Introduction to Eastern Patristic Thought and Orthodox Theology 0814658016, 9780814658017

Citation preview

Theology and Life Series 30 : Constantine N. Tsirpanlis

|INTRODUCTION TO EASTERN PATRISTIC THOUGHT AND ORTHODOX THEOLOGY

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2023

https://archive.org/details/introductiontoea000Otsir

THEOLOGY

AND

Volume 30

LIFE SERIES

Introduction to Eastern Patristic Thought and Orthodox Theology

by Constantine N. Tsirpanlis

A Michael

Glazier

Book

THE LITURGICAL PRESS Collegeville, Minnesota

A Michael

Glazier

Book

published by

THE LITURGICAL PRESS

Copyright © 1991 by The Order of St. Benedict, Inc., Collegeville, Minnesota. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy-

ing, recording, taping, or any information storage and retrieval system, without the written permission of The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota 56321. Printed in the United States of America.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Tsirpanlis, Constantine N. Introduction to Eastern patristic thought and Orthodox theology /

by Constantine N. Tsirpanlis. p. cm. — (Theology and life series ; v. 30) ‘*A Michael Glazier book.”’’ Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-8146-5801-6 1. Orthodox Eastern Church—Doctrines. 2. Theology, Doctrinal. 3. Theology, Doctrinal—History—Early church, ca. 30-600. 4. Fathers of the church, Greek. I. Title. II. Series. BX320.2.T72 1991

230'.11—dc20

90-31280 CIP

Contents

ADDIE VION ONS iatenns Seas Mee. tele OTES/ GU

RoE

RPEVOCE cgBe foam ra

REN ceca Ne Cee

a

ee

ee

Ne ie ICR AL lls

RO

10 cisco eh Ge

Vili Net Garb

a

| 7

General Introduction

A. Importance of Patristics. Why we must study the Christian Fathers? What can we learn from the Fathers in our contemporary struggle to unite the Churches? ...... 19 B. The terms Patristics, Patrology, “History of Dogma” (Doemaseschichia) cop ce pennrctt henson Ook 0 C. Who can be called “Fathers of the Church”? ........ 21 D. Method, Division and Subdivisions of Patrology ... 23 E. Questions for Discussion and Review ............... 27 F. Select Bibliography for Further Reading ............ 29 I. Cosmology

Creation And Historyeacgce exons: Fee RO) ete 2. Creation: Angelology-Demonology-Ecology .......... A. Nature and Function of the Angels .............. B. The Fall of Lucifer and the Fallen Angels ........ 3. Questions for Discussion and Review ................ 4. Select Bibliography for Further Reading ............. IT.

31 36 36 40 41 43

Anthropology-Mariology

PMMA G IMAC DELO er cP aN, cnt ee ran ln te Deas 2 Man Before thetPall Fetes a. ae rr oda as eas oN Sel Ne AtUTe OF OTISINAl IN +cda2as0 nes Apes 5k ele ater ees A, TheiNew orsecond Ever n i.. Fa A ails 5. Questions for Discussion and Review .............+.. 6. Select Bibliography for Further Reading .............

44 47 49 53 59 60

III. Christology-S oteriology cles NIncarnation-salvation. «2. ee ee . Deification or Theosis as the Very Purpose of ae ace eo te he ee cee The Jncartation..hao . Universal and Individual Salvation ................... . Individual Salvation-Free Will-The “PLEROMA” ...... B&W an . “Natural Will” and “Gnomic Will” in the Person of ee te eee ae coat eae aa Jesus’ CHriStosen . Questions for Discussion and Review ...........--+-. Select Bibliography for Further Reading ............. NO —

61 65 68 a0:

76 81 82

IV. Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-HagiologyAsceticism o2-Orthodox Pneumatologyseers 1s..9207s eee a Lhe Spirit.and he Church Py .25:.4 gre ts-eceg Sayan e l he FILIOQUE OuesttOniaava: Gut. cee eee eee . Whe TruesUniversal.Ghurch: 93 .sia-enks peers . ae eee Lie: SACLAIMENISH cat Maduiteth coe APWN A wBapusim Macncek» aia en. nod Ue. Rem eeaeereae ae: B:.Contirmation ’ sac bakit feet ore eee Cy EucharistiictsG eee ante ewe ee The Eucharist Doctrine of St. John Damascene ...... ae ee D> Repentance-Contession™ In the created person of the Blessed Virgin, theosis or divinization, which is man’s true destiny, is accomplished for the first time. Mary’s divinization was the result of her free will and consent to be one with Christ’s enhypostasized humanity, on the one hand, and of the grace of the Logos of God, on the

other hand. This is extremely significant and a source of optimism and power for the life of the faithful. It is furthermore the source of the greatest and eternal joy to man struggling for his salvation, because she is the fullness of love accepting the

coming of God to us—giving life to Him, who is the life of the world.

And

the whole

creation

rejoices in her, because

it

recognizes in her that the end and fulfillment of all life, of all love, is to accept Christ, to give Him life in ourselves, to become His “temple”. And this is possible for any human being because the Blessed Virgin is the first “divinized” human creature making all men able to rise to deification by the grace of the Holy Spirit. The destiny of man and the world has already been reached, potentially, not only in the uncreated person of the Son of God, but also in the created person of his

Mother. That is why Gregory Palamas calls the Mother of God “the boundary between the created and the uncreated.” Such joy and power and optimism are not possible within the unfortunate formulation of the Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception and its outgrowth, the recent Roman Catholic dogma of the Assumption (1950).

Anthropology-Mariology

59

Questions for Discussion and Review How did Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus Gregory Palamas understand the creation of man “in the image of God”?

How did Cyril of Alexandria interpret the passage, “and [God] breathed into his nostrils” (Gen. 2:7)? Is there any opposition between “likeness” (Gen. 1:26) and “image” in man’s nature? In what way will the ecological problem be overcome?

Were Adam reasons.

and Eve created perfect? If not, give

Who among the Greek Fathers developed a special theology of the body?

How REASON and EMOTION operated in the pre-fallen man? What change they suffered after the fall? Was there any second act of creation into male and female? If not, when and why was sex created?

What do the “tunics of skin” represent?

What was the cause of the fall of Adam and Eve? Explain the deeper meaning of the original sin as a personal choice and act, but not as inherited (collective) guilt. How did the western and the Greek Fathers interpret the crucial Pauline passage, Rom. 5:12? Describe the three major periods of Salvation History, and the role of the All-Holy Theotokos in God’s redemption as the New or Second Eve.

On which grounds does the Orthodox Church reject the Roman dogma of the Immaculate Conception? What is the deeper meaning of Mary’s election or predestination? And in what way is such a Divine election reconcilable with the free will of the Blessed

60

Anthropology-Mariology

Virgin and History?

her representative

role in Salvation

Select Bibliography for Further Reading V1. Lossky. Orthodox Theology. An Introduction, Crestwood, New York: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978, pp. 70-78, 79-94, 119-137. J. Meyendorff. Byzantine Theology, New University Press, 1976, pp. 138-149.

George

York:

Fordham

Florovsky, Creation and Redemption, Belmont, Massachusetts: Nordland Publishing Co., 1976, pp. 171-188, 213-240.

oul

Christology—Soteriology

1. Incarnation-Salvation (Soteria-Lwrnpia) As we mentioned, the two major results of the Fall were

physical death and obscurity or distortion of the Image. These two results constituted the two greatest reasons for the Incar-

nation, namely the regaining of immortality and the restoration of God’s image in the fallen man. Salvation or Soteria thus does not mean only liberation from sin, in Greek patristic thought. The conception of Soteria in the Eastern Church and Patristic Tradition is broader and more inclusive than the Roman Catholic emphasis on “redemption”, and “reconciliation”, and

the Protestant

“justification.” The

Orthodox

Church prefers to use the term soteria also because the New Testament uses that term (about forty times) in order to describe the work accomplished by Jesus Christ (and the title given to Christ: soter—about twenty times). The theological elaboration especially of Saint Athanasius regarding the necessity of the Incarnation is of deep meaning. He starts from the two substantial characteristics of God: goodness and truthfulness, and ends by insisting that the Word alone was properly qualified to restore man, since He was Godman— Theanthropos. It was unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by Him should be brought to nothing through the deceit wrought upon man by the devil; and it was supremely 61

62

~Christology-Soteriology

unfitting that the work of God in mankind should disappear, either through their own negligence or through the deceit of evil spirits ... such indifference ... would argue not goodness in God but limitation. ... Yet, true though this is, it is not the whole matter. ... It was unthinkable that God, the

Father of Truth, should go back upon His word regarding death in order to ensure our continued existence. He could not falsify Himself.!

If one were to argue that, “as through the Transgression men became subject to corruption, so through repentance they might return to incorruption again,” Saint Athanasius would answer: Repentance would not guard the Divine consistency, for, if death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue. Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning. Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough; but when once transgression had begun men came under the power of the corruption proper to their nature and were bereft of the grace which belonged to them as creatures in the Image of God. No, repentance could not meet the case. What—or rather Who was it that was needed for such grace and such recall as we required? Who,

save the Word

of God

Himself, Who

also in the

beginning had made all things out of nothing? His part it was, and His alone, both to bring again the corruptible to incorruption and to maintain for the Father His consistency of character with all.2

Later, Athanasius the Great again sums up the various purposes of the Incarnation, showing that the Word alone was qualified to accomplish them: We have, therefore, stated, as far as possible, in part also as

far as we were able to understand, the reason of His bodily appearance; (namely), that it was in the power of none other to change corruption into incorruption, except the

Christology-Soteriology

63

saviour Himself who at the beginning had also made all things out of nothing; and that it was in the power of none other to create anew for men the likeness of the image, except the Image of the Father; and that it was in the power of none other to present the mortal as immortal, except He Who of Himself is Life (atrolwis), our Lord Jesus Christ; and that it was in the power of none other to teach (men)

about the Father and to overthrow the worship of idols, except the Word Who arranges all things and is alone the true Only-begotten Son of the Father.3

Elsewhere,

Saint Athanasius

emphatically remarks that

neither men nor angels could recreate the Image, for, men are

only made after the Image, whereas angels are not the images of God.4 Now, if one were to ask why the Word did not assume some nobler nature to accomplish this work, Saint Athanasius would answer that man alone had gone astray and needed to be healed.> But Athanasius goes deeper by placing himself in the Patristic Tradition of Soteriology according to which the most important and sufficient reason for the Word’s assuming man’s nature and death is not the satisfaction of God’s justice—the juridical Roman Catholic tendency rooted in Augustine and Anselm—but that “in it [Christ’s death] death might once for all be destroyed, and that men might be renewed according to the Image.”6 Again, if the Word Who created man, also saved him, but not by a mere Fiat, as in creation, it was because, in creating man, there was nothing which could be used as an instrument;

whereas in saving man, man was already in existence and was tending to corruption. Moreover, death was intrinsic to man, therefore life should be intrinsic to man that is, the Word Who

is Incorruption, should be united with the body and make it incorruptible.’ Elsewhere Athanasius makes the following remark: But since the debt that all owed had to be paid, all likewise, as I have already stated, were obliged to die; on this account especially did He come to live among us.*

64

= Christology-Soteriology

It is much more evident from the following passages that regaining incorruption and immortality is the ultimate goal of Christ’s Incarnation even though He must pass through death: Thus, taking a body like our own, because all we were responsible as to the corruption of death, He surrendered

His body to death in place of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His

death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, when He had fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its

power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire,”

Again: The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable

of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection.... For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when

He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required. Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection.!°

Saint Athanasius often speaks of the defeat and powerlessness of man’s natural death after the death of Christ.!! Here is another quite expressive passage:

Christology-Soteriology

65

Now that the common Savior of all has died on our behalf,

we who believe in Christ no longer die, as men died aforetime, in fulfillment of the threat of the law. That condemnation has come to an end.!2

The principal and governing idea of Athanasius here, as well as through the rest of the texts, is that for the disciple of

Christ, death, after His death, is nothing else but a temporary dissolution and not therefore worthy of fear nor anxiety.!3 Moreover, that in deified man the original state of human nature—its immortality and incorruptibility—is grandly restored. This restoration is particularly perfect to those who practice self-denial and virginity and are totally devoted to God.!4 Saint Athanasius’ conception of salvation escapes the limitations of a salvation merely synonymous with redemption or liberation from sin. In general, he calls the reasons for the Incarnation the need of man.!5 He evidently takes those reasons from the historical order of things, and we can say that he does not identify this need with redemption of sinful man. This need, first of all, includes deification, of which we

shall hear much. Deification was definitely the greatest need of man, and apart from sin.

It is possible to hold that Athanasius does not make re-

demption the exclusive reason of the Incarnation. We must try, then, to prove that Saint Athanasius considered the Incarnate Word as part of the original plan of God; in other words, that our salvation through the Incarnate Word already began at creation. That is what we shall attempt to show by continuing the analysis of salvation according to Athanasius.

2. Deification as the very Purpose of the Incarnation The teaching of deification constitutes the primary and central idea of the whole theology of Saint Athanasius. For this term and idea he evidently depends on Saint Irenaeus, who was extremely fond of this idea.!¢ Saint Athanasius’ emphasis on our deification, through the Word, comes, of course, from his attitude against the Arian

66

Christology-Soteriology

heresy. This heresy was, above all, a theory of deification, but a false one. It considered Christ the first creature who was deified in a very special way, though still like us.”!” Saint Athanasius insists that indeed we are deified, and that through

the Word; but that in itself proves that the Word is divine. Time and again he expresses this fact of our divinization.!® Our Savior was not content with only restoring human nature and bringing it back to its original state of incorruptibility and immortality. He also bestowed upon it a grace of divinization, greater and much more precious than that of the pre-fallen man.!? Saint Athanasius repeatedly emphasizes and constantly insists that our deification is the very purpose of the Incarnation: He (the Logos), indeed, assumed humanity, that we might become God;?0 He (the Son of God) became man, that we

might become God”! The true Son of God by nature took all of us upon Him that all might assume God;?2 He (the Word) is God bearing flesh and we are spirit-bearing men.3

He asks quite emphatically: “And how can there be deification apart from the Word and before him?”4 The Word had to become Man in order that man might possess grace in a secure manner; a mere creature like Adam was not able to

keep our gifts secure permanently.*5 So, the Incarnation of God was necessary mainly for deification because man was a mere creature, and a mere creature who could have divinity

only by participation would never be capable of deifying others. That is why Adam was never intended as the principle of deification apart from Christ.?¢ In some of the texts, Athanasius gives the impression that it is the sinful man who needs to be deified. However, the need of the Incarnate God for deifying man does not arise merely and primarily from the fact that man’s nature is sin infected, but from the fact that man is a mere creature. Adam was not a secure foundation of grace because he possessed it only from without, not from within; that is, he did not have grace united with his body as it actually was in Christ. But such a union of God with man sanctity.27

was

necessary

for a stable foundation

of

Christology-Soteriology

67

Athanasius argues not merely from the fact that man and angels had sinned, but from the fact that they are changeable, peccable and alterable. The first Adam sinned. Now, since it is in the nature of created things to alter, the second Adam should be unalterable, so that if the serpent would again attack man, he might not be defeated.28 Otherwise there would be an interminable need for pardons. Here, Athanasius is looking at the matter from an historical point of view. Adam

sinned;

Christ should be unalterable. But that does not mean that God willed Christ only after the sin of Adam. He really willed the unalterable foundation first. For salvation

and

deification,

therefore,

Athanasius

de-

mands the Incarnation of God. And even though he mingles the need of the redemption into his explanation, that need is not the ultimate reason, according to him, why the Incarnation was necessary; the ultimate reason is the fact that man was a mere creature, and it takes a God-Man to deify man. Consequently, if man was destined to be deified from the beginning, the Word had in mind, from the beginning, to become man. Union with God is as impossible without the Incarnation as deification.”? The great theologian of Alexandria profoundly explains how human nature was divinized by an intimate contact with the Logos through the Incarnation.3° He obviously overemphasizes, as all the Alexandrian theologians in general, the divine nature of Christ, whereas, in the humanity of Christ, he

recognizes a limited redemptive value. His ardent intention to prove the divinity of Christ through the efficacy of the Incarnation against Arians, of course, had much to do with that

overemphasis.?! However, a “mechanical” divinization of which Athanasius was accused by Harnack?2 is entirely foreign to his whole moral doctrine and especially to his holy life. “Saint Athanasius is as far from the concept of automatic divinization as any of his predecessors. This is proved by three factors. He unswervingly emphasizes the presence and importance of free-will in man; he tends to approximate deification to filiation in a manner reminiscent of Saint Irenaeus himself; and he gives an

increasing place to the Holy Spirit in the theology of Redemption.”33 Actually, Saint Athanasius recognized a com-

68

Christology-Soteriology

plete moral autonomy and a personal responsibility of divinization in every human being.34 Only those who truly believe and deeply repent can be divinized, since faith and true repentance are indispensable means for divinization.*® In addition to these, Baptism is absolutely necessary. It is by the Sacrament of Baptism that man is “united with the divine”,3° recreated and renewed “in the state of the original Image”’ and restored to the state of God’s sonship.** Baptismal grace, however, can be lost.*? In order to preserve it, man has to continually imitate the virtue and perfection of Christ’s life, our pattern.4 Our divine adopted sonship is in imitation of the natural Sonship of Christ.*! In short, then, the divinization of man is basically the work of the Incarnate Logos and His Spirit. But it is simultaneously the fruit and the result of the moral activity of man.” Now, concerning the very nature of divinization, Saint Athanasius penetrates more deeply than the earlier Fathers. He identifies divinization and adopted sonship. When we are deified by the natural Son of God we become adopted sons.*3 He employs the following terms as synonymous: ®eozrovéiv and vc‘ozroéiv which express the assimilation and the intimate union of man with God by His Logos and Holy Spirit. This assimilation is not identification, according to our theologian,

since man is divinized and becomes a son of God by adoption and by grace alone; he never can be a son of God by nature as the Incarnate Logos.*4 That which divinizes man, therefore, is

his union with the Trinity, not by nature but by grace. Such a divinization will reach its culmination in heaven whose doors are reopened by the resurrected Christ.45 After “the second epiphany of Christ among us,‘ the resurrection of all dead will take place. The bodies of the just will be similar to that glorious body of the resurrected Christ, immortal and incorruptible.4”

3. Universal and Individual Salvation This section will be dedicated entirely to Saint Gregory of Nyssa’s views on how and when universal salvation will be accomplished. Although these views sound quite “bold” and

Christology-Soteriology

69

“extraordinary”, yet they were never condemned as “heretical”, neither by an ecumenical synod nor by a local council. Saint Gregory of Nyssa repeatedly and emphatically underlines, throughout his writings and especially in De Hominis Opificio, De Anima et Resurrectione, and Oratio Catechetica, not only the finiteness of evil, but also man’s natural goodness; God’s love and power; the medicinal, educational and purgatorial*® character of His punishment; Christ’s resurrection as the glorified humanity and restoration of all the fullness of human nature collectively and individually (Universal Humanity = the Image of God), and the final accord of the

whole Universe with the Good, by a voluntary submission of even the evil spirits to Christ’s Lordship. Present as well as future punishment, in the mind of Saint

Gregory of Nyssa, is educational, just a way to help the soul to return to God. Man was deceived and became attached to the “coats of skins”. Now, by suffering the consequences, he will recognize the futility and disease of the “coats of skins” and will return to the Real Good. So, the punishment of the fall has medicinal effects. Gregory’s view of Salvation is of a process of catharsis of the soul from the spurious material alloy of the evil by a purgatorial fire and through the divine force of God’s very love for man.*9 Not in hatred or revenge for a wicked life, to my thinking,

Saint Gregory writes, does God bring upon sinners those painful dispensations; He is only claiming and drawing to Himself whatever, to please Him, came into existence.... It is not punishment chiefly and principally that the Deity, as Judge, afflicts sinners with; but He operates only to get

the good separated from the evil and to attract it into the communion of blessedness.*°

“The agony (of sinner) will be measured,” he continues, “by

the amount of evil there is in each individual ... and according to the quantity of material will be the longer or shorter time that that agonizing flame will be burning; that is, as long as there is fuel to feed it.”>! And Gregory concludes:

70

~=Christology-Soteriology

In any and every case evil must be removed out of existence, so that the absolutely non-existent should cease to be at all. Since it is not in its nature that evil should exist outside the will, does it not follow that when it shall be that every will

rests in God, evil will be reduced to complete annihilation, owing to no respectable being left for it?5?

There is no doubt in Saint Gregory’s eschatology that such a remedial and purgatorial process of the soul’s sinfulness and sickness continues even after death if she remains unhealed in the present life, since “the death and dissolution which came from that clothing of dead skins does not affect the soul” and God’s purpose is “to bring back man, His peculiar creature, to the state of his primal condition.”>*4 After all, “it belongs to God ... to bring back to itself, by means of renewed health, the nature that has been perverted by sickness ... and above all to be stronger than death and corruption.”>> Saint Gregory of Nyssa is certainly within the great Patristic Tradition of the first four centuries** in considering Christ’s

Redemption a means to an end, that end being the reconsecration of the whole universe to God. And so the very completeness of his grasp upon the Atonement led him, as well as the great thinkers of the early Church, to dwell upon the cosmic significance of the Incarnation, its purpose to “gather together all things in one”. Gregory of Nyssa is more original, more emphatic and bold enough, however, in stating that by Christ’s redemptive work not only man but even the Devil was benefited and potentially saved,>’ that the healing of the soul’s sickness and punishment is not a “terrible correction” nor “painful retribution”;8 that

the whole creation should be perceived as the realized thoughts of God, and as to the number of souls, Humanity itself is a thought of God not yet completed, as these continual additions prove, and “all the fulness of human nature (or the Image of God as the Universal Nature and Humanity) had _preexistence.”°? When it is completed, this “progress of Humanity” will cease, by there being no more births and no more deaths of course. Now, when will it be completed? Gregory’s answer is:

Christology-Soteriology

71

When, as I suppose, the full complement of human nature has reached the limit of the pre-determined measure, because there is no longer anything to be made up in the way of increase to the number of souls;® so that time ... is necessarily made co-extensive with the development of humanity’! and with the entrances of the pre-determined souls; that is to say in Gregory’s own words “after long periods of time”,® “after long succeeding ages, avwves”™ of the soul’s purification by fire just as the furnace purifies gold alloyed with dross, so that “their nature may be restored pure again to God.”65

What is the nature of that fire? The ineffable wisdom and power of Him Who, as the Gospel says, “healeth those that are sick”,66 Gregory answers.®’ True, Gregory seems to contradict himself when he at other times considers that “fire other than the fire we see” and one that “is never quenched” or “does not admit of extinction” and “will be extended into infinity.”6 However, such passages as these must be set against others in Gregory, such as the concluding part of the De Anima et Resurrectione, in arriving at an exact knowledge of his views about a Universal Apocatastasis or Salvation.’”° One of those passages precisely is: His (God’s) end is one, and one only; it is this: when the complete whole of our race shall have been perfected from the first man to the last,—some having at once in this life

been cleansed from evil, others having afterwards in the necessary periods been healed by the Fire, others having in their life here been unconscious equally of good and of evil—to offer to every one of us participation in the blessings which are in Him, which, the Scripture tells us, ‘eye hath not seen, nor ear heard’, nor thought ever reached. But this is nothing else, as I at least understand it, but to be in God Himself, for the Good which is above hearing and eye and heart must be that Good which transcends the universe. But the difference between the virtuous and the vicious life led

at the present time will be illustrated in this way; viz. in the quicker or more tardy participation of each in that promised blessedness. According to the amount of the ingrained

72 ~~ Christology-Soteriology

wickedness of each will be computed the duration of his cure. This cure consists in the cleansing of his soul, and that cannot be achieved without an excruciating condition....”7! “and some day after long courses of ages will get back again that universal form which God stamped upon us at the beginning.’

4. Individual Salvation— Free Will— The “Pleroma” Now, in such a scheme of Universal Salvation what role plays man’s FREE WILL and each INDIVIDUAL? Certain Gregorian scholars like Danidlou and Laplace go as far as to deny any individual salvation in Saint Gregory’s eschatology, and to even accuse him as a neo-pagan philos-

opher, in the sense that he tries to revive the Greek spirit and interest in the collective restoration and renewal of the cosmic nature, while “he misses the christian sense of the eternal value of the individual soul.”73 Danidlou, however, contradicts

himself by admitting the possibility of eternal condemnation of some individuals”4 whereas he does not believe that Gregory supports the thesis of Universal Salvation.’> Laplace, on the other hand, is of the opinion that Gregory’s concept of individual salvation is that of the totality of Church Fathers, namely “salvation of collective destinies of the Church”. Laplace, furthermore, is not certain if in Gregory’s

eschatology individual optimism loses itself into cosmic visions or if personal freedom and survival is really ruined, but the anxiety of an uncertain destiny is definitely missing in his idealism; Gregory bases his hope for the global salvation of Humanity on Christ, on His perfect Body, according to Laplace.’6 In other words, Laplace tries to be a more moderate critic of Gregory than Danidlou. It must be noted, however, that Leys finds exaggeration in the affirmations of Danidlou. According to Leys the homilies on the Canticle of Canticles, the Life of Moses and the Beatitudes treat the perfection of the individual soul sufficiently enough as not to justify any accusation against Gregory that he avoids the problem of individual salvation.7’ Finally, Balthasar rejects the thesis of Danidlou totally,

Christology-Soteriology

73

viewing the perfect restoration of the Image impossible if even one man will be eternally condemned. Such a possibility of condemnation would imply that the Image remains imperfect and also that the Body of Christ will never attain its plenitude, since the total Christ is nothing but the total humanity.78 Balthasar’s thesis is the closest, I think, to Saint Gregory’s

mind. Certainly, Dani¢lou misconceives and misrepresents the mind of Gregory when he asserts that Gregory did not believe in Universal Salvation, but accepted the Pauline doctrine of

Apocatastasis, which consists of the eschatological symphonia of all the creatures in confessing the glory of God—and of course of the disappearance of evil.7? Danidlou heavily contradicts himself as has been already mentioned, since he believes that Gregory teaches eternal and endless punishment and admits the possibility of eternal condemnation of certain individuals. How, then, can the eschatological symphonia of all the creatures materialize? Obviously, Danidlou thought that Gregory had envisaged the salvation of an abstract cosmic pleroma and not the salvation of the human pleroma, i.e., the

individual and universal humanity. In the light of what has been already said, nothing is more inaccurate than this con-

ception. It will suffice to turn to a cardinal passage of Gregory which clarifies the meaning of the term pleroma in his eschatology once for all:

®

The reason for our race, having some day to come to a standstill is as follows, in our opinion: since every intellectual reality is fixed in a plenitude of its own, it is reasonable to expect that humanity also will arrive at a goal (for in this respect also humanity is not to be parted from the intellectual world); so that we are to believe that it will not be visible for ever only in defect, as it is now: for this continual addition of after generations indicates that there is something deficient in our race. Whenever, then, humanity shall have reached the plenitude that belongs to it, this on-streaming movement of production will altogether cease; it will have touched its destined bourn, and a new order of things quite distinct from the present procession of births and deaths will carry on the life of humanity.%°

74

~=Christology-Soteriology

According to Saint Gregory of Nyssa, each soul as the Image of God is the human as well as the cosmic pleroma, includes “all humanity”, “the entire plenitude of humanity”;*! “our whole nature, extending from the first to the last, is so to

say, one image of Him Who is;”®? it is “the nature of man in its entirety and fullness,”3 “for the image is not in part of our nature, nor is the grace in any one of the things found in that nature, but this power extends equally to all the race: and a sign of this is that the mind is implanted alike in all: for all have the power of understanding and deliberating ... the man that was manifested at the first creation of the world, and he that shall be after the consummation of all, are alike: they equally bear in themselves the Divine Image,”** it is the “yniversal humanity” which had its consummation at the time of man’s creation in the Image of God;”* “that is the universal

nature (= cosmic pleroma) ... not part of the whole, but ail the fulness of the nature together’®* which reminds us of the beautiful Pauline notion of the entire creation’s participation in the sorrowful consequences of man’s fall.8” Gregory’s concept of the soul, of each individual soul, as the human as well as the cosmic pleroma and as a visible “thought” of God (His image), is very unlike the teaching of his master Origen, and yet more sober, and more scriptural. There will come a time when all these “thoughts”, which complete, and do not destroy, each other, will have completed the pleroma (Humanity) which the Deity contemplates. Universal salvation, thus, is not a “physical” or cosmic salvation independent from individual salvation but the salvation of pleroma means the salvation of all men, without not even one exception, of those

who lived in the past, are living in the present, and will live in the future.88 Furthermore, Universal Salvation is possible because man’s free will inherits intrinsically good and is by nature good as the chief feature of rational soul which is herself the plenitude of every good, since it is made in the Image of God.8? Now, human being is really free when it is united with virtue, with the Divine Being that is, since God is the foundation of all virtue and because only virtue has no master and is selfregulating (principle).°° Universal Salvation in Gregory’s thought, therefore, is not merely a negative concept (such as

Christology-Soteriology

75

forgiveness of sin), but an active and positive process of the individual to attain Divinization-Theosis, a daily Imitatio Christi and determined separation from evil. Gregory stresses the eternal now of God’s plan; history is a dynamic process, its end and beginning are the same; and according to him, “man returns to the original state through gradual profounder contemplation of God in all things.”! Gregory as well as Origen insist on the impossibility of God being “all in all”? in “everything” or “instead of al/ other things and in all existing things”, if evil, which does not exist,

still remains.?3 But this is equivalent to the restoration to their original state of all created souls. Origen, however, required

many future stages of existence—more than one “next world”—before all could arrive at such a consummation. And even when the original perfection is reached, Origen’s peculiar view of the freedom of the will, as an absolute balance between

good and evil, would admit the possibility of another fall. It is not so with Gregory. Gregory accepts only two worlds: the present and the next; and in the next the a7roxatrdoTacs Ta@VTavTwy must be effected. Then, after the Resurrection,

the “fire will be the more ardent the more it has to consume.” But in the end the evil will be completely annihilated, the bad saved by nearness to the good, so nothing will be left outside the world of goodness, and “all things will be assimilated to

the Divine Nature in accordance with the artistic plan of their author, in a certain regularity and order, since “intelligent beings came into existence” in order that “the riches of the Divine blessings should not lie idle” and “the All-creating Wisdom fashioned these souls, these receptacles with free wills, as vessels as it were, for this very purpose, that there should be some capacities able to receive His blessings and become continually larger with the inpouring of the stream ....”9" So at the very end, there is to rise in harmony by the confession of Christ’s Lordship from a// nature, even from evil spirits.%8 In conclusion, it must be emphasized that Saint Gregory’s concept of Universal Salvation is more sober and more Scriptural, specifically Pauline, than that of Origen. Whatever is the Mystical Body of Christ to the Apostle Paul,” the pleroma of Humanity is to Saint Gregory as the Image of God

76 ~~ Christology-Soteriology

which becomes perfectly restored in the Resurrected Body of Christ. This unique Body exists only if made of individuals being divinized through and in Him (His Church).'© Gregory’s most frequent references from Paul are: Col. 1:24; I Cor. 12:27;

Eph. 4:13, 15-£6.!0! Universal Salvation, then, according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa, is not only possible and biblical, but also God's purpose for creation and as such it is an absolute necessity justified by the essential goodness of creation, the divine origin and intrinsic worth of the individual as Imago Dei, the infiniteness of the good and the finiteness of the evil, the eschatological symphonia, and by the victorious, eternal and omnipotent love and wisdom of God.

5. Natural Will and Gnomic Will in the Person of Jesus Christ Besides Saint Maximus the Confessor (580-662),!°2 Photius the Great (810-893) was the second Church Father who dared to deal with the extremely difficult question of the relationship

between natural will and gnomic will in Jesus’ Person. Actually, Photius dedicated one entire question essay in his Amphilochia'® to the clarification of Christ’s gnomic or human will. Therefore, Saint Photius deserves much credit for his bold

daring to reassume the effort of Saint Maximus with some originality and deep inspiration, however. Saint Maximus makes a clear distinction between the natural will, which is the desire for good sought by rational nature, and the will which chooses and belongs to the human person. However, according to Saint Maximus, this freedom of choice is already a flaw, a limitation of true freedom: perfect nature has no need of choice, for it knows what is good ina natural way. Its freedom is based on this knowledge. Our freedom of will reveals the imperfection of fallen human nature, the loss of God’s likeness. Since this nature is obscured

by sin, it does not know its true good and is directed constantly to what is “anti-nature”.!°4 That is why Jesus Christ as sinless by birth could not have gnomic will or fallen human will. According to Saint Photius, Jesus’ human soul had natural

Christology-Soteriology

77

and rational desire, but not freedom of choice since He knew everything as united with God the Logos hypostatically,!% not by grace, but by nature because precisely of the hypostatic union, !0% In the unalterable sinless Christ, human nature and will are divinized. In Christ, that is, the Person is divine and the human

nature and will are restored and deified by the union with God or by the divine Person in Whom the human nature exists and Whose the human acts are. In other words, in Christ the same

Person was God and Man. Consequently, the gnomic or human will of Jesus Christ was not independent from His divinity, but always submissive to and in conformity with the divine will of His holy soul.!°” Jesus’ gnomic will, that is, was restored and divinized by its union with His absolutely simple and indivisible divinity.!% Further, since Jesus’ natures were indivisible and inseparable, they also had one, indivisible will, the natural will or the

divinized (restored) gnomic will.!% This is not monothelitism at all if rightly understood. In the case of man’s nature, on the contrary, since soul and body can be separated, after the fall,

in time and space, and even in intention and motivation, there are two different wills, both affected by the fall and hence opposing each other. Such opposition, however, could not happen in Jesus’ hypostatic union of the divine and human nature, the gnomic will of which was enhypostaton and not

independent human fallen will.!!° Thus, due to the communicatio

idiomatum,''' and to the

inseparable union of His two natures, Jesus’ human or gnomic will was “engrafted” into or interpenetrated by His natural or divine will, without losing its value and power, always following however His divine will,!!? since Christ’s gnomic will was asyntheton and not hypostatic, but enhypostaton.''3 In the very words of Saint Photius: Christ having been one hypostasis, indivisible, as well as inseparable, He had and preserved the human natural will,

but He never showed that He had received the gnomic will.!!4 Also:

The hypostasis of Christ is one and indivisible, and His

78 ~~ Christology-Soteriology

(human) nature is neither hypostatic nor could be conceived as entirely one physis.!!5

On the other hand, Christ’s natural or divine will is not

hypostatic nor could He have a divine gnomic will, since His one and only will is the common,

natural, indivisible, and

unchangable divine Will of the Trinity, of the dzrepovotou ovatas (supra-substantial substance) of God as Father, Son

and Holy Spirit.!!6 Precisely this Trinitarian Will is only common, not hypostatic.!!7 In interpreting Jesus’s saying: “I did not come to do my own will, but the will of my father who sent me,”!!8 Photius stresses precisely the same point. Christ could not have either human gnomic will, nor divine gnomic will. Furthermore, that saying could prove in Photian exegesis, the mind of Christ as supportive of the oneness and substantial identity of the Trinitarian will.!19 Nor does the divine will imply division into a gnomic divine will among the three hypostaseis of the Holy Trinity.!2° Nor is the divine will identical with the natural will of human nature before or after the fall.!2! Photius writes: If the human gnomic will of Christ could not influence His hypostatic will, it is to be concluded that the gnomic will had no power on His divine nature. Furthermore, there is absolutely no gnomic will either in the Father, or in the all holy Spirit (hence nor in the Son and Logos) subject to distinction by quality or description by a particular feature.!22

Christ’s gnomic will as God-Man must be understood not in human terms, but in God’s own language.!23 Not as an indication of human ignorance,, uncertainty judgment, but.as indivisible and common Trinitarian loving providence and authority.'*4 Hence, several New Testament passages referring to questions of Jesus’ disciples related to His will or preference do not reflect Christ’s ignorance of human gnomic will, but

these passages do reflect the disciples’ own cording to Photius.!25

ignorance, ac-

Christology-Soteriology

79

Because Christ’s human nature is not a particular person or individual, so His gnomic will is not the gnomic will of a particular person or individual, but the representative restored human will, just like His humanity is the representative restored humanity, not an individual or personal humanity.!26 Further, since Christ was sinless, His gnomic human will was

not affected by the fallen will of Adam.!27 However, Photius tends to believe so, Christ had the human natural will as well, as the gnomic will of an infant (inactive and neutral) which as

substantially sinless is submissive to the natural will and free of guilt.!28 After all, original sin is not hereditary, according to the eastern patristic theology and of course according to Saint Photius too, as guilt of the gnomic will, but only as its consequences: death and distortion of the divine image in man. That is why death is not punishment in itself.!9 Photius states this clearly, as follows: If the gnomic will had been implanted by birth, then the infants would have demonstrated that will in their baby’s nature as they feed themselves from their mother’s breast. Since they have no power of choice, they are unable to resist to their hesitations. Thus, Christ by becoming infant and man “totally alike with us, but with no sin’ !°, was free from the gnomic will. Now, if He would have assumed it later, the question would be how such a double incarnation and assumption could take place, especially since Adam’s fall was caused by the use of gnomic will, and not of the

natural will.!3!

In this sense, Christ was fully man and fully God.!32 Adam exercised his freedom in a way contrary to his nature,

and separated himself and his nature from God. Thus, man by the original sin acquired a fallen gnomic will (obscure and distorted image of God), a will that is based on ignorance and

consequently one that chooses and hesitates. As a result, our will is merely human and not impeccable as in Christ, because of its deviation from heading towards the unique end of man: God. What man has to do is to bring his gnomic will into harmony with what has been accomplished by Christ, and redirect his nature towards God. Real freedom only exists

80

= Christology-Soteriology

when man’s free will is united with God’s will. Accordingly, man has to collaborate with the divine will or man’s gnomic will must conform with Christ’s Theandric will. This conformity constitutes the true freedom and complete humanity.! Photius’s emphasis is on the unity of Christ’s Person, against the Nestorians, on the one hand, who sharply distinguish the two natures of Christ, and the Arians, on the other hand, who

divide the Trinitarian Substance by accepting in their man-god Christology a human gnomic will.'34 The difficulty in both cases is that gnomic will implies a person, an individual or hypostasis, but Jesus Christ was One Person and One hypostasis, not two.

Finally, Photius himself confesses truly that he is unable to fully understand and to perfectly explain how the fallen human will was restored if Jesus had not taken the fallen man’s gnomic will from the very beginning. Hence, Photius characterizes himself in this respect, as a student

of the Fathers

rather

anxious to learn more about this complicated and extremely difficult question, than as a doctor or teacher.!35

Certainly, Saint Photius himself follows the Patristic Tradition in emphasizing, on the other hand, that Jesus by becoming man was subject to ignorance as human being,!36 and motivated by philanthropy, namely to give man the example and power of perfect moral life and divinization.!3’ So Photius writes in one of his letters: The Savior not only was a human being in nature and reality and not in appearance and illusion, but also submitted to the natural and irreproachable passions of men. For the Master, in fact, demonstrated this very thing by His actions and that not in His divine nature but in that of a human being He sustained His suffering and prayed and agonized and perspired those drops of sweat... . !38

Christology-Soteriology

81

Questions for Discussion and Review Why does the Orthodox Church prefer and use more often the term soteria (salvation)? What were the two major results of the Fall? In what way does Saint Athanasius overthrow the Anselmian legalistic concept of “the satisfaction of God’s justice”?

Why was Jesus Christ Alone properly qualified to restore man? Explain Saint Athanasius’ teaching of Theosis or Divinization. Why was Adam never intended as the principle of theosis apart from Christ? How

and

when

will universal

salvation

be accom-

plished according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa? What is the nature of the present as well as future punishment (the “purgatorial fire”)? In the Gregorian scheme of universal salvation what role does man’s free will and each individual play? In what way does Saint Paul’s eschatological symphonia contribute to their harmonious cooperation and fulfilment?

10.

In what respects is Saint Gregory’s concept of universal salvation more sober and more scriptural than that of Origen?

igIE

What is Saint Photius’s understanding gnomic or human will?

12;

Explain Saint Photius’s concept of Christ’s natural or divine will as not hypostatic.

13:

What constitutes man’s true freedom and complete humanity?

of Christ’s

82.

=~Christology-Soteriology

Seclect Bibliography for Further Reading V1. Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction, Crestwood,

New York: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978, pp. 95-118. J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, New University Press, 1976, pp. 151-165.

York:

Fordham

D. Staniloae, Theology and the Church, Crestwood, New York: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980, pp. 181-212.

IV Pneumatology—Ecclesiology—

Hagiology—Asceticism

1. Orthodox Pneumatology It is a commonplace remark among theologians today that

the doctrine of the Holy Spirit has been much neglected in the past, and that perhaps what is most needed in our time is a fresh, clear and comprehensive exposition of this doctrine. Certainly, this remark is applicable to Western Christianity, but not to the Eastern Christian thought. The Letters to Serapion of Saint Athanasius, the Commentary of Saint Cyril of Alexandria to the Gospel according to Saint John and the famous treatise On the Holy Spirit of Saint Basil the Great were and are the three patristic writings, which remained throughout the history of the Christian Church, Eastern and Western, the standard authorities in pneumatology. True, even the Eastern pneumatology had not developed as an independent and separate doctrine, but always in connection with and reference to Christology, Trinity and soteriology. Even the heresy of the Macedonian Pneumatomachoi which had caused Saint Basil’s great reaction was essentially an off-shoot of Arianism.! Furthermore, it is true that, except in the controversy around the Filioque debate about the nature of God rather than about the Spirit specifically, there was little conceptual development of pneumatology in the Byzantine Middle Ages. This phenomenon is due to the fact that the personal 83

84.

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

existence of the Holy Spirit remains a mystery, even if He is active at every great step of divine activity: creation, redemption, ultimate fulfillment.? It is impossible to give a precise

definition of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit whose function is not to reveal Himself, but to reveal the Son and the kingship

of the Logos in creation and in salvation history. No chronological sequence nor subordination to one another in their hypostatic or personal existence is implied here, of course. “The principle of all things is one”, writes Saint Basil, “which

creates through the Son and perfects in the Spirit”? In the “economy” of salvation, the Son and the Spirit are inseparable.* The Spirit, however, is not only Christ’s agent; He is, in the words of Saint John of Damascus (which are paraphrased in the hymns of Pentecost): “Spirit of God, direct, ruling; the fountain of wisdom, life and holiness; God existing and addressed along with the Father and Son; uncreated, full, creative, all-ruling, all-effecting, all-powerful, or infinite power,

Lord of all creation and not subject to any; deifying, not deified; filling, not filled; shared in, not sharing in; sanctifying,

not sanctified.”> This personal “independence” of the Spirit is connected, of course, with the hypostatic function of the Spirit which is not identical with that of the Son (i.e., Generation, Procession). At

Pentecost the Apostles received the eternal gifts or “energies” of the Spirit, but there was no new hypostatic union between the Spirit and humanity. This important distinction between the Person of the Spirit and His gifts received great emphasis in the theological thought especially of Gregory Palamas and Gregory of Cyprus in connection with the hesychastic controversy of the fourteenth century.® I propose now, first, to direct your attention to the place that the Holy Spirit occupies in the Eastern Church, her practical attitude towards the spiritual charismata in contrast

to that of the Western Church and whether and how the personalistic understanding of Christianity or spiritualistic individualism is reconcilable with the Eastern ecclesiological system. It must be emphasized that the action of the Holy Spirit

cannot be separated from the action of the Father and the

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

85

Son, just like their divine essence is inseparable and identical (homoousios and homotimos in Basil’s pneumatology express the same reality).?7 Consequently, there is no place in the Orthodox Church for belief in a “third Kingdom” or Kingdom of the Spirit succeeding the Kingdom of Christ (i.e., the “three cycles” theory of Joachim of Fiore, 1260). Those who speak of an Orthodox “pneumatocentrism” opposed to the so-called “Christocentrism” of the Roman Church, may express their own personal theology, but they speak a language alien to the Fathers and to the saints of the Eastern Orthodox

Church.

The three Persons, in the Holy Trinity,

share in the activity of each of them. The Father and the Son are included in every action of the Spirit.8 Since the action of the Spirit gives life “in Christ”, He cannot be a creature; He is indeed consubstantial with the Father and the Son.? “The main argument, in favor of the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Son and the Father, used by Athanasius, by Cyril of Alexandria and by the Cappadocian Fathers, is the unity of the creative and redemptive action of God, which is always Trinitarian,” Fr. Meyendorff writes.!°

Leaving aside the question of the Filioque (which was to a great extent a misunderstanding and does not present insuperable obstacles; on the other hand, both the evidence for the

double procession is too scanty and its meaning too obscure to justify the perpetuation of the hard feeling and the ecclesiastical division which has resulted from it),!! we must notice two important points. On the one hand, it is the Lord Jesus who sends the Spirit to men: “When the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father”!2—“If I depart, I will send Him (the Comforter) unto you} ... “He breathed on them and saith unto them: Receive ye the Holy Spirit.”!4 On the other hand, our Lord is the source, as well as the goal of

the mission, but not of the procession of the Holy Spirit: “The Spirit of truth ... shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever

he shall hear, that shall he speak.... He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.”!> After Pentecost as before, Christ, as the Son, therefore, as directing Himself and us, but us in Him, towards the Father,

remains the “object” of spiritual life. The Spirit is the means and, being immanent in our soul, the “subject” of that life. The

86

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

“subject” strives towards the “object.” The Holy Spirit, that is, does not replace Christ and does not serve as His substitute but He prepares us for Christ and achieves in us the Parousia or the eternal coming and presence of the Lord Jesus.!¢ At this point, an important question comes up: what was the difference between the activity of the Holy Spirit before and after the coming of Christ? The difference is not absolute. It is the same Holy Spirit who was active in human life before and after the coming of Christ. But the work of Christ issued in such an enlarging and enriching of the Spirit’s activity that language was used!’ which implied that the Spirit was then given for the first time. Broadly speaking, we can say that after Pentecost His activity in human life was inward where before it had been outward, permanent where before it had been spasmodic, corporate where before it had been individual, and universal

where before it had been national. Moreover and above all, He was now known to be the Spirit of Christ and so had a personal character and quality which before could not have been clearly perceived. The work of the Holy Spirit is to continue, to implement and to bring home to all what Christ did for humankind once for all in His passion and resurrection. It is the work of the Holy Spirit to bring illumination to all, to convict us of our sinfulness or egocentricity, to convince us that in Christ, the Head of the new race, the righteousness and agape of the Eternal God have been once for all made availale to everyone who repents and believes the Gospei.!8

2. The Spirit and The Church The gifts of the Holy Spirit, which marked the beginnings of the Church,!? are not things of the past nor the monopoly of a particular Church. The Pneuma operates in all men and institutions as long as they confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, while remaining God.2° “Inspiration” as such is not a criterion of truth. Claims to inspiration must be tested by the character and teaching of Christ, by the ways of God’s working which He has revealed and by the witness of the Apostolic testimony. “That a thing is called spiritual,” said Saint Augustine, “is not always to be taken for praise.”2! You

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

87

shall know them by their fruits. And “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.”22 Saint Symeon the New Theologian especially emphasizes the point that it is possible, not only for clergymen, but also for laymen to enjoy already in this life, eternal happiness, the vision of God and a conscious experience of divine grace, which is the goal of Christian life. Throughout his Catechetical Sermons to his monks, Saint Symeon declares that the Church,

as the Mystical Body of Christ, continues in every epoch to obtain the same spiritual charismata as in ancient times and that those who refuse the possibility of deification for every man, in all ages, are heretics.?3

Greek theology initiated the doctrine of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit based on the Pauline Pneumatology.24 Clement of Alexandria, following Philo, compared the seven gifts to the seven-branched candlestick. But on the whole, the Eastern Church has been less precise than the Latin Church (and, in particular Saint Thomas Aquinas) on these matters. She does not make a clear-cut distinction between the gifts and the fruits of the Holy Spirit. She does not draw a sharp line between the gift that sanctifies its bearer (gratia gratum faciens of the Latin theologians) and the charism that edifies its witness without necessarily sanctifying its bearer (gratia gratis data). The Eastern Church rather inclines to believe that the charism generally, though accessorily, leads to the sanctification of the man who holds it and that the gift generally, though accessorily, leads to the edification of other people. The Greek Fathers use as almost synonymous the words “gifts” (doreai), “powers” (dynameis), “energies” (energeiai), “charisms” (charismata). Greek Christian thought always seems reluctant to introduce rational analysis in the realm of pure grace. Thus, the full “apostolic succession” is a transmission of the fire of Pentecost and of the life of grace of the Holy Apostles. When hierarchical office and pneumatic gifts coincide, we may

have such saints as Chrysostom, Basil, the two Gregories. When there is a discrepancy, however, between the office and the life of grace, the gifts may be reduced to merely external charisms and we may get ecclesiastical equivalents of Caiaphas, who prophesied as “being high priest that year”.?°

88

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiciogy-Asceticism

Such saints as Symeon the New Theologian, Seraphim of

Sarov, Nectarius of Aegina and Father John of Kronstadt witness to the ever-continuing free action of the Holy Spirit in the Byzantine and recent history of the Orthodox Church. Now, the practical attitude of the Eastern Church towards charisms is not quite identical with that of the Western Church. The Christian West is cautious and somewhat reserved on the subject of extraordinary graces. It may hold them in veneration, but refrains from asking for them. The Eastern Orthodox Church, it is true, is very much upon its guard against what it calls “illusion” and “seduction.” Nevertheless the Eastern mystics, chiefly the hesychasts, do not hesitate to expect and to demand extraordinary graces. The Orthodox Church is inclined to consider charisms as the normal goal of the pneumatic life opened by Chrismation (ConfirmationChrisma) and more prompt to listen to Saint Paul’s advice: “Covet earnestly the best charisms (ta charismata ta meizona).”6

The Eastern Church entirely agrees, however, with the Western Church in refusing to consider the pneumatic gifts as an aim. They are, as Saint John

Chrysostom

said, “helps”

(antilepseis). Beyond the charisms, there is the “still more excellent way,”2’ which the Apostle Paul announces before declaiming his hymn to charity. Beyond all the gifts there is the Spirit, whose proper name is the Gift! Eastern Christianity is always aware of an unavoidable tension between the two aspects of faith: faith as doctrinal continuity and authority, and faith as the personal experience of saints. It generally understands that an exaggerated emphasis On one aspect or the other destroys the very meaning of the Christian Gospel. The life of the Church, because it is created by the Spirit, cannot be reduced to either the “institution” or the “event,” to either authority or freedom. The Church is the spiritual Koinonia (“communion” or community) according to one of the key notions in Saint Basil’s treatise on the Holy Spirit.28 She is a Koinonia in God and with God, a Trinitarian koinonia. “The Spirit does not suppress the pluralism and variety of creation; nor, more particularly, does He exclude the truly personal experience of God, accessible to each man;

He overcomes

division, contradiction and corruption.

He

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

Himself realized ction is through

89

is the “symphony” of creation, which will be fully in the eschatological fulfillment. The Church’s funto render this fulfillment accessible by anticipation her role of “sanctification,” effected by the Spirit.”

The Church, therefore, has to fulfill a divine mission to the

world. She does not receive the Spirit for her own sake but in order to accomplish God’s purpose in human history and in the whole cosmos. Her mission receives its authenticity from the Spirit. The creative mainstream of Eastern spirituality was a call to “perfection” and to “holiness,” and not a propositional system of ethics nor a puritanical moralism. And the conscious and personal experience of the Holy Spirit is the supreme goal of Christian life in the Byzantine tradition.3° This experience is not against the Church hierarchy or the institutionalized Christianity, nor is it an automatic or magic gift of priestly ordination (cheirotonia). On the contrary, this experience is acquired by constant struggle, growth and ascent.?! That is why to a degree larger than in the West, the Byzantine Church sees in the saint or in the mystic monk the guardian of the faith and trusts him more than any permanent institution. And we must always keep in mind that in Byzantine society as well, as in modern secular societies of Eastern Europe, the greatest saints and theologians were and are men of prayer and monastic spirituality, devotees to the Eucharistic Liturgy, with its free experience of the heavenly and of the Spirit, this Liturgy being a mystical unfolding of the full abundance of divine acts of redemption and divinely revealed truths. In the early Christian community, the liturgical worship of God in the form of Father, Son and Holy Spirit sprang from the direct, conscious and personal experience of the Spirit and became established long before theological reflection had formulated the dogma. Examples of Trinitarian liturgical phrases can already be found in the New Testament. The Christians of the apostolic and post-apostolic years encountered God in the wonderful plenitude of the works of the Holy Spirit, whom they saw operative in their midst in the various gifts of prophecy, annunciation, power over demons, healing,

dominion over the elements and the raising of the dead.* This liturgical tradition and experience of the Eastern

90

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiciogy-Asceticism

Church “demonstrated a remarkable capacity for survival and also, as for example in nineteenth and twentieth-century Russia, for influencing intellectual development. Its emphasis on the free experience of the Spirit, as the liberating goal of human life, may be even better appreciated among those who today are looking for alternatives to the over-institutionalized ecclesiasticism of Western Christianity.”*4

3. The Filioque Question The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed had stated that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” In 589, at the third council of Toledo, that statement was changed to “who (the Holy Spirit) proceeds from the Father and the Son.”! The Roman Church did not introduce the Filioque until the beginning of the eleventh century (1014), mainly because she hesitated about the legitimacy of altering the traditional form of words.” The most comprehensive treatment of the Filioque question is found in Mark Eugenicus (1391/2-1445), Metropolitan of Ephesus, who was the leading Greek representative in the council of Ferrara-Florence (1438-1439).

According to Saint Mark Eugenicus the addition of the Filioque to the Creed was an act of violation of the ecclesiastical constitution, tradition and faith as expressed and interpreted by the seven or eight ecumenical councils.4 He considered the Pope totally responsible for the break of love and peace in the Church, but also as the most powerful man on

earth to restore Church peace and union, if he only decided to remove the Filioque phrase from the Creed.5 The whole question of the Filioque in the mind of Mark was a technical or canonical one, rather than a dogmatic issue.6 The core of his arguments rested on the seventh canon of the third Ecumenical Synod (Ephesus, 431), which strictly forbade any change, alteration, addition, omission, or correction in the Creed not only by the individual churches but also by the universal Church, even when gathered together in a general council:

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

91

It is not allowed to produce or proclaim or compose another creed but the one established by the holy fathers of the Council of Nicaea (325).’

Mark corroborated his position by using the letter of Cyril of Alexandria, president of the third Ecumenical Synod, to the patniarch John of Antioch.’ This letter absolutely prohibited the change of even one syllable or a word in the Creed, and stated explicitly the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father alone, though the Spirit is of the same essence as the Son.? This letter was included in the Acta of the third Ecumenical Synod and reaffirmed by the fourth at Chalcedon (451) as a foundation of Faith next to the Creed.!° Furthermore,

Mark made use of the decree of the fourth

Ecumenical Synod, by which the divine wisdom and completeness of the Creed of Ephesus (431) was reaffirmed.!! At the third session of the council of Florence (October 16), he also introduced a letter of Pope Agathon which had been included in the Acta of the sixth Ecumenical Synod.!2 Agathon likewise forbade absolutely any alteration or addition not only in the thought but also in the words of the Creed, and declared his loyalty to the decrees of the Ecumenical Synods, according to which the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.!3 Thus, Mark tried to prove, and successfully so, that the addition of

the Filioque to the Creed was not attested by any Ecumenical Synod of the Church, since no conciliar decree makes mention of it.!4 Only when the decree of the seventh Ecumenical Synod (787) was read did the Latins present a manuscript of the Acta of that Council, which included the Filioque.'> But it was not difficult for Gemistus-Plethon to establish the spuriousness of the manuscript on the fact that it was never before used by the Latins, and especially by Thomas Aquinas.!® Mark Eugenicus found special support for his argument against the addition of the Filioque in the fact that even though the third Ecumenical Synod considered the term Theotokos of basic importance, yet it did not add this term to the Creed of Nicaea.!7 This term was included only in the decree of the third Ecumenical Synod. The fourth Ecumenical Synod followed exactly the same policy. True, additions or clarifications could be made in the decrees but not in the Creed, and from

92.

