Three realities belong to God – essence, energy, the Trinity of Divine hypostases (τρίασος υποστάσεоν θείоν). We have seen that the personal, triune, nature of the Godhead is simplicity, while essence and energies signify the antinomic poles of the Incomprehensible, Self-Revealing, multiplying Unity, the only Existent who allows creatures to partake of His being. These distinctions are necessary for the teacher of silence in order to show "how God, who is partly contained in creatures, is wholly partaken of and contained without being divided (σύ μερίζεται)," for "Goodness is not a part of God, and Wisdom is another, and Majesty or Providence is another part, but He is wholly Goodness, wholly Wisdom, wholly Providence, and wholly Greatness, for, being one, He is not divided, but the whole possesses as a property of each of these energies and manifests Himself as whole, being present and acting in each in a single, simple and inseparable way (πρός ένιαίоς και άπλоς καί δλος παρών καί ένεργών)." […]

Any presence and any real action of God in the plural world presupposes a divine existence that is "multiplied."

The mystery of the Trinity, according to Gregory Palamas, is formed by "the union of three hypostases, each of which in reality preserves its personal identity, but are not 'parts' of God, for the Godhead lives in each of them in all His fullness" (Meyendorff 1997, 292) [431].

This summary of the Trinitarian teaching in the Palamite version, at least in its basis, could have been expounded by a Russian scribe of the "Hesychast-Palamite" circle, especially if he had been to Constantinople and communicated with the Palamites. Such a person could have presented this teaching at the level of a general "idea" to Sergius, especially since it is known that Sergius, and precisely in connection with theological questions, sent his people from the Trinity to Constantinople. Nothing is known about the results of this trip, but it could hardly have been completely fruitless, and Constantinople news, including theological news, was keenly interested both in Moscow and in the Holy Trinity, in the former – and mercenarily, having in mind practical benefit, in the latter, it seems, unselfishly. In any case, this is true of Sergius.

It is very likely that Sergius had certain information about the Trinitarian teaching of the Church Fathers and Gregory Palamas. Moreover, it is plausible that he himself was interested in Trinitarian theology and may have assimilated from this information something most likely corresponding to his own intuitions and his personal experience of thinking about God. It must be assumed that not all the subtleties were accessible to Sergius, but he was hardly upset, for he knew that the Trinity is a mystery that has no limit or end, and it cannot be revealed to the "finite" man in all its depth. However, it is necessary to know about this depth and about the incommensurability of this mystery with one's capabilities, and Sergius knew about this. It seems that Sergius also knew that, in measuring the incommensurable, one must find the direction of search that really leads deeper, and not sideways, and that it is also necessary to connect one's knowledge of the Trinity with the practice of his personal experience of asceticism and with the wide range of religious, social, and civic tasks that faced Russia in all its strata. In any case, Sergius was aware of the inexhaustibility of the religious and theological meaning of the Trinity, and of the exceptional importance of this dogma and this image. His intuition told him that there was a deep meaning here that transcended understanding. With his practical mind, he understood that from the small it is possible to form an idea of the large, from the part of the whole, while the meaning will be preserved within the given limits, and it is with this that he will have to work. It is possible that Sergius felt not only the idea of agreement in the Trinity, but also the reflection in this triune image of both the Divine Person and the human person. One of the most important Orthodox theologians of the 20th century wrote about the Trinity, rightly introducing it into the context of apophaticism (see above on the relationship between apophase and silence-hesychia):

The apophaticism inherent in the God-thinking of the Eastern Church is not identical with impersonal mysticism, the experience of absolute Divine non-being, in which both the human personality and the Divine Person disappear.

The limit that apophatic theology reaches, if it is possible to speak of a limit and a consummation when it is a question of ascent to the infinite, this infinite limit is not a nature or an essence; it is also not a person, it is something that transcends at the same time every concept of nature and person, it is the Trinity.

(Lossky 1991, 36) [433].

Of course, Sergius' life also had its own personal context, which providentially directed him to the idea of the Trinity – and the cry of a baby that was heard three times in church from the mother's womb, the meaning of which was by no means immediately understood, and the strange words of the mysterious elder to the parents of the boy Bartholomew: "Your son will be the abode of the Holy Trinity, and will bring many after him to the mind of the divine commandments." and the bold choice of the name of the first monastery on Makovets, referring to a dogma that was hardly clear to Bartholomew himself, and rather even to the image of the Most Holy Trinity (see above for other references to this theme in the "Life"). The very dedication of the church in the name of the Trinity before Sergius cannot be considered ordinary and accepted in Russia, as both Florensky and Bulgakov wrote. "It [dedication. — V. T.] in itself was rather an innovation and a kind of boldness, so amazing in the young humble-minded Sergius. And yet, the Life assures us with particular insistence — without any hesitation, with full determination, obeying an undoubted inner voice, St. St. Sergius: The Most Holy Name to His Church and Monastery" (Bulgakov 1991, 348). How could it happen that a young man, seemingly inexperienced in theology (in fact, it was), suddenly chooses for himself "the most sublime and important dogma of the Christian faith, but also the most mysterious and difficult both for exact expression and for speculative comprehension, a kind of glaring incongruity ensues. But St. Sergius had an experiential knowledge of the Presv. Trinity, he knew what he was doing [...]" (Bulgakov 1991, 348).

And further:

The fullness of the Church embraces all church dogmas, and, however, at different times and in different persons, one or another aspect of Christian dogma appears in the consciousness and is perceived with the greatest acuteness. And the special, deliberate gift of St. Sergius drew him to the mystery of the Holy Virgin. He made of him Her chosen servant and venerator. What did St. John see and what did he tell by his silence about this? Sergius? Isn't this question bold? "For we love as silence is more comfortable with fear", but does not love for the Monk and the desire to learn from him command us to overcome fear and gaze into the spiritual face of the Monk?