January 2. Saints Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus (Theologian), bishops and Doctors of the Church. Memory

Great fellow countrymen

Gregory of Nyssa, together with his older brother Basil the Great and close friend Gregory the Theologian (or Gregory of Nazianzus), belonged to the galaxy of famous Great Cappadocians (Cappadocia is a region of Asia Minor, part of the Eastern Roman Empire, now belongs to Turkey).

All of them were, as we would now say, “countrymen.” A.V. Kartashev wrote that “their homeland of Cappadocia and the neighboring regions of the center of Asia Minor were the place of residence of landowning families who believed the honor of their rank and their families in giving their children the highest possible education.” These Fathers of the Church in the second half of the 4th century after the birth of Christ, drawing on the experience of ancient philosophy, in a strictly Orthodox spirit, developed the dogma of the Holy Trinity and approved it at the Second Ecumenical Council (381).

Then the Roman Empire was literally shaken by disputes with the Arians and other heretics, and discussions about God, the Persons of the Trinity and Their relationships, about the relationship between the two natures in Christ were so widespread and ubiquitous that they literally spilled out onto the streets and squares of cities. Orthodox Christians of all classes of society and conditions, of all degrees of education, embarked on discussions and debates about dogmas. Gregory of Nyssa himself wrote about this with irony and not without surprise:

“Some, yesterday or the day before yesterday, took a break from menial work and suddenly became professors of theology. Others, it seems servants, who have been beaten more than once, who have escaped from slave service, philosophize with importance about the Incomprehensible. Everything is full of this kind of people: streets, markets, squares, crossroads. These are clothing merchants, money changers, and food sellers. You ask them about obols (kopecks), and they philosophize about the Born and the Unborn. If you want to know the price of bread, they answer: “The Father is greater than the Son.” Can you handle it: is the bathhouse ready? They say: “The Son came from those who bear.”

“In the Gospel sayings,” he wrote, “you can collect thousands of such places that in them something else appears at first glance, and the meaning of what is said relates to something else.” Saint Gregory also understood the events described in the Book of Exodus allegorically when he commented on the life of Moses.

The labor of Jews on Pharaoh's construction sites means slavish submission to passions, the daughter of the Egyptian king - pagan philosophy, the Burning Bush - the Mother of God, the executions of Egypt and the death of the firstborn - the killing of sin, the copper serpent - Christ, twelve springs in the Sinai oasis - twelve apostles, and seventy palm trees - seventy apostles; the hands stretched out by Moses in prayer during the battle with the Amalekites are a prototype of the Cross of Christ. These interpretations, included in liturgical poetry, show that Gregory of Nyssa sought to find in the Bible not so much a historical meaning as an internal, spiritual meaning. The allegorical method of interpreting Holy Scripture remains enduring in the Church.

In his book about the Sixth Day, Saint Gregory develops and complements the work of his brother Basil the Great. He emphasizes the divinely inspired origins of the legend, which tells about pre-human times. The writer of history could learn the secrets of the world only because he was enlightened by the Spirit of God. The beginning of the world is, according to Gregory of Nyssa, an instantaneous act of Divine omnipotence. At the same time, the “beginning” already contains all the potential of the material world. “The word “beginning” is alien to the concept of any continuation. Just as a point is the beginning of a line and an atom is the beginning of a bodily volume, so an instant is the beginning of time extension.” Peacemaking is characterized by two stages. The first is the creation of all matter, in the mixing of its elements, the second is the creation of parts of the world “according to the very sequence of nature in a certain order and harmony.” It is no coincidence that the Book of Genesis says that God gave names to the elements of nature, including the luminaries. This indicates that their appearance corresponded to the pattern provided from above.

Speaking about Adam, Gregory of Nyssa “adheres to the biblical understanding of man.” The saint notes that it is no coincidence that the name Adam simply means “man.” “The name of the created man is given not as to any one, but as to the whole race. The whole is named by one person.” Adam is the “all-man”, “the whole nature, spreading from the first people to the last” (On the structure of man, XVI).

The path of Christian life, according to Gregory of Nyssa, is the path of ascension to God. The works “On the Life of Moses...” and “Commentary on the Song of Songs” are devoted to this mystical theme. The biography of Moses reveals three stages, or three aspects of this ascent. The initial stage is catharsis, cleansing from those “skin garments” that God gave to fallen man. These garments are weak flesh. When Moses took off his shoes in front of the bush, he renounced the kingdom of sin. The second stage is the path of mental contemplation, “natural vision.” The highest is the “sober intoxication” of ecstasy, the ascent to the top of Sinai. It is marked by the sacred darkness of the holy mountain, where Moses contemplated Jehovah, where he “saw the invisible, heard the unspeakable.”

The Book of Song of Songs, according to Gregory, is also a symbolic description of the path of the human spirit striving for the Beloved - the Lord. Love overcomes obstacles and fears, like the bride of Song. “Whoever strives with his soul for perfection drives away fear from himself, because such a disposition—not to remain with the master out of love, but not to run away from him out of fear of the scourge—is characteristic of a slave” (Commentary on Cantos, I). The tradition of the mystical interpretation of the Song began already in the Old Testament exegesis (the marriage of the Lord with His Church) and was developed in the rich mystical literature of subsequent centuries.

In a short homily about the ventriloquist, Gregory of Nyssa rejects the possibility that Samuel himself appeared to Saul, and attributes what he saw to the action of dark forces. In the commentary on Eccl. the saint continues to develop his thoughts about catharsis and overcoming sensory blindness. The same idea prevails in the homily “On the Writing of Psalms.” From the “Bibliological Dictionary” by priest Alexander Men

What Gregory dreamed about

Gregory of Nyssa was born in Caesarea Cappadocia (now the city of Kayseri in Turkey) into a wealthy aristocratic family with deep Christian traditions. Of his nine brothers and sisters, four were glorified by the Church as saints: Saints Basil the Great and Peter of Sebaste, Venerable Macrina the Younger and Blessed Theozva. Their grandmother Macrina was persecuted under the emperor Diocletian, their mother Emilia, also canonized, was the daughter of a martyr. Gregory's uncle was a bishop.

The Feast of the Three Saints is a holiday of family holiness

Cathedral of Ecumenical Saints Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom

Saints Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom are known as great theologians and fathers of the Church. Every saint is an example of life in Christ, an example for all believers. Without a doubt, a lot can be said about the lives of the three great hierarchs of the Orthodox Church, but I would like to focus on one point: take a closer look at the life of the families in which Saints Basil, Gregory and John were born and raised. What do we know about them?

The most important thing is that the family of each of the great saints is a holy family in the full sense of the word. Many members of these families are glorified by the Church. In the family of Saint Basil the Great - this is his mother, the Venerable Emilia (January 1/14), sisters: the Venerable Macrina (July 19/August 1) and Blessed Theosevia (Feozva), deaconess (January 10/23), brothers: saints Gregory of Nyssa (January 10/23) and Peter of Sebaste (January 9/22). Saint Gregory of Nyssa writes: “The property of our father’s parents was taken away for confessing Christ, and our maternal grandfather was executed as a result of the imperial wrath, and everything he had passed on to other owners.”[1] The mother of the father of Saint Basil the Great was Saint Macrina the Elder[2] (May 30 / June 12). Her spiritual mentor was St. Gregory of Neocaesarea, also known as St. Gregory the Wonderworker. Saint Macrina took an active part in the upbringing of the future saint, as he himself writes about this: “I am talking about the famous Macrina, from whom I learned by heart the sayings of the Most Blessed Gregory, which were preserved before her by succession of memory, and which she herself observed in me from an early age imprinted, forming me with the dogmas of piety”[3].

Saint Gregory the Theologian praises the ancestors of Saint Basil in the following way: “Among the many famous were also Basil’s paternal ancestors; and as they walked the entire path of piety, that time brought a wonderful crown to their feat... Their heart was ready to joyfully endure everything for which Christ crowns those who imitated His own feat for our sake...”[4]. Thus, the parents of Saint Basil - Basil the Elder and Emilia - were descendants of martyrs and confessors for the faith of Christ. It must also be said that Saint Emilia initially prepared herself for the feat of virginity, but, as her son Saint Gregory of Nyssa writes, “since she was an orphan, and in her youth she blossomed with such physical beauty that the rumor about her prompted many to seek her hands, and there was even a threat that if she did not marry someone of her own free will, she would suffer some unwanted insult, so that those maddened by her beauty were ready to decide to kidnap her.”[5] Therefore, Saint Emilia married Vasily, who had the reputation of an educated and pious man. So the parents of Saint Basil were united, first of all, by their love for Christ. Saint Gregory the Theologian praises this truly Christian marriage union: “The marriage of Vasily’s parents, which consisted not so much in a carnal union, but in an equal desire for virtue, had many distinctive features, such as: feeding the poor, hospitality, purification of the soul through abstinence, dedication God of a portion of his property... It also had other good qualities, which were enough to fill the ears of many”[6].

But the main virtue of Vasily and Emilia was their children: “For the same ones to have many and good children, perhaps we will find an example of this in fables. About the parents of the Vasilievs, actual experience has testified to us that they themselves, if they had not become the parents of such children, had quite a lot of commendable qualities, and, having such children, if they had not succeeded so much in virtue, they would have surpassed in good fortune alone everyone... But superiority in everyone obviously serves to praise those who gave birth. And this is shown by the most blessed number[7] of priests, virgins and those who have committed themselves to marriage, however, in such a way that married life did not prevent them from succeeding in virtue on an equal basis with the first - on the contrary, they turned this into the choice of only the race, and not the way of life.”[8] .

Saint Basil and his brothers and sisters were brought up in such a family. Parents who chose the path of Christian virtue, imitating their parents in this - who attested to their faith through martyrdom and confession - raised children who showed in their lives all the diversity of Christian deeds.

The family of St. Gregory the Theologian, the closest friend of St. Basil the Great, also set an example of Christian holiness. The father of Saint Gregory, also Gregory by name, was the bishop of the city of Nazianza; his mother's name was Nonna. Both of them were glorified as saints (memory of St. Gregory - January 1/14; memory of St. Nonna - August 5/18). Saint Gregory writes with great love about his mother: “She knew one beauty - spiritual beauty - and tried to preserve or understand in herself, to the best of her ability, the image of God... She knew one true nobility - to be pious and to know where we came from and where let's go to; The only reliable and inalienable wealth is to spend your property for God and for the poor, especially for impoverished relatives”[9]. Saint Nonna was not only a virtuous Christian, a faithful wife, but also a mentor for her husband: “The wife given by God to my parent was for him not only a collaborator, which is not very surprising, but also a leader. She herself, in word and deed, directed him to everything excellent. Day and night she fell before God, in fasting and with many tears she asked Him to grant salvation to her head and worked tirelessly on her husband, trying to win him in various ways.”[10] The fact is that Saint Gregory’s father, Gregory the Elder, was born into a pagan family (Saint Nonna’s parents were Christians) and from childhood belonged to the Ipsistarian sect[11]. Saint Nonna, through her feat of prayer and example of personal Christian piety, convinced her husband to accept the sacrament of Holy Baptism. And so, at the age of 45, Gregory the Elder was baptized, receiving the sacrament from Archbishop Leontius of Cappadocia, who was a participant in the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea. Two or three years later he was ordained presbyter and then bishop of the city of Nazianza.

Saint Gregory the Theologian wrote that, even without being enlightened by the light of true faith, his father was a Christian in terms of the qualities of his soul and the height of his moral life: “He was ours even before he became a member of our court, for he belonged to us in his morality. After all, just as many of ours are not from us, because life makes them alien to the common body, so many of those outside the Church are ours - those who precede faith with good morality: they lack only a name, but they possess reality itself. My father was one of those - an alien branch, but in life leaning toward us... As a reward for his moral qualities, I think, he received faith.”[12] The words of the holy Apostle Paul were fulfilled in the family of St. Gregory: “For an unbelieving husband is sanctified by a believing wife, and an unbelieving wife is sanctified by a believing husband. Otherwise your children would have been unclean, but now they are holy” (1 Cor. 7:14).

Saints Gregory and Nonna had three children: daughter Gorgonia, sons Gregory and Caesarius. The elder sister of St. Gregory the Theologian was also glorified by the Church (February 23/March 8). Saint Gorgonia repeated the feat of her mother - she converted her husband to Christianity: “She devoted herself entirely to God. But what is especially good and worthy of respect in her is that she won over her husband to her side and had in him not an obstinate master - a good co-servant. Not only that: she made the very fruit of the body, that is, her children and grandchildren, the fruit of the spirit, for she purified the entire clan and the entire family, like a single soul, and purchased it for God... Throughout her life, she served as an example for children of all that is good, and when she was recalled from here – she left behind her will to her family as a silent instruction.”[13]

Much less is known about the family of the third great saint and teacher of the Church, John Chrysostom, than about the families of Saints Basil and Gregory. His parents' names were Sekund and Anfisa (Anfusa), they were of noble origin. While still a child, Saint John lost his father, so he was raised by his mother, who completely devoted herself to caring for her son and eldest daughter, whose name has not been preserved. In his essay “On the Priesthood,” St. John quotes the words of his mother, describing all the hardships of her life: “My son, I was honored for a short time to enjoy cohabitation with your virtuous father; God wanted it that way. His death, which soon followed the illnesses of your birth, brought you orphanhood, and me premature widowhood and the sorrows of widowhood, which only those who have experienced them can know well. No words can describe the storm and the excitement to which a girl who has recently left her father’s house, still inexperienced in business, is exposed, and is suddenly struck by unbearable grief and forced to take on worries that exceed both her age and her nature”[14]. The saint's mother lived in widowhood for more than 20 years, which became her Christian feat. Saint John wrote about it this way: “When I was still young, I remember how my teacher (and he was the most superstitious of all people) was surprised at my mother in front of many. Wanting to find out, as usual, from those around him who I was, and having heard from someone that I was the son of a widow, he asked me about the age of my mother and the time of her widowhood. And when I said that she was forty years old and that twenty years had already passed since she lost my father, he was amazed, exclaimed loudly and, turning to those present, said: “Ah! what kind of women do Christians have!” This state (of widowhood) enjoys such surprise and such praise not only among us, but also among outsiders (pagans)!”[15]. Saint John received his upbringing from such a courageous and patient mother, and he himself showed a lot of courage and patience in his pastoral service while at the capital’s see. Although the parents of Saint John are not glorified as saints, one cannot help but call the family in which the greatest church preacher and shepherd was born and raised holy.

Raising children in the Christian faith is the greatest feat and duty of every believing family. And the best upbringing is a personal example of Christian life, passed on from parents to children, going from generation to generation. We see this in the family of St. Basil the Great. An example of the feat of a Christian wife converting an unbelieving husband to Christ is shown to us by the family of St. Gregory the Theologian in the person of his mother and older sister. The mother of St. John Chrysostom demonstrates perseverance, courage and patience in sorrows and difficulties. Therefore, the feast of the three great saints can also be considered the feast of their families, who raised children who became pillars of the Church of Christ.

Guardian Bishop

At this time, Basil the Great himself was waging a fierce struggle against the Arian heresy. When he became the Archbishop of Caesarea, in 372 he turned to his brother with a request to become the bishop of the city of Nissa, since he needed faithful assistants. After much convincing, Gregory agrees.

His bishopric was accompanied by numerous attacks from the Arians. In 375, the saint was unjustly accused of embezzling church money, deprived of his episcopal see, and arrested. However, Gregory escapes from custody and hides in a safe place. Three years later, after the death of Emperor Valens, who patronized the Arians, at the Battle of Adrianople in 378, Gregory returned to Nissa to the episcopal see.

Saint Gregory of Nyssa. 11th century mosaic in Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral. Photo source: wikipedia.org

Gregory of Nyssa actively opposed the heresies of the Arians, Eunomians and Apollinarians, took part in the Council of 379 in Antioch against heretics who did not honor the immaculate virginity of the Mother of God, and others who worshiped the Mother of God as a Divinity. The new emperor Theodosius, originally from Spain, was a strong Nicene. He convenes the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381, which confirms the Nicene Creed, and in which Gregory of Nyssa takes an active part. After and following the results of the Second Ecumenical Council, by the imperial edict of 381, the name of Gregory was included in the list of guardian bishops of Orthodoxy. All other bishops who wished to retain their sees were, according to this edict, to be in communion with these custodian bishops.

Life of St. Gregory of Nyssa, or Is it difficult to be a saint in a holy family

But if many of the Orthodox people know the most about St. Basil the Great, much less about Gregory the Theologian, then very little about Gregory of Nyssa. That’s why I wanted to stop and talk a little, not about his views or theology, but simply about his rather difficult life path.

Let's start with the well-known fact that St. Gregory of Nyssa is the younger brother of Basil the Great. He calls the latter teacher and father, and therefore, without having an exact date of birth, it can be assumed that Gregory was much younger.

In general, there is very little information about his childhood, youth, and upbringing. The only thing we can say with certainty is that Saint Gregory did not receive such an excellent education as his older brother. It was limited to domestic schools, but he was never able to take an educational trip to the educational centers of that time. However, this fact does not at all demean the intellectual dignity of our saint and, with a high degree of probability, patrolologists claim that the educational gaps were largely filled by the excellent mentoring of Basil the Great and personal hard work in achieving knowledge.

Cappadocian Fathers. Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa. Photo: magis-amica.livejournal.com

Gregory of Nyssa always spoke very warmly of his brother and in a word spoken on the day of his death, he spoke of him as a teacher who worthily accepted and fulfilled his apostolic ministry:

“For, hearing about the teacher and shepherd after the apostles, you, of course, already imagined in your mind a shepherd and teacher who completely followed the Apostles. I am talking about him, about the vessel of election, high in life and word, Basil, who was “pleasing to God” (Acts 7:20) from birth, an old man in morals from youth, taught, like Moses, all the wisdom of external teachings and at the same time sacred From infancy to the end of his life he was nourished, nourished and strengthened by the Scriptures.”

It must be said that, despite the actual holiness of almost the entire family, Gregory of Nyssa did not show much religiosity in his youth. It is reliably known that, to some extent, the turning point for him was participation in the celebration organized in the estate of his mother in honor of the transfer of the relics of forty martyrs.

As a member of the family, Gregory was forced to attend the service, which did not in any way affect his internal state. Tired of listening to prayers and church singing, he retired to one of the gazebos and fell asleep. The Lord sent Gregory a dream in which, then still a young man, he wanted to enter the garden into which some luminous warriors did not let the future saint in, and they even wanted to punish him, but one of them nevertheless stood up for the careless Christian. This vision made a terrifying impression on Gregory, and he took upon himself the duties of an anagnost - an ancient Christian position of the laity, which involved reading the Holy Scriptures at liturgical meetings.

However, this inspiration was short-lived for the future saint and the desire to build a secular career gradually prevailed.

Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Constantinople. 985 Miniature Minology of Vasily II. Photo: en.m.wikipedia.org

These throwings did not last long. Over time, Gregory married a certain Theosevia, but quickly became a widower. Regarding her death, St. Gregory the Theologian wrote a letter, praising the deceased woman for her virtuous life. Apparently, all these ups and downs of life, and the influence of the pious family, nevertheless had an effect, and Gregory of Nyssa retired to one of the monasteries on the banks of the Iris River, founded by his elder brother.

In the spring of 372, Saint Basil the Great elevated Gregory to the rank of bishop and placed him in service in the small town of Nyssa. Due to his everyday inexperience, he makes a number of management mistakes and becomes a victim of intrigue, but Vasily helps correct them and keeps him from making future mistakes.

During the reign of Emperor Valens II, who supported the Arian party, Saint Gregory was subjected to unjust oppression. In 375, a new governor, Demosthenes, arrived in Pontus and organized a council of bishops loyal to the government in Ancyra. This meeting accuses Gregory of embezzling church money, questions his consecration and issues a decree for his arrest.

The soldiers who escorted the saint to Ancyra for trial constantly mocked him and undermined his already rather weak health. Gregory of Nyssa in this difficult situation decided to escape, which surprisingly ended successfully. But a year later, already in Nyssa itself, a new council was convened again, to which the saint again did not appear, and therefore was deposed in absentia, and his see was auctioned off to some bishop, who offered the appropriate amount for it.

Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory the Theologian. Byzantium. XI century Gregory the Theologian 16 words. Greece. Athos, Dionysiates monastery. Photo: ruicon.ru

In 378, Emperor Valens dies and church life in Cappadocia returns to normal. The inhabitants of Nyssa greeted their ruler with great joy. However, literally a few months later, all these comforting events are overshadowed by the death of Basil the Great. In the same year 379, Saint Gregory took part in the Council of Antioch, which restored ecclesiastical communion between the Roman Church and the East after a series of Arian and Apollinarian disputes.

