Message to the Orthodox of Crete

In the “Message to the Orthodox of Crete” (15 chapters) St. Simeon of Thessaloniki appeals to the Orthodox, under pressure from Latin power and proselytism. The main part of the work is devoted to explaining the dogma of the Holy Trinity. The author emphasizes the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit only from the Father, as well as the difference between the essence and energies of God (according to the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas). Saint Simeon refutes the Latin teaching of the Filioque, proving its inconsistency with Holy Scripture, the Creed and the teaching of the Ecumenical Councils. He argues that the gifts and grace given by the Spirit are not His hypostasis or essence, but His energies, available to man for deification by grace, and not by nature. The confusion of these concepts, in his opinion, leads to absurd theological conclusions and heretical teachings, similar to the ideas of Barlaam of Calabria. In addition to the central dogmatic theme, Saint Simeon denounces Latin innovations in the Sacraments and church practice, which he considers a departure from the Apostolic Tradition: - the use of unleavened bread instead of leavened bread in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, teaching only the Body of Christ without Blood to the laity, the absence of full concelebration of the clergy; - the practice of pouring instead of immersion in the Sacrament of Baptism, the absence of Confirmation immediately after Baptism; - lack of parting communion for the dying; - polygamous lifestyle, as well as consanguineous marriages that contradict church canons; - deviations in observing fasts; - the consecration of bishops by one bishop, and not by a council, and moral laxity among the clergy. St. Simeon of Thessalonica calls on the Cretans to stand firm in the faith, to preserve Orthodox dogmas and customs, to an ascetic life, virginity or chaste marriage, to prayer and repentance. Contents Introduction Contents of the message The message is dogmatic and at the same time admonishing to one of the Orthodox of Crete, striving for a correct understanding of the teaching The life and work of Saint Simeon of Thessalonica falls almost on the last era of the existence of the Byzantine Empire as a state. During the reign of the last Palaiologos Manuel II, John VIII, the Roman Empire was in a very difficult situation: the emperor was a tributary of the Turkish Sultan, and the territory of the Empire itself consisted of Constantinople with the outskirts of Thrace and a small number of fortresses and cities of Greece, ruled by the emperor's governors. Powerless in the fight against the formidable Ottomans, Byzantium became more and more dependent on the Latin West, without whose help Constantinople would have fallen long ago. The Turkish onslaught on Europe was now held back not by the Romans or even the Serbs and Bulgarians, but by the Venetians and Genoese with the help of military expeditions of Western kings. The Venetians ruled the Empire, supported by various knightly states that remained from the era of Latin rule in the East. The Latins owned almost all the islands of the Aegean Sea, as well as Cyprus and Crete. The remnants of the former greatness of Byzantium were partially preserved only by the Byzantine Church. Firmly preserving Orthodoxy and not making any compromises with Latin Rome, the Patriarchate of Constantinople continued to unite all Orthodox Greeks and appointed bishops to all important sees of the East. Due to endless Latin proselytism, anti-Latin polemics remained an important topic for church writers. Already after the ill-fated IV Crusade (1204), during the era of the Nicene Empire, the Church, trying to protect its flock from being seduced into Latinism, compiled a special “Synodik of the Holy Spirit”, containing anathematization of all Latin false teachings about the Holy Spirit. Apparently, then among the simple Orthodox people the idea is born that “a turban is better than a tiara”, that it is more important to preserve the heavenly fatherland for oneself than the earthly one; at the same time, the educated secular intelligentsia believed, on the contrary, that submission to Rome and the union of the Churches was better than the rule of the godless Hagarians. The main line of anti-Latin polemics in Byzantine theology begins with St. Photius of Constantinople (IX), continues by St. Nikita Stiphatus (XI), St. Gregory of Cyprus (XIII), St. Gregory Palamas (XIV), Joseph Bryenius (early XV). Saint Simeon of Thessalonica stands apart from the main stream of development of the controversy and in his message, which is the topic of our work, does not give anything conceptually new. By the 15th century, Thessaloniki had already become a provincial city of the Empire theologically: simultaneously with St. Simeon in 1422 in Constantinople, Joseph Bryenius, teacher of St. Mark of Ephesus, - delivers his 22 conversations about the Holy Trinity in the imperial palace, in which he further reveals the connection of the Holy Spirit with the Son and the difference in the Latin teaching about the Filioque. However, the dogmatic letters of St. Simeon are of interest. Saint Simeon was born and raised in Constantinople. His love for the “reigning city” of the autocrat and Ecumenical Patriarch had no boundaries. For St. Simeon's city is the source of true faith and right deeds, the pulpit of pious kings and the throne of the great priesthood. We do not know with certainty where or when he became a monk, but from his sermons it is likely that he was a disciple of the "Xanthopulian saints" Callistus and Ignatius. He has special respect for Symeon Metaphrastes and, apparently, took the monastic name “Simeon” in honor of him. He was close to Palamite circles and also had friendly relations with King Manuel II, as well as with the Patriarchate. Apparently, he belonged to a group of hesychast monks closely associated with the royal palace and the patriarchal court. He was very gifted with mental abilities, but was not interested in secular science. Apparently, he accepted the priesthood at age 30. Obviously, St. Simeon was not one of those clerics who are said to take on the monastic image only for a career. He always writes about monasticism with respect and sees in it the highest way of life and an end in itself. Saint Simeon became bishop between June 1416 and April 1417. In November 1420 he became Archbishop of Thessalonica. At that time, Thessaloniki was periodically captured by the Turks and returned by the Byzantines. From 1408 to 1423 the city was ruled by the young despot Andronikos Palaiologos, the third son of Manuel II. Saint Simeon had a great influence on him and in every possible way inspired him to fight against the Turks. In 1423, Sultan Murat surrounded the city. The situation was difficult. The townspeople, seeing no way out and not expecting help from Constantinople, decided to surrender the city to the Venetians. Saint Simeon, as a true patriot, inspired everyone to fight against the Turks, which earned him the love of the people. For Saint Simeon, the fall of Thessaloniki and Constantinople inevitably led to the fall of the Christian Empire - this last bastion of the Orthodox faith. He anathematizes those who would like or tried to betray the city to the enemies of Christ and recognized their power as legitimate. He calls the inhabitants to martyrdom, for such is the lot of Christians - to suffer for Christ. His slogan became: “Support the emperors and believe only in miracles.” Could he not hear the voice of the One who said: “My kingdom is not of this world”? No, I couldn't. In fact, he was on this path, because he, agreeing to military assistance from the West, did not betray Orthodoxy, rejected any compromises in faith and did not sacrifice church freedom. He also entered into a dispute with the Philoventians, because he realized that the freedom of the Church was in danger if the city belonged to the Latins. The struggle for Orthodoxy and the Byzantine autocracy against the Turks and Latins made him a true martyr. In the end, in a completely hopeless state, the city was given to the Venetian Republic of St. Mark, while St. Simeon, being seriously ill and remembering that during the capture of Constantinople, the Latins expelled the Orthodox bishops, tried to subjugate the Orthodox clergy and force them to change church dogmas and canons, obtained from the Venetians a guarantee of the independence of the Orthodox Church. However, after the capture of the city, the Venetians demanded from the archbishop not only the proclamation of their names during the liturgy and meeting in churches with candlebearers and censing, but also the commemoration of the pope as the head of the Universal Church. Saint Simeon categorically refused to do this, thus not recognizing the Venetians as legitimate civil power. However, he views the Venetians and Genoese as instruments of the divine "education" of the Byzantines. John the Reader testifies that St. Simeon “does not resist the authorities, but taught them to love, as those ordained by God.” He gained increasing respect from the townspeople, so that after his death, which followed in mid-September 1429, he was glorified as a saint, and a rite of worship was drawn up for him. Assessing the place of St. Simeon in the history of Byzantium, it must be said that at the beginning of the 15th century there were 3 parties in the Empire: philosophers, imperialists and “churchmen”. The first were determined to voluntarily submit to the pope, bowing to Western science; the latter preferred insincere submission to Rome, while transferring the scepter of the basileus to the Grand Duke of Moscow: the third Rome flourished in imitation of the second and was supposed to turn into an Orthodox Empire capable of crushing the Ottoman power, and ultimately expelling the Turks from Europe. but this idea died after many generations: the Greek people adapted to the Turkish regime and focused on preserving their own spiritual and cultural tradition. Saint Simeon did not belong to the first party; he was united with the second by an ardent desire to preserve a free Orthodox empire. But he did not rely on compromise and force, but on prayer, repentance and Providence, so he, in fact, belonged to the third party. His heart was in tune with the hesychasts, with the non-resistance of the new martyrs, ascetics and monks. In addition, he hated the faith and customs of the Latins and did not recognize their sacraments and ordination. Under Turkish rule, St. Simeon would undoubtedly become a martyr. He suffered greatly for the Church, for the Empire, and bitterly experienced the decline of the Byzantine world, but he understood that the Lord was punishing the Romans in this way for the wickedness and crime of Byzantine society. Nevertheless, he believed that God would hear the pure prayers of those who truly serve Him, and for whose sake the world still exists, behind whom lies the future of Christianity. Among them can be counted St. Simeon, he truly belonged to those whose residence is in heaven. From the beginning of the letter we can learn a little about the origin and purpose of writing this anti-Latin work. The recipient was a “zealot of the Orthodox Church's dogmas,” who played a leading role in the Orthodox community of the island of Crete, left without clergy and teachers, living under pressure from the Latins and in need of a word of grace for protection from the heterodox. At that time, the Church of Crete was under strong Latin domination and was oppressed in every possible way. The inhabitants of Crete were especially in need of moral support: their island had been continuously subject to Venetian rule since 1204 and the Uniate regime that they introduced. The Orthodox episcopate, driven out by the Latins, died out, and the Greek clergy were reinforced by more or less secret visits to the mainland. In this message of St. Simeon addresses the main topic, namely the dogma of the Holy Trinity and, above all, speaks of the procession of the Holy Spirit and the difference between essence and energy. Having described in general terms the connection between the hypostases of the Holy Trinity, he explains that people are given the Holy Spirit not by hypostasis or essence, but by His grace-filled gifts, and the deification of man occurs by grace, and not by nature, and the Spirit is poured out and dwells in us, and we become one with Christ and the Father “not by persons and essence,” but by “gifts and grace.” The lie of the Latins is that they do not distinguish the outpouring and gift of the Spirit, which is common to the persons of the Trinity, from the pre-eternal procession of the Spirit, therefore they say that “the Spirit itself is given,” like Barlaam, but from this it follows that, since God has become energyless, the created world becomes co-eternal with God and divine, while “uninnovated theology” teaches that only God is eternal and therefore “does not give his essence and nature, but only grace and energy and providence,” with one exception – the hypostatic incarnation of the Logos. Since the Latins say that the Spirit comes from the Son, they identify His hypostasis with the essence, and believe that the Spirit (or the entire Trinity!) is incarnated in us. Simeon again returns to the description of the eternal internal relations in the Holy Trinity and uses various examples (especially of the human soul), while recognizing their insufficiency in order to properly express this sacrament. He uses two expressions from Scripture: “love” and “light” (9, 10). Those who try to “belittle the Holy Spirit” are mistaken when they say that “the Spirit of Christ does not refer to the gift of the grace of the Spirit through Christ, but to the very hypostasis of the Spirit,” because “the grace of the Spirit is given through the Son in the Holy Spirit.” God the Father is the one source Deity, He is incomprehensible and is known only through Revelation contained in the Creed, therefore we need to agree with the fathers who compiled it. It is clear from the text that the archbishop knows the argumentation of Western Christians, but prefers not to debate, but to refer to certain quotes from the Greek fathers. At the same time, he again repeats that the understanding of the Latins does not agree with the sayings of the fathers of the seven Ecumenical Councils about the Creed. The influence of the anti-Barlamite polemic is palpable in many places in the epistle. Saint Simeon completely ignores the patristic expressions of the classical era, which could serve as a partial rapprochement of Greek and Latin theology, and does not even want to discuss this. The message is distinguished by its clarity and richness of polemical argumentation. The message is dogmatic and at the same time admonishing to one of the Orthodox of Crete, striving for a correct understanding of the teaching. 