect, the unique essential Begetter of the unique Logos, also unoriginate, and the fount of the unique everlasting life, the Holy Spirit. |
|
|