When Gregory was returning home, he was overtaken by the news about the dying state of the elder sister of Saint Macrina, who was the head of one of the women's monastic communities. Gregory manages to find her still alive, and their last conversation resulted in the word “On the Soul and Resurrection,” which I would like to advise every Christian to read. It seems to me that the simple and accessible, but at the same time filled with deep thoughts, style of this work will not leave any person indifferent.

In 381, already strengthened physically, intellectually and spiritually, Saint Gregory took part in the Second Ecumenical Council. It was thanks to his learning that he was one of the most significant figures of the cathedral. But soon a new test befalls him.

To counter Arianism, Emperor Theodosius issues a decree according to which Saint Gregory of Nyssa, together with his Metropolitan Helladius of Caesarea, is recognized as the guardian of the purity of the faith in Pontus. However, this latter, being a rich and proud church nobleman, for unknown reasons, disliked Gregory. Wanting to somehow explain himself, the Nyssa saint seeks a meeting with the metropolitan and learns that he is celebrating the memory of the martyrs in the mountains. Tired, hungry and exhausted from the journey on foot, Gregory still gets to the Metropolitan’s location.

Gregory Bishop Nyssa. Church of Our Lady of Pammakarista; XIV century Türkiye. Istanbul. Photo: ruicon.ru

However, despite the report of the bishop’s arrival, he did not want to accept him immediately. Under the scorching sun and mocking glances of onlookers, he humbly waited until they deigned to call him. Entering the room where Helladius was feasting, Gregory again waited a long time for him to address him, but without waiting, he decided to start speaking himself. However, the arrogant metropolitan did not want to listen to him and drove him away without even offering him a piece of bread.

In addition to the events described, we also know about St. Gregory’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem, which made an extremely depressing impression on him. After this trip, he generally rebels against such events as not commanded by the Gospel and says that “changing places does not bring God closer to us.” The last news from the life of the Saint of Nyssa dates back to the year 394, when he was present at the council in Constantinople, which resolved the church problems of the Arabian parishes.

The date of death of Saint Gregory remains unknown.

His life path once again shows us that holiness is not given, but is tortured by painstaking and constant feat, and here it does not matter whether your relatives are righteous, pagans or atheists, only your personal work, boldness and strong desire to become a true servant, and then a friend, are important. Christ.

What is the Trinity?

The theology of Gregory of Nyssa enjoyed authority both in Byzantium and in the medieval West. His works were translated into Latin, Armenian, Georgian, and Syriac. His theology had a noticeable influence on hesychast disputes in Byzantium in the 14th century.

In the theology of Gregory of Nyssa, his deep knowledge of classical Greek philosophy is clearly visible: especially Plato and Plotinus, as well as the natural philosophy and physics of Aristotle. In addition, he adheres to the allegorical method of interpreting the biblical books of Origen. The latter theologian also significantly influenced Gregory.

In commonwealth and theological collaboration, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa finally established a formula about the relationship between the One Divine Essence and the Three Hypostases or Persons, which we still use today: God is the One Essence in three Hypostases - the indivisible Trinity.

Gregory the Theologian. The Great Cappadocian. Life and works

On February 7th (January 25th) the Church celebrates the day of remembrance of St. Gregory the Theologian, Bishop of Constantinople. In the history of the Church, only three people were honored to be called theologians - the evangelist and apostle John the Theologian, Gregory the Theologian and Simeon the New Theologian.

Let us consider the life and works of the saint, and try to understand what deserves such a rare and worthy title.

Share this article with your friends:

Gregory was born ca. 325 in the family of Bishop Gregory of Nazianza and the pious Nonna, who are also revered by the Church as saints. He grew up and was brought up in an atmosphere of Christian morality and ethics.

Gregory's family was of noble origin, which allowed him to receive an excellent education in Alexandria and Athens, the centers of science of the ancient world. During his studies, Gregory met Basil the Great, the future bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia and the compiler of the liturgical canon, which is still celebrated in the Church ten times a year. Friendship with Vasily had a great influence on Gregory, making them like-minded people and comrades-in-arms for life.

Cappadocia is an area on the territory of modern Turkey with an extremely interesting landscape of volcanic origin, underground cities created in the 1st millennium BC. e. and vast cave monasteries, dating back to the times of the early Christians

The future saint was not inclined to active church activities, but most of all wanted to lead a solitary monastic life. But at the insistence of his father, in 361 Gregory returned to his native Nazians and accepted the rank of presbyter (priest).

From this moment Gregory’s literary activity began - he composed sermons for church holidays. In 371, Basil the Great, in order to fight Arianism, asked Gregory to take the see of the city of Sasim - so Gregory became the Bishop of Sasim.

Episcopal service was a burden for the future saint, and he, leaving his see, returned to Nazians. After the death of Father Gregory, Bishop of Nazianza, in 374, the inhabitants of the city asked him to take over the administration of the diocese.

The entire 4th century. The Church experienced a period of internal strife, and was divided between supporters of the Nicene (Orthodox) faith and the Arians.

The Arians followed the Alexandrian priest Arius, who rejected the unity of God the Father and God the Son. In 325, at the Council of Nicaea, Arianism was recognized as a heresy, and Arius himself was expelled

In 379, the new Byzantine emperor Theodosius invited Gregory to Constantinople in order to help him end church discord, and already in 380 Gregory occupied the See of Constantinople.

For the final restoration of the unity of faith, a church council was convened, which was called the Second Ecumenical Council. During this council, Gregory the Theologian contributed greatly to the triumph of the Orthodox teaching about God, but at the same time he was accused by his opponents of unauthorized abandonment of the Sassim department.

Alien by his nature to such intrigues, Gregory leaves Constantinople and returns to his hometown. He devotes these last years of his earthly life mostly to literary activities.

Saint Gregory the Theologian:

“A man forgot the commandment given to him and was overcome by a bitter taste: then through sin he becomes an exile... clothed in leather garments, for the first time he knows his own shame and hides from God. However, even here something is gained, namely death - in the suppression of sin, so that evil does not become immortal..."

The saint is primarily known for his theological works directed against the heresies of that time. Guided by sincere faith and having a high level of command of the language of philosophy, Gregory, together with Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa, uncompromisingly opposed the heresy of Arianism - the main plague that threatened the unity of the Church in the 3rd-4th centuries.

The result of this struggle was the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed - in the form in which we know it now. For such an important feat of preserving and establishing the truth, these three Fathers are called in the Church the Great Cappadocians.

Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory the Theologian - founders of Cappadocian theology

The literary and theological heritage of St. Gregory the Theologian is truly extensive, it includes 245 epistles (letters), 507 poems and 45 “Words.”

The subject matter of the works is wide: from theological works to autobiographical poems; from sermons for holidays to funeral eulogies.

The saint's works are also published in Russian, including in the format of selected works. Thus, the Russian-speaking reader also has the opportunity to drink from the fertile source of Christian thought - the works of St. Gregory the Theologian - the Great Cappadocian.

Vladimir Mamonov

See also:

Works of Saint Gregory the Theologian

Creations of the Holy Fathers. Where to begin

Theology

Is it possible to see God?

Gregory of Nyssa, like Basil the Great, proves that the essence of God cannot be expressed in concept and word. “There is only one name that defines the Divine nature: the amazement that covers us when we think about God.” However, the divine energies imprinted in the world and the world order are knowable. Thus, an artist’s work is used to judge his talent, abilities, skill and inclinations. Likewise, by the energies that fill the world and creation, one can judge the powers of the Creator. Based on the energies-manifestations of God in the world, we recognize Him as the self-existent Being, the supreme Good and the prototype of Beauty.

At the same time, such names do not indicate the essence of God, but only “follow”; they “follow” God. Knowledge of God also presupposes Revelation on the part of God Himself. And all the divine names that are contained in Holy Scripture and true theology show God as He reveals Himself to created beings.

“Thus, it is simultaneously true that a pure heart sees God, and that no one has ever seen God. Indeed, what is invisible by nature becomes visible through His actions, which are revealed to us in His known environment.”

GREGORY

I. The Being of God. G. teaches about God as “truly existing” (τὸ ὄντως ὄν - Greg. Nyss. Contr. Eun. II 1. 69. 5). Truly existing is “That which always remains exactly the same, does not increase or decrease, and is equally not subject to any change - neither for the better nor for the worse - for It is alien to the worst, and there is no better than It - that does not need anything else, which is the only thing worth striving for, to which everything participates, but which is not diminished by this participation of those involved in Him” (Idem. De vita Moys. 2.25). As a truly Existent, God has a beginningless and endless existence, which constitutes His eternity, in which, as in a circle, there is neither beginning nor end (Idem. Contr. Eun. I 1. 363. 1-364. 6). God is characterized by “the boundlessness of eternal life” (Ibid. II 1.457.6). Moreover, divine eternity is not an infinite temporal duration, but an eternal and complete present: “For God, nothing will be in the future and nothing has passed, but everything exists in the present” (Idem. In inscript. ps. 2. 13 // GNO. T. 5. P. 140. 28-29).

II. Essence, properties and energies of God. According to G., God is not only the Existing One, but also “an essence that surpasses the existing one” (Greg. Nyss. De perfect. // GNO. T. 8. 1. P. 188. 15-16). According to the saint, essence means “something that has being”; it corresponds to the “principle of being” (ὁ τοῦ εἶναι λόϒος - Idem. Contr. Eun. II 1. 386). The divine essence is characterized by its special nature (φύσις), which, however, is incomprehensible to creation: “This essence, in which, according to the apostle, everything took place, and we, individually involved in being, live and move and exist, rises above by any authority and does not reveal the signs of its nature, but is known only in the fact that it cannot be comprehended. For its most distinctive feature is that its nature surpasses any distinctive idea” (Ibid. I 1. 373-374). At the same time, G. claims that essence is “what is” God (Idem. Ad Ablab. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 43. 19-23), i.e. “the essence of the divine nature” (Idem. De anima et resurr. // PG. 46. Col. 44). However, as a rule, G. identifies essence and nature in God. Moreover, he understands this divine essence, or nature, as general, that is, as a “universal” (Idem. De diff. essent. et hypost. 1-3), or Aristotle’s “second essence.” According to G., every “nature is one (μία) and is united with itself and a completely indivisible unit (μονάς), not increasing through addition, not decreasing through subtraction, being and remaining the one that it is, although it appears in multitude ; inseparable, continuous, integral and not divided along with the individuals involved” (Idem. Ad Ablab. // GNO. T. 3. 1. P. 41. 2-7). All this fully applies to the divine nature (Idem. Adv. Maced. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 90. 31-91. 4).

