1. Жизнь преподобного Никиты Стифата

1.1. Disciple of St. Simeon the New Theologian The Monk Nikita Stifat (Pectorate) was born at the beginning of the 11th century, around 1005, and very early took the path of monastic achievement; it is known that from the age of 14 he was a novice of the Studite Monastery. There he was ordained to the rank of presbyter 1. The defining moment of his life was his close acquaintance and spiritual communication with the great ascetic - Rev. Simeon the New Theologian, who was his spiritual father. The Monk Nikita preserved memories of the life and teachings of his mentor for posterity, writing the Life of the Monk Simeon. He completed this work around 1052, i.e. several decades after the death of the teacher (as is known, the years of life of the Monk Simeon were 976–1022), although Nikita began to collect evidence for the compilation of the Life and the works of his mentor during the life of the Rev. Simeon. It is thanks to such meticulous work of Rev. Nikita, as a secretary and copyist for our teacher, we are familiar with the main theological works of St. Simeon the New Theologian. So, for example, Rev. Nikita Stifat wrote the preface to the “Divine Hymns” by Rev. Simeon the New Theologian 2. Life of Rev. Simeon, compiled by Rev. Nikita 3, differs from other hagiographic works in its theological richness. He examines the provisions of the doctrine of salvation using the example of the life of a saint. This same teaching was subsequently expounded by him in the treatise “On Paradise” that we are examining, and the main points of this treatise have clear parallels in the life story of St. Simeon. 1.2. Monk of the Studio Monastery Studio monastery, in which Rev. Nikita spent most of her life always in a special position in the state. This is due to the location of the monastery near the capital, on the way to the suburban residence of the basileus. The significance of the monastery was emphasized by the fact that sovereigns often sent their heirs to be raised under the guidance of monastic mentors in this monastery. “A place for these activities was allocated in the Studion monastery - for two reasons: firstly, so that they, imitating the best men, would improve in virtue; secondly, so that, being outside the city, they could more conveniently go hunting and use weapons” 4 . The Studio monastery, its way of life, and the monastic charter left an indelible imprint on the worldview of the Venerable. Nikita. His treatises often contain passages that echo the provisions of the Studio Rule. Thus, “Ascetic Instructions to Monks by St. Theodore the Studite" begin with the following words: "God brought us into the world for this purpose, so that we, pleasing Him with good deeds, would become heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven" 5 . In addition, these Instructions express provisions that later became decisive for the theology of St. Nikita: “Our nature will soar beyond the visible sky.” “And now our nature is in heaven, worshiped by every visible and invisible creature” 6. 1.3. Polemicist with the Latins The peculiarity of the life feat of the Rev. Nikita had a constant spiritual struggle for the purity of the confession of the Orthodox faith. He had to enter into lengthy dogmatic disputes with the Latins, Armenians, Jews, sophistic scholars and simply laikas. There is no doubt about his important role in the dramatic events of the mid-11th century, in the relations between the Eastern and Western Churches, which led to the historical schism. In a dispute with Cardinal Humbert, Ven. Nikita clearly formulates the essence of the deviations of the Latin Church from the apostolic tradition preserved by Eastern Orthodoxy. The history of this dispute is as follows: Patriarch Michael Cerullarius instructed the monk of the Studite monastery, Nikita Stifat, to draw up a denunciation against the Latins. Nicetas Stiphatus's treatise against the Roman Church became known to the Roman legates even before they were sent to Constantinople, so Cardinal Humbert had already examined it and wrote a refutation, which he brought with him. Soon after their arrival, the ambassadors and the emperor visited the Studian monastery, where a colloquium with Nicetas was held in the presence of the emperor. The Byzantine Emperor Constantine IX, for political purposes, wanted to achieve peace with Rome, but the legates, knowing this mood of the emperor, turned to him, and not to the Patriarch of Constantinople, regarding the resolution of the dogmatic doctrinal issues raised in the controversy. Due to such an unfavorable political background, which makes it impossible to objectively and deeply study the differences between the Orthodox and Catholics, Rev. Nikita was forced