The "Eucharistic" argument in the polemics of St. Anastasius Sinaite with the Aftartodokets

The main dogmatic work of St. Anastasia Sinaita (VII century) ≪Ὁδηγός≫ (“Guide”), critically published by K.-H. Uthemann in 1981 1 is not only a polemical response to various currents of Monophysitism, but also a actually positive formulation of the church teaching about Christ and Christological terminology. In this sense, the “Guide” of St. Anastasia Sinaita is one of the first attempts at a complete systematic description of patristic Christology and the predecessor of the “Source of Knowledge” by St. John of Damascus. In the "Guide" St. Anastasius Sinaite polemicizes with various Monophysite movements, including aphthartodocetism. This heresy appeared during the lifetime of Sevier of Antioch and was caused by a contradiction in his Christological terminology. The doctrine opposing Sevirus was formulated in polemics with him by the Monophysite bishop of Halicarnassus in Caria, Julian. The controversy took place during their joint stay in Alexandria, where they retired due to the persecution of opponents of the Council of Chalcedon, erected by Emperor Justin I 2. The dispute arose after one of the Alexandrian monks asked Sevier whether Christ’s body was corruptible or incorruptible. Referring to the holy fathers, Sevier called the body of Christ perishable. When this question was asked to Julian, he, also referring to the authority of the holy fathers, called the humanity of Christ incorruptible 3. Emperor Justin I reigned from 518 to 527, which means that the theological dispute within Monophysitism arose no earlier than 518. St. Anastasius speaks about the exile of Sevirus to Alexandria as follows: “When Sevirus of Antioch was accused because of his nasty teaching directed against the Council of Chalcedon, then he appears in Alexandria, in the den of snakes, the enemies of the Universal Church” 4. According to Julian, the fact that Sevier and his supporters “although they say that Christ is precisely one nature, but confess in Him two properties, divine and human” 5 introduces a Nestorian division in Christ. Julian formally recognizes the consubstantiality of Christ with people according to humanity, but does not recognize the possibility of considering the human component in Christ not only as human nature, but also as a human property. The divine and human properties in the God-man are so mixed that there can be no separation, distinction or duality. Julian speaks of “indistinguishable difference” (διαφορὰ ἀδιαφόρως), so that in Christ there are neither actions nor properties that could be considered as only Divine or only human. Hence follows Julian’s teaching about the incorruptibility of the flesh of Christ, which received the name aphthartodocetism (from ἄφθαρτος - “incorruptible”, δοκέω - “to seem, to appear correct”). By the way, this term first appears around 515 in John the Grammar of Caesarea, who wrote a special polemical treatise against the supporters of the doctrine of the incorruptibility of the body of Christ 6 . Thus, the doctrine of aphthartodocetism and even the term itself existed even before Julian’s polemic with Sevier, but our knowledge of this doctrine is based mainly on the study of surviving fragments of the works of the Halicarnassian theologian. By the way, Rev. Anastasius makes not Julian, but Guyana (Γαϊάνος) the founder of the new heresy: “Sevier and Guyan were previously of the same mind and stayed together in Alexandria for eighteen years. And then one day Guyan asked Sevier: “How should one confess the body of Christ, corruptible or incorruptible?” When Sevier said that the body is perishable until the Resurrection on the third day from death, Gayan immediately interrupted him: “If you say that the body is perishable, then with all necessity you name two natures in Christ.” This became the reason for the division between them" 7 . Although, perhaps, this division of Sevier with Guyan occurred after the separation of Julian from Sevier. Gaian was the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria for a short time in 535. He was elevated to the see by an indignant crowd, which expelled Theodosius, who had just been ordained patriarch, a supporter of Sevier still living in