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

the third Ecumenical Synod onwards, a clear distinction was

made between creeds and decrees of the Councils of the Church.!8 This distinction seems to be unclear in the mind of Cardinal Cesarini. In the tenth session (November | 1) Cesarini tried to show, unsuccessfully, that as long as an addition is a true, correct and useful clarification of faith, it can be included

in the Creed, thus confusing and identifying decree with creed.!9 So he requested that the discussions should be directed from now on to prove whether the Filioque-clause was a correct doctrine or false.2° Thus, the same concepts and terms

were understood in a different way by the Latin cardinal and the Greek hierarch, an incident quite significant, for it depicts the different mentality of the two Churches and their essential differences. These entailed the belief of the Roman Church in the continuity of formation or development of dogma, even after the seven Ecumenical Synods.?! As a sharp contrast to this, Mark declared that no one had the right to introduce the Filioque-clause to the Creed, even if such an addition were doctrinally justifiable.22 Thus, according to the Greek view, the Filioque issue was a matter of ecclesiastical discipline and loyalty. The Latins, on the other hand, considered the Filioque not an addition, nor an alteration, but a correct, necessary and

legitimate clarification or explanation of the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father.?3 There is no doubt that behind Mark’s argument against the Filioque addition stands the traditional Greek concept of the Church as a conciliar authority not monarchical infallibility.24 Indeed, the question of the Filioque addition, discussed at

Ferrara, directly implied complications of prestige and authority, and the further question of the primacy of Rome.?5 In Florence, however, the Filioque was discussed as a dogma,

that is as a purely theological question. Five of the eight sessions devoted to this question were mostly wasted in squabbles about the genuine reading of a few texts. In the sixth session Eugenicus had expounded at length the Greek arguments from Scripture, councils and Fathers in favour of his view, i.e., Procession from the Father only. In the seventh

and eighth, the erudite Dominican friar John of Montenero had done a similar service for the Latins.26 Mark was not preoccupied. He was not fanatic, nor intran-

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

93

sigent. Mark himself proved it when he proposed inclusion of the Filioque-clause in a special decree, but not in the Creed, in case the Filioque doctrine would have been proven “true dogma.”?’ Of course, even this was not possible, according to

Mark, because as the talks on the doctrine of Filioque advanced in Florence, Mark found and declared it a “heresy,”28 since it introduced two causes,?? two principles,3° dyarchy and tritheism?! in Holy Trinity. Furthermore, according to Mark, the doctrine of the Filioque causes confusion and even destruction of the traditional concept of personal attributes,2 and of hypostatic 16.6775 or manner of existence,?3 of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spin.

Of special importance is Mark’s philosophical argumentation based on the Aristotelian and Thomist theory of opposites, cause,

and causality,34 energeia and

energema,

kinoun and kinoumenon.*> Mark’s syllogistic reasoning is, if not superior, at least equally efficient and dynamic as that of Montenero.3¢ The main points of Mark’s rationalization are profoundly influenced by Photius.3” They are three: a) The Son as causality can never be cause in the Procession of the Holy Spirit, just as the Father cannot be the Son also, or vice versa, because of

the law of opposites and the theology of hypostatic idiotes, personal attributes, relations and distinctions in the Holy Trinity.38 b) If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque) naturally, that is as from one principle and cause of identical essence, the Holy Spirit too would then have the power to be the cause of its own Procession, since all three, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, have the same nature or essence.3? c) On the other hand, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two hypostaseis, then two principles necessarily cause the Procession, since the Father and the Son are hypostatically two distinguished persons;*° in this case hypostasis means manner of existence, modus vivendi,

in the Holy Trinity.*! The aim of Mark’s syllogistic argumentatio is to show that the Filioque doctrine, implying directly that the Son is a principle, principium, of the Procession, introduces a dyarchy, two principles, and two causes in the Holy Trinity. Since the principle implies a person and distinguishes the persons

94

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

whereas the cause (the Father) is not substantial in the Procession but hypostatic, the Son cannot be cause of the Procession nor principle.42 Obviously, Mark identifies hypostasis with prosopon. For this reason, he passionately declares: “As long as the Latins insist to teach that the Son is a principle of the Spirit’s Procession, they will never and in no way avoid dyarchy” in the Holy Trinity.* To the compromising insistence of Bessarion, Isidore and

the Patriarch that even certain Greek Fathers essentially accept the Filioque by using the preposition “through the Son” or the phrase, “from the Father through the Son”, and that “from”

and “through” in respect to the Procession mean the same, Mark objected by stating that both “from” and “through” mean the same, that is cause or causam, only in one unique case, namely in the creation of the world.44 The phrase “from the Father through the Son the Spirit proceeds”, used by a few Greek Fathers,45 means according to Mark that both the Father and the Son have the same substance and operate together simultaneously in the Procession of the Holy Spirit; and that both the Son is born and the Spirit proceeds at the same time from the Father as the sole causa and principium of their hypostatic quality.4° That this was the original concept of these Fathers is proved by the fact that never, nowhere and by no one, is the phrase “from the Son” mentioned.47 Mark emphasizes the point that while it is possible to find the phrase dc *Ytov by itself in the Scriptures in cases referring to the creation, yet that phrase is never met by itself as 6c "Yvov in texts related to the Procession of the Holy Spirit, but it is always met in the latter texts as “ex Ilatpos 6: "Yvov”.48 This reaffirms, in the mind of Mark, that the phrase 6: Ytov cv in the Procession does not imply cause or principle. Therefore “from” ex and “through” d.a@ in respect to the Procession, do not mean the same (é 1.e., cause of existence, d& or wera i.e. channel through or with which something is manifested conveyed, known or given.? These philosophical and theological arguments of Mark Eugenicus seem to have convinced John of Montenero who, in conclusion to his exposition, made the public confession that the Latins, like the Greeks, held that there is only one cause and principle in the Holy Trinity. In addition, he =

Li

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

95

anathematized those who affirm two principles or two causes. Despite this confession, Montenero continued in the eighth and ninth sessions to assert the Filioque dogma by identifying the ek and dia as both meaning “essential cause” (“ousiodes aetion”) in the Procession of the Holy Spirit.5! Of course, Mark was not present in those last two sessions because he was 111,52 and dismayed from the fruitless and numerous talks, as well as from the stubbornness and eristic attitude of his interlocutors.°3 Perhaps his absence gave more courage to Montenero to continue his arguments. Moreover, he was encouraged by the fact that no one among the Greeks had the strength to argue with him, and that all of them were by now exhausted, disgusted and nostalgic to return to Constantinople,

and therefore not interested in further disputes and quarrels.*4 Mark’s patristic arguments against the Filioque are drawn basically from Photius,>> Basil the Great,5° Gregory of Nyssa,°’ Cyril of Alexandria,>8 Saint Maximus the Confessor,59 Gregory of Nazianzus,® and John of Damascus.®!

4. The True Universal Church The true Universal Church is founded and based on the sanctifying blood of Christ, and His prophets, apostles and saints;! on the faith in Christ as the Son of the living God,

which faith is characterized as “divine and ineffable theology.” For this reason, the Church is invincible and, impregnable; neither her enemies, the heretics’ mouths, the instruments of

demons, nor the gates of hell will ever overcome her since Christ Himself is her immaculate bridegroom and guardian.3 The Church’s Unity must be interpreted and shown in practical manner

above all; in practical Christian love and

charity so our innate abilities given us by God may be the instrument of our common happiness.4 On the other hand, such a unity lies in doctrinal agreement, in making the homonoia of the truth,> which is the orthodox faith, “ro

ywrtiotikov Tvs THS" OpboddEouTroTews”,® and which Saint John of Damascus so eagerly loved. He knows its value: “Truth”, he writes, “must be preferred to absolutely anything else, even life itself. It is desired for living with it, and prefer-

rable to die for it than to live without it”.’? The triumph of the

96

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

truth and the salvation of dissenters was the specific purpose and subject of Saint Damascene’s polemical writings.* In his eyes the Church is the guardian of the truth, which forms its

divine iron braces and the fundamental rock of its edifice. This truth, therefore, in itself cannot suffer.? “Let us be firm, my brothers,” Saint John of Damascus writes elsewhere, “on the rock of faith, in the tradition of the

Church, and not remove or change the boundaries established by our holy Fathers. Let us close the road to innovators and do not permit them to demolish the structure of the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God. If we allow, however,

the introduction of any innovation, we unconsciously support the collapse of the Church. No, my brothers, you who love Christ, no, you children of the Church, you will never want to surround your Mother Church with confusion. You will not destroy her benevolence and beauty. Listen to her, who speaks to you through my voice, and understand that God said about her: ‘Thou art all beautiful, my beloved, and there is absolutely no spot upon thee’.”!0 This love of the revealed doctrine and greatness of the Church corresponds equally to the great zeal of Saint Damascene for the internal unity and peace of the Church. Saint John does not lack brotherly understanding even though he is an uncompromising friend of truth. “Nothing else elevates the soul with greater facility”, he remarks, “than the peace of the Church. In order to procure this peace the prophets and the law had appeared; for this peace God became man ... that is what Christ came to announce; that is exactly what Christ gave to his disciples before His passion and after His resurrection; that is what

Christ, ascending with His flesh to Heaven from where He descended without the flesh, left as a heritage to His apostles and through them to the Church. Peace is the agreement in good only.... Agreement to commit evil is called rebellion and sedition rather than peace.”!!

Saint John Damascene wrote these lines in order to clarify his answer to one of the contemporary Byzantine questions referring to the Church discipline and liturgical year—the

Pneumatolog y-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

97

period of Easter Lent—!? which later was one of the causes of the schism and of so much discussion. From this particular point of view it is interesting to acquaint oneself with his attitude and thought in concern. This attitude may be summarized in saying that for Saint John, the ideal and practice of peace, of brotherly love, of good understanding and the wideness of spirit constitutes the real perfection and divinization, the main aim of any Lent or feast as well as of the true unity of the Church.3 Then our great doctor proceeds in his ecclesiology determining the Church tradition in the same feeling and sense as previously mentioned: The Church law is not the law of a few ... nor will the power of speech of someone be enough to overthrow the tradition of the universal Church.!4

Tradition for Saint Damascene, that is, is the vital rule in

approaching teaching and and councils names as all

faith and the greatness of Church.!5 It is the faith of the divinely inspired holy Fathers, pastors of the church.!¢ It is characterized by various that are

avexaberv tepewy Te KaL BacitAEewy XpLloTLavots deSwopnuEeva, oogia Te Kat BeooE BELA, KL AOYa Kat Bia dtaTTpEeWavTwOV= KL OVVOOWY TAELOTWVY YEYEVYNMEVWY AYiwWV KaL Beormvevotwv Ilatrépwyv ...73!7 “aAnNOnS Kae matpototapadotos avvnbera,’!® “Wy ek Latrppwrv aovynbera” ,'9 “Bera mapddoors”,29 “exkXNnovaortiKn Becpobecia ... du HF owrnpia mpooy.vecbar TrEpuKeE”,?! “Tatpikat trapaddaces”,? “exkAnotaoTiKo. Peopor”,” “yiT@V KL OMA TOV X ptaTov” which § “6 Tov Deov Aoyos Kau W THS ExkAnotas dvwhev Kexpatnkvia trapadoars”,*4 “rerpa dxupa ... Arig eotw 6 Xproros”™> (i.e., the

immovable and fortified rock which is Christ Himself).

For this reason Saint John writes in the Exposition of the Orthodox Faith: “Whoever does not believe according to the tradition of the Church is unfaithful”.*° Besides Holy Scripture—the written tradition—the Church

98

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

Fathers and especially Saint Damascene also admit the unwritten tradition. Thus, the threefold immersion in baptism,

the prayer facing the East, and the veneration of the Holy Cross and the Church images are consecrated by tradition. And of course he also considers the unanimous teaching of the Fathers (the Consensus Patrum) as binding.?’ The basic characteristics of the unwritten tradition are: Perfectness,?8 antiquity,”? holiness*° and divinity.?! Moreover, it is very important that Saint John distinguishes between new faith and the traditional faith of the Church Fathers and Councils. But new faith in Saint John of Damascus

refers, in our opinion, to the strange and false

innovations rather than to time and intellectual development of Christian doctrine.*? Saint

John,

nevertheless,

condemns

the scholastic

and

sophisticated examination of the Church tradition.3 He also excludes even the smallest counterfeiting from the Church tradition that causes deformity in the whole beauty of Church tradition.*4 The principal reason which made the reaction against the iconoclasts (726-843) worthy and necessary was that this new “heresy” revolted

against the Tradition

of the Church.35

Interestingly, John as well teaches explicitly the infallibility of the Ecumenical Synods: “Their decisions”, he says, “come from God.”36 Somehow he asserts that the fourth Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon (451) was inspired by God, #€67rvevoTos.37 There are two very important points to be emphasized concerning Byzantine Ecclesiology, which greatly scandalized and troubled the Byzantine Empire. First, the distinction of the two

powers,

civil and

ecclesiastical,

and

second,

the

omoiomorphon constitution of the Church. Saint John of Damascus especially deals in a very clear manner with these two problems also, basically one of course, namely the relations between Church and state. Thus he examines the first one in the Discourses on the Images, and the second in his homily on the Transfiguration. It must be remembered that, although he lived in a country subordinated to the dominion of the Byzantine Basileus and therefore, having all the liberty to approach caesaropapism, John Damascene never felt weak or discouraged to maintain

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

99

the religious independence of the Church from the civil power and emperor, even under Leo the Isaurian and Constantine the Copronymos. John was the kind of man who preferred the persecutions and death itself rather than to deny truth. He had that character of iron will-power which always showed by his personal example a complete harmony between faith and works, and which chose, according to the expression of the seventh Ecumenical Synod, the shame of Christ rather than the treasuries of Arabia. He, moreover, was an unresting and

indefatigable writer and interpreter especially in defending the sacred images. Three times he dealt with this matter in spite of the decrees of the emperor. With a rigorous literary attack on the dogmatical mania of emperors, John writes: “Ov dexouar Bactr€a TUPAVULKOS teopwovvnv dpTraéovTa. Ov Baoireis AaBov ovoiav deopueiv Kar AVE ... OV TmevOouat BaotrrKols Kavoor dtatatrecbar THY “Ek KAnotav, AAA TATPLKALS TApPAdODEDL, EYyPa~oLs TE Kat arypagou,”.38

Thus, Saint John Damascene teaches that the Church is a society distinct from the state and entirely independent in its sphere from temporal princes. The Church must not be ruled by imperial decrees, but by the councils and the canons enacted by them; the Apostles and their successors—pastors and doctors of the Church—and not the emperors, have received the power to bind and loose.? Emperors cannot make laws for the Church. Political prosperity only belongs to emperors, whereas ecclesiastical administration belongs to pastors and teachers.*° Saint John then outspokenly confesses: ‘hmeikowev oor, wo Baorrev, eb TOILE KaTa TOV Biov Tpayuadt, popo.s, TeAEOL, SoooAnWiats.1 ev olf oor Ta KAO hWwas EyKEexXErproTtar’ ev Oe TH ekKANOLAOTLKH KATAOTAGEL, eXOMEY TOUS TrOLMEVAaS, TOLS AaANOAVYTAS Hiv Tov Aoyov, Kal TUTWOaVTAaS THY eKKANOLAOTLKHY Beopobeotav.4!

Furthermore, the Church is a hierarchical society composed

100

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

by pastors and believers; pastors and doctors or teachers— these two words are usually placed side by side—are the successors of Apostles; the heirs of their grace and power; the servants of God.43 One of the errors of the Massalians was that they despised the bishop’s authority.44 On the contrary, for Saint John of Damascus especially, bishop and pastors are the intermediary, through whom Christ Himself exercises His authority and priesthood.45 Therefore, obedience and respect to them is absolutely necessary.4¢ The disobedient and impious are condemned as arrogant and sinful revolters against God.4’ Commenting on the text of the Gospel according to Matthew: “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world,”48

Saint John also emphasizes the apostolic succession of the Priesthood and Church.” (Christ) has promised,” he writes, “to be not only with those (the Apostles), but also with those who following them believe in Him. The Apostles could not, in fact, live on this earth until the end of the world; but He really is Who through the Church as a unique body converses with the believers. ”49

Hence the Church, in the Orthodox Tradition, is identified with the Sacrament of the sacraments, the Lord’s Supper or the Holy Eucharist. She is a Sacramental Body of Christ and not a hierocratic institution.°° The eastern Church Fathers consider the nature of the Church as primarily and essentially a priestly vocation, since she participates in the priestly mission of her divine Bridegroom: (cf. Exod; 18:6) 1: Petw2:5,9-Rev,os10) ithe Eucharistic service, the whole Church is associated with the sacrifice of Christ, united essentially with His flesh and blood,

and transformed into the very body of Christ, Who is her Heart and Head (cf. I Cor. 12, 27). “When the Church partakes of them (the holy mysteries)”, John of Damascus and Nicholas Cabasilas write, “she does not transform them into the human body, as we do with

ordinary food, but she is changed into them, for the higher and divine element overcomes the earthly one. When iron is placed in the fire, it becomes fire; it does not, however, give the fire the properties of iron; and just as when we see white-hot iron it seems to be fire and not metal, since all the

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

101

characteristics of the iron have been destroyed by the action of the fire, so, if one could see the Church of Christ insofar as she is united to Him and shares in His sacred body, one would see nothing other than the body of the Lord”.5!

Commenting on Saint Paul’s expression: “Ye are the body of Christ and members in particular”(I Cor. 12, 27), Cabasilas adds: If he called Christ the head and us the members, it was not

that he might express ... our complete subjection to Him. .., but to demonstrate a fact—to wit, that from henceforth the faithful, through the blood of Christ, would live in

Christ, truly dependent on that head and clothed with that body (I Cor. 12, 27).5!“

Through the intermediary of the consecrated priest, the Church is the high priest of the new faith and intercedes for mankind in Christo before the throne of God.>2 The worship of the Church,

therefore, constitutes a liturgical and sacra-

mental representation of the sacrifice on the Cross and of the heavenly priesthood of Jesus, in which the two aspects of His ministry (earthly and heavenly) are commemorated and portrayed. That is why Cabasilas especially not only compares but identifies symbolically “the ieron thysiasterion” with Christ Himself, the victim and priest, the offerer and offering, iereus,

iereion kai thysiasterion®} with Christ as the “blessed heart.”>4 Inseparable eternally from her,*> Christ is revealed to us by the permanent inhabitation in the Church of the Holy Spirit, which sanctifies because of the spouting source of this Heart. A.ll here is grounded on an immense symphony dominated by the major theme: the crucified love and victor over death.** It should be remembered here that “Eastern theology never thinks of the Church apart from Christ and from the Holy Spirit. And yet this is in no way due to a feeble development of the doctrine of the Church. It signifies, rather, that for Eastern ecclesiology ‘the ecclesiastical being as such’ is something extremely com-

plex; it is not of this world though taken from the midst of this world; it exists in the world and for the world. The Church

cannot, therefore, be reduced purely and simply to her ‘earthly

102.

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

aspect’ and to her ‘human implications’ without abandoning her true nature which distinguishes her from every other human society.”*7 Saint Nicholas Cabasilas, acknowledged also as a great liturgist and faithful to the Eastern Patristic tradition, drawing an analogy between the creation of man and the reconstitution of our nature by Christ in the creation of His Church, writes: He does not create anew out of the same matter with which He created in the beginning. Then, He made use of the dust of the earth, today He calls upon His own flesh. He restores life to us not by forming anew a vital principle which He formerly maintained in the natural order, but by shedding His blood in the hearts of communicants that He may cause life to spring up in Him. Of old He breathed a breath of life, now He imparts to us His own Spirit.58

In a chapter offered to the dedication of the Christian Church and which forms an important part of Cabasilas’s De Vita in Christo,°? he more clearly describes this mystical identity of Christ with the altar, as well as with the intimate relationship between the “visible” sacred tabernacle and that of man, who is by faith its artisan and model. Also, all the actions of the officiating bishop, ritually identified with Christ Himself, the hierarchic representative of the whole humanity,

have no other purpose than to establish the house of prayer, the temple of God, “on which the eyes of God remain open during day and night,”6° and to transform a stone into an altar, since there is to be found the ontological center, the heart of the Christian temple’s flesh in imitation of its living Chief. In order to succeed in this task “that exceeds the natural forces”, the bishop should strive to achieve within himself the same metamorphosis; he should collect his thoughts to “introduce God into his soul and make his own heart an altar.”6! The washing of the holy table, its preliminary unction with aromatic perfumes and pure wine, represents the offering of human skill. It symbolizes the role of man in the work of his proper sanctification. Then follows the deposition of the relics in the interior of the holy table with their particular “chrism.” All these actions performed simultaneously reproduce the

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

103

stages of our spiritual ascent. There is a parallelism here, profoundly significant and of particular interest. Cabasilas explains how the bishop, “because he himself is the temple of God,” represents a model of the altar, “since only the human nature among all the visible creatures can be truly an altar; and all the creations of man should have only one purpose: the reproduction of this image and type.”62 Here we see a revealing profession of a true faith, which casts forward plenty of light on the whole Cabasilian anthropology that is always Theocentric and especially Christocentric. In the cult of martyrs, particularly, we find the profound Cabasilian picture of the mystical identification of the Church with Christ Himself and her sacerdotal character. Before depositing the “sacred bones” on the holy table, the officiating bishop annoints them. Cabasilas also insists on the inner unity of Christ with these relics. They form the real temple of God and the true altar, “thysiasterion”, whereas the Churchbuilding, is the imitation of that temple.

Cabasilas futher explains the cause of such power and effectiveness of the sacred relics by saying that “nothing other can be so intimately united with the Eucharistic Christ than the martyrs who have shared in His body and spirit and His kind of death, having all in common.”63

This is a capital passage of basic significance for its many aspects. First of all, it clearly explains the essential reason— the ontological reason—for the cult of relics, a cult founded on the presumed belief in the real presence in them of the Holy Spirit. Second, this belief precisely and “real presence” is the reason for their ultimate and perfect union with the object of their ineffable philtron® and inconceivable eros® with Christ Himself. This union is not only spiritual, but also bodily since Christ divinized the whole human nature by assuming flesh.% In regard to myron (pneumatophore chrismatic unction) Cabasilas writes: “It is this Holy Spirit that descended on the Apostles at Pentecost and baptized them in fire, infusing in them the true love of Christ.” This is an affirmation of deep illumination, since it established the causal bond between the

Holy Spirit and the “acting” love, the igneous-aesthetic nature of the latter anticipating its own origin.® Another basic characteristic of the Church, developed the-

104.

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

ologically by the Greek Fathers, is her holiness: community of saints (communio sanctorum).6* Commenting on the priest’s saying in the liturgy, “Holy things to the holy”, Nicholas Cabasilas writes: Those whom the priest calls holy are not only those who have attained perfection (thriamvevousa ecclesia), but those also who are striving for it without having yet obtained it. Nothing prevents them from being sanctified by partaking of the holy mysteries, and from this point of view, being saints. It is in this sense, that the whole Church is called

holy and that the Apostle, writing to the Christian people as a whole, says to them: ‘Holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling’ (Heb. 3:1). The faithful are called saints because of the holy thing of which they partake, because of Him Whose body and blood they receive. Members of His body, flesh of His flesh, and bone of His bone, as long as we

remain united to Him and preserve our connection with Him, we live by holiness, drawing to ourselves, through the holy mysteries, the sanctity which comes from that head and that heart. But if we should cut ourselves off, if we should separate ourselves from the unity of this most holy body, we partake of the holy mysteries in vain, for life cannot flow into dead and amputated limbs.*?

Obviously, Cabasilas follows step by step the patristic tradition of the distinction of the heavenly Church and the earthly. Both, the heavenly and the earthly Church are especially connected through the holy Eucharist. And both these two aspects of the nature of the Church are extensively developed in chapters XLII-L of the Divinae Liturgiae Interpretatio™ where the effectiveness of the liturgical prayers and particularly of the Eucharist on the living as well, as on the departed members of the Church is carefully studied. It should be noted that there is no allusion to the Latin theory of purgatorium which is foreign to the Eastern Patristic Tradition.7! Speaking of the twofold nature of the Church, we should mention that, “in the history of Christian dogma all the Christological heresies come to life anew and reappear with reference to the Church. Thus, there arises a Nestorian eccle-

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

105

siology, the error of those who would divide the Church into distinct beings: on the one hand the heavenly and invisible Church, alone true and absolute; on the other hand, the earthly

Church (or rather “the Churches”), imperfect and relative, wandering in the shadows, human societies, seeking to draw

near her transcendent perfection. A monophysite ecclesiology, on the contrary, manifests itself in a desire to see the Church as essentially a divine being, whose every detail is sacred, wherein everything is imposed with a character of divine necessity, wherein nothing can be changed or modified because human freedom, “synergy”, the cooperation of man with God, have no place within this hieratic organism from which the human side is excluded; this is a magic of salvation operative through sacraments and rites faithfully carried out. These two ecclesiological heresies of opposite tendency appeared almost at the same time during the course of the seventeenth century. The first was represented by Cyril Loukaris, Patriarch of Constantinople, the second developed in Russia in the form of the schism (raskol) known as that of the “Old Believers.”72 The intimate nature of the Church, moreover, is not merely an expectation of the Kingdom of God; she is a foreshadowing

of that Kingdom already in existence now, on earth. By her very nature the Church is placed between the two “aeons”— the old “aeon” of sin, under the domination of the powers of evil in which we are still waiting and striving for the final victory of God, and the new “aeon” when God’s Kingdom

shall be consummated. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that His Kingdom is already present especially in the Eucharistic Life of the Church on earth: “the Kingdom itself is none other than this chalice and this bread.”73 On the other hand, “the Church

has already shared in the heritage of this Kingdom in actual fact, through the thousands of her members (especially the martyrs—the first members of the mystical body of Christ), whom she has sent to their heavenly home and whom Saint Paul calls ‘the first born’, who are written in heaven....” (Hebs12:23)/4 If, finally, we consider the Greek Fathers’ and especially Cabasilas’ image of the union of the Church with Christ—the image of the union of the bride and bridegroom—it would appear identical with that of Saint Paul: Christ is the head of

106

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

His body, head of the Church, in the same sense in which the

husband is the head of the single, unique body of the man and woman in marriage (Eph. 5:31). In this “mysterious” union— “TQ UVOTNPLOV TOUTO Meya EOTLY-6 yapmosS 6 TOAVLEYNITOS, Kad bv 6 TAVaYLOS VU“Y~LOS THV "EKKAnoLtav ws TapHEvov dyetau vougnv”?>—the one body, the nature common to two

persons, receives the hypostasis of the bridegroom: the Church is “the Church of Christ.” But she does not cease to be the other person in this union, subjected to the bridegroom, distinct from Him as bride. In the Song of Songs, as in other passages of the Old Testament, which according to the Fathers, express the union of Christ and His Church under the image of fleshly union, the bride necessarily possesses personal characteristics: She is a person, loved by the bridegroom and reciprocating His love. The Church in her own being is considered, then, as the bride of Christ and would appear as a multitude of human persons. That is why in their commentaries on the Song of Songs, the Fathers see in the figure of the bride not only the Church, but also every person entering into union with God. Nicholas Cabasilas especially, faithful to this tradition of the Fathers, sees in the figure of the bride, the chorus of Christ; His followers as the mystical members who are nourished through His flesh and blood of the Holy Eucharist.’ 5. The Sacraments

It is not easy to define precisely how many acts or ceremonies of the Church are accepted as Sacraments by the Fathers. To understand the patristic mind on this matter it is necessary that we should first discover what is meant by the word “Mysterion”. It is important to notice that not even Saint John of Damascus, nowhere in his expositions either on the Sacraments to which he refers i.e. Holy Eucharist and Holy Baptism or in his other writings does he define what a sacrament is. At the time when he wrote, the word “Mysterion” was used in no precise technical sense. It had been used by several writers of the early centuries and by Fathers of the Church with various and differing connotations.! Vulgata and its probably older translations, translates the word Mvornpuov as Sacramentum

Pneumatolog y-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

107

derived from sacrare that means any consecrated thing, especially that money of those who quarreled which they put in the beginning of trial on a sacred place and then used it for sacred purposes; moreover, it means the oath taken by military personnel. The latter concept of the word Sacramentum was used in the beginning in the Latin Church. Thus, Tertullian calls Baptism, Sacramentum because? through Baptism, a Christian as a warrior of Christ, enters into His visible army headed by the Church. Furthermore, it means, according to the Greek word “Mvornpcov” a secret thing or action, a hidden incomprehensible thing, from the Greek verb myein, i.e., to close the eyes and ears especially. In this precise sense, the word “mysterion” is used by pagans or classics as well as in the

New Testament.3 Thus the revelation of God in Christ is called sacramentum

humanae salutatis,4 the death of Christ sacra-

mentum passionis,> the trinitarian doctrine sacramentum trinitatis,© the apocryphal teachings of heretics sacramenta haereticorum. Also the Jewish and Gentile customs, religion in general and especially the Christian Religion are called sacramenta. Finally, the meaning of sacramentum is identified with that of the Sacraments of the Church: Celebrations established by Christ and His Apostles which through their visible elements transmit the divine grace to the Christian in a mysterious manner. This meaning we already find in Saint John Chrysostom: “Mysterion means not what we see we believe, but we see something and we believe something else— Hétera hordmen kai hétera pistévomen’;’

in Saint

Basil,’

and

in Saint

Augustine:? Sacramentum est autem in aliqua celebratione, cum rei gestae commemoratio ita fit, ut aliquid etiam significari intelligatur, quod sancte accipiendum est.'® And elsewhere:

Ista dicuntur sacramenta intelligetur.'!

quia in eis aliud videtur aliud

Strangely enough, Saint John of Damascus, who in every page that he ever wrote speaks of his respect, even veneration

108

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

for the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, uses the word in a less particular sense to signify everything that is incomprehensible or inexplicable. This use of the word Mysterion is frequent in his writings. We have however to admit that Saint Damascene did not use the word in the sense in which we use it to-day. For him Mysterion is the name given to all those things which surpass reason and thought, all that is incom-

prehensible to us.!?2 He uses the word in examining the Incarnation of the Son of God,!3 the Holy Trinity,!* the Holy Eucharist,!5 the Death on the Cross,!¢ and the wonders on the

life and the death of the Holy Virgin.!’ In the case of the Holy Eucharist he uses the word in its full sense, as we'll see later.

The grace of redemption is imparted to man through the sacrament of Baptism especially and Eucharist.!8 Of the sacraments, only Baptism!9 and the Eucharist2° are given full attention in Saint John’s Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Nothing is said about the character.2! However, a remark which the saint makes in connection with Baptism, marriage and Eucharist, can be vaguely applied to all sacraments; viz.,

“visible elements are the symbols of spiritual (realities): “. ..Ta@ yap doaTta, ovuBora Tw@Y voouvpevwy eloiy”;?2 “...obTwS yap yuveTar wvoTnpLov eyKEKpuMEVNS THS AANOELas & TH TUTa..."33 “did Tov ovvNnOwy THS PvoEws Trovet Ta tirEp yuo... .iva dua TH ovvNOwy KaL KATA YLOLVY, &W TOLS VITEP yuo yevwpcba”.24

A. Baptism

In the theology of Baptism, Saint Damascene agrees in general with Saint Athanasius, but differs in some of his views.?> He also follows the authority of Gregory of Nazianzus. Baptism symbolizes Christ’s death, for, as Saint Paul says,26 through Baptism we are buried with the Lord. The three immersions signify the three days of the Lord in the tomb.27 As Christ died once and for all we must be baptized once and for all, and they crucify the Lord anew who have themselves rebaptized, after they had been baptized lawfully.28 The washing of the Apostles’ feet by Christ Himself, was a symbol of holy Baptism.” Baptism is administered by a threefold immersion into water.*? The formula employed is the trinitarian formula, Epiclesis, as enjoined upon the Apostles by Christ

Pneumatolog y-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

109

Himself.3! For that which is baptized stands in need of the Trinity for its perpetuation and maintenance.32 He who is not baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, must be rebaptized.33 Interpreting Saint Paul’s expression: “Eis Xpiorov Kai evs Oavarov avrov (Barriobnuev”34 Saint John writes: “To be baptized in Christ means to believe in Him and then be baptized. But it is impossible to believe in Christ without first learning the confession in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit”.35 Thus, the above Pauline expression must not be a Baptism in the name only of Jesus, or in the name of Christ, and is understood, according to Saint Damascene, not as a baptismal

formula or invocation, epiclesis, but that Baptism is type (typos) of the death of Christ.3¢ A Baptism in the name of Jesus only, or in the name of Christ, is rejected:3? The Holy Spirit is imparted to the water of Baptism and sanctifies it? by prayer and the invocation.3? John of Damascus calls the Baptism “bath of regeneration” (loutron anayenniseos) being so by the grace of the Holy Spirit united with its oil and water.4? Oil is used for the anointing,*! but it seems difficult to decide whether the author has reference to Baptism or to the sacrament of Confirmation.*? We incline, however, to believe that this oil does not refer to the Confir-

mation as one of the seven sacraments of the Church to-day. Baptism of blood is mentioned explicitly, and the author mentions Christ and John the Baptist as particular instances.“ It is characterized as: “very venerable and blessed, since it is free from any subsequent sin”.4 All in all, Saint John Damascene lists eight different kinds

of Baptism:4¢ 1) The baptism of flood as a punishment of sin; 2) the baptism of sea symbolizing the water, and of cloud— symbol of Spirit; 3) the lawful baptism or nomikon of Jewish synagogues which consisted in cleansing with water the clothes and body before entering into the synagogue; 4) the baptism of Saint John the Baptist which was introductory to the faith of Christ and sign of repentance; 5) the Lord’s baptism— symbol

of mortification

of the old Adam,

sanctification,

fulfilment of law, of the revelation of the mystery of Holy Trinity, type and model of our own baptism by water and Spirit; 6) the sixth baptism is said to be “truly laborious”, the

110

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

Sacrament

of Penance is, at times, referred to as Baptismus

laboriosus: “to dia metanoias kai dakryon, ondos epiponon”,*” 7) the baptism of blood and martyrdom, and 8) the baptism of the last judgement which cannot save us, but forever punishes.48 Baptism effects forgiveness of sins and everlasting life.” Prefigured by circumcision, Baptism circumcises us from sin. In order to be distinguished from the unbelievers we are signed with the symbol of the precious cross on our brow.*° So, we become the spiritual Israel and people of God.>! Through Baptism, we receive the first fruits of the Holy Spirit, and the rebirth is for us the beginning, the renovation, the seal, the security and the illumination of a new life; the charisma of sonship, the vehicle to heaven.*? With Gregory Nazianzenus, and contrary to Athanasius, John of Damascus teaches a double cleansing, by water and by the Spirit that is, corresponding to the twofold nature of man. The Spirit renews in us God’s image and likeness, and water, by the grace of the Spirit, cleanses the body from sin, and delivers it from corruption, water representing the image of death, the Spirit, bestowing the pledge of life and making us Theoeideis, according to Saint Gregory Nazianzenus.*3 Also the bodily appearance of Holy Spirit during the baptism of Christ was an indication of our own bodily cleansing and divinization through the baptismal water.*4 Salvation itself is impossible without Baptism.°> Because, in order to possess the faith that saves, we should be baptized, whereas the faith as action is given through the Holy Chrism or Confirmation, as a deposit. Such a faith as desire and action for salvation, springs from the illuminated intellect, made possible by the continual Incarnation of our Redeemer in the Holy Communion.°° The Cappadocian Fathers and even Saint Irenaeus call Baptism Photismos (Illumination), since it is the illumination of the souls by the Holy Spirit, the “principal illuminator throughout the entire divine revelation” (Saint Irenaeus). Since the manifested nature of God is Light according to the theognosia of the entire Christian and pre-Christian antiquity, the Baptismal Photismos should be understood, above all, as contemplation or theoria, or a vision of the uncreated glory, by which the illuminated soul is elevated and participates by

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

111

grace in the divine “Beatitude”. It is for this reason that even today the Feast of Jesus’ Baptism on January 6 (in the Orthodox Church) is called Theophaneia or Ta Phota (the Feast of God’s revelation, or the shining of His Light and Glory). The two great currents of the Greek spirituality meet at this supreme point of the Paterna Lux, shining in our divine acquaintance with the Son and the Holy Spirit. Here the sacramental theology of which the primary initiation is the baptismal Palingenesia (Regeneration or Rebirth), is reunited with the proper stages of mystical theology, and opens the

view of theosis, to the Christian souls. Commenting on Saint Paul’s words: “We all reflect, as in a mirror, the splendour of the Lord; thus we are transfigured into His likeness, from splendour to splendour” (2 Cor. 3:18), Nicholas Cabasilas recalls the beautiful passage of Saint John Chrysostom that runs as follows: From the moment that we are baptized, our soul is purified by the Spirit and becomes more resplendent than the sun itself. We do not only contemplate on the glory of God, but we receive also from Him additional splendour ... our soul purificated by Baptism . .. receiving the rays of the glory of the Spirit becomes in herself a proper glory that only the Spirit of the Lord can communicate.°’

B. Confirmation-Chrism (a) The second Sacrament of the Orthodox Church is the Confirmation-Chrism(a), Theotaton Myron,® The Seal of the Holy

Spirit’s Gift, pnevmatikis doreas sphraghis.° The Holy Myron is the solemn ceremony of the consecration of Holy Chrism, composed by pure oil mixed with forty (40) different kinds of aromatic material and precious balsam. This “flavoured unction” is mentioned at the end of the fifth century. Pseudo-Dionysius especially developed the symbolism of the suavitas odoris Christi. According to ancient rites, this oil mixed with balsam “represents the union of the divinity and the humanity in One Christ.”6 It should not be forgotten, however, that for the early Church this perfume was also inseparable from the sensible revelation of the Holy Spirit.®! According to the earliest Patristic testimonies and source

112

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

evidence (Tertullian, Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Origen,

Jerome, Chrysostom, et alii),°2 Confirmation was always inseparable from Baptism, even though the early Church Fathers stressed Baptism more than Chrism, the unctio post fontem. It was in the person of Saint Nicholas Cabasilas (1350 AD) that the theology of Chrism was thoroughly and carefully developed. The ancient close connection of both these Sacraments is preserved in the Eastern Church of our day. The 48th Canon of the Council of Laodicea, in the middle of the fourth century, as well as Saint Cyril of Jerusalem re-enforce this connection.® Saint John of Damascus considered Chrism as an integral part of the ritual initiation of Baptism in the same model of Epiphanius.® Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, particularly, distinguished between the two aspects of Sphraghis, “charactization”,

and

indelible.66

Then,

in Thesaurus

and

De

Trinitate®’ we find the whole thought of Saint Cyril of Alexandria.® The preparation of this great Sacrament, common in the East and the Latin West from the ancient times (second century) until today (esp. 1971),® is the exclusive privilege of the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. It is accepted as such by the entire Orthodox Church, Eastern and Western and Oriental. All the local, independent or autonomous Orthodox churches, archbishoprics, Patriarchates, receive the

Holy Myron from the ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Certainly, this old custom expresses honor and respect and gratitude to the “Mother Church”! The consecration of Holy Myron takes place by a secret prayer pronounced only by the Patriarch who invokes the descendence of the Holy Spirit upon the “holy oil that sanctifies souls and bodies.” The respective rite of Cabasilas, inspired by the Dionysian hierurgy, is intimately connected with the traditional Christology and Pneumatology. He begins with the close relationship between the sacramental aspect and the redemptive economy. “The Incarnation of Christ”, Cabasilas writes, “purified our sinful nature, and His crucifixion abolished the corruption and perversion of our gnome (will, reason); Baptism causes both these effects. Consequently, we may proceed to the communion of the Holy Spirit, ten tou Pnevmatos koino-

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

nian; by the chrism of Holy Myron—the

113

communication

with the Holy Spirit is achieved, since nothing more separates us from God. And this happens in the present life. Regarding the direct communication, sunaulia, with God, The Theia makariotis, we would not have enjoyed this ultimate union if Christ had not been resurrected, since the

resurrection of our Saviour destroyed the tyranny of death (sin)-the third serious obstacle, and granted the possibility to contemplate and enjoy in this life also the eternal ‘Beatitude’.”70

This significant passage, obviously, contains a profound theological elaboration of man’s salvation. Cabasilas always stresses the intimate relationship of the divine economy with the sacramental

reality. Christ, he insists, raised the three

obstacles which did not permit to anyone to enter again into eternal life: the natural deficiency, the perversion of gnome (will), and the death-result of sin. That is why the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection are imitated and inter-connected in the Sacrament of Baptism, since it is the new nativity, the

anagennesis, palingenesia,’' hemerini genneisis kai plasis,’2 and the entrance into eternal life.”3 Cabasilas always insists on the descendence of God, Who, today also, destroys the wall of our

separation from His divinity through the Sacraments. He repeats: “We did not move towards God: it is He that descended and came to us—making the earth heaven, and establishing in us the heavenly life”.’”4 G. Horn, in his study on the De Vita in Christo, very rightly remarks that for Cabasilas this descendence is not a mere “divine con-descendence”, syngatavasis, but mainly an “intimate immixture, syngrasis, of God, of the Holy Spirit in our life”.’ Now, if Baptism is the beginning, the new nativity or aparche (Pseudo-Dionysius and Saint Maximus the Confessor), Holy Chrism or Confirmation which follows immediately, grants force and movement, energia and kinesis,’”° the absolutely necessary energy for the realization of the virtual grace that we received in Baptism. In the Sacrament of Myron there is no mere virtual grace, an augmentum

of grace,

but the “active” charismata

and

energiae of the Holy Spirit Who nourishes the “natural em-

114.

Pneumatology- Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

bryon” of Baptism.”’ In the image of the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, Christ Himself acts and operates, the living Christ, to Whom the universal salvation as well as the whole hope of any good is due.’8 This is, certainly, the traditional conception and definition of Chrism(a): Christos, Christoi, Christianoi, expressions referring to the particular character of Christians as soldiers or athletes of Christ, which Cabasilas adopted and

profoundly developed.” It is because of this ecclesiological significance precisely of Chrism, that this Sacrament can be repeated only for those heretics whose baptism and priesthood is not recognized as “canonical” by the Orthodox Church.*? Here, also, the synergism is absolutely necessary since without it the Sacrament itself remains ineffective.8! Cabasilas recalls Saint Paul, who urged Christians to be careful against the danger of neglecting the received grace (2 Tim. 1:6, 13). There is no antinomy in the Cabasilian thought: On the one side, “only the virtue of the sacraments grants the treasure of their benefits”; on the other side, the personal effort is absolutely indispensable in order to safeguard these benefits; not to betray “the treasure”, i.e., a pure evangelical inspiration and doctrine! To penetrate into the bottom itself of the Cabasilian thought, we should see how he justifies the rite of Myron as a substitution of the apostolic imposition of the hands.’? For him, as well as for the whole Church, these two rites—pledge of the Holy Spirit—are not only equivalent but identical, and here is the given reason: “In the Ancient Law, kings and prophets were equally anointed; if the disposition of the Church were to consecrate kings using unction, then according to the same disposition she ordains priests by the imposition of the hands and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, deducing from the assignment the same effect, since the same virtue is conveyed in the case of the unction as in the imposition of the hands. Moreover, these two rites are identical concerning their sacerdotal names: Chrism, Chrisis, communion of the Holy Spirit, Pnevmatos koinonia (the Myron)”.®3 Certainly, Cabasilas in the above passage tries to emphasize the uninterrupted continuity and the traditional origins of both these rites. The imposition of hands causes the Holy Spirit’s descendence upon the new Christians. It had been, uncon-

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

115

sciously, the original type of the Sacrament of Confirmation (Acts 8:17, 18; 28:8).

The Cabasilian doctrine of Myron, which reflects the priority of his Soteriology and Christocentric mysticism in his entire theology, also displays itself entirely in the sacerdotal perspective depicted in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 2:11) and is viewed through the prism of Pseudo-Dionysius.84 According to the latter, Chrism replaced the apostolic cheirotonia because the aghion Myron contains Christ Himself, Who renders superfluous the imposition of the hands.*5 Such is the profound identity of these rites, assuming the character of the Byzantine

mysteriosophy. Finally, Cabasilas considers the virtue of Confirmation somehow as higher than that of the altar itself. Describing the ceremony of Church Dedication, Engaenia, he gives us a brilliant illustration of both the virtue and power inherent in the Confirmation, and in the Engaenia-ceremony. It forms a natural transition, a prelude to the great discourse on the Mystery of the Eucharistic Union, as much as the temple is the body of the Sacramental Christ, and the Holy Table is the place of the unbloody sacrifice of His Heart. And just as Christ’s humanity was confirmed by the divinity—echristhe te theotiti—so the new Christian being anointed by the Myron becomes Christos.*° A further proof is that the all-holy Chrism, as stated by the blessed Dionysius,*’ is in the same category as Holy Communion, which is also consecrated and sanctified by prayer.*® C. Eucharist

I. EUCHARIST AS SACRAMENT

OF THE CHURCH

1. In Didache (70-110 AD). The work as a whole is not a unity but it is composed by different sources. The material is from diverse sources and especially the liturgical material comes originally from Syria. The Didache covers the whole field of Christian life. It falls easily into four parts: I. The doctrinal and catechetical part, setting forth the whole duty of the Christian (Chapters I-VI),

116

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

II. The liturgical and devotional part, giving directions for Christian Worship (Chapters VII-X and Chapter XIV), III. The Ecclesiastical and disciplinary part, concerning Church officers (Chapters XI-XIII and Chapter XV); IV. The eschato-

logical part, or the Christian’s hope (Chapter XVI). The second part of the Didache is a Directory of Public Worship. It corresponds to our Liturgies and Prayer Books. First, it treats of the administration of Baptism, which is to follow the catechetical

instruction,

and conversion

of the

catechumen (Chapter VII); then of Prayer and Fasting (Chapter VIII); and lastly of the celebration of the Agape and Eucharist (Chapters IX, X, and XIV).

It can hardly be doubted that in the primitive observance of the Breaking of Bread (Acts 2:42; cf. also 20:7-11) we have at least the germ of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. Among the sources, it is the Didache alone which gives us explicit information about the form of observance, and this information is obviously incomplete, since there are no rubrics directing the action of the liturgy. We learn, however, that wine and broken bread were used, and that after these had been consecrated by prayers of thanksgiving they were consumed, before the post-communion prayers (Chapters IX, 2-3; X, 1). From the Apostle Paul we learn explicitly that the bread was broken, with thanksgiving, and the cup “blessed”, i.e., consecrated by thanksgiving (I Cor. 11:23-25; 14:16). The partially corporate or domestic type of Eucharistic Worship reflected in Didache IX-X, was continuous with that in Acts 2:42, 46; while this, in turn, was probably based on the original practice of the inner Apostolic circle at its headquarters in the Upper Room (Acts 1:13) where the Last Supper itself may have taken place so recently. That quasi-domestic Eucharistic Worship accompanied, every evening, the “supper” of Christians, meeting corporately as such, is most probable. A

joyful atmosphere, as that of the Aramaic Church, characterized this evening meal. At any rate, it was before and after a social meal that the liturgic prayers in Didache IX-X were offered. In Chapters IX and X, it gives us the oldest elements of a

eucharistic service, but without the words of institution or any directions as to particular forms and ceremonies and posture

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

117

of the communicants. The Eucharist is again mentioned in the beginning of Chapter XIV as a pure sacrifice to be offered on the Lord’s Day or rather “the Lord’s Day of the Lord,” Kyriake Kyriou (Chapter XIX.1). Here, we have the earliest use of Kyriake as a noun.! Pliny calls it “the stated day,” stato die, on which the Christians in Bithynia assembled before daylight, to sing hymns to Christ as a God, and to bind themselves by a sacramentum to abstain from evil.? Barnabas calls it “the eighth” day, in opposition to the Jewish Sabbath.3 Saint Ignatius calls it Kyriake, likewise in opposition to the Jewish observance, (meketi savvatizontes, alla kata Kyriaken zontes).4 According to Saint Justin the Martyr: “the day called Sunday” on which the Christians hold their common assembly, because it is the first day of creation and the day on which Jesus Christ their Saviour rose from the dead.® On that day, the congregations are directed to assemble, to break

bread, to confess their sins, to give thanks, and to

celebrate the sacrifice of the Eucharist.’ But before of worship, every dispute between the brethren settled, that their sacrifice may not be defiled.’ This sacrifice (thysia), which shall be offered in every

these acts should be is the pure place and

time, as the Lord has spoken through the prophet.® The expression in Chapter XIV, I: “having confessed in addition to, or in connection with, thanksgiving” is of special

importance. First confession of sin, then thanksgiving. Confession is here enjoined as a regular part of public worship, and is also enforced in Chapter IV, 14. In the Apostolic Constitutions (VII, 30), the confession of sin in connection with the Eucharist is omitted. The Didache contains three eucharistic prayers besides the Lord’s Prayer, first for the cup, (Chapter IX, 2), secondly for the broken bread (IX, 3-4), thirdly for all God’s mercies, spiritual and temporal, with a prayer for the Church universal (X). These prayers are much enlarged in the Apostolic Constitutions, VII, 9, 10. In the Didache we find no trace of the Glossolalia,!° and

worship not said to these pray in

is already regulated by a few short prayers, but it is who is to offer these prayers, nor is praying confined forms; on the contrary, the “prophets” are allowed to addition as much as they please (X, 7). A similar

118

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

liberty was exercised, according to Justin Martyr, by the “President” (Proestds) of the congregation, who prayed according to his ability under the inspiration of the occasion.” In the Didache, the two institutions, the Agape and the Eucharist, seem to be hardly distinguishable as yet. What is probably a rather earlier set of Eastern directions for the Agape is found in chapters IX and X of the Didache. The Eucharist of chapter XIV is the Eucharist as the second century Church generally understood it, celebrated by the liturgical ministry of bishops and deacons, with its preliminary arbitration of quarrels that the Church may be one. It is held on Sunday, and the word twice used here for “come together,” (synahtheéntes) is that sometimes employed for the special liturgical “coming together,” (synélefsis) by other first and second century authors.!2 Three times over, the writer of the Didache insists that this Eucharist is a “sacrifice” (thysia), and he quotes a text of Malachi which is employed by Justin Marty!3 at Rome A.D. 150 with reference, quite certainly, to what we mean by the Eucharist, Jesus is referred to asa servant of God, slave of

God (very primitive conception of Christ). “When we look back to the alleged Eucharist of IX and X none of this seems to be in the writer’s mind at all. On the contrary, this appears quite clearly to be the Agape when it is compared with what we know from other sources about the rite in the East. There is a cup, but it precedes the bread. And

the blessings for both are at least framed upon the same model, in that they are brief ‘blessings of God’ and not of the wine and bread themselves. The Thanksgiving after the meal is a little closer to the Jewish Thanksgiving though even here no direct point of contact can be made. But there is at least the sequence of the three ideas: a) Thanksgiving for earthly food; b) Thanksgiving for the ‘spiritual food and drink’ (of the Eucharist proper) which is of the essence of the New Covenant:

c) Prayer for the Church. Didache, then, IX and X are entirely in line with what we know of the Eastern Agape in pre-Nicene times, as Didache XIV is entirely representative of second century ideas about the liturgical Eucharist.”!4 2. Justin speaks of the Christians worshipping God “with a formula of prayer and thanksgiving (eucharistia) for all our food”!5 almost verbally the phrase which he employs for consecration of the liturgical Eucharist.!6

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology- Asceticism

119

The first complete “order of service” known to us is supplied by the writings of Justin. It consisted of: 1) Lections from the Gospels of the Prophets (= the Old Testament). 2) Hortatory Sermon by the presiding minister, Proestos. 3) Common prayers for themselves and all men. 4) The Kiss of Peace. 5) Presentation to the president of the elements ready for use. 6) The Eucharistic Prayer over the bread and mixed cup (wine and water). The Prayer is long and ex tempore in form; and the people associate itself with its offering, by the Amen. 7) The act of Communion. The Deacons offer the elements for those present to partake, and convey some to those absent. The collection for alms is also mentioned, but not the point in the service when it occurred.!” 3. Hippolytus’ Eucharistic theology really was deeply steeped in Paschal ideas. The Eucharist is the anamnesis of the Deliverance from the devils as the Jewish Passover Lamb was the anamnesis of the Deliverance from Egyptian oppression. Both are, in intention, sacrifices of the people of God, set up by God with

His chosen

People.

Hence, the command

at the Last

Supper, to “make the anamnesis of Me” with “the bread and cup,” is a command

“to stand before Thee and minister as

priests to Thee” (hieratevein) and this sacrificial and ecclesiological character of the Eucharist is explicitly brought out in the anaphora.'® “The Lord’s Supper,” the term employed by Saint Paul,!? and later writers generally for the Eucharist, is Hippolytus’ title for the Agape.”° Ignatius also uses “eucharist” and “agape” as synonyms.?! The confusion was due to the fact that in the first century the Eucharist was generally celebrated in conjunction with agape; indeed, in I Corinthians 11 it is clear that the Corinthians were stressing the banquet element of their common meals so strongly that their Eucharistic aspect had been forgotten. Hence, in Jude 12, the “love-feasts” are most naturally understood to be the combined Agape-Eucharists. Dr. Oesterley seems justified in his suggestion “that the name Agape was intended as a Greek equivalent to the neo-Hebrew Chaburach ... which means “fellowship”, almost “love.”?2 4. In Ignatius, the services for public worship are described by the term “assembly”, synathrisma hagion, which was already current and even customary in Paul,”} although we must

120

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

note that occasionally he uses the Jewish term “Synagogé,” synagoge hosion.”4 Moreover, it is obvious that a typological valuation of the Old Testament cultus had become customary: the place of assembly was described as the “place of sacrifice,” thysiasterion® and allusions of Ignatius make it very probable that the conception of the Lord’s Supper as “Eucharist,” i.e., as the thanks offering of the Church, had caused his name to be applied to the hall where it was celebrated. In this sacred ceremony the Christian partook of the flesh and blood of Christ or, as it is sometimes called, the bread of God, and as a consequence received a pledge of resurrection, a “medicine of immortality,” and an antidote against death guaranteeing to him eternal life.?6 In this way, his body is interpenetrated with the eternal substance of Christ’s body, it can withstand dissolution, and thus experience resurrection like that of the Lord. Already on earth the Christian bears the “flesh of the Lord” in his body. In the Pauline period, the consequence was drawn that continence was a duty in the sense of avoiding every kind of immorality, but here complete sexual abstinence appears as a worthy honouring of the flesh of the Lord even if it were not possible for every Christian.2” However, it is an unconditional duty for everyone in each case to maintain his flesh as the “temple of God” pure from all the sexual vices of the pagan world.”8 Christianity was the doctrine of imperishableness, the gospelits realization, the life of a Christian, the struggle for the proffered reward of imperishableness and of eternal life.2 Fellowship with Christ is for Ignatius, the essence of Christianity: he desires “to be found in Jesus Christ” in order that he might truly live, and the Pauline formula of “being in

Christ” is frequent in him. But he can put the matter the other way around and say that believers have Jesus Christ in themselves. Further, since Christ is God, he calls them not vehicles of Christ (Christophoroi) but also vehicles of God (Theophoroi) just as he has given himself the eponym

Theophorus. Really this was only another application of the metaphor of the temple of God which is to be found in his writings also, and which the Christian exemplifies.2° In the same way, he exhorts his readers to be imitators of God, and

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

121

accordingly he strives to imitate in martyrdom the sufferings of Christ.3! Further, just like Paul, he deduces from this union with the Lord the necessity of following His commandments: “Those who are in the flesh cannot perform what is spiritual and those who are spiritual cannot perform what is carnal; but what you do even in the flesh, i.e., in the life of the body, is

spiritual, for you do everything in fellowship with Jesus Christ.” He who has once confessed the faith does not sin, and he who possesses love has no hate.32 Faith and love here is a second formula for the sum of the Christian life: “Faith the beginning, love the end or perfection, and these two as a unity, that is God”—which is as much as to

say; whoever unites these perfectly in himself lives in full communion with God.*3 From this starting point of the idea of mystical unity, he equates the flesh of the Lord partaken at the Lord’s Supper with faith, the blood of Jesus Christ with love, or he greets the church at Philadelphia “in the communion of the blood of Jesus Christ,” i.e., in the communion

of the love of the Lord.34 For the Lord’s Supper unites one with the Lord who is divine love. John says: “God is love and he that abideth in love abideth in God and God abideth in him,” and the high-priestly prayer concludes with the words: I “made known unto them Thy Name and will make it known;

that the love wherewith Thou lovest Me may be in them and I in them.” The two passages give the foundation of the Ignatian thought in which the simile of the Lord’s Supper appears as a new element. Here again, however, John offers the exemplar: “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh My blood abideth in Me and I in him.”5 If we add the three quotations together we have Ignatius’ formula before us.

II. THE STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH IN THE EUCHARIST 1. In Didache: The Agape (or Eucharist, if that is the subject

of chapter IX) is a Jewish meal Christianized, though the Eucharist is recognized as the Christian sacrifice. The “Church” is the Christian assembly, not the building (chapter IV). The Didache places us into the situation between the Church

122.

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

polity of the Pastoral Epistles and the establishment of Episcopacy, or between Saint Paul and Ignatius of Antioch. The

Apostolic

government

was

about

to cease,

and

the

Episcopal government had not yet taken its place. A secondary order of “Apostles”, “prophets” and “teachers” were moving about and continued the missionary work of the primitive Apostles, while the government of the particular congregations remained in the hands of Presbyter—Bishops and Deacons, just as in Philippi and other congregations of Paul. Such a state of things we should expect between A.D. 70-110. The organization of the Church in the Didache appears very free and flexible. There is no visible centre of unity, neither at Jerusalem, nor Antioch, nor Ephesus, nor Rome;

which are not even mentioned. The author is silent about Peter, and knows nothing of his primacy or supremacy. No creed nor rule of faith is required as a condition of membership or bond of union; but instruction in Christian morality after the pattern of the Sermon on the Mount precedes Baptism. The baptismal formula which includes some belief in the Trinity and the eucharistic prayers which imply some belief in the atonement, are a near approach to a confession, but it is not formulated.

