“One ἐνέργεια” in St. Cyril of Alexandria in “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (John 6:53)

Contents Abstract Introduction Monoenergist interpretations Dienergist interpretations Brief summary of Ἐνέργεια by St. Cyril of Alexandria Συγγενής at St. Cyril of Alexandria “The action was one and akin” Human ἐνέργεια of Christ Concluding remarks Sources Literature Translation 1 from English by Hieromonk Theodore (Yulaev). Hans van Loon is a Doctor of Theology researcher at the Center for the Study of Early Christianity Tilburg / Amsterdam (Netherlands). Nieuwegracht 65, 3512 LG Utrecht, the Netherland. jcvanloon@gmail.com. Hieromonk Theodore (Yulaev) Master of Theology, senior lecturer at the Department of Philology of the Moscow Theological Academy. 141300, Sergiev Posad, Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Academy. ulaev.theodor@gmail.com For citation: Loon H., van. “One ἐνέργεια” in St. Cyril of Alexandria in “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (John 6:53) / translation from English by Hier. Theodora (Yulaeva) // The Bible and Christian Antiquity. 2021. No. 2 (10). pp. 93–139. DOI: 10.31802/BCA.2021.10.2.004 This article analyzes one expression of St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 378–444). In his “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (John 6:53), the saint, explaining the action of the Eucharist through a comparison with the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:53–54) through the command of Christ and the outstretching of His hand, calls the life-giving ἐνέργεια one and akin. In the 7th century this passage was introduced by monoenergists to prove that in Christ there is only one ἐνέργεια. The article first examines what meaning was given to the expression “one and akin ἐνέργεια” by various advocates of monoenergism, St. Maximus the Confessor (579/580–662), as well as several modern theologians. After this, we examine what exactly St. himself meant. Kirill, when he wrote this fragment. The author comes to the conclusion that one ἐνέργεια is the divine ἐνέργεια, which acts both through command and through touch. This is not a synthesis of divine and human energies. Human ἐνέργεια is not mentioned in this context, but from other places it becomes clear that, according to St. Kirill, Christ also has a human ἐνέργεια. In all surviving works of St. Kirill, Archbishop. of Alexandria (412–444), there is only one place in which the saint speaks of “one energy” (μία ἐνέργεια) 2 in relation to Christ in a context where Christ acts both as God and as man. This is the “Interpretation of the Gospel of John” (John 6:53), where regarding Christ’s resurrection of Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:53–54) it is said: “Giving life as God by an omnipotent command, He also gives life through the touch of (His) holy flesh, showing through both that the action was one and akin (μίαν τε καὶ συγγενῆ δι’ ἀμφοῖν ἐπιδείκνυσι τὴν ἐνέργειαν)" 3 . In my monograph The Diphysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, 4 I discussed this passage briefly, but in view of the role this text played in the Monoenergist/Monothelete controversy two centuries later, it deserves a fuller study. Monoenergists cited this passage from the writings of St. Cyril in support of his assertion that in Christ there was only one ἐνέργεια. St. Maximus the Confessor responded by arguing that the expression used by St. Cyril in his “Commentary on the Gospel of John” does not deny that in Christ there are two ἐνέργειαι. Almost a century ago, Josip Maric wrote an article (in Latin) in which he argued that one ἐνέργεια in the text of St. Cyril points to the result (effectus) of Christ's action, while there is his double motivating principle (duplex causa) - divine and human 5. Guido Bausenhart, in an extensive note to his German translation of the “Disputation with Pyrrhus” by St. Maximus the Confessor discusses the expression of St. Cyril “one ἐνέργεια” and concludes that it refers to the divine ἐνέργεια, which also acts through the flesh of Christ 6 . Alois Grillmeier draws a direct line from Apollinaris through “one ἐνέργεια” of St. Cyril and the “new godly ἐνέργεια” of Pseudo-Dionysius 7 to the “one ἐνέργεια” of the 7th century. 8. In this article I intend to explore what St. Cyril meant by “one ἐνέργεια” in his “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (John 6:53), and compare this with the interpretations of the 7th century. I will start from the point of view of monoenergists and others. Maximus the Confessor, then I will consider the various meanings that they have in the writings of St. Cyril terms συγγενής and ἐνέργεια, after which I will move on to the meaning of his statement in the “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (John 6:53). Monoenergetic interpretations In documents relating to the 7th century monoenergist/monothelite controversy, we find several references to the mention of “one ἐνέργεια” by Cyril in his Commentary on the Gospel of John. Although these were disputes within the Chalcedonian, and therefore also Diphysite, camp, 9 the acts of the VI Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680–681) also include two quotations from the miaphysite 10 Anthem of Trebizond (who was Patriarch of Constantinople from June 535 to March 536 and deposed by the emperor), taken from his treatise addressed to Emperor Justinian 11. In it, Anthimus proves that in Christ there was no ignorance either in His Divinity or in His rational soul. After quoting a passage from Kirill’s “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (John 6:53), he adds: “If we know that omniscience is proper to the rational, divine ἐνέργεια, and we are taught that there is one and the same ἐνέργεια suitable for God of both, then how can we not, on the basis of this, confess that there is one and the same omniscience, as we said, in Christ alone - both according to His Divinity and according to His humanity?” 12 In another passage, preserved in the Syriac translation, he states quite unequivocally: “From the very union with Him (God the Word), it (the soul of Christ) was enriched with all His godly ἐνέργεια, wisdom and omniscience, so that there is the same knowledge both in God the Word and in the rational and thinking soul” 13 . Thus, according to Anthimus, Christ knew everything by His divine ἐνέργεια, as well as as a man. He cites in support of this understanding the text of St. Cyril, and this implies that he interprets Cyril’s “one ἐνέργεια” as the divine ἐνέργεια, which after the Incarnation also acts through the humanity of Christ. Christ's human ignorance is overcome and abolished by His divine knowledge, just as His human inability to raise the dead was overcome and abolished by divine ability 14 . The second reference to “one ἐνέργεια” by St. Cyril can be found in the letter of Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople (610–638) 15 who, together with Emperor Heraclius (610–641) 16, promoted the opinion that in Christ there was only one ἐνέργεια. In his first letter to Cyrus 17, bishop of Phasis, Sergius refers to St. Cyril as follows: “We know that some of the approved Fathers, and especially the most holy Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, spoke in some of his writings about one life-giving activity (ἐνέργειαν) of Christ, our true God” 18. In this letter, Sergius does not explain how he understands “one ἐνέργεια”, he only refers to the Fathers: “After all, it is extremely necessary not only in thought to follow the teachings of the Holy Fathers, but also to use the same expressions as they do, and not introduce any innovations at all” 19. Cyrus, in a letter to Sergius 20, referred to the famous expression from the “Tomos” of St. Pope Leo: each image acts in communication with another - and concluded that the “Tomos” “openly proclaims two activities (δύο ἐνεργείας), of course, in communication with each other” 21. To this Sergius replies that none of the Fathers who defended the “Tomos” spoke about two ἐνέργειαι. As an example, he mentions the letter of St. Eulogius of Alexandria, which sends Cyrus as an appendix. Later, after Cyrus became Patriarch of Alexandria (631–642) 22 and compiled a “Certificate” of the union between Chalcedonites and non-Chalcedonites (Theodosians) in nine chapters, 23 Sergius wrote in another letter to Cyrus 24 that “The same one Christ performed (ἐνεργεῖν) divine and human in one activity (μιᾷ ἐνεργείᾳ). For all divine and human activity (ἐνέργεια) came from the same incarnate God the Word” 25 . On the one hand, the words of Sergius: “every divine and human action” can be understood as the assumption of a plurality of energies (ἐνέργειαι), divine and human, but on the other hand, he said that everything is produced by one energy. It seems that with this language of one energy he wants to emphasize the unity of the subject of the incarnate Word. When St. Sophronius - still as abbot, and not as patriarch of Jerusalem (633-638) 26 - spoke out against the monoenergist language, Sergius issued his “Psephos”, or “Decision” 27, in which he decided that one or two should no longer be spoken of in relation to the ἐν έργεια(ι) of Christ. It is believed that the point of view expressed in the Psephos was retained in a letter from Sergius to Honorius 28, Pope of Rome (625–638) 29: one and the same Christ “performs (ἐνεργεῖν) both divine and human, and every ἐνέργεια, be it Godly or befitting of man, comes" from the one incarnate Word of God 30. This is very similar to what he wrote in the second letter to Cyrus, but without the expression: “one ἐνέργεια.” A little lower, in a letter to Honorius, the patriarch writes: “The saving instruction of the God-bearing Fathers clearly teaches that the rationally animated flesh of the Lord never separately and by its own impulse (ἐξ οἰκείας ὁρμῆς) did its natural movement in contradiction with the beckoning (τῷ νεύματι) of God the Word, united with it hypostatically, but as God Himself desired (ἐβούλετο) in relation to time, quality and quantity (ὁπότε καὶ οἵαν καὶ ὅσην)” 31 . He further uses the human soul and body as a metaphor: just as the body is governed by the rational soul, the “complete human constitution” of Christ (ὅλον τὸ ἀνθρώπινον αὐτοῦ σύγκριμα) was “always and on all occasions” under the guidance of the deity of the Word 32. This allows us to better understand how Sergius imagined the unity of the subject in Christ: although in Him there are both divine and human ἐνέργειαι, in the end, it is the will of the divine Word that also makes decisions about the movements of human nature 33 . The third reference to “one ἐνέργεια” by St. Cyril is found in a quotation from Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch (669–681), who was personally present and condemned at the VI Ecumenical Council 34. Macarius in his “Letter to the African monk and presbyter Luke” 35 quotes “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (John 6:53) by St. Kirill and continues: “Do you see how, although he said that each image acts (ἐνεργεῖν), he showed only His ἐνέργεια due to communication with each other? After all, on the basis of what he said, that He gives life like God and also gives life through touch, he did not teach us to think about two life-giving and two ἐνέργειαι, like these new dogmatists” 36 . The expressions: “each image acts” and “in communication with each other” are taken from the “Tomos” of St. Pope Leo 37. Macarius adds the text of St. Cyril to give a monoenergist interpretation of the position of St. Leo that each image acts in communication with another. In the “Confession of Faith” 38, read at the VI Ecumenical Council and contained in its acts, Macarius develops his views on one ἐνέργεια and one will. He quotes and retells fragments of the letters of Sergius to Cyrus and Honorius, as well as the fourth letter of Dionysius to Gaius 39 and cites a fragment from St. Gregory of Nyssa, already quoted by Sergius in a letter to Honorius, where St. Gregory claims that, although during the salvation of the world “suffering belonged to the flesh, yet ἐνέργεια was God’s” 40. His understanding of “one ἐνέργεια” is similar to that of Sergius. Macarius also uses the word ἐνέργεια in two meanings. First, he relates it to any activity of Christ, affirming, like Serius: “We believe that miracles and sufferings belonged to the same one, and that every ἐνέργεια, whether it be godly or befitting of man, proceeds in a new way from the same Christ our God.”41 This suggests a plurality of ἐνέργειαι, divine and human. Secondly, he combines all these ἐνέργειαι into one and, as we have seen, claims that St. Cyril “showed one of His (Christ’s) ἐνέργεια” and “did not teach us to think about two life-giving and two ἐνέργειαι” 42. In this way he wants to preserve the unity of Christ. And finally, for Macarius there is also one divine will, which makes decisions and acts, including through the humanity of Christ 43. Finally, a fragment from the “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (John 6:53) by St. Cyril is also mentioned in the “Doctrina Patrum” 44, a Dithelitian florilegion, allegedly compiled by Anastasius Apocrisarius († 666) 45, a student of St. Maximus the Confessor. This is one of the quotes under the heading "Teachings of the Fathers Put forward by Opponents." The author explains that some (monoenergists) accept ἐνέργεια as the result (ἀποτέλεσμα) of the action of Christ, that is, the revival (ζωοποίησιν) of a young girl, while they attribute συγγενής to two natures. Others (monoenergists) attribute one ἐνέργεια to one hypostasis of the incarnate Word, while omnipotent command and touch indicate two natures 46. Dienergist interpretations As for the dienergist side, St. Sophronius of Jerusalem does not refer to the “Interpretation of the Gospel of John” (John 6:53) by St. Kirill. In his “Conciliar Epistle” 47 - a written address that the new patriarch, according to custom, sent to fellow patriarchs upon enthronement - he writes that he accepts “all the divine and godly wise writings of the divinely inspired Cyril,” especially his second and third letters to Nestorius (Epistulae 4 and 17) and his letter to John of Antioch, which includes the “formula of reunification” (Epistula 39) 48. But he does not mention “one ἐνέργεια” of St. Kirill. St. Maximus the Confessor (579/580–662) 49 discusses the phrase of St. Cyril from his “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (John 6:53) in four cases. In two works from the period 640–642. – Opusculum 7 50 and Opusculum 8 51 – he explains it differently than in the two works of the period 645–648. – Opusculum 9 52 and “Dispute with Pyrrhus” 53. In Opusculum 7 he first discusses the “godly ἐνέργεια” of Dionysius, which, he says, points to “the double energy of the dual in nature (διπλῆν τοῦ διπλοῦ τὴν φύσιν ἐνέργειαν)". When Dionysius designated “a singular combination of natural energies, he taught this (divine energy)” 54. So, we can talk about the ἐνέργεια of Christ in the singular, when we mean the united ἐνέργειαι. According to Rev. Maxim, phrase of St. Cyril: “through both He shows that ἐνέργεια was one and συγγενής” - expresses in other words the same thing as the “godly ἐνέργεια” of Dionysius. About one ἐνέργεια “the teacher spoke not to destroy the essential (οὐσιώδους) difference of natural energies, of which and in which the one and only Christ God exists, but to confirm their ultimate unity.” Below he adds: “Since