Alexandria and an opponent of Julian. Before this, Guyan was an archdeacon, and one hundred and three days after his accession to the see, he was, following a complaint by Theodosius to Emperor Justinian I, deposed and exiled to Carthage 8 . So, according to Julian’s thought, it is impossible for Christ, as God incarnate, to acquire any property that contains an element of any imperfection. The property of corruption can only be attributed to humanity, but not to the Divine. The assimilation by Christ of a certain human property, not attributable to His Divinity, was thought by Julian as the opposition of the flesh to the Divinity, which for the Bishop of Halicarnassus is equivalent to the Nestorian division 9. “If we do not recognize the body of Jesus Christ as incorruptible, but corruptible,” writes Julian, “then it is necessary to admit a difference between the body of Christ and the Word of God; If we allow this difference, then it is necessary to recognize two natures in Christ (δύο φύσεις), and in this case, where is the basis for further resisting the definition of the Council of Chalcedon? 10 The theological dispute resulted in a church schism among the Monophysites. Julian became the founder of one of the many schools, separate from the Sevirian hierarchy 11. Julian gave his theological opponents the name phtartolatrov (perishable worshipers, from φθαρτός - “perishable”, λατρεύω - “to serve, worship”). The words “corruptible” and “incorruptible” (ἄφθαρτον) can be understood in different ways. In the proper sense of the word, “the incorruptible is that which cannot be damaged by another entity, the incorruptible is that which is not at all fluid, has no defect and is invulnerable” 12, therefore, only immaterial nature can be incorruptible (in this theological and philosophical sense): “incorruptible in the proper sense of the word is the impassive, immaterial and intangible” 13. Corruption, which was the subject of discussion, should be distinguished from complete decay, destruction, death (καταφθορά) 14, to which the body of Christ could not be subjected after death due to its union with Life itself - God the Word. Christ's body could not be destroyed, He could not remain in a state of death, He had to be resurrected. This position was shared by all sides of the theological dispute: Sevier, Julian, and the Orthodox. St. Anastasius of Sinaite cites the opinion of Julian of Halicarnassus that the body of Christ could experience suffering states only if He allowed it: “Some say that the most holy body of Christ was corruptible in possibility, that is, it accepted corruption, but in the tomb it was preserved incorruptible by the action of the Divinity of the Word” 15. These words briefly express the teaching of the Aphthartodocetes about the voluntariness of Christ’s suffering. According to this teaching, Christ, unlike any other person, a sinner who suffers (corruptible) as a result of sin out of necessity and against his will, endures suffering and death voluntarily. He is not enslaved by passions, He commands them, otherwise His sufferings would not have a redemptive meaning 16. So, according to the aftartodokets, Christ voluntarily accepts suffering, although he might not have experienced hunger after a forty-day fast in the desert and might not have suffered physical torment from scourging and crucifixion. When His body is in the tomb, then, according to the testimony of St. Anastasia, Julian considers him not to undergo decay. Here the monoenergism of the aphthartodokets is clearly manifested (single energy is the most important single property of the single nature of Christ). It is the Word, as an active principle, that allows (or does not allow) the human component of Christ to undergo passionate states. St. Anastasius shows that the presence in Christ of human nature along with natural properties, including the properties of corruption, does not contradict the voluntariness of Christ’s passions. He incarnated voluntarily, and, having incarnated, along with human nature, he perceived all natural properties. Because of the voluntariness of the Incarnation, the Word and all His passions are voluntary. If the passions of Christ, due to their voluntariness (and therefore redemptiveness), cannot be