Nevertheless, there is a spiritual unity in the Church such as Paul had in view.3¢ All Christians are brethren in the Lord, though scattered over the earth: they believe in God as the author of all good, and in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior; they are baptized into the triune name; they partake of the same Eucharist; they pray the Lord’s Prayer; they abstain from the sins forbidden in the Decalogue and all other sins;

they practice every Christian virtue, and keep the royal law of love to God and to our neighbor; they look hopefully and watchfully forward to the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of the righteous. The Church is to be perfected into that kingdom which God has prepared for her. The Breaking of Bread is the primitive eschatological sacrament, the sacrament of a transformed eschatology. There is a strong feeling of Christian brotherhood running through the eucharistic prayers and the whole Didache (especially chapter XII). This is represented by the repeated emphasis on the unity of the Church. The liturgic prayers in Didache IX-X were of-

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

— 123

fered, with the symbolism of Cup and breaking of a Loaf which is here viewed as the figure of Church unity in Jesus.37 The above symbolism of Christian unity in Christ reappears in the Epistles of Ignatius (c. 110-116).

He bids all assemble

frequently for full corporate worship, “breaking one bread, which (action) is a specific for immortality, an antidote that a man die not but live in Christ Jesus for ever.”38 In the eucharistic prayers of the Didache (chapters IX and X) the Church gives thanks for the divine gifts of life and knowledge brought to them through Jesus, and for spiritual food and drink; and it prays that Christians scattered throughout the entire world should be united in the Messianic Kingdom which is deeply longed for. Neither here nor elsewhere in the writings is anything said about the death and resurrection of Jesus, about His Cross and the meaning of His sacrificial death, about sin and redemption of mankind, nor even about

the divinity, pre-existence, and ascension of Jesus. Here we have, in purest expression, a Christianity free from the Law (chapter XVI, 2). It is built upon the operations of the Spirit in the Church, and it looks forward to the coming of the Lord

and His glorious kingdom. The phrase: hyper tis hagias ambélou David tou pedos sou, is of particular ecclesiological importance. With this figure of the vine is combined the conception of David as the ideal Messianic King.39 In the mind of aJewish Christian “the Holy Vine of David” stood for the Christian Church, the fulfilment of the Ideal of Israel.4° The need for a liturgical form for use at the Eucharist in connection with the cup provided the occasion for the use of the expression “The Holy Vine of David.” The wine of the cup of the New Covenant was taken as symbolizing the Christian Church. The Church was the true Israel “made known” by God “through Jesus.” This relating of the wine not to the blood of Christ but to the Church of God has its parallel in the prayer peri tou klasmatos (chapter IX, 3-4), where the broken place of the loaf is symbolic not of the physical body of Christ but of the Church. So the prayer peri tou poteriou (chapter IX, 2) is a thanksgiving for the Church, revealed by Jesus. To regard the cup as a symbol of the Church was in complete accord with the attitude of the spiritual Jewish Christian

124.

=Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

of the first age of the Church. The expression is the result of the circumstances which suggested it. It is original. The use of the term touto to klasma in the Didache intercession for the Church gains a new significance. The interest which attached to each of the broken pieces is the key to non-use of the moral natural word drtos in the Didache prayer, so that one “piece” rather than the whole broken loaf is made to provide the illustration of the unity after separation. The intercession is offered in the name of all, but is to be related by the individual communicant to the “piece” he is to receive. The alternative is to take k/dsma as substituted by the Didachist for drtos in the sense of drtos keklasménos. For this sense, however, there is no known parallel.

Ill. THE CELEBRANT IN THE EUCHARIST

AND THE PEOPLE

a) Gathering: In the second and third centuries, we find a considerable change, first in Hippolytus and the Ignatian Epistles, and then more fully developed in Irenaeus (c. 180), Tertullian (200), and Cyprian (250). Hippolytus says that the layman cannot make a blessing or, make the blessed bread, evlogion (Apost. Tradition, chapter XXVI, 12). Now, the distinction of clergy, klerikds, from laymen, lads, becomes obvious and more clear later on, as the

religious character of the sacrament was developed. A single Liturgy celebrated usually on Sunday (the Liturgy was celebrated on days other than Sunday very early, on Martyrs’ anniversaries according to the Martyrium Polycarpi, c. A.D. 157) by the Bishop surrounded by all the presbyters and deacons for the whole body of the faithful was the primitive practice (Apost. Tradition, chapter XXIV). “All the presbytery” join with the bishop in offering the gifts; the “concelebration” of a later terminology (Apost. Tradition. chapter IV, 2). The custom is derived from a time when the local monarchical episcopate was not yet established and the presbyters were normal officiants at worship.*! They act in their corporate capacity. (Compare in chapter VIII, 1 of the Apostolic Tradition). All the congregation participates in the Liturgy by respond-

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

125

ing “Amen”, “We have them (our hearts with the Lord”), “(It is) meet and right (to give thanks unto the Lord”), etc. to the Bishop.*2 The plural pronoun “we” of the Canon Prayer recited by the Bishop,*? originally—and probably in Hippolytus’ opinion also—meant “all we Christians in this congregation” (Compare chapter

IV.

12, “your sacrifice” in Didache

XIV, and the

explicit language in Justin, Dialogue 116-117). Later on, in Ignatius, the distinction between the clergy and laity becomes stronger and more clear. Those who had been redeemed by Christ constituted a single great spiritual unity of saints: that was undoubtedly a teaching self-understood and essential to Ignatius;44 and all the letters

which he wrote rest upon this presupposition. But a new matter now comes altogether to the front, a matter which includes not only his human and official interest, but also his theological interest: it is that of the individual Church and, in particular,

the Church as an organism governed by a threefold order of clergy. At the head of the Church stands one bishop, under him the college of presbyters, whereas the deacons occupy the third rank. The unity of the Church is incarnate in the Bishop; he is in the place of God if the presbyters are to be compared with the college of Apostles. He is the highest authority for doctrine and is commissioned by Jesus Christ just as Jesus was commissioned by the Father and was of one mind with Him; thus the Bishop must be looked up to as to the Lord Himself. All the functions of the Church are subject to his oversight,

nothing can take place apart from him, neither Baptism nor Agape nor celebration of the Lord’s Supper.* The command of subjection to him applies without exception to every member of the Church, including the presbyters and deacons.*’ The Bishop alone celebrates the Eucharist and all the congregation, his people, around him, participate in the liturgy. The Eucharist is valid only with the presidence of the Bishop or of someone appointed by him. The Bishop is the visible Christ, and where the Bishop is the whole Church is there.** Evidently, the priests also have the power, by the virtue of their ordination, to consecrate bread and wine, but when the Bishop celebrates the liturgy they should encircle him and

126

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

concelebrate

with him.4? This symbolizes the unity of the

Church in offering also the sacrifice to God. If the Church goes forward accordingly, she will be protected from all attacks of hostile heretics. It is to be hoped that these latter will one day repent, return to the unity of the Church, and submit themselves to the Bishop.*! b) Word of God: The main purpose of the early gatherings of the worshipping Christians was to participate in the Holy Communion, and to be instructed and edified in Christian faith and life. Hence, the Didache emphasizes the frequent gathering together of the Christians in order to seek what is fitting for their souls, “for the whole time of their faith shall not profit them, if ye be not perfected at the last season.”*? We find the same emphasis in Hippolytus, as well as in Justin,>3 and Ignatius.*4 Hippolytus doubtlessly does not think it necessary to prescribe attendance at the Sunday Eucharists, assuming that no true believer would willingly absent himself.°> Regular weekday Eucharists were not yet customary, although they were held at times of special prayer and fasting.°* So, the only weekday meetings he presupposes are gatherings for prayer and in-

struction in the Word, with the Bible as textbook, and those who could read were expected to follow the passages cited. “_...But if there should be an instruction, kathégesis, in the Word” he writes, “let each one prefer to go thither, considering that it is God whom he hears speaking by the mouth of him who instructs, kathegeisthe. For having prayed with the Church, he will be able to avoid all the evils of that day. The God-fearing man should consider it a great loss if he does not go to the place in which they give instruction and especially if he knows (how) to read ... and thou shalt be profited by the things which the Holy Spirit will give to thee by him who instructs, and so thy faith will be established by what thou hearest. And further he shall tell thee there what thou oughtest

to do in thine own house. And therefore let each one be careful to go to the assembly to the place where the Holy Spirit abounds.”>’ I and II Clement give an idea of the content and style of the teaching, which would be given by instructors like those of Chapter XVI, | of the Apostolic Tradition.

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

127

The instruction of a catechumen lasts for three years. But if a man be earnest, spoudeéos, and persevere, proskarterein, well in the matter, he may be received “because it is not the time that is judged, but the conduct.”58 Each time the teacher or the instructor finishes his instruction, the catechumens pray by themselves apart from the faithful. And the women stand in the assembly apart from men, both the baptized women and the women catechumens. Then, after the prayer is finished, the catechumens shall not give the kiss of peace, for their kiss is not yet pure. Thus, the baptized shall embrace one another, men with men and women with women.°*? After the prayer of the catechumens, the teacher lays hands upon them and prays and dismisses them. The teacher may be an ecclesiastic or a layman, because it depends on his experience and manner of behavior.“ Moreover, chapter XXXIII of the Apostolic Tradition speaks of a daily session of the presbyters and deacons at the place which the bishop shall appoint for them. This daily assembly was the Christian “sanhedrin” (=the Aramaic word

of presbytérion or Synedrion), to which individuals brought their problems and controversies for “instruction.” At these gatherings, in addition, the clergy received assignments for their duties of that day; in these latter, the deacons were more

important than the presbyters and their absence a more serious fault. c) Offering: Christian worship and Christian social life centered in a “table-bond”; the specifically Christian act of worship

was

the Eucharist,

which,

in apostolic times, was

regularly celebrated in conjunction with a meal of some sort (I Cor. 11:21), and even in Hippolytus’ day had not lost all traces of the earlier custom.°! But the Christians were extremely fond of other common

meals as well, the “agapes,” of a less sacred

but still definitely religious nature.® In all of these meals the amount of food required was considerable, and providing it naturally entailed real expense. To supply this food, consequently, was a meritorious act, which not only satisfied the needs of the brethren but enabled the Church to hold a liturgical service at which the food was placed in the midst of the congregation and “blessed.” Hence the various foods were naturally called “offerings,” and from this it was only a short

128

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

step to calling the service itself a “sacrifice.” The word first appears in Didache XIV, 1-2 where it is used of the Eucharist or (more probably) the Eucharist-Agape. When the term was definitely adopted into the Christian vocabulary, its further definition in Old Testament language was inevitable. Here, the nearest analogue might have been found in the “peace-offerings”, which were eaten by those who offered them. But the Christians did not usually follow Levitical distinctions closely, and Hippolytus® speaks of the Bishop as “propitiating God’s countenance,” language that more properly belongs to the “sin-offerings.” In the Prayer of the Consecration of a Bishop, his self-offering as an “odour

of sweet savour” is the “offering” of a holy life, as in Romans 12:1. A special type of Christian offering were the first-fruits® which were likewise solemnly presented and “blessed” by the Bishop, naming him who brought them.® There were, again, explicit Old Testament analogies, but in Christianity “sacrifice” did not permanently become a term for this custom. Another example of “blessing” at the Eucharist of blood other than the bread and wine is the blessing of oil®? and of cheese and olives,®8 which were eaten at the service and part of the oil was sipped, the remainder being reserved for anointing the sick. This “blessing” by the Bishop is a eucharist or thanksgiving as at the oblation of bread and wine. But he shall not say word for the same prayer but with similar effect.” Perhaps only Hippolytus’ exaggerated reverence for the past preserved the usage, which at any rate soon disappeared. None of the other versions of his treatise retain chapter VI of the Apostolic Tradition for which the Canons (Compare Constitutions VIII, 30) substitute a blessing of first-fruits. The usual Old Testament background to these prayers need hardly be pointed out. d) Consecration: The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (chapter IV, 11-13) contains the only pre-Nicene text of an eucharistic prayer which has reached us without undergoing extensive revision later. This prayer was written down more or less verbally in the existed form at Rome c. A.D. 215, but the author emphatically claims that it represents traditional Roman practice in his own youth a generation before.

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

129

Gregory Dix reproduces this text thus: “11. Doing therefore the anamnesis’ of His death and resurrection we offer to Thee the bread and the cup making eucharist to Thee because Thou hast bidden us (or, found us worthy) to stand before Thee and minister as priests to Thee. 12. And we pray Thee that (thou wouldest send Thy Holy Spirit upon the oblation of Thy holy Church and Thou wouldst grant to all (Thy Saints) who partake to be united (to Thee) that they may be fulfilled with the Holy Spirit for the confirmation of (their) faith in truth.”72 We can say that there is nothing whatever in the specifically eucharistic teaching of Hippolytus’ prayer which would have been repudiated by Justin sixty years earlier. These three points may be said to stand out from the examination of the Roman eucharistic prayer: “1) The centrality in its construction of the narrative of the institution as the authority for what the Church does in the Eucharist. Its importance in this respect is greatly emphasized by being placed out of its historical order, after the thanksgiving for the passion. 2) What is understood to be “done” in the Eucharist is the Church’s offering and reception of the bread and the cup, identified with the Lord’s Body and Blood by the institution. This “doing” of the Eucharist is our Lord’s command and a “priestly” act of the Church. 3) The whole rite “recalls” or “represents” before God not the Last Supper but the sacrifice of Christ in His death and resurrection; and it makes this “present” and operative by its effects in the communicants.”73 The Consecration Prayer in Hippolytus has a definite structure. It begins with a series of thanksgivings, which is centrally Christology in Hippolytus and leads directly to the institution of the Lord’s Supper.”4 The wine is given directly and then comes the “anamnesis”. The idea is: “Doing to remember Christ.” Then the offertory follows. The idea is liberation offering to God (the same as is Saint Irenaeus). Next, the prayer of Hallowing of a remarkable character in Hippolytus, the Spirit’s coming into bread and wine to make them holy.’ Then a doxology follows. The act of thanksgiving was construed as having a consecratory effect, potent even for ordinary food and therefore especially potent for sacred food. Thus Saint Paul writes in I Cor. 10:16: “The cup of thanksgiving over which we give

130

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

thanks, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ?” And in

I Tim. 4, 4-5: “Nothing is to be rejected if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified through the word of God (Gen. 1:31) and prayer.” In Hippolytus the same conception appears unambiguously in chapters XXI, 6 and XXIII of his Apostolic Tradition, but it also underlies his use of “thanks-

giving” in IV, 2 and X, 4. Accordingly, since at the Christians’ greatest liturgical service the essential formula was a solemn thanksgiving, the service itself and food consecrated at the service both came to be called simply “the Thanksgiving” or (in Greek) “the Eucharistia.””° And—certainly in the second century, since Hippolytus gives the formula—the eucharistic prayer was prefaced by the invitatory, “Let us make our thanksgiving to the Lord””’ and this in turn by the appropriate words, “Lift up your hearts.””78 Since extempore prayer was still largely practiced,”? the contents of the Christian thanksgivings naturally varied widely, but it would appear inevitable that at first, in accord, with Christ’s example, God’s provision of food for men was the normal topic: the beautiful prayer in the Didache (chapters IX, X) is formed on this model, which Hippolytus follows closely in chapters V-VI of his Apostolic Tradition. But the thought of food in the bread and wine was overshadowed by the thought of redemption, and even in the Didache the earthly species only typify the salvation wrought in Christ. In chapter IV of Hippolytus the “table” form of the blessing is abandoned all together for the praise of Christ’s redeeming works, and the same is true of practically all later liturgies. As is entirely natural, Hippolytus’ thanksgiving concludes with reciting the work of Christ most vividly in mind at the moment: his institution of the rite that the Church was engaged in celebrating. There is a corporal action, participation of people in prayer and it was directed to the people’s participation.°° The evidence of the later liturgies shows us that the purely Christian objects of thanksgiving in Hippolytus were by no means the only ones for which God was blessed; thanks could

be given with entire appropriateness to the Father for any of His benefits from creation on. For such prayers Jewish syna-

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

131

gogue formulas provided models that were freely utilized.*! These thanksgivings often included®? or culminated in the hymn of Isa. 6, 3 (“Sanctus”), and in this way this hymn passed into the Christian eucharistic prayers, to become an all but universal feature in them. In the liturgy in the Constitutions it stands at a place that shows its origin, at the close of the (Jewish) thanksgivings for Old Testament benefits,®3 and before the (Christian) thanksgivings for Christ’s incarnate acts. After the completion of the thanksgiving (Apostolic Tradition, IV, 10) Hippolytus makes certain additions. Chapter IV, 11 declares that in performing the rite the Church remembers Christ according to his command: this is the germ of what in the later liturgies is known as the “anamnesis”. And the offering is formally presented to God; this likewise reoccurs regularly and is called the “oblation.” Either or both of these features could have been used in any eucharistic prayer from the earliest time. Chapter IV, 12, however, shows a later concept. In the age

of Hippolytus the consecratory effect of the thanksgiving was growing unfamiliar, and a special petition was thought needful in order that the bread and wine might truly be made “a communion” of the body and blood of Christ. The liturgy’s thought is simple: if earthly food is truly to become a “spiritual” food,*4 God must send upon it the Spirit. The prayer is phrased accordingly, and is the first known instance of what is technically known as the “invocation”, Epiclesis: universal in Eastern

liturgies, although absent from the present Roman. But the testimony of Irenaeus shows that in the late second century at Rome the invocation was regarded as the truly consecratory formula.*® Incidentally, Irenaeus teaches an invocation of the

Logos, not the Spirit, and Hippolytus continues Irenaeus’ tradition. Hippolytus’ use of the invocation shows that only bread is offered to God at the oblation. The eucharistized bread is really the Body of Christ,’ and the Blessed Cup is the Blood of Christ.’’ Justin’s explanation as to the meaning of their eating and drinking of the Bread and Cup introduces a changed outlook also. Here, we are reminded of a very different religious environment from that of the Synagogue, the atmosphere of ancient pagan religions of all kinds. Justin quotes the Words

132

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

of Institution. Here is a realistic rather than symbolic conception of the effect of the Eucharistic Prayer, a sort of fresh

or sacramental embodiment analogous to the historical incarnation. The term “metabolism” (ueraBoXdn) is mentioned.* e) Communion: after the Consecratory Prayer of the Bishop, proestds, and the people’s response: “Amen,” which emphasize the divine Banquet, they come to the Table to receive Holy Communion, the eucharistized bread and wine mixed with water from the deacons.*?

Hippolytus mentions three cups of: water, milk mixed with honey, and wine,° “2 Milk and honey mingled together in fulfilment of the promise which was (made) to the Fathers, wherein He said I will give you a land flowing with milk and honey; which Christ indeed gave, (even) His Flesh, whereby they who believe are nourished like little children, making the bitterness of the (human) heart sweet by the sweetness of His word; 3 Water also for an oblation for a sign of the laver, that

the inner man also, which is psychic, may receive the same (rites) as the body.”! Then, Hippolytus describes the action of Communion as follows: “S And when he (the Bishop) breaks the Bread in distributing to each a fragment he shall say: The Bread of Heaven in Christ Jesus. 6 And he who receives shall answer: Amen. 7 And the presbyters—but if there are not enough (of them) the deacons also—shall hold the cups and stand by in good order and with reverence: first he that holdeth the water, second he that holds the milk, third he who holds the wine. 8 And they who partake shall taste of each (cup) thrice, he who gives (it) saying: In God the Father Almighty; and he who receives shall say: Amen. 9 And in the Lord Jesus Christ; (and he shall say: Amen; 10 And in (the) Holy

Spirit (and) in the Holy Church: and he shall say: Amen. 11 So shall it be done to each one...”

The Communion is for baptized believers, and for them only.’ Baptism is the sacramental sign and seal of regeneration and conversion; the Lord’s Supper is the sacrament of sanctification and growth in spiritual life. Justin Martyr says: “This food is called among us the Eucharist (Evyxapioria), of which

Pneumatolog y-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

133

no one is allowed to partake but he who believes that the things which are taught by us are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has delivered. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these (elements).” Irenaeus®> speaks of “the bread which is produced from the earth when it receives the invocation of God is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly.”—In the second century the divine service was sharply divided into two parts, the service of the catechumens (missa catechumenorum) and the service of the faithful (missa fidelium). Hence the Apostolic Constitutions (VII, 25), lay great stress on the exclusion of unbe-

lievers from the Eucharist. In the Didache (chapter X, 7) the whole congregation is addressed as having control over the Post-Communion Prayer and Thanksgiving. The liberty of extemporaneous prayer combined with liturgical forms. First, full liberty for all to pray in public meeting; then restriction of liberty to the prophets;%” at last prohibition of free prayer. Justin Martyr accords the same freedom to the presiding minister, or bishop:98 “When our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability.” The people were to respond, “Amen.” Hippolytus regards Holy Communion as the means by which Christ “abolishes death” and “rends the bonds of the devil” in the faithful communicant.%

IV. THE EUCHARISTIC DOCTRINE OF SAINT JOHN DAMASCENE Saint John Damascene speaks of the Eucharist as a “participation,” metalepsis, because we share in the divinity of Christ, and a “Communion,” Koinonia, because we enter into

a union with Christ and with one another.! The sacrifice of Melchisedech and the loaves (showbread) of proposition are figures of the Eucharist.2 Of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, he says but little. He calls the Eucharist: “mystiki anemaktos thysia”;3 “kathara thysia, i.e. kai anemaktos.™

134

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

Through the epiclesis (invocation), and the descent of the Holy Spirit, bread and wine (and water) are changed into the body

and

blood

of Christ,

in a supernatural

manner,

“hyperfyos metapoiounte.” Not the body of Christ which ascended into heaven descends, but bread and wine itself are

changed into the body and blood of Christ. And as the Holy Spirit once had formed Christ’s body in the womb of the Virgin, so now, continuously, He forms Him by the changing of the Eucharistic elements.° The Eucharist is, in the opinion of John of Damascus, like an incarnation ever renewed, just as, in the mysteries of Baptism and the Eucharist, the drama of redemption is forever recapitulated.6 How are we to conceive the fact that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ? Only by faith.” In two passages, the great theologian-Saint presents that mystery as the result of a sort of impanation, a union of the divinity of the Logos with the bread and wine. Just as God unites His grace to the water and oil of Baptism, so, in the Eucharist, He has joined, “synezefksen,” His divinity to the elements, making them His body and blood. Just as charcoal is wood joined to fire, “in like manner also the bread of the Communion is not

bread only, but (bread) united with the divinity, “henomenos theoteti.”® “Tore 4 dvvayis tov fVwiorov avrh (tH OcoroKw) emeokiaocev, 6 M€ios Aoyos, 4 Ocia UrocTacs, Ka mpooeAaBeto e€& ats oapKa Kat @de KEiTAL WES ev yaotpt THs IlapOevov, ev TH TpaTeln TH MvOTLKT, vAn 6 dptros Kai TO €& otvov Kai VdaTos Kpaua. Kai yap n untnp ek Tov’TwY ETpPEy~ETO. Kai TH BpEver €XOPNYEL THY TOV GMMaATOS UAnV....”

This becomes even more apparent in another place where Saint John, considering human beings higher than angels

themselves because of man’s divinization through the Holy Communion, “ou meteschon angeloi, oude eghenonto theias koinonoi physeos, all energeias kai charitos”,° says: Men become partakers and participate of the divine nature when they receive the body of Christ and drink His blood;

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

135

for He is hypostatically united to the divinity. And there are two natures hypostatically, yet inseparably united in Christ’s body which is received by us, and we share in both natures, bodily in the body and spiritually in the divinity, or rather in each in both of them, but not as if we were identified with Christ hypostatically.!!

Accordingly, the Orthodox Church maintains the real presence (hypostatic and substantial)!? of Christ in the Holy Eucharist as consequence of the change of Eucharistic elements,

bread and wine, into the body and blood of Christ.!3 On the subject of the Epiclesis (Invocation), Nicholas Cabasilas has an extremely interesting and clear viewpoint. He does not relegate the words of institution to a position of insignificance in the rite. Nor does he regard Christ as the passive victim, as Gregory Dix implies in his strictures on Cabasilas.'4 One must take all the passages, not just a short extract from a single chapter as Dix has done, in order to understand the full and comprehensive view of the Invocation which Cabasilas has in mind. And in this comprehensive view there are four factors which are not irreconciliable, but which fit into a balanced Trinitarian theology. In fact, there is nothing in it that a Westerner could reject. The four factors are: first,

Christ is the Consecrator, the great High Priest in relation to whose heavenly priesthood every celebration of the Divine Liturgy must be referred.!5 Second, the Words of Institution are of sacred and special significance for the consecration. Third, the consecration is “completed” when the words of the Epiclesis have been pronounced. Fourth, Cabasilas’s view has been of great merit regarding the Eucharistic Invocation in the context of the recitation of the saving acts of God in the Anamnesis.'6 He stresses the Eucharistic Invocation because of the many activities of the Divine Spirit Who dwells in the Church and Who is operative in all her ministerial acts.!’ Calvary was brought to fulfillment in the Pentecost. The sacrificial offering at the altar is “completed” when it “receives” its fulfillment by the Descent of the Holy Spirit.!® Cabasilas follows the same line as Saint John of Damascus, who considered the Words of Institution effective through the Epiclesis of the Holy Spirit.!9 R.N.S. Craig”? is of the opinion

136

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

that “Saint John of Damascus was the first to deny that the Words of Institution are the instrument of consecration”. This seems to me an inadequate understanding of the Damascenian sources and spirit, since both deny the consecratory force of the Words of Institution insofar as they are considered in themselves and as fructified and applied only by the Invocation (Epiclesis).2! Finally, both Cabasilas and Damascene insist on the joint operation of the Trinity in the Sacrament, and if they speak of the Holy Spirit as taking part in the Consecration, they refer to Him as the immediate agent of the Father and not as the ultimate source of sanctification. Thus, we may sum up the Damascene’s Eucharistic doctrine: The Holy Spirit descends upon the altar through the epiclesis or invocation and the repetition of the Institutional words of Christ: “Take it... This is my body...”,? to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, that is, through the change of the Eucharistic elements, really and ineffably, (alethos kai arretos),23 He forms the Body of Christ as, once

before, He had done in the womb of the Holy Virgin: “Kai yinete hyetos te kaine tafte yeorghia dia tes epiclesseos, he tou Haghiou Pneumatos episkiazousa dynamis”.*4 This Body, created by the Holy Spirit through the change of bread and wine, is assumed hypostatically by the Logos, just as He once had assumed hypostatically the body formed in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit. But since there is but one hypostasis of the Incarnated Logos, it follows that the Eucharistic body on earth and the glorified body in heaven are one, Owing to the one hypostasis to which they belong.?5 Thus, Saint Damascene

combines

the theory of transfor-

mation (but not the “scholastic transubstantiation”) with the theory of assumption of Christ’s body.2° The fact of change is firmly established by Saint John,?8 but as to the manner of this change, he pleads ignorance and simply bows before the mystery.?’ Saint John explicitly states: “Bread and wine...are the deified body of the Lord”;?9 bread and wine are not a “type” (typos) of the body and blood of Christ, but His “deified, tetheomenon” body.*° And if there are some, such as Saint Basil, Anastasius Sinaetis,3! Eustathius of Antioch (Seventh Council), Cyril of Jerusalem,>? Elias of Crete,33 Gregory of

Pneumatolog y-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

137

Nazianzus, (antitypon-isotypon),34 “tous typous tes soterias”,35

who call bread and wine antitypes or antitypa of the body and blood of the Lord, they have reference to them before, not

after consecration, for they use this expression also of the gifts of oblation.*° Again, the holy mysteries are called the antitypes of future things (antitypa ton mellonton), because through them we share in the divinity of Jesus Christ,—that divinity which we shall enjoy later only by intelligence and contemplation (noetos dia monis tes theas).37 The Lord took bread and wine for the Eucharist, knowing man’s weakness, which ordinarily turns away with dislike from what is not habitual or customary, and because man is accustomed to eat bread and to drink wine and water. He made these elements to be His body and blood, in order that from that which is familiar and natural, we might rise up to that

which is supernatural.38 Saint John of Damascus demands, as a necessity, that a preparation should be made before receiving the Holy Eucharist.3? He does not, however, say how one can clean his body and soul, before partaking of the Holy Eucharist. It is difficult to decide whether or not he had in mind confession and repentance as the means by which one purifies one’s conscience and prepares oneself to receive the Holy Sacraments. But it is certain that an act through which the cleansing of the soul and body will be accomplished must precede the partaking of the Holy Eucharist. As in the case of Baptism, so also with the Eucharist, faith is the condition for a fruitful reception. In those who receive it worthily and with faith, the Eucharist will effect the remission of sins, life everlasting and the safeguarding of body and soul, “fylacterion psychis kai somatos”. But in those who receive it unworthily and without faith, it brings about chastisement

and punishment, just as the death of the Lord is life and incorruption to the faithful, but everlasting pain and punishment to the unbelieving.4° The Eucharist is the divine coal which causes in us the fire of longing desire, consumes our sins and illumines our hearts. Through participation in this divine fire, we ourselves will be inflamed and deified.4! But as little as the human nature in Christ was transformed by deification, so

also our own nature remains unchanged.4? Without being con-

138

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

sumed or disintegrated or discharged, the body and blood of Christ are for the nourishment of our body and soul. They enter into our substance and serve for our sustenance:*3 “en emin thaptete, kai synaphthartizei emas.™4 Based on the authority of Cyril of Jerusalem,*> but contrary to other Fathers,

Saint John of Damascus favors the theory of the mystical character of man’s nourishment by the body and blood of Christ, in opposition to the theory of the physical character. The Eucharistic body of Christ is identified with the pre-resurrected one. So the question: Why had Christ instituted Holy Eucharist before and not after His resurrection takes its answer. Moreover, the resurrected body is incorruptible and cannot therefore be subject to breaking, eating and drinking.*¢ The Eucharist wards off all harm and purges from all uncleanness.47 And the blood of Christ causes everlasting life.48 Through the Eucharist, we enter not only into communion with Christ, but also with one another, for, all of us who eat of

one bread become one body and the one blood of Christ,4? and members of one another being joined to Christ as to one body.*° Every Christian, therefore, should, with all reverence,

with a pure conscience, with a trusting faith, clean in body and soul and with an ardent desire, hold forth his hands in the form of a cross, and receive the body of the one Crucified,

intently applying his eyes and lips and brow.°! The foregoing rite of Communion is described in greater detail in the Mystagogical Catecheses of Saint Cyril of Jerusalem.*? Strange to say, Saint Damascene says nothing of the Eucharist as the principle of bodily resurrection! Saint John’s writings contain but a few brief allusions to the other Sacraments. The Epistula de Confessione that appears among his works*} cannot be regarded as authentic. The exposition of only these two Sacraments, however, does not necessarily imply that in the time of Saint Damascene there were Only these two Sacraments accepted as such by the Church of his time, and by his predecessors. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem

and Ambrose‘> mention three Sacraments;

Au-

gustine** four; Justin the Martyr two.°7 Of course they know also the other sacraments to which we find allusions elsewhere in their writings. Saint John of Damascus in his first Oration against those who attacked the sacred Icons speaks about

Pneumatolog y-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

139

sacraments, which through oral tradition were given to us. In the 23rd Chapter of his oration he is discussing how the Ecclesiastical Tradition given to us by the Fathers of the Church has survived: “Ou monon grammasi ten ecclesiastikin thesmothesian paredokan, alla kai agraphois tisi paradosesi”. He then cites a passage from Saint Basil’s treatise to Amphilochius, concerning the Holy Spirit to show that Saint Basil the Great taught us to remain faithful in what we received from the old Tradition which was either written or, survived

orally, and continues: Ilo6ev yap touwev rov Kpaviov romov tov &ytov, TO pvjnua HS CwHs; Ov aides Tapa taTpos Aaypaguas TapeAnpotel...; loev 76 kat’ dvatoras etyecOa; Tlo6ev 4 trav wvoTnpiwy mapadoais;%®

Anyhow, it is difficult to define whether Saint John had in mind a sacramental system accepted as such through oral Tradition by the Church, or whether he used the word in the plural to mean the Holy Eucharist or the great wonders of the Faith. Lequien and Migne translated the above expression as follows: “Unde Sacramentorum institutio?” without making any comments. We also find another allusion to many sacra-

ments: .. Eide xpyvar Evers voepws wovov Wew dvvarrrecbar, AVENE TAVTA TH OWMATLKA, TA YaTA, TO EVMdES OvLAaLa avrny Thy 6a THS PwvnsS mpocevxynv avTra Ta e€ VANS TeAovpeva Oeia wvoTnpia, TOV ApTov, TOV oLVOY, TO THS Xploews EKaLov, TOV OTAVPOV TO ekTUTIWUa....>?

It is not, however, clear if Saint John has in mind the sacramental system of the Church. Just as he left aside the examination

of other theological

questions,

as for example

the

doctrine of the Church, he also did not examine any other of the Sacraments of the Church which are generally accepted today. We have, therefore, to conclude that:

a) Saint John Damascene does not give a precise definition of what “Mysterion” is. b) He does not examine any other Sac-

140

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

raments except the Holy Eucharist and the Holy Baptism. c) He does not call these two Sacraments “Mysteria,” in the ecclesiological meaning of the word “Mvornpuov,” but from

his teaching we find that he recognizes both as indispensable for Man’s salvation and as Holy Rites instituted by Christ. These characteristics show that although he does not use the word “Mysterion ” to define in the ecclesiological concept the Holy Eucharist and Holy Baptism he gives them the same value as the Church today. Moreover, it should be noted that the basic idea and aim of the early especially Church Fathers and writers was not to form and maintain a sacramental system or a definite number

of sacraments,

but to emphasize

the

mysterious, inexpressible and divine character of Christian Faith and man’s salvation by the grace of God through visible ecclesiastical celebrations also surpassing reason and understanding. D. Repentance- Confession

Genuine repentance is called by the Fathers “second baptism.” Saint

John Climacus (or of the Ladder, seventh century)

and Saint Symeon the New Theologian (eleventh century) especially had developed a very moving theology of “tears of repentance” or the “baptism of tears.”! According to Saint Athanasius of Alexandria the sincere repentance and confession liquidates all sins committed after Baptism.? In the Orthodox sacramental theology and practice, it is God (not the priest) Who grants forgiveness, but confession (exomologesis) to a priest-confessor is required, according to Saint Basil the Great.3 The forgiveness of sins granted after a genuine repentance and confession is complete and perfect and the sinner is reconciled to the Church. The Church-rules of punishment or epitimia in Eastern Orthodox penitential process are not legalistic retribution, but therapeutic medicines.4 These penitential rules are rooted in and based on the concept of sin as illness of soul and spiritual disease. Since all sin is sin not only against God, but against our neighbour, against the community, confession and penitential discipline in the early Church (i.e., before the fourth century) were a public affair, in both the Eastern and Western Church. Suffice

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

141

to recall the famous incident of the conflict between the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius the Great and the saintly Bishop of Milan Ambrose. Hence, confession and penance in the Orthodox Church rite, even down to our days preserved the character of liberation and healing rather than that of judgment. Interestingly, as further back as in first-century Christianity the gift of ruling is not different in kind from the gift of healing.5 There was a vivid sense then that every form of the manifestation of the religious life is a gift of God—a charisma or direct operation of the Holy Spirit upon the soul. In the earliest period, the basis of Christian fellowship was a changed life—‘“repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.”6 Actually, the Greek word metdnoia (repentance) means change of mind, that is re-direction of will towards God.’ E. Priesthood-Ordination

In the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church Tradition, priesthood is of two kinds: the baptismal or “royal” priesthood of all believers (1 Pet. 2:9), and the Eucharistic or Sacramental

priesthood

(bishops,

priests, deacons)

or the

priesthood of order to which special members are sacramentally ordained in the Church, and which is continued down into our day by the Apostolic succession. These two kinds of priesthood must not be confused, nor separated sharply although the Church ministry includes women as well as men. Reordination of canonically ordained priests (i.e., within the hierarchical and charismatic Apostolic succession) is prohibited,

no

matter

if those priests either were

herectics

or

schismatics formally, or have been defrocked validly, but were restored by subsequent synodal decision.*® Of course, in the Orthodox Church all men (male and female) are priests: by virtue of man’s creation in the image and likeness of God as well (Gen. 1:27). However, the argument of the supporters of women’s ordination taken from Saint Paul’s words in Gal. 3:28: “There is neither male nor female, for you

are all one in Christ Jesus” (cf. I Cor. 12:13; Col. 3:9-11) is not applicable to the ordination of women. Simply because Paul’s

142

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

thought in this passage refers to baptism, not ordination, this text refers to the royal or general lay priesthood, not to the Eucharistic priesthood. The Orthodox Church by excluding women from ordination does not place them in a lower position than men nor does it accept inequality of male and female. Women in Orthodox tradition are equal with men, with equal rights and duties in

the Church as members of Christ’s Body, except ordination to priesthood, because this is “the commandment of the Lord” (I Cor 14:37). The other fundamental reason is also theological: “the fa-

therly role of a priest in the Church reflects the Father’s role in the All-Holy Trinity (and Christ’s malehood). This cannot be interchanged with the motherly role of the female person in the Christian family and community ... It is the gift of iconic representation of Christ, the Groom of the Bride—not the Bride of the Bride” (Bishop Maximos Aghiorgoussis, Women Priests?,

Brookline,

MA,

1976,

p. 3, 5). Furthermore,

the

Eucharistic priesthood should not be conceived in terms of power and domination, as a “privilege” from which woman is being unjustly excluded. “It shall not be so among you” (Mt 20:26). True, there is undisputable early evidence (the Didascalia 9:2:28; 16:3:12; 2:4:26 and the Apostolic Constitutions 2:4:2526; 3:2:15-6), according to which the deaconess (female deacon) is ranked among the clergy, received communion at the altar with the clergy, was also responsible for bringing holy communion to women who were ill. And there is even an “Orthodox Rite of the Byzantine Deaconess”, which dates from the eighth-tenth centuries (an English translation of this Rite was published in the book Women and the Priesthood edited by Th. Hopko, New York: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1983, 93-95). Hence, Professor Evangelos Theodorou maintains that the

Byzantine legislation consistently includes the deaconess within the ranks of the clergy and not the laity. Canon 15 of Chalcedon, for example,

notes that deaconesses

should

not be

ordained until the age of forty. Similarly, the Novels of Justinian always count the deaconess as part of the clergy. The famous third novel, for example, stipulates the number of

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology- Asceticism

143

clerics serving at Hagia Sophia. Among the 425 clergy, there are supposed to be FORTY deaconesses. In the sixth novel, moreover, the emperor speaks of the “ifepwotvn” (“priesthood”?) of the deaconess (E. Theodorou, ‘H “Xetporovia” 7 “Xe.pobeot.a” trav Acaxovico@y,

Athens

1954, 44). The pro-

blem, however, lies in the meaning of the words: ye.porovia and xepofeota which could be used in those documents, in

reference to women’s ministry, to denote “appointment” rather than “priesthood of Eucharistic ministry.” In any event, Theodorou accepts that the ordination service of a deaconess took place during the Eucharist, after the epiclesis, as is character-

istic of ordinations for the higher clergy, within the sanctuary, before the holy altar. The service begins at the same time as the ordination of the deacon, and is carried out in the same way, with only a few notable changes. For example, during the ordination, the deaconess stands, rather than kneels on one knee as does the deacon. Neither does the deaconess take the sacrament out to the congregation for the faithful to receive communion, as does the deacon. Instead, the deaconess re-

places the chalice by herself upon the altar. On the other hand, the deaconess, like the deacon, received the orarion after being ordained and took holy communion at the altar (cf. The

Apostolic Constitutions, PG 1, 8, 116-117, and the thirteenth canon of the council of Gaggra, 343). Professor Theodorou concludes from all this that the deaconess was ordained (Theodorou, op.c., 40-65), but her ordination was not an ordination to the sacramental priesthood, but an ordination of ministry (diakonia) to the Church.

Unfortunately, an ambivalent approach to the interpretation and nature of “ordained deaconate” is still today prevalent among historians of the early Church. However, specialists agree (Karmiris, ‘H O€org Kat 4 Avaxovia trav Tvuvarda@yv & TH ’Opd0d0Ew "ExkAno., Athens 1978, esp. 7-46, and Theodorou) that the rise of infant baptism was one of the main reasons of the decline of the order of deaconesses. The deaconess was not needed to instruct or assist at the sacrament as before (Karmiris, 50; Theodorou, 36). They also observe that abuse of the privileges of the order may have contributed to its decline. It is interesting to note that the Lima text (on Baptism,

144

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

Eucharist and Ministry, Faith and Order Paper No. 111, WCC, Geneva, 1982) not only emphasizes the need to restore the

deaconate as an ordained ministry with its own dignity and meant to be exercised for life (p. 27), but it also tends to support the argument “that the ordained ministry of the Church lacks fullness when it is limited to one sex” (p. 25)! In conclusion, the Orthodox answer to the question “can

women be priests?” depends on the answer to another more substantial question: “what are the distinctive gifts conferred by God on women, and how can these gifts be expressed in the Church’s ministry?” We have to rediscover and apply to church life, that is, the diversity of ministries—such as we find, for example, in the Apostolic Church Order—and the basic human equality of man and woman as both alike created in the image and likeness of God. Hence, their struggle must not be power-struggle or antagonism, but how to complete each other and to restore fallen nature through their free cooperation. Men and women, although equal, are not interchangeable. In Church ministry each has a particular function, as a particular member of the Body of Christ, which is the Church (Eph 5:

23). Each member, that is, has special, unique charismata, therefore different responsibility, endowed by the same Spirit of God. (I Cor 12:5-12 and 28-31; 11:3, 8, 11-12). We certainly need to recover the full Pauline vision of the Church as unity in diversity (I Cor 12:15-25), as well as the Apostolic ways of working together with women as “different or complimentary charismata” in order to deepen internal reconversion (Rom 12:6-8; 16:1f.; I Cor 12; Acts 18:9, 21, 26)

and build up the Church, “the body of Christ” (Eph 4:12). F. Marriage

There is a general agreement among Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Anglicans as to the sacramental character of marriage. They all base their agreement on the letter of Saint Paul to the Ephesians, chapter 5, where marital union is compared to the union between Christ and the Church (an eternal bond), and on the words of our Lord: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mt 19:6). The Orthodox Church allows divorce only in cases of

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

145

fornication (Mt 19:9; Mk 2:27), and of death of one of the couple, desertion, extreme cruelty and incompatibility, inability on the part of either partner to consummate the physical union

or incurable mental illness. Using the principle of Oiconomia (dispensation), and philanthropia (loving kindness) by which the Church has a certain power to regulate the administration of the Sacraments, the Orthodox Church permits remarriage in such cases and even for the third time, but definitely not for the fourth. With this many Anglicans would agree. Other Anglicans, however, and the consistent teaching of the Roman Church, would allow no form of divorce that permits remarriage, but only, in essential cases, a separation “from bed and board”, the sacramental

bond of the marriage remaining unbroken as long as both parties live. “It has been said that this kind of semi-divorce was unknown in Jewish law or to the Apostolic Church” (Archbishop Methodios Fouyias, Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, And Anglicanism. London: Oxford University Press, 1972, p. 197). In the Orthodox Church marriage between first and second cousins is not allowed. Likewise marriage between persons who have the same godparents is forbidden. Finally, mixed marriages (between Orthodox and non-Orthodox) are tolerated by the Orthodox Church only if they are performed according to her rite by an Orthodox priest, and if the couple agrees to bring their children up in the Orthodox Faith. As to the use of contraceptives for birth control, contemporary Orthodox bishops and theologians do not agree. There is, however, a recently strong trend among them that supports

the position that the question should be left to the discretion of each individual couple, in consultation with their confessor or

spiritual father. G. Holy Unction Both

Churches,

the Orthodox

and the Roman

Catholic,

regard Holy Unction as one of the seven Sacraments according to the Epistle of Saint James 5:14ff. Originally Holy Unction was associated with penance as a single sacrament and composed of Scriptural readings and

146

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

prayers of healing, spiritual as well as physical. It is noteworthy that Holy Unction is called in Greek Euchélaion, that is, “the

oil of prayer”. As the passage of Saint James indicates, Holy Unction has a double purpose: not only bodily healing but the forgiveness of sins. This reaffirms the Biblical doctrine of man’s creation as a psychosomatic entity (1.e., a unity of body and soul according to Genesis

1:27), therefore there can be no

sharp and rigid distinction between bodily and spiritual ills. The Roman Church has in the past (since the twelfth century—Peter Lombard) performed this sacrament as an extrema unctio (a preparation for death). However, the Second Vatican Council felt the need to return to the traditional and more correct doctrine that the Anointing is for the sick rather than for the dying. The Church of England does not unanimously recognize Holy Unction as sacrament. 6. The Saints and Their “Canonization” In the Orthodox Church, the adopted Western term “canonization” does not have all the legalistic connotations that it has in the modern Roman Church. According to Orthodox practice, this term actually means “glorification”, with which it can be used interchangeably. The Russian word “pros/lavlenie” literally means “through glorification.” It refers to two different means whereby one is formally declared a saint: 1. The opening of the saint’s relics, together with a glorification service led by Orthodox hierarchs, at which time he is confirmed as a saint. 2. The entrance, by Orthodox hierarchs, of the saint’s name into the codex of the Church calendar. This sanctions a complete service to the saint on his/her appointed day. When such a service is then performed by Orthodox bishops for the first time, it constitutes a canonization (glorification) of the saint. Among the Greek Fathers especially Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Saint John Chrysostom, and Saint John of Damascus dealt with the saints’ function in the Church, visible

and invisible. These Fathers, in the first place, do not accept that the glorification of the saints is founded on the special merits of the saints before God—merits supererogatory or necessary—a recompense which they have received, and which

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

147

they can in turn use for the benefit of those who have not sufficient merit.! That proud conception would truly put the saints in the rank of demi-gods. Nor do the Fathers believe that the saints are mediators between man and God, since only One Mediator is worshipped in the Patristic Church, the GodMan, Jesus Christ. However, the saints as perfected and divinized Images of Christ, by their active faith and love, are venerated, in the Orthodox Church, as “Friends of God” and

“the hands of God,” by which He accomplishes His works in the Church.? Even after their death the saints perform works of love as intercessors and helpers and smooth their fellowmen’s path to salvation. They are the earthly proof of the invisible celestial Church and the bridge of the visible earthly Church by which she is united with the celestial: Communio Sanctorum. They are the proof, moreover, that holiness and Theosis can be achieved by any man, already in this earthly life. Sanctity has as many forms as there are human individualities. This does not mean, of course, that the saints are venerated independ-

ently from the greatness of Christ’s Person and works, but rather that all veneration offered to the saints returns to their archetype,

Christ.

The

images

of the saints are, therefore,

reflections of the Christ Image, which in turn is the renewal and perfection of the Image of God implanted in the first man. This is clearly stated in the prayer of consecration for the icons of Saints which reads as follows: Lord, our God, Thou who created man after Thine image

and Thy likeness and, after this image was destroyed by the disobedience of the first created man, hast renewed it by the

incarnation of Thy Christ, who assumed the form of a servant and became in appearance like unto a man, and whom Thou hast restored to the first dignity among Thy saints; in solemnly revering Thy icons, we revere the saints themselves, who are Thine image and Thy likeness. In venerating them we venerate and glorify Thee as their archetype.

It is interesting to note that in the earliest Apostolic times, all the members of every Christian community were called

148

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

“saints” hdgioi,4 “royal priesthood, holy nation.” Also, the members of the celestial Church and the deceased pious Christians were called “saints.”* Likewise, the angels are “holy”—

hagioi.! Later, those who believed in Christ were called “Christians”. This name was coined in Antioch (Syria) during the first century also.’ In the second century, however, the technical term “saint” was applied to the Martyrs first, and then to the Confessors. Early in the fourth century, after the victory of Christianity, faithful members of the Church who distinguished themselves with ascetic and holy life were recognized and honored as saints. Originally, the day of a saint’s martyrdom was observed by the Christian community as “holy day” and “festal birthday.” On that day the Christians gathered together at the place of the saint’s martyrdom, where they usually built a church dedicated to the saint’s name. After the celebration of the liturgy they heard a special sermon by the president of the community or the bishop by which he praised and glorified the heroic faith and holy life of the martyr. Fortunately, texts of those beautiful sermons have been preserved and are real diamonds of early Christian spirituality. It is the Patristic Faith that after death, the souls even of the saints and righteous enjoy, not absolutely, in the middle state that is, the divine blissfulness awaiting there for the Last Judgment and the general resurrection of the dead. Then,

together with their body, they will be awarded with a complete and perfect enjoyment of God’s vision.!° And since they preserve their self-consciousness in the middle state, they are able to continue their communication with their relatives and friends in this life.!! Now, to the difficult question: which are the criteria that convince the Church to proclaim a person as saint (i.e., canonization), a quick answer could be misleading. First of all, in the second century there was no formal procedure of a “Church proclamation”, simply because there was no legalistic gap between the second century clergy and laity. Both, clergy and laity were “God’s people” and the entire community spontaneously expressed their recognition and honors to the saint. Thus, the saint was first “proclaimed” as such (i.e., as excep-

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

149

tional “man of God”) in the conscience of the Church, that is in the hearts of all its members, and then the Church as the organizer of people’s religious life, formally confirmed that commonly spontaneous recognition. Actually, whenever the bishop or the clergy rushed to proclaim a person as saint, without taking into account the general witness and the common

conscience

of the Church,

such a “proclamation”

or

“canonization” was doomed to failure and was meaningless! After the eleventh century, of course, the Eastern Church

influenced by the Roman Church, adopted a more formalistic, but not court-like legalistic, procedure in officially recognizing a person as saint. The circumstances thus, but not criteria (in legalistic terms), which lead to the official Church recognition of a person as saint, in the Eastern Church especially from the fourteenth century onwards, are: 1) the “candidate” saint must be member of the Church; 2) he/she must die as martyr, or

his/her life must have been entirely holy, or his/her services to the Church must have been totally exceptional; 3) special signs, different in each case, and miracles either during his/her life or after death being verified by the “common conscience” of the Church; 4) incorruptibility of relics, and above all, evident spiritual aid testify to them. The relics of the saints, when they are preserved (which does not always happen) are very specially venerated in Eastern Church. To indicate a particular instance, portions of relics are placed in the “antimins(ium)”, the silken napkin on which the liturgy is celebrated. This is in remembrance of the early Church, where the liturgy was celebrated on the tombs of the martyrs. From the Greek patristic point of view, the veneration of relics is founded on the faith that the saints’ bodies are exceptionally “émpsychoi temples, and émpsycha dwellings of God,”!? and that their souls do not altogether leave their bodies, but remain present in spirit and in grace in their relics, even in the smallest portion; they have somewhat the same nature as that of the body of Christ in the tomb, which, although it was awaiting its resurrection from the dead, deserted by the soul, still was not altogether aban-

doned by His divine spirit. This “special veneration” can easily be misunderstood as an act of worshipping the saints’ relics, since they are exceptionally “deified” members of the mystical Body of Christ.!3 Of course,

150

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

even Jesus Christ is worshipped also as “deified man” through His Eucharistic Body.'4 However, the saints’ “deified bodies” are not “deified” by divine nature, but by grace or uncreated energeia

which

is not identifiable

with God’s

essence,

1.e.,

Christ’s divine nature or ousia.

7. The Origin, Nature, Spirit and Impact of Christian Monasticism This study is just a general survey on the origin, nature, aim, and impact of early Christian Asceticism and Monachism. From the very beginning Christian Monachism claimed to be the highest and purest form of Christian philosophy, piety and virtue: in the Evangelical sense, not so much a speculative

system, as a way of life under a particular rule cf. Lk 10:38-42; i.e., AzrootoAkos Bios, bd Tw@V Aayye AXwv Bros, vita angelica; after an unwarranted application of Christ’s word respecting the sexless life of the angels, Mt. 22:30), with the aim of

completely uniting the soul with God—moral and spiritual perfection: “"Eoeo0e ovv bueis TeAELoL, Wo7rEp 6 TATNP buy 6 €v TOL§ OUpavois TEAELOS €oTL” (Mt 5:48; 19:21. Cf. I Cor 7,

leew However, it should be emphasized that Christian Monachism recognizes the world, indeed, as a creature of God, and the family and property as divine institutions, in opposition to the Gnostic Manichaean asceticism, which ascribes matter as such to an evil principle. Hence, its struggle is a struggle of Imitatio

Christi (Mt 19:21), 1.e., unselfishness,

kenotic love

(Phil 2:7), chastity and humility; a struggle of man’s integral salvation, of body as well as soul, as restoration of his/her

original mind and state, the state in which we were created (“in the image and likeness of God,” Gen 1:26-27); a struggle of the unity of the Church, embracing the Old as well as the New Testament, the angels and saints as well as the living; of our mutual coinherence as members one of another in the Body of Christ (The Church); a struggle against Satan and his followers rather than against the Institutional or Hierarchical Church as long as it is not corrupted by Satan! So, Christian Monachism and Asceticism was not and must not be anti-Church. On the other hand, it must be supported

Pneumatolog y-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

151

and strengthened by the Hierarchical Church as its spiritual army in its war against the fleshly will, the sinful world, and

the devil. Christian Monasticism perceived itself to be a member of the Body of Christ. It sought not so much to react against corruption within that Body, as to manifest its true spirit, and in the process, to provide an atmosphere in which monks could seek perfection through the ascetic life. Despite Pachomius’ independent spirit, there is no substantial evidence of anti-clericalism or anti-sacramentalism in the Pachomian tradition. And it should not be forgotten that the so-called “Ascetic or Monastic Super-conservatism or Fanaticism” originate in the burning and unconditional love of these Monks for their Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. That love precisely gives the modern man a test of his/her devotion and generosity in following Him. Besides the spiritual motivation (1.e., reaction to the pro-

gressive worldliness and corruption of the Church and State) there were several other causes of the rapid growth of the fourth century Monastic Christianity: oppressive taxation, slavery, the multitude of civil wars, and the hopeless condition of the Roman empire. Nor must we, by any means, underestimate the favorable climatic factors in Alexandria and the delta of the Nile which allowed an existence all the year round on a sparse diet in caves or primitive shelters. It is worth noting also that very soon monks were exempt from military service, taxes and certain forms of conscripted labour. As to the Monastic terminology, the time and place of the origin of Monasticism, the term Monk (from the Greek Movayos, povos = alone) denotes the one who lives alone or apart from others; Monastery from Movyn, pwevw = abide, place of living; anchorite—odvaxwpnrns signifies his/her withdrawal from the world; hermit—Epnpirns refers to the place of the monk’s dwelling, the desert; cenobium—KovwvoBrov = the monastery where several monks live together, in community, under a Rule; Lavra, early Palestinian group (fourth

century) of hermit-cells with a communal centre of worship; sketia or scetis, a hybrid word, between the anchorite and the

cenobite. In the Christian Church monks as a class did not appear until the last decades of the third century. The place was lower

152.