he showed that the natural energies of Christ God, Who consists of both, are completely preserved - the energy of His deity (showed) through omnipotent command, and the energy of His humanity through touch - he represented them as completely united by mutual convergence and interpenetration” 55. So, Rev. Maximus interprets one ἐνέργεια of Cyril as the composition of the divine ἐνέργεια of Christ, which acts in the omnipotent command, and his human ἐνέργεια, which acts in the touch of his hand. In Opusculum 8 we find the same interpretation. Dionysius’s “Godly ἐνέργεια” “embraces divine and human energies together,” writes St. Maxim 56. St. Cyril “also teaches about the fusion and connection of natural energies through this (the expression “one ἐνέργεια”)” 57. One ἐνέργεια St. Cyril in itself is not a natural ἐνέργεια 58 (ἐνέργεια of a certain nature), but it is the addition of the divine natural ἐνέργεια of Christ and the human natural ἐνέργεια of Christ. St. Maximus seems to have difficulty with the “one ἐνέργεια” of St. Kirill. He emphasizes that St. Cyril is the only Church Father who uses this expression in a Christological context. For Rev. Maxima St. Kirill is an Orthodox Father without any doubt; therefore, “one ἐνέργεια” must be interpreted in accordance with all the other Fathers and other Christological texts of St. Kirill 59. St. Maxim is also concerned about the use of the term συγγενής. He realizes that the Fathers usually apply this word to two realities that relate to the same essence (οὐσία) or nature, so he looks for examples from the Fathers where the word συγγενής designates something that is not of the same essence, and mentions two of them. The first example is “Funeral Homily for Brother Caesarea” by St. Gregory the Theologian, in which the Father of the Church writes that after death, every God-loving soul will immediately taste heavenly bliss, and then continues: “... and a little later it receives συγγενής flesh” 60. St. Maximus proves that St. Gregory here calls the body as συγγενής for the soul, although the soul and the body have two different natures. Therefore, he does this on the basis of the union between soul and body 61 . The second example is taken from St. John's own Commentary on the Gospel of John. Cyril, where the archbishop does not use the adjective συγγενής, but the adverb συγγενῶς. In his commentary on John 3:5, he writes that the healing of soul and body through baptism “is, as it were, akin to both of the above. After all, the human spirit is sanctified by the Spirit, and the body by water, which, in turn, is also sanctified” 62. St. Maximus asks a rhetorical question, what is the affinity (συγγένεια) of the divine Spirit with the human spirit and of water with the human body, implying that here too συγγενῶς is applied in relation to realities of different natures. It looks like the reverend's concern. Maximus regarding “one ἐνέργεια” of St. Kirill was forced to think more deeply about this expression, as several years later he gives it a different interpretation. In his “Disputation with Pyrrhus” he begins with the fact that ἐνέργεια alone is not the natural ἐνέργεια of deity and humanity. And then he continues: “But he wants to show that the ἐνέργεια of the Divinity is one, both without flesh and with flesh... Therefore, the Father (St. Cyril) also did not say that the ἐνέργεια of the two natures is one, but called one the divine ἐνέργεια of the Father, which is essentially located in the incarnate The Word of God, through which (καθ’ ἥν) He performed divine signs not only by omnipotent command, incorporeally... but also showed them (divine signs) bodily with the touch of His flesh. After all, this is precisely what “through both” means.” 63 Now Rev. Maximus no longer interprets “one ἐνέργεια” of St. Cyril as the composition of the divine and human ἐνέργειαι of Christ, but as (only) the divine ἐνέργεια, which produces action both through command and through touch. In accordance with this, he gives another interpretation of the word συγγενής. In opusculum 8, he distinguished two types of being συγγενής: ordinary - for consubstantial realities that have the same nature, and the second - for the connection of realities that have different essence and nature. He considered one ἐνέργεια St. Cyril as belonging to the second type: she was συγγενής, because the divine and human ἐνέργειαι of Christ were united. In the Disputation, however, he no longer speaks of the possibility of being συγγενής through union, he speaks only of συγγενής by nature: “So the revival of the girl and ... (other miracles) that happened through the word and omnipotent command are συγγενής by nature (συγγενῶς ἔχειν κατὰ τὴν φύσιν) with that (revival) that was accomplished through touch, bodily” 64 . St. Maximus uses the same expression: συγγενῶς ἔχειν as St. Cyril in his “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (John 3:5), but he adds: “by nature” (κατὰ τὴν φύσιν) - and thereby gives it another interpretation: ἐνέργεια, which acts through command, and ἐνέργεια, which acts through touch, come from the same divine nature and are thus συγγενής. He expresses this unambiguously just below: “The Divine ἐνέργεια was recognized from the deeds themselves” 65. “One ἐνέργεια” St. Cyril is now seen as the divine ἐνέργεια of Christ, who acts through command and through touch. St. Maximus realizes that this leaves him open to the accusation that he neglects the human ἐνέργεια, and he immediately responds to a possible objection: the divine ἐνέργεια “does not in the least harm the human, suffering, natural ἐνέργεια of the flesh (Christ), which is like ours” 66. And he gives a number of examples in which the human ἐνέργεια of Christ is manifested: He stretches out his hand, takes hold of the hand, makes a lump of dirt (John 9:6), breaks bread, and in general everything that is done through bodily members. Without saying this explicitly, Rev. Maximus implies that these manifestations of human ἐνέργεια are not included in one ἐνέργεια of St. Kirill. The human ἐνέργεια of Christ really exists, but the saint is focused on something else; when he speaks of one ἐνέργεια, he means the divine ἐνέργεια of Christ. In opusculum 9 prp. Maximus says the same thing about one ἐνέργεια as in the “Disputation with Pyrrhus,” but much more concisely. St. Cyril “does not define one ἐνέργεια of both essences, of which the one and only Christ is” 67, because another essence or nature presupposes another ἐνέργεια, therefore the two natures of Christ produce two different ἐνέργειαι. But St. Kirill represents the incarnate Word “as producing His divine ἐνέργεια, which gives life by nature both incorporeally and through the body. After all, having said συγγενής, he did not mean anything else, except that in miracles the same (τὴν αὐτήν) life-giving ἐνέργεια is manifested through both: through the omnipotent command and through the touch of His holy flesh" 68 . So, one ἐνέργεια is the same divine ἐνέργεια of Christ, which acts through command and through the touch of His hand. And again St. Maxim adds that St. Cyril “does not say this to deny the human ἐνέργεια of the Savior” 69, for the sake of which he now only mentions touch as sufficient proof of this. So far we have encountered the following interpretations of St. Cyril: “showing through both that ἐνέργεια was one and συγγενής.” Miaphysite Anthimus of Trebizond interprets one ἐνέργεια as the divine ἐνέργεια of Christ, which overcomes the human ἐνέργεια, so that the human ἐνέργεια is no longer valid. The words of Sergius of Constantinople: “every human and divine ἐνέργεια” suggest a plurality of energies in Christ, but he collects them together into one ἐνέργεια, since there is only one subject in Him. For Sergius, this means that it is the will of the divine Word that makes decisions, including about the movements of human nature. Understanding one ἐνέργεια St. Cyril in Macarius of Antioch is the same as in Sergius of Constantinople. In “Doctrina Patrum” Anastasius conveys two monoenergist interpretations of this phrase: 1) one ἐνέργεια indicates the result, that is, the revival of a young girl; 2) one ἐνέργεια belongs to one hypostasis of the incarnate Word, while two natures are designated through command and touch. At St. Maximus is an earlier and later interpretation of the expression of St. Kirill. In earlier writings he emphasizes the existence of two energies in Christ, divine and human, and considers one ἐνέργεια of St. Kirill as the addition of these two energies. Later Rev. Maximus still emphasizes two energies in Christ, but interprets one ἐνέργεια of St. Cyril as (only) the divine ἐνέργεια, which acts both through command and through touch, although the human ἐνέργεια is visible in the touch itself. Now I will turn to the writings of St. himself. Cyril of Alexandria and will give my own interpretation of this phrase of his. Let me begin with what the saint writes about the word ἐνέργεια. Ἐνέργεια at St. Cyril of Alexandria In his book “Theology of Divine Energies,” Jean-Claude Larcher devotes one chapter to the concept of ἐνέργεια in St. Cyril of Alexandria 70. I will use its contents and add my observations. Sometimes ἐνέργεια denotes the reality or actuality of an event or property. Thus, ἐνεργείᾳ and κατ’ ἐνέργειαν have the meaning “in reality” (actually), in contrast to δυνάμει and κατὰ δύναμιν – “in possibility” (potentially), in Aristotelian sense71 71 . St. Cyril uses these terms in this sense in the Dialogues on the Holy Trinity, which rejects the idea that God was the Father in potential before the Son was actually born of Him 72 . Elsewhere he can talk, for example, about “real virtue” (τὴν κατ’ ἐνέργειαν ἀρετήν) 73 . However, in the vast majority of cases, ἐνέργεια has to do with nature or essence 74 . Ἐνέργεια is something from nature, accessible to perception outside of nature itself 75, its activity or action 76. Thus, he speaks of the ἐνέργεια of the rays of the sun 77 or the ἐνέργεια of the fragrance of flowers 78 . Although he mentions them primarily as metaphors for the divine ἐνέργεια, this shows that he is applying the concept of ἐνέργεια in a more general sense. The example that St. Kirill uses more often than others - this is the example of fire and its ἐνέργεια in iron, wood and other materials: “We can say about fire that it gave the property (τὸ ἰδίωμα) of its own nature to heat, which comes from it in energy (κατ’ ἐνέργειαν)” 79 . In man, St. Cyril notes various ἐνέργειαι, such as ἐνέργεια of vision 80, kidneys 81, soul 82, mind (νοῦς) 83, as well as judgment 84 and reasoning 85. However, he mainly writes about the ἐνέργεια(ι) of God - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit 86. Like the Cappadocians before him, he associates ἐνέργεια with nature, so that he can claim that the Son and Spirit are divine because they have the same ἐνέργεια as the Father 87 . Even in “Treasure” he writes about ἐνέργειαι and essences or natures in general: “It is necessary that things that have the same ἐνέργεια and use the same natural forces (δυνάμεσι φυσικαῖς) must necessarily belong to the same essence. For nothing that exists will carry in itself exactly the same forces (δυνάμεις) and ἐνέργαιαι as something belonging to another genus or another essence, but only those who have received one nature as their lot will have equal properties” 88 . Then St. Cyril applies this general statement to the Father and the Son: if they have the same ἐνέργεια and δύναμις, therefore they are consubstantial. In his “Dialogues on the Holy Trinity” he writes in a similar way: “After all, those things that clearly share with each other ἐνέργεια of equal strength, according to the law of necessity, I think, are placed on the same level as having the identity of essence” 89 . St. Cyril first applies this as an illustration to the rays of the sun, and then proves from the activity of the Son and Spirit that They are of the same divine nature as the Father. St. Kirill often expresses this relationship between nature and its ἐνέργεια with the term “natural ἐνέργεια.” However, the ἐνέργεια of one nature can act in another nature. Several times St. Cyril refers to this with the term “alien (ἀλλότρια) ἐνέργεια” 90 and the usual expression for this is communion with something. The saint illustrates this with the example of fire, which acts in different substances: “For example, fire is hot by nature, and other things are hot by participating in its ἐνέργεια, like iron or wood. But they will not be called fire because they are heated, for they have an alien (ἀλλοτρίαν), and not a natural action (φυσικὴν… τὴν ἐνέργειαν) in themselves” 91 . He then applies this distinction, without using the term, to the views of his opponents and to his own view of who the Son is. Heretics insist that the Son is not of the same nature as the Father, and this implies that He is involved (μέτοχον) in the Life of the Father, 92 in other words, the ἐνέργεια through which He gives life to others is the natural ἐνέργεια of the Father, and it is foreign to Him Himself. And yet they call the Son Life. This is incongruous, the saint proves, because we do not also call red-hot iron “fire.” His personal point of view, of course, is that it is the Son's own natural ἐνέργεια, identical with the natural ἐνέργεια by which He gives life to man. This is His own natural ἐνέργεια, since He is and is rightly called Life by nature. In this context, St. Cyril uses a rather discouraging formulation, which nevertheless we find in other texts of the saint: “Thus (like iron and wood) Life is by nature completely different from the things in which it arises, transforming into itself (μετασκευάζουσα πρὸς ἑαυτήν) that which is not Life according to nature" 93. It is obvious that the saint wants to say that people receive life by communion, when Christ, Who is Life by nature, comes to dwell in them through the Holy Spirit. They are partakers of the divine nature (see 2 Pet. 1:4), but they remain people by nature, they do not become gods by nature. The expression: “transforming into oneself” can create the false impression that deified people will become gods by nature. However, St. Cyril means that they accept certain divine properties through communion, although they remain human by nature. He often uses the verbs μεταστοιχειοῦν and ἀναστοιχειοῦν, “to change at the elemental level,” to express this idea: we have changed at the elemental level into that which is beyond our nature 94 . As he put it in his Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah: “Indeed, it is common for humanity not to have any of the highest gifts from itself and from its nature, because it is said to it: What do you have that you did not receive? (1 Cor. 4:7), but rather to be enriched from without and from another source, obviously from God, by that which is higher than his own nature" 95 . Although St. Cyril primarily speaks of ἐνέργεια in the singular; he also uses this word in the plural 96. In “Dialogues on the Holy Trinity” he argues for quite some time that, although God is simple in His nature, He nevertheless has “many types of energy”, He acts in different ways 97. This is seen in the variety of creatures that are the result of His actions, as well as in His attitude towards us, which can be wrathful or meek, and in what we speak of God's life, power, wisdom and glory. In the “Interpretation of the Prophet Isaiah” (see Is. 11:1-3), the saint writes: “On this rod... in due time the Spirit of God will rest with His many actions (πολλὰς ἔχον τὰς ἐνεργείας). After all, he calls Him the Spirit of counsel and understanding, knowledge and wisdom, piety and the fear of God" 98 . Συγγενής by St. Cyril of Alexandria The word συγγενής appears almost 120 times in the surviving writings of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and the corresponding noun συγγένεια – almost 70 times 99. About 20 times συγγενής is found in quotes from other authors (Nestorius, Theodoret, Julian, Porphyry) and in direct references to these quotes. Several times St. Cyril quotes (in part) Romans 9:2–4, where the Apostle Paul says: for my brothers, relatives (συγγενῶν) to me according to the flesh, that is, the Israelites - and once John 18:26: relative (συγγενής) to the one whose ear Peter cut off. Thus, there remain just under a hundred cases where St. Kirill uses this word without direct prompting from anyone else. Συγγένεια is found, among other cases, when quoting Genesis 12:1 “get thee out of thy land, from thy kindred (συγγενείας) and from thy father’s house”, Numbers 1:2–3 “...number all the congregation of the children of Israel according to generations (κατὰ συγγενείας) them” and Is.38:11–12 “...I will no longer see a person from my kinship (ἐκ τῆς συγγενείας).” So, the first meaning of συγγενής is “relative” (“relative”), that is, someone related by blood ties, close or more distant in the sense of belonging to the same ethnic group. We find this meaning in a quotation from Emperor Julian, where he speaks, for example, of “the Hellenes, our relatives” 100. St. Kirill himself uses this word in this sense. For example, he calls those “who are from Israel” (τοῖς ἐξ Ἰσραήλ) “kinsmen according to the flesh” (τοῖς συγγενέσι κατὰ τὴν σάρκα) of Jesus 101 . And just as the words “brother” and “sister” can be applied in a spiritual sense to those who share the same faith, St. Cyril can also attach a spiritual meaning to the word συγγενής. More generally, he writes: “He (Christ) knows that people have true kinship (συγγένειαν), when the similarity of deeds and the identity of morals collect them, as it were, into one virtue.” 