On the inconsistency of attracting the doctrine of the Most Holy Theotokos to St. right Nicholas Cabasilas in defense of the new Roman Catholic Mariological dogmas

Abstract. The article examines the controversial attempts of Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century. attract the teachings of the outstanding late Byzantine Orthodox theologian St. right Nicholas Kavasila as a substantiation of his Mariological dogmas about the Immaculate Conception and the bodily Ascension of the Virgin Mary. The author critically examines the methods of theological analysis applied by various Latin theologians to the teachings of St. Nicholas Cabasilas, in order to attract them in favor of confirming the new Latin Mariological dogmas, assessments of these methods by famous Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologians are given, and the influence exerted on this process by the Second Vatican Council is traced. 1. Introduction. Controversial tenets In the last century and a half, the field of theology, in Orthodoxy called the doctrine of the Mother of God, in Roman Catholicism - Mariology, has become a field of intense confrontation between Orthodox patristic and Roman Catholic theology. Two well-known Latin Mariological innovations became a kind of detonator: the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary (Maria Immaculata) of 1854 and the dogma of the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary (Assumptio Mariae), adopted in 1950. In addition to the listed dogmas, many later innovations, not yet dogmatized, have become inherent in the newest Roman Catholic Mariology. They are usually associated with new theological definitions and terms assigned to the Mother of God. For the purposes of this article, we will limit ourselves to brief formulations of the two mentioned dogmas. The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception states: “The blessed Virgin Mary was, from the very first moment of Her conception, by the special grace and favor of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, preserved unsullied by any stain of original sin” 1 – and implies that “The Mother of God at her very conception was preserved (by God) from original sin and by the grace of God was made it impossible to have personal sins” 2. How could these two contradictory events take place: the natural conception of the Virgin on the part of the righteous Godfathers, who, like all humanity, were subject to original sin (in which, by definition, original sin is also transmitted), and the special, “paradisiacal” conception of their Fruit, the Blessed Virgin, declared in the new dogma, not tainted by original sin? This is an important point that is usually omitted in the thesis statement of the dogma (and, from personal experience, ordinary Roman Catholics are usually not aware of it. - Auth. ). It is well revealed in his work by V.N. Lossky: Roman Catholic theologians solved this issue in a very artificial way, introducing the idea of ​​​​the so-called double conception. In their opinion, there was an ordinary, “active” conception of the Mother of God on the part of Her parents, tainted by original sin, and, at the same time, a “passive” or “passive” conception of Her by God 3 at the moment of the “infusion” of Her soul into Her body. They believe that it was in this way that God, by His grace, left the Fruit sinless, giving the Virgin “the privilege of being free from original sin from the moment of His conception” 4 . The subsequent and, importantly, inextricably linked with the first, Roman Catholic dogma of 1950 on the bodily Ascension states: “The Immaculate Mother of God, the Ever-Virgin Mary, having completed the path of Her earthly life, was taken body and soul into Heavenly Glory” 5 . At first glance, its formulation is quite consonant with the Orthodox understanding, but appearances are deceptive. The dogma was originally, as emphasized by Pope Pius XII, derived as a strict logical consequence of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception 6, which denies the participation of the Mother of God in original sin. Also, the dogma, with its deliberately vague formulation, leaves open the question of whether the Most Holy Theotokos died physically or not? This served to form two opposing theological movements within Roman Catholicism: “immortalists,” who deny even the temporary bodily death of the Mother of God and with it the entire centuries-old patristic Tradition of the Church about Her Dormition, and “mortalists,” who recognize Her brief bodily death. It is important to emphasize that the logic of the mortalists is different from the Orthodox teaching about the Dormition of the Mother of God, although the bodily death of the Most Holy Theotokos and Her glorious Ascension in the body to the Heavenly abodes on the third day are also implied 7 . In Orthodoxy, Her subordination to the general law of death follows the logic of responsibility for sin, since the Blessed Virgin participates in the consequences of ancestral sin by Her birth. Mortalists, being in the common theological “trap” of the Immaculate Conception together with their opponents, are obliged to dogmatically first recognize the non-involvement of the Mother of God in original sin, and then try to link Her bodily death with this according to the general law coming from the fall of Adam. Trying to somehow resolve this obvious contradiction, they are forced to resort to further artificial constructions - for example, to conclude that the death of the Mother of God, although it was real, was voluntary, like the death of Her Divine Son. But then She can also be considered “co-redemptive” - which only leads to new theological problems and contradictions growing like a snowball. It is known that the acceptance of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the main culprit of the created “double break” with the patristic teaching about the Mother of God, historically turned out to be extremely painful. After all, even the pillars of Roman Catholic theology: Anselm of Canterbury (XI-XII centuries), Bernard of Clairvaux (XII century), Thomas Aquinas (XIII century), Bonaventure (XVI century) were opponents of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, known since the 9th century as the private theological opinion of Paschasius Radbert, Abbot of Corby. It was no coincidence that the doctrine, filled with contradictions, became the subject of a thousand years of theological controversy and was adopted in an almost political manner (after the vote of 508 bishops around the world in 1849, 8 without convening a Council, as the motu proprio of Pope Pius IX). But even after its proclamation as divinely revealed truth, the well-known internal contradictions of this teaching did not disappear anywhere, and for the Holy See, the theological justification and confirmation of the postulate, which became a stumbling block, remained very pressing issues in both the 19th and 20th centuries. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, at least theoretically, should have been derived from the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Tradition of the Ancient, Undivided Church, 9 which did not correspond to the true state of affairs, and therefore it became extremely necessary to find at least some convincing patristic confirmation of the dogma from the theology of the Eastern Church, as part of the healing of this problem. If successful, this could give the innovation some historicity and dogmatic reasoning. The most suitable “targets” for this purpose naturally became the works of the late Byzantine fathers of the 14th century: St. right Nicholas Kavasila, St. Gregory Palamas and others: authoritative, close in time and style of language, theologically extremely capacious (including Mariology) and organically absorbing the centuries-old patristic tradition 10. Let us dwell in more detail on the teaching of St. right Nicholas Cabasilas and on the attempts of Roman Catholic theologians to use it mainly in defense of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. 2. About the theology of St. right Nicholas Kavasila St. rights Nicholas Kavasila (Hamaet; 1322 - after 1397), an outstanding late Byzantine theologian and church writer, left in his legacy, among other aspects, including a deep, holistic teaching about the Mother of God. In Russian theological literature, until recently, he, unfortunately, remained relatively little known, but in the Greek-speaking Churches and even in the Latin West, his works have long been widely recognized. Thus, Nicholas Cabasilas was known to Latin theologians already from the 16th century, from the time of the Council of Trent, although he did not differ at all in his pro-Latin views and was even known for several anti-Latin works. His pen includes, for example, the preface for the treatise “On the Procession of the Holy Spirit” with a condemnation of the Filioque and the primacy of popes 11, anti-Latin chapters in his work “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy”, etc. Prot. John Meyendorff summed up the situation this way: “The writings of Cabasilah were known in the West. They were translated into Latin and even had some influence. At the Council of Trent, quotations from Cabasilas were cited as arguments in favor of the dogma of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In the 17th century, Cavasila was quoted by Bossuet, and the Jansenists, in particular Arno, also referred to him.” 12 But the main theotokos of the teaching of Cabasilas, given by the theologian in three well-known Words on the feasts of the Mother of God: about the origin of the Mother of God “from the earth, in a common way with all” 13, about Her completely free will, about Her unprecedented “resistance to all evil” 14 in the absence of the slightest “programming” in Her virtue 15 and about the all the more glorious Her victory over sin precisely because of the possibility to sin, about the help given to Her by God equal to everyone in the fight against sin 16 - obviously, are completely incompatible with the basic ideas of the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception. They undermine his fundamental principle about the artificial state of the impossibility of having personal sins allegedly given to the Mother of God by God, in which the Virgin remained from the moment of Her very special conception (see above). How, in principle, can these two apparently contradictory visions be reconciled? Even after a quick reading of the thesis statements described above, can the idea even come to use his works in defense of the concept of the Immaculate Conception? Therefore, it cannot but be surprising that attempts to attract the teachings of Cabasilas in defense of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception not only took place, but also turned out to be extremely intense. Apparently, the fame of his name in the Latin West played a certain fatal role. It will be interesting to consider the assessments of his Mariology by Latin theologians from a historical perspective. 3. Assessments of Cabasilia’s theology in favor of the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Period before Vatican II The period of the first half of the 20th century was especially intense in terms of attracting the theology of Cabasilia in defense of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. In 1919, the famous patrolologist and Byzantine scholar, professor at the Pontifical Academy in Rome, Fr. Martin Jugis (1878–1954) publishes an article on the Mariology of Nicholas Cabasilas, “La doctrine Mariale de Nicolas Cabasilas,” 17 with a theological analysis of the three Orations of the Mother of God by the Byzantine theologian. The key idea of ​​this article was a series of statements that it is the Mariology of Nicholas Cabasilas that directly supports and defends the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Most likely, this is precisely why this work was undertaken. It is characteristic that M. Jugi wrote this article on the Mariology of Cabasilas, which has become a classic for Latin theology, six years before the first publication of his own translation of the three Words analyzed in it in Latin. Only in 1925 this translation was published in the series “Patrologia Orientalis” 18. Thus, a wide audience, well acquainted with his conclusions, for quite a long time had no opportunity either to confirm them or form their own theological opinion, without having the original text of the translation of the Words. Meanwhile, the opinion of Fr. Zhuzhi has already become “established”. This study and point of view naturally became widely known and were subsequently constantly cited, since for decades Jugis was considered an indisputable authority for the Holy See in everything related to Eastern patristics. Rating o. Jugi undoubtedly had a strong influence on subsequent Roman Catholic theologians. To prove the