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.

This second path is most clearly represented by the Areopagitics. For them, the Divinity is both nameless and multifaceted [1332]. None of the names of God found in the Holy Scriptures. Scripture; as "I am This," Life, Light, God, Truth, Eternal, Ancient of Days, King of Kings, etc., does not express the essence; God is beyond it all. His name is wondrous (Judges XIII:18), for He is above every name. Nothing from the world of the senses can help in finding even an approximate definition of God. God is "the cause of all things and above all. He is neither essence, nor life, nor mind, nor mind, nor body, nor image, nor species, nor quality, nor quantity. He is not anything of sensible things, nor does He have anything of this kind in Himself" (1333). "God is not this, but he is not that; not in one place, but not somewhere else. Everything in Him is affirmed at the same time, and again He is Nothing of all" (1334). God is not being, not because He is lower than being, but because He is outside of being, not included in the causal series inherent in being. He is "true Nothing", as withdrawn from everything that exists" [1335]. He is neither number, nor order, nor majesty, nor smallness, nor equality, nor inequality, nor likeness, nor dislikeness, nor motion, nor rest, nor age, nor time, etc." [1336]. God transcends all essence and is therefore excluded from all knowledge" [1337]. He is beyond everything, unattainable and incomprehensible. It is understandable, therefore, that the author of the book "Divine Names" calls "to honor the ineffable with chaste silence" [1338].

But this call to silence is not a rejection of theology. This is only a different path in the knowledge of God, the path of mystical penetration into oneself through the ontological catharsis of one's soul, the path of human eros, ecstatically coming out to meet the Divine Eros, the path of all mystics of all ages: the path of Moses, the path of Plotinus' "spudeus", the path of the "Gnostic" Clement of Alexandria. The favorite image of the Areopagitics and St. Gregory of Nyssa, and after them of St. Maximus the Confessor, and the later hesychasts, is the image of Moses, who enters the darkness in order to know "through ignorance," to be illumined by the ineffable light shining out of this darkness. Church experience knows that "the God-written law, slowly tongued with darkness, is covered with the Divine, for it has shaken the eyes of the intelligent, sees the Eternal, and learns the spirit of reason" [1339]. Therefore, the mystical "darkness of ignorance" is not the obscurantism of ignorance and the apophatics of pseudo-Dionysius is not a prohibition of dialectical theology. His apophatics does not exclude positive theology. "It is not to be supposed," he says, "that negation contradicts assertions, but that the First Cause Itself is primordial and far above any negation or affirmation" (1340). For "God is known in everything and without everything; is known both in knowledge and in ignorance; of Him there is a concept, a word, cognition, a touch, a feeling, an opinion, an idea, a name, and all the rest, and at the same time He is not known, He is ineffable and unnameable" [1341]. Palamas would repeat the same thing later. In this way, the mystical experience of the Areopagitics harmoniously combines the intensity of inquisition with the grace-filled illumination of Revelation from the Primary Source of Light. The "interventions" of God (πρθοδοι) await the counter daring of the human spirit.

Following pseudo-Dionysius, the same position in the history of Christian thought is taken by his commentator and follower, St. Maximus the Confessor. His apophatic theology is the result of the same mystical insights. Knowledge of God is by no means conceptual, but by means of mystical intuition is accomplished, as for the author of The Heavenly Hierarchy, in accordance with the inner maturation and by the steps of spiritual growth. For this, first of all, purification of the heart is necessary, and then reverent boldness [1342]. Then, from the lowest level of the believer, and then the disciple, the Christian can rise to the level of the apostle. This is the path of active overcoming of perishable passions, the path of gradual ascent, and then entry into the divine darkness, into the "formless and meaningless place of knowledge," like Moses [1343]. With such an approach to the Source of Light, God appears, and in fact is, the Super-Essential and Incomprehensible Mind. Therefore, for Maximus, "God is known not by His essence, but by the splendor of His creations and His providence for them. In them, as in a mirror, we see His boundless goodness, wisdom and power" [1344]. "God is inconceivable," but from the conceivable, the knowable, it is believed that He exists" [1345]. "God is not an essence in the sense in which we usually speak of essence"; He is neither force nor energy [1346]. In his apophatic method, St. Maximus goes so far as to say:

"Both propositions that God is and that He is not can be admitted in contemplations of God, and together neither can be accepted in the strict sense. the other, as a proposition that denies in God, because of His superiority as the cause of existence, everything that belongs to being. And again, none of these propositions can be accepted in the strict sense: for none of them affirms positively, in their very essence and in nature, whether this or that of which we are trying is in reality so. With God, nothing, whether existing or non-existing, is united by the force of natural necessity. From Him is truly far everything that is and what we say, as well as everything that does not exist and what is not said. He has a simple being, which transcends all affirmation and negation" [1347].

Therefore, "the Godhead and the divine are in some respects knowable, and in others unknowable. It is known by contemplation of what is around Him; Unknowable in that It is in Itself" [1348]. The same apophatic approach is found in St. John of Damascus [1349] and in other writers of the Church. It is probably superfluous to say that the desire to theologize and to search for some formulas for the divine is characteristic not only of the mystical path of the Areopagitics and St. Maximus. The same aspiration and the same combination of apophatics and cataphatics are found in the above-mentioned Fathers of the Church. This is especially well expressed by St. Basil:

"There is not a single name which, embracing the whole nature of God, would be sufficient to express Him. But many and varied names, taken in their proper meaning, constitute a concept, although obscure and very poor in comparison with the whole, but sufficient for us. Some of the names used about God show what is in God, while others, on the contrary, show what is not in Him. Thus, in these two ways, i.e., the denial of what is not and the recognition of what is, a kind of imprint of God is formed in us" [1350].

These two paths of apophatic theology that we have examined, despite their apparent differences, are in essence only two images of patristic thought about God, inwardly much more akin than different. They are united by one and the same perception of God as a completely Super-Existent, outside of this being and absolutely beyond it. But there can also be another, as Fr. S. N. Bulgakov has shown, apophatic theology. It contrasts the following two negative approaches: