Following the fathers:

Introducing doctrinal definitions with phrases similar to “following the Holy Fathers” was common in the ancient Church. The Assembly of Chalcedon began its decisions with these words. The Seventh Ecumenical Council began its decision regarding holy icons in an expanded manner, saying: “IWe follow the teaching of the Holy Fathers inspired by God and we follow the tradition of the universal Church“. The teaching (didaskalia) of the fathers is the typical and official reference.

But this was more than an “application to antiquity,” because the Church had emphasized from the beginning the permanence and continuity of its faith throughout the ages. This unity, since the days of the Apostles, was a clear indication and indication of the true faith. But “antiquity” in itself was not sufficient proof of true faith. Rather, the Christian message was the influential “newness” in the “ancient world” and the call for radical renewal. The old has passed away and everything has become new. As for heresies, they were also able to appeal to the past and cite the authority of some “traditions.” In fact, it often clings to the past (1)Old formulas are often dangerously misleading. It suffices to quote this important passage from the works of Saint Candius of Lyrics, who was fully aware of this danger: “And now, what an amazing reversal of the situation! Those with one opinion were considered upright, while their followers were considered heretics? The leaders were forgiven, but the disciples were condemned? The authors of the books will be children of the kingdom, but their followers will go to hell” (commonitorium, cap. 6). There is no doubt that Candius thought about what happened between Saint Cyprian and the Donatists, and Saint Cyprian had faced the same situation and said: “Ancientity in itself may be a great harm” (Letter 74), meaning that “old customs” in and of themselves do not guarantee the truth. What is usually the truth?

The true tradition is the “tradition of truth” (traditio veritatis), which, according to Saint Irenaeus, is based on the “certain gift of truth” (charisma veritatis certum) that was “deposited” in the Church from the beginning and preserved by an uninterrupted succession of bishops. What “tradition” in the Church is a continuation of human memory, customs and rituals because it is a living tradition and a “living deposit” (depositum juvenescens), as St. Irenaeus said. Therefore, we cannot include him “among the mortal laws” (inter mortuas regulas). It is a continuation of the presence of the Holy Spirit residing in the church and a continuation of divine guidance and divine illumination. The Church is not bound by the “letter,” because it is always moved by the Spirit. The same Spirit, that is, the Spirit of truth, who “spoke through the prophets” and guided the apostles, continues to lead the church to a fuller understanding of the divine truth, leading it from glory to glory.

It is not the phrase “Following the holy fathers“A reference to an abstract tradition with formulas and assumptions. Rather, it is first and foremost an appeal to saintly witnesses. We turn to the apostles, not to an abstract “apostolicity.” We return to the Fathers in a similar way, because their testimony belongs organically to the structure of the Orthodox faith. The Church was entrusted with the Good News (Kerygma) of the Apostles and the Doctrine (Dogma) of the Fathers at the same time. We can quote here a wonderful ancient hymn (perhaps it is from the pen of Saint Romanus the Psalmist) that says: “And because the Church preserves the gospel of the Apostles and the doctrines of the Fathers, it seals the one faith, and because it wears the robe of truth and the cloth woven in heavenly divinity, it rightly praises the great mystery of piety.” (2)

Parents thought:

The Church is “apostolic,” of course, but it is also patristic. It is essentially the “Church of the Fathers.” We cannot separate these two “characteristics,” and because it is “patristic,” it is truly “apostolic.” The testimony of the fathers is more than a historical feature and more than a voice from the past. Let us quote here another hymn from the service of the Three Moons (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and John Chrysostom): “With the word of knowledge you synthesized the doctrines that the fishermen had previously formulated with simple words through knowledge from the power of the spirit, so that simple mastery was acquired by this combination.” There are two basic stages in proclaiming the Christian faith. “Our simple faith had to acquire structure.” In the transition from gospel (kerzgma) to doctrine (dogma) there was an internal motive, an internal logic, and an implicit necessity. The truth is that the teaching of the Fathers and the doctrine of the Church are still the same “simple message” that was delivered and deposited by the Apostles once and for all. But now they are interconnected with complete consistency and regularity. The apostolic gospel is not only preserved in the church, but it is alive in it. In this sense, the teaching of the fathers is a permanent criterion for Christian existence and a stable and sublime standard for true faith. The fathers are not only witnesses to the ancient faith (testes antiquitatis), but they are witnesses to the true faith (testes veritatis). “The Thought of the Fathers” is a true reference for Orthodox theology, no less important than the word of the Bible and never separate from it. As someone rightly said: “The universal Church in all ages is not only a daughter of the Church of the Fathers, but rather it is the Church of the Fathers and will remain so.” (3)

The existential character in patristic theology:

The “existential” character was a distinctive feature of patristic theology, if we may use this modern expression in relation to them. As Saint Gregory of Nazianzus said, the fathers spoke theologically “in the manner of the fishermen (the apostles), not in the manner of Aristotle” (Sermon 23, 12). Their theology remained “good news” (kerygma), even though it was arranged in a logical order and equipped with rational proofs, because their final reference was the vision of faith, spiritual knowledge, and experience. Theology does not carry conviction outside of life in Christ, but if it is separated from the life of faith, it turns into an empty dialectic and a lot of empty talk (polyogia) that has no spiritual value. Patristic theology was existentially rooted in a commitment to faith, without being a self-explanatory “system” that presented a demonstrative and dialectical presentation, i.e. an aristotelikos, without any prior spiritual commitment. The great Cappadocian Fathers protested against the use of dialectics based on Aristotelian standards, in their era, which was characterized by theological dispute and constant debates, and they tried to return theology to the vision of faith. We are able to “preach” patristic theology only from the pulpit, “proclaim” it in the words of prayer and sacred services, and show it in the structure of Christian life. This theology can never be separated from the life of prayer and the practice of virtue. “The pinnacle of purity is essentially divinity,” in the words of John the Ladder (Ladder, Degree 30).

This theology, on the other hand, is “preparatory education,” because its ultimate goal is to recognize the mystery of the living God and bear witness to Him in word and deed. “Theology” is not an end in itself, but rather it is always a method, because it provides - as well as “dogmas” - only an “intellectual framework” for the revealed truth, and a “noetic” testimony to it. Only by faith is this “frame” filled with content. The Christological formulas take on their full meaning only for those who have encountered the living Christ, recognized Him as Lord and Savior, and reside in Him by faith and in His body, which is the Church. In this sense, theology is not a self-explanatory system, because it is a constant appeal to the vision of faith: “We announce to you what we have seen and heard.” Outside of this declaration, the theological formulas remain empty and unimportant. Therefore, we will not take it “abstractly,” that is, outside the framework of faith. We would be wrong if we cut the patristic texts completely and separate them from the perspective in which they were placed. This is similar to the error of using verses from the Bible after removing them from their context. Therefore, the habit of “quoting” the fathers’ sayings and phrases remains dangerous if we isolate them from the environment in which they take on their true meaning and become full of life. “Following the fathers” does not only mean “quoting” their sayings and citing them, but rather it means following their “thought” and reason (phronema).

Meaning of the “age” of the fathers:

Now, we have reached the crucial point. The name “Church Fathers” is usually limited to Teachers of the ancient churchSome assume that their authority is based on their “antiquity” and their relative proximity to the “first church,” that is, to the “age” of the first church. But Saint Jerome had previously denied this idea. We do not find a contradiction in “authority” nor a contradiction in spiritual qualifications and knowledge throughout Christian history. This idea of “contradiction” influenced our modern theological thinking. Therefore, we often assume, consciously or unconsciously, that the early church was closer to the source of truth. This assumption is useful and correct as an acknowledgment of our failure and inability and as a humble self-criticism. but Make it a starting point or base for “theology of church history” Or even the theology of the church remains dangerous. In fact, the Age of the Apostles should retain its unique place, but it is only a beginning. People have often assumed that the “Age of the Fathers” has ended, and so they view it as an old, “outdated” and “dead” entity. Each one tried to set limits for himself. People were accustomed to consider John of Damascus as the “last” father in the East, and to consider Gregory of Dhalogur (the Interlocutor) or Isidorus of Seville as the “last” father in the West. But some began to reject this chronological classification. Should we not include, for example, Saint Theodore, head of the Studium Monastery, among the “Fathers”? Mabillon suggested that Bernard of Clairvaux, the “soft-spoken” teacher, was “the last of the fathers and equal to the oldest.”

In fact, the issue goes beyond the classification of temporal roles. From the West’s point of view, the “age of teachers” replaced the “age of parents,” and this development was considered a step forward. Since the emergence of scholasticism, “patristic theology” has been considered outdated and belongs to ancient times, as if it were an ancient musical introduction. But this point of view, legitimate in the West, was accepted, unfortunately, by many in the East blindly and uncritically. One must then face the choice of whether to lament the “backwardness” of the East, which has shown no “scholasticism” of its own, or to retreat back to “antiquity” in an almost archaeological manner and practice what some have brilliantly described as “theology of repetition.” This theology is nothing but a special form of imitative scholasticism. (4)

Today it is often said that the “Age of the Fathers” may have ended long before Saint John of Damascus. The individual often stops at the era of Justinian or at the Council of Chalcedon. Isn’t Leondus of Byzantium considered “the first of the Scholastics”? This position is understood from a psychological point of view, but it cannot be justified theologically. In fact, the fathers of the fourth century were more influential than others, and their unique greatness is undeniable, but the church remained alive after the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon. The overemphasis on the “first five centuries” seriously distorts the theological vision and prevents a correct understanding of the Chalcedonian doctrine itself. People often view the decisions of the Sixth Ecumenical Council as if they were an appendix to the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, of interest only to theologians. Likewise, the figure of Maximus the Confessor was almost neglected in the Church. The theological significance of the Seventh Ecumenical Council is thus obscured to the point that one wonders: Why should “Sunday of Orthodoxy” be associated with the commemoration of the Church’s victory over the iconoclasts? Wasn't this just a weather dispute? We often forget that the famous formula regarding the “Agreement of the First Five Centuries,” that is, until the Council of Chalcedon, was a Protestant formula that reflects a Protestant theology of history. It is a restrictive formula, although it appears comprehensive to those who want to be satisfied with the apostolic era. The popular Eastern formula of the “Seven Ecumenical Councils” would not be much better if it tended to limit the spiritual authority of the Church within the first eight centuries, and this is what it usually does. It appears as if the “golden age” of Christianity has passed and that we have entered an iron age that is inferior to it in terms of spiritual power and authority. Our modern theological thought has been seriously affected In the style of decadence Which the West adopted from the days of the Protestant Reformation in order to interpret Christian history. Since then, the perfection of the Church has been interpreted rigidly, and the attitude towards antiquity has been distorted and misunderstood. In the end, there is no difference between limiting the authority of the Church to one century, five centuries, or eight centuries. We must not put any limit or limitation on itBecause there is no room for “renegade theology.” The Church still enjoys its full authority as it did in the past, because the Spirit of Truth revives it as it revived it in the past.

The legacy of Byzantine theology:

One consequence of our qualitative definition of temporal roles is our ignorance Byzantine theological heritage. But we are now more prepared than in previous decades to accept the permanent authority of the “Fathers,” especially when the revival of patristic studies appeared in the West. However, we are still tending to narrow the scope of our acceptance of it, because many are not prepared to include Byzantine theologians among the fathers, because we still tend to consider the Byzantine era as complementary to the patristic era in a way that is inferior, and because we still doubt the closeness of its normative connection to theological thinking. Byzantine theology was much more than a repetition of patristic theology, as the newness that emerged in it was no less important than “Christian antiquity.” And the truth, Byzantine theology is an organic continuation of the era of the fathers. Was there any interruption? Did the spirit (ethos) of the Eastern Orthodox Church change in a certain historical era, knowing that none of this was ever noticed, such that the subsequent development that appeared in it was of lower authority than what preceded it? Our acceptance of this is implicitly derived from the exclusive tradition of the seven ecumenical councils. Thus, we neglect St. Simeon the Modern Theologian, St. Gregory Palmas, and the great councils that supported hesychast life and which were held in the fourteenth century. What is their importance and authority in the church?

