"Guide" of St. Anastasius Sinaite as an experience in revealing the Christological teaching of the Church

See also: The main Christological work of St. Anastasius Sinaite “Guide” by Abbot Adrian (Pashin) General characteristics of work Relevance of the research topic The work is devoted to the study of the Christology of St. Anastasia Sinaita (VII - early VIII century), as described in his treatise “Guide” (“Ỏ δηγός”; Latin: “Dux Viae”). The teaching of the Holy Fathers is always relevant for members of the Church. This is especially true for such a fundamental component as the teaching about our Lord Jesus Christ. Recently, critical editions of the works of this holy father, who lived during the struggle of the Church against Nestorianism, various movements of Monophysitism and against Monothelitism, began to appear one after another, during the outbreak of the Arab invasion on the outskirts of the Byzantine Empire and, accordingly, during the clash of the Church with a new religion - Islam. All these events influenced the life of Rev. Anastasia, and on his works, which are both historical sources, and a polemical and theological response to challenges from heresies and other religions, and a positive formulation of various sections of the dogmatic teaching of the Church. Being a brilliant polemicist, subtle theologian and original exegete, Rev. Anastasius left us both ascetic works and beautiful sermons. Some of his works have already been translated into Russian (either anew - from new critical editions, or for the first time). We hope that a complete Russian translation of all the works of Sinait will be published soon. In our time, when the Church lives in a multi-religious society, the experience of the Holy Fathers, who lived in similar historical realities, is very relevant for us. The Christological teaching of St. Anastasia, formulated during a polemic with Nestorian, Monophysite, as well as Monothelite theology and in the light of the ongoing dialogue of the Orthodox Church with the Ancient Eastern (pre-Chalcedonian) Churches. Despite the obvious interest of patrolologists in recent years in the personality of Rev. Anastasia Sinaita, the topic stated in the title of our work can safely be called poorly studied. There are virtually no works devoted to a systematic description of the Christology of the holy father, as well as other aspects of his theology (for example, anthropology). Until the publication of critical publications, and even to this day, the controversy surrounding the identification of the very personality of St. Petersburg has not ceased in patrolological science. Anastasia and around the attribution of his creations, including the “Guide”. The terminology of the teacher has been studied quite well. Anastasia, reflected in patrolological dictionaries 1. However, despite the importance of terminology in theology, church teaching cannot be reduced to terminology alone. Often researchers use historical information from the works of Rev. Anastasia. This concerns the history of Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Islam 2, etc. In studies concerning particular topics of theology or anti-heretical polemics, if Rev. Although Anastasius is mentioned, his quotations are often not given 3 . Of course, in critical editions of the works of Rev. Anastasia, even when publishing Russian translations, there are large introductory articles, but they are devoted only to biographical information, a description of the manuscript tradition and problems of identification and dating, and the comments on the text itself are very brief and, in their essence, cannot claim to be a systematic description of the teachings of the holy father. Therefore, at the moment there is only a single work devoted to a systematic study of the theology of St. Anastasia Sinaita is a work by the Czech patrolologist Spačil in Italian, published almost ninety years ago 4. Unfortunately, this book remains unavailable to us. At the Moscow Theological Academy in 1971, Archpriest Vladimir Zayats defended his course work “St. Anastasius of Sinaite and his theological works” 5 . However, this work cannot be called a deep study. The author relied on Russian translations of the late 19th – early 20th centuries. Holy Father (and this is only the “Conversation on the sixth Psalm” and excerpts from “Three words about the structure of man in the image and likeness of God”) and Russian pathological studies of the mid-late 19th century, which were already very outdated. And the very conclusion of Prot. V. Zayats that the time of the Rev. Anastasia is a time of decline in theological thought, when all theological issues had already been resolved in previous eras, therefore Sinait, like all his contemporaries - Orthodox theologians - are dependent authors, who “only had to collect theological material bequeathed by previous centuries, study it and apply it to the circumstances of their time” 6, does not withstand any criticism. The Holy Fathers always relied on the previous tradition, but this alone does not allow us to speak of their lack of independence. Monophysitism was refuted at the Council of Chalcedon, but post-Chalcedonian theological polemics were very productive, and this era cannot be called a time of decline in theological thought. The heresy of monothelitism was not easy to refute only on the basis of anti-monophysite arguments; for this it was necessary to develop a doctrine of action and will. Finally, a contemporary of Rev. Anastasia was a reverend. Maxim the Confessor, who certainly does not fit the definition of a dependent theologian. Yes, and the reverend himself. Anastasius is a very bright and original theologian and systematizer of the patristic Christological teaching, which we tried to show in our work. Goals and objectives of the study The purpose of this study is a systematic study of the Christological teaching of Rev. Anastasia Sinaita, expressed in the “Guide”, in the context of the previous and subsequent patristic tradition. In accordance with the main purpose of the study, the following tasks were set: – analysis of Christological terminology by Rev. Anastasia Sinaita in the context of the philosophical and theological tradition; – systematic analysis of the Christological teaching of Rev. Anastasia Sinaita in a patristic context; – assessment of the relationship between the Christology of St. Anastasia with his triadology, soteriology, anthropology, eschatology, asceticism and exegesis; – coverage of the attitude and assessments of the teacher. Anastasius of Nestorian and Monophysite (in various variations) Christology. The object and subject of the study is the Christological teaching of St. Anastasia Sinaita according to his treatise “Guide”. Methodological basis and theoretical basis of the study When working on the text of the dissertation, an integrated approach was used. Comparative and historical methods were used, involving the study of the Christology of St. Anastasia and comparing it with the Christology of earlier, contemporary and subsequent Holy Fathers, as well as with heretical Christology. The theoretical basis of the study is the terminological and theological analysis of the Guide. The source base for the study was the “Guide” and other works of the Rev. Anastasia in the original and in Russian translation. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the fact that it is the first attempt at a systematic theological analysis of the Christology of St. Anastasia. Studying the “Guide” allows us to examine in detail the Christological views of the holy father, his influence on the subsequent development of the Christological teaching of the Church, his assessment of the Christology of Monophysite and Nestorian theologians. Provisions submitted for defense – The conducted terminological and theological analysis of the “Guide” revealed the internal organic unity of this work, the consistency of the Christology expressed in it with the anthropology described in “Three words about the structure of man in the image and likeness of God”, “Questions and Answers”, which confirms the hypothesis that the “Guide” belongs to St. Anastasia Sinaita. - Rev. Anastasius Sinaite is a bright and original representative of neo-Chalcedonian theology. – “Guide” by Rev. Anastasia Sinaita is one of the first attempts at a complete systematic description of patristic Christology, the predecessor of the “Source of Knowledge” by St. John of Damascus. - Rev. Anastasius Sinait considers Sevier of Antioch not to be the successor of the legacy of St. Cyril of Alexandria, but an undoubted heretic, whose Christology contradicts the Christology of St. Kirill. Even more heretical are the teachings about Christ of other Monophysite and Nestorian movements. Theoretical significance of the research results The work has significance for pathological science, dogmatic theology, Church history and the history of Monophysitism and Nestorianism. It claims to make a scientific contribution to the study of the history of Christological disputes in the 7th century. Practical significance of the research results The results of the dissertation research may find application in further study of theology by Rev. Anastasia Sinaita. The translation of the “Guide” included in the appendix with comments based on the dissertation work can be published along with translations of other works of the Holy Father made by other translators and patrolologists. The results of the study can also be used in the preparation of training courses in patrolology, dogmatic theology, comparative theology, and Church history. Approbation of research results The author has made one online publication on the topic of his dissertation research: “Anthropological analogy in the Christology of St. Anastasia Sinaita": http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/070223153428. Our publication is being prepared on the Bogoslov.Ru portal: “Reverend Anastasius of Sinaite on the applicability of the anthropological paradigm in Christology.” The work consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a bibliography and an appendix containing the Russian translation of the “Guide” (chapters I-III - translation by A.I. Sidorov, chapters IV-XXIV - our translation). The volume of work (without application) is more than 260 thousand characters. Main content of the work The Introduction substantiates the relevance of the research topic, identifies the degree of its development, formulates the goals, objectives and methods of the research, indicates its scientific novelty, significance and provisions submitted for defense. Chapter 1 “Life and works of Rev. Anastasia Sinaita" consists of four paragraphs. In paragraph 1.1, very scant information about the life of St. Petersburg is summarized from various sources. Anastasia. By origin he was presumably a Cypriot, originally from Amafunt. It was probably in Cyprus that he began his monastic path. The reverend father received a fairly thorough school and theological education. Then he was a resident of the monastery of the Great Martyr. Catherine in Sinai, where at one time he was under the spiritual guidance of St. John Climacus, who was at that time the abbot of this monastery. After Rev. John and his brother George, Venerable. Anastasius himself was supposedly the abbot of Mount Sinai. Recent studies say that the date of death of the holy father occurred no earlier than 701. Memory of St. Anastasia Sinaita is celebrated by the Russian Church on April 20, and by the Greek Churches on April 21. Paragraph 1.2 describes the creations of Rev. Anastasia. The question of identifying the authentic works of the holy father was complicated for a long time due to the mistake of the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos (1350–1353, 1355–1364), who identified St. Anastasia Sinaita with Anastasius I, Patriarch of Antioch (559–598) and his successor at the Antiochian See - sschmch. Anastasius II (599–609). Only in recent years, thanks to the publication of critical editions by various researchers, the question of identifying the works of St. Anastasia Sinaita is close to final resolution. The most significant creations of Rev. Anastasia Sinaita, in addition to the “Guide,” are “Questions and answers on various topics” 7, “Three words about the structure of man in the image and likeness of God,” in which the holy father clearly and clearly sets out his anthropological views, inextricably linked with Christology and soteriology, “Florilegies against the Monothelites” and “Chapters against the Monothelites” 8. The study of anthropological views by Rev. Anastasia Sinaita is dedicated to our thesis 9. Of the remaining dogmatic works of Sinaite, the “Chapters Against the Monophysites” remain unpublished. To the ascetic works of St. Anastasia owns “Soulful Stories”. A complete critical edition of the Narratives is being prepared by Pual Canart. A number of sermons by St. Anastasia. Section 1.3 describes the controversy in pathological science regarding the attribution and dating of the Guide. This controversy began in the 14th century. due to the mistake of Nikephoros Callistus Xanthopulos. Therefore, in the first editions of the “Guide” it is not attributed to Rev. Anastasius Sinaita, and Patriarch Anastasius I of Antioch. Since the 18th century. opinions were expressed about the compilative nature of this work. Some researchers dated the “Guide” to the 620s, since it supposedly contains no references to Islam and monothelitism (the Arab invasion of Egypt took place in 641, and monothelitism became widespread there under Patriarch Cyrus (631–641)), others saw these references and dated the work to the 680s. According to Στέργιος ’a Σάκκος ’a, the Guide in its present form is a compilation dating from the second half of the 9th century. The author of the main part of the work is Sschmch. Anastasius II Patriarch of Antioch. The compiler, who, according to Σάκκος, compiled the final version of the “Guide”, who lived in the 9th century, was called by the Greek patrolologist “Presbyter Anastasius Allegorist” 10. The editor of the critical edition of the Guide, Uthemann, completely refuted Σάκκος’s arguments and put an end to the centuries-old dispute about the dating of the Guide. The main part of the work was compiled by Rev. Anastasius Sinaite in the first years after Patriarch Cyrus. The second edition, in which corrections, additions and scholia appeared. Anastasius compiled it after the VI Ecumenical Council, or more precisely, between 686 and 689. Section 1.4 describes the structure of the Guide. Although it is quite complex, it cannot be denied that it is well thought out. The first three chapters formulate the philosophical and theological apparatus and the spiritual and moral foundations of Christological theology and anti-heretical polemics. In the following chapters, the terminology is abundantly illustrated with references to Holy Scripture and Patristic Tradition. A historical description of the emergence of heresies up to Nestorianism and Monophysitism in all its diversity is given and their philosophical and theological roots are indicated. The expressions of the Holy Fathers, on the basis of which the Monophysites formulated their Christology, are examined in detail, and their Orthodox interpretation is given. The main part of the work contains a polemic with all the main movements of Monophysitism, during which their arguments are examined in detail and refuted. Most of this controversy is a description of the actual debates between Rev. Anastasius and Monophysite theologians. Chapter 2 “Terminology of Rev. Anastasia Sinaita" consists of nine paragraphs. Paragraph 2.1 sets out the basics of the polemics with the Monophysites, as formulated by Rev. Anastasy. The basis of preparation for such polemics is not only and not so much knowledge of the fundamentals of philosophy, book theology and polemical methods, but the need to “lead a venerable life and acquire the indwelling of the Spirit of God,” because the cause of heresies is the passion of vanity, love of money, man-pleasing and arrogance. The very title of the work, which Rev. Anastasius gives and explains in the third part of the first chapter, “Οδηγός” (“Guide”) taken from the words of the Savior: When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide (όδηγήσει) you into all truth (John 16:13). The author explains to his readers who want to resist many forms of Monophysitism that neither the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, nor the knowledge of philosophical and theological definitions and polemical methodology will help them in the least in the fight against the Monophysites, or in spiritual life, if the Holy Spirit does not dwell in them as a guide (ὁδηγός). The theological basis for interviews with opponents can be such a basis that is an indisputable authority for both sides. This is, first of all, Holy Scripture. Rev. Anastasius briefly formulates the basics of biblical exegesis. The main thing here is that the study of the Holy Scriptures must be done “with fear” and “in simplicity of heart.” Heretics do this “with evil intent.” In addition to Scripture, the generally accepted basis for theological dispute with the Monophysites are the works of the Holy Fathers who lived before the Council of Chalcedon. The goal of the Orthodox is to refute the main argument of the Monophysites, which is that the religious definition of this Council contradicts the previous patristic tradition. This does not mean that the reverend father is limited to the ancient Fathers. He actively uses the achievements of post-Chalcedonian Orthodox theology: John the Grammar of Caesarea, Leontius of Byzantium, Ven. Maximus the Confessor. So that the very name of these defenders of Orthodox teaching does not provoke the Monophysites to immediately reject their argument, Rev. Anastasius cites their terminology and theological arguments without citing authorship. Rev. Anastasius says that before starting a debate, it is necessary to anathematize the heresies and errors falsely attributed by the Monophysites to the Orthodox, primarily Nestorianism and the Nestorian interpretation of the oros of the Council of Chalcedon. Rev. Anastasius lists the methods of conducting theological debates, which he has already tested in experience. First, it is necessary to carefully study the writings and thoughts of opponents in order to put them to shame, “from their own works,” and reduce their arguments to old heresies. Often the Sinaite cites the arguments of the Nestorians and Jews in order to refute the teachings of the Monophysites. Secondly, an Orthodox polemicist should know the history of the Church and the chronology of the emergence of heresies, for which the author of the Guide outlines the history of the emergence of heresies and the history of the Church’s struggle against them. Knowledge of the historical context allows the Rev. Anastasia to refute Sevier’s assertion that after the emergence of Nestorianism it is necessary to reject Dyophysite expressions as inaccurate, even if they belong to the Holy Fathers. Thirdly, Rev. Anastasius calls for meeting for conversations only with knowledgeable heretics, so that they and the people listening to the debate, after the victory of the Orthodox side, could not justify themselves by the fact that their other representatives, more competent in theology, would find stronger arguments in defense of their teaching. At the same time, opponents should have a need to know our faith, and not an empty desire to prove that they are right at any cost. Finally, Rev. Anastasius calls on Orthodox polemicists not to shy away from some cunning. Also, before the interview, it is necessary to clearly define the most important theological concepts on the basis of Tradition and Scripture, for “he who begins to present dogmatic questions without knowing the definitions is likened to a blind man...”