Encourse Wiki

Patrology — Topic 13

Properties3
tagstopic
coursePatrology
unitTopic 13

20 min read

Patrology — Topic 13

13.1 Cyril of Alexandria

St. Cyril of Alexandria was the successor of St. Athanasius the Great, as well as Archbishop Theophilus of Alexandria.He possessed great power and authority in Egypt, and all his life he skillfully used this power for the success of his convictions. The date of his birth is unknown to us, but we know that he devoted his whole life to a spiritual career and was ordained bishop of Alexandria in 412. He was a nephew of Theophilus and became bishop not by chance - in the Egyptian Church in the fourth and fifth centuries there was a real dynasty of bishops, in which the office was handed down almost regularly from uncle to nephew: Saint Athanasius was succeeded by his nephew Peter, Peter by his nephew Theophilus, Saint Cyril was the nephew of Theophilus, and he himself in turn was the uncle of the next bishop - Dioscorus. All this ensured the monolithic and unanimous nature of the Alexandrian Church, the bulk of which was made up of Egyptian-speaking Coptic peasants, although in Alexandria itself Greek was spoken and written in cultural circles. Between Alexandria, the old center of the Christian East, and the new “upstart” capital, Constantinople, there was a long-standing sense of jealousy and competition. Peter of Alexandria did not recognize the bishopric of Gregory the Theologian at Constantinople (381) and set him a rival, Maximus Cinicus. St. John Chrysostom, probably alluding to the dynastic orders of the Egyptian Church, called Theophilus a “Pharaoh”.

Cyril began his turbulent career as a deacon under Theophilus and in that capacity was present at the council “under the Oak tree,” which condemned Chrysostom. Later, already as bishop, he was directly involved in the quarrel with the emperor’s representative, the prefect of Egypt, Orestes. The monks, who came in droves from the desert to Cyril’s call, also took part in the general unrest. During the street demonstrations one of the monks, Ammonius, was crushed to death, and Cyril immediately declared him a martyr. The historian Socrates on this occasion remarks that the prudent regarded Cyril’s enthusiasm with disapproval, correctly believing that Ammonius died not for the faith, but solely because of his own folly.

In Egypt Cyril fought vigorously against the remnants of ancient heresies, as well as against the Jews and the pagan culture. In fact, he found himself at the head of a Christian movement that was neither tolerant nor broad-minded.

Cyril’s theology, which of course cannot fully justify either his personal traits or the crude fighting techniques he used, expressed precisely that intuition of the person of Christ without which the very essence of the Christian gospel of human salvation would have been lost. In 428 he began to write his letters to Nestorius, which led first to the convening of the Council of Ephesus and then to an agreement with John of Antioch in 433.

His numerous writings occupy nine volumes in Migne’s Greek Patrology . The following are considered the main ones:

1. Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets.

2. Commentaries on the Book of the prophet Isaiah.

3. “On Worship in Spirit and Truth,” a treatise in seven chapters which sets forth the Christian understanding of the Old Testament. The main idea of the treatise is that the Christian should not limit himself to the literal meaning of the inspired book, but should come through living in the Spirit to a true understanding of the Scriptures, which were also written in the Spirit. Cyril understands this life in the Spirit as belonging to the Church, and thus he also understands Scripture itself as a book of the Church.

4. Commentaries on the New Testament were written while he was bishop, from 412 to 430. These include: a) the Commentary on the Gospel of John in twelve books, a remarkable work, expressing the special affinity of Cyril’s Alexandrian theology with the spirit of the Gospel of John; and b) the complete Commentary on the Gospel of Luke.

5. “Thesaurus ” (or “Treasury”) is a collection of theological treatises, mainly on the Holy Trinity. In his Trinitarian views Cyril follows St. Athanasius without expressing particularly original ideas.