According to G., infinity is the main difference between uncreated nature and created nature (Idem. Contr. Eun. II 1. 69. 8-70. 16). At the same time, this infinity of the divine essence is incomprehensibly combined with its completeness and completeness in itself, since God is characterized by perfection in everything (Idem. Adv. Maced. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 91. 7-8 ).

G. clearly distinguishes from the single divine essence the multitude of divine “properties” “inherent” in this essence or “conceivable in relation to the essence”: “... of all the names that serve as a guide to the knowledge of God, each has its own special internal meaning, and in the most divine names no word can be found without any definite meaning; from here it is clear that a certain name does not designate the divine nature itself, but something that relates to it” (Idem. Ad Ablab. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 43. 9-15). Some of these properties express what is inherent in God Himself, or absolutely, that is, they show divine greatness, for example. “imperishable”, “eternal”, “immortal”, etc.; they all contain “some perfect thought about God.” Others, for example, “helper”, “judge”, “merciful”, “Lord”, etc., indicate God’s attitude towards something or His actions towards us and all creation in general (Idem. Contr. Eun. I 1. 570. 3-572. 6). G. defines “action” in general as “the natural force and movement of each essence” or as “the characteristic feature of each nature” (Idem. Tract. ad Xenod. 4-12). Action comes from ability, and ability from essence (Idem. De beat. 7 // PG. 44. Col. 1280). The multitude of Divine actions corresponds to the multitude of Divine names (Ad Ablab. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 44. 7-9). Even the name “God,” according to G., indicates not the essence of God, but the “observational action” inherent in Him (τῆς ἐποπτικῆς ἐνερϒείας), since the Greek. the word “God” (θεός), as G. believed, comes from the word “contemplate” (θεᾶσθαι - Idem. Contr. Eun. II 1.582.4-585.5).

At the same time, the multitude of properties and energies does not violate the unity and simplicity of the divine nature: “In everything, the active and moving... remains the same, not changing in nature along with various actions. For how is it possible to discern in God a multipart essence due to various powers? (Idem. De hom. opif. 6). Moreover, the simplicity of God determines that He has all these properties, powers and actions not by participation, but by nature (Idem. Contr. Eun. I 1.276.1-277.1).

G. argued that “everything together” resides in God - will, wisdom, strength, energy: “His wise will was revealed in the power of His actions, and His active power was accomplished by the wise will” (Idem. Apol. in Hex. // PG 44. Col. 69).

St. Gregory of Nyssa. Painting c. Righteous Joachim and Anna Monastery of Studenica, Serbia. 1314 St. Gregory of Nyssa. Painting c. Righteous Joachim and Anna Monastery of Studenica, Serbia. 1314 At the same time, G. considered separately the divine properties - knowledge, will, power and love. Speaking about divine knowledge, which G. also calls “divine wisdom,” he noted that, despite the infinity of the divine nature, which no created mind can comprehend, “God knows Himself, and in this knowledge of Himself He knows and everything else" (Idem. Contr. Eun. II 1. 168. 3). God has all knowledge and knows everything in the immediate present, penetrating into the very nature of things: “With God everything is present in the present and He does not need memory, containing and contemplating everything with His insightful power” (Ibid. II 1. 282. 6-283 . 4). According to G., God knows in the most accurate way not only the highest and universal, but also every single thing: “... the accuracy of His knowledge extends to the smallest details. ...He knows every single thing with the same accuracy as a person knows someone he knows by name” (Ibid. II 1.436.2-6). Moreover, in the divine nature “there is no difference between desire and action” (Ibid. II 1.228.11-13). With Him “power accompanies the will, and the will serves as the measure of power” (Idem. Apol. in Hex. // PG. 44. Col. 69).

G. believes that the content of the blessed life of God is infinite love: “The life of the highest nature is love, because the beautiful is certainly loved by those who know. God knows Himself, and this knowledge becomes love, because what is known is beautiful by nature” (Idem. De anima et resurr. // PG. 46. Col. 96-97).

III. Triadology. According to G., the true teaching about God necessarily presupposes the presence in Him not only of identity, but also of difference. At the same time, G. believed that Christ. the doctrine of the Trinity of God represents a middle way between two false ones - the polytheism of Hellenism and the radical monotheism of Judaism: “from Judaism Christianity takes the “unity of nature”, from Hellenism - “difference in hypostases”, so that “the number of the Trinity is a medicine (θεραπεία) for those who are mistaken about unity, and the concept of unity is for those who are scattered into multitudes” (Idem. Or. catech. 3). The principle of the “middle way” serves as a criterion for the truth of the church teaching about God and its difference from two heretical extremes - Sabellianism and Arianism (Idem. De patre et filio // GNO. T. 3. 1. P. 71. 1-11).

Reflecting on the mystery of St. Trinity, G. used the analogy of mind, breath and speech, already known to ante-Nicene theologians. He noted that all people would agree that God is “not dumb” (οὐδὲ ἄλοϒον). And He who is not dumb has the Word. And just as in man the word comes from the mind, so in God the Son-Word is born from the Father-Mind. But unlike human words, this is the true Mind and the true Word (Idem. De hom. opif. 5): The Word of God is not scattered in the air, but is “essentially hypostatic” (οὐσιωδῶς ὑφεστώς), that is, it has an independent existence, It is rational (νοερόν τι χρῆμα), living (ζῶν), eternal, incorporeal, possessing free will (προαιρετικόν, προαιρετικὴ δύναμις), omnipotent ( παντοδύναμον), has no inclination towards evil, but is always aimed at good. Revealing the Father in Himself, the Word is different from Him by hypostasis (ἕτερον τῇ ὑποστάσει), or by subject (ὑποκειμένῳ), but one with Him by nature (ἕν κατὰ τὴν φύ σιν - Idem. Or. catech. 1). However, unlike the apologists, G. did not allow a distinction in relation to God between the “inner word” (ἐνδιάθετος λόϒος) and the “spoken word” (προφορικὸς λόϒος), i.e., the difference between the “hidden stage” of the Word’s presence in God. tse (ἀφανὴς ἦν ἐν τῷ πατρὶ κρυπτόμενος) and His revelation in the creation of the world, but believed that the Word was always not so much “in God” (ἐν τῷ θεῷ), but “with God” (πρὸς τὸν θ εόν), possessing “its own hypostasis, originating from Fathering of the essence ”(ἰδίαν ὑπόστασιν ἐκ πατρικῆς οὐσίας ὑφεστῶσαν-idem. De Patre et Filio // Gno. T. 3 (1). P. 81.10-18).

Just as human speech is accompanied by breathing, which represents the full power of the word, so the Spirit of God accompanies the Word (τὸ συμπαραμαρτοῦν τῷ λόϒῳ) and reveals His action (φανεροῦν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐν έρϒειαν). Like the Word of God, the Holy Spirit also has a hypostatic existence. He is “a self-existent power that is contemplated in His special hypostasis (ἐν ἰδιαζούσῃ ὑποστάσει) and cannot be separated from God, in Whom She abides, or from the Word of God, Which accompanies... She is hypostatic (καθή ὑπόσ τασιν οὖσαν), has free will, self-motivated, effective, always chooses only the good and for every intention has the power corresponding to the desire” (Idem. Or. catech. 2).

From St. Basil the Great G. took the doctrine of the difference between essence (οὐσία) and hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) as between the general (τὸ κοινόν) and the particular (τὸ ἴδιον) and brought it to logical perfection in the epistles “To the Hellenes”, “To Avlaviya" and " To Peter." According to G., there are 2 classes of names or concepts - general (τὰ κοινά), expressed about the plural. objects and having a certain general meaning (καθολικωτέραν τινὰ τὴν σημασίαν), and specific ones (τὰ ἰδιάζοντα, τὰ ἴδια), expressed only about s.l. one subject and having a particular meaning (ἰδικωτέραν τὴν ἔνδειξιν). The former mean general nature (τὴν κοινὴν φύσιν), or essence (τὴν οὐσίαν) plural. items falling under one general class. The latter mean a specific object (πράϒμα τι), which has a special property (τὸ ἰδιάζον), thanks to which it differs from other objects of this class. An example of the 1st class of names is the expression “a person in general” (καθόλου ἄνθρωπος), and the 2nd is “a certain person” (ὁ τις ἄνθρωπος), for example. Paul or Timothy (Idem. De diff. essent. et hypost. 2. 1-30). A similar distinction between classes of names goes back to Aristotle (Arist. Categ. 2 a 11-27). But if Aristotle called the 1st class of names “second essences” (δεύτεραι οὐσίαι), genera (ϒένος) and species (εἶδος), and the 2nd class “first essences” (πρῶται οὐσίαι) or individuals who are “subject to "(ὑποκείμενον) genera and species, then G. following St. Basil, as a rule, calls the 1st class of names “general essences” (κοιναὶ οὐσίαι) or “general natures” (κοινὴ φύσις), and the 2nd class - hypostases (ὑποστάσεις) or persons (πρ όσωπα) and only occasionally - by private entities (μερικαὶ οὐσίαι, ἰδικαὶ οὐσίαι).

The saint defines hypostasis as follows: “Not an indefinite concept of essence, which does not stop at anything because of the generality of what is designated, but [such a concept], which by visible distinctive properties reveals and limits the general and indefinite in any object” (Greg. Nyss. De diff. essent. et hypost. 3. 1-12). At the same time, he identifies essence with the concept of species (εἶδος), and hypostasis with the concept of individual (ἄτομον) and a special person (ἰδικὸν πρόσωπον): “Species and individual are not the same thing, that is, essence and hypostasis. For the one who says: “individual,” that is, hypostasis, immediately turns his thought to the study of what he heard, [what he is]: curly-haired, blue-eyed, son, father, and the like; and the one who says: “species,” that is, the essence, [turns the thought] to clarifying [what it is]: a rational, mortal animal, possessing intelligence and knowledge, or an unreasonable, mortal animal, neighing, and the like. If the species and the individual, that is, the hypostasis, are not identical, then the special properties that characterize both are not identical. If they are not identical, then the same names cannot be applied to them” (Idem. Ad Graec. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 31. 1-11). Moreover, since each hypostasis is characterized by special properties, G. also calls hypostasis “a collection of distinctive properties related to each of them” (τὴν συνδρομὴν τῶν περὶ ἕκαστον ἰδιωμάτων) or “a special sign of existence everyone" diff. essent. et hypost. 6. 4-6, 13). An equally important characteristic of a hypostasis is its independence, originality (τὸ ὑφεστάναι), so that a hypostasis is not just a “collection of distinctive properties”, but an independently existing thing (τὸ ὑφεστὸς πρᾶϒμα), an individual (ὁ καθ᾿ ἕκ αστον), subject (ὑποκείμενον), that is, a subject possessing these distinctive properties (Idem. Contr. Eun. I 1.498.2).

