Man and the cosmos: the vision of St. Maximus the Confessor. With a foreword by A.M. Allchin

MAN AND THE COSM The Vision of St Maximus the Confessor

by LARS THUNBERG

with a Forcwaid by A. M. ALLCHIN

ST VLADIMIRS SEMINARY PRESS aLESTWOOD, NEW YORK IO707

1983

Librar oE Ccingrcrt Cataloging io Publication Dita Thunberg. Lan, 1928Min and the cesroo». BtWiograpby: p. Includa index. 1. Mnxìniui, Confessor. Saint, a- 580-otò, I. Tlite. 8R1720-MJ6VTI& IM» 2ÎO.H0924 »1-22117 1SBN0-&81-O-DI9-Î

MAN AND THE COSMOS © Copyright 1985 by

ST VLADIMIRS SEMINARY PRESS

Contents FOKfiWORD MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR IN HIS OWN TIME: A BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION The Historial Setting of Mucimui the Confessor The Person»! Biography of Mucin»» Maximus tti a Personality of hi» Time Hit CoBFwrshrt to Monatti: Lift and bit Attitude at * Monk Hit Dti-tlopmtnt attd hit Inmtenct en the Dn¿hy of Willi in Cbritt let Sorter His Evaluation of the Bitbop of Reme as a Defender iff the Doctrine of the Church Hit Ufntjle and hit Utttaty Style

" :1 il

23 27

CHAFFER 2

THE TRINITARIAN DIMENSION OF MAXIMUS'S THEOLOGY Trinitarian Theology ¡ft Maximums Own Tune Maximus» Mystical Theology of the Devine Trinity The "EconotnEc"' Trinity in Máxinuí The Trinity and the Cosmos The Trinity and the Constitution of Man

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

ISBN 0-88141-019-5

CHAT«: 3

^„„^-»«M

THE SOTERIOLOGICAL DIMENSION Two Introductory Remarla The Position of Man Who Require» Saving Action The Happy State of Man as Created in the Image of God Christ the Savior as Soteiwlogical Agent CHAPTUI 4

r»jwnn M

IHM

VUTTïïD

« T A T X * or

IT ATllINJt FUNT1M0 COMPANY

New York. NY loots

AMXVCJ,

. -,

THE THEANDRIC DIMENSION Man's Mkrocosmic ConKitution as an Anticipatory Sien of God's lncam.it The Triple Embodiment in the Woild as » Man.fatxt.on of the Permanent Divine Will to Become Incarnite

*J

«

\\

„

The Fivefold Mediation of Man as a Perfect Realization of the Tbcandric Dimension of Ihe Universe Tbi Firit MtdutKtn: Betuern tbr Sixtt The Second Mediation: Bttveen Paroditi gad the Inhabited World Tie Third Médiation: Betuttn Htaten and Earth The Faff* Mediation: Betuten ihr ¡nuil'V/hit and the Sentible Tbt Fifth Mediation: lietueen God and Hit Creation T^A-TURALSOCIAL DIMENSION Tbc Dual Commandment of Love and the Criai» of the Patriot» in Mm Co««pû 0(ic,,fe u > d NoocoKejpondenee Between Vice» and Virtue» durar The Supreme Factor of Integritìon Cbjrii} at the Indotto* Somma of the Vtttatt n-Habe Knou-ledfe and Charity Dirinc Embodiment in Human Virtue» TMLTTURGICAL AND SACRAMENTAL DIMENSION The Church as a Figure of God The Church as an Image of the world The Church *» Man and Man a» Church The Churth a» an Image of the Human Soul PUTTHER REFLECTIONS ON MAXIMUS S THEOLOGY The Principle» Of Idea» of Creation and Natural Science Today Maxima and the Role of (he Uncreated Energx* in PiLamiim £* haaslogy and Mystical Union AMRMNK

SYMBOL AND MYSTERY IN ST MAXIMUS Basic Aapects of the Problem -^mboliV or -RealriT in the View of «he Schoss» The Position of the Arcopagile "Conwnunion" Through the Scriptare» "GnoKie" and Sacnmcntal Communion A.-.alyi:*
Foreword Si Maximus the Confessor i» without question one of greatest Fatlier* of the Eastern Church Indeed M 0* the outstanding Christian thinker» of «II time I ¡mil recently however hi» thought ha* been very little known in ' Europe and North America. Only in the bait thirty or kV year» has be beer» rome widely studied, particularly in Frante and Germany. The publication of ihn present book mark» something of s breakthrough for Maximian »wdie» m the Enghih »peaking »vor I Dr Lar» Thunberg's ma»»»vc »tudy of St Maximui i doctrine of man. Mttrotoim and Medt^.i It at o n « established ti« writer a* one of the nutstam authentic» in thii field. Now twenty yea» later he »ve» us a general overview of St Mtuintt* vision of man and /'«"*". and »et» out for ui the principle dimcniwn» of Ur» Thunberg is well known In htf own countr, y a» a theotogian and a worker for Christian unity, but also »s a poet of ¿»unction. He is one who know» »boot the subtlety and clarity needed for the accurate use of wo Such qualifie» are very necessary for anyone who• will *"»< about St M«irous. The Confessor u»e* word, with the greatest precise*. At times hii style »eerns highly ttdffli ¡soteric TWi i« one of the reaion» why *»' ' '!*" difficult of scceH. Bot this difficulty ari»e» not frort i but from hi» desire to do justice both ' «W« rty of thing!, to be true to the many-faceted q< in. in tf* uni*«* mystery of God which he |*v Ihe Scripture» and above sjl fa GotTi revelation of Himself made in Jes . . Indeed the whole of S* Mvovtaa* theology can be oe 7

i

MAN AND THE CX&MOS

stood as a great hymn to the unity of all rJùnsjs, lirought about through tbe creative and reoVroptrvc love of God: tbe unity of man with God and of God with man, the unity of all creation in man when be fulfill» his calling to be at once nucjocosm and mediator, that is, the ooe in whom all things created axe lifted up to God from whom they came. For St Maximus this is a unity in which nothing of the infinitely rich ¿versification of the universe is lost; all things become their mie sdì as all are gathered up into ooe single complex act ofidoratioo. For Maximus tbe center and key to tbe whole of this process is to be found in tbe person and work of Jesus Christ Himself This is why the Chalceckoian definition of the union of God and man in the person of Christ, a union vôthout confusion a distinction without separation, is vital for him. This is why the mewotbeiite ccsntroversy, the argument that Christ had tmly ooe will» that the human will was swallowed up and lost in the divine will, was something on which he could not coospromisc. In coming into unity with God, the creation is not annihilated. "Nothing is lost, for all in love survive." Always the elements of unity and diversity, of tbe specific and the utiiversal are bdd together in his thinking. Everywhere as tbe sundered fragments of tbe world come together, they ire transcended yet preserved in a movement of growth and longing towards the end for which in tbe beginning they were created. For Maximus none of this is purely abstract or rJiMrcricaL It is tbe person of the incarnare Word wbo is at the centre or all things. The iniornarion of God and the »rresf«idrog deification of man, and m man of all creation, these are the focal points not only of his thought and his prayer, but also « his daily life, personal and social. For Maximus, God is c starrüy becoming man in man, so that man may no less constantly become God, through tbe grace and gift of God. Man» participation in goodness, at every level, is a participation m God Himself, who is the source of all goodoess. All «an» movements to realize the end for which he was created invt htm ever more deeply in participation in the divine life v ' comes into tbe world and then returns to tbe source «<*

;•• Tt* Olla

9

wnâch it comes. It i» in going beyond himself into God, that man becomes most truly human, "whence appears," as St Maximus puts ¡t, "the power of this redprocal gift which deifies man for God through the love of God. and makes God man for man through Hb love for man, miking through thu whole exchange God to become man for the deification of man and man to become God for the hcrmintzauon of GocL For the Word of God who is God wills always and m all things to work the mystery of his embodiment." As Urs Thunberg points out in this study, St Maximus wis a man wbo lived rjetween Cliristian East and West, as umiliar with Rome as he was with Ccmstaniinople. He suif ered in his own body thefcmsioosalready cieveloptng between those two worlds, and he died for the integrity of his visaran of the bringing together of all things in Christ. He is a theologian whose work has not yet been fully apipteciated. tat » whose theology has surprising and unexpected points « vanee for our own day. It is fitting that this book rjejolished by an Orthodox puWisiung house and written by a Lutheran scholar, should have a forword written by an Angbcan. In the roan m whom it is dedicated we have ooe who m has thought and in his life witnessed to tbe utmost m tbe reality of the unifying, reetiiTciling power of the divine love. May his message be heeded by Christians of our crwn troubled, late twentieth casuury. VI. Atkbm

CHAPTER 1

Maximus the Confessor in His Own Time: A Biographical Introduction Maximus the Confessor is undoubtedly one of the most outstanding expositors of Christian thought in the history of the Church. As a theologian, a devout monk, and a spiritual adviser, he has a legitimate claim to be understood in his historical contest Urtderlimng his •'timeless' theological validity would do him no favor, because his historical condì. ticms arc part of his genuine creativity. He is a representative of the not vet-divided Church, and as sudi be is a link between the Christian East and the Christ ¿an West. But this fact does not authorize his readers to neglect the particular historical conditions in which he üved and worked It is precisely when we see him against the background of his own time that we recognize him as a theological genius for all time. The obvious conclusion is that vre must try to understand his ecclesiastical role (enigmatic as it may be) and his theological contribution to Christian thinking, both in context This means, too, that we must work with his texts put as thev .ire- ,.nd only secondarily make use of them m a wider setting. And it means that whatever we may find in his formulations and positions that is hard or difficult to understand will unlv increase our efforts to capture the validity of his contribution. Reading the Fathers, we can never merely copy or reprisdnate them; we have to live with them in constant dialogue—learning, rearting, and sharing their wisdom in our hearts. 11

12 1

popóse, therefore that wr „«» , total of M a s s ' s t i i i t i w b' M «* * «<*F the , « ü f Ä ^ ^ ^ ^ texts and let them-ond m our own situati«., as a, c ^ n c n ^ ^ T ^ * * * l * was. and „ o , too ,c,n, m s . „ « u ^ t * ^

to special aspects of christology, « shall try «0 )„ fe worn o his theology illuminate as man) as ^ T t classical subjects of theological reflection, Maximus's texts are not always easy to understand, erta for Greeks. But this does not give us any excuse for not taJb big his writings seriously. In some respects his termualon H somewhat scholastic, but. being an Easterner, his tnietiboo was never schobst R in any negative sense. He wanted to be eise, and he wanted to bring light to the complexity of the issues he was dealing with T i l l HISTORICAL SETTING OF MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR Emperor Justinian (482-565) and Empress I t a d » . • f to restore tbe great Roman.tape £ b * l g j under the scepter of the » ^ J ^ t o K 2 3 to reestablish the ^ f ^ J J S * * ambitions and their sua* sscs (csen ***** tho cn

Méxhnti tbe Confeum in His Own Time

of the 2U>roastriain In 615 "hey advanced as far as the A shore of the Bosporus. In the interior, two factors radi, threatened the peace of the empite Pin* WM the almost canonical tension between the ecclesiastical center of Rome and the «clesio-politieal cenler of Constantinople fbli tenfol the fir« time since the victory of Christianity ... tee Roman Empi», was develop! further with the ...

MÄsamui hfawelf, into a conflict between Church and s« l l c and was seen as such by the representatives of the Church, particularly Ln Rome. Second. d>ere was the . te ™' that had developed afte, me Council of Chdcedon .» 4 * the split between the Chalcedonian» and the noi «rdoothe non-ChalccdonianS were Nestortans (the followers oí Nestorms) whose christology supposedly lud L c u l t i e s in keeping the two sides of Christ together. 1 ; were condemned at the Council of Comtannnoplc in V>> an effort to reconcile the other rKmChalccdonians, i.e. the Monophysites (who taught that Iherc was only one nature in found S r a n d again later when those Mom; themselves nevertheless in opposition to imperb.1 ^ J ™ later this hostility was fully manifested when the « * * * « £ who became the even more victorious «Kcessots of the Pet s,fms as BvaantiunV« external enemy-were in tact hailed as l,be»tors by the Monopbyate*. All these events took p U » .Uhm the lifetime of Maximus. Svrta M e s o p o = . tine, Persia, Egypt, and even the who e of Northern Afifej were conquered¡by the Moslen» during the period of his theological and ccclesiaStkal activity, 1 icre »t is necessary to emphasi« that the eo*cidcnceot the two conflicts, ID spite of the f * thai t h e y j « « * ^ ™ ¡ rced terrón between tical in dogma or canonical ruleChurch and State In order to reconcile the McMio^teS and preserve the intern. UTSSL .uprirted by the patria« the imperni at», - ™ <*»*

o(

doctrinal positions' that

«, that every form j f ^ » W

(

rïâSSsairJS* ^

Sjsjjinids, «no

ti

be rejected by ¡

,1 cre'at that rime supported by the pope. H o , • verv tad happened to brini together at least some Orthodox some extent already In the reign of 1-r,man, but the tendency

l4

MAN AND THE COSMOS

became more manifest at the time of Maximus, particularly durine the conflict over Monothelctism. Here, hew Maximus promoted Orthodoxy against the imperial forces supporting non-Orthodox positions. So Maximus, as a defender of Orthodoxy as he understood it in his faithfulness to Chatcedon, entered into conflict with the Imperial See. This conflict lasted till the end of his life and was supported by Rome, which also gave him spiritual support. In the preface to his famous Novella 6 the limperor Justinian had written that the emperor should support the dignity of priesthood, and that priests should pray for the emperor. However, this balance in principle was never quite successful, since the concepts of peace held by the two partners were different: that of the emperor was one of political and diplomatic harmony, and that of the Church developed, thanks to the efforts of diverse confessors, into one of doctrinal unity. Consequently, the choice of the representatives of "priesthood" more and more became a choice between a non-theological personal political position on one side, reward of which being the benevolence of the imperial poi and the more rigorous theological position of a confessor martyr on the other, A third position—of a more "ecumenical"' theology in a modern sense—had become impossible; the rigorous Orthodox theology provided the only possibility, at the time, of saving for the future a truly ecumenical tude. Let us here recapitulate the most important events in the time of Maximus. The emperor of his youth was Heradius, who might, politically, be characterized as the most impressive inheritor of Justinian's policy. He enjoyed considerable su' cess in his war against the Persians. He rescued the capjt and the whole empire, and at that time he also had ran»« able support from the populace. Hie famous Holy Cn which had been discovered by Empress Helena in the Ho Land but had been removed from Jerusalem by the P«*^ • reintroduced into the Holy Gtv by Heradius, an acte capital symbolic importance. But from Justinian, Herac" also inherited the idea of theological recondition. Supported by his patriarch Sergius, Heradius favored

Maxitnttt the Confettar in Hit Own Time theological compromise between the strictly Chalcedonian position and the Monophysite, The patriarch of Alexandrij at the time, Cyrus, who was of the imperial viewpoint, agreed to attempt a union with the disciples of the Monop':. Severus. through a so-called ntonaenetgetic formula, in which he appealed to a formulation by Pscuck^Dionysius the Arcote (an influential 3th century theologian of Neoplatonist tendency, whose writings appeared under the name and with the authority of the Pauline disopie Dionysius the Areopagite, known from Acts 17:54). In the formula was the one theo»!¡ine energy of Cht. Til i 5 effort, however, was not successful, thanks to the opposition of a monk by the name of Sophronius, who had been appointed patriarch of Jerusalem (and who was a friend of Maximus). That being the situation, the patriarch Se agreed tn pronounce a patriarchal judgment {Psephos) in 654, forbidding the mention of either one or two volitional principles of "operation" in Christ Sophronius and Máximas both accepted this verdict. Sophronius, however, had t ccpt another situation as wdl: Omar the Caliph invaded Palestine and entered the capital Jerusalem, He was accompanied by the patriarch, who died shortly afterwards in 638, being spiritually exhausted. In Constantinople the efforts to adricve theological reconciliation were now intensified In 659, the Emperor Heradius published a statement (an Ecthes'ts), which was. substantially. a reissue of the Pitphot but with a clearer tendency to oppose the position which argued in favor of two wills in Christ The conflict thus became more acute. In 641, the emperor was murdered and was succeeded by the Empress Martine, who in her very obvious efforts to favor the Monophysites relied an theological advice from Pyrrhus, the new patriarch of Constantinople. After the fall of Martine, Pyrrhus was exiled to North Africa. There, at Carthage in 645, he held tus famous dispute with M.minus, where the latter succeeded in convincing him that there are after all two wills in Christone divine and one human—since the will is a matter of nature (and Christ is of two natures), and not of the pe

16

MAN AND THE COSMOS

(in the terms the Coundl of Chalccdon lud used to define the unity of person, hypottaun, in Christ). The position of Rome, which had been favorable to the Pstphos, now also became more rigorous. Pyrrhus, who had been condemned by Pope John IYt traveled to Rome after his dispute with Maximus (who accompanied himY and there he offidally rejected MonotheUtism (tbe doctrine of one will in Christ) before Pope Theodore. But in Ravenna a short while later he returned to MonotJieletism and was then strongly ccmdemncd by Theodore. The policies of Constantinople, however, remained the same during the reign of the emperor Constans, who published in 641 a Typos, written by the new patriarch Paul II, which in fact promulgated the doctrine of one will. The reaction of Rome was very vigorous; it convened a council (the Lateran Coundl of 649), in which Maximus was very active, and which he himself considered to be the sixth Ecumenical Council. That council condemned Monotheletism and drculatcd this decision around the Oiristian world The emperor could not do otherwise than arrest the popc-who was at that time Martin l-although he did not succeed w doing so until 653, when, for a year, Pyrrhus had already been reintroduced at Constantinople as the patriarch Thus. the theological policy of the emperor, on the one side ami live papal theology, with its ecclesiastical -political imfA* tionsPoA the ^erjbecarnc separated from one * o * e * ^ any possibility of recordation. Tlie logical outcotr*joedd be the double trurtyrdom of Pope Martin and Maximus THE PERSONAL BlOGRAPHi' OF MAXIMUS So far we have only dealt with the r * ™ ^ * ^ of Maximus rather obliquely This was done on p « p c * , ¡I ,11 have been false to regard his ° ' * f * r h > ^ T o , strictly personal one in the modern sense oi m aà# eat extent Maximus acts and appears as a r e p ^ S hi. time: the only legitimate ¿ « " ^ ' J * ^ » ^ Je. through the mirror of the pol***1 * nfl

Maximus the Confessor in His Own Time

17

conflicts of his time. On the other hand, this does not mean that he was only a victim, a passive pawn in a game of chance, It is precisely against the background of the conflicts of his time that he himself appear» m history as a personality basically motivated by his theological convictions. We must therefore try to sketch in a profile of his life according to its inner consistency. The personal life of Maximus does reflect the ecclesiastical situation of his time. For him, as for that time, there was more and more clearly a choice between political compromise and martyrdom for the true faith and confession. Vet. to regard him primarily as a dogmatirian and a polemical writer who served the ecclesiastical power interests of his time would be to interpret falsely the symbolic relevance of his life It is in his capacity as a contemplative monk and a theological visionary that he assured himself a definite and authoritative place in the Christian conscience. It is indeed characteristic of his life that his enemies in ecdesiastical and political circles accused him of political crimes rather than heresies, since his spiritual theology, his monastic status, and his integrity as a thinker were so widely recognized that any accusation of heresy would have been ineffective and would have seemed simply ridiculous. Our sources are the diverse Acts about him (we find them in Migoe, Patrologia Grette*, vol. 90). Therej * : notice, first of all. the Relatto motìonis (the summary of his life develop ment), written by his disciple Anastasius in 655, which pre, sents the history of thefirstaction against him by the tmçnal court We also find there the Vita et certamen (his orla biography) which, however, dates from a somewhat later perk* itself relying on the Arti. Maximus s o w d l r w n (printed in vol. 91) are of course another primary source Maximus was bom around Î80. in a M f o f " * reputation in the imperial capitaL at a time when there wai , 'relatively high degree of harmony m the empire that covered up thetensionsand conflicts which were to corne^ He had an occasion to engage in serious general stud.» A\\ to works prove, in fact, the quality of his studies m rhtw«*and philosophy. He probably devoted himself to studies unul the

lg

MA N AND

"ntt cosate*

age of 21 He litilfoed his education so well that he drew ^ attention of the Emperor Heradius, who invited h become a kind of personal secretary of state. Probably in thoZ areles lie already had acquired Anasiasius, who was (S private secretary of Ihe empress, as a kind of personal disopie. He probably left the court in order to enter monastic life even though he still maintained good relations with the court We can deduce this from the many cordial letters to John tbe Chamberlain (the culminating point of this corrcsrxwdcoce, spiritually, being tile famous Letter ¡t on chanty) About lie entered the monastery of Philippic« at Chrysopol^ the Asian suburb of Constantinople. Later (perhaps m 615) he moved io the monastery of St. George at Cyikiis We lenow for certain, howeverr that he had to leave Asia Minot oa account of tbe Persian invasion in about 650. Vic find hira again in Africa, i e, at Cartilage, in 6J2, after a voyage at sea when he probably visited not only Crete but also Cyprus. At Carthage he entered the monastery of Fuch ratas as a monk. The abbot was the well-known Sophronius, who in 6j4 (as we have mentioned) became the patriarch of Jen> salem and the first great opponent of Monothclctism It »a» in the capacity of a kind of disopie to Sophronius dut Maximus entered this fight, as we have already Certainly, it was monastic devotion and experience, more than considerations of a political-ecclesiastual ch that turned Maximus into an outstanding theologian, all, he was a truth-seeking thinker of a speculative to During his first period of monastic life (a long period) had M cess to. and assimilated, a monastic tradition of p»* cal, ascetic, and contemplative wisdom The influenti Rragrtus, the Origenist, although Origcnism had been < dally cwdemned. was considerable in this tradition, Maximus must have succeeded in integrating it orthodoxy, while at the same time refuting Origcnism « ontokgical and philosophical system. Maximus, in this process of integration, obviously counterpoints both the dialectical system of PscudoT> fl c Afeppigto (without identifying himself with «pifitual theology of the Oppadocu.. Fathers (Greg»

Maximal tbe Confetto* m litt Oten Time

1*

Nyssa and particularly Gregory of Naxianzus). As a matter of fact, Gregory of Namnrut became in the process one of the most quoted authorities m his own theological work. Many scholars have studied Maximus at just this point. Proposals have even been made that there was "an On gem u In his life, but Dom Polycarp Sherwood, the American ßersedkrine, has definitely shown that Maximus was able, during his first period as a monk in Asia Minor, to correct Ongemsm (in the first volume of his AmbitËtotnm über). In this respect Sherwood partly corrects the position of his famous colleague Hans Urs von Baltha It may be added that more recently another Maximus scholar, Juan Miguel Garrigues, O.P. has formulated a supplementary opinion on the monastic influences on Maximus. showing how it was possible for him to take this firm stand against Origcnism without making a complete rupture. Garrigues has formulated it in this way: "Origen as »veil as Evagrius and Gregory of Nyssa were, in our opinion, read by Maximus within a wider context of spiritual rt lion. . . "l M c rcigues indicates, thb context was the soca I led Macarían tradition. The fight against Monothclctism turned out to be far more lhan a theoretical dispute about one or two with in Christ. The consequences of the doctrine of the two natures, cstab lished by the Coundl of Chalcedon, was at stakt Maximus» involvement was one based on deep spiritual experience. Hi» Jjotbeiite petition (i.e.. hi» defense of the position that there must be a human as well as a divine will m Christ) was well prepared in advance. On his side, it was more ht» respect for the authority of the Ptepkot of Patriarch Sergius than hts own deepest theological eotmetion» that made him hesitate t enter activéis Into the struggle from the beginning. The doctrine of tbe two will» is m fact—as Garrigues has shownfirst of all a logical cocise^oencc of the doctrine of the two natures, if we accept the presupfÄSitiom of its time. Bi Maximus perhaps it turned out to be far more than i became a matter of accepting fully the humanity of Chmt l ). H. OMHJP«V Mam* tk+mm4. F u n I f T \ J». 7f,

U Ctajftt^m;

to <**»** ooaoi* ohm 40

MAN AND THE COSMOS

Maximus the Confessor ht His 0 wn Time

21

20

^«misire of our salvation.» It is precisely the active * tt f t ^ die two natures-with dieir wills, according "TTreloectivena^cs-wh.ch forms the mystery of salvaCMsecraentiy, to deny the duality of wills in Christ equals, f o r Ö T a rnisunderstanding of the very core of Christ s Vivifie action. If no one spoke about one single energy La Cyrus did, there was perhaps no need to insist exphcitly upon the duality of wills, but when that happened, it became inevitable to do so. Because of that, Maximus s own terrmnology in the field became more and more precise, for dogmatic Ä I indicated above, the rnartyrdom of Maximus was a tragic afliir. The imperial trial of Pope Martin took place in 654 The next year Martin was exiled to Cherson, where he died in September of the same year. At that time Maximuss own trial wasfinalizedon the basis of his alleged unwillingness to cewnmunicate with the patriarchal throne of Constantinople, so he in tum was exiled to Bray a in Thrace. However, in 6}6, Peter, the new patriarch of Constantinople, sent a court bishop by the name of Theodosius to Bixya in an effort of recrancüiatión, but Maximus did not change his position. Once more he felt obliged to refuse obedience to the will of the emperor. This happened in the monastery of St. Theodore at Perberis, also in Thrace, where he lived for six years, always active through correspondence. hi 662. Maximus was brought to Constantinople, accompanied by Anastasius the Apocrisarios and Anastasios the Monk in order to be heard by a council, which was dearly Motiûthrlitc in tendency. This council condemned him and his disciples, Thrir right hands and their tongues were cut off, and they were sent farther away : to Lazica on the southeast short of the Black Sea. Here Maximus died in August of the same year. His cause, however, was to be victorious within a (tv.- years' time, at the Council of Constantinople in 680-681. jThis « pointed ^ ¡o ^ . „ j ^ fmch ¿i^gu,^. f. M. UtheJ, r**Wr' * Tatom* ¿» Ch*iit. U litoti àmmai,, ào Fi!, de Dir* et tot J g J * ^ *"*«e*ovao, muti „ Immiht p* Softu Moxime Coafeiteor,

MAXIMUS AS A PERSONALITY OF HIS TIME What kind of a personality was Maximus? As I have indicated, I will try to present a preliminary evaluation on the basis of some specific attitudes and positions taken by Maximus. The first among them, a derisive choice on his part and of capital ¡mettante for the whole rest of his life, is his decision to join a rnonastic community. His Conversion to Monastic Life and his Attitude as a Monk The andent biographer of Maximus rnaintains that it was the threatening Monothelite doctrine, so utterly dangerous for the Church, that caused Maximus to leave his comfortable life as a secretary at the imperial court. But this cannot be true. This is rather a proposition put forward by a hagiographer wbo wanted everything to suit a partem hud out beforehand. In fact, the biographer indicates another. far more plausible reason for the move; Maxumus was simply attracted to tbe peaceful life of a monastery, a Ufe of peaceThc expression he uses here is kaiVbetythian, which means "a life in peace." This does not mean that the expression used here must be interpreted in the manner of a later tame ie as a hesychastic Ufe," All the activU.es of Maximus during the years after his entrance into i * c ^ f g * ^ that he became a monk out of an authenrac zeaL He was energetically involved in the traditions of ascetac.^ «ntem plative life that were then current. The Evagriar, toàhon Ong^ttaiàcn^ became very dear to him, in spite of its (which he found means m refute), and he < ? « ^ * ¡ * i * wisdom of its experience. In V*™*» S ¿ r to him that this tradition was valuable for the practical benebt of the monks. ».¡-«-if In line with this influence. Maximus also adapted hunself to the allegorizing tradition of the Alexandrine exegesrs o S o Í S c r i P ^ , a tradition «hid» was .-hented by the rnon£ teries even though the monks were in general loyal to tbe

MANAWW»CO*MOS

„ « * «I the Chunh Thus, Mavimu* (valued

Orttw^ ihe t*le *« ^ " r * .

htt,

^ ptvuke. Macal*»*, and ^tvcis. Ihn S**»auumandUa»iony^

lejana» M, TL";?! ^ ^ T

^

3

K

* thoohAgv of « * * • »o the Church * £ *

«««x ,«i MiMrm in a —

'

rt«W«h» .

&> the ooc* r*# ,

. , ,

:..,«

JnS&ml « e i * * « * d * ho fclW a M » U It becwK» the sametime.*** he mates «o d*cis«v thctwokindiof Christian life To turn, the «v »ce* oí nx. ist .-vaici* « w as a twdel tor the « * » ¡ ^ «fckh at Christians to w » g tbe deep .v^vktw» cd Macaws that the »Ättutt-Ttsvvsuv **•* Mwagm MsK of God c&tst* for t QMUVK. and thus ha» to be realued »ml petttvted ui the vt COMMI ol tK the Church UMWOML \U\TRWA) decs not brattate to ptewut tQ a I all the rev | the nx*\iv Uut when be iddiTxse» Vittori! to rovHuX be dewocitfrate* ftM the tnditxxul morostK iri*taKtiori* reeaiditig ,«K\ie\ the umcjtW aoaMI the pa*»,
tto^fm v. u «•

i\UsàmViè4CmtftutemHù0wmTMm

iMuatic Ufe was oewe an end in itself . , c s douhk toward God and toward K «.ever, tu* AS a pttwawjfc» a ioduded a rathet maattK Attitude, which t lijBOMt position d dipkmâtic «»»pwmâw or the imperul eouttbecanw nvMe and mote uuvlet a Thi,, >, -.\rouswas well prepared I vj 11 i¿uc* remitwb u* that xtmmê.xv» , . , . , . . . : ¡be • diuooal ronw •• ot oMl M I û the m l is a pOgitm. xi>d * : on caitb In ihevasv \. *m*>****** «ataotttstuv but when «vent» K^ed hu« b rù***»ftary * * * * * » « • the tv*d, he oevrpted « Ft. Cianume* saya. »S « e*baK**kal sign of God» «cum"* This i«un» trat * * t cMitvd in SUvirm A.HI uivderstaiK^ beraten his monastic vocation and hu attitude a» * tttfm fyy

„

"X HcnThowew, we have arrived at the second te* ot p^, qajbl devttof****. J!., pjuliifffirif r r ^ - ^ ^ ~ * ******** . -, , ..f i ^*C*»w*akaa»ú* \la\usuvt dhl ixM enter «*» « •

^minstM^xl.

, -

* l i **Ä

?ïr

S u Ä w h e e e th, ever, i* Mt N> >av that at hr* he he^tAted « teg»*» ^bektum. 4 MM Kbola» haw »upr**«! V* MM lx»li»tiMe iituuVte*

»«-At rx«« ol riewv Mas

*»•• ma, r. «w «Om«Mk, «^ «a. r «i

iTs V:«kap»t»»*l r

MAN AND THB COSMOS

Mjxhttui (he Confessor in His Own Time

25

24

.11, became obvious m him When he wrote in his Letter 11, S » d u a l l y « « »ave only one Single rtahire, hkew.se £ n ' w e o o 7 y S e one single mind and will with regard io c Ä among ourselves . . ." he could not have imagined Sat | Ï Ï statement would have been interpreted as implying aiUothelet,, dmsttlotfcal potion. He speaks here only bout a communion of intention between man andGod, and about the unification of the wiib of all men on the basis of their common nam», For him the principle (logos) of our common human nahnc indicates precisely a double relationIn, recessed in the double commandment of chanty. The unique will here referred to is that of human nature reuniting itself according to its logos in the double charity toward God and men. This is, liowever. not to say that this double charity is to be effected on the basis of a humanity of Christ which is in fact defective, ie, a humanity exempt of human will. On the contrari', if a communion of wills is in fact the very goal of Í ture, it becomes impossible to refuse Christ the fullness of humanity, Consequently, it is when Maximus discovered in the fullness of its implications the danger of another position than Ins own—ic„ the radically Monothelile position, pretending, a» it were tli.it the salvation and perfection of humanity consisted in a kind of absorption of what is human into mat which is divine, rather than in a fulfillment of what is really human-that lie became actively polemical. In that capacity lie not only made certain things clear, but he also fought vehemently against the anti-Chalccdonian heresy. The person fighting was still the monk who had already, in his relutation of Origenism, made crystal clear what he meant by Christian perfection, a life which consists in the total «uictifiatton of all the possibilities inherent in human Ih.i struggle, and consequently the martyrdom which fclheol

WM

Ú i e ,0 iC!l1

*

« « « « i « " « ° E »" "">">*•

His Evaluation of the Bis/top of Rome as a Defender of the Doctrine of the Church During the first legal process against him, Maximus was asked why he loved the Romans .md hated the Greeks. He answered: "We have not received the comnundrnent to hate anyone, I love the Romans since we are of the same faith, and the Greeks, because we have the same language/'• Here Maximus clearly underlined that he shared a fellowship of faith with Rome that he did not have with "the Greeks" (of Corisranrinoplc). Certainly, this might have been simply a statement of fact, but obvkwsly the terms Greeks" and "Romans," as they arc used here, cover a conflict of theology. When the inquisitor mentioned the "the Romans," i.e. the enemies of imperial policy, lie seemed to forget that die whole empire as such ought to have been understood as Roman," as an inheritor of ancient Rome, and as a Christian empire Thus, in fact, he underlined the distinction between an ecclesiastical community, called Roman," and another community (it may be political, or cultural), called "Greek. Maximus. it seems, understood immediately the symbolism of this distinction, and accepted it as fact, exptessing the rupture which had taken place between Church and State. "Romans" were all those who confessed the same orthodox faith; he himself was Grecx onlv because he spoke Greek." This seemingly easy acceptance of the distinction by Maximus, however, has a deeper background, which can be made clear by a second and third ^ m T s o m e w h a t fragmentary letter to Peter tbe Illustrious (from 643 or 644), which is preserved only in a Latin ver. sion. we find some explicit expressions of a very advanced theology about the position of the Bishop of Rorne.^iaximus simply identified the See of Rome with the Catholic Church, and he spoke of "the very holy Church of Rome, the apostolic see, which God the Word Himself and likewise ¿ « ^ h o J Synods, according to the holy canons and the sacred definì*PAitploX¿* Gtatta,

90, 1ÏB C.

Mrv

•

rT*HÜ><

¡ „„I

''''

hi It »i '

"- ' ' i

i

•'

"'

i i li

'

h« A

lit* limi 1

,i ,

,. ,,. ,i

s| ,

,,..,.

,,

III

|l

i I m « , I' aMi,iiih

••'

'

'

"

I.

i

ll |

' '

11.1 | . |

' '

... .

"" '

'

• i l lItvlliu,!

.,, i i,

.,.„.!

»*\ III

h ' '«» li

pifoiuvi m »

i

I« M ' W "

, I ,

'•"!'' • •••

,.i

I I'"1 Hii I i

• M | H ( - M , . I hi dh

..

,*...

„., I,.. I,.

\\

••

L l

I . ,s .

I'M

I' n

|., , rrj .In 11 "

Imi I «Y \W\ ,.i i . - h i .

H '''

I n III

| ,

'I " "

"

,,.

... I In»

M.n

Ill mi

. . 1 , 1 , Hi M ,

«Si h |

\ .Mil

|||l I

,,l in.

i.». ' ,i i im.

l •'

I , , I

i

i i

M l .

M iii .i ki i. i,.i hi

.

,

.

.

,

,

1

I \

:

i h i » \w>\*\\

i1 "

li». " ' '

m 1

***** '

, .

,,,. I |,

lIV Mil» illl.i.i.MH. 'I ' ' . I |

.

.ill il - l i n i

I , I -, ,., |t l i n '

r I

llHt

•' '

In ,

'-I,.,.

,1,. I

I , I .

" •

'

IMI

1

, | M

i itm

i |,| . . . . .