102 Especially in the "Treasure", one of the earliest creations of St. Cyril, συγγενής can have a meaning close to “co-natural” or “consubstantial”: something belonging to the same nature or essence. In one of many arguments for the divine dignity of the Son, he writes: “If nothing that comes into existence after the Son causes the existence of entities from non-existence, but the Son causes (their) existence, then He will not be akin (συγγενής) to what comes into being after Him, but He is consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος) with Him Who causes existence from non-existence. After all, what has the same ἐνέργεια is recognized as belonging to the same essence” 103. And in another place of the same work: “If we number the Son among creation because He is called the Firstborn of all creation (see Col. 1:15), then although He will be the first of it (creation) in time, yet He is related (συγγενής) by nature” 104. When in the treatise “Against Nestorius” St. Cyril discusses one passage from the writings of the Archbishop of Constantinople, where the latter says that “only this is the High Priest we have, compassionate, kindred (συγγενοῦς) and reliable” 105, and when St. Cyril interprets this as indicating two sons who have an external connection with each other, he writes: “if... you say... that one was born of God and the Father, and the other is συγγενής and consubstantial with us, then how..?” 106 Since συγγενής is compared with “of the same essence,” its meaning will be something like this: “belonging to the same nature,” as in “Treasure.” Quite often συγγενής has a broader meaning, especially in the Commentary on the Gospel of John, and in this case can be translated as “close” or even “similar.” Thus, about various passages of Scripture and other writings 107, spiritual meanings (θεωρία) 108, commandments 109, crimes 110, mental disposition 111, teachings 112 and so on, we can say that they are συγγενής. This broader meaning applies when St. Cyril calls the body and food συγγενής 113: they are related in that both are made of matter. Likewise, he depicts the sacrament in the Eucharist as συγγενής for the body, because, undoubtedly, bread and wine are also made of substance 114. We saw that St. Maximus the Confessor referred to the “Interpretation of the Gospel of John” (John 3:5) by St. Cyril, where he writes that the healing of both body and soul through baptism “is, as it were, akin to both of the above. After all, the human spirit is sanctified by the Spirit, and the body by water, which, in turn, is also sanctified” 115. According to Rev. Maxim, here συγγενῶς is applied to realities of different natures. After examining the various meanings of the word συγγενής in the writings of the saint, I come to the conclusion that this word has no technical meaning here and that St. Cyril wants to say little more than that the body and water are made of matter, while the human spirit and the divine Spirit are incorporeal and intelligent. This is the only place in the surviving writings of St. Kirill, where the adverb συγγενῶς 116 occurs. “The action was one and the same” Let us now move on to the interpretation of the phrase in the “Interpretation of the Gospel of John” (John 6:53) by St. Kirill. The biblical text reads: Jesus said to them: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53). This phrase from St. Cyril is part of the explanation of how the bread of the Eucharist can give life to the faithful. It is important to note that for the saint, the Eucharistic bread is the Body of Christ, which is united with the Word of God in the same way as the body with which He walked on earth. Therefore St. Cyril can cite the resurrection of Jairus's daughter and the young man at Nain as examples of Christ using His body to communicate life to people. The saint explains: “And if only through touching the Holy flesh He gives life to that which has undergone corruption, then will we not acquire the most abundant life-giving blessing when we begin to eat it?” 117 Expression: “(mysterious) blessing (ἡ (μυστικὴ) εὐλογία)” – from St. Cyril denotes the Eucharist 118. So his argument is this: if the body of Christ gives life when He simply touches a dead person, then how much more will this body become life-giving if we partake of it at the celebration of the Eucharist? The Archbishop of Alexandria emphasizes that the body of Christ in itself is incapable of giving life. It is the Word of God, with whom this body (also the Eucharistic Body) is united, that gives life through the body. St. Cyril, discussing the Eucharist in his treatise Against Nestorius, quotes John 6:63 in reverse order: the flesh profiteth not at all; The Spirit gives life - and further continues: “As far as its own nature is concerned, the flesh is perishable and will in no way give life to others” 119. Explaining the same verse in his Commentary on the Gospel of John, he states: “Therefore, although the nature of the flesh is in itself weak to be able to give life, yet it will do so (ἐνεργήσει), since it has the life-giving Word and is filled with all His activities (ἐνέργειαν)” 120 . Thus, it is precisely the ἐνέργεια of God the Word that gives life. And, similar to the communicatio idiomatum 121, the body of Christ can be said to give life because of its inexpressible union with the divine Word, which is the source of life-giving ἐνέργεια. The same idea is expressed in the book “On Right Faith to Emperor Theodosius”: “Therefore we can say that He is given life together with us, although He Himself is the Life of all by virtue of the ineffable birth from the Living Father. Nevertheless, it can be seen that He endows His flesh with the glory due to God's activity (ἐνεργείας), and that He, in turn, appropriates what belongs to the flesh and, so to speak, clothes with it His own nature according to economic unity” 122. According to the interconnection of the properties of St. Cyril claims that the body of Christ received the ἐνέργεια of the Word of God, that is, the divine nature, while the Word received the properties of the flesh; therefore, we can say that It is given life. So, if the saint calls the body of Christ life-giving, and he does this repeatedly 123, then this is possible because, by virtue of the communicatio idiomatum in the unchanging unity of the incarnate Word of God, we can say that the divine life-giving ἐνέργεια has also become the energy of the body. We noted that St. Cyril, speaking about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in people, sometimes uses a formulation that can confuse, namely: when Life by nature enters people, It transforms them into Itself 124. It does not mean that their nature has changed, but that they receive certain divine properties. When he speaks of the body of Christ itself, he may phrase it in a similar way: “In addition, we, of course, do not say that God the Word from the Father was transformed into the nature of the flesh, or that the flesh was transformed into the Word, for both remain what they are by nature, and one of both is Christ. But the Word, ineffable and above understanding, united with his own flesh and, so to speak, transformed all of it into himself in relation to activity ἐνέργειαν), consisting in the fact that it can give life to those in need” 125. Here St. Cyril himself unambiguously says that the flesh remains what it is by nature, although he claims that the Word, so to speak, transformed all of it into Himself. Elsewhere he expresses himself more precisely, referring to the body of Christ in the Eucharist: “It has in itself all the power (δύναμιν) of the Word united with it and is as if endowed with its qualities (πεποιωμένον), or rather, already filled with its activity (ἀναπεπλησμένον τῆς ἐνεργείας αὐτοῦ), through which everything is given life and preserved into being” 126. The body of Christ is filled with the energy of the divine Word. This is what makes it life-giving. In the “Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten” by St. Cyril uses an equally discouraging expression in the context of comparing the Word of God and flesh with fire and wood, now with the more or less technical verb μεταστοιχειοῦν (“to change the elements”): “However, in this image of coal one can see the Word of God united with humanity and not throwing away what It is, but rather changing the elements (μεταστοιχειώσαντα) assumed into His own glory and ἐνέργεια" 127. Here St. Kirill himself explains this a little lower in terms of communicatio idiomatum: “And He remained what he was; but having united once and for all, He is considered one with humanity, assimilating what belongs to him, but He Himself produces in it (ἐμποιήσας) the energy of its own nature” 128. The Word pours its own ἐνέργεια into the flesh. A little higher than St. Cyril also expresses this as an intercommunication of properties: “He, so to speak, communicates (κοινοποιεῖται) to His own flesh the energy of the divine power (δυνάμεως), which is inherent in Him” 129. Several times St. Cyril says that the body of Christ “carried” the energy of the divine Word. In his commentary on Luke 4:40, “He laid hands on each of them and healed them,” that is, in a context similar to that found in the Commentary on the Gospel of John (John 6:53), he writes: “For we need to know that the energy of the power of the Word carried (τῆς τοῦ Λόγου δυνάμεως τὴν ἐνέργειαν πεφόρηκεν) holy flesh, which It made His own and instilled in it a divine power.” And then the saint calls on his listeners to be touched by this flesh, or rather, to be touched by it “through a mysterious blessing” 130. In the “Treasure” the saint makes the following general statement: “For nothing that exists will carry in itself (φορέσει) exactly the same powers and ἐνέργειαι as something belonging to another genus or another essence, but only those who have received one nature as their lot will have equal properties” 131. So, it is an exceptional case that the flesh of Christ, which belongs to a different nature than the Word of God, carries divine energy. Because of the ineffable union of the Word with His own flesh, this body can carry the energy of the Word through the communicatio idiomatum. From all these observations I conclude that the life-giving ἐνέργεια of the body of Christ, both in His earthly life and in the Eucharist, is a divine ἐνέργεια, which, by virtue of the communicatio idiomatum, can also be called the energy of His body. When in the “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (John 6:53) St. Cyril writes: “Life-giving as God by omnipotent command and life-giving through the touch of His holy flesh, He shows through both that ἐνέργεια is one and συγγενής” 132, he wants to say that it is the divine ἐνέργεια that gives life both through command, and through the touch of the hand. He does not mention human ἐνέργεια. What then does St. mean? Kirill, when he calls this ἐνέργεια “one and συγγενής”? Usually the adjective συγγενής speaks not of one thing, but of two things that are related, close, related. There should be two things in our fragment: the giving of life through command and the giving of life through touch. By saying: “one ἐνέργεια,” he indicates that they are one. In what sense? When in other places the saint uses the expression “one ἐνέργεια,” he usually proves that realities that have one ἐνέργεια have the same nature; therefore, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of one nature 133. Once he unequivocally denies the opposite point of view, which consists in the fact that different natures can have one ἐνέργεια: “After all, we, of course, will not admit that there is one natural action (μίαν εἶναι φυσικὴν τὴν ἐνέργειαν) of God and creation" 134. Therefore, when he calls the giving of life by command and the giving of life by touch “one ἐνέργεια,” he intends to say that through both the natural ἐνέργεια of God the Word acts. Although the word συγγενής may have a more general meaning - "interrelated", it is more likely that it has a special meaning here - "co-natural": the giving of life through command and the giving of life through touch come from the same divine nature. Human ἐνέργεια of Christ One ἐνέργεια, about which St. Cyril says in the passage under consideration does not include human ἐνέργεια, but this does not mean that the saint denies human ἐνέργεια in Christ. Here he wants to emphasize that the giving of life is a divine ἐνέργεια, which is produced through the body both when Christ raises the dead in Galilee and in the Eucharist. We saw that St. Cyril generally attributes to man ἐνέργειαι 135. However, he hardly uses the word ἐνέργεια to refer to Christ's human actions. Elsewhere I have argued that before the Nestorian controversy, St. Cyril rarely called the humanity of Christ “nature” not because he denied this nature, but because of the anti-Arian orientation of his writings of that time 136. He wanted to emphasize that Christ is God by nature, and talking about the human nature in Christ could confuse this issue. Since in metaphysics St. Cyril ἐνέργεια and nature are connected with each other, I would suggest that for reasons of the same anti-Arianism, he does not often talk about human ἐνέργεια in Christ. One example can be found in the dialogue “On the Incarnation of the Only Begotten,” which was preserved in the treatise “On the Right Faith