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

Egypt (“the cradle of monasticism”) and the time A.D. 271. The oldest and the first recorded hermit was perhaps Paul of Thebes or Paul the Simple, (lit. not moulded, hence natural, sincere) who died in 347, and whose history was written by Saint Jerome (376) in his Vita Pauli.! According to Palladius* Paul the Simple, from indignation against his wife, whom he detected in an act of infidelity, he hastened, with the current

oath of that day, “in the name of Jesus”, (per Christum—, which now took the place of the pagan oath: by Jupiter) into the wilderness; and immediately, though now sixty years old, under the direction of Saint Anthony, he became a very model monk, and attained an astonishing degree of humility, simplicity, and perfect submission of will. Saint Anthony, known as the Great (251-356), the son of well-to-do Egyptian peasants, became the “Patriarch” of Monasticism, truly a man of prayer, known as the “terror of demons,” a healer of the sick and a director of souls, and as “a

physician given by God to Egypt” (so Saint Athanasius says). Concerning the sources of early Egyptian monasticism, they are mainly two: The Life of Saint Anthony? by the great Saint Athanasius and the Lausiac History by Palladius. The first of these, was written by Saint Athanasius about 357, shortly after the death of Saint Anthony (356). This particular work of Saint Athanasius, in Latin translation, was to play a memorable part in the conversion of Saint Augustine,’ and remains an indispensable classic of Christian spirituality, Eastern and Western. It narrates the birth and youth of Anthony, his call and first steps in asceticism, his life in the tombs and in the desert, his solitude and his becoming the father and teacher of monks (1-15). Anthony’s address to the monks, takes up a substantial part of the biography (16-43). Athanasius then tells of his longing for martyrdom when the persecution. of Maximin

Daja befell the Church, of his visit to the brethren

along the Nile, of his miracles in the desert and his visions. His loyalty to the faith and his preaching against the Arians are recorded. The rest of the book deals with his practical wisdom and his discussion with two Greek philosophers on idolatry, reason and faith (72-80), Constantine’s letter to him (81), his

prophecies, his miracles and his death (82-93). An epilogue (94) admonishes the addressees to “read this to the brethren,

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

153

that they may learn what the life of the monks should be like,” and, if the occasion presents itself, to “read it also to the pagans, that at least in this way they may learn that our Lord Jesus Christ is not only God and the Son of God, but that the Christians by their faithful service to Him and their orthodox faith in Him prove that the demons whom the Greeks consider gods are no gods; that moreover, they trample them under foot and drive them out for what they are—deceivers and corrupters of men.” The demons take up considerable space in this biography—like a discourse on demonology. The Vita Antonii is full of strange encounters with Satan and his helpers, which kindled the inspiration of artists again and again. Saint Anthony regards monastic life as a martyrdom, and the monk as the successor to the martyr. Just as the martyr was thought to fight with Satan in his suffering, so the monk was supposed to wage a continuous battle against the demons. Athanasius explains that Anthony, having failed to obtain the grace of dying for the faith in the persecution of Maximin Daja, returned to his monastery and imposed upon himself a daily martyrdom. The second most important source for the history of early Egyptian monasticism is Palladius’ Lausiac History (dedicated to Lausus,

the royal chamberlain

at the court of Emperor

Theodosius II) written about sixty years after Athanasius’ book (i.e., c. 416-417 or 419/20). The contents of Palladius’ work are mostly accounts of what he had personally seen or experienced during his stay (388-400) in Nitria, Alexandria, and Jerusalem for about twelve years; they are, therefore, reliable source-documents and a sort of biographical sketches or notes on some sixty holy men and women Palladius himself met or heard about. Furthermore, the Lausiac History describes mon-

astic life not only in Egypt, but in Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor as well. Palladius was a pupil of the renowned founder of monastic mysticism Evagrius of Pontus. Palladius was a well educated man (in classics), born in 363/4 in Galatia and died c. 431. In 400, Palladius was consecrated bishop of Helenopolis, proba-

bly by Saint John Chrysostom in Bithynia. In 405 he went to Rome to plead Chrysostom’s cause before Pope Innocent I. In 406-408, while in exile at Egypt (at Syene and Antinoe in the

154

Pneumatology- Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

Thebaid), Palladius wrote his Dialogus de vita sancti Joannis Chrysostomi.> The Lausiac History enjoyed extreme popularity both in the East and in the West. There are other sources, of course, of no inferior value—the

Pachomian the Fathers? of the desert delivered to

lives,6 the Apophthegmata Patrum or Sayings of which are extremely important sources of wisdom in simple language, that is, short sayings originally individuals from desert fathers on specific occa-

sions and written down later. The period from c. 330 to c. 440 may be called the “golden age” of the Egyptian Desert Fathers or “The Visionary Christianity”. The first “fathers of the desert” lived alone or by twos and threes in caves, huts or brick-built cells, supporting themselves on the produce of their vegetable patches and small fields, making baskets of palm fronds which they sold to visitors or agents for money with which to buy the other necessaries of life. Their time was spent in prayer, in work and in reading and memorizing the Scriptures; such a life demanded an uncommon degree of psychological stability and self-control. Evagrius of Pontus (345-399) is also a basic source, who in 382 as deacon came

to Melania the Elder’s

monastery on Mount Olives near Jerusalem in flight from an adulterous love affair in Constantinople. The son of the chorepiscopos of Ibora in Pontus, Evagrius was chosen as a lector by Saint Basil the Great and ordained deacon by Saint Gregory of Nazianzus. From Jerusalem Evagrius went to Nitria where he lived for two years and then fourteen years in the Cells, eating but a pound of bread and a pint of oil in three months. To bring his body under subjection he sometimes went to extremes. For example, when he was bothered one night by the sex demon, he stood naked till dawn in a cold

well. Since it was winter time, his flesh froze. Through similar hard penances he tried to keep his carnal desires in hand. But on his death bed he admitted that it was only during the last three years of his life that he was free of the sex demon. As basic sources must be mentioned here also the Jnstitutes and the Conferences of John Cassian (c. 365-c. 435).° In the Conferences Cassian recorded twenty-four sermons or conferences he had heard from fifteen famous desert fathers in Egypt where John himself spent fifteen consecutive years. A

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagivlogy-Asceticism

S95)

native of Scythia (contemporary Rumania) and the disciple in turn of John Chrysostom in Constantinople and Pope Leo the Great in Rome Cassian was the first to articulate the prayerful hesychastic practice fully, and to appeal by his more moderate ascetic idealism than his Egyptian masters to all classes and mentalities of people, especially of the West. Actually Cassian is considered as the first systematizer or “The Pachomius” of Western Monasticism although “he did not settle the great problem—the link between the Church and the monasteries within the Church”.!0 Cassian’s Conferences became a classic without rival in the monastic West. Quotations abound in the rule of Saint Benedict, and they were read every night before compline in early medieval monasteries. They were a vade mecum of saints as different as Thomas Aquinas and Teresa of Avila. In addition to these, we can now be reasonably confident that the seven letters attributed to Saint Anthony by Jerome still survive.!! *

*

*

*

*

*

Saint Pachomius (290-347)!2 is generally considered as the founder of Christian monastic communism (cenobitism). A pagan from Latopolis in the Thebaid (Upper Egypt), Pachomius was drafted into the Roman army at the age of 20 during Maximin’s last war against Licinius (312-313). As the draftees were being transported down the Nile, they were locked in the prison at Luxor to keep from escaping. Impressed by the local Christians who brought them food, Pachomius inquired about the meaning of Christianity and prayed that if he were released, he would spend the rest of his life serving God. When Maximin was defeated, Pachomius returned to the Thebaid, settling in a ruin near Schenesit, where he led a simple life, cultivating beans and date palms and helping the poor and travelers. Pachomius was the first of a long line of soldier ascetics which would include such greats as Martin of Tours and Ignatius of Loyola. By 315 Pachomius had a small group of disciples, who would eventually number three thousand. There was an emphasis on manual work at the village of Tabennesis on the banks of the Nile near where the river forms a bend north of

156

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

Thebes. The monks worked in the fields, gardens, offices and at trades such as baking, carpentry, tailoring, etc., the hours of labor alternating with hours of prayer and lectures on Scrip-

tures. The monks lived in the same house with their fellow tradesmen so that carpenters lived in one house, gardeners in another, etc. When Tabennesis proved too small for the growing number of monks, Pachomius found it necessary to start satellite communities,

beginning

at Peboou

not far away.

Gradually a rule was formulated to guard the Pachomian traditions. There was no novitiate as such nor vows, although

the new monks were expected to keep the rules, living in common with no private property and avoiding contact with women. There was strong emphasis on obedience, poverty and chastity and humility. Pachomius was particularly worried about the chronic griper who undermined the community spirit. Pachomius said that if a monk had to be corrected five times for griping and still refused to reform, he should be sent to the infirmary as a sick man. During his lifetime Saint Pachomius remained the abbot general of his monasteries, living initially at Tabennesis, then at Peboou. Eventually he ruled over 7,000 monks with 1,300 at Tabennesis and 200 to 300 at the lesser foundations (nine monasteries for men and two for women). In order to avoid a power struggle after his death he appointed Petronius as his successor. Saint Athanasius the Great was Pachomius’ firm friend and visited his monastery c. 330 and later. Saint Pachomius’ rule has not survived in its original form.!3 The Lausiac History of Palladius!4 quotes it, and Saint Jerome made a Latin translation of a text written in the Coptic Sahidic dialect. Saint Benedict’s rule made considerable use of the monastic eee lines laid down by Saint Pachomius. Interestingly, Palladius!> describes the allegedly divine origin of the rule of Saint Pachomius, written on a brass tablet and presented to Pachomius by an angel in his lonely cave. Thus,

Pachomius is given a certain stature as the Coptic Moses. Palladius’ version is a shortened form and not the later more complex rule translated by Jerome in 404405. The stress on moderation and toleration of the weak ones is, however, very

noticeable in both versions.

Pneumatolog y-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

157

Pachomius’ institutions and rule played a large part in the spread of cenobitism to Ethopia, down the Nile and on to

Rome via Athanasius (340-346), and into Palestine, Asia Minor (Saint Basil), and Gaul through Jerome and Cassian. *

*

*

*

*

*

Meanwhile in Nitria and Scetis (i.e., from Lycopolis to the Mediterranean) another type (a more sophisticated or intellectual one with the leadership of Evagrius) of Christian monasticism began to flourish. The deserts of Wadi Natrtin are sixty miles south of Alexandria and fifty miles north of Cairo. The soda lakes there provided natron which the Egyptians used for embalming the dead. In the fourth and fifth centuries, there were 5,000 monks in that area, some living singly, others in pairs or in threes. One of the first ascetics to be found in Nitria was the famed Amoun!* who left his wife, home and the

world in 325 soon to be followed by disciples who lived in huts or hollows, fasting, praying and watching. Nitria was the home also of the famed Macarius the Younger. Palladius who spent some time with the aforementioned monks of Nitria at Mount Nitria has recorded his impressive recollections from that visit in the Lausiac History (pp. 40-54). Two days’ journey south of Nitria is the desert of Scetis, a terrible place with foul smelling water. Saint Macarius the Elder or the Great!’ was the first to settle there, a cherubim showing him the way. He studied under Saint Anthony at Mt. Qolzoum (340-360). Macarius would frequently retreat farther into the desert to avoid the crowds of tourists, seeking apatheia and prayer by day and night. Saint Macarius spent sixty years in the desert and composed fifty “Spiritual Homilies”! and several letters! for monks, which accord to him the claim to being the Pleroma of Christian Mystical Theology! Saint Hilarion of Gaza (died in 371) introduced monasticism into Palestine where it soon flourished. Saint Euthymius became renowned in the fifth century as the “father of monasticism of the Holy Land.” Other great Palestinian spiritual fathers were: Barsanuphius and John, Dorotheus*® and Sabbas. In the mountains of West Syria, near Antioch, and especially in the mountains of Tur Abdin, and the desert of Chalcis (the

158

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

Syrian Thebaid) was the dwelling for a time of Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Jerome. Northeast of Antioch, Edessa was the home of the great ascetic figure of Syria, Saint Ephraem (c. 306-373),2! and in Nisibis that of the giant Syrian Bishop-Monk and ascetic writer Saint Isaac of Nineveh» (seventh century) and Aphrahat (fourth century). The most typical representatives of the Syrian monks in the fifth century were the “Stylite” saints, men who lived for many years on the top of a pillar (from the Greek stylos). The first to adopt this lifestyle was Simeon Stylites who spent forty years on a fifty-foot column-sty/os outside Antioch. Monasticism soon spread out reaching Armenia by Daniel the Syrian and his disciples. Narsis, the great Katholikos of Seleucia, organized the anchorites into a form of cenobitism.

Armenian monasticism became soon a great missionary and literary force in the Eastern Church thanks to the influence and inspiration mainly of Saint Basil the Great. The fourth and fifth centuries were in many ways similar to our own times. More and more young men and women decided that an existence based upon merely material considerations was not really worth living. They left their lecture halls in Greece and Rome, successful business ventures, government offices, families and estates, and headed east in search

of spiritual happiness and security. On the other hand, the monasteries began, as early as the fourth century, to be most fruitful seminaries of clergy, and furnished, especially in the East, by far the greater number of bishops. The sixth novel of Emperor Justinian the Great (527-565) provides that the bishops shall be chosen from the monasteries primarily. An eminent historian of the fourth century, M. Henri Marrou, has

pointed out that of the dozen or so outstanding “Fathers,” Greek and Latin, of the fourth century a// save Ambrose were monks. Initially, most monks were not priests. Their accoutrement

was an outer garment of sheepskin with an attached hood, and a linen under-garment with a leather girdle. Their time was spent in prayer and work (ora et labora). In Egypt, in addition to farming, they wove baskets, and mats out of reeds. In the larger monasteries, almost every kind of trade was practiced. Usually, there was but one priest to offer the services.

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

159

Pachomius did not allow his monks to be ordained priests, in order to eliminate personal antagonism and jealousies or power struggles. Thus, he merely engaged priests from neighboring towns for the necessary priestly functions, and Pachomius himself never became bishop although his relationship with the bishop of his area was positive, but not always very cordial In the beginning, monasteries for women were built near those of men, for the purpose of spiritual direction, economic help, and protection from thieves. However, the synod of Agde in 506 and the Emperor Justinian forbade these double monasteries. At the time of Pachomius children were sometimes placed in monasteries with the implicit understanding of their staying and taking full vows. The Synod of Trullo in 692 declared ten years would be the minimum age allowed for entrance. At the Fourth Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon (451) it was

decreed that all monks, whether in the country-side or in the towns, be under the authority of the locally presiding bishop. It was also decreed that monasteries could not be established without his prior approval. The monks were told to devote themselves to prayer and fasting, and to leave the monastery only when necessary, and then only with the bishop’s approval. To return to the world was forbidden under pain of excommunication. In Cappadocia (contemporary mainland Turkey) and Asia Minor a more intellectual and liturgical monasticism developed under the dynamic leadership of Saint Basil the Great (c. 330-379).23 Saint Basil dwelt for a time on the banks of the Iris (in Pontus) before becoming Archbishop of Caesarea the capital of Cappadocia. He placed stress on the contemplative ascesis, the value of communal

monasticism,

importance of

active charity, and the need for higher learning and study of theology. Hence, he and his followers became reputable as theologians and writers rather than as simple monks of the Egyptian type. Saint Basil endeavored an amalgamation of monasticism and Hellenic culture. The two Rules he developed are known as that of the Greater and Lesser Rule. Although he himself never founded a special religious order, he is known as “The

160

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

Founder of Byzantine Monasticism,” and monks even today

speak of themselves as Basilians.”4 Below are excerpts from Saint Basil’s Rule, this section dealing with the question as to whether the solitary or the cenobitic life is preferable. Responsio 1. I think that the life of several in the same place is much more profitable. First, because for bodily wants no one is sufficient for himself, but we need each other in providing what is necessary... 3. Also in the preservation of the gifts bestowed by God the cenobitic life is preferable.... For him who falls into sin, the recovery of the right path is so much easier, for he is ashamed at the blame expressed by so many incommon... 4. For how shall he manifest his humility, when he has not one to whom he can show himself the inferior? ... How

shall he exercise himself in patience, if no one opposes his wishes?25

In the second half of the fourth century (c. 382), monasticism was successfully established in and around Constantinople due to the tireless efforts of Abbot Isaac and Archbishop of Constantinople Saint John Chrysostom. Saint Chrysostom in 376, during the persecution of Valens, wrote three books Against the Adversaries of the Monastic Life, showing the terrible persecutions the monks had had to endure. In his Homily 68 on Matthew, Saint Chrysostom praises monasticism as the true philosophy which makes simple Christians more powerful than emperors with all of their authority, wealth and honor. Recently, it has been argued that the famous “Father” of early Christian Mysticism, Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite was living at the time of Saint Basil, and was one of his disciples.*° The basic reason of such an argument may be the tremendous influence of Dionysius’ Mystical Theology upon the Christian Thought & Life in both the East & West. His works that have come down to us consist of four treatises and ten letters: The Divine Names, The Mystical Theology, The Celestial Hierarchy, and The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.2? Current scholarship agrees that these writings “come from somewhere in the East, most probably Syria, and that they were

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

161

written in the century, or two, before the assembly at Constantinople in 533.”8 Written in Greek, probably by a Syrian monk, the Dionysian books became known in the West in the ninth century, when they were translated into Latin by John the Scot, or Scotus Eriugena. In the seventh century, the great monastic Father Saint Maximus the Confessor added notes to the four treatises and the letters of Dionysius, and by his

simple language and explanations added to their authority and acceptance. Likewise Andrew of Crete, Michael Psellus,

and George Pachymeres wrote commentaries on Dionysius’ works, and in the eighth century, Saint Theodore the Studite

celebrated the writings in verse. Indeed, Dionysius brought into Christianity a fresh and awestruck sense of the unsearchable divine transcendence: the secret ascent of the soul to God. The Divine Darkness, or Ignorance, of which Dionysius speaks

is a psychological condition; in which that soul exchanges discursive thought for the state of pure fruition, or contemplation, where it achieves “union with Him Who is above all

knowledge and all being.” “Our speech is restrained in proportion to the height of our ascent; but when our ascent is accomplished, speech will cease altogether and be absorbed into the ineffable.’9 Monasticism in Constantinople continued to grow especially under the Emperor Justinian the Great (483-565). By the ninth century, the time of Basil of Macedonia, there were hundreds of monasteries in and around Constantinople. Some had laurae or cells in which certain monks could live as recluses. Others had schools and hospices. They followed Saint Basil’s Rule plus commentaries by the Patriarchs of Constantinople such as Saint John Chrysostom, Saint John the Faster, and

Abbots or Hegumens as Saint Nil and Saint Theodore of Studium or the Studites. Novella 123 of Justinian formulated the principal monastic laws following Chalcedon (451). As Hannay stated “Basil conceived an ideal, Justinian enforced it from without, Theodore endeavored to realize it from with-

in,2 Saint Basil’s ideal, as further modified by Saint Theodore

the Studite (early in the ninth century), is the most prevalent type of even the contemporary Hellenic?! and Athonite (of Mount Athos, Greece) Monachism and throughout the Slav-

162

Pneumatology- Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

onic Churches in Balkan countries as well, as in Europe and the United States today. The co-existence of the Eremitical, the Semi-Eremitical and the Cenobitical types of Monasticism under the rule of the same Abbot on Mount Athos today, can be traced directly to Saint Athanasius

the Lavriote,

who founded,

in 963/4, the

Great Lavra (in which his relics still repose), and indirectly to Saint Gerasimus (+475), Abbot of a Skete or Lavra on the banks of the Jordan,

near Jericho.

Like Saint

Gerasimus,

Saint Athanasius of Athos permitted only those monks to retire into a life of solitude who had already been well trained in the ascetic life of the Cenobium.+2 Finally, one must mention the founder of Mount Sinai’s monasticism Saint John Climacus (c. 579-after 654) who achieved an ascetic synthesis comparable to the theological synthesis of his contemporary Saint Maximus the Confessor. Climacus passed forty years of solitude at a place called Tholas, and then he became abbot of the great monastery of Mount Sinai where he composed the monumental handbook of Christian Monasticism and Spirituality, The Ladder of Divine Ascent.*3 Saint John Climacus wrote this work as response to an urgent request for a detailed analysis of the special problems, needs, and requirements of monastic life. However, all

monks and religious seekers throughout the centuries and even today found and still continue to rediscover the fulfilment of spiritual life and joy in this writing. As my beloved teacher Fr. Georges Florovsky of blessed memory put it, “The Ladder is an invitation to pilgrimage.” “It is an existential work, and only those who read it existentially will appreciate its true value.34 The life and spirituality of the greatest Mystic of Byzantine Christianity Saint Symeon the New Theologian (949 /50-1022) have been dealt with by Fr. George Maloney, Dr. Paul McGuckin, Basile Krivocheine, and by the present writer.35

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

163

Questions For Discussion And Review What

is the function of the Holy Spirit?

What

is the distinction

Spirit and

between

the Person

of the

His gifts?

What was the difference between the activity of the Holy Spirit before and after the coming of Christ? Explain the doctrine of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Describe the practical attitude of the Eastern Church towards charisms. How does Eastern Christianity understand the nature of the Church-Ecclesia and her relationship with the Spirit?

Why the Filioque was not accepted even in the Council of Florence? On what canons did the core of Mark arguments rest?

Eugenicus’s

Explain Mark’s philosophical and theological argumentation in rejecting the Filioque. What are the foundations of the true universal Church,

and of Church

unity?

What are the basic characteristics and the meaning of the Church Tradition? What are the ideal Church-State What

is the meaning

relations?

of the word

Explain the Patristic understanding

Sacramentum?

of Mysterion.

What is the meaning and symbolism of the Sacrament of Baptism?

Give the eight different kinds of Baptism mentioned by Saint John of Damascus.

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

Why Jesus’s Baptism is called Theophany (Geopavera) or Lights (para) in the Greek Orthodox Church? Why the Sacrament of Chrism(a) or Confirmation cannot be separated from the Sacrament of Baptism? When and repeated?

why can the Sacrament

of Chrism

be

20:

Why is the Eucharist also called metalepsis (participation, MeraéAnws) and koinonia (communion, Kow.vwvia)?

2A;

What is the distinctive Orthodox-Patristic doctrine regarding the change of Eucharistic elements, bread and wine (and water), into the body and blood of Christ?

22.

Explain Cabasilas’s view on the Epiclesis.

20:

Summarize the Eucharistic doctrine of Saint Damascus.

24.

Is the Eucharistic body of Christ to be identified with the pre-resurrected or the post-resurrected one?

25:

Why is the Sacrament of Penance called Metanoia (Meravo.w) and “Second Baptism”?

26.

What is the deeper meaning of the epitimia or penances in the Orthodox penitential discipline?

ie

What is the difference between the Baptismal or general lay priesthood, and the Eucharistic priesthood (Ordination)?

28.

Is re-ordination allowed? Why the Orthodox Church rejects women’s ordination?

29).

What is the Scriptural basis of Marriage as Sacrament? In what cases the Orthodox Church allows divorce and re-marriage, and for how many times?

30.

Explain briefly the Roman Catholic idea of “semidivorce”, and the Orthodox principle of Oikonomia.

1.

Why the Sacrament of Holy Unction was originally associated with repentance, and why now even the

John of

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology-Hagiology-Asceticism

165

Roman Catholic Church returned to the traditional doctrine that the aim of Holy Unction’s performance is to heal spiritual as well, as physical illness, at any time, not only just before death?

O2:

Explain the saints’s function in the Church. On what foundation is their veneration based, and what did the

Christians of the first two centuries mean in using the word “saints”?

Sep

Which are the criteria that convince the Church to proclaim a person as saint (i.e., canonization)?

34.

On what ground is the veneration of saints’ relics founded?

355

Why from the very beginning Christian Monachism claimed to be the highest and purest form of Christian philosophy?

36.

In what respects Christian asceticism is different from and contrary to the Gnostic Manichaean asceticism?

37,

Was Christian Monachism anti-Church or anti-clerical or anti-sacramental?

38.

What is the deeper meaning of the so-called “Ascetic super-conservatism or Fanaticism”?

a:

What are the causes of the rapid growth of the fourth century-Monastic Christianity?

40.

What is the meaning of the terms: Monk, Monastery, Anchorite, Hermit, Cenobium, Lavra, Sketis?

Al. 42. 43. 44.

Who

was

Who

is the “Patriarch”

45.

the oldest and the first recorded

hermit?

of Monasticism?

What are the sources of early Egyptian monasticism? What is Saint Anthony’s view on monastic life and the monk? Give the dates of the “golden age” of the Egyptian Desert Fathers or “The visionary Christianity.”

166

46.

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

Who is the founder of Christian monastic communism

(cenobitism)?

47.

48.

How

was the Pachomian

monastery

organized?

Identify the “Pleroma of Christian Mystical Theology”!

49.

Who were the earliest representatives Armenian, and Athonite monasticism?

50.

Identify the phrases “all save Ambrose were monks”, “ora et labora.”

Sis

Describe

52:

Who is “The Founder of Byzantine Monasticism” and why?

53)

What is the view of current scholarship concerning the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius (Areopagite)?

54.

Which Novella of Emperor Justinian the Great formulated the principal monastic laws following Chalcedon (451)?

DD:

Whois the greatest monastic reformer after Saint Basil the Great?

56.

Who

a7:

Who is the greatest Mystic of Byzantine Christianity?

the earliest monasteries

is the founder of Mount

of Syriac,

for women.

Sinai’s monasticism?

Select Bibliography For Further Reading Archbishop Methodios Fouyias. Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Anglicanism. London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1972 (Part Two, Chapters VI and VU, pp. 110-199).

John Meyendorff. Byzantine Theology, New York: Fordham University Press, 1976 (Part I, #6, pp. 79-90; Part II, #15 and 16, pp. 191-211).

Pneumatology-Ecclesiology- Hagiology-Asceticism

167

Alexander Schmemann. For the Life of the World, Crestwood, New York: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988. Alexander Schmemann. The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom, Crestwood, New York: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988. Alexander Schmemann. Of Water And The Spirit, Crestwood, New York: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974. D. Staniloae. Theology And The Church, Crestwood, New York: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980, pp.

45-71. George

Florovsky. Creation And Redemption, Belmont, Massachusetts: Nordland Publishing Co., 1976, pp. 201-212.

Timothy Ware. The Orthodox Church, New York: Penguin Books, 1978, esp. pp. 234-303.

Constantine N. Tsirpanlis. The Liturgical And Mystical Theology of Nicolas Cabasilas, Third ed., New York, 1986.

V Eschatology

1. Katharsis-Contemplation-Praxis- Theoria- Theosis Among the Greek Fathers who developed a more complete doctrine about the Divinization or Theosis of Man, are Saint Gregory of Nazianzus and Saint Maximus the Confessor. Both follow the Alexandrian tradition, especially Saint Athanasius the Great who admired and learned so much from Saint Anthony the Great and the Desert Fathers, in general. They all believe in the possibility of Man’s Theosis, after the Fall, since they consider this Theosis as the outgrowth of the divinized body or the enhypostasized humanity of Christ. Certainly, personal ascesis and effort is a basic presupposition of Theosis. Likewise, the constant assistance of the Holy Spirit and of the Angels is indispensable. The conclusion of the fifth theological discourse of Gregory Nazianzenus clearly confirms this last point. Man’s Theosis, that is, is the highest gift and blessing of the Holy Spirit. This is a common belief of all the Greek Fathers, even of the Ascetic Fathers of the Desert, as

we will see later. However, Gregory of Nazianzus introduced a new concept of a highly individualized (in the sense that each individual becomes divinized according to his/her peculiar ability and way to use his/her spiritual gifts or charismata) Theosis with more optimistic and more humane overtones and hope. In any case, everyone must offer: rears, katharsis, synergy, kenosis, meleti thanatou, and epektasis!

The very first and most essential aspect of the life of Theosis 168

Eschatology

169

is katharsis, that is, “a contrite heart,” a “new creation in Christ,” and the new man;! the separation of the soul from the fleshly mind and the attainment of apatheia. Gregorian asceticism is more humane than even that of Basil the Great. Especially Gregory is bold enough to say that “to do no wrong is really superhuman, and belongs to God alone.” According to Gregory the true ascetic “bears prosperity with moderation and adversity with dignity”;3 is not the one who rejects marriage only, but who becomes Christ, Who “enacted the law of virginity to ... rather transmit one world to another,

the present to the future.” Accordingly, if the “single” life or virginity does not become witness of God’s Kingdom, and fails to “transmit the present to the future,” such life is meaningless, worthless. ... Modern Gregorian so-called scholars, however,

wrongly believe that “the daemonological aspect ... is largely absent in Gregory.”> No wonder, then, that there is no study today, on Gregory’s demonology, and modern interpretation of the Gregorian concept of Katharsis as simply “withdrawal from the sense world” with gnostic overtones is much wanting. For Saint Gregory of Nazianzus praxis meant not practical life in the modern sense, but training in virtue as a preparation for theoria, the vision of God.* Gregory embraced both praxis and theoria, but in a very personal way, which was neither that of Basil nor that of Gregory of Nyssa.? For Gregory praxis means a long internal warfare, “a long course of philosophic (e.g., spiritual) training, and gradual separation of the noble and enlightened part of the soul (e.g., the image of God in man) from that which is debased and yoked with darkness, or by the mercy of God, or both together, and by a constant practice of looking upward, to overcome the depressing power of matter.” Further, the true praxis is a “living, holy sacrifice,” “the reasonable, well-pleasing service to God,” “the sacrifice of praise (to God) and the contrite spirit,” “selfless love and holy

works, a tongue instrumental of Divine melody and all members of human body to become instruments of righteousness”,? to make our whole life a preparation for death (meleti thanatou).!° Theoria or the vision of God means in Gregory’s own words “experience” of and communion in “the entire series of the

170

Eschatology

titles,!! and powers of Christ, both those more lofty ones which originally were His, and those more lowly ones which He later assumed for our sake, viz.: God, the Son, the Image, the Word, the Wisdom, the Truth, the Light, the Life, the Power, the Vapour, the Emanation, the Effulgence, the Maker, the King, the Head, the Law, the Way, the Door, the Foundation, the Rock, the Pearl, the Peace, the Righteousness, the Sanctifi-

cation, the Redemption, the Man, the Servant, the Shepherd, the Lamb, the High Priest, the Victim, the Firstborn, before creation, the Firstborn from the dead, the Resurrection.”!2

Now, is this theoria or vision of God possible in this life? To this thorny question Gregory replies as follows: Inasmuch as philosophy (e.g., contemplation) is the greatest, so is it the most difficult of professions, which can be taken in hand by but few, and only by those who have been called forth by the Divine magnanimity, which gives its hand to those who are honoured by its preference.'3

Does this answer of Saint Gregory Nazianzenus imply divine predestination, and if so of what degree and extent? Gregory himself is not certain and has no clear answer to such a difficult question.'4 He cannot refrain himself, however, from praising those who although they are involved in secular business, and in society—“the lower form of life” as this involvement is characterized by Gregory—still they live according to God’s will and image.!> This “is no small thing” Gregory exclaims!!6 On another occasion, speaking of freedom of will Gregory declares: The mystery of godliness!’ belongs to those who are willing, not to those who are overpowered;'8 to those who through repentance preserve the divine image and “our original dignity, to which we are hastening through our training here”,!? to those who “break their bread to the hungry, who gather together the poor that have no shelter, who cover their nakedness, who have compassion for the affliction of the oppressed.2°

Now, theosis or divinization?! “is conferred by true philoso-

Eschatology

171

phy, and by rising superior to the dualism of matter, through the unity which is perceived in the Trinity.” Is this only a “mystical” and passive salvation? Certainly not! Gregory’s concept of salvation is a dynamic daily divinization transforming human relations into Trinitarian interpersonal relations and into personal kenosis, that is self-emptying and unselfish service to fellow men.?3 Let me quote Saint Gregory Nazianzenus again at this point to fully illustrate these basic aspects of “mystical salvation”experience: From the day whereon I renounced the things of the world to consecrate my soul to luminous and heavenly contemplation, when the supreme intelligence carried me hence to set me down far from all that pertains to the flesh, to hide me in the secret places of the heavenly tabernacle; from that

day my eyes have been blinded by the light of the Trinity, whose brightness surpasses all that the mind can conceive.... From that day forth I was dead to the world and the world was dead to me.*4

Not that denial of the world is the absolute goal or the goal in and of itself. But the mind must rid itself first of sinful attitudes and conceptions in order to approach what is absolutely Holy and infinite. In other words, denial of the world is the means to the goal. As we come to deny our sinful selfishness (the world), and set our minds upon God, we are then far

more capable to perceive this world in its proper context. The orthodox or Gregorian mystic does not deny the world in order to leave it, but rather to more fully live in it. Another misunderstanding of Gregory’s thought is the modern emphasis on his “futuristic” eschatology, and his “Platonizing” view of the body as the soul’s prison.*> First, in several passages Gregory proclaims his faith that already in this life the purified soul can enjoy “by hope the blessings of the world to come;?6 “the unspeakable light and the vision of the holy and royal Trinity.”2? Second, the resurrection of the body, which can be only an embarrassment to platonized thought and is so distinctly declared in the writings of Gregory”® confirms his right understanding of soul-body relationship as

172

Eschatology

leader-fellow servant to God relationship.” Gregory explicitly states that, what God is to the soul, that the soul becomes for the body:

it trains the body’s matter, which is its servant, and adapts the fellow servant to God.3°

Now, theoria or contemplation in Gregory’s thought is both noetic and ecstatic. He describes it as a purification of the mind which is achieved by withdrawal from the visible to the invisible world, from the sensible to the intelligible (the intel-

ligible now being understood as God and His angels).3! The final goal is an ecstatic one, one in which the separation of the created and the uncreated mind is overcome and man’s human “mirror” is merged in the Mind of God in “pure communion” with Him.32 Such a spiritual joy and perfection is unending with no fixed terminus, however, because compared to the full nature of God this theoria “is but a small effluence, and as it

were a small effulgence from the Great Light.’33 Of course, this is not Gregory’s original doctrine, since Origen before him had similar views of the spiritual life and also Gregory of Nyssa elaborated it even more thoroughly as Epectasis.34 Interestingly enough, Gregory the Theologian is of the opinion that, full or essential theognosia by the human soul is impossible even in the hereafter.35 The best earliest exponents and examples of the profound ascetico-theological understanding of the purity of heart and thoughts or nepsis and praxis are perhaps Saint Macarius the Great (fourth century), Saint John Climacus or of the Ladder (seventh century) and Saint Isaac the Syrian (seventh century).*°

2. The True Experience and Knowledge of God: Kenosis According to Saint Gregory of Nazianzus true knowledge of God’s nature belongs only to those who “are past masters in meditation, and who have been previously purified in soul and body, or at the very least are being purified and aided by the Holy Spirit”;37 to those whose “reason shall have mingled with

Eschatology

— 173

its like, and the image shall have ascended to the archetype. ”38 Now, continual remembrance of God, self-knowledge and self-examination rather than the talking about God contributes to purification.3? Contemplation and prayer is the true theology. The theologian is one who has “fear” of God and knows how to pray.*° But even that knowledge is a knowledge of only the back parts of God,‘! of His glory not of His essence, like the shadow and reflection of the sun in the water, which show the sun to our weak eyes, because we cannot look at

the sun himself, for by his unmixed light he is too strong for our power of perception.*?

Such was Moses’ and Paul’s experience of God.43 The human inability to comprehend God’s nature does not preclude, however, persuasion of His existence. The laws and works of nature through visible things and their order are strong proofs of God’s creation.*4 To the question: “What purpose does this incomprehensibility serve?” Gregory gives five answers. First, “this is not out of envy, for envy is far from the divine nature, which is passionless and only good and Lord of all.” Second, “nor yet is this incomprehensibility for the sake of His (God’s) own glory and honor, who is full, as if his possession of his glory and majesty depended upon the impossibility of approaching him.” Third, “perhaps ... to prevent us from too readily throwing away the possession because it was so easily come by, for people cling tightly to that which they acquire with labor.” Fourth, “perhaps ... in order that we may not share the fate of Lucifer.” And fifth, “perhaps it may be to give a greater reward hereafter for their labor and glorious life to those who have been purified, and have exercised long patience in respect of that which they desired.” I cannot but let Gregory’s own mystical language express the mystery of God’s nature and knowability: Who is it, Who made all things by His Word, and formed man by His Wisdom, and gathered into one things scattered abroad, and mingled dust with spirit, and compounded an animal visible and invisible, temporal and immortal, earthly and heavenly, able to attain to God but not to comprehend

174

~—Eschatology

Him, drawing near and yet afar off. I said, I will be wise, says Solomon, but she (i.e., Wisdom) was far from me beyond what is: and, Verily, he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. For the joy of what we have discovered is no greater than the pain of what escapes us; a pain | imagine, like that felt by those who are dragged, while yet thirsty, from the water, or are unable to retain what they think they hold, or are suddenly left in the dark by a flash of lightning ... God’s secret place is darkness, since He is the purest light, which most men cannot approach unto; Who is in all this universe, and again is beyond the universe; Who is all goodness, and beyond all goodness; Who enlightens the mind, and escapes the quickness and height of the mind, ever retiring as much as He is apprehended, and by His flight and stealing away when grasped, withdrawing to the things above one who is enamoured of Him.*¢ Furthermore,

God is to intelligible things what the sun is to the things of sense. The one lightens the visible, the other the invisible, world. The one makes our bodily eyes to see the sun, the other makes our intellectual natures to see God. And, as that, which bestows on the things which sce and are seen the power of seeing and being seen, is itself the most beautiful of visible things; so God, who creates, for those who think, and that which is thought of, the power of thinking and being thought of, is Himself the highest of the objects of thought, in Whom every desire finds its bourne, beyond Whom it can no further go. For not even the most philosophic, the most piercing, the most curious intellect has, or can ever have, a more exalted object. For this is the utmost of things desirable, and they who arrive at it find an entire rest from speculation.‘ Kenosis

According to Gregory the Kenosis of Christ means His absolute humility and self-emptying,4® a diminution of His glory; that being God He “took upon Him (man’s) denser nature, having converse with flesh by means of mind. While

Eschatology

175

His inferior (nature), the humanity, became God, because it was united to God, and became one (person), because the higher nature prevailed ... in order that I too might be made God so far as he is made man.”> Christ, furthermore, “for us men was the second or the new and heavenly Adam,>! and was God made capable of suffering (to strive) against sin.”>2 Man’s liberation from sin and servitude as well, as his theosis (divinization) or Christopoiesis53 were the Aim of Christ’s inhumanization.54 Hence, at the Last Judgment “He is to stand as God in the midst of gods, that is, of the saved, distinguishing and deciding of what honor and of

what mansion each is worthy.”>> He will have then no flesh, but not without a body, “according to the laws which He alone knows of a more godlike body, that He may be seen by those who pierced Him, and on the other hand may remain as

God without carnality.”>° Christ’s redemption is potentially complete and universal. But as long as men continue to be rebellious, both by denial of God, and by their passions, so long Christ also continues to suffer.57 However, “God will be all in all8 in the time of restitution; not in the sense that the Father alone will be, and

the Son be wholly resolved into him, like a torch into a great pyre, from which it was reft away for a little space, and then put back ... but the entire Godhead ... when we shall be no longer divided (as we now are by movements and passions), and containing nothing at all of God, or very little, but shall be entirely like God, ready to receive (into our hearts) the whole God and Him alone.”? It is because of Christ’s Kenosis that He is the unique mediator and advocate between God and Man. In Gregory’s own words, Christ still pleads even now as man for my salvation; for He continues to wear the body which He assumed, until He make me God by the power of His incarnation; although He is no longer known after the flesh—I mean, the passions of the flesh—the same, except sin, as ours.®!

The meaning and effect of Christ’s advocacy lies in the fact that “by what He suffered as man, He as the Word and the

176

=Eschatology

counselor persuades (God) to be patient. Hence, the Church

as the people of God and Christ’s society is a continuous spiritual event of His incarnation, death and resurrection, since

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today in the incarnation, and in the Spirit forever and ever.’”*? The true Christian is the one who “shares the priesthood of Christ, and renews the creature, and sets forth the image, and creates inhabitants for the world above, aye and, greatest of all, becomes God, and makes others to be God.”*

Christ’s Kenosis is His second Communion (with human nature) “far more marvellous than the first, inasmuch as then He imparted the better nature (imago Dei), whereas now Himself partakes of the worse” (mortal flesh). This “second Communion” is more Godlike than the former action, this is loftier in the eyes of all men of understanding, since through it Christ partook of the flesh and made it immortal. All Christ’s sufferings and human actions have one completion, namely, man’s perfection and return to the first condition of Adam,°’ (the condition of man before the fall) and even higher than that. Hence, every Christian, in order to be restored, must “travel without fault through every stage and faculty of the

Life of Christ.” The original divine plan was not fulfilled in the first man, Adam. Instead of following a straight line of ascent to God, the first man followed his own will, contrary to nature and therefore ending in death. According to Saint Maximus the Confessor® and Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Adam was meant to be the first incarnation, the first union of God and man. Thus, Adam would have incorporated the divine nature within himself. Jesus Christ achieved this by following the order which was assigned to the first Adam. Furthermore, because Christ was born of the holiest virgin by the Holy Spirit, He encompassed both the division of male and female as well as the division between human and divine.” Jesus Christ assumed man’s nature from the holiest Virgin Mary the Theotokos, by the Holy Spirit, and He submitted to all the sorrows and tragedies of sin—ultimately taking upon Himself the burden of death itself—in order to free us from its consequences. Christ took it upon Himself to bridge the separation between God and man. Christ emptied Himself into

Eschatology

177

man so that man could be emptied of himself—of his sinful self—and once again find God in a state of union. Only in this light can we understand the Trinity and the work of the Church. Only in the light of the Life of Jesus Christ can man perceive God and only in the light of that perception can man enact his renewed union with God. This enactment of such a union is the Church. Reunited with Godthe-Saviour, man is also reunited with himself. As Jesus was born among men in order to have men born once again in God, the Church is the living expression of each re-birth and in the end, the re-birth of all mankind!

3. The Kingdom of God as “Universal Logopoiesis” and “Inaugurated” or “Dynamic Eschatology” Among the Greek Fathers Saint Maximus the Confessor especially emphasizes repeatedly the point that, God placed in everyone’s heart the pledge of the Spirit.! The fact of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as well, as of the indwelling Christ is dear especially to Saint Maximus, because it serves as the cornerstone of his theology of history and the kingdom of God, as universal /ogopoiesis and “inaugurated” or “dynamic eschatology.”2 And this fact confirms, in my opinion, the possibility of universal restoration as universal and individual salvation also, “though each individual makes himself/herself fit either for glory or for punishment” as well, as man’s initial (pre-fallen) sinlessness* and purity, since carnal passions or the “garments of skin’ (dermatinoi chitones) were added to human nature by man himself with the Fall; they were not cocreated in his nature, that is.© Maximus mentions Gregory of Nyssa in this context, with whom he agrees that in view of the Fall, man was created male and female, kat’ oikonomian. This is not, however, “double creation” or a “second act” of God neither in Gregory of Nyssa, as already mentioned, nor in Maximus.’ Furthermore, this is not a condemnation of sex as negative or sinful, but a necessary response to an evil, and sex is good if it is used as God-centered mutual fulfilment and not as misdirected love.®

178

Eschatology

Restoration as salvation is the heart of the entire theology of Maximus, ascetic and dogmatic; it is the grace of Theosis,?

it enters the very formula of Theandric synergy and will: man is to collaborate with the divine will or man’s “gnomic will” must conform with Christ’s Theandric Will.!° This conformity constitutes true freedom and complete humanity,!! as well as the highest degree of the enjoyment of God’s vision, since Christ Himself is the Kingdom of heaven.!? Of course, Clement

of Alexandria and Origen before Maximus, are the par excellence heralders of Christ’s Kingship, Whom Origen calls “he aftobasileia” since He is “he aftosophia kai he aftodikeosyne kai he aftoaletheia.”' Following the Patristic tradition, especially Saint Ignatius and the Alexandrian Fathers, Saint Maximus the Confessor

teaches that the Kingdom of God is actual, daily life and theosis in Christ, by grace and by participation through the Holy Spirit “kata metheksin,” “te kata charin metheksei tou Pnevmatos,”'4 because the Kingdom of God is the Kingdom

of the Father and the Son,!5 as well as of the Holy Spirit.!6 Certainly, this Trinitarian identification is also Biblically supported,!’ and is not agreeable with the “futuristic eschatology” that implies passivity and inactivity in the Christian way of life. Such a Trinitarian view and dimension of the Kingdom of God, is rooted in the New Testament as well, as in Patristic tradition, and is based on the Divine Oikonomia.!8 Thus, God’s

Kingdom is not only a future or an apocalyptic event, but also an “inaugurated eschatology,” or “continuous eschatology,” or a “functional eschatology,” that Kingdom being a soteriological experience of everyday life and the ultimate goal of history.!9 The Christological, Soteriological and Pneumatological basis of the Kingdom of God is particularly studied and pointed out by Saint Maximus. His teaching of synergy, kenosis, and theosis is of fundamental importance for our understanding of the nature and application of God’s Kingdom in history and contemporary reality.2° History, according to Saint Maximus,?! is a Theandric pro-

cess and movement in the sense that it is transformed through Christ’s Lordship and Grace from the temporality to eternity. Hence, history and this world is understood by Eastern Orth-

Eschatology

179

odox Theology as Theocentric “inaugurated eschatology.” Saint Maximus following Jesus’s parables and homilies on the Kingdom of God, presents two main aspects or periods of its history: the period of sowing, increase and development of theosis on earth, and of the harvest or “bonum consummatum”

at the end of this age when it will be given as a consummated Gift and Grace.*3 The only, unambiguous way to the Kingdom of God is the soteriological experience in this life, which through kenosis or Imitatio Christi is transformed and transcended into eternity.”4 It is the way of virtuous life and spiritual restoration engrafted in Christ’s divinity, grown and animated by the Holy Spirit.25 Love for God and love for our fellow man is of course the foundation and consummation of all virtues. Love is the expression of God’s Will and the raison detre of the Church. Love and Justice are the Golden Gates to the Kingdom of God.*6 Love as philanthropic kenosis is a dynamic and divinizing experience of the Trinitarian Mystery and Eschatology and of Christological perichoreisis.2”7 Together with love, knowledge as kenosis and unifying “vision” of the Logos,

“the

known

Christ,”

as “ecstasis”

and

departure

(ekdemia) from this world, introduce the faithful to the Kingdom of the future age.?8 God’s Kingdom is not only a future event, but especially a daily on-going experience and process in many different forms, degrees and happenings.”9 It is not subject to theological investigations or to intellectual knowledge and certainty, but to

a constant spiritual transformation and purification, to the childlike trust and dependency in God, daily action of philanthropy, justice and peace.2° As a result, it becomes a vision (theoria) of Christ’s face on the Mountain of Thabor.?! This is a topos of course, in the preceding patristic literature, especially in Clement of Alexandria and Origen. For Maximus, however, the transfiguration of Christ on Mount Thabor is a continuous and dynamic eschatological experience and constitutes the betrothal (arravon) of “face to face” encounter with God.32 The concept of the “doxological” experience of God’s Face and Kingdom in this life through the Holy Spirit, is quite strong in Maximus’s theology.*? It is based on the /mitatio Christi and the “inaugurated” theosis in this life.54 It is the Pleroma of Christ’s divinity in us, by grace, when we reach the

180

Eschatology

peak of virtuous life and of divine wisdom.*> Consequently, without “an active love for Christ, which manifests to us the

divine treasures (graces) in us,” we will have no part in His Kingdom. This active love for Christ may be applied and manifested, in Maximus’s own words, as “love for every man as much as one is able to love”; if one is unable to do this, at least he/she must hate no one.37 Incidentally, it should be noted that Maximus mostly insists on the ideal love. He, how-

ever, allows occasionally that it will not always be realized.38 Accordingly, it is wrong to try to find in the person of Saint Maximus an absolutist or inflexible moralist. On the contrary, although a monk himself and never married, Saint Maximus

knew deeply the complications, ambiguities, difficulties, and problems of human psychology and of social and family life, and tried to lovingly encourage and assist, not to disappoint by literal austerity and rigorist moralism, the weak and hopeless, but conscientious one.°®

The Divine Kingdom is not territorial nor chronical.* It is an ever present and endless enjoyment of God’s eschaton, and purpose of creation for the saved ones or the inner man freed from the passions.*! Certainly, for Saint Maximus the concept of God’s Kingdom is an activistic and operative daily experience, not just an apocalyptic event. According to Saint Maximus, even in a private prayer, man can see Jesus, the Son of God, crossing the skies and becoming one with everything, the boundless presence and majesty of limitless nature “megaliotita tes physikes aoristias.”? Saint Maximus’ consistent emphasis on personal, activistic participation of man in the Kingdom of God, here and now, is remarkable, indeed! The Kingdom of God is in us, potentially, as a kenotic reality, faithful daily observance of His commandments, since each of God’s commandments contains in itself His Logos, in a mystical way, mystikés.43 And God The Father is totally inseparable from each commandment as containing His own Logos, naturally. Consequently, the one who follows God’s commandments is incorporated with His Logos

as well, as with the whole Trinity in a mystical manner, mystikos, and by grace not in essence.*4 This identification of

the Divine Law with God’s Grace, Love and Power is of course rooted in the Judaic liturgical theology, but it becomes

Eschatology

181

more explicit and “dynamic” in Saint Maximus’s personal experience and Christocentric Soteriology and Eschatology.45 According to Saint Maximus, as long as an individual insists on his/her sinfulness, he/she prevents the establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth and mutilates Christ’s Body.46 Such an individual causes grief to Christ’s heart, Who continues to suffer mystikos, and will suffer di’ agathoteta, because of and according to the degree of each one’s sinfulness.47 He/she delays, therefore, the fulfilment of God’s purpose for creation and man’s destiny.*8 The Kingdom of God will be fully realized when Jesus Christ will be, in Saint Maximus’ own words, “theos en méso theon (i.e., ton sozoménon), the visible Head

of His entire and undivided Body.”™9 On the other hand, although the Kingdom of God is a daily, activistic personal experience, it is beyond and above time simultaneously, without beginning and end, that is, since God

Himself is without beginning and without end.*° Consequently, no matter how perfect and saintly one may be in this life, still he/she is only betrothed to the Logos of God and the Holy Spirit in this age.5! The pleroma of God’s Kingdom will be experienced after all motion and time ceases, when God will be seen and enjoyed, face to face, by all those who are saved. The peak and the complete enjoyment of God’s Kingdom will then materialize when the saved soul together with her body will be intimately united with the Divine Grace, and all their motion and operations, mental as well as sensual, will cease

completely, becoming both soul and body as much as god as their spiritual purification allows and deserves.*? I should underline, at this point, Saint Maximus’ strong belief that God as absolutely merciful and almighty will at the consummation of history extend His salvific grace and love to all, angels and men, good and evil, since man’s temptations and demons’ activities are within the realm of God’s knowledge and control, namely, God allows evil and punishment providentially in this age.53 However, the good and evil ones will participate in that grace and love not evenly, but according to the degree of each one’s sinfulness.*4 Therefore, the “end” of this age depends not only on the total sovereignty of God in this world, but also on man’s active participation in the event of the “inaugurated” Kingdom of

182

Eschatology

God in our history. However, this important view, patristic

through and through, cannot justify any secular humanists’ place of man above God. Because God is the main protagonist and Lord of History, not man. The followers of absolute or autonomous humanism overemphasize the earthly nature of God’s Kingdom, and overestimate the value and ability of fallen human

nature,

overlooking

the essential theocentric,

Christocentric and pneumatocentric character of the Kingdom of God.°> Saint Maximus’s position is supportive of neither absolute, autonomous, or secular humanism nor of passive “futuristic eschatology.” Both of these approaches are considered by Maximus dangerous extremes to be avoided. According to Maximus, the Kingdom of God is both a present and a future divine reality; a historical and simultaneously eschatological experience;

a unitive

Theopolitical

realm;

and

the deeper

meaning and ultimate purpose of History is precisely the fulfilment and consummation of that realm.>° Maximus’s thought is very clear: the present experience of God’s Kingdom is conditional, incomplete, partial, limited, imperfect. However, man even after the present age, in the next life, is not inactive, but he continues a life of “dynamic” fulfilment and consummation.*’ It will not be an exaggeration to characterize Maximus’ theological thought as “dynamic”

and “continuous” eschatology. His concepts of the Holy Spirit’s “betrothal” and of “methexis” or union with Christ during this life, are good confirmations of the aforementioned characterization.*8 There is no doubt that the Kingdom of God as absolute and perfect reality belongs by its nature to the future and to the fulfilment of the ages,5® when the wedding of the Bride, the Community or the Body of Christ’s believers, with her Bride-

groom (Christ) will take place as “dynamic” consummation of the present “betrothal,” which is an image and foretaste of the historical reality and eschatological dimension of God’s Kingdom.® However, neither dualism nor interruption is implied in the nature of God’s Kingdom as present and future reality. The “end” or the “fulfilment” of the ages must be conceived only historically, because eschatologicaly and by its very nature the Kingdom of God is endless and timeless.°!

Eschatology

183

The Divine Kingdom is one and the same that “of Christ and of God,” “tou Christou kai Theou.’®2 Jesus Christ will give it back to God the Father, from Whom He received it, on the consummation of time, at the General Resurrection.©

There is no polarization between our history and the Eschatological Kingdom of God. Because, at the very end the entire creation will be restored and return to the pre-fallen condition and to the eternal glory of God.*4 The Kingdom of God is felt when the soul lives in union with her “/ogos.” The opposite is an endless hell.*° This basic point is especially emphasized in Maximus’ treatise on the Lord’s Prayer. Maximus’s originality lies perhaps in his emphasis on the profound elaboration of the restored and divinized will through Christ’s Kenotic incarnation, as the New Adan, the initiator of the future age and of the eschatological “second—commun1on—koinonia” in human nature.® This “second” and “eschatological communion” is identified with the Kingdom of God in Saint Maximus’ theology.’ According to Maximus this “second communion” is the outgrowth of the divinization of human nature through the kenotic incarnation of the Logos which was God’s eternal will (Boule).©° Thus, soteriology and eschatology is perfectly harmonized and thoroughly understood by Saint Maximus as Magnalia Dei in history, but also as “dynamic” transformation of the present life of the faithful into the Kingdom of Grace, and fulfilment of all redemptive experiences, through liturgical doxology and liberation.” Maximus’s dearest subject is the profound elaboration of precisely this soteriological and eschatological synthesis in connection with the week days and the “eighth day”. This “aion” or the seventh-day week is the “pronoetike oikonomia” or the “providential dispensation.” The “eighth day” is Christ’s second coming as well, as the Mystical Resurrection of all men or the perfect Kingdom of God, the very end and the eschaton of God’s creative action that fulfills and completes the historical and eschatological character of the “eighth day” cycle of God’s Economy and which recapitulates the ages and consummates the entire history and eschatology into an integral Oneness— the universal restoration and recapitulation.’! It is the state of theosis, which in the “eighth day” is not human action, but divine passivity, an endless and eternal theourgia (God’s oper-

184

Eschatology

ation), that is the eternal action of God’s Love, Grace and Glory.” According to Saint Maximus, a substantial foretaste of that state is given in the Eucharistic participation.’? The Sacrament of Eucharist is the eschatological event and the redemptive Sacrament par excellence, the Sacrament of the Kingdom of God, and of eschatological reality and unity with God and with men, since its participants share in the entire theanthropic life of Christ, in His Death and Resurrection, and are united with His body as fellow-citizens in the theopoietic process for the final resurrection.”4 Hence, frequent participation in the Sacrament of Eucharist is strongly recommended and required by Saint Maximus and by all Church Fathers, since through such a participation the satanic forces diminish, facilitating the quicker establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth.’> The Eucharist is the testimony of the Eschaton in history, the “new age,” the “new earth” and the “new heaven”, the

recapitulation of the Sacrament of Divine Economy, the Eschaton of Christ’s redemptive work.’6 The Eucharist, however, is not to be identified with the “future age” of the Kingdom of God, since even its soteriological and eschatological experience is only a “betrothal” and a “foretaste” of the eternal and perfect Kingdom of God.’’ Furthermore, the Eucharistic liturgy has a universal and cosmic significance. It is celebrated for the whole world, not only for Christians. Because Christ, as the New Adam, has transformed fallen nature into a new and authentic humanity, the microcosmic

creation into the macrocosmic unity of mankind.’ The Church,

on the other hand, as “communion

of the

Holy Spirit”? assumes eschatological significance and prepares the way for the establishment of the Kingdom of God in history, since both the Son and the Spirit operate inseparably in the history of the Divine Economy.8° The Church herself,

however, is not the pleroma of God’s Kingdom, but only its “betrothal” and “initiation” or “Foretaste.”8! Thus, the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church and of the faithful community at large, becomes the most essential synthesis of history and eschatology, of the present and future of the Kingdom of God, since the Holy Spirit Himself is the very Kingdom of God as well, as His presence testifies to the

Eschatology

185

unquestionable “initiation” to and “betrothal” with God’s Kingdom.®? This synthesis precisely restores the ontological unity, harmony and fulfilment of the entire cosmos and transforms physical death into immortality.3 Of course, the initiator, the Paradigm, and the leader of such a synthesis and transformation is Christ, the Logos of creation and its recreator, Who

is the Eschaton, historical “telos,” the pleroma of God’s Kingdom.* This creation, then, may be called the “kingdom of grace”, its ultimate restoration to its original status (pre-fallen condition) the “kingdom of glory.” However, both kingdoms are essentially the same. They differ only in the degree of their perfection, intensification, glory, and efficacy, in the same sense that man as microcosm®> is different from his potentiality to become macrocosm.*6

4. The Earliest Ascetic Eschatological Vision Before Saint Maximus it was of course Saint Makarios the Great,! Evagrios of Pontus,? Saint John Climacus,} and Saint Isaac the Syrian* who dealt with a Christological synthesis of the unity of mankind and with the ontology of cosmic restoration as transformation within the “Ecclesial Koinonia”. Their vision of the Church as the prophetic witness and extension of Christ’s Kingdom as the ECCLESIA of the Heavenly King and Master of Saints, Angels and of all of His followers, is so unique, profound and most instructive!

Thus, we find already in the Life of Saint Anthony? a great example of a divinized, truly human being, the apatheia or the peace, the harmony of the soul and body as the fruit or reward of synergy, the grace of God through human effort; the example of “martyrdom of conscience,” of a “man of God,” who feels that his humanity, his natural gifts are not destroyed by the Church and spiritual discipline, but they are renewed and progressively divinized. Living in Christ and in His Church— His Mystical Body, man feels that he is a complete man and he is happy to develop all the potentialities and forces of his own humanity or personhood. Even Saint Makarios the Great who lived 40 miles from the nearest Church, is reported to have traversed the desert regu-

186

= Eschatology

larly in order to participate in the Liturgy of Abbot Pamboo, himself now a priest.® Saint

Pachomius,

of course,

has been

labeled

as “anti-

clerical,” but wrongly, I think. His spirit and attitude toward the priesthood was and still is misunderstood. Pachomius viewed ambition to clerical office as a source of temptation toward the capital sin of pride. Therefore, he strongly discouraged his monks from aspiring to the priesthood, and he refused ordination himself. However,

Pachomius

never lost

respect for the clergy, the episcopal office and the institutional Church of Alexandria, and he even would send for priests when Holy Eucharist was “needed,” Priests could also join his monastery. Conclusion, there is no real evidence of anticlericalism or anti-sacramentalism in the Pachomian tradition.’ Saint Makarios the Great, Evagrios of Pontus, Saint

John

Climacus and Saint Isaac the Syrian are perhaps the most persuasive advocates of the truth that the Desert Fathers and spirituality are not egocentric nor anti-social. On the contrary, the really happy monk is, according to Evagrios, the one “who considers all men as god-after God” (i.e., the image of God),$ and “who views the welfare and progress of all men with as much joy as if it were his own.” Actually, it is Evagrios’s profound conviction that growth in pure prayer leads to deepened regard for the dignity of one’s fellow man. Accordingly, the perfect monk in Evagrios’s thought is “a man who is separated from all and who is in harmony with all”;!° “a man who considers himself one with all men because he seems constantly to see himself in every man.”!! And in the words of Saint John Climacus “the monastic life is a light for all men”;!2 “the man who claims to love the Lord but is angry with his neighbor is like someone who dreams he is running.”!3 Saint Isaac the Syrian realistically admits that, “we (the monks) know ... that the mind mined by converse and love for God apart our neighbour”!4 and that “we (the monks) pel ourselves at all times to be inwardly entire nature of rational creatures.”!5

cannot be illufrom the love of constantly com-

merciful to the

Eschatology

187

It is worth noting that Isaac devotes an entire homily!® to the crucially important question: which is higher, love for God or the love of our neighbour, and to the explanation of “the monastic inner mercy” vis-a-vis “evident proof” of the love of our fellow man. According to Saint Isaac the saints’s perfection and theosis is expressed “by the superabundant outpouring of their love and compassion upon all men.”!’ In the same way the perfection of the monastic fathers is expressed.!8 Furthermore, in the beautiful words of Saint Isaac, as oil feeds the flame of a lamp, so mercy feeds knowledge in the soul. The key to divine gifts is given to the heart by love of neighbour.!?

I did not find stronger statements than these in the ascetical writings of the fourth and seventh centuries (with only one exception: Saint Makarios the Great) in support of the cardinal point that the early Christian ascetics in general, did not separate themselves from the world out of selfish motives or of fear and contempt of social life and of the body. The saints Makarios the Great, John Climacus and Isaac

the Syrian are perhaps the greatest early ascetic theologians of the body beginning with the aphorisms: The body too is not yours but a work of God.?° The soul has its being in the body.?!

“.,. In that day of judgment everyone shows openly what he has done in his body.’2? Then “even the body itself will reign with the soul... .”%3 As God created the sky and the earth as a dwelling place for man, so He also created man’s body and soul as a fit

dwelling for Himself to dwell in and take pleasure in the body, having for a beautiful bride the beloved soul, made according to His own image.”4 Works performed with the body precede those performed with the soul, just as in generation the creation of the body preceded the creation of the soul.”

188

Eschatology

To die for God’s sake and to live in God is the fulfillment of life.26

The anthropological doctrine of the four Desert Fathers under consideration strongly confirms the unity of humankind as Pneumato-Ecclesial Koinonia. According to them, man is not only a rational animal, i.e., a social being (Aristotle), but

also and primarily a person, a being created to be in communion and always united with God in loving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The Church is precisely the mystery of unity between human persons. True, the first Christian community of Jerusalem was a plurality of men, but it was a dialogical pluralism of persons, having one heart and one mind.?’ It is equally true that the development of the dialogical character of man is the GREAT merit of Christianity. Paul Florenskij, the modern Russian theologian, compares that dialogical character with the revelation of the Holy Trinity, i.e., the personal relations in God Himself. Wherever this conscience of divine personalism vanishes, there appears a “materialistic” or “objective” culture and Godless society, which

evaluates men as “things” or “objects”, but not as persons. A person is a person only if he/she exists in relation, in dialogue with other persons and in constant communion with God. And the full renewal of human nature is based on this dialogical relation with God through unceasing prayer which is the fundamental feature of the monastic life. That was the reason why the monks (especially Saint Maximus Confessor) so strongly opposed the heresy of Monothelitism which creates an abyss between man and God by crashing synergy. At this point, it should be stated that the universalism and Ecclesial ecumenism of the Desert Fathers is also quite optimistic?® and ever timely. In the first place, Saint Makarios the Great has developed a profoundly Christocentric ecclesiology of the consistent and “unified soul”? which is identified with the “heavenly family,” the Ecclesial Unity, Christ’s beloved Bride?! and divine body, His loving Diakonia and Pneumatic Koinonia: “Adin yap 1 wuxn ovveyer Govs Tovs Aoy.iopovs Kat oTiv EKKANOLA TA) BEd) FpuooOn Yar AF KOLVwVLAV 1 Wuxn TQ) ETOUPAVLY

VU PLY Ka KLOVaTAL TA errOUPAVicy”.32

Eschatology

189

Saint Makarios the Great is rightfully called by Saint Isaac the Syrian a “truly marvellous holy man” and the wisest teacher of inner warfare.*3 I would also call Saint Makarios the par excellence “doctor” of Christian Universalism, of Ecumenical Ecclesiology and Mystical Theology. Actually, the doctrine of the universality of Christ’s Kingdom and salvation as well as of Christ’s Kingdom as heavenly Koros of Divine Love Akorestos, which can be experienced (even though imperfectly) already in this life, occupies a central place in Saint Makarios’s fifty homilies.34 Moreover, Saint Makarios’ erotic language related to Christ’s Kingdom and Pneumatic Koinonia, is par-

ticularly powerful and rich.35 His views on the unity of mankind are also deeply inspired and a major theme of several homilies,*© but only a sketchy treatment of these views can be presented here. The most effective way to realize that unity is through transforming human nature into the total person, the spiritual or divinized and apostolic personhood,3’ that is, through the renewing of the mind and the tranquillity experienced in our thoughts,

which derive from the Divine Eros and

Love as

though intoxicated by this Love for God,?8 and from the love of all human beings and the whole world. Such a love opens doors to that person (the “truly interior man” or apostolic person), and he “enters inside into ‘many mansions’ (Jn. 14:2).

And the further he enters, again new doors open in a progression. From a hundred mansions he enters into another hundred. He becomes rich and yet ever richer. Other new and amazing wonders are disclosed to him. ...”° Saint Makarios’s central concept of the dignity of man, who as imago Dei* “is of greater value than all other creatures,” visible and invisible, namely “the ministering spirits,™! con-

stitutes the fundamental principle of the Unity of Mankind and universal renewal.42 As Saint Makarios so forcefully writes:

Indeed, both God and the angels seek the human soul to share their fellowship and Kingdom!

And ina spotless “heart both God and the whole heavenly Church find rest.™4

190

Eschatology

This concept of the pure heart as the Lord’s house and church is of course a common idea, topos, in the spirituality of the Desert Fathers, as it will be later explained. Makarian mysticism often compares the fellowship with the Holy Spirit and man’s permeation by Grace with the deep marital unity and oneness.*° Another central concept and strong personal experience of Makarios is that Christ’s Kingdom and the Divine Fire of

Love is Kéros Akérestos experienced in the purity of heart and mind as esoteric perfection,*¢ and inaugurated or realized

eschatology.4”

Saint Makarios the Great is perhaps the first ascetic Father to introduce and be so attracted (and wounded) by the concept of Christ’s suffering Heart Which continues to feel great sorrow over the stubbornness of the unrepentant ones.*® Consequently,

only those who repent and participate in Christ’s sufferings consciously are able to have communion with Him.‘? This participation is the fruit of trust in and love for God and of good conscience.*° According to especially Evagrios and Saint Isaac the Syrian all men are by nature united in a common “interior good,” of faith and love “which is to be found even in those who do not believe in God!”>! Perhaps what Evagrios means by this “faith” is a psychic dynamism—the foundation of human identity (the fear and love for God of Isaac, hom.

5:48, 6:62).5!¢

Saint

Isaac’s teaching on the “testimony of the conscience,” the power of will? and “natural knowledge” is almost identical with Evagrios’s view on the common “interior good,” although that “testimony” in Saint Isaac must be constantly checked by the Holy Scriptures and the holy Fathers.54 Saint John Climacus seems to identify the “interior good” with conscience, the “incorruptible judge.”>3 Likewise Saint Isaac who is more emphatic on this point.*° Such an essential unity of human nature is found also in the moral virtues of Greek philosophy, especially in the Stoic teaching, which Saint Isaac seems to hold in great esteem.57 Evagrios speaks of that unity more frequently at the very beginning of his Chapters on Prayer. So Evagrios writes: Virtue is one by nature but it is imitated variously by the

Eschatology

191

powers of the soul. For ... the light of the sun is also without form but it is quite naturally given its form by the shape of the apertures through which it enters a room.58

Saint John Climacus and Saint Isaac the Syrian®? also stress the unifying force of “natural (or moral) virtues” and the usefulness of the Greek moral philosophy. Climacus writes: There are many natural virtues that have come to us from Him (i.e., God). These clearly include the following: mercy, something even the pagans have; love, for even dumb animals bewail the loss of one of their own; faith, which all of us can generate of ourselves; hope, since we all lend, and

take to the sea, and sow seed, expecting to do well out of it. Hence if love comes naturally to us—and it has been shown to be so—if it is the bond and the fulfilment of the law,

virtues cannot be too far from nature. For which reason, those who claim to be unable to practice the virtues should be very ashamed of themselves.°!

It is precisely this conclusion of Climacus that profoundly challenges all men, of all ages, of all colors, all races and of all nations to rediscover and reactivate the values and purpose of human nature, life and dignity. On the basis of such a worldoutlook and optimistic anthropology-aretology Saint John of the Ladder declares that: Not everyone can achieve dispassion (a7raOeva), but all can be saved and can be reconciled to God;°

there are many roads to holiness—and to hell;

God helps everyone who chooses to do the right thing; in everything we do, in what has to be done now or later, the objective must be sought from God Himself; and every

act that is not the product of personal inclination or of impurity will be imputed to us for good, especially if done for the sake of God and not for someone else. This is so, even if the actions themselves are not completely good;®> a man who despairs of himself after hearing about the

192

Eschatology

supernatural achievements of the saints is very unreasonable. In fact they should teach you one of two things, either to be courageous like them in the striving for excellence, or else to be deeply humble and conscious of your inherent weakness by way of thrice-holy humility;% indeed everyone should struggle to raise his clay (i.e., body), so to speak, to a place on the throne of God;°’ the teacher of the parent-virtues is God Himself in His proper activity, and there are plenty of teachers for the derivative virtues.®8

John Climacus was recently criticized as a rather too ascetic and excessively austere monk whose notion of the value of the individual person (and of the antagonism between soul and body) seems to be incompatible ‘with much that was felt and believed in the early Church.”® However, such a criticism cannot be corroborated by the source evidence. On the contrary, especially Steps 15, 27, 28 and 30 of the Ladder clearly affirm Saint John’s humaneness and spiritual optimism, the ancient and modern Christian sense and value of one man’s being, and of the individual person’s

conditional freedom. “We are like purchased slaves,” Climacus insightfully writes, “like servants under contract to the unholy passions. And because this is so, we know a little of their deceits, ways,

impositions and wiles. We know of their evil despotism in our wretched souls. But there are others who fully understand the tricks of these spirits, and they do so because of the working of the Holy Spirit and because of the freedom they themselves have managed to achieve.”7°

Elsewhere Saint

John Climacus humbly confesses that:

Anyone trained in chastity should give himself no credit for any achievements, for a man cannot conquer what he actually is. When nature is overcome, it should be admitted that this is due to Him Who is above nature... . The chaste man is not someone with a body undefiled but rather a

Eschatology

193

person whose members are in complete subjection to the soul, for a man is great who is free of passion even when touched, though greater still is the man unhurt by all he has looked on. Such a man has truly mastered the fires of earthly beauty by his attention concentrated on the beauties of heaven. In driving off this dog by means of prayer he is like someone who has been fighting a lion.7!

For Climacus even the “naturally eunuchs” are inferior to the spiritual warriors with their lapses. He so insightfully writes: Some have praised those who are naturally eunuchs. They say of them that they have been freed from the martyrdom of the body. But as far as I am concerned my praise goes out each day to those who take the knife, so to speak, to their own evil thoughts. I have seen men who lapsed against their will and I have seen men who would willingly lapse but are unable to do so. These I pity far more than the daily sinner, for though impotent they long for corruption.”

Incidentally, Saint John Climacus tends to treat heretics more leniently than fornicators.”3 Perhaps because “the sin of the heretic is committed with the free co-operation of the will through ignorance and it is a deviation of the mind,” whereas “fornication seduces and transforms all the senses and faculties of the body and soul.””4 Hence, Climacus boldly declares: I do not think anyone should be classed as a saint until he has made holy his body, if indeed that is possible.” To have mastered one’s body is to have taken command of nature, which is surely to have risen above it. And the man who has done this is not much lower than the angels, if even that. That spirit should fight with spirit is not surprising. The real wonder is that a man dwelling in his body, and always struggling against this hostile and canny matter, should manage to rout spiritual foes.’

Even in his views on the life of stillness (7jovxia), faith and

194.

Eschatology

love John Climacus demonstrates

his sobriety, humaneness

and modesty likewise. He says, The life of stillness, especially when practiced by solitaries, must be guided by conscience and common sense. If you run the race as it should be run, if every enterprize, utterance, thought, step, movement, is done according to the Lord, then the Lord’s work is done with spiritual perception as if He were there Himself.’ On faith Climacus writes: The believing man is not one who thinks that God can do all things, but one who trusts that he will obtain everything. ... The mother of faith is hard work and an upright heart; the one builds up belief, the other makes it endure.’8

On love Climacus admits that, There is nothing wrong about offering human analogies for longing, fear, concern, zeal, service, and love of God. Lucky the man who loves and longs for God as a smitten lover does for his beloved.... Lucky the man who is as passionately concerned with the virtues as a jealous husband watching over his wife.’

Further, for Saint John Climacus “Holy Love” is the heavenly empress who at the end of his masterpiece The Ladder, spoke in his soul’s hearing thus: My love, you will never be able to know how beautiful lam unless you get away from the grossness of the flesh. So jet this ladder teach you the spiritual union of the virtues. And lam there on the summit, for as the great man said, a man who knew me well: ‘Remaining now are faith, hope, and love, these three. But love is the greatest of them all’(1 Cor 13;13),80

Now, Evagrios gives primary importance to prayer rather than to love, since Evagrios strongly believes that “by its very

Eschatology

195

nature the spirit is made to pray.’*! Saint John Climacus is also convinced that the effect of prayer “is to hold the world together” by its achievement of reconciling all humanity with God.®2 Evagrios is nevertheless convinced that the priests are valuable channels of Divine Grace and Love. Evagrios’s prudent advice runs as follows: One is to love the priests after the Lord, in as much as they purify us through the holy mysteries (i.e., Communion) and pray for us.®3

Interestingly, Evagrios equates the whole of Christian life with the life of prayer. For Evagrios to pray without distraction equals to follow Christ84 and ardent prayer is contemplation, which is the equivalent of martyrdom*5—a fundamental viewpoint of Evagrios which took the teaching of Origen a step further. Saint Isaac also tends to believe so, although for Isaac it is primarily “martyrdom in every suffering and injury,” which may be encountered within the mental death or “the limit” of any sinful desire, 1.e., fleshly will.86 The essence of this contemplation is of course love for God that is stronger and higher than any human selfish love.*’ It must be pointed out that Saint Isaac’s detailed description of this prayerful contemplation or “spiritual prayer”* is perhaps his own great personal experience of the light of the Holy Trinity.89 Prayer for Saint Isaac is “the key to the true understanding of the divine Scriptures”. In attaining to this gift of prayer a man becomes fully himself?! and learns his/her own dignity.” In the words of John of the Ladder “prayer is by nature a dialog and a union of man with God. Its effect is to hold the world together. It achieves a reconciliation with God.’3 Saint Isaac, on the other hand, assures us that “there is no prayer so quickly heard as the prayer whereby a man asks to be reconciled with those who

are wroth with him.”4 But above all, in prayer one goes on increasing his/her love for God, according to Evagrios especially. Furthermore, to remember others in prayer is the supreme practice of selfless love,” just like the Angelic life for Evagrios

196

= Eschatology

and Saint Isaac the Syrian in particular?’ does not mean only a life of elevated and perfect contemplation, but also the practice of a superior form of selfless love for others.” A most meaningful passage from John Climacus fully expresses the spirit and essence of Christianity: God is the life of all free beings. He is the salvation of all, of believers or unbelievers, of the just or the unjust, of the pious or the impious, of those freed from the passions or caught up in them, of monks or those living in the world, of the educated or the illiterate, of the healthy or the sick, of the young or the very old. He is like the outpouring of light, the glimpse of the sun, or the changes of the weather, which are the same for everyone without exception. !0

Indeed,

Christianity for Climacus

is a natural,

humane,

reasonable and optimistic experience of God’s friendship, which is the foundation of the Unity of Humankind.!°! Even the ascetic’s withdrawal! from the world is nothing but “a willing hatred

of all that is materially prized,” and a true

Christian “is an imitator of Christ in thought, word and deed, as far as this is humanly possible,” and “a friend of God is the one who lives in communion with all that is natural and free from sin and who does not neglect to do what good he can.”!% For Saint John Climacus even apatheia or dispassion is not merely the denial of the passions in a negative way by ascetic discipline, but a redirection of the natural impulses of the soul and body toward their proper goal.'°4 This kind of dispassion is reachable by even those who are married and involved in public cares and affairs. How? Climacus answers as follows: Do whatever good you may. Speak evil of no one. Rob-no one. Tell no lie. Despise no one and carry no hate. Do not separate yourself from the church assemblies. Show compassion to the needy. Do not be a cause of scandal to anyone. Stay away from the bed of another, and be satisfied with what your own wives can provide you. If you do all this, you will not be far from the kingdom of heaven.!0

It is extremely interesting to note, in the above passage, the

Eschatology

— 197

importance which Climacus gives to the regular church attendance or the weekly celebration of Holy Eucharist. He considers Holy Communion as the source of power for success in the “ascetical struggle” within the world. Thus John writes: The Lord has concealed from those in the world the tough, but fine, nature of this struggle. Indeed, if people really understood it, no one would renounce the world.!%

Interestingly enough also believes that the monastic or more difficult than the life in individuals, since the former

Saint John Climacus healthily solitary life is harder and much the world and belongs to strong can be not only “a harbor of

salvation”, but also “a haven of destruction”.!°’ The ascetical

life is called by Climacus “Exile”, but without extremes. This “Exile” is “a separation from everything, in order that one may hold on totally to God.”!°§ Separation, then, from family, relatives, friends and all kinds of relations and places means separation of “the lovers of God from the lovers of the world,

the materially-minded from the spiritually-minded, the vainglorious from the humble”! it is the right use (not abuse nor misuse) of “the things of the senses to reach the level of the spirit” in a community life (preferably).!!° Of similar convictions are Saint Isaac the Syrian!!! and Saint Makarios the Great? Accordingly, Christian asceticism can be practiced even within the world or in a society as the monastic leaders of fourth and seventh century Christianity used to do and instruct us. 113 The statement of Bishop Kallistos Ware that “for Saint John Climacus spirituality and dogma are essentially connected; there can be no true life of prayer without a right faith in God,”!!4 can be contested.

Generally, Climacus

tends to

emphasize a rather Theocentric than Christocentric spirituality and his views on heresy in particular and bodily passions (especially fornication), as already mentioned, corroborate this emphasis. It is clear throughout The Ladder that Saint John Climacus, as well as Saint Isaac the Syrian,!!> especially intended to underline that Christianity is much more than a mere system of dogmas and doctrines; Christianity is a God-

198

Eschatology

centered life, a lifestyle possible for all people, whether clergy, monks or laymen and especially within the world, the universal Community of persons. This objective of Climacus is perhaps the main reason of total lack of Christocentric ecclesiology in The Ladder and in Saint Isaac. Especially for Climacus the true Church unity and Ecclesial Koinonia is the God-centered human person as an integral unity, mind-body or soul-body unity. In other words, the true and natural state of humankind is the condition prior to the fall, which in Christ we can now regain and even more; human

nature in its entirety, body as well as soul, is God’s creation, and is therefore good;!!® sin is extrinsic to our true personhood,!!7 hence there are many natural virtues, but no natural vices.!18 Now, Saint Isaac the Syrian is more humane,!!? much more

lenient,!20 and more ecumenically-minded,!?! in my opinion, than Saint John Climacus, Saint Makarios the Great and Evagrios. And undoubtedly, Saint Isaac believes that holiness is not inseparable from dogma or a doctrinal system.!22 He explicitly states: For martyrs are not only those who have accepted death for their belief in Christ, but also those who die for the sake of keeping His commandments.'3

Do not exchange your brother’s love for the love of any fleeting thing, because /ove conceals within itself Him Who is more precious than all things.'4

Holiness, in Saint Isaac’s mind,!?5 is the restoration of man’s natural state of health and his first state of “limpid purity,” i.e., prior to the Fall, as well as the apostolic lifestyle.!26 Actually, Saint Isaac often urged his disciples to “flee from discussions of dogma as from an unruly lion; and never embark upon them (themselves), either with those raised in the Church,

or with strangers.”!*7 According to Saint Isaac the true and perfect knowledge of Christianity is found in “the heart’s freedom from the bonds of the body” or of “earthly matters”;!28 in a personal “laudable example” of unselfish love, mercy, humility, unceasing prayer and vigilance,!29 since “Christ de-

Eschatology

mands

not the doing of the commandments,

199

but the soul’s

amendment, because of which He gave His commandments to rational beings”,!30 in clemency and gentleness and not in (a wrong) zeal, namely narrow-mindedness and deep ignorance,!3! because “good works and mercilessness are before

God like a man slaughtering a’son before his father,”!32 and “God’s use of justice cannot counterbalance His mercy.”!33 According to the holy Bishop of Nineveh, even the Angels do not possess perfection!34 which is not reached by knowledge. Isaac writes: Knowledge is perfected by faith and acquires the power to ascend on high, to perceive that which is higher than every perception, and to see the radiance [of Him] that is incomprehensible to the intellect and to the knowledge of created things. Knowledge is a step whereby a man can climb up to the lofty height of faith; and when a man has reached faith, he no longer has need of knowledge.!35

Again, for Saint Isaac the Christian Faith is not a system of dogmas or doctrinal precision. He clearly explains what he means by faith as follows: But we call faith that light which by grace dawns in the soul and which fortifies the heart by the testimony of the mind, making it undoubting through the assurance of hope that is remote from all conceit.!%6

However, this faith is a gift of Christ’s Love by the Spirit through Holy Communion “at Christ’s table,” and by loving observance of His laws.!37 It is true that, occasionally Saint Isaac gives the impression of a too “liberal abbot,” who urges his monks to “disregard completely the quantity of verses, (in the Liturgy), and set at naught (their) skill in giving rhythm to the verses, so that (they) may speak them in the manner of a prayer,”!°8 His strong conclusion, however, that “peace of mind is not to be found in slavish activity” (i.e., in the mere recitation of estab-

lished prayers), “nor in the freedom of the children [of God] is there found the confusion of turmoil,” dispels any suspicion

200

~=Eschatology

that Isaac could be a bishop of anti-Church Services’ mentality” Especially in Saint Isaac’s thought and experience Ecclesial Koinonia is rooted in and based on spiritual love, which forms the invisible icon or image (i.e., man’s likeness to God). Its best expression is compassion and humility in proportion to the Father’s perfection, as our Lord said.'#° That spiritual love is “the blossom of spiritual knowledge,”!4! and the love of God

which “incites a man to desire the works of virtue and through love he is caught away to the doing of good.”!*? “Then the image of Christ is formed in us through the Spirit of wisdom, and the revelation of the knowledge of Him,”!4#3 by the Divine Grace who is “the common mother of all,”!*4 “watching over (the spiritual warrior) like a mother hen ..145 through prayer primarily,'4¢ which “is necessary for acquiring the love of God, because from prayer we discover the causes for loving God.”!47

Thus, “self-denial” in Saint Isaac is to “courageously persevere in prayer.”!48 That is why “the boast of the Church of Christ is the monastic way of life.”!49 Saint Isaac’s entire ecclesiology is thoroughly Pauline, based on mercy and love, and expressed in one single phrase: The Head Christ (cf. Christ (cf. he is good

of the entire body of the holy Church is Jesus Col. 1:18), and each one of us is a member of | Cor. 12:27) in the body of the Church, whether or bad.!5°

It is more than clear that Saint Isaac rejects any type of Donatist, Papal or Protestant ecclesiology. He remained faithful, that is, to the genuine Apostolic ecclesiology, which we so badly need to rediscover and apply to the present-day ecumenism and Church union efforts.!5! Saint Isaac is, on the other hand, the strongest and more

deeply convinced universalist among the Desert Fathers. He strongly believes and explicitly declares that, God opens up before each man the gate of the Kingdom of the Heavens in all the stages of any path whereby the man journeys to Him.!*2

Eschatology

201

By “Kingdom of the Heavens”, of course, Saint Isaac means “spiritual divine vision”!53 and “communion with God.”!54 “The ladder of the Kingdom,” Saint Isaac writes, “is within

you, hidden in your soul. Plunge deeply within yourself, away from sin, and there you will find steps by which you will be able to ascend.”!55

Philanthropy, compassion, alms-giving and the love of God promote social justice and racial equality which is rooted in man’s creation in the image and likeness of God. “Let all men be equal in your eyes for a good deed,” the holy hierarch of Nineveh admonishes, and “deem every man equally worthy of benefaction and honour, be he a Jew, an unbeliever, or a murderer.”!56

Saint Isaac furthermore states that, God has no need of anything. But He is gladdened whenever He sees a man comforting His image and honouring it for His sake.!57

Jesus Christ for Saint Isaac particularly is the Prototype of restored humanity, and the Uniter of Mankind, “as being the Uniter in His two natures.” It is He that, being invisible to all created nature, put on a body and fulfilled the economy for the salvation and life of all the nations which were cleansed by Him.!*8

Jesus Christ to Isaac is the all-wise universal “Pilot Who steers the things of this world.”!59 Christ is furthermore the Universal Love, and Salvation and Renewal! that keeps all men together, in His communion, united in the diversity of the forms of His wise and holy love in accord with “voluntary variations corresponding to the recipients of these actions of lovers Therefore, Saint Isaac advises:

202

Eschatology

Let us not ask foolish love of a wise friend. The man who kills his son by feeding him honey does not differ from the man who kills his son with a dagger.!®

Christ’s love is the compelling captivity of divine love that dominates nature.”!® In the very meaningful words of Saint Isaac: The man who has found love eats and drinks Christ every day and hour and hereby is made immortal.... He who eats of love eats Christ, the God over all (cf. 1 Jn 4:8)..., and while yet in this world, he even now breathes the air of the resurrection. ... Love is the Kingdom, whereof the Lord mystically promised His disciples to eat in His Kingdoms.i5044 Love sinners, but hate their works; and do not despise them

for their faults, lest you be tempted by the same. Remember that you share the earthly nature of Adam and that you are clothed with his infirmity. Do not reprove those who are in need of your prayer, and do not withhold tender words of comfort from them, lest they perish and their souls be required of you; but do as the physicians, who cure the diseases which are more feverish with cooling remedies, and the more chilling with their opposites.!¢

The “true and perfect Christian is a herald of God’s goodness, for God rules over you, unworthy though you are,” and the supreme justice is unconditional love.'®* The perfect mercy and humility “is shown in patiently enduring injustice” and “the perfection of humility is to bear false accusations with joy.”!67 Even man’s sexual drive was given by God for his/her salvation. Saint Isaac writes on the deeper meaning of human sexuality as follows: Without some supplement from without, this natural movement (which inhabits us simply for the sake of procreation) cannot shake the will from limpid purity or unsettle chastity, since God has not given nature the power to subdue a man’s good volition to strive toward Him.!68

Eschatology

203

Saint Isaac the Syrian is indeed the most convinced universalist, who stresses the vision of God’s Love and Universal

Salvation as Universal Renewal,!® that is to say that God would heal us even against our will, forcibly, if this would not

deprive us of free will.!7° And he adds so insightfully: And reason also worships the greatness of His (God’s) goodness. For He wills that we should rejoice not as it were in what is His, but as it were in the recompenses of our own deeds. For although all things are His, yet He is not pleased that we should consider them His, but that we should delight in what is His as if it were ours.!7!

Strangely, the Desert

Fathers’ views on the Church,

the

Sacraments and Priesthood have not been studied yet? Guillaumont, of course, had made a significant study of the cos-

mology of Evagrios in particular and of his Weltanschauung as a whole.!72 Guillaumont did not attempt, however, to relate

Evagrios’s theology and cosmology with his ecclesiology and sacramentology with which Evagrios deals especially in his Praktikos and the Chapters on Prayer.'73 Of course, it was not my purpose to present here such a study—indeed a very difficult one, since not even the Desert Fathers themselves seem to have worked out their precise relation. However, their central concept and experience of apatheia or dispassion (whose child is love-agape),'74 I think, fully expresses the meaning of Ecclesial or Universal Koinonia: It is a state where all men can be loved, at least to the extent that one lives peacefully and without resentment towards others;!75 “the full and harmonious integration of the emotional

life, under the influence of love,”'7 Especially Saint John Climacus is in full agreement with Evagrios regarding this point. Climacus also states: To have dispassion is to have the fullness of love, by which I mean the complete indwelling of God in those who, through dispassion, are pure of heart for they shall see God.'””

Climacus goes one step further in identifying dispassion with heaven on earth!!78 That is, “a heaven of the mind within

204

= Eschatology

the heart, which regards the artifice of demons as a contemptible joke ... resurrection of the soul prior to that of the body.”!79 Likewise, for Saint Isaac “Paradise is the love of God (and of Christ) wherein is the enjoyment of all blessedness.”!*° Hence, the fall of Adam was nothing but rejection of and alienation from God’s love.!*! Now, another point—more basic and essential—which has

been disputed by some, is the place occupied by Grace, the ministration of the priest, and the reception of the sacraments in acquiring this state of the soul. Unquestionably, for Evagrios in particular, apatheia is the fruit of unceasing prayer, of the Grace of the Holy Spirit, and the “power of Jesus Christ who makes me grow.”!8? Evagrios clearly states that apatheia makes one “worthy of the perfection of the love of Christ,”!83 since “the Kingdom of the Heavens is

apatheia of the soul (the purity of heart) along with true knowledge of existing things.”!84 The aim of life and the purpose of human existence for the Desert Fathers is “to transform your image to the resemblance of the archetype....”!85 Even Evagrios’s “archetype” is Jesus Christ!8° although he did not always give the central place to Christ in his theoretical teaching. However, Evagrios had a great love of the sacrament of Holy Eucharist in particular. Saint Isaac also considers the sacrament of Holy Eucharist as the source of remission of sins, and of the life of creation.!87 Actually, Evagrios’s last act was to receive Holy Communion at the church on Epiphany, just prior to his death (399). Likewise John Climacus and Makarios the Great strongly believed in the transforming power of Holy Communion.'88 We do know, on the other hand, that when Evagrios became renowned for his holiness and abilities and was asked by the Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria to be ordained bishop of Thmuis,'8?

Evagrios refused the offer in order to avoid all

occasion of either ambition or of involvement in distracting

cares and not because he was anti-Church contestant.!%

or anti-Bishop

Furthermore, we know that Evagrios’s last years were marked by increased peace, holiness, and spiritual charismata,

miracles as well as by the gift of prophecy.!9!

Eschatology

205

It is true, nevertheless, that the problem of the place of the humanity of Christ in the higher stages of the spiritual life, was not a personal problem of Evagrios only, but it is a general problem of all mystics and theologians, even today, especially in the confrontation of Christian mysticism with Zen Buddhism.!9? In any event, Evagrios finds perfection is hidden “in the bosom of Jesus” upon which Saint John the Theologian leaned.!93 Similarly Saint Isaac also.!94 The Grace of Christ, that is, fully flowers into a love of God that is ineffable, Koros Akorestos.!95 The same concept is stressed by Saint Makarios the Great, of Egypt, as already mentioned.!% Without this Akorestos love, even great progress in virtues, does not completely satisfy the heart,!®’ since in Evagrios’s own words, both the virtues and the vices make the mind blind; the one so that it may not see the vices; the other, in turn, so that it

might not see the virtues.!%

Likewise, Saint Isaac describes man’s heart and body when

beyond measure the love of God descends upon a man and it throws his soul into ecstasy:!% his face becomes fiery, exceedingly joyous, and his body becomes heated. Fear and shame withdraw from him and he is like one deranged.* Then the Church of the heart or the “house for the Lord” is built2°! out of “the flame of divine fervour” which “is fiercer

than fire,”2°2 and “the heaven of all joy!”203

5. Mark Eugenicus’ Views on Purgatory and the “Middle State” of Soul After Death! It will not be exaggeration to state that Mark’s most significant contribution to the council of Ferrara-Florence (14381439)2 and its theology was his speeches on Purgatory or his eschatological doctrine.3 Actually, the speeches and arguments of Mark Eugenicus, Bishop of Ephesus and the chief Repre-

206

~=Eschatology

sentative of the Greek Church to the Florentine council,* were considered and accepted by the Emperor and the council as the official Eastern Orthodox answer and doctrine.* Mark’s theology on Purgatory, as exposed in his speeches at Ferrara, may constitute the official teaching of the Orthodox Church today, although it has not yet been declared as such by a Pan-Orthodox Synod.°® At Ferrara and for the conferences on Purgatory, Mark Eugenicus along with Bessarion, Bishop of Nicaea, was appointed by the Emperor John VIII Palaeologus as the official spokesman for the Greeks.? Syropoulos reports, characteristically, that in reply to Bessarion’s pessimistic confession that he did not know what to say on the topic of Purgatory, Mark declared that he would have plenty to say.8 Mark’s replies to the Latin arguments had not been merely negative, but positive, stating the position of his Church. His final answers to fourteen Latin queries are particularly concise, complete and positive statements of the Greek Orthodox Eschatology.? What had caused the debate and disagreement between the Greeks and Latins in the conferences on Purgatory was not the question of the middle state after death, but if there is punishment by fire in the middle state. The Latins argued that there is such punishment.!° Their arguments are drawn from the Holy Scriptures,!! the authority and tradition of the Roman Church, the doctrine of the Latin Fathers, especially Saint Augustine,!? and Saint Gregory the Great,!3 and of the Greek Fathers, Saint Gregory of Nyssa,!4 Saint Basil the Great,!5 Saint John of Damascus,'® and Theodoretus.!’ Besides, the Latins used a ratio theologica that divine justice demands satisfaction for those sins and evils which were not expiated and punished in this life. In the beginning, Saint Mark Eugenicus, after having: listened to the initial speech of Cardinal Cesarini (June 4, 1438),!8 affirmed that he found “/ittle difference” between the two Churches regarding the Purgatory doctrine.!® Apparently, that

“little difference” in the mind of Saint Mark was the punishment by fire in the middle state of souls.20 Mark as well as Bessarion agreed with the Latin statement that, there are three states of souls: the just who go to heaven; those who died with

mortal sin or original sin unexpiated and subsequently going

Eschatology

207

to hell; and those who repented and confessed but did not have time to endure the penitential punishment on earth.2! These last souls belong to the middle state (mesoi, mesi katastasis), and can be forgiven after this life and even promoted to the state of the just according to the Greeks’ eschatology also.22 But by what means? By temporary punishment by fire in Purgatory or by the prayers of the Church, the suffrages and almsgiving of the faithful or by both means. Mark refutes entirely punishment by fire in the middle state as opposed to and unattested by the Holy Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church. The Latin argument from Scripture is of no avail, because neither does the Book of Maccabees nor Saint Matthew mention fire,?3 and Saint Paul in speaking of fire means, as Saint John Chrysostom clearly shows,” the eternal fire of hell, not the temporary punishment of fire in Purgatory. Mark’s arguments, which were highly praised by the Emperor himself and his doctrinal committee,*5 are drawn from the Greek Fathers, and especially Pseudo-Dionysius,”° Saint John Chrysostom,?’ Saint Gregory the Theologian,”8 and Saint Athanasius.?? Saint Mark Eugenicus asserts that no Greek or Latin Church Father teaches the punitive or purgatorial fire in the middle state. Their references to suffering by fire after this life must be interpreted not literally, but symbolically, namely as eternal deprivation of God’s vision and bliss, as an unceasing remorse, shame, and uncertainty for the future? The Greek

Fathers in general refer only to the Church prayers and commemorative services as helping the souls of the departed. This help is not to be considered as a change of state, but as relief and alleviation of their lot (anesis, parapsyche), consolation (paramythia), and refreshment (anapsyxis).3! Mark, however, tends to believe that if the departed showed profound and complete repentance in this life and if his or her unexpiated sins are very few and light (elachista kai koupha), he or she can be promoted to the state of the just by the effect of Church prayers and services, the alms of the faithful and especially by God’s mercy.32 On the other hand, Mark does not see any possible change in the state of those souls who are kept in hell, for they departed from this world with mortal sin and without repentance. These souls profit only a little from the prayers of

208

= Eschatology

the Church, but their state cannot be changed at all, neither before the Last Judgement nor after.*? Saint Mark’s eschatology is in agreement with that of the Greek Church Fathers, except Saint Gregory of Nyssa, who was tainted with the Origenist heresy, which taught that the fire of hell is not eternal, and therefore tended to relax the

vigilance and morality of the faithful.34 Mark, however, tries to lighten Gregory’s responsibility and “heterodoxy” in this respect, by stressing the possibility for any human being, even for a doctor of the Church, to be in error, particularly on a doctrine like Purgatory, which in Gregory’s times was still undefined, unclarified and unsettled.35 Since Gregory’s teaching supports the Origenist apocatastasis, which was anathematized by the Fifth Ecumenical Synod (553),>¢ his views on purgatorial fire—if indeed they are his own genuine beliefs—cannot be held as authoritative and orthodox, according to Mark Eugenicus.3’ On the other hand, the reference to Theodoretus employed by the Latins is of dubious authenticity, as Mark states.38 The Latin Fathers, in Mark’s judgment, do not explicitly teach purgatorial fire, and their writings may have suffered interpolations and changes. On the contrary, they clearly assert the beneficent effects of Church prayers and services and the symbolical or allegorical meaning of punishment after this life. Furthermore, the Latin Fathers, less clearly and yielding rather to circumstances to meet the threat of the graver error of the finiteness of the pains of hell, embraced this middle course of temporary fire in Purgatory.3? Finally, the ratio theologica of the Latins, as implying a legalistic concept of satisfaction of divine justice by the punishment of fire in the middle state,‘ is disagreeable to the almost universal view of the Greek Fathers, which held that sin is

essentially a personal pathos and guilt and that Adam’s misdeed was not a collective sin of the human race, but was rather a corruption of human nature. Men’s personal responsibility does not come into the picture, except in so far as they imitate Adam; their only congenital inheritance from him is the corruption (phthora) and death which in turn, lead them to sin; men are thus involved in a sort of vicious circle of death and sin. Thus, according to the Greek Patristic Tradition of So-

teriology original sin is above all a hereditary mortality, leading

Eschatology

the individuals of the human

209

race to commit sins, but not

implying any guilt for the actual sin of the First Father. To abolish that mortality and the law of death Christ became incarnated and died so that in His death “death might once and for all be destroyed, and men might be renewed according to the Image.™! The term “satisfaction” in the sense in which, for example, Saint Anselm understood it, as well as the Augustinian conception of original sin and of the inheritance of a “sinful situation” in human nature are entirely foreign to the Greek Patristic thought. The main consideration and insistence of this thought is connected always with the tragic opposition between destruction and recreation, corruption and incorruption, death and life, mortality and immortality.42 The juridical,

legal, transactional, and practical bent of much (though not all) Western theology has often been noted. Whether it is more than a curious accident of history that the lawyer Tertullian,

despite his lapse into heresy in mid-career, was the real drivingforce in Western theology may be open to doubt. Apart from a few famous names, the really significant figures in Western

Christendom were men of affairs rather than theologians proper. At any rate, sucha theory of Redemption through the death of Christ as satisfying God’s justice, had obvious attractions for the legal and practical mind of the West even in the fifteenth century. To counter the Latin ratio theologica Mark Eugenicus developed three important points based chiefly on God’s mercy and goodness to forgive all sin,“ the impossibility of a bodiless, immaterial soul to be affected by material fire;44 the rejection of the subtle distinction made by the Latins between the stain of sin or guilt and retribution (proskrousis, lovi, enoche, timoria, kolasis);45 and the Scriptural doctrine that neither the just nor the wicked enter into their final state of bliss or punishment until after the Last Judgement.46 Mark’s main argument against the Latin distinction between guilt and retribution is based on the Aristotelian concept of relationship between cause and causation, aetion and aetiaton;‘’ as long as

sin is forgiven punishment is not required, because that which (sin) demanded punishment has been dissolved.** The Latins on the other hand, argued that even after the forgiveness of sin, punishment is required in order to satisfy divine justice

210

Eschatology

since God’s holiness was offended by sin.4? To the Latin objection that the soul in the middle state, although immaterial or bodiless, can be punished by material fire (such punishment being the most appropriate to the divine power and justice, te theia dynamei kai dikaiosyne harmodiotaton),*© Mark replies that it would be more reasonable, more just, and more con-

sistent (evlogdteron te kai dikaioteron kai tis akolouthias mallon echomenon), if the soul together with its own body would be punished, not separately, since together they had committed sin! Basing himself especially on the Scriptural doctrine®? that the souls of the just and of the damned do not enter into their eternal destiny directly after death, but they await the final Judgement. Mark categorically refutes double punishment and double fire (diplin kolasin kai diploun pyr) as contrary to the teaching of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod and to the Patristic theology of the early Church.* It is to this effect that Mark Eugenicus elaborates an original theory.*4 Each of the three theological virtues—faith, hope, love—has its period of complete manifestation and operation. Faith rules over this

world;>> Hope triumphs in the period after death until the general resurrection;>* Love, being the most perfect and highest virtue and the peak of the spirit’s fruits,5’ will reign alone after the final Judgement. It is certain that no agreement was reached at Ferrara on the question of Purgatory, and these last replies of Eugenicus were not further discussed.58 The matter had to be taken up again a year later. Why those conferences at Ferrara were abandoned is not clear. The main reason was probably the plague that had infested Ferrara.*? In any case, from the Greek as well as from the Latin statements related to Purgatory, it is clear that both Churches, Greek and Latin, basically agree that there is a middle state of souls after death. They disagree, however, as to the nature of means by which the remission of sin, in that state is caused; the Latins insisting on punishment by fire and the Greeks accepting only immaterial or allegorical purification, i.e., captivity, darkness, ignorance, remorse, shame. It is evident particularly, from Mark’s own replies, that the Greeks did not consider Purgatory as an issue serious enough to divide the two Churches.®! As a matter of fact even the Greek prelates at Ferrara disagree among themselves over

Eschatology

211

the question of Purgatory, and they finally agreed on the vague formula, which is obviously incomplete and does not touch on that question at all, that the souls of the just “attain to and do not attain to” the joys of heaven.®? In addition, it

must be noted that even the final decree of the council of Florence is vague and indefinite regarding Purgatory. It only mentions “purgatorial punishments”, not fire ... , tas touton psychas kathartikais timoriais katheresthe meta thanaton.® That which had indeed caused the greatest reaction from the Greeks was the question of Filioque.

Questions for Discussion and Review in

Who among the Greek Fathers had developed a complete doctrine of Theosis of man?

Pa

Is Theosis possible after the Fall? Qualify your answer. What new concept of Theosis Nazianzus introduce?

did

Gregory

of

4.

What is the very first and most essential aspect of the life of Theosis?

2)

What did Gregory of Nazianzus mean theoria, and “mystical” salvation?

6.

What is Gregory’s understanding lationship?

de

Explain Gregory’s theognosia or doctrine of knowledge of God’s nature.

8.

Who is the true theologian according to Gregory Nazianzenus?

eh

Give Gregory’s five answers to the question: “What Purpose does God’s incomprehensibility serve?”

10.

What is the meaning of the Kenosis of Christ according to Gregory of Nazianzus?

by praxis,

of soul-body

re-

Eschatology

Is Christ’s redemption complete and universal?

Who is the true Christian? How can every man be saved or restored? How does Saint Maximus

Confessor understand the

nature of the Kingdom of God and of salvation as universal

restoration?

How do the divine commandments provide the necessary power to everyone who wants to follow them?

How can an individual prevent and/or delay the establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth?

When will the Pleroma (i.e., the peak and the complete enjoyment) of God’s Kingdom be experienced by man? Can secular humanists establish the Kingdom of God? Does Saint Maximus’s position support a passive “futuristic eschatology”?

Explain Saint Maximus’s

concept of “continuous”

eschatology.

Where

Saint Maximus’s

originality lies?

What is the meaning of the “eighth day” in Saint Maximus’s eschatology?

Why is the Sacrament of Eucharist the eschatological event and the redemptive Sacrament par excellence?

Why has the Eucharistic Liturgy a universal and cosmic significance? What is the eschatological significance of the Church? What is the “Ascetic apatheia?

Christological synthesis” and

26.

Who are the greatest early ascetic theologians of the body?

Pate

What is the ascetic understanding personhood?

of person and

Eschatology

213

28.

Explain the “Ecclesial ecumenism” Fathers.

29.

Explain the ascetic view of Koros Akdrestos, and the unity of mankind as “interior good.”

30.

Give a summary of the early ascetic aretology and hesychasm, especially that of Saint John Climacus.

31;

Explain Evagrios’s doctrine of prayer and contemplation.

32.

Explain the relationship between spirituality and dogma in the thought of Saint John Climacus and Saint Isaac the Syrian especially.

30:

What is Saint Isaac’s view on the “Kingdom of the Heavens” and universal salvation?

34.

Is Evagrios’s mental?

SD:

What are the views of Evagrios and Isaac on perfection and ecstasy?

36.

What is the official teaching of the Orthodox Church on Purgatory and the “middle state” of soul after death?

SHE

What is the “little difference” between the two Churches (the Greek and the Roman) regarding the Purgatory doctrine?

38.

How do the prayers and commemorative services of the Church help the souls of the departed?

sph

Explain the three important points of Mark Eugenicus in rejecting the Latin ratio theologica of the Purgatorial fire.

mysticism

of the Desert

Christocentric and sacra-

Select Bibliography for Further Reading Georges Florovsky. Creation and Redemption, Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Co., 1976, pp. 243-265.

214

Eschatology

Georges Florovsky. Aspects of Church History, Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Co., 1975, pp. 63-78. Alexander Schmemann. The Eucharist: Sacrament of the Kingdom, Crestwood, New York: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988, pp. 27-48.

Constantine N. Tsirpanlis. Greek Patristic Theology, Vol. TI, New York, NY: EO Press, 1987, pp. 11-33 and 43-70.

Appendix A Patristic Reading Program** I. ENGLISH

TRANSLATIONS OF THE FATHERS—IN SERIES Abbreviations

ACW

LOE

IME: JEJE

ANF NPNF

Ancient Christian Writers. Westminster, MD/NY, 1946ff. Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia, PA. 1953ff. These two series are particularly useful, since they provide introduction and notes in most translations. The Fathers of the Church. Washington, DC, 1947ff. Loeb Classical Library. London/Cambridge, MA, 1912ff., particularly useful because this series also has the original texts with an English translation on the facing page. The Ante-Nicene

Fathers.

New

York,

1926.

A Select Library of Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Buffalo/ NY, 1866ff. This contains works by Saint Augustine and Saint Chrysostom exclusively.

NPNF, 2nd Ser.

A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian York, 1890ff.

Church.

Second

Series,

New

FS

The Fathers Speak.Transl. and ed. by Georges Barrois. New York: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary

Jee

Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church. Oxford, 1838ff. The Classics of Western Spirituality/ Paulist Press.

Press,

CWS/ PP

1986.

2AS)

216

= Eschatology

New York and New Jersey. 4 This includes only the Greek Fathers of the first millennium, and a little beyond.

Il. ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS FATHERS AND IN SELECTION

OF

INDIVIDUAL

1. Selections

Bettenson, H. (ed. and trans.). The Early Christian Fathers: A Selection from the writings of the Fathers from Saint Clement of Rome to Saint Athanasius. London, 1969. Bettenson, H. (ed. and trans.). The Later Christian Fathers: A Selection from the writings of the Fathers from Saint Cyril of Jerusalem to Saint Leo the Great. Oxford, 1972.

Burns, J.P. (ed. and trans.). Theological Anthropology. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1981 (Irenaeus of Lyon, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine, Pelagius, and canons of the councils of Carthage, 418, and of Orange, 529, are included).

Cross, F.L. The Early Christian Fathers. London, 1960.

Daley, Brian J. The World of the Fathers. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, Inc. (a collection of texts with commentary).

Jurgens, W.A. The Faith of the Early Fathers. Three volumes. Collegeville, MN, 1970-1979 (a collection of texts with commentary).

Kelly, J.N.D.

Early Christian Doctrines.

Fifth rev. edition.

London, 1977.

Kelly,

J.N.D. Early Christian Creeds. London, 1960.

Fremantle, A. (ed.). A Treasury of Early Christianity. New York, 1953.

Eschatology

217

Musurillo, H.A. (ed. and trans.). The Fathers of the Primitive Church. New York, 1966.

Norris, A.R. (ed. and trans.). The Christological Controversy. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1980. Pelikan, J. The Christian Tradition. A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. I: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago, 1971. Quasten,

J. Patrology. Three volumes. Utrecht/ Antwerp, 1950-1960; reprinted Westminster, MD, 1983.

Rusch, G.W. (ed. and trans.). The Trinitarian Controversy. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1980. Wiles, Maurice, and Santer, M. (eds.) Documents in Early Christian Thought. Cambridge (England), 1975. Wiles, M. The Christian Fathers. New York, 1982.

2. Individual Fathers The Apostolic Fathers: Robert M. Grant (ed.), a translation and commentary in six volumes, New York/ Camden

1964-1968. This is a recent and very useful commented translation of all the Apostolic Fathers. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles or Didache: It is possibly the earliest (70-100) of all non-scriptural Christian written documents. For a brief description of this writing see the Introduction (page 7). Trans. in: ACW 6; FC 1; LCC 1; LCL 1, Apostolic Fathers 1.

First Epistle of Clement of Rome to the 96) necessitated by conflicts Corinthian Christians. It throws and thought of the first century Vrats ineAc PAN Apostolic Fathers |.

Tro

Church at Corinth (c. and division of the some light on the life Roman Church also. le LCC

1Lcer

|,

The seven letters of Ignatius of Antioch (+ 108) to the churches of Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia,

218

Eschatology

Smyrna, and to Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna. These letters are “jewels” of Christian literature and precious source of information on the earliest heresy of docetism and Judaistic practices. Short and intense, these seven epistles are testimonies of Ignatius’ own profound devotion to Christ and his consuming zeal for unity in the Church. Trans. in: ACW 1; ANF 1; FC 1-206 eeECL.1,- Apostolic: Famers \.

The Martyrdom of Polycarp (c. 156): It is the earliest firsthand report on Saint Polycarp’s death, which illustrates both the ideal pastor and the Christian martyr. Anextremely moving martyrdom narrative. Trans. in: ACW 6; ANF 1; FC 1; LCL 2, Apostolic Fathers 2; H. Musurillo (ed. and trans.), The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, Oxford 1972.

Justin Martyr, First Apology (c. 150-155): It refutes the anti-

Christian calumnies of atheism or impiety and civil enmity and gives a positive exposition and justification of the basic beliefs of Christianity: Christ is the Son of God as He is the fulfilment of the Jewish prophecies. Its latter part provides an essential description of the earliest liturgical life and worship— Baptism and the Eucharist. Trans. in: ANF 1; FC 6; LCC 1; LF.

Melito of Sardis, On Pascha (c. 160-170). This Easter homily

is full of figurative and allegorical concepts, despite its anti-Jewish style. Trans. in: A.Hamman (ed.) and Th. Halton (trans.), The Paschal Liturgy: Ancient Liturgies and Patristic Texts. Staten Island, NY 1969; Stuart George Hall (ed. and trans.), Melito of Sardis: On Pascha, and Fragments. Oxford 1979. Saint Irenaeus of Lyons (177-203), The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching is a non-controversial summary of the early Christian teaching. Although less significant than the other work of Irenaeus, Against Heresies, The Proof is less complicated and much easier to follow. Trans. in: ACW 16. Origen of Alexandria (185-254/5), On First Principles (230).

Eschatology

219

Although this is an early work of Origen and has unfortunately come down to us in an incomplete Latin translation by Rufinus, still it is the first scientific exposition and systematic handbook or compendium of early Christian theology which reflects Origen’s wisdom and genius more than any other of his writings. Trans. in: G.W. Butterworth (ed. and trans.), Origen: On First Principles. New York 1966; R.J. Daly (ed. and trans.), Origen: Spirit and Fire—A Thematic Anthology of his writings. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1984; CWSs/ PP (1979).

Origen of Alexandria, On Prayer. This is perhaps the best Patristic treatise on prayer in general, and the most insightful interpretation of the Lord’s Prayer in particular. Trans. in: CWS/PP (1979); ACW 19; LCC 2. Origen of Alexandria, Exhortation to Martyrdom. This piece of experiential theology of martyrdom is second only to that of Ignatius of Antioch. Its beauty and conviction is most powerful. Trans. in: CWS/PP (1979); ACWA9:-LCG2;

Origen

of Alexandria, Against Celsus: The most perfect apologetic work of the early Church. Its unique importance lies in the fact that in it Origen refutes, point by point, all the attacks on and objections to Christianity by a highly educated pagan author, Celsus. Actually, many of these objections are still relevant today. Trans. in: ANF 4; Henry Chadwick (ed. and trans.), Origen: Contra Celsum. Cambridge (England), 1953; reprinted

1980. Origen of Alexandria, Commentary and Homilies on the Song of Songs: Represent the highest point of Christian mysticism. Of the Commentary Jerome wrote: “While Origen surpassed all writers in his other books, in his Song of Songs he surpassed himself”. Trans. in: ACW

26; CWS/ PP (1979). Clement

of Alexandria (150-215/6), On Marriage and on Spiritual Perfection (Stromateis, III & VII): A pioneer

220

~= Eschatology

in theology and Christian Spirituality, but little known and underestimated. Trans. in: LCC 2. Saint Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 295-373), On the Incarnation of the Word of God (c. 320): a classic summary of early Christology and Soteriology with a profound theology of the creation and fall, and a polemic against paganism and Judaism. Trans. in: LCC 3; NPNF,2nd Ser., 4. Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, The Life of Saint Anthony (357 or 365?): The model of ascetic and dedicated life. Saint Athanasius himself had spent some time with the monks of Egypt and with Saint Anthony. This work of Saint Athanasius was translated into Latin by Evagrius of Antioch and contributed greatly to the enthusiastic flourishment of monasticism in both the East and the West. Trans. in: ACW 10; FC 15; NPNF, 2nd Ser., 4; R.C. Gregg (ed. and trans.) in CWS/ PP

(1980). Monasticism and the Desert Fathers:

The Life of Saint Anthony by Saint Athanasius. New York: Paulist Press, 1980.

The Life of Saint Pachomius. 197>:

Chico, CA: Scholars

Press,

G.A. Maloney (ed.), Intoxicated with God (The 50 spiritual homilies of Saint Macarius of Egypt). Denville, NJ: Dimension Books, 1978.

Palladius, The Lausiac History. Trans. in ACW 34, New York: Newman Press, 1964. Evagrius Ponticus,

The Praktikos and Chapters on Prayer.

Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1981.

John Cassian, Conferences. New York: Paulist Press, 1985.

Saint John Climacus,

The Ladder of Divine Ascent. New

York: Paulist, 1982. The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian. Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Brookline, MA, 1984.

Eschatology

221

G.E.H. Palmer, Ph. Sherrard, K. Ware (eds.), The Philokalia, Volumes I (1979), II (1981), III (1986). LondonBoston: Faber & Faber. Helen Waddell,

The Desert Fathers, Ann Arbor: The Uni-

versity of Michigan Press, 1972. Benedicta Ward, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1984. Theodoret of Cyrrhus: A History of the Monks of Syria, trans. by R.M. Price. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publ., 1987. The Lives of the Desert Fathers: A translation of the Historia monachorum in Aegypto (Rufinus) by N. Russell, publ. by Cistercian Publications (Kalamazoo, MI, 1984). Brock, S. (intr. and trans.), The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publ., 1987. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-c. 340), Church History: A priceless treasure and an invaluable source-book, our only source for various documents covering the history of

the Church from the time of Christ down to 323. Because of this unique achievement, but also because of his accuracy mostly, Eusebius is generally accepted as “The Father of Church History”. Trans. in: FC 19 and 292 LCL (2.vols. aN PNFE. 2nd Ser; 12G.A, Williamson (trans.), Eusebius: The History of the Church. New York, 1965.