I'.'l

i , , Mi i M i

,

>hl, i,. •

.,,t.|.l**W#

M AN A

:H

N D n i n COSMOS

he attempted to interpret Ihren lin opinion v-rms never in have Iteri â ll mode ' It was alway* pre»cnrcd as a personal, uhi opimim. and ,n « ali.oh. ( m »he »ente of universally » hriilian) tin» opinion had «Ito become hit very personal

ont. lbs manner of corn ¡ míeme, (bronci lettera, was as «crio«» ojsn ,il idea» he usually developed in ihow '><-»t.,im ... u peivuial salvation always OCCU» pied hn thinking Hi» letter» urie always io urli prepared that Ihcy could be read with prolit hy anyone thil this did m J r\. ludo a »pevial pastoral note, a pei son.1 ,.|.jv .1 Mu <11.11.11r1 u( addressing five authorities was respectful (in the Kfk thai » i
™*¡*m¡Jjj«tolte

Clod, to humiliate hmwcli „1 tr

»I

«tnu lot "ìrrakcnfourralvation "•

1 r^.wh bla ittìtud« ai • ctmtetiot. l\)lemfo W thus, he «WW W h i n e !.i. doctrinal

••'rw&iv'sr' ™

Ä •'<-" KU .un ,lhll¡

."-,,.,-

L n f w

^

*****

^'t.nnlv all

" " '"y*

' I-«'-did Oui "i"'" lm l , M T W f » 0r

K^"lV'-^..W|.»l,h*t»rtol

I K K '

« « ^ 1 ^ , 1 , 1

rN.

kit he d,d not Ä>K

Max'"*** lb* Confesor m I in Own Time

¡Q

low him m hi» play on synonyms, rhetorical figures, etc. lie loved clarity, and for that reason hc always looked for distinct i.iiiiiul.iii'M.v His dchn.ttons and aphorisms are admirable, Ihit he also knew the complexities of Christian tin rellevt.on He often «mstructed his sentences like Chinese boxes, whfch have to be opened slowly and with undisturbed mention, to u\ith the prenons linai truth he wanted to com mim.i,ili" to Ins leaders. As A kind of summary and presentation of Maximal*! style, there i» the Prolognt to M Fo*r < on Charity (a collection of sentences written in the typical .îuctermonastic ttyte), uimh follows hctnu i i m ¡oils ol the kind of literature that was dear to Maximus, and which he himself uanted to promote: Christian practical codoni in A lontcntratcd forni tn nddition to the discussion of the 1.. [another of Maximus'l most widely read moiusti. tri it.scs], 1 have sent this one on chanty to Your Reverent e 1 Ithet I l|i«lius, arranged in four sets of a hundred according to the number of the Gospc While .t d.v< not |YI hips come up to your evjw-tation.

itili it docs not rati shod of my ubtHtj Vow Holiness

should be aw.wc that tltese are not the work of rm own thought; rather. I went though Hie wnting» of 1 lie holy Fathers and sclcsted whatever might turn the mind to n» I haw ma/ thing* m a feu lia ; the] may be seen at a f loi r IM- in meuioriamfl IttOie I lend I" V''"1 S*"•• ' ".ti. me teouett mil | i them u.ti Iva ranee and hum onl) profit in them, ovcihv homeliness ol the stvlc. and prayfot«*ur limited at' that ishairrn. puitual pioti! I urge you not to lake «hat 1 I :en as a ttoubleaamc nuaalr 1 have meeelj m ltd led * •• mind Iraym beOftUM today ue arc mam who ft* lived In p^ÜT "l>: h deed» a ir t'c« indeed. Rather.

MAN AND THE COSMOS HI

CHAPTER 2 simply oprtK«.. « " P b Aj „„1 »ill come out of them b u t » with fear ot w » . »•

.

will

wholly come

wüattoevCr,

a:^TpSbuVot ä

not for

ou, .h«»

The Trinitarian Dimension of Maximums Theology

^ m ,=£ e the author, while setting up his own

Maximums theology constitutes a whole. In spite of idi his movements and struggles, Maximus developed a very-con. sistcnt system of theology. His theological cosmos coulIte understood in terms of the different dmenuons that are relevant in the whole of his theological universe. In this context the Trinitarian dimension is fundamental His theology was not one of different e n t í t i e v » * J * ™ know in Western medieval scholastic tradition. Maximus was aware of the dangers of fragmentation. His system of theology was ¡n fact a spiritual vision of the cosmos, of h « £ » within that cosmos, and therefore of the «onomyof scod e tio,,, the salvine interplay between the human ^ * , ^ ' ™ ; But it is also quite obvious that for Maximus the doctnne of the Holy Trinity is never an isolated theme within the context of his theology. It is precisely a (i""™*™'»**'£ repercussions and consequences all over the field. This canbe scThowever, only on account of ^ H ^ « « ™ * lying the details of his Trinitarian theology^ Someof these he »hares with all his predecessors, some others seem to be more his own. . _ • • LI:. According to Greek thir.l.inR m general. God in Htf essence is immobile. Consequently motion must be due to an intrusion into the repose of the Avine life. At * ' » £ £ £ hovsever. rest or repose remains for Maaámus ^ U n o l of ihe divine life, bul rest may presuppose motion. God « not

of any sort.16

31 ÏÏ2

l ^ t ^ r f **"*** * "•*"* » ™ 4

05.B. STD-

MAN ANI» IMI

i

;;;/;::lÄ.

*»~» '

Vi

,

... ilvity, tlif I I i 111 .1 Coniequi i Mil - Indecdul >•'•• | »1 tuibevyenl faith 11 i.. Maxlmui the I . i liu ls i., ihi ! i. i H . - murra ,,i ¡¡fe n .i is gtveOi .i' toe*! dc|
V T a l r t í d y ma.úieiled ,

**r r,::;::: i H

IHM m C.od is oiilv

, . - -

IIIM.

—

i*«tni

M

In revoH again»» Him Ben khi» «cavo,, he opposed ia »hi. ttóatfit that God had m d ^ u s e o t , .all s».ihm ihr • d of pure a p i r l l which My He lud created around H Irme f, ftu» MaxtmuW u rrtaodbe Of creation »ndol vdv.nu.n-*. being divine .,!,,» s» huh . v . . c u r d I * understood WJI i the possibility of movement m trtk m L(

the Beine who II pedí In trua effort to hnd another basis for a positive m ibrnding ot divine mol , Maximu» used the NeoplatonW tendency to mtcipret reality in terms of î I ; J J J . mon I. he fell free to sec as Indication», oi adumbration», of vine K. .',:•. that il •hove human rcllection and comidera lion, NeoplatonUm understood creation a» a fruit of emana/ m ti« Godillai Although Maximus did mil this a t « definitive tine to the Trinitarian mystery hc ••• to oje it a» j help. The mystery remains hidden, but the head becomes available to human under« revelation, Existence ducs n traces of God's Tun being, but these traces .irr noi given as natural levclaHO» Tim». Neopl.ittimsi madie »pciuUitton», mediated througn Fscudo-Dinnysius, helped Maximus both to ret > and to accept motion as a category available to theology I "wisdom about God." Through Trinitarian revelation, Ciod i» qualified as the One ... -Three and us engaging Himself i« ' rocess of motion because of love, a love tor l l eing». a love tliat is part of His OSMI mode of being as Ti When V.L. talk about the Trinity In Maximus. we a« M addressing .m isotaicd issue Divine life is a life in Trinitari

E

IIIINI I'AIIIAN I I I I O K K . Y IN MAMMUVS O W N I IMI In A masterly studi o( Byaantlni theology, John Meyan ,, the dill, ii • i, Weitem and Beaten nnpiuw» m Trmnuiian t.aiin philcaoph) conildari the nature In luell nut 1 ( to the II i.i.i, fuit -m.I paw l through ll to Sod the naturi Hie l Hin» think ut personality a» J mode of nature reekl ibli nature asthi I I penon ' it ibi» l« corred -m.I i,,...,. thai ihr difference, h ' • ' ,h m itei arc ni .i lubtlc nature*-we muil conclude that M J * , indeed Hem I lirlilbw. is noi ill th Pol him ti,, divi« l'rlad ll I Matt« ol hypoatatu le, and the contení ol the i»ei*on J* ncvci mil) id Ith it» ,...nu.ii • n ntutlon Perhaps here we are In h '-¡ned wjth une of many indicalioni of Musimi»» ml positi.»» HeUan Bauern Cbrinian viih acertah to accept Weilern d ni (An mpla WIM , i , , . Maximua recognise» thai there pretation ol ihe (ilfoattit ihe Western addition t.. i oi Ni hull holdi that f'Juin proceeds from m I and the Son.) When it,.s is s.iid, h CO* »vet. I I thai behind ih« Trinitarian theology oi Maximu» ihr I remains, and in ordei to hii own position H ti irnpofrani tu indicate «hi» background l; MrrtnikirH. $joaojht theatat}. f-.».»wm 19U. p i l l

MAN AND THE COSMOS

We find it first Of all in the Cappadodan Fathers, who We nna u »«* *»• F t h c t n t n e unique grec, is to oe » ^ S

f

c

o

S

^

T

o

"

^

ttroe

* .

i s » -

divine substance. •>-

«*-<•«

Ihus, the consuw j ^ ^ tatter w ü u [ d S " ! S X P son" a Î m o c h a n mere modalities of a com. r ^ b Snce Tu on the other side, the hypostatic dial Z s do not affect the ontologica! harmony between the C o Î TbL is a complete unity existing m three distinct h o w e v e r , the oneness of God is represented in a sovereign specific manner by the Person of the Father, who remami tbT^urce of life for the other hypostases. For this reason, veVortcn we find In the Oppadocians and thc.r successo« a rather close identification between the Father and Divin Tlie other Persons are there because of the Father, the pn* ciple of their unity. .j Yet, we find in Maximus another influence on his Trim tarian theology. It may partly coincide with that of the Cappadocians but it contains nevertheless certain particular eie ments. For the Cappadocians. the hypostatic distinctions t the portrait of God in His mystery are evidently based <* the successive self revelations of God. upon what He n» conceded to manifest of His own being through the hiswrj of salvation. These manifestations reflect m a way the mysrj of a divine Unity, at one and the same time single ;™ i n "^ fold But this means that the apparent tri-theism ot h , s ^ 7 ^ corrected by the revealed mystery of the Unity ol? the t n in-Onc. Consequently, Trinitarian theology should essen g remain a negative theology, ¡e. a theology that baa. essence non-knowledge. roture To a Gregory of Nyssa, God in Himself is an OP ^ light, or rather a luminous darkness. With this coi -?'^ expressed that other influence, which 1 have i n d l C i rl l o R ^jl and which became decisive for Maximus. It was a tneo influence, nourished by Neoplatonist philosophy, c* ^ |be alert in a critical attitude to that philosophy-»110

The Trinitarian Dimension

35

position is different from that in the West. For St. Augustine or for a Victorinus-as Hans Urs von Balthasar ha» shown -there is a legitimate interest in demonstrahng in the created world at large, or in man, the triadic trace» of tlie divine Trinity. For the Eastern Fathers, however, and especially tor Pscudo-Dionysius the Aieopagite. in spite of the triads that he discovers in the hierarchies of being, every more or less direct relation between the Trinitarian mystery and those S S L adumbrations is excluded. What God « ¿ ^ ^ Unity and Trinity, is absolutely distinct from those traces. Even for the mystical experience proper those r e p r o b ó o s ,te only an illusion in comparison with the Divmetruth .tse . At this point Maximus is a follower of Pscudo-Dionyuus. Evacrius, and Origen. . Here Maximus quotes Pseudo-Dionysius who *fi**™ ÎUperessential divinity of God is not at alheven if celebrated * Monad and Triad, known to u» or to anybody•el* a» Monad >nd Triad, since God. who can only be celebrated by u» m ihn way. i» Himself above every name ' Consequently, it i» to negati« theology that one must ^ u ä r T m i J r i a n theology proper, ^ r j ^ m ^ ^ dple is always valid, but it serves a cause of a * « ^ * ™ £ cm character In his combination of the two f ™ ^ ¿ ° ^ Ä explîit knowledge of a revealed mystery of ano Trinity, and tbe negative e x j * « « e o f » « ' ^ ° ™ £ of Ck>d-Maximus tries to underline t h e ; m ^ n ^ b ¡ 1 ^ revealing activity of God whjcb ^ - ¿ ¿ " ^ f E of entering i n t o • « — ^ J * ^ ^ a b s o l u t e Unity " v e s S S - new freedom to draw r a * » n £ £ »oW Trinitarian conclus.™» m regard to hie specuhftio about man and about the world (the cosmos).

*K*,m»
MAN AND THE COSMOS

lo

MAXIMUSS MYSTICAL THEOLOGY OF THE DIVINE TlsaltflTY Gregory of Naaanzus wrote this in his "Theological oration on the Son":* "That is why tbe Monad, in moving since the beginning to the Dyad, stood still at the Triad'* (in order mfindits rest there). This notion exercised a great influence on Maximus, Hc used it as a kind of general law in his Trinitarian theology, but also in his cosmology (even in his refutation of Origcnism). Gregory here describes a movement, divine in nature, which is not a decline or a fall (as was tie fall of the spiritual beings from the original divine Monad in Origen), but represents, on tbe contrary, a kind of perfection. God Himself is mobile. He moves toward "multiplicity," thereby perfecting> or fulfilling, His nature. Movement presupposes a distance, and marks it (a duality)» but in the case of the movement of God, it is at the same time a movement in which He finds His rest without losing Himself, because of tbe presupposed duality. He expresses through that movement His own mode of perfection. Of course, Gregory preserved at the same time the precise distinction between God and His creation, but Maximus felt free nevertheless to make a cosmologici! application of the idea. For him this indicates a divine action m creation, which brings tbe latter (through nun) from the original coming to be, in a movement that is naturally given, to the rest of eternal bliss. Twice Maximus commented upon this text of Gregorf. Thefirsttimeis in the Ambignorum Liber I, and the second is in a letter, called his Second Letter to Thomas (both of which are addressed to the abbot Thomas), where he returned to the same problem. If we go to the second text, we can observe that Maximal preoscly underlines tbe aspect of perfection. For the Platon* is» and the older Neopktonists. the Monad (the suprefl* unity) was the perfect primary Principle. For Maximus, c* » c contrary, it was precisely in the Triad that the richness *Otsâa 29, 2.

The Trinitarian Dimension

37

of the Monad expressed itself. According to Origen, the Dyad could not be perfect, since it indicated in its division a kind of falsifying materiality. Consequently, and this is Maximus's position, the inner Trinitarian movement does not establish an ontological distinction or a multiplicity, but marks the perfection of a living circle, tbe dynamics of a divine Being who makes Himself personal. Maximus writes: " . . . tbe Monad moves in virtue of its richness, in order that the Divinity should not be poor, reduced as it would be, in a Jewish manner, to tbe limitations of one single person." And he continues: "The Triad marks the limit in virtue of its perfection. . . . Alone, indeed, absolutely alone in being perfect is the noncomposcd being, the nondispcrscd being, who escapes at the same time both the unidty of the person, the duality of matter, and the multiplicity of essence."1 This alone is God, who thus becomes perfect in leaving His unicity without becoming dual, and who realizes His essence in the Trinity. However, we must add another observation, which is perhaps even more important In tbe fifth chapter of his Letter to Thomas, Maximus makes a decisive distinction in regard to the mystery of the divine Trinity, which indicares at the same time that the latter is truly mystical and noncomprebensible for a created being. He says that in God ". . . the nature of His being and the mode of His existence" manifest themselves simultaneously and in combination. Tlie Trinitarian mystery, thus, is simply this joint manifestation, to faith, of divine essence and existence. They are also two aspects of life for created beings, but for men they cannot coincide except in deification, on account of the permanent tension between the unity of nature and the multiplicity of modes.4 However, there are other texts where Maximus uses this distinction more formally and distinctly. I will refer to two of those texts. In both cases we have a Trinitarian application of a fundamental distinction (used in his anthropology and his doctrine of deification as well as in his christology) between the principle of nature (logos pbyseos) and Ûte mode k

P. Ciaut. '"Là deuxième tetur à Tborau," Bytomikm X. j>. 4SI. • / * * , p. 4JÏ.

MAN AND THE COSMOS

38 , • . , . (tmtos bvparxeos). Fr. Sherwood (and before £h ^TKarl T HHoll o Ä among n Ä e r s )^ ¿as^ studied this . ^ the . ^history . ^ .of ^ ^ fc Ä f c Ä the Cappadocians and to some extent E o t S i s of Byzantium. It was also shown üiat Maximus devdopeiI the distinction in a rather personal and precise developed , . . fc effective instrument in order ^ a S ï ï A ^ theological problems/ F , Alain anthropological and to solve _num d n$ w ¡ t h ^ S S o t o î ^ n e of the same distinction.« Thus we know fakíy well tlie value of the distinction for Maximus. In his S a T i a n theology, it allows him to express formally the myTtenr of tlie Monad/Triad without pretending in any way [7¿ve a rational clue to it. This mystery never consists in that distinction itself, but as we have seen, in the manner of identity operative beyond it. Maximus himself only said9 that God is Monad accordi in? to the principie of His essence (another way of expressing the belief that His ontological unity is not affected by the fact that He is hypostatically Three-in-One) and that Hets Triad according to His mode of existence (which means that the three hypostases are more than just modalities, since they truly constitute the personal life of God) .10 In the second text (which is in the second part of his Interpretation of the Lord's Prayer) he makes it clear that all the Persons of the Holy Trinity exist essentially (not only accidentally), and that the Name of the Father is the unique Son, and the Reign of the Father is the Holy Spirit God the Father is tlie Father of someone who carries rii 11 Name, and He is King, ruling in the Spirit. Thus God existí in a manner that defines at the same time His true essenc. Maximus expresses this a little later in the same text (*"? a somewhat subordinating way) saying that God is a uniq 7P. Sherwood. The Earlier Ambigua of St. Maximus the Confessor, Rw» 1955, pp. 155-168 uf Ttí¡i «See A. Riou, Le monde et l'Eglise selon Maxime le Confesseur, 1973, p. 84. °Mytlagogia, ch. 23. ,0 See here Garrigues, op. cit., p. 173. ,I Cf. Riou, op. cit., p. 223.

The Trinitarian Dimension

39

Mind which exists essentially without any cause of His being, and who has begotten the unique Word [Logor], existing without a special principle of being [i.e. He is Himself His own principle of being}, and is the source of the unique life, which exists essentially in an eternal manner as Holy Spirit 12 [i.e. having in Himself His proper life]." A serious question, however, is still to be considered: In all of Maximus's formulations, are we really confronted with the mystical Trinity, or perhaps rather with the economic Trinity, i.e. the Trinity seen through the history of salvation? For when he introduces a distinction such as that between essence and existence, Maximus seems to attempt an understanding of the divine mystery, even though he does not in fact speak about revelation, which is available only through the history of salvation. We must reply that it is Maximus's conviction that we do not know in any way whatsoever without revelation whether God is Monad or Triad, and it is on the basis of only that revelation that he feels free to make the distinction. But the distinction itself covers a true mystery, the mystery of the proper manner of being divine. Because of that mystery Maximus is able to establish a combination of positive and negative theology precisely at the point of the distinction. After having established this precision, he may advance in two different directions, mutually exclusive in principle, but nevertheless related: toward the Mystery beyond words and toward a Trinitarian theology of the history of salvation (in Greek terminology, a theology of "economy"). THE "ECONOMIC" TRINITY IN MAXIMUS First of all we must, once more, look at the link between the two forms of Trinitarian theology. I quote again from Fr. Garrigues: "God is charity. What is important for Maximus is to show that Charity (as a divine quality) within the Trinitarian life transcends hypostatically the mere 'Goodness' of divine nature, and that it is this Trinitarian 'decision' which "See Riou, op. cit., p. 228 i.

MAN ANO THE COSMOS

40

d. S

S

wnicn

^ «JO« »

M ; rt »

i

of der».rrure for a scheme of Charit] -

t**

«

*

« • - ¡» * »

6 n

^

- • ?

existence in human nature and »

S i r underlines the same idea:. 'Maximus ahvays under. srTds the incarnation as an activity of the Trinity as a whole"'14 The distinction between theologia (tlie Trinitarian mystery of God as He is in Himself) and oikonomta (the mystery of His salvine dispensation, culminating in the Incarnation) is strictly upheld by Máximos. But at the same time he relates dient intimately, so that a œrresrxmdence is established. The Word incarnate remains a person of the Holy Trinity, and thus the Trinitarian formula, "the persons, in whom h and who are the unique DMmty," can by him be transposed without hesitation to the christological sphere: "the natures, ., • is, and which are the Chriuil Thus for Maximus the history of salvation, the "economy." is never a revelation distanced from the Trinitarian life of the Godhead. It represents the divine Trinitarian life in the destiny of creation, and this not only on account of the Fall, but for the perfection of creation through Man, a man who is always the corresponding Thou, the "iconic" partner, of God. The economic Trinity is the mystery that presents itself for imitation in human life. For Maximus it is never only » question of imitating Christ the Incarnate. We arc also invited to imitate the Father, who offers the Son and Himself in Him, and thus to imitate the Trinity as a whole. This Trinitarian aspect of the economy of salvation can be illustrated by a closer study of two different texts. The first of these is taken from Maximus's Questions to Tbalassius. and is a port of his answer to Question 60. Here Maxim«* *o¡>. fit., p. 15«. »*W. VBlkci. Mommo, Comftuo, alt Moitttt Jet ¡eiitlithex I****' W i n b i d m I9to, p. 67

^î* 5 ** Feli " H e w u e T - c""f" *»*• tdt Mn.fr*. Die Strmèiat Je, Mtmtki* Onm ktt Maximo, Comitttor, Freier* 19*0. PP . J0-J8; *a¿ "L'expi**** ¿e Vtttmomie cha M*xinie le GUAÍCUCMU n V Utiattt *» Qr ScWnfeom Maxim*, Cowft,,*, Aae, Jo Symfmhm 1" M***** folentMt, Frihcxft, J-> ,tp»mt„t j ^ ftibouTg | P M > p . l>9 «"•

The Trinitarian Ditm.

41

mentions three types of knowledge: rational knowledge, knowledge by notion, and knowledge through direct experience, called "perceptive" knowledge. The first two types in the end give way to the third one, which is the properly mystical knowledge of God. All this is integrated into the perspective of economy of salvation. In this context Maximus v. rites: This mystery was conceived by tlie Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit before all time. By tlie First One through proper consent [the Father, in His intimate council, consented to bring creation m this very manner to tbe proper knowledge of Himself]; by the Second One through personal experience [the Son incarnates in Himself the way of salvation]¡ and by the Third One through cooperation. As a matter of fact, the Wisdom [gnosis, in the Greek text] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is one, since in them essence and power arc one and the same. The Father and the Holy Spirit did not ignore the Incarnation of the Son. For the fullness of the Father is found essentially in the fullness of the Son. who accomplishes, through His Incarnatimi, the mystery of our salvation. He is there present, not in incarnating Himself [i.e. the Father], but in giving His consent to the Incarnation of the Son. Likewise, the fullness of the Holy Spirit is found essentially in tbe fullness of tlie Son, not in that He becomes incarnate, but by cooperating at die inerrable Incarnation of tlie Son." It becomes obvious in this text that for Maximus the theology of tlie Trinitarian mystery forms a basis for his reflections upon the divine economy. Effective revelation is due to the Son, but it is the co-activity of the Three Persons in tins act that secures its absolute importance Tlie second text is taken from Maximus*« Interprétât,' of the Lord's Prayer. It U a passage dealing with the question VQmottt aJ That, 60; Pair. Gt. 90. 6U BC

MAN ANI» IHM f f »

42

Of Mögt* U »nee the entire Kuhn .nul ihr riillir I Inly Spii ll >u-,r csientlall) ind porfoctly wltìt « « ™»,f« N "'- r v p n '" , wiihinit being thcmKlvci incarnated, Hil bui the Patbei imagined In lh* oenrvnlru..- .md ihr jplrij Lied, tkir Incammini! with the Son, who
'-tiií- lime M r ;

'

h'Vr

l"i

man

lanthropu) the hypostatic union with ihr llr-.li " \\ r i, n r bon DO« mora how the Trinitarian dlmm OÍ lalvmtion la I hrlil 1* for Maximus most Intimati is relatd I tyìttal theology It h iriuinly onlj tl igh irvebllon .nr urn in i ilr island the essential lecwl «•' H»- •»' "' ,ki vallon, bul trvrhiiinii, In ill content, is mude a ra illty M tin time i " both the "hlrtorlcal" mid on the mystical Irvcb I.. m i b Dill

•••

I'.l I I I n

l u M munii--

Pit'

«huh neem» 10 I«Drigeol« n. M*md, ruHiJtntt, and fedgmtwi " I NM mi*'" w | ra wtablUh i kind ol <• « •••" •' ** ., wvhAi I In ihii MMajtf with wh*i be »yi i • I

i

i thai

ii 111

m

limilo....

-

lion Itere, Il parti) hoi H do with |*»m AMUI In ihkicawihr Mi... ihe>myMh u i I>IVII,I c.iuiuil, while Provldenie irtri», lor «ampi i,, (he I ili unii i it- "•' < ""^ j m ' J""*' ment to the lum ring« ol < hrlM lw muH oui wlvailon i» olTocttd through tbti fotpll M " » »' Cl„ . am pari brin,. •l',l,ml ,...it ÌKuiLi .....lai. ir mir ni iciliml '»mm l «u wl !l ii, . i ;' - i clOM Unii !•' ""' „,. rtU.m . «

[ves,htoevfrnlliiv.ihu»^ I J h WOttld Di b.ial

htun the p e l l ó n o l lin *.,«

I • und

,

hrvaine >»• pi

hui wliM In

, . „ L „ Uli propei beim * ,ul ,,„,..

"

ufc

LllonOMOl ,

m

ml

« dir world in which ihr Second , K

,lu

,A"

' ",-'

5? ?!

I dimrimiMi Ivlli ol ' •'•

""

•lh"

UJ H ,. m ihii Linn «pect Ibal we ihÜI

'"••' '

i lined dUtinctkui between Prot'idtnce and ¡ttdgmem ilr.iiih limi || cloiely connected with his ir-r oí M ferminoti i conieojuenüy i» »lio tini u> in- IUMIW the Qrtgenlsl myth of n prelusi il (.»Il MI • m , , .H,.I .i coitscuurul second licitimi l'ut example pen tlvigriu», ut" signifies the •i o••n Ol i IH- i-snli ni rcMiihliihrd through Ihr v u nul i initio!», V/h« "providence" (Mini lui him tlio divine irsliluliiin of nal Mound of «['iiitn.i 1 liringf,

f)n »m oceulon Mtxlmui mad« i trUdk con«™ "I'M. Gt, W, l'i/, « H I U m i U H,MIIP,1 In A, Hlou. Et. I »lui It Id |H Tl 11.11. I..ii,l|. *||oM « I H M » « ! * ! Ml , Ir " . |> t i l .

The Tnnttaitan

Tin utiNin AND i m !.,, M, „lu.v ... ful " Iicolojiyl¿minili i i. niti» i,.,, ( ,.|i...n. 1 thr.1l.7iV [t I (id /.,.

lu-

liiiiii

1 Ilf

he «I'll«-H I

'''

10) » I « C«« . k i t , me *|w M I .li...,.,., iettai

Ilh 4 " ' *."'- J "»* -I #4. 9¥*»Ul» IMI, V

'"

1

: ,,f '

MAN AND THE COSMOS

The lieht of the face of the Lord, which for the apostl« surpassed human bliss, belongs to tbe mystical theology according to apophasts. In it the blessed and holy Divinit)' finds itself in essence beyond the unutterable and unknowable and exceeds infinitely all infinity It left absolutely no trace whatsoever to be comprehended by those who were together with it, nor did hc allow any being to grasp how and in what manner it is at the same time Unity and Trinity, for it does not belong to the nature of the created order to contain ihe Uncreated, nor can tlie Infinite be embraced by finite beings."

)

He continues with a reference to the distinction we have mentioned above, that between Providence and Judgment: "The eatapbatk mode [i.e. the mode of positive theology] concerns him uho decides by energy about Providence and lodgment" (The italics are mine.) Certain details in this quotation are important. First of all, Maximus speaks here (in a Pseudo-Dionysian manner) about the tupti-mysterious essence: God is more than ineffable and unutterable. This implies that we should distinguish three lei els of theology, the "economic" level, properly speaking, where historial revelation is to be found; the level of mystical revelation included in, or behind, historical revelation; and finally, the level of nonrcvelation, which is the level of the nyteiy prop« Second, what is hidden is the manner of being Unity and Trinity at tlie same time, not the fact itself, since mat is revealed; thus one might conceive of it m on imperfect way. Third, Maximus seems to deny a natural reVda i0n Sincc t3lc

«Srf TT

i -

»™ Châtie mode

Ä * Ä £ ö ^

Boa* S S A Í Í Í

not

"

B

dude

wel!

-

» *•

*

^

»"*fcndof manifesta-

^£55SÄ'whûle « * °f "»*£ft*. Cr. 91, 1168 AB ZW- ni; p. MI ß. ^P "U p. M.

The Trinitarian Dimension

43

I have already indicated one of these possible adumbrations. According to Gregory of Nazianzus, "That ts why the Monad, in moving since tbe beginning towards the Dyad, stood still at the Triad." As we have said, this text exercised a very great influence on Maximus and helped him transi Üic cosmologieal triad of the Origenisls— fixity (rfdrrr). motion (kinesis), and becoming (genesis)— that was linked to their cosmology of two creations, with a fall in between, into its orthodox antithesis: htcoming-motionftxity?1 For if God Himself, who is tlie One Who Is. moves in order to find His perfect rest (as Gregory indicates), and through this motion is not only Monad but also Triad, it is obvious that H is creation is not caused by a motion that is evil in itself, but rather that there is a kind of correspondence with the Trinitarian Ufe of God the Creator. Through tbia. very basic fact we already have in creation a sort of "adumbration" of the Trinity, although this may never be used to expand on the mystery of God's essential life. Let us now turn our attention to yet another capital lext of Maximus, the Questions to Thalassius, no. 13. There Maximus seems to speak after all in terms of a kind of natural theology: For as by deduction from the beings we believe m regard to God who really is, that He is, in tl« same way, through their essential distinction m [different] species, we receive information regarding His essential and immanent Wisdom, that He exists and perfects the beings. Through a wise contemplation of creation we receive the idea of the holy Tn nit;,' i c concerning the Father and the Son -md the Holy ¡:or tlie Word of God is eternal and eonsubstantial power and the Holy Spirit is eternal divinity" However, a closer analysis will show that we are not confronted here with a natural theology that could in any * "Ff. Shtfwood hu dtmxutrxtrà iW» eoamtàtuìr '« ^ T".:. Eorlitr Amiieoa of St. fiUxr-M, tU Oriituitm. Rome 19SS. "Pst, C 90, 29* B.

' - * «b ***>

MAN AND THE COSMOS

46

. -_i Af narrative Trinitarian theology. For influence the rmnciplejfJ*& ^ ¡ n f o r o U l i o n through thrt t h e v«bkb e r y ebc ^wd c n o*n £o f£^ r£ui* « nothing « else ^ than ^ r/* naked of

/Äi

of

His

of the « « » . " A ï ï L M, information with thai

of on Origenist triad ( ^ ^ t " Sterner) and a Pseudo-Dionysian tetrad (Goodness Being. Î S r ^ d o m i coing back to Neoplatonist sources. Of those S M T A Ì » «

S Î r S i ï '¿kef., "adumbration" of the Trinity, which

might serve as an image of what God is in relation to H«s creation. This, in tum, in some way reflects what He is m Himself, though without any indication of the manner in which He is Unity and Trinity at the same time." Consequently, it is not unlikely that we should also find such an adumbration in man as created in the image of God. THE TRINITY AND THE œNSTTTTJTlON OF MAN Here we must start with another triad, which is strictly anihropologkal in character: Being—Well being—Ever-being. It is related to the classical distinction in some of the earlier Fathers between image and likeness (Gn. 1;26) in the lease that ""Being" and Tver-being" refer to the image of God in man, while "Well-being" (which is included also in Ever-being" in the blessed and perfect state of man) refers to the likeness of God in man. Now, this very distinction is not without a relationship to Trinitarian theology, for Maximus says in thefirstplace that God communicated His proper Being co the nature of man as an image (eiion) of Himself, and He communicates His Goodness and His Wisdom » "»xrmo* U Matrmx, ,*, Çamfnm: Tie Atiatie Uff. p. 40

The Trinitarian Dimension

47

man's likeness (homoiotis). Then he underlines that the secondary triads reveal, as we know, that God tt, that He is unse, and that He is living (Life). This is to say that these qualities reveal the proper Being, Well-being, and Ever.bting of God, although in an imperfecr and preliminary manner. Thus, tlie anthropological triad of "Being»" "Well-being.*' and "Ever-being" is another "adumbration" of God's 1 i _ ri an life, and it stands in direct relation to the distinction in man between divine image and divine likeness. Consequently, one could expect to find in the very constitution of man—as an image of God, destined for likeness to Him— another "adumbration-'' In fact, we do find it even though Maximus docs not develop it in detail. In his Ambigua, no. 7, he states that the mind, the reason. and the spirit of man have to be conformed to their archetypes: the Great Mind, Logos, and Spirit And in a passage of Ambigua, no. 10, he confirms that this triad of tbe human soul constitutes an image of the Trinitarian Archetype, but also that its simplicity and unity reflect tbe divine simplicity, that the goodness expressed in the imitation of the true vir tues reflects tbe divine goodness, and finally, that the liberation of man from all that it dniiite reflects God's activity of unification. It is not difficult to find in these references to three basic human activities, references to the three Persons of the divine Trinity, The Father is the principle of unity, the Son is the manifestation of the goodness of God, and the Spirit is the power of unification. (There are certain similarities here to the Trinitarian/psychological speculations of St Augustine, but the historical evaluation of them is very difficult to ascertain.) There arc. therefore, in Maximus dear indications of a human imago Trinitatit (the image of God in man understood as an image of the Trinity), and this if related to the constitution of man and also to his spiritual potentiality. However, in spite of this fact, Maximus seems to be raiber cautious in elaborating this aspect, obviously because apophatk principles warn against iL These are only "nPn??J indications in an inscrutable mystery. These indications nugJit »erve as a kind of preparation for the true revelation ol mts

MAN AND Titti COSMO! 1

ra a

, ,r and thb i* important, they might also sene as ^^iS^Äter4iun,i.i -

%VeC|^e A S DJ c have seen »1J

SottoUl A.Trinitaria« June i . , ¡t |S dangerous to try to

Ä i t Ä S l a S ? can be applied generally to all Sneers of life: to creation, » .he eonitirubon ol man, and to Jteru.loiiv m all ils phases and perspectives. M'.mus thus speaks to uneven though from a situation ¡„U-rent from our own in .ts general philosoph.'ttSoek-about a manner of "seeing" and contemp ating is above every human contemplation. It is precise y beMUSC he strictly preserves tlie limits of human contemplation of the divine Trinitarian mystery that he opens this dimeniti of life to us, through his own experience und formulations. seriously reflected upon. Hc invites us to share with him his Trinitarian vision of cosmic and human life. Our response can only be one of reflection upon our awn experience and an answer char;utermed by a living dialogue with the past As a kind of summary. I would like to refer to a text of Maximus that is of quite a different character, and deals with thc Trinitarian mystery in a liturgical context, 1 M text is from his commentary on the Divine Liturgy, the ugogia, and it describes tlie attitude of a true Christian in liturgy to the Mystery of the divine Trinity. Thc soul, from mil moment, is as simple and undivided as possible through doctrine, having compre hended in true knowledge [gnosis} the defining principies [logoi] of tlie things sensible and indivisi« ole. The word now brings it towards luminous theology. Having passed through .ill things, an Intelligence equal to that of the angels is conveyed to it, as far al this is possible, and the Word Instructs it, with the same amount of Wisdom, that it could comprehend God. one nature in three Persons; unity in nature, three foldncss in persons, and Trinity in persons. •hough unity in nature; unity m trinity and trinity in unity, not "one and the other" or "one after the

Tht Trinitarian Dimension

tj

other," or "one through thc other," or again "one in the other " or "one because of the other"; but, mdeed, ihr one and same in itself and through itself, beside itself, and thc same with itself It is Unity and Trinity, having an unconfused union in an unennfused manner, in thc same way as thc indistinguishable and Li distance that is there: Unity according to tbe principle [logoff ot nature, i.e. of being, and not according to composition, or conjunction, or confusion, of whatever kind, and Trinity according to thc hou "of being and existence," i.e. not according to distinction or diversity or differentiation of any [ontological] kind, since the Unity is never divided through its hypostases, nor docs it exist in order to be considered in relation io oppositional forms of being in it. The hypostases do not own this unity through conjunction; hm it u there, each time, in itself, in another pu it the Holy Trinity of the hypostases [the persons] is an unconfused unity of nature and due to ¡ts single ciplc [logos'] and the Holy Unity t< Trinity through its hypostases and due to its own manner of being [i.e. its hypostatical manner of being] ••

^MjJtafßtia,

fatr. Or. 91, TOO C-TOI A

CHAPTER 3

The Soteriological Dimension Sotcriology is the doctrine of salvation. For Maximus, however, sotcriology in its widest and proper sense is never conceived only as that aspect of salvation that consius in mans liberation from his sinfulness. It is the doctrine (and the mystery) of man's perfection in deification, and through man tlie doctrine of thc fulfillment of ihe destiny of ihe whole cosmos. Yet, I he starling point for any sotcriology is always an actual state of deficiency. All this now leads us to some preliminary remarks.

