Upload
giorgosby17
View
24
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 1
TheNatureofEasternOrthodoxTheology,
Revd.Prof.AndrewLouth,FBA
LectureattheopeningoftheAmsterdamCentreforEasternOrthodoxTheology
(ACEOT,www.aceot.nl)on28May2010atVUUniversityAmsterdam.
Sixtysixyearsago,intheclosingmonthsoftheSecondWorldWar,alittle
bookwaspublishedwiththetitleEssaisurlathologiemystiquedelglise
dOrient,knowninEnglishasTheMysticalTheologyoftheEasternChurch.1For
manyofus,itwasthisbookthatopenedupthetheologicaltraditionofthe
OrthodoxChurch.WhyLosskyusedthetermmysticaltheologyisnot
entirelyclear.HewashimselfastudentofEckharthisdoctoraldissertation
onEckhartwaspublishedshortlyafterhisuntimelydeath19582sohewas
wellinformedaboutwhattheWesthascalledmysticism,buthisbookisnot
aboutmysticisminthatsense:therearenovisions,norecordsofmystical
1VladimirLossky,EssaisurlathologiemystiquedelglisedOrient,Paris:Aubier,ditionsMontaigne,1944(reissued,withthesamepagination,intheseriesPatrimoinesOrthodoxie,Paris:ditionsduCerf,2005);Englishtranslation,TheMysticalTheologyoftheEasternChurch,CambridgeandLondon:JamesClarke,1957.CambridgeandLondon:JamesClarke,1957.2VladimirLossky,ThologienegativeetconnaissancedeDieuchezMatreEckhart,Paris:J.Vrin,1960.
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 2
experiences,noragreatdealonmethodsofprayer,meditationor
contemplationinthatbook.Mostofitlooks,infact,likeatraditionalaccount
ofcentralChristiandoctrines:theTrinity,theIncarnation,themissionofthe
HolySpirit,thelifeoftheChurch.However,intheintroductiontothebook,
heexplainswhatheregardsasthecomplementarityofmysticismand
theology,acomplementaritylargelylostintheWest,sohemaintained,
thoughpreservedbytheEast:whichisthereason,wemaypresume,why
LosskyentitledhisbookMysticalTheology.IntheEast,heclaimed,
mysticismandtheologybelongtogether,inasensethat,Ithink,emerges
clearlyinthefollowingquotationsfromthatintroduction:
Theeasterntraditionhasnevermadeasharpdistinctionbetweenmysticismandtheology;betweenpersonalexperienceofthedivinemysteriesandthedogmaaffirmedbytheChurchToputitanotherway,wemustlivethedogmaexpressingarevealedtruth,whichappearstousasanunfathomablemystery,insuchafashionthatinsteadofassimilatingthemysterytoourmodeofunderstanding,weshould,onthecontrary,lookforaprofoundchange,aninnertransformationofthespirit,enablingustoexperienceitmysticallyThereis,therefore,noChristianmysterywithouttheology;but,aboveall,thereisnotheologywithoutmysticismMysticismisaccordinglytreatedinthepresentworkastheperfectingandcrownofalltheology:astheologyparexcellence.3
3Lossky,MysticalTheology,pp.8f.NotethatintheoriginalFrench,thewordrenderedinEnglishasmysticismislamystique,notperhapsquitethesamething.
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 3
Mysticismandtheologyrelateasexperienceandtheory.Butexperienceof
what?UltimatelyofGod,butthatisnotwhereLosskybegins:hebeginsby
speakingofpersonalexperienceofthedivinemysteries,thetermmysteries
beingnotexactlyambiguous,butwithatleasttwoconnotationsmeaning
boththesacramentsoftheChurch,andalsomysterioustruthsaboutthe
Godhead.Thatdoublemeaningisnochancehomonymity;thetwomeaning
arecloselyrelatedforLossky,andfortheOrthodoxChurch,becausethe
mysterioustruthsaboutGodhisexistenceasaTrinityoflove,hiscreationof
theworld,hiscarefortheworldandhisredemptionofit,preeminentlyin
theIncarnationaretruthsthatweexperienceandcelebrateintheDivine
Mysteries,ortheSacramentsoftheChurch.ItisthisthatgivesLosskys
presentationsuchadifferentorientationfromwhatisnormallyassociated
withmysticismintheWest:itisnotdetachedfromdogma,butrootedinthe
dogmatictruthsoftheChristiantradition;itisnotindifferenttoChurch
organization,hierarchyandsacraments,butrootedinthestructuredlifeof
theChurch;itisnotindividualisticindeedindividualismisseentobethe
deepestflawinWesternChristianitybutrootedintheexperienceofthe
eucharisticcommunity,theChurch.AndyetitseemstomethatLossky,in
usingthelanguageofmysticism,remainsopentothesensethatitbearsin
Westernuse,therealizationthat,ifanyoneentersintoaprofoundrelationship
withGodonethatseeksGodforhimselfandisimpatientofsettlingforany
kindofintermediarythentheywillembarkonatransformingexperience,in
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 4
whichtheworldwillseemradicallydifferent,perceivedfromtheperspective
ofthedivinelovethatbroughtitintobeing.Losskymakeslittleofthis,butit
seemstomethatheremainsopentothewayinwhichwearecalled
ultimatelytogobeyondanyconventionalcertaintiesandabandonourselves
totheinfinitemysteryofGod.
WhatIwanttodointhislectureisexploresomeofthefeaturesofsucha
mysticaltheology,conceivedofascharacteristicofEasternOrthodox
theology,andIwanttodothatinthewaythatcomesmostnaturallytome,
butwhichisalso,Ibelieve,utterlycharacteristicoftheOrthodoxtraditionof
theology:andthatisbyofferingsomereflectionsonsomeofthosewhomwe
calltheFathers.
