Введение

a) Penetration into tradition When the young Staudenmaier was faced with a theological task - to undermine Hegel's pantheism - and began to look for a model that would not only be visual, but also historically well-founded, he found the figure of Scotus Eriugena (1834) 1 . And this was a successful find, because here, in the guise of pantheized Neoplatonism, the relationship between God and the world - the origin of things from God and their return to Him - appeared before the spiritual gaze, which was fundamentally Christian. Yet, because of this imposition of form on the inner essence, a shadow still lies on this great figure, who at the beginning of the Middle Ages (even before Aquinas) erected a majestic edifice of the spirit from the heritage of St. Augustine, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Dionysius the Areopagite and St. Maximus the Confessor. Therefore, Eriugena cannot become an ideal example. On the contrary, St. Maximus, before his Irish-Scottish translator, in an equally dangerous and decadent time, thanks to his authority as a monk, spiritual guide and writer, saint and, finally, thanks to his martyrdom along with Pope Confessor Martin I, became not only the most daring systematizer of his era, but also an indestructible pillar of the Church for Chalcedonian dogmatics. The internal form of his creations in all respects is synthesis, and not only due to the fact that he consciously strived for this and achieved this, but, moreover, and thanks to his position in the world and in history - between Byzantium, Africa and Rome, between patristics and the Byzantine-Carolingian Middle Ages, and even - in the uncompromising struggle for Christology, which he dared to undertake - between Eastern and Western theology and "spirituality" as such. In order for the history of the spirit to acquire the character of a parable to such an extent, the very imprinting of such a character and its possibility of being imprinted at all had to successfully internally condition each other; if you look at the root of the process, then both of these conditions stimulate each other and are realized only when a person, despite spiritual and political constellations 2 and falls, sees his star and follows it in supramundane freedom. Then, accepting his mission, he becomes the chosen one, to whom the very flow of history submits. The Monk Maxim did nothing to ensure that the voice of those in power could be heard in his creations; at a superficial glance, his main works seem formless, and his collection of creations seems incredibly unsystematic; the humble monk almost deliberately evades dominance in the spiritual kingdom or carefully hides it: nowhere is there a hint of ambition. Long periods of his life are simply unknown to us - 15 African years cannot be reconstructed. And now the dispute with Pyrrhus is illuminated with a sudden brilliance - what filigree precision is demonstrated by this contemplative spirit, immersed in “unceasing prayer”! He does not interfere in anything, but is always ready to help; around its “golden mean” crystallization occurs as if by itself. In the cramped monasteries where he lives, waves of envy and slander rise, as can be seen at first glance to anyone who carefully reads the “Chapters on Love.” He responds only with love, which is essentially alien to πάθη - falling under the passions - and is rooted in the freedom of universal catholicity, imitating God; we shall see later to what extent this evangelical love, which renounces all selfhood, becomes the ultimate force that brings about synthesis in his thinking and life. For him, spirit and genius, freedom and courage are inseparable. Anyone who is able to comprehend the personality of St. Maximus sees with all certainty that the most courageous of his spiritual deeds were dictated by Catholic love; they combine two aspects: professing objective, true values ​​and uniting these values, which cannot be torn away from the heart. In this, St. Maximus is one of the greatest examples of the Christian tradition. Let's imagine a historical situation. Origen lived 400 years ago, the great Cappadocians, Chrysostom, Blessed Jerome - almost 300 years ago, Blessed Augustine - a little less. The great era of Trinitarian disputes and Christology ended with the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). Blessed Theodoret soon dies. The end of the century clearly reveals a spiritual decline. In the year 500, another star rose, falling out of historical context in the most bizarre way: an unknown person posing as Dionysius the Areopagite. Next comes the 6th century, the official Christian appearance of which is subordinated to the formidable name of Justinian. At the end of this era, in 580, the Monk Maximus was born, and his life was also overshadowed by the name of Caesar Heraclius, for whom he was the first secretary of the office at court. Already the Council of Ephesus 3 became a frightening part of palace politics; the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon are formally taken away by the representatives of the emperor from the bishops opposing them, who do not fully understand the importance of the new terminology. From now on, the history of dogma is increasingly determined by the imperial court; Church thinking, beating in the claws of imperial politics, showing the Church its path, could only take small, modest steps in explaining Revelation. There is no need to return again to this tragedy of terror of religious-political integration 4 ; It is quite characteristic that the deeply humiliated papacy (with all our sympathy for Pope Vigilius 5) did not achieve tragic greatness in its humiliation. The mold of integration, in which special attention is paid to the political effectiveness of dogmatic formulas, struck three things in the Church: living biblical theology, which died out during the era of the Council of Chalcedon, the fruitful mutual enrichment of theology and monastic spirituality, which characterized all classical patristics (while after the decisive politicization of theology, monasticism was plunged into timelessness), and, finally, and worst of all, the free republic the spirit was suppressed by accusing some of its greatest representatives of heresy and by pressure exerted by all political means, which led to the destruction of the spiritual balance, which alone stimulates all kinds of thinking in dialogue, including theological. The Council of Chalcedon restored such a dialogical balance for the last time, but, as has been said, not without strong political pressure, and therefore it remains a guiding star for all subsequent time. Previously, Saint Cyril and in his person the Christology and worldview of the Alexandrian school prevailed over Nestorius and Antiochian thought, and even then church power entered into a dangerous alliance with political power. It is not for nothing that church history in the period from Chalcedon up to the Monk Maximus almost overwhelmingly pushes into the shadows the name of this skilled and powerful patriarch. The justice that Antiochian thought regained in Chalcedon was belated: under the banner of St. Cyril, Alexandrian thought ossified in Monophysitism, which the entire centuries-old imperial policy of unification could not overcome. From now on, it is the church-theological environment that is subject to this policy, the dominant direction in which, called neo-Chalcedonism, was established practically from Chalcedon to St. Maximus; in order to cut the ground from under the Monophysites, it tries to reconcile with Chalcedon not what was taken from the teaching of St. Cyril by the Council itself, but his entire teaching in its entirety - moreover, overloaded and burdened with Apollinarian falsifications 6 . In as much as we are grateful to this movement - without it the synthesis of Maximus the Confessor would never have existed - we have no right to ignore that it has become a form of expression for a deeply distorted equilibrium. The monophysite Sevier sits on the throne of Antioch; the spirit of Antioch has been practically ground into powder; Nestorianism, which moved to the eastern borders of the empire and from there to Persia, appears in theological usage rather as a caricature, as a ghostly face that can be accused of all sins and, without the slightest opposition, attribute anything to it. The dispute about the “Three Chapters” 7, the approval of imperial theology at the V Ecumenical Council (553), where on the basis of forged texts 8 the representatives of Antiochian thought were finally condemned, the contradiction between both papal letters, the weighed Constitutum (May 14, 553) 9 and the Judicatum imposed on him (554) 10, allow us to consider all of these events as highly dubious. According to Meller, this clearly shows that the very concept of “Ecumenical Council” is used here only by analogy: the Second Council of Constantinople can, at worst, be considered merely an explanatory one for the Council of Chalcedon, as St. Gregory the Great understood it 11, and the second papal