Palamism before St. Gregory Palamas, the filioque dispute and the primacy of the pope in Byzantine ecclesiology of the 12th-14th centuries: some observations

Contents Introduction 1. The Filioque dispute and the development of Protopalamitian and Photian dogmatic thought of the 12th–14th centuries. Relationship between pneumatology and ecclesiology 1.1. Nikolai Mefonsky, Nikita Seid, George Moskhambar and Gregory of Cyprus: criticism of the Filioque, the doctrine of perichoresis of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, deification and the gifts of the Holy Spirit 1.1.1. Nikolai Mefonsky and George Moskhambar about perichoresis of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity 1.1.2. Nikita Seid: connection between the doctrine of perichoresis and the Greco-Latin controversy 1.1.3. Nikolai Mefonsky and George Moskhambar on deification and the gifts of the Holy Spirit: some comments 1.2. John X Kamathir, St. Nilus Cabasilas and Barlaam of Calabria: from triadology and pneumatology to the conciliar doctrine of the Church and criticism of Roman primacy 1.2.1. Neil Cabasilas, Barlaam of Calabria, Nicephorus Gregory and Matthew Blastar: criticism of the pope, common to the Palamites and anti-Palamites 1.2.2. The image of John Veccus among the Uniates and their opponents is a living illustration of the controversy surrounding Filioque 2. The principle of the “ecclesiological Filioque”, its actualization in the correspondence of Innocent III and John X Kamatira and criticism by Byzantine theologians and polemicists of the 13th–14th centuries. 2.1. Statement of the problem 2.2. George Acropolis, Germanus II (1223–1240), George Moshambar and Barlaam of Calabria on the distribution of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the apostles 2.2.1. George Acropolis and Germanus II: The Son as the only Giver of the Holy Spirit of the Church 2.2.2. Nicholas of Methon, George Moskhambar and Barlaam of Calabria: from perichoresis of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity - to the equality of St. Peter and the other apostles 2.3. Innocent III, John X Kamatire and Barlaam of Calabria on the “ecclesiological Filioque” 2.3.1. Ecclesiological argumentation of Innocent III 2.3.2. John X Camateer's critique of the ecclesiology of Innocent III. Conclusion. St. Maximus the Confessor and St. John of Damascus: Christ, His image and His Providence (power) over the Church and the world List of abbreviations Summary. Dmitry Makarov. Palamism before St. Gregory Palamas, the Filioque Debate and the Byzantine Ecclesiology of the Twelfth to the Fourteenth Centuries: Some Considerations Despite the significant interest observed recently in the study of the Greco-Latin polemics of the 12th–14th centuries, the conclusion of Fr. Jean Darrouzes (1912–1990) that the Byzantine treatises devoted to criticism of the doctrine of the primacy of the pope, “...are far from fully studied by both historians and theologians...” 2. The opinion of J. Darrouzes is shared by the publishers of John Kamatira's letters - A. Papadakis and E. M. Talbot 3. One of the ways to overcome such a situation is to turn to the fundamental dogmatic (pneumatological) foundations of the theme of primacy in Byzantine protopalamite and Palamite thought of the 12th–14th centuries. 4 Fr. had something similar in mind. J. Darrouzes, when he pointed out: “...we will be able to clarify dates and concepts if we resort to new sources and compare them with each other” 5. And first of all, it is necessary to try to determine the relationship between the Byzantines’ criticism of primacy and the aforementioned protopalamite and palamite (Photian) tradition, or rather, the place of this criticism in this tradition. Recently, D. I. Muresan proposed to call the rise of spiritual-theological, cultural and church-political activity of hesychasts in Byzantium and South-Eastern Europe in the 14th–15th centuries. “political Photianism” 6, and we will have the opportunity to be convinced of the theological validity of such a name (designed to replace the outdated terms “political hesychasm” and “social hesychasm”). The term “political Photianism” is associated with a number of other terms established in science, of which the two most important for us now are “Palamism” and “Palamism before St. Gregory Palamas." If we talk about triadology, pneumatology and soteriology (the doctrine of salvation as deification), then the connection between the teachings of Palamas and such outstanding and still underestimated theologians of the 13th century as Gregory of Cyprus 7 and George Moshambar 8 becomes increasingly obvious. The tradition of “Palamism before Palamas” - in the mutual interweaving of these sections of dogmatics, as well as ecclesiology - seems justified to be traced not only to St. Photius, but also to such a prominent thinker of the 12th century as Nicholas of Metho (to whom the interpretation of Pentecost as the descent of the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit on the apostles goes back 9). Therefore, spiritual and theological criticism by Byzantine authors of the 12th–14th centuries. The Roman doctrine of the primacy of the pope cannot be understood without taking into account the deep internal relationship of pneumatology with ecclesiology and the doctrine of deification in the Byzantine tradition in general - and in the Palamite tradition in particular. It is possible to reveal the relationship we postulate through a comparative examination of the Byzantine criticism of the Latin doctrine of the Filioque and the Latin monarchical ecclesiology of the late Middle Ages, 10 which, as we will try to show, is in direct connection with this doctrine. The basis of the Palamite and protopalamite criticism of the doctrine of the primacy of the pope is the literally not explicit, but quite clearly readable idea of ​​​​the so-called “ecclesiological Filioque”. In other words, the special exalted position of the Pope in the Church (as the Byzantine authors make it clear, especially Niketas of Nicomedia and John Camatirus, who stood at the origins of this branch of tradition) is similar to the position of God the Son in the Holy Trinity: how the Son - along with the Father - is the second Cause of the procession of the Holy Spirit (even if the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, “as if from one Origin,” according to the dogmatic constitution “On the Most High Trinity” of the Lyon Council of 1274 11), so the Pope of Rome is a special - highest - bishop who, together with Christ (analogous to the Father), sends down to the rest of the bishops the saving grace of the Holy Trinity. This position of the pope is justified by references to the confession and exploits of St. Peter as guardian of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. These exploits result in a special “privilege”, i.e. i.e., in essence, the charismatic power of Peter and his successors over the Church. In turn, the grace or energy of the Holy Spirit (i.e., according to the Palamite teaching, God Himself 12 turns out to be in some way limited by this special power and authority of the Pope of Rome and dependent on him - just like the Hypostasis of the Spirit Itself in the doctrine of the Filioque. The Photian and Protopalamite authors contrast the traditional conciliar teaching on the Church with the described theory, sometimes justifying it with very remarkable arguments. As an example of the formulation of such a doctrine, let us cite the perplexed question of the outstanding Byzantine theologian of the 12th century. Nikita of Nicomedia, preserved for us in ch. III.8 “Dialogues” of Anselm of Havelberg (March 1149; the negotiations themselves took place in 1136 13: “Although we do not disagree with the Roman Church in our very catholic faith (quamvis in eadem catholica fide a Romana Ecclesia non discordemus), nevertheless, since at the present time we do not participate in its councils, is it possible for us to accept its decrees, which are written down without any discussion with our side, and therefore in our complete ignorance?” 14 Let us pay attention to Nikita’s conciliatory (Irinist) mindset, reflected in his reluctance to touch upon the controversial issue of the Filioque, which would become topical for the Eastern Church after 1204. Nikita points out that the issue was not discussed by any Ecumenical Council, and therefore it is too early to draw any generally valid conclusions 15 . Everything changes after 1204, at the second stage of the controversy with the idea of ​​primacy in Byzantium (see: section 1.2). The concept of “catholic faith” (from which, of course, the dogma of the Filioque was excluded) was characteristic of the 14th century. by no means only for the Palamites. It is interesting that even authors opposed to the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas on the distinction between the essence and energies of God, come out with a completely Orthodox criticism of the Roman doctrine of primacy (Barlaam of Calabria; see section 1.2.1). The concept of “Catholic faith” can, to some extent, act as a unifying principle even for representatives of opposing camps in hesychast disputes. Since in such a situation of controversy very much depends on the understanding of church history by both sides, it is no coincidence that the vision of history by the Photians and Uniates in Byzantium in the 14th–15th centuries. was completely different, which becomes noticeable in the example of both sides’ perception of two significant events in this story. We are talking about the Photian “Cathedral of Reconciliation” of 879–880, which aroused the keen interest of the Palamites and protopalamites of the 13th–14th centuries. (including George Moskhambara), while some of the Uniates even in the 15th century. had no reliable information about him, and about the activities of the Latinophile Patriarch John XI Veccus (1275–1282), “who associated his name with the Lyon Union of Churches” 16. The assessment of his works by representatives of both spiritual and church-political movements, as one would expect, turns out to be diametrically opposed. We will try to argue the considerations expressed here in a condensed form, based on the duality of the methods of dogmatic and church-historical analysis (in addition, we will be interested in how the Photian Palamites themselves perceived dogmatics and church history in their internal relationship). The emphasis will be on the internal, but clearly explicatible, relationship between such ideas from the field of triadology and the doctrine of the Church, the deep relationship between which has not yet been paid close attention. It is interesting to note that back in 1112, during negotiations on the union of the Churches with Peter Grossolan, Nikita Seid noted that the confusion of the historical and dogmatic approaches and, as a consequence, the inevitable dogmatization of the transient (the former greatness of Rome under the emperors) lies in the confusion of the Roman Church. In support of his thought, Seid referred to 2 Cor 3:10 and 5:17 - verses traditionally interpreted in the context of the Incarnation, which abolished old customs 17 . Therefore, from time to time - in order to better understand the biblical foundations of what happened in the XII-XIV centuries. polemics - we will have to turn to exegesis. But first of all, let us turn to highlighting and clarifying the relationships between pneumatology and ecclesiology within the framework of the protopalamitian and Photian traditions of Byzantine thought of the 12th–14th centuries. 1. The debate about the Filioque and the development of protopalamitian and Photian dogmatic thought of the 12th–14th centuries. The connection between pneumatology and ecclesiology The first question that we will need to clarify in order to substantiate the above is the question of the place of one of the most prominent Byzantine thinkers in the field of pneumatology - Nicholas of Metho - in the protopalamite tradition and the closeness of Nicholas to such representatives of this tradition as Nikita Seid, George Moshambar and Gregory of Cyprus. All four authors are still awaiting a detailed comparison of their dogmatic views with the classics of patristic thought. In addition, for reasons that have not yet been clarified, Moskhambar, who signed the Tomos drawn up by Gregory of Cyprus against the Latinophiles - John Veccus, George Metochites and Constantine Meliteniot at the Blachernae Council of 1285, soon after the Council spoke out against Gregory of Cyprus and led the party of his opponents, declaring himself a fighter for the purity of church dogmas 18. This question is very complex, since it is clear from the texts that both Cypriot and Moshambar were - in many similar ways - fighters for the Truth and forerunners of St. Gregory Palamas. Apparently, at some point traditional conservatism and dislike for “innovations” prevailed in Moskhambara. One of these “innovations,” undoubtedly, was the Tomos 19 compiled by Gregory of Cyprus. Accordingly, Gregory of Cyprus subjects Moskhambara to sharp criticism in letter 178 John Gila, also one of the leaders of the opposition to Tomos 20, so the question of the spiritual-intellectual relationship of St. Gregory and George is, without a doubt, acutely relevant. 1.1. Nikolai Mefonsky, Nikita Seid, George Moskhambar and Gregory of Cyprus: criticism of the Filioque, the doctrine of perichoresis of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, deification and the gifts of the Holy Spirit First of all, we will touch upon the deep and systematic echoes, not yet analyzed by scientists, between the teachings of Nikita Seid, Nicholas of Metho (XII century) and George Moskhambara (end of the XIII century) about the perichoresis of the essence and Persons of the Holy Trinity. 1.1.1. Nikolai Mefonsky and George Moskhabar about perichoresis of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity We have already paid attention to those deep and precise expressions in which Georgy Moskhambhar sets out the doctrine of the eternal intra-trinity perichoresis of the Persons of the Holy Trinity in his treatise “Chapters refuting the teachings and writings of Veccus, sent as a whole (καθολικῶς) to the entire Church of Christ...” 21 (August 1281) 22. This teaching, in our opinion, could influence the corresponding teaching of St. Gregory Palamas - directly or indirectly (shaping the environment in which the thought of the teacher of silence matured) 23. Let us give just a couple of examples of Moshambar’s refined formulations. “For the whole Father abides perfectly in the whole Son and the Holy Spirit, and in the whole Father the whole Son and Holy Spirit abides perfectly, and in the whole Father and Holy Spirit the whole Son abides perfectly, and in the whole Son the Father and the Holy Spirit abides perfectly, and the whole Holy Spirit abides perfectly in the whole Father and Son, and in the whole Holy Spirit the Father and Son abides perfectly. For there is one and the same essence, power and energy of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, so that none of them exists or is conceivable without the Other” (Mosch., pp. 294.107–295.115; cf.: Ibid. P. 298.197–202; 300.245–248; 321.119–121). This is the true order in the Trinity, concludes Moshambar (Ibid. P. 295.115–119). Even more important, from the point of view of the history of ideas, is the following text: “So, according to the incomprehensible, indescribable, existing above nature and name, super-infinite, super-simple, super-initial, one and super-divine Divinity, as well as according to the logos of mutual aspiration (mutual directionality, τῆς ϕεραλληλίας), the Father - between the Son and the All-Holy Spirit, the Son - between the Father and the All-Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit - between the Father and the Son, and none of them is extreme. In fact, can the Son and the Holy Spirit be outside the Father, so as to be located, as it were, on both sides of Him? Are the Father and the Holy Spirit outside the Son, so that He too can be, as it were, on both sides of Him? Are the Father and the Son outside the All-Holy Spirit, so that He too can be placed, as it were, on both sides of the All-Holy Spirit? Therefore, just as the Father is the mean, so the Son is the mean, and the Holy Spirit is the mean, equally, on the basis of the same logos and without any transformation” (Mosch., pp. 348.79–92). From the closest sources of this reasoning, it is necessary to point to “Other syllogisms on the procession of the Holy Spirit” by Nikephoros Blemmides (c. 1249 24), a probable teacher of Moshambar 25. Let us take a closer look, for example, at syllogism 5: “If the Holy Spirit [comes] not through the Son, then he who has received the Son with Him will not be able to receive the Spirit, but only the Father, just as vice versa: he who has received the Spirit will not be able to receive the Son with Him.” 26 The idea that none of the three Persons of the Holy Trinity is “extreme” seems to have been adopted by Moshambar from Blemmydes. Looking ahead, we emphasize that the general idea of ​​the Filioque as a negation of perichoresis could have been taken by George from his probable mentor. In a similar way, as John Camateer argued at the end of the 12th century, the “ecclesiological Filioque” destroys the traditional teaching about the conciliarity of the Catholic Church. This idea was accepted by polemicists of the Palaiologan time (see section 1.2.1). In addition, it reflects the traditional Alexandrian and Cappadocian teaching about the unity and completeness of the presence of the essence of God in all three Hypostases as the basis of their mutual perichoresis. That is why the concept of “private essence” turns out to be false, the use of which is criticized by Moshambar both based on the general principles of Alexandrian and Cappadocian triadology, and in the context of polemics with the Filioque: in fact, the one who thinks that the essence of the Son plagues the Spirit “postulates that the Son has a private (μερικὴν) essence” (Mosch., p. 324.78). In the philosophical tradition of the 14th century. (John Pediasim) the concept of “private essence” means - based on Aristotle - a certain single and indivisible object that exists on its own 27; the application of this concept to triadology means the transformation of Cappadocian Christology into tritheism - the doctrine of three individual essences. And it is precisely tritheism that Moshambar accuses John Veccus of (Mosch., p. 287.24–288.25; 288.26–31; 289.62–65; 290.81–88. 95–97. 101–102; etc.) 28 . Resulting from the juxtaposition of individual entities (Peter, Paul, James, etc.) etc.) the numerical order of countable entities (first, second, third, etc.) is not applicable to the Holy Trinity, since it is observed only in created and limited hypostases, in which there is no mutual desire (τὸ φεράλληλον) towards each other (Mosch., p. 298.186–190). This concept is included in the, so to speak, “dictionary of perichoresis” that Moshambar is actively developing. Where in the Holy Trinity, asks George, is there room for a numerical order (Ibid., p. 298.192–195)? It will be disorder and tritheism (Ibid., pp. 298.196–197). The source of these ideas, most likely, are two Words about the procession of the Holy Spirit by Nicephorus Blemmydes (mid 1255 - summer 1256, according to M. Stavr 29), from whom Moshambar probably studied in his youth 30. Like Blemmydes, Nikolai Methonsky, outlining the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father, emphasizes: “After all, in general, a monad is the beginning of a dyad, and not a dyad - a monad” 31. Wed. in Blemmydes: “For every dyad is inevitably preceded by a monad” 32. If we apply this postulate to the problems of ecclesiology, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that the duality of the position of bishops in Latin ecclesiology (the pope on the one hand, the other bishops on the other) must inevitably be preceded by a single principle - in this case, Christ as the Head of the Body of the Church (Eph 1.22-23; cf. 2.16, 20-21; 4.11-16). The unique power of Christ over the Church is a traditional postulate of Byzantine ecclesiology, including that of the period under review 33 . It would also make sense to think - and in the future the texts of Nilus Cabasilas and Barlaam of Calabria will confirm our assumption - about the applicability of the concept of “private essence” to the criticism of the Roman doctrine of primacy: the pope turns in Innocent III (and in the Gregorian teaching about the Church in general) into a special and individual - exalted - entity, possessing, along with Christ, the ability to exhale the Holy Spirit and send Him down to others bishops. Let us return to the phrase of George Moskhambar: “For the whole Father is in the whole Son and the Holy Spirit, and the whole Son and the Holy Spirit are in the whole Father, and the whole Son is in the whole Father and Holy Spirit, and the whole Father and Holy Spirit are in the whole Son, and the whole Holy Spirit is in all the Father and the Son, and the whole Father and Son are in the whole Holy Spirit, so that not one of them exists or is conceived without the others” (Mosch., p. 348.92–98). Why is this possible? To answer this question, directly related to criticism of the dogma of the Filioque, Nicholas of Metho around 1155 had to recall almost all the main provisions of the Alexandrian, Cappadocian and Dionysian triadology. It is unnecessary to emphasize that we will meet them not only in Photius and Blemmides, but also in such authors who discovered the protopalamitian line of thought in the 12th–13th centuries as Andronikos Kamatir and Nicholas Mesaritus 34. In fact, with reference to Gal 4:6, Nicholas of Methonia recalls that the Holy Spirit from all eternity abides in the Son, being “His fullness” (πλήρωμα αὐτοῦ), “and through Him (δι᾽ αὐτοῦ) is transmitted to those who are able to perceive; from the Son - in no way, so that the Son, in turn, is not called the Father of the Spirit, and the Father - Grandfather, and the Spirit - Grandson, and so that as a result of this (οὕτω) the hypostatic properties of [Persons] (αἱ ἰδιότητες) do not mix up and do not move from their place and so that both the names remain motionless, and the Father Himself is the Father (and not two Fathers) and was called [also –] Father; and so that the Son [was and was called] only the Son - and not so that he turned out to be the Son of One, and the Father of the other 35; and so that one Spirit would be the only Spirit; and so that it would not happen that, due to the origin of the Two from one Father, these Two turned out to be two Sons and Brothers..." 