After 430 AD most of St Cyril’s writings are directed against Nestorius. He wrote mainly letters and short polemical treatises on Christological questions. In addition, he wrote a large apologetic book entitled On the Holy Religion of Christians and against Julian , in which he thoroughly refuted the views of Julian the Apostate which he set forth in Against the Galileans. Of this latter we know only through St. Cyril’s book, which is replete with quotations.

The central problem of all the disputes of that time was the problem of the person of Christ. Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia saw Christ as a human being, the son of the Virgin Mary, in whom God had indwelt at his very birth. The essence of the issue was the immutability of God: God could become nothing and nothing. Cyril argued that the eternal Word of God had become man. The quote from the prologue to John’s Gospel, “And the Word became flesh (John 1, 14),” was the motto of the Council of Ephesus. “God became what He was not before” - this phrase was the leitmotiv of St. Cyril’s letter to Nestorius, written in 430.

In addition to this Cyril introduced the concept of the hypostatic unity of Christ’s two natures, an expression he used in the same sense as the expression unity of natures. But he objected to the Antiochian term synaphia (“connection”, “bond”), which, because of its etymology, suggested the possibility of separation (literally it means “touching”, “adhesion”). God the Word, becoming Emmanuel, made human nature with its body “His own. So we can say that God Himself was born, grew, hungered and thirsted, suffered and died. For Cyril, Jesus’ flesh was truly the body of God, his hand the hand of God, and so on, so he could claim that the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary. The categorical nature of Cyril’s assertions can be explained by the fact that he, like St. Athanasius before him, was acutely aware that in order for man to be saved, God had to actually become man - Cyril saw no other way of salvation. The cooperation of man is necessary, but it is just as necessary that God go all the way to the end and fully, truly embrace human nature. It was in this sense that the Second Person of the Holy Trinity became what it was not before, hence changed. In contrast to Antiochian theologians, always concerned with preserving the concrete historical humanity of Jesus, Cyril’s thought was theocentric from beginning to end. In undertaking the salvation of the human race, God acts. He puts on human nature in the full sense of the word and does so in such a way that divine and human natures in Christ form a single being.

This approach immediately brought upon Cyril the suspicion of Apollinarian heresy, according to which the divine Logos replaced the soul in the man Jesus, with the result that he could not be considered fully human. Cyril indeed always preferred, following the Evangelist John, to use the expression “the Word became flesh. Using the word σάρξ sarx meaning “body”, “flesh”, he was not always aware that formally this word does not fully express the fullness of human nature. By saying “flesh,” St. Cyril undoubtedly really meant the whole person, body and soul. He was not an Apollinarian, but as an entirely “Alexandrian” he was not afraid of “anthropological minimalism”. God, not man, is the one Savior of the world.

Cyril often speaks of Christ as the new Adam, the “perfect man”. In this approach, similar to the thought of St. Gregory of Nyssa, Christ is presented not only as a historical individual but also as a collective person in whom the fullness of human nature is restored. As the eternal Word, by Whom and in Whose image man was created, He is at the same time “exemplary” - the image of God, the perfect man-and through Him we can “discover ourselves,” “find ourselves,” as we should have been in the Creator’s plan.

Viewing Christ primarily as the incarnate Logos and as the new Adam, the “all- human,” Cyril’s Christology did not address the question of the specific historical person of Christ. In the context of the polemic with Nestorius, the existence of a human person separate from the Word in Christ was denied altogether.