. The author of the Guide solves this problem in the second chapter of his work, the so-called “Book of Definitions”. In paragraph 2.2 we outline the history of compiling collections of theological and philosophical definitions before Rev. Anastasia. The history of dogmatic disputes is rich in examples illustrating how the same terms, the same dogmatic formulas can be understood in different ways. The clearest example is the long-term triadological debate, in which the philological component occupied an important part. In the era of Christological disputes, the situation was largely repeated. Even then there was no unambiguous understanding of the fundamental theological terms in their Christological application. This was especially evident in connection with the interpretation of the heritage recognized by both Orthodox and Monophysites, the indisputable church authority of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who allowed some terminological inaccuracy in his works. Many theologians, both Orthodox and their opponents, realized that traditional terminology does not allow the Christological teaching to be presented with sufficient depth and accuracy. Therefore, there was a growing need to streamline theological language. Apparently, the first who tried to combine in a dialectical synthesis the Dyophysite Christology of Chalcedon and the theological language of the “single nature” of St. Cyril of Alexandria was the Egyptian monk Nephaly with his “Apology”. At the beginning of the 6th century, a lengthy “Apology” appeared in the East, written by Presbyter John the Grammar of Caesarea. His main merit was the proposal to use in Christology the language developed by the great Cappadocians for triadology. Rev. Anastasius Sinaite testifies that in addition to Nephalius and John the Grammar of Caesarea, there were others, not named by him, supporters of the Council of Chalcedon, who compiled their own collections of philosophical and theological definitions applicable to Christology. Sevier of Antioch responded to John the Grammar with his fundamental work “Against the Impious Grammar,” in which he formulated his Christological terminology. This work became in the eyes of the Monophysites a kind of “theological summation”, according to which many subsequent generations of Sevier’s followers studied theology. So, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox authors, starting from the 6th century, began to preface their theological treatises with collections of basic terms and concepts. Subsequently, the Rev. built his work “The Source of Knowledge” on the same principle. John of Damascus, beginning with "Philosophical Chapters". In this he was not original. One of his predecessors was Rev. Anastasy Sinait. The importance of such a collection of philosophical and theological definitions is also confirmed by the fact that the “Book of Definitions,” that is, the second chapter of the “Guide,” has, in a sense, a fate “independent” of the rest of the text of the treatise - some of the manuscripts contain only it. Section 2.3 sets out the method formulated by Rev. Anastasius, which is also accepted in modern theological (and not only theological) dictionaries: first give a definition of the term, then its etymology and, finally, with the help of examples, explain how this term must be understood and how it relates to other concepts. This technique Rev. Anastasius strictly adheres to the formulation of all the most important philosophical and theological concepts. Paragraph 2.4 provides definitions of Rev. Anastasia, given to them for positive and negative statements. Here Sinait, like the later Ven. John of Damascus, follows Aristotle, who formulated the doctrine of judgments in the treatise “On Interpretation”. In addition, in theology one often has to deal with the use of words in an improper sense (κατάχρησις). Holy Scripture, which is characterized by figurative language, is especially replete with such statements. Using Scripture imagery as precise theological definitions can often lead to heretical errors. Therefore, Rev. Anastasius introduces another type of judgment - inaccurate statements (καταχρηστικόν). Paragraph 2.5 is devoted to the definition of prep. Anastasia’s most important concept in Christology is nature, nature (φύσις). Following Clement of Alexandria, Venerable. Anastasius defines it as follows: “The Church calls nature the true reality of existing things, or their actuality.” The reverend father reveals the etymology of the word φύσις as follows: “It is called nature because it occurred and exists” (from the perfect πεφυκέναι of the verb φύω - to be born, to grow). Rev.'s own definition. Anastasius confirms with numerous references to the authority of Holy Scripture. Based precisely on this understanding of nature as a truly existing reality, Rev. Anastasius bases his accusations against the Sevirians on Docetism. For, recognizing in Christ only one - Divine - nature, they give Him to humanity only the role of a “figment of the imagination.” In other chapters of the Guide, the definition of nature as the true reality of things (ή τών πραγμάτων άλήθεια) is repeated repeatedly and often verbatim. Such terminological constancy, despite the seemingly compilative nature of the Guide, testifies to its internal unity, which presupposes a single author. Paragraph 2.6 sets out Rev.'s understanding. Anastasius the relationship between the concepts of nature and essence, nature and hypostasis. The most important thought of the Sinaite is the identification of the concepts of nature (φύσις) and essence (ούσία). Thus, the reverend father transfers to the concept of “nature” the understanding of the “general” as opposed to the “particular”, which is defined by the concept of “hypostasis” (ύπόστασις): “According to the Holy Fathers, a person, or hypostasis, is something special (τό ίδικόν) in comparison with the general (τό κοινόν), for nature is a certain common principle in every thing, and hypostases are separate individuals.” This triadological terminology of the Cappadocians, as we have already said, began to be actively used in Christology by Orthodox theologians only in the 6th century. Rev. Anastasius confirms the difference between nature and hypostasis with the authority of Holy Scripture. By replacing the word “nature” with the word “person” in many quotations from the Old and New Testaments, the reverend father shows the absurdity and logical inconsistency of the resulting expressions in order to show that “nature is not the same thing as face and hypostasis.” Paragraph 2.7 describes the definition given by Rev. Anastasius’ concepts of “natural property”, “hypostatic property”, “additional property”. The polemic about the properties of Divinity and humanity in Christ acquired relevance in connection with the theology of Sevier, who saw the fullness of humanity in Christ in the presence in His single nature of a particular human property in the presence of a general property corresponding to this single complex nature of Christ. Since the time of Sevier, the theological polemic between Orthodox and Monophysites, as well as between various movements within Monophysitism, switched from polemics about natures to polemics about natural properties. The origins of this doctrine are formulated by Aristotle in Topeka. Aristotle speaks of a proper property, or simply “own” (τὸ ἴδιον), without which the existence of a thing is inconceivable. He contrasts this “proper” with an accessory, a random attribute, or accident (τό συμβεβηκός), which a given thing may or may not have. Theologians and philosophers of the Middle Ages drew Aristotle's ideas from the treatise of the Neoplatonist Porphyry, “Introduction to Aristotle's Categories.” Porfiry, having adopted Aristotle's teaching about intrinsic and accessory properties, transferred Aristotle's distinction between general and private essence to these properties. According to Porphyry, all things have not only general and particular essences, but also properties that can be general and can be private. Rev. Anastasius accepts the main ideas of Porfiry, making slight adjustments to the terminology and slightly clarifying his teaching. Thus, Sinait gives the following definition of peculiar or essential properties (τὸ ἴδιον, τὸ ἰδίωμα or ἰδιότης). “A peculiar property, or originality, is that which is legitimately and specially recognized in some nature, but is not found in another.” Thus, for the Divine nature such essential properties are, in particular, “pre-eternity, uncreatedness and indescribability.” These properties, Sinait points out, are absent in any other nature, including the body of Christ, which by nature “is neither pre-eternal, nor uncreated, nor indescribable - and will never be so.” The peculiar properties of a person are “the combination of mortal and immortal natures,” that is, a mortal body and an immortal soul, as well as intelligence, the ability to breathe, walk, work, etc. From these natural properties (ίδιώματα φυσικά), common to all hypostases of a given nature, one should distinguish hypostatic or characteristic properties (ίδιώματα υποστατικά, ίδιώματα χαρακτηριστική), characterizing only a specific hypostasis, and not the whole nature. So, for a particular person, the hypostatic properties will be his hair color, eyes, skin, his facial features, height, weight, his character traits, abilities, preferences, etc. For the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, such “peculiar properties of the hypostasis” are “...unborn in God the Father, born in the Son and procession in the Holy Spirit.” [Note: Greek the word ίδιώματα has been corrected by us; the edition erroneously says ἰδιώματα. – Editor AB]. In addition to the natural and hypostatic properties of St. Anastasius, following Aristotle and Porphyry, also defines random, incidental properties, or accidents (τὸ συμβεβηκός) as changing properties. Paragraph 2.8 is devoted to the definition of prep. Anastasius the most important property of any nature is action, and of personal nature – also will. The controversy about the energies and wills of Christ came to the fore precisely during the life of St. Anastasia. And although in the main text of the “Guide” he tries not to depart from polemics specifically with Monophysitism, the time of the second edition of this work coincided with the time of the Church’s opposition to monoenergism and Monothelitism. Therefore, Sinait in the second chapter of the Guide, heavily revised during the second editing by Rev. Anastasius of this work between 686 and 689, carefully studies these categories - actions and will. Thus, Rev. Anastasius builds a theoretical theological and philosophical basis not only to refute Monophysitism, but also Monothelitism - this new synthetic heresy, which verbally agrees to recognize the humanity of Christ as nature, but denies natural action and will in it. Let us note that in the theology of the same Sevier, the categories of action and will play an important role. Rev. Anastasius Sinait defines natural action as movement, a natural force inherent in nature, nature. Action is characteristic of all nature - both material things and rational nature: “It (action - I. A.) is thought of in two ways: as a thinking [action] and as a sensual [action]. Sensual is that [action] that is felt, heard and subject to decay; and the intelligible is incorruptible and eternal [action], because the thinking [action] is that which contemplates invisible speculations.” Action expresses nature. Nature that does not have its own action does not exist: “The natural action of any nature is that which designates and determines it - when it ceases, then nature is destroyed and perishes along with it. After all, when the heat stops, the fire goes out.” Sinait proves that everything that is associated with nature is actually associated with natural action. And the very name of this or that nature is determined by natural action. Thus, the name “God” (Θεός) “represents to us not the very incomprehensible and nameless essence of the Creator,” but expresses His contemplative action (θεωρητικά ένεργεία) [so in the publication instead of θεωρητικὴ ἐνέργεια. – Editorial AB ], the name “angel” (ἄγγελος) “does not reveal the very essence and being of the nature of angels, but comes from the announcing (ἀναγγελτικά) action and their angelic service.” The name "man" (ἄνθρωπος) rev. Anastasius also derives from the action characteristic of people and thereby distinguishing them from animals - “looking up” (ἄνω–θρώοπος: from ἄνω - up and ἀθρέω - look, consider), which is also associated with the action of walking upright that is distinctive from animals. In the “Book of Definitions” Rev. Anastasius Sinaite also gives a definition of will (θέλημα, θέλησις): “Will is the aspiration of a thinking and rational soul towards what is dear to it.” If each nature corresponds to its characteristic natural action, then the rational nature, that is, God, angels and people, also has a will. Paragraph 2.9 is devoted to the term “hypostatic” (ἐνυπόστατον). Since the humanity of Christ does not constitute a hypostasis separate from the Hypostasis of God the Word, for otherwise “it turns out that we affirm that Christ accepted and saved a certain one person” (II, 3, 115-117), while denying the reality of human nature means falling into docetism, then Rev. Anastasius, following Leontius of Byzantium, calls the humanity of Christ “hypostatic.” The term “hypostatic” Rev. Anastasius uses it in two senses. The first is what truly and really exists. In this sense, “hypostatic” is the opposite of “non-hypostatic” (ἀνυπόστατον). This understanding of the term ἐνυπόστατον is found in St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Epiphany of Cyprus, St. Basil the Great, Didymus the Blind, St. John Chrysostom Fr. In this meaning, this term is almost identical to the term “realized” (ἐνούσιον) and it is better to translate it into Russian with the word “hypostatic”. In this meaning “true, really existing” St. Anastasius uses the term “hypostatic” in the twelfth chapter of the Guide, where, describing his polemic with the Monophysites against their addition of the words “crucified and suffered” to the Trisagion hymn, he calls the image of the Crucifixion “παράδειγμα καὶ σχῆμα ἐνυπόστατον.” This expression can be translated as “true image.” In the thirteenth chapter, the term “hypostatic” by St. Anastasius refers to the flesh of Christ: “the hypostatic flesh of God.” Based on the context in which Sinait insists on the reality of human properties in Christ, this expression can also be translated as “the true flesh of God.” The opposition is hypostatic, i.e. really existing - non-hypostatic prep. Anastasius illustrates with the following definition: “the non-hypostatic, non-existent (ἀνύπαρκτον) and non-existent (ἀνούσιον) is something that is often spoken of, but which is not recognized either in essence or in hypostasis, such as, for example, hell, death and illness.” The expression “hypostatic Word” in the sense of “the Word existing as a Hypostasis” is used by many Holy Fathers of the era of triadological disputes. This word ἐνυπόστατον as a synonym for the word “hypostasis” was then applied to both the Father and the Holy Spirit, as well as to man. In the era of Christological disputes, new accents appeared in the meaning of the term ἐνυπόστατον. One of the first to place them at the beginning of the 6th century was Presbyter John the Grammar of Caesarea. He understood that the term ἐνυπόστατον in relation to the humanity of Christ requires clarification. On the one hand, human nature in Christ really and truly exists and therefore can be called hypostatic. On the other hand, identifying, as was the case with the Persons of the Trinity, the term ἐνυπόστατον with the term “hypostasis” in Christology leads to Nestorianism. Therefore, in the Apology of the Council of Chalcedon, John the Grammar explains: “If someone... characterizes essences as hypostatic, that is, as existing, then no one will deny this. Because hypostasis differs from essence not just in being, but in being in general, by which I mean essence. On the contrary, hypostasis is a particular being, when, together with the general, it also has its own existence. Thus, we do not characterize our essence in Christ that it is hypostatic, in the sense of a hypostasis that exists independently in its characteristics and is a person, but in the sense that it is and exists.” This understanding of the term ἐνυπόστατον as a synonym for essence, opposed to the concept of hypostasis, was also adopted by another 6th century theologian Leontius of Byzantium in his treatise “Against the Nestorians and Eutychians”: “Hypostasis and the hypostatic are not the same thing, just as something else is essence and something else is materialized.” (ἐνυπόστατον). For hypostasis means someone specifically, and hypostatic means the essence.” The most clear teaching of John the Grammar of Caesarea and Leontius of Byzantium about the hypostatic nature of the human nature of Christ as an essence that received a private and concrete existence in another hypostasis (the Hypostasis of the Word) is expressed by St. John of Damascus: “In addition, nature is called hypostatic when it has assumed another hypostasis and received its being in it. Hence the flesh of the Lord, which did not exist independently at any point in time, is not a hypostasis, but rather something hypostatic; for, being perceived by the Hypostasis of God the Word, she exists in it and had it, and has it as her hypostasis.” So, Leontius of Byzantium accepted the clarification of the term ἐνυπόστατον by Presbyter John the Grammar of Caesarea and, in addition, clarified the term ἐνούσιον, which he understands as a synonym for hypostasis. Following this clarification, Rev. Anastasius Sinaite writes: “The word is spoken of in three senses: there is the realized (ἐνούσιον) Word, or God the Word; The Angels and we have an inner word when it is pronounced mentally; finally, there is a word spoken by the tongue” and in another place: “The prophets proclaim the appearance of God’s own Face, that is, the One from the Holy Trinity, that is, God the Word, and not a common nature; and if it needs to be said more clearly, they announce the appearance of the realized Face of God, and not the general incarnation of the Three Persons of the Trinitarian Trinity.” So, if in the era of triadological disputes the Holy Fathers used the expression “hypostatic Word,” then in the era of Christological disputes the expression “incarnate Word” becomes more accurate. Chapter 3 “Christology Rev. Anastasia Sinaita" consists of seven paragraphs and is devoted to a direct analysis of the Christological teaching of the Holy Father. Paragraph 3.1 describes the presentation of Rev. Anastasius teaches the Church that Christ is perfect God and perfect man. This teaching is indicated by the messianic passages of the Old Testament, which the Jews did not like so much and forced them, when translating the Scriptures into Greek, to distort the meaning of the original text, as did, for example, Aquila, mentioned by St. Anastasy. Sinait briefly describes the history of the many different heresies erected by the evil one, and the response of the Church to them. Thus, the evil one wants, “first, to