document must be judged by the first 12. However, what do we gain by drawing these parallels? Then all opposition was temporarily suppressed; ridicule completely destroyed her. But the man at whose suggestion the Caesar went for this political combination, Theodore Askida 13, was an Origenist and played his own game in order to divert the emperor’s attention from the all-out crusade against Origen. Only those who consider the phenomenon of Origen in its entirety as a fiery “churchman”, a martyr who died the death of a martyr, attached to the letter and spirit of the Holy Scriptures, and also a bold theologian who tried to use for the benefit of the Truth of Christ everything great and positive that Greece and gnosis invented, understands how capable he is of serving as a constantly renewed, fruitful stimulus for church theology and how necessary it is to use him in this capacity. But the monks, beginning with Evagrius Pontus 14 (d. 399), reduced his theology to a straightforward ascetic-mystical scheme, and his certain intellectual tendency, balanced throughout the totality of creation, to the only dominant one. By the beginning of the 6th century, fanatical propaganda in favor of this spiritualistic grotesque was again secretly carried out in Palestinian monasteries, which provoked no less fierce retaliatory measures from the emperor. Justinian's excommunication of the Alexandrian teacher (543), allegedly approved by Pope Vigilius, primarily concerns the distorted image that was presented by the then Origenism and for the creation of which Origen actually gave some reasons 15. Yet the catastrophe lay not so much here as in the fact that Christian theology once again allowed the revival of the specter of political integralism, which fatally darkened the prospect of the historical reality of theology, as happened a little later with the Three Chapters. The absurd legends of the Middle Ages that entangle the name of Origen, which Henri de Lubac rewrote, testify to the terrifying power of politics, penetrating into spiritual spheres; after all, the point was, just as in the case of Theodore of Mopsuestia, in the “annihilation” of not only the teaching, but also the personality as a whole - for only defamation 16 could impart effectiveness to the sentence that was pronounced on the teaching. At the same time, the source from which not only the jointly condemned Didymus and Evagrius 17 drew, but also Saint Basil the Great and both Gregory, then became invisible and inaccessible; but where spiritual sources are drowned out and poisoned, it is no longer possible to think in an open and undistorted spiritual space. Meanwhile, the constellation Dionysius rose, visible from its source, and immediately the most active and free-spirited gathered around it. Surprisingly early, all doubts about its authenticity subside; It is quite possible that John of Scythopolis 18, his first brilliant commentator, defended him so actively because he finally saw in him a revival of spiritual power, at the center of which it was possible to erect a new spiritual cosmos in the devastated space of the Church. Yet Areopagite was first obtained from the hands of the Monophysites. In a dogmatic disputation dating from 532 19, Hypatius of Ephesus, the head of the Orthodox, rejects his writings as a forgery; during the 6th century. they were accompanied by a certain shade of doubt: in the circles of scholastics and grammarians, educated humanists of his time, the Areopagite remains something of an esoteric author. Only now is it possible to appreciate the full importance of the spiritual deeds of St. Maxim. Their implementation requires the highest Christian spiritual freedom. Undoubtedly, St. Maximus read a lot, but he founded his spiritual abode on a few carefully selected pillars, which allowed him to restore the true appearance of a living tradition, avoiding all the bugbears of falsely established reputations. Dionysius could not be missed: St. Maximus became the person who finally secured his citizenship in generally accepted church theology. Thanks to this alone, he turns out to be one of the founders of the Middle Ages, at least the Latin one. But Dionysius is not enough, he is too narrow to accommodate the church tradition: Origen is needed here again. There are two or three ways to do this. The first is Cappadocian: St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the personification of Orthodoxy, but at the same time deeply conditioned by Origen, was a strong bridge; Moreover, using his example, one can explain what meaning the appeal to Origen could have had in the seventh century. The Confessor's opus magnus is called "On various difficult passages in St. Dionysius and Gregory" 20: systematically interpreting primarily the Origenist-sounding passages of St. Gregory, he was able - the first and only - to construct a constructive criticism of Origen himself. This criticism was sharp, penetrating to the “marrow of the bones,” but did not deviate from the essence of the matter; she was fair and thereby received the right to the inheritance of the one whom she judged and considered with such depth. And the heritage was abundant: the harvest was gathered from everywhere, and the richest was the “Chapters on the Theology and Economy of the Incarnation of the Son of God,” which we will henceforth call “Gnostic Centurions.” Here St. Maximus decides to take the second path and “implant” the texts of Origen into his own works - texts that are not collected only on the edge of Alexandrian theology, but, without a doubt, embody its focus and which, nevertheless, thanks to their grouping or the illumination of accompanying statements, whether through their very selection or free formulation, necessarily reveal that their compiler inevitably has a theology of more than just acceptable but spiritual. Thus, in the spiritual history of the first centuries there is a unique example of how, not out of liberal snobbery, but out of ecclesiastical responsibility, discarding clearly politically colored condemnation, a truly spiritual opposition is retroactively carried out, which is then entrusted with the function of conducting into modernity that which is spiritually belated because it suffered a political defeat, the gatherer of the critical harvest. The proposed third path was also available. Origen influenced monasticism in the image in which his disciple Evagrius of Pontus clothed him 21. This radicalized form of Origenism (the strongest penetrating force of which is already known - Palladius, Cassian! 22) by the time of the Confessor, obviously, had by no means become a thing of the past. Evagrius, who created the only coherent, deeply structured system of views on monasticism, was and remains a great force that had to be encountered by anyone who did not pass on without examining the obscurities of the Christian tradition, but wanted to dismantle it through a process of critical analysis in order to make his spiritual property that which needed to be illuminated in the light of the Gospel. The Monk Maximus fought with Evagrius in the “Chapters on Love” and, moreover, in many other places, just as harshly and irreconcilably as with Origen in Ambigua and in the “Gnostic Centurions.” At a superficial glance and within the framework of philology alone, one can identify countless parallels of a terminological and even ideological kind. Father Ville was so shocked by this that he branded the Monk Maxim as just a plagiarist of the ancient mystics 23 . However, as it turned out, it was completely in vain. Anyone who looked at the thing itself more deeply and through the prism of terminology was surprised at the differences and conscious, albeit not loudly declaring themselves, but appropriate corrections even (which is already generally recognized) in such a creation, woven from fragments and reminiscences, as the “Chapters on Love”. Dionysius and St. Gregory of Nazianzus could be involved openly, but Origen and Evagrius only anonymously. Names were not important to the Monk Maximus, as long as these great sources were filled up again, as long as they, after the strongest impartial critical purge, became available again in the free kingdom of the spirit on the other side of all sorts of “internal politics” and any pricks of conscience. But the main branch of the church tradition, the Antiochian one, was still missing. It could not be returned either by reference to names or by anonymous quotation: both would quickly betray themselves by the rigidity of terminology; in Christology in this aspect it was impossible to go back further than Chalcedon. The Confessor was destined to receive the missing member: the dogmatic-historical task that fell to his lot boiled down for the most part to defending the whole humanity of Christ, and even His human “personality” (not the Face), which was, in essence, the work of the Antiochian theologians - his own active action and will, and not the passive confusion of His human nature with the personal divine Logos, as the Monothelites believed: this it was