36 The unique hypostatic properties of Persons are expressed in the unique Name inherent in each of them: “For each of the Persons has a single (unique, μοναδικὸν) own Name, not communicating (ἀκοινώνητον) with others, so that no combination (συνδυασμός) [Names] are impossible here” 37 . These words, written 120 years before the dogmatic constitution of the Second Council of Lyons in 1274, are obviously the opposite in meaning to the central dogmatic statement contained therein (tanquam ab uno principio), while at the same time sounding as if a commentary on the reasoning of George Moshambar. Moreover, turning to the text of Nikolai Mefonsky allows us to understand in more detail the deep and not lying on the surface reproaches of Moskhambara against the contemporary Latins of the 13th century, who were much more skilled in dialectics compared to the negotiators of the 12th century. (cf. the reasoning of Nikita of Nicomedia, cited above, p. 10). In fact, thanks to the comparative reading of Nicholas of Metho and George Moskhambara, it becomes clear that the individual essences in pro-Latin triadology (the doctrine of which Moskhabar attributes to Vecca) in Orthodox thought is opposed by the doctrine of the individual names of the Three Persons as Those in Whom there is a single Divine essence, “one and super-divine Divinity” (Mosch., p. 348.81), which is not some kind of external substrate in relation to Them 38. It is on this perichoresis of the Hypostases, on the basis of the unity of the essence that belongs to Them, that Nicholas emphasizes - in exactly the same way as Moshambar will do 130 years later: “And the Three are one God no less than Each of the Three, for, although there are Three who are counted, however, these are not three Gods and not three kind of private essences of Divinity (μερικαί τινες τρεῖς οὐσίαι θεότητος). But in the Three and in each there is one and the same complete Divinity” 39. This contrast between names and private entities is extremely important, given that already in Exodus 3:14 the Name of God serves as the most important aspect of His self-revelation. The same applies to the phrase ἐγώ εἰμι, which appears repeatedly in both the Old and New Testaments (Deut. 22:39; John 6:20; John 8:24, 28:58; etc.) 40. From this it is also clear that the difference of names in the Trinity does not mean a difference of essences, as the Anomeans supposed; in fact, the only name of God for Eunomius was the famous expression “unborn essence” (οὐσία ἀγέννητος), applicable only to the Father - the only supreme God 41. As St. later (c. 1337) explained. Gregory Palamas, not the Existing One - from the essence, but the essence - from the Existing One, “for the Existing One Himself has absorbed into Himself the entire fullness of being” 42, which, of course, is not exhausted by one predicate. This reasoning takes us back to the same verse Exodus 3:14, as well as to the teaching of St. Basil the Great, who showed that the names we create do not reflect the essence of things, but only their actions - energies accessible to different types of our perception 43. For example, the expression “finger of God” (Luke 11:20) indicates “that Divine spiritual energy with which Christ cast out demons...” 44 This interpretation of this image also goes back to St. Basil the Great and other fathers and teachers of the Church of the 4th–5th centuries, as shown by E. Cavalcanti 45. We will return to the conversation about energies later (section 1.1.3). For now, let us emphasize that both theologians - Nikolai Mefonsky and George Moskhambar - with their precisely verified and deep reasoning substantiated the doctrine of the essential perichoresis of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity, closing the road into Orthodox triadology to various kinds of variants of tritheism, whether dating back to John Philoponus or arising from Latinophile trinitarian reflection after the 9th century, founded at the adoption of the Filioque. The works of both theologians reveal the concept of “fullness of being,” used by Palamas as a generalization. 1.1.2. Nikita Seid: connection between the doctrine of perichoresis and the Greco-Latin controversy And yet the question arises: does the developed doctrine of the essential perichoresis of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity appear in Nicholas of Metho suddenly and spontaneously, as if deus ex machina? Isn’t it directly related to his – and Moshambar’s – polemic against the Filioque? Luckily, we have a firm answer to this question: yes, it is. Without repeating the arguments of Photius, we emphasize that for every Byzantine representative of the protopalamite-Photian tradition, the Filioque was nothing more than a corruption of classical Cappadocian, Alexandrian and Areopagite triadology. Therefore, already the first systematic theologian and polemicist with the Latins in the 12th century. – Nikita Seid – reveals: a) the doctrine of perichoresis of the Persons of the Holy Trinity; b) the doctrine of the correlative nature of their names (Father, Son and Spirit) in connection with: c) such criticism of the Filioque, which paves the way for the teaching of Blemmydes, Gregory of Cyprus, Moshambar and Gregory Palamas about the distinction between the shining or revelation of the Holy Spirit through the Son and His hypostatic procession and existence from the Father 46. In fact, according to Nikita, the Holy Spirit has existence (τὴν ὕπαρξιν) from the Father and rests in the Son 47. How does Nikita justify this teaching? “Indeed,” he says, “all three Persons point to each other, since they are thought of one through the other. Indeed, if it were not for the Son, how could we think about the Father? And if it were not for the Father, how could we think about the Son? And really, what Father is he called the Son of? The same is true with the Holy Spirit. After all, He comes from (ἐκ) the Father, and through the Son He manifests (διὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ δὲ φανεροῦται) 48 . But the Son, in turn, manifests himself through the Spirit (φανεροῦται διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος) 49, because the Begotten and the Produced from eternity accompany each other (συμπαρομαρτυροῦσιν... ἀλλήλοις ἀεὶ), without separating either from each other or from the Father” 50. This explanation of the correlation between the names of the Father and the Son goes back, firstly, in perspective to the teaching of St., fundamental to patristics. Basil the Great about two types of names - indicating: a) the essence of an object or phenomenon; b) on its relationships with other objects or phenomena. The names of the second type are the names of the Father and the Son, indicating their distinctive characteristics, manifested in the unity of the common essence 51, i.e., individual properties. “This is the nature of individual properties (τῶν ἰδιωμάτων) to reveal otherness in the identity of essence...” 52 Let us note the most important significance of this teaching for Greek patristics in general and the Photian and protopalamitian tradition of polemics with the Filioque, in particular. Secondly, the last part of the phrase (with the rare verb συμπαρομαρτυρέω used in it) also contains an allusion, not noted by the publisher, to a well-known passage from the 41st sermon of St. Gregory the Theologian, also important for Nicephorus Blemmides 53. This alone proves the inclusion of Nikita Seid in the main tradition of Byzantine pneumatology. Thirdly, the idea of ​​reciprocity and especially of symmetry in the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit and their connection with the Father as the First Cause serves to further disclose the doctrine of perichoresis, that is, the interpenetration of three equally honorable Hypostases into each other, each of which - and all together - equally possess the fullness of the single essence of God. Within the framework of this doctrine, the concept of the Filioque and its accompanying teachings have no place. Explaining the corresponding teaching of Photius about the intra-Trinitarian symmetry of the Son and the Holy Spirit, F. Alexopoulos writes: “Otherwise, if the two eternal modes of emergence (birth and procession) were not equivalent to each other, the orderliness and symmetry that exist within the Trinity would be jeopardized” 54. Alexopoulos calls this co-equality of the Caused “a kind of order in the bosom of the Trinity” 55, their “symmetrical relationship among themselves” 56. Fourthly, even lesser-known authors of the 13th century. (for example, George Acropolis) will think within the framework of this paradigm, the foundations of which were already laid by Seid. In fact, let us consider the expression of Akropolitan, which is - in meaning - a close analogy to the teaching of Nicephorus Blemmides about the Son as the essential Giver of the Holy Spirit (Autobiography II, 30, 31, 37): “For the Son possesses in Himself the whole Spirit - not because He realizes It (οὐσιῶν), but for the reason that He, receiving essential being from (οὐσιωμένον παρὰ) the Father, perceives him as perfect. In this regard, we say that the Spirit, proceeding from the Father, dwells in the Son and from there goes outside (ἵεσθαι)” 57. And this is not accidental: “...despite the fact that he was a product of the Nicaean Empire, his learning comes from the Patriarchal School in Constantinople,” writes K. Konstantinidis about the Acropolis. “He is indebted to both of his teachers - Theodore Hexapterygos and Nikephoros Blemmydes” 58. In turn, St. Gregory of Cyprus studied with Akropolitus for about seven years (1266/1267 - 1273/1274), completing his studies just in time for the conclusion of the Union of Lyons 59 . In terms of the accuracy of the presentation of the doctrine that interests us about the intra-Trinitarian perichoresis of the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Acropolis approaches St. Gregory of Cyprus 60. The philosophical and theological foundations of the rather complicated triadology of Theodore II Laskar (1254–1258), who wrote simultaneously with Nikephoros Blemmides (c. 1254 61), are not fully understood. But even this author, who denies the teaching of Blemmides about the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son 62, recognizes that the Son and the Holy Spirit come from the Father as from a single Origin, “from Whom, in Whom and thanks to Whom (cf. Rom 11:33; Eph 3:6) They have essential perichoresis [between themselves]” 63. If we take into account that this fellow student of Akropolitus (who attended the classes of Blemmydas with him 64) also became one of the first to teach the difference between the procession of the Holy Spirit and His sending down (it seems that this means the eternal sending of the Holy Spirit by the Son) 65, then we can better understand how deeply founded in late Byzantine patristics Gregory's teaching was of Cyprus, George Moshambar 66 and Gregory Palamas about the eternal radiance of grace, revealed to the saints as the Light of Tabor, and about the possibility of an Orthodox interpretation of the Filioque. The works of these authors update an important idea that has been known to the church consciousness since the time of polemics with the Doukhobors in the 60s and 70s. IV century: it is unacceptable to belittle the Divine dignity of the Holy Spirit and His grace-filled gifts to the world, the Church and the faithful. And although twenty years later than Seid’s speech (in 1136), Nikita of Nicomedia would still deny the significance of the Filioque as an obstacle to the reunification of the Roman and Constantinople Churches, it can be said that Nikita Seid was one of the first after Photius to set the framework for high theology about the Holy Spirit, which - side by side with the conduct of anti-Latin polemics - continues to reveal the subsequent luminaries of the Greek Orthodox tradition, such as Nicholas of Methon, Nikephoros Blemmydes, Gregory of Cyprus, George Moshambar and Gregory Palamas. In other words, by the turn of the 12th–13th centuries, when such an outstanding monument of Christian thought as the correspondence of John X Kamatira and Innocent III arose, from the very beginning of the Greco-Latin polemic about the primacy of the pope at the beginning of the 12th century. In Greek theology, the idea of ​​ideal unity and “conciliarity” (in other words, perichoresis) in the relationship between the Persons of the Holy Trinity was naturally updated. This “conciliarity” will naturally be thought of by John Kamatir as one of the dogmatic foundations for the doctrine of the conciliarity of all bishops and all the faithful in Christ. The conciliarity of the Universal Church will begin to be conceived on the model of the conciliarity of the Holy Trinity. One can consider the outstanding triadologist Nikolai Mefonsky to be one of the most important links in this Photian-Protopalamitian tradition, which also gave important fruits in the field of ecclesiology. But attention should also be paid to the role of Nikita Seid, who prepared the lofty speculations of Nikolai Mefonsky. We will now digress briefly from the topic of ecclesiology to talk about its pneumatological foundations. In our opinion, the relationship of pneumatology with other sections of Christian philosophy and doctrine today needs in-depth disclosure and justification. Let us now turn to the general elements, motives and ideas in the teachings of Nicholas of Metho, George Moskhambar and Gregory of Cyprus about the energy and grace-filled gifts of the Holy Trinity and about their allocation to man as the basis of our deification. 1.1.3. Nikolai Mefonsky and Georgiy Moskhambar on deification and the gifts of the Holy Spirit: some comments First, let us note another parallel between the “Another Code” of Nikolai Mefonsky and his treatise “Memorable words from what was written in various works against the Latins.” The general context of Nikolai’s reasoning is as follows. Discussing John 20:22, he points out that the holy spirit (without an article) can be called “...and an angel who draws his holiness from the same place (from God. - D.M.), from where the soul of the righteous comes” 67. After which comes the passage that interests us: “And in general, each of the spiritual gifts of God is called the holy spirit.” 68. According to the addition to this phrase in the manuscripts of the ND edition of A. Michel, among these gifts is the “gift of remission of sins” 69. So this too is a gift of grace, and not just a human ability. Let us note in passing: from John 20:19–23 it is clear that the Lord gave these gifts to ten disciples (minus Judas and the absent Thomas), so there is no need to talk about any specialization of Peter in this case. But we are now more interested in the aspect of the connection of this thought with the previous tradition. The great theologian closest in time to Nicholas, who substantiated in detail the corresponding ideas about the divine-human nature of the remission of sins, which is visibly performed by the priest (and invisibly by the Holy Spirit) during Confession - St. Simeon the New Theologian (949–1022) 70, abbot of the monastery of St. Mamanta of Xirokerkos and spiritual father of St. Nikita Stifat, under whose name A. Mikhel published “Another Code”. It turns out that the corresponding ecclesiological idea is close to that part of the mystical-ascetic tradition of hesychasm, whose representatives paid tribute to the Greco-Latin polemics (as was the case with Nikita Stifata). Now let us turn to the thought of George Moshambar from “Words of Refutation against the Teachings and Writings of Vekka” that through the Holy Spirit we receive “the wealth of deification” (Mosch., p. 380.118–120). After all, Christ anoints us “... according to Divine and deifying grace and gift” (Ibid., p. 381.127–128) 71. Moshambar then repeats the famous argument of St. Basil the Great 72: since the Holy Spirit deifies, it means He is God (Ibid., p. 381.132–134). He is “...the breath of the Son in so far as it concerns the transmission and bestowal of Divine grace” (Ibid., p. 381.134–135). But to whom does the Holy Spirit bestow all these riches of grace? Is it really possible for some limited group of people - or are these gifts, in principle, available to all the faithful, especially clergy and bishops? It seems that in light of 1 Corinthians 12:1–28 the answer to this question is obvious. Not to mention the fact that the argument about the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit is common to the Photian and Protopalamite traditions, let us take this small mental step and cross the divide that is an almost invisible line separating pneumatology from soteriology. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are given to any faithful through a canonically ordained cleric due to the apostolicity of the Church. This thought directly introduces us to the tradition of John X Kamatira, St. Nile Kabasila, Barlaam of Calabria, which will be discussed in sections 2.2.2 and 2.3.2. In fact, we read about the same universality of the Lord’s giving of grace to His disciples in the Second Letter to Innocent III by John X Camathier (spring 1200): “We have not been taught that the Comforter breathed into all the disciples equally, and not more and not less, and we have learned that the same grace of miracles was given from God to the rest of the apostles...” 73. As Germanus II (1223–1240) emphasizes, in the same way the grace of converting peoples to the faith of Christ (Matthew 28:19) was granted to Peter along with the rest of the apostles 74 . That is why Rev. John Meyendorff emphasized, generalizing the Byzantine tradition: “... all local Churches have the same fullness of grace” 75. “The grace of God is equally revealed in every Church of Christ..., that is, wherever the Church of God exists in its sacramental and hierarchical fullness” 76. This idea, which Moshambar expounds within the framework of general soteriology, is transferred by Kamatir to ecclesiology. Isn’t it symbolic that with this experience of synthesis of two spheres of theology, usually interpreted separately, a new century, the 13th century, opens? This kind of impression is strengthened even by a quick glance at the letters of the Byzantine “Minister of Foreign Affairs” Demetrius Tornik to Pope Celestine III (1193), the main content of which J. Spiteris compares with the ideas of eucharistic ecclesiology of the twentieth century. and states it as follows: “... the one and only Church is completely and entirely located in each Local Church. In reality, each Local Church fully possesses the entire Holy Spirit, the entire risen Lord. In this state of affairs, each Local Church represents the entire Church in Its fullness. Therefore, there is no point in talking about the subordination of the remaining Churches to Rome” 77. Let us note one important detail in connection with the texts of Moshambar and Kamathir: the category of grace does not allow numerical differences of the “more” - “less” type, like the Hypostasis of the Trinity. Since They are equal to each other, none of Them is greater or less than any other, as stated, for example, by Theodore Agallian, one of the most prominent - along with Mark of Ephesus - representatives of the Photian-Palamite tradition in the 15th century. 