IshalltakefourFathersoftheEasterntraditionStAthanasios,StDionysios
theAreopagite,StMaximostheConfessor,andStGregoryPalamaswho
coveraperiodofaboutamillennium,stretchingfromthefourthtothe
fourteenthcentury.
LetusbeginwithStAthanasios,andinparticularwithhisearlytreatiseor
soIwouldstilltakeittobeconsistingofContraGentesandhisfamous,and
incomparable,DeIncarnatione.4Thistwofoldworkisanapology,adefenceof
Christianity,againstobjectionsfrombothJewsandGreeks.Itis,more
4Ihaveusedtheedition,withEnglishtranslation,byRobertW.Thomson:Athanasius,ContraGentesandDeIncarnatione,OxfordEarlyChristianTexts,Oxford:ClarendonPress,1971.
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 5
precisely,adefenceofthecross,anapologiacrucis:inthetwofoldwork,
AthanasiosseekstopersuadehisreadersthatChristwastheSaviourofthe
universeandthatthecrosswasnottheruinbutthesalvationofcreation(CG
1),athemehepicksupagainatthebeginningofDeIncarnationewhenhe
referstowhattheJewsslanderandtheGreeksmock,anobviousreferenceto
thefirstchapterof1Corinthiansonthereactiontothewordofthecross(cf.
1Cor.1:225),whichhemakesexplicitbycontrastingwhattheyholdcheap
namelythecrosswithwhatitmakesknown,thedivinityandpowerof
Christ(dI1).Christsdeathonthecrossis,forAthanasios,
,thechiefpointofourfaith(dI19),fortworeasons:first,becauseit
isinhisdeath,triumphingoverdeath,thatChristisrevealedinhisdivinity
foritbelongstoGodtohavethepoweroflifeanddeath;butsecondly,
becauseitisdeaththatsumsupthehumanplightitisdeaththatcastsa
shadowoverhumanlife,qualifyingeverything,threateningeverythingwith
futility.AthanasiossetsallthisinthecontextofGodwhocreatestheuniverse
andcaresforit,ormoredeeplyofGodwhoistheonlysourceofbeingand
reality.HisexpositionatthebeginningofContraGentesandrepeatedatthe
beginningofDeIncarnationeisbasedonhisradicalunderstandingofGods
creativeactivity.Pickingupideasthathadbeendevelopedtentativelyinthe
ChurchsstruggleagainsttheGnostics,Athanasiosdevelopshis
understandingofcreationoutofnothing:thesolesourceofbeingisGod,if
weturnawayfromGod,weturnawayfrombeing,andwediscoverthe
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 6
realityoflifeapartfromGod,whichisdeath.Hepresentstheuniverseas
flowingfromthecreativewillofGod,withnorealityotherthanwhatit
derivesfromhim;hepresentshumankindashavingaspecialroleincreation,
sinceithasbeencreatedinaccordancewiththeimageofGod,thatisthe
WordofGod;invirtueofbeingintheimage,humanbeingsareabletolook
backtothesourceofbeing,God,theycancontemplatehim,theylivealifein
touchwithgenuinereality,withthewaythingsare.Itisnatural,itisobvious:
andyethumankindfailedtoliveoutsuchalife.Theyturnedawayfrom
God:butwhere?Theybegantoconsiderthemselves,asAthanasiosputsit
(CG3),theybegantoseelifeinrelationtothemselves,andindoingthisthey
lostcontactwiththeonlysourceofbeingwhichisGod.Butthisselforiented
lifeisorientedtonothing,forthereisnosourceofbeingapartfromGod,and
feedingonnothing,itfindsitselfmovingtowardsnothingness,whichis
experiencedasdeath.Deathbecomesthehorizonforhumanlife,andhuman
beingsarehenceforthbornintoaworldmarkedbydeathanddissolutionor
corruptionand.Thisishumanlifeasweknowit:living
andpartlyliving,asthewomenlamentinT.S.Eliotsplay,Murderinthe
Cathedrallivingandpartlyliving,andalwaysundertheshadowofdeath.5
Itisdeaththatneedstobedealtwith,accordingtoAthanasios;itisatthe
momentofdeaththatweneedtofindhope.Thecross,whichlookslikejust
5SeeT.S.Eliot,CollectedPlays,London:Faber&Faber,1962,pp.1516,repeatedly,andechoedlateronpp.29,48.
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 7
anotherexampleofthewayinwhichdeathfrustratesthehopesofhumanlife,
ishoweveradifferentdeath:itisdeaththatswallowsupdeath,itisadeath
thatoffersonceagainlifeasoriginallyofferedtohumankind,thelife
accordingtoGod,(dI5).Butthecrossachievesthis,
becausetheonewhodiedonthecross,theIncarnateWord,isGod,beyond
thereachofdeath:ratherthandeathswallowinguptheWord,asitswallows
usup,deathitselfisswallowedup.InAthanasioswords,Andthetwo
thingsoccurredsimultaneouslyinamiraculousmanner:thedeathofallwas
fulfilledintheLordsbody,andalsodeathandcorruptionweredestroyed
becauseoftheWordwhowasinit(dI20).
ThatisarathercondensedaccountofAthanasiosapologiacrucis;hehasalot,
too,tosayaboutthewayinwhichtherestorationoftheimageinthecrucified
OnerestorestoustheparadisalknowledgeofGod,butwhatIwanttodraw
yourattentiontoinallthisisthewayinwhichAthanasiostheologyisabout
anengagementbetweenGodandhiscreation,betweenGodandhumankind.