necessary not only to defend it in the scriptures, but also to make it convincing in a general worldview. For St. Maximus, the cause of Antioch, even if anonymously, truly triumphed. On the basis of an internally justified philosophy of created being, three Alexandrian Platonic theologies (Origen, Evagrius, Dionysius) meet and achieve interpenetration. Saint Gregory, in his worldview (often aesthetically eclectic) of all, the least spiritually defined, gave the most to the church environment. However, in the background, the ghostly and yet intimately felt forerunner of Alexandrian theology, Philo, suddenly appears, represented by recognizable literal quotations - as if only to simultaneously fasten the golden chain of tradition and give sound to the geometry of the spirit, visible only to the understanding eye. Nowhere does St. Maximus have any librarian preference, as did St. Photius later; on the contrary, the principle of strict selection is everywhere; everything is of the appropriate height. In this he is a “sower and preserver” of times of decline, like Boethius a century before, and also a kind of martyr of the spirit. b) Between the emperor and the pope The actions of the free spirit do not occur naturally, but are carried out in the space of historical decisions; being internally responsible before God, they must sooner or later accept responsibility before those external opposing forces that they have overcome in the spiritual sphere. St. Maximus snatched the Greek Christian tradition from the snares of political integralism that distorted it. We must not lose sight of the fact that the political authority in its sphere accused him of causing harm to it. Ultimately, he and his father were led to external defeat by the political process; and it was he who finally captured the indomitability of the spirit by earthly power. It is obvious that the great Christological decision directed against monoenergism was realized as such in the political sphere; it was connected with the policy of unification and subordinated the entire imperial history to it. But the most remarkable thing is that the decisive spiritual confrontation - the dispute with the deposed and exiled Patriarch Pyrrhus took place in 645. in Carthage - in that very Africa, which not only had long been a stronghold of the anti-Byzantine opposition, but became so to a greater extent than ever before because of Exarch Gregory, who himself aspired to the rank of emperor. This debate took place under the chairmanship of Gregory. In addition, Pope Theodore I (642–646), the first who dared to raise his head after centuries of humiliation at the hands of imperial Byzantium, not only received the deposed Pyrrhus with honors, but also “ordered a pulpit to be erected for him next to the altar and honored him as the bishop of the imperial city,” apparently decided to do this only for the sake of his opposition to Byzantium, since he had already sided with the African usurper against Emperor Constans II 24. Gregory was not emperor for long; he fell already in 647 in a battle with the invading Arabs. It remains only to note that although the Monk Maximus was supposed to remain in the diocese of the exarch, not a single document allows us to even assume any kind of political rapprochement between them. Therefore, Gregory’s chairmanship of the dispute could not be forced. Later, during the interrogation that the Reverend underwent in Byzantium after he was arrested in Rome, one of the witnesses testified that nine years earlier a certain Abbot Thomas had arrived from Rome and told him that “Pope Theodore sent him to the [rebellious] patrician Gregory to tell him not to be afraid of anyone, for the servant of God, Abba Maximus 25, saw such a dream: in the heavens in the east and in the west there were many angels, and the Western ones cried out: “Gregory Augustus, you are winning!” If there is any truth at all in this story (and it should be hidden in such depths of the sleeper’s soul that politicians are not even aware of), then it could burden the conscience of the pope, and not of the Monk Maxim, who, while denying the very fact of such a dream, nevertheless argued on this matter: even if the dream was based on truth, then it is not subject to free human choice, and even if he told this dream to the pope himself, then the conclusions that he would have to draw could give rise to blame for himself, and not for the alleged dreamer. When Theodore's successor Martin I, with the support of Maximus, condemned monothelitism at the Council in Rome in 649 (the so-called Lateran - Trans.) and for this he was captured and transported to Constantinople, the performance was repeated again. Emperor Constantius II sent Exarch Olympius to Italy to subdue the Roman militia if possible, then capture the pope and order the “Typos” to be proclaimed in all churches. Although Olympius subjugated the Roman militia, but only in order to become a usurper, resist the emperor for three years, and then die in 652 in a battle with the Arabs (Saracens) from Sicily. One way or another, the Lateran Council was able to meet under his auspices, and the pope, to whom a political process was soon imposed, of course could not completely deny cooperation with Olympius: “Was I (strength) enough to resist such a man for whom the swords of the entire Italian militia fought? Did I make him an exarch? The vague legends that swirled around their relationship can find a meaningful interpretation if we accept that Olympius “drew the Roman militia with him into a successful rebellion and dragged the pope into it.” To what extent Martin I, as he himself later showed, really, being defenseless against physical force, was merely “drawn in,” will never be clarified with complete certainty 27. How else would dad have behaved? Reverend Maxim, on the contrary, who meanwhile was also arrested and interrogated, did not allow the political process to be imposed on him. The imperial sacellarius (state treasurer; the fact that he conducted the trial shows that the trial was originally intended to be political and not dogmatic) accused him of having, out of hatred of the emperor, surrendered Egypt, Alexandria, Pentapolis and Africa to the Saracens, since, according to testimony, twenty-two years ago, he, while the emperor Heraclius ordered the prefect of Numidia Peter to oust the Saracens, advised him not to do this, because God does not favor a Monothelite-minded ruler 28. More serious than this impudent accusation, rejected by Maximus as purely slanderous, was the following discovery for him: it turns out that Eugene I, the successor of the martyr pope, was inclined to conclude an agreement through his apocrisiaries 29 with Pyrrhus (who meanwhile again became the Byzantine patriarch and had long since renounced his weakness for Rome) about all the dogmatic acts of the Lateran Council. At the same time, it was believed that it was now possible to speak of both two natural wills in Christ, and of one single hypostatic will, depending on whether He is considered in both of His natures or in His single Person. Maxim was even threatened that the pope himself would excommunicate him from the Church if he did not join the new church-political course 30. It seemed that church peace had been achieved, but at the expense of the imprisonment of the Confessor, who became the price paid by the Roman Curia for this peace. In this darkest spiritual night, the Monk Maxim remained awake; he rejected - despite almost complete historical evidence - the possibility of such a compromise 31; Meanwhile, the duped Roman apocrisiaries returned to Rome, where, however, the people and clergy 32 supported the pope, so that from that moment he opposed the union. The agreement proposed in Byzantium - Bishop Theodosius agrees to both wills and energies, Maximus declares that he is ready to restore communication with him and with the throne of Constantinople - the Monk Maxim rejected it on the grounds that this step was not appropriate for him as a monk; rather, the rules of the church require that the emperor, together with the patriarch and his synod, turn to Rome, and then he will gladly go to Rome as a companion of the patriarch; but it soon became clear that the whole enterprise was nothing more than a political fiction. During these months - since without him the united will of Rome and Byzantium would most likely have inclined towards a dogmatic compromise that would have led to the collapse of all that had already been achieved - the fate of Christology depended on the firmness and inflexibility of one man. The fact that the triumph of politics “at the last moment was nevertheless thwarted, and that again it was not opportunism that won, but a strict confession of faith, for which “two wills” were not a simple formula, was the merit exclusively of the Monk Maximus, who in church history rightfully bears the honorary title of “Confessor” as the last great theologian and martyr of the era of Christological disputes” 33 . The efforts made by Byzantium to convince this loner, the more than flattering promises of the emperor himself, show how much importance was attached to this single fortress of faith. However, the Monk Maximus - in a manner almost incomprehensible to the hearts of the Greeks - became the first of the Eastern Fathers, whose consistency of spiritual path led to the rejection of the Caesar-papist unity of sacred and temporal power in Byzantium and to the acquisition of a spiritual fatherland in Rome. Already during his stay in Rome, a certain Gregory, who had hitherto supported the imperial "Typos", visited him in his cell and brought the conversation to the question of whether the emperor was also a priest. “I answered: no,” answered the Monk Maxim, “for it is not fitting for the altar and after the consecration of the bread does not offer it with the words: “Holy to Holies.” He does not baptize, does not perform the sacrament of confirmation, does not ordain or ordain bishops, presbyters and deacons, does not consecrate churches, does not wear the signs of the priesthood - the omophorion and the Gospel, since the crown and purple are the signs of the kingdom. And you said: “How does the Scripture call Melchizedek a king and a priest?” I answered: the one by nature King, the God of all, who became the high priest for our salvation, one was a type (τύπος) - Melchizedek, but if, according to the order of Melchizedek, you call another king and priest (cf. Heb 7:11), then dare to say something else, namely: “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life” ( Hebrews 7:3). And look what evil arises from this, because the king will turn out to be another God incarnate, performing our salvation according to the order of Melchizedek, and not according to the order of Aaron” 34. This interpretation of the sacred-royal dignity of Melchizedek, which finds its full completion in the appearance of Christ, after which there are either secular sovereigns or the hierarchy, obviously goes back to Pope Gelasius I (492-496), but for a long time after him even popes addressed emperors with double titles 35. In accordance with this, the Monk Maximus everywhere dissected the seemingly indissoluble unity of political and church interests, as if both sides had authorized him to do so. To the argument that the Lateran Council had no legal force, since the pope who convened it had been deposed, he replied: “He was not deposed, but was subjected to persecution [and expulsion]. Was there such a conciliar and canonical definition in the Acts, which undoubtedly contained his deposition? However, even if canonically deposed, this cannot serve as a condemnation of what is defined Orthodoxy, according to the divine canons, with which what was written by St. Pope Theodore is consistent.” A year later, an argument was made that the Roman Council was incompetent because it met without an imperial decree. Objecting to this, the Monk Maximus names a whole series of Arian and other heretical councils, convened by order of the emperor, but which, nevertheless, did not have any significance for the Church. Others, such as the Antiochian, who deposed Paul of Samosata, were accepted (by the Church), although they met without an imperial decree 36. The confessor consistently denied that, by rejecting the imperial "Typos", he opposed himself to the person of the emperor - after all, he rejected a document drawn up by the patriarch, and not emanating from the emperor himself 37. And then he was reproached for arrogance as the only one who opposes everyone’s opinion: “The three youths did not blame anyone, who did not worship the image when everyone bowed. So Daniel, thrown into the den of lions, did not condemn any of those who did not worship God and chose to die rather than fall away from God” 38 . Behind all this stands one single great decision: for Rome, the stronghold of the free evangelical faith, against Byzantium, the bastion of political-religious integration. So, one day the Sacellarius asks him directly: “Why do you love the Romans and hate the Greeks?” The servant of God replied: “We have a commandment not to hate anyone: I love the Romans as fellow believers, and the Greeks as fellow tribesmen” 39 . For him, Rome is the stronghold of Orthodoxy: on Peter, as he told his judges, Christ founded the Catholic faith and the Church; he himself would like to belong to the doctrine on which the unity of all Churches is based 40. With its oriental spirit, Hellas supports the papacy, weakened by unrest, including spiritually. Gregory the Great, although an apocrisiary in Byzantium, did not speak Greek. Honorius I ignored the treacherous Byzantines with their subtle and unobvious distinctions, and his successors had to “cover” him in difficult “rearguard battles”; the pope from the East, the Jerusalemite Theodore I, atoned for this sin and carried out a turn towards new independence. Maximus, modestly kept in the shadows, was the soul of the Lateran Council; at least two canons (10 and 11) belong to him; the Greek monks who owned five monasteries in Rome were his diligent intermediaries and translators 41 . And if this Greek victory in Rome for the time being found little response and was almost completely ignored in Byzantium, 42 then the martyrdom of the pope and St. Maximus, together with his disciples, gave it authority for a long time, without which the final victory at the Third Byzantine Council (VI Ecumenical - Trans.) could never have been achieved almost without difficulty. Of course, in the meantime, the political Leviathan had completely weakened, the Arab invasion removed the policy of union with the Monophysites from the agenda, but what do all these extraneous noises mean in comparison with the fact that the Christology of the Confessor, organically growing out of the Christology of Chalcedon, was here proclaimed to be at least identical to the faith of the Catholic Church (Dz. 289-292)? Both previous sections speak about the most important thing in the life and works of the Confessor: the new discovery of the unchanged, integral tradition of the Christian East; but he had an increasingly determined tendency: to bring these newfound riches to Rome, to turn them to the benefit of Rome. Moreover, his Rome, as it turned out in the end, is not a transitory stronghold of political freedom, but a stronghold of Orthodoxy resting on the internal evangelical foundations, and specifically: the guardian of the harmonious Chalcedonian faith from any excessive growth of Cyril’s neo-Chalcedonianism. The East-West force field is internal to the thinking of the Confessor. He is rightly called a man who excites East and West 43; and his so-called Roman idea was also associated with the confrontation between East and West, and victory went to the West. However, the decisive question for everything that follows is the question of what the words East and West mean here, and in what plane these concepts are considered. We are in no way talking about a superficially understood geographical or political space, the struggle between the Eastern and Western Roman Empire, and, moreover, as revealed above, not about two theological styles - Greek and Roman-African patristics; The decisive milestones are not here. Chalcedon, despite Tomus Leonis 44, was by no means a “Roman” affair, but no less a Greek one, and St. Maximus, since he thinks in an anti-Monothelitan manner, thinks at least as much in the Greek manner as in the Roman one. The contradiction lies deeper. That glorious, but dangerous spiritual tradition, which, despite all attempts to denigrate it, the Monk Maxim brought to light, to which he tried to impart new brilliance and new strength - this, one might say, is what remained alive in Christian thinking from the Asian tradition, this is what represented the basis of human religiosity, which to some extent and inaccurately can be contrasted with biblical verbal revelation as a “natural” revelation. We should briefly characterize this religiosity. As a spontaneous religious attempt of a person directed towards God, this is, first of all, the path of renunciation of the world - for this transient, spatio-temporal, doomed existence is undoubtedly not God - the path of renunciation of form with the goal of finding the infinitely absolute in a formless state. The world in comparison with God is unreality, a state of falling away from eternal unity. Within the framework of this scheme, the Incarnation of God can only be called a concession, the condescension of God into the plural, material, in order to bring the plurality back into the unified 45. This, strictly speaking, is not, in the end, a synthesis of the One and the Multiple, but a gesture of the One towards the Multiple, aimed at returning it to the One as to its fatherland. The religious desire to return “home” to God drowns out all objections and fears arising from created ontology; they will be spoken of in due time; they occupy not the least important place. In contrast to this are three opposing forces: the Bible, Greece and Rome. The Bible of the Old and New Testaments, with its irremovable