According to St. Cyril, salvation for us is realized by living in the Church and reaches everyone through the Eucharist. In his polemic with Nestorius, taking his opponent’s thought to the point of absurdity, Cyril argues that without the life-giving Word of God, which is in mystical and real unity with the flesh, the Eucharist becomes cannibalism and participation in it becomes meaningless. This vitality of the body of Christ was meant by Justinian when, in order to affirm Cyril’s Christology, he instituted the rite of pouring warm water into the Eucharistic wine. The warm water of the Holy Spirit transforms the physical being, and even the very name ζέον ze on “warmth,” was consonant with the word ζωή zoi “life”. In the Eucharist the Spirit deifies the human flesh of Jesus, and by partaking of it we are saved through participation in the life of God. Cyril developed his thoughts, outlined in his letters to Nestorius, in the twelve theses mentioned above, the “anathematisms,” explaining various aspects of Christology. In these famous theses, otherwise called “Cyril’s Chapters,” he deals with the term “Virgin Mary” (1st anathema), the interpretation of Holy Scripture (4), the understanding of the Transfiguration (7), the question of the effusion of the Holy Spirit (9), the role of Christ as High Priest (10); the 11th anathema clarifies the meaning of the Eucharist, and the 12th, corresponding to the first, reveals the unity of the person of Christ by saying that “the Word suffered in the flesh” (theopaschism).

Cyril’s Christology was corrected by the Council of Chalcedon (451) which, first, tempered the legitimate fear of Antiochian theologians about Cyril’s “anthropological minimalism” and, second, clarified the Christological terminology related to the concept of “becoming” (the Word became flesh): the nature of God is constant, but the hypostasis of the Word became man.

13.2 Corpus of Ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite

In 533, the Ecumenical Council was held in Chalcedon, where Orthodox and Monophysites were given an opportunity to discuss Christological questions. At this occasion, the opponents of the Council of Chalcedon began to refer to an author named Dionysius the Areopagite.

To this day no one knows who was hiding under the name of Paul the Apostle’s disciple (Acts 17, 34), who was thought to be the first bishop of Athens. At the Chalcedonian Council in 533, the Monophysites referred to the expression “one Godly energy” used by Dionysius, who became known as the author of the following writings: “On the Heavenly Hierarchy,” “On the Church Hierarchy,” “On the Names of God,” “Mystical Theology,” and ten letters.

In his writings, the author himself proclaimed himself a disciple of the Apostle Paul, an eyewitness of the eclipse on the day of the Savior’s death and a witness to the Dormition of the Virgin Mary. Among his recipients we find Gaius, Timothy, Polycarp of Smyrna (who lived in the second century) and St. John the Theologian. No one doubted the authenticity of the Corpus Areopagitic um (as the writings of Dionysius came to be called), and a tradition began to form around Pseudo-Dionysius. Thus, in the ninth century a legend emerged that he was the first bishop of Paris and died a martyr’s death in Paris in 110. To the north of Paris, the basilica of Saint-Denis was built in his honor, where the relics of early Christian martyrs and, later, the bodies of French kings were placed.

It is also known that in 827 the Byzantine emperor Michael II sent the organ and a manuscript of Dionysius the Areopagite as a gift to the French king Louis the Pious.

Gradually a legend developed about the holy martyr Dionysius, the patron saint of France, and popular tradition associated this Dionysius with the author of the above-mentioned writings, who claimed to be a disciple of the Apostle Paul. This manuscript is still preserved in the National Library of Paris.

The first doubts about the authenticity of Dionysius’ writings arose in the 15th century with Erasmus of Rotterdam. The grounds for doubt were apparent anachronisms, especially in the book On the Hierarchy of the Church , which describes liturgical customs characteristic only of the V-VI centuries, such as the rite of monastic tonsure and the reading of the Creed at the Liturgy. Apparently the author of the Areopagitics did not mean to mislead people. His writings were a deliberate pseudepigrapha, but he underestimated the credulity of his contemporaries, who overlooked the most obvious contradictions (for example, in a letter to John the Theologian Dionysius quotes his own writings and refers to him as a major authority). Obviously, the author used the name of Dionysius the Areopagite in order to give more weight to his apologetics, the purpose of which was to unite the Christian system with the hierarchical world of the Neoplatonists. These latter, especially Proclus, are quoted and paraphrased by Dionysius in whole paragraphs.

The writings of Pseudo-Dionysius soon gained great authority. In the East a commentary on his writings was written by St Maximus the Confessor. He was referred to by all the later Byzantine theologians. Under the influence of his teaching many liturgical customs arose.