Itisnotaboutsometheologicaltruths,butratheraboutsomethingthat
happensahappening,anevent,intowhichwemayenter.Youwillrecall
thatAthanasiosgoesontoenlisttheevidenceofChristianmartyrdomandthe
Christianpursuitofvirginityaswaysinwhichlifeindefianceofdeathhas
becomeapossibilityforChristians.Itisstriking,Ithink,thattheChristian
creedsthatbegintoemergeinAthanasioslifetimearenotlistsoftheological
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 8
truths,butanaccountofGodsengagementwiththecosmos,centrally
throughtheIncarnation.Theextentofthatengagementcomesoutinwhatis
perhapsthemostfamoussentenceofDeIncarnatione:forhebecamehuman
thatwemightbecomeGod,
(dI54).ForAthanasios,thereisatwofoldmovement:thatof
Godtowardsus,wherebyGodcomestolivetoexperiencehumanlife,and
ouransweringmovementtowardsGod,wherebywecometoliveto
experiencehisdivinelife.Theboldnessofthatclaimremainscharacteristic
ofByzantinetheology.
LetusmoveontoDionysiostheAreopagite,thedivineDenys.Itisthis
convictionofengagementthatliesattheheartofDionysiostheology,buthe
exploresaspectsofthatengagementwhichremainimplicitinAthanasios
account.Thereis,Iwouldargue,thoughIknowthatnotallscholarswould
agreewithme,thesamefundamentalaffirmationofcreationoutofnothing:
thecreatedordersimplyexistsbecauseofGod;moreexactly,forDionysios,it
existstomanifestGodthewholecosmos,forDionysios,isatheophany,a
manifestationofthegloryofGod.Butamanifestationforwhat?orto
whom?IfGodhascreatedtheuniverseoutofnothing,thenthereisnothing
towhichthisuniversecouldmanifestGod.ButanythingotherthanGodis
fullofdistinctionsanddifferences:thereislightandshade,therearedifferent
levels,somehigher,somelower,thereiswhatismanifold,thereis
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 9
multiplicity.Invirtueofitsmultiplicity,thecosmoscanbethoughtofas
Godsmanifestationofhimselfwithinthecosmos,andtothecosmos.
Furthermore,DionysiosneversaysanythingabouttheFall,justashenever
explicitlyspeaksofcreationoutofnothing,butwhenhethinksofthenature
ofthecosmos,heseesthemanifoldnessofthecosmosassomethingthatis
duetoitsbeingcreatedoutofnothing,andthereforenotGod,butalso
somethingthatmanifeststheconsequencesoftheFall:notthattheFallisa
FallintomultiplicityDionysiosisaChristianatheart,notsimplya
Neoplatonist(though,again,Iacknowledgethattherearescholarswhothink
otherwise)butaFallinwhichmultiplicityanddifferenceprovidetheraw
material,sotospeak,fortheoppositionandfrustration,andsheer
destructiveness,thatcharacterizethefallenworld.However,forDionysios,
thesedifferencesanddistinctionsmakepossiblewhatonemightthinkofas
structuresofthemanifoldthattemper,asitwere,thedivinemanifestation,so
thatwecangraspsomethingofit.Thetheophany,whichthecosmosis,is
thenatheophanyinandtothecosmos.Moreradically,Dionysiosbelieves
thatdistinction,difference,heightanddepth,transparencyandobscuritycan
makepossibleacosmosinwhichweareactivelydrawntowardstheburning
centreofGodslove,andalsohavetheopportunitytodrawothersto
experiencethatlove.Thisiswhathemeansbyhierarchy:
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 10
ahierarchyisasacredorder,astateofunderstandingandanactivityapproximatingascloselyaspossibletothedivine.AnditisraisedtotheimitationofGodinproportiontotheenlightenmentsdivinelygiventoit.ThebeautyofGodsosimple,sogood,somuchthesourceofperfectioniscompletelyuncontaminatedbydissimilarity.Itreachesouttogranteverybeing,sofaraseachiscapable,ashareoflight(CH3.1).6
Thus,forDionysios,hierarchiesarenotmainlyaboutrank,order,
subordination(heinventedtheword,soweshouldsticktohisown
definition!),theyareaboutreachingoutintomultiplicityanddrawing
everythingbackintounionwith,andassimilationto,thesimplicityand
beautyofGod.Beautyisakeytohowthisworks:headoptsPlatoslinkingof
theGreekwordforbeauty,,withtheGreekverbtocall,
beautycallsoutandcallsbacktoitself;itisnotsomethingsimplytogazeat,it
isavisionthatwearecalledontofollow.
InhistwotreatisesonTheCelestialHierarchyandTheEcclesiasticalHierarchy,
Dionysiosdepictsthehierarchicalstructuresofthecosmos.Thecelestial
realmconsistsofnineranksofheavenlybeings,arrangedthreebythree:at
thetop,indescendingorder,Seraphim,Cherubim,Thrones;inthemiddle,
Dominions,Powers,Authorities;andatthebottom,Principalities,
Archangels,Angels.Thisarrangement,threebythree,disclosessomething
6TranslationsfromPseudoDionysius:TheCompleteWorks,translatedbyColmLuibheid,MahwahNJ:PaulistPress,1987,sometimesmodified.