thesis he puts forward, Jugis, for example, quotes Cabasilas from his “Word for Christmas,” where the theologian glorifies the sinlessness of the Most Holy Theotokos: “For no one will be born clean from an unclean person (Job 14:4). This is above any miracle, and puts into awe not only people, but also the Angels themselves and puts to shame any verbal exaggeration, as [the Virgin], being exactly the same person and not having anything more in Herself compared to other people, was still the only one who escaped the common illness” 19. For the Orthodox audience, this idea, extolling the personal feat of the Blessed Virgin during Her life, with equal “starting opportunities” with all, does not seem at all unusual. Father Zhuzhi claims that with this phrase Cabasilas, no more or less, confirms the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, namely, Her Immaculate (or “passive” - see above) Conception is like a miracle of God 20. An interesting textual remark by the Greek-speaking Orthodox theologian from the USA, Prof. K. Tsirpanlis 21 about Jugy’s interpretation of this fragment. In his article “The Teaching of the Most Holy Theotokos of Nicholas Cabasilas,” 22 prof. Tsirpanlis notes that Jugy's translation of the Greek phrase improperly changes the punctuation mark, thereby changing its meaning: “Jugy, in his Latin translation of this last passage, puts a period after the word “exaggeration,” thereby asserting that Cabasilas accepts the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as a miracle. However, this is incorrect, because in the original Greek text after the word “exaggeration” there is not a period, but a comma, which means that the word “miracle” for Cabasilas refers to the idea that although the Virgin was a person like all people, and inherited no more than an ordinary person, yet She was able to escape the “common disease” (that is, personal sinfulness) "23. Prof. Tsirpanlis draws attention to the fact that the subsequent text of Kavasila’s homily: “She did not enter into this life before all people and thus did not inherit a nature not accustomed to sin” 24 - speaks precisely of the opposite - about Nicholas Kavasila’s direct rejection of the idea of the Immaculate Conception and Her sinlessness “by nature” (κατὰ φύσιν) and, thus (referring to Jugis), “especially dispels any intentional or unintentional misinterpretation of Cabasilah's thought” 25. But Zhuzhi ignores this subsequent phrase. The following quotation is taken by M. Jugis from chapter IV of Cavasilas' "Words for Christmas": "The basic idea that the Byzantine theologian loves to develop and to which everything he says can easily be reduced is that "Mary is the ideal type of humanity; She alone fully realized the divine idea of ​​​​man, She is an excellent person." It is unnecessary to point out that this position clearly contains the idea of ​​the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception” 26. Again there is a clear acceleration of this thesis on the part of the French theologian. There is no direct connection with this dogma here, because Kavasila again evaluates the result of the entire life path of the Blessed Virgin, and does not speak about the moment of Her “special” conception, which supposedly removes Her from the human race. M. Jugi continues: “Cavasila, however, formulates this dogma in many other ways, and among his theses confirming this, we certainly will not have difficulty in choosing. At the beginning, our theologian speaks of the special intervention of God to form the body and soul of His future Mother." 27 Then he cites a phrase taken out of context: “After all, One [Virgin] truly was also the result of holy prayer... a gift from God [the Godfathers]... Therefore, nature could not bring anything consistent with the birth of the Immaculate Virgin, but God Himself, called [by the spouses], did everything and, pushing nature aside, directly, so to speak, created the Virgin as the first man" 28 . Here Zhuzhi uses a new technique in translating the text: he directly adds the word “Immaculate” where it was not in the original text, for greater, so to speak, persuasiveness. We again testify that the thought of Cabasilas, fully consistent with the patristic provisions, about the Virgin as the fruit of the great prayer of the Godfathers and about God, although miraculous, but at the same time naturally resolving their infertility, was biasedly interpreted by Jugi as speaking about Her “special,” Immaculate Conception. Further, Cabasilas devotes the entire subsequent 5th chapter of the Word to explaining the thesis about the Virgin as the first man, and there is not a single phrase in it about the peculiarities of the Virgin’s conception: we are talking only about Her complete realization of the image of God with all of Her immaculate life. M. Zhuzhi does not ignore the position of Kavasila on the pre-purification of the Blessed Virgin before the Incarnation. Based on the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the Most Holy Theotokos, from the moment of Her conception, was purified by the Holy Spirit, completely removed from the bonds of original sin and made completely impossible to sin, which supposedly determines Her further purity, in which no further purification is needed. Orthodox Tradition, reflected in many patristic works, such as, for example, St. Ephraim the Syrian 29, clearly speaks of the cleansing of the Mother of God by the Holy Spirit at the moment after Her free consent “Behold, the handmaid of the Lord” (Luke 1:38) and before Her conception of Christ 30. Cabasilas, remaining faithful to the patristic position on pre-purification, admits that it took place and explains it in a positive way “as an addition of grace-filled gifts” 31 . However, Jugis from this phrase of Cavasila wrongfully concludes that he allegedly completely rejected the provision of pre-purification: “However, our theologian does not want to admit that the Mother of God received additional grace immediately before the Incarnation of the Word” 32. Prof. K. Tsirpanlis rightly points out the fallacy of these conclusions by M. Jugy and his other famous follower, M. Gordillo 33: “This phrase [of Cabasilas] does not really support either the logic of the Immaculate Conception or the Debitum Peccati [“debt to sin”], as Gordillo and Jugy [erroneously] believe... From the point of view of prepurification (procatharsis), the purification of Mary by the Holy Spirit to Her conception of Christ means for Her an addition or increase in grace and the perfection of sanctification, and not the Immaculate Conception or freedom from ancestral sin” 34 . Another glaring sign of the biased approach in the analysis of Jugis and his followers is that the principle of synergy, or the collaboration of the Virgin, which runs like a truly red thread in all three of the Theotokos’ Words of Cabasilas, they seem to completely ignore, despite the constant emphasis and attention to it by Cabasilas, who considers it the cornerstone of understanding the significance of the Virgin for the Divine Economy. For example, in the “Word on the Annunciation”, Cabasilas notes: “The Incarnation of the Word was not only the work of the Father, His Power and Spirit - the Father’s favor, the invasion of the Spirit and the overshadowing of the Force, but also [the work of] the will and faith of the Virgin. For just as without the participation of the [Three Hypostases] the decision on the Incarnation of the [Word] could not be made, so without the consent of the Immaculate One and the assistance of Her faith, the [Eternal] Council could not be carried out” 35 . Why is such a strong thesis not considered by Jugis and his followers? Prof. once again undertakes to answer this. TO. Tsirpanlis: because "such a strong emphasis [on synergy], which is easily felt on almost every page of all the sermons he examines, does not at all support the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and Debitum Peccati" 36. Assessing the conclusions of M. Zhuzhi and his followers dating back to the first half of the 20th century, prof. K. Tsirpanlis sums up bitterly: “Unfortunately, the anthropocentric Mariology and Christology of Cabasilas were completely misunderstood by both Jugis and Gordillo. As a result, Jugi ascribes semi-Pelagianism or even Pelagianism to Cavasila and accuses him of inconsistency of thinking and contradictions. Moreover, Jugis and Gordillo, in their attempts to defend the Immaculate Conception, do not refrain from using most of the passages from Cabasilah out of context.”37 4. Effect of Vatican II The inconsistency of analysis and theological bias in the style of “the end justifies the means” of the above-described interpretations of the first half of the 20th century become all the more obvious if we trace a sharp shift in emphasis in the analysis of the same works of Cabasilas by Roman Catholic theologians after the Second Vatican Council. The Second Vatican Council of 1962–1965 ended the four-century period of “Tridentine Catholicism.” An important part of the conciliar decisions was the radical turn of Roman Catholicism towards ecumenism, which was expressed in the special decree “Unitaris redintegratio” (Decree on Ecumenism) of November 21, 1964. The new slogan of the era was: “To promote the restoration of unity among all Christians.” From now on, everyone must take an active part in initiatives aimed at the reunification of Christians and in practice avoid “words, judgments and deeds ... complicating mutual relations” 38. As a result, in the overwhelming majority of cases, from the assessments of Roman Catholic theologians, the note of confidence in the defense of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by the theology of Cabasilias disappears. Modern assessments of his works are most often written in a fairly objective and balanced language. For example, Archbishop. Yiannis Spiteris and prof. K. D. Conticello, in his extensive analysis, immediately calls “the recognition or non-acceptance of Nicholas Cabasilas [the idea of] the dogma of the Immaculate Conception ... one of the most controversial aspects of Cabasilia’s Mariology” 39, referring to the established opinion of Jugis and disagreeing with it. As a counterargument against the position of Jugis, they quote the explanation of the Orthodox theologian P. Nellas 40 that, despite the apparent identity of the terms used by Cabasilas with the Latin definitions, the essence they express is completely different. For Spiteris, it is an indisputable fact that we are talking about two completely different anthropologies, starting from different premises. Next I. Spiteris, analyzing the term “All-Holy,” very correctly states: “Cavasila, as we will see below, as well as in the entire Eastern tradition, lacks one of the most characteristic provisions of the Latin doctrine of original sin; it must be admitted that our theologian, unlike the Western tradition, takes into account not the negative aspect of this truth (that Mary’s conception was not tainted by original sin), but the positive one: that from the moment of her birth Mary was filled with the Spirit The Holy One, who, by transforming, sanctified Her” 41. Another well-known modern Roman Catholic theologian, L. Gambero 42, in his book “The Sacrament of the Virgin Mary according to Nicholas Cabasilas” 43 in the theological analysis of the three Theotokos Words of Cabasilas, never once mentions any parallel with the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, citing the provisions of Cabasilas in a very balanced manner, exclusively from the patristic point of view. Already in 1960, on the eve of the Second Vatican Council, the American Roman Catholic theologian, Benedictine monk Fr. Polycarp (Sherwood), in his work “Byzantine Mariology,” not only rejects Cabasilas’s acceptance of this dogma, but goes further. In fact, he questions the Roman Catholic dogma itself, based on his own, objective and independent analysis of the works of St. Gregory Palamas and Nicholas Kavasila: “...the fact remains that confirmation of the sinlessness, even unique, of our Lord does not necessarily have to be the Immaculate Conception. This is precisely what the works of Palamas and Cabasilas show.” 44 But assessments in the style of Fr. Juges, although in much smaller proportions, continue to live today among some Latin theologians. It is characteristic that the methods of Fr. Juries to confirm these provisions are also adopted. As an example of a modern “classically biased” theological interpretation of the position of Cabasilias from the “Word for the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary,” one can cite a quote from the work of the famous Catholic theologian E.M. Toniolo 45: “[Mary is] the gift that the Good God gives to the two blessed parents, answering their prayers, and – as Nicholas Cabasilas says – practically intervening directly in “the creation of the Immaculate as the first man.” With Mary, God returns us to the beginnings of a new creation." 