W O INTRODUCTORY REMARKS The first remark concerns the soteriological dimension. Every sotcriology is structured according to a general pan Tlie poles of this pattern arc: (a) an actual situation that demands n; (b) a contrary situation where the goa of sa! , achieved; and (c) an agent of salvation wh, ii operating between the other two poles in virtue ot lui capacity to transform situation "a" »to situation Christian tradition one can observe not only that I poi« "a" and "b" mutually Influeni <*b*r the definition und content of the one dependí on me « W i t s » and content of thc other, a fact that is only natura al» can observe that the pole "C die ' £*£3E »ho in this caie is Christ the Savior (ipccihcally l

51

MAN AND THE COSMOS

T¿* Soteriological Dimension

.

52

fa^ from tbe tfbücal P " ^ ^ É ? «imience apoo the two other «—'•/;v\TJEZ* Ä ^ a t in a Christian theological unim tmm\\ T t l Ä V S i i o s ) we should always expect ÜÜT t^ooiiieiion every man, and every period in bis ^ ^t^lomewbere wítbin a sotertological dimension —iliTitoniiitual «lations between tbe three poles. As a

^off£,it«thisn^^

^ ^ ^ t o e « í o n ; it becomes possible to analyze the S a o f e m y pbeocimenoo in mis context evaluating its posiSon« relation to me dînèrent soteriological poles. This Jeadf logically to tbe outline of this chapter. First of alt, we shall observe Maximus's manner of describing situal a « ^ ^ bis analysis of tbe need for salvation. Second, k the same way we must observe his manner of describing situation *V **- bis vision of achieved salvation. Finally, we shall study hb portrait of the Savior and what he has to say about oie divine instalments used to fulfill salvation, the moment V The subject is in many ways the most central of all the dimensions in Maximus's theology. To Maximus it is what we might call the theandric (U Une dmne/bumar } mystery that tt the supreme divine instrument of salvation. But we must ask m what way this theandric mystery is instrumental in our salvation. By the very combina» tion of the divine and the human natures through their hypostatic union in Christ? Or through a kind of cooperation of the natural forces included in them? And in the latter case, which is the decisive motor of this cooperation in a «WMnoiwnfTgrtk theology like that of Maximus? According to Fr, Garrieses (in his dissertation on the concept of charity in Maximus and in an article in Js/m*, 1974, IOlie ta< 0,, e* 5G ï *** M*áam (rom a more Oriental and taste» Or&odox point of view, and of a fupposedly more orkssHeo^oaktendency, is likely to misuriderstand the ^ ? 2 ü L ' ** f??*"**' * « * » • doe* not conceive of 1 0

^ T ï . "adivine Ufe, a conceptior> that one would - W . í^lZL^. * Kfoflttook writer, Máximas under« * * * most m terms of mteritíonal cx^nrrwnion. of ímíta-

tíoo and active perfection. 77* effective instrument of »afa, úon, conceived in those terms, is * "habitual" yrace (a grace of fupernaxural habitus), understood on the basis of a rather Aristotelian philosophy As a matter of 'act, Maximus's position at this point represents a very interesting anticipation of the theology of ,-,;• •:. v.; y " , ; , V ¡ f j ^ T,'.<; 0 0 * habítUi 'À the StÜOí

being saved. Charity is for Maximus no natural human quality for its perfection lies in the non-natural love of eriemies, and even in dv ;

Howcer, Vr. Garrigues has not sncceeded in proving the existence oí this non-natural habnu; in Maximus. Í am mo inclinedtobelieve that it is the Maximian idea of a dyopbysite reciprocity between God and man that is the key to his 1 soteriology. Let me quote a text that is very decisive at this point Wefindit in the Ambigua, no. 10: They say that God ana man are exemplars (parad' mata) one oí another; and that God makes Himself man for man's sake out of love, so far as man, enabled by God through charity, deified himself; and that man is wrapped up by God in mindtothe unknowable, fai aj man bai rnanafeSted througfl virtu« the God 2 by nature invisible.

Garrigues comments on this text tay'tng that ported by his distinctiori between image and pushes to an extreme point be theandric tynerptm, without questioning tbe divine p; >ty in the initiative grace, which in the economy oí the incarnation, ha» rettone m divine image in man."• Tbe "synergism" is certainly pushed v «y far in this text, but 1 doubt whether the reference to the *•> pmkkm « t o . to ««me eso»* U> U ****** b, ** J t j , » hk onkte "Zw SoUtuAofJe de» ÏAatuamt Omíemt, ¡J*f. G* >j U l f BT °* t- »27.

«fl». br

¡¡»¡* *****

54

MAN AND THE COSMOS

priority of the initiative of grace in the economy of the Ir, .„ A f e sufficient as an explanation. For Maximus the point I not at all the problem of the initiative God s mitiative / t h e economy of salvation is never contested. I « the reciprocity between God and man that constitutes the very basis of this initiative. The text describes a double movement that expresses this reciprocity (of what we might call an onto-tropological kind) in action. My personal interpretation of this text is that by divine (eternal) condescension there exists "from the beginning" a reciprocity of natures between God and man. For this reason we are allowed to say that man is created in the image of God. This reciprocity, however, should express itself in action. Therefore, we also say that man is created toward the likeness of God. Likeness manifests itself on the tropologica! level ("moral," if we like, though in the widest possible sense), i.e. as tlie manner of existence on the basis of the principle of nature fOiis is the famous distinction between "principle of nature," logos physeos, and "manner of existence," iropoi hyparxeos, a distinction analyzed historically and in Maximus at length by Felix Heinzer in his dissertation Gottes Sohn als Mensch, Freiburg 1980.) God, too, has his "manner of existence." On the inner Trinitarian level, it expresses itself in an eternal movem from Unity through Duality to Trinity. In regard to man it expresses itself (soterioloi_Mcally j on the basis of the reciprocity of the Incarnation, i.e. God moves tropologica I ly toward man in incarnating Himself. Man in turn, who had been tropo« logically made passive and turned in a false direction, moves toward God, a< .»ted by the divine movement, and thus divinizing himself. One may ask whether the question of habitus is ever really actualized in this system of thinking. 1 - effet tívf instrument of salvation is rather the a* tivation of reciprocity on the human side, as effected by the Incarnation which liberates—through the manifestation of the divine áimty-nalural powers in man relatedtothe likeness of God for which man is destined. Charity is not only a divine quality, but a divine-numan

The Soteriological

Dimension

««

desiiny, based on chi ontologica] reciprocity thai God esta] IrJ.ed in creating man in ISJ-> in and Uta Thal say that charity alone is the truly theandr'n audit) >>, f» since it is already a theandric quality in Goo A r ^ r fliAfift 1*11/n I .1 f l I I i i I i l'i fl/ rAmnrl.

. . • i , mom Loo. 1 . 1 - -

A'ri

T H E POSITION 0 1 M A N W H O REQUJKI >AVINf, ACTION Here w e must begin with a very central observation Ihe Incarnation of the Logos, according to Maximus, is '". u^ed or motivated only by the fall and by sin, but by rnsjj'f position vis-à-vis G o d , by what w e have rilled th« .\ liumifl reciprocity. Maximus shows very 'küily that Im Ofl would have taken place even wUhovA the fall, With tin-. understanding Maximus places himself in Ime wir -h tion in the ancient Church that may be traced Ist to Irenaeus of Lyon (died < \')h). According to tfWJ Ini'lifj man is not created perfect, so his original »s >>' of human perfection. H< i ailed to mature and to dev his likeness to G o d to the point oí perl ion of his m

i image of God Ukenct n tbu

tion (tropology

ii' Maximus, as we have Iff») OÍ all th.it U 1'ility because of man's nanne .i-, image o! <-l Rut in spite ol that, man's actual sit on il ' One of lack oí perfection, but one of sinfulness. A descriU-, this m leverai u W e v/ill look al Ins description oí roftfl m the Ascetic Life M¿ <" I*"" *> n liber Astduus n ; n ii-'- form < & novice a/,.i ,o oíd m '- first qui "\ ¡ / concerns pr<. J.< if human conditions i 'J7 ación of lalvatíon: "What was the purj «* £ * " becoming man?" The old mao'i answer obvi ' only ttAÍiUt one: J hc purpoSS of th* \M&* beo», was our salvaiioo." iiut precisely this answer o*w

MAN AND THB COSMOS

56 , . am w which ^ soteriological ^ ^ furUicrexplawuon h ^ o open* p e n "P , d»e ^ whole rf * ° * H i TX ^ iJ T «*i n hrrins bestini to to describe describe die tlie situation situation of 01 man rnui "Hi«- the old man begins i made by God •n nerd of ulvanonn H c ^ . ^ ¿ a n s g r c s s e d the

us co

thC

Ä S J T w Ä

subject ti c o r d o n and

M«. *-"r" - cause of man s rieatl \)tuc £ L ,nere i ii mi« desiimalcd as the uiment is designated as the ri iv me commandment is oe»sj»ww" « »~~ cause of man , B text Maximus does not explain the nature of d i s o b e d i e n c e , about which sufficient knowledge is pre. ^ p c ^ T e v e n l f » Uttle later hc becomes more precise at

' ^ " f i r s t another detail attracts our interest: man's State of sinfulness is not a stable one, and the fall is not only a nutter of fact given once for all, for it grows successively worse. The old man continues: "Then, though governed from generation to generation by the various ways of Gods Providence, yet hc continued to make progress in evil." And here hc adds the two more precise statements: '\ . . and was ted on, by his various fleshly passions [a kind of antithesis to the ways of Providence] to despair of life." In other words, man successively develops the technicrues of sin and ends in mortal despair. This is the situation that demands the Incarnation, according to the monastic theology of the Liber AsceÍKut.* In his Utter 2, Maximus includes in his description or sin not only an element of demonolagy but also indicates a psychological cause of the fall of man: the destructive research of his o-utri lust. It is his affection for himself (his telMove. philauiia) that is the root of evil. Its effects are disastrous: he is cut off from God, and divisions appear in human nature. The active agent here, however, is tlie Devil, the seducer, divider, and engineer of all the vicious methods of sin through which min tnes to find pleasure and avoid pain. Yet, In all this, man's- will cooperates with the Evil One. Maximus establishes a kind of chronology in the consecu«On qwKMiwi «» in» fofi c, 90,

JIJA,

trim t* P. Sherwood.

The Soteriological Dimention

57

live fall of man. The first fatal step is his break with God« from which stems thc first of three capital evils: ignorante, In being isolated from the creative source of his being, min concentrates upon himself in egoistic selfdove, which is the jccond in this hierarchy of evils. Finally, this egoism brings man to the third evil, tyranny against his neighbor. These three evils represent a perverted use of the three constitutive forces of the soul: reason (logos), perverted into ignorance; the concupiscible, or desire (epithumia), perverted into sensual self-love; and thc irascible, or temper (thumós), perverted into hatred against one's neighbor.1 On the basis of these two text*» and others, we may summarize the essential elements of Maximus's speculation on evil. The cause of sin is thc Devil, but in close cooperation with thc free will of man—sometimes lo the degree that Maximus does not even mention the Devil. Freedom belongs io human nature, to man's character as a being created m the image of God, but man uses it to his own destruction. This classical idea is linked with another conviction of a Platonic tendency: evil is a completely negative phenomenon. At this point Maximus express« himself in a way that comes very dose to Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagitc. I quote from the prologue to Questions to Thalassius tvil has not had, has not now, and will never have a proper existence of its own."1 Thus seduced both by the Devil and by his own intermediary position in the created cosmos of a spin tua I /sensual order, man allows himself to fall into Sta, preferring tn pleasures of the sensible world to his communion with God, and becomes ignorant, forming in himself a land of likeness lo ihe animals and using his intellectual capacities in a cor, tinuing search for pleasures where his selMove (lus P^fté) always directs him toward what is supposed to sanity ins lcn

*Uil

,UÄ

-

J

fM~

M

This pleasure, though, can never be separated fr m in opposite, bain. Maximus develops at this point a t * lectic (in Greek he plays with the words hedt and odùne, pain), The polarity of pleasure and pan 2f * ***. Cr Ji. 59* r»V7 A. £J Lip-fcec». p. JJ.

MAN AND THE COSMOS

The Soteriological Dimension

59

58 , r _* • ^nA»r*>A hv God Himself into the life of

S e c f c a t of his despair. This constitutes mans ïï£ destructive development in evil, as is characteristic of Maxi^understanding of sin. Sin is never for him a fixed state, but a movement against nature that deteriorates, in the same way as a human life lived in accordance with nature would be a good movement toward the final goal of human life, which is deification. Let us once more return to the prologue of Questions to Thalassius and read part of its summary on the matter: Thus, the immense and innumerable host of passions invades men's life. Their life becomes in this way deplorable. For the human beings honor the very cause of the destruction of their existence and pursue themselves, without knowing it, the cause of their corruption. The unity of human nature falls into a thousand pieces, and human beings, like beasts, devour their own nature. In fact, in trying to obtain pleasure and avoid pain, instigated by his self-love, man invents multiple and innumerable forms of corrupted passions. If, for example, on account of pleasure, one cultivates self-love, one awakes in oneself gluttony, pride, vanity, self-conceit, avarice, greed, tyranny, arrogance, ostentation, cruelty, fury, a sense of superiority, obstinacy, contempt for others, indignity, licentiousness, prodigality, debauchery, frivolity, vaunting, slackness, insult, offence, prolixity, chatting, obscenity, and all other vices of this kind. But if self-love is hit by pain, this gives rise to wrath, envy, hate, hostility, revenge, offence, slander, calumny, gloominess, lack of hope, cliscomfort, false accusation of the divine Providence, indifference, dispiritedness, despondency, pusillanimity, lamentation, melancholy, bitterness, jealousy and all the other vices that are due to lack of pleasure. The mixture of pleasure and pain causes wirl«»rln«c_rhis

is what some call the synthesis between the opposite elements of evil—and gives rise to hypocrisy, irony, cunning, dissimulation, flattery, adulation, and the other devices belonging to this mixed craftiness.7 Thus in Maximus a whole hierarchy of vices manifests itself within this dialectic, either—as here in the prologue of Quaest. ad Thai—m the form of a nearly unlimited multitude, or (more often) in the form of the Eastern (especially Evagrian) catalogue of eight capital vices, beginning with gluttony and fornication and ending with vainglory and pride. The point here is, however, that the inventive power of man, which in the first place is due to his rational constitution, engages itself successively in a false search for forms of passion, irresistibly ending up in a despair that is at the same time the dead end of evil, and thus the necessary condition for an acceptance of the saving act of God in the Incarnation. This fact undoubtedly represents the soteriological dimension of our miserable situation. All that happens in our sinful life contains this dimension and calls for the other side, the vision of a truly good and natural life where all the capacities of man are utilized for his healthy development. There the final goal of his life appears in the vision of his deification or divinization (theosis) by grace, on the basis of his human constitution as created in the image of God. We now turn our attention to that vision. THE HAPPY STATE OF MAN AS CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD Maximus shows some restraint in describing this state We look in vain in his writings for a beautiful P " * » » * ™J perfect life of Adam before the fall. He simply does » ^ seem to have believed in it. At this point he mam ^ striking contrast to John of Damascus, who otoerw many ways followed Maximus. Once he even says m c/Mnewhat arbitrary 7 Ed. Laga-Stecl, p. 33 ttv; the reader may excuse my »m^ choice of English synonyms in these lists.

MAN AND THE COSMOS

60

way that Adam fell into sin at die « r y moment of his creaZ . ' Furthermore, we have already indicated that Maxunu, f o L c d the line of Irenaeus in regarding the first man a. not yet perfect. But this docs not mean that Maximus hicks a vision of human beatitude. He expects ¡his beatitude to be the final fulfillment of the incarnatiooal scheme of solvation, prepared for man already before his fall. We shall, therefore, to look for Ulis vision (the pole "b" of the general scheme of salvation) at three points: in his ideas about the image and likeness of God in man; in his description of a perfect liturgy; and in his theology of deification, Each of these themes is very vast, so within thc outline of this chapter only fragmentary indication can be given. The Fifteenth Anathema of Justinian against the Origen¡sta attacked tlieir cyclical idea of an identity between beginning and end. Maximus provided a more subtle refutation of Origenism. Thus, it is only natural that hc himself wants to avoid this idea, Fr. Sherwood has observed Unit even Maximus sometimes seems to think in terms of an identity between beginning and end, but in general hc does not,' Personally, I am inclined to think that for Maximus it «ras precisely the necessity of avoiding this danger (basically still an identification of beginning and end) that caused him to be cautious in describing a too perfect original state of man. He may in principle pay tribute to the state of Adam before the fall, but he does not—as we have seen—give the impression that he believed it had been put into practk an imaginable period of human history. At this point he rather resembles the existentialist theologians of modern times. The tribute he pays aims more at underlining the un1 muted possibilities opened before man. These may be realized m the moment when man, restored to the implication! OÍ bJl w C1; Pmr Gf

2* SrtS* '7* '

met

- - *>• « » A< *•»• "> f**»M.

ì l i ir!! ™,TB 8 ? " * • B d "« " «•"> "M* ol M-al-HM •*

¡¡•J tn tl« pnkk».

The Soteriological Dimension

6x

image character through Christ Incarnate, makes a continual effort to live out tlie likeness of God, which is the goal oí hii lifc

'

We must notice the way Maximus makes uic ol the ancient distinction between the image and likeness of God in man. In fact, some of the earlier fathers and Christian writers used it, others did not. Maximus's version comes close to that of Origen, but the two are not identical. Tlie distinction in Origen seems to indicate a certain weakness m the constitution of created man. Only thc mind (the inceli i gente) carries thc divine image, and it is in liberating himself through asceticism from his fatal relation to the body (a relation that is due to the second act of creation only) that he regains the divine likeness (constitutive of tbe first creation). Maximus ¡s not at all so straightforward, though there are certain similarities between his own position and thai of Origen. But, as I have indicated before,1" one should also ask about the influence of Diadochus of Pbotike (a bishop and spiritual writer who participated in the Council of Chalcedon in 4M). Diadochus developed in chapter 89 of his GtMtlk Chapters an interpretation of the distinction which resembles that of Origen. For him thc likeness is above the image. I is a supernatural character and is realized in die virtues, as is the case in Origen. Now, the position of Maximus resembles that of Diad> chus too, but they are not identical. Here I return I difference of interpretation between Fr. Garrigues andmyseli. which I dwelt on above. For Garrigues, the »Buence OJ Diadochus on the theology of Maximus seems to be rather important. I am inclined to think that it should be coñudo bul thai it was not decisive." Maximus, too. says that the image of God was given i '"•'» from ihe beginning and that the likeness •1f'|"«red through i spiritual process. In fact, the dU M

«wrwood ir* homi of Mvuig fu«r>d Ú* m

"1. Thunb««. Mieemtmm aoet MeJiaer. Ti* tèeoUpret ot* i l l " '** ' ™,^,l ue TbuoW "Far the Influire .1 li n "i M.nlnM" *« U*¿ ' fhr ,„/., -,,,-r P i »3 ft . -i.] fai . « » m l •nmtiflii br Gvnaam «'«Ax»!«, M» GM rifu«, to. til., f >? '

62

MAN AND THB COSMOS

m e i "ted ä f f " m e n t of the likeness. This develop. m nt s seen as a kind of imitation of God, a manifestation of the divine virtues, as in a mirror, and in general as a moral activity of man. These are all similarities m relation to Diadochus, but they are marginal. . . . . . . . , For what concerns Maximus most of all is the central fact that I have already indicated: the reciprocity between God and man. On the ontological level this reciprocity is one between an archetype and its image. It should become manifest on the existential level through a double movement: God's movement toward man in the Incarnation (or in different incarnations or embodiments) and man's movement toward God in tlie imitative process of deification. Likeness, for Maximus, is to be found on the existential level, as we have seen several times. Man is created with a free power of determination, which has to be used freely for his wellbeing for an existence of good quality that is more than an ontological status, not because that status lacks something ontologically speaking, but because—as in all beings (all substances)—it should be worked out in existence, and this existence should reflect the reciprocity between God and man, i.e. a likeness. In the sense of divinization, this likeness certainly contains a supernatural aspect, but this aspect is hardly a precondition, being rather an effect. Now, let us turn to the second vision I have indicated: the perfect liturgy. The reciprocity between God and man for Maximus implies a natural capacity, and even will, to move in the direction of the other. This movement does not mingle the natures, but manifests, through existential relationship, their reciprocity. In the case of God this results in Christ the Logos, in what we might call a hypostatic theandricity, which m the last instance in the case of man permits him to move, as it were, beyond himself. This "beyond'' means not only beyond the natural, but also beyond the existential. At that last point Maximus refers to mysticism proper. On this transcendence at the frontier of nature and existenee Maximus makes some comments in the first of his

The Soteriological Dimensión

63

Theological and Economic Centuries. The text deals with the mystery of the last three cosmic days: He who in a divine way has fulfilled the sixth day through the works and thoughts that are appropriate and himself with God has completed well his work There a reference to the completion of God's creative work in six days is implied, and to the fact that all He created was "good"; here it is also presupposed that this completion on the part of man means that he has exercised ascetic practices, rational contemplation of things and has even cultivated his proper theology], he has passed in his mind all hypostasis which is subject to nature and time. And he is transported to the mystical contemplation of the ages of ages and in an unknowable way he makes sabbath in his mind, in abandoning and surpassing beings entirely. [As I have said, we are here beyond the natural and the existential.] And he who is made worthy of the eighth day is risen from the dead—I refer to all which comes after God: sensible and intelligible things, words, and thoughts—and he lives the happy life of God, who alone is called and is the Life, in the sense that he himself becomes God through divinization.1' We may ask whether this vision of the final beatitude does not presuppose both a strictly radical distinction between image and likeness and a whole theology of supernatural grace. Personally, I do not think so. The mystery of the eighth day lies even beyond the level of likeness. It rests, as il were, in the naked reciprocity of God and man. This mystery is also beyond any habitus in man. Maximus 19 not preoccupied with a habitual perfection, but rather with the mystery of reciprocity as such. This reciprocity leaves us with a kind of " « P ^ ^ / J L ° r void, between the Uncreated and the created order (trie T^TZ atter represented in man). In that "81 9* »"» tl °nally, and in that movement hc is divinized without 111 any l2

Palr. Cr. 90, 1104 AB.

r^S^trrtdogkammemrkm WAN ANU TUB COSMOS

M

mmun,

with God which foe him constitutes pet

t^*.» wK»r he exrcricoors of communion with

i

r T

r f f

*T%* of this, a kind of "secondary incarna** n „i* PIJ - * n incarnation ui bo virtue j Lolocnal) vbkh reveals in a com h r : " v

' ; , : : -

*««•*-« 0 ^

tbe

» 5

S A Í 5 5 K on me lev* of catene* i C i g h a» -.«nation of d,Mnc virtues in the virtues ol This dialectic leads us directly to m proper m mus. What is his genuine decime of det^atton the mirdSpect of his i « bave indicated ,t? Let me follow one possible »• In thil doctrine Maxirm» « influenced by P*"* 3 pu*Jf" v pre and by others among In* predecessors Hu personalttntaibtttionconsists in the w»y in which he com. UMS ¡nanution and ÄvmiiAtion The doctrinal bas« of the deification of man is to be found in the hypostatic (f^rsonall uni c two natures in Clmst. the conscie "h ich m In virtue of the actuated itUtioniliip between and the dame. This consequence does noi fipUtM autonvatkally. though, h»u depends on the explicit will God in creation that nun should participate in the divine rr»m (and not exclusively because of nun's lain that »he hypostatic union between human nature and the divine I ogot take* p|*ce Yet, it is characteristi dei! diwmunon according to Maximus that W • effected under the precise conditions of this hviwt.vu union (** ii «m dctined by the Connut of Chalccd^i and later explicated) ; it \s ttaí i red m perfect coherence but without aft} change or violation of the natures. Tint \n precision permits him to state two thh\0 There » m man on natural power that can deify him, bul there n t e on ihe other hand a reopnval relationship be•**" l 'hai permit* him to become deitied to the degree in which the ctffcta of the Incarnation are C9t> I et red «xi limi thus does not ¡\KJCK A natural powrt to become drifted, but the *ct< , /fc* e*amrle hap úm) pemut him to choose as hit ftoal goal (\t\ spite of s*»)

ThrUeh th,s revelation man hewmes ready to deliver 1 ™ÎJ{ iillcd by che grace the forni of a divinisation without representation* the evrerience oí the existential possavi u kencss («i the bAMs of ihe human nature JS created in the image ot i_*od), vipera tu»! -••• thai |*es*iw S i m to tt«ive~m the otttotegicml ' void'-ttn nation as noncognitive, a nongnostic v a mystery which d dusively one ot divine chai tl And this is. of course, the « * rxtie [• f. ch, however, n. cs us to thc additional, and do ) ibou* die mystery of Ci a? the euVctive agent ot this salvation. ( HR1ST THE SAY h l BIOLOGICA I Christology proper in M course, rei Aaprei v : | hAve chosen herv »depute a aon of hi» civ WN ' \\c shall return to it ftOra the iv «he theandric »1 i What we need for thc time be »re some indications concerning »thai «« nught call t&cmiitot ******

irmi*» doctrine of and ¡Jj*"* revv^iharion is not ait. He presents ditietent aspects I th different mtetpets ot the S ••.• FM tl«- ! Je°f r tnW , • . much he: orne out cd ** ^ Lcthel on thc a£om "** ü******1 < ethiTöiane evn the Kastem m S**t*L Maximus [Hits strong stress on n»*»*1 »

MAN AND THE COSMOS

66

« . rferthre instrument of salvation, of which-at least from o n e X of v ^ t h e reconciling death is only a log ^sequence. Thus the dkTercnt aspects are c o m m e n t a r y ; the Srifidal aspect occupies no exclusive place The incarna¡ton itself is the supreme act of divine grace, which manifests and carries into cfiect the salvine relationship between G and man. But stating this, we must always remember that incarnation has to be understood in terms of tlie doctrine of Chalcedon. This means that incarnation does not only imply God's becoming flesh, generally speaking, but God's becoming flesh in uniting himself hypostatically with man in Christ, true God and true man, fully united but without change or fusion. In other words, incarnation is always understood by Niaximus as an aspect of reciprocity. Thc act of salvation understood in this way is not a one-sided act so that God, as it were, "forces" His salvation on man. Nor is it a divided act so that Christ as man reconciles God the wrathful Father, as b the predominant Western tradition, but a cooperative act, an act of reciprocity, a concerted act, and it has to be understood in this way (cf. our chapter on tlie Trinitarian dimension). In this perspective, then, a number of different aspects can be developed. I will mention only three of them: the sacrificial aspect, the ascetic aspect, and tlie gnostic aspect The sacrificial aspect, in my opinion, is expressed in a passage of theMystagogia, Z4. There Maximus writes: If. as He has said {referring to 2 Co. 8:9}, God is thc poor one in making Himself poor in condescension for us, in accepting for Himself in compassion the sufferings of the others, and in suffering mystically out of goodness until thc end of time according to the measure of suffering of everyone, even more obviously will he become God. who, imitating the divine philanthropy, cures through Himself in a divine manner the sufferings of the suffering, ,-md who manifests In rtitude the same power as God, in the analogy ot the providence of salvation.11 »Miff. Cr. <M. 71Ì B.

fhe

Soteriological Dimension

67

\ - ï i m u s thus says that the Incarnation implies a poverty Buffers for others, and this suffering has the validity of d11 inviting man to imitation. Tlie reference is not to a f i l i a t i o n in the strict sense, but t o a condescension to a i of suííering for those who have become His brethren. Ï Ï ! is exactly the aspect Maximus prefers to underline: The condescending philanthropy invites matt to the very end to ¿n imitation that liberates him from his anti-human egotsm. Tini imitation is carried out in terms of nature which are, however manifest on tlie human level of salvation. And that in itself marks a divine victory over the Devil, who has imprisoned man in his own egoism. By representation and as a model, this scheme is realized in Christ, and when we are incorporated into Him, we arc introduced into the restored dialectic of positive reciprocity, which He represents and in which salvation takes placeThe ascetica! aspect appears, for example, in a passage of über Ascéticas (chapters 10-15), where thc old monk explains to the novice how Christ defeated the Devil in manifesting His absolute obedience to tlie double commandment of charity. To begin with I quote from chapters 10 and Nov then, as thc devil knew that there are three tilings by which everything human is moved—1 mean food, money, and reputation, and it is by these too that he leads men down to thc depths of destruction— vnth these same three he tempted Him in the desert. But Our Lord, becoming victor over them, ordered die devil to get behind Him Such then is the mark of love for GocL" 1

continue with a quotation from chapter 12, where M "»•* «ells the history of Christ's charity toward those who ** been His enemies, and who have crucified Him: Blasphemed, He was long-suffering; suffering, H P^cntly endured; He showed them every act of love.

MAN ANI»

i,,'"

„fato

u

69

tb Stankt* ltim**th»

lottalo! Ile funghi havk by HU n»»ílhi

-bnmvlrdiio" 0« God - ^ : l n l , l 11. HWlti.

,

í~¡

•'

;',,,, ,,,, »pened Ihe «

,,,

I man tl,.,t cofiltltutei Itj

; I A h,,,. n»e h.«m thai man the sinner can próvido,

¡ ,',iSt,

tons addi In ehspw I5i

,i, M u . v n <M.I

liUI (I

«pctlcnce, bul it ||

„

B

kind ol Ink ..I km»*lcdg«

' , 0 (dmlrtv! •

ll

will,

! • "'ta*" tuiti-Origem« \\*y> In the

VII t

h

b

I

h

m

«

«

i

U

M

I

*

*

*

*

i

'

U

(

)

^

'

.

*

•

•

¡

¡

5

»utd dealtv.Lc keeping r ^ ^ d m e n t of love that again*» the drv.i n . ••>•••• •'"'•

m

»

K i m

b

ymc>*"1

he c«£ccl on, the Sciibe* and

Phi h „ ,:,„, fetough In* ftscetlc obcdku.e to ihe double .1 i htiftt "'•• Hb*'i.ue» . t Mlvihi nu-drl ol His imitati Pw 51 to T ^ i

t.n.iLU. cui be found in thc I Ht»* one ices Im lutei) that creaicd tl 1 ibeii / ••: rhil ll l» •••^ < k " hii Ihevi rn lo man in ulvation•vi in nr.i hatte) lenttl n In this Iwi MtUtimul CHI the talli ol ootirlve conti l what Chttii doei loi mia in this regard;

ixnild not know hi* origin wins h wai behind 1,.IU He Hm. tried to kiH'ss intend which l»j In front. „1 inni In this way he might l. fth the md ii.-ii begin «hieb he had broken with lie did 1 A the o u i through tbe beghini And Litri hr adds: After ihe transgression foi the divine will] On« CM nute explain the end by «he beginning, bul Of Ihe beginning W the COd '" tins is obvioush 1 •• tl 1! uspci t oí Ihe sobri m m Maximus \ \ ' u h io|n-it to nature, beginning and end are identical, even though tlicv ate nil In regard lu . ,ind Uli,., M Hm i both are picK-mcd tfCU dutch u\ m.ui, and 1 11m From oa tothr Devil I'm 1 in. ic.iMMi, there ÍJ In man (alw i i T« this dimension v»c shall »evi thapttj »tttntlcin in th

ut uiLLtmg Himself wilh every man, in « » ilsra, (.. .1 Lwaki • in man »he senil' bUit) *1 -i nrti IM receive limi, who «i the Vml id mur will be

lh-ir * r m Ufl

MI

"'

»

Kfc* ...

GQnflCJtted wilh the trul)

.11 ir* INM h, SbnwNMi

,

iu| •*w. tn

3>

CHAPTER 4

The Tlieandric Dimension The term "theandric" needs further clarification. We have used it already but only in an indefinite sense. It was in itself a very constructive innovation in the early Church, Its presupposition is christological. "•Theandric'" designates the entirely unique and new relationship that is established in lesus Christ as being both fully human and fully divine: God and man as cooperating for the benefit of the whole creation, not separated and yet not mixed, not confused and yet in full harmony. One might also say that the full implications of the term "theandric" could only become apparent after the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon, where what is theandric in Christ is also defined as personal. Maximus is among the first Christian writers to use the term frequently and freely. Thereby he introduces a whole tradition of Eastern Christian thinking, for which the reality Wiind the term is of thc utmost importance: life itself ii marked by Christ's incarnation to such an extent that there » always a theandric dimension in it. For Maximus, however, «he immediate background is to be found in Pscudo-Dwnysins, whose influence upon him is at this point decisive, In his Letter 4, addressed to Gaius, Pseudo-Dion;, toe expression "//* „ew theandric energy" (in the first period °J the Monothelite controversy this was falsified to 5*uidric energy"). In Ambigua 5 and in the Opascala {teologie* et Polemica 7, Maximus gives his own interpreta«on of this term. Maximus states that Pseudo-Dionysius s 71

p., Theandric Dimension

75

MAN AND THE COSMOS

72

i. N k» understood in an orthodox and Chalceexpresskin ^ ' K * £ ? X t b the divine and tlie human

SS £ Ä ^

but

- -if. £r

rft£T* üieandric energy, as Maximus underlines.' Thu "newness" of communion between die two energici fe of central importance to Maximus For what concerns him fs preSlv the écrive communion of the two encrg.es. One K «9 * *
'&*/". e. ti. » A «a io» a. • I M , 10Î6 D-ios: A

MANS MICROCOSMIC CONSTITUTION AS AN ANTIC!I'MORY SIGN OF G O D S INCARNATION rds the i reared OTOltitUtion of nun ai an ontological preparation for the eschatological mystery of Uicandrism. , , . Man's task is a real mission in the world, and it presuppose« a theandric scheme for its complete realization. Three!factors impel Maximus to die idea of man as mk cost»', (a) his understanding of thc relation between unity and multiplicity; (b) his christological interpretation of the created cosmos; and (c) thc influence of me Cappadocian Fathers, who had already made use of this idea in a Christian sense. Furthermore, at this point a decisive influence should also be seen in Ncmesius of Emessa.1 In Nemcsius thc idea of man as microcosm is precisely linked to a divine task of unifying through himself the o p posed poles of thc world. It is not only through his constitution which reflects thc world that man is a microcosm I: El ,ilso through an act of mediation. God has placed him in an intermediary position in order to carry out this act. The very fact that the things of the world are reflected in man presents him actually with a vocation to gather them together tor his. and their final goal. He should relate opposite phenomci mortal creatures with immortal creature«, rational beings with h| Jnrational beings, etc In this way man should ' 1 *orld in miniature, and for this reason he was created as a reflecting image of the whole cosmo*,* Maximus, too, underlines the active nature of the task "»cdiaiion. Ambigua 41 is a capital text in this rega Jjere are also other texts An important one is to be I Qtfo^rV* * "" tagogia, Maximus's interpretar. k «* Divine Liturgy, to which we shall rcntrn particular I v auth • Bî '" , n c , , a P t e r 6 Maximus proposes, under ti nonty of an unknown "old man" (who might be SophrocwrS^"5 u '" i 144 f, and for * wiJ*r imun-at Oí «h* •*•*» «St* ÍJLÜ1*™ " "rtaW A

75

frlheandric Dimension MAN ANO THE COSMOS

Ä l,e dtvclops » ^ P « ' ! , ™ d ,„ ¡«If this rept«enS on

I '

2 Ï Voul as the soul m man represents the intelligible S g f a n T u i e sensible things of the world arc the type of ^ body in« « the body U thc type of the sensible things. £ * £ ii only one man! constituted through body and souk linked together as a unity of the same nature, so W « ™ J there only one world, constituted by its different elements. This analogy between nun and the universe, however, is not only a static fact. The duality should be transformed into a unity, unihreatened by dissolution. This task of unification is attributed to man as microcosm and mediator, though this task is refused by man as a sinner, who lets himself depend on thc world (especially in its sensible clement) rather than mastering it. Thus, only through God's Incarnation in Chr can this task or active mediation take place. Thereby it comes a fully theandric task. The Incarnation, which foreseen as the perfection and fulfillment of tbe full task mediation, becomes its only possible cause. This very fact now leads ui to the second aspect of the theandric dimension: the Incarnation is not only (as m Origen) a kind of secondary measure, caused by the fall, but is in fact itself the law of God's plan in regard to man and the created world, Maximus emphasizes very strongly that Croo wills continually to make Himself incarnate, and the fall i* thus only a retarding and supplementary factor in regard to this great original and eternal plan of the Triune God.