G. extended this idea of ​​the logical difference between essence and hypostasis in the created world to God, in whom there is a single common essence, or nature (μία οὐσία, μία φύσις), which are involved (μετέχουσιν αὐτῆς) or belong to (ἧς ἐστι) three special Hypostases, or Persons (τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, τρία πρόσωπα - Idem. Ad Ablab. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 38. 13-15). Why there are only three Divine Hypostases is clear from the Holy Scriptures. Scripture (Idem. Or. catech. 39. 17-18), as well as from the analogy of speech and breathing (Idem. Ad Graec. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 24. 14-24).

According to G., each of the three Divine Hypostases is characterized by its own special properties (τὰ ἰδιώματα, τὰ ἰδιάζοντα σημεῖα, τὰ χαρακτηρίζοντα, αἱ ἰδ ιότητες, τὰ ϒνωρίσματα), which are not transmitted or communicated (ἀσύμβατα καὶ ἀκοινώνητα) to other hypostases. It is G. who deserves the credit for clearly distinguishing hypostatic properties.

First of all, the saint distinguished them by category of cause (αἰτία, ὁ τοῦ αἰτίου λόϒος). “Confessing the identity of nature,” he wrote about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, “we do not deny the differences according to cause and effect (κατὰ τὸ αἴτιον καὶ αἰτιατὸν διαφοράν), in which only we see the difference of one from the other, believing that one there is the Cause (τὸ αἴτιον), and the other is that which is from the Cause (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ αἰτίου). And in the fact that from the Cause, we again see another difference, for one is that which is directly from the First (τὸ προσεχῶς ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου), and the other is that which is through the one who is directly from the First (τὸ διὰ τοῦ προσεχῶς ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου), so that the Son undoubtedly retains the property of only begottenness, and there is no doubt that the Spirit exists from the Father (ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι), since the mediation of the Son (τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ μεσιτείας) and for the Son Himself retains the property of only begottenness, and The spirit does not deprive of the natural relationship to the Father” (Greg. Nyss. Ad Ablab. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 55. 24-56. 10).

In addition, the hypostatic properties, according to G., differ in the image of being (τρόπος τῆς ὑπάρξεως): in God the Father the image of being is “unborn” (ἀϒεννήτως εἶναι, ἀϒέννητον ), i.e. “causeless” (ἄνευ αἰτίας εἶναι, μὴ ἐξ αἰτίου εἶναι) and “beginningless” (ἀνάρχως), with the Son - “begotten” (ϒεννητὸν, μονοϒενῶς, διὰ ϒεννήσεως εἶναι), i.e. e. “having a cause” (αἰτιατῶς, ἐξ αἰτίας εἶναι) directly in the Father, and in the Holy Spirit - “emanating” (ἐκπορευόμενον), i.e. also “having a cause” in the Father, but not directly, but through the mediation of the Son (Idem. Ad Ablab. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 55. 24-56.19).

Another way to express the differences in hypostatic properties in G. is the category of relationship (σχέσις). The Father has an eternal relationship with the Son, which is expressed in the property of “fatherland” (πατρότης), and the Son has a natural relationship with the Father (φυσικὴν σχέσιν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα), which is expressed in the property of “only begottenness” ( τὸ μονοϒενὲς - Idem. Ad Ablab // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 56. 6-8). The Holy Spirit also has a “natural relation” to the Father, from whom He proceeded through the Son (Idem. Contr. Eun. I 1.279.1-280.10). Although the Holy Spirit comes from the Father (ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς), at the same time there is also the Spirit of the Son (πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ εἶναι, Χριστοῦ πνεῦμα) and has direct relation to Him (Idem. De orat. Dom. 3).

Thus, between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit there is a certain “sequence of relations” (ἡ σχετικὴ ἀκολουθία), or “order” (τάξις), since in a logical sense, more precisely, in terms of causality, the Father is conceptualized before the Son, and the Son - before the Holy Spirit, although in relation to our knowledge the Most Holy. The order of the Trinity is reversed: from the Spirit through the Son to the Father (Idem. Contr. Eun. I 1.690.7-691.8).

According to G.’s definition, God the Father is “a force that exists unbornly and without beginning as a hypostasis” and is the sole Cause, or the Author of 2 other hypostases (Idem. De diff. essent. et hypost. 4. 17-19). Monarchy, i.e., the “sole principle” position of God the Father, is one of the main principles of the unity of the Divinity of the Holy One. Trinity: “One and the same Person of the Father, from whom the Son is born and the Holy Spirit proceeds. Therefore, we boldly call the one Cause, together with Her Causes, in the proper sense, one God, since She exists together with Them” (Idem. Ad Graec. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 25. 4-8) . But if with respect to cause only God the Father is without beginning, then with respect to time all the Hypostases of the Most Holy One. The Trinity is co-eternal and co-begotten: “Just as the Son is united with the Father and, having being from Him, does not lag behind in being, so the Holy Spirit relates to the Only Begotten, Who is only mentally, according to the principle of cause, contemplated before the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, and temporal extension is not takes place in pre-eternal Life” (Idem. Contr. Eun. I 1.691.3-8).

The Son, according to G., is born directly from the Father, which is the difference between His birth and the procession of the Holy Spirit (Idem. Ad Ablab. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 55. 24-56. 10 ). The image of this birth is ineffable and inexplicable, but can be characterized through various analogies: for example, the origin of the word from the mind in man, the origin of a ray from the sun, light from a lamp, radiance from a flame, aroma from incense (Idem. De patre et filio // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 74. 7-19).

When G. speaks of the birth of the Son “from the Hypostasis of the Father” (ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑποστάσεως - Idem. Contr. Eun. III 6.45. and “from the essence of the Father” (ἐκ πατρικῆς οὐσί ας - Ibid. III 1. 135. 8), The 1st expression points to the Father as the Cause of the hypostatic existence of the Son, and the 2nd expression, identical to the words of the Nicene Creed “from the essence of the Father” (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός), G., like St. Athanasius I the Great, emphasizes “essential” or natural character of the birth of the Son (cf.: Idem. Contr. Eun. III 2.94.7-9).

To describe the birth of the Son from the essence of the Father, G. uses the analogy of the natural birth of people (Idem. Ad Simpl. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 65. 11-24), emphasizing, however, its insufficiency for adequate transmission the truth of Divine birth, free from k.-l. suffering, division and temporal-spatial restrictions (Idem. Contr. Eun. I 1.624.1-629.1).

The Son has a “natural” or “true relation” to the Father (φυσικὴν σχέσιν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, ϒνησίαν σχέσιν - Idem. Contr. Eun. I 1.298.5) and “kinship by nature” (τὸ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν οἰκεῖον - Idem . Contr. Eun. I 1. 298. 6-7), being “united with the Father by nature” (τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ἥνωται - Idem. De orat. Dom. 3), being “consubstantial” with the Father. Following of this, He is not by grace, but by nature and in truth, called the Son of God, that is, the “own Son” of God the Father, “thanks to the unity of His essence with that [essence] from which He received hypostatic existence” (Idem. Contr. Eun. III 1. 92. 3-5).

At the same time, the Son always abides in the Father and without change possesses the divine essence and all its distinctive features: “The Only Begotten God, having come from the Father and abiding in the Father, by His birth did not in the least change in Himself the essence of the Unbegotten... being everything that the Father is, except being the Father" (Idem. Contr. Eun. III 1. 85. 5-86. 1). The same follows from calling the Son “the Image of God”: the Son “exists in the very Image of God, for everything that is characteristic of the Father is in the Son - eternity, immateriality, immateriality, incorporeality, so that in the Son the Image of the Father’s mark is preserved in everything” (Idem. Adv. Apollin. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 159. 5-9).

At the same time, G. believed that the natural nature of the birth of the Son does not at all contradict the idea of ​​the presence in the Father of the will to give birth to the Son, which, however, does not serve as some kind of mediastinum between the Father and the Son, but coincides with the birth itself: similarly just as the flame of fire, if we assume that it has the will to shine, would wish to shine at the very moment of its appearance, so that the ignition of the fire would coincide with its desire to shine, and the desire to shine would coincide with the very appearance of light, so in the simple and omnipotent divine in nature, everything exists together and at the same time - the eternal existence of the Father, and the desire to have the Son, and the existence of the Son in the Beginning, that is, in the Father (Idem. Contr. Eun. III 6. 16. 6-22. 3).

G. sought to substantiate the eternity of the birth of the Son from the Father and his originlessness in time, relying on the idea of ​​the immutability of God: “What God is now, He always is, not becoming worse or better from addition, not accepting anything else from [someone] else and without changing, but He is always identical to Himself. Therefore, if He was not the Father from the beginning, then He did not become one later; if it is recognized that He is the Father, then, as I have already said, that He is now, He has always been, and if He has always been, then He will always be. So, the Father is always the Father, and together with the Father, of course, the Son is also thought of, for it is impossible to use the name of the Father if the Son does not confirm this name” (Idem. Contr. Eun. I 1.592.3 - 593.6).

G. also used other arguments: in particular, that the Father is eternally wise and omnipotent, but His Strength and Wisdom is the Son, which means His birth is eternal and beginningless (Idem. De patre et filio // GNO. T. 3. Pt 1. P. 72. 18-73. 4), or that, just as a ray always exists together with the sun and light with the fire of a lamp, radiance with light, so the Son always exists with the Father (Ibid. P. 74. 7-19). That. G. came to the conclusion that “the Son, being eternally with the Father, is both born and at the same time beginningless; and He is without beginning because of His eternal presence with the Father, but He was born because He has the Father as the Author of His being” (Idem. De patre et filio // GNO. T. 3. 1. P. 76. 2-5). And in this sense, that is, in the sense of the cause of His hypostatic existence, the Son is not without beginning (Idem. Contr. Eun. I 1.356.1-11).

Closely connected with this position is G.’s teaching about the birth of the Son from the Father as a continuously ongoing and at the same time perfect and complete act. According to G., the words of St. The scriptures “before all the hills he gave birth to me” (Proverbs 8.25 according to LXX) indicate that the Savior is always born of the Father, and the words “Today I have begotten You” (Ps. 2.7) indicate that He is already born before and always coexists with the Father, or, more precisely, “once born” (ἅπαξ ϒεϒεννημένος - Idem. De patre et filio // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 74. 20-27). In addition, “The divine birth is free from any passionate representation, and one should not think of temporal extension in it” (Idem. Contr. Eun. III 7. 29. 2-30. 1).