4. And the Spirit does not come from above, nor is it carnally represented by the breath of the lips, and it does not begin when the Savior breathed on His apostles. The Spirit is not given to creatures hypostasis: after all, did the disciples themselves accept the nature of the Divine and receive the hypostasis of the Spirit, later becoming God-men? But how is the prime divided? And if the Spirit comes into us hypostatically, then He became incarnate. But not like this: for no one teaches about the incarnation of the Spirit. So what's given? Rivers from the source. What is a source? The Lord's body. What about rivers? Various gifts of the Holy Spirit, common to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and [by no means] a hypostasis of the Spirit. And the Holy Gospel speaks about this: “Whoever believes in Me, out of his belly will flow rivers of living water. This He said about the Spirit, which those who believed in Him were about to receive.” So, if believers have rivers of living water flowing, and this is the Spirit hypostatically in them, then [then] believers also drain the spirit. After all, this is what happens to those who blaspheme: if the hypostasis of the Spirit is given to us, believers, then, consequently, we also bring forth the Holy Spirit. Ole nonsense! But what do we [really] receive and what are these rivers called Spirit that flow from us? [These] gifts of the Spirit fill us and are shared, and through us are given to other believers according to the habitation. And Paul testifies to this: “To one is given the word of wisdom by the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to others gifts of healings by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discerning of spirits,” and so on, the end being “Yet all these things worketh one and the same Spirit.” Do you see? The Spirit produces (energei/), [but] does not dwell hypostatically. And again, “dividing to each separately,” [means that] One shares His gifts to each separately. And “as He pleases,” because the Spirit is omnipotent and self-sovereign: for [He] is Lord and knows everyone and provides what everyone needs. So, what we accept is the gift and grace of the Holy Spirit; the same from the fullness of the Divinity, which dwells bodily in the Savior. And the Gospel says about this: “and out of His fullness we have received everything.” Therefore, all completeness: for the Son was incarnate and, together with the Father and the Spirit, has everything, bodily, just as the One with the Golden Word speaks about the Spirit. We accept it as from the source. And in fact, isn’t the essence acceptable? No way. But “grace instead of grace,” as it is written: instead of the small and dark legal one, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the gift and power, of the Father and His Son and the Holy Spirit, for the common grace of the Holy Trinity, as well as one energy and power given to us thanks to the incarnation of the Word. For the Word became flesh and dwelt in us, and He alone became incarnate as the Only Begotten Word, having received from us human nature and kept [him] equally divine, did not change it, but filled it with His glory and power. Therefore, “and we saw His glory,” he says, not just as a man, but “the glory as the only begotten from the Father” - His grace, light and radiance, not suspiciously, but truly - “the glory as the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” After all, the ancient dark was a prototype and was given through the man Moses. What is perfect and self-existent, which is ever-present through Him, is given from God the Word. And the Holy Gospel says that “the law was given through Moses, grace and truth through Jesus Christ.” 5. So, we truly receive this grace from Him, the Living Truth, given to us through Him from the Father in the Holy Spirit. And this is, given from Him, His grace, holiness, fellowship, unity, settlement, enlightenment, peace, redemption and perfect salvation and deification. What kind of deification? May we become gods and god-men by nature or sons of God by nature? In no way, but sons by grace and gods by grace through the true by nature God and Son. Do you understand the truth? “I ascend to My Father” by nature, and to your Father” by grace, “and to My God” as one who became man, “and to your God” - because I and His Son are by nature, even if I was incarnate, therefore My God the Father is not the same as yours. But he stood up, said David, God “in the midst of the gods,” and “the God of a hundred in the assembly of gods.” He who is by nature [God] is among those who are deified by Him. However, deification, according to the position given to us and son-creation and gift and grace, and not the essence given. And from the Lord’s body, in which alone the entire fullness of the Divine abides bodily, having grown in and imparting the grace of the Spirit, and not the essence and hypostasis of the Spirit. And the touch, the healing, the lifting of the hands and the blessing and promise of the Holy Spirit [mean] to give His gift, which is the gift of the Spirit, and the Spirit and the Word. And Isaiah calls the grace of the Spirit “spirits,” as I have already said. 6. So, this is what some of the saints said problu, zesqai and to present, since the Spirit is from the Father. Thus, without a doubt, also from the Son. For equally this gift comes from the Spirit: “I will pour out,” he says, “my Spirit on all flesh,” and “he has given us of his Spirit.” And we are Christs by grace, just as Christ Himself truly is, and His anointing in us is the Spirit, that is, the grace of the Spirit. For out of His fullness we have received everything, and He dwells in us and abides with the Father who is. But how? An entity? Essence and hypostases? In no way - for the creature cannot endure the Divine nature - but in common grace, given in the Spirit. Therefore, “the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,” says [the apostle], as He Himself became man and received all the grace bodily. And as one who reconciles us