These three topics will form the content of the last three chapters of this work (VI-VIII). They are preceded by a general and again brief overview of the general theological teaching of St. Gregory Palamas of Thessalonica (Chapter V).

PART TWO SYSTEMATIC

Chapter Five THE THEOLOGICAL TEACHING OF ST. JOHN GREGORY OF PALAMAS

(short essay) "Here is the limit of what the Cherubim cover with their wings." (St. Athanasius the Great. "To Serapion" I, 17)

Passing from the first, historical part of this work, to a systematic exposition of our topic, i.e., to the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas on man, we realize the full necessity, at least briefly, of an outline of his theological views as a whole. This may be a very superficial review of his main theological views, but it is necessary to clarify the anthropology of Palamas in the context of his entire mystical-theological doctrine. We limit the content of this chapter to a simple exposition of the theology of St. Gregory, without going into its critical evaluation. This chapter can and should serve only as an introduction to the anthropology of the writer under study, and in itself it stands outside the scope of our topic.

In the scanty literature on Palamism, this gap has been filled to a certain extent in our time by two serious works on the theological teaching of Palamism: 1. Articles: M. Jugie, "Grégoire Palamas" and "Controverse palamite" in Diction. de Théologie Cathol.", vol. XI, Paris 1932, col. 1735–1818 and the work of Fr. Basil (Krivoshein) "The Ascetic and Theological Teaching of St. Gregory Palamas" in the "Seminarium Kondakovianum", VIII, Prague, 1936,

The articles of the first of these authors are written with all the scientific thoroughness that distinguishes the Dictionary of Catholic Theology, but also with all the Latin confessional bias that characterizes this great specialist in Byzantine theology and Eastern ecclesiastical questions, Fr. M. Jugi. Fr. Krivoshein's work does not cover the entire theological concept of Palamism, paying more attention to the ascetic side of its teaching. Nevertheless, this is almost the only exposition of the teaching of St. Gregory in the Russian language, written from primary sources, with knowledge of literature, theologically substantiated and fully in the spirit of the Orthodox Church. The reader will find earlier works on hesychasm or mentions of Palamas in other books in the bibliographic index.

APOPHATIC THEOLOGY

In our brief sketch of the theological views of the writer of the Church under study, it is necessary to begin with a reminder of the apophatic method in theology, characteristic of the Eastern Fathers of the Church in general, and of the mystics in particular. The words of the liturgical hymn can serve as the basic and guiding principle for Orthodox mystical and theological intuition: "Do not describe the Divinity, do not lie to the blind: for it is simple, invisible and invisible" [1316].

In the Church's consciousness, there were two approaches to apophatic theology, depending on which it acquires one or another internal coloring. The first approach, so to speak, is rationalistic or deductive. It would be more correct to call it dialectical, but in order not to introduce ambiguity, since a little later this term, as already accepted in the literature, is given in another characteristic of apophatic theology, we say in this case: deductive, discursive. It is a simple deduction from the concept of God's transcendence. In fact, God, as the universal principle, cannot be enclosed in anything worldly and created, and consequently not in the human mind. He is so sublime and, like the Absolute, beyond the reach of the finite human mind. No thought can grasp Him; no logical definition is applicable to Him, for a concept is already a kind of limitation [1317]. Therefore, in the problem of the name, it is necessary to completely abandon the attempt to find any name whatsoever for the very essence of God. Concepts are not applicable to Her, and no name expresses Her in any way.

Philosophically, this was already clear to Plato. Timaeus considers it difficult to comprehend the Creator and Father of all things, and impossible to utter Him [1318]. In the Cratylus, however, the human mind is condemned to complete incapacity in this respect. The names invented by people for the gods do not belong to them at all [1319]. Neoplatonic thought also assimilated this. "Of God we have neither knowledge nor understanding," which is why we say that He is not, and that He is we do not say" [1320]. "The One is a miracle, which is non-existent, so as not to receive a definition from another, for truly there is no corresponding name for Him" [1321]. Plotinus' thought repeats Bliss. Augustine: "Deus ineffabilis est; fatilius dicimus quid nonest, quam quid est» [1322]. God is "qualityless" for Philo [1323]. And in general, this will become the foundation of the entire patristic theology and will be repeated many times with insignificant changes throughout the centuries of Christian thought. The apophatic approach to the problem of the name in general, and the name of God in particular, should lead to nominalism in its extreme sharpness. It is understandable, therefore, with what a sharp and decisive rebuke this thought must have met the Eunomian self-confidence in the knowledge of the essence of God and the definition of Him in words. Eunomius' famous phrase: "I know God as well as I do not know myself" (1324) is polar opposite to patristic negative theology. In this sense, Eunomianism is an extreme affirmation of the cataphatic method. Hence the approach of the Holy Fathers to the question is clear.

For St. Basil the Great, "prohibitive names that deny in God this or that property borrowed from the created world, naturally cannot determine the positive content of the concept of 'God'. Essence is not something that does not belong to God, but the very existence of God" [1325]. St. St. Gregory the Theologian knows that "God exists, but not what He is" (1326). And although for him God is "above all essence," [1327] nevertheless he affirms the same thing as St. Basil, namely, that the name God, whether θεος derives it from θέειν (to flee) or άίθειν (to burn), is a relative name; whereas it is necessary to find a name "by which the nature of God would be expressed, or the originality and being not connected with anything else, and so the name 'This' really belongs to God, and entirely to Him alone [1328]. But "the Divinity itself is infinite and incomprehensible" [1329].

Likewise, for St. Gregory of Nyssa, the biblical "I am this" is the only sign of the true Godhead" [1330]. It is curious that the theological thought of the Cappadocians, while acknowledging the transcendence of God to the world, nevertheless finds that the only appropriate name for Him is "Being," "Who Really Is," i.e., it identifies God with true being, which is opposed to non-being. However, St. Gregory of Nyssa, who is more mystically inclined, stipulates that this divine "This" cannot be compared with any earthly existence. True being, by which the nature of God can be defined, has nothing in common with the existence of the earthly-born, with created existence. "Of all that is embraced by the senses and contemplated by the intellect, there is nothing that exists in the true sense, except the supreme Essence, Which is the cause of everything, and on Whom everything depends" (1331). Therefore, it is necessary to look for some Essence outside the surrounding entities. And here St. Gregory takes a step towards a mystical approach.

We should not think that we are dealing with two different, mutually exclusive currents. They both arrive at the same thing in their theology, i.e., at the "Divine Nothing." Only the paths that complement one another are different. In the first case, no conclusions are drawn from the incomprehensibility of the Godhead. In the second, apophatic theology is associated with a tremendous mystical experience. Apophatics is approached not in a logical way, but according to one's own experience of mystical insights.