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-386), Catechetical Lectures (c. 350) 24: Very important for their teachings on the Creed and the Sacraments. Trans. in: FC 61 and 64; LF: NPNF, 2nd Ser., 7. Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press,

1987. Saint Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329-390), Five Theological Orations or Homilies (given at Constantinople in the summer of 380): a classic summary of Christian Theology, Christology and Pneumatology which merited

222

Eschatology

for their author the title of “The Theologian”. Also his 243 letters and over 400 poems are of special spiritual insight and of historical and doctrinal value, and a treasure of information translated (partially) in: NPNF, 2nd Ser., 7; SLG Press (Oxford); The Fathers Speak; Saint Basil the Great (329-379). His main writings: Against Eunomius (364, 3 bks.)., De Spiritu Sancto (375), Hexaemeron

(bef. 370, 9 homilies),

On the Psalms

(370, 16? homilies), Ascetica, Two monastic rules, 365 Letters and Liturgy merited for their author the title of the Great. Trans. in: NPNF, 2nd Ser., 7; FC, 9; FS; Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press (1986: De Sp. S.). Saint Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-c. 394, a younger brother of

Saint Basil): Against Eunomius (381, 12 books), The great Catechism, On the Soul and Resurrection (379) or Ta Makrinia, On Virginity (c. 370) and his J/etters are his most important and very precious works which

treat of the fundamental doctrines—Trinitarian, Christological, Soteriological, Pneumatological, sacramental, ascetical and spiritual. Gregory’s writing on The Life of Moses is especially a model for Christian life in general, and a source-book of Christian mysticism, trans. in A.J. Malherbe and E. Ferguson (eds. and trans.), Gregory of Nyssa: The Life of Moses, New

York: Paulist Press, 1978; (eds. and trans.), From

J. Danidlou

& H. Musurillo

Glory to Glory, New York:

Saint Vladimir’s Press, 1979; NPNF, 2nd Ser., 5; LCC,

ah Saint John Chrysostom (344-407). No other Greek Father has left so extensive a literary legacy preserved almost entirely. His exegetical homilies on Saint Paul, his six books On the Priesthood (381-385) and his sermons on Marriage, Family Life, Social and Moral issues are the most outstanding. There are 238 letters of Saint Chrysostom extant from the time of his exile (404407). Trans. in: NPNF, 9; Graham Neville (tr.), Saint John Chrysostom: Six Books on the Priesthood, New York: Saint Vladimir’s Press, 1977; C.P. Roth and D.

Eschatology

223

Anderson (trans.), Saint John Chrysostom: On Marriage and Family Life, New York: Saint Vladimir’s Press, 1986. Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite (fl. ca. 480)—Greatly influenced almost all the Eastern and Western Christian Mystics throughout the centuries up to the present. The greatest of his disciples would be his orthodox interpreter, Saint Maximus the Confessor. Trans.: The Complete Works of Pseudo- Dionysius trans. by Colm Luibheid, New York/ Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1987; The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, trans. and annot.

by Th. L. Campbell, publ. by University Press of America (Washington, DC, 1981); The Divine Names trans. & publ. by The Shrine of Wisdom (Fintry Brook, Surrey, 1957); The Mystical Theology and The Celestial Hierarchy publ. by the above transl. and S; PCKe Saint Maximus the Confessor (580-662): His Four Centuries on Charity (1.e., 4 groups of one hundred apophthegms apiece, all on love); Commentary on the “Our Father’;

Chapters on Knowledge; The Church’s Mystagogy; the Ambigua (still untranslated) and his Disputation with Pyrrhus constitute Saint Maximus’s

greatest theological and spiritual achievement which has only recently been rediscovered and appreciated. The last (as above) work was translated in English in Volume V of Hefele’s History of the Councils. The other four were translated and published by Paulist Press only very recently (1985) although there is an older translation of The Church’s Mystagogy published by Saint Bede’s Publications (1982), and of the Four Centuries on Charity published by The Newman Press in the series of ACW, 21 (1955). Saint Theodore the Studite (759-826). His greatest contribution to the Christian Church and Theology is his successful effort to reform and organize monastic life, and his Trilogy (i.e., three theological refutations of the iconoclasts) translated by C. Roth and published by Saint Vladimir’s Press, 1981.

224

~= Eschatology

Saint Photios the Great (c. 810-c. 893)—The leading figure in the Byzantine intellectual renaissance of the ninth century and the greatest missionary Patriarch of Eastern Christianity. Despite this fact, Saint Photios

has only recently been rediscovered and translated (only partially). Fifty-two of Photios’ letters were only recently translated by Dr. Despoina S. White and published by Holy Cross Orthodox Press (Brookline, MA, 1981). His basically important theological writing On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit was also recently translated and published by Studion Publishers of N.Y.C. (1983), but Photios’ homilies were translated by Cyril Mango and published by Harvard University Press in 1958. Saint John of Damascus (c. 675-c. 749)—The systematic com-

piler of what he found best in the Church Fathers of the first six centuries in knowledge, doctrinal, ascetical,

exegetical and historical. His monumental work is The Fountain of Knowledge, a large three-part treatise the final section of which is On the Orthodox Faith. Trans. in: NPNF, 2nd Ser., 9; FC, 37. His precious contributions to the Church and to the Christian Theology include his profound Three Apologies Against Those Who Attack the Divine Images translated by D. Anderson and published by Saint Vladimir’s Press (1980). Saint Symeon the New Theologian (c. 949-1022). His appellation “the New” or “Younger Theologian”, ranks him as only second in Byzantine estimation to Saint Gregory Nazianzenus, “The Theologian” par excellence, because Saint Symeon also wrote Theological Orations on the Holy Trinity. Saint Symeon’s famous Discourses have been translated by C.J. deCatanzaro and published by Paulist Press (1980). His Hymns of Divine Love are perhaps the greatest masterpiece of Christian Mysticism translated by George A. Maloney and published by Dimension Books (Denville, NJ, n.d.). More recently the Theological and Practical Treatises and the Three Theological Discourses were

Eschatology

225

translated and published by the Cistercian Publ. (Kalamazoo, MI., 1986). Saint Nicholas Cabasilas (c. 1310-c. 1395). Bossuet recognized

in the person of Nicholas Cabasilas “one of the most solid theologians of the Greek Church after three or four hundred years.” And Basil Tatakis confesses that “in Cabasilas’s writings we inhale the fresh inspiration, the optimism and the religious feeling, the simplicity and lyricism of the apostolic times.” Cabasilas’s two monumental

writings are the

Commentary

on

the

Divine Liturgy translated by J.M. Hussey and P.A. McNulty and published by S.P.C.K. (1960) and more recently by Saint Vladimir’s Press (1986); and The Life in Christ translated by C.J. deCatanzaro and published by Saint Vladimir’s Press (1982-second printing).

Endnotes Notes, General Introduction '\J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958, p.

Vv 2P.J. Hammell, Handbook of Patrology, Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1968, p.

12. 3For a complete account

& evaluation of the Council of Florence see C.N.

Tsirpanlis, Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence: A Historical Re-evaluation of his Personality, New York: The American Institute For Patristic and Byzantine

Studies Publ., 1986 (third edition).

Notes, Chapter 1, Section 1 ' Oration 38 on the Theophany or Christmas-December 25, 380, in NPNF Vol. VII,

345-351: PG 36, 317ff. 2 Hexaemeron, hom. 5: PG 29, 1160D. 3Oratio Catechetica: PG 45, 9-106 and in NPNF ser. 2, Vol. V, 473-509.

4Contra gentes: PG 25, 3-96. De Incarnatione

Verbi, 95-198. Contra Arianos: PG

26, 12-526. sAmbigua 7: PG 91, 1081BC; Ad Thalassium 60: PG 90, 621; Capita gnostica, 1, 10:

PG 91, 1085-1088. 6 De Fide Orthodoxa: PG 94, 864-980.

7For the Theological Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus and his letters on the Apollinarian controversy, I used the English translation of Vol. IL] of LCC: Christology of the Later Fathers, ed. by E.R. Hardy and C.C. Richardson (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954, pp. 113-232), from now on quoted as Hardy. Cf. II Theological Oration: Hardy, 136. 8Or. 38.8: PG 36, 320B; III Theol. Or. 2: Hardy, 161.

9 Or. 38.9: PG 36, 320C. Or. 45.5:

NPNF VII, 424. Cf. Or. 40.5:

NPNF VII, 361, and Or. 29.2: PG 36, 76C.

"WV Theol. Or. 15: Hardy, 203. Or. 38.9: NPNF VII, 347. Or. 40.57, 361. Cf. Or. 45.2, 423. Also see J. Daniélou, Origen, New York: Sheed and Ward, 1955, 218-219.

Or. 38.9: PG 36, 320C; Il Theol. Or.: Hardy, 158-159.

83 Or. 45.5, 424. '4Saint John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa 2, 6-7: PG 94, 880B-900A; and 2,

8-9, 900A-908A. 'STbid., 2, 11,912A-917D; see M. Jugie, “Jean Damascéne”, in DTC 8.1 (1947), 726.

226

Endnotes

227

'6Tbid., 2, 12, 916BC. '7Cf. Saint Basil, Sermon on Paradise 2: PG 30, 64.

8 De F. Orth. 2, 11: PG 94, 912-913. 'Tbid., col. 916. 0See Saint Maximus,

Char. IV, 3, 4, pp. 192-193. Thal., 296AB.

Myst. 5, 682B,

209-216; 13, 692CD, p. 228; 17, 696A, pp. 231-232. Thal., 305A. Amb., 1080AD, 108SAC, 1329CD, 1345BC, ThEc, 1128A, 1129AB. The “logos” of man is his mind, the image of God (Thal., 305A). The “logoi” of nature are the natural order, beauty and laws (Thal., 372BC, 377CDf).

*1 Char. Ill, 46, p. 181; IV, 1, 2, 3, 4, pp. 192-193. Myst. 13, 692D, p. 228. 2Tbid. Also ThEc 1, 5, 1085A. 23Thal., 274BC. Pater., 873CDf, 901CDf. Amb., 1077CD, 1137ABF, 1164BC. Myst., 5, 681-682, pp. 215-216; 23, 700D-701 AC, pp. 238-241. cp. H.U. Von Balthasar, Liturgie Cosmique, Paris 1947, pp. 265-278. *4For a short but masterful account of Palamas’ theology related to God’s Ousia and Energeia see B. Krivosheine, The Ascetic and Theological Teaching of Gregory Palamas (reprint from The Eastern Churches Quarterly, 1938); and J. Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas, Crestwood, NY: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974.

5 Thal., 51, 476CD. 700BC, pp. 238-239.

ThEc, 1128CD. Amb., 1077CD. Myst., 17, 696A, p. 232; 23,

26 Th Ec, 1137D. Myst., 24, 709AB, pp. 245-246. Cf. Char. 1, 96, p. 151; III, 24, p. LE 27Thal., 353CD, 401AB, 436AB, 476CD, 477AB, 724Df. Pater, 873CD, Amb., 1077CD, I313ABf. 28 Thal., 353BD, 724-725. ThEc, 1196CD. 29 Thal., 297BD, 305A, 476CDf. Th Ec, 1208CD, 1209A, 1313A. This universality of the Holy Spirit’s inhabitation and illumination explains the fact that we find among non-christian barbarians and uncivilized tribes many who are kind and good individuals, or even better than Christians! (7hEc, 1208D).

30 Thal., 300Af, 356 BC, 393-396, 716D, 737AB, 757CD. ThEc, 1128A, 1209AB, 1220BC, 1224AB, 1356A. Amb., 1077CD. Myst., 23, 701BCf, pp. 239-241. 31 Pater., 877BCf. ThEc, 1196CD, 1324CD. Thal., 54, 520CD. Amb., 4, 1045BC. Cf. PG 90, 804BC. 32Char., 1, 95, 98, 99, p. 151. Cf. Amb., 1113A. Char. I], 26, p. 157. 33 Myst., 17, 696A, pp. 231-232. Also see Vladimir Solovyev, Lectures Concerning Godmanhood, trans. by Peter Zouboff, Poughkeepsie, NY, 1944, 169-218.

34 Pater., 893BC. Amb., 1257AB, 1313ABf, 1329CD. 35 Myst., 24, 705B, p. 253. And J. Danielou says that “the christological definition opens the way to a right judgement of the theological meaning of History”. The Lord of History, London 1958, p. 190.

36 Th Ec, I, 10, 1085-1088A. 37 Myst., 17, 696A, pp. 231-232; 24, p. 253. 38Th Ec, 1108D. Cf. Gregory of Nyssa: Apol. Hexa. PG 44,72BC. De Hom. Opific., 29, PG 44, 236B. De Anima et Res.: PG 46, 105A. 39Saint Basil, De Spiritu Sanct., 43: PG 32, 145D-146A.

228

Endnotes

40Th Ec, 1109A. Myst., 24, 713AB, pp. 252, 255. 4! Thal., 349 ABf. 392AB, 757BCf. ThEc, 1101C, 1104B, 1105A. Amb., 1392CDf. 42Thal., 317, 320D, 321 AC, 401 AB, 621 BC, 625BC, 692A, 725CD. ThEc, 1209CD, 1212A. Amb., 1088CD, 1357BC. 43 Pater., 873CDf.

44 Amb., 1080-1081,

1137AC,

1228-1229.

Myst., 17, 696A, p. 232; 24, pp. 247,

248-249, 253. Actually, this re-unification of all “logoi” with the Logos-Christ is the

eternal Kingdom of God: Thal., 62, 653CD; 59, 616ABf. Amb., 1088BC. Cf. Amb., 1088AB, 1368AB.

ThEc, 1136ABf, 1145C.

45 Th Ec, 1385C, 1388A. Cf. Pater., 873Df. Amb., 1260. ThEc, 1384C. 46Saint Basil, In Hex., hom. 3: PG 29, 73C.

Section 2 Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 38,9: PG 36, 320C. Saint John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa, ll, 3: PG 94, 873. 2John Meyendorft, Byzantine Theology, New York: Fordham

University Press,

1976, p. 136. 3Saint Basil, Homily on Psalm 33, 5. 4V1. Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction, Crestwood, New York: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978, pp. 132-133.

Notes, Chapter II Section | 'Saint Ireneus, Adversus Haereses, 5,6, 1. Gregory of Nyssa, De Opif. Hom., XV1, 406, 17; XVII, 406-407; VIII, 394; De An. et Res., p. 433. Gregory Palamas, PG 150,

1361C and 1145-1148. Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Poiemata Dogmatica, V1, On Soul vv. 70-75; PG

37, 452. 3Saint Ireneus, Adv. Haer., 1V, preface, §4; PG 7, 975. 4Saint Gregory of Nazianzus: PG 37, 452; cf. 40th Oration, “On Holy Baptism”, 5,

PG 36, 364BC. °Cyril of Alexandria, The Adoration and Worship of God in Spirit and in Truth, Homily I, PG 68, 148. ‘John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, p. 139. Saint Nilus of Sinai, On Prayer, ch. 123; PG 79, 1193C.

‘See my recent study on “Praxis and Theoria: The Heart, Love and Light Mysticism in Saint Isaac the Syrian” in The Patristic and Byzantine Review Vol. 6/2 (1987).

Section 2 'Saint Irenaeus,

in Ante-Nicene

Fathers,

Vol.

1. New

York:

Charles Scribner’s

Sons, 1925, p. 445. 2V]. Lossky, Orthodox Theology: An Introduction, p. 78.

Saint Gregory of Nyssa, De An. et Res., p. 449; cf. Oratio Catechetica, V, p. 479.

Endnotes

229

‘Saint Gregory of Nyssa, De Opif. Hom., XVII, pp. 406-407; XXVII, 418: XXX, p. 426, 29. De An. et Res., pp. 438, 448; cf. Contra Eunomium 1, 11, 336A. ‘Cf. Saint Maximus

the Confessor:

Char. Ill, 4, p. 173; Myst. 24, 716A, pp.

254-255; Char. V1, 15, p. 194; II, 83, p. 169; III, 35, p. 179; Char. III, 5, p. 174; Char. IV, 14, p. 194, PG 90, 405C. Genesis 3:21. 7Colossians 3,9. De Opif: Hom., XVIII, 408, 3-5. Cf. De An. et Res., pp. 464-465. 8De Opif. Hom., XVIII, 408; XXX, 421. Cf. Or. Cat., VIII, 483; De Virgin., Dycovs

and J. Daniélou, L’ Etre et le Temps chez Gregoire de Nysse, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970, p. 163. °P. Sherwood, Saint Maximus the Confessor. The Ascetic Life. The Four Centuries

on Charity. Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, ACW, Vol. XXI (1955), p. 68.

'0De Opif. Hom., XVII, p. 407, 4; pp. 408, 411, 4, 412. 'Tbid., XXIX, 421, 426. !2Tbid., VII, 394. De An. et Res., p. 433. '3Oratio Catechetica V1, p. 481; VIIl, 483; XX, 491. Cf. De Opif: Hom., XV1, 405, 8-9; cp. P. Chrestou, Theologika Meletimata, vol. 2, Thessaloniki 1975, pp. 240, 244,

251. 14De Opif. Hom., XVIII, 408, 4-5. De Virgin., XII, 357. 'SOratio Catechetica, V1, 481.

\6Jbid., VIII, 482. De Virgin., XI, 357. 'Tbid., V, 479. Cf. De An. et Res., 450-451; De Virgin., X11, 358.

Section 3 ‘Saint Maximos Confessor: Epistula 10; PG 90, 449D.

2Saint Gregory of Nazianzus is most instructive in emphasizing this aspect of the

Fall: Or. 37. VI, NPNF VII, 340. Or. 37. VII, NPNF VII, 340. Or. 38.12, 348. Or. 39.13, 356-357. Or. 45.28, 433 and Or. 45.12, NPNF VII, 427. 3Saint Maximus Confessor: Char. II, 8, p. 153; II, 59, p. 165; HI, 57, p. 184. 4Saint Gregory of Nazianzus: Epistula 101 (to Cledonius),; Hardy, 218-19, 221. Or.

38.11-13; PG 36, 317. Cf. Or. 2.18, NPNF VII, 208-209. 5Or. 2.23, NPNF VII, 210. Cf. Or. 39.7, 354. 6B. Otis, “Cappadocian Papers 12 (1958) 110, 123.

Thought as a Coherent

System” in Dumbarton

Oaks

7Cf. Or. 39.7, NPNF VU, 354. 8R.R. Ruether, Gregory of Nazianzus, Oxford 1969, p. 132. Cf. B. Otis, “Cappadocian Thought as a Coherent System” in DOP 12 (1958) 94-124. 9See esp. Ep. 101 (To Cledonius); Hardy, 220-221.

10R.R. Ruether is of contrary opinion: op cit., p. 140. 1 Or, 8.8; PG 35, 797AB. Cf. IV Theol. Or. 20; Hardy, 192. Ep. 101.

12Or. 21.20, NPNF VII, 275. Carm. de vita sua, 11, 280-329; PG 37, 1048-1052. Cf. Or. 37.10, NPNF VII, 341, and XIX-XX, 343. 13Or, 37.XI1, NPNF VII, 344. Cf. Or. 40.40, 374-375.

230

Endnotes

14Or, 8.8; PG 35, 797BC. Cf. Let. CIV; NPNF VII, 477, and | Cor. 7:29. 'SOr. 8.8; NPNF VII, 240. '6Or. 37.V; NPNF VII, 339. '"[bid., 341. '8 Or. 40.18, 365. Cf. Jn 2:1-11. '9Cf. Or. 40, 19; NPNF VII, 366. 2Cf. G. Misch, A History of Autobiography in Antiquity, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1973, p. 623. 21 Or. 40.19, 366. 2Cf, Let. 22:

NPNF VII, 465.

23 Or. 7.7.10; PG 35, 761 Dff. Or. 40.19; PG 36, 384AB. Or. 8.8; PG 35, 797BC; 8.13, 804C. Let. 131, 141; NPNF VII, 478-479. 24Or. 37.1X;

NPNF VIL, 340.

Section 4 'Saint Justin, Dialogue, 100. 2Saint Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, V, 19, 1. Basically, Saint Ireneus derived his ideas from | Cor. 15:45; 1 Cor. 15:20-23; Rom. 5:14, 11:17.

3Saint Gregory Palamas, Hom. in Present., 6-7; ed. Oikonomos (Athens, 1861), pp. 126-127; trans. in E. Churches Quarterly 10 (1954-55), No. 8, 381-382. 4Nicholas Cabasilas in Jugie’s ed., Patrologia Orientalis X1X, 2. Cf. my study on “The Mariology of Nicholas Cabasilas” in Marian Studies, 30 (1979), pp. 89-107, and in my book Greek Patristic Theology Vol. 1, New York: EO Press, 1979, pp. 107-124. °Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres., Il, 21, 8: “Mary cooperating with the economy.” Saint John of Damascus, Encomium to the Dormition, B, 16, 4-5. 7Andrew of Crete, Oration on the Dormition of the All-Holy Theotokos,

PG 97,

1108B.

BIEks 1:30) 9Lk. 1:28.

1 Cor. 15:47.

Nn. 1:13. "1 Cor. 15:4748. 31 Cor, 15:49.

14Cols 2:9) 'SSaint John Chrysostom, Hom. 44 in Mt.; PG 57,464; Hom. 21 in John 2: PG 59,

Sie

Notes, Chapter III 'De Inc., 6, 7; PG 25, 105D. 2De Inc., 7; PG 25, 108-109. 3/bid., 20, col. 129C.

4Ibid., 13, col. 120BC.

Endnotes

231

SIbid., 43, col. 172B. 6Ibid., 13, col. 120. TIbid., 44, col. 173C.176.

*Ibid., 20, col. 129D. Cp. the expr.: “6ud 16 mavras imevivous elvar TH TOD Bavatou ybopa” (Ibid., 8, col. 109CD).

°De Inc., 8, col. 109CD. Cf. C.A., HI, 33; PG 26, 393-396. 0 De Inc., 9; PG 25, 112ABf.

Wbids 37;°PG 25, 141C 2Ibid., 21; PG 25, 132C. 3 [bid., 27,, col. 141D. 4Cf. De Inc., 51; PG 25, 185D-188A.

Vita Sancti Anton., 79; PG 26, 953.

SC.A., Il, 56; PG 26, 268A. 6Saint Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, 1V, 34, 1, ed. Harvey, II, 213.

"In Thalia of Arius; apud S. Athana., C.A.., 1,9; PG 26, 29. 8C.A., 1,9; PG 26, 29BC, n. 16; 26, 46A. nn. 38-39; 26, 89B-95. n. 42; 26, 100A. III, 19: 26, 361B-364. n. 23; 26, 372B. nn. 33-34; 26, 393-397. n. 40; 26, 409A. n. 53; 26, 444C. Ad Maximum, n. 2; 26, 1088C. Ad Serapionem, 1, 24-25; 26, 588A & 590. De Decretis, n. 14; 25, 448D. 19C_A., Il, 67; PG 26, 289C. 20 De Inc., 54; PG 25, 192B.

214d Adelph., 4; PG 26, 1077A. Cf. C.A., 1, 38-39; PG 26, 92BC. /bid., II, 47, col. 248B.

2C.A.; PG 26, 996C-997. 23 /bid., cf. J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, NY 1976, pp. 159-164.

4 Tbid., 1, 39; PG 26, 92C. 5Tbid., 1, 38; PG 26, 404C-40S. 2 De Synodis, 51; PG 26, 784AB. Cp. De Decretis, 14; PG 25, 448D.

27C.A., Il, 68; PG 26, 292. Cf. Ibid., 69, col. 293A, & 70, col. 296. 28 Tbid., 1, 51 col. 117; Il, 68, col. 292. 29 Tbid., 1, 49; PG 26, 113B,; cf. Il, 68-69, col. 292-293. 30Jbid., 1, 70, col. 296AB. Cf. Ill, 33, col. 383A-396A. 31 bid., U1, 33, col. 383A-396A; 53, col. 433C-436A. 32A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte, V. \, 4th ed., 160-161.

33See H.E.W. Turner, The Patristic Doctrine of Redemption, London 1952, p. 89.

34 De Inc. in PG 25, 196-197. 35 De Inc., 30; PG 25, 148B; 50-51, col. 185-188.

36C.A., I, 41; PG 26, 233B. 37 De Inc., 14; PG 25, 120D. Cp. Ad Serap., 1, 22; PG 26, 581-584.

3%C.A_,I, 34; PG 26, 84A. Cp. 33, col. 80-81; Ad Serap., 1, 19, col. 573C-576A. 39[bid., II, 25, col. 376C. 40Jbid., Ill, 18-22, col. 360-369.

232

Endnotes

4! Tbid., 1, 19, col. 364. 42 De Inc., 50-51; PG 25, 185-188, 196-197. 8C.A., Il, 72; PG 26, 300C; lil, 19, col. 364B. Cf. 1, 43, c. 100C. 44C.A., III, 19; PG 26, 361C-364A. Cp. III, 24-25, col. 373-376. De Decretis, 31, v. 25, ¢. 473€D. 45[bid., 1, 41, col. 97B. Cp. Epist. heortast., V, 3; v. 25, 1380D-1381A. 46 De Inc., 56; PG 25, 196AB.

41Ad Epict., 9; PG 26, 1065B. Cp. C.A., Il, 34, col. 397AB, III, 33, col. 393-396. 48 A special section on the views of Mark Eugenicus on Purgatory, and the middle state after death is added to the last chapter of this book (Eschatology). 49Or. Cat., XXVI, 496. Cf. Origen, C. Cels. 6, 44. 50De Anima et Resur., 451.

5! [bid. 32Jbid. Cf. De Virgin., X11, 357. 3Or. Cat., VI, 483. 54 Tbid. S]bid., XII, 486. 56Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus. Cf.

my article: “Aspects of Athanasian Soteriology”, in Kleronomia 8 (1976) 61-76. Also John Meyendorff, op. cit., 131, 134-136, 139, 144.

57Or. Cat., XXVI, 495-496. 38/bid., VIL, 483. Cf. Origen, C. Cels. 7, 70.

°° De Opif. Hom., XXII, 412, 5-7; XXIX, 420, 1; XXII, 411, 3 & 4. Cp. the fine essay of Prof. Pan. Christou, in Theologika Meletimata, vy. 2. 233-254, esp. pp. 237-245, 252-254. Also the important book of Rev. Dr. John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology. NY: Fordham University Press, 1976, 131-136.

® De Opif. Hom., XXII, 412, 6. 61 fbid., 412, 7. 82 Jbid., 412, 5. 6Or. Cat., XXVI, 496. 4 Ibid., XXXV, 504.

65 Tbid., cf. ch. XXVI, 495. Mt. 9, 12; cf. Mal. 3:2,3.

67Or. Cat., VIII, 483; XX VI, 496. 68 Tbid., XL, 509. 69 On Infants’ Early Deaths, p. 378.

For a more complete explanation of Gregory’s inconsistencies and contradictions see the “Prolegomena” of NPNF, 2nd ser., vol. V, 1972, pp. 13-14; especially the article of A. Mouhanna

in Weg in die Zukunft.

Festschr. f. A. Antweiler zu seinem 75.

Geburtst. (Studies in the Hist. of Rel., 32), Leiden: Brill 1975, pp. 141-144.

11 De An. et Res., p. 465. ?Ibid., p. 468.

Endnotes

233

73J. Daniélou, “L’ apocatastase chez saint Grégoire de Nysse”, in RSR 30 (1940)

344-346.

4Ibid., p. 347. 75J. Danidlou, L Etre et le Temps chez Gregoire de Nysse. Leiden: Brill 1970, p. 224. 76J. Laplace, Saint Grégoire de Nysse. La Création de |’ homme. Paris: Sources

Chrétiennes 6, 1943, pp. 66-67, 70, 72.

™R. Leys, L’image de Dieu chez Saint Grégoire de Nysse. Paris, 1951, p. 92. 78H. von Balthasar, Présence et Pensée..., pp. 59, 52 n. 5. 79J. Danidlou, L’ Etre et le Temps..., p. 224.

80 De An. et Res., p. 459. Cf. De Opif: Hom., XXII, 412. 51 De Opif. Hom., XV1, 406, 16-17. 82 Ibid., 406, 18. Cp. P. Christou, Theol. Meletim., v. 2, 237, 238, 239, 242, 253. 83 [bid., XVII, 407, 4. Cf. E. Corsini, “Pler6me humaine et pléréme cosmique chez Grégoire de Nysse”, in Ecriture et culture philosophique dans la pensée de Grégoire de Nysse. Leiden 1971, pp. 119-120.

84 De Opif. Hom., XVI, 406, 17. 85 bid., XXII, 411, 3. 86 De Opif. Hom., XXII, 411, 4. 87Rom. 8:22. 88 De Opif. Hom., XXII, 411-412, 4-5; De An. et Res., p. 461. Cf. In illud, tunc ipse..., PG 44, 1313A. 89 De An. et Res., p. 449. *®Cp. De Opif. Hom., IV, 390-391. Or. Cat., V, 479.

Cp. G. A. Maloney, The Cosmic Christ, NY: Sheed & Ward, 1968, p. 157. "21 Cor, 15:28. % De An. et Res., 452-453; In Illud, tunc ipse..., PG 44, 1316CD.

94 De An. et Res., p. 451.

%Tbid., p. 444. Cf. Or. Cat., XXVI, 495-496. % [bid., p. 453. 97 [bid., p. 453. %Phil. 2, 10. De An. et Res., pp. 444, 461. Or. Cat., XX VI, 495-496. In illud, tunc ipse..., PG 44, 1316D. This passage should be compared with those passages of Origen in C. Cels. 6, 44; 4, 69; 8, 72, in which he declares that the Powers of evil are

for a purpose—in answer to Celsus’ objection that the Devil himself, instead of humanity, ought to have been punished—: to try the good ones, “as the fire tries the gold, that, having done their utmost to prevent the admission of any alloy into their spiritual nature, and having, proved themselves worthy to mount to heaven, they might be drawn by the bands of the Word to the highest blessedness and the summit of all Good.” These Powers, as reasoning beings, shall then themselves be “mastered by the Word.”

99] Cor. 12:12.27; Eph. 1:10; 5:23, 30, 33; 1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 5:18-20. 100Jn illud, tunc ipse..., PG 44, 1317A-D. Cp. D.L. Balas, METOYTXIA OEOT:

Man’s Participation in God's Perfections according to Saint Gregory of Nyssa. “Studia Anselmiana”, vol. 55, Roma:

Libreria Herder, 1966.

234

Endnotes

101Jn illud, tunc ipse..., PG 44, 1317BC.

102The chief works of Saint Maximus on Christ’s gnomic will are: Epistulae 6 & 10, the Ambigua: 10, 42, 48, the Opuscula theologica et polemica, in PG vol. 91; and the Quaestiones ad Thalassium in PG vol. 90. Besides a brief treatment of the subject by

Polycarp Sherwood in his old, but still valuable introduction to Maximus’ Ascetic Life: The Four Centuries on Charity, MD: Westminster, 1955, pp. 55-70, there is no other study on Maximus’ “theology of will,” so badly needed! 103Photius, Ad Amphilochium Amphil.

Q. 7: PG 101, 508-541.

From now on quoted as

104Saint Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Ad Marinum: PG 91, 45D49A, 192BC. Cf. Saint Photius, Amphil. Q 8: PG 101, 113AB; 128AB. Compare this with Saint John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa, Ill, 14: PG 94, 1036-1037,

1044-1045. 105Photius, Amphil. Q m: PG 101, 509Df.

106 [bid., Q. 227: PG 101, 1025AB. 107 Jbid., Q. 195: PG 101, 933BC. 108 [bid., 512AB. 109 [bid., Q. 243: PG 101, 1044Df. Q. 80: PG 101, 512BC; cf. Q. 228: PG 101, 1025AB.

0 Tbid., Q. 243: PG 101, 1045f. Cf. PG 102, 93CD. 'Jbid., Q. 271: PG 101, 1097CD. Q. 300, 1136CD, 1285Cf; 1293Bf, and PG 102, 201CD. 112 ]bid., Q. 80: PG 101, 512CD. Q. 129: PG 101, 724A. Q. 195: PG 101, 933BC. "3 ]bid., 513CD, 517C, 529BC. Also Q. 315: PG 101, LL68BC; 1285 AB. '14Photius’ homily 25 in the ed. S. Aristarchos, Constantinople, 1900, vol. I, p. 125.

'STbid., p. 124. 6 Amphil., Q. 80: PG 101, 520AB,; cf. col. 536A. ''7Photius’ homily 25 in the ed. S. Aristarchos, Constantinople, 1900, vol. I, p. 118.

"8 John 6: 38. 19S. Aristarchos, pp. 118-119.

20fbid., p. 119. 121 Amphil., Q. 80: PG 101, 521AB.

1228, Aristarchos, p. 127. 123 Amphil., Q. 80: PG 101, 521 BC. '24Tbid., S244AB. Cf. PG 101, 1289Df. 125 [bid., 524. 26Tbid., 525BC,; 533Cf. Q. 166, 857CD. Q. 243, 1045Cf. PG 101, 1293Bf. PG 102, 589CD. 127 [bid., S25Cf; 528 AB. 128 ]bid., 528BC. Cf. col. 533Cf. 29Valetas, Ep. 14. Cf. D.S. White, Patriarch Photios of Constantinople Brookline, MA., 1981, pp. 125-130 (Letter 3); and Rom. 5:12. Also Letter 43, in D.S. White, p.

179.

Endnotes

235

130 Heb. 4:15. BIS. Aristarchos, p. 123.

'2Cf. Amphil., Q. 271: PG 101, 1097CD.

'8On this basic notion of true human freedom see C.N. Tsirpanlis, “Aspects of Maximian Theology of Politics, History and the Kingdom of God”, in The Patristic and Byzantine Review 1/1 (1982), p. 4.

134S. Anistarchos, pp. 121-122.

85 Amphil., Q. 80: PG 101, 541Cf. BeTbid., Q. 114: PG 101, 669 Df; 677BC. '37[bid., Q. 188: PG 101, 908Cf. Q. 224: PG 101, 1048CD, and Q. 247, col. 1052BC. 138 Fp. 49, in D.S. White, op. cit., p. 183.

Notes, Chapter IV Section | and 2 'Cf. E. Amand de Mendieta, The ‘Unwritten’ and ‘Secret’ Apostolic Traditions in the Theological Thought of Saint Basil of Caesarea (London, 1965), p. 23. For a revised text with notes and introduction: C.F.H. Johnston, The book of Saint Basil

the Great, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia on the Holy Spirit(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892). It must be emphasized, from the very beginning, that the problem ofthe divinity of the Holy spirit is, above all, a Christological problem. After the expression of Christ’s divinity at Nicea, the problem of the Holy Spirit remained—which is to say that the knowledge by which Christ is recognized as God became a problem. The Fathers who lived during the age of struggle over the doctrine of the Holy Spirit are often called non-Christological, but that is like asserting that the Holy Spirit is not necessary for the confession of Christ. Saint Basil says of those who do not admit the divinity of the Holy Spirit, “When and what did they confess? For he who does not

believe the Spirit, does not believe the Son, for none can say that Jesus is the Lord but by the Holy Spirit.” De Spir. S., 11,27, 4, and 26-28; PG 31, 600B; De Spir. S., 18, 47; PG 32, 154.

2Cf. Basil, De Spir. S., 16, 40: PG 32, 19, 49, 137; PG 32, 155. 3Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 16, 38; PG 32, 136B. This statement is perhaps one ofthe most striking statements in patristic literature about the personal involvement of each of the three persons in the common work of creation. Basil’s complete passage is as follows: “In creation, consider first the initiating cause of all that has been made, who is the Father; next, the effecting cause, who is the Son; and finally the perfecting cause, who is the Holy Spirit. Therefore by the will of the Father the heavenly spirits exist, by the operation of the Son they come into existence, and by the presence of the Spirit they are made perfect.” In other words, Basil says that each of the three persons is the cause of creation in a different way, although they still remain the one cause of the one effect. The line of divine operation from the Father through the Son in the Spirit is the same as in Cyril’s writings. Basil, however, prevents the easy misunderstanding that creation would be a kind of series of three incomplete actions which add up to one finished process, for he almost immediately adds: “Let no one conclude that I have said these three persons are separate origins or that the activity of the Son is incomplete. For there is one origin of all things, which is put into effect through the Son and perfected in the Spirit. Nor have I said that the Father, who works all things in all things, has an imperfect activity; nor that the Son has a work that is incompleted until it is perfected by the Spirit. It is not that the Father has need of the Son, for he

236

Endnotes

creates merely by doing so; yet he does will to create through the Son. Nor does the Son have need of any help, for he works as the Father does; yet he does will to bring things to perfection through the Spirit” (/bid., cf. 8, 21). Basil also explains something

of what the words “in the Spirit” mean to him: “The more I meditate,” he writes, “on the simple and brief syllable en, the more I discover it to be of various meanings, and each of them finds an application in the subject of the Holy Spirit. We say that the form is in the matter, that power is in the one who has received it, that a disposition is in the one who is affected by it, and so on. In so far as he perfects those who belong to the Logos, therefore the Holy Spirit has the notion of form. . . . For the one who does not live according to the flesh, but who is moved by the Spirit of God, who 1s called a son of God, and is conformed to the image of the Son of God, that man is called one-who-belongs-to-the-Spirit (ho pneumatic kos). (De Spiritu Sancto, 26, PG 32,

180. Cf. 22, 53; PG 32, 26, 63, 64, 165; PG 27, 68, 184-185; PG 32, 193A-196). 4Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 16, 39; PG 32, 19, 49, 137; PG 32, 155. Cf. Athanasius,

Ad Serap, |, 31; PG 26, 605A. Cf. 1, 28; PG 26, 596A. sJohn of Damascus,

De Fide Orthodoxa,

1, 8; PG 94, 821BC.

Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 18, 45, 46; PG 32, 153. Cf. J. Meyendorff, Palamas (London, 1964), pp. 14-15, 231.

Gregory

7Basil, De Spiritu Sancto, 6, 13; PG 32, 88-89; 17, 19, 26, 63, 64; PG 32, 184-5. Cf. B. Pruce, “Autour du traite sur le Saint-Esprit de Saint Basile de Caesaree,” in Rech

Sc. Relig., 52 (1964), pp. 208-213.

8 De Spir. S., 26, 63, 64; PG 32, 184-5. 9De Spir. S., 24, 56; PG 32, 173.28, 69, PG 32, 196. 10J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York, 1976), pp. 170-171. Cf. De Spir.

S.s 26, 63, 64; PG 32, 184-5. ‘Cf. my book Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence. (Thessalonica, 1974) pp. 85-94. The basic argument was that the whole question of the Filioque was a technical or canonical one, rather than a dogmatic issue, because it implies papal primacy and disloyalty to the seventh canon of the third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431) which strictly forbade any change, alteration, addition, omission or correction in the Creed not only by the individual churches, but also by the universal Church (J/bid., p. 86). According to Mark, as well as to the Eastern patristic tradition, additions or clarifications could be made in the decrees (oro/), but not in the Creed (Symbolon), and from the third Ecumenical Council on a clear distinction was made between symbola or creeds and oroi or decrees of the Councils of the Church (ibid., p.87). Furthermore, it is interesting to note that even the traditionalist and “intransigent” Mark Eugenicus proposed, at the council of Ferrara-Florence, inclusion of the Filioque-clause in a special oros or decree, but not in the Creed (ibid., p. 89). Cf. P. Evdokimoy, L’Esprite Saint dans la tradition orthodoxe (Bibliotheque Oekumenique, 10, Paris, 1969).

2Jn 15:26.

3Jn 16:7. 4Jn 20:22. 'SJn. 16:13, 14. Cf. De Spir. S. 26, 63, 64; PG 32, 184-5. '6 De Spir. S., 16, 40; PG 32, 137; 26, 63, 64; PG 32, 184-5.28, 69; PG 32, 196. MEAsisal diese 8Cf, De Spir. S. 18, 46, 47; PG 32, 154; 26, 63, 64; PG 32, 184-5. 19] Cor. 12:7-10.

Endnotes

237

0] Jn 4:1 ff. Saint Augustine, Homilies on Saint John, p. 719.

22Galed:22.23. *3For a critical edition of the Catecheses see B. Krivocheine (ed.), Catecheses et Actions de Graces, i-iti (Sources Chretiennes 96, 104, 113 (Paris 1963-65). 247 Cor. 12:7-10.

Jn 11:51. 26] Cor. 12:31. Cf. Acts 4:29, 30.

2 Cor 12310

*8De Spiritu Sancto, 1, 3: PG 32, 9, 10, 69-73.5; PG 32, 26, 84; 61, 62; PG 32, 184A-184, *9J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, p. 174. Cf. De Spir. S., 15, 36; PG 32, 132. 30Cf, Saint Symeon the New Theologian: PG 120, 309BC. 31Cf. Saint Symeon the New Theologian: Homily LIII, 2 (Russian ed. of Mt. Athos, II, 7). Also Century 2, 15; 2, 3, 18 (J. Darrouzes (ed.), Chapitres Theologiques,

Gnostiques et Pratiques (Sources chretiennes 51, Paris, 1957); PG 120, 699AB, 631B. 22Cf, Saint Symeon the New Theologian: PG 120, 326C, 492C. 3 Acts 3.1-10; 4:32-37; 8:7-18. I Cor. 12:7-10. Acts 10:44-47; 9:17; 19:6-13; 21:9.

34J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology, p. 178. Cf. De Spir. S., 29,71, 72, 73; PG 32,

201-206.

Section 3 \J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds. London, 1950, pp. 362-63. Cf. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum, 1X, p. 978. E. Amann, “L’ époque carolingienne”, vol. VI of the Histoire de |’ Eglise of Fliche and Martin. Paris, 1941, pp. 173-184. M. Jugie, Le schisme byzantine. Paris, 1941, especially pp. 40-45, 14346, 204. J. Meyendorff, L’ Eglise Orthodoxe hier et aujourd’ hui. Paris, 1960, pp. 41-54 (the Orthodox point of view).

2Cf. S. Runciman, The Eastern Schism. Oxford, 1955, p. 30. 3For a detailed account of Saint Mark Eugenicus’s life, theology, and contribution to the council of Florence see my book: Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence—A historical re-evaluation of his personality. NY: Center for Byzantine Studies, third ed., 1986. 4J. Gill (ed.), Quae supersunt actorum Graecorum concilii Florentini necnon Descriptionis cuiusdam eiusdem. Rome, 1953. From now on cited as A.G., pp. 49, 52-53, 56-57, 86, 194-95, 201. V. Laurent (ed.), Les Memoires du grand ecclesiarque de I’ Eglise de Constantinople, Sylvestre Syropoulos, sur le concile de Florence. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1971, V1, § 27, pp. 316, 326. From now on cited as Syr. Patrologia Orientalis. Documents relatifs au Concile de Florence. I: La question du Purgatoire & Ferrare. II: Oeuvres anticonciliaires de Mark d’ Ephése, edited by L. Petit and published in one volume, Patrologia Orientalis, XV (1920), pp. 1-168; XVII (1923), pp. 309-524; see p. 444; from now on cited as P.O. Mark states that the council convoked by Emperor Basil | and Patriarch Photius in Constantinople (879) was named, “avou.do8n”, eighth Ecumenical Council (P.O., pp 421, 440. A.G., p. 90). This council also had anathematized those who would introduce any addition or alteration to the Creed (Mansi, XVII, 520E-521A).

238

Endnotes

VL Grajyes SSH Mie, Wek) Baio). Patch (AO) jae) sBisesha 6A.G., pp. 56-58, esp. 57.

7P.O., pp. 416-420.

A.G., pp. 47, 67-74.

conciliorum oecumenicorum,

Mansi,

IV, 1361D;

Schwartz,

Acta

|, 1, 7, 105.

&Mansi, V, 308E; Schwartz, I, 1, 4, 19. P.G. 77, 180D. 9Ibid., A.G., pp. 73-74. P.O., pp. 416-417. 10Mansi, VII, 190C; Schwartz, II, 11 (322/3) 126-7.

'\[bid., Also A.G., pp. 76-77. P.O., pp. 418-419. Mansi, VII, 118; P.G. 102, 364-365. Act. IV; Mansi, XI, 236D, 289A. Cf. A.G., pp. 82-83. 134.G., pp. 82-83. 144.G., pp. 66-87. Cf. P.O., p. 451. '5,4.G., p.85. Acta Latina, pp. 73, n. 1,45. Syr., VI, § 31, p. 330. Cf. Amiroutzes, p.

83. l6Syr., VI, pp. 330, 332. Cf. V. Grumel, “Saint Thomas et la doctrine des Grecs sur

la procession du Saint-Esprit”, in Echos d’ Orient (from now c. as E.O.), 25 (1926), 257-280. It is interesting to note that, neither the A.G., pp. 85-87 nor the Acta Latina, p. 45 mention the remark of Plethon.

P.O, p. 417. '8Cf, Mansi VII, 107f. Hefele, Histoire de Conciles, v. 2, 467f. Cf. Bessarion, De

Spiritus Sancti processione, ed. E. Candal (Rome, 1961), pp. 31-32.

9Syr., VI, § 41, p. 338. 2Ibid. 21Cf. A.G., p. 136. Syr., VI, § 41, p. 338. 2,4.G., pp. 57-58, 205-206. 23.4.G., pp. 92-95, 102, 105, 110-137, 142. Cf. Syr., V1, 41, p. 338. 4P.O., p. 416. Cf. Amiroutzes, pp. 83-85, 88-92. S. Runciman, 7he Eastern Schism.

Oxford, 1955, pp. 32, 109, 161f. Cf. A.G., p. 136. See also Ouevres completes de Georges Scholarios, edited by L. Petit, X.A. Sideéridés, M. Jugie, 8 vols., Paris, 1928-1936 (from now c. as Scholarios),

esp. v. II, pp. 13, 15; III, pp. 78, 167-168.

6A.G., pp. 250f., 339-363, 364-396. Spr., VIII, § 5, p. 394. 214.G., pp. 205-206. *Syr, IX, § 10, pp. 444f. Cf. A.G., p. 205; Scholarios v. Ill, pp. 167-8.

»P.O., pp. 388, 393, 405-407, 408-409, 412, 413. 0

P.O., pp. 393, 401,. 407-408, 413, 439.

3! P.O., pp. 383, 407, 409. %P.O., pp. 373, 392-93, 404. A.G., pp. 368-69. Cf. J. Quasten, Patrology, v. M1,

Westminster, MD, 1960, pp. 75, 139, 288, 305, 382, 417, 508. 3P.O., pp. 372, 387, 392-93, 397-98, 400-401, 436-37. 4.G., pp. 374-75. 4 P.O., pp. 373, 384-85, 388-89, 408. P.O., p. 400. Aristotle, Hepr puoixs akpodoews, bks. V and IX, ch. 4, § 8.

36A.G., pp. 266-95, 313-14, 393-98. Montenero’s philosophical argumentatio was, of

Endnotes

239

course, influenced by the scholastic theology of Thomas Aquinas, which sprang forth from the revival of Aristotelian philosophy. Cf. R.P.H.-F. Dondaine, “La theologie Latine de la procession du Saint Esprit”, in Russie et Chretienté (Juliet-Decembre,

1950), no. 3-4, pp. 211, 212.

Photius, Mystagogia, P.G. 102, 280-391. 3 P._O., pp. 384-85, 389, 393, 400-401, 439. » P.O., pp. 386-7, 398, 393, 439. Cf. Photius, Mysragogia, P.G. 102, 280-391. P_O., pp. 376, 386, 393, 398, 413. 41 P_O., pp. 384-86, 412-13. 2P.O., pp. 376, 438-39. 3P.O., pp. 383, 439. 4

P.O., pp. 370-71, 380-81, 408, 437-38. Syr., VIII, § 31, p. 418; IX, § 19, pp. 452,

454. Cf. Bessarion,

De Spiritus,

pp. 23-24, 43, 45, 48, 50f, 80-82.

Bessarion also

identifies ousia and hypostasis in the Holy Trinity. Therefore, according to him, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son wvarkas and vroorarikas and the Son is cause, ait.os, of the Holy Spirit’s hypostasis: De Spiritus, pp. 52-53, 55. 45Cf. Syr. VITIT, § 37, p. 424.

4

P.O., pp. 406f.

47 P.O., pp. 389, 438. 48 P.O., pp. 380-81, 389-90. 49

P.O., pp. 437-8. Cf. Syr., VIII, § 31, p. 418; LX,§ 10, p. 444. Scholarios v. ll, pp. 6,

21f., 27, 29, 460-81, 494. 504.G., pp. 390-91, 352. 514.G., pp. 393-97.

32

P.O., pp. 445-46.

3Syr., X, § 9, p. 484; VII, § 22, p. 372; § 23, p. 374. A.G., p. 403. P.O., p. 446. 54

P.O., pp. 446, 448. A.G., p. 393.

5sPhotius, Mystagogia, P.G. 102, 280-391. SeSaint Basil, Epist. de discrimine essentiae et hypostasis ad Gregorium fratrem, n.

4, P.G. 32, 136BC, 152B; 399C; epist. 43, P.G. 32, 329C; 29, 517A (Lib. 1 contra Eunom.); 31, 609AB, 612BC, 616C; 32, 549C; 29, 333B, 772C. 57 P.G. 45, 369A, 133BC, 336BC, 369A, 416B, 464C, 17B; 46, 1105C. 58

PG. 77, 180D, 1136D, 177C, 316C; 76, 433BC, 533B, 556C, 584-585; 68, 148A.

399 P.G. 91, 136A; 90, 672C, 1180A, 884C. 60 PG, 36, 77B, 76B, 140BC, 180B, 252A, 467A, 149A, 249A, 441B, 633C, 328D, 348, 476B; 35, 1072C, 1073A, 1220B, 1221B. 51 P.G, 94, 805B, 816, 817C, 821C, 824A, 849AB, 832B-833A, 829A; 95, 60D; 96, 605B.

Section 4 1Saint John of Damascus,

De Imag. Orat. 1, PG 94, 1252B. Cf. Ibid., col. 1232.

2Saint John of Damascus, Homily on Transfiguration. PG 96, SS6AB.

240

Endnotes

3PG 96, 556C. Cf. In Epist. ad Eph. 5, 25-28. PG 95, 849D. 852AB. 4PG 96, SS6ABE. SHomily in Sabbatum Sanctum, 34. PG 96, 637BC. 641D. 644AB. Cf. De Hymno Trisagio, 1. PG95, 21A: “Xapaxrnpiley yap otdev 1) pos Tov TANOLov ayamn TOV pos Oeov Cowra”.

6PG 96, 640CD. 7De Sacris Teiuniis. PG 95, 65C.

8 De Imag. Orat. 1, 3. PG 94, 1233D; Contra Jacobitas, 1, col. 1436BC. 9]Tbid., 1, 2, col. 1232-1233. Cant. IV, 7. Ibid., I, 41, col. 1356CDf. De Sacris leiuniis, 2, PG 95, 61.65-68. '12There was a debate between certain monks pretending to the Easter Lent as a

Lent of eight weeks (incl. Holy Week), and other ones who shortened its duration to seven weeks. This disputation continued for a long time. Saint John of Damascus compares it with angry floods of a sea. De Sacr. leiun., 3, 6, 68AB. 72C. 13 Jbid., 3, 6, col. 68AB. 72C. '4De Imag. Orat. 1. PG 94, 1257C. Cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 38. 'SDe Imag. Orat. 1,2. PG 94, 1232-1233 ABf.

'6Jbid., I, 12, col. 1296-1297 ABf. Comp. ibid., col. 1280-81AB. '7[bid., 1, 1280-81 AB. '8Jbid., I, col. 1285Df. '9Tbid., 1, col. 1280-81 AB. 20 De Fide Orthodoxa, |. PG 94, 792AB.

21 De Imag. Orat. 1, 2. PG 94, 1232-33ABf. 22Ibid., Il, col. 1304A. 23 Jbid., 1, col. 1280-81 AB. 4Tbid., 1, 2, col. 1232-33 ABf. 5 Tbid., 1, col. 1284A. 26 De Fide Orthodoxa, |, 1V, c. X1. PG 94, 1128Af.; cf. IV, 16. De Imag. Orat. 1, 23;

II, 16, col. 1280-81. 27 De Imag. Orat. 1, 23. PG 94, 1280-81AB. II, 16, col. 1301CD; 1, 2, col. 123233AB. Cf. ibid., col. 1256f.; Saint Basil’s to Amphilochius, De Spir. San., ch. 27, PG 32, 67-281. De Imag. Orat., Il, 4, col. 1304A. Comp. De Fide Orthodoxa 4, 10, PG 94, 1125-1128 Af. 28 De Imag. Orat., 1, 2. PG 94, 1232-1233 ABf. 29 [bid., col. 1280-1281 AB. 30 [bid.

3 Jbid., 1, 2, col. 1232-33ABf. 32De Imag. Orat. Ill. PG 94, 1357BC; Ibid., 1, col. 1280-81 AB. 3Jbid., col. 1357BC. 34 Jbid., 1, 2, col. 1232-33 ABE. Comp. ibid., 11, 12, col. 1297 ABf. S]bid., Il, 6, col. 1288C; cf. Orar. II, 41, col. 1456CD.

Endnotes

241

3¢Declaratio Fidei, 12. PG 95, 436; De Imag. Orat. 1, PG 94, 1280-81 AB. 37 De Haeresibus L. 6. PG 94, 744AB.

8 De Imag. Orat. ll, 16. PG 94, 1304A; /bid., Il, 12, col. 1296-97. Cf. Orat. 1, col. 1281.

*{bid., 1, col. 1281 AB; IL, 12, col. 1296; II, 16, col. 1301.1304A. #Tbid., Il, 12. PG 94. 1296-97 ABf. ‘\]bid., De

Fide Orthodoxa,

1, 3. PG 94, 783Cf.

Comp.

De Imag. Orat. \1, 12, col.

1296-97AB; Orat. I, col. 1280-81AB. 43 De Imag. Orat. Ill, col. 1352-53A. 4 De Haeresibus L. PG 94, 733D.

45 Epist. ad Cosmam.

PG 94, 524BC.

4 De Sacris leiuniis, PG 95, 68 AB. 47 De Imag. Orat. Ill. PG 94, 1352-53A. Comp. De Haeres., 100, Ibid., col. 764A.

48Mt. 28:20. 4 Fragmentum in Matthaeum, PG 96, 1412D. 50Saint Nicholas Cabasilas, Divinae Liturgiae Interpr. 37-38, PG 150, 452-453. 51Cf. Saint John of Damascus, /n Sabb. Sanc., PG 96, 637C-649 AB; De F. Orth. 4, 13. PG 94, 1149AB. Saint Nicholas Cabasilas, Div. Lit. Int., ch. 38. PG 150, 452C453AB. Cf. ch. 36, 448-449 AB.

si

[bid.,

S2Saint Nicholas Cabasilas, Div. Lit. Int., ch. 37, 452C; cf. 30, 436BC. 533[bid., ch. 30. PG 150, 436BCf.; cf. ch. 18, col. 499BC.

54Cabasilas, De Vita in Christo, 1V, 596CDf.

3S Tbid., ch. 18, 409BC. 56 Div. Lit. Int., ch. 1. PG 150, 369. 57V]. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, London, 1957, p. 175.

58Cabasilas, De Vita in Christo, \V. PG 150, 617AB. Comp. Div. Lit. Int., ch. 37. PG 150, 452AB. 59 De Vita in Christo, bk. V. PG 150, 628D, 629Df., 635-637. ® De Vita in Christo, V. PG 150, 628Df., 629DF, 635-637. 6\ [bid., V. 629Df. 82 [bid. 63 [bid., V, 636BCE. 64[bid., 1, 516Df, 517AB. II, 560CD. 65 [hid., 11, 560CD. IV, 672D. 677ABC. 680Af. VII, 693Df. 700Df. 720AB. % [bid., 1, SOSBC, SO8AB. V1, 560CD. 67Jbid., Il, 560CD. 573AB.

VI, 627D. 677ABC.

680Af. VII, 693Df. 700Df. 720AB.

68Cabasilas, Div. Lit. Int., ch. 38, 452-453AB; ch. 20, 412413A. 69 Div. Lit. Int., ch. 36, 448-449 AB.

III,

242

Endnotes

PG

150, 457B-485A. 71See my study “Mark Eugenicus on Purgatorium”, in Byzantinoslavica, 37 (1976), Fasc. 2, pp. 194-200; and in my book Greek Patristic Theology, vol. |. NY: EO Press,

1979, 57-63. ?V1. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 186. See also my article on Cyril Loukaris in The Patristic and Byzantine Review vol. 8/2 (1989), pp. 85-99, espec. pp. 97-99.

BCabasilas, Div. Lit. Int., ch. 43, 461CD. 14[bid., ch. 10. PG 150, 388CD. 75 De Vita in Christo, \V, 593Df.

16 [bid., 1V, 593Df. S96AB.

Section 5 'See the word *Muornpcov”, in Greek Lexicon, E.A. Sophocles, p. 774.

2De Cor. Mil., W, PL. 2, WIC. 3] Tim. 3:6. Eph. 1:9; 3:3 and 9; 5, 32. Col. 1:27. Mt. 13:11, ete.