immediately refute the coming of Christ.” Rev. Anastasius with these words hints at the docetism characteristic of many Gnostics. Then the evil one, desiring “that people, instead of the Holy Spirit, worship deceivers,” already erects “among those born by the power of Christ” many pseudo-church Gnostic communities, for which, along with docetism (“The wicked Mani ... believed that the body of Christ, which [His contemporaries] saw), belonged to shadow and appearance, and not to nature”), was the proclamation of their heresiarchs as the very Comforter “whom Christ promised to send to the world." The next stage of the devil’s struggle against the Church was that he “began to blaspheme the Divinity of Christ.” The heresy of the Alexandrian presbyter Arius, who asserted that “the Son and Word of God is a creature and was not born of the Father before the ages,” was rejected at the First Ecumenical Council, which took place “in Nicaea under the holy emperor Constantine.” “The Holy Council determined that the Son is consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father, begotten, not created,” as was written in the Creed adopted at the Council. Without the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, according to St. Athanasius the Great, our salvation is impossible. An axiom for the Church was that for the salvation of man his deification is necessary. But the deification of man is possible only if the Word who became flesh, that is, who accepted humanity in Christ, is Himself perfect God, equal to the Father. The heresy of Apollinaris, who affirmed the incompleteness of humanity in Christ, like its author, was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople. The Orthodox Church confesses that God the Word, having become incarnate, assumed flesh endowed with a rational soul, that is, it teaches about the perfection of Christ as a man. This was clearly stated by the Church during the condemnation of the Constantinople Archimandrite Eutyches, who, in response to Nestorianism, in a sense resurrected the argumentation of Apollinaris and became the founder of Monophysitism. Eutyches, who insisted on the Monophysite formula “one nature,” also argued “that the body of Christ was sent down from heaven and is of a different essence from ours and that Christ is one perfect nature” and “that the body of Christ ... is an unreasonable instrument [of the Divine].” The Church at the Council of Constantinople in 448 under Patriarch Flavian condemned the heresy of Eutyches and determined “that the body of Christ is consubstantial with ours.” By definition, Rev. Anastasia, “consubstantial is that which invariably exists in relation to the same essence and action.” So, the Orthodox Church teaches that without the double consubstantiality of Christ - the Father according to Divinity and us according to humanity - our salvation is impossible. Being perfect God, the Word becomes perfect man without ceasing to be perfect God. As it was said in the Oros of the Council of Chalcedon: “perfect in the Divinity and also perfect in humanity.” The perfection of Christ in Divinity and His perfection in humanity, His consubstantiality with the Father in Divinity and consubstantiality with us in humanity was confessed by Severus of Antioch and even Julian of Halicarnac. The teachings of Apollinaris and Eutyches were equally rejected by both Orthodox and anti-Chalcedonians. However, Sevier, Julian and their followers refused to call the humanity of Christ nature and did not accept the Dyophysite formulas of the Council of Chalcedon, accusing it of resuscitating Nestorianism and a departure from the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Therefore, Rev. Anastasius expounds in detail the teaching of the pre-Chalcedonian Fathers about the natures of Christ, arguing that the Dyophysite formulas are not an invention of the Nestorians, much less the Council of Chalcedon. This is the subject of paragraph 3.2. The Monophysites, beginning with their true founder Eutyches, insisted that after the Incarnation only one nature could be spoken of in Christ. If we can talk about two natures, then only until the Incarnation of God the Word. Eutyches’ formula “of two natures before the union, one nature after the union” was accepted by all movements of Monophysitism. Rev. Anastasius cites in the first and second parts of the tenth chapter, in the twenty-first and other chapters of the Guide, numerous quotes from the pre-Chalcedonian Holy Fathers, where the doctrine of two natures in Christ after their union is clearly and clearly expressed. Rev. Anastasius testifies that Sevier, who knew all these quotes from the Fathers well, deliberately commits a forgery. Regarding the Christological terminology of St. Cyril, on whose authority the Monophysites tried to build their Christology, Rev. Anastasius formulates the essence of neo-Chalcedonism. He says that before polemics with the Monophysites, the Orthodox, along with rejecting Nestorian opinions, must anathematize anyone who “does not recognize the expression “the one incarnate nature of God the Word” (μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη), as Saint Cyril interpreted it.” With the help of this expression, which all theologians of that era attributed to St. Athanasius the Great, St. Cyril expressed a different Christology than his author, Apollinaris of Laodicea. Firstly, Apollinaris thought of Christ’s humanity as incomplete (without a rational soul) and not consubstantial with us. After Apollinaris's refutation, all theologians recognized the fullness of Christ's humanity. Secondly, for St. Cyril, in contrast to Apollinaris and the Monophysites, who considered themselves his followers, the humanity of Christ is an active dynamic principle, that is, nature (in the already Chalcedonian sense of this term). Rev. Anastasius cites the expression of St. Cyril from the second Epistle to Suxens, where the Archbishop of Alexandria speaks of this activity: “Justly and quite clearly, your perfection sets forth the word about the events of salvation, affirming that it is not the Word Himself, the only begotten of God, who suffers, so that it is revealed that He is God, but He suffers according to His bodily nature, or rather, a nature consisting of the dust of the earth.” It was in the context of the suffering of Christ that St. Cyril usually calls His humanity nature: Christ suffers according to human nature, or human nature. For St. Cyril’s formula “the one incarnate nature of God the Word” is a way, in contrast to Nestorianism, to emphasize the unity of Christ. According to the interpretation of Rev. Anastasia with the word “incarnate” in this expression of St. Cyril has already pointed to the human nature of Christ: “Meanwhile, as Blessed Cyril himself teaches us in his letter to Suxens, he does not point to anything else when he says “incarnate,” but only to our human nature.” Rev. here. Anastasius, like later Rev. John of Damascus, in the seventh chapter of the third book of “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” refers to the words of St. Cyril, commenting on this formula in his second Epistle to Suxens. The Alexandrian saint says in this epistle that the entire doctrine of the Economy is encapsulated in the word “incarnate”: the fullness of human nature (the Word assumed flesh, animated by a rational soul), and the perfection of Christ not only in Divinity, but also in humanity, and His double consubstantiality (to the Father according to Divinity and to us according to humanity), and the presence of impeccable passions, and the denial of theopaschism (the Son suffers not according to His Divine nature, but through the flesh, that is, through human nature), and that humanity has become the Word’s own. In addition, for the Alexandrian dialect of the Greek language, according to Rev. Anastasia tends not to distinguish the terms “nature” and “essence” from the term “hypostasis”. Sinaite refers to the controversy around these terms in the era of triadological disputes precisely in the Alexandrian Church under St. Athanasius the Great. In this context, the use of St. Kirill, who is generally characterized by inaccuracy in terminology, expressions like “the natures or hypostases of Christ remained unfused.” Therefore, according to Rev. Anastasia, and the expression “one incarnate nature of God the Word” as used by St. Cyril means “one incarnate Person of the Holy Trinity.” This interpretation of the expression of St. Cyril was one of the first to offer St. Proclus of Constantinople, speaking in the Tomos to the Armenians about the “single hypostasis of the incarnate God of the Word.” Paragraph 3.3 sets out the interpretation of Rev. Anastasius’ teaching about the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ. According to Rev. Anastasius does not need to be afraid of calculating nature, as the Monophysites do. The number denotes the number of things, and not their division; it indicates the distinction of the countable, and not its division. The teaching of the Holy Fathers is fundamentally different from Nestorianism: “So, the Holy Fathers who lived under Artemon, Paul, Diodorus and Theodore, piously named (as we do) the two united natures of Christ, and Artemon, Paul, Theodore and Nestorius - separated, since evil is not in naming two [natures], but in dividing them according to persons and not recognizing the hypostatic union.” The Orthodox do not recognize the humanity of Christ as a hypostasis: “We call the holy flesh of Christ not a face, but an essence, in order to indicate that He accepted and saved our entire nature. For if we call this flesh a hypostasis, then it turns out that we are affirming that Christ accepted and saved a certain one person. It is impossible to call it a hypostasis, since this flesh is inseparable