Saint Simeon the Modern Theologian and Saint Gregory Palmas are still great teachers who inspire those in the Orthodox Church who strive for spiritual perfection and who live a life of prayer and contemplation, either in a monastic community or in solitude in the desert or even in the world. These believers are not aware of any alleged “discontinuity” between the Patriarchal era and the Byzantine era. The Philokalia, which is a large encyclopedia on Eastern piety that brings together writings from many centuries, has become in our days a book that guides all who wish to practice Orthodoxy in our present situation. The Church recognized the authority of Nicodemus of Athos, the compiler of these books, and declared him saintly. In this sense, we go to say that the “Age of the Fathers” continues in the “Praying Church.” What else must continue in our theological pursuit, in our study, research, and guidance? Should we not also restore the “thought of the fathers” in our theological thinking and in our teaching? Restoring it does not constitute an old style nor a noble asset. It is an existential position and a spiritual direction. Only in this way can our theology regain its place in the fullness of our Christian existence. It is not enough for us to preserve the “Byzantine liturgy” - as we do - and to return to interest in Byzantine iconography and music - which we are still reluctant to do on a permanent basis - and to practice some methods of Byzantine piety. Rather, we must return to the roots of this traditional piety and restore “thought Patristic,” otherwise we run the risk of internal division, as happened among us, between “traditional” forms of piety and our unconventional habit of theological thinking. This is a real danger. We, as “worshippers,” still preserve the “tradition of the fathers.” Should we not stand conscientiously and openly in this tradition as “theologians” and as witnesses and teachers of Orthodoxy? Can we maintain our integrity otherwise?

Saint Gregory with diamonds and deification

 All of these preliminary considerations relate to our immediate goal, which is: What is the theological heritage of Saint Gregory Palmas? Saint Gregory was not a theologian, but rather a monk and bishop. Therefore, he was not interested in abstract philosophical issues, even though he was very educated in this field, because his only concern was related to issues of Christian existence. As a theologian, he translated the Church's spiritual experience, because he wrote most of his works, with the exception of his sermons, to confront urgent problems. He struggled with the problems of his era, which were critical, fraught with controversy and anxiety, and also characterized by spiritual renewal.

His enemies accused him of destructive innovation, and to this day Westerners continue to hurl this accusation at him. As for him, he is rooted in tradition, so much so that we do not find it difficult to trace most of his opinions and motives to the Cappadocian fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa) and to Saint Maximus the Confessor, who was the most popular teacher of Byzantine thought and faith. Saint Gregory also knew the thought of Dionysius the Areopagite. was rooted in tradition, But his theology was not “repetitive,” but rather a creative extension of the ancient tradition. His starting point was life in Christ.

Among the many topics addressed in the theology of Saint Gregory, we limit ourselves to examining one topic that raises a lot of controversy, which is: What is the basic characteristic of Christian existence? The highest goal of human life was defined by the fathers in their tradition through the word “theosis.” There is no doubt that the word “deification” is annoying to the contemporary ear. We are not even able to translate it accurately into any contemporary language, nor are we able to translate it even into Latin. In Greek, the word remains heavy and stilted. Indeed, it is a bold word, but its meaning is clear and simple. This word was a decisive expression in the patristic term. It is enough to quote the words of Saint Athanasius: “He became a human being so that he might divinize us in himself” (To Adelphius 4), “He became man so that we might be deified” (On the Incarnation 54). This is how St. Athanasius summarizes St. Irenaeus’ famous thought: “By his great love, he became like us in order to raise us to what he is” (Against Heresies 5, introduction). This was the general conviction of the Greek fathers. One can quote in detail the sayings of Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus the Confessor, and Simeon the Modern Theologian.

Man always remains himself, that is, he is a created being. But in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, God promised him and gave him actual participation in what is divine, that is, in eternal, incorruptible life. The main advantage of deification, according to the Church Fathers, is immortality and incorruption, since “only God has immortality” (1 Timothy 6:16). But man is now accepted into a profound “union” with God through Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. This union is much more than a “moral” union and human perfection. Only the word “deification” can adequately translate the uniqueness of promise and giving. It hinders and confuses us if we think about it through “existential” and existential categories. Man cannot “become” a god, but the fathers were thinking on the level “Personal“They return to the secret of personal union. “Deification” is a personal confrontationIt is this intimate connection of man with God in which the divine presence penetrates all human existence. (5)