4 Adv. Marc., 2, 27. PL. 2, 11.345AB. SAdy. Jud., 10. PL. 2, 11, 666AB. 6Cypr. epist. 73. PL. 4, 425BC. Comp. V. 3, 1I58BC. 7Homily 7, on | Cor., PG 61, 55. 8 De Spir. Sanc., 15.

9In Johan., 80. PL. 35, 1840-43f. In Psalm., 73. PL. 36-37, 931, and elsewhere. 10 Epist. 55, ad Inquisitiones Januarii. PL. 33, 205. Comp. Sermo 272.

WP

89S 2253.

'2De Fide Orthodoxa, ch. 90. PG 94, 1176A; In Sabb. Sancium,, ch. 33. PG 96, 636C; De Imag. Orat., 1, 15, PG 94, 1244C; Hom. on the Transfiguration, 10. PG 96, 560D. 561A; Hom. on Dormition of Virgin, Il, ch. 9. PG 96, 736B. '3De Fide Orthodoxa, 72. PG 94, 1100B; In Sabb. Sanctum, ch. |. PG 96, 601B; De Fide Orthodoxa, ch. 56. PG 94, 1029C; De Haeres., ch. 83. PG 94, 744B; Tomos to

the Bishop ... Jacobitis. PG 94, 1452; Philos. Chapters, 65. PG 94, 664A; Contra Acephalous. PG 95, 120D; De Haeres. PG 94, 744A; De S. leuiin. PG 95, 65D. '4De Fide Orthodoxa, ch. 82. PG 94, 1124B; Hom. on the Transf. PG 96, 557C. '5 De Haeresibus. PG 94, 736A; De Fide Orthodoxa, ch. 85. PG 94, 1133B; Peri ton

en pistei kekoimemenon, ch. 3. PG 95, 249B. '6In Sabbatum 601C.

Sanctum, ch. 25. PG 96, 625A; Ibid., col. 624C: Ibid., ch. 2, col.

'7Orat. I, in Dormition of Virgin, ch. 4. PG, 96, 705A; Ibid., 705C; Ibid., ch. 8, col. 712A; Ibid., ch. 10, col. 716A; Or. I1in Dormition of Virgin, ch. 18. PG 96, 761B. Or. IIT in Dormition of Virgin, ch. 5. PG 96, 761B. '8See

M. Jugie, art. in DTC

8.1 (1947), 74245.

The Sacraments;

J. Tixeront,

History of Dogma, 3 (St. Louis, 1926), 459-493; J. De Groot, Conspect. Hist. Dogma, 2 (Rome, 1931), 379-383. '9 De Fide Orthodoxa, 4,9. PG 94, 1117B-1125B.

Endnotes

243

0 [bid., 4, 13, 1136C-1153C. *l[bid., 4, 9, 1121C; the word

character of Baptism.

seal (sphraghis), perhaps expresses the indelible

22 Ibid., 4,9, 1121B. 23 PG 9S, 852ABF. *4De Fide Orthodoxa, 4, 13. PG94, 1141B-1144A. >See K. Bornhauser, Die Vergottungslehre (Gutersloch 1903), 56ff.

Col. 2:12. 2’ De Fide Orthodoxa, 4,9. PG 94, 1120BC. And the H. Trinity-De Hym. Trisag.

PG 95, 32CD. 8 Tbid., 4,9. 1117B-1120B; see Heb. 6, 4ff. 9 Tbid., 4, 13, 1140A. 30[bid., 1120A; see De Imag. Orat. 1, 23. PG 94, 1256C; 2, 16, 1301D. 31Mt. 28:19; see De F. Orth., 4, 9, 1120C.

32 De Fide Orthodoxa, 4,9, 1121D. 33/bid., 1120AB. 34Rom. 6:3. 35 De Fide Orthodoxa, 4,9. PG 94, 1120BC.

36 [hid. 37 De Fide Orthodoxa, 4,9, col. 1120AB.

38Jn Epist. ad Eph., 5, 25-28. PG 95, 849D. 39 De Fide Orthodoxa,

1121 A; see also PG 95, 849D.

4 Tbid., 4, 13. PG 94, 1141B-1144A. 41 [bid., 4,9, 1125B; 4, 13, 1141B. Saint John Damascene considers the anointment with oil as a part of the whole ceremony of Baptism. He says that through it Man receives the mercy of God: “T6 @Aa.ov Barriopate TAPAAGPBAVETAL UNVUOV THY XPLOLY yua@v Ka XpLaTtous Nuas eoyalopevov, Kat TOV Tov Oeov hyiv emayyedAOpEvov da Tov a&yiov mvevpartos e\eov” (De Fide Orthodoxa, ch. 82. PG 94, 1125B). “Kat domep érirov® Barrrvoparos, éredn Gol avpwrol Warr AovecPar Kai Aaiw Xprecbar, auvelevée TH EXaiw kar VOaTL THY Xap TOU mvEevpaToS Kat erornoev atvTO ovTpOV Avayevynoews” (De Fide

Orthodoxa, ch. 86. PG 94, 1141B). As it is shown from the above two passages Chrism or Confirmation with oil after the Baptism, is an indispensable act. 42See J. Tixeront,

Hist. of Dogma,

3 (St. Louis,

1926) refers to Confirmation;

likewise M. Jugie, art. cit. in DTC 8.1 (1947), 742; D. Stiefenhofer, “Des Johannes von Damaskus Genaue Darlegung des orthodoxen Glaubens” in BKV 44 (2nd ed.,

Munich-Kempten 1923)—General Introd. VI, 201, note 5, applies it to the baptismal

ceremony; J. De Groot, Conspectus Historiae Dogmatum ab aetate licorum usque ad saec. XII. 2 (Rome 1931), 383, leaves it undecided.

De

Fide Orthodoxa, 4, 13. PG, 94 1141B-1144A.

44Tbid., 4,9, 1123C-1125B. 45 Tbid., col. 1125A.

PP. aposto-

244

~=Endnotes

46 Tbid.,

1124-25A.

47See Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. on the “Holy Lights” (Eis ta Hagia Phota), 39,

17. PG 36, 356A; Origen, Hom. in Leviticum, 2,4. PG 12, 417.

48 De Fide Orthodoxa, PG 94, 1124-1125A. 9 Tbid., 4,9. PG 94, 1121CD. 30De Fide Orthodoxa, 4, 9, 1117B. 4, 25, 1213CD.

s\Jbid., 4, 10, 1128B. Comp. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orar. 40. PG 36, 360-361. 2Jbid., 4,9. 1121C. Cf. Saint John Chrysostom, Hom.

14, 3 on the Acts: PG 60,

285. And Saint Basil the Great, Hom. 13, 5: PG 31, 433. 33Jbid., 4,9, 1121 ABC; 4, 13, 1137-1140AB; see Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 40, 8; PG 36, 368AB.

54]bid., 4,9,

1125AB.

55 Disput. Sarac. et Christiani. PG 94, 1340BCff. 5Nicholas Cabasilas, De Vita in Christo, 1V, 605AB; cf. 608ABf.

s7Saint John Chrysostom, in Ep. 2 Cor., Hom. Vil; PG 10, 448; De Vita in Christo,

II, 564A-C. 58 De Vita in Christo, Il, 521Cf; Ill, 573CDf, 577CDf,

569 Af.

9Tbid., 111, 569BC. Cf. P. Menevisoglou, To Hagion Myron en te Orthodoxo Anatoliki Ekklesia, Thessaloniki 1972. Also see E. Stephanou, Chrismation: The Hidden Sacrament, Destin, FL 1988.

60L. A. Molien, La priere de |’ Eglise, Paris 1924, Il, p. 370. 61W. Gass, Die Mystik des Nikolaus Cabasilas vom Leben in Christo, Greifswald

1849, p. 124. 62See E. Stephanou, op. cit., pp. 54-59. 63See my book (S.T. M. thesis, Harvard Divinity School, 1962), The Liturgical and Mystical Theology of Nicolas Cabasilas, Athens 1976, and third printing (NY 1986).

See Saint Cyril of Jerusalem in PG 33, 1089.

65 De Fide Orthodoxa, \V, 13. PG 94, 1141B-1144A; comp. ibid., 4, 9, col. 1125B. See Catechesis 21 or Ill Mystagogical Catechesis: PG 33, 1092. Cf. the English trans. of Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press (1989).

67 PG 75, 24-656; 657-1189. S8Cf. the art. of P. Mahe, in the Revue d’ histoire ecclesique, 1909, p. 467ff. Cf. the art. of A. Kavanagh on “The origins and reform of Confirmation”, in Saint Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, vol. 33, No. | (1989), 5-20. ” De Vita in Christo, 1, 572CD; Il, 544BC; cf. 1 Cor. 15:26, 50. 1| De Vita in Christo, 11, 524CD.

2[bid., 532AB. BIbid., 1, SO4ABF. 14 Ibid. 75 Revue d’ ascetique et de Mystique, Ml (1922), p. 33.

16 De Vita in Christo, I, 521Cf. 11 De Vita in Christo, Il, 573AB; comp. ibid., 569AB; IV, 581 AB.

Endnotes

245

®BIbid., Wl, 573 AB. 9 Ibid., 1, 516-517A; U1, 569A Bf., 573CDf.; Il, 529Df. 80Cf. Didymos of Alexandria, On Trinity Il, 15: PG 39, 720. 81 De Vita in Christo, \11, 576Bf. *2In the Duchesne according anointing Sacrament

Eastern Church, this substitution—approximately in 200, according to L. (Origines du Culte Chretien, Paris 1889, p. 321), only partial in the West to which the bishop lays his hands on the confirmed Christian—is general: only in the Myron and imposition of hands (cheirotonia) only in the of Priesthood.

83 De Vita in Christo, Ill, 569 ABf.

84 Divinae Liturgiae interpretatio, ch. 12, 393BC.

85/bid. In the Roman consecration.

Catholic

rite, the head of a bishop is anointed at his

86 De Vita in Christo, V, 635-637; comp. ibid., 11, 529D. 532A.

87Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, De Eccl. Hierarch., ch. 3-4: PG 3. 88 Divinae Liturgiae interpretatio, ch. 29, PG 150, 429Cf.

Section 5, C 'Saint John the theologian first used it as an adjective, Kyriake hemera (Dominica dies): Rev. 1:10.

2Pliny, Letter to Trajan, X, 97. 3Barnabas, Epist. XV.

4Saint Ignatius, Ad Magnes. IX. SSaint Justin Martyr, Apology I, \xvii: PG 6, 429B.

6Cp. Constitutions, Book V, ch. 19. PG 1, 892-893. 7 Didache X\V.

8Ibid., comp. Mt. 5:23, 24. 9Malach. I, 11, 14. Comp. I Cor 11:5, 14, 33. Apology I, \xvii, PG 6, 429BC: “éon dtvayis adra”, quantum potest, quantum facultatis eius est. !2Justin, Apol. Ixvii, PG 6, 429BC.

13 Dialogue, 116. 4G. Dix, The Shape of Liturgy, 1954, p. 100. 'SApology I, 13.

\6 Jbid. 66. PG 6, 428ABf.; 429BC. Ibid. PG 6, 429BCf. \8 Apostolic Tradition. ch. IV ii.

'9J Cor 11:20. 20Apostolic Tradition. ch. XXVI, 11.

21Rom 7:3; compare Smyrnaeans 7, |. In Smyrnaeans 8, 1-2, the words are perhaps distinguished.

246

Endnotes

2Osterley, W. Jewish Background of the Christian Sacraments. Oxford 1925, p.

204. 231 Cor 11:20; 14:23; cf. Acts 1:15; 2:1, 44; 3:1; 4:26. Ign., Ad Ephes. V, 3; cf. XII, 1. Ad Magnes. IV, 1, VII, 1. Ad Trail. III, 1. 24Ad Polyc. IV, 2; Ad Trall. PG 5, 780B; cf. James 2:2. Hermas, Mand. 9, 11, 13, 14.

2S]gnatius, Ad Ephes. V, 2. PG 5, 736BC, Ad Trall. V\l, 2. PG 5, 785BC. Ad Magnes, VII, 2. Ad Philad. 1V; cf. Rom 4:2.

26Ad Ephes. XX, 2, Ad Trall. 11, 1. VIII, 1. Ad Rom. VII, 3. Ad Philad. tit. Smyrna 1, 1; V1, 1: VIL, 1; XIL, 2.

27Ignatius. Ad Polyc. V, 2. 284d Philad. VII, 2; cf. 2 Clem. XIV, 3; also Rev 14:4, but without this basis. 29 Ad Magnes. V1, 2. Ad Ephes. XVII, 1. Ad Philad. 1X, 2. Ad Polve. 11, 3.

30 Ad Ephes. X\, 1. Ad Magnes. X\1. Ad Ephes. 1X, 2; XV, 3.

314d Ephes, X, 3. Ad Trall. 1,2. Ad Rom. V1, 3. 32Ad Ephes. Vill, 2; 1X, 2; XIV, 2; PG 5, 748B. 33Ad Ephes. XIV, 1; IX, 1; XX, 1; Ad Smyrn. V1, 1; PG 5, 748B. 344d Trall. VII, 1; Ad Rom. VII, 3; Ad Philad. tit. Smyrn.

1, 1.

35] John, 4:16. John, 17:26; 6:56. 36Ephes. 4:3.

37Cfl I Cor 10217. 38 Ad Ephes. XX, 2.

39Jer 9:30. Ezek 34:37, etc. 40Cf. 1 Pet 2:9. Compare also the remark of Harnack that “before the Church had any Theology, the agreement between the Old Testament and the historic facts upon which the new society was founded was almost the only theme to be considered”, quoted by Lukyn Williams, Dialogue with Trypho, Introd., p. XX. 41] Clement 44. 4, Didache XV. 1.

# Apostolic Tradition, chapter IV. 3. @B]bid., 4. 44Ad Philad. V, 2; cf. Ad Smyrn. VIII, 2.

45Ad Magnes. V1, 1. Ad Trail. Ill, 1. PG 5, 730AB; 785BC. 46Ad Polyc. V, 2. Ad Ephes. Ml, 2; V1, 1. Ad Magnes. Ill, 2. Ad Smyrn. VII, 1-2. 4™ Apev TOU emLoKOTTOL, pNde mpEecBUTEpos, puNde Siakovos, pNde AaiKOS ... Ad Magnes. III, 1. Ad Ephes. 1V. 1. Ad Trall. X\1, 2. Ad Magnes. ll. PG 5, 763AB:

764-65A; 780A.

48 Ad Smyrn. VIL, 1-2, PG 5, 852AB. Compare Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 1V, 2; constitutions VIII, XII, 4.

304d Philad. \V. PG 5, 821 Cf. 5\Ad Magnes. VI, 1-7, 2; XII, 1-2. Ad Trall. Vl. Ad Philad. I, 2; VII, 1; Ad Smyrn. V, 3; IX, 1; cf. Ephes. 10, 1-2. 2J. Lightfoot. The Apostolic Fathers. 1956. p. 16, 129.

Endnotes

247

3 Apology I. PG 5, 429BCf. 544d Epes. XXIII, I-2. PG 5, 745Cf. 55 Apostolic Tradition XXXV, 2.

5¢/bid., compare ch. XXV. 2 and the “stations” of Tertullian. 57 Apostolic Tradition,

XX XV, 2-3.

8 Tbid., XVII, 1-2, “O7t ody 6 xpovos.a AAA *d TPOTOS KpLVETaL.

S9Tbid., XVIII, 14. 60.4 postolic Tradition. X1X, 1. $0 diddoKwy ef kad NaiKkos Furectros Se Tov AO-vyou KQt TOV TpOTrOY GELVOS SLdacKeTW “€oovTat yap TaVTES OLdakTOL Oeod”.

61 [bid., V-VI1.

©2bid., Chapter XXVI. 63 4postolic Tradition. Il, 5.

64Tbid. 6SJbid., XXVIII; comp. p. 128.

Didache XIII. J. Lightfoot. The Apostolic Fathers, 1956,

66Apostolic Tradition. XXVIII, 2.

67 [bid., V. 68 Jbid., VI. 69Mk 6:13. James 5:14. 10 Apostolic Tradition. V, 1-2. 11 Apostolic Tradition. 1V, 11-12.

2G. Dix, The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of Saint Hippolytus of Rome,

London, 1935, pp. 8-9. 3G. Dix, The Shape ofthe Liturgy, 1954. p. 162. 14 Apostolic Tradition. IV, 4-9.

5 Tbid., 1V, 12. 76Jenatius. Ad Smyrn. VII, 1, etc., and Didache IX, 1, 5, are the earliest instances. Cp Justin. Apol. 1; PG 6, 428ABf.

17 Apostolic Tradition. IV, 3.

® Ibid., IV, 3. Tbid., X, 3-5. 80 Apostolic Tradition. IV, 3, 12. 81Compare, e.g. Constitutions VII, 33-38.

82Jbid., VU, 3, 35. 83 Jbid., VII, 12, 27. 841 Cor 10:3; Jn 6:63.

85 Adv. Haer. IV, 15, 4-5; 1, 2, 13. 86 Apostolic Tradition. XXXII, 2.

87 Ibid., 3. 88 Apology I. PG 6, 428-29. 89Justin I. PG 6, 428ABf.

248

Endnotes

% Apostolic Tradition. XXIII, 7. 9! Apostolic Tradition. XXIII.

2Jbid., XXill. G. Dix, The Treatise on the Apostolic Tradition of Saint Hippolytus of Rome, London, 1937, p. 40.

93 Didache 1X, 5, Justin. Apology I; PG 6, 428Bf. Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition.

XXVI, 5; XXIII, 14. 94 Apology I, chapter Ixvi; PG 6, 428Bf. 95 Adv. Haer. IV, 5, 18.

961 Cor 14:29, 31. 97 Didache. chapter X, 7. % Apology, |. c. Ixvii. Cp. Apostolic Tradition. X, 4. 9 Apostolic Tradition. IV, 8.

Section 5, IV ! De Fide Orthodoxa, 4, 13. PG 94, 1153AB. De Imag. Orat. III, 26. PG 94, 1348. Cf. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. Mystag. 1, 3, 4: PG 33, 1097, 1100. Saint John Chrysostom, Hom. 24 to | Cor.: PG 61, 200. 2De Fide Orthodoxa; PG 94, 1149BCf.

3On the holy body of Communion:

PG 95, 405AB.

4De Fide Orthodoxa, 4, 13. PG 94, 1149BCf.

SIbid., \144A-1145AP. 6Jbid., 1137BCD, 1145A. TIbid., 4, 13, \!4041AB. 8Jbid., 4, 13, 1141, 1144, Prayer: PG 90, 877.

L149A Bf. Cf. Saint Maximus

Confessor, On the Lord’s

2On the holy body of Communion: PG 95, 409BCD.

'0De Imag. Orat. IIT, 26. PG 94, 1348AB. "Ybid., I, 26, 1348ABC; comp. On the holy body of Communion: PG 95, 408 ABE.

2[bid. Cf. Saint John Chrysostom, Hom. 1, 6 on “the betrayal of Judas”: PG 49, 380. J. Harduin, Acta Conciliorum

1V, 369, 372 for a relevant statement

of the Seventh

Ecumenical Synod. Cf. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Hom. on Mt. 26:26, PG 66, 713. And John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa 4, 13: PG 94, 114If.

'4Gregory Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy (London, 1947), p. 293.

Div. Lit. Int., Ch. 30, 436CD: Christ is “Himself both priest and altar and sacrifice,” Ch. 49, 477BC: The Lord “may be spoken of as the offerer and the offering and the recipient of the offering;” Ch. 43, 460-461 AB: “The eternal priest (Christ);” Ch. 30, 437CD: Why is it that in order to consecrate the gifts, the priest does not invoke the Son (of God) who is both priest and sanctifier, as has been said but he invokes the Father...” (to whom the whole Anaphora is addressed, Ch. 49, 477Df.

Or as the Liturgy of Saint Basil expresses it: “Thou, O Christ, art He that offers the sacrifice and Thou art the offering.” 16 Div. Lit. Int., Ch. 37, 452ABf.; Ch. 26, 424BC.

Endnotes

249

'1[bid., Ch. 28, 428BC; Ch. 29, 452AB; Ch. 27, 425B-Df. '8Ibid., col. 425B-Df, comp. Ch. 16, 404BC. "De Fide Orthodoxa, 4, 13. PG 94, 1140-1141AB; comp. In sabb. Sanc., PG 96,

637-640 AB.

20In his article, “Nicolas Cabasilas: An Exposition ofthe Divine Liturgy”, in Studia Patristica, Vol. 1 (1957), p. 23. 21Saint John Damascene, De Fide Orthodoxa, 4, 13. PG 94, 1140-1141AB. Cabasilas, Div. Lit. Int., Ch. 27, 425B-Df; Ch. 29, 432AB.

22On the holy body of Communion: PG 95, 408BC. 3 In Sabbatum Sanctum: PG 96, 637-440AB. 24De Fide Orthodoxa, 4, 13. PG 94, 1140-1141 AB.

25 Peri Azymon: PG 95, 392BC; On the holy body of Communion: PG 95, 409CD412A; De Fide Orthodoxa, 4, 13, PG 94, 1152BC.

26See Pohle-Gierens, Lehrb. d. Dogm. 3 (Paderborn 1933), 240f. 27 De Fide Orthodoxa, 4, 13, 1933), 238.

1145A; also see Pohle-Gierens, op. cit., 3 (Paderborn,

28In Sabbatum Sanctum: PG 96, 637C-640AB. 29De Fide Orthodoxa, 4, 13, 1148A.

30]bid., loc. cit., 1148-1149AB; see Pohle-Gierens, op. cit., 3 (Paderborn,

1933),

217f.; 221f. 31“Hodegos”, ch. 23: PG 89, 297CD. 32Catech. Mystagog., 5: PG 33, 1124C.

Elias of Crete, Orat. I.

4Ch. 165. 35Orat. Il, 17. PG 35, 425. 36 De Fide Orthodoxa, 4, 13, 1152C and 1153A; the problem of the “antitypes” is fully discussed by M. Jugie, De Forma Eucharistiae: de Epiclesibus Eucharisticis (Rome 1943), 114-120; see also S. Salaville, “Epiclese Eucharistique”, DTC 5.1 (1939),

245-251. 37PG 94, 1152, 1153C. 38 De Fide Orthodoxa, 4, 13, 1141B-1144A; see A. Deneffe, “Geschichte des Wortes supernaturalis”, in ZKTh 46 (1922), 340.

39 De Fide Orthodoxa, Ch. 86. PG 94, 1149A.

4 [bid., 4, 13, 1148A. 41 Jbid., col. 1149AB. 42[bid.

43/bid., col. 1152AB; Saint John of Damascus emphasizes the reality of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist to such an extent that nothing whatever remains of

the accidents of bread and wine; see M. Jugie, “Jean Damascene”, in DTC, 8.1 (1947),

744. 4On the holy body of Communion: PG 95, 409-412A. 45 Catech. 23, Mystagog. 5, 15: PG 33, 1120B.

4 On the holy body of Communion: PG 95, 408BCf. 409-412A.

250

Endnotes

47 De Fide Orthodoxa, 4, 13, PG 94, 11S2AB. 48 Ibid., 4, 9, 1120-1121 AB. 491 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5. De Fide Orthodoxa, 4, 13, 11S2AB. 50 De Fide Orthodoxa, 4, 13, 1153A; see Eph. 3:6.

5'[bid., col. 1149AB. 52Catech. 23, Mystag. 5, 21-22. PG 33, 1124C-1125. 3 PG 95, 284-304. 54M ystagog. 14. PG 33, 1065-1105. 58 De Sacram., 6. PL 16.

56 De Baptis., 5, 20. PL 32.

57 Apology 1, PG 6, 340, 420-21. 38 De Imag. Orat., 23. PG 94, 1256C. 39[bid., Or. 1. PG 94, 1264AB.

Section 5, D 'For a recent treatment of Saint Symeon’s mystical theology and the early ascetic theology of “Tears” see C.N. Tsirpanlis, Greek Patristic Theology, Vol. 11 (New York 1984), pp. 13-50, and Vol. III (1987, New York), pp. 43-70. 2Saint Athanasius, On Matt. PG 27, 1388.

3Saint Basil: PG 31, 1284. 4Saint John Chrysostom, De penitentia, I11, 1: PG 49, 292.

5Rom. 12:6, 8. 6Acts 20:21. ’For a Patristic treatment of The Origins of Repentance see the book of the same

title by Metropolitan Emilianos Timiadis, Athens 1967 (in Greek). 8Cf. Apostolic canon 68 and 48 (57) canon of the Synod of Carthage.

Section 6 'See Metrophanes Kritopoulos, Confession 17; cf. John Karmiris, The Dogmatic and Symbolic Documents of the Orthodox Catholic Church, volume Il, Athens 1953, p. 551 (in Greek).

*Peter Mogilas, Confession III, 52; cf. John Karmiris, op.cit., 11, 678f. 3Cf. Saint John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa lV, 16: PG 94, 1172: On Images II, 16, 21: PG 94, 1215, 1252, III, 26: PG 94, 1345, 1348 and III, 40, 1356.

4Rom 1:7, 12:13, 15:25, 26; 1 Cor 1:2, 14:33, 16:1, 2 Cor 1:1, 8:4 13:12; Eph 1:1, 15, 3:8; Phil 1:1, 4:21; Col 1:2; 1 Tm 5:10, etc. 5] Pet 2:9f; Exod 19:6.

6Mt 27:52; Rev 5:8, 8:3, 47, 11:18, 14:12, 16:6, 17:6, 18:24. ™Mk 8:38; Lk 9:26; Rev 14:10.

SActs 11:26. %Saint Polycarp’s Martyr. 18.

Endnotes

251

Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Funeral oration on Caesarios 7,2\: PG 35, 781-784.

Saint John Chrysostom, Homily on the Letter to Hebrews 28, 1: PG 63, 192. Saint Basil, PG 30, 556.

"Saint John of Damascus, Contra Manich. 37, 75: PG 94, 1544, 1573. !2Saint John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa 4, 15: PG 94, 1165. Cf, Saint John Chrysostom, Hom. 24 (in 1 Cor.): PG 61, 200. '4This is a strong view of Saint John Damascene especially, De Fide Orthodoxa lV, 13: PG 94, 1141f; cf. Saint Maximus the Confessor, On the Lord’s Prayer: PG 90, 877; Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio Catechetica 37: PG 45, 93-97; Saint John Chrysostom, Hom. 1, 6 (on Juda’s treason): PG 49, 380; and Theodore of Mopsuestia, On Matt. 26:26: PG 66, 713.

Section 7 'Some information about Paul’s life is given in The Desert Fathers by Helen Waddell, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1972, pp. 30, 36-39. 2 Palladius: The Lausiac History trans. by R.T. Meyer and published by Newman Press (New York, 1964), pp. 76-81. 3English trans. with good intr. to The Life of Saint Anthony was published by the Paulist Press (New York, 1980). Another source is the History of the Monks of Egypt (pres. by Rufinus) trans. and pub. by Cistercian/ Publ. (Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1984).

4Augustine’s Confessions VIII, pp. 6-7. 5Palladius’ Dialogue about the Life of Saint John Chrysostom was written in Greek, translated into English by R.T. Meyer & published by Newman Press, Acw 45 (1985). 6The

Life, chronicles,

rules, letters & other writings of Saint

Pachomius

& his

disciples have been trans. and pub. in three Volumes by Cistercian Publications (Kalamazoo, Michigan) under the general title Pachomian Koinonia. The Vita Prima Graeca was ed. and trans. by A.N. Athanassakis, and published by Scholars Press (1975). 7Their Collection is available in English: H. Waddell, The Philokalia in three Volumes now (Boston: Faber & Faber), Benedicta Ward (Cistercian Publications), Norman Russell (Cistercian), E.P. Wheeler (Cistercian).

8 Evagrius Ponticus: Praktikos and Chapters on Prayer, Kalamazoo, Cistercian Publications, 1981.

Michigan:

9John Cassian: Conferences, New York: Paulist Press, 1985. 10 According to O. Chadwick, John Cassian: Conferences, New York: Paulist Press,

1985, p. 31. These letters of Saint Anthony were translated into English by the Rev. Derwas J. Chitty (1901-1971) and published in 1983 by Cistercian Publications & SLG Press, Oxford. 12The best recent studies on Saint Pachomius are the two books by Ph. Rousseau, Pachomius: The Making of aCommunity in Fourth-Century Egypt, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985; and Ascetics, Authority, and the Church, London &

New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.

\3This is the conclusion of most recent scholarship: B.A. Pearson & J.E. Goehring

(eds.), The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986, pp.

277ff.

252

~~ Endnotes

14 Palladius: Lausiac History chapters 32 & 33, pp. 92-96. 1S [hid., ch. 32:1, p. 92.

lelbid., ch. 8, pp. 41-43.

"7 [bid., ch. 17, pp. 54-58. \8English trans. with introduction by G.A. Maloney, S.J., Intoxicated with God, Denville, NJ: Dimension Books, 1978. '9Two long letters of Saint Macarius were recently translated and published by The Holy Transfiguration Monastery of Brookline, MA: The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian, 1984, pp. 451-459. 20English trans. of Dorotheos of Gaza: Discourses And Sayings by E.P. Wheeler, Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publ., 1977.

21A recent English trans. of eighteen poems of Saint Ephraem with intr. by Sebastian Brock was published by the Fellowship of Saint Alban and Saint Sergius (London 1983). Cf. Theodoret of Cyrrhus: A History of the Monks of Syria (Cistercian Publ., 1986).

22An English trans. of Saint Isaac’s 77 Ascetical Homilies with long introductions was recently published by The Holy Transfiguration Monastery of Brookline, MA (same as No. 19). 23For an English trans. of Saint Basil’s Ascetical Works, The Fathers of the Church, 9. New York: The Fathers of the Church, Inc. 1950. For a more recent Basilian scholarship consult the two Volumes of the Sixteen-Hundredth Anniversary Symposium published by the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies (Toronto, 1981).

24Karl Bihlmeyer, Church History, Vol. 1. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoningh, 1958, p. 361.

25J.C. Ayer,

A Source Book for Ancient Church History. New York: AMS Press,

1970, pp. 405-406. 26Cf. Th.L. Campbell (trans. & annot.), Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite: The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1981, p. 10.

27The Divine Names was trans. & publ. by The Shrine of Wisdom, Fintry, Brook. The Mystical Theology & The Celestial Hierarchy by the same publ. 1949 and S.P.C.K. And The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy same as n. 26. 8See Th.L. Campbell, op. cit., pp. 10-11. 29 Dionysius Pseudo-Areop., De Myst. Theol., chap. iii. 30J.O, Hannay, The Spirit and Origin of Christian Monasticism. London: Methuen,

1903, p. 199. 3!There have been three different centres of Hellenic Monasticism. Palestine was the centre from the fifth to the seventh century, because of the wide influence of Saint Sabbas (born in Cappadocia in 439 and died in 531), the founder of the Lavra, or Monastery, still called by his name, on the banks of the Kidron, near the Dead Sea. In

the seventh century Constantinople (Saint Maximus spent more than ten years of hesychastic life in a monastery of Chrysopolis, now Scutari, and in Cyzicus, now Erdek; for Maximus’ ascetic theology & life see Pol. Sherwood, Saint Maximus the Confessor, ACW 21, Newman Press, 1955, and L. Thundberg, Microcosm And Mediator, New York: Saint Vladimir’s Semin. Press, 1986; also G.C. Berthold,

Maximus Confessor: Selected Writings, New York: Paulist Press, 1985) became the centre; and early in the ninth century Monasticism was there reorganized by Saint Theodore,

Abbot

of the Monastery

of the Studium.

But the centre

of Hellenic

Endnotes

253

Monasticism shifted from Constantinople to “the Holy Mountain” (Athos) during the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and it was there again reorganized by Saint Athanasius the Lavriote or Athonite. Cf. in the Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 1, ch. 18, the v. instr. brief sketch of the origin of Monasticism, both Eastern and Western, written by Dom E.C. Butler. *For a brief good account of Athonite Monasticism see N. F. Robinson, Monasticism in the Orthodox Churches, New York: American Review of Eastern Ortho-

doxy, 1964, pp. 8-24; C. Cavarnos, Anchored in God, Athens: “Astir” Publ. Co., 1959; and John E. Rexine, “Mount Athos and Greek Orthodox Orthodox Thought And Life 1/34 (1984), 3-9.

Monasticism” in

The best modern English trans. of John Climacus: The Ladder of Divine Ascent with introduction by K. Ware, New York: Paulist Press, 1982.

MIbid,, p. 8. See C.N. Tsirpanlis, Greek Patristic Theology, Vol. 11, New York 1984, pp. 13-50; G.A. Maloney, The Mystic of Fire and Light, Denville, NJ: Dimension Bks., 1975; idem, Hymns of Divine Love, Denville, NJ n.d.; Symeon the New Theologian: The Discourses, New York: Paulist, 1980; P. McGuckin, Symeon the New Theologian: The Theological and Practical Treatises and the Three Theological Discourses, Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publ., 1985; B. Krivocheine, Jn the Light of Christ, NY: Saint Vladimir’s Semin. Press, 1986.

Chapter V, Section | and 2 'Saint Gregory Eph 4:24.

of Nazianzus,

Oration

162:

NPNF

VII, 247. Cf. 2 Cor 5:17;

2Or. 1615: NPNF VII, 252. Cf. Or. 3919, 359. Or. 407, 361. Letter LX!!, p. 468. 3Letter LXxvI: NPNF VII, p. 461.

4Or. 4362: PG 36, 576CD. Cf. Or. 37. X:NPNF VII, p. 341. 5R.R. Ruether, p. 149.

6Cf. J. Plagnieux, S. Gregoire de Nazianze theologien (Paris, 1952), p. 143ff.

7Cf. Or. 277: NPNF VU, pp. 220-221. Or. 12:1: 8Or. 291:

NPNF VII, p. 245.

NPNF VII, pp. 222-223.

9Or. 295: NPNF VII, pp. 223-224. Or. 718: NPNF VU, p. 235. 'These titles are more fully dealt with in Or. 3017-21.

120r, 298: NPNF VII, p. 224. Cf. Or. 33. XIV, pp. 332-333. Or. 3816, pp. 350-351. 130r, 79: NPNF VII, p. 232. Cf. Or. 2123, p. 270. 14Cf. Or. 37. XIII: NPNF VII, pp. 341-342. 'S[bid. 16 [bid. Gia ly Tim'3-16: 18Or, 125:

NPNF VII, p. 247.

'9Or, 1615: NPNF VII, p. 252. 200r. 1619 and 20: NPNF VII, p. 254. Cf. 33. X: NPNF VII, p. 331. Or. 4031, p. Sh le

254

Endnotes

21The best works in English on the patristic doctrine of Theosis are: V1. Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, London: James Clarke & Co., 1957. P.B. Bilaniuk, “The Mystery of Theosis or Divinization,” in The Heritage of the early Church (in honor of G.V. Florovsky), Roma 1973, pp. 337-359. C.N. Tsirpanlis, The Liturgical and Mystical Theology of Nicolas Cabasilas, New York 1986 (third print.). The most important studies in Greek on the same doctrine are: G.P. Patronos, The Theosis of Man in the Light of the Eschatological Conceptions of Orthodox Theology: A Biblical and Patristic Study, Athens 1981. P.1. Bratsiotis, The Doctrine of the Greek Fathers of the Church on the Theosis of Man, Athens 1971. Pan. Nellas, Zoon Theoumenon: Perspectives for an Orthodox Understanding of Man, Athens 1979. Andr. Theodorou, The Theosis of Man in the Teachings of the Greek Fathers of the Church to John of Damascus, Athens 1956. G.I. Mantzarides, The Teaching of Gregory Palamas regarding the Theosis of Man, Thessalonica 1963. E.D. Moutsoulas,

The Incarnation of the Word and the Theosis of Man according to Gregory of Nyssa, Athens 1965. I should mention also the little book by Archim. Chnstophoros Stavropoulos, Partakers of Divine Nature (trans. by the Rev. Dr. Stanley Harakas, and published by the Light and Life Publishing Co. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 1976), which although intended for the “general membership of our Church” is quite useful and instructive.

22Or, 212:

NPNF VII, p. 270.

3 Ibid., Cf. Or. 1619 and 20: NPNF VII, p. 254. Or. 4031, p. 371. Or. 4045, p. 377. 24 Poiemata de se ipso |: PG 37, pp. 984-985. 25R.R. Ruether, pp. 150-151. Or, 3920: NPNF VII, p. 359. Or. 27: PG 35, 413C-416A. Or. 124: PG 35, 848B. Or. 717: NPNF VII, p. 235. 270r. 169: NPNF VIL, p. 250. OTe (PAs TAG SBE TAKES

29Or. 217: PG 35, 425C; 428A. Cf. Or. 721:

NPNF VII, pp. 236-237. Or. 88: NPNF

VII, p. 240. Or. 16:15: PG 35, 953C. IV Theol. Or. 20: Hardy, p. 192. 0 CfOrn 397: NPNE NVIle p. 354. 31Or, 274: PG 35, 481B. 2 Or, 124: PG 35, 848B. Or. 184: NPNF VII, p. 256. 3 Or, 2817: PG 36, 48C. 4See my study on “The Concept of Universal Salvation in Saint Gregory of Nyssa,” in my book Greek Patristic Theology, vol. 1, New York 1979, pp. 41-56.

5Or. 284: PG 36, 29C, 32A. Or. 2817: PG 36, 48C. 36See my study on “The Unity of Mankind and Ecclesial Koinonia in early Ascetic Theology,” in The Patristic and Byzantine Review, vol. 6/3 (1987), pp. 173-198; also my article on “Praxis and Theoria: The Heart, Love and Light Mysticism in Saint Isaac the Syrian,” in The Patristic and Byzantine Review, vol. 6/2 (1987), pp. 93-120.

“1 Theological Oration: Hardy, p. 129; Or. 239: NPNF VII, p. 213; 398-9, p. 354. 11 Theological Oration: Hardy, p. 147. Cp. 1 Cor 13:12 and Or. 405: NPNF VII,

p. 361. *Tbid., pp. 130-131. Cf. Or. 167: NPNF VII, pp. 249-250; 3910, p. 355. “1 Theological Oration: Hardy, pp. 137, 142. Or. 398: NPNF VII, p. 354. 41 Theological Oration: Hardy, p. 137.

Endnotes

S2bida

255

ps 138:

SE xo7sl2 Corn 12:2:

“4Tbid., p. 139. Cf. Or. 4311: NPNF VII, p. 398. ‘SIbid., pp. 143-144. Cf. Or. 3812:

NPNF VIL, p. 348.

4¢Or. 275 and 76: NPNF VII, p. 220. Cf. Or. 4041, p. 375. 47Or. 211: NPNF VII, pp. 269-270. Or. 405, p. 361. 4 Or. 814: NPNF VII, p. 242. Or. 124, p. 246. Or. 371, p. 338. Or. 37. HI—IV, p. 339.

Or. 3913:

NPNF VII, p. 356. Or. 4045, p. 377. Or. 4361, 64, pp. 415-416. Cf. Saint

Athanasius, On the Incarn., p. 54. III Theological Orat., 19: Hardy, pp. 173-174. Or.

223-24.

5!NPNF VII, pp. 209-210. Or. 3711, p. 338. Or. 387, p. 347. IV Theological Oration, 1: Hardy, p. 177. Or. 225: NPNF VII, p. 210. Or. 33. IX:

NPNF VII, p. 331. Or. 39:13, p. 357.

53Or, 4513, p. 427; 4522, p. 431. 54Or, 387, p. 347. IV Theological Oration, 21: Hardy, p. 192. Or. 723: NPNF VII, p.

237. 551V Theological Oration, 34, 6: Hardy, pp. 178-180. Cf. Or. 722: NPNF VII, p.

237. Or. 406, p. 361. 5¢Or. 4045: NPNF VII, p. 377. 31 [bid., IV Theological Oration, 5: Hardy, p. 179. Or. 37. 1V: NPNF VII, p. 339. Or. 4039, p. 374.

581 Cor 15:28-29. 591V Theological Oration, 6: Hardy, p. 181. Cf. Epist. 102 (to Cledonius): Hardy, p.

226. Or. 408: NPNF VII, p. 362. Or. 4522, p. 431. Cf. Rom 8:26; | Tm 2:5. 611V Theological Oration, 14: Hardy, p. 187.

62 Tbid. 63 [bid., 21: Hardy, p. 193; Heb 13:8. Cf. Or. 33. XIV: NPNF VII, pp. 332-333.

64Or. 273: NPNF VII, 220. Cf. Or. 722-23: NPNF VII, p. 237. Or. 33. XV, p. 333. 65 Or. 3813: NPNF VII, p. 349. 66 Tbid., cp. Or. 407, p. 361.

67Or. 3816, p. 351. 68 [bid. °On this important notion and on Kenosis, in general, see my study on “Aspects of Maximian Theology of Politics, History, and the Kingdom of God” in The Patristic and Byzantine Review, vol. 1/1 (1982) pp. 1-21. Gal 3:28.

Section 3 | Char IV, 77, 78, pp. 204-205. 2Thal 15,297D. Myst 5, 682B, pp. 215-216; 17, 696A, p. 232; 23, 701 ACF, 238, 241; 24, 716A, pp. 244-245.

256

Endnotes

3Char I, 71, p. 147. Cf. PG 90, 1168A, 1392C, LIOLAB, 91, 1144AB, 1281AB, 1308Df., 1357BCf., 1361 ABf. This “punishment” means uneven participation in God’s Grace and Glory according to the degree of each one’s sinfulness: PG 90, 1328Df., 1329BC. Cf. Amb, 1237BCE. 4The “pre-fallen sinlessness’ should be understood in the sense that Adam and Eve were foreign to sensual pleasure (hedone), and pain (/ype, odyne) before they fell. s“dermatinoi hitones” (“garments of skin”) of Gregory of Nyssa whom Saint Maximus follows closely.

6 Pater, 904CD; ThEc 1204B, 1209CD, 1317C, 1392B. 7Amb, 1104B, 1204D. ThEc, 1204D, 1205A, 1212C. Thal, 405C, 413B. Cal, 1457C. For a critical discussion of modern views on “double creation” see my book, Greek Patristic Theology, New York: EO Press, v. 1 (1979), p. 44. Also see the article of 1.H.

Dalmais, “La fonction unificatrice du Verbe...,” in Sciences Eccles ... 14 (1962) pp. 450451 esp.

8J. Boojamra in his article, “Original Sin according to Saint Maximus the Confessor,” Saint Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, 20 (1976) 19-30, has a different opinion

(pp. 28-29) which is contradictory and inconsistent to the treatment of his subject. 9Myst 24, 712BD, p. 245. Thal 61, 640A, 373BC, 376BC, 377AB, PG 90, 836A837A. Myst 23, 701BC, p. 241, Ep 44, 644C-645B. ThEc 1312AB, 1324C. Amb, 1327B, 1237ABf, 1143, 1320BC, 1336ABf, 1346CDf, 1345Df. ThEc, 1364AC. Ep 18, 585CD, 640Cf. Cf. Ep 1, 376B; 12, 468CD. 10 Ep 2, 401B; 244D-245A. Cf. 1.H. Dalmais, art.m., p. 457.

"PG 91, 244D-245A. 2 Th Ec 2, 90, 1168C.; Ibid., 2,69, 1156BC. Myst 10, 689C, p. 225. Cf. Pater, 888C, 893BC. '3Origen: On Matthew

14, 7, PG

13, 1197B. Cf. P. Beskow,

Rex Gloriae:

The

Kingship of Christ in the Early Church. Uppsala, 1962. esp., pp. 219-230.

4ThEc 2, 69, 1156C. Myst 13, 692D, p. 228; 24, 713AB, pp. 244-5, 250. Pater, 905Df.

'5 Pater, 876CDf, 905D. Cf. Lk 22:29; Eph. 5:5; Rev. 11:15; Col. 1:13. '6 Pater, 876CDf., 884BC, 885B, 905Df. ThEc 4, 10, 1308B. Cal 208, 1449C. "Lk 11:2. Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Lord’s Prayer. 3, PG 44, 1157-1160.

ware 237D. Pater, 876CDf., 889CD, 905Df. Jn 1:1-3; Mk 9:1, 10, 15, Mt 4, 17. , 43.

'9 Myst 24, 713AB, pp. 245-247. Cf. Mt 12:28; Lk 11:20; Jn 12:31-32; Mt 3, 2:4, Mk 1:15; Mt 10:7; Lk 10:9, 11; Mk 12, 34; Lk 17:20, 21. The best studies on Kingdom of God as current reality according to Jesus and the New Testament are: Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus. Philadelphia, 1963.:C. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, London, 1935 and Fontana Books, 1963.

17; the N. H.

0 Thal 59, 616B. PG 91, 133BC, 836A-837A. Pater, 905Df. ThEc 2, 16, 1228A; 3, 55, 1284C. Myst 24, 713AB, pp. 249, 252-253; 679CD-688CD, p. 245. Ep 11, 457AC; 9, 445A-448C. LA, 920A, 917BC. *1PG 91, 77BC. Ep 13, 516AC; 12, 468D; 488D-489 AB; 493D. Cf. 91, 205AC. 2 PG 91,77BC. Cf. G. P. Patronos, The Relationship between Present and Future in the Kingdom of God, according to the Eastern Orthodox Theology (in Greek). Athens, 1975, pp. 72-73, 81.

Endnotes

257

3M yst 24, 713AB, pp. 249-250. Ep 44, 645B. Cf. Lk. 12:32; 22:29: Mt. 25:34. *4 Thal 33, 373BC, 376A. Cf. ThEc 2,92, 1169A; 4, 10, 1308AB. PG 91, 725D. Mk. 9:43; 10:17; Mt. 25:34; 7:14; Lk. 18:18-30; Jn. 6, 47. > Pater, 889BC, 905D. Myst 20, 696CD, p. 234; 24, 713C, pp. 252-3; 24, 716B, 257. ThEc4, 10, 1308B. Cal 208, 1449C. Cf. Origen: On Matthew 12:14: BEPES, 13, p. 96, v. 1-20, Jn. 3:5.

6 Thal 59, 616B. Cal 222, 1453B.

LA, 917BC. Ep 9, 445-448C; 25, 613CD; 2, 404A.

Myst 23, 701BC, pp. 238-9; 24, 713AB, pp. 250, 252-3.

27 Myst 23, 701 BC, pp. 239-242; 24, p. 253. Ep 2, 400C. PG 90, 160BC. PG 91, 353D. ThEc 1228A, 1284C. Pater, 877Cf, 889CD. Cf. Jn. 17:2. Th Ec 1129D, 1168D. Cal 1453B. Cf. Cyril of Alexandria: PG 72, 841A. 30 Th Ec 1132A. Cal 1453BC. 31 Th Ec 1129Df, 1132BC, 1360CD. 22 Ibid. 33 Pater 905Df. Ep 44, 645B. Cf. Gregory of Nyssa: On Infants. PG 46, 176A. Gregory of Nazianzus, PG 36, 441.

34 Pater, 889D, 892A. ThEc 2, 92, 1169A; cf. Gal. 2:20. 38 ThEc1133D; cf. 1161D, 1360CD. 36Char IV, 69, 70, 72, p. 203. Myst 24, 713AB, pp. 252-253. 37 Char IV, 82, p. 205. 38 Ibid. 39Cf. Char IV, 83, p. 205; 84, 88, 90, pp. 206-207. “ThEe 1168D. 41 [bid., 1133AB, 1165B. Char IV, 78, p. 205. Ibid. 1133B. 43 Pater 877A. ThEc 1156D. Cf. Char IV, 90, p. 206. 4Thal 373BD, 376AC, 377Df, 624BC, 737CD. LIS7A, 1160CD, 1360CD. Ep 2, 404A.

Amb

1308BC,

1369ABf.

ThEc

45Cf, Oesterley and Box, Religion and Worship of the Synagogue. London, 1911, p. 71. J. Danielou, “Sanctification du Nom et Avénement du Reégne chez les Hebreux”, in Cahiers Bibliques, Vol. XL, pp. 151-152. Id., Théologie du judéochristianisme. Paris : Editions du Seuil, 1958, p. 40f. L. Bouyer, La Spiritualité du N. T. et des Péres. Paris: Aubier, 1966, pp. 22-32.

46 Th Ec 1137D, 1140A. 47 Myst 24, 713B, p. 253. Th Ec 1136C. 49 Ibid. Cf. Myst 5, 676B, pp. 209, 211-2, 215; 24, p. 249. 50 Pater 873CDf. ThEc 1165ABf. 51 Th Ec 1165C; cf. Myst 24, 717A, pp. 244-5, 257. Cal 1449C. 52 Th Ec 1168A. Maximus emphasizes the theosis of human body significantly: Amb

1336AB, 1364CDf; cf. ThEc 1324C. Myst 7, 685ACf, pp. 219-221. Amb

I101BC,

1325AB, 1329CD. And repeatedly and categorically rejects Origen’s doctrine of pre-

existence of both body and soul; Amb |100BDf, 1321 DF, 1324ABf, 1325Df, 1328BCf,

258

Endnotes

1329CDf, 1332AB, 1328AB. Myst 7, 685ACf, pp. 219-220. Against the pre-existence of the body; Amb 1336CDf, 1340-1341. Against the pre-existence of Jesus’ soul and body; Amb 1341BC. 37h Ec 1213D, 1216BC. 54[bid., 1328Df, 1329BC. Cf. Pater 893Df, 896BC, 901CDtf.

55 Pater 905Df. Thal 60, 624BC. Amb

1308BC. Cal 208, 1449C. Cf. | Cor. 4:20.

John Chrysostom: PG 56, 234.

56 Th Ec 2, 87, 1165C. Thal 65, 757D-760. Pater 889BC. Cf. 2 Thess. 1:2; | Thess. 4:13-17. s7See the “pleroma” and “epectasis” doctrine of Gregory of Nyssa in my book, Greek Patristic Theology. New York: EO Press, Vol. 1 (1979), pp. 50-52. 8Cal 208, 1449C. Pater 905Df. Myst 24, 704A. p. 244; 704D, p. 245; 713AB, pp. 249, 252-3, 257. 59Cf. 1 Cor. 10:13; Jn. 18:36. 60Cal 208, 1449 C. Cf. Mt. 22:1-4; 1 Cor. 15:24; Rev. 21, 2:9; 17:22; 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:14.

61 Th Ec 2, 86, 1165AB. Pater 905Df. Cf. Theodoretus of Cyrus: Hom. in | Cor. 15:24, PG 82, 356B. Gregory of Nazianzus: Hom. 30, 4 PG 36, 108B. John Chrysostom: Hom. on Daniel, 7 PG 56, 233 and Cyril of Jerusalem: Cat. 15,27, PG 33, 909, 912. © Pater, 893BC.

Myst 24, 713B, pp. 252, 255. Cf. Eph. 5:5.

631 Cor. 15:24.

64 Thal 65, 757D-760, 737CD. 1385C, 1388A.

Pater 873CDf. Amb

1369ABf. Cf. ThEc 1360CD,

65 Pater 893 Df, 896BC, 901CDf. 6 Pater 872-910, esp. 889BD.

67Amb 1276. Pater 877AB. ThEc 1353A, 1380Bf. Cf. Myst 24, 713AB, p. 257. 68 Pater 877 AC.

6 Thal 54, 520. Pater 873CD, 877BC.

”Thal 27, 360A. ThEc 2, 93, 1169A. Myst 24, 704D-705A, pp. 245-6; 713AB, p. 253; 2, pp. 201-202. Myst 2, 668D, p. 203. ThEc 1, 51, 1101C, 1104B, 110SA. Thal 349ABf; 38, 392AB; 65, 757BCf; 47, 429BC. Amb 1392CDf. Cf Dionysius Areopagite: On the Div. N. 10,3, PG 3, 940A. Saint Basil: Hexa. Il, 31, PG 29, 20A-20B; 52AB. De Spir. S. 27, 66; 32, 192A. Gregory of Nyssa; PG 44, 504D-505A, 608C-609D-612A. Id., De Beatit. 8, 44, 1292AB. John Chrysostom: De Comp. ad Ste. ll, 4, 47, 415-416. Gregory of Nazianus: PG 36, 612C. Irenaeus: PG7, 645B.

® Thal 320D, 321AC, 401 AB, 692A. Amb 1088CD, 1209CD, 1212A. Cf. Thal 317, 621 BC, 625BC, 725CD. Amb 1357BC. 3 Pater 877. Myst 24, 709C, p. 245.

4 Myst 21, 697A, p. 236; 17, 696A, p. 232; 24, 703D-704A, p. 249; 704D-705A, p. 251; 709C, pp. 252-3. 75 Myst 24, 703D-704A, pp. 249-250. 76 Pater 877. Myst 5, 681A, p. 216; 7, 685BC, pp. 220, 222; 8. p. 223. Cf. Nicolas Cabasilas:

De Vita in Christo 4, PG 150, 585B. John of Damascus:

PG 95, 1433C.

Endnotes

259

Also see my books: The Liturgical and Mystical Theology of Nicolas Cabasilas. New York: EO Press, 2nd print., 1979, pp. 36-37, 78-92; and Greek Patristic Theology. New York: EO Press, 1979, pp. 140-146 especially.

Char IV, 77, pp. 204-205 or PG 90, 1068A.

Myst 13, 682D, pp. 227-8; 14, 709C, pp. 229-230; 16, 17, 696A, pp. 231-2; 20, 696D, p. 234; 21, 697A, pp. 235-6; 23, 700BC, pp. 241-242; 24, 705D, pp. 244-6, 248. 19 Myst 24, 704A, p. 251. Cf. 2 Cor. 13:13; Phil. 2:1.

80 Myst 23, 700BC, pp. 238-239; 24, pp. 251-252. Cal 208, 1449C. Cf. Jn. 16:7; 2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 1:8, 10; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 1:10; 2:15; Col. 1:16; 1:20; Isa. 11:1-4.

8! Char IV, 77, pp. 204-205 or PG 90, 1068A; 78, p. 205 or PG 90, 1068B. Myst 24, 709C, p. 245. LA 45, p. 135; PG 90, 956C. Cp. J. Chrysostom: PG 52, 407f. Saint Basil: PG 31, 484; De Spir. S. 19, 49, PG 32, 157B. Cf. Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:14; 2 Cor. | OPS).

*2 Pater 885BC. Cf. Myst 2, 669BD, pp. 201-203; 24, 703D-704A, pp. 244-5. 83 Myst 1, 669BD, p. 200; 24, p. 252. Cal 5, 76, 1380C; 217, 1452C. 84Char III, 22, p. 176; 24, p. 177. Myst 5, 685C, pp. 209, 211, 215-4. Amb 1228-9; 1329CD, 1313. Thal 62, 653CD. Ep 20, 600AB. ThEc 1288C, 1136AB, 1145C, 1360CD. Cal5, 76, 1380C. 85 Myst 7, 685A, pp. 219-220. 86 Amb 1096AB, 1305BC.

Section 4 'As basic sources for Saint Makarios the Great I used the Philokalia of the Patristic Editions ‘Grigorios O Palamas”, No. 7, Thessaloniki 1985 (Greek text) and the English translation by George A. Maloney, /ntoxicated With God, Denville, NJ: Dimension Books, 1978. 2For Evagrios of Pontus I used The Praktikos and Chapters on Prayer, transl., with an introduction and notes, by J.E. Bamberger, Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications, 1981. 3The source utilized for Saint John of The Ladder is of course the English translation of Paulist Press, New York-Ramsey-Toronto, 1982.

4For Saint Isaac the Syrian | again used the same English translation of his 77 homilies by the Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Boston, MA, 1984. Cf. my recent study on Saint Isaac published in The Patristic and Byzantine Review 6/2 (1987) pp. 93-120. SBesides the fine English translation of Saint Anthony’s Vita written by Athanasius the Great (Paulist Press, 1980), one must read also Anthony’s letters transl. by Derwas J. Chitty, Fairacres, Oxford: SLG Press, 1983. 6The Lausiac History of Palladius, New York, NY/ Ramsey, NJ: Newman Press, ACW No. 34, pp. 54-58, esp. p. 57. See also Derwas J. Chitty, The Desert A City, Oxford, 1966, p. 33. And Saint Makarios’s homily 14:92 (Maloney).

7See Vita Prima Graeca of Pachomius, translated by A.A. Athanassakis, Missoula,

Montana: Scholars Press, 1975, pp. 33-35. Cf. The Lausiac History, pp. 92-95. 8Evagrios, Chapters on Prayer, 123, p. 75. °Evagrios, ibid., 122, p. 75. Cf. Saint John Climacus, The Ladder, 4:106.

10 Evagrios, ibid., 124, p. 76.

260

Endnotes

1 Evagrios, ibid., 125, p. 76. '2Climacus, The Ladder, 26:234. 13Climacus, ibid., 30:289; cf. 1:80. \47saac, hom. 76:377; cf. p. 392.

'SJsaac, 76:376.

16Jsaac, 76:376-380. \7Isaac, 71:346. Cf. Saint Makarios in Isaac’s App. C, p. 453.

\8Jsaac, ibid.; cf. 51:246, 48:234. '9[saac, 48:234; cf. 71:344.