through Himself to the Father; and “the love of God and the Father” as reconciled to us through the Beloved and who loved us so much that He sent Him to us, and “the communion of the Holy Spirit” as reconciliation through the economy of the Only Begotten, who infused the Father into us and partook of the gifts to us. Who united the whole Lord's Body and through this gift of the Spirit fulfilled our nature of divine communion, since truly united with God the Word is the all-holy human nature, composed of the Holy Spirit and the virgin and holy blood of the Mother of God, which all received, as it is said, the fullness of the Divinity in the incarnation by the favor of the Father and the assistance of the Holy Spirit, from Whom and through whom we are recreated and become one with Him, and in His body and me, lh are perfected, and into the churches and habitations of God in the Spirit. For we are clothed in Christ by Baptism, and we partake of Christ in the sacraments, and we are sealed with the world of Christ, and in Christ we are purified, receiving remission of sins, and we become priests of God, accepting the priesthood, and in Christ we perform all the sacraments. But we call on both the Father and the Son, speaking “with Him” in prayer, and we promise to act (…………..) by the Holy Spirit. And He himself gave this to [us], saying: “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” So, the Trinity acts in us (evnergei/), since the Trinity is inseparable, and the One who depicted us [again] recreates us. For how do we put on Christ and receive the Spirit and have the Father and the Son? Faces and essence? No, he says. After all, if this is in us, [then] the Trinity has become incarnate. But how does She dwell [in us]? Gifts and grace. 7. Finally, if you heard that [someone] considers the given, sent, sent, poured out and given Spirit to be the gift and grace of the Spirit, which is common to the Spirit Himself and the Father and the Son, [then know that] this is an error instilled by the Latins. For when they hear some divine word about giving us the indwelling grace of the Spirit, they attribute this to the procession of the hypostasis of the Spirit. And therefore they dogmatize [it] not to be without beginning, not pre-eternal, not co-eternal with the Father, not equal in nature and perfection, not equivalent, not incomprehensible and inseparable in nature, not omnipotent along with the Father and the Word, not dividing each individual separately as He pleases, not giving the gifts of healing, nor prophecy or revelation or service or the distinction of gifts, which Paul preaches to everyone, but they say that He Himself The Spirit is given, the very hypostasis, the very essence of the Divine, which the Messalian heretics dogmatized and Barlaam of Calabria, educated in Hellenic opinions and wise in Latin, and with the greatest cunning, like the ancient serpent, stealthily corrupting the Orthodox Church, and, on the one hand, as if actually trying to write and speak against the Latins, on the other hand, insidiously introducing secrets into itself Latin [teaching]. [After all, he], destroying the grace and gift of the Spirit, says that the Spirit who truly arranges this (oivkono, mw/n) is from the Son, not as real grace and gift, but [as] the hypostasis itself. Therefore, he leads us away from the [teachings] of the Savior and His apostles and from the correct theology according to succession from the fathers and not newly introduced. [All] these [heretics hold] the thoughts of the Hellenic and unsuitable opinion for the destruction of the power and energy of God, so as to either recognize God as energyless (avnene, rghton) and therefore made the creation out of Himself, or godlessly think of [it] abiding and ever-present and co-originating with God, not from what has come from and not receiving benefit from God’s providence, nor the contents and governed by Him, finally, so as not to consider God the Creator of all things, or who created these and foresaw to convey to them His essence and nature and to partake [of them] of this very Divine nature and make them gods, and [so that they] fall into polytheism. But we, Orthodox thinkers, are betrothed (kaqomologei/tai) to the one beginningless God in the Trinity; and this eternal and ever-present and one God the Father with the Son and the Spirit; Himself is one nature, Incomprehensible, Ineffable, indivisible and Superexistent and not inherently participating in any nature; whereas One is ever-present and infinitely before every creature and in everything Existing and above all is as the Pre-Existent and Demiurge of all and who created everything from non-existent, and does not devote His essence and nature, but only grace and energy and providence, through which everything created by God is arranged and supported by His Word and Spirit, and nothing of all could exist if it were not for the use of the providence and power of God. Only that all-holy robe of our Savior and God Jesus Christ from our nature, received by Him from the Virgin Mary the Mother of God, was united through the hypostasis of the Word by extreme and unmerged unity with our formation (avna, plasin), becoming one-hypostatic with it (òmoupostaton), as hypostatically united, [having] in its own hypostasis the truly incarnate Word Himself. The body again remained with the rational soul, being the own [body] of the same Word, through whom the angels and [we], men, are enlightened, and the whole world, both visible and invisible, is sanctified, partaking of the grace of Christ Himself, as the Theologian says. 8. However, from this, let the Latins know that they are mistaken by Hellenic opinions, and when they say that [when it is said about] the Holy Spirit that He is from the Son, [it means:] through an outpouring or a breath or sending to us, and they consider that His Hypostasis is the essence, and they recognize a second different incarnation - the incarnation of the Spirit. And they say that the inaccessible, ineffable, incomprehensible, inconceivable nature of God is contained within us, and that after one and great sacrament before the ages - the only former sacrament of the incarnation of the Word, [it] was again accomplished in men through the Spirit, otherwise they consider it destroyed. But the Church teaches that only in that [one] and only the Word Himself undertook to perform this [sacrament], when in this sacrament the Father was pleased and the Spirit cooperated (sunergh/sai); and the one true unity of God with our nature was unity according to the hypostasis of the Word in this divine perception; from this same [unity] all grace and gift participate, and not the essence of the Word or His hypostasis, and not the hypostasis of the Father or the Holy Spirit. If someone else talks about this, and dares to say about the incarnation of the Trinity, or that the Word and the Holy Spirit were incarnate, then no one has ever thought of such a thing in the Catholic Church. So, the fact that the Spirit is given to us is the acceptance not of a hypostasis, but of the gift and grace of the Holy Spirit, as we have already said many times. 