But the remaining problem is: How is this relationship consistent with divine transcendence, and does man truly meet God in this life on earth? Does man truly and surely encounter God in the present life of prayer? Or are we only dealing with a “future ability” (action in distans)? What the Eastern Fathers said is that man’s advancement in worship leads him to meeting God and witnessing His eternal glory. But if God “dwells in unapproachable light,” how can we encounter Him? The apparent paradox was particularly acute in Eastern theology, which had always adhered to the belief that God was completely “incomprehensible” (akataliptos) and that He was not known in His nature or essence. This belief was strongly expressed by the Cappadocian Fathers, in their struggle against the Eunomians, and expressed by Saint John Chrysostom in his wonderful discussion “On Our Lack of Realization of God” (Peri Akataliptou). If man cannot approach God in his essence, and if his union with his essence is impossible, then how is “deification” possible? Chrysostom says: “Whoever seeks to comprehend the essence of God reviles Him,” and Saint Athanasius distinguished between the essence of God and his powers, saying: “He exists in his goodness in all things, but he remains outside of them by his own nature” (in the decisions of the Council of Nicea 2). This concept was thoroughly expanded by the Cappadocians. Saint Basil said that man cannot approach “the essence of God” (Against Ephenomius 1:14). We know God only in and through His powers: “We say that we know our God by His powers and actions, but we do not promise that we will approach His essence, because His powers descend to us, but His essence remains far away” (Letter 234 against Amphilochius). But this knowledge is not intuition or reasoning, as its powers descend to us. In the words of Saint John of Damascus, these powers are a revelation of God Himself: “divine radiance and power” (Exact Presentation of the Orthodox Faith 1:14). His presence is real and is not just like “the actor’s presence in what he does.” Despite the absolute transcendence of the divine essence, this secret method of divine presence transcends all understanding, but this transcendence does not make it uncertain for the mind.

In this area, Saint Gregory Palamas relies on an ancient tradition. God, who is unapproachable, approaches man with his “powers” secretly. This divine movement brings about the encounter, as it is “an outward movement,” in the words of Maximus the Confessor (Commentary on the Book of Divine Names 1, 5).

Saint Gregory begins the distinction between “grace” and “essence” by saying: “The divine, deifying illumination is not the essence of God, but his power” (Philosophical and Theological Chapters 68-69). This distinction was officially recognized by the Church in the two great councils held in Constantinople in 1341 and 1351. It even valiantly denounced those who denied this distinction. These prayers, which were issued by the Council of the year 1351, were included in the service of an Orthodox Church in the Book of Triodi. Orthodox theologians are therefore committed to this decision. Since the divine essence is incomparable, the source and power of human deification is not due to the divine essence, but rather to “God’s grace,” because “the divine deifying power by which its participants are deified is divine grace, not divine essence” (ibid. 92-93). What is grace (Kharis) in essence (Ousia), but rather it is “uncreated divine grace and uncreated power” (ibid. 69). But this distinction does not entail division or separation (ibid. 127). The powers emanate from God and reveal His being and existence, and the word “issue” (proiene, προιεναι) refers to distinction, not separation. “Although the grace of the soul differs from its nature, it is not separated from it” (Theophanes, p. 940).