78 In the absence of equality between the Hypostases, their perichoresis would be impossible. In Moshambar’s treatise, many pages are devoted to explaining the universality of the Holy Spirit’s giving of grace-filled gifts to the faithful, as well as to interpreting the question of why different people share in these gifts to varying degrees. His presentation is in the Palamite spirit (except with the absence of the concept of “communion (ἡ μετουσία)”), forcing one to recall such a classic of Palamite spirituality as David Disipate (XIV century) 79 . Instead of the concept of “communion,” which describes a person’s assimilation of the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit as if “from above,” Moskhambar uses the concept of “acquisition,” looking at this process as if “from below,” from the side of human efforts: “For the best acquire (ἐπισπῶνται) grace in accordance with the measure of each person’s virtue, and some perceive it to a greater extent, while others - to a greater extent. less, thanks to it they become gods by grace and communion” (Mosch., p. 398.47–49). Continuing the tradition of Photius and Gregory of Cyprus 80, Moshambar explains: “It is this Divine brilliance, grace, energy and gift of the All-Holy Spirit that the Divine Scriptures call the Holy Spirit; and besides, Divinity, God and God-creating...” (Ibid., p. 398.49–399.52). The entire Trinity dwells in the righteous (Ibid., p. 400.93–95) “according to the distribution of grace-filled gifts” (p. 401.98). So, if God gives everyone an equal measure of His fullness, then the participation of His gifts on the part of people can be greater or less. Communion - but not grace itself, which is always the same and is, according to the Tomos of the Council of 1351, God Himself (see: note 12). Is it possible to draw any indirect conclusions from this that could be significant for criticizing the Roman idea of ​​primacy? It seems that yes: Moskhambar and Disipat show that the approach of a particular person to God depends first of all and mainly on personal virtue and righteousness, that is, on the disposition and skill of the will, and not on the position occupied by this person, no matter how high it may turn out to be. (Otherwise, if we accept the idea of ​​primacy, we end up with something akin to “physicism,” i.e., the doctrine of deification by position, and not by spiritual and ascetic success 81; it goes without saying that the adherents of this idea were by no means among the fathers and teachers of the Church...) Without citing well-known parallels from Palamas and taking into account that the above-cited iambics of Akindinus describe the teaching of Palamas, we can outline the following (by no means linear) development scheme of the protopalamitian line of development of soteriology: Photius - Niketas Seid - Nicholas of Methonius - Nikephoros Blemmydes - Gregory of Cyprus - George Moshambar - Gregory Palamas - David Disipat 82, etc. This scheme does not attempt to obscure the differences between individual representatives of this tradition (see note 20 on the critical attitude of Gregory of Cyprus to Moshambar); A special problem arises in its relationship with the largely alternative tradition of St. Simeon the New Theologian 83. As we see, this line largely coincides with the basic line of development of the Greco-Latin polemic; It is no secret that, for example, Gregory Palamas was known among the Slavs primarily as the author of two “Apodictic Homilies on the Procession of the Holy Spirit” 84 (between February and May 15, 1334, according to the dating of Father A. Firigos) 85 . In them, the teacher of silence expresses a well-known thought about the admissibility of the Orthodox interpretation of the Latin dogma of the Filioque 86, based on the distinction (formulated in the Tomos of the Council of 1285 against Veccus, compiled by Gregory of Cyprus): “Consequently, the Spirit is not from the Son, unless you call the Spirit grace and energy... The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ as God in essence and in energy. But in essence and in Hypostasis the Spirit is His, but not from Him; in terms of energy – both from Him and from Him” 87. Of the many parallels to this thought, St. Gregory, which are not difficult to find among the late Byzantine authors, let’s take not the most obvious one - from the “Second Word on the Procession of the Holy Spirit” by George Acropolitus. Based on John 16 ^14, Acropolis says that the Spirit from the Son “... receives manifestation (τὴν ἔκϕανσιν), giving (τὴν δόσιν), dispensing (τὴν χορηγίαν)” 88 . All this is not the way of His essential being (τῆς... οὐσιώδους ὑπάρξεως): the corresponding expressions indicate “some other uniqueness of the tropos (way) (ἰδιοτροπίας)” 89. Akropolitan lacks the clarity of formulation characteristic of the teachings of Gregory of Cyprus and Gregory Palamas. At the same time, trying to preserve the traditional division, dating back to Photius, between the procession of the Holy Spirit and His shining in energy, he strives - parallel to Blemmydes and practically in the same 50s. XIII century – to elevate the difference between these acts to the intra-Trinitarian life of the Hypostases that has been taking place from time to time. To some extent (given the complexity of the philosophical and theological teachings of Acropolis and the little-known nature of this teaching after the death of Michael VIII Palaiologos), George can also be considered one of the forerunners of the teachings of Palamas. But is it permissible to extend the well-known thought of Gregory Palamas to the Roman Catholic teaching on the primacy of the pope in the Universal Church? It seems to grow organically from the tradition of Byzantine soteriology of the 11th–14th centuries that we have briefly outlined. the Byzantine mature tradition of polemics with the doctrine of primacy, formed in the XIII - mid-XIV centuries. (its supporting representatives are John X Kamatir, St. Nile Cabasilas and Barlaam of Calabria), does not allow us to give a positive answer to the question posed. And the reason for this is the unsatisfactoryness (in the opinion of Byzantine polemicists) of the Roman doctrine of primacy precisely from the point of view of Orthodox pneumatology and soteriology in their inextricable unity (the Church is the Body of Christ, combined together and set in motion by the grace-filled energies of the Holy Trinity, given by the faithful Holy Spirit). Let us consider the late Byzantine polemic with the doctrine of primacy using the example of these thinkers - John X Kamatira, St. Nile Kabasila and Barlaam of Calabria. We will especially emphasize the most important role of soteriology and pneumatology as cornerstones in the building of this criticism. 1.2. John X Kamathir, St. Nilus Cabasilas and Barlaam of Calabria: from triadology and pneumatology to the conciliar doctrine of the Church and criticism of Roman primacy “For a historian of polemics, the time after 1274 is a real gold mine,” writes T. M. Kolbaba, 90 and it is difficult to disagree with her. At the same time, it is obvious that all the “post-Lyon” refutations of the Filioque and the primacy of the pope by the Greeks go back to the turn of the 12th–13th centuries. and to the events of 1204. So the true starting point of this new, second (after the 12th century) stage in the polemic with the idea of ​​primacy is the already cited correspondence of John X Camateer with Innocent III. It was for this pope that the union of the Churches and the subordination of the Greeks to the Roman throne - both doctrinal and political - became the main goals of his entire pontificate 91. Having taken to the extreme the idea of ​​the primacy of the pope as the foundation of the Church, Innocent III developed to the maximum extent an “anti-conciliar” ecclesiology, opposite to the Greek-Byzantine one, starting from the first steps of this latter 92. He directly exalted Peter above the assembly of the rest of the apostles, just as he exalted the pope above the assembly of bishops: after all, just like Peter, Christ Himself is above the bishops and metropolitans 93 . This desire of Rome to achieve at all costs the reduction of Graecorum served as the reason for failures and a number of subsequent negotiations on the reunification of the Churches, for example, those conducted by the ambassadors of Theodore II Lascar sent to Rome in 1256. The reason is the same: the rejection by Patriarch Arsenius (1254–1260) of Roman ecclesiology 94 (and thereby, as we tried to show in Sect. 1.1.2–1.1.3) and pneumatology. However, back at the end of the 11th century. Peter Damiani exalted Peter above Christ: “So it is clear that the order of the Churches 95 is built in accordance with the advantage (privilegium) of Peter, and not with the all-surpassing perfection of the Redeemer” 96. Here Peter directly rises above Christ and, if we develop this line of thought further, approaches... God the Father? It is obvious that this kind of conclusion could arise in such a system of beliefs and doctrinal formulations, in which deviations from the classical Cappadocian-Alexandrian and Areopagite triadology were latently accumulated. However, John X Kamatir, in two reply letters to Innocent III, managed to create “a complete synthesis of all Byzantine arguments against Roman primacy,” 97 created primarily in the 12th century. 98 Along this path, he was also able to construct a deep and thoughtful synthesis of pneumatology and ecclesiology. J. Spiteris laid the foundations for the approach we are developing when he pointed out in connection with the first letter of John X that the patriarch, following Basil of Thessalonica, “...transfers the criterion of the unity of the Roman Church to the field of dogma, and specifically to the field of the dogma of the Trinity” 99 . In addition, the observations of J. Spiteris regarding the opposition of John Kamatira to the Roman concept of the apostolicity of the Church 100 are important for us. But also Rev. I. Meyendorff in 1960 pointed out that Eastern theologians interpret the primacy of Peter within the framework of a different concept of the Church, different from the Western ecclesiology of the late Middle Ages 101. We intend to develop the heuristic potential of these ideas to the extent they deserve. 1.2.1. Nile Cabasilas, Barlaam of Calabria, Nicephorus Grigora and Matthew Blastar: criticism of the pope, common to Palamites and anti-Palamites Let’s say right away that the four main authors of the 14th century for us. – St. Nilus Cabasilas, Barlaam of Calabria, Nikephoros Grigora and Matthew Blastar (we deliberately leave Palamas aside, wanting to talk about less studied representatives of the tradition) - can be classified as the third group of polemicists with the idea of ​​​​Roman primacy, according to J. Spiteris. All four argue (St. Nil - diplomatically, Gregor - evasively, using an arsenal of philosophical and rhetorical means, Barlaam - directly, and Blastar - in the most uncompromising way) that the pope is a heretic and should be considered as having fallen away from the Body of Christ 102. Therefore, these authors’ assessment of his teaching and actions, as well as Roman ecclesiology, is very critical. As an example of such a very negative assessment of the pope, let us cite the rhetorically skeptical statement of Nikephoros Gregoras: “Wouldn’t it turn out to be nonsense that the Hellenes, no matter how many Pythagoreans or Epicureans they have, consider their teachings and decrees to such an extent something divine and beyond doubt that they silently accept what they say, not allowing themselves to doubt what they heard, or to say something in response, while we not only do not want to use the divine laws and dogmas of the founders of our piety and faith, as if some standards of truth that do not allow proof, but, on the contrary, we support others (ἄλλων) who doubt [our dogmas], who talk idle talk about them and fragment their meaning exactly as opponents do in war, taking trophies with you, and moreover doing it with extreme lewdness? 103. Grigora is distinguished by an emphasis on the continuity of both sides of the Greek cultural tradition - secular and spiritual. Indeed, for him both the Pythagoreans and the Fathers of the Church have equal value and significance. Taking into account the above, we can consider Nikephoros a representative of the first - anticytic - tradition in late Byzantine humanism 104. Within the framework of our current topic, it is important to note that he also speaks disapprovingly of the activities of the Latins, explaining it, among other things, by the lack of culture and low moral qualities characteristic of Western people (in his opinion). However, let us return to the problem of assessing the pope and his activities. The similarity in views we noted between the four Byzantine thinkers is not surprising, given that all four wrote their works at the same time (30s - early 40s of the 14th century) and in the same place (Thessalonica). In fact, T. M. Kolbaba dates the 7, 12 and 21 anti-Latin treatises of Barlaam of Calabria indefinitely - from 1334/1335 to 1342. 105 A more precise dating is offered by the publisher of the complete collection of anti-Latin works of Barlaam, Mons. A. Firigos: according to the results of his research, we are talking about November - December 1334 (negotiations with the Dominicans about the union ended shortly after receiving news of the death of Pope John XXII on December 4, 1334) 106. The text of Vlastar K. Palaiologos dates from the same time: between 1335 and 1341. 107 With the same Greco-Latin negotiations on the union of 1333–1334. M. Paparozzi also connects the treatise of Grigora 108. One should agree with E. Yu. Kanaeva that Grigora, being a layman, could not play a particularly significant role in these church negotiations, and the main negotiator for the Byzantines in the debates with Francesco da Camerino and Riccardo of England was the monk Varlaam 109. As for St. Nile Kavasila, then, according to M.-E. Congurdo, it was he who influenced Varlaam with his anti-Latin argumentation, and not vice versa 110. Nil and Vlastar could, according to the researcher, use a common fund of sources stored in the monastery of Isaac, where Vlastar lived. Nil probably supplied Varlaam with both arguments and sources in their defense 111. Thus, all four authors can be considered a fairly coherent group defending their collective point of view. This is all the more remarkable because two of them - Varlaam and Grigora - were condemned by the Patriarchate of Constantinople for the anti-Palamite heresy in 1341 and 1351, respectively. 112 Moreover, Neil Cabasilas condemned Gregoras for anti-Palamism; Grigora, in turn, defeated Varlaam in a public debate, which took place in the winter of 1331/1332. in Constantinople, in the house of John Cantacuzenus 113. Two other polemicists - Neil Cabasilas and Matthew Blastari - were convinced Palamites. And it is Vlastar’s anti-Latin treatise that shows the earlier origins of his Palamism - even before 1346, which is indicated in some reference books 114. It remains only to conclude that the craving for national, cultural and spiritual identity united Byzantine intellectuals from a variety of camps, rising even above the mutual antipathies that arose in the heat of hesychast disputes. Regarding the theory of M.-E. Congurdo about the influence of Neil Cabasilah on Barlaam, we note that others can be added to the list of three examples she gives. Thus, at the end of the 21st Anti-Latin word (AL 21), Barlaam says, addressing his mental Catholic opponent: you confess your Catholicity, being ashamed and being convicted by your conscience 115; if someone exposes you, you resort to force and authority, “doing things like tyrants” 116. This is a clear repetition and development in ecclesiological terms of the pastoral-anthropological argument of Nilus Cabasilas, which seems to us to be the original: the pope is often mistaken in his conscience, being a man 117. It is clear that, being mistaken in this, he may fall into error in matters of faith. What is simply postulated in Barlaam, is substantiated in Nile (cf. 1 Tim 1:12). “Do you see,” Neil asks his mental opponent, “that someone whose conscience is unhealthy can turn out to be weak (ἀσθενῆσαι) in matters of faith?” 118 So, it is a mistake to think that the pope cannot fall away from right-wing dogmas. “And this very sin of conscience is not a form of godlessness?” 119 So Honorius fell away - and was condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council 120. “So, is it impossible for the pope to deny God by deeds, but not at all by words?” 121 When reading these lines, one gets the impression that they represent the source in which the corresponding ideas of Barlaam of Calabria are substantiated. A distant forerunner of that moral approach to the problem of papal infallibility, which we see in the works of Nilus Cabasilas and Barlaam of Calabria, can be considered Nikita of Nicomedia. Citing a quotation from 2 Cor 5:10 during negotiations in 1136 with Anselm of Havelberg, Nikita notes that the apostle addresses his words to all mortals - including the Roman Pontiff: memento mori! 122 Thus, the Byzantines tried to contrast the “legal catholicity” 123 of Innocent III and the post-Gregorian papacy as a whole with a different – ​​anthropological – approach, which, in their opinion, was not so far removed from the basic truths of the Gospel. In this they were helped (as J. Spiteris noted) by the exegesis of the Bible 124, and - above all - by a different spiritual and anthropological vision of man and his interaction with the uncreated gifts of grace of the Holy Spirit, which can be acquired by those who are pure in heart and conscience (cf. Wis. 1.4). Due to the freedom given to us by God, this interaction does not exclude the fact that, according to Archpriest. I. Meyendorff, “everyone can always become unworthy of the grace he has received and the function to which he has been called by the grace of the Holy Spirit... Each bishop receives the charism of teaching and preserving the truth in the Church in which he is appointed bishop. If he changes his purpose, he will lose it, but it will remain in the Church and will be taken over by others” 125. 1.2.2. The image of John Veccus among the Uniates and their opponents as a living illustration of the controversy surrounding the Filioque Moreover, we can point out in late Byzantine church history such a figure (who acted, in fact, as an analogue of the pope), about whom many copies were broken on both sides - the Uniates and Orthodox polemicists with Rome. A figure that, through its living and concrete example, illustrates the theoretical provisions that we have analyzed so far, and because of this serves as a clear illustration of these provisions. We are talking about John XI Veccus (1275–1282) and his image in pro-Unian and anti-Latin church-political works, which, in terms of the time of writing, covered the period from the Union of Lyons to the Union of Florence. As a theologian, Weccus was a deeply controversial figure. Thus, in particular, he reinterpreted the text of the “Sacred Arsenal” of Andronikos Kamatira (c. 1173–1174 126) in order to defend his opinion about equality in the meaning of the prepositions ἐκ and διά 127, thereby equating the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father with His shining and dispensation through the Son (contrary to the tradition briefly discussed in section 1.1.2). In a very important canonically and dogmatically synodal resolution of the Council of Constantinople in April or May 1283, compiled by St. Gregory of Cyprus, the time of the patriarchate of Veccus is called “the time of unrest (τῆς συγχύσεως)” 128. Without touching yet on the complex issue of the correspondence of the accusations brought against Veccus with the nature of his own theology, 129 let us compare the image of Veccus in two such works - Orthodox and Uniate. Thus, in an anonymous pamphlet published by S. Lilla and dating back to the period of time between 1283 and 1303/1304, but closer to the first date, Vekkos is called a heretic, having a common share with Judas. After all, after the conclusion of the union, he introduced liturgical commemoration of the Pope, although he had previously promised not to do this 130. On the other hand, in the Uniate treatise of the 15th century. “About the Ecumenical Councils and where each of them took place...”, the Latinophile patriarch is glorified as “... the divine Vekkos, this triblessed, wondrous archbishop of this Byzantium” 131. The author identifies 10 Ecumenical Councils. He considers the Eighth Ecumenical Council to be the Council of Lyons in 1274, which supposedly took place under Pope John (meaning John VIII, 872–882) and condemned Photius 132, the Ninth Ecumenical Council is the Local Council held in Constantinople in 1277, at which Veccus approved the Union of Lyons. Subsequently, his decisions were canceled by the Council of Blachernae in 1285, chaired by George of Cyprus 133. The Tenth Ecumenical Council is Florence 134. This example confirms that in the church-historical thought of 135 Byzantium in the 13th–15th centuries. Two main traditions continued to compete - the Orthodox anti-Latin and the Uniate pro-Latin 136. A logical question arises: was the weaker knowledge of church history by the Uniates after the Council of Florence connected with their departure from the tradition of Photius (whom the author of the treatise “On the Ecumenical Councils...” considered the main culprit of the schism of the Greeks and Latins 137), and thereby from Orthodox dogma in general? In any case, the following circumstance seems natural. At least three Orthodox authors of the 12th–14th centuries. (author of the so-called “third anonymous Hergenröter - Silvano” 138, St. Callistus I, Patriarch of Constantinople in 1350–1353, 1355–1363, and St. Nilus Cabasilus) with minor differences quote the dogmatic definition (oros) of the Council of Reconciliation of Constantinople in 879–880, convened Photius 139. In addition, apparently, a separate branch of the Byzantine Orthodox church-historical tradition of the late Middle Ages is represented by references to the Council of Reconciliation in the dogmatic and polemical works of Moskhambara. Cathedral of St. Photius and Pope John, says Moshambar, anathematized “the Filioque, unleavened bread and other heresies of the Latins” (Mosch., p. 450.79–85). What a glorious Cathedral it was! After all, not only the pope’s envoys arrived, but also three eastern patriarchs from among the members of the pentarchy (Ibid., p. 450.89–90). What caused such keen interest in the actions of this Council? The fact is that the Council of Reconciliation in 879–880, in which Pope John VIII also took part in absentia, prohibited at the penultimate session any changes to the Creed. In turn, in this prohibition, the fathers of the Council followed the District Epistle of Photius in 867. “Following Photius, who expressed his position in 867,” writes P. Gemeinhardt, “the text of the Creed was established in its intact state. This integrity of the text became of decisive importance for the ongoing dispute about the Filioque” 140. The above authors, like other Orthodox polemicists, clearly follow this rule. It is very important to emphasize the following circumstance here. The very acts of the Council of 879–880, previously considered lost, were found not by anyone but by St. Neil Kavasila - in the process of writing his most important treatise “On the Procession of the Holy Spirit” 141, published by Hierarch. F. Kislas 142 . Based on the dating of this treatise, M. Fanelli proposes to date the 44th homily of St. Callista 1359–1361/1362 143 This means that 20 years after the anti-Latin polemic of Varlaam, Grigora and Vlastar, the corresponding topic continued to excite the minds of Byzantine church intellectuals. “Accordingly,” continues the German scientist, “the main task of the later polemical theology of the Latins was to substantiate the legality of adding the Filioque to the Symbol - which was carried out after the 12th century. through a reference to the role of the pope as the supreme guide..." 