46 Following the example of Jugis, Toniolo also uses the direct addition of the word “Immaculate” to the original text of Cabasilas to interpret his phrase in favor of his “defense” of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Commenting on the above-mentioned position on synergy, completely outside the scope of M. Jugis - most likely, paying tribute to the time, because after many assessments of other theologians it would be awkward not to mention the term - E. M. Toniolo in his analysis is forced to note the highlighting of the concept of synergy in relation to the Virgin by Cavasila, but only in order to immediately accuse the Byzantine theologian of the inconsistency of his provisions, which he sees in the emphasis Cabasilia both on the “synergy” of the Blessed Virgin, or on Her personal merits, on the one hand, and on Her eternal election, on the other. Summarizing his analysis, he quite categorically concludes that “the three sermons of Cabasilah under consideration contain many incorrect or inaccurate provisions” 47 . 5. Assessments of Orthodox theologians From the point of view of Orthodox theologians, as one might expect, the Mother of God Words of St. right Nicholas Cabasilas never contained and does not contain provisions in favor of the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception. In addition to the studies already mentioned in the text on the Mariology of Kavasila, Western Orthodox theologians P. Nellas, K. Tsirpanlis, Archimandrite. A. Vakrakosa 48, it will be important to mention the contribution of Met. Callista (Uera). Metropolitan Callist in his article “Beyond all holiness. St. Nicholas Cabasilas on the Mother of God” 49, citing the theotokos of Nicholas Cabasilas, denying the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, in addition to three main arguments discussed in detail by other theologians: a) Cabasilas’s denial of the doctrine of original sin; b) its provisions on the complete belonging of the Most Holy Theotokos to humanity; c) the synergy of the Virgin with the Divine Economy - also highlights an important fourth position: the teaching of Cabasilas about the Mother of God as the connecting link of the Old and New Testaments. Metropolitan Callistus observes that “the very definition of the Roman Catholic dogma of 1854 states that the Virgin Mary was conceived immaculately in view of the future merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, “thus removing the Blessed Virgin from Her proper place in the Old Testament and placing Her prematurely in the New Testament; and thus the coherence and continuity of salvation history is disrupted. [On the contrary,] conscious of the importance of this continuity, Cabasilas writes that at the time of the Annunciation, when Mary answered: Behold, the handmaid of the Lord (Luke 1:38), She spoke this not only in Her own name, but also in the name of all the holy, chosen people who were many generations before Her... Therefore, the theory of “pre-redemption” (praeredemptio), implied by the Latin doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, excluded by Cabasilah" 50. 6. Evaluation of the teachings of St. Nicholas Kavasila about the Assumption from the perspective of the Roman Catholic dogma about the bodily Ascension of the Virgin Mary The teaching of St. right Nicholas Cabasilas about the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary was also thoroughly studied by Roman Catholic theologians, starting with M. Jugis. Their analysis undoubtedly proceeded from the Roman Catholic dogma of the bodily Ascension of the Virgin Mary, which is based on the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary with Her non-involvement in original sin. It should be noted that their conclusions about the theology of the Assumption in St. right The Cabasilias present a more “favorable” picture compared to the previous dogma from the point of view of the objectivity of their assessments. This can be explained, firstly, by the fact that after the previous supposed “proof of loyalty” of the theology of Cabasilia to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which for Roman Catholic theologians is the basis for the new Roman Catholic dogma of the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin, there was little point in further breaking theological spears, because the main thing for them had already been done. Because if, in their opinion, Cabasilas “supported” the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, then at least indirect evidence of the related Roman Catholic dogma of the ascension could already be implied. Secondly, this may be due to the different history of the adoption of the two dogmas. The very adoption of the dogma of the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin Mary took place as a consequence of the already accepted dogma of the Immaculate Conception, therefore the opinion of the Holy Tradition was no longer significant for the interested party. It is also important that the new Roman Catholic Mariological dogma was accepted by Pope Pius XII in 1950, having already been given to him by the dogma of the First Vatican Council of 1870, using the Infallibilità papale method (Infallibility of the Roman Pope), that is, the opportunity to simply proclaim the new teaching ex cathedra. According to documents, the adoption of the dogma of the Ascension of the Blessed Virgin was based on “the almost unanimous consent of the Catholic episcopate and the laity and long-standing liturgical practice” 51 . Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the formal theological basis of the constitution of the dogma “Munificentissimus Deus” was the work of the same prof. M. Zhuzhi “The Dormition and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin into Heavenly Glory” 52. The work was written by him in 1944 at the personal request of Pope Pius XII, which confirms the highest trust in him that remained for decades. In relation to the assessment of the theology of St. right Nicholas Kavasila on the Assumption in the light of this dogma, we begin again with the characterization of M. Zhuzhi in 1919. Compared with the many pages of lengthy commentary on the previous dogma, his commentary on the doctrine of Cabasilias in the light of the Roman Catholic dogma of the bodily Ascension is unusually brief. Zhuzhi only quotes the key phrase of Cavasila about the short Assumption and the subsequent bodily Ascension of the Mother of God in the image of Her Son from chapter 12 of the “Words on the Assumption”: “It was necessary that this all-holy soul should be released from the all-sacred body. It resolves and unites with the [soul] of the Son, with the First Light - the second. The body, after a short stay in the earth, itself, together with the soul, departed [from here]. She had to walk along all the paths along which the Savior walked, to shine forth alive and dead, to sanctify nature in its entirety and again receive its rightful place. Therefore, the tomb accepted Her for a short time, and then Heaven delighted [Her], most glorious of the Angels and most holy of the Archangels" 53 . The phrase itself is formulated by Cabasilas with exhaustive clarity, so that from the point of view of the events of the Assumption it is very difficult to question or add anything. M. Jugis, however, here also cites a comment that has already become familiar, gradually imposing the idea of ​​Cabasilas’s supposed recognition of the Immaculate Conception and the absence of original sin in the Virgin: “Having removed from Mary all possible sin and all defilement, Cabasilas, obviously, could not explain the death of the Virgin by any other reason than the one to which he points” 54 . But, perhaps, for the reasons mentioned above, Jugis did not indulge in further theological constructions in order to attribute to Cavasiles the fact of a pro-Latin interpretation of the events of the Assumption - probably for him this was no longer as important as in the case of the previous dogma. The effect of Vatican II, already described above, is repeated in the assessments of Latin theologians regarding the provisions of the Assumption. J. Spiteris and K. D. Conticello note: “...if Kavasila’s faith in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is quite controversial (reference to the opinion of M. Juzhi - Author), then his [patristic] teaching about the Assumption of Mary and Her ascension to heaven with soul and body is beyond doubt. Mary completely shares the suffering and death of Christ, and therefore His Resurrection. Cabasilah's thought is biblical in the full sense, in accordance with the great Eastern tradition" 55. Prof. agrees with them. L. Gambero: “The text (“Words for the Dormition.” - Author) does not reveal any signs of the uncertainty that arose in previous centuries regarding the glorification of Mary immediately after death” 56. To summarize, in this case we can state an almost unanimous (with the possible exception of M. Jugis) opinion of Catholic theologians about the sharing of the patristic position by Nicholas Cabasilas. Although it can be clarified that in the issue of assessing the Assumption they try to avoid “sharp corners”, without unnecessarily analyzing the logic of the Byzantine theologian (yes, there is a bodily death of the Mother of God, but still death as a consequence of Her participation in original sin, according to Orthodox teaching, or still as a voluntary “co-redemptive” death from Latin theology, due to the absence of the consequences of original sin in Her?). This approach is somewhat reminiscent of the very vague formulation of the Roman Catholic dogma about the bodily Ascension of the Virgin Mary. In this article we examined how, by its nature, the deeply patristic teaching about the Most Holy Theotokos of St. right Nicholas Cabasilas was systematically misinterpreted by prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century, who made every effort and used even morally indefensible methods in order to “force” his works to speak in favor of the more than controversial new Latin dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. Upon closer examination, clearly artificial methods of argumentation become apparent in their provisions, including changing the source texts and quoting individual phrases out of context. Confirming with this example the practical application of the well-known approach “the end justifies the means,” after the change in the vector of church policy at the Second Vatican Council, we observe how, in the vast majority of cases, the theological assessments of the same works by new Roman Catholic theologians radically change and become completely objective, despite their sharing a common dogmatic base with their predecessors. I would like to note that other modern researchers have come to similar conclusions about the special bias of Roman Catholic theologians of the first half of the 20th century, and especially on the issue of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Thus, D.I. Makarov in relation to the theology of St. Gregory Palamas, who has been subject to no less untenable interpretations, notes in his book: “It is worth emphasizing what is happening in our time <...> the change of emphasis in Catholic research on the problems of Byzantine Mariology. If before the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), relatively speaking, in the “era of Fr. Gregory Palamas does not teach about the Immaculate Conception” 57. Thus, we can with a high degree of probability assume that this approach and methods in Roman Catholic theology widely characterized the “era of Fr. Juzhi" not only in relation to the teachings of St. right Nicholas Kavasila, but also to the works of his contemporaries, other famous theologians of the 14th century: St. Gregory Palamas, St. Philotheus Kokkin, Theophan of Nicea 58 and other Orthodox theologians, and take this fact into account as a given when studying their heritage. Papa Paolo VI. Unitatis Redintegratio, Cap.1 par. 4 “L’ecumenismo”, 11/21/1964. Official website of the Vatican: [Electronic resource]. URL http://www. vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_it.html (accessed: 03/10/2021). Papa Pio XII. Costituzione Apostolica “Munificentissimus Deus” 01.11.1950/ Official website of the Vatican/ [Electronic resource]. URL http://www. vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html (date of access: 03/02/2021)0 eias). Dumoulin P. Christian doctrine: Dogmatic texts of the teaching of the Church of the 3rd–20th centuries / Transl. from fr. SPb.: Publishing house. St. Petra, 2002. Ephraim the Syrian, St. Creations. T. I. Kaluga: Kaluga Standards Printing House, 2003. P. 510 (reprint from the publishing house S-TSL, 1907). John of Damascus, St. Works of St. John of Damascus. M.: Martis, 1997. John (Maksimovich), St. Orthodox veneration of the Mother of