attributed to nature, as the Aphthartodocetes taught, then, based on the definition of nature as true reality, “one cannot call His body nature, His Nativity - Christmas, His age - age, His race - race, His passion - passion, His death - death, His Resurrection - Resurrection, His Ascension - Ascension. After all, He, having incarnated on earth, accepted all this voluntarily, and not forced. And this is an invention of the Manichaeans” 17. Definition of nature, as well as other theological concepts, St. Anastasius gives in the second chapter of the Guide: “The Church calls nature the reality of existing things, that is, their fulfillment” 18 . The Sinaite here quotes almost verbatim the definition from the work “On Providence” (Περὶ προνοίας), signed with the name of Clement of Alexandria 19 . This is an understanding of nature as something that exists in reality, and not in a ghostly way, St. Anastasius proves in detail by using in Holy Scripture the expression “by nature (φύσει)” as a synonym for the expression “truly”: “As for the expression “by nature,” then, based on the Old and New Testaments, it can be said that the words “Christ by nature is God and by nature is man” mean the same as the words “He, in truth, being God, in truth becomes invariably man.” In fact, the wise Solomon speaks of wicked people: All people are vain who have no knowledge of God 20 . And the divine apostle speaks about us (who came to the Church) from the pagans: We... once... by nature are children of wrath 21. So, if the wicked were naturally vain, that is, by their very nature, they would be blameless. After all, what is inherent in us by nature and in a natural way is impeccable and impeccable, since it was naturally created in us by God, such as, for example, the ability to breathe, eat and sleep. Then it will be discovered that God naturally created vanity in people. Again, if we were by nature children of wrath, then the reason for this would go back to God, who created us by nature children of wrath. After all, “by nature” means that which exists in an essential way, as, for example, it is inherent in the nature of light to shine, fire by nature is created by burning, and the earth is created by vegetating (plants). So, heretics are invited to say one of two things: either that God created the nature of vanity and wrath, or that the expression “by nature” means nothing more than “what truly exists.” Therefore, our words are impeccable: “Christ is by nature God and by nature man,” that is, “truly God and truly man.” Such is this tradition and definition of nature, which we derive from the Old and New Testaments, and no teacher, and no angel from heaven can either introduce innovation (into this tradition) or destroy (it) forever 22 "23. St. Anastasius says that the teaching of the Aphthartodocetes actually means that Christ is not consubstantial with us in humanity: “How can one say that the body of Christ is consubstantial with ours, or: As children partake of flesh and blood 24, or: He received the seed of Abraham 25, or: He, like us, is completely tempted 26, if He is supposedly incorruptible from the very moment of union, as you preach?” 27 This argument against the Aftartodoketes was brought forward not only by the Orthodox, but also by the Sevirians. St. Anastasius describes in detail and repeatedly the suffering states of Christ, or the so-called impeccable passions. Here is just one example of such a description: “Therefore, having recognized the purpose of the voluntary humility of Christ, who humbled and humbled Himself in order to destroy the arrogance of the enemy, we are not afraid to follow (the Apostle) Paul in saying that Jesus was tempted in all our infirmities, except only sin 28 . And especially what was said about Him before Baptism: removal [to Egypt from the wrath of Herod], growth from infancy to perfect man, food, thirst, fatigue, tears and the rest of our properties, which we oppose against heretics ... "29. “However, having considered with the help of the holy evangelists that Christ, even after His Baptism, voluntarily endured and accomplished something even more humble, more pitiful and more inglorious than everything human that He did before His Baptism, although He is the true God both before and