to Theodosius” 137. When St. Cyril describes Apollinarianism, he states that “they (the followers of Apollinaris) attribute the activity (ἐνέργειαν) of the mind and soul to the Only Begotten” 138. He implies that the mind and soul of Christ had their own ἐνέργεια, which should not be attributed to the divine nature. In the treatise “On Right Faith to the Princesses” he interprets Luke 5:12–13, where the leper comes to Jesus, saying: Lord, if you want, you can cleanse me. And then it follows: And stretching out his hand, He touched him, saying: I want you to be clean. Thus, in a context similar to the “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (John 6:53), St. Kirill writes: “Here you will be surprised that Christ acts (ἐνεργοῦντα) divinely and at the same time bodily, because to want is divine, and to stretch out his hand is human. So He is one Son of both. After all, although the Word became flesh, He acts (ἐνεργεῖ) as God together with His own flesh, since it (the flesh) has power (δύναμιν) thanks to Him (the Word)” 139. That is, Christ also acts bodily in that He reaches out His hand, but the power by which He brings about the healing of the leper is divine. In a later work, “Answers to Tiberius the Deacon,” St. Cyril directly mentions the human ἐνέργειαι of Christ. Against those who say that the Word produces (ἐνεργεῖ) divine signs of Himself, while His holy flesh has nothing to do with it, he argues: “Therefore, they should not hesitate to separate Him and introduce two sons to us, but they should recognize Him as one and the same as the Word of God made man and confess that everything belongs to Him: both sayings and actions (αὐτοῦ πάντα καὶ φωνὰς καὶ ἐνεργείας). After all, since the Same One is God and man, He speaks both divinely and humanly, and likewise performs actions (ἐνεργεῖ) both divine and human” 140 . This is a reminiscence of the “reunification formula”, which talks about how the Gospel and Apostolic sayings (φωνάς) 141 should be considered. It is noteworthy that now St. Kirill explicitly adds ἐνέργειαι to the sayings. Since he refutes the view that Christ is divided into two sons, he declares that both the divine and human ἐνέργειαι of Christ are to be referred to the one incarnate Word of God. He does not deny that there are two natures in Christ, nor that the sayings and ἐνέργειαι can be attributed to natures. What St. always opposed. Kirill, is to attribute them to two separate realities - God in himself, the Word, and man in himself. When the saint writes that He “speaks both divinely and humanly” and “performs actions both divine and human” (ἐνεργεῖ δὲ ὁμοίως καὶ τὰ ἀνθρώπινα καὶ τὰ θεοπρεπῆ), he indicates that part of the sayings and energies comes from divine nature, and the other part from human nature. These natures are not separated from each other, but together they form one whole 142. Several times St. Cyril uses the expression “the laws of his own nature” - and similar ones - to designate what Christ’s humanity does and endures. We find an early example of this in the Glafirs, where he says that “He became man” and “truly became what we ourselves are, following the laws of nature (τοῖς τῆς φύσεως ἑπόμενος νόμοις), and was nourished by food.” 143. That Christ followed the laws of human nature is here illustrated by the fact that He needed food for strength. In the dialogue “On the Incarnation of the Only Begotten” by St. Cyril applies this expression to human death. After his interlocutor stated that it was said of the Word Himself that He suffered death when His flesh died, the saint praises him for this and continues: “Consequently, He who, according to the law of the flesh (νόμῳ σαρκός) and by nature such as ours, died and rose again, was crowned with the glory of dominion, not without the flesh, but with it and in common with it, showing thereby that to die is a human test (πάθος), and to live is a divine act (ἐνέργημα)” 144. As for the birth of Christ, before the Nestorian controversy, St. Cyril emphasized His miraculous conception without a husband through the action of the Holy Spirit and therefore “caring little about the laws of nature” 145. However, during the Nestorian controversy, when it became necessary to explain the name of the Mother of God, the saint turns his attention to the relationship between the body of Christ and the body of the Virgin and proves that the body comes into existence through birth 146 in accordance with the laws of human nature. St. Cyril also speaks of the laws of human nature (or uses similar expressions) in relation to Christ's addition of the knowledge of good and evil, 147 His submission to God, 148 the weakness of His flesh when He prayed that the cup would pass from Him, 149 and His advancement in age, wisdom and grace (see Luke 2:52) 150. Although it can be said that Christ suffered human birth and death passively, discerning good and evil and using wisdom is an activity; and here the saint implies that the incarnate Word could do this as a man. In his Commentary on the Gospel of John, St. Kirill uses the words ἐνέργεια and πάθος to denote activity and passivity 151 . Thus, although he does not actually use the word ἐνέργεια in these contexts, such a concept is implied in those cases where St. Cyril teaches that Christ does everything in accordance with the laws of human nature. From the very beginning of the Nestorian dispute, St. Cyril adds several times that the divine Word “allows” (ἐφιέναι and συγχωρεῖν) His flesh to do or suffer anything in accordance with its own nature 152. In the 17th "Easter Epistle" for 429, he writes that His Divinity "allows (ἐφιεῖσα) the laws of humanity to pass according to their own rules" when the incarnate Word undergoes human birth from the Holy Virgin 153. And towards the end of his life, in the dialogue “On the fact that Christ is one,” St. Cyril claims that the Evangelist “shows that He (God the Word) by economy allows (ἐφέντα) His own flesh to follow the laws of its own nature,” when it is said of Christ that He advanced in age, wisdom and grace 154. Regarding the conception of Christ by the Holy Spirit, the saint asks the question: “Why did He (God the Word) not allow (ἐφῆκε) the laws of mankind to have power in the composition or birth of His own flesh?” And his answer is that in this way Christ “Himself became the first born of the Holy Spirit” 155. So, in some cases the Word allows His human nature to do and suffer things according to its own laws, while in other cases He does not allow it to do so. A fragment of the treatise “Against Theodoret,” which mentions such permission, played a role in the Miaphysite circles of the 6th century. St. Cyril, in defending the tenth anathematism, explains the words of the Apostle Paul that Christ became poor so that, thanks to His poverty, we could become rich (see 2 Cor. 8:9): “He cried like a human being to take away your tears. He feared according to the economy, allowing at times the flesh to endure what was inherent in it, in order to show us as the most courageous. He asked not to give Him the cup, so that the Cross would condemn the wickedness of the Jews. He, they say, was powerless in humanity to stop your powerlessness; He extended his prayers and supplications so that he could show the Father’s ear to those who are accessible and to your requests.” 156 It is noteworthy that here St. Cyril adds “at times” (ἔσθ’ ὅτε) to the idea that the Word allowed His flesh to undergo what was proper to it. According to Grillmeier-Heinthaller, Sevirus of Antioch summarized it this way: “The predominance (of the divine ἐνέργεια over the humanity of Christ) represented for him (Sevirus) the normal state of the divine-human manifestation of Christ,” and Julian of Halicarnassus even applied it “to the permanent qualities of the body of Christ” 157 . In other words, from Sevier's point of view, the usual condition was that the Word did not allow human nature to follow its own laws, although "sometimes" It allowed it. What can you say about your own understanding of St. Kirill? Although the expression ἔσθ’ ὅτε has the usual meaning of “sometimes,” it can also take on a more literal meaning in the writings of St. Kirill: “there is, when”, which can be translated as “at that time”, “at such a time”, “at such times”. In his Commentary on Hosea (Hos. 7:2), Robert Hill translates this as “at that moment”: “If we have done something serious, out of the ordinary and truly unbearable, which at that moment (ἐσθ’ ὅτε) finally irritates even the very meekness of the Judge...” 158 . In other places, ἐσθ’ ὅτε goes along with the adverb “often” (πολλάκις), and then it is better to translate it: “at such a time.” For example, St. Kirill writes about people who have lost teeth that they “rush to more tender food, often (πολλάκις) neglect the more useful food items and at such a time (ἐσθ’ ὅτε) blame the best” 159. It makes sense to convey the quoted passage from the treatise “Against Theodoret” as follows: “He feared according to the economy, allowing at this time (ἐσθ’ ὅτε) the flesh to endure what is characteristic of it, in order to show us the most courageous” 160. With this interpretation, St. Cyril does not say here that the Word only “sometimes” allows His flesh to follow the laws of its own nature. He simply says that It did this while Christ was in fear 161 . There are other cases where ἐσθ’ ὅτε occurs in combination with the verb “to allow.” In the book “On Right Faith to Queens,” the saint writes: “After all, it was necessary to see through every thing, both carnal and spiritual, that He became like us; and we are from a rational soul and body. And just as, according to the economy, He allowed (συγκεχώρηκε) His own flesh to experience at this time (ἐσθ’ ὅτε) what was characteristic of it, so, in turn, He allowed (συνεχώρει) the soul to experience what was appropriate for it.” 162 "At this time" may here refer to the time of the dispensation, that is, after He became man. Here St. Nor does Cyril (necessarily) teach that the divine Son only “sometimes” allowed His body and soul to undergo what is characteristic of man. What he is probably saying is that the Son did this after he became a man. St. Kirill adheres to the well-known maxim: “what is not perceived is not healed.” This is illustrated by a quote from "Treasure": “By His own death the Savior abolished death. And just as death would not have been abolished if He had not died, so it is with each of the passions of the flesh. For if He were not in fear, our nature would not be free from fear; if He had not been saddened, she would never have been freed from sadness; if He had not been dismayed, she would never have been out of it. And if you apply the same reasoning to each of the human events that took place, you will find that the passions in Christ were set in motion not in order to possess Him, as with us, but in order, having set in motion, to be abolished by the power of the Word indwelling in the flesh, so that our nature was transformed into the best.” 163 The purpose of Christ's knowledge of the weaknesses of human nature was to free people from them, but Christ, according to St. Kirill, really endured these sufferings without sin. Therefore, the usual state of affairs was that the Word allowed His body and soul to undergo suffering in accordance with the laws of human nature 164 . However, it must be added that although these sufferings are real, often they are all so quick, in the understanding of St. Cyril, are overcome by divine power, that he rarely mentions the human ἐνέργεια and the will of Christ 165. My conclusion is that the life-giving ἐνέργεια, which St. Cyril calls one and συγγενής in the “Interpretation of the Gospel of John” (John 6:53), - this is the divine ἐνέργεια, which acts both through the command of Christ and through the touch of His hand. It does not include the human ἐνέργεια, which also really manifests itself in the touch of the hand, but in this context is not called the word ἐνέργεια. This interpretation of one ἐνέργεια is identical with the interpretation given by St. Maximus the Confessor in later writings (and also Guido Bausenhart in his time 166). One ἐνέργεια is not the addition of the divine and human energies of Christ, that is, the giving of life and the outstretching of a hand, as St. proved. Maxim in earlier works. The two monoenergist interpretations of this phrase mentioned in the Doctrina Patrum do not correspond to the intentions of St. Kirill. For the Alexandrian archbishop, one ἐνέργεια is not the result of divine and human actions, that is, not the fact of reviving the girl, but a divine life-giving action (this point of view can be found in modern times in the interpretation of J. Marić 167). This is not the ἐνέργεια hypostasis of the incarnate Word, in which command and touch point to natures. The latter presupposes an understanding of the term “hypostasis” as a bearer of two natures, on a different metaphysical level. It would be anachronistic to attribute such a view to St. Cyril of Alexandria 168. Miaphysite Anthimus of Trebizond interpreted “one ἐνέργεια” of St. Cyril so that the soul of Christ invariably possessed the same knowledge as the Word. This is not what St. taught. Kirill. He clearly distinguished between what Christ did and said “as God,” “divinely,” or “according to His own (i.e., divine) nature,” on the one hand, and what He did and said “as a man,” “humanly,” “in a nature like ours,” on the other hand. We saw that St. Cyril has repeatedly stated that the nature of the flesh in itself is incapable of life-giving, but it is more correct to say that it is the life-giving Word of God that gives His divine ἐνέργεια to the flesh by virtue of inexpressible unity 169 . And although, as God, the Word has perfect knowledge, yet, as man, the incarnate Word had to grow in knowledge and wisdom 170. As for Sergius of Constantinople and Macarius of Antioch, their mode of expression implies both divine and human ἐνέργειαι in Christ. Initially, in order to preserve the unity of the incarnate Word, Sergius wrote that Christ accomplished everything through one ἐνέργεια. Somehow this one ἐνέργεια embraced both the divine and the human ἐνέργειαι. Later, in a letter to Honorius, he dropped the expression “one ἐνέργεια” and turned to the word “will.” However, several decades later Macarius of Antioch again spoke of "one ἐνέργεια", but he also accepted Sergius's view that all human suffering and action were ultimately under the guidance of the divine will. I will refrain from making definitive statements about their views as a whole, as I would need to do more research to understand what exactly they meant by their statements. However, connecting “one ἐνέργεια” St. Cyril, with their emphasis on the unity of the subject of the incarnate Word, Sergius and Macarius misinterpret the intention of the saint. In the Commentary on the Gospel of John (John 6:53), the unity of the Word with His flesh is the initial assumption, and there is no need to prove it. But that's what St. What Cyril wants to emphasize here is that, in view of the close unity and communicatio idiomatum, the body of Christ can also be considered as life-giving, but the life-giving ἐνέργεια itself is a divine natural ἐνέργεια, which acts both through command and through touch and therefore can be called one and συγγενής. WhenA. Grillmeier sees a direct line from Apollinaris through “one ἐνέργεια” of St. Cyril and the “new godly ἐνέργεια” of Pseudo-Dionysius to the “one ἐνέργεια” of the 7th century, he adds: “one should, of course, in each case take into account the strengthening of one-sidedness, which is still restrained by Cyril” 171. It's true that on St. Cyril was influenced by Apollinarian pseudepigraphic writings, which he believed were written by St. Athanasius and other Orthodox Church Fathers. That is why he adopted the formula “μία φύσις...”, but it was by no means his favorite Christological expression 172 . It is also true that the humanity of Christ, and especially the role of His rational soul, is given comparatively little attention in the writings of St. Kirill. But the only time he speaks of “one ἐνέργεια,” he does so not to deny or diminish His human ἐνέργεια, but to emphasize that the life-giving ἐνέργεια in the resurrection of the dead and in the Eucharist is divine, even when it reaches people through touch hands or through bread. This is the natural ἐνέργεια of the Word of God, Who is inexpressibly united with the hand and with the bread. From other fragments, except for the “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (John 6:53), it is obvious that St. Kirill considers extending a hand as a human ἐνέργεια, but in this context he does not call it such. He calls the flesh “a kind of collaborator” (συνεργάτην ὥσπερ τινά) 173 . In general, the saint’s point of view, according to which the Word allowed His flesh to some extent to act according to the laws of its own nature, has soteriological foundations. I end with a quotation from his “Message to the Monks,” where it is stated quite clearly: “He, Who alone was more valuable than all others, laid down His soul for all and for a short time, according to the economy, allowed (συνεχώρει) death to bring down the flesh to Himself. But then, as Life, He abolished death, refusing to suffer anything against His own nature, so that in all bodies corruption would lose its power and the dominion of death would be destroyed.” 