Encourse Wiki

Patrology — Topic 16

Properties3
tagstopic
coursePatrology
unitTopic 16

35 min read

Patrology — Topic 16

16.1 Theodore the Studite

Theodore Studite (759-826) was one of the main transformers of the Eastern Christian monastic movement. He received a good secular education - he was a rhetorician and philosopher. At the age of 22 he withdrew to a monastery, learning the basics of monastic life under the guidance of his uncle, the monk Plato. He soon became abbot of the monastery of Studion.

Theodore was exiled three times, the first two being in connection with his condemnation of lawless marriagesof the emperor, and the third by the Iconoclast emperor Leo the Armenian for his firmness in confessing the dogma of the veneration of holy icons. In this exile he underwent much physical suffering. After the death of the emperor Theodore was returned to Constantinople, but Theodore still died in another exile in the Crimea.

Theodore wrote extensively; a number of his works refuted the iconoclastic heresy - Sermons on the veneration of holy icons and Letters on the same subject. Theodore wrote the “Sermons on Church Holidays” and C hapters on the ascetic life, and he wrote the Rule setting forth the order of the annual church service. Theodore made a great contribution to hymnography. A large number of letters have also been preserved. Theodore’s contribution to the organization of Orthodox monasticism is great. Theodore wrote Catechisms , or M onastic doctrines; two collections of these doctrines have survived: the Great Catechism including 254 doctrines, and the Minor Catechism consisting of 135 doctrines.

These works, addressed to the monks of the Studion monastery, contain the rules of monastic life-obedience to the abbot, participation in liturgical life, labor, and personal poverty. Theodore did not embrace the spiritual individualism of the early Christian hermits, but relied on the communal traditions going back to Basil the Great and Pachomius. The monastery was developing into a well-organized liturgical and laboring community.

16.2 Simeon the New Theologian

The personality of St. Simeon, who lived at the turn of the first and second millennia, is exceptional not only for the influence he had on Christian thought, but also for the fact that his teaching does not easily fit into the usual theological and ecclesiastical framework. In the history of Eastern Christianity, however, mystical contemplation of God and theology have always been in close relationship, never abolishing each other. That is why theology in the East has not become a dry science, while Western theology has gradually acquired a scholastic character and has become a science in the Aristotelian sense.

By giving St. Simeon the name New Theologian, the Orthodox tradition put him on a par with John the Theologian, the most mystical of the four Evangelists, and with Gregory the Theologian (Nazianzene), the author of contemplative poetry. This was not by chance, for Simeon the New Theologian is a singer of mystical unity with God, and mysticism in Eastern Christianity has traditionally been regarded as the summit and crown of all theology.

The works of St. Simeon have been fully published only very recently. He was officially canonized in later times, and for a long time there was no special feast or canons or verses in his honor. The life of the Monk Simeon is described in detail by his pupil Nicetas Stethates, who in addition to his Life of Simeon also wrote a treatise against the use of unleavened bread and a Commentary on Pseudo-Dionysius.

Simeon the New Theologian was born in 949 in Paphlagonia, to a wealthy and noble family. He received a good upbringing and education, but already from an early age he discovered a disposition for monastic life and in the year 973 entered the Studite monastery, where for a certain time he asceticized under the guidance of the elder of this monastery Simeon. At the monastery of Studion Simeon did not get along well, since he was, apparently, ill adapted to the strict monastic discipline of the Studites. But the very fact of his admission to the monastery suggests that he shared the beliefs prevailing in the monastic environment of the time concerning the harmfulness of learning after the age of 18 and the particular spiritual danger of reading Greek philosophers. Be that as it may, the atmosphere of Studion was not conducive to Simeon’s mystical mindset. His spiritual father ordered him to leave the monastery and live for some time in the world. Simeon obeyed, but in the year 977 he again returned to the monastery of Studion, where this time too he did not stay long. On the advice of his spiritual director, he secured an appointment to the monastery of St. Mamas, which at that time had very few monks. Simeon revived the waning life of the monastery, and in 980 he was ordained priest and elected hegumen of the monastery. In this capacity he developed extremely vigorous activity, established a strict ascetic discipline in his monastery, and became famous as a brilliant preacher.