S

S

«

»

S C A R N A T E

, n a very central statement Maximus says that " . Iways . in ITl HU Word God wills to effect the mystery of t i t e a d iensontatosisy* This is also an assurance ? Ä U i" regard to creation, In this context û£L often speaks of a threefold embodiment, í r n o s l a ¿radual incarnation. For this reason, Alam Riou, OP, uses die term incarnation and admirably summarize* the triple embodiment: Thc incarnation of the Logos ir» thc logoi of created beings at the time of thc creation of the world and of the tour elements, when thc Spirit of God covered the waters; the incarnation of the Logos in the logoi of Scripture and tlie four Gospels, when the Spirit inspired the "prophets"; the incarnation of the Logos in our flesh, in the man "of our kind," in the humanity that is ours, realizing the fullness of the four cardinal virtues, when the Spirit covered the Virgin with His shadow.1 This threefold embodiment represents an economy of Ration more fundamental than one which \$ motivated only D/thefull of man. But what docs it imply? onl C k!f mpll,lion ° f Ü1C P" n c i P l e s {fog**) o f creation not nlrS j ** l o ^ natux; d attitude of man toward things iau^î * , l h h i m i hit a l s o t h e '"bating work of the Spirit «lerocru • tion a n d divinización The reasonable (logiios) thj,, ri " ^ K '"Pabfe of analytical insight into created foneaff?"8? t h c i f ío&0t- B u l ***** bdjjtA U at the same ^icatiraq ***** * *** 5CnSC ° f û x v i , l i í l S * * " * Com' 'Amai **• ain. i " « , o w CD< t n , n l b Sltrwooá> il t ' « ""»Je tl rSetht ntam Maxima I* C.-dtftltmr, Cew1eu*f,*tPua I97J,

fie Theandric Dimension i Hfl COSMOS

-ri«i and to mark the borderline to that abso' in creation an' too man .» a nu »hieb i* the hidden lire or w o . " K, |he »**ds ^ ^ Ä ^ V

living Logos illuni«»«.

their deep« «*•"£& toi teaching», le. in regard to tbe ¡ X ^ r A « * * - T S h, { ,r,al Incarnation 't the dinne« |( ^ K K, ^ ï ? " * ' *? S l ^ S n o m y «I salvation as a ti,o uiirttctsl cosmos and to me cwn«* r ^ t t » without annihilation is the supreme divbe goal

ES ¿ÄTSft

S S h o r d i n g to Maximus. a key to undcrstariding • ^ A S Î o ï . that be may understand i t a s j j to * o that by understanding it m his P wre*ot d S i S i n n he may elevate it to the supreme level ot us . all • " Ä Ä Ä in Ha pro^r a n t r a l « u c can be d. «d to ^j***^^™»* of the cosmo*. Maximus expresses this idea well m the V*'> taaTn2uuurûo " W he deals with the <£**» •can» that Christ, in becoming man. n « o n y became Bcsh but also blood, and even fane*. *UKC mm called to eat theflesh,to drink lt.* blood, and not lobw» the boo« The am»tt mwU the The principles {hgoi) of «.trllijiblt U ^ « " ^ Plated land saaamentaliy commurucaled) as the B » 0 0 " ri* ind thc principles (hgoi) of sensfoe bemf le Rah H ft»» Maximus «oes on to comidei the » J F fa «c not cocnrwuiicated at all in a cc«ip<eheosiNe w»r He «J« In ICftm to .he bones, whkh are P ^ ' I * * ^ God and »«nor to every cornpiehension. the "ff? ^ , not rut- ihem to eat" Thus the «acramental conimunionn*. this double function to link man to thc Logoi as emboa* »f<* C* »l I t t i

JJJ j.

* i ^ c n s itself to him at this paint only through the i " Ä . T ^ r a w and through thisreparationlink» him to ¿ " h L T T p r n p e r - d d of t»!e Triune God. Thc S 3 Ä » of this iiuerpretation is ch 1» * »he STIectinus of tbe ^ , v .them here at {Ci KOI length, demonatfating their consistency with other aspects of Maximus's theological system, referred to earhcr ., u v th.it «he tlesh of the Logos is the true virtue: that His Blood is thc infallible I c. and that thc bone» are the inetfabl gy. In the same way as thc blood is transformed into llcsh, so is knowledge transformed through practkr Into virtue besides, the principles concerning God. which are inaccessible to any intelligence and tx found in thc nature of .ill being», create in on unknown « | ,-rJrr : the essences ol the : existence, and are constitutive kinks of all knowledge «id all virtue, in the same way as thc bones are con stinitive links of tbefleshand blood If anyone up that the flesh and blood arc tlie pntioplesj vnt and providemr Nunc tin •* « J b c cartied out as food and drink, and that the ¡ J » are the ineffable principle» of hidden tr >«e, lie expressed an acceptable opinion. ^ « W , thefleshof die Logos is als« the perfect tabid Ï *"****» of human nature to itretJ "iiîî; rower lt~ul'

J

ï « destined tob,., i k ^ " then AK *

« « i t ihjt fcççp, fat

tuttiK

m

w t

*n rtrlt

K

jjj^bödy finalh/, cxprtftes an even mote subtle »y» »tut ihe rWi it the voluntary CXKI

MAN AND THE COSMOS

78

cation through the virtues, and that the blood is the perfection in truth through death (i.e. the morti I tion of representations), while the bones are the primary and inaccessible principles about God which are found in us, then even he speaks well and remains in an appropriate insight.* The supreme Ma.vimi.in idea about the five mediations of man and of Christ as his substitute and Savior expresses this truth in an ultimate vision, which we shall deal with in a moment However, we might prepare ourselves through a short analysis of another text from the Questions to Thalassius (no. 60), which deals with the mystery of the Incarnation proper—the "Christie" mystery as Maximus calls it This forms the basis of all that Maximus has to say about the theandric dimension as such. It is a fairly long text, so we shall only point to some of its details and quote a short but central passage. First of all, Maximus shows clearly that he is the guardian of a rather strict version of the doctrine of Chalcedon: the unity of the person (the hypostasis) of Christ does not in any way affect the duality of the natures. Second, Maximus insists in this text, as in so many other», on the Trinitarian aspect of thc Incarnation. We have already commented on this aspect of the text, but an additional remark is appropriate here: Maximus forbids the introduction of the aspect of time into Trinitarian theology m spite of the fact that one of the persons of the holy Trinity became incarnate in time. And yet, on the other side, he professes a Trinitarian prcknowledge of what the incarnate Christ will be. Thus, he distinguishes strictly between mystical and economic theology, while presupposing a secret link between them (see chapter 3 above). * In one place Maximus gives a subtle indication of this matter. He says two things: (a) that the hypostatic union is conceived eternally (and in the Trinity), and (b) thai "trough tha union (which is the supreme expression of the roeamng of the Incarnation, as wc have seen) mobile being* *W. Ufa-Steel, p. 239 5.

The Theandric Dimension

79

may conclude tlicir natural movement toward God, who is by nature immobile (but we might add existentially not immobile), and in doing so imitate the existential ¡ntra-Trinitarian movement and the economic incamational divine movement toward them. It is only logical, then, that Maximus should end his exposition in this passage with a refutation of tlie Origenist myth about a préexistent Monad of rational beings. In a very central passage of the text, Maximus again gives us a clue to his incamational thinking: Tlie Logos, God by essence, became man and messenger of the divine will. He let the most intimate ground of the goodness of the Father appear, if one may say so, and showed in Himself the goat for which created beings were created. For it is for Christ, i.e. for the Christie mystery, that all time and all that is in time has received in Christ its beginning and its end. The umori between the determined and the indetermined, the finite and the infinite, die limited and the nonlimited, and also between Creator and creature, between rest and movement was conceived before the times. It found its accomplishment at the end of time, giving through itself fullness to the preknowl* edge of God. This was so in order that the beings who are mobile by nature should find Him who is by essence absolutely immobile—when their movement toward themselves and toward each other had reached its goal—and also in order that they should g through experience, an active knowledge of Him, in m they were made worthy to find their rest and have in themselves, always unchangeable, the enjoyment of this knowledge.* Let us now turn our attention to Maximums vision of thc five mediations, partly indicated in thc text just Quoted. Our description of it—a fairly derailed one—will constitute «he «lurdand last subsection of this chapter. •JW. Gt. 90, 621 AC

MAN ASM TUL COSMOS

&0

THF UV! FOLD MEDIATION OF MAN AS A PF 1 I R AL1ZAT10N OF THE THEANDRIC A , m U M I - V S I O N OF THE UNIVERSE Thc most impressive rendering of this vision is to be found in a central text in the Ambigua, number 4. We find other versions ot Ifcxîmuïs grand vision in Quast ad Thai 4» and 63, but here wc shall concentrate on the text of Ami. 4l

' For Maximus, as for Nemesius of Emcsa, man the microcosm is also called to be a mediator. He should do more to simply reflect die structure of the universe. His task » to lead the multiplicity and duality of thc latter to a final union- this union involves, nevertheless, not violation of die differentiated natures or species, but rather their Infection« This task presented itself to man in the beginning, but its realization was interrupted by thc fall. For this reason it has to be carried out first and totally by Christ, who is God and man at the same time. In Maximus's view, the Incarnation , a double motivation: both the sin of man which prevents him from carrying out his task, and the foreseen final phase of its realization which would have been impossible for man without tlie Incarnation, meditating between thc treated and thc Uncreated. For this last reason, thc Incarnation would have taken place even without sin, but. after the entrance ot sin through the fall, thc five mediations are all first elicete by Christ and by man in Him afterwards. What are, then, the five distinctions, along with which mediation takes place? If wc start from the top ot me hierarchy, they are: ( l ) between the created and the w Created; (2) within the world of created thing» Between the intelligible and the sensible (3) within UK sensible world between heaven and earth- {4) on ear • between paradise and live world of men; (5) ' between man and woman, or thc masculine and the renin all these cases man is assigned a special function. should begin with his own division, the fifth. w " " ^ . , Maximus stand» in a certain tension in relation I

The Theandric Dimension

HI

original intention for the human race. However, it is very important to notice that none of these distinctiom is evil m itself, nor arc they caused directly by the fall or by sin. but when sinfulness is there, tlie evil powers will always use these distinctions to creale sinful divisions. Tlie mediations thus should be carried out by man-arid are already carried out by Christ, though "» inverted order from that of man. Thus, we are going to call the fifth medal tton, which is related to the fifth distinction, the first medialion, etc. Let us analyze them one by one starting With the mediation between thc sexes. The First Mediation: Between the Sexes According to Maximus, sexual differentiation (that is to say that part of sexuality which is related to procreation, sexual intercourse), or at least a great part of it, was bn in by God because of thc fall. Before the lall another form of procreation would have been provided for man. Consequently, the first mediation is particularly applicable to those elements of created life that arc separated because of sin and are against tlie original intention of God. The reconciliation between man and woman thus belongs n> thc process of purification from sin and involves foi the Chri new freedom in Christ, conveyed to him through haptism. I Icrc one might ask whether on this strictly human level it is at all possible to talk about a theandric dimension. We can do so, at least in one way, since all thc med tarions are related and form a chain. But we can do so also for an reason: it is Christ the Savior who carries out (his medi as thefirst,In Ins case, all Me does as man is always correlated actively with His divine nature. Here wc must pose two special questions: ( I ) How does Maximus understand thc man-woman duality? And (2) how is thefirstmediation carried out by Jesus Christ Ì At the outset, it should be remembered that Maximus's evaluation of marriage is considerably higher than lhat ol predecessor Gregory of Nyssa, who seems to have influenced

n

MAM AND TUB COSMOS

Maximui in tlii* matter. Vet, hn general view of sexuality a, instrument of procreation is negative, since, as wc },JVe seen, he regards this f> »tion as a secondary owenon, a substitute fa time (due to llic fall) tot t], c pertinence and immortality thai <*A wanted to give mankind. Consequently, sexuality is necessarily linked to the fatal dialectic between pleasure and pain that appears in n lite «a a sinner. TI* very manner in which man is born today 11 marked by hit iin. But lince Maximus presupposes that God had prepared another form of human multiplication and feriilily for man the rum sinner, (his negative perspective on sexuality doei not tarry ihe imph' I it ihe generative DMA ii altogether evil It may be used in .> •i rua I way The mavmlmc and inn in i ne elements are destined to disappear, only to be su Inn med effectively under tlie principle (logos) of the common human nature, But what docs Girili do to carry mil this ineilu-mv J mt 1 nd i • thr.imlrii dii ension is obvioui Jena Mirist was born ui a woman as i» evety man, but lie was rived without sensual pleasure and without destruction of ihe virginity of Hii mother, In this way Christ broke the slavery of death im Himself and was free lo accept a deith Usai MSI not forced upon Him, a voluntary death. Secondly, In his cxegeiu of Galstians 3:2H, Maximus identifies the words "man" and "woman" with anger (thumôt) and concupiscence (epitbumla) because the sexual relationship bai become the symbol par excellence of ihe life of passioni, When «he Aposlle lays that in Jesus ( hrisl there ll 'neither nule nor female," this meant that He lias conquered the patatai sad lubordinsted the forces of man under tbe logoi of Ins iuture-and that is enactly a true mediation bciwtcn the sexes Now, for die Christian this has some consequences: He has himself to transform the (».linoni into ordered virtu« under me common principle of .ill thai is Inmuti. ¡¿ old engage »> an Imitation of Christ alone who il •'1*° the Logos, already cmbodir.l In ., preliminary wsj Of created beings. Marriage is noi rejected, it is »uied by God Himself. Bui Christ has Indicated a rnere

The Theandric Dimension

ft}

noble form of relationship between man and woman, i rcla,, i,,[ in their common logos of human nature.** The Second Mediation: Between Paradite „ttd the Inhabited World This distinction, too, is linked to the fall, and once more a reference to the common logos is actualized. But here it is more the aspect of mortification that predominai« Paradise is never for Maximus a transcendent reality It is earth that ii divided up m this way. And consequently Christ the man is in the first place the agent of this mediation Maximus says that Christ sanctified the inhabited world (thc ar'aW ntine) and entered into paradise after His death, as He had promised Otte of the two diieves at the crucifixion. After His r n, in returning to thc inhabited world. He manifested ihe restored unity of the whole world: ". . . taking part m llic life of Hii disciples, demonstrating that the world ii one and not divided against itself, because it hai kept the logos of its being free from the division founded on diflcrenee."" This He does, of course, also in hypostatic communion with Himself as Ihe divine Logos. Thus, the theandric dimension is involved However, Maximui'i coniideration of thii Ihcme contami more than that, and when wc consider the whole context. Hie whole theandric dimension appears much more clearly. Two specific details should be mentioned: (a) an alle gomal interpretation (coming from the uadition of Origen c ,,, N ,„„, „ , , i r n , o| paracun ai a g n «J elrtuet, and (b) an exegesis of Luke 25:43. which I tab the conversion of the good thief with the breakdown of the tata dialectic between pleacur- and paift-and also with »he s a « concep lion of a paradise of virtues whit h il partially osseo on die urne earlier tradition. , This can be explained in a very concrete way. tven in Origen the allegorical interpretation of paradise as c l«U* Ami. 4 | 1 Pate. Gf. 91. IK* AB. "Ito* Or, ui. 1509 «

*-vV

*»

KS.-^.VVO^

***** djwt «¡re « m t a * * » »fra *f a * * « - « > « a r SÉNÉ * * * * *

**%&+• vi*adM«c»íwt>M* vS^MwfttJtJS* , *^,*^NV^H^A»ahai»Jl«^«auev>í U* N * » *

\

WW

W '^^tê^lf^t^t^mf^^rm 9r^t*m^^^^^t\mi^r^m

4Hte«Aitvsw»u»tvi ^p4«witf*aa»N«t««uisÄ aatcSuu« JAI« -. .. sv 4s taftoev,. Vî,,^ iSaa* UKMX aas* -- •

«TOMBÍA IWÄ W^ (RlWWÄ WHWM Ci I^PSä VNMMWM IA ta*4\as\e» .-UaCwm Aï ava^t-,yawi>i^' Tfcs toe iwsa* is «ataaafc a Swaw tàs\ "'a ta*dvhv^d * « Ni . « * aaaMS«r. l a «k « a tfceesadaw >tsa asm eS* «•***» taafoaaw* o* NOWJK» rvatvtve* as «ai a s s i l l a i <* sha rae*** S*e t* S* W l afe« if* ntv MM \>w* j*t»JsVwvM vatwe« t» t*re a Mah**** KM «S* t***} A a M d «nu» a aasarifaeachwi ^ tSa tr wxreàl tStsw^S tbe 1«$«* sa« ïevis »Ses* HIVWKMS Jk***w* Se e\t$*att •«vc-w s» ' » Mea» NUvuvws rsaaam* •Sr $xsi t W *t * **.«**» *>c Sir* atawaaar « « <x**eeei * ceamufusint» c« pw* a*4 wbo tauest» • tS» Ossia« l-vw* . v w w » te* jfe**i ix tbe *\MW mi atéW^ ^CVMïW sv Ma Ai.-ivi^w ts? svvrpt* »be pju* v** lav******* 4*4 ci'iiiMifsaan>, W ew*«* wit» Si* «wat to*** -v . . .• . •.-, — . ^ v ,,-•.• .. tWt p**a4n »* -dk» tSaiWttS mfcîc* W *v**Mtj**ndS «W waste »v Sia Sa aavaaaa amifiMSasimi «t ta» aaaac WA<. Mxvnwna adtìt ««M «wajree* sSavw^s a * «r** «atvw » a JwSat > * • '- •'•

-

-

I l

- i

:w«

ïx.: r-,

v.-.-,<

îS^

oaej*,™* U.wt W wat be tapset«*** <swii«di act* se* vvssaat « ***v TV U* « S» fea* t* « vv*èi« *** ïST *$* v^ tuto* (Si* «i m tVrO. S * * * ***** .Mìsda^aaàHÌ * • * * • U * * te* S«wre, te*»«* «W «a**M • > rS* a * %**! *«d a^rtw prattuc; «V *+o s», «a Me te« peeedaai «i «vwsr** «açSt «a *ea*b vc«al Se « 4 M ^>ut H ^ ^ « ^ tu^aaaaa

o^ •.

• ••

•• v i-i

n ^'^ \ ^ ,W

liMIMkMj».^

r»t r*W M****™ 9mi*n*m Ho**** m** K^a w ,v B»a»rwjj tSat abe ana lac« dsjtr »v . u w \ mi ta* naa f*minm, la iS ab* t s * l aacduuisx M « eaaSea itv rmmmifòo*** t4st w tí wi« aaaa S o s \ m SA l i a **tib HQNiad *uj s x M f t M * 4 Ttws K>sU»*uw abx« «eeffcea n laaamati ^ ^nàUwat *<mt «f aaed}Ma« dvw^i aa amu^ aaaaaantt mit \wtia»asa pejawïtwfc « aae ^n^asv anflVMn aaa *aff>ea»c» .M b.» • > S»»SAM aaaaajisat »à : •ata m s yawaaaaw! xl «ove* >«ow os Sa- djrutra vvsaswi K.Nrd so i y*isN^ waaftat, »¿m** v i)vi .«afe Sic, SIM Se a b a AW^iwsta UMS trodjtw« %^S «étvtr. ^ , - , - w in** ta* ISATVI aa«d s« aatjoMsfcar* ««¿re m <St »\vfcwf «Sa v s \ i .: fr .. . •ios'1 IQ ; v r.v,l> |Sicsi-A:fsv NS^iasv sawsl a * t * * *^** -—ftirinifr v ^llWBV1 . . v ^. . . tSjt Ì H 1 A W r v \ t ^ v> «MMSVSSW «CW» kv tiht ¡of. ^VW«* «

W

• • - •'•-'• NJ"?1« **** ^% *

,,««MP*»fWfri

—' <"*WMà

Ito

, ; , s . \*A

».,»i..l «

p

i

>

"

>

•

"

H

e

.

d

,

s

«

ì

K

W

H

I

M«W*s*fr* |W>r*aa)»*a f«Mt^rtst«W ' fmk

. ,,, UM li ,t V^uì Qf tMftOMI t w a . H\pA* III ' • nUHX« \»l ih* l l i o d s f a m i i d , ,,,ul w

v

U

khvtdMAl ««tali«**« lu t k •''• Vrai

ty

vi '

• '•' **

.kULluaâkktaJilaLtÉi LS aitali «a s l u U 1 a « l à a U a l

*àliVMi

SaààaO

s than sivnt sVfv

h.

^nxHiiSol Sy Ih***, Sul M lM • na *ll I - ^ » »So '» * M M I hl« I u t

,,.,... i... . ui.i,-iih-i ta pMsthv

-.u.h «-Sal li in Idi II • *'i ihe

«d Ins

VtShS t h e

lojiv»

'• ih* W*, W ti.«,,i ut itu i|,iu Q| * |

|-l.

II M«'! , l . i ¡ . . . . . l

» w ita * ' » ivn^iili .i ,, ül l k i l l

••• ,. ., !.. y I... tUtl M | h , ,.,„ y, I,,, ,, , ,|, ,[.!. ,.| . . , , , , • , ,

'•'•'•I.

,,,l „ Ii, 'I.

.1

. I

H|.

I W "

H

t

«

i! I .

, .

.,,,,,, ,,L

li u s . . . .,,i, ,l

- Si » i-

,,,,! | . | , t t , t p . | i ,

..

-

(

S

u

. i

!

•

.

,

.

,

,

. 4ll
.

.

M

i . ,

• i

h

t

t

i

i

l I.I..I

-i

,

» m i

i U

H

U

M

.

»itll M l \ |

.«.

i | \ u

i « .

s

II. "»»«

•,.,•!,.. |l

. -

* Ut, lui i l , , . , I ,U

l

,

,.t>.il,'d Ul |

uul >•« .uinuii^iaiiiui ..«Hi

UUi», . - . I .

,

IIM»

,

m IM

•

s

, .. I.„M, ,, ,,, .

i.i i k I . lkvi.,;K il,, ,|,(| • ihi Stii.il. ... ni m. i,,, .i,,.,, , . . i

.

••,(..,I m Ih« kitii.i.,. , itW i in .,»..!..„..

>litM|lM«< I« .

•Siigli it

ti.

IM

• i.i« .mii

(fi lin«

i

•• ili h M hi l .uh.. '

., hi,

M

• . »Uml

iSaamlih dUWMM sat M

nt>

ISii,,.,

'W

,| i« it*H|p«ii|iUlkiM

tki|«Ul U

Itili i' i -. .

, ... :. il.. , 1 , i r . u . t i u

•t ,v»i,ii.,,„ j . m s . i j i ,

|l

• ««'««tv« 4« •• •"••

.'•'

..,.1 ,

Itu

| k ,1, ,,.ii.

mili iiwtlt«!

disukl

I

;

• ",

i

, . ,s< (li. In. IIUSISW MU. ,» i, m .

»'I 11<- V . . .'I

o' I

.1

UNXWVN

:.iu; (I'll

imilla* the «midd?

I iti - ISSIJ t..,,,l. lth.il »'I Itolh Is lliai Usali Ii inen iuijsviHnl l Sau ilion . l . i i " . " " -nidia* M • Ih» 0 ,

I M » 4\\ Ult'HM

.,,-,... m S U t t l l l Ut .

»S» -

UH i«»«uih t«e*dUl

ihu^v« ivt l M VU.' fas, ,,..\ l h , m I h i t ,'l H L liUld u n . I ..l.sl ihn« Mili i««i«««mi

1....I

x

,, --I u U

"

"

haSaflMiuiiiu muli ¡»..il1.. 'b+agm a like. ph. •
K

i MLI.L

M A N A N m m COSMO«

ss mvstkul taorunce. Tbe most elevated form of the natural J S ^ S o n - «xlotvuVt to this type ol mediation brings ledge open to htm. and to the very between revelation and negative, or apophatic. fefeobfj mtSe proper sense. The Fifth Medtattan Bettete*

J

and His Creation

This is the mediation that nun would never have beca ,y ( . ihoul a divine incamatioo, regardles* M Ins being created innocent It cannot be carried out until nun, ai it »ere, leave» the sphere of creation behind and lavino united with God beyond his own nature. It is a paradoxical mediation above all llic t,-."poi and logoi applicable to tlie fat tour. The fifth mediation rctcrS to a dillcteilCC tlu! sepa tate* the whole oi «rica!ion inni uncreated nature." i.e. from God a» Hc is lo Hunvll Yet, this docs not mean c: mi^ht become comprehensible in »n»c « av la regard to His essence and ttil pi«.per qualities, there can only be complete ignorance, for there is no unity of substance between W>d and t Us creation and, consequently, no cvwiuwui logos to be iinlired in corninoci. Thc fagot and die trvpot of our unification with Goo1 > • thus above nature- 1 Set r\|'tession of Maximus is ven inter citing, however, »ime il Items to indicate a kind of lupe*' *xl possesses in anticipating this supreme union. Many may understand that—by analogy—there '* * d of iagpi even for this mystery, hot what this bgvi U remains absolutely incomprehensible. Yet it is revealed to faith that Christ has truly enVied this meatJtbon on behalf of nun exclusively in virtue of Hii hypostatic unity d created and uncreated nature. "On behalf man" means here that it was cllcvteJ from the p "¡ •'' view ot the humanity of fluist. through His ascension it» tir.al »t.igc) as man Hot from the point of vkw of I divinity one must sav mat it »as elicited ««aidless ol temporal oiosidcration On the other hand the point i« pi*

The Tòta'

temskm

W>

•.scly this, i h s t this mediation should be . ,Ml AS a s, ol the thctndii« re.. isi pre Jitcd Himself as nun '••• be throne o l öod * had aituiuplislicd all that i .,.,1 had conwiuiided us, this i m i t a t i o n » tbe fifth mediation." .•.«on to the righi hand of tl • the basis'of this mediation, but it .annoi be manifested In any m thc case of the earlier mcdiarioi Yet, it ii full of i.\)ctsc «led In the gift of God alone. rntOUgo h Christ la tin» i ná man are united wording to the model of the d t i i i , as ii i> , Ived within the theological Chalcedon. . « JJBut this then aUo means thai h i M ¡*H2 dimension never ceases to I* appk ÏÏLÏÎ32 of hum hence and ihr who Í« hílc Incarnat..m the cosmos ha» r*comc thes ' * > » 4«». M; Pan or «i. i WS C I t t i •a vi t tu. •»r CU. i, «hi, »»Ir I !• Stow *

*

•

»

« I

h a i

I I M M I I A I

M

ru-to^

MAN ANn Till! COSMOS

Tbe Theandric Dimenìi»»

90

sblc logos: that of having the "non being" before the beingV

Ine «radili « created world completely separate, ontologically. fSmthcm.ini.cliciiiiblercalilyofGod. 1(I[II

,4,1 conclude Ibis chapter with u rather long potation ,,.,•_ -(l ,1,,, nmniariftei tlie work of Christ in a

ft]

ChriitologitaLly Maximus later sums up the whole passage in llic following way:

tlieandric penpecuve: The wisdom of God the Father and His understanding is the Lord Jesus Girisi, who through His wisdom keeps all the species together and through the understanding of His mind embraces all single beings subsumed under them, since Hc is their creati r sad surrounds them with His providence, bringing through Himself all that is separated unto unity, calming alt dissolving war among beings, and—as llic Apostle sayi (Col. 1:20)—uniting ill in peace and friendship and unspllt harmony both in heaven and on earth."

And finally, above all. considered in His humanity He ¡ i l iiiself, appearing, as it is written, CÜI¡ for us as man before the face of God thc Father. He who as Logoi in no way whatsoever could ever be separated from the Father, accomplishing us nun, in work and In truth, through .in unimpeachable obedience all that Mr limiseli as God had pre-ordcred thai it should Ix- ...rued out. Having completed all the counsel of God ihe Father for ui who through our BÜlttN hid made ineffective thc power which was given to ui by nature for thii purpose from the beginning. 1 nus He united, first of all, ourselves in Himself through removal of the difiéreme between male and female, manifesting us—instead of as men and women, considered primarily from tlie point of view of distinction—»imply. In principle and in trulli, as human beings, totally conformed to Him and carrying that unaj.;r .'I Hii v.ine .nul entirely intact, which can in no way be affected by any symptoms of corruption. And with us and for us He embraced the whole creation through what ii In live center, the extremes as being p.iu nl Himself, and Hc wrapped ihem around H unveil, mv.tluhly united with one another: Paradise and thc inhabited world, heaven and earth, the sensible and the intelligible, having Himself like us a body and sensibility and soul ..ml intcllccl . He recapitulated in Himself all things, showing that the whole creation is one, as if it were also a man, achieved through the coming together of all its memben, ace. i he unique, simple, undefined and indwerent principle, statmg that ihe whole creation can have one and the lame, absolutely ¡ndistinguish-

"Hrn-. U V r H r , Miiimui il Util mJiíite» • fftwiWi «mimi ef Hi» WJW, trhtrh hoLl» All emtio» tonili«. Ulli il «tur« ih» r w M M * j W « ' *"i« orimi, arti In« in« ihr twin» <* in twin* in irteli. Ami. 41; Pam f

" » i . nop c-iMi n. " ' W . IM) ti.

CHAPTER 5

The NaturcU-Social Dimension The tide of this chapter simply expresses the fact that social life and virtues arc seen by Máximos in the light of the nature (physis) of man, the nature that is common to all men, and the principle of which (the logos of nature) excludes any split or separation within thc individual or between different human beings. One could as well speak of an ethical-social dimension, since this ii in fact the subject to be treated now. However, 1 prefer the reference to phjsis: the common nature of all men, ruled oototogically by its principle or idea (its logos physeos), is the very basis of intcrhumon morality in Maximus. Again the word "dimension" is important It is not chosen at random. For Maximus morality and sociality are not isolated in his theological cosmos. They are precisely a dimension of life as a vyhole. The decisive proof of this is the supremacy of charity in his system, the charity or love • i ich tbe exercise of virtues culminates, that charity which " the final goal of the contemplative life of insight and also is the consummation of the mystical life. For this reason I propose an analysis of the Maximian concept of charity or love m its relationship to vices and virtues and to the final goal of human life.1 We begin with on analysis of Maximus's reflections on 'Tht than* «rf this dupcer 4» tmicJ « ¡fetta Jittgtl» «• L. Ta«fib«a **• f*. pp. 244-SJo. tai ¡a tbe r*wk*mnMH áteme io Wilifca VIMitr. * « » * « Cmmfnn, J, fOMiaet ¿e, seittikmeo Lomtoi. Wx*a¿» IW.