144. But the differences in pneumatology at the Council of 879–880. played no role 145. But they started playing it later. We can conclude that representatives of the Orthodox tradition were characterized, on the one hand, by a higher philological culture and a greater depth of church-historical memory. Historicism of thinking was naturally combined in their case with dogmatic precision and adherence to the original Orthodox principles and norms. 2. The principle of the “ecclesiological Filioque”, its actualization in the correspondence of Innocent III and John X Kamatira and criticism by Byzantine theologians and polemicists of the 13th–14th centuries. But what, in this case, were the Uniates approaching? Is the conclusion of J. Spiteris correct: “None of them (the polemicists from the third group - D.M.) puts the Roman doctrine of primacy on a par with the “heresy” regarding the Filioque or at least unleavened bread. For them, we are not yet talking about a question of a dogmatic order, but about a purely disciplinary problem or, if you like, about a question of authority” 146? Is it possible, as the Italian scientist does, to explain the Byzantines’ exclusion of the pope from the pentarchy of patriarchs in the 12th century? only the natural evolution of those political-ecclesiological principles that were inherent in Byzantine Christianity from the very beginning 147? We could accept the latter consideration with one seemingly small clarification. We are talking, in our opinion, about a more precise formulation (developed over time) not so much of political-ecclesiological principles, but of dogmatic, pneumatological-ecclesiological principles, which were indeed inherent in the consciousness of Christians, starting from the early Christian era of the 1st–2nd centuries, but underwent significant development and clarification in the post-Photian and protopalamite tradition. 2.2. George Acropolis, German II (1223–1240), George Moshambar and Barlaam of Calabria on the distribution of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the apostles In this paragraph we have to once again emphasize the connection between the doctrine of the intra-Trinitarian perichoresis of God the Son and God the Holy Spirit with the doctrine of the transmission of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Church, since these two aspects of the doctrine, as well as the thoughts of the fathers and teachers of the Church, are rarely considered in unity with each other. 2.2.1. George Acropolis and Germanus II: The Son as the only Giver of the Holy Spirit of the Church As we tried to show above (section 1.1.2), from its very origins in the 12th century. The Byzantines' criticism of the Latin primacy went side by side with the deepening of the doctrine of the intra-trinitarian perichoresis of essence and Hypostases. In the 13th century - apparently, without direct dependence on ecclesiastical and political reasons, although they could play an indirect role here - this teaching undergoes a significant deepening in the thoughts of Nikephoros Blemmydes, Theodore II Laskar, George Acropolitus, Gregory of Cyprus, the result of which is a new teaching about the eternal shining of the Holy Spirit through the Son, the visible manifestation of which radiance is the Tabor light. This theory reveals in a more profound way the action of all three Hypostases of the Holy Trinity, especially the Son and the Holy Spirit, not only in intra-Trinitarian life, but primarily in the Economy of our salvation, which takes place in the Church and through the Church. As an example, let’s take the phrase of George Acropolite: “For the gift of the Spirit is called Spirit - as, for example, in the expression “Spirit of the Lord”... I do not deny that the Spirit Himself is given by the Son (παῤ)” 148. Here Acropolis expresses the most important idea that both the Father and the Son give the gifts of the Spirit to those whom they deem necessary 149. This conclusion, which has biblical foundations, serves as a prologue to another. Christ imparts these gifts to the faithful as the Head of the Church (Eph 1:21–22). Therefore, it is clear both from nature and from Scripture that “... the additional chapter that they (the Latins - D.M.) introduce is unnecessary” 150. It is superfluous precisely because it does not require – along with Christ – any second Giver of the Holy Spirit. And the Apostle Peter not only did not have any special charisma that would exalt him above the rest of the apostles, but, moreover, Christ’s questioning of Peter three times (John 21:15–17) is a symbol of the Lord’s censure of the apostle. After all, Peter, having renounced Christ, could have perished, and Christ restores him to his previous state, from which he fell away, while the rest of the disciples remained in him 151. That is, this threefold questioning of Peter by Christ, on the contrary, is a symbol of Peter’s equality with the rest of the disciples, and not of his exalted state above them 152. Further, if Peter is the head of the Church due to the confession of Christ by God (Matthew 16:16–18), then the beloved disciple of the Lord John can be the head no less, because he said that God the Son is coeternal with God the Father and created the world with Him (John 1:1-3), and not only said, but also recorded what was said in writing. And this is much more: after all, words are limited to the moment of their utterance, and writing transmits the light of faith to subsequent generations 153. The author concludes his reflections with a pious exclamation: may we not introduce monstrous multi-headedness into the Church 154! 2.2.2. Nicholas of Metho, George Moskhambar and Barlaam of Calabria: from perichoresis of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity - to the equality of St. Peter and the other apostles So, the one Spirit, divided in His energies (common to the Holy Trinity) into a number of grace-filled gifts - charisms, is given to the Church by the one Son. As George Moshambar pointed out half a century after Herman II, in 1281, on Pentecost the Spirit distributed among all the apostles more perfect gifts than the gift of knitting and resolving sins (Mosch., p. 366.55–57). They then accepted both the gift of tongues and the gift of foretelling future events (Ibid. P. 366.57–62). “After all, it was then that they perceived, in the form of tongues of fire, [all] the power of the fire-breathing Word in the languages ​​of various peoples, since they had to go to preach” (Ibid. P. 366.57–60). According to Nicholas of Metho, the Holy Spirit does not give all the fullness of Christ to the other partakers (by which, one must think, ordinary Christians are meant), although he rests in the Son. Otherwise they would exist and would be called Christs (which is unthinkable) 155. “Consequently, we receive gifts (δόματα) from the Spirit of the fullness of Christ, but not the Spirit Himself and not the fullness itself” 156. In the light of this criticism, the question arises: is this not how St. Innocent III thought? Petra? Here two points should be emphasized in connection with the ideological originality of Nikolai Mefonsky and George Moskhambara. First. Moskhambar, as a pronounced “proto-Palamite,” denies the “hypostatic” interpretation of Pentecost characteristic of his predecessor. According to Moshambar, “... it is clear that the Holy Spirit that Christ breathed into the holy apostles was Divine grace and energy, ... but was neither the hypostatic existence of the All-Holy Spirit, nor His Hypostasis” (Mosch., p. 418.103–106; cf. p. 418.109–111; 418.124–419.126). This energy is also transmitted by the Father, for “... shines forth from the single Trinitarian nature” (Ibid. P. 418.112–113). This ability to emit grace belongs to the Son naturally, and not hypostatically (Ibid. P. 418.114–116). Second. Despite this discrepancy on the issue of energies, both authors are supporters of the common Eastern teaching about the perichoresis of the Persons of the Holy Trinity on the basis of the unity of Their essence and common energy, especially actively emphasizing the perichoresis of the Son and the Spirit. Therefore, Moshambar emphasizes that the power of the Lord to cast out demons comes from the energy of the Holy Spirit, and not from the flesh (Ibid. P. 382.162–164). And the Son is greater than this gift and grace, being at the same time equal to the Comforter in Hypostasis (Ibid.P. 382.165–166; cf. p. 382.170–172; 387.302–303). “So,” George concludes, “if the Son glorifies the Father and, in turn, is glorified by the Father, then, undoubtedly, the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son and, in turn, is glorified by the Son” (Ibid. P. 383.195–198; cf. important place: Ibid. P. 412.235–243). This perichoresis of the Son and the Holy Spirit, a kind of “symmetry” in their relationship, is the basis for the equal distribution of the grace of the Holy Trinity to all the apostles (in full measure accessible to a human being, on the day of Pentecost) and to all other recipients (in accordance with the degree of purification and virtue of each). Therefore, the equality of Peter and the other apostles necessarily follows from Orthodox triadology and soteriology. As if picking up the explanations of his predecessors, Barlaam of Calabria at the end of 1334 explains that after Pentecost “... it becomes clear that not one of the apostles is subordinate to Peter (ὑπὸ τοῦ Πέτρου ἐπιταττόμενος) to do what he did. But exactly the same thing that Peter did everywhere on his own, was done by each of the other apostles” 157. Therefore, all the successors of the apostles have equal honor 158. This is one of the main thoughts in the Greek criticism of the doctrine of primacy, because neither the Apostle Peter nor the Pope, as his successor, had any special charisma. Therefore, there is no reason to turn the pyramid of the church hierarchy in the opposite direction (ascending): Christ - Peter - Pope, as Peter Damiani and Innocent III did (see section 2.3.1). In other words, the motives of the Romans, who introduced and updated at the turn of the 12th–13th centuries. The teaching about the Apostle Peter as the bearer of a special charism in the Church and, in fact, as the dispenser - through his successor-pope - of grace to the rest of the bishops is quite arbitrary. It is no coincidence that June 29 Art. Art. A common holiday is celebrated - St. the supreme apostles Peter and Paul 159, and not just Peter. Even here, reasoning further, one can see the primacy of collegiality over individual authority, which in the Church belongs only to God. This is exactly what the 13th century Patriarch of Constantinople argues. (probably St. Germanus II), who sent a dogmatic-polemical letter to the Patriarch of Jerusalem with a deeply thought-out criticism of the Roman primacy. This refers to the post-Gregorian teaching, expressed especially clearly by Innocent III, about the Apostle Peter and his superiority (privilegium), as the second - along with Christ - foundation of the Church. We would insist that this teaching is based on the invisible postulate of the “ecclesiological Filioque”, and its criticism among the Byzantines rests not only and not so much on political ones, as J. Spiteris emphasizes 160, but on spiritual and theological - pneumatological, ecclesiological and, if you like, even iconological - foundations. Among these foundations is the most important dogmatic position revealed by Moskhambar: “For the Divine grace and energy of the All-Holy Spirit, undoubtedly, proceeds and is given to the saints in the same way from the Father and the Son, as from the Hypostasis of the All-Holy Spirit Itself” (Mosch., p. 410.202–205; pp. 413.261–263). “Indeed, the grace and energy of all three Persons are one and the same” (Ibid. P. 410.206). Therefore, the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son (Ibid. P. 411.207–208). Why did it suddenly become important to explain these elementary truths at the end of the 13th century? (let me remind you that the date of writing Moskhambara’s “Words of Refutation” is March 1281)? Obviously, the reason is the following. John 20:22 tells us that it was this grace and energy that Christ gave to the apostles. It is clear that everyone is together (Ibid. P. 411.219–221). This grace and energy essentially proceeds from the Savior even after the Incarnation (Ibid. P. 411.228–230). Further, if the Church is an “extension of the Incarnation” (Arch. G. Florovsky 161, Archpriest D. Staniloae 162, etc.), is the Risen Savior really not able to pour out currents of intra-Trinitarian grace on all the faithful, especially in the light of the prophecy of Joel (2:28–29)? This is why Barlaam of Calabria emphasizes that all the apostles and their disciples received grace not from Peter and his associates, but directly from Christ 163. That is why the power of all bishops is equal 164. And it is precisely on the basis of ecclesiology that it is possible that “Christomonism”, which is dominant in modern theological searches (especially at the level of interconfessional dialogue), i.e. the primary emphasis on the saving mission of the Lord Jesus Christ while not paying attention to the mission of the Holy Spirit, can be supplemented with pneumatology, as Moshambar does and as M. Stavrou proposes to do today 165 . Thus, we see in Moskhambara’s work: a) agreement with the position of St. Gregory Palamas regarding the possibility of an Orthodox interpretation of the Filioque (grace - and not the Hypostasis of the Spirit - is given to the saints from the Father and the Son); b) a new and powerfully pronounced affirmation of the creative and regenerative power of the Holy Spirit. A statement that in the post-Gregorian theology of papal primacy is clearly retouched and relegated to the background. According to J. Spiteris, today those political motives that determined the Byzantines’ criticism of the idea of ​​primacy no longer exist, “and their philosophical and theological basis is considered by everyone as abolished” 166. We will try to prove just the opposite: without turning to the theological basis of the criticism of Roman primacy by the Byzantines, it is impossible to get to the true sources of this criticism. It is useful for modern Christians to remember and renew in their minds what Archpriest wrote about with truly prophetic power more than 80 years ago. G. Florovsky: “...on the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit descended on the Church, which was then represented by the twelve apostles and those who were with them... The Holy Spirit descended once and for all. This is a terrible and incomprehensible mystery" 167. However, there is reason to believe that this sacrament has been distorted several times in the history of the Church and church divisions. One of the peaks of this kind of division occurred during the pontificate of Innocent III (1198–1216), in the world - Lothair of Segni. 2.3. Innocent III, John X Kamatire and Barlaam of Calabria on the “ecclesiological Filioque” First, let us briefly outline the essence of the doctrine of the “ecclesiological Filioque,” essentially formulated by Innocent III in 1199 168 2.3.1. Ecclesiological Argumentation of Innocent III Even from our cursory comparison of the dogmatic constitution “On the Supreme Trinity” of the Second Council of Lyon in 1274 and a fragment from the work of Josselin of Soissons (XII century), it becomes clear that Latin theology for a long time sought to distinguish the Persons of the Father and the Son into a special community within the framework of a single Trinity. The consequence of such a procedure inevitably turned out to be the subordinate position of Her third Person - the Holy Spirit. No matter how historically it arose and no matter what politically the primacy of the Pope of Rome meant in the Western Christian world, from the beginning of the 2nd millennium (and especially active in the second half of the 11th–13th centuries, with the beginning of the Gregorian reform), the position of the pope in the Roman Church began to be thought of in many ways as similar to the position of God the Son within the Trinity. In short, the pope began, in fact, to be thought of as the second, close in importance to Christ, the Head of the Church (who occupies the place of the Father within this scheme) reason for the descent of grace on the bishops, clergy and the world, just as Peter began to be thought of as the second reason after Christ for the dispensation of grace to the apostles. Grace itself and the Face of the Holy Spirit within the framework of this scheme are thought of as being in a subordinate position not only to Christ (Who, being the invisible Head of the Church, takes the place of the Father), but also to His visible vicar - the pope. The Pope, therefore, possesses a special grace, which almost closely likens him as a vicar and an image of Christ to the Divine Prototype Himself. Schematically this can be depicted as follows: Accordingly, as a conclusion from schemes Ia and Ib, we obtain: We will try to prove Scheme Ia with quotations from Innocent III. Scheme Ib finds exact confirmation in the text of “Accusations of the Latin Church...” by Constantine Stilva (after 1204): “44. They affirm and believe that the pope is not the successor of St. Peter, but Peter himself, and they deify him, perhaps even more than Peter (ὑπὲρ τὸν Πέτρον θεοποιοῦσι σχεδόν), proclaiming him ruler (κύριον) of all Christianity. They demand an oath of such deification from the entire Ecumenical Church in general, and from all its dioceses” 169. Let us note in parentheses that from a comparison of these lines with the text of Peter Damiani (see p. 38) an interesting thought arises: Peter turns out to be greater than Christ, and the pope is greater than Peter. The least that can be said in this case is that the classical value system of Christian ecclesiology, and of religion in general, is turned upside down with this approach. Is it impossible to allow Stilva (who wrote shortly after the disaster of 1204) to become acquainted with the text of the letters of Innocent III to John X Camatire (in the original or translation)? Scheme Ic is defended by J. Spiteris: “Christ is the central foundation (Head) of the Church, the pope is the secondary and dependent foundation (Head)” 170. It is this duplication of the invisible Head by the visible one (by analogy with the recognition of the two Causes of the hypostatic existence of the Spirit in triadology) that we call the “ecclesiological Filioque.” Byzantine polemicists of the 12th–14th centuries, as we have already noticed and will see, dispute all three schemes. But if scheme Ib is the most criticized, say, by Barlaam of Calabria and, perhaps, the most famous in the scientific literature, then some nuances of schemes Ia and Ic remain not fully understood even among specialists. Turning to the letter of Innocent III contributes to their understanding. In a similar way, according to Innocent III, the structure of the Church turns out to be two-part: Indeed, Innocent III writes: “...The Roman Church is not universal (universalis), but part of the universal Church, of course, the first and best (praecipua), like a head in a body. For in it there is completeness of power, but only a certain part of this completeness reaches the other parts. And only that Church is called universal which contains within itself all the Churches in general (sub se continet Ecclesias universas)” 171. Even Jerusalem, although she is the mother of all in faith, “after all, from her the sacraments of faith originate...” 