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 11
elseaboutthehierarchy:itisnotsimplyaladder,withthreesteps,asitwere,
ratherhierarchyconsistsofthreephasesorstages,andthethreeranks,and
threelevelsofranks,symbolizethis.Thesephasesare,workingupwardsthis
time,purification,illuminationandperfectionorunion:theprocessof
assimilationtoGodthatthehierarchieseffectbeginswithpurification,
continueswithillumination,andfinallyreachesperfection(orcompletion:
)orunion.Thehierarchiesare,asDionysiossaidinthepassage
alreadyquoted,notjustamatterofrank,butofunderstandingandactivity.It
isinterestingtonote,inpassing,thatthiscelestialcosmosis,forDionysios,
constitutedbyangelicbeings;heisnottalkingabouttheheavenlybodiesin
thesenseofstarsandplanets.InthisDionysioswasnotatallunusual
amongstChristians;thearthistorian,ThomasMathews,hasnotedthat
Christianart,evenwhereitseemstobedevelopingearlierpaganthemes,
tendstodispensewiththesignsoftheZodiac,andturntheheavenlyrealm
intotherealmofangels.7
Insomeways,itseemstomethattheCelestialHierarchyismostlyconcerned
toestablishtheprincipleofhierarchyasthewayinwhichthecreatedrealm
inthissimplifiedcaseofthepurelyspiritualrealmoftheangelsisakindof
gradedtheophany,drawingeverythinguptocloserandcloserassimilationto
God.Itexemplifiesinapurified,concentratedformwhatisinvolvedin 7SeeThomasF.Mathews,TheClashofGods.AReinterpretationofChristianArt,PrincetonUniversityPress,1993,14850.
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 12
comingclosetoGod.Thenameoftheseraphimfornamesaresignificant
forDionysiossignifiesfiremakersorcarriersofwarmth,andwhatthis
meansis:aperennialcirclingaroundthedivinethings,penetratingwarmth,
theoverflowingheatofamovementwhichneverfaltersandneverfails,a
capacitytostamptheirownimageonsubordinatesbyarousinganduplifting
inthemtooalikeflame,thesamewarmth(CH7.1).Itisapictureof
unwaveringcontemplativeattentiontothedivine,paradoxicallycombined
withacapacitytopassonthisbeingengrossedinthedivine.FrAlexander
Golitzin,hassuggestedthatthemodelfortheseangelicbeingsisnot,as
scholarsusuallyassume,theintermediarybeingsofcontemporary
Neoplatonism,buttheinstitutionofthemonasticelder,whodoesnotstand
betweenhisdisciplesandthedivine,butexemplifiesaclosenesstothedivine,
andaknowledgeofwhatisneededinapproachingthedivine,fromwhichhis
disciplescanlearn.TouseanEnglishidiom:comingclosetoGodis
somethingnottaught,butcaught.
Itisthishierarchicalactivitythatis,thiswayofpurification,illumination
andunionthatleadstoassimilationtoGodthatisdealtwithmore
practicallyinTheEcclesiasticalHierarchy.Thisisatreatisethatrevolvesround
aseriesofchurchservices,andthroughthemseekstoexpoundhow
experienceofthesedivinemysteriesdrawshumanbeingsintounionwith
God.Ifoneconcentratesonthenotionofhierarchyasorderedranks,then
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 13
therearesomeodditiesaboutthistreatise,forthehierarchiesseemstoconsist
oftwosocialhierarchiesranksofhumanbeingsholdingecclesiastical
officeandthreesacraments;thetwohumanhierarchiesbeingthethreefold
orderofbishops,priestsanddeacons,andathreefoldorderoflaityasmonks,
ordinarylaity(calledthecontemplativeorder,thosewhowatch)andthose
notornotyetadmittedtoeucharisticcommunion,whilethethreesacraments
arebaptism,eucharist,andthesacramentoftheconsecrationoftheholy
chrism.ThesehierarchiesarediscussedintheEcclesiasticalHierarchy,butthe
treatiseitself,afteranintroductorychapter,consistsofsixchapters,eachin
threeparts,thefirstdealingwiththeriteitself,thesecondexplainingina
provisionalwayitsmeaning,whilethefinalpart,calledtheoriaor
contemplation,delvesmoredeeply,andatsomelengthintoitsdeeper
meaning.Thesixchaptersconcern:theriteofbaptism,theeucharisticrite,the
riteofconsecrationofchrismormyron;then,theordinationservice,theriteof
monasticconsecration,andtheburialservice.Whatwehavehereismorelike
atreatiseofliturgicaltheology:theritesandceremoniesoftheChurcharethe
wayinwhichthechurch,asagatheredcommunityledbyitsbishop,
celebratesandexperiencestheengagementbetweenGodandhumankind
thatisrecapitulatedintheIncarnation.SomethingthatDionysiosconveys
withrarepoweristhewayinwhichourresponsetoGodsloveforhuman
kindisnotsimplyasindividuals,butaspartofacommunity,astructured
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 14
society.Wearenotonourown,butareborneupbytheprayersandpresence
ofothers.