opposition between God and creation, behind which there is not emanation and falling away, but only the good and free will of God the Creator and which is ultimately justified by the intra-divine distinctions of the Persons who make up the Unity - hence the irreducible unity of God and the world in Christ becomes not an encroachment on the created order, but a completion that strengthens its significance, in which also satisfies the Asian desire for deification. Greece, which inclines its thoughts towards this mystery, with its Aristotelian-Stoic serious perception of a separate φύσις (Greek “nature” - Trans.) in its frozen semantic correlation; and it is here that the manifestation of the Divine Logos immanent in the world occurs. Finally, Rome as the genius of order, everywhere clearing up all sorts of confusion through division and thus achieving the goal. And here is the unheard-of Chalcedonian interaction of these three opposing forces: God and man are inseparable, but unmerged, άδιαιρέτως και άσυγχύτως (Greek “indivisible and unmerged.” - Trans.); Biblical Christology embodied in the forms of Greek thought under the inspiration of the Pope. But what will happen to the East then? Maxim asks himself this question, realizing that it is impossible to do without the religious pathos of Asia. How much of this impulse, this form of human thought, can be assimilated into Christianity without it being endangered? And how firmly and highly should the idea of ​​Christological synthesis be raised, to what extent should it be placed at the center of the theodicy of creation in order to make the God-world dyad acceptable to Asian thinking? All of these are endlessly difficult and complex issues, the final resolution of which we are further away from today than ever before. Christianity struggles with this when it comes into contact with the higher religions of Asia. St. Maximus poses these questions with greater clarity than many modern Christians who sleep and in their dreams see a vague synthesis of European and Asian piety. For the Confessor clearly realized that we are talking here not about a simple, but about a tripartite phenomenon and that, despite this, its three aspects cannot be separated. Firstly, we are talking about the opposition between Eastern and Western Greek thinking; in the East there is no figure comparable to Aristotle - he marks the irreversible step of humanity, the step from myth to Logos, and the question can only be what from myth in a clarified form can enter the Logos. Secondly, it is about the contradiction between the impersonal Eastern religious thinking and the personal biblical thinking based on Revelation; this time it is the contradiction between natural religion and the religion of word and grace (although traces of the latter can be found in the East); This step is also irreversible, and from a biblical point of view there can be no talk of simple equilibrium. Finally, we are talking about the East-West contradiction in the Church of Christ; here again a simple balance is unacceptable (in the spirit of the church policy of Justinian, for whom Rome was just the “patriarchy of the West”), because it is contradicted by the promise given to Peter, destined for the primacy of the Roman Church 46 . St. Maximus subordinates all the diversity of Asia to the triple primacy of the philosophical Logos, the biblical Christ and the Roman center. From the content side, three subordinate complexes should be distinguished here. First, there is Origen, if only as an attempt to capture the biblical fullness on an Asian golden background, which is so much just a background (albeit golden) that, due to the Christian colors of the picture, it becomes almost invisible and shines through more strongly only in the subsequent Origenism, which removes the biblical layer. Subordinationism, emanating from metaphysical tendencies: the Supreme Deity is one. The creation of the material world, represented as the falling away of the original unity of spirits from God. Logic requires that restoration (άποκατάστασις) be the destruction of materiality, but Origen does not draw this conclusion, being a Christian. Secondly, it is Evagrius, who adds to this Asian background the consistent asceticism and mysticism absent in Origen: by excluding sensory representations and conceptual ideas, by cutting off any “form” in the spirit, he wants to achieve the formless inner spiritual light in which the Divine light appears. Thirdly, this is Alexandrian Christology, first based on the scheme Λόγος - σάρξ (Incarnate Logos, lit. "Word-flesh" - Trans.), (Apollinaris, Saints Athanasius and Cyril), soon corrected - σάρξ έμψυχος (Greek. “animated flesh” - Trans.), but always insisting on μία φύσις (Greek: “one nature” - Trans.), until the line of conflict, passing through Dioscorus, Timothy Aelur, Peter Mong, freezes motionless on Sevirus and after that can no longer be shaken by any political cunning, no dogmatic compromises. What is this veil that still divides the Eastern Church? You can say as much as you like that the Monophysites were essentially Orthodox, and just as persistently repeat about Monophysitism, which consists only in words, you can scrupulously prove that they, with their μία φύσις (or ύπόστασις) σύνθετος (Greek: “one composite nature” (or hypostasis)” - Trans.) essentially say exactly the same thing as the Fathers of Chalcedon, 47 - this only complicates the riddle even more. Was it just stubbornness? For Sevier, wasn’t it about his business, about a property that cannot be abandoned? Undoubtedly, and this was - behind all the Alexandrian tradition and above all Orthodox aspirations associated with the ontological unity of Christ - the Asian paired category (whether it was recognized or denied, consciously or unconsciously) of cause and appearance, of God and Epiphany, thinking in the pure categories of Revelation while neglecting created reality. For where they start from the premise of the integrity of the human nature of Christ and, at the same time, from the original opposition of God and creation, it seems to the Alexandrian Christologists, ultimately represented by the Sevirian type, that unity can no longer be achieved, no matter whether they try to find it in nature or in the Person. Monothelitism was only the final completion of this thinking: the unity of the Divine active personal center - Christ prohibits here any other quality of the human nature of Christ except passive-submissive instrumentality; and for the sake of the supernatural ένωσις “unity” and for the sake of Theophany, there is a rejection of created reality. St. Maximus, completing the last stage of the Christological struggle with Sevier, on the one hand, and with Cyrus, Sergius and Pyrrhus, on the other, unambiguously chose the West. But he did this in such a way that the entire Asian pathos of deification could enter into Chalcedonian Christology, the pathos of the personal synthesis of the God-man at the highest level of the biblical mystery instead of natural dissolution and fusion at the lower level. Thus, in principle, the fate of Evagrius and Origen is decided. Origen has, as has been said, to put up with the complete loss of his charm, in which he must neglect the myth hidden in his teaching until only the biblical remnant remains of it: the formal rhythm of the procession and return of the world from God and into God and the doctrine of restoration, which speaks of nothing more than the concrete states of nature created, exalted, fallen, restored, deified (lat. natura creata, elevata, lapsa, reparata, deificata). Evagrius would suffer the least of the three, for his spirituality, it seemed, could be given, instead of a near-Christian one, a truly Christian form in the easiest and quietest way: it was only necessary to color his dispassion (απάθεια) of the Gnostic type with the concept of love (αγάπη) of the Sermon on the Mount and deprive the pantheistic flavor of his “knowledge of the Trinity”, connecting it with the Cappadocian-Areopagic idea of God; nothing more was needed. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of Dionysius, as well as Aristotle, for this rethinking. If in Aristotle we can use the idea of the first essence (πρώτη ουσία), which cannot be further decomposed into any elements of the substance of things with its internal semantic and force field of force (δύναμις) and energy (ενέργεια), then in Dionysius we have the idea of the irremovable originality of the finite world in general and particular terms. relation to the infinite Divinity. Nothing is more characteristic of Western thought, nothing more obviously goes back, through Proclus and Plotinus, to typically Greek, anti-Asian sources. Dionysius, along with Chalcedon and St. Augustine, remains the foundation of Western spirituality, which cannot exist unless some space is allowed for freedom. “Salvation”, “preservation”, “strengthening” of the finite by God Himself - these are the main concepts of the Areopagite. On the contrary, it does not matter much whether the external space where he thought and wrote was Monophysit (which is possible), whether in one or two of his formulas (which can also be interpreted as Orthodox) a distant echo of Monophysitism is felt - as a thinker Dionysius is certainly and entirely a Chalcedonian. It is not by chance that he uses the terms unmerged (άσύγχυτος 14 times) and inseparable (αδιαίρετος), but puts a conscious emphasis on them 48, the same is true with the terms unmixed (άσυμμιξία), unmixed ( άσύμφυρτος), difference (διαφορά), peculiarity (ίδιότης – 27 times), save (σώζειν – 10 times), not counting words denoting order and rank. One can, of course, point out that the terminology of Chalcedon also penetrated the Monophysites and created a school where they were not afraid to accept the term άσυγχύτως (unmerged) 49. But here either they themselves were unaware of the borrowing (just as many Lutheran liturgies remain close to the Roman Mass), or it was an external borrowing of words without a genuine understanding of their content. The situation is completely different for Dionysius, a crystal clear and pure thinker 50 who includes Chalcedonian-Aristotelian elements in his existential structure. At the same time, Dionysius was the connecting link. But Aristotle also played a certain, and growing, role here, in a typical and fruitless manner multiplied by Stoic Neoplatonism, in accordance with the era. However, these elements have not yet been combined into a single philosophical edifice; separately from each other, and precisely for this reason deeply misunderstood, they were used in school life and for Christological polemics, not endowed with the slightest spiritual power. The dualism of scholasticism and mysticism, school theology and monastic spirituality reached full development by the 6th century. Scholasticism, following politics, invents ever new distinctions, which, however, are devoid of genuine existential experience; mysticism retreated from the dogmatic-political arena into timelessness. This is reminiscent of the situation at the end of the Middle Ages with its dangerous preconditions for a sharp collapse of church unity. Reverend Maximus should have had the task of unification in mind from the very beginning. The first opportunity to connect both principles was offered by the Areopagite with his clarity of abstract thinking and enthusiastic impulses. Here the framework of a certain picture of the world was firmly and finally established, which did not need any further changes. But Dionysius addressed the Christological problem only forcedly and, when this did happen (for example, in letters), then only from the highest heights. He did not descend into the confusion of theological battles. Therefore, the task was to carry the spirit of the Areopagite into school distinctions, in other words, to strike a spark of mystical spirituality directly from the stones of dry scholasticism. This was only possible when trying to comprehend the depth of Aristotle in order to, with the help of his vision of reality, penetrate the mystery of the God-man. Apparently, Maxim went through a good philosophical school, but we do not know any details about this 51. She must have given him the opportunity from the very beginning to take a critical approach to reading characteristic of the 6th century. works of scholastic Christology. Let's name the most important: before 520, John the Grammar (who was attacked by Severus) and John of Scythopolis began to create in the neo-Chalcedonian spirit; the period around 540 saw the heyday of the work of Leontius of Byzantium, until 552 - Leontius of Jerusalem. In the middle of the century, Προπαρασκευή of Theodore of Raifa was published (ed. Diekamp, ​​1938), after 580 - that mature work, which is known as “De sectis”, finally, around 600 - the so-called. “Panoplia” (“All Arms”) Pamphilus (Jerusalem - Trans.) (ed. Mai, 1844); and finally, around 650 - “The Teaching of the Fathers” (ed. Diekamp, ​​1907), probably compiled by the Monk Anastasius Sinaite, which already includes Maximus. This series also includes small dogmatic and polemical works by the Confessor; however, they enter into a completely different dimension, for, constantly serving spirituality, they make distinctions only to make the mystery as a whole shine brighter. And if at some point it is not clear what this distinction reveals in the spiritual-mystical plane and what it gives for spirituality, then soon this becomes clear. This would be impossible if philosophical insight were not backed by reflection on the Holy Scriptures. Sometimes they regret that St. Maximus does not have it, but it, remaining in the background, is a prerequisite for everything, and in a completely different way than in the one-sided school dogma and in the one-sided spirituality of the 6th century. The first of the main works of the Confessor is answers to questions from his friend Thalassius (the so-called “Questions to Thalassius.” - Trans.) concerning certain passages of Holy Scripture. The Monk Maxim draws his answers to questions both from exegetical and spiritual traditions, and from personal reflections. It is not surprising that he is not an exegete in the spirit of the old Antiochians; it is enough that he is familiar with the spiritual insights of the Alexandrians and Cappadocians. In addition, he had other exegetical works: interpretations of the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes; both of them seem to be already in the 7th century. together with the interpretations of St. Gregory of Nyssa and the Monk Nilus, they were reworked into the “Catenas of the Three Fathers,” which were later supplied with additional interpretations, first by Psellus, and then by other authors 52 . For a fragment from the interpretation of the Apocalypse, see: Cat. codicum astrologum 7, 100 f 3; cp. Franz Messerschmidt. Himmelsbuch und Stemenschrift (Heavenly book and star writings. - Trans.) // Römische Quartalschrift. 1931. – Pp. 68–69. That St. Maximus was able not only to soar in the heights of allegory, but also, like Origen, to descend into the lowlands of historical realities is shown by his Computus ecclesiasticus (PG 19, 1217–1280), from which the Chronologia succincta vitae Christi (published by Braike in 1892) is taken. His other exegetical works are a commentary on the Lord's Prayer, on Ps 59, an answer to further questions, mainly concerning the passages of Scripture (PG 90, 785-856), a short epistle to Theopemptus (906 1393-1400). The attitude towards the word of Scripture is perfectly revealed in one of the fragments of the interrogation protocol. Bishop Theodosius reproached him regarding the doctrine of two wills, that it would be better to adhere to the simple letter of Scripture (άπλάς φωνάς δέξασθαι), without further reasoning. The Monk Maxim said to this: “Obviously, you are introducing new and alien regulations to the Church regarding [authoritative] sayings. If, in your opinion, it is not right to examine the sayings of the Scriptures and the Fathers, then we reject all Scripture, both the Old and the New [Testaments]. So I heard the words of David: “Blessed are those who search His testimonies; they will seek Him with all their hearts” (Ps 119:2) 53; so that no one can seek God without investigation. And again: “Give me understanding, and I will search for Your law and keep it with all my heart” (Ps 119:34). Thus, research leads to knowledge of the law, and knowledge motivates those worthy to desire to preserve it in the heart through the fulfillment of the holy commandments contained in it. And again: “Wonderful are Your testimonies, therefore my soul has searched them” (Ps 119:129). Why does the Book of Proverbs want us to examine parables, riddles, and dark sayings (see Proverbs 1:6)? Why does the Lord, speaking in parables, want his disciples to understand [them] if he explains the meaning in parables (see Matthew 13:18; Luke 8:11)? Why does he command: “Search the Scriptures, as they testify of Me” (John 5:39)? Why does the head of the apostles Peter want to teach, speaking about salvation, which the prophets searched and sought (1 Pet 1:10)? Why does the divine Apostle Paul say: “But even if our gospel is hid, it is hid to those who are perishing, whose eyes the god of this age has blinded to their understanding, lest the light of the knowledge of Christ should shine upon them” (cf. 2 Cor 4:3-4)? It seems that you want to liken us to the Jews, who by simple words, as you say, that is, by the letter alone, having filled their minds with rubbish, have fallen away from the truth, having a veil over their hearts, so that they do not understand the Lord the Spirit, who is covered by the letter, as [the apostle] says: “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6). Let my lord make sure that I will not allow a saying to be accepted without the meaning it contains, lest I become clearly a Jew.”54 This is more than enough. We have every reason to consider the theological act of reflection on Scripture, which for St. Maximus is again identified with a spiritual-mystical act, as the axis and focus of his entire thinking as a whole. Rightly said H. -G. Beck: dogmatics and ascension in spirit to God for St. Maximus “are not opposite. What is correct dogmatically and ascetically-mystically is nothing more than the fruit of an in-depth understanding of the Bible" 55 . If we had preserved his commentaries on the Song of Songs and on Ecclesiastes - the very books that the Saint of Nyssa also chose for interpretation - then they would undoubtedly confirm to what extent the final meeting of God and creation in Christ, this all-conditioning meeting place of theology and oikonomia, was for him a problem not of gnosis, but of Christian love; wonderful evidence of this is mystagogy at its highest point. In a truly Origenian tradition (and within it, based on Dionysius), he speaks of a “sacred bed of love” hidden in the depths of God, where “the terrible sacrament of unity in Spirit and Word is celebrated, in which God becomes One flesh and spirit with the Church-soul, and she with Him. Christ, I marvel at Your kindness..." 