to abandon his denunciation and burn his essay “Against the Latins.” But these contradictions and disagreements have not been resolved theologically to this day. The main point that attracts the attention of the polemicist is the question of leavened bread, on which the Eastern Churches celebrate the liturgy, and about unleavened bread, on which the Western Churches celebrate it. In Nikita’s essay “Against the Latins”, on the issue of leavened and unleavened bread, the following points are made: first of all, leavened bread indicates better than unleavened bread the body of the Lord, which we consume in the sacrament of the Eucharist: “Whoever eats azim (unleavened bread), says Nikita, is under the law, and eats from the Jewish table, and not from the living table of the Lord; We eat a meal that is more essential, which is why we are taught to eat bread that is more essential. But what else is more essential than that which is co-essential with us? The body of the Lord is co-essential with us, since it is similar to us; The Word of God was clothed in flesh by the animate essence of our physicality; Therefore, you do not eat bread with us when you eat unleavened bread. For unleavened bread is not animate, as the very nature of the thing shows. When leaven is put into flour, then the flour becomes identical with itself due to the leaven, as if from a quickening power; leaven warms the mass and makes it as mobile as it is alive... Note that there is no quickening power in unleavened bread, they are dead. In bread, i.e. In the body of Christ, when we partake of it worthily, three life-giving elements appear to us: spirit, water and blood, which is why John says: “the three are the witnesses: ... the spirit, the water and the blood, and these three are one” (1 John 5:8), i.e. in the body of the Lord. All this was clearly revealed during the crucifixion of the Lord: water and blood flowed out from His pierced rib, and the Holy Spirit gave life when the body of Christ was pierced, remained in His deified flesh. Therefore, when we eat bread, i.e. body of the Lord, we drink His living and warm blood along with the water that poured out from His side, and we are filled with the Holy Spirit" 7 . In his response to Nikita Stifat, Humbert does not enter into an analysis of his judgments about the co-essential and the supremely essential in relation to the Eucharist and limits himself to the remark: “Everything that you say about the co-essential and the supremely essential is all nonsense” 8. His polemical work entitled “Against Greek Slander” was written in a restless, defiant tone. “You have lost your mind”, “a fool, if you were silent, you would be considered smart”, “your stupidity is known to everyone”, “you are stupider than a donkey... your place is not in the Studite monastery, but in the circus or lupanar... You have vomited so much that in perverting the divine teaching you are not inferior to the nasty and mad dogs - Julian and Porfiry...” 9 - such and similar sharp attacks are found here often. This essay concerns a number of ritual issues and ends with a threat of anathema. Such harsh statements from Cardinal Humbert actually indicate a deep divergence between Orthodox and Latin soteriology. An analysis of the unleavened bread controversy from a modern scientific position is given by Erikson: “Behind the way of thinking of Stiphatus lies the general view of the Greek Fathers on salvation as deification. “God became man so that man could become God.” But if the whole person is called to deification, then Christ must be consubstantial with man in everything - soul, body, and mind. More specifically, Christ in the Eucharist must be consubstantial with man in all respects, if the whole man participates in His divinity. The conclusion that Stiphatus draws from this, that the bread of the Eucharist must therefore be leavened, may seem to be the result of his overly systematized and also literary-tinged thinking. But his view of the Eucharist correctly reflects the central idea of ​​Byzantine liturgical theology... The Byzantines begin their approach to the Eucharist not with bread as bread, but with bread as a person. Therefore, Humbert's main thesis - that the substance of base bread, figuratively speaking, is erased and replaced by the substance of the Body of Christ - remains alien to them. The soteriological question of how a person achieves deification seemed more important. For the Byzantines, as for Niketas Stiphatus, the answer was clear: participation in the person of Christ, who in the Eucharist, as in his earthly life, remains at the same time consubstantial and super-essential to us” 10. But in Catholic theology, the doctrine of the special essence of the Body of Christ appears, which