172 This means that the dignity of the Roman Church, which Innocent III speaks of, is higher than the sacraments. As if not noticing the contradiction of his words with Matthew 26:26–28, John 6:35, 48–58 and all Christian soteriology (which represents the central link of dogmatics, including, of course, the doctrine of the Church 173), the pontiff further develops his teaching about the omnipotence of the Roman Church. Another striking contradiction - between the partiality and universality of the Roman Church - will be developed by the pontiff further, but this does not prevent him from directly comparing the Roman Church, based on the fullness of its power over the other Churches, with God: “In accordance with this meaning of the name (“universal.” - D.M.) the Roman Church is called universal to such an extent, because thanks to its inherent superiority in dignity (privilegio dignitatis) 174 only she - the only one of her kind (singularis) - is revealed to the rest of the Churches as a model (caeteris est praelata). So God is called the universal (universalis) Ruler - not because He is already supposedly divided into species, extremely fragmented (species specialissimas) or even subordinate to each other, but because under His dominion all things are contained (universa... continentur)" 175. So, the Roman Church is a special, highest part of the Church, which contains the whole - that is, all the Churches in general, and in the fullness of its power it directly approaches God and represents His closest image. It is also the general (tribal) Church, which includes private ones (i.e., all other Churches), which thereby dangerously approach in the theology of Innocent III to the concept of private entities, prohibited in triadology (but revived in the Byzantine anti-Latin polemics of the 12th–13th centuries) 176 . Let us consider to the end the above reasoning of the pontiff: “Therefore, there is one generic (comprehensive, generalis) Church, about which the Truth announced to Peter [quoted Matthew 16:18. – D. M.]... And there are many private Churches (particulares Ecclesiae)... One consists of all, just as the general one consists of private ones. And one surpasses all - so that there is one Body of the Church, about which the Apostle says: “...we... are one body in Christ...” (Rom. 12:5; cf.: 1 Cor. 12:12). She, as the head, rises above the other members” 177. From the point of view of the New Testament and its traditional exegesis, the exclusive prerogative of being the Head of the Church is here transferred (in contradiction even with Eph 1:5-23, esp. 5:23) from Christ to the Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless, we will continue to consider the issue in a historical and theological vein. What gives the Roman Church such exclusive power? Let us turn again to the sources, and first of all, we will continue quoting the letter of Innocent III to John Kamathir. We will talk about a special understanding of the meaning and mission in the Church of the Apostle Peter - and the pope as his successor. Of course, schemes Ia - Ib are not presented in explicit form by Innocent III, although the sum of his statements in a letter to John Kamatiru dated November 12, 1199 leaves no doubt that this is exactly how the pontiff understood the structure of the Church and his place in it. In addition, in Latin sources there are characteristic statements, like the phrase of Peter Damiani (see: note 96). To explain it as fully as possible, let us turn to the correspondence of Innocent III and John X Kamathir. What does John Kamatire answer in his second letter (1200) to the above argument of Innocent III about the supposedly generic character of the Roman Church in relation to the other patriarchates? Following the long tradition of the East, originating with St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, the patriarch emphasizes that each Church (read - each patriarchate or each Local Church) is like a head, hand or other organ of the Body of the Church, which has a single Head - Christ. Therefore, to call a part (the Roman Church) containing other Churches, that is, all-embracing, is completely unacceptable 178. If the pope wishes to call the Church as a collection of all Christians generally comprehensive (catholic - καθολικὸν), then let him apply the name “catholic” to each of the parts of this whole, “inseparably dividing the part from the whole in the imagination of the mind.” 179 The antinomy of the formulation immediately suggests that very subtle strings of Christian theology and worldview in general are touched upon. In fact, the Chalcedonian overtones of this formula make it possible to understand that the nature of the Church as a reality of a special kind for John Kamatira is somewhat akin to the essence of God, as well as the Hypostasis of Christ. We have already mentioned, analyzing the triadology of St. Basil the Great, that, according to this great lamp of the Church, the essence of God is not some kind of substratum or “fourth element” besides the Persons of the Trinity. She has merged with Them from eternity thanks to trinitarian perichoresis 180. On the other hand, according to the basic teaching of the Church, St. Maximus the Confessor, the Hypostasis of Christ is not something third besides His two natures (of which, in which and which He Himself is 181). In this case we are talking about the Christological perichoresis of natures 182 (the image of which is a red-hot iron that stabs and burns). Moreover, both of these concepts - the unity of the essence of God in three Persons and the unity of two natures in the Hypostasis of Christ - are closely related to each other (going back to the Word 39, 11 of St. Gregory the Theologian), as F. Heinzer showed 183. Kamatir, as an expert in patristics, could not help but know this Word and similar classical texts. Surprisingly, John X Kamatir himself, in his disclosure of the dogma of the Church, follows the main lines of the disclosure of the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas in the Church. Therefore, his letters, especially the Second Letter to Innocent III, should be recognized as very valuable sources on the history of the revelation of the dogma of the Church in late Byzantine theology. What are the main arguments of Innocent III in favor of the world dominion of the pope and the need for the Greeks (and the Orthodox in general) to obey his tiara? Let us read the main thoughts set out at the beginning of the letter: “The primacy of the apostolic see, established not by man, but by God, and even more precisely, by the God-man, was, in turn, confirmed by many testimonies of the Gospel and the apostles, which then gave birth to canonical decrees, which according to them proclaim that the Most Holy Roman Church, consecrated in blessed Peter, the head of the apostles, is superior to other Churches as Teacher and Mother.” 184. This is justified by reference to Matthew 16:18–19. We have already spoken about the problems with recognizing the primacy of the Jerusalem Church and the significance of the sacraments. Now we note that the proof of the above provisions required Innocent III to turn to a rather unique exegesis of New Testament texts. For now, he immediately proceeds to affirm the special role of Peter as the second founder of the Church (diagram Ia, cf. also Ib): “Indeed, if the first and most important (praecipuum) Foundation of the Church is the Only Begotten Son of God Jesus Christ, according to what the Apostle said (1 Cor. 3:11), then the second and auxiliary (secondary, secundarium) Foundation of the Church is Peter, although not the first in time, but the most outstanding (praecipuus) in authority among the others about whom the Apostle Paul speaks (Eph. 2:19-20 )....” 185 Two simple observations will help us uncover the contradictory nature of this text. Firstly, St. Peter is described by the same epithet as Christ, without any adjustment to the purely human nature of the apostle (cf., by the way, Acts 14:15, Rev. 22:9, where even the angel forbids St. John to worship him - “Worship God”). Secondly, when quoting Eph. 2:20, Innocent III “forgets” to bring the end of verse 20: “...having Jesus Christ Himself as the chief cornerstone...” John Camateer also points to such exaltation of the Roman Church: by introducing the doctrine of the Roman Church as the second head of all Christians, Innocent, in his opinion, is doing wrong and equating himself with God 186. Explaining this argument theologically, we can say that the pope ascribes to himself a special charism, in fact considering himself the second giver of the Holy Spirit along with Christ (which contradicts what we discussed above, in sections 2.2.1–2.2.2). It cannot be said that Scripture does not emphasize, let’s say, the monarchical nature of Christ’s power over the Church. This is what the Greek polemicists emphasize (George Tornik in 1156, Andronikos Kamatir in the “Sacred Arsenal” c. 1173–1174 187; John Kamatir in 1200 188; and others). But this is what Innocent has to gloss over. And this is the point - if you look at things through the eyes of a historian of Greco-Latin polemics - not at all in Byzantine suspicion or dependence on the power of the basileus. We have to admit that those tendencies of Roman medieval ecclesiology, which found the clearest expression in the letter to John Kamatire in question, represent a serious departure from the New Testament and patristic principles. But it’s true, I think, and something else. The gradual (but which became obvious during the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages) departure of Roman triadology from the principles of perichoresis of the Hypostases, then revealed with unprecedented force by Greek dogmatists and polemicists of the 11th–14th centuries, was accompanied by a departure from the principles of “monarchical ecclesiology” and conciliarity (or, if you prefer, collegiality) of the episcopate in favor of the approval of a new scheme: co-headship by Peter Church of God (see diagrams Ia–Ic). The thought of a secondary foundation of the Church leads to the suspicion that Christ Himself, for some reason, lacked the strength to fully manage it. This state of affairs cannot be considered normal. Referring to the interpretation of the name Cephas from John 1:42 as “Head,” Innocent III continues: “... so that, just as the head is due primacy (principatum) over the other members of the body, since it is in it that the fullness of the senses (plenitudo sensuum) functions (viget), so Peter was distinguished 189 by a predominant dignity (praerogativa ... dignitatis) among the apostles and their successors from among all in general (universos) primates of the Church..." 190 But if this dignity was imparted by Christ, what else could it be, if not some special grace? However, we have already seen the opinion of Germanus II and other Byzantine polemicists and pneumatologists that the same grace (John 20:22; etc.) was given equally to all the apostles (sections 2.2.1–2.2.2) 191 . Nevertheless, Innocent III continues to insist, using scheme Ib, that the apostolic throne today is the second - after God Himself - source of unity in the Church: the Greek people, he writes, without heeding Matthew 16:19, “... created for themselves another Church (!) (aliam sibi confinxit Ecclesiam) (if that which is outside the One can be called the Church) and moved away from the apostolic unity throne. .." 192 The Roman Church is a single ark of salvation, and the Greek Church is Graecorum universitas, that is, private and limited by national boundaries 193. So, the unity of the Church depends almost exclusively on the Roman throne, that is, this throne clearly takes the place of other realities - the grace of God, the sacraments and faith... Innocent has none of this in mind. The Roman throne actually turns in his teaching into a kind of second source of God’s grace, and the Pope of Rome, as the successor of Peter, into the second reason for the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Church (scheme Ic describes this “ecclesiological Filioque” in the most complete way). Of course, Byzantine polemicists try to refute such statements. According to Barlaam of Calabria, the pope does not stand out in any way from the rest of the bishops 194. After all, all the apostles and their disciples received grace not from Peter and his companions, but directly from Christ 195, and therefore the power of all bishops is equal 196. Barlaam refutes precisely that scheme of the “ecclesiological Filioque”, within the framework of which St. Peter and his successor play the role of the second cause of the grace of the Holy Spirit. At the same time (if we continue Barlaam’s thought), such apologists of the papacy as Innocent III get a strange contradiction: from eternity the Son sends the Spirit along with the Father, but in time He for some reason cannot directly send the Spirit to all members of the pentarchy, but sends only (or at least, first of all) to Peter as the highest. That is why (this is how the train of thought of Innocent III can be reconstructed) Peter has power over the whole world. With reference to John 21:17 and contrasting Peter with James, the brother of the Lord, who was content with the position of bishop in the Church of Jerusalem, the pontiff writes that Christ “... gave Peter to rule not only the whole (universam) Church, but also the whole (totum) world” 197 . This is comparable to the mediatorial role of the Mother of God as not just a universal Intercessor, but precisely a Co-Redemptrix within the framework of Catholic Mariology, some of the basic provisions of which also began to take shape in the High Middle Ages. In addition, some Western and Byzantine (Theophanes of Nicaea) authors called the Mother of God the Neck of the Church Organism 198. Obviously, it would be a difficult task to somehow delimit the role of St. Peter from the role of the Mother of God with this approach, but let us note the main thing - St. Peter, as presented by Innocent III, eclipses Christ Himself. And this caused understandable indignation among John X Kamatira. 2.3.2. Criticism of John X Kamatire of the ecclesiology of Innocent III Thus, John X Kamatir emphasizes that everything that will benefit the disciples (τὰ συνοίσοντα), including the grace of miracles, the Lord gave them “on a common basis (κοινῶς) ... and equally honest” 199 . Kamathir is surprised by the kind of particularism of Innocent III: “If you separate (ἀπομερίζεις) Peter from the other apostles and attribute to him a special teaching, to which the rest of the group of apostles turns out to be not involved (ἀμέθεκτος), then now is the time to see what follows from this. So, this introduces opposition and otherness in the teachings of Christ, if we attribute some of them separately to Peter, and others to the rest of the disciples” 201. That is, according to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Innocent achieves the opposite effect - breaking the Church. The basic idea behind these words is clear: Peter should not be elevated to a special superhuman level, since this is contrary to both Tradition and the nature of the Church as such. So, according to Met. Thessalonica Nile Cabasilas, the pope is the successor of Peter, but not as a bishop 202. What is the answer to this phrase? She seems simple to us: not as a bishop, but as a recipient of grace equal for all, exactly the same among the successors of the other apostles 203 . We were quite surprised, concludes John X Kamatir, “how is it that, having said at the beginning that the Foundation of the Church is Christ, you dogmatically imagined on your own that its second foundation is Peter...” 204. This is the opposite of both Heb. 11:13 and Eph. 2:19–21 205 . Why spread the teaching of Peter to the entire universe, and lock the rest of the apostles in the described places? 206 In other words, Kamathir seems to be asking: is it possible to lock up grace, which is alone in the entire universe and comes only from God (and not from the pope)? Is God describable and limited only to Rome? After all, Christ did not come to the crucifixion in ancient (παλαιὰν) Rome 207. The key words in this phrase are Christ and “old.” The last word includes a number of meanings. Firstly, Ancient Rome, mired in paganism, became spiritually dilapidated from the 1st century. Secondly, Rome, modern Kamatiru, Rome at the turn of the 12th–13th centuries, that is, even before the tragedy of the Fourth Crusade, remained spiritually dilapidated even then, because (and this, it seems to us, the polemicist wanted to emphasize) did not accept the true teachings of Christ, clinging to the old - to the former imperial power and strength. Whereas now, in the New Testament era, everything is new (2 Cor 5:10; cf. above about Seid). Without dwelling on the well-known thought of Greek polemicists that the greatness of the Roman See was due to the decisions of the holy kings Constantine and Justinian and the acts of the Councils 208, we note that there was no chauvinism behind these words. Greek writers of the 12th–14th centuries had similar thoughts about the decline of royal power and the synclite. They also spoke about Constantinople, not in historical works, but in narrative works close to fiction. These include, for example, the satirical epic of Nicholas Mesarita (among other things, also a polemicist with the Latins) “On the Astrologer Who Could Not Become Patriarch,” in which they see a parody of Theodore Balsamon (c. 1204–1206). It contains the following lines: “As much as it (Constantinople. - D.M.) surpassed all other cities, being honored by the synclite and royal dignity, just as much now it has fallen into decay (τεταπείνωτο) ...” 209 Therefore, this kind of argument “from the moment” - the foreign policy prosperity of a city, country or territory - was not of decisive importance for Byzantine theologians. It is all the more remarkable that we find precisely this argument in Innocent III: “So let the Church be wisely represented as Peter’s ship. Peter then exalted (duxit in altum) [this] ship, spreading the sermon nets for the catch, when he established the primacy over the Church (Ecclesiae principatum) where the height of secular power was in full force and the monarchy of the emperor was located, to which individual peoples, as a rule, paid the tribute imposed on them at one time or another, [by joining it. – D.M.] like rivers in the sea” 210. By the way, let us note in passing that on the understanding of St. that we reconstruct in this work. Peter and the pope as the bearer of the special charism of the Holy Spirit (or, more precisely, the whole sum of charisms) is also based on a practice so characteristic of the medieval Roman Catholic Church as excommunication. After all, the prohibition or taking away of a certain gift or right (to celebrate Mass, sacraments, etc.) presupposes the initial allocation - in the limit, to the entire Church - of this gift! It is this gift that Innocent III silently attributes to himself. And therefore he excommunicates from the Roman Church - or threatens with excommunication - entire cities in case of disobedience to his orders and thereby in fact non-recognition of his supreme authority. This is, for example, the situation with the residents of Viterbo, to whom the 207th letter 211 was addressed, quite menacing in tone. Let us note once again that with such clearly expressed intentions for dominance, the transition of the pontiff to the sphere of temporal power and the exercise of political powers was inevitable. All this was quite clearly manifested during the Latin occupation of Constantinople, and it was on the legacy of Innocent III (based on the message of forcing the Greeks to union) that the eastern policy of other popes, for example, Gregory X during the era of the Second Council of Lyons (1274), was built. This whole line of thought is unacceptable for the Orthodox consciousness, especially for the consciousness of a clergyman. In fact, let us ask ourselves: why does the political situation not matter for the Church? Because salvation - the goal of the life of the Church - does not come from the political sphere (Luke 17:21). It was not Cephas who died for us, but Christ 212. You can add: and not dad. It is not his blood that we partake of in the Chalice of the Eucharist. In the name of Christ we were baptized and are called by him 213. So, is J. Spiteris right in asserting that the argument of the Byzantine polemicists about Christ as the only Head of the Church was caused solely by the needs of polemics with Rome 214? It would be more logical to assume that such arguments are based on the living and preserved by the Church experience of life in Christ, as well as (these are facets of one experience) the experiential experience of the grace of the Holy Spirit. This brings us to the conclusion of this work. Conclusion. St. Maximus the Confessor and St. John of Damascus: Christ, His image and His Providence (power) over the Church and the world Having examined the Greek controversy with the doctrine of the primacy of the pope, conducted in the 12th century, J. Spiteris poses a fundamental question: “Then why, when it comes to the Roman bishop, do they (the Byzantines - D.M.) insist with such persistence on the unique power of Christ over the Church, as if it were impossible for a certain human person to temporarily replace Him?” 215 In this final paragraph, we would like, based on the Greek-Byzantine patristic Tradition, to try to present several options for answering this question. So, firstly, from the Greek-Byzantine pneumatology of the 12th–13th centuries discussed above, with its inherent emphasis on the perichoresis of the Son and the Holy Spirit, the following follows. Such a substitution will mean that Christ Himself has temporarily withdrawn from the management of the Church, or He lacks the strength for such management, so He needs an assistant. A situation arises when the Head of the Church alone turns out to be not enough... At the same time, the Lord in the Gospel says: “My Father works, and I work” (John 5:17). Accordingly, it seems to us that the interweaving of pneumatology and ecclesiology in the thoughts of the Greek fathers and teachers of the Church of the XII-XIV centuries. The words spoken by F. Heinzer about the theology of St. are applicable. Maximus the Confessor. According to the Swiss patrolologist, the consciousness that the intra-Trinitarian life of God and the Economy of our salvation “... are inextricably linked in the