ThereisanothersidetoDionysiosunderstandingofmysticaltheology,
thoughitseemstomeverycloselyrelated.Thetreatisesonthehierarchies
envisageamysticaltheologyasawayofparticipatingthroughthe
celebrationofsacramentsandliturgicalceremoniesinthetruthsthatthese
sacramentscelebrate.ThesacramentsareacontinuationoftheIncarnation,
becausetheyextendtous,hereandnow,thatmovementofGodtowardsus
accomplishedpreeminentlyintheIncarnation.AsGodbecamehumanthat
wemightbecomeGod,sothatdivineassumptionofhumanityisextendedto
usintheEucharist,sothatwe,throughcommunion,mightgrowmoredeeply
intothedivinelife.InhisaccountofthevariousritesoftheChurch,
Dionysiosshowshowintheprayersandpsalmsandhymnsthataccompany
theseceremonieswepraiseGod,andevokehimbythenamesthathehas
giventous.TheothertreatisesthatsurviveoftheDionysiancorpusaremore
closelyconcernedwithwhatisinvolvedinsuchuseofdivinenames.Howdo
weapplysuchnamestoGod?Bywhatrightcanwesayanythingofthe
transcendentone?Toexplainthis,aseveryoneknows,Dionysiosintroduced
intoChristiantheologythelanguageofaffirmativeandnegativetheology,or
tousemoredirectlytheGreekterms:kataphaticandapophatictheology.Itis
quiteeasytogiveaprovisionalaccountofwhatDionysiosmeans.In
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 15
kataphatic,oraffirmative,theology,wetakethenamesthatGodhasgivenus
intheScripturesandaffirmthemofHim.WesaythatGodisgood,andjust,
andloving,andsoon.Andwearerighttodoso,becauseGodhasrevealed
himselfassuch.ButisGodgood,justandlovinginthewaythatweaffirm
theseterms?No,forGodisbeyondanyconceptionthatwemighthaveof
him,andtoexpressthatwemustuseapophatic,ornegative,theology,and
denythatGodisgood,justandloving.However,thisdenialisaspecialkind
ofdenial:wearenotsayingthatGodlacksthesequalities,wearerather
sayingthathetranscendsthesequalities.Considerthedifferentwaysin
whichhemightsaythatsomeoneisnotintelligent:wemight,andnormally
do,meanthatsomeonelacksintelligence;butwemightmeanthattheterm
intelligentisaratherfeeblewayofdescribinghimheisnotintelligent,hes
agenius!Itisthatlatterkindofdenialthatweuseinapophatictheology,
exceptthatherewehavenootherwayofsayingwhatwedomean:wecant
makeclearinwordswhatwemeanbysayingthatGoddoesnotlack
goodness,say,butthathetranscendsit.Dionysioshasseveralwaysof
explainingwhythisisthecaseinrelationtoGod.Kataphatictheology,for
instance,canbejustified,bothbyrevelation,butmoretheoreticallybythefact
thatGodisthecauseofall;andbecauseDionysiosaccepts,withhis
contemporaryNeoplatonists,thatthecausecontainseverythingfoundinthe
effect,thenitmustfollowthatanythingwefindincreatures(exceptwhenwe
meanthatwedontfinditincreatures,thatis,whenweregisteralackin
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 16
creatures)wecanalso,insomesense,ascribetoGod.Butapophatictheology
canbejustifiedforthesamereason:forifGodisthecauseofall,thenhedoes
notbelongtotheall,heisnotoneof,thethingsthatare,andifthat
isso,theneverythingwecanaffirmofcreatureswemustdenyofGod.So
Dionysiosreachestheconclusion:thereforeeveryattributemaybe
predicatedofhimandyetheisnotanyonething(DN5.8).
Thislanguageofkataphaticandapophatictheologycansoundlikesomekind
oflogicalcalculusenablingustoascertainhowourlanguageappliestoGod;
thisiscertainlyanaccusationmadebysomeOrthodoxaboutthewayin
whichDionysiosideasonthepredicationofdivineattributeswere
interpretedintheWest.ButthatsuchanattemptisnotwhatDionysioshad
inmindisevident,Ithink,fromtheshortestofhistreatises,theoneactually
calledTheMysticalTheology.Thattreatisebeginswithaprayertobebrought
beyondanythingwecanknoworapprehend,beyondanythingwemight
glimpsefromtheScriptures,towhathecallsthedazzlingdarknessofa
hiddensilence,wherethemysteriesofGodsWordwillcompletelyfillour
sightlessmindswithtreasuresbeyondallbeauty.WhatDionysiosis
speakingofhereissomethingthatliesbeyondthefurthestreachofour
comprehension,andthecontextofprayerisimportant:heisnotconcerned
withsomelogicalexerciseintheologicalpredication,forprayerisaformof
addresstoaGodwholistens.Infact,inthistreatise,thecomplementarityof
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 17
kataphaticandapophatictheologyfindsitscontext,notinsomelogical
puzzle,butinwhatonemightcallthedirectiononeisfacing.TheWordof
Godisvastandminuscule;theGospeliswiderangingandyetrestricted(MT
1.3).WecanusethewordofGodtospeaktoothers,tosaysomethingto
themoftheloveofGod;butwecanalsousethewordofGodtoaddressGod
himself.Inchapter3ofthistreatise,thisquestionoforientationcomestothe
fore.Therehespeaksofthewayinwhich,ashetriestoexplainthenatureof
GodandtherevelationofGodthroughtheimagesoftheScriptures,his
languagebecomesmoreandmoreabundant,butthemorewetakeflight
upward,themoreourwordsareconfinedtotheideaswearecapableof
forming;sothatnowasweplungeintothatdarknesswhichisbeyond
intellect,weshallfindourselvesnotsimplyrunningshortofwordsbut
actuallyspeechlessandunknowing.Aboutthirtyyearsago,PaulRorem
pointedoutinabrief,butcompelling,paper,thatthelanguageDionysios
usestodescribeMosesascentofMountSinaiinchapter1oftheMystical
Theologyisculticlanguage:thelanguageusedtodescribethewaythepriest
purifieshimselfandentersthesanctuary,notjustintheBible,butalsointhe
Christianliturgicaltextsofthefifthandsixthcenturies.8WhatDionysiosis
talkingaboutisnotprimarilymysticalexperienceinthelatersensethough
Idonotthinkheexcludesit,nordoIthinkthatthosewhofoundinthistiny
8PaulRorem,MosesastheParadigmfortheLiturgicalSpiritualityofPseudoDionysius,StudiaPatristica18/2(1989),2759
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 18
treatiseaguidetoabandonmenttotheinfiniteabyssoftheGodheadwere
perverselymistakenbutthedifferencebetweentheproclamationand
celebrationofthefaithoftheGospel,andourturningtowardsGodinprayer,
whetherliturgicalorprivate.Andtheyobviouslybelongtogether:theGodof
whomwespeakwhenproclaimingtheGospelmustbetheGodtowhomwe
speakinthequietnessofprayer.Ifthesecomeapart,thenourwhole
understandingofGod,ourwholetheology,willunravel.Dionysios
distinctionbetweenkataphaticandapophatictheologyis,likemanyother
distinctionscharacteristicofByzantinetheology,adistinctionthatholds
together,ratherthanholdsapart.Anotherimplicationofthismutual
implicationofkataphaticandapophatictheologyisthat,becausekataphatic
theologyisrootedinapophatictheology,thelanguageofkataphatictheology
isfreedtobecelebratory.Dionysiosseldomspeaksofpredicatingnamesof
God;heusuallysaysthatwepraiseGodbyusingthesenames.Theway
thesenamesapplytoGodismorethansimplepredication:itexpressesa
joyfulcelebrationofGodwhohasrevealedhimselftous,increationandin
revelation;itisthefruitofafundamentalattitudetowardsGodofpraiseand
thanksgiving.Thisgroundingofkataphatictheologyinapophatictheology
alsomeansthatitisdisposedtouseawealthofimageryinrelationtoGod.