from God the Word; for a single person is called a hypostasis.” For the true founder of Nestorianism, Bishop Theodore of Mopsuestia, the main thing was to show the fullness of humanity in Christ, which Apollinaris of Laodicea denied. For Theodore, this fullness means, first of all, the active manifestation of humanity in Christ. Therefore, he does not accept the Apollinarian concept of the passive and subordinate humanity of Christ to the Divinity. It, according to Theodore, is a full-fledged nature, possessing its own action and will. But Theodore did not stop at this completely Orthodox teaching. Both natures in Christ were thought of by the Mopsuestian bishop as having their own specific private existence, that is, their own hypostases, that is, faces. According to Theodore, the natures of Christ are united among themselves by means of a relative union (ἕνωσις σχετική) into a common personal union (πρόσωπον ἑνόσεως), which has a common action and a common will. According to Theodore, the concept of “face” has two meanings. One is the hypostasis, and the face of the union of Christ means common honor, greatness and worship, that is, a single way of revealing God through the human hypostasis of Christ. The presence of a common face of union, a common action and a common will of Christ does not negate the presence of two natures of their own persons, wills and actions: without them, the natures would lose their completeness. The teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia leads to the fact that Christ appears to us in the Gospel as a single Person only subjectively: in relation to an external observer He is a single Being, a single Person, but in Himself He contains two persons - Divine and human. Thus, it turned out that the Son of God and the Son of the Virgin Mary are separated, between them there is only a moral connection, similar to the one that existed between God and the Old Testament righteous. With such a union of God and a specific person, deification is impossible for all people. In the most adequate theological language, the thought of St. Gregory the Theologian that “in Christ there is no Other and Another (ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος), but there is another and another (ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο)” (these words are quoted by St. Anastasius), St. managed to express. Cyril of Alexandria. According to him, the Divinity and humanity of Christ are united by hypostasis (καθ ̓ ὑπόστασιν), that is, much more closely than with the relative union conceived by the Nestorians. This hypostatic union of the natures of Christ is an exceptional case of the union of two things. The definition given to this connection by Rev. Anastasius, in fact, is not a definition, but precisely an indication of the uniqueness in nature of such a close union: “The hypostatic union is the result of the union of two natures in the womb of the Holy Mother of God.” At the same time, the Church teaches that with an inseparable hypostatic union of natures, they remained in their perfect and unchangeable state, did not merge, did not mix, and did not form a new nature. Each nature remained just nature, that is, a really existing true thing. So, Rev. Anastasius says that we teach “about two hypostatically united true things, that is, perfect Divinity and perfect humanity, unfused, unchangeably and inseparably [united] in the one Person of Christ. For Christ is one Hypostasis and one Person.” As a prototype of the hypostatic union of natures in Christ, St. Anastasius, following St. Kirill cites the combination of soul and body in a person. Reflections by Rev. Anastasia about the possibility of applying the anthropological paradigm in Christology is devoted to paragraph 3.4. For St. Cyril, with the help of this paradigm, it was important to show that the Word and flesh, as well as soul and body, form an essential unity, that is, a single living being. However, using the anthropological paradigm and calling the humanity of Christ nature, St. Cyril does not call Christ a single complex nature, which is man, as the Monophysites do. According to them, this image made it possible, on the one hand, to talk about the fullness of humanity in Christ, about His consubstantiality with us and thereby avoid the heresy of Apollinaris and Eutyches, and on the other hand, to avoid recognizing two natures in Christ, which would lead, as it seemed to them, to the Nestorian division of Christ into two hypostases. For the Orthodox, the concept of a single complex nature of Christ was unacceptable. But in relation to man, the concept of “single complex nature” is quite acceptable. The teaching of Leontius of Byzantium, which is reproduced by St. Anastasius, about human nature as hypostatic, that is, firstly, really existing (as opposed to non-hypostatic), and secondly, having a private existence not in its own, but in someone else’s hypostasis - the Hypostasis of God the Word allows us to speak about two perfect natures, and about one Hypostasis of Christ. Against the doctrine of the single complex nature of Christ, St. Anastasius cites several original provisions. One of them is this: if Christ, in Whom the Divinity is hypostatically united with humanity, is one nature, then the Mother of God, while carrying Christ in Her womb, constituted together with Him, and therefore with all the fullness of the Divinity (cf. Col. 2:9) one nature, which is absurd. But since during pregnancy the Mother of God and the Infant of God did not constitute one nature (otherwise Christ would not have been separated from Mary), then two natures can be preserved in Christ after the hypostatic union. Rev. Anastasius also notes that the Monophysite formula “Christ is of two natures before the union, but one nature after the union” can also be interpreted in the sense of the pre-existence of the flesh of Christ in the womb of Mary separately from God the Word. One way or another, but, according to the Monophysites, the humanity of Christ, not being a general human nature, must then be a particular human nature, that is, the humanity of the human individual; in other words, when speaking about human nature “before union,” the Monophysites always meant private nature, that is, hypostasis. In this, the most fundamental difference between Monophysite Christology and Orthodox Christology, Monophysitism and Nestorianism converge, for in Nestorianism the humanity of Christ is also a hypostasis, that is, the humanity of the individual. It turns out that both Christologies (both Nestorian and Monophysite) lead to the impossibility of saving every person. Although Monophysitism speaks of the closest (hypostatic and even natural) union in Christ of the Divine and human natures and hypostases, and Nestorianism only speaks of their subposition, it still turns out “as if Christ accepted and saved a certain one person.” In addition, Rev. Anastasius says that from the Monophysite doctrine of the single complex nature of Christ, confirmed by the literalist understanding of the anthropological paradigm, it logically follows “the assertion that Christ is from two imperfect things: from imperfect Divinity and from incomplete humanity, and He is not perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity, but half God and half man.” These words by Rev. Anastasia must be understood as follows. Neither the body nor the soul of a person individually are perfect natures. A body without a soul is dead and undergoes complete decay (in the sense of the disintegration of its essence). The soul exists separately after the death of a person, but this existence is unnatural, since it is a consequence of sin. This is a state of death and a temporary state. If the Monophysites spoke about the complex nature of Christ, then the Orthodox, categorically rejecting this teaching, spoke about His single complex Hypostasis (as, according to St. Anastasia, the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus teaches), consisting of two perfect natures. This Hypostasis is the Hypostasis of the Word, which has taken on the full human nature. So, Rev. Anastasius notes “that the anthropological paradigm, compared with many other images, does not fully correspond to Christ.” Of the “many other images” that better show the union of two natures in Christ, Sinait uses the following. This is an image of the union of one of the three one-natural lights with a cloud enveloping it. The second image is the image of a hot iron often used by the Holy Fathers. Another image is the image of the Son of God, who is among the three youths in the Babylonian furnace and engulfed in fire. But, speaking about the limitations of the anthropological paradigm, Rev. Anastasy Sinait does not call for completely abandoning it. He himself uses not only the anthropological paradigm in Christology, but also the Christological paradigm in anthropology. These are the positive aspects of the anthropological paradigm. Due to its simultaneous appeal to both Christology and anthropology, it allows us to illustrate the organic unity of these aspects of Orthodox theology. However, according to Rev. Anastasia, when using her, like all other Christological images, one must be careful, for the Sacrament of the union of two natures in the single Hypostasis of God the Word is a unique case that cannot be revealed in its entirety with the help of any analogies and philosophical constructions. From the doctrine of the hypostatic union of natures follows a correct understanding of the communication of properties (communicatio idiomatum). It was with the debate about the term “Theotokos,” that is, about the communication of properties, that the Christological era began. Disclosure Rev. Anastasia devotes paragraph 3.5 to this teaching. Nestorianism in principle rejects the communion of