From 1003 to 1009 Simeon was at odds with the ecclesiastical authorities, especially with Stephen, metropolitan of Nicomedia. Stephen, who held a high position in the patriarchate of Constantinople, did not like the custom established in the monastery of St. Mamas the annual celebration of the memory of Simeon, the late abbot of Studion. It was a spontaneous movement of local significance, and there was nothing extraordinary about it - it was how saints were canonized in the early Church. But the top of the Constantinople hierarchy preferred a more formal and bureaucratic approach to canonization. Through Stephen’s efforts our Simeon was banished from Constantinople, but was subsequently pardoned and died peacefully in 1022.

Some of the works of Simeon the New Theologian were first published in 1790 in Venice by the Greek bishop Dionysius of Zagorea. This publication was a retelling of the writings of Simeon in the Modern Greek language. A complete edition of Simeon’s writings was published in the French series Sources chr é tiennes.

1. “Catechetical Sermons,” addressed not to the catechumens but to the monks (the title suggests that ordination to monasticism is tantamount to a second baptism; one will compare the “Catechetical Sermons” by Theodore the Studite).

2. Sermons on theological and moral themes.

3. “Chapters” and short “Discourses.”

4. “Hymns,” representing the most original and daring part of Simeon’s heritage. Regarding his hymns, it should be noted that they are not Church hymns, but pure lofty verses in which poetic images serve to express personal Christian contemplation and spiritual experience.

To formulate Simeon’s thought in the briefest terms, for him the Christian faith presupposes a personal experience with God. Continuing the tradition of St. Macarius the Great, he speaks not of intellectual cognition of God, but of direct experience. As already mentioned in previous lectures, Macarius was repeatedly accused of messalianism, a charismatic monastic heresy that also insisted on direct, personal experience of God, but at the same time denied the need for the sacraments.

The essence of Christianity for Simeon is the cognition of God. In his writings he uniquely emphasizes the personal character of his experience with a remarkable frankness comparable to Augustine in the West, but usually alien to the Eastern Fathers:

“O miracle! I saw Him whom I thought to be in heaven within me; I saw You, I say, my Creator and King, Christ. Then I knew that it was Your own victory, in which You made me the victor over the devil. But I did not yet know, O Master, that in those judgments Thou art, who created me and gave me all these blessings, that Thou art in them, my most gracious God and Lord. For I have not yet been blessed to hear Thy voice, that I may know that it is Thou”.

The denial of the possibility of living and conscious communion with God in Christ and in the Holy Spirit appears to St. Simeon as the worst of all heresies, since it amounts to the denial of the whole work of Christ:

“Do not say that it is impossible to receive the Divine Spirit ; do not say that it is possible to be saved without Him; do not say that anyone is partakers of Him without himself knowing it ; don’t say that God is invisible to men ; don’t say that men can’t see the divine light, or that it’s impossible in these times! It’s never impossible, friends!” (Hymn 27)

Simeon writes that the true Christian life should not be centered on thoughts of what will happen after death, but on what is happening now, what life in Christ, in the body of Christ, is all about.

In one of his letters, Simeon sets forth his views on confession. He states that “to hear confession and to absolve sins is given only to those who are able to see God” (Epistle 1). Here he is referring to monks, not bishops or priests. Indeed, in ancient monasteries, and even today, according to Athonite custom, even ordinary monks have the right to hear confessions.

16.3 Gregory of Sinai

Gregory of Sinai (1275-1346 (?)) was one of the most important figures of the fourteenth-century Hesychastic Renaissance.

Little is known about Gregory’s parents and brothers, but the expression used in his Life (“his parents and brothers were surrounded by wealth and fame”), allows us to conclude that he belonged to high social circles.

The Turkish raid changed the life of young Gregory and his family. Turks, rebelling against the Byzantines, organized a military expedition to the province of Asia, which led to the plundering of those places. Almost all the Christians there were enslaved, as were Gregory and his family. The captives were taken to Laodicea. In Laodicea the captives were allowed to attend the city church and services. The local Christians paid a ransom for them and they were set free. From Laodicea Gregory made his way to the island of Cyprus, which was at that time under Lusignan rule. Then, feeling a call to monasticism, Gregory began to visit a certain hermit, from whom he received the monastic clothes. He stayed with him for some time.