is already visible in the polemics under consideration, as shown by V. Lurie: “St. Nikita Stifat (exactly following his teacher, St. Simeon the New Theologian) affirmed the consubstantial (i.e. physical identity) of the bodies of the faithful and the Body of Christ, which is at the same time the Church and the Eucharist. This is precisely what, according to his explanation, is expressed by the use of ordinary (leavened) bread for the Eucharist - “consubstantial with the bread of the human meal.” Humbert objected in the same language, expressing the exact opposite teaching: “let the bread of the human table be consubstantial with themselves,” and for the Eucharist it is necessary to take special bread (unleavened bread) precisely in order to emphasize the other nature of the Body of Christ to human nature. At the same time, he proceeded from the physical difference not only between the bodies of Christians and the Church as the Body of Christ, but also between the Body of Christ as such and some kind of sanctifying essence, which he considered the Eucharist (this aspect of Humbert’s ideas is visible only with a careful analysis of his polemic with St. Nicetas, but its presence leaves no doubt thanks to the position taken by Humbert in the same years during the intra-Latin polemics about Eucharist against Berengarius of Ravenna. It was precisely in the polemic against Berengarius that the basis of the soon formulated scholastic doctrine of the “essence of the Body of Christ” was created - a special essence, not identical with either humanity or the Divine)” 11. As a consequence, “it turned out that the Body of Christ is consubstantial with us in human nature only in the earthly life of the Savior, but in the sacrament of the Eucharist It has a different human nature, not the same as ours, i.e. what was destroyed was the basis of faith in the co-corporeality of union with Christ, and, consequently, the deification of human nature” 12. The theme of deification is the central point of the theological school of St. Simeon the New Theologian. Rev. Nikita Stifat, his closest student, defends this position in his main works: in the treatise “On Paradise,” setting out the doctrine of deification as participation in the person of Christ, and in polemics with the Latins, setting out the doctrine of the Eucharist as a real union with God. Rev. Nikita Stifat is known for his treatises on mystical theology, of which the most significant are “Three Hundreds of Active, Natural and Gnostic Chapters.” They were partially translated into Russian with the note: “Which chapters are missing in numbering, those are omitted due to their extreme darkness” and published in “Philokalia” 13. The fundamental trilogy of works: “On the Soul”, “On Paradise”, “On Hierarchy” is rightfully considered the pinnacle of his theological heritage, in which a clear Orthodox position is given on many extremely complex spiritual issues. These treatises were published by the associationist A.A. Darrouzes in “Sources Chrétiennes” No. 81. Paris. 1961. There are also letters in which the problems of these treatises are discussed. These works have not been translated into Russian. In these works, the Monk Nikita no longer appears as a polemicist with outsiders, but as a teacher of spiritual life for ascetic monks. The treatise “On Paradise” is addressed to the perfect, and under the perfect St. Nikita understands not just those who have been baptized, but also those who have gone through a certain spiritual path of asceticism and obedience. In addition, those who have been ordained, since only this allows them to perform the sacraments and fully understand them, as well as teach others. He repeatedly emphasizes that the interpretation of heaven is possible and useful only for those who succeed in contemplation and experience the depths of the Spirit, because theological knowledge is closely related to spiritual practice. The treatise itself is a contemplation of heaven. This is a fundamental point, because the concept of “contemplation” is key in the legacy of St. Nikita, and in general in patristic writing of the ascetic direction. η θεωρία – “contemplation”; in the New Testament it is used only once in the meaning of “spectacle” (no-glorious shame): Luke 23:48: “And all the people who went to this spectacle, seeing what was happening, returned beating their breasts.” As for the verb form, it is found there quite often. Compared to synonyms, θεωρία puts forward a moment of intentional, intense, deliberate, diligent, thorough, prolonged examination of an object or study of a phenomenon occurring before the eyes of the viewer. Rev. Isaac the Syrian recognizes “three contemplations of natures in which the mind is elevated, manifests