93

MAN AND THE COSMOS

94 the conBict between the sinful life of man and Gods dual commandment of love. THE DUAL COhtMANDMENT OF LOVE AND THE CRISIS OF THE PASSIONS IN MAN Two remarks ought to be made at the outset. Maximus tf.'LcStheoloá is in a number o f ^ p c c t s a s u c c o r to the tradition of Evagrius Pont.cus. This means or example, that he inherited die hierarchy of eight capthüvia*, Ä c r i s t i c of the Evagrion system. This is an Easte n hierarchy different from the Western one: onde is not its starting poi"» but rather its culmination. The EvagianS a T h i e r a r c h y thus consists of eight vices in the o lowine order: gluttonj. fornix ion, avance, grtef, wrath listlessXTainllory. J pride. Maxima, also accepts the£ i d , . tional idea of the trichotomy of the human soul, lar he distinguishes between the rational, the tratable and the to* calhcibU as its constitutive elements. And he combine!** hierarchy of vices with the trichotomy of the soul m sudha way tlut ever, vice is more or less related to one of the three elements. We con at least be certain that gluttony and fornication belong to the concupiscible element, wrath to me irascible, and vainglory and pride to the rational _ element. Finally, Maximus sees the virtues as positive substitutes tor the vices in a virtuous man. This means that they, too, belong more or less to their own element in thc human soul, even though the hierarchy of virtues is never so strictly constructed as that of the vices, , . Rut what is even more interesting, thc hierarchy ot vices is seen as a manifestation of disobedience vis-a-vis the ooai commandment of love, This disobedience is called self (philautia), meaning egoism, while ihe life of virtues is seen u manifestation of charity,1 te

»A ptBrtnunt mrf» oí M*Rianut-s pwb«]o«Ually «<*l •P*j"1!MlITrJ¡L

«lAiMe «ruh*¡i oí te» love ir*3 oí lu remedy ii w be l « * » a 'TT) Híiubm. SJ„ mialie. De ta ternirent Joe» tai à to fiorite Ut— * fijarme te Catfettemr. acme 1K5I

The Natural-Social Dimension

^

The life of vice according to Maximus is characterized by a continual disintegration. The different forms of the abuse of the natural faculties of man condition one another mutually and together destroy the positive unity of man as a composite being. No vice can satisfy man, and therefore it brings him in each case to other vices, and all thc vices, especially those of thc concupiscible and rational faculties, separate man from God, who is thc final and integrating goal of human life. Through die vices man is also separated from his neighbor, especially through those which emanate from his irascible faculty. There are also, of course, a number of vices that are not mentioned in the hierarchy of die eight because those eight are particularly representative expressions of the various aspects of man's sinful attitude. This disintegration of man and of humanity is contrary not only to the aim that God has placed before man. It is contrary also to thc explicit double commandment of love that expresses this aim. For Maximus the trichotomist perspective is thus naturally related to a view of egoism (philautia) which sees it as the mother of all thc vices, since self-love is a rejection of thc dual commandment and of thc relationships that constitute the true unity of man. In sinning, the individual sinner establishes in himself what Maximal colls an evil gnome, i.e. a certain predisposition of his will and his aspirations. This has the following conséquences: linked to the dialectic of pleasure and pain, philautia generates a multitude of passions (see chapter 3 on the soteriological dimension) differentiated among themselves according to this dialectic, and thus dividing the unity of human nature into thousands of fragments. Nature is not completely destre; for its logos remains, but the outward manifestation of its Uf »'ty is destroyed. The vices cause these divisions, not only «vittóri Ihe Indi' idua| in relation to the logos of his nature and to the geni a l aim of human nature as a whole, but attt between him 1(1 d his neighbors, since all men participate io the same nature ^ d arc called to a unity guided by this principle and ami J° *pararing the individual from his brethren, they also "Panile him from charity, fat the function of dianty coinv

MAN AND TK8 COSMOS

-inVs with the divine aim set bcfotc man. Separation from «.ides wim u , c precisely this double sq d****'»" ndfrom the unity of humanity, hi - y : : : r r

ha tentarte S

.:••••.••

*

.$<-.•

v . » ¡ * *

Maximus underlines again and

at tlTsame time stressing the unifying function of

* f t ! « r a t i o n , thus, is always a double one: from God ttlt„ Ï U ¿vine goal for man but also from ones neighbor Ed from HI »unkind. The duality of this separation corresponds exactly to thc duality of thc cominandmcnt Hirthcr, since the two aspects of Ihe séparation are intimately re ated, so also tlie two elements of thc commandment are related. Goiisequently. Maximus con use this d f the commandment as a principle of analysis in relation to thc different passions and vices. In his Centmiet on Charity lTV:75). he says, for example, that love for God is opposed to concupiscence and that love for neighbor is opposed to anger, i.e. the passion emanating from the irascible element 1 W« find a whole number of variations of this idea in Maximus. One even gets thc impression th i ichotomist analysis of the vices is not only motivated by his interest in showing thc links between the vice», but also by thc faLt that it explains thc double aspect of sin as dliobrdirii e to the double commandment of love. This impression is verified by his analysis of philautia as being strut tilted in thc same way The short article IV: 37 of the same Centuries is very interesting in this respect. Here Maximus writes: "Be no telfpleaser and you will not Mfe jour hot hen; be no self-hier and you will love Cod. Maximus uses two different terms for ihe two aspects of selflove: ihe | of i mesci f (aulareiieiä) is the wea.ru applicable to the irascible clement and to condud fc relation to one's neighbor, while philautia proper is applicable to the concupiscible element and to man's relation to God. c may thus conclude Üiat for Maximus the tricliotomilt *Patf. Ct. 90, I0SS C *P*lr. G* VO, W*6 C

•j-/,, tfaturaJ'Soctal Dimension

^

analysis of the vh.cs-.uid the vices of the rational element, of course, also refer to our iclationship with Cod lately »ondi I with thc commandment of love. This villi Maximus's insistence on sell luve (pbitaulla) as tlie root of all tlie vices and his insistence on churiiy as thc summit of all the virtues. Man as microcmin reflects : world, visible and invisible. When he siillcrs him dr to be led by philautia, his microcosmi constitution brings him to vicious destruction, Philautia Invites all thc passions to ore* eise their disintegrating role according to the diiictenti ,,i H, ,n % nature and of thc cosmos, too, ns thc object of nun's selfish interest hut man's micrexosmk constitution also helps him to function ¡is u wlien charity in its two aspects guides him. Charity invites all the virtues to exercise their transformation of thc different faculties of man, conque run; the vices and utilizing them in a good cause. Here the correspondence between the vices and thc virtues is, of course, of special interest. So let us turn our attention to this problem for a mouuiii CORRESPONDENCE A N D NONCORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN VICES A N D VIRTUES If one comparer thc theological systems of Evagrius and Maximus, one is struck by a difference that concerns pre this question of the position of charity. To livagrius ch represents the culmination and end of «he vita pratica, but he ¿«¡ves a more elevated position to advancement in know!edge (gnosis), i.e. to ihe tita contemplative. For Maximus, "" virtue is higher than charity. In a wider sense, ch itself implies a preference to tlie gnosis i • of knowledge, and it leads man through his intellectual V all thc way tO the hnal ciummi »h« reason Maximus does not establish of virtues as Evagrius does. In the case of the virtues I ' i , ! li vc, •<- I : irai, dialcctii ai then U m Ü« ÛMB of the vices It is the plenitude of the virtues that co ,ÍK >rc than their internal p M.Minus accept! Evagrius's

MAN ANO im; tXttUOS ^—«i«* the rita peactka and also, in a certain ^ t - ^ ^ T ^ ^ Z L ^ but tor the later virtue. ; n ^ u Ä t a b l i s h m g a hxcd lucra, v do «tt s ^ c d e ^ * * m the serise that one ssmpsy learn Mit>er virtues behmd ts one progresses. t J n x w T a n d virtue». Some les may be rnent^onedj K * and encalase« ^rescxuid l i v e l y »J<£¿£ S d S y ; ^vcrtv to avarice; patience lo wrath; Sett iiustetj ^ ^ d m b o n to thc vices of the vx^ipiscihlc clcnsent a i\

The Natoi****** wnwiwa]

99

-.MJted sense, as absence of concern, rsoruttachtnent and ¿¿¡utility at the same time, rather than as a rvsmvc c KVjrrum, e.g. in the sense cd on identical charity toward all ^lov, human beings. The concept of a victors ovw the vice» rrrdoroirutes in ! vagrius \NTat dominate» in Maximus 00 the contrary b the pcrs.pes.nvc of the new Ufe u plenitude, positive engagement, equal its in love, eh Maximus, too. has a lot to Say about detachment, but it j ^ ^ « ,f he tro^isibrmed thb convep •.derstanding of detachment coiorrd hb cumpeer^ion of charity, in Maxima thc underloading of charity that colors hb urKkmanding of cktadnneot. Qn¿ 1 tendency in the description Maximus grits of God"* detachment, whkh man's detachment ought » «mitatc r God is by nature good and detached, and He manifests these two attributes in loving all men alike The aspect of balance and equilibrium. etoseiy wnnected with the cc«scee« of dc ttchment. ayxirf*;*. b thus rrarttfcrred to ihe kvd of ec ctf active attitude toward others. It b precisely thc cemfcinabi made here rxtween gcjodness and detachment that permits thb -hange of accent in Maximui. The result b that the concept of detachment itself receive» on ekenent of avt The same tendency rnamfests itself on the human level Maximus establishes * dose link between detachment*M charity. His description of the state of detachment rese« hb description of charitv, or better, he links ^ ***„ The purpose is that man should be absohitcir tree irom a rices and show perfect cruris » DetachnKnt and e«^ ore thus almost identical both for men and for God to Ce^thes em Ckmwily 11: JO« MaJwaus wiites: He who is perfect m lote and h*s attained ehe of detochrnent famws e» diderence beeren *nd thme." between faithful and untaikhfuL c e t « « *hr*e and freeman, or indeed t w e e * mate ano; n> male. Having risen above the tyranny of the j *nd tafcbç 10 nature, « w m all men, he «ewiefl £«» COmmmm am Ctmmn 1 :v r'- 1- *\ *»* ^ •s*t +u_ iv «, rw c». *x im* 1

The XataraJSodal Dimension

MAN AND THB COSMO»

too

all equally »nd b dbposed equally towards all. l«r m rhTthere is neither Greek nor jew neither male nor female, neither slave nor freeman, but everything and in all things Christ.* Consenucnüy. Maximus cannot accept the position of Evaitriu», that detachment doe» not demand live * f * * g " * cTcharity toward every man. Maximus expresses^dernand for c^uai chants positively, e.g. in Centones ON Chamty 1:61 And HO and is motivated by live fact that God is no respecter what detachment of persons. On the contrary, thb ,s , means, even though the activity it implies is that of chanty rather than that of detachment We may thus conclude that the aspect of equilibrium inherent in the concept of detachment (apMheia) has been transformed by Maximus mio a demand for equality and nondiscrimination in the activity ot love •• P Sherwood emphasises the same difference between Evagrius and Maximus: "In this stete of charitj all are loved equallv and indeed it is but one and thc same love which m extend to God and man. This b a distinct change from the ..grian doctri: whom the most that is possible is to be without hate or rancor towards any, to maintain rise calm of detachment in their regard,"" But let us return once more to thc divine level. We have noticed that Maximus states that God b both good and detached at thc same time, and also that thc detachment of man should be an imitation of Gods. But the imitation of God b connected with our disposition of will in the same way that our virtue has to be related to the disposition o**** gnome,* It b thus the njtur.il energy of man lhat should be liberated and used in imitation of God, even if it ha« »4l coopetatc with divine grace and manifest itself in communication with Christ, God and man. This natural energy should be connected to Wj composite phenomenon of man, hb sensible and intelligible *Cf . I| for*. Ce. «0, WS B. iTHit hr V. Sherwood "On ib» luarUfl mri Maximian uadtnianiilnji ot (tatui*»»**» I W t w f a <*? fri. V*- ita-HT. Ufi US«c letttt

,U Catena*.' Th4 .i.,,,., 11 Paît. Gt. 91, SM AU,

Ufe

. p S»

,

10\

dements, since only thb totality is in accordance with the heos ö f human nature. Ccmsequcntly. detachment must be more than just emptiness In its negative aspect it is absence ol passions; in its positive aspect it is connected ilso with a good—and active—use of man's faculties m virtue of hb d jum and in the service of charity. Maximus sayi that the ¿jt**. of detachment is a state in which the face' of the psychic disposti ion of man b elevated in glorification of God, i "face" formed by a multitude and variety of rittucs." Wc can now more easily understand why Maximus b m of never ven, interested in establishing a naked c docs. correspondences between vices and virtues, as 1 Rather IK insists on thc positive functions of the dliferent faculties of thc human soul as these may be developed in the plenitude of virtues. Reintegration should take place in ietta chants, and therefore wc must now tum our attention more directly and precisely to the function ol charity at the ditiertnt levels of Chris! ¡.in life. CHARITY: THE SUPREME TACTOR OF INTEGRATION lliis problem contains several aspects. Let us concentrate on three of them: (a) ( h,\my as the summit of all Ihi charity in its relation to faith and hope; and («) the relationship between Charit)» and knowledge (g*o>.<) Charity at the Indurite Summit of the Vtrtmss frequently Maximus calls charity the most general or ¡Jndamental of virtues Ihn what is more important, I *momtrares that he regards the r^rkmship bftwrr J»d tlie other v.rtncs m*.i w.iv different from that of Evagrius. Whii Uttot 2, he maintains that chariti •" the virtues. This mean i that, kift< rnse, some of the **«tQtttt */TKetH;r*r.Cf,wHM

U-KS AND THE COSMOS

- • v - - - T i r t n ö no longer cncoc to r h e ^ f * ^ « « poMsstne , U J " ~ ' L * i - charier But this aapsicav mBKe «iey are « * < ^ ^ Z ^ £ c r û n Z x 7 0 of tiWvbmel ric«bve»TFJ«™** U^ñnas^ position: no esputsaiau " " • î s ^ i f i c ^ - outside c J ^ . « o ^ g m * « • ne Toron « ff»»* - j ^ j - ^ - T * râtoe*. ace »he virtues

,&-

0f

uun's axseupboble faculty b dearly orpressed by Maxiom. Thb b, by the wxy. ooe of the points where he comes cìnse K> St Augasrine. The rcUücröfap between love of oéshbot and the good use of man's insoblc f arnlfy b mdiorca even more often. We find a char agnati. «*•*»••—•' Centuries am Charity, 1U&. The passions of the ixasrjhle part of the soul naturally riarder to oppose than those of the concupiscible. Therefore a better remedy against them va» given by tbe Lord, the command of charity.n

—e cane» ••—— ••••* netocarad. Le. tbey are es^cessions of nssaii -rw u Maxâflsss's aatrrktion. Bot chanty a not T b A o T g S o f God." Here M ? ™ * * * » rsoa « hb general coeicepbon of low between («rosi and tbe devine gift (agape). n^tA es

^**nie**san

—j^ s^jiBfol-Sociai Dimension

of God. Active chanty• »

, ifarim« arwa^ a teindrsc^-It« i l » iead mon beyond m«*

TCl doe c « netOBräj l a d » * e

» « Ü Ä ¿ Œ l 5£E ï»T d. rrr cr "ïon. cmntT is nar w i m - " * . ¿ . ¿ r s a M & Ä i t i b n of the theandric cSrnensson both i S^mGcAkesjirrssesprerase^^ God and man that\nJtweUomm* dealt i l l müh I U l f t r in * n the •* ' •last • * * ebapts. U a rf anoBikaa that rndndes all the that bc&riacP?*J~¡ natural m iaaiBitunir.tr with

Ôbrity b always of a double character. » ^ « " ¿ f S ^ T 2 «tiaric-ship wbh the the« ekneatterf rhebmnThe náatictasbip between love of God and a good

Bat the two are certainly also rnrnhinrrl, ànce God b love, and the demand for love b expressed in the double cransnandrrvn; Tons Maxxmns writes m Centuries on Charity, 1 If tog-suffering and kindness belong m charity, the ingrr man and evü-deer b deaxiy made alien to charity; be: being ahen to charity is being alientoGod. iGodisloee* Man's rational faculty « also related m the work of chinty. In the first pince, here we ace dealing with love of God 3 The activity of the mmd in pore payer b aba, ocmeding to MiTirrroS, an o p cession of the love of God. af»»™--1 »ys: " . . . tbe man who love» God b «unrund fix pore prayer and be casts out of himself every passion that obsuuUS hb way tn it"" __ We have tfans seen met in Maxunus's opinano tbeanun« ñrtne of charity integrates r»sïtively all the more "ponatrve »inoes by bringing them to their perfection We tote abo seen that thb positive evaluation crt the virtues rnrelationö Parity b doseJT linked with Mariinrns evahoatkoc/ch« b a suo aspects, implying a good use of the date °f the human soul in making it capable of final * • i h God. 2 ~ - & 9XmCinoao.hr *£*» o » . na a. » br _ "5«» *£. Cootorin m Chanty; pjor. G*. 9X T?* *• ****. D T. pm Ge. 90. n \ 8 C

MAN AND THB COSMOS 104

, f..r+h«>r that Maximus does not share the ^ 1 « Ä S l-ves ^his -passible" „ ^ funcop,mon of on tvagn M a bcmg te h s c ^ u ^o- Sf cation and Cnrisuan

;

A d from

it5

^ im „ perversion and

lhal

? t e K S ti U it*uT c ompany nun trough all his .unsformed, and **»' « *™ reason Maximus ¡s prepared Ufc 'it ^ T Ä i He«* Pon. In restored man the X - o i ' S c t Ä i b replaced by the good I s i o n of charity for God and for ™gM»r. But what b the relationship between chanty and thc oilier two •theological" virtues, faith and hope? Cbarity-Paìth-Hop* On the basb of I Co. 13:13, Maximus affirms the supremacy of charirv in relation to the other "theological virtues Thb b no sunrise. But there are in Maximus other more _, .» interesting traits. A remarkable fact is hb very high estimation olfatti}. Like Evagrius he sees faith as the basis and point of departure for Christian life as a whole. But Maximus goes further. To Evagrius faith is only a kind of natural and puriiiea gnosis. To Maximus faith is a gift of grace, given in baptism. a power and a vocation. According to him faith give» a qualified knowledge of God and divine things. This knowledge a contrasted with sensual and external knowledge and is calle an "unformed" (inner) Kingdom of God, though tM Kingdom itself b a divinely formed faith/1 That is to that naked raith must be filled with the virtues, but it >* nevertheless always the Kingdom of God in man which, os manifested, takes shape through good works, as the *shfi0* to thb passage puts it» Consequently, we must regard the supremacy of charity in light of thb high estimation of « l U v On hope, too, Maximus takes a position different from «See ß«.J/.r. i i That, i l ; cd Ligi-Sled, p. 229. Wim, p. ÎJ1.

jfr Raturai boctat vim™»™

l05

of Evagrius. The latter sees its function in terms of assurd i and confirmation, but Maximus goes further. To him f r * is placed on a more elevated level, as the strength ifortitudo) of the other two. Thb means thai tlie three theo11fficaT'virtues form a kind of divine tmd, where hope b found in the middle. They are all like fixed stars in a supreme formation. Tins is confirmrd by another of Maximus's considerations. He places these "theological" virtues in relation to one of hb other favorite triads, heginning-intermediary-end. Faith b the beginning, and hope is tlie intermediar}', but in fact their mutual relationship is more complicated than that. For Maximus believes that faith, being the beginning, b also linked to the intermediary and to the end. Man has always to begin over and over again, having no proper access to a perfect knowledge of divine things. Hope b related to thc intermediary and to charity, which represents the end It has m intermediary function because it indicates the ob|Crt ot failli and manifests the object of charity But chanty alone is fully connected with the end as the crasurnmaticrn or all. Charity is related to tlie end in the sense that it alone attains to the final object of true desire» But it is also the respose (stasis) of man's movement even beyon it represents the final point in the anti-Oflgenist Ixudot Maximus (already spoken of above), becomirigwBotom-nrity (genesis—kinesis—stasis). hh Let us quote a passage from Utter 2 that illustrates vety well: I», which firmly establishes truth, b « " • * £ / * that which comes afterwards, I mean hope and mi Hope gives strength to tlie extremes, I " " ^ . ^ J charity, showing in itself what is to be «»f™ what b to be loved, and teaching that the cour* the goal should go through hope _ useu. however, is their fulfillment embracing *premc desirable in its totality andI provio 'hem the rest of their movement towards rt **5ee Uttte j ; Put. Qe. 91, Ì96 O "P**. Gr. S>i. J9« D.

MAN AST THC COSMOS

106

In accordance with this Maximus state« that charity is the perfect enjoyment {apóLmm) »f that toward and Ivor* ore striving. Charity tlone provides participation m divine supernatural diing*» Charity alone can lead man to mystical union mystical union. This position oí charity, however, also calls attention to the profetai of ihe relationship between charity and knowledge ID wfakh wc now torn. Knowledge and Chat The Enal um.MI Into which man b brought by cl nit) in Maximus's opinion, lies above all knowledge. Centuries on Charity 1:100 is an important text at thb point: Placed in God, and inflamed with desire, it so Erst of all the grounds of His being, hut finds no encouragement in what is proper to Htm; for that indeed b impossible and forbidden alike to every Created nature. But U docs receive encouragement from His attributes—I mean to say from the tilings that concern Hb eternit)', infinity, and immensity; from Hb goodness, wisdom, and His power that makes, governs, and judges Hi» creatures, "And with rcg.ud to Him, thb only is completely understandable— infinity" [quotttiofl noto Gregory Naiiatixcn]; and the very f." I of knowing nothing b knowledge surpassing the mind, as thc theologians Gregory and Denb bate said somewhere." Here M ..mus shows that intelligence, even El it is "placed m Odd and filled with tnie desire for Hun ( i c concupiscence fully i n int. im«cd or chanty as desire), cannot penetrate into that WIIKII i4 ijod's own being because it is forbidden to every creature. Nevertheless, it finds encourage i ncnt in ihe »Sw {?.*r-r ai TU s»; pan. Gt. w , él» D. tl 10TÏ AH »Pf r,V yo, MI o w l A

etmiimá

The tSatnraJSoeiat Dirnentum

10'

divine attributes, i.e. in that which God reveab of Himself. Wc i luis observe that according to Ma\mius even the illuminated intelligent e. m its pure desire of love fui -.eeks something in God that it is not permitted to comprehend. In tins same love it is yet given to man to be united God. This union b thus above and beyond knowledge and intelligence. In this way charily is m all respect superior. On its way to the most perfect illumination, being open to it, thc soul should be supported by Charit} From this point of view it nuy seem tlut charity, as thc supporte i is interior and knowledge superior, But this b only one aspect of a totality I needs the support of charity precisely because dur; capable ot bringing it beyond itself In c* Maximus speaks ot the exact context should be observed. Charity is thus on thc one hand a fruit of the purification of passions, which nukes the soul (ptyctti) joyful, and i> something different from knowledge (gnon \. schult u re l.ited to the mind (nous) On the other hand, it is through charity thai knowledge of God becomes .! to the purified intellect. It i* charity that prepares ihe niuul tor its advancement in knowledge. Knowledge thus depends on charity, and this dependence never ceases. On thc contrary, it i*rily alone, as we have seen, that opens the door to ii tor nun. Generally one might say that Maximus emphasises—AC* curding to Ih, non ol Fvagnus—the "i of human desire for God muticeli ' Al the tame time he stresses the fact that it eads man to true knowledge and illumination, and that human knowledge of God can n e w be comp i Himself remains ÜKomprehensibk lo man. Only u* pure desire in perfect «ham •. , • • incanii : • .1. H b. rond !• mieli i unirei man rotali! with

God.»

MAN AND THE COSMOS

LOS We miflht thus add the following conclusion. Charity «nerouslv opens the natural-social dimerumn in Its totality, ft is a double phenomenon in the some way as the commanda n t of love is double It implies the perfect unification of ,11 that is naturally and positively human, as well as its transcendence, going beyond this dimension as such. It is « mysteriously theandric reality, human d e s « "id a divine power united in the divine rruman reciprocity that is tlie decisive perspective of creation os a human phenomenon In virtue of this reciprocity charity leads and accompanies man on thc whole road of salvation. But for this reason, too, the natural-social dimension b itself a reflection, a perfect image, of the cteative "philanthropy" of God. This last fact, however, is also illustrated in Maximus by hb personal exploration of the divine incarnation or cmtxxhment in human virtues themselves. Therefore, thb subfect must be our last consideration in this chapter, since in this embodiment thc natural-social dimension again obtains its own true content as divine image.

DIVIME EMBODIMENT IN HUMAN VIRTUES Charity secures not only a unified movement toward God as the true goal of man, hut also a good use of man's different natural faculties and a just relationship between all men who share the same nature. Maximus preserves a perfect equilibrium in establishing a dear correspondence between the integrative function of charity as a unified movement toward God and the very act of self-differentiation through which Chrbt the Logos allows Himself to become embodied in thc multitude of human virtues. The work of integration through which man can serve God b at the same time, in Maximus's opinion, a continual "incarnation" of the Logos in humanity, differentiating and concretizing, as it were, the divine presence according to the Crested diversity of human life. Thb idea b not unique to

j-jL, Natural-Social Dimension

lQ9

Maximus, but he developed it in a more energetic way than did his predecessors.* Maximus affirms that the Logos "becomes massive" in the man of the vita practica (praktikòs) through the modes tffópoi) of the virtues that are active there and b incarnated ¡n them, but also says that in the spiritual life of man He Ionics "thin," as He was in the beginning, God the Logos." There is thus a double movement (downward and upward; cf. Maximus's reflections on Christ's ascension). Nevertheless, diere can be no doubt that Christ is also present in thc ascetic virtues of the vita practica, an active participation underlining the important correspondence and connection between the divine incarnation and the continual human process of sanctification and deification. As a matter of fact, Maximus's doctrine at this point is very advanced. First of all, the grace of baptism implies an inhabitation of Christ in thc Christian. Secondly, faith becomes thc mother of the Logos in man. Thc Logos b the son of faith in thc sense that He incarnates Himself on thc basis of faith through practiced virtues.1' It is in its capacity as thc source of virtues that faith becomes the mother of the Logos, Maximus regards this presence as a kind of incarnation. Further, according to Maximus, the purification of the passions prepares for the experience of a presence of Chi In reality, the Logos is present both through virtues and through knowledge. Substantially—and here Maximus ll accord with a number of hb predecessors—the virtues arc Christ a nel this fact b explicitly understood as & divine incarnation in thc virtuous life of man. There is also a link between this moral incarnation of Christ thc Logos and the presence communicated through knowledge (gnosis), i.e. contemj »on through reason and intellect As a nutter of is also a correspondence between thc two manners of P™**™ for it is through the logoi of thc cornmandn Logos communicates with man in the rita ,f "See TJtunherg. af. fit., pp. S 4 2 W " 3 » Goott. Jr}7; Pair. Cf. 90, l l 4 l C " S « Qoaeti. ad Thai. 40; fair. Ge. 90, 400 BC

MAN ANO TUS COSMOS

HO « « wav as it b through the logoi of things as subjects of ^ í a t t mat ^ c o m m u n i c a t e s in the p ^ e a s of - ™ T Those who keep the oornmandments ore morally m S Z a L with thc U g o s , developing their natural inrtues i ^ C h S t i a n virtues. These virtues make sense precisely Srough the œrrespondence between the logos o human S S r f in accordati« with which they are natural virtues, and the Logos Chrbt, present m v i r t u e s Ch However, moral communion with thc Logos is close y related to the intellectual comprehension of this principle ? W ) of nature. Christ incarnates Himself tn the virtues of the behever but the believer also elevates himself, through contemplation and insight, to a comprehension more elevated thanalld»7comrriandrnents. a comprehension, although limited, of the unique source of all die principles and laws, all the logoi, thc Logos, and God Himself. W c hase seen that Maximus believes that Chnst is present in mans vita practica, but also that the human intellect, letring itself be unified with God, contains, m a moral sense. divine attributes as they arc renected in him through virtue. In light of the divine-human reciprocity we see how divine attributes and human virtues (which are natural in so far as they are in accordance with the logos oí human nature) correspond mutually in the same sense as the mcarnatiori of Christ and the deification of man correspond, Tlie relationship between the virtues, corresponding to the divine commandments, and thc revealed su*rihutes of God is modeled on ihe hyrjostatic relationship between the human and the divine ¡nChn Thii b precisely what Maximus affirms in Letter 2, where be says that deifying charily permits a reciprocal altribu (antidoiis leinuke) between those who are being united God and man. in a communication (communicatio tdnh malum) similar to that between ihe two natures in Christ. Maximus writes: For thc most perfect work of charity and the minaban of its activity is to attain, through a reciprocal attribution, that the attributes of those whom it unites

The ¡S Mural-Social

Dimension

111

pass from one to thc other, and likewise the names of these qualities, and that it makes man act and appear as God, through the one and unchangeable decision and morion of will on both sides, such as we see it in Abraham and the other saints. And thb b perhaps wi is said about the person of God: "In the hands of tbe prophets 1 have made myself similar" [ l i LO) to express how God, through the unitive practice of virtue, makes Himself conform with everyone due to H b great love for human beings. For the "hand" of every just person b H b virtuous practice—in which and through which God receives likeness unto men." The christological convictions of the councib of Cha lerdón and Constantinople (of the years 4M and 553) are here transferred to the level of the virtues in the sense that human integration and unification, established through a correct relation to God as goal, b maintained and confessed to the same extent that human differentiations are also maintained, through an act of divme-human mutual .appropriation. The rutiaral-sorial dimension b thus not neglected but aifirmed precisely within the relationship in which it is transcended. Such a dialectic b characteristic of Maximus In order not to forget the social aspect of thb cfimension, however, in reference also to Maximus's admirable skill in keeping all things together in his vision, let us end this chapter with another quotation, one dealing with love for one's neighbor. It is taken from Liher Ascetic ut 8: For those who are created after the image of God and are motivated by reason {logos, with reference to «nan as a rational being, but through thb also to the logos of h b nature, common to all mankind"; are thought worthy of knowledge of God and receive their b w from Him, it b possible not to repulse those who cause them grief and to love those who hare mem. Hence when the Lord says: "Love your enemies; do good to them that hate you," he does not command "fot*. Ce, 5J, 401 D

MAN AND 11 IB COSMOS

lithe Impossible, but clearly what is possible; for He ïoukl S i otherwise «bul» ** transgressor, l i t e Lord E u n U makes it dear and has shown it lo us by Hb , v , , - , . . i " J v . too all HU dUdoles, who rtnWj death for love of their neighbor and prayed fervently for .hose who killed them. Dut suuc we are overs of material things and of pleasure, preferring them above thc commandment, we are not then able to love those who hate us, being worse disposed than beasti Wd creeping things. And that .* «by. not being »ble to follow in the steps of God, we arc likewise m,,,Me to know His purpose, so that we might WCeto Strength Wc find in this text a numb« of thc ingredients of Maximus's thinking as we have dealt with them tn this chap, ter' a reference M the correspondence between thc dlvíM purpose for nun and the logos of his being, emphasis on the connection between the two rides of the commandment ot love stress on Christ as a model, a combination of virine and "ime knowledge, and finally the virtues being expressions of godlike behavior.

(UM'TER 6

Hie Liturgical and Sacramental Dimension This last chapter on the difieren! dimeniions of Maximus's theology deals in fact with ecclesiology, since Ihe ecclesiology of Maximus, with some exc principle of a liturgical and sacramental nuturc. And-this is an im. portant add i tion-ecclesiology is for him more a d than a specified theme of theology (thb may be due to his being a layman-.i historical problem not yet solved); it any rale, it includes, and b dominated by, his understanding of thc liturgy and the sacraments To Maximus thc Church b not an ecclesiastical insti i distributing divine grace, but truly a Mystical Body thi represents symbolicalIv the whole divine human mystery, the whole mystery of God's good counsel, and the eco logy '* ™ salvation One might even say that ( « not only one of the dimensions but the saprete dimension It contains the total vision of Maximus, a v. altogether liturgical and sacramental at the same time it "ot by chance that Hans Urs von Balthasar labeled his greai »hidy of Maximus The Cosmic lltmrgf, . w It b especially in tlie Myslag< ' * ? .™ U uncertain but which probably dates * /™m« Carthage iin,.- „, us ascetica! and exegel ^SjL^.i <|mc to the Über AteetttM and ihe Quettto'S to T*atat '"•" Maximus develops hb mystical ec «'eristic that he docs this in a prece that u roi

MAN ANV» IMI ««11MIVS

IH

;. f i tur en al *nd Satrnmental Dirnen dea ÉlU l

rwl in ilion ol me eui.ii»"«"- «««»w« " i TSlVnUal hi — » g . e . g . ... Z and mltipretatlon ol tht Anaphoia , ,. , nui the celebration of the euchmiM by ¡"w «•** ,1 is ih- lymholk and» enta! .1 "'iter . . . of ..e il w lh««ie fiuiMi.il uweUeiofthe< Inni ' ' •' l SlfiÌ ew ,. ,Me navali hi*« <™Honi h reaardiug the mottfotafrcel mpMHlfc NMcisUy ili creation, incarnation, ti« sNftft Uh and «ho mystical com ,1 (oi preference in monaitk termi). #iw mu|ll I licifvlng voniummMinn 1< ll in thll nreiuf t«osed itructui n h i p a n d li b (1"' before thll ultat inhì| tad that he places ill Ihe truths ol hb iheologH.^I ""*"• iLtjononlhe myth?"" i. imrvh MY tati tonte«' m fcih eucharbtk reality, but they do noi Hop there In any superficial ••• i) "••• »ame- reality b ptery, IJC U elective and totalb induim tytnb lbs purpose Ol bringing « u n I "analog!«al -all ihr wa> In ihe moil elevated d of oui spiritual ble. lv.o more remarks sliould be made Maatmut probably irukct these coriimenU *J a lavmon and at the same lime as a monk, lite fact that he i* a layman may explain híl ricuce alcuni (the l achartitii Prsyi • oitt !•• that ßeobli Vnpeodb Anyway, hi* rarnmenti ne retteci the sthtudt of a | \ me ol Maxknui iphota «tie airead« .* ' • • |*'u mus com i hi«: attention on ihoM elementi uf live liimp III.M ««ere open to any participan! ftul thii ihn mean* that foi I'm., probably experienclnfl ,llC eui -elchratton from the \ imattou of the whde ln*>c\ is ht *** munhn. About the L i t » he expressed himself In ll« following way: w

"ll of everything the dlitrlbul '.:t nffttet) Ute« plan tl itami. II If*! renden Ihusv who nutkipatt «*v,. .race

pai ti' i 1

(moie, i "'' in ,l

"

,m,ll 1

'• ' '"'

< ' hi «he Cìuod which ii Ihr u

- "' '•'

l«4«

p,uibte lo attain foi men In thb ww both k i*"'1 I ' '"", .»"'* Ibmugh th lime tìnd as a whole lili» ii"i" . "i.i.-lv and d lei any pari ol them I* empty of Mi« j AM In« point an ob*. id Fi René Domett ought to be menlHMicd " IVmictt points out thai .though In« ejkpipwd intention m the MyHegogk b m give an ' «¿tear 1 Inteipretaliiwi lends piote the c. (fay type) ami »yi'iAflJ (myitnally. le m H withtrM ttflns r/ir/tiii (Ingenerai) nul aplanarían ol I • IVnncrt " ihe folUv ll! * humsnlt) r i ,l i., ; , a ol salvation -l< | u) It would, em, iv falie lo presuppose il ihii p my gm*tei between nd what « «M ...I,., . , | ,,,, n , m o ( n «, in ,, the manUV *»-im nmon to »Il mani •! cannot he ^ Hm Maximus lus cunw «> *•* | «nook also means ih.n he m o t e n a • dimpl * long tradition ol monosth wiadom and c»peri I'tedeirsvMt ,n \U,% tradition i>re not caiily iden»1 ^ seem to I* mo.e i m p " » " ^ •'•!• ih. v .. .-.. (1. (whoM ïtetetiatiké Wt

HAN vN!> m a t o * * * » ^

:j. y « as on evphot model) and that anonymous

^sS?***>

***** M W O B S iff/i"* *r • *

í thbweL«et « s o n«onl really existed f^ind are ¡here rooted withand the«- not iiTjNiiniiami as m the case of the old monk in the Lin*

?*g.

\. .

.

ibhot Seziono* «torn

lfc Ibmn -rT and Ùved arthage and who recasse ï ^ i a w e e a e w t K Patrwvh of rerusakm l,see «haftet l ,**««,, m o t e w the mnur :hb « ^ W ene ^ ? * - attndeie^.nutethe unsvrtarKe «^ the «kTpofcaod express**» of M i x W » <wm theokigy.» It b the* ineaningful to cceicenttate cor attention in this ;;.

;

_

,..., .

v

,

. v, ,,

,-u' .>•« •.« : • -

« ? d r r e k s ^ in h a s i * ^ * ^ The structure of that w o * dfcttfe* our own structure. even trxxxeh. our interest hv «^rricvìath vTiÄTOcrated on th* nf« chapters, where ^ kv«shbvbw«vatv de«e»itk«ns of what in his view the «. hutvb trubr b (In the Arfcndo.. 1 » , « «leal with other parts of

THE C H U K H AS A FtGVRE O F O O D Thb b the theme of chapter I of the A b i t a f W mm. rvxi ttu* »vrk as a kind of synthesb of ThinTtfiT, «e are abo eotii lterpeet what b »aid bete as to fuodatncivtal basis. Masòmus Starts with the (bltowtrte, staicwnt of m* »ib* c ltlU To w : and how the k ^ and % u e of Gen He cwlmuei by jpving i »mmury ca h b thtvtagr csf oration, «hete he works h b faachaoental rfainction between the prineipmooter [hgut «en. \ and the mnée mf WS ^savftifMsroiVTh« tion imphe* that **5? world there b not cmh a tA\ttv of created non in their dneeiatr but al» a "tropical" moveuwnt • •«v tmwmaam tl Ji—ti». m ten** 4h» Swum« ""

u ^ to a unification of all the pnxv.pl» (êngni) » the« ,„,! i ause (God as the Dean» T^ „ ^ ^ * of .raUsetson corresponda tothe d e * e n e % « r ^ w fottj, what Maxmw» describes b fche Church u r cation os a totality, the Qa; ^ all the peopîo Ihe O uses of fl^^^^H *U\ » **«** »•¡p**»ly, »eptesent the mulnv she .wared universe. The problem benr, how» Oturch can also be an icon of God alaiimu* ft* anMwns could tin ovulated in the folk*™* Go* , . . . , . • ..,.-„. ; jw^aTeee^walAN Ihcc il nukes all its mdniduaU into the Chugih. the rVvh of Christ; is the umring enero that b the «urjr of the «aobdivertifymc. crtercv of God -c onhj cause rt »ll liut o-, and as Cause He b also the prowfe of i. Whet*, in the Church, the created mulb. lavead Christ, who b tbe ordy kgm of the ^brv^sembies v.: obtusion, but also without Secgu-arkn between the «ivue and the human, as the OuKwkxuan forrada Sta then the Church expresses m a "çjsèaT mode (U» :• ece and the same principle and one and thc same «airi- » the fcvel of vTeatw«. Thb now hapfv , mitotic-* since oV AÉtìb »nd Ì save it » not tí Kuweit nohtd Ihen t*t kxibt that Ä > church as «vtr codSr weh tnony R«tcnbets ha» eaarcbed a deouvemthieov^vxithisvisaoei. Two «potativi*! mipht dose thb «Kbeai of «w rf^J«^ x both are Inw chapter \ "* * " 01 theco «iescrihts the Ohorch as on i » . Tbe rhvhr Qiurch u% thus, as st* **» it aixocMslbhcs the satne urur» amooj * » » Uevee* » God 1 dilrcreot the* are °* bte, thev tind «hernsehr* iwiv^hcks* • thros^htiÉk

MAN AND Tim COSMOS 118

^mDlbhed by God in regard to thc Thistoutywas« S ^ M o n , in bringing into «""" ° S è i « -hat there is of difference, as djeoce and » n " n c , uitoilgu their tendency toward Ground and Goal.* , . •« Mrller section of the same chapter

ZW&nanm&S"**» >r .It it f die Church) offers as a grace in equal manbeing and being named from Christ. U .he* ihem a unique relationship in faith which is *ST undivided and without tbe differences A n them, which «ist in great number and which \tc impossible m mention not even taking no ce of líese A n c e , and it does so by bringing all and mitins all to itself In I catholic way. Theie is, however, another aspect of the Church .too«.and ,lm is ticatcd in the second and third chapters of the Mjl*

THF. CHURCH AS AN IMAGE OF THE WORLD In ihe chaplee on thc theandric dimension we noticed that one of the live mediati, tu ol man and of Christ as W representative, i fourth mediation, is that bet sensible ... 1 intelligible creation. We have also seen tlw » Maximus's thinking the microcosmk situation of man u redely based on the fact that he alone is by Constitution oth a sensual and intellectual being at the same time. Thw duality (without dbsolution) of creation is the domm-1"1 aspect in the second chapter of thc Mystagogia. The tn« ittyH i, v.,,, i.t. 9\, M ne

E

Watt. G«. »1. Mil CD.

Tbe lJtur¿:!í 'd ,/"'' Sacramental Dimension

j lQ

cliaptcr considers the meaning of the «Church as risible and ^ b l c creaüon. To beet« understand what Maximus wanb to say on tin. subject, wc should repeat the most essential points of bb though« on thc fourth mediation. First of all, wc musi not forget that the two forms of human life are, In Maximus's opinion, both of them, truly created forms. Second, this „¡caution was cfTccted by Christ in Hb ascension through ihe angelic orders ss true man, in soul and in body. Third, through thb act Christ reveals i tendency that b comrm the whole of creation, i.e. to become coordinated in a nondivided totality. Fourth, thb revelation implies that there is in fact one common logos fur tlie whole of creation, and finally, that man should carry this mediation out throw.1 knowledge similar to that of thc angels. All these themes now represent the background for what Maximus says in Û*Myilagogin, . Yet, first he reflects on the Church as a particular building when he says that it constitutes on image of thii dual world. It is divided into a separated space, reserved for the priests and liturgical servants alone, which we call the sanctuary, and o sp.icc which is accessible to all bcliev ing people, which we name the nave, Yet it is according to hypostasis? Here we are confronted with a very simple kind of symholism. Hut there is more to say. for already the Aristo described is a division on two levels, that of Church sic tare and that of liturg« al ministers and actions. As a diviuot i« i» precisely of an exterior and architectural character, « * dual unity the Church also becomes m ¡>«ni,n and liturgical reality Wc already linow-and Ma fc» underlined thb in his firil r-that the í i^pte constitutes a unity. Peopled by the Omit««* ai a triform body, the Church building itself expresses ra umly J * «hi, unity b ci d by il ^ l cd* i[ r ,llC * puriform in e *Wl '*•>. Ce. 9t. « I D.

Tbe LitvrgtCitl and Sacramental Dimension HAN AND THE COSMOS

120

i.ur«rt. it toeether, Thb in itself indicates bating people celebrate it ^ ^ w h i c h ^ r c v e i . e d by precisely thb ^ ^ ^ ¿ T T n m d c n c y that b confirmed ? ? , 0 TÍZüZ^hypoZ, The word hypostasis SSÄ ^ t ^ b ^ S to i í subiect is not yet chrbtologW

i S t f c a n Ä e s l y ¡"»«P** 1 only through a CO*

l

^ £ Z S £ Ä S * world and thus reflects \ t l i t n t own U l u t i o n . It » " £ £ ~ £ » £ tl cmselvcs divided into two categories. Men may get to know S o n t à double manner that corresponds to their own K a t h r i n . : sensibly S f ^ / K n T l S A bly through their mind and their rational faculty. And ftMt 'the sarSe world. What the senses experience n»f •* *«J imbolically in reference to the spiritual truth about all that TrZ intellectual comprehension of creation ccmcems die same reality. Analogically and symbolically one may get access to the truth about things through exterior impressions and throueh an interior communication between the logos ot man hb reasonable faculty, and the logoi of things their ndine principles. The human intellect may at one and fee sarr« time gain comprehension of the same visible and invisible creation. Duality not only constitutes a separation but also a parallelism srithin creation. In die same way, in the liturgy of the Church one may learn the spiritual truths both symbolically through the exterior forms of the liturgical action and at the same time ugh direct communion at ihe altar. (On the problem ot communion and real presence see, below, the Appendix.) Thc truth b the same, and comprehended in this way it also indirectly reflects the Church in heaven. Wc may sum up with two quotations. The first one concerns contemplation and the second the indirect, iconic, relationship with divine realities. On symbolic contemplation - imus seems to say that it is only secondary to pure contemplation, which doe* not pass through sensible visualisations, since that has, as it were, immediate access to the logos

\i \

f things- Nevertheless, symbolic contemplation b a proper ° nicrnplalion. Maximus expresses it in a very »rusticated way:

Symbolic contemplation of intelligible things through die vbiblc b a spiritual understanding and insight of visible things through thc invbible.T Thus it b no surprise that thc Church, while being an image of tbe world, yet seen from above or from the interior, also rives an indication of the heavenly reality and its lirurgical celebration. Maximus says: It is another kind of Church, not made by hands which is wisely revealed by that which is made by hands and which possesses in the form of sanctuary the superior world attributed to the powers above» and as nave the one below reserved for those who participate in sensible life.1 In chapter 5 Maximus adds, without committmg himself to it, another possible svmbolbm: the Church b also an image of the sensible world as such. Here, however, the symbolism is itself reciprocal. The Church as world has its sanctuary£ heaven and its nave as earth, but one may also say that ine world b a church having heaven as its sanctuary and can as its nave. Thb means that what really concerns Ma*"™5' «J the superiori tv of an ccclesial vision of the world. 1 he itself b a church, and this fact implies by consequence possibility of the first symbolism: the relationship ° L " * Church with the world as both sensible and intelligible. Thus «o Maximus the Church is never separated from the WOJ ^ G S . h represents it and includes it ü , r o u » * J * . ° * î «institution as a building and lis own activity as pe wc Cod, its symbolism being a reflection . ^ ^ £ „ "*ieh it participates, the purpose of whi.rh it cwrirrmnieatc " a «piritual reality in Christ •tyu J; Pott. Gr, 91, 6 » CD. '•W, «69 AB.

y r\ INO UH u ÛSaitig;

133

But iherebv a road b open to further symbolism, which directly antlmipological. and this b what concerns htaxirnus inchaptci 'fog**-

THU CHURCH AS «MAN AND MAN AS CHURCH Here rtripcocirr b presented at thc very outscl; Man and Oiurch reflect and svmbolbe each other reciprocally Maxi muss method of interprétation b more dearly allegorical St thb point. Here the Pauline rrkhotomy (St. Paul speaks ol man as ccosbttrtg of body, soul, and spint) b also inscribed m the jTstem. Tins means that thc Church as I building b now icen as divided into three parts, organized according to their sacredriess: to thc spirit corresponds the altar, to the soul the sanctuary, and to the body the nave. But what b import\imus b precisely the reriprocity between them: ant the Church reflects man in hb constitution as the Utter reflects and represents the Church in man. Man b in fact a chunh m the world, .inJ tbe Church o universal Man, what Maximus calb the makranthrcpci. «Consequently in Maximus's view around man, as the rnkrooosmk center of creation and ihe key to its interpretaIto, there tre gathered all the created realities, anthropologically organized to be the Church of «God. But man as « he is the the key also represents the g. motive force who. in humanbing the realities around him. brings them to their troc realization through being in the image and likeness of God. For tins reason, the Church as man (anthropologically interpreted) b itself the image and likeness of God. Maximus writes: "(The Church] is in the image and likeness of man created in the image and likeness Of God The reciprocity can thus result in a spiritual activity which all the stages of Christian life are carried out. Maximus continues •IW. *-: B

T/Y Liturgical and Sacramental Dimension

i:J

man b a mystical church. Through hb tody as ruvc he illumines the practical life of hb soul throi the energies oJ the commandments in accordance with the moral rAdosophy; through the sanctuary of his IOUI t»c brings to God, through "natural" cot. tion and reason, the sensible hgoi as pure lied in Û* spirit ftom matter; and through the altar rakes the silence full of hymns of pea thr of the invisible and unknown great voice of Divinity i. . w Much more detailed, however, b Maximus 's description of the Church as an image of the soul, corisidered in itself, winch we finJ in chapter i of the Mystagogu

THE CHURCH AS A LGE OB THE HUMAN SOUL comf»orativciy long. Chapter ? of tlie .M The reason for thb is that Maximus obviously had the intention of presenting a whole psychology ot dght ask why he does"this, but e r a if we consider it a digression from the main line of hb argument, we should notice the significance of the analogy that he wants to establish. What particular aspect of his ecclesiology b it that be wants to underline here? This is, afrer all, relatively «Icar As Fr. Riou has expressed it. the significance is that the Church "realixes » its parts the same unification that the soul exerts in reUtioo to its faculties,"11 Our primary interest here is, therefore, not to enter «he psychological detalb but to present an understanding of »he ruling tendencies and principles of Maximus's psychology. Here follow* a summary of important aspects. essential thing i-.Jarneofcol m One dichotomy m man: he b at the same time an «ntelli. » sensible being, Thb fad has a decbive ¡iinueocc on the

'•**«, u 0 . en ne

Tbe IJturgtcal and Sacramental Dtmention 2

j.

MAN ANO THB COSMOS

•oui which b situated in between the two extremes. As a matter of fact thc soul b characterized by its double rt thin It rcoctves sensations from die external world and builds cm them in foembj « i»»*ge of tlie world, but it Imows also, through its rational nature if U disturbed by jte attachrrienls to sensible tilings, thc principles (¡fj things and is thus capable of forming through them a more accurate ¡mage of the world. rse two kinds of images» however, represo md the same world, and the task of the • mediator is to coordinate diem ("from above." certainly one single S allegorically verbalized by Maximus m WJ Questioni m Thalaiiiut, no. 40, in connection with the marriage in Cano, Here he says that thc human soul should be nude ( virtue as its bride, a unity that the Log' bor hen honors with Hb presence." Thc symbiosis between thc two parts of man b effected by a soul that b regulated according to the principle of its nature phyieou and a soul that receives m virtue of this i tbe presence of tlie Logos with itself. Thb type of symbolism obviously fornii a kind of basis for Maximus's reflections on the Church as soul. For him the two forces of the soul, the power of vitality and the intellectual power, should borii be harmonbed through the natural tendency of the totality of human ex enee. Thc natural movements of thc soul, prescribed by God, do not divide ilic human composite unity, but vitalbe il m an effective manner in order to realbe the image and likeness of God. In the vita practica and the vita contemplativa (seen as pjrallel expressions of man as being organized and harmonbed according to hb nature), the totality of that « is man expresses itself according to its divine principle (logot). In ihe chapter "> of the MyUagogia Maximus emphasizes especially the parallel movements of the mind (nous) and ion (the logos in its limited sense). The mind (r. directs the gnostic activity of man, whose goal b truth, giving him access to true spiritual goods. At the same time reason »St» ad. L»a*-Sí«t. f 173

¿¡teCa the activity of the practical life, the end of wh ^jjojul beings b virtue as ihe basb oí aih;, «t find the analogy of the Church, Maximus again ails our ¿mention to the dìvb c Church building mm sanctuary 0id oave. represcsiting the duality of the human soul. A conclusion may be presented in tlie form of a quotation from the fifth chapter of the Myttagogia, thus explaining this fundamental aspect of Maximus's ecdcsiology. For ! an and Chord vte oat and tur njnt goal. The i, is seen in terms of lib sharing is the common h destiny the Church is responsible for In fact, the two re coincide, for man b a Church and the Church b a man: as has been said, the parts of the soul. According l nd [nous] it possesses wisdom, from wisdom 11 arrives at contemplation, from ihat to knowledge [jçwo//i], fron e unforgctL gnosis. >ugh that it is brought io truth wJ ts the end and thc goal of all the good things of the According to its reason it rxisscsses : dence, from tl *n¿ from practice nd from that again to cording to which it reposes in the good as the blessed all reasonable activities. Through ihcm die understanding of divine things b put together, according to the corning together in the union of these things in relation to one another. It b to all these things that thc Church adapts itself dearly, being compared with the soul in contemplation. Through the sanctuary signifies it manifests itself in thc mind and out of the mind : Through the nave it makes «rtain the things which appear according to ro !tl and out of reason Ar ^,0"nient «n the mystery of the divine altar All *** ^ P . * ? . ' plained through what b being performed « Church makes quite c\eit that man's own torn • liy a Church and divine. It may be because o f f l uW the Church which b made by hands. ™ * * " £ of «he variety of divine things ¡n ¡: >**»

The Liturgical and Sacramental Dimension „ .

MAN ANO THE COSMOS

126 model and has been given to us as a guide toward the excellent good." As we notice the Church os an ¡mage of thc created world ean only point through its symbolism to the ultimate truth^ since this truth b found in mystical union beyond all mediated knowledge But die Church also undoubtedly opens up the final route to this union, since it b thc place where the deify, ine croce of God b at work among men. For. as Maximus expressed it in chapter 6 of hb Mystagogia, "the Church is a spiritual man and man is a mystical Church. At thb point, then, the rites of the raieharist in its proper sense also have an important role to play as an indication of the œrisumrrtation that is to come. In diaptcr 16 of thc Mrsioeopia Maximus says, for example, that the Great Entry" with the eucharistie gifts "begins and inaugurates the future apocalypse of the Mystery of our salvation which is hidden in impenetrable divine secreey."a and in chapter 17 he says that the kiss of peace prefigures and dev-ribes beforehand the future recondliation of all rational beings in the one Logos. Yet, it b especially, as Fr Riou points out," "in the communion, the summit of the liturgy and of Ihe mystical life, that we find a profoundly mystical, and not only an anticipatory and representative, preoccupy tìon" with things divine. Holy communion b thus conceived as a sacramental integration of the whole human person before and toward its final and ultimate goal, which is the Trinitarian God Himself, the image and likeness of whom it carries and manifests. To this lost aspect we shall return so more detail in the Appendix. Thus wc may conclude that Maximus sees the Church (as building and as people) both in a symbolical and a reslbtJC r*tspectbe, and that tor him there is no derisive tension between these two perspectives. The Same observation con be made regarding the sacraments. They are symboU, and as «Pair Cf 91. 6«i c-sm .v l*tW, «84 A »Mjri. ifi; We\ 6-; l *€f. frt„ p. :

mch they may be allegorically interpreted, but they are also iTreality that transforms thc Ufe of Christians through divine e Thb all depends on Maximus's understanding of the treated world. That understanding can best be termed a ncramental one. On account of the presence of the Logos in alt things, holding their logoi together, the world b pregnant with divine reality, and knowledge of it-through the rational quality of man, his own logos—a itself a kind of communion v.iih God, a participation in divine things through the aims and purposes that arc recognized in creation. What happens in the Divine Liturgy b both symbol and reality at the same time. Thc liturgical acts have-precisely as symbols—a representative character; they participate in the divine reality as secrets and mysteries to be interpreted by thc believing mind. Thus, liturgical sharing in these divine things also prefigures and represents the ongoing, and possible, divini» tion of man. A quotation from chapter 23 of the Mystagogia may illustrate this: Having received—in a dignity like unto that of the holy angels—the luminous logoi concerning Divinity, as far as they arc accessible to creation, and having learned to laud the unique Divinity, without ever keeping silence and in symphony with the angds, in a trinitarian manner, the soul b brought through dose resemblance into the filiation of grace. Through that, and carrying in its prayer its God as the unique mystical Father according to grace, it will gather itself together, through an ecstacy outside of everything toward the One who is its secrecy. It will sense and know all the rnore the divine mysteries as it will not be of itself. nor be known itself through itself or by anot! person but received by the entire God, who brings it entirely to the good, entirely present in it in a divine [runner and penetrating into it without passion, de.: •"jî it entirely. In thb way, as the totally saintly nysius the Areopagitc says, it betomes the io le light, an immaculate »od tlie manifestation rj :

Tbe Liturgical and Sacramental Dimer MAN ANO THE COSMOS

128

. ^

transparent, complete, rminaculate, un

T ^ ^ r T i n » **'f

entucl

?

lhc

*****'

S A restrictions, as Uirjj.hat u j j a A ^^aness o f the silence of inaccessible places. i .,-«*« text of sinalar mrercst, Maximus cornments ¿Secret t h t L « b m d to thc Christian life seen as a 00 ^ T l i f e . 1 re7er to the socalled C7.oiti.- Cent.net f l ^ l l m M a s S d e a b with the interpretation of the \SJ!i ' j T o a a S T U c t a d with the Sabba*" true ! í ^ e ^ t o k i « c a l harvest, etc It becomes clear that allegorie^, also have ÏÏ^nh2c«ofXoidCovenant, a broad sense, sacramental m character. The Sabbath b the detachment [*f¿ of the rational soul, having totally rejected the marks tnutd] of sin through practice. J* The Sabbaths Signify the liberty of the rational sa g laid aside its natural energytowardtoe sensible world 59 Tbe Sabbath of Sabbaths b thc spiritual tranquility of ihe rational soul, having ratocght ib mmdfrom the most divine nrindples [logoi] ol beings, attachedtoGod alooe through an «?**7f* desire, and being itself entirely immobile m I*» through mystical theology. 40. Ciirnmcbion is the putttnc away of she tendency of the «col m be aficcted by what b ccosuhg into being [genesis] 41, The circumcision is thetotalrejectionand denial of the natural rncvements of the soul in relatjoo to the future. Tbe barrest b for tberationalsoul the gatbc BMia n . I'

BC. At mniiiH— i» iaûmm** *T * •

r tat.

i»

together and the understanding with insight of the „¿re spiritual =* ['«*«! ** tQ w r t u e "** » tore. Tbe harvest of harvests b the eeanjaceberasioo of 43 0¿a , ble to alL beyond ihe mystical court dation of intelligible things, in a manner macrjessmle to the intellect.1' Throufih a spiritual mterpretotJon, both of Scripture and of theTSCV man on hb spiritual journey may thus, according ^ M a x i n U squire access to a f ^ ^ T ^ T ^ God as b e t o g i ^ * * Creator of all lha* is sod ^ Lord of the insigho of the mind, when at embarks upon an »«ratic journey beyond itself. Like the other dimensions that «r hare <°™^y* l i m c a l and samrnental dimension * « f " * ? » 0 * j 3 Ï d X e dimension of life os a ^ ^ . - " - ^ ^ a hr any Chrbtian. At the same time M » ~ J " * ~ i rncnastic tradition, whkh b indmed to see « ° « f * ^ U ™ as an expression if ascetic and s i t u a i Ufe rath«*. its scarce and instigation. In Maxunus. ^ J 0 " * ^ with its examples of spiritual de> is always prescruTsecking its syrrihouc expressrfeness m menial and liturgical rea

"Po* Gt.flO,I M ' CUOO A.

CHAPTER 7

Further Reflections on Maxtaus's Theology In the preceding chapters we have described the theology of Maximus thc Confessor in terms of vanous dirri«msions. ThrouKh this method some elements have been treated at certain length and in some detail, while «her e ernents have S d t o be left out One such neglected field is Maximus s chrbtology, considered in its mote detailed pomts of vin and another is his mystical theology, which we have only hn

T h b "final ehapter-and also the A p ^ - ^ , ^ tion of supplementing at certain pomo what has been ahead, consideredThb does not mean that it will g £ a sugary. Nor does it mean that the relevance of M a x i m u " ^ W for today will be adequately treated. My intention m th« chapter b more limited. All readings -nd all mterpn*> of texts from the early Church « f c ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ tude that b always open to dialogue between these^writers and the problems and questions put to us today. For U«s purpose both distance and proximity are important Th "dimension" chapters above might have çivrsvenough p ity to allow a certain distance to mark out *J £ ™ £ ¿ Maximus within a wider tradition of theology and m reis to ihe questions of our time. _ - .„-* from rmr Thcrcflections that 1 propose h e r e * " « * " & £ many years of reading Maximus. 1 will coticen trate n*. tion on three basic themes, mutually inter reu

132

MAN AND THE COSMOS

each of them, rightfully claiming attention in itself. These reflections are of a somewhat personal character. The first problem concerns the ontological perspective in Maximus: i.e, his reflections on the principles (logos) of crcition as seen in relation to some observations on the natural sdenccs of our own time. The second problem is that of the relationship between Maximus's theology and Eastern Orthodox Palamism (the tradition stemming from Gregory Palamas) seen as an invitation to ecirrnenkal dialogue between the churches of East and West. The last problem is that of imus's eschatology: what did Maximus think about the end of lime and about eternal life, and what can we learn today from his manner of resolving these intricate problems? THE PRINCIPLES OR IDEAS OF CREATION AND NATURAL SCIENCE TODAY Before Maximus, Christian thought about the Logos and the logoi of things had quite a history of its own. The christology of the prologue to the Gospel of St. John was quickly developed further in die ancient Church, especially in the theological schoot of Alexandria, and not only in explidt relation to a philosophical speculation of Stoic origin. It was also related to the Jewish theology of a Philo of Alexandria, even though some of the Fathers distinguished themselves from him at certain points. Tlie Christian conviction that the identification of Jesus Christ and the Logos would imply a more elevated evaluation of Chrbt than that which Philo s thought would suggest was the main reason for this divergence. For, as a matter of fact. Philo did not consider the Logos as divine in the proper sense of the word, or at least only in a primary phase, while in a secondary phase He was created by God.' A number of ancient Oiristian writers, however, made use of the Philonian understanding of the Logos as the ideal and true center of thc intelligible world. This corresponds H)0 Rillo'i »prculiiiooi, M« e.g. Jean Diniilou. Pkilv* i'Aii**ai***'. Pua 1958

further Reflection! on Maximus's Theology

j«

to a totality of ideas in a Platonic sense, but there b a differenee. Philo as a Jew sees the Logos in terms of a personal Deity, and thus the coming together of all the ideai ,n ihe Logos means their coming together in God. But wlu I relationship between God and Hb Logos as the principle of the created world? Here is the point where ihe Christian writers claimed that they had another answer than that of Piulo, thanks to their Trinitarian theology. The Logos as ihe Second Person in tlie Godhead holds all things together in Himself. All that is created is created according io divine intention, tbe subject of which b the personal Logos, who entered this world in history and became man to fulfill the purpose of creation and of man as its microcosm. This at least is the line of thinking that Maximus follows. But thb means, then, that the whole creation b filled with the divine presence. Thb b a presence that b not only of an abiding quality but also has a purpose and on aim to be carried out through man's free acceptance of iL In general, the ancient writers also had thc conviction that—thanks to the decbhre act of creation—this world of ide,is, aims, purposes, and principles b present in thc concrete and observable world of creation. Through Christ, the Logos, thb world, not only OS an intelligible world, but also, often, as a sensible world, was in their view related bu God through its capacity of being the outward manifestation of Hb own ideas. Through thb very qualified Christian adaptation of the Philonian identification between the Logos and the fiatoni world of ideas, thc lathers of the Church -.vere able to arrive at an evaluation of creation that was a combination of Biblical view of Gods creation and Hellenistic speculation, 3 view open to ihr understanding of Christ *i the Media of the Universe. Because of this, the theological understand^ of the world was from then on linked by necesni •kvelopment of the central doctrines of christology. It is precisely at thb point that we me »» «Peculation about the created world represents u « chrbtological reflection on tbe created o * * ° n Origen was the first to develop a tod of te™gf£ ** logoi of creation. We might W"1

further Reflections <>» Meattmrnti f f o / i M A N ANO T U II COSMOS 1.1

MI,,.,.,*,.,» ...ni. fa m matter, also in St. Augurine l'or Í .„, tlie rationel (thi Utitt tr«blaUon o f ^ ) S t s W « ....4 eternal puiupka held «..i,-ti

*

«Haul »dhini.r. h o w r m I d vpg ^ e mon M.XU11U. came from uVaidol fontkul and hb school. Mi Lwasa-Hifn.iilrdhythiiuh.K.lwhen!, I, une a mod

ivchlm « spiritual «aid

o math« wouW navei

cien though 1.1* ^ i t h U s H to ChalCfldofjlaj d m olcigy I,,!,,, Sto aStablUh dliiancc fmm some of the the. „detraclan. tradition Bvagrlu» i Uly »milde., d lb« lotpi 3 Citation In «he same way a» Oi.gm, bul also, as «ve have seen, he takef >"io KWOnl the logot of providence udludjtmant »lucri i.d n> thc/orw .d - Has fai i makes the problem ol ihr i. can creation ami salvation relevan! to Maximus, and he imigglei wilh ll tnlcmrly. as we have already lee,. frOj ¡Ul »IfO PWfOW •• final "spiritual contemplation" "I all Útehgot, m winch ihry may he »een In their mystical communion with God. Ihe olhcii rwdecessor b Pwdo-Dlooyshis the Arcopaglie . idrd the hgoi tu.i onl) U more or less static Ideas of God lying behind n lion I ul ulio in a dynamic irnvr ..-. divini and g od mrentioni' foi the world, almost «vith ihm possible forms of eatlttcnce, EUJ the logoi aie piciiiely the divine listi ntiOM Thb UU.I.M1..I..I.I.. ol them ll clofoly connected to lib idea ni thi- permanim will ol God »lie* ' iiiuiiclf to become 11 dad worid In ihr Amhiiua no i mi» say» mat the Logo* of God and Lind always and In rvn rij OUI the mystery .-I lb* em! mmimphaslsel that the ¿ V .1 ihe divine

purpose Hi nom combines tint i.lr.i with that ol Rvag ormcarnin| m I ¡«u*vnh m. .mil judgment, hut )ir trans» forms il In wehe way «hit any connactìori «uri. the Orlgenbt ,i prc-hlstoflral full b ruled oui lr"t Maviinuv :,•niriit. with ii« ml.rrent logos, which ii the prlndnll of ,m i led dill ii.iin.n. plays a | nitjw '.nV withm the i. t of fin vidi m ihe logos o( i tin | ||1 " M'1'' "' lf*lr G, VI 10M O l

unification will individu ,,. ni.tly, creation n to Maalmui an :.^,lt. LUI, Interpreted m temu of ihr n ,, „f ,j, e l.ogus, Introducing r ciemei. ¡nhciiigs since thali • rc.«ti..n, hul Imprisoned si byiiii In this«« on remains good and related t jn ihe hogPh incarni g llimiclf Dui ¡i i lim i ,„,. uinr time, Inlerpirird within a | lieti, und of reconciliation through suffering, a i protect! ai fr«im false optimism, Tlie cosmic Chun li ,.i the urne time thr Girili oí the ( ron and oí ihe Rem i ross and the Resurrection cs ,<• Livi d, although it ii -it .ill i. i thfuuj ,!iii. •'>' the Logo* -lie secret oí thr logoi of providence and judgment lim d. i (hese i|ieaila|lons aboul the logoi of cicalion and their rel.aiouihlp to Chi ut as ihr Logus »till have relevi v : (ii what Interprétate l eliciti would blip Ul t o i valid cómprela ol ication m a toda) ' A kind ol parallel to these problemi termi io me io 1,1,, .siblc relevance of Luther's fstnooj i] latioii (med m hi« diicuiilnn wilh Zwingll aboul ihe presence id Christ in thc cuchan« )«boul what da Called the ubiquity in• tlie all presente) oí I I.ml W p r a l f l in ihf ireated order, n preSCmr due I., ihe Nr nate. Maninil!» dOM n tonte« Poi linn several ways of comn

136

MAN ANO THB COSMOS

¡n Christ as the Logos. Through the contemplation of the hgoi of creation, the soul enters into mystical cc-rununion wfth the Logos, who gives Himself to it there m virtue o Hi» P imarylnh-bitation in thc logoi of created beings. And Ta communion has an intermediary value on the way to rnqstical communion with God Himself. Through an interior S S u n d comprehension of the whole of creation via the Principles (logoi) of their being, which are also the pruiS e s of their future (i.e. of theb qualified existence within the Kingdom of God), the human soul becomes christian, bed" and prepare* itself for the mystical union with thc very Source and sovereign Principle of all that is. Thb communion through the contemplation of the human mind i.e. its intelligible faculty, purified through the vita practica, b not of a material character in a gross sense. The Christian contemplates creation as it were from above, or from within, and not through its external sensible impressions. This way of looking at creation may seem to us, living in a culture marked by empirical research, not only strange but also standing in contradiction to a modern scientific attitude. which compels us to start with facts and experiments, and thus with sensations, although measured and controlled by modern apparatus. Yet, if wc reflect a little more profoundly, we might ask whether thb difference of approach is not of a rather superficial character. For what b characteristic of a modern, and truly scientific, view of nature is that we ore dealing not with the materialities of a more ancient kind of science, but with very minute factors, which are hard to define without access to the language of symbols and images, e.g. with thc very subtle elements of thc atoms, and even electronic tensions. Even more important, these elements that form the substance of the "material" world are often only observable in their effects, and are only describable through very abstract formulas, or, as we said, through more or less symbolic images. Of course, these formulas and symbols reflect as much the rationality of man comprehending ilicm as tlie structure of Ihe world itself It is thus through the concepts of human rationality—a rationality that is more than "rational" in a

further Reflections on Maximus's Theology

\ J7

restricted sense, but must also have access to its speculative power of symbolization-and through them alone that we pjy get access to a kind of totality of truth about tlie world in which wc live. In addition to that, it remains a fact that it b only til rough faith in thc image of God in man, theologically speaking, that we could abo find on indication of the divine intention behind creation and of our being placed within it. In thb situation, with due consideration given to what b choractcrbtic of tlie way in which we approach creation nature in our time, it seems to me that Maximus's speculations about the logoi come close to us, rather than separating him from us. He might be of help in interpreting thb situation in a Chrbtian way. i.e. in its rebtionship to Chrbt the Creator and the Consurnraator. The speculations of a Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin on the evolution of the world toward the Omega point also seem to have a certain affinity to those of Maximus. Thb is the case not least in regard to their common positive evaluation of movement as a creative force, although Teilhard, of course, sees things in a more definitely hbtorical and evolutionary perspective. MAXIMUS A N D THE ROLE OF THE UNCREATED ENERGIES IN PALAMISM This second sub-theme is closely related to the first one. There b obviously a line of development that unites Maximui with Gregory Palomas and the whole Eastern tradition of thinking that emanates from him. In an excellent way John Meyendorff has analyzed thc thinking of Gregory, this 1« century Byaantme Saint and tiieological spokesman far l piety of Mount Athos, and also demonstrated iti rclevano far beyond his own time through hb dextrine of the uncreated energies, a doctrine which in many ways por lei* »he Western Thombt doctrine of the 67 o f •*!"?. (onalogia entit). Now. Maximus in his spec die Ingoi of crciUion establishes himself, in a histor« spectivc, as a forerunner of Gregory Palomas, since the logo

138

MAN ANI» THE COSMOS

may be interpreted, although Maximus himself did not do so in on explicit way, as energies of God in o Palamite sense.1 What can one state with certainty about Maximus's conception of the logoi in their double relationship to God (ihe Logos) and to the concrete world in its manifold manifestations? Arc thc logen transcendent or immanent, are they created or noncrcated? The answer must be a double one. On the one hand Maximus affirms that the logoi are pre existent in God. On the other hand, he also says that God brought them to their realization in concrete creation, accord' tra to the general law of the continual presence of God and of the Logos, In a certain way they are, thus, both transcendent and immanent. Vet. this immanence does not invite us to conclude that they ore created. As immanent they represent, and ort, the presence of the divine intention and principle of every single nature and species. And as such thb intention presents itself as their natural fixity as well as their existential purpose. As realized in the existence of things, they materialize in the created order. Yet thq' are certain I v not themselves created or part of that created order in the sense thai they are bound by its material appearance or actual realization. Are thc logoi then, in Maximus's thinking, uncreated energies in a more or less Palamite sense? And, further, does thb mean trut they are as such distinct from the essence of God? The answer—which cannot be a definitive one—should be presented step by step. The first question indicates thc possibility of a certain tension between the absolute unity of the divine Essence and the multiplicity of God's intentions (noncreated). Regarding the logoi as such, however, one cannot point to any tension. It is rather a matter of a certain dialectic It is God who preserves the logoi in their unity, but they are nevertheless fixed in Htm, sudi ai they are. in Maximus's view. The natural movements of the different species, in conformity with their logoi as intention», designating their purpose in God's total plan, are different according to the« differentiation. They •On GIT«T*T P i l a w , K* Jota UtmicaU, OrriWc* Sffritootkf, Nrw VoA :

St Gre^j

PaUmot md

Further Reflections on Maximus's Theology

\39

converge toward thc divine Unity, especially when considered in human contemplation. Thereby, this contensfolatrnt activity of man, when properly undertaken in a purified way, reflects thc unifying intention of God. In relation to tbe Logos, the «me ihing holds true. The Logos is, as wc have underlined, Himself the many hgoi, hut ihcn the hgoi may abo be said to he ihe one and only Logos, although what wc kno^ them and tl ety does not exhaust what is contained in thc Logos. Thus there is no complete identity. As difierentiated the logoi never cease to be different from one another, but their relationship with the Logos b a relationship with their own final principle of unity. At the same time ihe relation of the Logos to them b in accordance with die principle of His differentiated and incamational inhabitation in the created world. He encounters us m .md through their fluriformity as their unity and ours at the same time. M.i\imus uses Biblical images to explain the mystery of thc logoi, as for instance in the following one Tlie logoi are placed like birds on the branches of the great tree of the Logos, the tree that has grown up from the mustard seed of which the Gospel speaks Likewise—and now he uses another image—the hgoi of intelligible beings may be comprehended as the blood of the Logos and the logoi of sensible tilings as thc flesh of tlie Logos, through which manifestations those who arc worthy of it may enter into spiritual communion with God.* The logoi are thus not identical with the essence of God, nor with the empirical forms of exbtence of the things of thc created world. But this does not necessarily mean lhat they are divine energies in the sense that Gregory Palamas develops At thb point Fr. Riou has made an important remark. He calls attention m the fact thai the Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky interpreted the logoi in M .minus's theology simply as uncreated energies and that Fr. Sherwood criticized him on this point, accusing him of interpreting Maximus's statements without any real foundation in a Dionysian and Palarr But more importantly, Riou riso calls attention to a text in «See Goott J, 10; Pan. Ge. n S7? C

1 1 » A, «al Qooett. ai Tad IS] « ,

MAN ANO t i l l Mr.MO«

l40

Ambienti no 22 where Masdmhs aCbJ dly Mel ihe expression ' energie*" about llic hgoi Whul th.it mear« ma) | »rse. a d ,l k: r| r M m , n u I , i ttill I ••'«I ( " • "" " • understanding here b influenced fifJl ol ill by Pseud Ihonysius), bul lent hb terminology underlines his very dynamic concepì»m I sdì íjuote the text without further comment, ,'„, , „ »peaks for itself to a greal car In perceiving naturally all «he logoi that ore in Ihe beings m (ht Infinity nf which it .plut« ihr energies of God, the mind, to *ay the trull», makes numeren» and tannila the difference! of the divine energie! it perceive!. Indeed, thc sti-nnii i r . c r . l . .•! vili have its forces weakened and proodur« embarrassed, if the mind cannot o prehcii.! in the logos of every special thing and likewise in all the hgoi according to which all things exist, God who n truly none of the beings and yet truly all the beings and above all the beings. Tim«, m | proper sense, all divine energy ligiulirs God properly, in.hnitbiy and totally via that energy fa everything, whatever thc hgoi may be which is capable of conceiving exactly and telling bon God II it without being divided and without being diversely lie infinite difference! of being in wl

Se il ai Being

' Tlie in lung to non re m these quotations b, of course, the very fact thai Maximus feels inclined to temi the tatic and dynamic charhgoi energies. Obviously tl acter testifies in uself to the freedom of God' things, being in the whole o( creation in its differentiation MUí being divided, but holding il all tugi ilici in Him» self as Being. i great | mi aim to I T deall with i» what Maximus wanli lo express with lib logm/ctìCt^ìet th« *a. ajo«, ,f, rit, ,, «o. •Pott ut. vi, 11)1 AH tin la ftkonáuui itti »ml I « l r IWT» on Tr Rim»'»
tit.

p. OH I.

farther Reflection! on Maximus's Theology

ii\

same experience and theological concern at ih.u PJlumai? At this pumi 'ligues l i u expressed himself m H modulated •• ly the Intention of Hit two •-•• i ihe • _ he iii-Miii lira but tl. tuprciuon it to ,1,11 ,, ,,i ili.it Maximus anticípales the Weitern dottrine of e, while ( »irgory has become the moil typical reptes« •l'in tradition/ Thb judgm. iVtr, re quires some further commcnl and According to Fr. Gauigue« then were two possible philoiojihi il spproai bes •" ! * ,c pmblem involved: a Platonic and median one. The Plat. letter, thai rsui and Gregory Menplatonism -was inherited b) through Pseudi. l deci m Mm (and thii i« ihe poinl » ' • •'«"' *U* i M 0 (Antnmut,

M

'

hl fe IV, 1914. [ ¡' ItJ-âfw

' "l" *"

m

MAN AND Till: COSMOS

distinction threatens the unity of God in orda to safeguard Hb self sufficiency, or better. Hb rest in Himself. Gregory s intention II co affirm a real divinuation of man, but on his Platonic or Neoplatonic basis he can find no other way out than through hb distinction between a fixed Essence and an emanating Energy. Garrigues finds, however, that tiiere could be .mother solution to thc problem, based on Aristotelian grounds. It is in ihe simplicity of God rather than in hb superessence that one should look for real transcendence. That simplicity b not affected by "the perfect actuaÜty of the divine Being."' As to Maximus, Garrigues argues, he inherited a Platoniruig terminology, but through thc different stages of his own theological development, particularly hb refutation of Origcnism and his fight against Monothclctism. he discovered thb other possibility (i.e. the Aristotelian approach). Gar rigues summarites this part of his investigation in thc follo««-"In defining the energy of God as the only power of relationship between thc creatures and their Cause. Maximus goes beyond the Ncoplatonist concept of processive participation and a in the position to develop a doctrine of participation based on the causality of creative Being in regard to created beings * But Garrigues does not stop there. He adds a discussion about Maximus"s manner of securing die corresponding factor on the part of man, since without a theandric synergism no divinbation could be realized. The solution, according to Garrigues, thus b once more an Aristotelian (and Western) one. Maximus professes a communion of intention, between God and man, which presupposes .in energetic power on the part of God, understood in the way just indicated, and on the part of man a habitus of charity given through thc causality of divine Grace, impressing itself upon the believer in virtue of the self-emptying (kenoth) of Christ.10 Here I must take a more critical attitude 1 do not think that it is possible to find thb specific doctrine of a habitui of MM.

tit. (. » i .