20 Climacus, The Ladder, 23:209; cf. 26:242. 21Climacus, ibid., 26:243, ftn. 104. 22 Makarios the Great, 12:87. 23 Makarios the Great, 2:35. 24 Makarios the Great, 49:225. 25Gen. 2:7. Isaac, 4:29 referring of course to the priority of praxis before theoria. 26 Isaac, 64:316.

27Acts 4:32. 28 Makarios, 48:222.

29 Makarios, espec. hom. 37:190f.; 20:132-133, 45:209-211. 30 Makarios, 45:211. 3! Makarios, esp. hom. 36; 19:131. 32 Makarios,

12:216 (in Philokalia) and pp. 87-88 (Maloney). Cf. 15:94-96,

109;

17:118; 18:126; 24: 140; 27:156-157; 30:171, 173; 31:176; 32:178, 180-181; 36:187; 43:201; 44:206; 49:225.

3 Jsaac, 69:336-337, 338-339. 34See especially Makarios’s homilies 14, 15, 17, 18, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37,

38, 39, 40, 43, 49. On the Divine Fire of Christ’s Love as koros akorestos see esp. homilies 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25, 26, 27, 28, 49.

See homilies 1, 5,6,7,9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 38, 40, 43, 46, 47, 49. 36See homilies 4, 5,8, 11, 12, 15, 18, 24, 26, 29, 30, 32, 37, 45, 48. 37 Makarios, hom. 14:92; 15:106; 18:124f, 127; 24:140f.; 37:190-191; 45:209. 38 Makarios, hom. 5:52-53f.; 8:68; 9:73; 10:75; 12:84, 88-89; 14:92; 45:209; 46:213. 39 Makarios, 8:69-70; 14:93.

40Makarios, esp. 49:225.

41Heb. 1:14. Makarios, 15:101, 108; 16:116; 46:213-214. 42 Makarios, 15:104, 109-111; 17:118; 46:213. 43 Makarios, 15:108, 111; 38:193. 4 Makarios, 15:109; 17:123; 19:130; 27:157; 30:173; 44:206. 45 Makarios, 16:112-117. Cf. 18:125-126; 45:210; 47:220; 49:225.

46 Makarios, 6, 7,8,9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15,17, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,,33,,34, 35, 38, 42, 43, 44.

Endnotes

261

47 Makarios, 29, 32, 34, 49. Cf. 40:197. 48 Makarios, 30:171; 32:181; cf. 4, 12, 15, 17, 26, 33, 37, 38. 49 Makarios, 32:181; 38:193. Cf. 42:200, 43:201; 44:205; 46:213: 48:221. 3° Makarios, 13:90; 38:194; 40:196; 46:213; 48:221; 50:227. >! Evagrios, Praktikos 81, p. 36. Isaac, 3:23-24, 22; 47:226-227: 56:278.

5“ See also ftn. 59, p. 36 of The Praktikos. Cf. 89, p. 38 of Prakt. Isaac, 40:203; 37:170, 176. Cf. 1:5, §16; 8, §39; 5:49; 6:53; 10:75; 32:151: 36:161:

47:226-227; 56:279.75:375. Appendix B, p. 422, 431-432. 33Isaac, 56:278.

34]saac, Appendix B, p. 432. 55 Climacus,

The Ladder, 12:161.

5¢Jsaac, 1:5, §16; 8, §39; 5:49; 6:53; 56:279; 75:375.

57 [saac, 56:278-280. Appendix B, p. 439. *%Evagrios, Praktikos 98, p. 41. Cf. Chapters on Prayer 132, p. 76. 59 [saac, 56:278. Climacus,

The Ladder, 6:135.

61 Climacus, The Ladder, 26:238. ©2Climacus, ibid., 26:240. 63Climacus, tbid., 26:243. Climacus, ibid., 26:245.

65 Jbid., p. 245. 66[bid., p. 246. 67 [bid., p. 248. 68 [bid., p. 249. Preface of The Ladder, pp. xx-xxi. 7 Climacus, The Ladder, 27:261, 271-272.

1 [bid., 15:172. ?Ibid., pp. 173, 175.

BIbid., p. 177. 14[bid., 15:177, note 68, p. 185. 3 Tbid., p. 178. 76[bid., p. 181. 1 [bid., 27:270-271. 8 Tbid., p. 271. 19 [bid., 30:287. 80 [bid., pp. 289-290. Cf. 6:133, 7:143. 81 Evagrios, Praktikos 49, p. 29. 82Climacus, The Ladder, 28:274. 83 Evagrios, Praktikos 100, p. 41.

84 Evagrios,

Chapters on Prayer 17, p. 58; 58, p. 64. Cf. Climacus,

19:195; and Isaac, 51:246-248.

The Ladder,

262

Endnotes

85 Evagrios, Chapters on Prayer 106-11, esp. 109, pp. 73-74.

86 Jsaac, 62:309. 87Evagrios, Chapters on Prayer 109, p. 73; 54, p. 63; 61, p. 65; 107, p. 73. Isaac, 51:248. 88 Isaac, 23:121. 89 [saac, 37:182-183. Isaac, 48:233; cf. 51:248.

%Evargrios, Praktikos 49, p. 29. Chapters on Prayer 36, p. 61; 34, p. 60; 58, p. 64; 69, p. 66. Cf. Isaac, 40:198. 2 Evagrios, Chapters on Prayer 84, p. 69; cf. 34, p. 60; 100, p. 72.

%3Climacus, The Ladder, 28:274. 94 Isaac, 24:124. Cf. 25:127; 29:143. 95 Evagrios, Chapters on Prayer 118, p. 75; 62, p. 65.

% [bid., 39, p. 61. Cf. Climacus, The Ladder, 28:278. 7 Isaac, 15:42, 44-45; 6:60; 22:114; 26:130-131; 28:137-140; 72:354; 75:370. 98 Evagrios, Chapters on Prayer 113, p. 74.

9 Evagrios, ibid., 39, p. 61; cf. 74, p. 67; 75, 80, 81, pp. 68-69; 96, p. 71; 142, p. 78; 145, pp. 78-79. Cf. Climacus, The Ladder, 21:200; 25:266; 26:260. 00Rom. 2:11. Climacus, The Ladder, 1:74. Cf. 5:130-131; 13:162. 10! Climacus, The Ladder, 12:161; 14:166-167, 169.

102 Climacus, ibid., 7:138, 141; 10:156. 103 Climacus, ibid., 1:74, 77; cf. 4:105, 112; 5:129, 131; 6:135; 13:162; 15:1715 175.

104 Climacus, ibid., 26:251; cf. 5:129. 105 Climacus, ibid., 1:78; cf. 2:82; 7:145, 137. 106 Tbid., p. 79; cf. 2:83.

107 [bid., 2:83-84; 4:119; 15:179-180. 108 Tbid., 3:85; 15:172, 179. 109 Climacus, ibid., 3:87; cf. 14:170.

N0Tbid., 13:162; 14:169; 15:172. '\Tsaac, 4:30; 15:86, 88; 16:90-91; 21:109, 41:204-205; 48:234; 57:285; 59:288f.

110; 34:157; 35:158; 37:164-165,

174;

"2 Makarios, 11:78; 7:65; 5:54; 12:83f. 24:141; 25:144; 27:156-158: 29: 168f.; 31:175f.; 42:200; 45:209-211; 46:212-213; 49:224.

'3See especially Climacus, 15:180-181. 'l4See intro. to Climacus’ trans. by Paulist Press, p. 17. 115 Tsaac, 52:254-257. 6 Climacus, The Ladder, 26:251.

"7 Climacus, tbid., 10:156. "8 Climacus, ibid., 26:238. "9 Isaac, 4:39; 5:51; 9:72; 37:184; 40:200; 51:247, 249; 64:308; p. 399; 75:375. !20Tsaac, 20:103-104; 21:106; 32:152; 40:201; 41:207; 57:28 1-282, 283; 64:309: 70:342343; 75:375.

Endnotes

263

'21 Isaac, 27:135-6; 37:176; 51:243-247; 52:254-257. Cf. 64:317. '22 Isaac, 52:256-257, 262; 54:266; 68:334.

13 Isaac, 3:23; cf. 4:32; 37:173, 183; 51:246-247; 52:263; 54:266; 64:313, 317. Appendix

B, 413-414, 428, 436.

'24 Isaac, 3:22-23; 5:45; 51:246; 71:346; 77:381.

125 Tsaac, 3:22, 25, 26; cf. 32:152; 37:177, 180; 41:204; 43:214; 48:235; 52:254: 66:324

and pages 400, 428, 432, 436. '26/saac, Appendix B, 430. !27 Isaac, 17:95. Cf. 51:248; 64:307. !28 Isaac, 48:234, 236; 51:245; 57:285; 62:299-300; 65:322. !29 Tsaac, 48:236; 51:247; 54:266, 270; 63:303; 64:308, 312-4; 66:325; 71:344-45, 346; 75:370-371; 77:381.

130]saac, 57:282; 62:300; cf. pp. 447-448. 131 Isaac, 51:243; 52:256-7; 64:309; 66:325; 72:353. App. B, p. 422. '32]saac, 51:244. '3Tbid.; cf. 51:251; 64:314. Appendix B, 411, 415. '34 Isaac, Appendix B, p. 448. '35Jsaac, 52:257; cf. 1 Cor. 13:9; 52:261-263; 53:264; 61:295-296; 62:297f.; 67:330; (235s 5S: 136 /saac, 52:262; cf. 64:312; 72:354-355. App. B. 419-425. 137 Jsaac, 52:262-263; 53:264-65;54:266; 56:278; 59:289; 64:312; 68:334; 72:352-353.

App. B, p. 414. 138 Jsaac, 54:268. Cf. 65:320, 321; 67:328; 75:366. 139 [saac, 54:268-269. Cf. 64:317; 65:320; 66:326; 67:328-9.75:366, 372. 140k 6:36; Mt 5:46-48. Isaac, 1:8, §36; cf. 59:290; 62:298; 64:313; 69:338; 71:344,

346; 76:376; 77:381f. App. B, p. 424. '41 [saac, 66:325; 72:352-353. App. A, p. 396. 142 Jsaac, 3:22. Cf. 30:146; 34:157; 48:320, 235-236; 49:239; 64:306. Appendix B, pp. 414, 428. 143 Isaac, 37:175, 183; 42:208. Cf. 43:214-5; 44:21 9-220; 48:234; 58:287; 61:295; 64:312.

App. A, p. 392.

144Isaac, 14:82. Cf. 27:135; 28:139; 39:191-192; 42:208-209; 61:296; 69:338. 145 Isaac, 72:354. 146 Isaac, 63:303; 64:321. Appendix B, p. 419.

147 [bid., p. 304; 64:307; 66:325; 72:351. 148 Tbid., 66:325; cf. 70:341. 149 Thid., 11:77; cf. 14:83; 37:169; 71:346. As it is described also in 17:93-95; 64:313-

314, 317; 75:371ff. App. B, 430f.; 21:110; 32:150-154; 37:179; 40:197-203; 48:231. 150/saac, Appendix B, pp. 424, 441. 1SICf. App. B, p. 441. 182 Isaac, 72:353. App. B, p. 402. 133 [saac, 72:353. App. A, pp. 390, 395.

154 [bid., 72:357, 75:368. Cf. App. B, p. 413.

264

= Endnotes

195 [hid., 2:11; cf. 15:84-85; 53:264; 54:270.

156 [hid., 4:37; 5:45. Cf. 64:313; 69:336; 76:377-378. App. A, p. 392.

\S7[bid., 5:45. Cf. 48:230; 64:312; 76:377; 5:43-44. 158 [hid., 3:28: cf. 4:38; 28:139; 29:143; 36:161; 37:183, 185-6; 42:209; 46:224; 51:250;

72:357; 75:370; 77:381-2, 383. App. B, p. 413. 159 [hid., 24:123; cf. 29:143; 32:153; 52:258; 54:270.

160[bid., Appendix B, pp. 402, 407, 411.

161 Fhid., 30:145. Cf. 36:161; 37:185; 42:209; 51:251; 52:261-263; 54:270-271; 56:280; 57:283; 60:291; 64:317; 77:382, 399, and Appendix B, p. 440f. 162 [bid. 163 [hid., 32:154; cf. 36:161; 37:166-167, 56:277; 77:381.

168, 183; 49:239. 51:246-7; 54:268, 271;

164Tbid., 46:224.. 165 [bid., 5:51; 51:250. 166[hid., 51:251; 77:382; 51:250. Appendix B, pp. 411, 415. 167 Isaac, 6:55. Cf. 31:148-149; 71:349-50; 77:382.

168 Tsaac, 41:204.

169 Jsaac, 49:239; 51:251-52; 52:261; 54:268; 56:276; 57:285, 271; 62:297f; 64:313: 68:334; 71:344-45, p. 399. App. B, pp. 408, 417, 441. 170 [bid., 48:230, 234. Cf. 71:346. 1 Tbid., p. 230. Cf. 43:214; 47:226-7; 62:298ff; 68:333; 77:382. '2A, Guillaumont, Les “Kephalaia Gnostica”

d’ Evagre le Pontique. Paris, 1958.

'3These two masterpieces of Evagrios have been translated into English with a most informative introduction and notes by J.E. Bamberger, and published by Cistercian Publications, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1981. Fr. Thomas Spidlik, on the other hand, although he deals with Monastic Anthropology and Sociology extensively (e.g., see his new book, The Spirituality of The Christian East: A Systematic Handbook, Kalamazoo, Michigan 1986) he has almost nothing to say about the ecclesiology and sacramentology of Evagrios, Makarios, Climacus and Isaac!! 4 Evagrios, Praktikos 81, p. 36. Cf. Chapters on Prayer 52, p. 63. '75 Evagrios, Praktikos 100, p. 41.

'76 Ibid., 81, p. 36. "Mt. 5:8. Climacus, The Ladder, 26:260; 27:261-262, 265. "8 Climacus, Ibid., 29:282.

179 Tbid. 180 Tsaac, 46:223; cf. 56:276; 71:347-348. 181 Isaac, 46:224; cf. 72:356. '2 Evagrios, Praktikos 33, p. 25 and esp. 100, p. 42; 46, p. 29; 54, p. 31; 49, p. 29 and Poos 183 Evagrios, Praktikos 33, p. 25. Cf. E.A.W. Budge, The Book of Paradise, London 1904, Vol. II, 1017. And comp. /saac, 68:333. 184 Fyagrios, Praktikos 2, p. 15. Cf. Isaac, 68:333. '85See for instance /saac, 41:206; 43:215; cf. 48:230.

Endnotes

265

'86 Evagrios, Praktikos 33, p. 25. Chapters on Prayer 58, p. 64. '87 Isaac, Appendix B, p. 399. '88Climacus, The Ladder, 28:280. '89See Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 4:23; PG 67:521B.

'Palladius, Lausiac History 35:10-11, pp. 101f. Cf. Climacus, The Ladder, 22:203. '91Palladius, op.cit., 38:12, p. 114. '2This issue is the major theme ofan important study: William Johnston’s The Still Point, New York 1970. '93See Evagrios’s “Great Letter” to Melania. 194 Isaac, 20:102; 71:347; 77:385.

'5Cf. Climacus, The Ladder, 27:265; and Isaac, 62:299. App. B, p. 403. '96See esp. Makarios’s hom. 10:75-76 and 14:91-93. '97[saac, 70:341. 198 Evagrios, Praktikos 62, p. 33; cf. 77 & 79, p. 36; 84 & 87, p. 37.

199 Isaac, 35:158; 74:363. 200[bid., pp. 158-159; cf. 48:231; 62:299.

201 [bid., 36:160; cf. 51:248. Appendix B, pp. 403, 412.

202 [hid., 48:231; 49:239. 203 hid, 51:245.

Section 5 'Unfortunately, there is no book nor a systematic study on Patristic Eschatology. This eschatological treatment of Eugenicus’ thought is the very first and only one published in English. We hope that we will be able to publish, in the near future, a more inclusive and complete study on early Patristic Eschatology. 2For a recent and critical account of Mark’s contribution to the council of Florence, see C. N. Tsirpanlis, Mark Eugenicus and The Council of Florence: A Historical Re-Evaluation of His Personality, Third print., New York, 1986. 3For the Orthodox doctrine of Eschatology see Paul Evdokimov, “Eschatological Transcendence”, in Orthodoxy: Life and Freedom, ed. by A.J. Philippou, Oxford: Studion Publications,

1973, pp. 31-47; Alex. Schmemann,

Eucharist: The Sacrament

of Kingdom, New York: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1988; George Florovsky, “Eschatology in the Patristic Age: An Introduction”, in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. Il, No. | (1956), pp. 27-40. 4Cf. J. Gill, The Council of Florence, Cambridge: At the University Press, 1961; idem, Personalities of the Council of Florence, Oxford, 1964. 5V. Laurent, Les « Mémoires » du Grand Ecclésiarque de l’Eglise de Constantinople, Sylvestre Syropoulos, sur le concile de Florence (1438-1439). Paris 1971 (quoted

below: as: Syr.), V, pp. 282, 284.

6On the question of Purgatory in the Council of Ferrara-Florence there are two old and general studies, the one by M. Jugie, La question du Purgatoire au concile de Ferrare-Florence, Echos d’Or. 20 (1921) pp. 269-282; the other by A. D’Alés, La question du purgatoire au concile de Florence en 1438, Gregorianum 3 (1922) pp. 9-50. Among modern Greek authors who dealt with the question of Purgatory and

the middle state in general, the following should

be mentioned:

J. Karmiris,

266

Endnotes

"EmiBeBrAnuevn

SiopOwois—rrrepe

Tov

éoxadTwv

doypaTiKy

TOU

6:dacKaALa

TaTpiapxov lepooodtpwy \oo.leov, Jerusalem 1945, pp. 1Off.; id., To? Aoypartixke Kat EvuBodtka wvnucia tho *( p0oddéouv KabodiAns ' ExkAnotac, vol. 2, Athens 1953, 555, 580, 621622, 764; 766; P. N. Trempelas, Aoypyarixn,vol. 3, Athens 1961, pp. 410—411, 415—416, 420—430; Chr. Androutsos, YupBodrrky, 3rd ed., Thes-

saloniki 1963, pp. 370—-373; id., Aoyuarixyn, Athens 1956, pp. 426—437. Dyobouniotis, ‘I eon katd&oraos TH Wuxa@v , Athens 1904, pp. 85—96.

K.

7Syr., V, § 26, p. 280. A. G., p. 20. 8Syr., V, § 26, p. 280. 9P.O. 15, pp. 152—168, 422—425.

104, G., pp. 21—24. NIT Mac. 12:46; Mt 12:32; 1 Cor 3:13—15. !2Saint Augustine, De civitate Dei, XXI, 13, P. L., 41 col. 728; XXIV, 738. De cura

pro mortuis gerenda, |, 3 P. L. 40, col. 593; 1V, 6, 596. Sermo 172,2, P. L. 38, col. 936. 13Saint Gregory the Great, Dial IV, 39, P.L. 77, col. 396AB. Cf. Gratien, Decret. dist. XXV, 4.

'4Saint Gregory of Nyssa, De consolatione et statu animarum post mortem, 46, col. 97C; 100A; De mortuis, ibid., 524B.

P. G.

'SSaint Basil the Great in EvyoAdy.ov 7d weya, Liturgy of the Pentecost, ed. 2,

Venetia 1862, pp. 375, 376; Service for dead, p. 407. '6(Pseudo) Damascene, De iis qui in fide dormierunt, lll, P. G. 95, col. 249. '7Theodoretus, in J Cor., Ill, P. G. 82, col. 252 note, and 19 (of doubtful authenticity).

8Syr., V, § 27, p. 280. I9Syr., V, § 28, p. 282. A. G., p. 20. 20[bid., p. 280. 21P. O. 15, pp. 162—167. 2P.O. 15, pp. 118, 120, 133, 164—165, 166—168. P.O.

15, pp. 44-45, 64.

4P_ G. 61, col. 75—82, 361. Cf. P. O. 15, pp. 47—49, 65—71, I Cor 3:11 —15, 25Syr., V, § 30, p. 284. 26(Pseudo) Dionysius Areopagita, De Ecclesiastica hierarchia, V\1, 7, P. G. 3, col.

561D—S64A. 27Saint J. Chrysostom, Jn Joann., Hom. 62, 5, P. G. 59, col. 348; In J Cor., Hom.

41, 4, P. G. 61, col. 361; In Mt., Hom. 31, 4, P. G. 57, col. 375; In Macc., ap. Pseudo-Damascene, De iis qui in fide dormierunt, 3, P. G. 95, col. 249B; Ad populum Antiochenum, Hom. 6, 3, P. G. 49, col. 85; Adv. Iudaeos, Hom. 6, 1, P. G. 48, col. 904, 905; In Mt., Hom, 54, P. G. 58, col. 610—611; In Philogonium Hom., P. G. 48,

col. 754. *8Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 7, In laudem Caesarii fratris, 21, P. G. 35, col. 781—784; Orat. 16, In patrem tacentem propter plagam grandinis, 7,9, P. G. 35, col. 944, 945C, 1100; Orat. 40, /n sanctum baptisma, 45, P. G. 38, col. 424C: Orat. 39, In

sancta Lumina, 19, P. G. 36, col. 357; Orat. 40, In sanctum haptisma, 36, P. G. 36, col.

412; Orat. 39, n. 17, P. G. 36, col. 356, 389; Orat. 45, n. 11, 16, P. G. 36, col. 637, 645: Orat. 45, In sanctum Pascha, 7, P. G. 36, col. 632; Orat. 14, De Pauperum amore, 5, P. G. 35, col. 864.

Endnotes

*9Pseudo-Athanasius,

267

Quaestiones ad Antiochum principem, 9, 20, 21, P. G. 28,

col. 609, 648; Quaest. 26 in Nov. Testam., P. G. 28, col. 717. Cf. Dorotheus abbas, Orat. De conscientia, P. G. 88, col. 1653.

30P. O. 15, pp. 40—42, 54, 117—118, 122, 130, 150—151, 164—165. A. G., JO), PP.

Scholarius believes likewise. (See OEuvres completes de Georges Scholarios, ed. by L. Petit—X. A. Sidéridés—M. Jugie, vol. I, Paris 1928, pp. 533—534, 536 —537).

MP. O. 2P_O. 3P. O. 4P_ QO. 3P. O.

15, 15, 15, 15, 15,

pp., 118—122, 165—167. pp. 120—121, 165—167, 168. pp. 40, 118. pp. 53, 54, 60, 72, 150. pp. 53-54, 72, 122—123, 125.

¢The fifth Ecumenical council was convoked in Constantinople, in 553, Act III, Mansi IX, col. 201-202. Cf. P. O. 15, pp. 54, 72. There is nothing more typical of Origen’s theological speculation than his doctrine of the Apokatastasis, or universal restoration of all things in their original, purely spiritual state. According to this doctrine, all sinners will be saved, even the demons and Satan himself will be purified by the Logos. When this has been achieved, Christ’s second coming and the resurrection of all men, not in material, but in spiritual bodies, will follow, and God will be all in all (De principliis 1,6 1; 3,6 3; 3,5,3. The Ante- Nicene Fathers, ed. by Ph. Schaff and H. Wace, Buffalo and New York 1886—1900, 28 vols).

37P._ O. 15, pp. 54, 60, 128—130. Cf. Saint Maximus, Quaestiones et dubia, 13, P.

G. 90, col. 796B.

P.O. 15, pp. 55, 71. P.O. 15, pp. 50—52, 67, 7375. 4P. O. 15, pp. 38, 86—87, 105. Cf. my study On the Commemoration Services or Mnemosyna,

Nea Sion 54 (1959) 277-284 (in Greek).

41Saint Athanasius, De incarnatione, § 13, P. G. 25, col. 120.

#2Ibid., § 4, P. G. 25, col. 104AC; § 6, col. 105C; 108A. Contra Arianos, I, 48, P. G. 26, col. 112. Cf. De Incarn., §§ 7—9, P. G. 25, col. 108 —112; § 44, col. 173C; 176; § 9, col. 1IZABF; § 21, col. 132C; § 27, col. 141 CD; § 20, col. 129D. Contra Arianos, Il, 33; P. G. 26, col. 393396. Gregory of Nyssa, P. G. 45, col. 700CD, 892AB, 545AB, 900C, 1324D, 1325B; 46, col. 177D, 625D; 44, col. 1053B, 521A, 1021D, 468D, 336A. Cf. my study The Incarnation in the Thought of S. Athanasius, Gregory Palamas 52 (1969) 506—515 (in Greek).

8P.O. 15, pp. 56—57, 76, 131—132, 140—143, 165, 167—168. 4P. O. 15, pp. 58—S59, 78, 148. 45P. O. 15, pp. 44—45, 55—56, 132, 165. 4P. O. 15, pp. 111—114, 152—153, 161—162. PaO;

Issppr 137

4Ibid., also pp. 132, 165. 49P. O. 15, pp. 87, 105. 50P. O. 15, pp. 87, 105. SIP. O. 15, pp. 78, 148. 5S2Hebr. 11:39—40. Cf. P. O. 15, pp. 113—117.

3P, O. 15, pp. 54. Cf. P. O. 15, pp. 11S—132, 142—148.

268

Endnotes

4PP O15, pp: 163; 551] Cor, 5:7. 56] Cor. 9:27; I] Tm. 4:8; Rom. 12:12. 57] Cor. 13:13:

8Syr., V, § 39, p. 292.

9Syr., VI, § 7, pp. 298, 300; VII, § 32, p. 384. A. G., pp. 223—225. Cf. J. Gill, Personalities of the council of Florence and other essays, Oxford 1964, pp. 254—255.

oP, O. 15, pp. 150—151. John Eugenicus (Antirrhetikos, ed. by Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, Tomos Katallages, Jassy 1692, pp. 266—267) considers the Latin Purgatory as a revival of the doctrine of the godless astrologers of the ancient Near East.

61 Ibid. Cf. Syr., V, § 28, p. 282.

024. G., pp. 25—26, 450. Syr., V, § 33, p. 288. 84. G., p. 463.

General Index

Adam, 32, 34, 37, 41, 42, 45, 47, 50, 5455650571515 9, 005,075 19 sole 109: 175, 176, 183, 184, 202, 204, 208, 256 Aerobaptism, 9

Aetiaton, 1, 209 Aetion, 1, 95, 209 Aftexousia, |

Aftoaletheia, 1, 178

Anthony the Great, 26, 152, 153, 155,

157165, 1685 185, 22052510259 Anthropology, 44 Antilepseis, 88 Antimensium, 2, 149 Antithesis, 22 Antitypa, 15, 137

Aftoamartia, 1, 40 Aftobasileia, 2, 178

Apatheia, 2, 157, 169, 185, 191, 196, 203, 204, 212 Aphraates, 26, 158

Aftodikaiosyne, 2, 178

Apocatastasis (ton panton), 2, 35, 71,

Aftosophia, 2 Agape, 1, 2, 116, 118, 119, 121, 125, 128

Apocrypha, 24 Apollinaris (bishop of Hierapolis), 24

73, 75, 208, 267

Apollinaris (bishop of Laodicea), 26

Agatho (pope), 91 Aghiorgoussis, Maximos (bishop of Pittsburgh), 142 Alexander (bishop of Lycopolis), 26

Aquinas, Thomas, 38, 87, 91, 155, 238,

Amann, E., 237 Ambrose (bishop of Milan), 23, 26, 138,

Arche anarchos, 2, 35

141, 158, 166 Amiroutzes, 238

Apologists, 24

Apostolic succession, 87, 100, 141 239 Aretology, 2, 190, 191, 192 205, 213 Aristarchos, S., 234, 235 Aristides of Athens, 24 Aristo of Pella, 24

Amoun, 157 Anagennesis, 113 Anakyklosis, 2, 34 Anamnesis, 2, 119, 129, 131, 135 Anaphora, 119, 248

Aristotle, 15, 32, 188, 238 Arius, 65, 67, 80, 83, 152, 231 Arnobius, 25

Anapsyxis, 10, 207

Arravon, 2, 179

Anastasius. Sinaetis, 136 Anchorite, 2, 151, 165

Artos, 124 Asceticism, 83 Asyntheton, 77 Athanasius the Great, 13, 23, 25, 31, 36, 52, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 81, 83, 85, 108, 110, 140, 152, 153, 156, 157, 168, 207, 216, 220, 231, 232, 236, 250, 255, 259, 267 Athanasius the Lavriote, 162, 253

Anderson, D., 223, 224 Andrew of Crete, 161, 230 Androutsos, Christos, 266 Anesis, 10, 207

Angels, 32, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 134, 172, 185, 199 Anselm of Canterbury, 63, 81, 209

269

270

General Index

Athanassakis, A.N., 251, 259

Augustine (bishop of Hippo), 16, 26, 52, 63, 86, 107, 152, 188, 206, 209, 215, 216, 237, 266 Ayer, J. C., 252 Azyma, 249 Balas, D., 233 Balthasar, H. von, 72, 73, 227, 233 Bamberger, J.E., 259, 264

Baptism, 3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 22, 98, 106, LO7T1OS 109 10 ea ets: 11452212520 13250137 40 el 4 143, 163, 164, 218, 228, 243 Barlaam, 7 Barnabas, 9, 24, 117, 245 Barrois, George, 215

Basil the Great, 8, 13, 23, 26, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 83, 84, 85 87, 88, 95, 107, 136, 139, 140, 154, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 166, 169, AV, P92, IMs, PIAS, DBS), PES, 723 240, 244, 248, 250, 252, 258, 259, 266 Basileus, 98 Basilians, 160, 252 Bauer, 5, 20, 27 Bede, 22

Bernard (saint), 22 Berthold, George C., 252 Besklow, P., 256 Bessarion (bishop of Nicaea, cardinal), 94, 206, 238, 239 Bettenson, H., 216 Bihlmeyer, K., 252 Bilaniuk, Peter B., 254

Body, 187, 193, 194, 198, 257 Boojamra, John, 256 Bornhauser, K., 243 Bossuet, 19, 225 Bouyer, L., 257 Bratsiotis, Panayiotis, 254 Brock, Sebastian, 221, 252

Bryennios of Nicomedia, 25 Budge, E.A.W., 264 Burns, J.P., 216 Butler, Dom E.C., 253 Butterworth, G.W., 219

Cabasilas, Nicholas, 5, 10, 54, 100, 101,

102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 111, 112,

113, 114, 135, 136, 164, 167, 225, 230, 241, 242, 244, 254, 258, 259 Caesarius, 52

Caesaropapism, 3, 98 Cairo, 157 Calvin, 22 Campbell, Th.L., 223, 252 Campenhausen, H., 29

Candal, E., 238 Canon Law, 3, 4 Canonization, 3, 146, 165 Cassian, John (saint), 154, 155, 157,

220, 251 Cavarnos, Constantine, 253 Cenobium, 3, 151, 157, 158, 162, 165,

166 Cesarini (cardinal), 92, 206

Chadwick, O., 251 Chalcedon (4th Ecumenical Synod, 451), 4, 23, 91, 98, 142, 159, 161, 166 Charisma, 3, 87, 88, 110, 113, 141, 144, 204 Cheirotonia (see also ordination), 3, 89,

115, 143, 245

Chitones, 4 Chitty, Derwas J., 251, 259

Chorepiscopos, 3, 154 Chrestou, Panayiotis, 229, 232, 233 Chrism (see Myron also), 102, 164 Christocentrism, 85 Christophoroi, 3, 120

Christopoiesis, 175 Chrysostom, St. John

(Patriarch

of

Constantinople), 23, 26, 52, 58, 87,

107, VY; 1325-1465 1535 155, 158; 1605207, 2155 2225223, 2505 244. 248, 250, 251, 258, 259, 266 Clement of Alexandria, 1, 2, 24, 38, 87,

WSs 79219232 Clement of Rome, 22, 24, 126, 216, 217 Climacus, St. John (of the Ladder of

Mt. Sinai) 2, 27, 140, 162, 172, 185, 186, 187, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 203, 204, 213, 220€, 253, 259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265 : Commodian (emperor), 25 Communicatio idiomatum, 3, 77 Communion of saints, 4, 22, 104, 147 Confession (see also exomologesis), 6, 140

General Index

271

Confirmation (see also Chrism & Myron), 11, 14, 88, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 164, 243, 244

Diodorus of Tarsus, 26 Diognetus, 24 Dionysius of Alexandria, 25

Consensus Patrum, 4, 12, 15, 21, 27,

52, 98 Constantine Copronymos (emperor), 99

Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, 36, 37, 38, 111, 113, 115, 160, 161, 166, 207, 223, 245, 252, 258, 266

Constantine the Great (emperor), 23 Corsini, E., 233 Cosmology, 31

Divorce, 144, 164 Dix, Gregory, 129, 135, 245, 247, 248 Doctors (of the Church), 22, 23, 27, 189

Cosmos,

Dodd, C.H., 256

35, 38, 44, 46, 47

Craig, R.N.S., 135 Creation, 31, 33, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48 Creed (‘‘Apostolic’’), 24, 28

Dogma, 4, 5, 25, 27, 198 Dogmageschichte, 5, 20, 27 Dondaine, R.P.H.-F., 239

Cross, F.L., 216 Cyprian (bishop of Carthage), 25, 112,

Doreai,

124 Cyril (Archbishop of Alexandria), 13, ZGW45),, 52559;1095) Coe olny lz 228, 257 Cyril (Patriarch of Jerusalem), 26, 112, 136, 138, 216, 221, 244, 248, 258 D’Ales, A., 265 Daley, Br. J., 216 Dalmais, I.H., 256

Daly, R.J., 219 Damascene, St. John, 11, 22, 23, 26, 31,

32, 37, 42, 84, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 146, 164, 206, 224, 226, 228, 230, 236, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 249, 250, 251, 254, 258, 266 Daniel (prophet), 36 Daniel (the Syrian), 158

100, 134, 163, 234, 248,

Daniélou, John (cardinal), 48, 72, 73,

Ds

IK DAM, DIDS). Peaks PPS

Darrouzes, J., 237 Deacons, 119, 122, 124, 127, 141, 143,

144 De Groot, J., 242, 243 Deification (see theosis also), 65, 66, 68

Devil, 1, 2, 36, 38, 40, 41, 49, 61, 73, 233

3, 14, 87

Dorotheus, 157, 252, 267 Dositheus (Patriarch of Jerusalem), 266, 268 Duchesne, L., 245 Dyobouniotis, K., 266

Ecclesia, 5, 9 Ecclesiology, 83, 98, 101, 104, 105, 184,

185, 188, 189, 198, 200 Ecology, 36, 46 Ecstasy, 5, 205, 213 Ecumenical (Synods), 4, 5, 8, 13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 90, 92, 99, 208, 210, 237, 267 Ecumenism, 188, 189, 213 Efpraxia, (politike), 13 Ekdemia, 179 Elias of Crete, 136, 249 Energeia, 5, 33, 87, 93, 113, 134, 150, 227 Energema, 93 Engaenia,

5, 115

Enhypostaton, 77 Epektasis, 5, 168, 172, 258 Ephesus (third Ecumenical Synod, 431), 90, 91 Ephraem, 26, 158, 252 Epiclesis, 6, 108, 109, 131, 134, 135, 136, 164 Epiphanius (bishop of Salamis-Cyprus), ANS 2

Diakonia, 143, 188

Epiphany,

Didache, 1, 9, 24, 25, 115, 117, 118, Wiile IBAA, TpA Spel, as, IPL aa3 130, 133, 245, 246, 247, 248 Didascalia Apostolorum, 25 Didymus the Blind, 26, 245

Epitimia, 6, 164

68

Eros, 103, 189 Eschatology, 53, 70, 72, 73, 177, 178,

179, 181, 184, 205ff, 206, 208, 212, 232, 265

272

General Index

Eschaton, 6, 12, 180, 184, 185 Eucharist, 1, 2, 4, 10, 14, 15, 22, 37,

100, 104, 105, 116, 117, 118, 123,91 25et26en 133, 134, 135, 142, 143, 144, 195, 197, 199, 249, 265 Euchelaion (see 145-146

106, 108, 110, 119, 120, 121, 12712839129 136, 137, 138, 164, 167, 184, 204, 212, 218,

115, 122, 9132, 140, 186, 248,

Gerasimus (saint), 162

Gibbon, E., 21, 27 Gill, Joseph, 237, 265, 268 Glorification (see also Canonization), 3, 146 Glossolalia, 117

Gnomic Will, 6, 76, 77, 78, 79, 809, P2234 Goehring, J.E., 251

Unction

also),

6,

Euchologion, 5 Eugenicus, John, 268 Eugenicus, Mark, 6, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94,

Gorgonia, 52 Grant, Robert M., 217 Gratien, 266

95, 163, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, DiS 265 2325 250,625), 2425205 Eusebius (bishop of Caesarea), 221 Eustathius of Antioch, 136 Euthymius (saint), 157

Gregory (bishop of Nyssa), 5, 13, 14, 26, 31, 36, 44, 48, 49, 52, 59, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 87, 95, 169, 25 Vii 200. 2085 216222 8220. 228, 229, 232, 233, 251, 254, 256, 257, 258, 266, 267 Gregory Nazianzenus (Patriarch of

Evagrius of Pontus, 26, 153, 154, 157,

Constantinople), 2, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15,

185, 186, 190, 194, 195, 198, 203, 204, 205, 213, 220, 251, 259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265

23, 26, 31, 37, 41, 44, 50, 51, 59, 87, 95, 108, 110, 136-137, 146, 154, 168, 1695170, 171) 172; 1735 17657 207. 211, 221, 2245 226,228, 2299232" 240, 244, 251, 253, 257, 258, 266 Gregory of Cyprus, 84

Evdokimov,

Paul, 265

Eve, 53, 545, 55, 59 Evlogion, 6, 124

Exomologesis (see also Confession), 6

Fall, 49, 50, 54, 59, 61, 69, 75, 81, 177, 198, 211, 229 Fathers (of the Church), 21, 27, 28, 45, 47, 52, 96, 97, 98, 100, 104, 106, 108, 110, 146, 154, 158, 165, 168, 186, 187, 188, 200, 203, 204, 215, 216, 221 Ferguson, E., 222

Ferrara—Florence (council 1438-1439), 90, 205, 210, 211, 236 Filioque, 6, 83, 85, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 163, 211, 236 Florence (council 1439), 24, 92, 163, 226, 237, 265, 268 Florensky, Paul, 188 Florovsky, George, 22, 28, 43, 60, 162, 167, 213, 214, 254, 265 Fornication, 145 Fouyias (Archbishop Mathodios), 145, 166 Fremantle, A., 216

Gass, W., 244 Gemistus-Plethon, 91, 238

Gregory Palamas (Archbishop of Thessalonica), 7, 14, 22, 44, 54, 58, 59,

84, 227, 228, 230, 236, 254, 259, 267 Gregory Thaumaturgus, 25 Gregory the Great (pope), 22, 23, 26,

206, 266 Grumel, V., 238 Guillaumont, A., 203, 264

Hagioi, 4, 7 Hagiology, 7, 83 Hall, George, 218 Halton, Th., 218 Hamman, A., 218 Hammell, P.J., 226 Hannay, J.O., 252 Harakas, Stanley, 254

Hardy, E.R., viii, 226, 254, 255 Harnack, A., 20, 21, 27, 67, 231, 246 Heresy, 98, 104, 193, 218 : Hermas, 24 Hermias, 24 Hermit, 7, 9, 151, 165 Hesychasm, 7, 155, 193,. 213 Hilarion of Gaza, 157 Hilary of Poitiers, 26

General Index

Hippolytus of Rome, 1, 2, 25, 112, 119, 1249125; 1275 1283 129; 130:2131, 132, 246, 248 History, 32, 33, 34, 35, 42, 59 Homoiosis, 8, 46 Homonoia, 8, 95 Homoousios, 8, 85 Homotimos, 8, 85 Hopko, Thomas, 142 Horn, G., 113 Horos, 8 Hussey, J.M., 225 Hypostasis, 4, 8, 77, 93, 94, 239

Iconoclasm, 98, 223

Icons (see also images), 147 Idiotes, 93 Ignatius (saint, bishop of Antioch), 1, 14 e248 Sole lldonl19.ud20;, 121), 12251 2seul2Sel 26,178, 21ds. 218, 245, 247 Images, 98, 147 Imago Dei, 9, 10, 44, 59, 69, 70, 75, 76, 176, 189 Immaculate Conception, 55, 58, 59 Impanation, 8 Irenaeus (saint, bishop of Lyons), 6, 24,

44, 45, 47, 53, 59, 65, 67, 110, 112, 124, 129, 131, 133, 216, 218, 228, 230, 231, 232, 258 Isaac (saint, bishop of Nineveh), 7, 13,

27, 47, 158, 160, 172, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 191, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 213, 220, 228, 252, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265 Isidore (Archbishop of Russia), 94 Isidore of Seville, 22 James (saint), 145, 247 Jerome (saint), 23, 26, 112, 152, 155, 156, 157, 158 Joachim of Fiore, 85 John of Kronstadt, 88 Johnston, C.F.H., 235 Johnston, William, 265 Jugie, M., 226, 230, 237, 242, 243, 249, 265, 267 Julius Africanus, 25 Jurgens, W.A., 216 Justification, 13

273

Justin the Martyr, 9, 13, 24, 53, 117, WLS, 1199125; 126, 129; 131,132, 133, 138, 218, 230, 245, 247 Justinian the Great, 23, 142, 158, 159, 161, 166

Karmiris, John, 143, 150, 265, 266 Katharsis, 8, 69, 168, 169

Kathegesis, 8, 126 Kavanagh, A., 244

Kecharitomeni, 11 Kelly, J.N.D., 19, 216, 226, 237 Kenosis, 8, 10, 168, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 178, 183, 211 Kerygma, 9, 25 Kingdom of God, 35, 85, 105, 169, 177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 189, 201, 204, 212, 213, 228, 256 Kinoun—Kinoumenon, 93 Klasma, 9, 124

Klerikos, 9, 124 Koinonia, 9, 14, 88, 133, 164, 183, 185,

188, 189, 198, 200, 203 Koros, 9, 41, 189, 190, 205, 213, 260 Kritopoulos, Metrophanes, 250 Krivocheine, Basile, 162, 227, 237, 253

Kyriake, 9, 117, 245

Lactantius, 25 Laodicea (council), 112

Laos, 9 Laplace, J., 72, 233 Latreia, 15, 37, 89, 101, 124, 185 Laurent, V., 237, 265

Lavra, 9, 151, 165 Leo the Great (pope), 26, 155, 216 Leo the Isaurian (emperor), 99 Leontius of Byzantium, 27 Leys, R., 72, 233 Lightfoot, J., 246, 247 Lima (text), 143 Liturgy, 186, 199, 212, 222, 225, 241, 247 Logoi, 9, 33, 34, 35, 42, 183, 227, 228 Logopoiesis, 9, 42, 177 Logos, 32, 33, 34, 35, 67, 68, 77, 78, 131, 136, 180, 183, 228, 267 Lombard, Peter, 146 Lossky, Vladimir, 43, 47, 60, 82, 228, 241, 242, 254

274

General Index

Loukaris, Cyril (Patriarch of Alexandria and Constantinople), 105, 242 Lucian of Samosata, 25, 26

Lucifer, 32, 37, 40, 41, 42, 46, 173 Luibheid, Colm, 223 Macarius the Alexandrine, 26, 157 Macarius the Great, 26, 157, 172, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 197, 198, 204, 205, 220, 252, 259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265 Macrocosm, 10, 36, 44, 46, 184, 185 Mahé, P., 244 Malchion of Antioch, 25 Malherbe, A.J., 222 Maloney, George, 162, 220, 224, 233, 252, 253, 259, 260 Mango, Cyril, 224 Mansi, 237, 238, 267 Mantzarides, G.I., 254 Mariology, 44, 53, 54, 57, 91 marriage, 108, 144-145, 164, 194, 219, phn, 29% Marrou, Henri M., 158 Martyrologies, 7 Martyrs, 148, 149, 185, 193, 195, 198 Massalians, 100 Maximus the Confessor (saint), 4, 9, 13, 14, 21, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 42, 52, 76, 95, 113, 161, 162, 168, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 188, 212, 223, 227, 228, 229, 234, 248, 251, 252, 256, 257, 267 McGuckin, Paul, 162, 253 McNulty, P.A., 225 Melania, 265 Melito of Sardis, 24, 218 E. Amand de Mendieta, 235 Menevisoglou, Paul (Metropolitan of Sweden), 244 Mesi katastasis (of souls), 10, 205, 206, 207 Metabolism, 132

Microcosm, 10, 36, 44, 46, 184, 185 Migne, 20, 27, 139 Miltiades, 24 Minucius, Felix, 24 Misch, G., 230 Mnemosyna, 10 Mogilas, Peter, 250 Molien, A., 244 Monachos, 11, 150

Monasticism, 3, 11, 22, 150, 151, 155, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 165, 220, 252

Monophysitism,

105

Monothelitism, 77, 188 Montenero, J., 92, 93, 94, 95, 238 Mouhanna, A., 232 Moutsoulas, Elias D., 254 Musurillo, H.A., 217, 218, 222

Myron (holy, see also Chrism & Confirmation), 5, 11, 103, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 244 Mysterion, 11, 106, 107, 1089, 139, 140, 163, 242 Mysteriosophy, 11, 115 Mysticism, 228 Narcissism, 11 Narsis, 158 Nectarius of Aegina, 88 Nellas, Panayiotis, 254 Nemesius (bishop of Emesa), 26 Neoplatonism, 36

Nepsis (see also hesychasm), 11, 172 Nestorius (Patriarch of Constantinople), 26, 80, 104 Neville, Graham, 222 Nicaea (1st Ecumenical Synod, 325), 91 Nilus of Sinai (saint), 46, 228

Nitria, 153, 154, 157 Norris, A.R., 217 Nous, 31 Novatian, 25 Nymphe, 11

Metalepsis, 10, 133, 164 Metanoia (see also repentance), 10, 62, 68, 141, 164, 207 Methexis, 182 Methodius of Olympus, 25

Oesterley, W., 119, 246, 257

Meyendorff, John, 43, 60, 82, 85, 166, DDT MQ28 e255 232, 230, 257 Meyer, R.T., 251

Orarion, 143 Ordination (see also Cheirotonia), 142,

Oikonomia, 11, 35, 48, 145, 164, 183 ““Old Believers,’’ 105

Omoiomorphon, 143, 164

11, 98

General Index

Onigeny 12, 921525531537 38047, 74, 75, 81, 112, 178, 179, 195, 208, 218, 219, 232, 233, 244, 256, 257, 267 Oroi, 236 Orsisius, 26

Otis, B., 50, 229 Ousia, 8, 12, 33, 78, 227, 239 Pachomius (saint), 26, 151, 155, 156,

157, 158, 159, 186, 220, 251, 259 Pachymeres, George (Byzantine historian), 161 Palaeologus,

Palamism,

John VIII, 206

7

Palingenesia,

10, 111, 113

Palladius, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157, 220, ILS PSYIS PSs), GA! Palmer, G.E.H., 221 Pamphilus of Caesarea, 25 Papias of Hierapolis, 24 Paradise, 47

Paradosis (see tradition also), 12, 15 Paramythia,

10, 207

Parapsyche,

10, 207

Parousia,

12, 33, 86

Parthenometor (see also Mariology), 125-57 Pascha, 119, 218, 240, 266 Passover, 2

Pathos, 12, 208 Patristics, 20, 27 Patrology, 20, 23, 27 Patronos, George, 254, 256

Saint Paul, 14, 20, 37, 46, 48, 75, 76, 81, 88, 101, 105, 108, 109, 111, 114, 116, 119, 121, 122, 129, 141, 144, 17332075 222 Paul of Samosata, 25

275

Philippou, A.J., 265 Philoxenos of Mabbug, 26 Philtron, 12, 103 Phota, 111, 164, 244 (see also Theophaneia) Photismos, 12, 110 Photius the Great (Patriarch of Constantinople), 4, 6, 13, 22, 23, 27, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 93, 95, 98, 224, 234, 237, 239 Phthora, 13, 208 Plagnieux, J., 253 Pleroma, 2, 12, 72, 73, 74, 157, 166, 179, 181, 185, 212, 258 Pliny the Younger, 245 Plotinus, 31 Pneumatocentrism, 85 Pneumatology, 83, 87, 112, 221 Pneumatomachoi, 13, 83 Polycarp of Smyrna (saint), 24, 124, 218, 250 Praxis, 13, 168, 169, 172, 211, 228 Prayer, 158, 166, 186, 190, 194, 195, 199, 203, 207, 208, 213, 219, 220, 221, 228, 251, 259, 262, 264 Presbyterion, 13, 127 Priesthood, 141, 142, 143, 164, 195, 222 Proestos, 13, 118, 119, 132 Proskarterein, 13, 127 Proskrousis, 209

Prosopika (idiomata), 13 Prosopon, 8, 94, 198, 212 Providence, 35, 39 Pruce, B., 236 Psellus, Michael, 161 Purgatory, 10, 69, 70, 71, 81, 104, 205, 206207 210 2ee2 3 232042 265, 268

Paul the Simple (saint), 152 Pearson, B.A., 215

Pedagogia,

12, 35, 53

Peira, 12 Pelagius, 52, 216 Pelikan, Jaroslav, 217

Pentecost, 85, 86, 87, 103, 135, 266 Perichoreisis, 4, 179 Periodization, 12, 28 Perrin, N., 256 Peter the Apostle, 39, 122

Petit, L., 267 Philaftia, 12, 50

Quadratus, 24 Quasten, Johannes, 24 Ramsey, B., 29 Raskol, 13, 105 Redemption, 13, 57, 61, 65, 67, 70, 167, 170 Reformation, 22 Relics, 102, 165 Repentance, i110, 140, 145, 207, 250 Revelation, 36, 37, 39

276

General Index

Rexine, John, 253 Richardson, C.C., viii, 226 Robinson, N.F., 253 Roth, C.P., 222, 223 Rousseau, Ph., 251 Ruether, Rosemary R., viii, 229, 253, 254 Rufinus, 221 Runciman, Steven, 237, 238 Rusch, G.W., 217 Russell, N., 221, 251 Russia, 90, 105 Sabbas, 27, 157, 252 Sacraments, 106, 107, 113, 137, 138,

140, 145, 221, 246 Sacramentum,

13, 106, 107, 117, 163

Saints, 146, 147, 148, 165, 193, 198 Sanhedrin, 13 ‘*Satisfaction,’’ 209 Schmemann, Alexander, 167, 214, 265

Scholarios, George, 238, 239, 267 Schwartz, 238

Scotus, Eriugena, 161 Seraphim of Sarov, 88 Serapion of Thmuis, 26 Severus of Antioch, 26, 27 Sex, 202

Symphonia,

2, 73, 76, 81, 89

Synavlia, 14, 113 Synaxis, 14 Synedrion, 13, 127 Synelefsis, 14, 118 Synergy, 34, 46, 114, 168, 178, 185, 188

Syngatavasis, 14, 113

Syngrasis, 14, 113 Syropoulos, S., 206, 237, 265, 266, 268

Tabennesis, 155, 156 Tatakis, Basil, 225 Tatian the Syrian, 24 Tears, 168 Teresa of Avila, 155

Tertullian, 6, 21, 25, 38, 112, 124, 209, 247 Thdnatos (death), 10 Theandric will, 80, 178 Theanthropos, 13, 61, 184 Thelima, 6, 11 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 26, 248, 251 Theodore the Studite, 27, 161, 223, 252 Theodoret of Cyrus, 26, 206, 208, 221,

252, 258, 266 Theodorou, Andreas, 254 Theodorou, Evangelos, 142, 143

Sherrard, Philip, 221

Theodosius the Great (emperor), 141

Sherwood, P., viii, 48, 229, 234, 252 Sidérides, X.A., 267 Sketis, 13, 151, 157, 165

Theoeideis, 14, 110

Skopos, 9, 33 Socrates (Byz. historian), 265 Solovyev, Vladimir, 227 Hagia Sophia, 143 Sophocles, E.A., 242

Theognosia, 12, 14, 110, 172, 211 Theophaneia, 12, 111, 164 Theophilus of Alexandria, 204 Theophilus of Antioch, 24

Theophoroi, 14, i120

Sphragis, 14, 243

Theoria, 10, 13, 38, 110, 168, 169, 170, 172, 179, 211, 228 Theosis, 8, 12, 13, 14, 35, 45, 53, 58, 75, 81, 111, 147, 168, 170, 175, 178, 179, 187, 211, 254, 257

Spidlik, Thomas, 264 Spoudeos, 14, 127 Staniloae, Dimitri, 82, 167

Theotokos, 12, 176, 230 Theourghia, 14, 35, 183 Thundberg, L., 252

Stavropoulos, Christophoros, 254

Thysia, 15, 117, 118, 133

Stephanou, Eusebius, 244 Stereosis, 14, 38, 42 Stiefenhofer, D., 243 Stylite, 14

Timiadis, Emilianos (Metropolitan of Sylibria), 250 Titus (bishop of Bostra), 26

Symbolon, 8, 14, 236 Symeon Stylites, 158 Symeon the New Theologian, 3, 22, 87, 88, 140, 162, 224, 237, 250, 253

Tixeront, J., 242, 243 Toledo (council, 589), 90 Topos, 15, 190 Tradition (see also Paradosis), 15, 97,

Soteria,

13, 61, 65, 81

Soteropoulos, H.G., viii

Thysiasterion,

15, 120

General Index

98, 100, 124, 126, 127, 128, 130, 131, 139, 141, 163, 207, 208 Transfiguration, 98, 179 Trempelas, Panayiotis N., 266 Truth, 1, 95 Tsirpanlis, Constantine N., 16, 18, 167,

IA 2265 2285 250425225 5s 200; 231), 2420244, 25051293 825441255. 256, 258, 259, 265, 267 Turner, H.E.W.,

231

Typos, 15, 109, 136 Unction (holy), 6, 11, 145-146, 164, 165

Valla, Lorenzo, 24 Vasiliev, 23 Victorinus of Pettau, 25 Vincent of Lerins, 22

277

Vita (activa, angelica, contemplativa),

15 Vulgata, 106 Wace, H., viii Waddell, Helen, 221, 251 Ward, Benedicta, 221, 251 Ware, Timothy (bishop Kallistos), 167, 197, 221, 253 Wheeler, E.P., 251, 252 White, Despoina, 224, 234 Wiles, Maurice, 217 Williams, L., 246 Williamson, G.A., 221

Zen Buddhism, 205 Zoon (politikon), 15 Zouboff, Peter, 227

THEOLOGY . Infallibility: The Crossroads of Doctrine

LIFE SERIES

AND

15. Vatican II and Its Documents:

An American Reappraisal

Peter Chirico, S.S.

. Sacramental Realism: A General

Theory of the Sacraments Colman O'Neill, O.P.

. The Making of Disciples (out of print) . Life and Sacrament:

Reflections

on the Catholic Vision

Bishop Donal Murray . The Bishop of Rome

Timothy E. O’Connell, Editor 16. The Roots of the Catholic Tradition Thomas P. Rausch, S.]. 17. Teaching Sacraments

Patricia Smith, R.S.M. 18. In Pursuit of Love: Catholic

Morality and Human Sexuality

Vincent Genovesi, S.J. 19. One Bread and Cup

Ernest Falardeau, S.S.S.

J.M.R. Tillard, O.P.

20. The Pilgrim Church and the

. A Theology for Ministry (out of print)

Zi. The First Seven Ecumenical

. Luther and His Spiritual Legacy Jared Wicks, S.J.

. Vatican II: Open Questions and New Horizons Stephen Duffy, Avery Dulles, S.J.,

George Lindbeck, Gregory Baum, and Francine Cardman . Jesus, the Compassion of God:

New Perspectives on the Tradition of Christianity Monika K. Hellwig

Easter People

23. 24.

25% 26.

10. Biblical and Theological

Reflections on the Challenge of Peace John T. Pawlikowski, O.S.M., and Donald Senior, C.P., Editors

ai. PAL)

11. Saints and Sinners in the Early

30.

Church: Differing and Conflicting Traditions in the First Six Centuries W.H.C. Frend 12. Story Theology Terrence Tilley

31.

13. The Bishop in the Church:

Patristic Texts on the Role of the Episkopos Agnes Cunningham, S.S.C.M. 14. Our Eucharistic Prayers in

Worship, Preaching and Study Raymond Moloney, S.J.

Norman Pittenger

Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology Leo D. Davis, S.J. A Sociologist Looks at Religion Joseph H. Fichter, S.J. A Pilgrim God for a Pilgrim People Denis Carroll Creation and Redemption Gabriel Daly, O.S.A. Tradition and Transition: Historical Perspectives on Vatican II John W. O'Malley, S.J. Ethics: The Social Dimension Thomas F. Schindler, S.S. Manifestations of Grace Elizabeth Dreyer Introduction to Eastern Patristic Thought and Orthodox Theology Constantine N. Tsirpanlis A Review of Anglican Orders: The Problem and the Solution

George H. Tavard 32. The Rise of the Papacy Robert Eno 33. The Liturgy That Does Justice:

A New Approach to Liturgical Praxis ; James L. Empereur, S.J., and

Christopher G. Kiesling, O.P.

ISBN 0-8146-5801-6 A Michael

Glazier

Book

B THE LITURGICAL PRESS = Collegeville, Minnesota