56. In the same sense, the meeting of lips during a liturgical kiss is interpreted - as a “merging” in love of the Logos - the Lips of God - and souls that respond to His Word 57. All the philosophical constructs mentioned above serve this purely biblical supreme synthesis; in fact, they are called upon to warn against the fact that the creature in this meeting of love with God, in any open or hidden way, should not be overcome, should not fade, and should not turn into a simple scheme of “appearance.” Protecting her right to existence - both in the human nature of Christ and in ordinary people - the Monk Maxim offers her the right to grace as reinforcement. Hence the decisive rejection of the Monophysite and Monothelite temptation, hence the criticism of the underlying basis of Origenism, hence the strengthening and surpassing of the idea of ​​the reality of creation defended by Dionysius. Only in this way could a sufficiently strong foundation for a general synthesis be laid, only in this way could it be possible to reliably carry out and justify various innovations of Eastern worship. At the same time, all these incidental moments should be “processed” and raised to a higher level of a free, grace-filled biblical encounter with God. And this is the case - at least in the 7th century. – was no longer possible without powerful philosophical mediation and without theology operating with correct concepts. Then it was no longer possible to build syntheses of East and West on the basis of the simple means of “spirituality” and “mysticism” - and how much less possible is this now! Therefore, those attempts in which India and Europe wanted to meet halfway should also be assessed as insufficient - in Byzantine hesychasm, in the practice of the Jesus Prayer and certain body positions, in breathing exercises (in this, Eastern Christianity, after the great synthesis, returned to the East again), not to mention all those who seek to root Indian and Far Eastern practices in the Christian Church, ignoring the need for any philosophical-theological distinction. Let the experience of St. Maximus warn against such naivety, which never leads to the attraction of outsiders, but rather to the loss of “one’s own”: it is possible to achieve the final highest reconciliation only on the paths of a clear, discriminating and decisive spirit. The power of thinking can transform the world. Continuing the publication of fragments of the book “Ecumenical Liturgy,” we first of all want to address the reader to the article by A. I. Sidorov “St. Maximus the Confessor and his era in the image of X. Urs von Balthasar,” which preceded the first publication of this work in No. 3 (14) of our magazine for 1997. This article provides us with an assessment, or more precisely, the distance necessary for the Orthodox reader of the study of X. Urs von Balthasar, who, for all his thoroughness, is, of course, not completely free from traditional (usually very approximate) assessments typical of Western theologians when they turn to the heritage of the Eastern Church. Thus, in the fragments published already in this issue, attention is drawn to the vagueness in the definition of a certain “Eastern religiosity,” which undoubtedly influenced the formation of heretical movements, but can hardly be attributed to Orthodoxy. Be that as it may, the enormous work of X. Ursa von Balthasar, highly praised by Orthodox theologians (The Golden Cross of the Holy Mount Athos), is worthy of being familiarized to the Orthodox reader, because the very fact that a Western theologian turns to the tradition of Orthodoxy with such attention and studies it so painstakingly deserves respect. John Scotus (that is, a Scot) Eriugena (9th century) generalized in a philosophical system the development of Christian thought of the East and West. – Per. Constellation (from Latin constellatio, lit. “mutual position of celestial bodies, constellations, combination of stars”) is a set of circumstances. – Per. This refers to the Second Council of Ephesus in 449, nicknamed “robber” (σύνοδος ληστρική, latrocinium Ephesinum). Here the Monophysite party, led by Dioscorus and Eutychus, won a temporary victory over the few Orthodox Christians (which included Roman legates). This cathedral gained scandalous fame due to the overt interference of secular authorities: thus, the church where the cathedral was held was cordoned off by soldiers, who burst in at the very first meeting and terrorized the fathers. The Syrian monks, brought by Barsuma (Bar-Saumo), also “distinguished themselves” here, who covered every Diphysite expression (when reading the Acts of Constantinople) with cries: “Cut in two those who divide the nature of Christ in two.” – Per. Here and further, religious-political integration should be understood as caesarepapism, so beloved by Catholic church historians and theologians - the combination of the head of state and the Church in one person. – Per. Vigilius, Pope of the 6th century. (died 555) is a typical example of the struggle that broke out at that time between the Byzantine emperor and the Western church hierarchy. Vigilius, who promised the Empress Theodora (to whom he owed his accession to the Roman throne in 538) to destroy the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon, never did this due to the resistance shown to him by the Western clergy. At the V Ecumenical Council of 553, he refused to preside and did not agree with its decisions, for which, by order of the emperor, he was rejected from the Church and expelled. Having changed his mood in exile, with the permission of the emperor he was already returning to Rome, but on the way he was overtaken by death. – Per. Richard M. Le néochalcédonisme // Mélanges de Science Religieuse. 1946. No. 3. – Pp. 156–161; See also the work of Ch. Moeller in Grillmeier A., ​​Bacht H. Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart. Bd. I. Würzburg, 1951. – SS. 637–720 (hereinafter: Chalk, indicating volume and page). On the “Three Chapters” see, for example, A. Dvorkin. From the history of the Ecumenical Councils. The era of Emperor Justinian and the V Ecumenical Council // Alpha and Omega 1997. No. 1 (12). – Per. Richard M. L’introduction du mot “Hypostase” dans la théologie de l’incamation // Mélanges de Science Religieuse. 1945. No. 2. – Pp. 21–29. Constitutum (lit. "decree, determination") - a document dated May 14, 553, signed by Pope Vigilius, sixteen Western bishops and three Roman clerics. Here the pope wants to show that he is innocent in the absence of Western bishops at the V Ecumenical Council, explains why he is not present at the Council, considers the issue of the “Three Chapters”: Willow of Edessa cannot be condemned, for his letter testifies to his Orthodoxy, Theodoret of Cyrus, in turn, as acquitted in Chalcedon, is especially not subject to condemnation and, finally, without defending Theodore of Mopsuestia as Orthodox, does not condemn him as a heretic. – Per. Judicatum (lit. “judicial decision based on laws”): apparently Balthasar is referring to the message of Pope Vigilius of February 23, 554, written by him already in exile and addressed to Western bishops in order to convince them that the condemnation of the “Three Chapters” was legal. In particular, it is said here that the message of Willow of Edessa is not only doubtful, but even fraudulent. As a result of this message, Emperor Justinian, at the request of a delegation from Rome, released Vigilius. – Per. Saint Gregory the Great (c. 540–604, pope from 590) is known in the Orthodox Church under the name “Dvoeslov.” His active church activities contributed to strengthening the influence of the Roman see on the dioceses of the Western Church, Illyricum and, partly, Africa. Vigorously protesting against the adoption of the title “ecumenical” by the bishop of Constantinople and arousing similar opposition in Antioch and Alexandria, in the end, through flattery and various concessions to Phocas, who ascended the imperial throne (602), he achieved recognition of