After leaving Cyprus, Gregory reached Mount Sinai where he became a monk of the monastery of Saint Catherine (circa 1295) ; this fact earned him later the surname “the Sinaite”. Here, after taking monastic vows, he lived in obedience to the elders and devoted himself to ascetic works - fasting, vigils, bows and prayers. The young monk showed special diligence in psalmody during common services and in recitation of the Psalter in the cell and was noted for the fact that in food he limited himself to bread and water. For three years, Grigory had the obedience to serve in the kitchen and in the monastery bakery. He also devoted himself to copying books. But he was obliged to leave Sinai (1305). The jealousy of the other monks and the devil caused a great commotion in the monastery, which led Gregory, accompanied by his friend Gerasimos, to take his journey.

The two monks arrived in Jerusalem, where they visited the Holy Sepulchre and the holy places. Then they boarded a ship and reached Crete. Gregory and Gerasimos began to look for a suitable place for hermitage. There were a number of caves on a nearby mountain, which they used for shelter. The hagiographer tells us about their extremely harsh lifestyle: they ate only once a day, and their food consisted of a small amount of dry bread and water. However, Gregory sought a contemplative path and hoped to find a spiritual mentor. He met a man who made a real turnaround in his life. The hagiographer tells us that a monk named Arsenius, who probably lived on the same mountain, “a man of venerable age”, “divine”, experienced in contemplation, came to their cell. At his interlocutor’s request, Gregory told of his spiritual journey, of his choice of monasticism, of his years spent on Sinai and of his ascetic labors on the Mount of Crete. In response, Arsenius said: “But all that you did, my son, is called by the holy God-bearing fathers and our teachers practice (πρᾶξις), but certainly not contemplation (θεωρία).” Gregory began to ask Arsenius to explain this to him. The elder granted his request and, “beginning with one sacred and divine book, spoke on how to purify the mind, and on how a man can become wholly luminous.”

Immediately after this Gregory sailed to Mount Athos. Gregory visited the various monasteries and hermitages of the Holy Mountain. He met many monks who were living in virtue and asked them about hesychasm and contemplation. They knew nothing about it, they had not even heard these words. Gregory was naturally disappointed with the results of his search. He finally came to the hermitage of Magula, where he found what he was looking for: there lived three monks, Isaiah, Cornelius and Macarius, who were not only engaged in practice , but in part in contemplation too. So Gregory settled down not far from there; he and his disciples toiled hard, erected cells to dwell in, and built for himself at a little distance an hesychasterion in which he could devote himself alone to communion with God alone.

Gregory, who on his arrival on the Holy Mountain did not find, in fact, a single monk practicing hesychia, taught this way of monastic life not only to the monks who lived in seclusion, but also to the residents of the big monasteries. It is probable that some of the monks were embarrassed by certain aspects of Gregory’s teaching and practice. They appealed to him to demand: “Do not teach us a way we do not know at all,” and they wished to expel him from the Holy Mountain. The expulsion from Athos demanded by the monks was a very severe punishment, feasible only through the intervention of the higher Athonite authorities, and it could only be applied in connection with grave breaches of the monastic regulations or in case of accusation of heresy. Throughout the Byzantine era such decisions were made in exceptional cases.

During interrogation of Gregory, the Protos of Athos was struck by the spiritual experience of his interlocutorand dismissed all charges against him and had a long and cordial conversation with him. From that moment on, all the monks of the Holy Mountain honored him as their spiritual guide.

The raid of the Turkish pirates on the Holy Mountain (1326) brought about a new turn in Gregory’s life. This raid differed from the others in its breadth and heavy consequences. According to the Life of Gregory, the saint, who suffered much from the raids and pillages of the Turkish pirates, considered it no longer possible to live under these conditions and became nostalgic about the Sinai monastery that he had left years earlier. With the intention of returning to the monastery of St. Catherine, accompanied by his disciples, he left the Holy Mountain of Athos.

They had to remain in Constantinople, where they lived in miserable conditions. Their lives changed when they met the influential monk Athanasius Palaeologus, a cousin of Emperor Andronicus II. He introduced Gregory to court circles and introduced him to the aged emperor. Emperor Andronicus loved to converse with Gregory, who impressed him with his peculiar virtue.