The image of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father as from a single unborn Cause of G. differed from the image of the birth of the Son in that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father directly, like the Son, but through the mediation of the Son. Since the Son, as a result of birth from the Father, receives from Him the divine uncreated nature, His mediation also provides the Holy Spirit with a “natural relationship with the Father” (Idem. Ad Ablab. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 56 4-10), so that the Holy Spirit is “not alien to the nature of the Son” (Idem. De orat. Dom. 3). He is “combined in uncreatedness” with both the Son and the Father and has “commonness of nature” with Them, that is, he is consubstantial with Him (Idem. Contr. Eun. I 1. 279. 5-281. 7). And just as the Son is united with the Father, so the Holy Spirit is in contact with the Only Begotten Son, so that if He proceeds from the Father after the Son, then the Son is only thought of in relation to the Cause before Him.

Therefore, another distinctive feature of the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, according to the teachings of G., is that the Spirit, emanating from the Father, is at the same time the Spirit of the Son (πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ, πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ): “It is said that the Holy Spirit is from the Father, and it is testified that He is the [Spirit of] the Son (τοῦ υἱοῦ εἶναι); for [the apostle] says: If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His (Rom 8:9). So, the Spirit, being from God, is also the Spirit of Christ (Χριστοῦ πνεῦμά ἐστιν). But the Son, being from God, is no longer and is not called the [Son of] the Spirit; and this sequence of relations does not reverse” (Idem. De orat. Dom. 3). The Holy Spirit is directly united with the Son and is always thought of inseparably with Him (Idem. De diff. essent. et hypost. 4. 20-29). Closely connected with this is another hypostatic feature of the Holy Spirit - He “appears through the Son Himself” (δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ πεφηνέναι - Idem. Contr. Eun. I 1. 280. 9-12).

G. explained the hypostatic properties of the Holy Spirit using the analogy of a ray of light originating from the Sun: “Having entered into the comprehension of the Unborn Light, in close proximity we also understood the Light that originated from It, like a certain ray coexisting with the Sun... And in the same way [ we have understood] another similar Light, not separated by any time interval from the born Light, but shining through It, and having the cause of Hypostasis in the Primordial Light, namely, the Light, Which Itself shines in the likeness of the previously known Light, and enlightens, and produces everything else that is characteristic of Light” (Idem. Contr. Eun. I 1.532.5-534.1).

A feature of G.'s teaching about the Holy Spirit is his idea of ​​Him as a “living, essential and hypostatic Kingdom” (βασιλεία ζῶσα καὶ οὐσιώδης καὶ ἐνυπόστατος) or royal “anointing” (χρῖσις, χρίσμα), which the Father has anointed the Crimea from time immemorial His Only Begotten Son - Christ, “King of Existence.” As the eternal and uncreated Kingdom, the Holy Spirit is “immortal, immutable, unchangeable, eternally good and not in need of grace from without, because He Himself produces everything in everyone as He wants, holy, sovereign, right, just, true, testing the depths of God, from Coming from the Father and received from the Son” (Idem. Adv. Maced. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 97. 8-103. 13).

Considering the differences between the Hypostases of the Most Holy One. Trinity, G. spoke in no less detail about Their unity. The main basis of this unity is a single divine essence, which is equally possessed by all three Divine Hypostases. It is this unity, identity and inseparability of essence, or nature, in other words. G., first of all, guarantees the unity of the Divinity both in a logical and ontological sense: “Since there is one essence to which the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit belong, and one name pointing to it - I mean name God, then there really is one God according to the concept of essence, and no argument will force us to recognize three Gods, as well as three essences. Indeed, if we do not speak of Peter, Paul and Barnabas as three entities, since they belong to one, then how much more justly will we not say this about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (Idem. Ad Graec. // GNO T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 22. 13-24).

Dr. principle of unity Pres. The Trinity is the unity of power (δύναμις), will (θέλημα, βούλημα) and action (ἐνέρϒεια). Indeed, “The Holy Trinity performs every action, not differing in the number of Hypostases, but there is a certain unified movement and distribution of good will, which takes place from the Father (ἐκ τοῦ πατρός) through the Son (διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ) to the Spirit (πρὸς τὸ πνεῦμα)" (Idem. Ad Ablab. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 48. 20-49. 1). Therefore, “we do not find any difference in the actions of [the Hypostases] due to the commonality of names, and the commonality of Their nature is clearly proven by the identity of the actions. If “Divinity” is the name of action, then we are talking about both one action of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and about one of Their Divinity” (Idem. Ad Eustath. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 14. 18-15. 3).

In addition, G. spoke about the unity of the Divine Hypostases in relation to the mind (ϒνώμη) and wisdom (φρόνησις - Idem. De patre et filio // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 79. 26-29). Finally, he noted that “The Divine Persons are not separated from each other by time, place, advice, activity, action, suffering, or anything similar that is observed among people” (Idem. Ad Graec. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 25. 8-11). While created beings are limited by size, place, different appearance, color and are therefore multiple, “what is observed outside these conditions avoids such restrictions; and what is not limited cannot be counted; and what is not countable cannot be represented in a multitude” (Idem. Ad Ablab. // GNO. T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 53. 10-15).

According to the teachings of G., the unity of the Divine Hypostases is so close that it allows them to “abide in each other” and “contain each other” without mixing, like the dissolution of the incense of the world in the air or sunlight in the wind (Idem. De patre et filio // GNO T. 3. Pt. 1. P. 83. 20-84. 3). He believed that the same unfused and indissoluble unity exists between the Divine Hypostases and Their essence: between Them “there is nothing intercalated, nor any independent thing different from the divine nature, so that it could be separated from itself by the insertion of an extraneous thing” ( Idem. De diff. essent. et hypost. 4. 55-62). Between the Hypostases “there is a certain ineffable and incomprehensible community and difference, so that neither the difference of the Hypostases breaks the continuity of nature, nor the community in essence merges the distinctive features... One and the same thing is both united and different, and we mentally imagine something new and extraordinary united difference and differing connection” (Ibid. 4. 83-91). Just as in a rainbow one and the same light is both identical and different, so in God “hypostatic properties, like some color visible in a rainbow, shine in each of the [Persons] confessed in the Holy Trinity,” but in a natural property it is impossible to conceive of any differences of one [Person] from another, but with a common essence, distinctive properties shine in each Person” (Ibid. 5. 7-49).

In accordance with this teaching about the unity and diversity in God, G. formulated his “rule of piety,” confessing “the one Divinity of the blessed and eternal Trinity, in no way changing in anything, but in one essence, one glory and in the same will knowable and worshiped according to the three Hypostases” (Idem. De inst. christ. // GNO. T. 8. Pt. 1. P. 42. 6-10).

How to know God?

Knowledge of God according to Gregory of Nyssa is not formal and rational knowledge about God, but life in God. In a word devoted to the issue of seeing God (the 4th commandment of beatitudes reads: “blessed are the pure in heart, that they may see God”), Gregory of Nyssa says that it is not enough to know the reason for your health. You need to live in your health and be healthy in order to truly be happy. Likewise, bliss consists in having God within oneself: “It seems to me that it is not the vision of God face to face that is offered here to one whose soul’s eye has been purified; but what is offered to us in this wondrous formula is perhaps what the Word expressed in clearer terms, addressing others, when he says:

“The Kingdom of God is within you,” so that we understand that, having cleansed our hearts from all created things and all carnal inclinations, we see in our own beauty the image of the divine nature... So, the way of contemplation in yourself that corresponds to you... This is similar to that just as those who look at the sun in a mirror, even if they do not direct their gaze to the sky itself, see the sun in the brilliance of the mirror no less than those who look at the solar disk; Likewise, you, blinded by the light of God, if you return to yourself the grace of the image inherent in you from the very beginning, then you will receive what you are looking for. Divinity really is purity, dispassion, removal from all evil. If these things are in you, then God is in you. When your mind is not involved in any evil, free from passions, removed from all impurity, you are blessed by the sharpness of your vision, for, as a purified one, you know what is invisible to the unclean, and since the carnal fog has been removed from your spiritual eyes, you contemplate immensely in the pure air of the heart it is a blissful sight.” .

The divine triad is “innumerable.”

Between the existence of the Trinity and non-existence there is no other principle of existence other than the Trinity, says Fr. Pavel Florensky, and therefore human thought, accepting revelation, is crucified in order to be reborn in the only trisolar light of truth. And this light is completely transcendental to any philosophical idea. God, being “at the same time a monad and a triad,” turns out to be higher than a mathematical number: it is impossible to count or list the divine Persons. The divine triad is “innumerable.” A highly characteristic fact is that among the various heresies, it was the Trinitarian heresy that was most severely condemned by the church, since it tore at the very foundations of all truth. The natural tendency of reason has always wanted to reduce the mystery of the Trinity either to the unity of one essence in three modes of manifestation (Sabellian modalism), or to the three Gods of polytheistic tritheism. Saint Gregory the Theologian refuses to “Judaize with the help of divine plurality.” The Trinity is affirmed immediately and forever as the Existing One and Trinity at the same time. It “blinds the eyes... and spreads Its inexpressible radiance to all.” All idea of ​​theogony, the birth of God and the development of the divine in the Trinity is excluded.[1] We owe the above truths to the theological activity of the Cappadocian fathers.