9 . The Holy Spirit formerly was and is and will always be with the Father, like the Son, and has existence from the Father, since His cause, like [the cause] of the Son, is the Father; and He abides in the Son and is inseparable from Him, because together with the Father, and always with the Father, and neither by time nor by age, He is not separated from the Father, as co-originating in being with the Father. So His Word - by nature the Word, is born from Him, and His Spirit - by nature the Spirit proceeds directly from Him and together with the Word, and we cannot imagine the Father without the Word and the Spirit, nor the Word without the Spirit, nor the Spirit separately from the Word. For neither the Father is separate from the Word and the Spirit, nor the Word is separate from the Father and the Spirit, nor the Spirit without the Father and the Word, as the divine Maximus said in the chapters. The beginning and the source and the root and the cause of the Son and the Spirit is the Father, because He is both the Father and the cause. Together they are from Him like a ray and light from the sun, as we have already said, and according to which the fathers also spoke; and also as from a spring stream and water, as they said in Nicaea; and as from the root of a branch, - god-forged (qeofutouj) branches, just as Dionysius called them; and as from the tree of the Father there is a life-giving flower, as the same one said again; and from the light the super-essential radiance (fw/ta) together - so none of the examples is clear enough for comparison (parastasin) with the knowledge-transcending Trinity. For since the Trinity is the God of all and above the knowledge of all, and the Trinity is a sacrament, and its knowledge and faith are a sacrament; [therefore] the Trinity is understood by faith (noei/tai) and acts in us by faith, and is unattainable as being above all, and nothing is sufficient to prove It. For how can one prove that the Creator is a creature? It is known (noei/tai) from what She gives and from what She reveals, therefore there is no need to understand or think or speak about Her in a divine way that is revealed to us, as Dionysius again says somewhere. [The Trinity is depicted with the help of] some images, as much as possible for us, not as [It] is, for [It] is above all knowledge (which is why it is said that a person depicts the Trinity not as [he] is, [but] as created and named in the image of God, but as possible. Hence, a person with his soul testifies [to how] it is possible and possible to think [about the Trinity], and has an intelligent soul (noera,n) - for the reason beginningless Mind, and verbal (logikh,n) - thanks to the Word-Son from the beginningless Mind of the Father, and living and life-giving body and loving his own word - thanks to the Life-giving and Holy Spirit, Living and Life-giving and united with the Word and the fruit of love, as Paul says: “through him the Eternal Mind is love and the Father, who loves His Word, has also the beloved.” He calls him beloved, and through the Spirit he quickens and perfects everything in himself, acting through the Word. 10. So, this is the image our soul has. And our mind gives birth to the word from itself, if not by hypostasis - for it is a creature and [came] from something that does not exist - and considers it loved, and revives the body with life-giving power. Indeed, what is the reason for words and life and love? Isn’t that a smart soul? And what do we love about us? Is it not a word from the mind that is desired more than the most beloved children? For the father hates children who despise his word. Where does the love for words come from? Is it not from our mind? The rest is revealed from some dark image, that the cause of the Word and the Spirit is only the Father. If you say that the Son loves the Father, but as the cause of [being] Himself and receiving from Him [being] and love (to avgapa/n). And besides, the Holy Spirit [then] would be loving (agapa/n) of both the Father and the Son, if [if] and beyond the reflection of the Divine, as we have already said and how possible we collect this from the Holy Scriptures. And Isaiah said: “Behold my Servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, in whom my soul delights: I will put my Spirit on him.” Do you see that both the Child [here] is beloved, and the Spirit seems to go from the Father to the Son? That. Indeed, what is said [here] regarding the beginningless cause, because the cause of the Son and Spirit is the Father. But this is said both for the sake of the incarnation of the Word, and, as we have already said, [for the sake of] the bodily acceptance of all the energies of the Spirit, which He, as the Word, has with the Father and the Spirit. Therefore it is said: “and he will proclaim the Judgment to the nations,” which the Gospel confirms, saying that “all judgment was given to the Son,” and, obviously, according to the flesh. The Gospel and “love” proclaims: “You are My beloved Son” from the Father to the Son spoken in Baptism, and “This is My beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased, listen to Him” on the mountain, and therefore in the first case the Spirit descends on Him in the form of a dove, and in the transfiguration - in the form of a cloud. And [through] the radiance emanating from His body and clothes, [He] gave grace, which He sent to us as pouring out from the source of His divine body, [which] He witnessed at the same time and revealed in Himself, on the one hand, as the radiance of true light, and on the other hand, He then showed to the disciples according to [their] possibilities in participation and communication with it. Therefore [they], as still imperfect, fell on their backs, not covered over themselves with it, incapable of communion; subsequently they completely accepted it; therefore, so was the light of the transfigured Christ, and after this the fiery tongues of the Spirit were revealed. Do you see the common (to koinon) [property] of the grace of the Trinity and to metadotikon of the divine radiance? And the radiance of the Divinity of the transfigured Son and the Spirit who appeared to the disciples. Because The Father is light (for it is said: “God is light”), and the Son is light (“was the true light”), and the Holy Spirit is light (“in Your light we will see light”); and one of These radiance, for three lights in essence and in nature and power (th/ ouvsi,a kai. fusei kai. duna,mei) are one light, and one of These three-bright lightning, one three-holy Lord is one glory, with which heaven and earth are full, as the angels sing, those who are in heaven and rational (logikoi,) on earth. For from the three-solar light of the Divine is a gift to us, and the source of divine lights is the unborn light of the Father, Who is spoken of as the cause of gifts, as well as the only perfect cause of the born Light and the outgoing Light. And the brother of God testifies to this, saying: “Every gift is good, and every perfect gift from above is coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variableness or shadow of turning.” Do you recognize the untruthful truth? The Father of lights Himself is the Father of the Son and the Spirit, and every good gift and every perfect gift is from the Father of lights, for the Father Himself gives these things through the Son in the Holy Spirit. And of course, he does not give the Son or the Spirit or Himself hypostatically, but every good gift and every perfect gift, this is the difference in us between carismata and energh,mata and dwrh,mata (gifts). 