properties, admitting only that due to the fact that Christ is the God-man, communication was established between His Divine and human natures, hypostases and persons within the person of unity. Sevier categorically did not accept the presence of human nature in Christ, for, as it seemed to him, the duality of natures introduced the duality of hypostases into the one Christ, but he said that the God-man contained within Himself complete humanity (which was expressed in the presence of all the natural properties of human nature in Him) and, thus, was consubstantial with us. In Sevier's teaching on properties there is no strict connection between property and nature, which was necessarily thought by his opponents (both the Orthodox followers of Chalcedon and opponents within Monophysitism - for example, the Aphthartodocetes). According to Sevier, the One Subject Christ, His one nature-hypostasis, corresponds to a single property. But it is not monolithic. It includes divine and human properties in their entirety. Although some of the properties are of a Divine nature, and some are of a human nature, the distinction between them is conditional; they are not combined into two natures. Moreover, because of the unity of Christ, they cannot be characterized as either purely Divine or purely human. The Divine can be called human, and the human - Divine. Thus, that is, as a direct transfer of the properties of one nature to another, Sevier and his followers very specifically understood the “communication of properties.” Thus, according to Sevier, in Christ the Divine nature, which became complex during the Incarnation, took on the properties of human nature. This understanding of the communication of the Divine and human properties of Christ as the perception of His Divine nature by the properties of the flesh emerged during the period of theopaschytic disputes in Constantinople in the first years of the 6th century under the Patriarch of Macedonia (495–511). The text of the Trisagion Song, which was also sung at the Council of Chalcedon, was changed by the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch Peter Gnatheus, or Knatheos. He added to the Trisagion hymn before the words “have mercy on us” the words “crucified for us,” which caused confusion among the people. Since this song was always perceived as addressed to the Holy Trinity, the Orthodox suspected the Monophysites of professing the suffering of the Three Persons of the Trinity or the Divine nature, that is, they were theopaschites. Rev. Anastasy calls them that. The Monophysites justified this insertion by the fact that they attributed the Trisagion hymn to God the Word. Rev. Anastasius reminds the Monophysites that the Trisagion is understood in many churches as a hymn addressed to the Trinity, and not only to the incarnate Word. But even if we agree that the Trisagion is addressed only to the incarnate Word, then even then the Monophysites are worthy of reproach. Rev. Anastasius says that Monophysites understand theopaschytic expressions in the sense that the Divine nature, having accepted humanity, also accepted the properties of human nature, becoming passionate. He himself formulates the correct understanding of these expressions. It consists in the fact that the Divine nature acquires the properties of human nature, and the human nature acquires the properties of the Divine nature by economy and by virtue of being together within one hypostasis. Rev. Anastasius polemicizes with the teachings of Damian, who, in the midst of Monophysitism, actually resurrected the old heresy of Sabellius. Damian, speaking about the three hypostases in the Trinity, thought of them only as properties. Therefore, these heretics said: “Everything that is said about Christ,” including about the Incarnation, “is said about the Father and the Holy Spirit.” Rev. Anastasius clearly articulates the Orthodox triadology formulated by the Cappadocian Fathers, and the consequences of the hypostatic union of the natures of Christ in relation to intra-Trinitarian relationships. The Incarnation, in which the fullness of the Divine nature, but in the Hypostasis only of the Word, and not the Father and not the Spirit, was unfused and invariably united with the fullness of human nature, did not change the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity. Therefore, the Incarnation, in which the fullness of the Divine nature, but in the Hypostasis only of the Word, and not the Father and not the Spirit, was seamlessly and invariably united with the fullness of human nature, did not change the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity. The other Persons of the Trinity participated in the Incarnation “by a common will, that is, by favor and overshadowing.” So, as the logical development of Sevier’s Christology showed, the suspicions of Chalcedon’s supporters towards the Monophysites in theopaschism were not groundless. Only the Orthodox understanding of theopaschist expressions, based on the doctrine of the hypostatic union of natures, allows us to escape from theopaschism, that is, from the confession that the Divine nature became passionate during the incarnation, and from tritheism. Controversy Rev. Paragraph 3.6 is devoted to Anastasia with aphthartodocetism. According to the founder of this heresy, Julian of Halicarnac, 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,” introduces a Nestorian division in Christ. 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). According to Julian, 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 Halicarnak bishop is equivalent to the Nestorian division. Rev. Anastasius Sinaite cites Julian’s opinion that the body of Christ could experience suffering states only if He allowed it: “Some say that the most holy body of Christ was potentially corruptible, that is, able to perceive corruption, but in reality it remained incorruptible in the tomb thanks to the Divinity of the Word.” 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 any redemptive meaning. So, according to the aftartodokets, Christ voluntarily accepts suffering, although he might not have experienced hunger after forty days of fasting in the desert and might not have suffered physical torment from scourging and crucifixion. 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. Rev. 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 cannot be attributed to nature, as the Aphthartodocetes taught, then, based on the definition of nature as true reality, his body is not really existing. Thus, according to Rev. 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. Rev. Anastasius gives a “Eucharistic argument” against the teachings of the Aphthartodocetes. 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,” Sinait invites the aftartodokets to postpone them Place the Holy Gifts in a certain vessel and see what happens to them in a few days. “If it does not 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 deteriorates or changes, 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 the bread and wine, or that the body of Christ until the Resurrection is perishable as sacrificed, subject to death and wounds, crushed and eaten." With the help of the “Eucharistic argument” Rev. 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, daily by nature and truly tasting it, we partake of it.” Rev. Anastasius also argues against the Monophysites’ misunderstanding of the concept of “deification.” Heretics spoke of the deification of humanity in Christ as its dissolution in the abyss of the Divine nature. The Orthodox understanding of deification is different: “Deification is an ascension to a higher [state of nature], and not a diminution or change of it... To be deified means to be elevated to greater glory, but does not imply a change in one’s own nature.” After the Resurrection, Christ left the sinless passions, which are the consequences of Adam’s fall, and from the state of His humiliation, humanity passed into a glorified state. But even after the Resurrection, the human nature of Christ remained human nature. She has not turned into the Divine nature, has not acquired Divine properties, but remains in a glorified state. To the teachings of Rev. Anastasia about actions and wills in Christ is devoted to paragraph 3.7. The controversy about the energies and wills of Christ came to the forefront of theological controversy precisely during the life of St. Anastasia Sinaita, when Monothelitism appeared - a new synthetic heresy, verbally agreeing to recognize the humanity of Christ as nature, but denying natural action and will in it. The text of the Guide does not include disputes and polemics with monothelitism, but the second chapter of the work provides the philosophical and theological foundations for the fight against this heresy. However, these foundations are also important for refuting Monophysitism, because in the theology of the same Sevier, the categories of action and will play an important role. Sevier spoke about the single, but complex “god-masculine” energy of Christ, that is, he saw in it the presence of two “particular” components - Divine and human, which, as it seemed to him, testified at the same time to the “double consubstantiality” of Christ and His one nature. The term “divine action” of Christ is taken from the fourth letter of Dionysius the Areopagite to the minister Gaius. In the 7th century, one of the first to propose an Orthodox interpretation of the expression of Dionysius was St. Sophronius of Jerusalem. He distinguished between three activities in Christ: Divine, human and divine. According to Sophronius, the divine action was not single, but consisted of two different and unmixed actions. Rev. Anastasius Sinaite, discussing the expression of Dionysius the Areopagite about the new divine action in the