In the second half of the 4th century, a significant spiritual upsurge was noticed in Greek theology. He is associated with the theological activities of the great Cappadocian fathers - St. Basil the Great, his friend Gregory the Theologian and his brother Gregory of Nyssa. The theology of each of them presents individual characteristics, both in general and in detail, but these are, in fact, only varieties of one theological type. First of all, their theology was influenced by Origen. True, they did not assimilate the erroneous opinions of Origen (with the exception of St. Gregory of Nyssa). Origen's influence affected them to varying degrees: St. Basil the Great, a man of a more practical bent, was less subject to the influence of Origen; it had a greater impact on St. Gregory the Theologian, and St. Gregory of Nyssa is a true Origenist on certain topics. But Origen defined the general character of their theology by introducing a number of concepts. The content of the theological teaching was based on the Nicene confession. This naturally follows their dependence on the theology of St. Afanasia. They were disciples of St. Athanasius and thereby strengthened their connection with New Alexandrian theology, with that essential feature that St. Athanasius noticeably outweigh the tendencies and range of thoughts of the Asia Minor theology of St. Irenaeus, and among the Cappadocian fathers - the Origen direction. This preponderance is explained by the influence of Origen and classical science on them. Thanks to the latter, they comprehended the spirit of Hellenic culture at the level of their contemporary scientific worldview. When the Cappadocian fathers turned to the Hellenic school, the days of the dominance of one philosophical system had long passed: in the 4th century, syncretism came into its own, and everyone chose their own paths, borrowing from one or another system the necessary data for their own constructions. Therefore, among the Cappadocian fathers we see, on the one hand, the predominance of Platonic and Neoplatonic influences, but, on the other hand, they turned out to be not alien to Aristotelian views: the struggle against Arianism, mainly with Eunomius, who, with the help of Aristotelian philosophy, imparted dialectical to Arian dogmatics, scientific and philosophical form, forced the Cappadocians, with all their dislike for Aristotle, to largely use the exact concepts of the Aristotelian school, which could not remain without influence on some aspects of their theological teaching and its terminology. Given this state of affairs, the Cappadocian fathers, in turn, greatly contributed to the development of church theological science: what St. Athanasius expressed, although in a deeply philosophical spirit, but without proper dialectical processing, more like a biblical-church dogma than a strictly philosophical theory, they developed the scientific-dialectical and philosophical-critical method, translated into the exact language of modern philosophical concepts.[2]

The decisive event in the long triadological disputes of the 4th century was the Council of Alexandria. The Council of Alexandria (362) is a turning point, since at it Athanasius agreed that “consubstantial” from a theological-scientific point of view could be understood differently from how he understood it. The Nicene Symbol was to remain in force without question; therefore, Athanasius definitely refused to completely preserve the formula “one essence” (in the sense of one hypostasis), that is, he allowed such an interpretation of the term “consubstantial”, according to which it could be understood as equivalent (instead of consubstantial). He always recognized that the main thing is the birth from a being and the recognition of equality and that this is almost the truth; however, since “consubstantial” can easily be misunderstood and in view of the Nicene symbol, he retained the term “consubstantial.” Accordingly, it was possible to talk about three hypostases (along with a single deity and a single essence); however, the concession - the Neo-Nicene party arose from the Homeusians - and greater softness towards those who once signed the fourth Sirmian formula, caused the displeasure of some important representatives of the West (Lucifer of Calyar) and martyrs for the faith. In the West they felt that the old faith had been supplanted, and Athanasius himself could not fully rejoice at his new learned friends in Asia Minor, Cappadocia and Antioch, since now Origen's science, which demanded a numerical plurality of hypostases, received the right of citizenship in orthodoxy.

For the great theologians, Apollinaris of Laodicea and the three Cappadocians, Origen and the “consubstantial” served as the starting point. But they now recognized the “consubstantial” and could, with the help of it and along with it, develop their philosophical speculation, since now it was possible to remain within the limits of orthodoxy, recognizing three hypostases. By creating a solid terminology, they were also able to introduce seemingly clear formulas. “Usia” now received a middle meaning between the abstract concept of “essence”, “inner content” and the concrete “being” - however, in such a way that it strongly leaned towards the first; "hypostasis" received a middle meaning between person and property (or modality), however, the understanding of this term as person was stronger. The word "prosopon" was avoided because it was reminiscent of Sabellianism; however, it was not completely eliminated (the West remained with its expression “person,” which does not mean exactly the same thing as what we now call a person). The unity of the Divine, as the Cappadocians understood it, did not coincide with the understanding of Athanasius and Western theologians. The formula has now become: “one nature in three hypostases.” To express the real difference of persons in God's unity, Gregory of Nyssa attributed to them the “distinctive mark of being,” namely, to the Father “unbegotten,” to the Son “begetting,” and to the Spirit “procession.” The Origen-Neoplatonic speculation about the Trinity was rehabilitated. The concept of the Logos (along with the concept of the Son) came forward again. The unity of the Divine was proven on the basis of the monarchy of the Father, and not on the basis of the doctrine of consubstantiality. Thus "science" entered into an alliance with the Nicene symbol. If at the beginning representatives of science - also from among the pagans - gave preference to Arius, now even such people to whom Livanius himself gave the palm were representatives of the Nicene teaching. They stood on the basis of a scientific worldview, were in alliance with Plato, Origen and Livanius, and, meeting with the approval of philosophers, refuted Eunomius. This was at the same time the victory of Neoplatonism over Aristotelian dialectics. Thus, orthodoxy, in alliance with science, experienced a wonderful spring between approximately 370 and 394.

So, many factors forced the New Nicene thinkers, led by the so-called Cappadocians, to put forward in the deity, along with the identity of his persons, also their difference, and the difference is not external and superficial, not functional and accidental, but quite real, substantial, or, as they said then, hypostatic. Long and painful disputes arose about the difference between essence, real being and hypostasis (that is, not simple being, but expressed and meaningful being). In the end, the three persons in the problem of trinity had to be considered identical in being and different in hypostasis. At the same time, what is important for dialectics is that hypostasis, that is, the expressed meaning of being, was also conceived existentially, since otherwise the meaning of being would have to be understood in the spirit of Sabellianism, and even worse - in a subjective human way. In the Cappadocian texts we read that the persons of the deity are equally characterized by identity and difference, and both are characteristic of the persons of the deity objectively and really, hypostatically, and not simply attributively. It turned out that the three faces of the trinity represent a self-identical difference, or a self-different identity.[3]

The basis of the doctrine of the trinity of Basil the Great is the desire to avoid two extremes: the Sabellian merging of persons and the Arian separation of them. In the first St. Basil saw Judaism, in the second - pagan polytheism, and he avoids these two dangers by the doctrine of God, One in essence and Trinity in Hypostases. In his writings he clearly defines the meaning of these terms. For him, essence denotes the general, and hypostasis an individual feature. Some words have a common meaning. This is the word man. “Whoever utters it denotes the general nature, but does not indicate any one person.” Other names have a particular meaning. These are the names Paul, Timothy. The essence of Paul and Timothy will be those traits they have in common, which are denoted by the word man. Their hypostases are “that which delineates in them the general and indefinite with their distinctive properties.” Basil the Great transfers these general discussions about essence and hypostasis, as about the general and the particular, into the area of ​​the dogmatic doctrine of the Trinity. The persons of the Holy Trinity have among themselves, firstly, something in common, and secondly, something special. All Persons are uncreated, incomprehensible, omnipotent, good. But in addition, each Person has its own peculiarity: the Father, not having the cause of existence in anyone else, gives birth, the Son is born, the Holy Spirit proceeds and is the sanctifying power. The Son is consubstantial with the Father. This means that, with the exception of birth, the same Divine predicates that are characteristic of the Father and the Spirit and which are thought of in the general concept of God belong to Him. Thus, by the word consubstantial, Basil the Great understands the equality of several individuals according to their essential, i.e., generic characteristics. “Similar in essence,” he says, “when the concept of indifference is connected to it, I take it as an expression leading to the same concept, like the word consubstantial...” He gives preference to the term consubstantial only because the latter more fully expresses the concept of similarity. The difference between Athanasius and Basil the Great in understanding the term consubstantial is that the first meant by it the joint possession of the same individual essence, and the second - the possession of the same essential properties. A similar formula essentially did not satisfy St. Athanasius because she did not express the idea of ​​the unity of the Father and the Son, Vasily because she may not have expressed their complete similarity. Athanasius was accused of Sabellianism, Basil the Great of tritheism. If essence means a generic concept, and hypostasis means an individual, then such an understanding of the terms leads to tritheism. Paul, Silouan, Timothy are also consubstantial, but they are three completely separate individuals. For Athanasius, it was difficult to prove how three separate Persons could exist within one substance. For Basil the Great, the difficulty lay in the opposite - in proving the idea that the three Hypostases represent a unity. Basil the Great clearly refutes the accusation of tritheism brought against him. There are not three almighty ones, but One. The Unity of Persons is expressed in the following. In God there is only one beginning, namely in the Father. The Son and the Spirit come from the Father. The faces of the Holy Trinity are not separated by time. All of them are eternal. They are not separated by space, but are present together everywhere. They are exactly alike. “Whoever looks at the royal image recognizes more than two kings, that is, the image and the one whose image.” God is above numbers. Only complex and divisible being is subject to the law of numbers. But God is completely opposite to sensory existence. Hence, a simple being is not one in number; number is not at all applicable to the Divine. Therefore, there can be no question of three gods. The distinctive properties of the Hypostases are as follows. The Father gives birth to another in the likeness of His nature. A son is born. In the teaching about the personal properties of the Holy Spirit, Basil the Great has duality. In some places he calls procession the personal property of the Holy Spirit, in others he calls holiness (cf. Origen XIV, 8). By shrine we do not mean a state, but a certain reality that coincides with the very essence of the Spirit. As a result, it is impossible for the Holy Spirit to fall. On the contrary, angels, as complex beings, consist of their own essence and shrine given to them by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, they can fall away from holiness. The starting point for clarifying the characteristics of the Persons of Basil the Great was the baptismal formula. Therefore, most often, strictly adhering to this authority, he calls patronymic, sonship and shrine characteristics of the Hypostases.[4]

St. Gregory the Theologian, to a greater extent than Basil the Great, strove to develop such formulas of confession in which faith in the Holy Trinity would be expressed accurately and completely. In this regard, what is most noteworthy is his attitude to the question of the deity of the Holy Spirit. St. Basil the Great, fully convinced of the consubstantiality of the three Persons, until the end of his life did not dare to call the Holy Spirit in itself God. St. Gregory not only speaks of the divinity of the Holy Spirit with the same decisiveness as of the divinity of the Son, but tries to express this conviction in appropriate terms. Since 372 he energetically strives to influence others in this sense, especially St. Basil the Great. In the 12th Word he calls the Holy Spirit God and exclaims; “For how long shall we hide the lamp under a bushel and, as it were, deprive others of the perfect Divinity? Time will reveal this truth.” Basil the Great was unable to establish the distinctive sign of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit or determine the image of His origin from the Father. St. Gregory based on John. 15:26 formed the term “procession”, and in it found a complete parallel to the “birth” of the Son. And in this endeavor, St. Gregory to the formation of a certain term that clearly expresses the image of the origin of the Spirit, one cannot see only the satisfaction, so to speak, of the aesthetic need to give the Trinitarian scheme completeness by introducing this term for the third Person - although, undoubtedly, Gregory the Theologian is more than St. Vasily, reveals a desire for rounded formulas; in this case, a deep inner religious interest prompted him not only to confess, but also to capture in a certain term the equality of the Holy Spirit with the Son and the Father: a person’s hope for God-likeness can only be firmly justified if the Power that elevates him to this degree perfect. She herself possesses Divine dignity in full. Having established a specific term to determine the hypostatic distinction of the Holy Spirit, St. Gregory, in designating the properties and all three Hypostases, gives a formula that is very different from the terminology of St. Vasily. The latter, on the basis of the Holy Scriptures, preferred to use the terms “fatherland” and “sonship” as the distinctive properties of the hypostasis of the Father and the Son. Gregory the Theologian does not use these terms at all, and his entire trinitarian formula took on the following form: unbornness, birth, procession. However, as synonyms for the “origin” of St. Gregory uses the terms: advancement, production, sending down. Thus, he writes in the 25th Word: “Both the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit have in common the unbeginning of being and Divinity... The distinctive property of the Father is unbegottenness, the Son is begottenness, and the Holy Spirit is messengership.”