11. However, why are you arguing, arguing against the church definition, and striving to humiliate and belittle the sovereign and reigning Holy Spirit of God, from the eternally existing Father (avi?di,wj), with the Son always existing, co-originating and consubstantial with Him and inseparable, and you count and belittle what is written three times, like heretical fighters against God, before and many times written about the Father and the Son as consubstantial, and don’t you understand that it was impossible to call the Savior otherwise? For the Father was spoken of “in the name of the Father,” then the Son was spoken of through the concept and image (scesin) of the Son following the Father; and to them together the [following] Holy Spirit. However, as the separator (diairw/n) or as the separator or as the worse third, the Holy Spirit is posited, or as having the cause of its own existence (idi,aj ùpa,rxewj) from the Son Himself. For from the Father the Son and the Spirit are together, except that this one is born and this one is expelled (evkporeutw/j). Because on the one hand, the Son Himself [is the Son] of the Father, on the other, the Spirit Himself – [the Spirit] of the Father; and “Word” - the Word of the “Lord”, as David said, as living wisdom and the only begotten Son, and “Spirit” - the Spirit of “His mouth”, as proceeding from the Father. Because according to Paul, who spoke of one essence, and the fathers said the same thing, as I already said before, “the Spirit of Christ” and the “Spirit of the Son” [He] is called by the grace that we received through Christ in the Holy Spirit from the eternal Father - the grace of the gift of the Spirit. And this is clear from what Paul writes: “If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ,” he said, “he does not carry Him.” So what do we have of Him? Hypostasis of the Spirit? In no way, “from His fullness” said that we received grace instead of grace, and not hypostasis. For it is impossible for us to hypostatically accommodate God, whom we cannot see in essence (katV ouvsi,an), just as God said this to Moses, saying “man cannot see My face and remain alive,” that is, His essence. And the disciple beloved by the Son teaches clearly, saying: “No one has ever seen God”; and he adds the Son as a witness, saying, “The Only Begotten Son, Who was in the bosom of the Father, He revealed.” And Paul said these words: “God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying to Abba Father,” not saying that the hypostasis and essence of the Spirit, but the energy and holiness in us (to.n avgiasmon). For what is the Spirit of the Son in our hearts? It is obvious that the gift and grace of the Son, and the Father, and the Spirit, through which the Son Himself imagined (memorfwme, non) after us, we are clothed with. By grace and by grace and position we are Sons, therefore the Spirit cries in our hearts “Abba Father” - “Father” and “Abba” are a sign, just as someone says: “Father, Father,” because we too have become children of God through Christ, and we call the Father Father not by nature, but by position and grace. And this, as I said earlier, the Son Himself said, saying: “I ascend to My Father” - by nature as the Son, “and to your Father” - as He became our father by grace through the Son by nature; therefore we are also called “heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ.” Thus, it becomes clear that it is not the divine hypostasis itself that is called the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of the Son, because we do not accept His hypostasis, but gift and grace; however, the Spirit, whom we have to call Christ, and the Spirit, about whom Paul said that He was in our hearts - [so he] called grace and gift. 12. So, from all this, the rest of the sayings of the divine fathers are clear, if any of them said that the Spirit flows out and is poured out and sent, that [this] is not about the hypostasis of the Divine Spirit [said], but about the common gift, which is called the Spirit, since the Spirit [is] the source of charismas. And grace itself is given from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit, in the same way as every creature was created, from the Father, coming into being, filled with the Word, and perfected by the Spirit, as Gregory the Theologian said, and then contained and moved and foreseen and abiding, so that what Paul said would be true: “from Him and through Him and in Him all things,” as he thinks [and] the divine Theologian said earlier. So, gift and grace are given to us this way: from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit and according to the times and dignity of each; In hypostasis, the Spirit proceeds from the Father without origin, just as the Son is born. 13. Therefore, the sacred Dionysius said that the only “original Divinity” is the Father, and the only source of the all-essential Divinity is the Father. And the brother of God calls Him “Father of lights,” that is, [Father] of the Son and Spirit; that “the life-giving color, which I already mentioned, and the “essential radiance” were again called by Dionysius himself, the successor of the apostles, who teaches that the Divinity to a greater extent [can no longer] be contained or thought or comprehended, since God cannot be fully known. And the Golden-Speaker most often explains this, [namely] that God is unknowable and that we think of Him as God - we have [this knowledge] from the revelation of the Father and the Son and the Spirit, who is revealed to the worthy at a certain time as One. For the Father revealed the Son to Peter, and the Son and the Holy Spirit made the Father known to the disciples and the world, One by becoming incarnate and revealing Him, the other by indwelling the disciples and witnessing with His powers (tais dunamesi marturh/san); when he says: “no one knows the Son but the Father, no one knows the Father but the Son” and “no one knows God except the Spirit who is in him”; and about the revelation of the Father he says that “it was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but My Father who is in heaven,” about the [revelation] of the Son: “and to him if the Son willeth it,” about the [revelation] of the Holy Spirit: “it was revealed to us by the Spirit,” Paul said, because there is a common and united action (dunamij) and movement (kinhsij) and desire (qulisij) and will (boulh.) and the energy of the Holy Trinity and one gift to us, and the Son has everything that the Father and the Spirit have, except the particularity (ta th/j ivdio, thtoj) of Each, and the Son knows everything that the Father and the Spirit know, who penetrates the depths of God, who revealed to the apostles and saints the knowledge and grace of the all-essential Trinity. 