after the Incarnation. So, tell me, what can be more humble, more pitiful and more inglorious for God than the following: the Creator of heaven and earth, being the radiance of the glory of the Father and the image of His hypostasis and upholding all things by the word of His power, 30 being the God of all, the consubstantial and monoglorious Word of the Father, coeternal with the Most Holy Spirit, the uncreated, unchangeable, self-shining only begotten Son, voluntarily from evildoers, as an evildoer among evildoers 31, betrayed by the flesh to a shameful death, captured at night like a robber, imprisoned in chains, was struck, had his clothes torn off, spit on, strangled, scourged, was, like a condemned man, crucified naked on a tree, his arms, legs and ribs were pierced and did not defend himself, although He is the omnipotent God, but humbly, like a sheep, accepted death for us 32 . As a result of which we then truly knew that He was in our likeness, when He became truly dead, when we saw His face in our likeness, and there was no form or greatness in Him... but He was despised and humbled before men 33 ". 34 “Then God truly became dead in the likeness of dead people, in human likeness He was laid in a tomb, and we saw Him lying dead, the deified body, separated from the soul, was truly dead, inanimate, silent, lifeless, non-speaking, motionless, unseeing, unlearning, insensitive, truly the dead body of God, like all the dead” 35. With such an ultra-natural description of these passions, St. Anastasius proves their truth, and therefore their naturalness, naturalness. So, according to St. Anastasia, the border between the Orthodox and the Aftartodokets does not follow the principle of “voluntary - involuntary”, but according to the principle of “natural - unnatural”. If the cause of Christ's suffering states is in His humanity, then these passions are natural, natural, even though they were completely voluntary. If passions have their cause in the Divine will, which allows or does not allow the Savior’s humanity to experience them, then such passions are unnatural. St. Anastasius, describing in the twenty-third chapter of the “Guide” his dispute with the aftartodoket, gives an argument against their teaching, which we will call “Eucharistic”. Having agreed with the opponent that they confess the Eucharistic Gifts in exactly the same way: not as simple bread and not as an image (ἀντίτυπος - “instead of an image”) of Christ’s body, but as “the very Body and Blood of Christ, the Son of God, incarnate and born of the Holy Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary” 36, Sinaite proposes for the aftartodokets to put their Holy Gifts in a certain vessel and see what happens to them in a few days. “If it does not decay, change or deteriorate, then it will become obvious that you rightly preach that Christ from the very moment of union exists completely incorruptible, and if it does decay or deteriorate, then it is necessary for all of you to admit one of the following: either what you eat is not the true Body of Christ, but only an image, or that because of your evil faith the Holy Spirit did not descend on it, or that the body of Christ before the Resurrection is perishable as an offering as a sacrifice, subject to death and wounds, crushed and eaten" 37 . With the help of the “Eucharistic” argument of St. Anastasius proves not only the perishability of Christ’s body before the Resurrection, but also insists that His humanity can and should be called nature. And not just name it. It truly is nature, which we can understand from the experience of communion with it: “We not only believe in the nature of His body, but also see and touch it with real experience and partake of it, daily by nature and truly tasting it” 38. The Eucharistic Gifts are indeed not an image (ἀντίτυπος) of the Body and Blood of Christ, but the very Body into which the Word was incarnate. St. Anastasius quotes the words of a certain Alexandrian presbyter Ammonius 39, an exegete of the Holy Scriptures and a polemicist with Julian of Halicarnassus: “Indeed, perhaps, among those who condemn the Council of Chalcedon and deny the nature of the flesh of Christ, confusion does arise: after all, it is this visible body, in need of