God. St. Petersburg: Vilmoisson, 1992. Nicholas Kavasila, St. right Christ. Church . Mother of God. Theological works of St. Nikolai Kavasila. M.: Publishing house. Church of St. mts. Tatiana at Moscow State University, 2007..l’dn°. Lebedev A., prot. Differences between the Eastern and Western Churches in the teaching about the Blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of God. About the Immaculate Conception. SPb.: Type. V. D. Smirnova, 1903. Lossky V.N., prof. Dogma of the Immaculate Conception // Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate. Paris, 1954. No. 20. P. 246–251 / Transl. from fr. in "Theological Works". Sat. 14. M.: Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1975. P. 121–125. Makarov D.I. Mariology of Theophanes of Nicaea in the context of the Byzantine theological tradition of the 7th–14th centuries. St. Petersburg: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2015. Meyendorff I., prot. Introduction to Patristic Theology. Mn.: Rays of Sofia, 2007. Meyendorff I., prot. The life and works of St. Gregory Palamas. St. Petersburg: Vizantinorossika, 1997. Meyendorff I., prot. Church in history: Articles on the history of the Church. M.: Eksmo, 2017. Sorokin V., prot. Dogma of the Roman Catholic Church on the taking of the Mother of God into Heavenly glory from the Orthodox point of view // Theological works. Sat. 10. M.: Publishing house MP, 1973. pp. 67–89. Yannaras H. Faith of the Church. Introduction to Orthodox Theology. M.: Center for the Study of Religions, 1992. Athanasios (Vakrakos), archim. Nicholas Cabasilas Chamaetos and his teaching concerning the Theotokos. Masters thesis. Durham: Durham theses, Durham University (UK), 1989. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/6479/1/6479_3779.PDF (accessed 03/04/2021). Conticello C. G., Spiteris Y. Nicola Cabasilas Chamaetos // La théologie byzantine et sa tradition. T. II: (XIIIe–XIXe s.) / eds. C. G. Conticello, V. Conticello. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2002, pp. 315–410. Gambero L. Il mistero della Theotokos in Nicola Cabasilas // Fede e devozione mariana nell’impero bizantino. Dal periodo post-patristico alla caduta dell'impero (1453). Cinisello Balsamo: San Paolo, 2012, pp. 334–349. Gordillo M. Mariologia orientalis / Orientalia Christiana Analecta. Vol. 141. Roma: Pontificum Institutum Orientalium Studiorum. Jugie M., Grégoire Palamas et l’Immaculée Conception // Revue augustintenne XVII. Paris: ed. P. Lethielleux, 1910. P. 145–161. Jugie M. La doctrine Mariale de Nicolas Cabasilas // Revue des études byzantines. Échos d'Orient. T. 18. No. 116. Paris: Institut Francais D'Études Byzantines, 1919. P. 375–388. Jugie M. La Mort et l’Assomption de la Sainte Vierge // Studi e Testi. Rome: GBPress, 1944. Kallistos (Ware), metr. of Diokleia. Beyond all holiness. St. Nicholas Cabasilas on the Mother of God // Conference report: Further Prospects of Mary. Walsingham, 2007. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://afkimel.files. wordpress.com/2018/11/kallistos-ware-beyond-all-holiness.pdf (accessed 03/02/2021). Sherwood Polycarp, f. O. S. B. (the Order of Saint Benedict). Byzantine Mariology. Ohio (USA): CTSA (Catholic Theological Society of America), Saint Meinrad Archabbey, Indiana, 1960, pp. 107–134. Toniolo E. M. L’immagine “spirituale e cosmica” di Maria – i teologi palamiti // Lezioni Introduttive alla Mariologia Orientale. Roma: Centro di Cultura Mariana, 2004, pp. 90–97. Tsirpanlis C. M. The Mariology of Nicolas Cabasilas // Marian Studies. Vol. 30. Article 10. Proceedings of the Thirtieth National Convention of the Mariological Society of America held in Tampa, FLA. Tampa: The Mariological Society of America, 1979, pp. 89–107. Dumoulin P. Christian doctrine: Dogmatic texts of the teaching of the Church of the 3rd–20th centuries / Transl. from fr. St. Petersburg, 2002. P. 228. John (Maksimovich), St. Orthodox veneration of the Mother of God. St. Petersburg, 1992. P. 32. Lossky V.N., prof. Dogma of the Immaculate Conception // Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate. Paris, 1954. No. 20. pp. 246–251. Per. from French: Theological works. Sat. 14. M., 1975. pp. 123–124. Dumoulin P. Christian doctrine... P. 233. Encyclical of Pope Pius XII “Fulgens corona gloriae” [“Bright crown of glory”] 1953 Quoted. by: Sorokin V., prot. Dogma of the Roman Catholic Church on the taking of the Mother of God into Heavenly Glory from the Orthodox point of view // Theological works. Sat. 10. M., 1973. P. 86. See: John of Damascus, St. The first word of praise on the Dormition of the Mother of God // Works of St. John of Damascus. M., 1997. P. 264; It's him. Second word of praise on the Dormition of the Virgin Mary // Ibid. P. 286. See: Lebedev A., prot. Differences between the Eastern and Western Churches in the teaching about the Blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of God. About the Immaculate Conception. St. Petersburg, 1903. S. 80, 90. Since the papal bull stated: “The most important monuments of the venerable antiquity of the Eastern and Western Churches most convincingly testify that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin ... has always existed and was designated by the nature of the revealed teaching” (ibid. P. 81). According to Prof. H. Yannaras (Athens): “The peak in the development of Greek theology occurred in the 14th century and is associated with the names of Gregory Palamas, Nile of Constantinople and Nicholas Cabasilas” (Yannaras H. Faith of the Church. Introduction to Orthodox Theology / Translated from Greek. M., 1992. P. 42). See: Meyendorff I., prot. Church in history: Articles on the history of the Church. M., 2017. P. 88. Meyendorff I., prot. Introduction to Patristic Theology. Mn., 2007. P. 369. Nicholas Kavasila, St. right Word for the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 6 // Christ. Church. Mother of God. Theological works of St. Nikolai Kavasila. M., 2007. P. 326. (Hereinafter in the text: Word for the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary) “To believe that God creates virtue in the souls of people as something similar to other creations is, first of all, contrary to the concept of virtue, which is good will and the work of our disposition of the will” (Nicholas Kavasila, holy sermon on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 8). “Having received from God the same thing as the others, She, by adding from Herself, surpassed others so much that she served