14. So, this is precisely what is revealed and entrusted to us to preserve, and what is revealed should not be alien to the saints. Consequently, what is revealed to the saints if not perfect knowledge of the Gospels, the apostolic preaching, [knowledge] that embraces the most holy Symbol of the Divine Fathers? For they are the successors of the apostles, and they composed this [Symbol] unanimously, and, having understood and interpreted the gospel apostolic divine verbs, they composed it so that it could be expounded in the Symbol and thus preached. And they competed about this Symbol and perfected themselves in it and were glorified by God with signs and wonders. So, is it not enough for you to confess with them the faith that they professed, and to agree with them and through them to hope to be saved with them? Why are you shaking [the decisions] of those, man? Why do you find another interpreter of these [decrees] than they themselves [i.e. e. St. fathers]. But, he says, that’s exactly how they understood it. How is this clear to you, if the Symbol of those [fathers] did not have an increase? “I find this,” he says, “in the writings of those. But what you say is contrary to the truth, and you slander both the fathers and the Savior Himself. For they understood faith no differently than it was stated, but as it was stated. Or are you saying that there are no teachers of truth? “They are in many speeches,” he says, “and you can find them.” What do you think, man, and not how it really is. For each of them would not have meant something different or would not have written in his own way anything that was compiled together. But what you refer to is either illegally interpreted by them by you, or was understood by those like you, and seduced by pride and falling from the heights of your exalted, and not humble, knowledge, you yourself introduce something new, but you split the Church, being a mediator (proxenoj) of temptations, and you lead many of Christ’s [sheep] away from Christ. So, if to seduce one of the least of Christ [is] such a great danger, [then] how great [is it when seducing] so many!? But for you there is only one danger: to try to refute what has been stated and confirmed by so many and fully supported from everywhere, and to expose yours and present your [deeds] (ta sa). Were not the original martyrs of the Trinity, who all bore the marks of Christ, together with the three hundred and eighteen [were] able to [set forth] the correct definitions? Or, after those, is it not enough for you to have one hundred and fifty spirit-bearers, all adorned with confessions and signs, so it was they who expounded the doctrine of the Spirit, with the Divine power of the Spirit, against the Doukhobors? Well, Kirill, to whom you are, of course, referring, doesn’t understand some sayings? This one, having been present at the Third Council of two hundred [fathers] and being the head of those, did not try to add or remove anything from himself to this divine Symbol, but was content with it along with them, and preserved the expressions completely unharmed, and those about which the dispute was stated and conveyed in his definition. So the three hundred and sixty fathers in Chalcedon, with the approval of Leo of Rome, themselves sealed their own Symbol with a definition; like one hundred and sixty [fathers] of the Fifth [Council], having Agapit of Rome as their head; and of the Sixth [Council] one hundred and seventy [fathers], having Martin of Rome through the locum tenens as a collaborator, it was they who, having set out their definition in writing, clearly confessed this divine Symbol. Finally, of the Seventh Council, the three hundred and sixty-five [Fathers], whom the rest of the choir of saints will follow, themselves clearly set out this [Symbol] with their own definition, proclaimed and sealed it, and those who added to it or subtracted from it, bishops and any clergy are subject to eruption, and the monastics or the people are anathema. Consequently, which priest is now among those who innovate and add, which of the monastics themselves or the people themselves is not subject to anathema? 15. But those who are daring against the Divine have destroyed almost all church [decrees] with innovations: and they do not agree to [all] this and do not blush, brother, and even more rush against the zealots of Orthodoxy. Not only in this did they fall - I’m talking about innovation in faith - but also in very many other things, which we are not talking about now. The worst thing is how they are inflamed by their own happiness and life in the world according to unfaithful and pagan [decrees] is recognized as a substitute for faith, and what the wickedly proud godless Hagarians say about us, these do not refuse to think and speak and reproach us, and these are the so-called Christians; and they believe that to separate from us and begin to oppress us is something divine and received by them from God, completely ignorant of the power and knowledge of the divine Gospel. And they see the crucified Lord, question the suffering apostles of the Lord and recognize those who proclaim that we should suffer for Jesus Christ and be hated by the pagans. But they do not honor Christ in any way, taking the works of the flesh for something great, and considering the abundance of land and food as a gift from God, not being content with [the words of] the beloved [disciple], crying: “Do not love the world, nor the things that are in the world,” and Paul, the teacher of the world. And they do not lead an evangelical life, for all food and fornication are not condemned among them, nor anything that is forbidden to Christians. And their monastic image is different and not one, and the priesthood is separate from the altar and is performed by anointing according to the Law [of Moses], against the divine order and tradition from above, as the teacher Dionysius set out [this], being ordained by Paul. And every innovation that they have. And baptism, contrary to the apostolic tradition, by pouring and without oil, which Dionysius again writes about; and anointing is not given at that moment (evn kairw) to those being baptized, nor is it performed according to the apostolic example; no parting communion is given in silence to the dying (for they say that they do not understand what they are receiving - but, by the way, why are you baptizing a newborn who does not understand?); and the sacred act is performed differently, contrary to what the fathers wrote, or better to say, contrary to what the Savior