Rome as the “head of all Churches.” – Per. Moeller Ch. Le V. Consile oecuménique et la magistère ordinaire au VIe siècle // Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques. Paris, 1951. E. Amann agrees with him on this. Theodore Askida (A σκιδάς), one of the Origenist-minded bishops of the sixth century; from 537 - Bishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia. He took an active part in the dispute over Origen, as well as in the dispute about the “Three Chapters” at the VI Ecumenical Council. – Per. Evagrius of Pontus (Εύάγριος ό Ποντικός, 346-c. 400), church writer. Around 385, having left for Jerusalem, he subsequently went to the Nitrian desert, where he remained until his death. All his writings concern monasticism, and in them the strong influence of Origen is noticeable. – Per. “While the edict and condemnation of the bishops of 543 primarily anathematized the established errors of Origen and himself, now (in 552) the campaign that began was directed at the Palestinian Origenist teachers of that time.” – Diekamp F. Origenistischen Streitigkeiten im 6. Jahrhundert. Münster, 1899. – S. 130. The prerequisites for the anathema of Origen were that Caesar accepted at face value the legend that Origen did not remain steadfast in martyrdom, but renounced Christ and worshiped the gods (Ibid. – S. 74). The emperor decreed that in the future no one could be invested with holy orders without cursing Origen, along with all the original heretics. Defamation (Latin: “disclosure, dissemination, making public”). – here as “public slander”. – Per. Didymus (c. 313 - c. 398), despite the fact that he lost his sight as a child (hence his nickname “Blind Man”), was well educated and distinguished by his wide knowledge. Already in his youth he was entrusted with the leadership of the Alexandria school. His students include Rufinus and Blessed Jerome. In theology, he aligned himself directly with Origen, many of whose opinions he shared (with the exception of Trinitarian theology, the development of which was strongly influenced by the Cappadocians). During the Origenist debate, at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, his eschatology was anathematized; whether Didymus himself was anathematized remains unclear. John of Scythopolis (Scythopolis is a city in Palestine, now Beth Shean), who lived in the 6th century, is known as the author of commentaries on the works of Dionysius the Areopagite and a treatise against Sevirus of Antioch. – Per. Apparently, this refers to Collatio Constantinopolitana, the exact date of which is not clear: 531–533. This debate was convened by Justinian I and was one of the steps taken by the emperor to achieve a union between Monophysites and Orthodox Christians. Hypatius of Ephesus, who headed the deputation of the latter, declared the works of Dionysius the Areopagite (along with the works of Saints Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great and others, to which the Monophysites referred) an Apollinarian forgery. – Per. In lat. name is known as Ambigua or Ambiguorum liber. – Per. "Evagrius embodied the Origen-inspired Eastern spiritual doctrine." – Hausherr I. Les grands courants de la spiritualité orientale // Orientalia Christiana Periodica. 1935 No. 1. – P. 125. Palladius (368–430), a native of Galatia, from 399 - Bishop of Elenopolis (in Bithynia). One of Chrysostom’s friends, through whose exile he interceded for him before Emperor Honorius. He himself was exiled by Emperor Arcadius to Siena (Upper Egypt) as a supporter of Chrysostom. In 412 he was returned to his department at the request of the Cappadocian prefect Laus, in whose honor he named the biography of the saints he compiled in 420 “Lavsaik”. Viller M. Aux Sources de la spiritualité de S. Maxime. Les oeuvres d'Evagre le Pontique // Revue d'Ascétique et de Mystique. 1930. No. 11. – Pp. 156–184; 239–268 Caspar E. Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft. Bd. 2 Tübingen, 1933. – SS. 549–550. In the German original – abbot; this is followed by the author's note: On the false use of the title of abbot in the documents of the trial, see Grumel V. in: Echos d’Orient. 1927. No. 30. – P. 32. In Kaspar and Grillmayer (Chalk. II 834 ff) we read “Abbot Maxim”. The life of the Venerable Maxim is here and further quoted in the translation by A. I. Sidorov: The Life of the Venerable Maxim the Confessor (The life, deeds and exploits of our most glorious father and confessor Maxim, and about his two disciples) // Retrospective and comparative political science. Publications and research. Vol. I. M., 1991. – P. 137 (hereinafter: Life). Caspar E. Decree. op. Bd. 3. – S. 568: “To his glory as a confessor, unfortunately, there was mixed a shade of frailty, which no apologetic efforts can eradicate”; Wed ibid S. 575. Life. – P. 136; Hefele. Conciliengeschichte. Bd. III. S. 1. 1877. – S. 240. Apocrisiary is the permanent representative of the pope or the Alexandrian patriarch at the court of Constantinople. – Per. Letter from Maxim to Anastasia, Life. – P. 147. “And if the Romans and the Byzantines do unite, what will you do?” The saint replied: “The Holy Spirit, through the Apostle, anathematized even the angels who introduced something new and alien to the [evangelical and apostolic] preaching” (Life. - p. 141). Not without the influence of the Confessor, as we will see. Caspar E. Decree. op. – SS. 575–576. Right there. – SS. 576–577 (Life. – pp. 139–140). Right there. – S. 67 and approx. 7. Caspar. E. Die Lateransynode von 649 // Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte. Bd. 51. 1931; Pierres J. S. Maximus Confessor princeps apologetarum synodi latemensis anni 649. 2. Teil der Diss. an der Univ. Gregorian., Rom, 1940. See also Altaner in Theologische Revue 1942. - SS. 50–51. The Monk Maximus himself was inclined to consider the Lateran Council the sixth Ecumenical Council (PG 91, 137D-140A), while relying on the doctrinal law of Rome. In fact, he was right insofar as the year 649 served as an introduction to the years 680–681, the VI Ecumenical Council. Tomus Leonis (lat.) – tomos of Pope Leo the Great, adopted and approved at the Council of Chalcedon. – Per. Here the author is not quite correctly trying to identify Eastern theology and Origenism. – Per. Wed. article by Protopresbyter John Meyendorff in this issue of the magazine. – Ed. Lebon J. La Christologie du monophysisme syrien // Chalk. I. – SS. 425–580. Van den Daele A. Indices Pseudodionysiani. Löwen, 1941. – Pp. 9, 34. “Unité sans confusion: telle est la règle de paction divine sur les intelligences hiérarchiques” (French: Unity without confusion: this is the rule of the divine coordination of hierarchical properties. - Trans.). – Roques R. L’Univers Dionysien // Coll. Théologie. 29. Paris, 1954. – P. 58. Engberding H. Monophysitische Liturgien (Chalk. II, 697 f)· “Without transformation or change You united human nature to Yourself according to the Hypostasis, in an ineffable and incomprehensible way, without transformation or confusion” (Gregorian Liturgy, 715). “On the contrary, in One Son and One Christ both natures are completely preserved in their uniqueness, One nature, one Person, one Hypostasis, one will,” etc. (730). The author comes to the conclusion that in none of these liturgies can one establish with certainty that the human nature of Christ is diminished. And the opposite of the enthusiastic Illuminati that E. Honigmann has to make of him in order to identify him with Peter the Iberian! (Pierre l’Ibérien et les écrits du Ps. – Denys // Ac. Roy. de Belg. 1952). Moreover, in this case, no explanation can be found for his distinct Chalcedonian intonation. Even less amenable to Dionysius, the great esthete of late antique and Christian thought, for whom everything seems to bloom, is the identification proposed by Stiglmair with the strict and rigid Sevier of Antioch. Such hypotheses turn out to be untenable even with a simple phenomenological view of things. Literature about Byzantine school philosophy of the 6th century. see Moeller (Moeller Ch. // Chalk. I, 640). From there: Valdenberg V. La philosophie byzantine au IVe siècle // Byzantion. 1927. No. 4. – Pp. 237–268. Überweg-Geyer II, 123–126. "Acts" extols the philosophical zeal of the young Maximus (PG 90, 69 f. but does not give any details. Faulhaber M. Hohelied-, Proverbien- und Prediger-Catenen. Wien, 1902; Beck H‑G. Kirche und Theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich // Byzantinisches Handbuch. Bd II. T. 1. München, 1959. – SS. 471, 539–540, 653 (hereinafter Handbuch). Latest version: PG 122, 537–686. Partially published: PG 87 II, 1755–1780. Literal translation of the text of Ps 119:2, given in the German original of the book: Blessed are those who search His revelations. – Per. Mystagogia, p. 5; 91, 681 A; Wed s. 15; 695С. There, p. 17; 693D-696A. The translation was made by students of the Russian Orthodox University K. Mikhailov, L. Naryshkina, M. Pershin and V. Shevelev, edited by M. Zhurinskaya and A. Sidorov. Continuation. Beginning see No. 3 (14) for 1997.