Person of the Son who became Man,” “... forms one of the cornerstone pillars of his thought. At the same time, the scientist continues, we are talking about the fundamental idea of ​​the ancient Fathers of the Church, especially Irenaeus, namely, the triadological interpretation of the Economy, which connects the Economy with the Persons of the Holy Trinity and sees in it the expression of the intra-Trinitarian (“theological”) order of these Persons (we could add – their perichoresis. - D. M.). This idea, which was to recede a little into the background among the Cappadocians and especially among Dionysius the Areopagite (and later among Gregory Palamas), appears... in St. Maxim... again and with completely new strength" 216. Christ, Who is One, leads us to the Father, Who is also One, being the Cause of the existence of both Himself and two other Persons 217; Neither Christ the Son nor God the Father has any understudies. It seems to us that this study is intended to contribute to a partial – historical – correction of this wonderful interpretation of the thought of St. Irenaeus of Lyons and St. Maximus the Confessor. We think that the Byzantine ecclesiologists are dogmatists and polemicists, a number of which lead to St. Gregory Palamas, quoted by us earlier, felt the same urgent need to show the power of Christ - the Provider over the world and the Church, as did St. Maxim the Confessor. We saw this desire in St. Nicholas of Metho, from George Acropolite, George Moskhamabara, John Kamathir and other authors. After all, if the Byzantine hesychasts of the 14th century (Theophan of Nicea) say about the Mother of God that we (read Orthodox Christians) constantly taste the fruits of Her love for us 218, then, according to the argument a fortiori, how much more so can we apply this argument to Christ Himself! Secondly, the persistent conversion by Innocent III and Peter Damiani, as well as those Latins whom Constantine Stilva criticized in his note (probably referring specifically to Innocent) St. Peter and the pope into a certain, essentially, image of Christ forces us to take seriously the comparison of the Latin doctrine with the patristic teaching about the image. Indeed, what is the danger of such a comparison? We find the answer in the teaching about the image of St. John of Damascus. Taking into account the opinion of Innocent and Damiani that Peter is either, in fact, equal to Christ, or even greater than Him, we get that the figure of the pope is overly sacralized, approaching in essence to God the Son (or even the Father) - and this is not much different from the doctrine of the iconoclasts. In fact, it was they who taught that the image should be consubstantial with the Prototype - with the only exception being that in their teaching the Holy Gifts were called the true image of God. At the same time, according to icon venerators, and in particular St. John of Damascus, every image related to the sphere of created beings must be essentially different from the Prototype: “So, an image is a similarity (ὁμοίωμα), in a visual form representing (χαρακτηρίζον) the Prototype, possessing, at the same time, a Mariological and some difference from It." 220. "For the image is not in everything similar to the Prototype (τὸ ἀρχέτυπον)" 221. The Latins, in their teaching about the pope, eliminate this difference between the pope and Christ, or even reverse this relationship, bringing the Roman High Priest closer in properties to the Hypostasis of either the Son or the Holy Spirit. After all, it is God the Son who is described by Damascus as identical to the Father in essence (cf. above, section 1.1.1, on the triadology of Basil the Great): “After all, the living, natural and indistinguishable image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15), bearing within Himself the entire Father, is the Son, Who has identity with Him in everything and differs only in causality. For the natural Cause is the Father, and the Caused is the Son, because the Father is not from the Son, but the Son is from (ἐκ) the Father." 222. In turn, the Spirit is also from the Father, however, according to the method of procession; let us remember what was said in section 1.1.2 about perichoresis and the “intra-Trinitarian symmetry” of the Caused Persons. And it is no coincidence that Moshambar says that “and the Holy Spirit is the indistinguishable Image of the Father” (Mosch., p. 353.69–354.81, cit. 354.80–81). From here it becomes clear that the concept of image is very sublime in Christian theology. By excessively expanding the use of the concept of “image,” we risk equating the Holy Trinity and the creatures created by It, which entails other risks. In an indistinguishable way (not the Father, but the Son), Innocent III and Damiani act like St. Peter, and the Pope (with all the ensuing consequences). However, nothing clothed with matter in itself - without connection with the uncreated gifts of God's grace (sections 1.1.3; 2.2.2) - is not equal to God and has no right to worship without connection with the Prototype. For “the honor given to the image goes back to the Prototype” 223. Matter has the right only to relative veneration, conditioned by the fact of the Incarnation of God in it. It is after the Incarnation and on this basis that I imprint (εἰκονίζω) “the visible of God” in this mortal matter 224. At the same time, I “do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who became matter for my sake...” 225. Man, in turn, according to the teachings of St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. John Climacus (probably influenced by Gregory), cannot become a perfect and indistinguishable image of God either in this or in the future life. Indeed, even holy people (and even angels) will endlessly increase in their participation in the love and goodness of God 226. This is the famous teaching of the Bishop of Nyssa about “epectasis,” that is, the endless growth of the righteous in love for God and communion with Him. This teaching is intended to highlight precisely that endless divide that separates the Creator and even the most sublime of His creations. The medieval apologists of the papacy tried in every possible way to cross this divide, thereby distorting the Orthodox (and their own earlier) spiritual Tradition. The pope remains the image of Christ (being a bishop) only as long as he preserves the dogmas of the Orthodox faith 227. Until then, he is one of the pillars of the Catholic Church 228. That is why the popes were addressed in their time by Sts. Maximus the Confessor, Theodore the Studite, Nikephoros the Confessor and other fathers of the Ancient and Early Medieval Church. This is precisely what the expression “being the heir of Peter” means. The one to whom this designation is applied (in the view of the Byzantines) cannot claim the position of a second, even temporary, giver of the Holy Spirit along with Christ, as the eternal Head of the Church, bearing His holy Name “above every name” (Eph. 1:21–22; Phil. 2:9; Acts 4:12). The last saying, belonging to St. himself. Peter, we would like to complete our presentation. BB – Byzantine temporary book PSTGU - Orthodox St. Tikhon's Humanitarian University AL – Anti-Latin words of Barlaam of Calabria BSGRT – Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana BZ – Byzantinische Zeitschrift DOP – Dumbarton Oaks Papers GOTR – The Greek Orthodox Theological Review JÖB – Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik Mansi – Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio / Ed. J. D. Mansi. Firenze, 1759–1798. Vol. I–XXXIX OSA – Orientalia Christiana Analecta PG – Patrologiae cursus completus. Series graeca / Accurante J.-P. Migne. PL – Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina / Accurante J.-P. Migne. PTS – Patristische Texte und Studien RÉB – Revue des Études Byzantines Scr – Scrinium. Journal of Patrology and Critical Hagiography TM – Travaux et Mémoires du Center d’ Histoire et Civilization de Byzance Summary. Dmitry Makarov. Palamism before St. Gregory Palamas, the Filioque Debate and the Byzantine Ecclesiology of the Twelfth to the Fourteenth Centuries: Some Considerations The Byzantine criticism of the primacy of Rome cannot be fully understood without taking into account the progressive development of the Byzantine proto-Palamite and Palamite ecclesiology from the 12th to the 14th centuries. In this pamphlet we have tried to show that, first of all, since its very appearance in the twelfth century the criticism in question was inextricably intertwined with the Filioque debate and with the development of the Byzantine notion of the interpenetration (perichoresis) of the Hypostases within the Holy Trinity. We see this development in Nicetas Seides (ca. 1112) already, and then the notions of the interpenetration and of the ‘eternal rest’ of the Holy Spirit in the Son feature prominently in all the major triadological works of such basic authors for the Roman primate criticism as John X Camateros (1199–1200), Germanus II (1223–1230), Nicephorus Blemmydes, Theodore II Lascaris, Georges Acropolites (50-es of the 13th century), Georges of Cyprus, Georges Moschambar (70-es and 80-es of the same century), Nilus Cabasilas, Barlaam the Calabrian (30-es of the 14th century) and, as a result of this two-centuries development, in Gregory Palamas himself. Unlike the Latin theological tradition (cf., e.g., in Joslenus of Soisson and John Quidort), the Byzantines tended to underline the ‘inner-Trinitarian symmetry’ between the Son and the Spirit, making emphasis also on the thought that Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, is the only Giver of the charisms of the Spirit to the Church. If we compare this line of reasoning with what Innocent III wrote to John X Camateros, as well as with some odd expressions of Peter Damiani and Constantine Stilbes, we will come to the conclusion that the privilege and prominence of St Peter, so often spoken of by the Pope, were nothing else than a special ‘super-charism’of the Spirit, giving Peter and his successors a special power over the whole Church. This charism makes its bearer, i.e., the Pope himself, a kind of a ‘second reason’ of the charisms of the Spirit being given to the other bishops and to the Church in its entirety. Consequently, the Roman Church tends to be a ‘superior’ part of the Church Universal. Such a preeminence of a singular chair is inadmissible for John X Camateros, Barlaam the Calabrian and other Orthodox polemicists. Such a preeminent position makes Innocent’s and Damiani’s ecclesiology a kind of an ‘ecclesiological Filioque’, where Christ as the invisible Head of the Church holds the place of God the Father, Pope as the visible head is similar to the Son, and the Holy Spirit seems to be a kind of a subordinate Person, ranking second after the two first ones. We see the guidelines for building such a model in the famous correspondence between Innocent III and John X Camateros. Instead, the Byzantines always took pains to explain to their Western counterparts that Pope could only be conceived as a successor of St. Peter insofar as (and as long as) he kept on preserving Orthodox dogmas, including that of the Trinity, and executed no capitulation of conscience. It was especially true for them, as Peter himself had the very same charisms, including that of the remission of sins, as all the other Apostles did. Such equality in the charisms of the Trinity was a corollary of the Divine Persons’ mutual eternal interpenetration into each other. These two lines of thought – the Trinitarian one and the ecclesiological one – intersected in the writings of the great theologians of the thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries, including even the representatives of the both hostile camps within the Hesychast controversy (most likely, Nilus Cabasilas was followed in his anti-Latin considerations by Barlaam the Calabrian (and not vice versa), as Marie-Hélène Congourdeau has very convincingly tried to demonstrate in 2013). It means that both camps strove to preserve the cultural and spiritual autonomy of the Byzantines, whatever they could take it to mean, from the increasing power of the West. The research was supported by the Russian Humanitarian Foundation grant No. 15–03–00665 “The diversity of humanism and its paths: The intellectual heritage of late Byzantium in the 13th–14th centuries.” Darrouzes J. Les documents byzantins du XIIe siècle sur la primauté romaine //RÉB. 1965. Vol. 23. P. 42–88, R. 3. Papadakis A., Talbot A. M. John X Camaterus Confronts Innocent III: An Unpublished Correspondence // BS. 1972. Vol. 33. P. 26–41, R. 29, no. 18. The critical assessment of this publication, which was shared by the late Fr. Vitalien Laurent (1896–1973), see: Spiteris J. La Critica Bizantina del Primato Romano nel secolo XII. Roma, 1979. (OCA, 208). P. 254–255, no. 161. Therefore, when quoting the second letter of John Kamatir, we will indicate the pages of two editions: American and Italian, prepared by J. Spiteris (Ibid. P. 324–331). For an Italian translation of the first of the letters of John X Camatire to Innocent III, see: Ibid. P. 261–266; second – Ibid. P. 266–281. It was in the 12th century, as is known, that criticism of the Roman doctrine of the primacy of the pope formed into an independent subsection of ecclesiology in Byzantine theology (Spiteris J. La Critica... R. 318). Darrouz è s J . Les documents... R. 43. Hereinafter the italics in quotations are ours. Mureşan D. I. The Hesychasts: “political Photianism” and the public sphere in the fourteenth century // The Orthodox Christian World / ed. A. Casiday. London; N. Y., 2012. P. 294–302, passim. Compare: “The teaching of Palamas is a creative, albeit following Tradition, synthesis of the theological insights of Patriarch Gregory of Cyprus and the ascetic impulse coming from Patriarch Athanasius I” (Mure ş an D. I. The Hesychasts... R. 294). Wed. position of B. Milosavljevich: “... hesychasm became the final form that Byzantine thought took after a thousand years of its development” (Milosavljevi ć B. Palamas’ Understanding of οὐσία and ἐνέργεια // Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies (Belgrade, 22–27 August 2016). Thematic Sessions of Free Communications / ed. D. Dželebdžić, S. Bojanin et al. Belgrade, 2016 [2017]. Makarov D. The thirteenth-century prerequisites of st. Gregory Palamas’ theology // Parrésia. 2015 [2017]. Vol. 9. P. 325–338. The article is based on a report at the XXIII International Congress of Byzantinists (Belgrade, August 22–27, 2016). Moreover, the Hypostasis of the Spirit appeared to the apostles “bodily,” “for the tongues [of fire] were bodily.” The corresponding passage is in the treatise published by A. Michel in 1930 and entitled “Another code against the Latins: how they blaspheme the Holy Spirit, claiming that He proceeds from the Son,” Stifata (Michel A. Humbert und Kerullarios. Quellen und Studien zum Schisma des XI. Jahrhunderts (Paderborn, 1930) (Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte), vol. II, pp. 371.1–3 – chapter 22: pp. 400.6–7 – the place of interest to us. A. Michel considered the authorship of Nicetas Stifata to be genuine and dated the treatise to the time shortly before the dispute with Humbert on June 26, 1054 (Ibid. P. 360–362). However, due to the abundance of parallels between the “Another Code” and the writings of Nikolai Mefonsky, especially “Memorable words from what was written in various writings against the Latins” (see mainly the apparatus of the publication of A. Michel: Ibid. P. 371–409, esp. R. 399 - on the interpretation of Pentecost, and also further section 1.1.3), A. V. Barmin suggested reattribute another code to Nikolai Mefonsky (see: Barmin A.V. Who wrote “Another code against the Latins”? // VV. 2001. T. 60 (85). P. 121–125; His same. Polemics and schism. History of Greco-Latin disputes of the 9th–12th centuries. M., 2006. P. 498). We accept the attribution of A.V. Barmin. It should be noted that Nicholas of Metho has long been pointed out as one of the main “Palamites before Palamas.” See, for example: Patacsi G. Palamism before Palamas // Eastern Churches Quarterly. 1977. Vol. 9. P. 64–71, passim. Which reached its most complete expression in two letters from Innocent III (1198–1216) to the Ecumenical Patriarch John X Camathir (1198–1206), as discussed below in section 2.3.1. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Vol. 1. Nicaea I to Lateran V/ed. N. P. Tanner, S. J. London; Washington, D.C., 1990. P. 314.9–11; cf. Ibid., l. 12–14: Hoc professa est hactenus, praedicavit et docit, hoc firmiter tenit, praedicat, profitetur et docet sacrosancta Romana ecclesia, mater omnium fidelium et magistra... Cf. from Joscelin of Soissons (XII century): The Holy Spirit ... ab utroque aequaliter procedit (Josleni Suessionensis Expositio in Symbolum et in Orationem Dominicam // PL 186. Col. 1487D). We see the same ideas in the second Confession of Faith of John XI Beccos (April 1277): Ragia E. Confessions of an Ingenious Man: The Confessions of Faith of John XI Beccos in their Social, Political and Theological Background // L’Union à l’épreuve du formulaire. Profession de foi entre Églises d'Orient et d'Occident (XIIIe–XVIIIe siècles) / éd. M.-H. Blanchet et F. Gabriel. Paris, 2016. P. 39–75, p. 52–53, 41. It was this Confession that was the official expression on the part of Veccus of adherence to the teachings of the Roman Church (Ibid. P. 41). See, in particular, the objection to this doctrine in the letter of the anonymous Patriarch of Constantinople to Simeon II, Patriarch of Jerusalem: Pavlov A. S. Critical experiments on the history of the ancient Greco-Russian polemic against the Latins. St. Petersburg, 1878. P. 159. [10–13]: “... the deanery (ἡ... εὐταξία) of the Trinity is destroyed, which is due to the presence in It of a single Cause.” Wed: Ibid. P. 159. [21–24]: the accusation of the Latins, dating back to Photius, of Sabellianism and confusion of the Hypostases of the Father and the Son (the argument is repeated, for example, in the “Another Code” of Nicholas of Methon: Nic. Steth. [Nic. Methon.] Antidialexis..., 6. P. 377.15–378.3). Attribution of the letter to Nicholas III the Grammar (1084–1111) and its dating to around 1089. produced in 1939 by Fr. Venance Grumel. See: Grumel V. Jérusalem entre Rome et Byzance: Une lettre inconnue du patriarche de Constantinople Nicolas III à son collegue de Jérusalem (vers 1089) // EO. 1939. Vol. 38. N. 193. P. 104–117, spec. r. 110, 115. Prot. I. Meyendorff, not knowing about this attribution, attributed this message to the period of the 12th–13th centuries. See: Meyendorff I., prot. Apostle Peter in Byzantine theology [1960] / trans. from English N. Erofeeva, ed. Ya. Testella // Alpha and Omega. 1997. No. 3 (14). pp. 151–172. Quote according to the electronic edition: http://lib.pravmir.ru/library/readbook/1162 (date of access: 08/15/2017). Note 33. However, in 1965 an article about. J. Darrouzes, which proposes to attribute this message to St. Herman II (1223–1240) and date it to ca. 1229–1235 (Darrouz è s J. Les documents... R. 48, n. 12; r. 51). One can add to the arguments of the French scientist that the call for martyrdom actually sounded more relevant for the 13th–14th centuries than for the end of the 11th century. Wed. the same call is made by Matthew Blastar (c. 1335–1341): Palaiologos K. A. An annotated edition of the Refutation of the errors of the Latins by Matthaios Blastares. A thesis submitted for the degree of the Doctor of Philosophy at the University of London (Royal Holloway and Bedford New College). June 2011. London, 2011. P. 449.24–27. See, for example, the Dogmatic Oros of the Local Council of Constantinople in 1351, which finally revealed Palamism as a deep expression of church doctrine: Concilium Constantinopolitanum - 1351 / ed. F. Lauritzen // Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta. Editio critica. Vol. IV/1. The Great Councils of the Orthodox Churches. Decisions and Synodics. From Constantinople 861 to Constantinople 1872 / curantibus S. Garnier et al.; ed. A. Melloni. Turnhout, 2016, pp. 171–218, p. 202.35.893–900 (excerpt from St. Anastasius of Sinaita), 203.35.911–914 (Areopagite text), 203.36.915–917. 921–925; 203.36.934–204.36.936; 204.38.963–969 etc. Darrouzès J. Les documents... R. 59. Anselmi Havelbergensis episcopi Dialogi. Cap. III. 8 // PL 188. Col. 1219BC. A.V. Barmin considers the content of the work of Anselm of Havelberg to be reliable: Barmin A.V. Polemics and schism. P. 498. Bucossi A. Seeking a way out of the impasse: the Filioque controversy during John’s reign // John II Komnenos, Emperor of Byzantium: In the Shadow of Father and Son / ed. A. Bucossi & A. R. Suarez. London–N.Y., 2016. (Publications of the Center for Hellenic Studies at King’s College London, 17). P. 121–134, p. 126. Nikita insists on convening a general council of Greeks and Latins to clarify the theological positions of both sides (Ibid. P. 127). Innocent III formally also calls John X Kamatira to the council, but on other conditions - the unconditional submission of the Byzantines to the conditions put forward by the Roman Church (Innocentii III Ep. CCIX. Patriarchae Constantinopolitano... // PL 214. Col. 768BD). Before us is a clear example of the transformation of the original conciliar idea. Ragia E. Confessions... P. 39. Darrouzes J. Les documents... R. 55; Gahbauer R. Gegen den Primat des Papstes. Studien zu Niketas Seides: Edition, Einführung, Kommentar. München, 1975. S. 20.15–20; Spiteris J. La Critica... P. 310. About the fact that Old Rome received power from the kingdom, which Constantine then transferred to New Rome - Constantinople, see: Gahbauer R. Gegen den Primat... S. 11.23–12.4. This argument had a great future in the works of St. Nile Kabasila and Barlaam of Calabria (see below, section 1.2). Μονιοῦ Δ. Ι. Γεώργιος Μοσχάμπαρ. Ενας ανθενωτικός θεολόγος της πρώϊμης παλαιολόγειας περιόδου. Βίος και έργο. Αθήνα, 2011. Σ. 45–46. Therefore, Moskhambara can be classified as a group of more conservative Orthodox Christians, but at the same time still defenders of the eternal shining of the Holy Spirit through the Son. Compare: Makarov D. Theology for Rent... P. 292–293. In letter 178, addressed to one of his main theological opponents, Metropolitan John Chila of Ephesus, Gregory of Cyprus spoke of Moshambar as a “hillbilly”, a frivolous person and naive, and expressed the opinion that with his “barbaric blasphemies and childish exegesis” he had polluted the “pure stream of sacred teachings (τῶν... δογμάτων).” See: Γυπρίου οἰκουμενικοῦ πατριάρχου Ἐπιστολαὶ καὶ μῦθοι / ἐπιμ. Σ. Εὐστρατιάδου. Ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ, 1910. R. 184; Laurent V. Un polémiste grec de la fin du XIIIe siècle. La vie et les oeuvres de Georges Moschabar // EO. 1929. Vol. 28 (154). P. 129–158, p. 140. Edition of the text: Μονιοῦ Δ. Ι. Γεώργιος Μοσχάμπαρ. Σ. 281–455. Further in the text - Mosch., indicating the page number and line (lines). Laurent V. Un polémiste grec... R. 153. See our work listed in approx. 8. Dating M. Stavrou: SC. 517. Paris, 2007. P. 214. For Moshambar's probable training with Vlemmid, see: Laurent V. Un polemiste... R. 133; Μονιοῦ Δ. Ι. Γεώργιος Μοσχάμπαρ. Σ. 41. Our translation, cit. by: Makarov D.I. Mariology of Theophanes of Nicea in the context of the Byzantine theological tradition of the 7th–14th centuries. With the appendix of translations of the treatises of Nikephoros Blemmides and St. Callistus I of Constantinople. St. Petersburg, 2015. P. 299. Cf. Syllogism No. 19: “If the Holy Spirit proceeds from (ἐκ) the Father and the Son, then the Son finds himself in the midst of the Father and the Spirit; and if He is among Them, then He is limited, being described by both extreme Persons” (Ibid. p. 301). Therefore, Moskhambar asks, trying to mentally exclude such a possibility: “Are the Father and the Holy Spirit outside the Son, so that He too can be, as it were, on both sides of Him? Are the Father and the Son outside the All-Holy Spirit, so that He too may be placed, as it were, on both sides of the All-Holy Spirit?” Ioannis Pediasimi In Aristotelis Analytica scholia selecta / ed. V. de Falco. Napoli, 1926. P. 96. See one of the most controversial passages in Veccus's writings, which gives grounds for this kind of reproach: Joannis Vecci CP. Patriarchae Refutatio libri Gregorii Cyprii... // PG 141. Col. 881D. It should be noted that tritheism as such - in its complete form and as a holistic doctrine - historically dates back to John Philoponus (c. 490-575), one of the greatest commentators on Aristotle in the history of philosophy. Those accusations of tritheism that in the 370s. erected on St. Basil the Great, his Arian opponents meant their rejection of the very doctrine of the three Hypostases as such. See: Simonetti M. Genesi e sviluppo della dottrina trinitaria di Basilio di Cesarea // Idem. Studi di cristologia postnicena. Roma, 2006. (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 98.) P. 235–258, P. 254–255 e n. 66; P. 258 e n. 80. In philosophical terms, as is known, it is the Aristotelians who attach to the second - general - essence of any class of objects and phenomena “much less importance than the Platonists would attribute to it” (Ibid. P. 236). See the introductory articles by M. Stavrou to his two-volume edition of the works of Vlemmid: SC. 517. Paris, 2007. P. 287–288; S.C. 558. Paris, 2013. P. 61. On the innumerable nature of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity, according to the teaching of Blemmydes, see: Lourié B. Nicephorus Blemmydes on the Holy Trinity and the Paraconsistent Notion of Numbers: A Logical Analysis of a Byzantine Approach to the Filioque // Studia Humana. 2016. Vol. 5: 1. P. 40–54; cf.: Makarov D. Theology for Rent: Nicholas Mesarites as a Compiler of Andronicus Camaterus // Scr 12 (2016), pp. 291–307, p. 292–293 and no. 2. Nic. Steth. [Nic. Methon.] Antidialexis adversus Filioque [= “Another arch...”], 4 // Michel A. Humbert und Kerullarios. Vol. II. P. 375.12. Nicéphore Blemmydès. Mémoire adressé aux Latins en 1234 // Idem. Oeuvres théologiques / Introd., texte critique, trad. et notes par M. Stavrou. Paris, 2007. (SC, 517). P. 204.10.16–17. Papadakis A., Talbot A. M. John X Camaterus... R. 40; Spiteris J. La Critica... P. 330 (Greek text of the Second Letter), 273–274, 278 (Italian translation and commentary); Kolbaba T. M. Barlaam the Calabrian. Three Treatises on Papal Primacy: Intr., ed., and transl. // RÉB. 1995. Vol. 53. P. 41–115, P. 115.21.349–351 (see also below); Wed in a letter to St. Herman II (1223–1240) to the Patriarch of Jerusalem Simeon II (we accept the attribution of this letter, substantiated by Fr. J. Darrouzes): Darrouz è s J. Les documents... R. 45, 46; etc. See: Makarov D. Theology for Rent... R. 291–307. These words are opposite in meaning to the dogmatic constitution of the Second Council of Lyons, quoted above in the note. 11. Nic. Steth. [Nic. Methon.] Antidialexis adversus Filioque [= “Another arch...”], 17 // Michel A. Humbert und Kerullarios. Vol. II. P. 392.8–18. On the reattribution of the monument by A.V. Barmin to Nikolai Mefonsky, see above, note. 9. This idea goes back to the mature triadology of St. Basil the Great. See: Shufrin A. Development of the concept of “hypostasis” in St. Basil the Great / trans. from English D. I. Makarova // Problems of theology. Ekaterinburg, 2006. Issue. 3. Part 2. pp. 4–29, esp. With. 12–13 and approx. 1 on p. 13 // http://byz-phil.narod.ru/shufrin. pdf (date of access: 8.08.2017). Nic. Steth. [Nic. Methon.] Antidialexis adversus Filioque [= “Another arch...”], 17 // Michel A. Humbert und Kerullarios, Vol. II, pp. 392.19–22. For more information about this, see: Uspensky B. A. Ego Loquens. Language and communication space. M., 2011. P. 16–18; 65–67, approx. 39; 105, approx. 174. Eunomii Apologia II, 7 sq. See: Kopecek Th. A. A History of Neo-Arianism. Philadelphia, 1979. Vol. II. P. 311–312; Simonetti M. Genesi... P. 241. Gregorii Palamae Triadae pro sacris hesychastis, III, 2, 12 // Γρηγορίου τοῦ Παλαμᾶ Συγγράμματα / Ἐπιμ. Π. K. Χρήστου. T. 1. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1962. Σ. 666.12.15–18. Wed. about this aspect of Palamas’ teaching: Hristov Ivan. Being and existence in the discussion of St. Gregory Palamas and Varlaam on the method / trans. from Bulgarian I. G. Bey // Modern Bulgarian patrolology / comp. G. Kapriev et al. Kyiv, 2016. (National patrols). pp. 125–136, esp. With. 132–135. Shufrin A. Development of the concept of “hypostasis”... P. 18; Simonetti M. Genesi...P. 242. Compare: S. Basilii Magni Contra Eunomium libri quinque, II, 28 // PG 29/2. Col. 637C. (32)–(33). Nic. Steth. [Nic. Methon.] Antidialexis adversus Filioque [= "Another arch...", 3 // Michel A. Humbert und Kerullarios. Vol. II. P. 373.24-25. S. Basilii Magni Liber Adv. Eunomium... V // PG 29/2. Col. 716C–717A; Cavalcanti E. "Excerpta" e temi sullo Spirito Santo in Ps.-Basilio, "Adv. Eunomium", IV–V // Forma futuri. Studi in onore del cardinale Michele Pellegrino. Torino, 1975. P. 1012. See the standard presentation of this doctrine: Georgii Cyprii Expositio fidei contra Veccum... // PG 142. Col. 241A, 242BC. Gahbauer R. Gegen den Primat... S. 23.13–14. 17–18. Wed. the same expression “to have existence (τὴν ὕπαρξιν) from the Father” in George Acropolis (c. 1217–1282): Georg. Acro r. De Spiritus Sanсti ex Patre processione Oratio secunda // Georgii Acropolitae Opera / Rec. A. Heisenberg, P. Wirth. Vol. II. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1978. (BSGRT). P. 42.14–17; 49.28–32 (c. 1257–1259, see: PLP, 518); in Georgy Moskhambara: Mosсh., P. 374.44–375.48; 385.234–236 etc. Wed. from the Acropolitan on the repose of the Holy Spirit in the Son: Georg. Acro r. De Spiritus Santi... R. 43.21–24. Wed. teaching of St. Basil the Great, stated in letter 125, 3, that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father: Saint Basile. Lettres. T. II / Texte ét. et trad. par Y. Courtonne. Paris, 1961. P. 34.32–34. Comments by M. Simonetti regarding the fact that St. Vasily does not specify whether the Holy Spirit also emanates from the Son, which is obviously tendentious and sins against the principle of historicism. At least until the appearance of the “Treasury” of St. Cyril of Alexandria in the first half of the 5th century. such a problem was not on the agenda. Compare: Simonetti M. Genesi... P. 249. But cf. the author's remark that the reasoning of St. Basil anticipate the further Greek teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son: Ibid. P. 252. Wed. with these words, a similar teaching of St. Gregory of Cyprus, a link to which is given in approx. 46. The publisher does not note in these words the obvious allusion to the most important passage in the context of pneumatology - 1 Cor. 12, 3–4. Gahbauer R. Gegen den Primat... S. 23.18–25; cf. S. 24.14–25.1; 25.3–24; etc. In the Latin tradition of early scholasticism cf. thought of Joscelin of Soissons about the intra-trinity relations of Persons: ... sed in Patre totus Filius, et totus in Verbo Pater (Josleni Suessonensis Expositio... 1483B). As we see, here too the emphasis is on the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, and not the Son and the Holy Spirit, as is noticeable in the Byzantine tradition. Key passage - S. Basilii Magni Contra Eun. II, 28 // PG 29/2. Col. 636C (24)–637C (33); Simonetti M. Genesi... P. 242–243. S.Greg. Theol. Oratio 41, 11 // PG 36. Col. 444B; S.C. 358. P. 340; Nicéphore Blemmydès. Mémoire adressé aux Latins... P. 198.22–200.24 (in the context of the interpretation of Gal 4.6, as in Moshambar); Makarov D. The Holy Spirit as Life and Energy. The Treatment of Athanasius’ Ad Serapionem I, 20–21 in the Late Thirteenth Century and its Implications for the Hesychast Controversy // Byz. 2010. Vol. 80. P. 197–246, pp. 241–243. Alexopoulos Th. Der Ausgang des thearchischen Geistes. Eine Untersuchung der Filioque-Frage anhand Photios’ “Mystagogie”, Konstantin Melitiniotes’ “Zwei Antirrhetici” und Augustins “De Trinitate”. Göttingen, 2009. S. 24, cf. S. 108, 113–114. Georg. Acrop. De processione...oratio secunda. P. 63.25–28. Wed. text of Vlemmid in our translation: Makarov D.I. Mariology... P. 304–305, 308–309 and approx. 1 on pp. 308–309. Constantinides C. N. Higher Education in Byzantium in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries (1204 – ca. 1310). Nicosia, 1982. (Texts and Studies on the History of Cyprus, XI). P. 31. Ibid. P. 32. John Pediasimus, quoted above, studied with Akropolitus (Ibid. P. 34; see above, note 27). Compare: “...He (the Son. - D.M.) is not the Cause of the Spirit, since this would entail the connection of the Spirit with the Son, but His connection with the Father would be interrupted” (Gr é goire II de Chypre. Discours antirrhétique contre les opinions blasphématoires de Bekkos / ed. par le hiérom. Th. Kislas sur la base des travaux préparatoires du métr. Trad. par F. Vinel // La vie et l’oeuvre théologique de Georges/Grégoire II de Chypre (1241–1290), ed. J.-C. Κρικώνης Χ . Θ. // λόγοι / ἐκδ. Χ. Θ. Κρικώνης. Θεσσαλονίκη3, 1990. P. 45. Theodori II Lascari De theologia christiana Oratio sexta... // λόγοι. P. 130.206–213. By the way, wasn’t this theological difference one of the reasons that Theodore II did not allow the election of Blemmydes to the patriarchal throne in Nicaea in 1254? And this despite the fact that Blemmydes’s didactic treatise “The Royal Statue” was addressed specifically to Theodore, whose mentor Blemmydes was at one time! Κρικώνης Χ. Θ. Εἰσαγωγή // Ibid. P. 19. Although this is not completely clear due to the brevity of Theodore II: Ibid. P. 127.117–128.1; 128.119–122; see note 5 publisher (R. 128). In fact, Acropolis wrote his two Discourses on the Procession of the Holy Spirit in 1257–1259. (see above, note 47), Vlemmid his two “Words” on a similar topic - in 1256–1257. (and before that, it must be assumed, he taught orally, especially after the Greco-Latin negotiations of 1250), and in this case, Laskar turns out to be perhaps the first Byzantine author to record in writing the teaching that later became firmly associated with the names of Blemmides and Gregory of Cyprus. On the significance of the negotiations of 1250 for Blemmid's clarification of his doctrine of the eternal shining of the Spirit through the Son, see: Stavrou M. Les tentatives gréco-latines de rapprochement ecclesial au XIIIe siècle // Réduire le schisme? Ecclésilogies et politiques de l'union entre Orient et Occident (XIIIe–XVIIIe siècle) / éd. M.-H. Blanchet et F. Gabriel. Paris, 2013. P. 41–56, P. 54. Wed, eg: Mosch., P. 343.55–62; 397.20–24; cf. R. 398.42–47. Nic. Steth. [Nic. Methon. ] Antidialexis adversus Filioque [= “Another arch...”], 11 // Michel A. Humbert und Kerullarios, Vol. II, pp. 386.8–9. Ibid. P. 386.12–13. Wed. the same phrase in “Memorable Words”: St. Nicholas of Metho. Against the Latins about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit // Arseny, bishop. Two unpublished works of Nicholas, Bishop of Metho, writer of the 12th century. Novgorod, 1897. P. 25. St. Nicholas clearly distinguishes between the Person and the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (like Moskhambhar): the named gifts are not the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit Itself! (Ibid. pp. 25, 27, 29). Michel A. Humbert und Kerullarios. Vol. II. P. 386, pp. Irenaeus (Steenberg), bishop. Obedience, experience, transformation and confessor: the meaning of the legacy of St. Simeon the New Theologian in Orthodox pastoral life / trans. from English S. V. Month // Venerable Simeon the New Theologian and his spiritual heritage: Materials of the Second International. Patristic Conf. Church postgraduate and doctoral studies named after Saints Cyril and Methodius (Moscow, December 11–13, 2014) / under the general direction. ed. Metropolitan Volokolamsky Hilarion. M., 2017. (Patristic studies and translations). pp. 459–478, esp. 468–469. Compare: Ibid. P. 381.140, where the words “and deifying” are missing. Compare: Simonetti M. Genesi... P. 251–252, 254. Spiteris J. La Critica... P. 327. In the Papadakis-Talbot edition, the end of this phrase looks like this: “... and that the same grace of miracles was given from God not only to Peter, but also to the rest of the apostles” (Papadakis A., Talbot A. M. John X Camaterus... P. 38). For the dating of the correspondence between John X Kamathir and Innocent III, see: Ibid. P. 29. In a letter to Simeon of Jerusalem. See: Pavlov A. S. Critical experiments... P. 166.[1–5]; Wed about the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, also equally given to all the apostles: Ibid. pp. 166.[35]–167.[5]. Meyendorff I., prot. Apostle Peter... http://lib.pravmir.ru/library/readbook/1162 (access date: 08/15/2017). Spiteris J. La Critica... P. 222. For the date and addressees of the letters, see: Ibid. P. 219. Levrie K. La Syllogè contre les Latins de Théodore Agallianos. Édition critique //JÖB. 2015. Bd. 65. P. 129–152, R. 147.252. See especially: The wondrous monk David Disipata against Akindinus poems, 460–502 / trans. Z. A. Barzakh and A. V. Markova // Monk David Disipat. Polemical works. History and theology of Palamite disputes / edited by. ed. A. I. Solopova; scientific ed. D. S. Biryukov. Holy Mount Athos - M., 2011. (Σμάραγδος Φιλοκαλίας; Byzantine philosophy, 9). pp. 111–113; Browning R. David Dishypatos’ Poem on Akindynos // Byz. 1955–1957. Vol. 25–27. P. 735.460–736.502. See: Makarov D. The Holy Spirit... P. 220 f. Lourié B. Michel Psellos contre Maxime le Confesseur: L’origine de l’ “hérésie des physéthésites” // Scrinium. SPb., 2008. T.4. Patrologia Pacifica/ed. V. Baranov, B. Lourie. R. 201–227. On the theology of Disipat as a development of the theology of Gregory Palamas, see: Biryukov D. S. David Disipat, his teaching and place in the Palamite disputes // Monk David Disipat. Polemical works. pp. 32–41, esp. 37–39. Especially in light of the provocative but intellectually stimulating reflections of Dirk Krausmüller: Krausm ü ller D . The Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Divine Substance: Observations about the Trinitarian Theology of Symeon the New Theologian and Nicetas Stethatos // GOTR. 2015. Vol. 60. P. 75–91; see also: https://www.academia.edu/34952708/_The_Procession_of_the_Holy_Spirit_from_the_Divine_Substance_Observations_about _the_Trinitarian_Theology_of_Symeon_the_New_Theologian_and_Nicetas_Stethatos_Greek_Orthodox_Theological_Review_60_2015_75–91 (accessed 10/28/2017). Rigo A., Scarpa M. Le opere antilatine di Gregorio Palamas a Bisanzio e tra gli Slavi (XIV–XV secolo) // Réduire le schisme? Ecclésilogies et politiques de l'union entre Orient et Occident (XIIIe–XVIIIe siècle) / éd. M.-H. Blanchet et F. Gabriel. Paris, 2013, pp. 151–161, pp. 151, 157–161. Fyrigos A. Storia dei testi // Barlaam Calabro. Opere contro i Latini / Intr., storia dei testi, ed. critica, trad. e indici a cura di A. Fyrigos. T. I. Città del Vaticano, 1998. (Studi e Testi; 347). P. 229. Gregorii Palamae De processione Spiritus Sancti tractatus demonstrativus secundus, 29–30, in: P. Chrestou et al. (ed.), Γρηγορίου τοῦ Παλαμᾶ Συγγράμματα 1 (Θεσσαλονίκη2, 1988), P. 104.34–105.24. Georg. Acro r. De Spiritus Santi... R. 49.27–28; cf. Ibid. P. 52.11–18; 60.14–16. 20–21; 62.8–12. Ibid. P. 52.31–32. On the Photius origins of the term, see: Alexopoulos Th. Der Ausgang... S. 111. Cf. from Nikolai Mefonsky: Nic. Steth. [Nic. Methon.] Antidialexis..., 30 // Michel A. Humbert und Kerularios... Bd. II. S. 409.8–9. Thus, we are talking about a fairly stable expression. Kolbaba T. M. Barlaam the Calabrian... R. 48. Spiteris J. La Critica... P. 250. Ibid. P. 260. For Kamathir’s refutation of this idea, see: Ibid. P. 291–293, as well as references below. Stavrou M. Les tentatives... P. 52–53. Petri Damiani De picturis principum Apostolorum, IV // PL 145. Col. 594D. Noted in: Spiteris J. La Critica... P. 264, n. 202. This idea can be assessed in the perspective of the following reasoning of Barlaam of Calabria. If we judge the dignity of the see by its antiquity, then it would be fitting that the Patriarch of Jerusalem should be as superior in dignity to the Roman Patriarch as Christ is superior to Peter by nature (21st anti-Latin word: Kolbaba T. M. Barlaam the Calabrian... R. 101.6.124–125). Spiteris J. La Critica... P. 251. Meyendorff I., prot. Apostle Peter... // http://lib.pravmir.ru/library/readbook/1162 (access date: 08/15/2017). See from the most characteristic passages in their works: Nili archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Libri duo de causis dissensionum in Ecclesia, et de papae primatu. Liber II [De primatu papae] // PG 149. Col. 700C, cf. 705C: “Do you see that someone whose conscience is unhealthy may turn out to be weak (ἀσθενῆσαι) in matters of faith?.. And this very sin of conscience is not a form of atheism?” Compare: Kolbaba T. M. Barlaam the Calabrian... R. 56; AL 7: P. 87.17.192–195; Wed in AL 12: P. 89.4.47–48; 87.1.3–8; Wed P. 89.4.49–54; 89.5.55–56; in AL 21: P. 97.3.63–65; 111.18.293–298; 111.19.304–306; 113.20.312–313; 115.21.363–368; Paparozzi M. Un opuscolo di Niceforo Gregoras sulle condizioni del dialogo teologico con I Latini // La Chiesa Greca in Italia dall’VIII al XVI secolo. Atti del Convegno storico interecclesiale (Bari, 30 Apr. – 4 Magg. 1969). Padova, 1973. Vol. III. P. 1331–1359, P. 1349.12–13; 1353.23–26; 1356.27–1357.5; 1358.17–25; Palaiologos K. A. An annotated edition of the Refutation of the errors of the Latins by Matthaios Blastares. A thesis submitted for the degree of the Doctor of Philosophy at the University of London (Royal Holloway and Bedford New College). June 2011. London, 2011. P. 449.24–27; about Vlastar in this regard, see: Makarov D.I. Matthew Vlastar and the tradition of Greek patristics (using the example of the treatise “Against the errors of the Latins”) // VV. 2014. T. 73 (98). pp. 127–139; Spiteris J. La Critica... P. 302. Cf. already in the letter of Herman II: Pavlov A. S. Critical experiments... P. 167.[22–27]; in Moshambar: Mosch., pp. 454.185–189. Paparozzi M. Un opuscolo... R. 1356.27–1357.5. See our work: Makarov D.I. Anthropology and cosmology of St. Gregory Palamas (using the example of homilies). St. Petersburg, 2003. pp. 20–29. Kolbaba T. M. Barlaam the Calabrian... R. 62. Fyrigos A. Storia dei testi... P. 230. Palaiologos K. A. Introduction. Date and circumstances of the composition of the Refutation // Idem. An annotated edition... P. 109. Paparozzi M. Un opuscolo... R. 1337–1339, 1341. Kanaeva E. Yu. Disputes about the procession of the Holy Spirit in Constantinople in the 30s of the 14th century. // Bulletin of PSTGU. Ser. II: History. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2017. Vol. 74. pp. 26–40, pp. 30–31. We do not deny that Gregoras answer could have pleased the Orthodox of Constantinople (Ibid. p. 30), but from a theological perspective it could not be considered sufficiently complete and satisfactory. As previously assumed (J. Schiro, Archpriest I. Meyendorff, Fr. G. Podskalski). See: Congourdeau M.-H. Nil Cabasilas et les projets de concile oecuménique pour l’union des Églises // Réduire le schisme? Ecclesiologies et politiques de l'union entre Orient et Occident (XIIIe – XVIIIe siècle) / éd. M.