Then Gregory returned to Athos. His fame spread over the borders of the Holy Mountain and many monks and laymen wishing to become monks came to Athos from distant villages to join his school. But even this stay of Gregory on Athos was brief. Turkish raids were continually repeated. That is why in 1335 he decided to definitively leave Mount Athos and settle down in Paroria, the place which seemed to him the most suitable for the life to which he dedicated himself. While Gregory became very famous already on Athos in his later years, his fame reached its peak in Paroria: “When he arrived in Paroria, Gregory of Sinai was like the sun that rises for those living in darkness: he fed the bread of life to those who hungered for salvation, and was an inexhaustible source in word, deed and contemplation… He also built several monasteries in Paroria, which can be considered the second Holy Mountain that brings the joy of salvation. During his lifetime the land of the Bulgarians became a monastic city.”

The saint, knowing several days in advance that the hour of his death was approaching, accompanied by his disciple, retired to his remote cell. After struggling with demonic attacks for three days, divine intervention freed him. Shortly thereafter he died.

- The most extensive work, the Acrostic Chapters , consists of 137 chapters of varying length. They deal with nine main themes, which are set forth according to the dogmas and commandments, and recount the stages of the ascetic path, the struggle with thoughts and with passions, and with virtue, hesychia , and prayer.

- “Other Chapters ,” a kind of addition to the previous work. The topics of the chapters are varied: imitation of Christ (1-3), passion-induced and good temptation (4-5), temptations that come in dreams (6), 7 kinds of almsgiving (7), discretion (8), the Blessed Trinity (9), Christology (10), a false approach to the ascetic life (11), obedience and humility (12).

- The work “On the Acts of Grace Proceeding from Prayer and the Signs of the Purity ”. Gregory first speaks of the need to regain the work of the grace of Baptism (1-2) and then outlines (3) how to gain it. This way consists in the practical application of the commandments and in the exercise of prayer. In chapters 8-10 the saint discusses the effects of grace, the illusion, their signs, and their consequences.

- “Chapters on Prayer.” Eight chapters are preceded by titles, indicating the theme: “How the Hesychast should sit during prayer and should not rise (on his feet) immediately”; “How one should say prayer”; “How one should hold his mind during prayer”; “How one should drive out thoughts”; “How one should sing Psalms”; “How one should eat”; “About deceit and different subjects”; “Question: What should we do when a demon transforms into an angel of light and leads a person astray”? The essay consistently gives advice on the technique of prayer, instructions on psalmody, different types of ascetic work, and finally a description of the signs and consequences of diabolical illusion.

- “Discourse on the Transfiguration of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” delivered by Gregory before the monks on the occasion of the Feast of Transfiguration. The text shows that the theme of the light of Thabor was at the center of the prayerful attention of Hesychast circles even before the controversy over the light of the Transfiguration that arose at the time of the Palamite controversy.

- The treatise On the Four Hierarchies , in 13 chapters, is written under the influence of the Areopagitics (especially the treatises On the Divine Hierarchy and On the Church Hierarchy) and deals with the symbolic meaning of monastic vocation, monastic garments, and the Eucharist.

16.4 Gregory Palamas

Saint Gregory Palamas (1296-1359(?)) belongs to the later Byzantine period. But in order to appreciate properly his place in the development of theological thought, it is necessary to imagine the main trends that prevailed in theology and philosophy at that time, trends that go back to the early Christianity. We are talking about the relationship between theology and ancient philosophy. In the Byzantine period, the ancient heritage was studied but considered dangerous, and monasticism was for the most part hostile in varying degrees to classical culture, regarding it as a remnant of paganism. On the other hand, the Cappadocian Fathers (Basil the Great in particular) argued that a classical education was good for young men. In medieval Byzantium Christian thought was opposed to ancient philosophy, but interest in the latter still survived, and the two traditions continued to coexist, as exemplified by such figures as Patriarch Photius and John Italus.

The basis of the conflict was that the view and understanding of the nature of the deity in Greek philosophy was incompatible with biblical intuition. At the same time, Christian theology successfully used a number of ideas borrowed from Plato. An instructive example of the temptation with which Greek thought threatened Christian theologians was Origen.