care, growing, swaddled, circumcised, touched, imprisoned, struck, pierced, killed, carried, buried, anointed, mourned, crushed, they refuse to call what is tasted, crumbled, transmitted (to believers for communion) nature, that is, true reality, and the invisible Word, Which they have not seen and will not see, have not touched and will not touch, have not comprehended with the mind and have not comprehended, described, have not subjected to death, have not crushed, have not eaten (absolutely nothing from Him can be comprehended by the mind: neither nature, nor form, nor appearance, nor color, nor appearance, nor size, nor movement, nor change, nor descent, nor coming (to earth) or departing (to heaven), nor anything else that exists in God the Word), - they confess Him to be the essence" 40 . This understanding of the Holy Gifts is fully consistent with the definition of nature as true reality. If we call the Gifts the true Body and true Blood of Christ, then it means that they are by nature, and not by image (ἀντίτυπος). Otherwise they could not be called true. Words of St. Anastasia about the perishability of the Holy Gifts can raise the question of which body of Christ they correspond to - before the Resurrection or after. The fact that with the help of their corruption Sinait proves the corruption of the Savior’s human nature before the Resurrection is suggested by the first answer. It is precisely this opinion that we partake of the Body of Christ in a state of decay, that is, in the state in which it remained before the Resurrection, was expressed by a certain Michael Sikidite 41 in the 1190s. Opponents of Sikidite said that in the Eucharist we partake of the incorruptible Body of Christ, that is, in the state in which it remains after the Resurrection. From the course of Sikidite's reasoning emerged the doctrine of the multiple and daily repetition of the Sacrifice of Christ. This opinion was condemned at the Councils of Constantinople in 1156–1157, convened against Sotirich Panteugen. This condemnation was confirmed by the Council convened in Constantinople under Patriarch John X Kamatira (1198–1206) and Emperor Alexei III Angel (1195–1203). The Sacrifice of Christ was offered once, and at each Liturgy bread and wine are offered into the offered Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ. And although the Council of the 1190s did not reach unity and did not make any decision regarding the corruption or incorruptibility of the Eucharistic Body, subsequent tradition (for example, St. Nicholas Kavasila) testifies that in communion with the Holy Gifts we partake of the risen Body of Christ 42. However, we note that Rev. Anastasius in the Guide does not construct a doctrine of the Eucharist; he only uses the “Eucharistic argument” in polemics with the Monophysites. If we take a literal approach, then he calls only the Gifts of the Aftartodokets perishable. And using the “Eucharistic argument” against the rest of the Monophysites as applied to the Holy Gifts of the Orthodox Church, Sinait shows that they are crushed, tasted, etc., that is, insists on their created, and not Divine, nature, but does not talk about corruption. After all, even after the Resurrection, Christ’s humanity remained a created nature and did not pass into the Divine nature. This small example shows that St. Anastasius, perceiving the entire patristic tradition that preceded him, also finds new arguments in anti-heretical polemics. Benevich 2013 – Benevich G.I. A brief history of “providence” from Plato to Maximus the Confessor. St. Petersburg, 2013. [Benevich G. I. Kratkaia istoriia “promysla” ot Platona do Maximus Ispovednika (A short history of “providence” from Plato to Maximus the Confessor). Saint Petersburg, 2013.] Bolotov 2007 – Bolotov V.V. History of the Church during the period of the Ecumenical Councils: History of theological thought. M., 2007. [ Bolotov V. V. Istoriia Tserkvi v period Vselenskikh Soborov: Istoriia bogoslovskoi mysli (History of the Church during the Oecumenical Coucils: History of theological thought). Moscow, 2007.] Gratsiansky 2005 – Gratsiansky M.V. Gayan // PE. 2005. T. 10. pp. 276–277. [Gratsianskii M. V. Gaian (Gajanus) // Pravoslavnaia Entsiklopediia. (Orthodox Encyclopedia) 2005. Vol. 10. P. 276–277. Davydenkov 2002 – Oleg Davydenkov, priest. Aftartodocetism // PE. 2002. T. 4. pp. 193–194. [Davydenkov Oleg, sviashch. Aftardoketizm (Autartodocetism) // Pravoslavnaia Entsiklopediia (Orthodox Encyclopedia). Ermilov 2009 – Ermilov P.V. Constantinople disputes of the 12th century. on the theology of the Eucharist // Orthodox teaching on the Church Sacraments: Materials of the V International Theological Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow, November 13–16, 2007). M., 2009. T. 2. P. 1–7. [ Ermilov P. V. Konstantinopol’skie spory XII v. o bogoslovii Evkharistii (Argument on the theology of the Eucharist in XII cent. Constantinopole) // Pravoslavnoe uchenie o Tserkovnykh Tainstvakh: Materialy V Mezhdunarodnoi bogoslovskoi konferentsii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi (Orthodox teaching of Chruch Sacriments: Result of the International theological conference of the Russian Orthodox Chruch) (Moskva, 13–16 noiabria 2007). Moscow, 2009. T. 2. P. 1–7.] Troitsky 1875 – Troitsky I. Exposition of the faith of the Armenian Church, inscribed by Nerses, the Armenian Catholicos, at the request of the God-loving sovereign of the Greeks Manuel: Historical and dogmatic exposition in connection with the question of the reunification of the Armenian Church with the Orthodox. St. Petersburg, 1875. [ Troitskii I. Izlozhenie very Tserkvi Armianskoi, nachertannoe Nersesom, kafolikosom armianskim, po trebovaniiu bogoliubivogo gosudaria grekov Manuila: Istoriko-dogmaticheskoe izlozhenie v sviazi s voprosom o vossoedinenii Armianskoi Tserkvi s Pravoslavnoiu (And explanation of the faith of the Armenian Chruch, explained by Neres, the Catholicos of Armenia, as requested by the God-loving ruler of the Greeks Manuel: A historical and dogmatic explanation in connection with the question of reuniting the Armenian Church with the Orthodox Chruch). Saint Petersburg, 1875.] E. P. G. 2001 – E. P. G. Ammonius of Alexandria // PE. 2001. T. 2. pp. 173–174. [E. P. G. Ammonii Aleksandriiskii (Ammonius of Alexandria) // Pravoslavnaia Entsiklopediia (Orthodox Ecyclopedia). 2001. T. 2. P. 173–174.] Binggeli 2001 – Binggeli A. Anastase le Sinaite: Récits sur le Sinai et Récits utiles a l’âme. Edition, traduction, commentaire. These. P., 2001. Richard 1958 – Richard M. Anastase le Sinaite, l’Hodegos et le Monothelisme // Revue des Etudes Byzantines. 1958. Vol. 16. P. 29–42. Anastasius Sinaita. Viae dux/Ed. K.-H. Uthemann. Turnhout, 1981 (CCSG 8). See in particular: Richard 1958; Binggeli 2001. Troitsky 1875. pp. 147–148. Guide VI, 1, 23–26. Here and below, references to the “Guide” are given to the critical edition of this work: Anastasii Sinaitae. Viae dux/Ed. K.-H. Uthemann. Turnhout, 1981 (CCSG 8). The translation was made by Abbot Adrian (Pashin). Guide 23, 1, 14–18. Adversus Aphthartodocetas/Ed. M. Richard. Iohannis Caesariensis presbyteri et grammatici opera qui supersunt (CCSG 1). P. 69–78 (Latin translation). Guide 23, 1, 2–22. Gratsiansky 2005. pp. 276–277. Davydenkov 2002. pp. 193–194. Quote from: Troitsky 1875. P. 148. For the family tree of Monophysite sects, see: Bolotov 2007, pp. 418–420. Guidebook 2, 5, 117–120. Guidebook 2, 5, 123–126. Guide 23, 3, 7–15. According to modern researchers, it does not belong to him. For more information on the history of understanding the Providence of God in patristic literature, see: Benevich 2013. pp. 58–59. Guide 2, 3, 18–49. Guide 23, 2, 16–21. Guidebook 13, 8, 115–124. Wed: Luke 22:37; Isa.53:12. Guide 13, 9, 1–25. Guide 13, 9, 29–40. Guidebook 13, 1, 48–50. Not much is known about this author. See: E. P. G. 2001. P. 174. Guide 14, 1, 3–18. Constantinople monk, writer. In his youth he practiced magic, but then repented and took monastic vows. During the reign of the Patriarch of Constantinople George II Xiphilinus (1191–1198), without encountering opposition from the spiritual authorities, began to develop in his writings and disseminate his false teaching about the corruption of the Eucharistic Body of Christ. He had many followers. Anathematized by Patriarch John X Kamathir of Constantinople (1198–1206). Some historians identify him with the historian Mikhail Glika (died before 1204). See: VS. 2011. T. 2. P. 70. For more details, see: Ermilov 2010. pp. 178–180.