AsthemodernGreektheologian,ChristosYannaras,hasputit:The
apophaticattitudeleadsChristiantheologytousethelanguageofpoetryand
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 19
imagesfortheinterpretationofdogmasmuchmorethanthelanguageof
conventionallogicandschematicconcepts.9
OneofStMaximostheConfessorsshortestworksishiscommentaryonthe
DivineLiturgy,knownastheMystagogia.Itisnaturalworktoturntoafter
discussingDionysiostheAreopagite,forMaximospresentsitassimplya
supplementtowhatDionysioshadtosayinhisEcclesiasticalHierarchy.Here,
Ionlywanttocommentbrieflyonsomeaspectsofthiswork,whichbecame
immenselypopularintheByzantinetradition,andinspiredawholeseriesof
worksthat,likeit,commentontheactionsoftheByzantineliturgy.WhatI
wanttodrawattentiontoherearethechaptersthatprefaceMaximos
commentsontheparticularactionsoftheDivineLiturgy.Thefirstseven
chapterssetupaseriesofparallels,orimagesashecallsthem.TheChurch,
hesays,isanimageandfigureofGod,forboththeChurchandGoddraw
thingsintounity:Godthroughhiscreationandprovidence,theChurchas
aplaceofreconciliation.Hethengoesontoapplythistothechurchbuilding
itself,dividedasitwas(andstillis,inOrthodoxchurches,veryvisibly)into
thenave(thenaosortemple),accessibleonlytothefaithful,andthesanctuary
(hierateion),accessibleonlytothepriestsandministers.Thisdivision
symbolizesthedivisionofthecosmosintothevisibleandtheinvisiblerealm.
9ChristosYannaras,TheElementsofChristianTheology(Edinburgh:T.&T.Clark,1991),p.17.
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 20
Inbothcases,thisisadivisionthatdoesnotsimplyseparate,butholds
together,sothatthelowerreflectsthehigher,andthehigherisexpressedin
thelower.Themovementoftheliturgyisoutfromthesanctuaryintothe
nave,andthenbackintothesanctuary,drawingeverythingallourprayers,
hopesandlongingsintothehiddenunityofGod.Furtherchaptersapply
thisdivisiontothevisibleworld,wherethedistinctionbetweensanctuary
andnavereflectsthedivisionbetweenheavenandearth;tothehumanbeing,
wherethedistinctionisfoundinthedifferencebetweensoulandbody;tothe
soulitself,wherethedistinctionisfoundthistimeinthedistinctionwithin
thesoulbetweenthecontemplativeandactiveaspectsoftheintellectthe
contemplativeintellectbeingdirectedtowardstruth,theactiveintellect
towardsgoodness,sothatgoodnessisseenasamanifestationoftruth,and
alsoasanantechamber,asitwere,ofthetruth.Twofurtherchapters(6and
7)suggestfurtherparallels:theparallelbetweenScriptureandthehuman
beingOldandNewTestament,andtheliteralandthespiritualmeaning,
reflectingthedistinctioninthehumanbetweenbodyandsoul;andfinallythe
parallelbetweenthecosmosandthehuman,theinvisibleandthevisible
beingreflectedinthehumansoulandbody.Infact,intheselasttwo
chapters,whatMaximossaysisevenmoredirect:howScriptureissaidtobe
ahumanbeing(),andhowthecosmosissaidtobeahumanbeing
andthehumanbeingacosmos.Inthislatter,wehave,ofcourse,theancient
ideaofthehumanasamicrocosm;andtheideathattheHolyScriptureis
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 21
modelledonthehumanisthebasisofOrigensunderstandingofScripturein
book4ofDePrincipiis,which,ofcourse,formedamajorpartofthePhilokalia,
compiledbythetwoCappadocianFathers,StBasiltheGreatandStGregory
theTheologian.IfbothHolyScriptureandthecosmosaresaidtobe
,thenthereisacertainidentitybetweenScriptureandthecosmos:
somethingMaximosdrawsoutelsewherewhenhesuggeststhatboth
Scriptureandthecosmoscanbeseentoconsistofwords,thewritten
wordsofScriptureandthehiddenofthecosmosinbothofwhichwe
findourselveshearingthe,theWordofGodHimself(cf.Ambigua10.
18:PG91.1128D1133A).