In the middle of the fourteenth century, Demetrius Kidonis, secretary to Emperor Nicholas Cantacuzene, after learning Latin, read Thomas of Aquina’s Summa contra Gentiles and discovered to his surprise that Western thinkers were not only familiar with Aristotle and Greek philosophy, but also successfully combined them with Christianity. In the 11th century, thanks to Arabic translations, Aristotle was “discovered” and translated into Latin. During this period, some of the Byzantine intelligentsia became fascinated by Western culture and some even moved to the West and embraced Catholicism (they were called “latinophrones” or “latin-minded”).

The official attitude of the Byzantine Church toward ancient philosophy can be characterized as vaguely suspicious. In the eleventh century John Italus was condemned by a synod and tried as a heretic for his Origenist ideas. As a result, an anathema against Italus was included in the “Synodic in the Week of Orthodoxy” (a liturgical rite celebrated on the first Sunday of Lent). The content of this anathema was that it was not forbidden to read Greek philosophers, but that it was considered reprehensible to believe them (especially Plato).

After Constantinople was liberated from the Crusaders in 1261, Greek nationalism and interest in antiquity again flourished among the capital’s intellectuals. But at the same time the monastic movement, with its ascetic and doctrinal radicalism, also revived. The empire, confined to the capital and its suburbs, was extremely weak politically, and the Church became in fact much stronger than the state power.

The monastic movement of that time is associated with the concept of hesychasm. The word comes from the Greek ἡσυχία h e sychia, meaning “silence”. Originally, Hesychasts were hermits, monks leading a contemplative way of life, in contrast to the communal way of life. The entire life of the Hesychast was devoted to Jesus’ Prayer. The idea of constant prayer of mind, as we know, goes back to Evagrius of Pontus. By the fourteenth century, the tradition of sthis prayer was familiar not only to hermits, but was considered a basic occupation in all monasteries and even among laymen. There were several “psychosomatic” methods (probably dating back to the era of ancient Christianity) for concentrating attention in mindful prayer through the discipline of the breath. One of these methods is incorrectly attributed to Simeon the New Theologian, and another to Nicephorus Hesychast, an Italian convert to Orthodoxy who became an Athonite monk (13th century). His name is associated with the debate about the nature and purpose of Hesychasm. In his treatise, Nicephorus offers practical instructions for achieving incessant prayer. The main obstacle to incessant prayer, he argues, is dissipation: the fallen human spirit is attached to external objects that have nothing to do with the image of God in us. The first task, therefore, must be the “gathering of the mind,” the unification of one’s self into a whole. Obviously, this method is rooted in the Old Testament understanding of blood as the dwelling place of the soul. Man is seen as an inseparable psychophysical unity, in which any movement of the soul inevitably causes a bodily reaction. There are other variants of this method, and all of them are based on the connection between the breath and prayer, on the union of the mind and the heart. Harmonized with the rhythm of the entrances and exits, prayer becomes permanent. As noted, there is no reason to think that the method of breathing in prayer is an innovation of this era. It apparently goes back to antiquity and has parallels in various religions.

The theological grounding of Hesychasm was done by St. Gregory Palamas. His surname, Palamas, indicates the nobility of his origin (common people of the time differed only in names and nicknames). He came from a family of refugees from Asia Minor. His father was a senator and a very pious man. It is said that he practiced the Jesus’ Prayer and sometimes even immersed himself in it during the sessions of the Senate. It is said that on one such occasion Emperor Andronicus II said: “Do not disturb him, let him pray.”

Gregory Palamas was educated in Constantinople and gained a reputation as a brilliant scholar of Aristotle. After his father’s death, when Gregory was about 20 years old, all the remaining members of the family withdrew to live in monasteries. Around 1315 Gregory and his brother became monks on Athos, which by this time had become already a major monastic center. Afterwards Gregory wandered extensively from one monastery to another: the Byzantine monks of the time evidently did not consider it necessary to belong permanently to any particular community. Palamas’ favorite monastery was the Great Lavra of St. Athanasius. For a short time he became hegumen of the monastery of Esphigmenou and finally he settled permanently in the hermitage of Saint Sabbas (near the Great Lavra) where he lived as a hermit and where he began to write. He led a life of “moderate” Hesychast, did not attend daily services, but did not interrupt his sacramental communion with the Church either, which refutes suggestions that he belonged to the Messalianism, a heretical tradition that denied the necessity of the sacraments.