The main theological ideas of Pseudo-Dionysius are set forth in his book On the Names of God and in his treatise Mystical Theology , on questions of the knowledge of God. In his teaching on the knowledge of God he faithfully follows the Cappadocians and, being at the same time a follower of Platonism, he combines Christian and Greek intuition very successfully - much more successfully than Origen. On the one hand, he follows the path of apophatic theology: like the Neoplatonists, God is incognizable, incomprehensible, and not amenable to any positive definitions. On the other hand, in two important points Dionysius deviates from Neo-Platonic teaching and goes beyond it. First, the Neoplatonist God is incomprehensible not in himself, but only because of our fallen nature. His transcendence is relative. The same view was held by Origen. According to Platonic teaching, it is possible for man to purify himself, that is to say, to get rid of “fallenness”, and to see the very essence of God. For Christians, even redeemed, purified, and deified humanity is incapable of knowing the essence of God; knowledge of God is possible only insofar as God Himself reveals Himself to man.

According to Plotinus, the transcendence of God is overcome by emanation, which is nothing other than a kind of “diminution” of God. God appears as a kind of full, overflowing cup. It is these drops that reach man. Pseudo- Dionysius uses Plotinus’ terminology, but in his understanding the emanations of God inform us of the fullness of His Deity, for God is not subject to “diminution” - herein lies Dionysius’ second divergence from Neoplatonism.

According to Pseudo-Dionysius, the “descent” (or “condescension”) of God presupposes an “exit” from His own essence, just as man’s “ascent” to God is impossible without “ecstasy”, that is, going beyond the mind and all bodily sensations. This understanding reflects the Christian mystery of a personal encounter with God.

In his teaching on the cognition of God, Pseudo-Dionysius circumvents both extremes. While preaching the Neoplatonic doctrine of divine transcendence, he at the same time faithfully follows the Cappadocians in guarding the essence of Christian revelation. According to his teaching, God is incognizable and incomprehensible, but not only because of the “fallenness” of creation, but for the simple reason that creation is creation and God is God - incomprehensible in His being “by His own beginning or characteristic”. Between God and creature is an impassable chasm for the creature. If the transcendence of God were a consequence of the fall of the creature, the immediate result of the Atonement would be the possibility of knowing God in His essence: this approach is incompatible with the Christian view of the cognition of God, and this was the point which represented the greatest difficulty in overcoming Neo-Platonism by Christianity. There was no room in Neo-Platonism for an understanding of God as the Creator who created the free world, which even in its fallen state retains freedom in relation to its Creator.

The merit of the author of the Areopagitica lies in the fact that he once and for all went beyond the Platonic view. In his system of the cognition of God the way to God consists of two steps, purification, or catharsis, and “coming out of oneself,” or ecstasy. Purification, sufficient for the Neoplatonists, is followed by the second step: it consists in the paradox of “coming out of oneself” to meet God, whose knowledge is « beyond the mind ».

13.3 Leontius of Byzantium

After the death of Theodoret of Cyrus (466) and up to the time of Emperor Justinian (527-565) the proponents of Chalcedonian Diphysitism defended themselves against the attacks of the Monophysites through passive apologetics. There were almost no creative thinkers among them. Under Justinian, however, an old tradition of Origenism resurfaced, revived in the interesting theology of Leontius of Byzantium.

Leontius of Byzantium appeared on the scene in the following historical situation. The emperor Justinian was searching for a theologian who would interpret the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon in such a way that they would be acceptable to the Monophysite opposition. The Origenists, who were condemned at this time but did not want to leave the scene, willingly offered their services to the emperor as the best specialists in Christology.

Three books of Leontius have come down to us: Against Nestorians and Eutychians ; Thirty C hapters against Se verus of Antioch; and Epilisis, or Against Monophysites , a work expounding the Christological views of the author.