ThefirstpointtonoticeaboutallthisisthewayinwhichMaximossetsupa
wholestructureofmutualreference:whattakesplaceinthechurchbuilding
hasitsmeaninginthecontextofadivisionbetweensanctuaryandnavethat
appliesfromthecosmostotheinnerdepthsofthehumanpersonthe
significanceoftheDivineLiturgyrunsthroughthiswholegamutofreference.
ItpicksupthefundamentalmovementoftheScriptures,betweenOldand
New,surfaceanddeepermeaning;itthenreflectsthisontothemajestyofthe
cosmosandintothehiddendepthsofthesoul.Maximoshassetup
somethinglikeasetofChineseboxes,eachcontainingtheother,eachrelated
totheother.Theextremesarethecosmosandtheindividualsoul;theaction
ofthedivineliturgyconcernsbothandholdsthemtogether.This
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 22
correspondstooneofthemoststrikingfeaturesofthekindofByzantine
theologicalsynthesiswefindinMaximos:thewayinwhichthedivine
economyhasnotjustahumanbutacosmicsignificance,andcombinedwith
thatthewayinwhichthehumantaskofrespondingtoGodsactivity,which
involvesademandingasceticism,isintegratedintohistheologicalvision.In
thisMaximoswasrecapitulatingemphasesalreadypresentintheGreek
theologicaltradition,butinhisvisionthecosmic,thehistorical,theliturgical
andtheasceticarealldrawntogetherandallmutuallyinformoneanother.It
wasinaccordancewiththisvisionthatthechurchbuildingthroughoutthe
Byzantineworldcametobeseenasamicrocosmanddecoratedassuch,with
theiconofChristinthedomeofthechurchgazingdownontheworshippers
below,apparentlysupportedbythelightpenetratingthechurchfromthe
windowsatthebaseofthedome.InparticipatingintheDivineLiturgy,the
ByzantineChristianwasconsciousthathewasparticipatinginsomethingof
cosmicsignificance.Itisindirectcontinuitywiththistraditionthatmodern
Orthodoxyhasreadilyfoundwaysofvoicingecologicalconcerns.Butthis
cosmicemphasisisnotdetachedfromthelifeoftheordinaryChristian,for
thesameliturgicalactionshinesintothedepthofhissoul,andrevealsthe
dimensionsofanasceticprogrammeofpurification,illuminationandunion
thatbecomes,inthatlight,notjustamatterofpersonalcarefortheselfsouci
desoi,inFoucaultsphrasebutameansbywhicheachChristianisenabled
toparticipateinthereconciliationandrestorationofthecreatedcosmos,setat
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 23
oddswithitselfbyhumansin.ItisinthesetermsthatMaximosdescribesthe
individualascetictask:
Thehumanisamysticalchurch,becausethroughthenavewhichishisbodyhebrightensbyvirtuetheasceticforceofthesoulbytheobservanceofthecommandmentsinmoralwisdom.ThroughthesanctuaryofhissoulheconveystoGodinnaturalcontemplationthroughreasontheprinciplesofsensepurelyinspirit,cutofffrommatter.Finally,throughthealtarofthemindhesummonsthesilenceaboundinginsongintheinnermostrecessesoftheunseenandunknownutteranceofdivinitybyanothersilence,richinspeechandtone.Andasfarasispossibleforhumans,hedwellsfamiliarlywithinmysticaltheologyandbecomessuchasisfittingforonemadeworthyofhisindwellingandheismarkedwithhisdazzlingsplendour(Mystagogia4).10
WhenwehearStMaximosspeakingofthesilenceaboundinginsongandthe
innermostrecessesoftheunseenandunknownutteranceofdivinity,we
wouldnotbemistakeninhearingthelanguageofthoseloversofGod,whom
wecallthemystics.Furthermore,thoselastwordsevoketheimageof
transfiguration:oneofthemostpowerfulwaysofexpressingdeification,the
transformationofthehumanintothedivine.
IhaveleftverylittletimeformyfinalFather,StGregoryPalamas,the
fourteenthcenturydefenderoftheAthonitemonks,orhesychasts,who
10G.C.BertholdstranslationinMaximustheConfessor,SelectedWritings,MahwahNJ:PaulistPress,1985,190(slightlymodified).
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 24
claimedintheirprayertobeholdtheuncreatedlightoftheGodheadandfind
themselvestransfiguredinit.ButitisjustonesentenceofGregorysthatI
wanttoreflecton,orevenonlypartofasentence.Attheverybeginningof
thecontroversythattoreaparttheintellectualsocietyoftheailingByzantine
Empire,rapidlyfallingtotheadvanceoftheTurksanditselfrentbycivilwar,
GregoryremarkedinalettertoBarlaam,thechiefofhisopponentsatthat
time:
ItisnotsafeforthosewhodonotknowhowtospeaktoGodtospeakaboutGod,norforthosetojudgeabouttheimmateriallightwhodonotknowwhatcanbeapprehendedbeyondthelight,andhavenotbeeninitiatedintotheintellectualpartofthesoulandthelifehiddeninChristbythetrueandintellectuallight,ashavingtrulyfoundandbeenraisedtothefirstresurrection.11
ItisnotsafeforthosewhodonotknowhowtospeaktoGodtospeakabout
God.IfwedonotknowhowtospeaktoGod,thentheGodaboutwhomwe
speakwillbenomorethanaconcept.Apophatictheology,Ihavesuggested,
isDionysiostermfortheexperienceofgoingbehindwhatwesayaboutGod
andseekingtorisetoGodhimself.RisetoGod:thatisthemetaphorwe
naturallyuse,butwhatwemeanisturntoGodandseekhimdirectlyand
that,astheGospelconstantlyremindsus,canbothmeansomekindof
seclusion(whenyoupray,gointoyourchamberandseekyourFatherwhois 11Palamas,Ep.1toBarlaam41(GregoryPalamas,I,ed.P.K.Chrestou[Thessaloniki,1962],pp.2489).