Gregory Palamas would have remained just another Christian writer had he not been involved in a polemic with Barlaam of Calabria. Barlaam was an Italian Greek who came from Italy to Constantinople (1329). He was a complex individual, belonging simultaneously to two cultures, Eastern and Western. His first language was Greek, but he was also familiar with the Latin theology of his day. The intellectual life of the West was then dominated by nominalism and realism. Nominalism is an approach to reality in which words are merely conventions, irrelevant to the essence of the object. Realism asserts that language is adequate to reality, that “names” are not accidental, but are really connected with the realities signified. In a theological context, the nominalist approach can significantly change the meaning of the doctrine of divine cognition.

On his arrival in Constantinople, Barlaam, being a man of extraordinary character, attracted universal attention and made a lightning-fast career. He befriended John Cantacuzene, the Great Domestic (prime minister). With his help, Barlaam became a professor in Constantinople with a narrow specialization as an interpreter of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite.

In 1333 two Roman legates-Dominican friars arrived in Constantinople. One of them, a Venetian by birth, was the bishop of Kerch, at that time colonized by the Italians, where the bishop was going by appointment. While passing through Constantinople, the legates held a meeting with the Greeks about the possibility of uniting the Churches. It was, as always, about Filioque. Varlaam was appointed as the Greek representative. He was energetic, well acquainted with both Western and Eastern mentality and cultural peculiarities

  • in a word, he was the best suited for a dialogue with the Latins.

On the occasion of the coming debate, Barlaam published 21 short treatises in which he vehemently attacked Thomas Aquinas. Thomas, in his writings, used the Aristotelian method of syllogisms and, adhering to philosophical realism, proved the possibility of the knowledge of God. Barlaam, on the other hand, in his treatises urged his Western colleagues to read Dionysius, who proved that it was impossible for man to know God. In the same spirit he rejected the syllogisms of his opponents, declaring that we know nothing about the descent of the Holy Spirit because of the impossibility of knowledge of God, and therefore we should simply submit to the authority of the Church and Tradition. In addition, Barlaam took the liberty of ironizing the scholastic method of the Dominicans, who, outraged, left for Kerch.

Barlaam’s treatises continued to circulate and eventually made their way to Athos, where they were read by Gregory Palamas. Around 1335 Gregory wrote an extremely polite letter to Barlaam. In this letter he reminded Barlaam of the Incarnation of God and, referring to the Athonite Hesychasts, spoke of the direct Christian experience of communion with God. According to Gregory, the denial of the possibility of God-cognition, preached by Barlaam, was the worst heresy.

The letter of Gregory Palamas made Barlaam extremely irritated, but at the same time aroused his curiosity. He decided to learn about Hesychasm personally and visited the local Hesychasts in Thessalonica and Constantinople. What he saw deeply enraged his humanistic mind, nurtured by Greek philosophy and imbued with the spirit of classical culture.

“They initiated me into their monstrous and absurd beliefs, which it would be humiliating for a man of any intelligence or any common sense to describe, - beliefs resulting from evil faith and exstatic imagination. They informed me of the amazing separation and reunion of mind and soul, of the soul’s connection with the demon, of the difference between red and white light, of the sensible entrances and exits produced by the nostrils when breathing, of the barriers around the navel, and finally of the soul’s vision of our Lord, which vision tangibly and in full heart certainty occurs within the navel” (Letter 5).

In this description it is difficult to discern whether we are dealing with an ignorant distortion of the methods of Nicephorus the Hesychast or Pseudo- Simeon, or with a satire of Barlaam himself. In any case, Barlaam took his discoveries seriously and identified the Hesychast monks with the Messalians who were then flooding the Balkan countries.

The controversy that ensued between Barlaam and Palamas was about the question of the knowledge of God, Christian anthropology, and the spiritual life. It is noteworthy that in this polemic both sides referred to the authority of the same Pseudo-Dionysius.

In response to Barlaam’s invectives, Gregory wrote three treatises entitled “In Defence of the Hesychast”. These were the first three of the nine treatises devoted to this subject and constituted a triad - in the tradition of Dionysius. In polemical fervor, Barlaam called the Hesychists ὀμφαλόψυχοι omphalopsychs , “soul-in-navel’ers”. His accusations against the monks of Messalianism could have had serious consequences.