The teaching of Saint Gregory assumes the personal work of God, that is, God moves toward man and embraces him with his “grace” and action, without ever leaving the “unconquerable light” residing in him. The ultimate goal of his theological education was to defend the truth of the Christian experience. Because salvation is more than forgiveness, it is a true renewal of man. This renewal does not take place through liberation from some natural forces present in man’s created nature, but rather through the “powers” of God himself, who encounters man and unites him with himself. The truth is that the teaching of Saint Gregory affects the entire theological approach and the body of Christian doctrine. It begins with a clear distinction between God’s “nature” and His “will.”. This distinction was a feature of the Eastern tradition, at least beginning with Saint Athanasius. In this regard, the following question can be asked: Is this distinction consistent with the “simplicity” of God? Or do we view this distinction as a necessary mental speculation for us, with no existential importance? His enemies attacked him from this angle, because they considered that God's being was simple and that all of His attributes were identical. Augustine also departed from the Eastern tradition in this area, and therefore Palamas's teaching appears unacceptable if we compare it with Augustinian assumptions. Palmas himself anticipated the objections that might arise from his basic distinction. He said that if one did not accept it, it would be impossible to clearly distinguish between the “birth” of the Son and the “creation” of the world, since they are works of the essence. This leads to confusion and confusion in the doctrine of the Trinity. Saint Gregory Palmas was strict on this point when he said: “If the divine power does not differ in any way from the divine essence, as our delusional enemies and those who share this opinion believe, then the act of creation, which belongs to the will, will not differ in any way from birth and emergence, which belong to the essence. If creation does not differ from birth and emergence, then creatures will not differ in any way from what is born and what emerges. In this way, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit will not differ from the creatures, and all creatures will become “begotten and produced by God,” and creation will be deified and God will be included among the creatures. Therefore, when the venerable Cyril showed the difference between God's essence and his power, he said that birth belongs to the divine nature while creation belongs to his divine power. This is what he clearly showed when he said: “Nature and power are one and the same thing.” If the divine essence is no different from creation and making. God the Father creates through the Son in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, according to the opinion of our opponents and those who agree with them, God begets and proceeds through the Son in the Holy Spirit” (Chapters 96-97). Here Palmas quoted a passage from Cyril of Alexandria, but St. Cyril was repeating what St. Athanasius said, who affirmed, in refuting Arianism, the great difference between essence (or nature) and will. God exists before He acts, and there is a kind of “necessity” in the divine entity, but it is not the necessity of coercion or fate, but rather the necessity of existence itself. God is what He is, He is completely free of will. No one forces him to do the things he does. Therefore, birth is always “according to nature,” while creation is “an act of the will” (Against Arius 3, 64-66). These two dimensions, the dimension of existence and the dimension of action, differ, and we must distinguish between them clearly. There is no doubt that this distinction will not jeopardize “divine simplicity,” because it is a real distinction and not just a logical image. Palmas was aware of the importance of this distinction, and in this field he was the successor of Athanasius the Great and the successor of the truly great bishops of Cappadocia.

Some have recently suggested that we describe Saint Gregory's theology in modern terms as “existential theology.” In fact, his theology is radically different from all modern concepts that this phrase usually denotes. In any case, he strongly resisted all types of “essentialist theology” that failed to explain God’s freedom, the dynamism of his will, and the truth of his divine work, and he attributed this tendency to Origen. This is the great dilemma into which the Greek impersonalist metaphysicians fell. If there is room for a Christian metaphysics, it must be a metaphysics of persons. Go with diamonds from History of salvation From the biblical history based on divine deeds, this history reached its peak in the incarnation of the Word and in its glorification through the cross and resurrection. But if we talk about the history of the Christian man who seeks perfection, we see him rising step by step until he meets God in seeing His glory. The description of Saint Irenaeus’ theology as a “theology of facts” was familiar. Therefore, we can describe Palmas's theology as a "theology of facts" as well, with the same force of justification.

Nowadays, we are more and more convinced that “factual theology” alone is sound Orthodox theology. It is a biblical and patristic theology that is entirely compatible with the thought of the Church.

Therefore, we can consider Saint Gregory Palmas our guide and teacher in our quest to speak theology from the heart of the Church.

This article was written in 1960

(1) Some have recently suggested that the Mystics were the first to formally invoke the authority of the “apostolic tradition.” Their appeal to him moved Saint Irenaeus to expand his concept of imitation. See:

DB Reyndes, “Paradosis: Le progres de l'idee de tradition jusqu'a Saint Irenee”, in Recerches de Theologie ancienne et medievale 5 (1933) 155-191.

(2)  See:

Paul Mass, edit. Fruhbyzantinische Kirchenpoesie, 14, Bonn1910, p. 24.

(3)  See:

Louise Bouyer, “Le renouveau des etudes patristiques”, in La Vie Intellectuelle, XV (Fevrier 1947) p. 18.

(4)  See:

Mabillon, Bernardi Opera, Praefatio generalis, n. 23 (PL 182, 26).

(5)  See:

M. Lot-Borodine, “La doctrine de la defication dans l'Eglise gewcque jusqu'au (1932) 525-574, tome 107, 1(1933) 8-55.