– H. Blanchet et F. Gabriel. Paris, 2013. P. 75–82, P. 78 (dating of this work by Neil Cabasilah: 1333–1334), 79. See the final anathema to Varlaam and Akindinus: Concilium Constantinopolitanum - 1351... R. 216.1399–217.1407. For a mention of Gregoras among other opponents of Gregory Palamas, see: Ibid. P. 182.116–121. See the general anathema to all those who share the opinions of Varlaam and Akindinus: Ibid. P. 217.1425–1430. Grigora himself reports this in the dialogue “Florentius”. See one of the places where the negative reaction of the public to the boasting associated with ignorance of Xenophanes-Barlaam is shown: Niceforo Gregorora. Fiorenzo o intorno alla sapienza / Testo crit., intr., trad. e comm. a cura di P. L. M. Leone. Napoli, 1975. (Byzantina et Neo-Hellenica Napolitana. Collana di studi e testi, IV). P. 92.822–93.845; Wed beginning of the response-refutation of Nikagora-Gregory: Ibid. P. 93.846–850 f.; Medvedev I. P. Byzantine humanism of the XIV–XV centuries. St. Petersburg, 1997. P. 21. As a result, Nikagoras was crowned with a wreath (Medvedev also draws attention to this place): Niceforo Gregora. Fiorenzo... P. 125.1664–1666. See: Makarov D.I. Matthew Vlastar... P. 128–129. Kolbaba T. M. Barlaam the Calabrian... R. 113.20.340–115.20.343. Nili archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis... De primatu papae... 705C. Anselmi Havelbergensis episcopi Dialogi. Car. III. 8 // PL 188. Col. 1220A. Spiteris J. La Critica... P. 258. Meyendorff I., prot. Apostle Peter... // http://lib.pravmir.ru/library/readbook/1162 (access date: 08/15/2017). Bucossi A. Introduction. Dating of the Sacred Arsenal // Andronici Camateri Sacrum armamentum. Pars prima / Ed. A. Bucossi. Turnhout, 2014. (CCSG, 75). R. XXIV–XXVI. Let us add on our own that between Andronikos Kamatir and George Moskhambhar there are important overlaps in the doctrine of perichoresis of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity. Compare, for example: Andronici Camateri Sacrum armamentum. R. 67.63.18–19; Mosch., pp. 294.87–92. Therefore, Andronikos Kamatir is an important link in the Photian and Protopalamitian triadology. Compare: Makarov D. Theology for rent... P. 291–307. This was shown not so long ago by A. Bucossi: Bucossi A. Ἐκ e διά: la processione dello Spirito Santo tra il XII ed il XIII secolo, spunti di riflessione // Πορφύρα. Rivista dell'Associazione Culturale Bisanzio. Anno VI. Numero 13/2. Ottobre 2009. L’ortodossia (secc. XI–XIV). P. 4–12, spec. 7–11. In his “Testament”, written in captivity in the 90s. XIII century, Vekk continued to defend this view (Ragia E. Confessions... P. 70). Pétridès S. Sentence synodique contre le clergé unioniste (1283) // EO. 1911. Vol. 14.No. 88. P. 133–136, P. 134. See: Alexopoulos Th. Der Ausgang... S. 111–112 (critical attitude to the theology of Wecca); cf.: Makarov D. The Holy Spirit... P. 220 f. It is strange to read in the latest research the following statements regarding Vekk: “Of course, Vekk never claimed that the Father and the Son are the same cause of the procession of the Holy Spirit; if he had spoken in this spirit, he would have allowed the merging of two Hypostases into one” (Ragia E. Confessions... P. 62). The author does not take into account the context of all the theological works of Veccus, insisting, however, on his Orthodoxy until his condemnation at the Blachernae Council of 1285 (Ibid. P. 74). A more correct statement would be that Vekk is rather leaning towards tritheism (in this we agree with the anti-rhetic George Moskhambara), and in his various works. Cf.: Makarov D. The Holy Spirit... P. 230–231 and n. 119. Lilla S. Un opuscolo polemico anonimo contro il patriarca Becco di Costantinopoli (1275–1282) // Byz. 1970. Vol. 40. Hommage au R.P. R. J. Loenertz. P. 87.108–114. For dating the source, see: Ibid. R. 77–78. Dvornik F. Greek Uniats and the Number of Oecumenical Councils // Mélanges Eugène Tisserant. Vol. II/ 1. Orient Chrétien. Città del Vaticano, 1964. (Studi e Testi, 232). P. 93–101, P. 98. The author wrote after the Council of Florence (Ibid. P. 94). Ibid. P. 97 (source text), 94–95 (analysis). See the new edition of the Tomos of the Council of 1285, prepared by M. Stavrou: Conciliorum ecumenicorum... decreta... P. 113–130. Dvornik F. Greek Uniats... P. 97–98. Perhaps, given the genre nature of the sources we are considering, it would be more accurate to say: “in journalism.” Of course, one should not ignore the Turkophile sympathies of a part of late Byzantine society, which were condemned, in particular, by Simeon of Thessalonica and Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425). On this, see, in particular: Zhigalova N. E. Conformism of the Greeks in the conditions of Turkish expansion: the view of late Byzantine writers // News of the Ural Federal University. Ser. 2. Humanities. Ekaterinburg, 2015. No. 4 (145). pp. 116–124. Dvornik F. Greek Uniats... P. 98. As Fr. F. Dvornik, the name of Photius was not mentioned at the Council of Lyon (Ibid. P. 95). This kind of negative attitude towards Photius is especially characteristic of representatives of the Dominican tradition, for example, for Philip of Persia, the author of the work “On the Obedience of the Roman Church” (1358) (Delacroix-Besnier C. Les Prêcheurs, du dialogue à la polémique (XIIIe–XIVe siècle) // Greeks, Latins, and Intellectual History, 1204–1500 / ed. M. Hinterberger and C. Schabel. Leuven – Paris – Walpole, MA, 2011. (Recherches de Théologie et Philosophie médiévales. Bibliotheca, P. 151–168, P. 163, 166). In this regard, attention is drawn to the fact that the main negotiators on the issue of union, whom Rome sent to Byzantium in the 14th century, were the Dominicans. And first of all, we should point out Francesco da Camerino and Richard of England, sent by John XXII in 1333, with whom Varlaam participated in negotiations. It is against Francesco da Camerino that his treatises, which we have repeatedly used, are directed: AL 7 and AL 12 (Fyrigos A. Storia dei testi... P. 230). In connection with these same negotiations, Gregoras essay was written and published by M. Paparozzi. The actual title of the source in the manuscripts is “How, why and when did the Italians separate from the Orthodox Christians?” See: Silvano L. “How, Why and When the Italians Were Separated from the Orthodox Christians.” A Mid-Byzantine Account of the Origins of the Schism and its Reception in the 13th–16th Centuries // Réduire le schisme? P. 117–149. The text dates back (according to T. M. Kolbaba), most likely to the 12th century. (Ibid. P. 118, n. 7). With minor differences (emphasized in M. Fanelli's edition), the text of the Oros of the Council of 879–880 is identical in: the anonymous Hergenröter-Silvano (“On the Beginning of the Schism”), in the 44th homily of St. Callistus I of Constantinople “On how a mentor should govern the flock entrusted to him” and in the work of St. Nil Kavasila "On the Council that took place under Photius." See: Concilium Constantinopolitanum 879–880. Ὅρος / ed. P. Gemeinhardt // Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta. Editio critica. Vol. IV/1. From Constantinople 861 to Constantinople 1872. R. 37.1–38.41; Silvano L. “How, Why and When the Italians Were Separated from the Orthodox Christians.” P. 144.103–121, 146.133–143; Fanelli M. Un’omelia inedita del patriarca Callisto I e l’uso dei testi conciliari foziani nella disputa contro i Latini alla metà del 14° secolo // RÉB. 2016. Vol. 74. P. 71–121, P. 185–187 (part of a comparative table with texts of three authors), 217.69–219.105 (text of St. Callistus). Gemeinhardt P. Synod of Constantinople, 879–880 // Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Generaliumque Decreta... P. 25–34, P. 31. Congourdeau M.-H. Nil Cabasilas... P. 81 et n. 33. Nil Cabasilas. Sur le Saint-Esprit / Intr., texte critique, trad. et notes par hiérom. Th. Kislas. Paris, 2001. Fanelli M. Un’omelia... R. 210. Gemeinhardt P. Synod... P. 31, n. 32. Spiteris J. La Critica... P. 302. Georg. Acrop. De processione... Oratio secunda... P. 63.17–18. 24–25; Wed Nikolai Mefonsky talks about the same thing: Nic. Steth. [Nic. Methon.] Antidialexis adversus Filioque [= “Another arch...”], 11 // Michel A. Humbert und Kerullarios. P. 386.12–13; in Moshambar: Mosch., P. 349.122–125; 393.154–157; 419.135–138; 420.157–160. These theologians are talking, in the words of M. Stavrou, about “the true presence of God, which takes place outside His essence” (Stavrou M. The Divine Unity... P. 309). Georg. Acro r. De processione... Oratio secunda... P. 63.18–23. Presumably German II (1223–1240). See: Pavlov A. S. Critical remarks... P. 164. [40]. Right there. pp. 165. [39]–166. [1]. Nic. Steth. [Nic. Methon. ] Antidialexis..., 25. R. 402.1–5. AL 12: Kolbaba T. M. Barlaam the Calabrian... P. 91.6.70–73. This equality of the apostles is strongly emphasized by the Lord in Matthew 19.28 (Ibid. P. 91.6.73–74; 91.7.92–95). Wed. Barlaam of Calabria has the idea that Paul limits the power of Peter: Kolbaba T. M. Barlaam the Calabrian... P. 91.6.77–79 (AL 12). This refers, on the one hand, to Byzantine imperialism: the basileus in Byzantine society occupied a position somewhat similar to the position of the pope in the West after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. On the other hand, the philosophical and theological concept of the state arising from this imperialism. See: Spiteris J. La Critica... P. 305, 314–316, 318–322. Wed. said in passing about. V. Grumel’s remark about Nicholas III Grammar: “powerful with the power of the empire” (Grumel V. Jérusalem... P. 109). Behind this remark lies the same concept of Byzantine Caesaropapism or “imperocentrism” as Fr. Spiteris. Over the past 40 years, there has been a tendency to revise this approach, primarily in the works of Gilbert Dagron (1932–2015). So, for example, referring to the significant role of hagiography in the development of urban culture, the scientist writes: “The Church as an institution, the clergy as a special type of society, church property as one of the levers of the economy - all these factors determine the freedom of urban life, which took place far from the state and its laws” (Dagron G. Le christianisme dans la ville byzantine // DOP. 1977. Vol. 31. P. 1–25, P. 25). For the purposes of our study it would also be useful to keep in mind this marginality of state power in relation to the development of Trinitarian and ecclesiological ideas. “In the Church as the Body of Christ,” writes Archpriest. G. Florovsky, - in Her divine-human organism the sacrament of the Incarnation is constantly performed, the sacrament of “two natures”, inseparably united with each other” (Florovsky G. The Catholicity of the Church // Idem. Collected Works. Vol. 1. Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View. Belmont, Mass., 1972. P. 37–55, P. 38). About Fr. D. Staniloae see: Robertson R. G. Contemporary Romanian Orthodox Ecclesiology. The Contribution of Dumitru Staniloae and Younger Colleagues. Excerpta ex dissertatione ad Doctoratum. Romae, 1988. P. 6 f. AL 7: Kolbaba T. M. Barlaam the Calabrian... P. 79.8.81–86; 81.9.98–100; cf. AL 21: P. 97.3.52–53. AL 7: Ibid. P. 81.9.100–101; 81.10.107–111. Stavrou M. The Divine Unity and the Relationship among the Persons of the Trinity in Orthodox Theological Tradition // Die Filioque-Controverse. Historische, ökumenische und dogmatische Perspektiven 1200 Jahre nach der Aachener Synode / Hrsg. M. Böhnke, A. E. Kattan, B. Oberdorfer. Freiburg im Breisgau, 2011. (Quaestiones disputatae, 245). P. 298–310, P. 307. Spiteris J. La Critica... P. 322. Florovsky G. The Catholicity... R. 37. The date of the letter we are interested in to John X Camatire is November 12, 1199 (Spiteris Y. La Critica... P. 257). Darrouzes J. Le mémoire de Constantin Stilbès contre les Latins // RÉB. 1963. Vol. 21. P. 50–100, P. 72.182–186. For the publisher's French translation, see ibid. On dating, see the discussion of Fr. J. Darrouzes at R. 57. Spiteris J. La Critica... P. 304. Innocentii III Ep. CCIX. Patriarchae Constantinopolitano... // PL 214. Col. 763A. Wed. liturgical and christological (in the sense of “Supersubstantial Bread”, i.e. the Body and Blood of the Lord) interpretation of Matthew 6.11 by the same Josleni Suessons: Expositio ejusdem [Josleni Suessoniensis] de oratione Dominica // PL 186. Col. 1494AB. We are no longer talking about “Seven Words about Life in Christ” by St. Nicholas Kavasila (second half of the 14th century). Cf. Innocentii III Ep. CCIX. Patriarchae Constantinopolitano... 763D: ...Ecclesia Romana... ratione potius dignitatis... (compared to the Church of Jerusalem). This is an “ultra-papist view” of the history of the Church, as Papadakis and Talbot rightly note (Papadakis A., Talbot A. M. John X Camaterus... R. 30, 33). Innocentii III Ep. CCIX. Patriarchae Constantinopolitano... 763AB. See above, section. 1.1.1. It is not difficult to see that this concept runs counter to the traditional Eastern teaching on collegiality and conciliarity - right up to the work of Archpriest. G. Florovsky “The Catholicity of the Church” and modern quests in line with neo-Slavophilism and personalism. Innocentii III Ep. CCIX. Patriarchae Constantinopolitano... 763B. For the Greek text of the letter, see: Spiteris J. La Critica... P. 330. S. Maximi Confessoris Opuscula theologica et polemica, 6 // PG 91. Col. 68CD; Idem. Opuscula theologica et polemica, 9 // Ibid. 117CD; Idem. Opuscula theological et polemica, 16. De duabus... voluntatibus // Ibid. 197C (Russian translation: St. Maxim the Confessor. Theological and polemical works (Opuscula theological et polemica) / translation from ancient Greek by D. A. Chernoglazov and A. M. Shufrin. Holy Mount Athos; St. Petersburg, 2014. (Σμάραγδος Φιλοκαλίας). C. 367–368, 419–420). On this formula, see, in particular: Piret P. Christologie et théologie trinitaire chez Maxime le Confesseur, d’après sa formule des natures “desquelles, en lesquelles et lesquelles est le Christ” // Maximus Confessor. Actes du Symposium sur Maxime le Confesseur (Friborg, 2–5 September 1980) / ed. F. Heinzer, Ch. Schönborn. Friborg, 1982. (Paradosis, 27). P. 215–222; Heinzer F. L’explication trinitaire de l’économie chez Maxime le Confesseur // Ibid. P. 159–172, P. 165. Cf.: Larchet J.-C. Ch. 17. The Mode of Deification // The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor / ed. P. Allen, B. Neil. Oxford, 2015, pp. 341–359, pp. 344–347. Heinzer F. L'explication... P. 160. Innocentii III Ep. CCIX. Patriarchae Constantinopolitano... 758D–759A. Spiteris J. La Critica... P. 330. Darrouzes J. Les documents... R. 70, 76–77. Papadakis A., Talbot A. M. John X Camaterus... R. 37 (with reference to Matthew 23.8–11); Spiteris J. La Critica... P. 326. I read praecelleret instead of praecellerent. Innocentii III Ep. CCIX. Patriarchae Constantinopolitano... 759BC. Papadakis and Talbot highlight the same idea in the letters of John X Camaterus to Innocent III: Papadakis A., Talbot A. M. John X Camaterus... P. 32. Innocentii III Ep. CCCLIV. Patriarchae Constantinopolitano... // PL 214. Col. 328B. Innocent wrote the same thing to the emperor of the Greeks (see: Spiteris Y. La Critica... P. 256 e n. 169). Many scholars have pointed out that Innocent views the unity of the Church only from a disciplinary point of view (Ibid. P. 256–257), leaving aside mysticism, pneumatology and sacraments - all that, we add, that makes the Church the Church. Innocentii III Ep. CCCLIV... 328C. AL 7: Kolbaba T. M. Barlaam the Calabrian... P. 77.3.32–36; 77.4.39–49; 77.5.52–56; AL 12: P. 87.2.13–14; AL 21: P. 95.3.36; 99.4.90; 101.6.135; 77.6.58–79.6.65; 79.7.74–76. 78–80; 79.8.81–86; 81.9.98–100. AL 7: Ibid. P. 79.8.81–86; 81.9.98–100; AL 21: P. 97.3.52–53. AL 7: Ibid. P. 77.5.52–56; 81.9.100–101; 81.10.107–111; AL 12: P. 87.2.13–14; AL 21: 95.3.36; 99.4.90; 101.6.135. 138–142. Innocentii III Ep. CCIX. Patriarchae Constantinopolitano... 759CD. Theophanes Nicaenus († 1381). Sermo in Sanctissimam Deiparam/ed. M. Jugie. Romae, 1935. (Lateranum, 1). R. 130.9–10; 128.26–28; 132.7; Makarov D. AND . Mariology... P. 143; for Western late medieval parallels to the image of the Neck, see: Salaville S. Mariologie byzantine et mariologie latine médiévale: Une coïncidence d’expression sur la Médiation de Marie // RÉB. 1953. Vol. 11. Mélanges Martin Jugie. R. 266–271. Papadakis A., Talbot A. M. John X Camaterus... P. 38; Spiteris Y. La Critica... P. 327. That is, in fact, a special charisma that is absent from the other apostles. Here it is important to feel this unity and interweaving of pneumatological and ecclesiological principles. Papadakis A., Talbot A. M. John X Camaterus... P. 38; Spiteris Y. La Critica... P. 328. Nili archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Libri duo... 704С. Compare: Spiteris Y. La Critica... P. 288, 291, 292, 308. Papadakis A., Talbot A. M. John X Camaterus... P. 39, cf. P. 40; Spiteris Y. La Critica... P. 328, cf. P. 329. Papadakis A., Talbot A. M. John X Camaterus... P. 39; Spiteris Y. La Critica... P. 328, cf. R. 329. Papadakis A., Talbot A. M. John X Camaterus... P. 39; Spiteris Y. La Critica... P. 329. See Nilus Cabasilas: Nili archiepiscopi Thessalonicensis Libri duo... 701D, 704AC; in Barlaam of Calabria: AL 7: Kolbaba T. M. Barlaam the Calabrian... P. 83.14.149–150; AL 12: R. 89.2.29–30; 85.17.180–181; AL 21: R. 99.5.101–104; 103.7.147–153; etc. Flusin B. Nicolas Mésaritès. Éthopée d’un astrologue qui ne put devenir patriarche // TM. 2002. Vol. 14. Mélanges Gilbert Dagron. P. 221–242, P. 237.59–61. For the dating of the monument, see: Ibid. P. 224. Innocentii III... Ep. CCIX. Patriarchae Constantinopolitano... 761CD. Innocentii III Pontificis Romani Ep. CCVII... // PL 214. Col. 755C–756D, esp. col. 756CD. Presumably, Herman II (1223–1240): Pavlov A. S. Critical experiments... P. 165.[14–16]. Spiteris Y. La Critica... P. 305. Heinzer F. L'explication... P. 161. Cf. on R. 162–164 about the basic formula of this teaching by St. Maximus the Confessor (“The Father favors, the Son accomplishes the Incarnation, and the Spirit assists the Son”) and its predecessors among the early fathers. S. Maximi Confessoris Capita theologica et oeconomica II, 25 // PG 90. Col. 1136BC; Heinzer F. L'explication... P. 167, cf. R. 169. Theophanes Nicaenus († 1381). Sermo... P. 202.14–204.22; Makarov D.I. Mariology... P. 179–180. This happens thanks to a special – perichoresis of the Mother and the Son (Ibid. pp. 178–179). See: Mansi. XII. 261D–264C; Die ikonoklastische Synode von Hiereia 754. Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar ihres Horos / Bes. T. Krannich, Ch. Schubert and C. Sode. Tübingen, 2002. (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 15). S. 44. In modern science, this doctrine was first coherently described and analyzed by G. A. Ostrogorsky (1902–1976). See: Ostrogorsky G. A. Epistemological foundations of the Byzantine dispute about holy icons // Seminarium Kondakovianum. Prague, 1928. T. 2. pp. 47–51 (on pp. 52 – German summary). For a summary of modern scientific ideas on this issue, see: V. M. Lurie (with the participation of V. A. Baranov). History of Byzantine philosophy. Formative period. St. Petersburg, 2006, pp. 461–466. Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. Bd. III. Contra imaginum calumniatores orationes tres / Bes. B. Kotter. Berlin–N.Y., 1975. (PTS, 17). S. 83.3–5. Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. Bd. II. Expositio fidei/Bes. B. Kotter. Berlin–N.Y., 1973. (PTS, 12). S. 206.6–8; taken from: S. Basilii Magn i De Spiritu Santo 18, 45 // Basile de Césarée. Traité du Saint-Esprit / Texte grec, intr., trad. et notes de B. Pruche, O. P. Paris, 1945. (SC, 17). P. 194.[9–10]. Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos. Bd. III. S. 89.1–4. Ibid. S. 89.4–6. For more details on this, see: Lurie V. M. (with the participation of V. A. Baranov). History of Byzantine philosophy. pp. 431–434, 444. See about this the excellent work of O. Sferlya: Sferlea O. La dynamique de la vie spirituelle chez saint Jean Climaque: un bref regard comparatif avec saint Grégoire de Nysse // BZ. 2017. Bd. 110/1. P. 149–168, spec. 152 f., 165–167. Barlaam of Calabria speaks very accurately about this. See AL 7: Kolbaba T. M. Barlaam the Calabrian... P. 85.17.188–87.17.193; AL 12: P. 89.4.47–48. We will not now touch upon the question of the inconsistent behavior of Varlaam himself, who through the anti-Palamite heresy came into the fold of the very Catholicism that he had previously so vehemently condemned, and who became Bishop Gerace in October 1342 (Ibid. P. 50). T. M. Kolbaba believes that Varlaam was “...neither an adventurer nor a saint... it is obvious that he was not Orthodox in name only” (Ibid. P. 51). We find the opposite point of view more convincing. John Meyendorff, according to which, Varlaam, who came from Southern Italy at first (before the start of the anti-hesychast polemics) tried to do everything to make a favorable impression on his contemporaries - that is, he was just an adventurer (Meyendorff I., Archpriest Apostle Peter...). However, his anti-Latin arguments, apparently taken from Nil Cabasilas (Congourdeau M.-H. Nil Cabasilas... P. 78–79), retain their value and significance. In the question of the Filioque from 1341–1342. he switched to the Latin point of view (Barl. Cal. Ep. ad Demetrium Cydonem // PG 151. Col. 1301C; Meyendorff I. prot. The would-be theologian of unity of the 14th century: Barlaam of Calabria // His own. Easter mystery. Articles on theology. M., 2013. P. 546–563, P. 560 and approx. 51). It seems that Rev. is right. John Meyendorff, who suggested that "...most likely his conversion was a consequence of the insult inflicted on him by the Council of 1341." (Ibid. p. 561). Barl. Cal. AL 21 // Ibid. P. 113.20.312–315; 113.20.321–115.20.343;