In 1340 Palamas leaves Thessalonica for Athos, where with his friends and associates he composes the Athonite Tomos. This document in support of Palamas against Barlaam was signed by all the Abbots of Athos in several languages.

Eventually the dispute was submitted to a council, which was held in Constantinople in 1341 and condemned Barlaam. Barlaam immediately repented and offered his regrets, which, however, were hardly sincere, for the same evening he sailed for Italy, where he was soon ordained bishop by the pope. Finding no use for his theological talents, he subsequently taught Greek to Petrarca!

The Council of 1341 confirmed the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas on the possibility of direct knowledge of God. But this doctrine, which implied a distinction in God between an unknowable essence and the divine energies, was criticized by some Byzantine theologians, Gregory Akindinus and Nicephorus Grigoras. As was often the case, theological disputes proved inseparable from political party struggles. Finding himself in a different political camp, Palamas was persecuted by the Constantinople patriarch John Calecas during the civil war of 1341-1347. Critics of his theology received the support of the government.

But John Cantacuzene’s victory in 1347 was followed by the triumph of Palamite theology. Saint Gregory himself was made metropolitan of Thessalonica. In 1351 a great council in Constantinople rendered a determination detailing his doctrine. Gregory’s death (1359) was soon followed by his canonization (1368).

Saint Gregory insists that God is not an idea or essence. He is not energy or the God of philosophers. He is a personal God. He speaks to man. Moses did hear His voice, he spoke not to an essence, not to a philosophical abstraction. The personal God shares Himself with us in the most real way, and this is done through divine energies. Energies, life, presence-whatever name we give to what God gives us - all these are not the essence of God, but through them the fullness of His presence is communicated to us. When the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles at Pentecost, it was the real presence of God, not an abstract philosophical category.

The energies are communicated to persons and are themselves personal in character, belonging essentially to a personal God. They are, as it were, “hypostasized” in individuals. When we venerate the saints, we are actually honoring the divine presence in this or that righteous person. Individuals in history have been called “friends of God,” and in general people can act in a divine way, so we can see Christ in our neighbor.

It follows from all this that even salvation can only be spoken of in a personal sense. Things, culture, or abstract ideas cannot be saved - only persons, that is, persons who create culture, ideas, etc., can be saved. Through people, nature and the achievements of civilization are saved, because it is impossible to isolate man from his natural and cultural environment, from his own creativity. We sanctify water, trees and even bees, but we do not sanctify them in and of themselves, but to use them for human needs. In a sense we do not sanctify water, but our use of water. Even the Eucharist can serve no other purpose than as saintly nourishment for man. Therefore, Orthodoxy is rather reluctunt to adhere to the Western teaching about the transubstantiation and worship of the Holy Gifts outside the Eucharistic meal.

16.5 Marcus of Ephesus

Mark of Ephesus (or Marcus Eugenicus, 1394-1445) was a metropolitan of Ephesus, a participant in the Council of Ferrara and Florence.

Marcus was born in 1394 in Constantinople, baptized as Manuel. His father directed a school and was a deacon of the Church of St. Sophia. Manuel Eugenicus began his education with his father. Having lost him in his 13th year, Manuel continued his education under the guidance of John Chortasmenos and George Gemistos Pletho. After completing his education, Manuel took over the leadership of the school that his father had previously headed. His students were George Scholarius, Theodore (the future Metropolitan Theophanes), and Manuel’s younger brother John Eugenicus. At the same time he becomes a member of the inner circle of Emperor Manuel II.

At the age of 25, in 1419, Manuel became a monk taking the monastic name of Marcus.

Shortly before the siege of Constantinople by Sultan Murad II began in June 1422, Mark returned to the capital, where he settled at the Mangana Monastery of Saint George. He appears to have written most of his hymnographic works there. At the same time Mark became the spiritual mentor of the future Patriarch of Constantinople, Dionysius I.

When a council was to be held in Italy to discuss the union of the Latin and Greek Churches, it became clear that the Eastern patriarchs could not travel there in person, and it was decided that Mark and Metropolitan Anthony of Heraclia would be the representatives of the Patriarch of Alexandria at the council. Following the death of the Ephesian metropolitan Joasaph in 1437, Mark was ordained bishop of Ephesus. After the arrival of the Byzantine delegation to Ferrara, the duties of the See were redistributed, and Mark was commissioned, together with Isidor, metropolitan of Kiev, to represent the Patriarch of Antioch.