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 25
insecret),butalsowillingnesstoencounterGodintheleastoftheselittle
ones.Thisissomethingweneedtoremember,fortheentryintothe
dazzlingdarkness,whereweshallbeoverwhelmedbythelightofGod,is
mainlyamatterofturningawayfromourconceptsandstrategies,thewaysin
whichwemakeourselvesathomeintheworld,andseekingtoenterthe
worldasGodcreatedit;butthereismorethisdazzlingdarknessis
ultimatelyoverwhelmingandalterstheverywayweperceiveGodandthe
world,whichisperhapstheheartofwhatismeantbythemystical,inthe
waythewordhascometousedintheWest.
Anillustrationaparableofwhatthisentailscanbefoundinthestorythe
ElderZossimatellsofhisolderbrotherMarkel,whodiedayoungmanof
consumption.12Beforehisillness,hehadlosthisfaith,andseemedtotake
delightinupsettinghismotherandtheservantsandtheyoungZossima
himselfwithhisstridentrejectionoftheFaithandreligiouspractice.Inthe
springoftheyearhedied,hismotherlearntthathisconsumptionwasserious
andthathewouldsoondie.ShetriedtopersuadeMarkeltoobserveLent
andtakecommunion.Tostartwithheangrilyrejectedthis,hurtinghis
grievingmother.ButduringHolyWeek,hehadachangeofheartandstarted
togotochurch,thoughsayingtohismotherthathewasdoingitonlyfor
12FyodorDostoevsky,TheBrothersKaramazov,PartII,BookSix,Chapter2(quotationstakenfromthetranslationbyRichardPevear&LarissaVolokhonsky,London:EverymansLibrary,1997,28790).
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 26
yoursake,mother,togiveyoujoyandpeacewhichupsethismothereven
more,asshesensedthatheknewhewasclosetodeath.Hequicklygotworse
andhadtoconfessandreceivecommunionathomeinbed.Achangecame
overhim:frombrutallyrejectingreligion,hewelcomeditwhenhisnanny
wantedtolighttheiconlamp.Zossimasaysheremembershimsitting,quiet
andmeek,sickbuthiscountenanceglad,joyful.Hismotherisglad,but
alsosorrowful,asshecanseehowmuchheissufferingfromfeverand
coughing,andthathehaslittletimetolive.Markeltriestocomforthis
mother:Mama,donotweep,lifeisparadise,andweareallinparadise,but
wedonotwanttoknowit,andifwedidwanttoknowit,tomorrowthere
wouldbeparadisetheworldover.Buthealsosays:Ishallalsotellyou,dear
mother,thateachofusisguiltyofeverythingbeforeeveryone,andImostof
all.Hismotherproteststhattherearemurderersandrobbers,farmoreguilty
thanhim.Asheseekstoexplain,thepeopleroundhimthinkheisslipping
intodelirium.Hegoeson:BirdsofGod,joyfulbirds,you,too,mustforgive
me,becauseIhavealsosinnedbeforeyou.Zossimacommentsthatnoone
couldunderstandthis,thathisweepingmotherprotestedthathetooktoo
manysinsonhimself.Dearmother,hesaid,myjoy,Iamweepingfrom
gladness,notfromgrief;Iwanttobeguiltybeforethem,onlyIcannotexplain
ittoyou,forIdonotevenknowhowtolovethem.Letmebesinfulbefore
everyone,butsothateveryonewillforgiveme,andthatisparadise.AmInot
inparadisenow?
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 27
Therearetwothingsthatstrikemeaboutthisstory.First,Markeltakes
communion,notoutofrealconviction,butoutofpityforhisgrieving
motherandwiththatlittleactofhumilityandrepentance,hefindsthatthe
gatesofrepentanceswingopen,andheentersparadise.Thesenseofbeingin
paradise,howeverandthisismysecondpointisnotjustmanifestinhis
seeingnatureinallitsbeauty,butinhissenseofguiltineverythingbefore
everyone,inhisseekingforgivenessfromeveryone,eventhebirds.
Thisseemstomeaparableofwhatisreallymeantbyapophatictheology
ForthewaytoGodturningtoGodhimselfbywayofwhatDionysioscalled
apophatictheologyisbywayofrepentance,bylettinggoofourwaysof
makingsomethingofGod,andallowingourselvestobemadesomethingby
Godhimself.AsVladimirLosskyputit:
TheapophaticwayofEasterntheologyistherepentanceofthehumanpersonbeforethefaceofthelivingGod.Itistheconstanttransformationofthecreaturetendingtowardsitscompleteness:towardsthatunionwithGodwhichisbroughtaboutthroughdivinegraceandhumanfreedom.ButthefulnessofGodhead,theultimatefulfilmenttowardwhichallcreatedpersonstendisrevealedintheHolySpirit.ItisHe,theMystagogueoftheapophaticway,whosenegationsattestthepresenceoftheUnnameable,theUncircumscribed,theabsolutePlenitudeTheapophaticattitudeinwhichonecanseethefundamentalcharacterofalltheologicalthoughtwithintheEasterntradition,isanunceasingwitnessrenderedtotheHolySpiritwhomakesupalldeficiencies,causesalllimitationstobeovercome,confersupontheknowledgeofthe
2010 Louth, ACEOT Nature of Eastern Orthodox Theology 28
Unknowablethefulnessofexperience,andtransformsthedivinedarknessintolightwhereinwehavecommunionwithGod.13
Here,itseemstome,wefindtheheartofthemysticaltheologyoftheEastern
Church.
13Lossky,op.cit.,pp.238f.