174 Corpus Dionysiacum II: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De coelesti hierarchia, De ec cle si asti ca hie rar chia, De mystica theologia, Epistulae / hrsg. G. Heil and A. M. Ritter. Berlin; New York: W. de Gruyter, 1991. (PTS; Bd. 36). Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on Isaiah / ed. R. Ch. Hill. Brookline (Mass.): Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2008. Vol. 1–3. Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on John / ed. J. C. Elowsky, trans. D. R. Maxwell. Downers Grove (Ill.): InterVarsity Press, 2013. Vol. 1. (Ancient Christian Texts). Cyril of Alexandria. Select Letters/ed. and trans. L. R. Wickham. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. (Oxford Early Christian Texts). Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Dialogues sur la Trinité / ed. G.-M. de Durand. Paris: Cerf, 1976–1978. Vol. 1–3. (SC; vol. 231, 237:246). Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Deux dialogues christologiques / ed. G.-M. de Durand. Paris: Cerf, 1964. (SC; vol. 97). Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Lettres festales XII–XVII / ed. W. H. Burns, M.-O. Boulnois et B. Meunier. Paris: Cerf, 1998. Vol. 3. (SC; vol. 434). Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi. Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wende des 7. und 8. Jahrhunderts / hrsg. F. Diekamp. 2. Auflage mit Korrekturen und Nachträgen von B. Pha nour ga kis / hrsg. E. Chrysos. Münster: Aschendorff, 1981 (1 1907). Grégoire de Nazianze. Discours funèbres en l'honneur de son frère Césaire et de Basile de Césa rée / éd. F. Boulenger. Paris: Picard, 1908. Gregorii Nysseni Opera. Vol. 2. Contra Eunomium libri. Pars 2/ed. W. Jaeger. Leiden: Brill, 1960. Kyrill von Alexandrien. Gegen Julian. Teil 2: Buch 6–10 und Fragmente / hrsg. W. Kinzig and Th. Brüggemann. Berlin; Boston (Mass.): W. de Gruyter, 2017. (GCS. NF; Bd. 21). Lukas-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche / hrsg. J. Reuss. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1984. (TU; Bd. 130). Matthäus-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche / hrsg. J. Reuss. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1957. (TU; Bd. 61). McGuckin J. A. St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology and Texts. Leiden: Brill, 1994 (repr. Crestwood (N.Y.): SVS Press, 2004). (Supplements to Vigiliae christianae; vol. 23). Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century / ed. A. Van Roey, P. Allen. Leuven: Peeters, 1994. (Orientalia Lovaniensia analecta; vol. 56). S. Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria. Five Tomes against Nestorius; Scholia on the Incarnation; Christ is One; Fragments Against Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Synou si asts / trans. Ph.-E. Pusey. Oxford: James Parker, 1881. (A Library of Fathers of the Catholic Church; vol. 47). S. P. N. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis Evangelium. Accedunt fragmenta varia necnon tractatus ad Tiberium diaconum duo/ed. Ph. E. Pusey. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1872 (repr. Bruxelles: Culture et civilisation, 1965). Vol. 1–3. S. P. N. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in XII prophetas / ed. Ph. E. Pusey. Oxford: Claren don Press, 1868 (repr. Bruxelles: Culture et civilisation, 1965). Vol. 1–2. Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy: The Synodical Letter and other Documents / ed. P. Allen. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. (Oxford Early Christian Texts). St. Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on the Twelve Prophets / trans. R. Ch. Hill. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2007. Vol. 1. (The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation; vol. 115). St. Cyril of Alexandria. Festal Letters 13–30/ed. Ph. R. Amidon, J. J. O'Keefe. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2013. (The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation; vol. 127). St. Cyril of Alexandria. Glaphyra on the Pentateuch / introd. G. K. Hillis, trans. N. P. Lunn. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2018–2019. Vol. 1–2. (The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation; vols. 137–138). St. Cyril of Alexandria. On the Unity of Christ / ed. J. A. McGuckin. Crestwood (N.Y.): St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1995. St. Cyril of Alexandria. Three Christological Treatises / ed. D. King. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2014. (The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation; vol. 129). The Disputation with Pyrrhus of our Father Among the Saints Maximus the Confessor / trans. J. P. Farrell. Waymart (Pa.): St. Tikhon's Monastery Press, 2014. Dispute with Pyrrhus: St. Maximus the Confessor and Christological disputes of the 7th century / rep. ed. D. A. Pospelov. M.: Church of Sophia the Wisdom of God in Sredniye Sadovniki, 2004. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Dialogue on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten / trans. from ancient Greek, intro. Art. and note. K. B. Yulaeva // BV. 2006. No. 5–6. pp. 65–150. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Book of Treasures about the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity / trans. from Greek and comm. R.V. Yashunsky, entry. Art. G.I. Benevich. SPb.: Publishing house. Oleg Abyshko, 2014. Cyril of Alexandria, St. About right faith to princesses. Part III (chapters 133–224) / trans. from ancient Greek Hier. V. Dmitrieva; ed. transl., preface and note. hierome Feodora (Yulaeva) // BV. 2018. No. 31. pp. 261–311. Cyril of Alexandria, St. About the right faith to the queens / trans. from ancient Greek Hier. V. Dmitrieva; ed. lane and entry Art. Hierod. Feodora (Yulaeva) // BV. 2009. No. 8–9. pp. 68–151. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Answers to Tiberius the deacon and the brethren / trans. with sir. and note. E. A. Zabolotny, M. G. Kalinina; lane from ancient Greek, preface. and note. hierome Feodora (Yulaeva) // BV. 2015. No. 18–19. pp. 342–379. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epistle to the Egyptian monks / trans. from ancient Greek, intro. Art. and note. hierome Feodora (Yulaeva) // BV. 2010. No. 11–12. pp. 69–100. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. M.: Pilgrim, 2001. Book. 2. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. M.: Pilgrim, 2002. Book. 3. Maxim the Confessor, St. Theological and polemical works (Opuscula theologica et polemica) / trans. from ancient Greek D. A. Chernoglazov and A. M. Shufrin; scientific ed., preface and comment. G.I. Benevich. Holy Mount Athos; St. Petersburg: RKhGA, 2014. Creations of St. Cyril of Alexandria. M.: Type. M. G. Molchaninova, 1887. Part 6. (Creations of the Holy Fathers, in Russian translation, published at the Moscow Theological Academy; vol. 55). Creations of St. Cyril of Alexandria. M.: Type. M. G. Molchaninova, 1892. Part 9. (Creations of the Holy Fathers, in Russian translation, published at the Moscow Theological Academy; vol. 58). Bausenhart G. “In allem uns gleich ausser der Sünde”: Studien zum Beitrag Maximos’ des Bekenners zur altkirchlichen Christologie: Mit einer kommentierten Übersetzung der “Disputatio cum Pyrrho”. Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1992. (Tübinger Studien zur Theologie und Philosophie; Bd. 5). Devreesse R. Les anciens commentateurs grecs des Psaumes. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1970. (Studi e testi; vol. 264). Gebremedhin E. Life-giving Blessing: An Inquiry into the Eucharistic Doctrine of Cyril of Ale xandria. Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1977. (Studia doctrinae christianae Upsaliensia; vol. 17). Grillmeier A. Das östliche und das westliche Christusbild: Zu einer Studie über den Neu chalce do nis mus // Theologie und Philosophie: Vierteljahresschrift für theologische und philosophische Forschung. 1984. Bd. 59. S. 84–96. Grillmeier A., ​​Hainthaler Th. Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. 2. Pt. 2. The Church of Constant ti no ple in the Sixth Century. London: Mowbrays; Louisville (Ky.): Westminster John Knox, 1995. “ONE ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑ” AT SVT. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIAN 135 Hallman J. M. The Seed of Fire: Divine Suffering in the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople // Journal of Early Christian Studies. 1997. Vol. 5 (3). P. 369–391. Hovorun C. The Issue of Wills and Energies in the Perspective of the Dialogue Between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox // The Dialogue Between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches / ed. Chr. Chaillot. Volos: Volos Academy Publications, 2016. pp. 134–146. Hovorun C. Will, Action and Freedom: Christological Controversies in the Seventh Century. Lei den; Boston: Brill, 2008. (Medieval Mediterranean: Peoples, Economies and Cultures, 400–1500; vol. 77). Larchet J.-C. La théologie des énergies divines: Des origins à Saint Jean Damascène. Paris: Cerf, 2010. Liébaert J. La doctrine christologique de Saint Cyrille d’Alexandrie avant la querelle nestorienne. Lille: Facultés catholiques, 1951. Loon H., van. The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009. (Supplements to Vigiliae christianae; vol. 96). Loon H., van. Eucharist and Fellowship in Cyril of Alexandria // Die Sak ra ments ge mein schaft in der Alten Kirche / hrsg. L. H. Westra and L. Zwollo. Leuven: Peeters, 2019. (Studien der Patristischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft; Bd. 15). S. 91–111. Loon H., van. The Role of the Human Body in Cyril of Alexandria’s Mystagogy // Early Chris tian Mystagogy and the Body / ed. P. van Geest and N. M. Vos. Leuven (Annua nuntia Lova ni en sia) – in press. Louth A. Maximus the Confessor. London: Routledge, 1996. (The Early Church Fathers). Marić J. Celebris Cyrilli Alexandrini formula christologica de una activitate Christi in in terpre ta ti one Maximi Confessoris et recentiorum theologorum. Prima quaestio praevia ad Novam Apologiam papae Honorii I // Bogoslovska smotra. Ephemerides theologicae Zagra bi en sis. 1926. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 55–102. Marić J. Nova exegesis commentarii a Cyrillo Alexandrino in Ioannem 6.54 compositi // Bo goslov ska smotra. Ephemerides theologicae Zagrabiensis. 1923. Vol. 11. No. 3. P. 296–306. Price R. M. Monotheletism: A Heresy or a Form of Words? // Studio patristica. 2010. Vol. 46. ​​P. 221–232. Russell N. Cyrill of Alexandria. London: Routledge, 2000. (The Early Church Fathers). Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2001. (Berliner byzantinische Studien; Bd. 6). Zawadzki K. F. Der Kommentar Cyrills von Alexandrien zum 1. Korintherbrief. Einleitung, kriti scher Text, Übersetzung, Einzelanalyse. Leuven: Peeters, 2015. (Traditio exegetica graeca; vol. 16). I would like to express my gratitude to Hieromonk Fedor (Yulaev) for his valuable comments, thanks to which a number of clarifications and corrections were made to the article. (The publication in Russian is the first publication of this research. The English version of the article was written by the author specifically for the magazine “The Bible and Christian Antiquity” and has not yet been published anywhere. The Russian translation has been reviewed and clarified by the author. – Hierarch F. Yu.) Since the Greek word ἐνέργεια is translated in different ways ("action, activity, efficiency, energy, force") and can have different meanings, and I do not want to set my interpretation of it by a specific translation, I leave it untranslated. But in quotations, I reproduce the translation chosen by the cited author, unless I add it with changes. (In the Russian translation, ἐνέργεια is, if possible, left without translation in the same place as in the author’s, but if this is necessary due to the connection of words, then it is replaced by the word energy in the required case, typed in italics). The translation of quotations from ancient sources was carried out directly from the editions of their original text, taking into account the English version of the author of the article. Available Russian translations for comparison are indicated in the notes. – Note. trans.) The same applies to the word συγγενής. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem IV, 1 (Jn. 6:53) // S. P. N. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis Evangelium. Accedunt fragmenta varia necnon tractatus ad Tiberium diaconum duo/ed. Ph. E. Pusey. Oxford, 1872 (repr. Bruxelles, 1965). Vol. 1. P. 530. English. trans.: “While giving life as God by his all-powerful command, he also gives life by the touch of his holy flesh, demonstrating through both that the operation was a single and cognate one” (Russell N. Cyril of Alexandria. London, 2000. (The Early Church Fathers). P. 115). Wed. rus. lane prof. M. Muretova: “Life-giving as God by an omnipotent command, life-giving also through the touch of the Holy Flesh, He in both respects reveals a single and related effectiveness (power)” (Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. M., 2002. Book 3. P. 38). In view of the word order of the Greek text, I prefer to take μίαν τε καὶ συγγενῆ as a predicate rather than as an attribute. Compare: “He displays one joint activity through both” (Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on John / ed. J. C. Elowsky; trans. D. R. Maxwell. Downers Grove (Ill.), 2013. Vol. 1. (Ancient Christian Texts). P. 236). The translation of the word συγγενῆ is discussed in this article below. In the context of the monoenergist/monothelite polemic, this phrase was cited on various occasions as μίαν τε καὶ συγγενῆ δι’ ἀμφοῖν ἐπιδεδειγμένην ἐνέργειαν. Loon H., van. The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Leiden; Boston, 2009. (Supplements to Vigiliae christianae; vol. 96). P. 567–568. Marić J. Nova exegesis commentarii a Cyrillo Alexandrino in Ioannem 6.54 compositi // Bogoslovska smotra. Ephemerides theologicae Zagrabiensis. 