thirteenth chapter of the Guide, repeats the teaching of St. Sophronia: “Christ acts either in the Divine, or in the human, or in both ways, that is, God-husband; So, He performs all actions without fail either according to Divinity, or according to humanity, or jointly, according to the integrity of His person, that is, [when in action] Divinity [manifests] inseparably with the flesh, and humanity inseparably with Divinity.” As purely human actions of Christ, St. Anastasius calls His impeccable passions, without which He would not be consubstantial with us, and as a godly action (“above human nature”) he names His supernatural seedless conception, the preservation of the virginity of the Mother of God at the moment and after the Nativity, and the feeding of the Infant God at the Virgin’s breast. Sevier said that the complexity of the single energy of Christ was manifested only in the results of His single, namely Divine action. In Christ one can distinguish between Divine and human results, but both are accomplished by His single Divine energy. Divine energy is refracted in humanity, like light passing through a glass prism, and produces human results, but these are accomplished not by the human energy of Christ, but by the Divine energy of the Word. To demonstrate this complexity in the single action of Christ, Sevier turns to terminology attributed to St. Basil the Great of the fourth book “Against Eunomius”. Rev. Anastasius reproduces this teaching about the various aspects of action: “The action (ἐνέργεια), the agent (ἐνεργητικόν) and the result of the action (ἐνέργημα) are not one and the same. After all, the active is called existence itself or the reality of essence. The result of an action is the final result of the action of the actor; for example, the results of God’s action are heaven, man, Angel and [in general] every creature.” This triad illustrates the difference between Orthodoxy and Nestorianism and Monophysitism (as well as from Monothelitism). For Nestorianism, the duality in the actions (and wills) of Christ begins at the very top of the triad - at the level of the subject - and extends to the bottom. For Monophysitism, duality appears only at the lowest - the third stage of the triad. Only the results of the single Divine action of Christ can be human. Orthodox theology conceives of Christ as a single Subject, Who is characterized by His two natural actions - Divine and human - with their own results. As with the attribute of action, the will is also characterized by a triad - subject, will and desired object: “The will (τὸ θέλημα), the willing (τὸ θελητικόν) and the desired (τὸ θελητόν) are not the same thing. For will is the thinking aspiration of a thinking entity; what wills is that which has will; and what is desired is the object of love.” For Orthodox thinking in Christ and two wills. For Sevier, the single will of Christ does not contain any complexity. This is only Divine will. Next, Rev. Anastasius speaks about three states of mental (i.e. human) will: “In addition, in Scripture we find statements about [other] three types of wills: Divine (θεικόν), natural (φυσικόν), or average (μέσον) and carnal ( σαρκικόν); the latter signifies the will of the devil.” The natural, natural, or average state of the human will is the state in which it was created by God. The state of the human will in the supernatural state “is the hastening of the innate and rational desire from that which corresponds to nature to that which exceeds nature.” The third state of the will is a sinful state, contrary to nature itself: “And the carnal will is a passionate perversion of the natural into the unnatural.” The etymology of the words “God” and “man”, which Rev. Anastasius, in the second chapter of the Guide, gives him another argument in polemics with Monophysitism: “If both names of the essences of Christ (I mean: “God” and “man”) come from their natural actions, then why are some not ashamed to deny two actions in Him? They, even if they do not cite any evidence from Scripture and the Fathers, are put to shame by the very names of Christ, that is, by designating Him as “God and man.” Well, the main argument of Rev. Anastasia is already against monoenergism and monothelitism; the argument in favor of the presence in Christ of human action and will, if there is human nature in Him, is that without natural actions no nature exists and cannot be known. That is why the Monophysites, according to Rev. Anastasia from the “Third Word, or Word against the Monothelites,” boasted of their victory over the Orthodox after signing union documents based on Monothelite formulas: “It was not we and Chalcedon, but Chalcedon with us who entered into communion, confessing one nature of Christ through one [His] action.” However, this argument also works against Monophysitism. Rev. Anastasius, defining natural action as movement, a natural force inherent in nature, is based on the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa: “action is the natural force and movement of every essence, which only non-existence lacks.” Sevier, although he speaks about the consubstantiality of Christ to us in humanity (that is, about the human essence, but not the nature, of Christ), about His perfection in humanity, they deny the presence of human action in Him. But the absence of its action, according to St. Gregory, there is a sign of non-existence. Therefore, Rev. Anastasius is not at all far from the truth when he reduces the Christology of Sevier to docetism. The Conclusion summarizes the general results of the dissertation research and draws conclusions from the study of the Christology of St. Anastasia Sinaita, as expressed in the Guide. So, despite its complex structure, the “Guide” is not a compilation of the works of various authors, but an integral work of authorship. After the critical edition of this treatise, all doubts about its ownership by the Rev. Anastasia Sinaita can be considered refuted. Our analysis of the terminology and teaching expressed in the Guide also confirms the integrity of this work and its attribution to Rev. Anastasia. Refuting the Christological teachings of the Nestorians and Monophysites, Rev. Anastasius Sinait shows a strict adherence to Orthodox Christology as expressed at Chalcedon. At the same time, he tries to show that the Chalcedonian creed is based on the teachings of previous Ecumenical Councils and the pre-Chalcedonian Holy Fathers. The Christology of the heretics, according to the Sinaite, contradicts this patristic Tradition and therefore they fall under the anathema of the first three Ecumenical Councils. This also applies to the Christology of the Monophysite theologian Sevirus of Antioch, who seems to be closest to Orthodoxy - St. Anastasius insists that Sevier is not a successor to St. Cyril of Alexandria, but an undoubted heretic, whose Christology contradicts the Christology of the great Alexandrian saint. However, Rev. Anastasius does not limit himself to simply listing Dyophysite quotations from the pre-Chalcedonian Fathers. Proving the correctness of the Council of Chalcedon, he actively uses the developments of the so-called neo-Chalcedonian theology, represented, first of all, by John the Grammar of Caesarea, Leontius of Byzantium, St. Sophronius of Jerusalem and Rev. Maximus the Confessor. Merit of Rev. Anastasia is that he was one of the first to make an attempt to systematize Orthodox Christology. In this sense, he is the predecessor of Rev. John of Damascus with his "Source of Knowledge". However, Rev. Anastasius not only uses the achievements of the Orthodox theologians who preceded him and systematizes them, but he himself introduces original arguments into polemics with heretics, which allows him to more fully sanctify the Christological teaching of the Church. See, for example, the article devoted to the term ϕύσις in the dictionary ed. Lampe A Patristic Greek Lexicon. "Ed. by G.W.H. lamp. – Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1968. – P. 1497–1502. See, for example: Darling R., Griffith S.H. Anastasius of Sinai, the Monophysites and the Qur'an. // Eighth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference. Chicago, 1982. – P. 13–14; Griffith S.H. Anastasius of Sinai, the Hodegos and the Muslims. // The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 32 (1987). – P. 348–349; Sahas D.J. Anastasius of Sinai on Islam. // Contacts between Cultures. V. I, 1990. – P. 332–338; Lurie V.M. Theology of “Egyptians with the mind”: http://hgr.narod.ru/dami.htm; Maksimov Yu. Rev. Anastasijsinait about Islam: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/apologetika/anastasijsinait-islam.htm. See, for example: Govorun S.N. One complex Christ. // Theological Bulletin. No. 4. – Sergiev Posad: MPDA, 2004. – P. 150–176. Spačil. La teologia di santo Anastasio il Sinaita, Roma 1923 (aus "Bessa-rione"). Hare Vladimir, Rev. Saint Anastasius of Sinai and his theological works: Course essay for the Department of Patrolology. – Zagorsk: TSL, 1971. – 134 p. Critical edition: Anastasii Sinaitae. Quastiones et responses. /Ed. par M. Richard et J. A. Munitiz. – Turnhout. – Leuven: Brepols: University press., 2006. – (Corpus christianorum. Series graeca. V. 59). Critical edition of these works: Anastasii Sinaitae. Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei, necnon Opuscula adversus monotheletas. « Cuius edionem curavit Karl-Heinz Uthemann. – Turnhout. – Leuven: Brepols: University press, 1985. – CLXVIII, 200 p. – (Corpus christianorum. Series graeca. V.12). Adrian (Pashin), hieromonk. Anthropology of St. Anastasius Sinaita: Thesis. / Typescript. – M.: Sretenskaya Theological Seminary, 2005 – 151, XXII p. Σάκκος, Στέργιος. Ἀναστασίων Σιναϊτῶν (̓ Αριστοτέλειον Πανεπιστήμιον Θεσσαλονίκης ̓ Επιστημονική ̕ Ἐπιστημονικὴ ̕Ἐπετηρὶς Θεολογικὴς Σχολής .