•ieri.

" I W . , p. JS7 f

further Reflectiont on Maxima i'i Theology

14t^

grace in Maximus, which tiarrigues is look* and which would be supernaturalty impressed upon die believer as the divine charity, even though Maximus does speak explirity about grace and about divine . ^ as well os an impact of Christ upon the Christun. In my , IM the syncrgbm that Garrigues tries to establish in ¡mus is u>o artificial and too little dialectical, and where then b, thc true communion of intention? I do not pretend to have a final solution to the problem of "energetic communion" in Maximus. Yet, J believe that thc Chalccdoiiiun model—here as always—b decisive for him That b a model in which the Incarnation is not understood m terms of assimilation (or even assumption) only, bul terms of reciprocity. Incarnation is a coming together of ¡he Ovo natures, tlie divine and the human, a hypostatic (or peril) coming together, that b also a "tropical" one, i moral and existential coming together, but not a mixture and not an identification of any kind. Even when he speaks about participation (through fcmce, of course), Maximus preserves the idea of an abyss (between created and uncrr order), but be also speaks of a "tropiraf" sdenti; renews itself consta; . divine cor for ma; and through, the truly human virtues as in to divine reality. This is precisely what grace means to Maximus. tins cûndesccTLsion on the part of God that lets itself be continually grasped and "materialised" in human insights and human virtues. It b as authentic reflections of their archetype that these insights and virtues are divine, but not in on oncological sense. However, in thc same measure as one might comprehend what they reflect, thb comprehension is rather a pard o n in the condescending divine energies than in thc impenrtr.ible essence of God. Tlie law Is contini presence is not a la m or assumption, but of theandric and salvine dialo Tliis (personal) conclusion brings us finally to the cuestión of Maximus's eschai i.e bb understanding of die end of history and thc fulfillment of all things

1*4

SCAN AND THE COSàtOt

ESCHATOLOGY AMD MYSTICAL UNION In the eauher «mdern stafies on Maxspus s theology^ of von caOthasar, Ifaiaberr. Sherwooel 1-H_ DaJmab tfçfiimmt Dominican Maximian scholar whose and i "*T » spread over a number of _ and other pnttW^tkrit). Volker, and nrrself-verjr ¡¡»»JetftaidahttarheeschinTtVairof Marôsis. to moar recent Ifcdas-particttlirry those of Fr. Rk» and of Fr. Garrignes-the terra esrfiaaotogkaT b found in many pinces. Thus, at ft*my€ ksaxtant to put thc ooesöon: nrhj this drnerence? the answer b certainly not that it b oniy recently that a ~s.**.!,•gì.-,! theolngr bas been discovered in which nobody had nocked befóte. The reason s that the more recent authors have had the toreaban of wyfrrdwHPf; the eschatologkal nLineimai as ooe more of the dsnersíícs that are relevant mithin the Maximian theological .arsole But «hat do we mean by this dimension'' And what are the spécifie vaincs of dus (admirions!) respective, partioafadf in view of our own tame? Thb b the problem that will be drscmsed in dusfinalsection of this chapter. lax me propose, àrnmedatch/, the following opinion. tariiatuiugj. as a separate subject m a later traditional sense; phrys a way restricted role m the rheoiogy of Maxirnus. Yet, oekateiogy ou m tanni in» of theology is very importar < »s »aaraerssood as a permanent dirraension of rxansraaacknce O P " ^ np everhataxg perspectives. In hb vhaon c¿ Chrbtian S i * ™ ? * *** n o t kncr » of *n absolute break between »ear* aar et ««,- and life after »W»th There exbts. beyond doubc a diference of fullness, but o ^ b ^ and there rs DO question of a completelv new « ^ « b t a v o r j a , « ^ its startinaTSnTalreadr •»^andnow. Aim« no aspect of s j a t S S T b found g ^ ^ T h o s , the «^»asaakagical ebnen*» b almost

frntsbee RejiecSoomemMojximnïs Theology

i*>

I propose; dairfoce, rust a few crarnprcsscd of dab bask ihrxne, icpewiilwig a kind of si ciuskxi of MaxrnaBS's rheoiogy as a totality. Maximes s amende in regard to dirhrrent rheories ot mysticai ecstasy b very • • y " « ' in dab rnnftno, for it 1 the authentic character nf hb esthaoosogy Anona»fabpredecesino we osare recognise sheen types nf spetntatton ancua ecstasy. Otoe of them b the Evagrian type of imigiaTvu. jcoarding to which the final aim of human life b a naked intellect receiving the knowledge ot the IXiiue Tnesty other is the concept of a CTTeiraaU Viiagialiip," in the category of efeeSaas, fhaianrtbtkof a Gregory of Nyssa wheae the soul totes itself m "sober dniraVrnnrg" in God. Fmafly. rj«ere b the COOCCTJC c*f ecstasy daat w« Ans, where the soul b outside of kself due to a raassiae aw/r»ing oí the divine reality, a particular bat abo experienceNow, we easy condrode that the first type of r4aw«: -rand rax castsidecif.t^ intelligence The second caie indicates an atúemxm < of oneself and of everything» and thus b neverfendsksfinal rest, but aaatabnes to enoae into God forever. Acoafoaag to the third conception, b seems as if the soul lawuUatleal receives a kind of «fonruooo of an iraSetaecraxal chasacSer - •; -• - \\ .-_: ....- be and of ataxsnaesTs possnoa b that he b crkkai of all of these types of eotatk Äeoioty, ilthftpgli he has learned much from them all In regard to the Engrian type, he seems » he more radical He States more fbrrrfuilv that in rsystkal ucûon ehe intellect becnenes «wccassckass rf irstdi aa^ that b refiascs to accept ¡n the natural capacity of ks soul lnc*rsedge of the Trinitarian realirv In regard to the Gregorian ccasees* of epectasit Maxirnus b sceptical of its rAahacyhkal^ be frraw* identifv eternal rest with a since this implies a relatmaarjon of both rest and Yet, he b quite srnipathetktowardthe Gregorian pan aat«l divine presence and human distance at the * — —•

• m-mmmar^m^mt^ ^^mm^ <

hbnself uses an esp«»on like "rnm«ne*e tned m dialectical jntevrhange with hi

MAN AND THE COSMOS

146

tion of mistical union as "rest of continual movement," Finally, in regard to the Ps-Dionysian concept of ecstasy, Maximus modifies the idea of "suffering the Divine" ¡n the sense that tlie latter only implies the idea of "suffering to be moved e adds that he who loves sometliing "suffers ecstasy" vis-àvb this phenomenon as loved. To Maximus. as J matter of fact, mystical ecstasy implies a real departure from oneself in order to enter into the in'c sphere of the Divinity as in the case of Ps. Dionysiuj thc Areopagite, since thb radical emigration b not brought to its realization except through the grace of God. Yet, this does not mean that the human effort simply disappears. On the contrary, be speaks also af a "gnomic emigration" toward which alone, and finally, may satisfy his demand (i.e. the natural desire of man), and thus bring hb entire movement to its rest, to God Himself. Cotascaucntly, we have two equally important factors in regard m mystical union: "the voluntary emigration'' on the part of man and ihe illuminating grace of God. Once more we can see that Qialcedonbn theology serves 05 the model of interpretation for Maximus. Unification takes place without confusion and change, whether it be of the created nature or the uncreated nature, bringing them nevertheless into on inseparable unity. This last observation is of the same importance for his theolgy of drincation. In Ambigua 10, Maximus says that Goo males Himself human for the sake of man through His philanthropy, in the same measure as man. foranea by chanty, divinizes himself for God; mon b = " 5 * ™ by God in mind to the unknowable, so is man has manifested, through virtues, the God by nature invisible." mar,e«TÜL^d d a ? 0 B * a *«» «hat reciprocity between God and nere t ^ T*"* ** * * * o f * Moxknan theology. For Here there a a correspondence between the ecstasy of man ' ß», Hi, 1113 BC

Further Reflections on Movàmm's Theology toward God and the manifestation, In |„ m , o f h i s nature in virtues. This manifestation b con of incarnation or embodiment of the Logos, and these virtees are seen as reflection! of the divine attributes. As such the* arc manifestations of the ecstasy of God toward mao-tou* Ps.-Dionysian terminology-and therefore they represent, beyond any doubt, the "encouragement'" that b promised to man in mystical union. The natural desire of man in leaich for God. thus, finds its rest in Him through a proce< interpénétration, which preserves both thc gulf between the natures and the fixity of the divine and human, but communicates—simultaneously—the modes of existence both as human virtues and as divine attributes This b, then, the eschatological dimension of Maximusi theology. It is certainly quite "existential" and ""modem m.my ways. But does it also have something to say to as about our own eschatological questions, properly speak' Thc speculation of a Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and ol modern so-called "theology Dì hope"' (J. Moltmann on the Protestant side and J. B. Metz on the Roman Catholic) baie taught us that absolute reality (Le. tbe reality of the cosmic Christ) does not necessarily have to be above us. but could also be understood ^ being before us. But, we must as; that particular (and very modern) persrxcrive entirely absent from Maximus's rheoiogy? I do not believe so. The movement of final ecstasy about which he b speaking directs itself toward a final goal, and this goal b both here and beyond ourselves; precisely as a goal it always appears to our desire to go beyond ourselves in order to find, in God. the rest is the absolute consummation of human life, Thb PcnI*J'Te b definitely univers.-.I, Le fin thb context) not urr cosmologiail and nonchrouologicrd levels. And what is even more important for Maxirnui jes. o quitt : ,1 importance for him, is this "Lronw,al*"î .** "encouragent at through the vision that we actaeve for ourselves through our practical efforts and experiences assures us that wc are on the righi * ^ J £ J . we have not yet reached the final goal. tf always awakens our natural aspirations, ww»

m

MAN ANO TI II! COSMOS

behave at any moment, that thb final goal and union with God will be a fruit of our efforts in themselves. Deification o f divinisation b the final goal of man, Greater it could not be. And yet it b always a reminder of thc fad of thc Incarnation, because man's divulgation remains a con. sequence of Gads "humaniïation"' in thc incarnation of the Logos. Thus, in Maximus's theology, christological .nul anthropological convictions go together in complete harmony, mid the basis of this is in hb concept of reciprocity. There fore, ihe incamational presence of Christ is decisive at every point L;ica! system. Every dimension of it is in a sense a christological dimension. In thc Appendix, we shall dc.il v.iih this fact in terms of Christ's eucharistie presence, and the problem of symbolic nearness and concretion that tins implies.

APPENDIX

Symbol and Mystery in St Maximus With particular reference to the doctrine of the cucharbric presence

In this additional chapter we shall illustrate a ipecbl aspect of what has been treated more systematically above. Its background is a contribution to the first srhol posiurn on St. Maximus which was held at Fribourg, Swibsi. land, in September 1980. This contribution will nuke more concrete the originality of Maximus the Confessor. The precise problem at ïtake is thb: In what exttnt u Maximus's conception of the eucharist a realiOit ofêf symbolist one? In trying to answer thb question I pmpwj that Maximus's understanding of thc key terms my»lymbohn should be considered more closely. The problem treated in thb appendix halberem*ine« acutely «levant to me in recent years fe«JW* »Jjg in Ihe present ecumenical dialogue between Roman Gdtobei and Lutherans, 1 have realbed the « r ^ ^ * ^ agreement dint exbts today between **W *££%*) Catholics on the real presence of the very boti oar Lord fesus Christ m the ' * ^ ' * ^ ? 2 Hut presence as directly linked to the * * < wine, and abo the agreement on I* ' * ' ^ ^ rh,t understanding is of bosk importance for ou

Symbol and Myttery in St Maxtmut

MAN ANO'«IH i I'll

happens in H*comniu ., ol the believer. Wc may d , u r r.v «i« which ihls presence comes aboui and liso on

'„,, communion and the efficsxj oJ i

>;» im

..mmuiiitarrd «here b, In-•••<'• Hbtorically ihcte had rxiitcd far more of a disagreement between liiiheranmndRrUinc.l Since il.«- I ibtTg Agree. mr.n Ol 1073 beiween ihcsr two posiiiim%, .1 corintie rabie amount of rapprochement has been rem bed pm iiely lice ause it has been postlbk to agree on a more realisti« und rstand mg nf ihe real presence Nw both Roman < »titolici Luthers« • phase ol dial >gue «villi ihe On and It b thus of gleit taporUnce to know n tly where tlie position! are in Eastern arid Weilern traditi tì tfl regard to the uiulriii.ii.di of the Real Presence. The llalM realisti vtrtui lymboibtk underHanding is certainly l y conceived between Eastern und Latin Ir.iditioni . between, say, Ludieran and Reformed tradition», but there arc Certainly -••une similarities between the symbolistic tradition! neverthcleii, It seems to be particularly relevant m prcciicly ihn »nuotimi to analyze llic |-.-i it inn of such a grevi ru ui.- al i1 I East ai Sr M .mi mm the fjuifcsuir. Besides tin« niiHlern ecufiwnn A ímpetu», however, tliere are aba vime considerations of a more historical diarai ih." . jelled me to analyse thb problem as tat casent M I A,, i: .i,,rd-who |aei i.l Ma un nui theology. Dr. Am KM iiimy year» his bctn working tut ÜM theology "i •' much laler lepreienuiive nf ihe luivtrrri 1 tradition, « n Ihr New Tl , died rn) attention n> the fad '" Í"'-" Meyendorfl in hü Byiantim Theology tìtXnt AM tl« fymholbik understei I ihr ruchai h i» dur 44 irr im» oí Picudo I jiiinyiiin 1; igjifl (and Ofl **"" : ime a problem ,: " ' ' ' '••" ' '•'" h ... thi 1 j.i. century when thi ih mtfm >.r ihr images, nich M - | ,. , , , i ,,,

¡J**"

h

"' '" M w d o f u Uso itati 1 thai Symoon the N i *

™

«i«*

•

CJOMU

fiMomnm Commi»,

-MWII1..I

„„,

ttltw,t

lwüi

j ^,

¡im."1 Since slic herself doubted the U t itattm
Pat

vw

-

y*-

'

'

•• 'We

»*™¿

*• « " ^

'' ''' ^.«d«snuuun> naa
i»

MAN ANO TUII COSMOS

the cucharbt (and one not necessarily identical with that of thc A run] *J) i t e ) .

«mother basic problem is that Maximus in his Mystagogia (which is supposed to be hb commentary on the Liturgy of the Holy Eucharist) leaves out a direct commentary on the Anapltora itself. He indicates a reason for this, in that he referí to thc interpretation of thc Areopagite in the latter s De eccìeùaitka hiérarchie, which hc does not wont to repeat or compete with (although he actually does comment on thing! that thc Areopagite also treats at length). Several scholars have not felt content with thb explanation; they have rather referred to a discipline of silence (relevant both to thc euchurist itself and particularly to Maximus os a lay monk) as the reason for bis reluctance. Thb is tlie ease of, for example, Alain Riou, while Hans Urs von Balthasar is resistant about it and Rene Burnert discusses thb possibility more openly. Ai a matter of fact, sudi reluctance on behalf of a layman may also be supported by tlie position of the Areopagite.* Whatever the reason may be, it is a fact that we have no explicit indication of how Maximus interprets tlie Holy Gommili non, or how he looks upon the eucharistie presence. Of course, one may argue that precisions at tills point were not yet necessary, and that therefore Maximus's situation was much freer than that of the eighth century. On the other hand, problems immanent in the theology of Maxirnus itself should indicate a necessary position-taking. For my own part, i think that Maximus has taken a position already, and that, although he may not be explicit about it, he indicates it in his lìude lo eucharbtic communion. Hb actual dit. chime of ¡Hence pointa, at least, to a respect for this moment ot the liturgy (from consecration to communion), which ßrjgles u out as being of mother value and significance t all tlie other symbolic acts of the liturgy. But wc shall return to that suggestion later, after having analyzed more in détail ihe few texts that wc have.

Symbol and Mystery

\atántm

„,

o things have certainly favored those wbo rank Maxi mus among those of thc "symbolistic" school o: tion: (a) his reference to tlie Areopagite u tive interpreter of thc mystery of tlie cucharist; and (b) hi» own symbolbtic interpretation of the ports of the liturgy that he comments upon. However, for i more precise lui iingt wc are bound to discuss both wh.it thr influence of ihe Attopagitc really implies and thc exact interpretation of the few sages where Maximus actually deals with the en presence and the character and implication! of thc commun And it b quite clear—also from thc delicate way i Maximus both uses and modifies the work of hb predecessors in other aspects of hb theology— that only a minute JJULVHI of what Maximus actually says will give sufficient evidence ol hb own exact position. As far as the cucharbt is concerned, this work has not yet been done. Wh.it I propose here, therefore, b only a beginnini; Some of tlie frames of reference for such an analyri», however, are obvious. One of these frames of reference i» of course Maximus's theology of the Incarnation of the Logos Another, linked to it through Ins understanding of the carnation as being threefold, * hb idea of the three laws and the synthesis that they imply, since Chrbt incarnate holds il .ill together. Incarnation, understood in the terms of Council of Chalced.m, implies for man an access to divinity through the modes of this incarnation. Therefore, the worl the Scriptures, and the Church together i toutasl tionship may be interpreted in anthropological tennii actor* ing to the Mystagogia. The whole world b mbsumrd imder the Logos as differentiated in the hK ^ of Scriptufe is aubsumed under the Logos as dirTerentutodlurthe logli of tlie divine economy. The whole of ^ ^ % differentiated socially and ontologically, and mgetoei the rest of creation separated from the ^>ne wotid. O«« lumed under Christ oslts head, who leads it on H perfection and deification. . . -Qmnyo», Consequently, Maximus's understanding« J £ ^ ^ since the liturgy necessarily takes place WUHM Mqfi. i the cosmos, is of importance to our pro»

154

MAN AND THE COSMOS

ticularly, hb understanding of Scripture and of the interpretation of Scripture is vital. There the function of images, tepes, and symbols and their relationship to salvation are at ii ike sa a way that has to be parallel to that of the liturgy and the function of the sacraments. This parallelism, however, must be worked out precisely. Finally, there is the frame of reference that is represented by Maximus's understanding of spiritual development. To which stage of thb development is thc cucharist and particularly eucharistie communion to be related? In other words, is the bodily eating and drinking an expression of the earlier and lower stages of the process of spiritual perfection or do they pertain to all or even to the lost stage, and to what extent has communion even to do with deification? Within these contexts or frames of reference in Maximus's rheoiogy, we can easily see a number of questions appear in regard to the problem of eucharistie presence and the importance of the oral communion of the believers. Let me mention some of them, and at the some time indicate the basic structure of my presentation. 1. Wc started with a somewhat crude dbtinction between a "symbolistic'' and a "realistic" understanding of the cucharist A preliminary question, then, would be hott Maximus's position has been judged By scholars until now. 2. A second preliminary question, since Maximus obviously refers to and depends on Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagise, b how thc position of the latter in regard to our dbtinction i¡ so he evaluated. 3. A third question relates to Maximus's understanding of Scripture, seen in the perspective of hb view o the Incarnation and in regard to the possible £ í T ^ ^ m a n j " ^ t o »he Logos through Scriptural revelation and his access to bun rhrougti the euchartst. Since incamational language b equally vahd in relation to Scripture as ^relation to thl cucharist, and since a purely 5Jtnbolbtic ¡mentation

Symbol and Mystery ht St Maximus of the latter seems to imply that the eijcharbtic symbob are equivalent to the symbolistic language of $crit> lurc, this opens the question, to what extent can similar distinctions be made in regard to différent parts of Scripture as should be expected within the liturgy, e.g. between rites dial come before the consecration on the one hand and the eucharistie sacrifice (as far as that is presupposed) and the eucharistie communion on the other. Maximus's general use of thc terms mysterion and symbolon must be observed at thb point. A. A fourth question is closely related tn thb: is there a difference in Maximus between what we might call "gnostic" communion wilh the Logos through the interpretation of Scripture, and thc sacramental communion with Christ? And what is the implication of experience in thb context? 5. We cannot come to a proper view of Maximus's understanding of eucharistie cornmunion unless we analyze the four texts, where he explicitly deals with it Therefore, I suggest that such an analysis be made *&- H e » with a particular stress on the ternth again we must observe thetermsmystenon and bolon, but certainly not only them. 6. In addition to this, wc should notice iui«her problem. In regard to communion through Scripture, Maximus underlinei(os a i * « * of the Alexandrian tradition, etc.) the «*£»* exists between what b received and the F £ « J * of thc receiver. For a symbohstic t f * ! * » * » * *Z eucharbt, this idea-the idea of what is usual y adW thc "worthiness "-may be equally W^»JZ eucharbt. For a realistic « « ^ ^ ^ „ ^ J i h c a dbtinction must be introduced, rrarndy, wr» ^ full presence of Christ in t h ^ a L 7 ^ ^ u n i c s n r , hand, and the personal « ^ T ^ í S t n * 6o« ,:„ the other. Linked to this is * e q g - > J ^ „ terminology of eu. transformât**

MAN AND THE COSMOS

1%

Maximus. Is the aspect of sacramental efficacy or the aspect of receptivity predominant? "SYMBOLIST' OR "'REALIST' IN THE VIEW OF THE SCHOLARS At thc outset, two extreme positions seem to be rcpre«nted. On the one hand, on old scholar like G. E. Steitz considers Maximus a clear representative of what he calls "thc Alexandrian symbolism," even as "the most fragrant blossom of all Alcxandrinbrn."' On thc other side W. Lampen recognizes thc traditional eucharistie doctrine in Maximus. though witiiout an appropriate analysis.7 The judgments of more recent scholars have been more carefully phrased Sherwood tends to side with Lampen, in the sense that he both Ends Maxirnus relatively explicit and states that wc are per. mitred to say that for Maximus "the eucharbt is at the heart of the Christian life,"* a conclusion that Völker finds "not exactly surprising. "' Von Balthasar, on the other hand, seems to side with Steite, since hc says that the conclusion of the latter is certainly right"1" Later, in a discussion of Maximus's silence about the matter, he says that one must presume that Maximus was not in a position to regard what Christ had instituted as pure reality" as being only a symbolic phenomenon.11 Völker regards the oscillating position of the scholars a* due to the meagerncss of thc textual witnesses, and refrains from a definite position." A well worked out position I have only found in Bornert distinguishing first of all between two groups of texts, one indicating the "symbolic" character of the eucharbt arid one

t^%l^r^XT^%t

M d

" - WEU"'"

sJtcmi^^6^. 5sr,iÄ,,w T«s- « « ^ °»*-*•Sec Vfüto, op. rir, j». 471, a. 2

**V<m Buihuu. «a. n\ j». Mí, "MM, p. ML

°op. A, r ft a

•

Symbol and Mystery in St Maximus which presentó the cucharbt as the saoament of un*» wâh God and deification. Based on thc latter, and refcrrina j to Maximus's more explicit stalerncnts about baptism Bomert feels entitled to conclude that Maximus's development ot eucharistie symbolism is not anti-realist. Realism and symbolism arc mutually related. However. Bomert also under' that Maximus docs not make the important distinction between "efficacious sacramental symbolism" and Ha purely representative liturgical symbolism/' where ihe former "realizes that which it signifies," while thc latter b "a simple to contemplation."" However helpful these precisions ¿re, I should like to add already here that the qualifications "purely" and "simple" seem to me to go beyond what Maximus would actually agree to. It is not only a lack of distinction on his part, but perhaps a somewhat different view of the problem which prevents him from making that kind of precise distinction.

THE POSITION OF THE AREOPAGITE Since the source material that explicitly expresses V muss understanding of the eucharbt b so limited, hb admitted dependence on thc Areopagite necessanly attract more attention. But could his views supposedly coincide i those of the latter? Detailed analyses by von rklthasar (e cully in Ins study of the Gnostic Centuries) and by Vol (in regard to spiritual development) and others, have a considerable but qualified dependence on **^**¡* «n general. However, one should not conclude * » • " » • £ muVs reference to Ps. Dionysius in the Mjs¡m** has no opinion of hb own. As to the ladcof an cxpucar of the Anaphora, the reason cannot possibly h e w one that this had been treated by the Arewag* ohe** since he does comment on other moments of liturgy of the fact that Ps. Dionysius had already í However, hb reference to Ps. D , 0 " ^ J L t r 3 J e d tfui seriously. It b only if differences can be oa •»florae«, ap. at., p. 117 I

MAN AND THE COSMOS

158

we can conclude that Maximus's c^imon on the enmmumon. for example, b datèrent from that of Ps. Dionysru, But bow then shall we eharacterbc thc Areopagire's own understanding of the eucharbt? Any superficial glance^at leiiattical Hierarchy about the euchar¡« mill cotifirm the suspirion that here the perspective o almost totally "syrnholbtic/" Tills, however, b not in a superficial sense. The purpose of the cucharbt b unification by illumination, but its irutrumentahty b basically of a demonstrative character. Thus all thc parts of the liturgy have in essence thc same function, although there may be differences of degree It is the Church as an iUurninating agent that performs the eucharbt within its own community and vis-a-vb ihe individual believer. Thc communion represents a culraination, but the participation in the body and blood of Jesus Christ as such seemstohave little or no particular relevance. Bomert summarizes correctly that to thc Areopagite the eucharbt is above all a (illuminating) means of union with GodtheOne-M In regard to the moment of communion, certain elements arc particularly notable. First of all, ihe Anaphora itself b called tymbalikc hieratgia and this a precisely the perspective which dominates. The whole act b seen, as it were, from above. Ir is the way in which the hierarch acts that is significant, not the particular presence of Christ, nor thc actualnation of his sacrifice, nor the communion as reception of him. Thc Anamnetn referred to seems to be of thc Lost Supper of Jesus, and the model character of that meal b shown w thc way the gifts are distributed. Thc point of view « certainly that of the Incarnation. But the Incarnation b seen as an act through which the one and single divine nature u ^ P * ? « » ** complex and manifold sphere of the

r f J^r

T' '*>'

IJml,ol m

"

°f '*>< communion lies in

w / ¡ ? ZL'^LFf" *" "MP"«*- Ps. Dionysius himself « n ^ ^ Ä ^ L ^ ^ ^ ' y t h e h i e r a ** rnultiplies the ****' m¿iata

** «""»S to us of the Lord, but its function

"Of <*, p. TL

Symbol and Mystery in St Maxhnnt is primarily clernr»stralive. and «¿y 5ea»darily the COB municating of a v i m mental reality.™ One could, of course, insist that such iltammation hn Ps. Dionysius is sacramental, and correctly so, but dus does no eliminate the fact that it b not the content of the cue gifts that b of main importance to him but rather arative quality of their distribution. On the pan of the o municants, what is added b mostly a moral appeal, imwfad. of course, in the fact that through the distribution the <*«««municants are united among themselves. One b, rf^H-fm«» inclined to agree with Rene Rocques, an outstanding erpeti on Ps. Dionysius, when he underlines that nothing reminds us of tbe body and blood of Christ, and that use "«^ri«tic communion for Ps. Dionysius more relates us to God m Hb unity (though Trinitarian, of course) chao to partidpanao in Christ's humanity.** But if thb b the basic vie« of the Areopagite, we may at least ask ourselves when wc come to Maximus's own texts how far he shares thb view.

COMMUNION" THROUGH THE SCRIPTURES It is Maximus's cc«victioo that the Logos alwari and m all "wants to effect the mystery of His emtodîmeni" Both the Origenist myth and the Dkinysbn vision were miueni to the way in which he conceived thb constant proco incarnation, but hb final and total imderstanding of certainly his own. Thine* belong together theological universe. The key to it b the decrrine tion, the the binding bon, binding formula of which b that of rhe Ounal « Chakedon. b the Chalcedon. It It b the Logos becooimg man in Jesus C u j t j ö Third and final incarnation) that bb the model and and panto third and final incarnation) that the model the whole process of incarnation. This process t ' e whole process of incarriahon. T tcrprctcd m that perspective and fr This fact, however, does not exclude a ; ism between the three bask incarnations: m »Sec De àiet neto, 12; Feet. C' I r*4 AR Omoftmo. S****" "5*» R. Itxùma, teto* it Pt*ao*.Dcit,r. F*n» ISM, P 2 » *•

.

j,

wmàe

MAN AND THE COSMOS

160

» the hgoi of Scripture, and the logos in may. The SSbt-Evagrian double concept of providence and iudg. merTrcuiterprcted and stopped of heresies .nhcrentui die f e r n s t myth, helped Maxunus to demonstrate how the «maure of the cosmos and die economy of salvation belong tocether within a basically antompo^osrrucal perspective of christological dignity. This total system now contains an ^portant element of movement. Cosmologically this may be diacteriied through the double concept of expansion and concentration. ChristologicalJy it is expressed through an equivalent vision of the "becoming thick" and •'becoming thin, which correiponds 10 Chrbt's coming into the world and his return to die Father (though from then on also as man as représenla live of all believers and mankind), In Amb. J3r thb b most clearly linked to thc idea of thc threefold "incarnation," and also to the three general laws of the world: the natural law, the written law. and the law of grace." This shows clearly bow incamational terminology could naturally be used about Scripture. In all three cases the prine of embodiment is the same, although there is a differ. enee of degree and. as it were, historical culmination. This lack of difference in essence on the one hand and difference of degree and development in an economic perspective on the other now seems logically to lead to certain consequences for Maximus's understanding of thc sacraments, particularly of the cucharist. Far on the one hand, there can be a perfect parallelism of terminology in the description of both. On the other hand, there should be a difference of intensity. Let ua very briefly illuUMtc thb. Pint of all, «re have statements by Maximus where communion terminology ii actually used m regard lo the first non-not least to two types of incarnation, and-by I icfer jgam to Quoeit. ad Tfial, 35. where ihe question is about ihe eating of the flesh and blood of the Logo* wiihout crushing his bones. Here Maximus says thai •hen the Logos «v«,ted u, come Into being, lie put down into ihe world the natural hgoi of the "conceptions" of his . "fjfr. Ce. 9L lia» G l J » A.

Symbol and Mystery in St Maximus |t y.

j^

The dbtinction was tl die logos of intelligi things should serve as his blood and the hgoi of sensible dungs as hb flesh. His unbroken bones, however, arc hgoi that concern the insight into divinity. To eat hbflesh.Û ii 10 know the vbihle things, and to drink his blood is to lenow tlie intelligible things." In thb eating, of course, the relationship to scriptural revelation b also implied, even more so since later in the alternative mtctpretatiotis of Quaen ad Thai. 35 the whole process of spiritual developrncri involved. Thus flesh b interpreted as virtue, blood as Imo edge (through theorid) and bones as the mystical union (theohgia). Flesh and blood are also seen as the logo, of judgment and providence (Le. otkommia), while the bones are the hidden logoi of divinity. Another reference to communion terminology is found ,n Quaest. ad Thai. 36, although only indirectly, sir« the mieition dcab with the law of the Israelites to cat the flesl but not to consume the blood of slaughtered animals I il „ ,aid. among other things, th.it Chnst as^enfice is differcut, for he gives blood together »idi the flesh- Thu «said to refer to the relationship between me inner sen* commandments (in Scripture) and the «twarf rwbu of them in praxis Drinking the blood « m take the: ojnman* ments into the mind, and eating the flesh b to put to practice." We have here at thc i j £ « " ¿ t í enee to Ute motif of becoming 'thick and * * • " £ £ the praxis of virtue the ^ * ^ C understanding of the commandments h ^ j ^ thinner;- mo\e spiritual (although virtue and under. in themselves are equally important) Thb now leads to a number of texH» v ^ ^ tion/clevation dynamism b directly n 6ii :, cleats with Scripture. In 2***"*°" hHJdcn in the it is most clearly " P ^ l ™ ' ^ ¡ 1 icn commandment» Likes body '" ^ A l . r u u g b J«** ih rough praxi! and bringing us upwato « ^ ^ cuaieais
MAN AND Tita COSMOS

162

menu, riant which says: "The Lord, thy Cod, tiic Lord b one" A number of texts from tlie Gnostic Centuries could also be quoted." This pertains to the basic difference between a literal reading of Holy Sui|Uircv and a spiri tual/anagogical understanding Dì them. Völker and others have presented us with good summaries. For our own purpose it may be sufficient to refer precisely to the Mystagogia, Chapter 6. which rkpieb Scripture as a man and does it as a clear parallel to the church building, where the liturgy b celebrated. There wc learn that bolli man and Scripture can be said to consist of body, soul, mind, and spirit. The body is understood both as she Old Testament (while tlie New Testament b the rest) and also in the whole of Scripture as that which is letter in a historical sense, while thc meaning and scope of what is written is nul, One may also distinguish between letter as the body and the hidden truth as spirit. Thb shows clearly again ihe anthropotogical/chrbtological perspective of Maximus's vision: When the Logos becomes incarnate ¡n tiic Scriptures, he becomes, as it were, already a man. Thus hb continued life as man on earth in the Church b a parallel to this Scripture (where, I think, the stones of thc building arc like the letters, and what diese stones contain b like Ihe meaning and mind paid spirit of scriptural revelation). In regard to Maximus's parallelism here and to his under•ng of Scripture, there are, however, two more details hat wc need to observe. One is the function of thc terminob ymhoi and mystery, the other b the question whether in Scripture «here are clear indications of differences of degree for M ™ i i ^ £ " l d myi'ef1 w c m u 5 t ** v «> brief. "Symbol" « .s does no, have a special position. It. most cases me^rm « Ä ^ »£ ? ^

^

' ^

* »

1¡kc

*•*" oc "icon." Yet.