1923. Vol. 11. No. 3. P. 296– 306. John 6:53 in the Nestle-Aland edition (NA) and in most new translations corresponds to John 6:54 in the Vulgate, since verse 51 according to the NA in the Vulgate is divided into two verses, 51 and 52. (In the Elizabethan Bible and in the Synodal translation it is also John 6:53). See also: Marić J. Celebris Cyrilli Alexandrini formula christologica de una activitate Christi in interpretatione Maximi Confessoris et recentiorum theologorum. Prima quaestio praevia ad Novam Apologiam papae Honorii I // Bogoslovska smotra. Ephemerides theologicae Zagrabiensis. 1926. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 55–102. Bausenhart G. “In allem uns gleich ausser der Sünde”: Studien zum Beitrag Maximos’ des Bekenners zur altkirchlichen Christologie: Mit einer kommentierten Übersetzung der “Disputatio cum Pyrrho”. Mainz, 1992. (Tübinger Studien zur Theologie und Philosophie; Bd. 55). S. 292–299, n. 83. For conclusion see: S. 299. Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita. Epistula 4 // PTS. 36. S. 161:9. “Dieser (Apollinarian) Vorstellung wirkt auch bei einer Anzahl von Vätern nach, die… die Mia physis-Formel beibehielten” (This (Apollinarian) concept is preserved by a number of fathers who… retained the formula “one nature”), and “Hier tut sich der Weg von Cyrill von Alexandrien über Pseudo-Dionysius zur Lehre der einen Energeia und dem einen Thelema im 7. Jh. auf" (Here the path opens from Cyril of Alexandria through Pseudo-Dionysius to the doctrine of one energy and one will of the 7th century) (Grillmeier A. Das östliche und das westliche Christusbild: Zu einer Studie über den Neuchalcedonismus // Theologie und Philosophie: Vierteljahresschrift für theologische und philosophische Forschung. 1984. Bd. 59. S. 92–93). Hovorun C. Will, Action and Freedom: Christological Controversies in the Seventh Century. Leiden; Boston, 2008. (Medieval Mediterranean: Peoples, Economies and Cultures, 400–1500; vol. 77). P. 103, 163. At the author’s insistence, we retain the form he uses of this word (miaphysite), as well as cognates, instead of the more traditional form “monophysite” (monophysite). H. van Loon refuses to use the latter term, since, according to the “Eastern Orthodox” (non-Chalcedonites), it is a polemical name given by their opponents, which does not correctly reflect their own Christology (Loon H., van. The Dyophysite Christology. P. 17, note 12). – Note. lane Anthimus Trapezuntinus. Sermo ad Iustinianum (Concilium universale Con stan ti no po li tanum III (680/681). Actio X) // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 1. P. 370–372 (see also: Actio XI // Ibid. P. 512). Rus. Transl.: Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, published in Russian translation at the Kazan Theological Academy. Kazan, 3 1908. T. 6. P. 131. English. trans: Grillmeier A., ​​Hainthaler Th. Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. 2. Pt. 2. The Church of Constantinople in the Sixth Century. London; Louisville (Ky.), 1995, pp. 366–367. Here (Ibid. P. 355, note 181) more information is given about the treatise of Anthimus to Emperor Justinian Anthimus Trapezuntinus. Sermo ad Iustinianum // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 1. P. 372:17–21. Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century / ed. A. Van Roey, P. Allen. Leuven, 1994. (Ori en talia Lo va ni en sia analecta; vol. 56). P. 64. Wed. English trans.: Grillmeier A., ​​Ha in tha ler Th. Christ in Chris ti an Tradition. P. 368. This is exactly how Anfim’s understanding of “one ἐνέργεια” is explained by Grillmeier-Hainthaler (Grillmeier A., Hainthaler Th. Christ in Christian Tradition. P. 368) and Fr. Kirill (Hovorun) (Hovorun C. Will, Action and Freedom. P. 36). On Sergius, see: Hovorun C. Will, Action and Freedom. P. 55–76; Winkelmann F. Der mo nen erge tisch-monotheletische Streit. Frankfurt am Main, 2001. (Berliner Byzantinische Studien; Bd. 6). S. 258–260. Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. S. 210–213. Sergius Constantinopolitanus. Epistula ad Cyrum episcopum Phasidis (postea Alexandriae) (Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum III (680/681). Actio XII) // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 2. P. 528–530. Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. No. 20. S. 58. Written in 626 English. trans.: Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy: The Synodical Letter and other Documents / ed. P. Allen. Oxford; New York, 2009. (Oxford Early Christian Texts). P. 162–167. Pauline Allen also reproduces the Greek text on ACO (with some modifications) for the works she translated. Rus. Transl.: Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 6. pp. 170–171. Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum III (680/681). Actio XII // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 2. P. 528:12–15. Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum III (680/681). Actio XII // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 2. P. 530:18–20. Cyrus Alexandrinus. Epistula ad Sergium Constantinopolitanum (Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum III (680/681). Actio XIII) // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 2. P. 588–590. Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. No. 19. P. 57–58. English Transl.: Sophronius of Jerusalem. P. 161–163. Rus. Transl.: Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 6. pp. 186–187 Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum III (680/681). Actio XIII // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 2. P. 590:4–5. Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. S. 227–228. Cyrus Alexandrinus. Satisfactio facta inter Cyrum et eos qui erant ex parte Theodosianorum (Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum III (680/681). Actio XIII) // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 2. P. 594–600. Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. No. 27. S. 66–67. Written in 633. English. Transl.: Sophronius of Jerusalem. P. 169–173. Rus. Transl.: Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 6. 187–189 Sergius Constantinopolitanus. Epistula ad Cyrum Alexandrinum (Synodus lateranensis. Sec re tari us 3) // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 1. P. 136–138. Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-mo no thele ti sche Streit. No. 40. S. 76. Written in 633 English. Transl.: Sophronius of Jerusalem. P. 177–183. Synodus lateranensis. Secretarius 3 // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 1. P. 136:36–38. Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. S. 261–262. CPG 7606 (note). Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. No. 36. S. 73–74. Written in 633 Sergius Constantinopolitanus. Epistula ad Honorium papam (Concilium universale Constanti no po li ta num III (680/681). Actio XII) // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 2. P. 534–546. Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. No. 43. S. 77–78. Written in 633–634 English. Transl.: Sophronius of Jerusalem. P. 183–195. Rus. Transl.: Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 6. pp. 172–176. Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. S. 213. Sergius Constantinopolitanus. Epistula ad Honorium // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 2. P. 542:5–6. A similar statement is found in Sergius and below: Ibid. P. 546:13–15. Richard Price (Price R. M. Monotheletism: A Heresy or a Form of Words? // Studia patristica. 2010. Vol. 46. P. 221–232) argues that the understanding of Sergius is no different from the understanding of the Holy Fathers who came before him, but they used different words to express it. According to him, St. Maximus the Confessor was the first to truly appreciate human will. O. Kirill (Govorun) claims that the Monothelites deprived the human soul of Christ of will (Hovorun C. The Issue of Wills and Energies in the Perspective of the Dialogue Between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox // The Dialogue Between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches / ed. Chr. Chaillot. Volos, 2016. P. 144–145). Little is known about Macarius. See: Hovorun C. Will, Action and Freedom. P. 87, note 202; Win kel mann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. S. 231–234. Macarius Antiochenus. Sermo missa ad Lucam presbyterum et monachum Africae (Con cilium universale Constantinopolitanum III (680/681). Actio XI) // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 1. P. 510. Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. No. 129. S. 137. Rus. Transl.: Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 6. pp. 166–167. Ὁρᾷς ὅπως εἰπὼν ἐνεργεῖν ἑκατέραν μορφὴν διὰ τὴν μετὰ Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum III (680/681). Actio XI // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars. 1. P. 510:17–20). These words from Macarius are very similar to the words from the Greek translation of St. Tomos. Leo (ACO. T. 2. Vol. 1. Pars 1. P. 14:27–28): “ἐνεργεῖ γὰρ ἑκατέρα μορφὴ μετὰ τῆς θατέρου κοινωνίας ὅπερ ἴδιον ἔσχηκεν.” This phrase is quoted in Sergius's first letter to Cyrus (ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 2. P. 528:25) and in Sergius' letter to Honorius (Ibid. P. 546:16–17). Macarius Antiochenus. Confessio fidei (Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum III (680/681). Actio VIII) // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 1. P. 218–230. Winkelmann F. Der mon ener ge tisch-monotheletische Streit. No. 163. S. 164. Was presented at the Council on March 7, 681 Rus. Transl.: Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 6. pp. 86–90. Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum III (680/681). Actio VIII // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 1. P. 222:19–21: “οὐ γὰρ κατὰ θεὸν τὰ θεῖα οὐδ’ αὖ κατ’ ἄνθρωπον τὰ ἀνθρώπινα, ἀλλ’ ἐνανθρωπήσας θεὸς λόγος καινήν τινα τὴν θεανδρικὴν ἐνέργειαν καὶ ταύτην ὅλην ζωοποιὸν ἐπιδείκνυται" (“after all, not as God - divine, and, on the other hand, not as man - human, but, having become human, God the Word showed a certain new godly action and it is completely life-giving"). Compare: Ps.-Dionysius Areopagita. Epistula 4 // PTS. 36. S. 161: “καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν οὐ κατὰ θεὸν τὰ θεῖα δράσας, οὐ τὰ ἀνθρώπεια κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλ’ ἀνδρωθέντος θεοῦ, καινήν τινα τὴν θεανδρικὴν ἐνέργειαν ἡμῖν πεπολιτευμένος" (“and finally, not as God, accomplishing the divine, and human - not as man, but living for us as something new godly action"). It was Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, in his “Certificate” who added the number “one” to the “godly ἐνέργεια”: “μιᾷ θεανδρικῇ ἐνεργείᾳ” (Cyrus Alexandrinus. Satisfactio, 7 // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 2. P. 598:21). Gregorius Nyssenus. Contra Eunomium III, 4 (9) // Gregorii Nysseni opera. Vol. 2. Contra Eunomium libri. Pars 2/ed. W. Jaeger. Leiden, 1960. S. 136: “ὡς εἶναι τῆς μὲν σαρκὸς τὸ πάθος, τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ τὴν ἐνέργειαν.” Macarius Antiochenus. Confessio fidei // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 1. P. 224:23–24: “ὡς εἶναι τῆς μὲν σαρκὸς τὰ πάθη, τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ τὴν ἐνέργειαν.” Compare: Sergius Constantinopolitanus. Epistula ad Honorium // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 2. P. 544:7–8: “ὡς εἶναι τῆς μὲν σαρκὸς τὸ πάθος, τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ τὴν ἐνέργειαν.” Macarius Antiochenus. Confessio fidei // // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 1. P. 222:17–19: “τοῦ αὐτοῦ τὰ θαύματα καὶ τὰ πάθη καὶ πᾶσαν ἁπλῶς θεοπρεπῆ καὶ ἀνθρωποπρεπῆ ἐνέργειαν ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἑνὸς Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καινοπρεπῶς προϊέναι πιστεύομεν.” The words of Sergius about the human nature of Christ being under the guidance of the will The words referred to above (notes 31 and 32) were repeated verbatim by Macarius in his Confession (ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 1. P. 224: 12-19). Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. No. 126. S. 134–135. Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi. Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wende des 7. und 8. Jahr hunderts / hrsg. F. Diekamp. 2. Auflage mit Korrekturen und Nachträgen von B. Pha no ur ga kis / hrsg. E. Chrysos. Münster, 1981 (1 1907). Dicamp himself attributes this florilegium to St. Anastasius Sinaita (Ibid. S. LXXXVII), but Vasily Phanourgakis writes in the addition (Ibid. S. 369) that according to the latest research, its more likely compiler was Anastasius Apocrisarius. Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. S. 188–190. Doctrina partum 20 // Op. cit. S. 130–132. Sophronius Hierosolymitanus. Epistula synodica ad Sergium Constantinopolitanum (Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum III (680/681). Actio XI) // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 1. P. 410–494. Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. No. 45. S. 80–82. Written in 634 Eng. Transl.: Sophronius of Jerusalem. P. 67–157. Rus. Transl.: Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 6. pp. 140–163. Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum III (680/681). Actio XI // ACO. Series II. Vol. 2. Pars 1. P. 472:15–474:1. Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. S. 238–245. Maximus Confessor. Opuscula theologica et polemica 7. Tomus dogmaticus ad Marinum diaconum // PG. 91. Col. 69B–89B. Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. No. 59. S. 80–82. Written in 642 Eng. trans.: Louth A. Maximus the Confessor. London, 1996. (The Early Church Fathers). P. 180–191. Translation about. E. Lauta is based on an unpublished critical text that was not available to me. Rus. Transl.: Maxim the Confessor, St. Theological and polemical works (Opuscula theologica et polemica) / trans. from ancient Greek D. A. Chernoglazov and A. M. Shufrin; scientific ed., preface and comment. G.I. Benevich. Holy Mount Athos; St. Petersburg, 2014. pp. 339–351. “One ἐνέργεια” St. Kirill is discussed in the department: PG. 91. Col. 84D–88D (Louth A. Maximus. P. 188–190; Maximus the Confessor, St. Theological and polemical works. P. 348–350). Maximus Confessor. Opuscula theologica et polemica 8. Exemplum epistulae ad episcopum Nicandrum // PG. 91. Col. 89C–112B. Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. No. 63. S. 93. Written around 640. Rus. Transl.: Maxim the Confessor, St. Theological and polemic works. pp. 352–364. “One ἐνέργεια” St. Kirill is discussed in the department: PG. 91. Col. 100B–112A (Maximus the Confessor, St. Theological and polemical works. pp. 357–363). Maximus Confessor. Opuscula theologica et polemica 9. Ad catholicos per Siciliam constitutos // PG. 91. Col. 112C–132D. Winkelmann F. Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit. No. 102. S. 119–120. Written in 646–648 Rus. Transl.: Maxim the Confessor, St. Theological and polemic works. pp. 365–376. “One ἐνέργεια” St. Kirill is discussed in the department: PG. 91. Col. 124C–125C (Maximus the Confessor, St. Theological and polemical works. pp. 371–372). Maximus Confessor. Disputatio cum Pyrrho // PG. 91. Col. 288A–353B. Winkelmann F. Der monen er ge tisch-monotheletische Streit. No. 92. S. 112–113. Written in 645 English. trans.: The Dispu ta ti on with Pyrrhus of our Father Among the Saints Maximus the Confessor / trans. J. P. Farrell. Waymart (Pa.), 2014. German. trans.: Bausenhart G. “In allem uns gleich.” S. 196–235. Rus. trans.: Dispute with Pyrrhus: St. Maximus the Confessor and Christological disputes of the 7th century / rep. ed. D. A. Pospelov. M., 2004. pp. 145–237. “One ἐνέργεια” St. Kirill is discussed in the department: PG. 91. Col. 344A–345C (The Disputation with Pyrrhus. P. 117–120; Bausen hart G. “In allem uns gleich.” S. 229–230; Disputation with Pyrrhus. P. 223–227). Maximus Confessor. Opusculum 7 // PG. 91. Col. 84D–85A. Maximus Confessor. Opusculum 7 // PG. 91. Col. 85A, 85D–88A. Ibid. 8 // PG. 91. Col. 100C: “τῆς θείας ὁμοῦ καὶ ἀνδρικῆς ἐνεργείας ὑπάρχει περίληψις.” Ibid. Col. 101A: “Τὴν γὰρ τῶν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν καὐτὸς συμφυΐαν καὶ ἕνωσιν δι’ αὐτῆς ἐκπαιδεύει.” See also: Ibid. Col. 101D: “Αὕτη γοῦν ἡ μία καὶ συγγενὴς δι’ ἀμφοῖν ἐπιδεδειγμένη ἐνέργεια, τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ἐνεργειῶν δηλοῦσα τὴν ἕνωσιν” (after all, this (expression) “one and akin energy manifested through both,” showing the unity of natural energies”). Gregorius Nazianzenus. Oratio 7, 21, 3 // Grégoire de Nazianze. Discours funèbres en l'honneur de son frère Césaire et de Basile de Césarée / éd. F. Boulenger. Paris, 1908. P. 46: “μικρὸν δ’ ὕστερον καὶ τὸ συγγενὲς σαρκίον ἀπολαβοῦσα.” Maximus Confessor. Opusculum 8 // PG. 91. Col. 104AB Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem II, 1 (Jn. 3:5) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 219. Cf. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. M., 2001. Book. 2. P. 592. Maximus Confessor. Disputatio cum Pyrrho // PG. 91. Col. 344BC. Maximus Confessor. Disputatio cum Pyrrho // PG. 91. Col. 344C. Maximus Confessor. Opusculum 9 // PG. 91. Col. 124D. Larchet J.-C. La théologie des énergies divines: Des origines à Saint Jean Damascène. Paris, 2010. Ch. 12. P. 247–288. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De sancta Trinitate dialogi II, 457e–461c // SC. 231. P. 342–354. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem IX (Jn. 14, 5–6) // Op. cit. Vol. 2. P. 409. I discuss the mutual relationship between nature (φύσις) and essence (οὐσία) in my monograph: Loon H., van. The Dyophysite Christology. For a summary see: pp. 505–507, 512–517. The birth of the Son is not ἐνέργεια: Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate 18 // PG. 75. Col. 312C: "Ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ποιεῖν, ἐνεργείας ἐστὶ, φύσεως δὲ τὸ γεννᾷν" (“But if creation is (a matter of) energy, then birth is (a matter of) nature”). See also: Ibid. //PG. 75. Col. 312D–313A; Larchet J.-C. La théologie des énergies divines. P. 271–274. Several times in the “Treasure” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Thesaurus 34 // PG. 75. Col. 580A, 581C, 596C, 604A, 608C), probably the first work of St. Cyril, he calls the Holy Spirit the “natural ἐνέργεια” of God. (Cf.: Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De sancta Trinitate dialogi VII, 651b // SC. 246. P. 200). This, however, must be understood metaphorically, since twice (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Thesaurus 34 // PG. 75. Col. 580A, 596C) he adds the adjective “hypostatic” (ἐνυπόστατος). In the same way, the Son is called the hypostatic power (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem XI, 11 (Jn. 17:11) // Op. cit. Vol. 2. P. 697: “ἐνυπόστατον δύναμιν ἔδειξε τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός" (“He showed the hypostatic power of God and the Father”)) and hypostatic will (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem V, 5 (Jn. 8:29) // Vol. 2. P. 47: “ἡ "" (“the living and hypostatic council and will of Him who gave birth to Him”)). See also: Larchet J.-C. La théologie des énergies divines. P. 260, 270–271. Regarding the meaning of ἐνυπόστατος in St. Kirill see: Loon H., van. The Dyophysite Christology. P. 138–143, 508, 566. Larchet J.-C. La théologie des énergies divines. P. 250–252. Here Larcher argues that energy can also refer to qualities or properties, but his texts are not convincing (pp. 277–278). Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem XI, 6 (Jn. 17, 4–5) // Op. cit. Vol. 2. P. 675: “τῇ τῶν ἀκτίνων ἐνεργείᾳ.” Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem I, 5 (Jn. 1:3) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 68: “κατ’ ἐνέργειαν τὴν ἐκ τῆς εὐοσμίας.” Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem II, 4 (Jn. 3:35) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 255. Cf. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. Book 2. P. 618. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarius in XII prophetas minores. In Michaeam 2 (Mich. 3, 11–12) // S. P. N. Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini in XII prophetas / ed. Ph. E. Pusey. Oxford, 1868. (repr. Bruxelles, 1965). Vol. 1. P. 654: “τῆς ὀπτικῆς δυνάμεως τὴν ἐνέργειαν.” Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Glaphyra in Leviticum // PG. 69. Col. 548A: “Νεφρὸς δὲ δὴ πάλιν, μόριόν ἐστιν ἐν σώματι, διακριτικὴν ἔχον τὴν ἐνέργειαν" (“The kidney, in turn, is an organ in the body that has a discriminating effect”). Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De adoratione et cultu in Spiritu et veritate 16 // PG. 68. Col. 1028B: "ψυχῆς ἐνέργειαν". Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De incarnatione Unigeniti 688b // SC. 97. P. 220: “τὴν νοῦ καὶ ψυχῆς ἐνέργειαν”; Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem VI (Jn. 8:57) // Op. cit. Vol. 2. P. 132: “τοῦ νοῦ τὴν ἐνέργειαν.” Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem II, 7 // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 332: “τὸ κρίνειν, ἤτοι δικάζειν, ἐνέργειαι μᾶλλόν εἰσι καὶ πράγματα τῶν περὶ τὰς οὐσίας νοουμένων, ἢ αὐτὸ κατ’ ἀλήθειαν οὐσίαι" (“To reason or judge is rather the actions and manifestations of what is thought about entities, rather than what entities truly are”). Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De adoratione et cultu in Spiritu et veritate 16 // PG. 68. Col. 1028A: “τῆς εἰς νοῦν ἔσω διακριτικῆς ἐνεργείας.” Larchet J.-C. La théologie des énergies divines. P. 252–258. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Thesaurus 8 // PG. 75. Col. 105AB. In Russian lane R. Yashunsky, the first sentence is omitted here and two successive syllogisms are merged into one. Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Book of Treasures about the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity / trans. from Greek and comm. R.V. Yashunsky, entry. Art. G.I. Benevich. St. Petersburg, 2014. P. 71. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De sancta Trinitate dialogi III, 469b // SC. 237. P. 32. Larchet J.-C. La théologie des énergies divines. P. 280–281. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem IV, 3 (Jn. 6:57) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 541. Cf. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. Book 3. P. 46. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem IV, 3 (Jn. 6:57) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 542. Ibid. P. 541. Wed. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. Book 3. P. 46. In the interpretation of John. 1, 14 (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem I, 9 (Jn. 1:14) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 139) St. Cyril says something similar about fire and about the things in which it appears: γένοιτο μεθεκτῶς (“almost transforming into itself what it (fire) will be involved in”). Another time (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem IV, 2 (Jn. 6:53) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 531) he formulates this more carefully: μεταποιήσει γὰρ πάντως εἰς τὸ ἴδιον ἀγαθὸν, τουτέστι τὴν ἀθανασίαν, τοὺς μετεσχηκότας αὐτῆς (“for it (the flesh of Christ) will certainly transform into its own good, that is, into immortality, those who participate in it”). In both cases, St. Kirill uses participle language: μεθεκτῶς and μετεσχηκότας. See: Loon H., van. The Dyophysite Christology. P. 413, 417, 571; Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Comment ta rii in Johannem IV, 2 (Jn. 6:53) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 531. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarius in Isaiam prophetam II, 1 (Is. 11, 1–3) // PG. 70. Col. 313B. English Transl.: Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on Isaiah / ed. R. Ch. Hill. Brookline (Mass.), 2008. Vol. 1. P. 254. Cf. rus. trans.: Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria. M., 1887. Part 6. (Creations of the Holy Fathers, in Russian translation, published at the Moscow Theological Academy; vol. 55). pp. 336–337. Larchet J.-C. La théologie des énergies divines. pp. 274–277 Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De sancta Trinitate dialogi II, 441a–443a // SC. 231. P. 292–298. This very expression “τὸ τῆς ἐνεργείας πολυειδές” can be found here: Ibid. II, 442a, 442c // SC. 231. P. 296. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarius in Isaiam II, 1 (Is. 11, 1–3) // PG. 70. Col. 313A. Wed. rus. trans.: Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Part 6. P. 336. The search for the word συγγενής in TLG-online (URL: http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu) was carried out both in the corpus of works of St. Cyril of Alexandria (TLG 4090 (Cyrillus Alexandrinus)), and in the acts of the Council of Ephesus (TLG 5000 (Concilia Oecumenica, ACO), work = 1:2), with various amendments. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Contra Iulianum imperatorem VI, 22 // GCS. NF. 21. S. 442: “κοινὸν πρὸς Ἕλληνας, τοὺς ἡμετέρους συγγενεῖς.” Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem IV, 5 (Jn. 7:1) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 580. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem V, 5 (Jn. 8:37) // Op. cit. Vol. 2. P. 71–72. In Russian lane prof. M. Muretov here the word συγγένεια is erroneously translated as “nobility” (= εὐγένεια), and therefore the saint’s thought is not clearly expressed. Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. Book 3. pp. 238–239. See also: Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Thesaurus 32 // PG. 75. Col. 477A; Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Matthaeum. Fragm. 221 (Mt. 19:29) // TU. 61. S. 227. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Thesaurus 10 // PG. 75. Col. 137AB. Wed. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Book of Treasures. P. 89. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Thesaurus 25 // PG. 75. Col. 405D. Wed. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Book of Treasures. P. 238. See also: Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Thesaurus // PG. 75. Col. 268AB, 289AB, 292A, 412D, 413AB. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Libri V contra Nestorium III, 5 // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pars 6. P. 71:31. Ibid. P. 72:7–8. See also: Ibid. P. 72:28. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De adoratione et cultu in Spiritu et veritate 4 // PG. 68. Col. 345A; Cyrillus Alexandrinus. In Isaiam 2, 1 (Is. 2:1) // PG. 70. Col. 65C; Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem II, 9 (Jn. 5:30) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 354. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem V, 2 (Jn. 8:15) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 722; Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem X, 2 (Jn. 15:20) // Op. cit. Vol. 2. P. 593. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De adoratione et cultu in Spiritu et veritate 13 // PG. 68. Col. 864A. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarius in XII prophetas. In Oseam IV (Os. 7, 1–2) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 151. Compare: Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarius in XII prophetas. In Abacuc I (Hab. 2:8) // Op. cit. Vol. 2. P. 101. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem II, 9 (Jn. 1:45) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 196. Ibid. VI, 1 (Jn. 9:3) // Op. cit. Vol. 2. P. 148. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Lucam. Fragm. II, 24 (Lc. 4:4) (CPG 5207) // TU. 130. S. 232. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem IV, 2 (Jn. 6:53) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 531. St. Cyril proves that not only the soul needs to be recreated by the Spirit, but the “rough earthly body” must also be sanctified through the “rough” and συγγενής communion. This adverb is also found in one fragment related to the “Commentary on the Psalms” by St. Cyril (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Expositio in Psalmos (Ps. 42:4) (CPG 5202) // PG. 69. Col. 1017B). However, according to R. Devreesse (Devreesse R. Les anciens commentateurs grecs des Psaumes. Città del Vaticano, 1970. (Studi e testi; vol. 264). P. 228) this passage is not authentic. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem IV, 2 (Jn. 6:53) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 530–531. Wed. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. Book 3. P. 38. Loon H., van. Eucharist and Fellowship in Cyril of Alexandria // Die Sakramentsgemeinschaft in der Alten Kirche / hrsg. L. H. Westra and L. Zwollo. Leuven, 2019. (Studien der Patristischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft; Bd. 15). S. 93–95. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Libri V contra Nestorium IV, 5 // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pars 6. P. 84:38–40. English Transl.: S. Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria. Five Tomes Against Nestorius; Scholia on the Incarnation; Christ is One; Fragments Against Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Synousiasts / trans. Ph.-E. Pusey. Oxford, 1881. (A Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church; vol. 47). P. 142. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem IV, 3 (Jn. 6:63) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 551–552. Cf. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. Book 3. P. 54. See also: Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem XI, 9 (Jn. 17, 12–13) // Op. cit. Vol. 2. P. 706–707. Regarding communicatio idiomatum, see: Loon H., van. The Dyophysite Christology. P. 429–431. O. Cyril (Hovorun) (Hovorun C. Will, Action and Freedom. P. 122) speaks of communicatio operationum, but this term refers to a dispute between Lutheran and Reformed theologians of the 16th century. Therefore, I will use the term communicatio idiomatum also when it concerns ἐνέργειαι. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Oratio ad Theodosium imp. de recta fide // T. 1. Vol. 1. Pars 1. P. 67:17–20. English. lane: St. Cyril of Alexandria. Three Christological Treatises / ed. D. King. Washington, D.C., 2014. (The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation; vol. 129). P. 74. The same Greek text can be found in an earlier edition of this treatise: Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De in car na ti one Unigeniti 707ab // SC. 97. P. 278. Cf. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Dialogue on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten / trans. from ancient Greek, intro. Art. and note. K. B. Yulaeva // BV. 2006. No. 5–6. pp. 136–137. Loon H., van. Eucharist and Fellowship. S. 95–97. Gebremedhin E. Life-giving Blessing: An Inquiry into the Eucharistic Doctrine of Cyril of Alexandria. Uppsala, 1977. (Studia doctrinae chris tia nae Upsaliensia; vol. 17). P. 48–58. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem IV, 2 (Jn. 6:54) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 532. Cf. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. Book 3. P. 40. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem III, 6 (Jn. 6:35) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 475. Cf. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. Book 2. P. 789. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Scholia de incarnatione Unigeniti 9 // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 5. Pars 1. P. 221:23–26. English. trans.: McGuckin J. A. St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy. P. 301–302. In the treatise “Against Nestorius” (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Libri V contra Nestorium II. Prooem. // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pars 6. P. 33:33–35) St. Kirill uses the same phrase in relation to the image of fire and wood: μεταστοιχειοῖ τρόπον τινὰ δόξαν τε καὶ δύναμιν, καίτοι τετηρηκὸς ὅπερ ἦν (“for the fire, penetrating into the tree, in some way transforms it into its own glory and power, although it remains what it was”). This passage in the Scholium was later misinterpreted. See about the role it played in the dispute between Sevier of Antioch and Julian of Halicarnassus: Grillmeier A., ​​Hainthaler Th. Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. 2. Pt. 2. P. 82–89. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Scholia de incarnatione Unigeniti 9 // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 5. Pars 1. P. 221:30–32. Ibid. 8 // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 5. Pars 1. P. 221:12–13. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Lucam. Fragm. II, 44 (Lc. 4:40) // TU. 130. S. 242. See also: Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem IX (Jn. 14:1) // Op. cit. Vol. 2. P. 402: “ὅλην τοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικήσαντος καὶ ἀῤῥήτως ἡνωμένου "carrying all the properties, that is, life-giving action of Him Who dwelt in him and ineffably united (with him)." Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Thesaurus 8 // PG. 75. Col. 105B. See also note. 88. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem IV, 2 (Jn. 6:53) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 530. See also note. 3. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Thesaurus. 8, 32, 34 // PG. 75. Col. 105B, 453C, 605D; Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De sancta Trinitate dialogi III, 468c, 483c // SC. 237. P. 30, 74. See also in the interpretation on Luke. 11, 20 (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Lucam III, 66 (Lc. 11:20) // TU. 130. S. 289 (PG. 72. Col. 704BC), but it is not known for certain whether St. Cyril is the author of this fragment. In the interpretation of John 17, 16–17 (Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohan nem XI, 9 (Jn. 17, 16–17) // Op. cit. Vol. 2. P. 714) the saint claims that ἐνέργεια, coming through Him from the Father, “is not one” (οὐ μίαν οὖσαν), but here he means that divine ἐνέργεια is diverse. See note 97 about this concept. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Thesaurus 32 // PG. 75. Col. 453B. Wed. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Book of Treasures. P. 89. Loon H., van. The Dyophysite Christology. P. 177–178. On the relationship between the treatises “On the Incarnation of the Only Begotten” and “On the Right Faith of Theodosius,” see: Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Deux dialogues christologiques. P. 42–51; Loon H., van. The Dyophysite Christology. P. 259–261, 419–425. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De incarnatione Unigeniti 688b // SC. 97. P. 220 = Oratio ad Theo do sium 16 // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pars 1. P. 52:14. Wed. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Dialogue on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten. P. 102. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Oratio ad Arcadiam et Marinam augustas de fide 192 // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pars 5. P. 111:33–36. Wed. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. About right faith to princesses. Part III (chapters 133–224) / trans. from ancient Greek Hier. V. Dmitrieva; ed. transl., preface and note. hierome Feodora (Yulaeva) // BV. 2018. No. 31. P. 296. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Responsiones ad Tiberium diaconum 5 // Cyril of Alexandria. Select Letters/ed. and trans. L. R. Wickham. Oxford, 1983. (Oxford Early Christian Texts). P. 154–155. Cf. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Answers to Tiberius the deacon and the brethren / trans. with sir. and note. E. A. Zabolotny, M. G. Kalinina; lane from ancient Greek, preface. and note. hierome Feodora (Yulaeva) // BV. 2015. No. 18–19. P. 365. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistula 39. Ad Iohannem Antiochenum (de pace) 5 // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pars 4. P. 17:9–20. About the understanding of St. Kirill’s attribution of the Savior’s sayings, see: Loon H., van. The Dyophy si te Christology. P. 549–554. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Glaphyra in Genesim 7 // PG. 69. Col. 380C. English lane: St. Cyril of Alexandria. Glaphyra on the Pentateuch / introd. G. K. Hillis, trans. N. P. Lunn. Washington, D.C., 2018. Vol. 1. (The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation; vol. 137). P. 350. Wed. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. Book 2. P. 237. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De incarnatione Unigeniti 712e–713a // SC. 97. P. 296. Cf. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Dialogue on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten. pp. 147–148. The text in the treatise “On the right faith to Theodosius” (Oratio ad Theodosium 43 // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pars 1. P. 72: 1–4) is exactly the same with the exception of one word: the preposition σύν (“together with it,” that is, with the flesh) is replaced by the preposition ἐν (“in it,” that is, in the flesh). Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De adoratione et cultu in Spiritu et veritate 15 // PG. 68. Col. 1005C: “τῶν τῆς φύσεως νόμων ὀλίγα πεφροντικός.” See also: Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarius in Isaiam I, 5 (Is. 8:3); 5, 1 (Is. 53, 7–8) // PG. 70. Col. 221A; Col. 1180D. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Libri V contra Nestorium I // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pars 6. P. 17:19. See also: Ibid. P. 15:40, 19:36. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistula paschalis 17, 2 // SC. 434. P. 268:120–270:129. St. Cyril here implicitly proves that Christ, while still an Infant, did not know good and evil as a man, but as God he knew. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistula 17. Ad Nestorium (una cum synodo Alexandrina) 5 // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pars 1. P. 36:26–28. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Libri V contra Nestorium V, 3 // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pars 6. P. 98:26–34. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Quod unus sit Christus 760a // SC. 97. P. 454. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem I, 6–7 (Jn. 1:4) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 79, 86. See: Loon H., van. The Dyophysite Christology. P. 559–560 (also "Index of Subjects", s. v. "Law(s) of human nature". P. 619). Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistula paschalis 17, 2 // SC. 434. P. 270:155–163. English lane: St. Cyril of Alexandria. Festal Letters 13–30/eds. Ph. R. Amidon, J. J. O'Keefe. Washington, D.C., 2013. (The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation; vol. 127). P. 65. See note. 150. English lane: St. Cyril of Alexandria. On the Unity of Christ / ed. J. A. McGuckin. Crestwood (N.Y.), 1995. P. 109. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Quod unus sit Christus 724ac // SC. 97. P. 332–334. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Apologia XII anathematismorum contra Theodoretum 75 // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pars 6. P. 139:18–23. English lane: St. Cyril of Alexandria. Three Christological Treatises. P. 123. Wed. rus. Transl.: Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 2. Kazan, 2 1892. pp. 76–77. Grillmeier A., ​​Hainthaler Th. Christ in Christian Tradition. Vol. 2. Pt. 2. P. 84. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarius in XII prophetas. In Oseam IV (Os. 7:2) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 153. English. lane: St. Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on the Twelve Prophets / trans. R. Ch. Hill. Washing ton, D.C., 2007. Vol. 1 P. 152. (The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation; vol. 115). In the “Works of the Holy Fathers” ἐσθ’ ὅτε is left here without translation. See: Works of St. Cyril of Alexandria. M., 1892. (Creations of the Holy Fathers, in Russian translation, published at the Moscow Theological Academy; vol. 58). Part 9. P. 192. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem IV, 3 (Jn. 6, 60–61) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 548. Prof. M. Muretov translates here ἐσθ’ ὅτε according to its usual meaning: “sometimes.” Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Creations. Book 3. P. 51. See also: Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarius in Isaiam III, 4 (Is. 37, 34–35) // PG. 70. Col. 781A; Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Johannem III, 4 (Jn. 6:1) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 403. St. Kirill uses the term ἐσθ’ ὅτε much more often than any other author represented in TLG. Of the total number of 3340 matches found (http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/), 540 were found in the writings of St. Cyril: 515 in the corpus of his works (TLG 4090 (Cyrillus Alexandrinus)) with an amendment for "spuria" and duplicated references in the Easter Epistles (according to PG and SC) and 25 in the acts of the Council of Ephesus (TLG 5000 (Concilia Oecumenica, ACO), work = 1:2). The next highest number of matches, 339, is the Basilica (collection of legal texts). This is followed by Galen (96 cases), Origen (94 cases, of which 12 in dubia) and Tipukeites (another collection of legal texts, 76 cases). Among other Church Fathers of the 4th–5th centuries. ἐσθ’ ὅτε occurs less than five times: St. Athanasius the Great: 4 cases (of which 2 in "spuria"); St. Basil the Great: 2 cases (of which one is in "dubia"); St. Gregory the Theologian: none; St. Gregory of Nyssa: 5 cases (of which one is among the “spuria”); St. John Chrysostom: 7 cases (of which 5 in "spuria"); blzh. Theodoret of Cyrus: 1 case. It might be worth exploring what meanings St. gives. Cyril of Alexandria to the term ἐσθ’ ὅτε. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Oratio ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam augustas de fide 44 // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pars 5. P. 58:35–59:3. In the “Theological Bulletin” ἐσθ’ ὅτε is translated here: “from time to time.” See: Cyril of Alexandria, St. About the right faith to the queens / trans. from ancient Greek Hier. V. Dmitrieva; ed. lane and entry Art. Hierod. Feodora (Yulaeva) // BV. 2009. No. 8–9. P. 137. The translation “sometimes” is also possible here, but I think that “at this time” fits better. Something similar applies here: Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem III, 1 (Jn. 5, 36–37) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 374. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Thesaurus 24 // PG. 75. Col. 397C. Wed. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Book of Treasures. 233. A slightly different version of this text can be found in F. Puzy's Commentary on the Gospel of John: Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Com menta rii in Johannem VIII (Jn. 12, 27–28) // Op. cit. Vol. 2. P. 320. However, since this is part of fragments from the catenas, Jacques Liébaert may well be right in concluding that the (slightly altered) text from the Treasure was erroneously attributed to the Commentary on the Gospel of John: Liébaert J. La doctrine christologique de Saint Cyrille d'Alexandrie avant la querelle nestorienne. Lille, 1951. P. 76, note 9. See also: Hallman J. M. The Seed of Fire: Divine Suffering in the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople // Journal of Early Christian Studies. 1997. Vol. 5 (3). P. 377, note 30. In my article (Loon H., van. The Role of the Human Body in Cyril of Alexandria’s Mystagogy (in the chapter ‘The Fall’) // Early Christian Mystagogy and the Body / ed. P. van Geest and N. M. Vos. Leuven (Annua nuntia Lovaniensia) - forthcoming) I refute the idea that human nature, which the Word assumed, did not need food and drink for its body, as Konrad Zawadzki proves in his interpretation of the interpretation of St. Cyril on 1 Cor. 15, 44–45 (Zawadzki K. F. Der Kommentar Cyrills von Alexandrien zum 1. Korin ther bri ef. Einleitung, kritischer Text, Übersetzung, Einzelanalyse. Leuven, 2015. (Traditio exegetica graeca; vol. 16). S. 508–513). Loon H., van. The Dyophysite Christology. P. 556–569. Regarding the understanding of St. Kirill for the word “hypostasis” see: Loon H., van. The Dyophysite Christology. P. 507–509. Grillmeier A. Das östliche und das westliche Christusbild. S. 93: “wobei natürlich die jeweilige Verschärfung einer by Cyrill noch gezähmten Einseitigkeit einzukalkulieren ist.” See also note. 8. See: Loon H., van. The Dyophysite Christology. P. 518–530. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem IV, 2 (Jn. 6:53) // Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 530. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistula 1. Ad monachos Aegypti 25 // ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pars 1. P. 22:13–17. English. trans.: McGuckin J. A. St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy. P. 260. Wed. rus. trans.: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epistle to the Egyptian monks / trans. from ancient Greek, intro. Art. and note. hierome Feodora (Yulaeva) // BV. 2010. No. 11–12. pp. 97–98. In my forthcoming article mentioned above (Loon H., van. The Role of the Human Body (in the chapter 'The Fall') I argue that according to St. Cyril, the mortality of people belongs to their nature, and only the presence of the Holy Spirit prevents them from dying. Therefore, the Word's allowing death to consume His flesh is part of His allowing the flesh to act in accordance with its own nature.