The writings of Leontius were subsequently used by a number of theologians, in particular St. John Damascene cited him. It must be said that Leontius’ theological method is very scholastic, abstract, and quite alien to the soteriological orientation so characteristic of the Christology of the holy Fathers. But the merit of Leontius’ thought is that he introduced some useful concepts and found the right words to express them. He managed to find a terminology expressing the relationship between the concepts of « nature », φύσις ph y sis οὐσία usia “essence », that is, commonness, and hypostasis (something expressing the idea of identity). Leontius proposed a new term « enhypostasis » ( ένυπόστατον, enipostaton), applicable when usia (essence), becomes a concrete hypostasis. This terminology allows for the presence of several essences in one hypostasis, which in turn allows us to speak of a composite (or complex) hypostasis, hypostasis synthetos. Formally speaking, Leontius uses the same term as Severus of Antioch, who held that the concrete reality of Christ was a composite hypostasis (or nature). But in Leontius this terminology appears in a very different philosophical context from that of Severus.

Leontius of Byzantium was not condemned by the Council of 553 and, before he disappeared from view, he took part for some time in the polemic with the new heresy that appeared at that time, Aphthartodocetism. The emergence of this heresy is connected with the name of Julian of Halicarnassus, a Monophysite and the main opponent of Severusof Antioch. His monophysitism was not connected with Aphthartodocetism, since both heresies deal with different aspects of the Person of Christ. It is known that Emperor Justinian, at the end of his life, became a supporter of Aphthartodocetism, while at the same time being Orthodox and a follower of Chalcedonian theology.

This heresy was a kind of Docetism and asserted that the body of Christ was incorruptible. The logic behind this claim was based on the fact that since death is a consequence of sin and Christ was sinless, His body was not subject to decay. It follows directly from this that the actions of the Savior, which ostensibly reflected the fallen (corruptible) human nature - hunger, fear, death itself - were either a pretense or were only seen by those around Him. In reality, according to Orthodox teaching, Christ united with fallen, corrupt human nature precisely so that through His death and Resurrection He might restore it to its original grace and deliver it from corruption. Although He Himself was without sin, He freely bore the consequences of sin in order to save fallen man, which is why He is called the New Adam. The later Fathers of the Church, especially St. John of Damascus, also condemned Aphthartodocetism.

13.4 John Philoponus

John Philoponus (490-575) was an Alexandrian Christian philosopher.

The information preserved about John Philoponus is sketchy and contradictory.

Regarding the birthplace of John Philoponus, there is no consensus among scholars. Some mention Caesarea, others point to Alexandria, which seems the most likely.

Nothing is known of his childhood and youth. In about 510 John Philoponus begins to study philosophy and becomes a student of the famous Neoplatonist Ammonius, son of Hermas, who taught at the Academy of Alexandria, which was considered at the time the center of philosophical education along with the Academy of Athens.

John Philoponus was probably the most promising of Ammonius’ disciples. After Ammonius’ death (c. 520), John Philoponus succeeded his teacher in his commentaries on Plato and Aristotle and was one of the first editors and “official publishers” of the works of Ammonius of Alexandria. Despite his leading role in the Academy, after Ammonius’ death John Philoponus was not recognized among his colleagues because of his serious disagreement with the pagan party of philosophers: John Philoponus had criticized the fundamental tenets of the school of Proclus and Ammonius. The tense and hostile environment forced him to abandon his philosophical career. In 529 an edict of St. Justinian issued on the closure of philosophical schools in Athens and put an end to professional philosophical education.

John Philoponus was one of the brightest thinkers of his day, whose influence spread for many centuries into Byzantium as well as into the Muslim world, where his philosophical writings were read in Arabic translations from Syriac and greatly influenced the perception of Aristotle among Muslim philosophers.

  • 13.1 Cyril of Alexandria

  • 13.2 Corpus of Ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite

  • 13.3 Leontius of Byzantium

  • 13.4 John Philoponus

C. Late Antiquity. “After Chalcedon”: late 5th - late 8th cent.

Chalcedon and after

Graph View

Backlinks