both for Her glory and for the benefit of other people, as if everyone had worked for this victory” (Nicholas Kavasila, holy sermon on the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 9). See: Jugie M. La doctrine Mariale de Nicolas Cabasilas // Revue des études byzantines. Échos d'Orient. T. 18. No. 116. Paris, 1919. P. 375–388. See: Jugie M. Homélies mariales byzantines // PO. Vol. XIX. Pt. III. Paris, 1926, pp. 465–510. Quote by: Athanasios (Vakrakos), archim. Nicholas Cabasilas Chamaetos and his teaching concerning the Theotokos. Nicholas Kavasila, St. right Homily for the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 6. See: Jugie M. La doctrine Mariale de Nicolas Cabasilas // Op. cit. R. 377–378. Konstantin Tsirpanlis PhD, ThD – Professor of Church History and Pathology at UTS Seminary (Barrytown, New York, USA, b. 1935). See: T sirpanlis C. M. The Mariology of Nicolas Cabasilas // Marian Studies. Vol. 30. Article 10. Proceedings of the Thirtieth National Convention of the Mariological Society of America held in Tampa, FLA. Tampa, 1979, pp. 93–94. Nicholas Kavasila, St. right Word for Christmas, 7. Tsirpanlis C. M. The Mariology of Nicolas Cabasilas // Op. cit. R. 94. Jugie M. La doctrine Mariale de Nicolas Cabasilas // Op. cit. R. 376. Nicholas Kavasila, St. right Word for the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 4 “He purified the Virgin, having prepared him with the Holy Spirit; and then the womb, becoming clean, conceives Him. He purified the Virgin in Her purity” (Efrem the Syrian, Venerable Word on Heretics // Creations. T. I. Kaluga, 2003. P. 510). See: John (Maksimovich), St. Orthodox veneration of the Mother of God. St. Petersburg, 1992. P. 43. Nicholas Kavasila, St. right Homily for the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 10. Jugie M. La doctrine Mariale de Nicolas Cabasilas // Op. cit. R. 381. Gordillo, Mauricio (1894–1961) – Professor of Comparative Theology at the Pontifical Oriental Institute. Author of the work: Gordillo M. Mariologia orientalis / Orientalia Christiana Analecta. Vol. 141. Roma, 1954. Tsirpanlis C. M. The Mariology of Nicolas Cabasilas // Op. cit. R. 102–103. Nicholas Kavasila, St. right Homily on the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 4. Tsirpanlis C. M. The Mariology of Nicolas Cabasilas // Op. cit. R. 99–100. Papa Paolo VI. Unitatis Redintegratio, Cap.1 par. 4 “L’ecumenismo”, 11/21/1964. Official website of the Vatican: http://www. vatican va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents Conticello C. G., Spiteris Y. Nicola Cabasilas Chamaetos // La théologie byzantine et sa tradition. T. II: (XIIIe–XIXe s.) / Eds. C. G. Conticello, V. Conticello. Turnhout, 2002, pp. 315–410. Nellas Panagiotis (1936–1986) - famous Greek theologian, author of several books on the theology of St. right Nikolai Kavasila. Quote by: Conticello C. G., Spiteris Y. Nicola Cabasilas Chamaetos // Op. cit. R. 358. Gambero, Luigi (b. 1930) – Professor of Mariology at the Pontifical Theological Institute Marianum in Rome and Associate Professor at the l’International Marian Research Institute of Dayton (USA). See: Gambero L. Il mistero della Theotokos in Nicola Cabasilas // Fede e devozione mariana nell’impero bizantino. Dal periodo post-patristico alla caduta dell'impero (1453). Cinisello Balsamo, 2012, pp. 334–349. Polycarp (Sherwood), f. O. S. B. (the Order of Saint Benedict). Byzantine Mariology. Ohio (USA), 1960. R. 128. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://ejournals. bc. edu/ojs/index. php/ctsa/article/download/2505/2128 (accessed: 03/04/2021). Toniolo, Ermano Maria (b. 1929) – Professor of Mariology at the Pontifical Theological Institute Marianum in Rome. Toniolo E. M. L’immagine “spirituale e cosmica” di Maria – i teologi palamiti. Centro di Cultura Mariana // Lezioni Introduttive alla Mariologia Orientale. Roma, 2004. P. 94. Tognolo E. M. La Mariologia di Nicola Cabasilas. Tesi. Vicenza, 1955. Cited. by: Tsirpanlis C. M. The Mariology of Nicolas Cabasilas // Op. cit. P. 104. See: Athanasios (Vakrakos), archim. Nicholas Cabasilas Chamaetos and his teaching concerning the Theotokos. Masters thesis. Durham University (UK). Durham, 1989. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://etheses. dur. ac. uk/6479/1/6479_3779. PDF (access date: 03/04/2021). See: Kallistos (Ware), metr. of Diokleia. Beyond All Holiness. St. Nicholas Cabasilas on the Mother of God // Conference report: Further Prospects of Mary. Walsingham, 2007. [Electronic resource]. URL: https://afkimel.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/kallistos-ware-beyond-all-holiness. pdf (access date: 03/02/2021). Pope Pius XII. Apostolic Constitution “Munificentissimus Deus” 01.11.1950 / Official website of the Vatican / [Electronic resource]. URL http://www. vatican va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html (accessed: 03/02/2021). See: Jugie M. La Mort et l’Assomption de la Sainte Vierge. Città del Vaticano. Studi e Testi. Rome, 1944. Nicholas Kavasila, St. right Homily on the venerable and glorious Dormition of our Most Holy and Most Pure Lady Theotokos, 12 // Christ. Church. Mother of God. Theological works of St. Nikolai Kavasila. M., 2007. P. 361. Jugie M. La doctrine Mariale de Nicolas Cabasilas // Op. cit. P. 387. Conticello C. G., Spiteris Y. Nicola Cabasilas Chamaetos // Op. cit. P. 361. Gambero L. Il mistero della Theotokos in Nicola Cabasilas // Op. cit. R. 340. Makarov D. I. Mariology of Theophanes of Nicea in the context of the Byzantine theological tradition of the 7th–14th centuries. St. Petersburg, 2015. pp. 16–17. See, for example: Makarov D.I. Mariology of Theophanes of Nicea. Right there. P. 74 about the distorted interpretation of the Mariology of St. Gregory Palamas and Theophanes of Nicea; Meyendorff I., prot. Life and works of St. Gregory Palamas. St. Petersburg, 1997. pp. 318–319: about the falsity of the opinion of M. Zhyuzhi, M. Gordillo and G. Eldarov regarding the division of St. Gregory Palamas' doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Jugie M. Grégoire Palamas et l’Immaculée Conception // Revue augustintenne – XVII. Paris, 1910. P. 145–161; Gordillo M. Mariologia orientalis (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 141) Roma, 1954. P. 122–124: “statement” of St. Gregory Palamas and other late Byzantine theologians were defenders of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. - Quote according to Meyendorff I., prot. Op. cit.