its activity and exercises: two contemplations of created natures, rational and unreasonable, spiritual and physical, and also the contemplation of the Holy Trinity. At first, there is precisely the contemplation of every existing creature, and the mind surveys it in the revelation of knowledge. the power and wisdom of God and the co-eternal providence of God for people, comprehended from the greatness of the Divine management of them,” with the same eye he contemplates the “heavenly ranks.” “With another eye” he contemplates “the glory of the holy nature of God” 14. The verb θεωρέω is used by a number of Christian authors (Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, St. John Chrysostom) to denote an allegorical interpretation, comprehension of the hidden meaning of Holy Scripture 15. In addition to the specificity of the term “contemplation”, it is necessary to note the peculiarity of two more concepts, which for the modern reader have a narrower, special meaning - “philosophy” and “gnosis”. φιλοσοφέω - already in the era of the emergence of Christianity, the concept of “philosophy” among late antique thinkers acquired the connotation of “the art of living” (Plutarch: τέχνη περι αίον; Musonius identified the concepts of “philosophizing” and “living decently” - καλων ξήν ). Christianity adopted this shade, changing the very content of the concept of “philosophy”: access to spiritual realities as the main subject of philosophical search is no longer carried out through personal research, but is a gift of Revelation; A person, it is true, can acquire this gift, but it is not the fruit of a person’s own efforts alone. St. John Chrysostom often denotes with this word a way of life and thinking according to Christ. In particular, the saint exhorts: “learn to be wise” (μάθε φιλοσοφειν), suggesting the mastery of Christian life through experience. The Rev. uses this verb in a similar way. Macarius of Egypt, saying: “Some philosophize (τον χηρυτον φιλοσοφουσιν) about Christ in an external way, others in word, and still others in deed.” St. Gregory of Nyssa in his “Life of St. Macrina,” correlating “the way of practicing philosophy” with asceticism (τον τρόπον φιλοσοφων), denotes monastic (ascetic) life. Blazh. Theodoret of Cyrus also views the monks as genuine philosophers who went through the school of the desert, and therefore superior to all external philosophers 16. ή γνωσις – knowledge, knowledge. True Christian “gnosis” is inextricably linked with the moral improvement of a Christian 17. For Clement of Alexandria, the unity of “doing” and “knowing” constitutes the essential moment of the ideal of the “church gnostic”, and therefore “gnosis” is “the perfection of faith along its moral side” 18. Darrouzes A.A. Introduction. Nicétas Stéthatos Opuscules et Lettres // Sources Chretiennes. No. 81. Paris. 1961. P.8 Rev. Simeon the New Theologian. Creations. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1993. T.3. P.1–12 Rev. Simeon the New Theologian. Rev. Nikita Stifat. Ascetic works. Klin, 2001. P.95–222 Nikephoros Bryennios. Historical notes (976–1087). M., 1997. P.25–26 St. Theodore the Studite. Ascetic instructions to monks 1// Philokalia. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1993. T.4. P.19 Right there. Precepts 230:1. P.428 Lebedev A.P. Essays on the internal history of the Byzantine-Eastern Church in the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries. From the end of iconoclastic disputes in 842 to the beginning of the Crusades - 1096. St. Petersburg, 1998. P.276–278 PL 143. 883–984 cit. by: Ogitsky D.P., priest. Maxim Kozlov. Orthodoxy and Western Christianity. MDA, 1995. P.60–61 Erickson L.H. Leavened and Unleavened: Some Theological Implication of the Schism of 1054 // St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly. No. 14. 1970. P.155–176 Prot. John Meyendorff. The Life and Works of Saint Gregory Palamas. Introduction to the study of Trans. G.N. Nachinkin, ed. I.P. Medvedev and V.M. Lurie. St. Petersburg, 1997. P.443. Busygina M.A. Dogmatic content of the controversy about unleavened bread in the 11th century // Patrology, philosophy, hermeneutics. Proceedings of the Higher Religious and Philosophical School. St. Petersburg, 1992. No. 1 P.23–24 Rev. Nikita Stifat. Three hundred active, natural and gnostic chapters // Philokalia. T.5. M., 1900. P.82–161 (PG120.851–1009) Quote by: Zarin S.M. Asceticism according to Orthodox Christian teaching. M., 1996. P.417 Lamps G.W.H. LPG. Oxford, 1978. R.647 Works of Abba Evagrius. Ascetic and theological treatises Transl., intro. Art. and comment. A.I.Sidorova. M., 1994. P.161 Zarin S.M. Asceticism... P.391 Works of St. Maximus the Confessor Trans. and comment. A.I.Sidorova. M., 1993. T.1. P.328