° f ** «»«»my <>' ttlvarion "Type" also has

wS i. a¡¡2¡ t,^^árs

». Wt V î o ' ï r f c A " * ' °< 4»' " « AH. 47, II4S 0; SI, u « »;

Symbol and Mystery in St Maximus

^

Völker" points out, b a sign that Maximus adopts the Dir> nysiori perspective of the world. A special problem il represented by the term "icon" and this leads us on to the question of differences of degree. Bomert—who most helpfully tried to work out the parallelism of terminology and L prêtât ion between Scripture and liturgy in Maximus in relation to thc problem of symbolism—claims to have established a decisive difference between "icon'" and "type" m Maximus's understanding of Scripture, "Types" are mostly found in the Old Testament, while the Gospel contains thc icon' of the true things (symbohn here being more an equivalent ta e" ) In Maximus's interpretations of die rites of liturgy, however, "symbol" takes the place of "¡con" There it b tbe symbol that contains the mysteries of our salvation. Bomert presupposes that this shift b due to the rnrhieoce of Ps Dro nysius. This contention may seem a little formalbtic, but some of its implications must be discussed. We shall return later to the question of differences of degree. What particularly interests us here, however tionship between symbol (with its sywnymi) and ' * *™£ Tlie symbol is always to Maximus a TCSSd ,s hidden (and it can as such be seen as an « F » « salvine incarnation of the Logos). > vessel the fur, remains nevertheless o mystery it » «* .„\\Me to mysterion (a divine iruth that is not n a t u r a l r « » « ^ mani that necessitate:, its symbolic « r ^ ^ V ^ „ „ that this mystery be communicated, it must « * * \ h not enough'that the Logos is hidden « « t e . ^ X t S of Scnpture: tbe Logo» Himself must ^ ^ ¿ X ^ revelation. Tins happens trough tr* economy ^ Therefore, there is a difference of degree wir ^ f second and thc third of the three ¡near the Old Testament and thc Gospel, iv Maximus expresses most wonder:;> J l U | . the link between the symbols an ^ur ,fter Apostles out of fear f« ihe J*«* ut ***** »S« furili« R. Bo«««, af. «'• P> ' "

\64

MAN AND THE COSMOS

the death of Christ, butreceivedthe risen Lord in their midst, so b the Logos secretly active behind the doors of the senses, greeting them with thc kiss of peace which b apasbera, breathing Hb spirit upon them and showing them die symbols of Hb own mysteries,'"0 Cbnst tlius must Hirnself open up thc secrets of Scripture and its symbols. They are symbols of His mysteries, and the link between them b made effective only by thc spiritual activity of the Lord Himself. It b the hbtorical Incarnation and its fulfillment in Chrbt's glorification (and then also in the activities of the Spirit in the Church) that mokes the content and reality of the symbols albe. For thb reason Maximus also underlines that Christ b hb awn "type" or hb own farerunr.

Thb leads m some basic considerations of Maximus's use of thc term my lienor,. It is a very widely used term indeed1* -icre is, nevertheless, a basic sense of thb word that b decisive for all the ways it is used, Maximus indicates thb m several places. In Qnaest. ad Thai. 61, hc calb thc incarnation in man (the third incarnation) "the great mystery," In Quaeu. ad Thai. 60. he describes the "mystery of Christ in a most central text and in the Chalcedonian terms of hypoJtaoc union, Qnaest. od ThJ. 6-t. again a central text, depicts the whole of Christianity as "the new mystery." The Incarna non is the center of thb great mystery, and therefore we may alv Maximus) talk of "the whole of the mi tcomom • ¿ÜT f "* ««"d tbb. including its imi tara» tor the Church, as the very center of Maximus's understanding of nrysterr, pertaining both to Scnptore and liturgy. . Y**¡ Î T , r W MJÍÍrry btloag together. It b C 4 c Lord Himself, who through Hb rubrical Incarnation

tó™^^^.^

***** " ^ ¡n the Church and the

and «Tlsewhere» If there is. occordmg to Maximus, an eco-

Symbol and Mystery ht St Maximus

l65

nomically/hbtorically based difference of degree, then this will affect the parallelbm of the symbolism m Scripture and tn the liturgy. As a matter of fact, it b not only logical ihat the difference between the preliminary "type" and the ft: "icon/' which Bomert churned to have discovered in Maximus's scriptural understanding, should have a counterpart in hb interpretation of the liturgy, but precisely that the Gospel proper (and particularly the words spoken by Jesus Himself, before and after Hb resurrection) should have a counterpart of quality m thc epikJelic presence and the communion of the cucharist- 1 do not pretend to be able to prote thb perfect parallelbm in regard to thc degrees of difference, but let us at least look at what b said about thc difference in relation to Scripture, including «orne of the attached problems indicated earlier, and then go on to a morerigorousanalysis of the communion texts proper. What Maximus extinguishes aualiutivdy within Scripture was already indica ted "in corincefion with ihe suggest* of Bomert. But let us see how it a done. Maximus arta» makes the traditional dbtinctions between "literal' grommata) interprctotiems and those acrordihg to me deep sense (iota ¡heorian). He also distinguishes between dittee kbds of "letters," and between our «Utionship m ters" before and after the Incarnatino. The Old Tra b usually considered equal with the Law, and hizxa* emphasizes that God became man in order to fulfill rbe i £ spirits I thereby to destroy ^ *" d U O "^°lr & letters.- On the background of this, the popheziof toe Old Testarne* are of a higher significance than t ^There b thus a basic difference b e t w e e n . d * û £ ^ ¡ £ Testaments (and the quatity of the proffers <sq ^ Test poniting to the truth of thc New ^^¡^«Lr thb does not prevent Maximus from regar the New Dispensation as being mP**r*¡.J*¿J : be Old. NY the Law as »udì . ^ P ^ j ¡ - :1* er "becorning old" through the letter*, « ^ S « çtm^tii. ad Tèmi. SOI • * l à f » * ^ . * * tinJ t,«. Parr Cr. SO. «77 »•

MAN AND Till- COSMOS

166 „v it is ihus impossible to absolutize thc difference fobvlously, primarily because the hgoi of ihe commandmenU i l r e i r ^ n U i n thc Logos). It remains a fact that the U w J a shadow of the Gospel, while the latter is the very ZuKtieon) of the good thingstocome.- Therefore, the sliintoK clotlis of tiic scene of tiic Transfigura tun. represent the rnsnifestations of thc Gospels (which arc "more thin") » What is striking here is that it b "the Gospels" and "the Golpe!" thai arc singled out, not the New Testament OS I Is it not an indication that the bodily 11 ira r nation ot the Logos in the man Jesus is seen ui decisive also for the letters jiid symbols, which are used as vehicles of n higher insight? And in addition to that, it seems self-evident that the very fact that there is available for believers within the Church an Ini prctJtion of higher quality (such as Maximus himself represents through tradition) is due to the presence in the Christian community of Christ Himself through his Spirit. It is thus v.ithin tl« community of die Church, and its tradition of Inlight, that tlie deeper meaning of Scripture cm he cum-

moa ka ted, "GNOSTIC" AND SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION As a fourth question for closer consideration I mentioned the problem, to what extent there is a difference in M .r.mini's understanding between ihe "gnostic" communion with the Logos through Scripture and the sacramental communion with Ihe LogovChmr u »eenis as iftoMaximus the "gnOll communion is only a part of the total possibility of O muniwi. Since the rita practica fot I.un is noi ¡usi a Stage tO be passed (which it might have been to Evagriul), one ml icramcntal communion with Christ rneoni something thai 11 relevani lo tlie whole of man and hi »V ai a Christian, Thus, eucharistie communion should at leait per2 " 5 * '\'at ' * l rote. c. 90. II? Ct ,uoCíd Am ni

•i.75t^riitiV'o:** *

-

*5<* Cap. Uml. II. U, Pit,, cr. M, Ufi A.

*

'"'*

Symbol and Mystery in St Maximus

1 ( j.

tain to all thc levels „tion. Pu he aspect of experience (pena)tobe underlined, £* enee, however, is an ambiguous phenomenon In Maxin understanding ll is only tiirough the experience of < that the experience of Christian believers gets a oc I, .uve importance. Experience M mir experience li one ol pure presence beyond all sensible affection," Thui, when experience is prepared by Qirilt and communicated by ! it is essential to the quality of ihe Christian life" Therefore, the sacramental pietra Cannot be mied out i thc context of en IVnidc ticipation and practical life are parallel, one can never exclude the possibility that even the most sensible experience ol sacraments muy imply a connection wilh Ihe more «ibtle dimension of spiritual progress. Maximus never, ai we bow, reduces the vita practica to being merely a preliminary «age, but keeps ils importance at all stag« of Spiritual pcrfr A special study could quite well be devoted to the function and role of experience in all the stogei nf tlie life of man (experience of blessedness before the fall, experience < realities of fallen life as they present themselvestome semes. . . . . . , , ,, ,. ^ a r b t m t e g a r d t o c ^ m a o d d t s t o i c l experience of the Christian ,"»*l" bilities of life in Him, experiences of mystical union « th God which intellectually and moralb bnng vcalcd qualities of God In taw and Gospel, t ANALYSIS Of Till KEY rSXTS In ordertoget further « ^ttí^i^ctte view of Ihe cucharilt, howler, wc mu« J tiled analyib of those lesti , explicitly t.»'the eucharbt in its aspecommunion

%0w.i,»
t:

'*f7Lk>

riiude «)„ «rxabaUitr él 'I' r"qH*»!'"""* " * Vf manmiâi» ••» ; / * MSX»I« • india Pá Ir CaafotriM. r.. : t,.J.^ odiali* 7. IIWw \Vm

rt



MAN AND THE COSMOS

163 These texts are to my understanding, not more than four. One of them b to be found in the Quaesttones et Dubia and the other three in thc Mystagogia. (Other texts arc only , supplement 10 tins and cannot be proporli interpreted m their n. unless one already lus the lev"to tbefc interprétation gained through an analysis of the four proper texts.) Lei us. then, start with Qu. dub. 41. It is against the background of die interpretation of die Holy Communion to be found in tlie Areopagite that this very short passage gets its interest. For here tlie question is why the number b un. equal in the distr.bution of btead and wine. W c remember to Ps. P n is multipi; i of something united into multiplicity was the symbolic (and also Ihe sacramentally mysterious) point of the Holy :imunion. Dut hen [asomos, the interpretation goes in another direction. Thc uncvenness of bread and chalice b said to point to the Divinity itself as being a single and noncomposite Trinity." Thus, to Maximus. thc symibolic qu.i oí the distribution of the if thc cucharist b not i -5 in Ps. Dionysius (where God distributes his gifts to "the nun ration) but illuminative of God ¿Self, in that it points to the mystery of thc Trinity (being one and three at the same time). Thb indicates that to Maxxnus trie eucharbt, and the Holy Communi IMI particularly is Linked to the communion with the God-Three-in-Our not only, as in Ps. Dionysius, to the Dorine One-ncss log itself communicatively to multiple creation thanks to the Incarnation. If to Ps. Dionysius the Communion refers to the ilescent {katabasit) of the Divinity only I it also refers to the ascent (anabasii) m that it points to die Trinielf of Onc-oessin Multiplicity (< ally red) It points to the fact thai a certain multiplicity U the d'.vine essence. Thc text wc h j ve now discussed may. of course, be babied, but a closer I ,f t h c t^^e texts (from thc .-en» to confirm the tendency. They loo link the .uc communion with 4eiu. *Sm Pat Gt. M, 120 A.

Symbol and Mystery in St Maxhnut

.^

A ten al study of these texu, together whh the one just discussed, indicates ce. ^ ^ denccs. birst of all, thc discipline of silence, v. ^m feels obliged to, implies that Maximus takes bs ituung point at the al moment imnv mutnon (the later moments are there indicated by the words, "and what follows"). Thus, we must not hesitate to look very carefully at what he says about thc whole context since it also pertains to "v. he eleme: communion are called "symbols'1 i nd these symbola arc directly related to what is oonxmuikatBd as cria." lo Qu. Dub, 41. the bread and tbe chah further called "representations" (apetkanlsmato) of thedmoe essence.*4 In Z4, the content of »hat is cammunU'Jted b called mytterion, even 'rrryxteries and archetypes."" Thus a connection ts established betueeu tbe symbolical representations and the • In My ; 21, Maximus affirms that the cornrnuakatk» krto itself and (me i ol ihe myster demonstrates those who take part properly as btconmg-^ ce and partidpation-sm * good Can* is nothing is ig in the divine presence wan We can see already here, then, that eAidvansoc oaoinuruc b by Maximus related to the fulfillment of si to rnaris deificata Tlie leitwnolpgr of « * " * * * £ formation (met, I b not used about the ctaet* ** about the believers, Thus, the *«™?™^¿£ cucharbt. which to Ps, Dionysius was linked to « ^ ^ tion, b in Maximus transferred to the recrmn ^ ^ : of the gifts. The presence ( £ £ « related to thb eôed presence i filled becau rrionstrated in the rear«« i their demotion. ^ ^ ^ _ ^ 4* Tlib ^ M ^ ¿ ^ L T r h r cam.ugogia. to «Oiapn™* ^ •| B «?. I>r* 41. : ,,r

U

T Ä L *

„ „ the nw - M** H . « Tl

*s«* p ,

ran A

***t <M, « 7 A , Í O * D » l T Í "SttlMi,«!

, .

MAN AND Till: COSMOS

170

muriion tlie participation in the mysteries as having the Z i r t o elicci the fellowship (koinonla) and identity (tautótes) that ore rcalbcd through thc likeness (bomoiótet) i e to God, a likeness through which man b made worthy to lîccome God.»T This is to say that Maximus here •ci th.it the eucharistie communion makes men, if they take part in it in a worthy way, into people who can receive the grace of deification, thanks to tlicir established likeness id. This b again somethüig different from what we found in Ps. Dionysius, The sacrament has not only it demonve and appealing qu.ility // it effective as the caute of thjt wkh A J. r'rr final purport, deification. The effect b even further developed at the end of the same chapter, In thai it |j laid there that Christ transforms us by conveying to us the i ries contained in the sensible symbfdi and archetypes ' Thus we sec that in the sacrament Christ Him* .1 Adire according to Maximus, again a motif absent m the interpretations of the Areopagite. Finally, in the epilogue of tire Mystagogia, Maximus again refers to thc communion, Hc affirms that it demonstrates the application of our ''sousbip" with God (already established through baptism, as wc know from Maximus's more ex pi it til ol ih.it S.HI.UI!m i .ind our union, affinity, and likeness (homoióletV and deification (tlteÔsit), through which Cod may be one in all.* Thus, wc sec- thftl Maximus, through his ...re-ful and humble indications in the margin of lib elucidations of other moments of the liturgy in proximity to the act ui r»ion. is able to develop a true theology ucluriitic enmmunion definitely linked to deification (the Ittaate stage ol , , , , . , rnhrcly dependent on divine grace) In its approach it is surprisingly different from « the Areopagite, although it is to him that he refers throughout his Myttagoi

"lUd.. 7M D. *m,ì TO» A. "IW,; 7D9 C

Symbol and Mystery in St Maxhmti THE QUESTION OP THE "WORTHY" RECEIVER I „ii. we have only one of tiic cations left out of those that were indicated before: to what extent in Maxuims's understanding of eucharistie cornu , the principie of analogy implied, so that what is given b measured alter the capacity of the receiver to receive? My presupposition b that ordmg to a "realista understanding of the cucharist a distinction must be made between an objective tive factor, i.e. between tlie obfcctivc presence of the fullness of Christ in the eucharistie elements and tlie subjectively determined mode of reception of the receiver. For a "symbolistic " understanding tins problem presents itself otherwise, From thc texts of Maximus wc have analyzed it seems deis that the principle of analogy is involved, Now, the formula of that principle in Maximus it ihe famous tantum quantum formula, und its most expressive representation in Amb. 10. There it is clearly based ihe distinctive presupposition of .Maximus that God and man are exemplars (patadeigmata) of one another. This ¡ means that thc dcii * dépend carnation of tiic Logos, but also that the degree of flcshmciit in man is dccbive for the degree of oYincsl of man.*« Wh.ii Maximus speaks about in the gogia is a dec.siM' tikenes *£ acta of this likeness is not quite clear. Is tl likeness to us, inherent in tlie bodily form o f £ < * « or ii it n produced likeness in n live io the divine gifts of the sacrament In A >>'• " - « £ mus clearly talks »bout a divine »shori. f ^ receivers into itself (i.e. to likeness unto itself) and thro ,! partidpation slums ihow who ^ » g c ï s , as similar (hamohi) to t! «I fli.it worthiness is not precisely define! s-iid tli.it community and identity */*J*2¡3J |¿kencv nets without further clarification of wne« **falr. Ce. »I. HIS BC

MAN AND THE COSMOS

172

But in the epilogue of thc Mystagogia the central text says that the participation (i.e. communion) makes dear our jonship, union, and affinity as well as our divine likeness and deification because of thc goodness of God. In a passage of Myst. 25, likewise, tiie forthecrming communion seems to be referred to as the reception by grace into sonsbip through similarity.*4 Thus I feel entitled to conclude that the likeness which b referred to here b in the first place that of tiie sacrament to the divine reality, and secondarily that of the receiver in relation to what is received, thanks to hb degree of receptiveness. If that b correct, what Maximus wants to say b that the incamational likeness of the sacrament receives the responsive likeness of the communicant into itself and transforms it into the likeness of human deification. Tlie famous distinction of the Areopagite in the Coel. Hierarchia II between similar and dissimilar symbols13 might have bad on influence on Maximus at thb point. Dut then the difference between certain scriptural symbols and those e sacrament must be such that if dissimilar symbols in the Scripture can be more helpful, since they remind us of thc incomprehensibility of God, nevertheless (and that is Masi mus's own evaluation) the incamational similarity of thc symbols of eucharistie presence and communion are effective m establishing that similarity of man with God, which is the real.iatmr» of hb character as imago Dei. Thus, through communion man, who worthily demonstrates by virtuous preparation his receptivencss, is brought by grace through the c h 2where 2 Pdeification Ä thf ,s**>!"" f ™*>' '&**-* realized.

witZLn™T ' *,0u*h * " * oualitÎM -.»ri J--C

T

d that

¡n

development

* e perfect likeness

fi«» beyond lus natural

Sun s« ot iE ATOP«?,, T r n f™ o f M™'™a <"hcr

- h ,te „«^Ä ¿( Ä Ä Ä Ä 41

J>att Cr. 91, 701 B.

* * » Patr, Cr. J. 140 Cl41 A.

Symbol and Mystery ht St Maxmui an incarnational / ^ p e c t i v e , where the elevation of man ,s the direct fruit of the descent of the Logos, of his -becoming thick, in successive stages of the economy of divine salvation Maximus deals in hb Mystagogia, first of all, with the effect of the eucharistie communion, i.e. with the subje«and receiving side of it (possibly on account of his position i as ,i layman). Hc presupposes abo an objective and effective side of Christ's own action (of established similarity with the divine/human reality of the incarnate Logos) as the neecssary cause of the fruits of communion It is m regard to I side that he keeps the "discipline of silence," Maximus thus definitely indicates a proper theology of the eucharbt, and it dues not at all necessarily coincide with that of ihe Arc although hc depends on the btter's way of presentation. Thb is clearly in accord with hb own incamational vision, where the movements of descent and ascent ürc En a constant dialectical relationship. The Origcnbt monism and a Dionysian modified Ncoplatonism are radically transcended. It remains to be demonstrated what his other auth on thc matter, tlie mysterious "Old Man" (probably Sophronius) , ¡n fact contributed to thb eucharistie theology.

Bibliography 'Die complete works in Greek are to be found in J P Mignc Patrologia Gratta, vol« yo-Ui, Parli 136). ai Tbalatuam I-LV tot edittd in C Laa>C < onffilarti Qt. ad Tbataitiam I, Qioutwnei SI uMiiìonet IV, una tum latina inltrprriationt ¡eonrtii Stufíao ErwjiMr hxia polita, Leuven Univcniiy Pre», Ttunhoul-Onpol», 19S0.

Tramiaih BugUtè Mjx.mu» the Confessor. The tittetk Ufe. The fem Ce**«** on Charily. Tnnsuted imi Annotile«! by Myoup » ™ * j I, S.T.D 'nie Newnu« Pre». Wolrmntícr, M«yUnd usi Longmm», Green and Co., London, l' Translation! ini" Premè: Suini Muimc Ir ConfWr, U Myttete i* Send. Tn*jW et pteret.1.-. par A.terio. Ar». rlt^ML ...¿.Dalsasn ni« Sol« l e j j N Màxime le Coni««... tatto ^ ^ « ' /¿¿T cloriti in U Vie Spirituelle 79 (19«), IT **•>«• irne le Conferir. Centuries rìdn,.,:, de rAbbile, I W

Afe»«*, «*»<•»

un¿Oc*-J^"^

|K

"'• ^^ZéeOrui

Prière de Notre Pire (Mi ? JZkm, U Alun Rum, U m**Jt et l'esine »10* mm . ^

ivr»,..i,»«,P.

P«.*IW.PP-«*î»ï£7:Ihiahele el titonvmu Jam U i*** *» I • Minime le Conia»

P * £ iE

Taftr*,« Jr JVtj*** ia <**'• ^ "*"*

,^ le ,„ ¡j

176

fiibli

NAN AM

jf Dum ei t$m imparlance twin ¡aim Maxime I* CfifeJieue, I pp. U.V.

I1 "iibcme. I

to ¡amitta par

'*

i

i |B u-ll

\hraitlou*i I . •'

H K I I

I I .

Tt*wlawmj into German: Einleitung w" v,uUr iv

de uint Mattate l<

Hm ,s llla

* < Johannes Vcrl«^ i i ueueln

i

M. M Ad brkruncr. Dir Ml .; •'• Ill I In« III« vi Pallhat-i •••'»"** Utnrgti D * mtttbtU Maxmui Jtt

B,, 1 ruledeln, 1961, pp l 107, r*krm£ borniert Sprich ibe, i I0S4I1 ami Cenlurhu (wilh tonimenU) «» W , |'l'

p,,,:,';,,,, s l, phduu [uao Miguel Garrigue«, 0 I r /IM« Je rbtmmt, IW ,- l l j i i U . r i i .

s I . P*

rSvtri^ i*re* nr-m» AU«.»»» '' C

I.ITLRATURB Hans Uit «w Bâlliuur. K*>«»¿»'6# Hi " »*''* *' *>j 0,1 Zweilc, volli« verandcne Auíligi I I nne* \c: In 19*1. Rene Bomert. t*j Ccmmiaiém fíyzouiint de ta Divin* liturgie do VU« ao Xl'e

«n (1991), ;

iplrlrusll« «U- i. Mulm* 1« » '•" La Vil tpirHtUÜt s»f>¡
i - »Un Ine itcetkiuc «le « Murhiw I» < : bei larstfou," In Irenibo* 36 (191*)< 11' ' " U n trait! dtlheolDglecofilernpIaii-

.l.i Pater Niiiln laut

teneur,

ti de

Pilix Urinier, CenVJ Sebo ali Meni CbriMt ht .il.UM*. Ceofraar. VWn

de »

Minutie

i i ,,,.l •• I fr*/.'»' Arm •>* 19*3

Vu

-Ma rumarne 4e

Vla.l,

M9

I,

Janin i l*ik- fc Co, I

_. ^

lohn Meyen ,

e« w

,n

r",vMn,

Jtf*«Mr

rail » HS V lad mue I'

M ..

• 1»,

-*''

"«* *

•net «ligwuw d»

I

i iBlhnpologle injrlruella de aalnl Munirne

' "*>»'•t,'

omet eu Uwiïie ¡

le Confr***»»."

Miiu.j.

S. " •

SwLttcrland 1910.

ut 1966.

Udon da I* liturgia ci Interpretation •'• ' •• " u,,e ehea Mai n Studi* I'M,mu a 10, Akademie Verlag, B rlin 197Ó pp »3 P. Canari i i leuxlema lettre a Thomas d .Unirne le • fersent," inéynmiinm M (1964), . 149 ui d t Itene» Henri l UUnia, O.P., "S. Maxime If • la Chanre." m IJ, Vk Spirituell« 1948, pp. 296 I des créature* chea l M 'Ta «Moris i> i le Cnnfewiii. in I Mlwl Tbiolestaoti

Analects i I7J rVanrt IwtlWnini 1932,

V

*'*%

i/I.HrtM»

^

178

MAN AND THfl COSMOS

Qrijwph roa ScWSnbotn, O.P.. Sopbrane de Jérusalem. Vi, monas. ^iJne ti (vnffssion dogmatisme, Editions universitaries, Fribour* Switzerland 1976. Alain Riew. O.P.. U monde et r église »Ion Maxime le Confessor, Editions Bewchewe, Pani 1972. L'tfont do Cbriit. Fondement! ¡biologiques élaborés ' f7ire~le Ite et te He Concile de Hide (325-787), Édition* Universitaire», Fribourg. Switzerland 1976. Poljarp Sherwood. O.S.B.. Date-Lilt of the Works of Maximxt the Confessor. Studia Aruelmuoa 30, Herder, Rome 1952. Tbe Earlier Ambigua of St. Máximos tbe Confeisor. Studia Anselmiana 36, Herder, Rome 1955. '.l«r«wra tbe Confettar; Tbe Aicetic Lift. Centanet ou Charly. Translated and Annotated. Ancient Christian Writers 21, The Newman Presa, Westminster. Maryland 1955. , "Survey of Recent Work on St. Maximus the Confessor," (» Traditio 20 (1964), pp. 428-4)7. Rene Roques, L'anirers Dionysirn. Stroctttre hiérarchique dm monde lehn It Pifodo-DrttjJ, Aubier, Paris 1954. Tbhleiie de U rit menattiame, Aubier. Paris 1961. Lan Thuricrg. Microcosm and Mediator. The Theological Anthropology of Maximo! lbf Confesior. (Act* Seminarti Neotcsamentici Upsalicnsis XXV.) CWJC Gleenip. Lund end Einar Munlcsgaard, Copenhagen 1965. Walther Völker. Kontemplativ* und Ekstase bei Ptemdo-Dionytios Areepapu, Fnm Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden 1958. Maàmai Confessor ah Meittor dei geistlichem Lohns. Farn Steiner Verlag. Wiesbaden 1965

Index Aagoard. A. M., 150 Adam, 59-60,68 Adumbrations of the Trinity in Creation. 4445 Alkhin, A . M . . 9 Allegorical inìcrpreuiioo of the Scriptures. 21. 23 Analogia entis, 137 Amstasius, disciple of Maaimm, 17-13. 20 Angelic life, 85 Angel*, 85-87

Aparattaxia, 7p Apatheia, 68, 98-J0O,128,164 Arisiocle; 141-142 Ascension of Chrbt, 85-89,109, 119 An cmion of ihe soul, 85-90 Athanasius, 1)4 Augurine. 35, -17. 10), 1)4 Autareikeia, 96 Balthasar. Hins Uri von. 19, 23, 35. 43. 60.72,1!3.144. 13215 Baptism, 64, 81, 109. 157.170 Beatitude, 60. 6J-65. 77 Becoming— motion—tbnr. Beginning— mtcimediary—end, 105 B«m»^«veü.beiní»-««rer «veU-beiftg. 46-47, « Being-Wisdom-Life, 46 Bomert. R., 115. 13M5B, 163,165 Canari, P, 37 Cappadocian Father». 35. 38, 73,1^1 Carthage, city of, t8.113 , . , - u 16. 1S> 61. 64. fr Cnalcedon, Council and docmne of, 8. I H . »6, W. •'« iy9 78.89. III. 117.154-35, ! Chardin. P. Teilhard de, 137. 147 „ .« M Charity, 22-24, 29, 39-40. 33-35, 67-68. 89.93.95-»» Christology, 6J-69.90-91. 132-133,135 Chunk, 116-129. 166

MAN AND Til t flOSMQS

Palmáis, hH.. O.P.. : 2.144 Diniélou, J., S.J., 132 DelBcation/divrriaatiori, ß-9. 54, 58-39. 62-65, 115, M6-148, ! 168.170, r : Diadochus of Podice. 22,61 Divine Liturgy. 48, 75, U r>U9, 122-123.126-127. 129. 149-J7J Dyothelrtisni, 15, 19-20 EodeskJogy, 113-125 Economy of salvation. 40-43. 76,160 l ttacjr, 107,127,129,143*147 Vati, 29 Emhc>dimcnt/incarnation, 62. 65, 73-79, 108-Ito, 134. 147. 160, 162, 173 Energies, orrbe riatti, 145

Eril, 57. 66-67

Expaitaton-coniTacticKi, 160 E»perience {pena), \6y Faith, ¡04-103, 109, IJJ hli.^r. Ü

-*•H

Habitus, problem of, 33. 63, 65. 101-102,142 f Hausherr, J , S.J., 91. Ml Heuer, P., 40, 42, 94 Helena, Empress, 14 Hcrachus, emperor, 14-15, 18 Hull. K.irl 38 Hope, 105. it, 16, 119-120 Hypostatic union, 62,64. 7H identity." 72, 143 Ignorancc-self-love—tyranny, 57 linoeo Trinttatis, 46-48 lm.ige of God in nun, 46-48. 57.61-62, 63. 76,90 Im.igc and likeness, distinction between, 47, 53, 35,61,63 Imitation of God in Chril». 66-68,84.99-100,117 Imitation of ihe Trinity, lo , « « , Djc , m Incarnation. 8, 41-12. 34-56. 39. 63-67. 72, 74, 76. 7880, 96, U t , 143, 153-134.158-139.163466 Itcriicus of Lyon, 55, 60 Islam. 13 John IV, Pope, 16 John Ihe aumberlain. 18,96 John of Damascus, 59 Justinian I, Emperor, 12-13, 14,60

Epbhumia, 82 -»¿ape. 102 Eschaioîogy, 143, 144-149 k* 1 »35,149-m E«chart«ic imiifüirrutioo, 135-136, 169 Eudiraie», monasiery of, 18 Eunomiu«, 141 M

97 10lt 10,f I05, l 0 7 i

'

KiiigJutn of Cud, I ul Knowledge. 41,68,104 ... u in,.a7 Knowledge of God, 41, 69. Tt. 88,104. 106407. H1 Lorn ;56 Leofitius of Byzantium, 58 K:hcl. P.M., 20,65

Likeness lo clic angels, 87-88 Likeness to G«!, 46-47, 34-53, 61^62,170 1 Logoi of Commandments. 109.166

:, ire, 7 3-76, / Ï9-/6Ä , j 0 > l y .J 24, I 84. 86. H». H«.

i>ga/ofi Gnome. 91, it,,,

IS]

"Gnomic emigration," 146-147 Gnosis, 41, 48, 97.101, 104. 107. H I M m, 125.133 Gregory • 45,106 Gregory of Nyssa. 19, 34, 81. 83,89.145 Gregory Paiani.i«. 132, Jt7-J4J

unity of, 27 Commaoicatio idittmatom, n o Communion, 1354 36, > J V-' 7 J Confessor. Maximus as, 22-23,28 Constans. emperor. 16 Constantinopk 9. 13, 20, 20-26 Constantinople. Councils of, 13. 20, i l l Cosmic days, 63 Cyrus, patriarch, 15.20 Cyziais, monastery of St. George at, 18 QKCKK

Í K i4TticUi'liM9,2l*22,

Index

. S4.8W3.V3.95.»»

MAN AND THE COSMOS

182 Lossk7.V.,139 Luther, M-,1^

Macarra* the Great, 22 MtiranlbropO!, tA, \22 „ , „ _ _ „ - , , , Man aa rakrocojm, 8.73-74,80,97, 118.122 . Man as mediator. 8r 73-74, 77-79.80-91.122-129 Man «oman relationship, 81-82,90 Martin 1, pope. 16. 20 Maniac. Empress, 15 M'annuii, biographical adi of, 17 Metz, J. B-, 147 Mcyendofi, J., 33.137-138,150451 Miaod. P.. 167 Mode of existence, 38.54,85,116 Molinunn, J., 147 Moonric life, 22-23. 2' Monoenergetic formula, 13,20 MûDorheJetism, S, 14,16,18-19, 21, 23-24, 26-27. 71.142 Meltemi, LS Motion, 31-52. 56.45.7?. 135.137.160 MfiitrtoK, « J , 16:. 16-1, 169470 Mystical (ysraeal experience, experience, ii i, '<.i 1,i l,65. 65.68,89.127-128 68,89. 127-128 Mntiriiai/mirsijcil union. 62-64. JUUftO O' •im/mystical union, 62-64, 77 77, 88-89. 93, 104, 106-1 OT. J4414$

*

Paptl primacy, 25-27 Use, 56, 83-8Í, 90 ¡ 5 " J - A R - W . B 2 , n 101.103.124 laid, the Aposüe, 13.82.91,117,122 Haul 11, futxuich of Constantinople 16 Perkboetiit.W Persians, 1;

45

'

4 M

Peter ihr Illustrious, 25 -, patriarch of Constantinople, 20 PbiLmtropio, 33.42, 66-67, 89.146 PhlUipkui, monastery of, 18 Philo. 132-133 ». 93 Pleasure and pain. 56-58,82-83 Providence and judgment.-I'.134-135,160 Piepbos. ptriarehal dneurncr«, 13-16.19 Ps. Dionvsius the Areopagite, 15, 18, 22, 32. 35, 43-44, 46, 64 106, It5, 127. 134. 159-140, 159. 16*170, I72r Psychology, 123-12) Pure prayer, 103 Pyrrhus, patriarch of Constantinople, 1546, 27 Reciprocal attribution. 110 Reciprocity between God and man, 9, 40, 53-33. 62-66. 69. 2. 108. 110, KO. 122. 142-143, 116. Régnoci de, Théodore, 33 , . . . « , Rio«, A., O.P.. J8-39. 42. 44. 75. 123. 12Î-126. 128, 139-14Rocquö, R, t59 Rome, 9. 13 14,16,2« Rome, Bishop ot see of, 2 r

sawiÄftA^«**«

Omar ihe Caliph, 13 Ongen, 35. 37, 61.74,83,133-134 *

163

Sabbath, 63. 128 f Sacramenta. 126-127 Sassanids, dynasty cu SchöobomtChr.,O.P.. Ser4oture.21.74.76 155,160166 Self-love. 56-5B.94-97 . Sergius. patriarch of Constantinople 14.1?. 1»

Nature of man, 93.97 Negaim theology, J4-35, 43-44, 46, 68,88 Ncnsesun of Nemeaa, ?i. 80 Neopbiortisro, 32. 34. 36.46, 32.141-142, 173 N'estoruns.13 Notami», 1J Nitaea, Council of. j j Nihaof Ancyta.22

lVU42!î£lto ^

Index

*

M

' *'

W

'

l0y

Smfuíness of «an. 35-57. 60.64. 67 69. : $ * » J Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem. 13, 1«, 73-74. ll«\ Sotetiology, 5 /-69 Steitz, G. E, 156 Srudef. B , O .SB

,1/4.117 14S

Symbolism. U5.119-121.126-12,. 136-137, 1 « . Stmbaten, 162. 164,169*170 Symenn the New iTi*»logi*r> "Synergu!

184

MAN ANO THK C05M05

Ta^om-tfuantun, formula, IT 1-172 Ttulaniais, 22 Theandric energy. 15 Tlieandricmysiry. 15. 32-53. 33. 69, 71-91 Theodora, empress, 12 Théodore, rwpe, 1 ó Theodor* the Studile, 150 Tneodosius, bishop. 20 Tbeologia, 42-43.77 Thomas, abbot, 36-37 Thomas Aquím», 117 Tbamdi. 82 Thnnherg.L,7.0.'. 98,100,107,109,144 Tramfiguration of Christ, 76,166 Triads, 52, 35, 13-45.46-47.105 Trichotomy of the human soul, 37,94,96, 102.133 ¡y. dcctruieof,J148.77-78,14> TjpM, imperial statement, 16 Ubitruity, 135 Vico. 58-39.93-95,96-101

r.nu» of Pettau, 33 Viller, M. 60 Virtue», 61, 63, 78, B3-84, 86, 93. 95. 97-10J, 102, 109-111, 124147 :rmpiotha,S\ 97,124 ViUprattica, 8486,97-98.102,109-110, 124425,136. 166 Völker. W.,40,93.102.107.144, 151.156-137. 162-164 Xraiteia, 23 35oromnianKl3 Zwingli,H..131