A mixed theological commission was formed to discuss controversial issues, comprising 10 people from each of the two sides; together with Bessarion, Metropolitan of Nicaea, Mark became the official representative of the Greek part of the commission.

The decree for the unification of the Churches was signed first by the Greeks, then by the Pope and the Western delegates. Of the entire Byzantine delegation, only Mark of Ephesus and Isaiah did not sign the document. On the next day a celebratory mass was held at which the decree was proclaimed and approved one by one by all the participants in the Council, first by the Pope and the Latin prelates, then by the emperor and the Greeks.

After that, Pope Eugene IV asked questions to the Greeks about how they were going to deal with Mark, who refused to accept the council’s decree. The emperor rejected the idea of judging Mark at the Council, but promised to take action against him after his return to Constantinople if the metropolitan of Ephesus continued to disagree with the Council’s decisions.

Mitrophanes, the pro-Unionist bishop, was chosen as the new patriarch of Constantinople, and Mark left the capital and arrived in his Ephesian diocese, which was in Turkish-owned territory. There he visited the decaying churches and the cathedral, but because of the opposition of the Turkish authorities he decided to leave for Athos. On his way there, he stopped on the island of Lemnos, where the Byzantine authorities arrested him and imprisoned him in the fortress of Mudros. Two years later, in July 1442, Mark witnessed the siege of the island by the Turkish fleet. On August 4, 1442, Mark was released. Mark then went to Constantinople, where he spent the last years of his life. Veneration of Mark as a saint began immediately after his death.

Doctrine. Mark develops his doctrine of the post-mortem situation of the dead people in a response to the Western Church’s teaching on Purgatory. While objecting to the idea that there exists a third place for souls different from Hell and Paradise, Mark at the same time acknowledges the usefulness of prayer for the dead, which is mentioned in the Bible and in the writings of the Church Fathers. In his opinion, “to the souls in hell, already committed to eternal torment… it is possible to help and give some small help, though not so much as to deliver them completely from torment or to give hope of a final deliverance. At the same time, he believes that for some souls - namely those who have not sinned heavily - a stay in hell is not eternal, which is exactly what justifies prayers for them”.

On the question of Filioque , Mark’s polemic focused on proving that it was inadmissible to make any changes to the Creed adopted by the Second Ecumenical Council (381). Mark’s arguments on the question of Filioque largely follow the arguments put forward by Patriarch Photius and other Byzantine polemicists. Mark arrives at the traditional position of Byzantine polemicists

  • there is nothing that is common to the Father and the Son and at the same time is not common to the Spirit. Mark rejects the idea of Western theologians that the Father and the Son are one origin of the Spirit, comparing it to the attempt to call Adam and Seth (father and son) the common origin of Enoch (Adam’s grandson). He also challenges the argument of the Latin theologians, unknown to the first Byzantine opponents of Filioque, that the Holy Spirit would not be considered a third hypostasis, i.e. next to the Son, if He were not related to Him by a relation of origin; Mark notes that an ordinal sequence does not necessarily imply a relation of origin.

In response to the suggestion that the Old Testament expression “through the Son” is equivalent to “from the Son,” the author replies that the prepositions “through” and “from” do have the same meaning in Scripture when words referring to the Creation of the world refer to the Son without reference to the Father. But when speaking of the origin of the Holy Spirit, the Father has to be mentioned, Mark writes, and so the expression “through the Son” means something else here, namely, “with the Son” and “through the mediation of the Son.”

In his Confession of Faith Mark draws attention to another possible understanding of the words about the emanation of the Holy Spirit “from the Father through the Son,” namely as indicating the giving of the Holy Spirit to men through and with the Son. Mark does not want to know or accept references to the Western teachers of the Church because they have not been translated into Greek, have not been approved by Ecumenical Councils, and because he considers them corrupt and with many insertions.

  • 16.1 Theodore the Studite

    • 16.2 Simeon the New Theologian
    • 16.3 Gregory of Sinai
    • 16.4 Gregory Palamas
    • 16.5 Marcus of Ephesus

D. Fathers of the High and Late Middle Ages, 9th - 15th centuries.

Byzantine ascetic literature

Hesychast controversies
Contacts with Christian West

Graph View

Backlinks