performed the sacred act, having done it himself and betrayed it to his disciples; [at] communion of the Holy Mysteries, people are given only unleavened bread without a cup, contrary to the order of the Lord, who commanded to eat His flesh and drink His Blood, and who says [that] those who do not eat and drink do not have eternal life, this also was testified by Paul. And in marriages they intermix: for a father and a son marry a mother and a daughter, and two brothers with two sisters, and very much the like. And also their churches are like common houses, and the altars are often visible and trampled on by the people and women and the godless, and when their saint Ambrose of Milan was alive in the West, he taught King Theodosius in vain and pointed out [to] reverence [to] God’s churches and holy altars and [to] communion of the terrible Mysteries (koinwniaj), as we do. In the composition of their food, everything is unacceptable and unclean, but in fasting there is a different image (tu, poj) and not of our fathers. And they simply do everything in the church contrary to what was accepted from above, and not according to the paternal rules, but they still have something new and changed. 16. And there is no ancient agreement about the sacred sacrifice. For what is offered is not perfect, as they say, but unleavened bread is the Jewish way. And the liturgy does not completely agree with the [liturgy] of the primordial Savior with His disciples, [in] which [He] having celebrated the sacrament and broken it, divided all the [bread] to these apostles and administered communion [from] the cup; as well as the image of the sacred rites of the apostles and fathers themselves: together the sacred sacraments and “those who broke the bread,” as it is written, partook of him together, and from the cup they partook, as Paul says: “The bread,” he says, “which we break and the cup that we drink,” and again: “I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night, having given himself up, received the bread and gave thanks.” broke it and said: take, eat, this is My body, which was broken for you, do this in remembrance of Me, in the same way and the cup at supper, saying: this cup is the New Testament in My blood; Do this as often as you drink in remembrance of Me, for every time you eat or drink from this Cup, you remember the death of the Lord until it comes.” So, it is necessary to break (klasqai) bread, as is customary, exactly what the Latins do not do, and to teach the cup to oneself (di, dosqai); and they don't do that. And how, in fact, do they proclaim the death of the Lord, who was crucified for us and shed [His] blood? For this is impossible for them, even if they want [to do it]. For they are in the habit of bringing unleavened bread, which cannot be broken or divided; therefore, they always have one and only Roman high priest; and many will stand and sing, but in fact no one will concelebrate or participate (sugkoinwnw/n), and this is far from the apostolic and paternal testament (diataxewj). Therefore, they do not have consecrations of bishops according to divine tradition from the majority of bishops who concelebrate together and together perform the consecration of the one being ordained, as the apostolic canon says through Clement, according to which Peter did [this] with the rest over Matthew, but one of the bishops themselves performs the consecration; even if the majority is present, they will not serve them, for they cannot; and Dionysius called the Holy Communion the perfecting perfection of everything (pasaj teleiou/n ta.j teleta,j). And their fasts are different, contrary, obviously to everyone, to the apostolic rule - I mean the Saturday fast - and the destruction of fasting days from the customary Wednesdays and Fridays and from the beginning of the fasts [in honor of] saints and others. And fornication is not punished at all among them, nor among their priests, but without hindrance [one can] have concubines and children for fornication, and perform sacred acts after each. 17. And what more needs to be said about all of you who know in detail? Be content with what has been said to the disgrace of those who innovate deviation without measure, and so as to warn the brothers to beware of these, so that the accomplices are not hidden by ignorance from those who do not participate, for whom even in the house the apostolic rule forbids to pray together (suneuxasqai), and therefore must pay attention to what the strength is. But you, having the zeal of God in the spirit of reasoning and wisdom, take care of yourself; and confirm the brothers, offering them an image of salvation and, in fact, more than anything else, that the foundation of every work of God is the right faith and the preservation of pious divine dogmas and customs, and do not leave unwaveringly to observe everything, trying to preserve them in this both in word and deed, observing with the rest of the brothers in the Spirit the wonderful guarantee of the Orthodox faith; and you will find many rewards from Christ, and “you will receive an unfading crown,” Paul proclaims to you, with us humble servants of Christ. Avoid trickery and “foolish contests” and avoid arguing, for this is what Paul said. 18. Take care of patient work [in the study] of the Holy Scriptures and of pure reading, of practicing the fatherly interpretations and studying in simplicity the word of God. Together with the rest of those chosen by Divine grace, those who are able and who prefer this to their brothers, take care of yourself in Christ, who gives the strength of a virtuous life, so that together with others you will benefit for yourself by doing and teaching [as] we learn from Him. First of all, think about the purest and most sublime humility: for, of course, purity [belongs] to God alone, and she preserves gifts. Strive in prayers, for they unite you with God, and with them think about forgetfulness of malice, about knowledge and love, which is the head of virtues; and [in] prayers conversing with God, you will find freedom of speech (parrhsi,an), and not remembering evil, you will be purified and reconciled with the Master, while loving you will be loved and the Head of love, the first fruit of the Spirit, [which] you will find abundantly from love alone, who is the only God in the Trinity, orthodoxly worshiped by us by His grace. Whose grace and blessing and peace may always be with you and with all your brothers, His mercy and love for mankind, the Father and only begotten Son from the Father, and one of the one Father, the Holy Spirit, one in the Trinity of our God. I greet you all in the divine love of Christ; peace to you. Amen, amen. Per. according to the edition: Ἔργα θεολογικά, Ἁγίου Συμεὼν ἀρχιεπισκόπου Θεσσαλονίκης, 1416/17–1429 (Theological works of St. Symeon, Archbishop of Thessalonika, 1416/76–1429) ed. &intro. David Balfour. (Thessaloniki, 1981). Balfour, D., "Symeon Archbishop of Thessalonica Theological Works", Analecta Blatadon, 34, Thessalonica, 1981.