St. Gregory the Theologian, as well as St. Vasily, in the doctrine of the One and Trinity God in Persons, it was necessary to reckon with the accusation that his Trinitarian teaching contained tritheism. St. Gregory and reality are even stronger than St. Basil, emphasizes the unity of God: “The Divinity is one in the Three, and the Three are one, in Which is the Divinity, or, more precisely, in Which are the Divinity.” He proves unity in the Trinity, on the one hand, on the basis of the identity in the three Persons of the Divine essence: “We worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, dividing personal properties and uniting the Divinity. We do not mix the Three (Hypostases) into one, so as not to fall into the illness of the Sabellians, and we do not divide the one into three (entities), heterogeneous and alien to each other, so as not to reach the Aryan madness.” On the other hand, unity of command is achieved by the fact that the Father is the common principle of the Son and the Spirit, the source of Their deity: “It is necessary to maintain faith in one God, and to confess three Hypostases, or three Persons, each with His personal property. In my opinion, faith in one God is observed when we attribute both the Son and the Spirit to the one Author (but not add them up or confuse them with Him) - attribute them both to the same (I will call it that) movement and will of the Divine , and the identity of essence. We also maintain faith in the three Hypostases when we do not imagine any confusion or merging... Personal properties will also be observed when we imagine and call the Father beginningless and the Beginning (the Beginning, as the Culprit, as the Source, as the ever-present Light), and the Son - not at all beginningless , however, also the Beginning of all things.” St. Gregory often combines both these points of view: “We have one God, because there is one Divinity. And those who are from God are raised to the One, although they believe in the Three.” But how, in this case, should we look at the names: Father, Son and Holy Spirit? How do the properties of Hypostases relate to essence? St. Gregory explains that “Father is the name of God, not in essence and not in action, but in the relation that the Father has to the Son or the Son to the Father.” “The difference... of manifestation or mutual correlation produces a difference in Their names.” Following the example of church writers of previous times, St. Gregory strives to find suitable analogies to clarify the mutual relationship of the Divine Persons. But “no matter what I considered with myself in my mind,” he says, “no matter what I enriched my mind, where I looked for similarities for this, but I did not find anything to which God’s nature could be applied. If a small similarity is found, then much more slips away, leaving me down with what was chosen for comparison.” St. Gregory goes over ancient comparisons: spring, spring and stream, sun, ray and light, and finds them of little use; he decides it is better to abandon all images and shadows as deceptive and far from reaching the truth. However, St. Gregory often uses a new comparison that better provides the doctrine of the unity of God: “Mind, Word and Spirit.”[5]

Gregory of Nyssa always adhered to the Trinitarian terminology, as Basil the Great defined it in a letter to him. Essence is a set of common generic characteristics, hypostasis is a set of characteristics that distinguish one indivisible from another. Like Basil the Great, Gregory illustrates the meaning of his terminology with the example of three human individuals. Peter, Paul, John are three separate hypostases, man is their single and indivisible essence. In relation to the Holy Trinity, the definition of essence answers the question of what exists, the definition of Hypostasis answers the question of how it exists. In the development of this common theme for the Cappadocians, Gregory of Nyssa reveals originality in one point: in determining the properties of the Hypostases. The properties of the Hypostases are determined by the way of their existence, the Father is original and has no cause of existence in anyone. The Son and the Holy Spirit come from the Father. The problem for all Cappadocians was to point out the difference in the mode of being of the Son and the Holy Spirit. In resolving this problem, Gregory of Nyssa went his own way. The peculiarity of the Hypostasis of the Son is to be the Son and the Only Begotten. Accordingly, Gregory of Nyssa’s preferred title for the Son of God is “only begotten God.” If the Son of God is the Only Begotten Son, then this indirectly says that the origin of the Holy Spirit is not birth. The mode of being of the Holy Spirit consists in its origin from the Father through the Son. “One Person is directly from the First, Another is from the First through that which is direct from Him, which is why the Only Begotten remains with the Son... and the Spirit through the Son does not remove from natural rapprochement with the Father.” The Trinity is like three lamps. “The cause of the third flame is the first flame, which kindled the last one successively through the middle one.” This teaching of Gregory differs, however, from the Western “filioque”. The Son is not the cause of the [hypostatic] existence of the Spirit, but is only, as it were, a medium through which the power of the Father, the only cause in the sphere of the Divine, is transmitted to the Holy Spirit. The idea of ​​the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son was inherited by Gregory from Origen through the symbol of Gregory the Wonderworker. The proof of the unity of God by the nature of the accepted terminology made it difficult for Gregory of Nyssa no less than Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus. A certain Avlavius ​​wrote to Gregory: “Peter, Paul, John are united by nature, as are the Persons of the Holy Trinity. Their humanity is one, as is the One and the Divinity of three Persons. We call Peter, Paul, and John three people. Why do we recognize the existence of three people and should not talk about three Gods? In response to this question, Gregory compiled two small treatises: “To Aulavius, on the fact that there are not three Gods” and “To the Hellenes on the basis of general concepts.” In his answer, Gregory generally reproduces the argumentation of Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian: “The Persons of the Divine are one, because they are inseparable from each other neither in time, nor in place, nor in will, nor in undertakings, nor in activity.”[6]

However, it was not science alone that brought victory to the doctrine of consubstantiality, but also the course of world events. In the person of Valens, the East had a strong Arian emperor, in the person of Basil, Asian orthodoxy - an intelligent and energetic politician. Both the adherents of orthodoxy and the Homeusians were expelled; only by uniting all forces could one hope to counteract the emperor's policies. Such “unification” required an alliance of orthodoxy with the middle party and unanimous action with the West, i.e., with Rome. But it was difficult to connect them. Since 370, Basil of Caesarea began vigorous activity. However, the Roman Bishop of Damasus did not want to change his harsh attitude towards the Neo-Nicenes, and numerous councils, epistles and embassies - the dispute over Apollinaris of Laodicea and the Meletian schism in Antioch complicated matters - tried unsuccessfully (in the 70s) to convince him of the orthodoxy of the New Orthodox Eastern theologians. Both rulers of the church, Roman and Alexandrian (Peter; Athanasius died in 373) did not want to allow the relative independence of the Asian bishops who had entered into an alliance with science. However, at the Council of Antioch (379), the latter could impress with their numbers and power. This was already a consequence of a historical event: in 375, the tolerant Valentinian was succeeded in the West by the young, completely devoted to the church and orthodoxy (Damas, Ambrose) Gratian; from 378 he became sovereign (Valens died near Adrianople in the battle with the Goths), and in 379 the orthodox Spaniard of Theodosius became co-ruler of the emperor in the East. He decided to dominate the church, like Constantius, and not give it over to the power of the Roman and Alexandrian bishops. True, at first he followed them in the formula about the Trinity and issued - following his baptism in Thessalonica - the famous edict (380), which was supposed to put an end to all heresies and proclaimed the “religion” of both bishops to be the religion of the Apostle Peter. However, in Antioch, he apparently immediately recognized the Neo-Nicene Meletius as bishop and allowed a demonstrative meeting of Asian bishops in Antioch (379), which prepared the council of 381. He energetically took up the fight against Arianism, took away all the churches in Constantinople from it and banned heretics from worshiping in the cities at all. It soon became quite clear to the great politician that he could rule in the East only with Eastern orthodoxy and that therefore he should not apply the strict standard of the West in relation to the formula of the Trinity and its understanding and should finally win over the half-friends to his side. He therefore convened an eastern council in the capital in 381 and appointed Meletius, the leader of the New Orthodox party in Antioch, as its chairman. By this, however, he puzzled the Western clergy and the Egyptians, but he secured an alliance between the Cappadocians and Asia Minor. The disagreements at the council were expressed so sharply (the intrigues of the Egyptians) that the matter almost came to a split (the new chairman, Gregory of Nazianzus, had to submit). But, in the end, the council (150 bishops) proclaimed the Nicene symbol, the complete consubstantiality of the three persons, and also excommunicated the Macedonians. In fact, the doctrine of the common essence of the Father and the Son in the sense of their coexistence, and not consubstantiality, prevailed; Asia Minor, and not the Egyptians allied with Rome, gained predominance.[7]

The West was extremely dissatisfied with the result of the council, among other things, because it recognized the orthodoxy of certain persons who seemed very suspicious in Rome and, thanks to their independent behavior, limited the influence of the pope. In 382 there was some rapprochement when councils were held simultaneously in Rome and Constantinople, taking a more general point of view in matters of persons - on which the dispute now focused, since the Antiochene schism was still ongoing. But what contributed most to the reconciliation was that the spiritual leader of the West, Ambrose, was a student of the Cappadocians and was under the strong spell of their science. In 381, maybe 9/10 of the Christian East was Arian. Theodosius tried to intimidate the Arians and then win them over to his side (council of 383 in Constantinople). But he soon abandoned his soft course of action, and Ambrose followed his example in the West. One must think that the majority of the Arian and semi-Arian Greek bishops surrendered, only the extreme left party remained firm (Eunomius). Arianism died out among the Greeks earlier than Hellenism. It is true that conservative laymen looked upon the orthodox formula, while it was not yet sanctified by antiquity, rather as a necessary evil and as an inexplicable mystery, than as an expression of their faith. The victory of orthodoxy was a victory of the clergy and theologians over the faith of the people, which was indeed at a low level; she did not enlighten this faith, but as far as possible she protected it from polytheism.[8]

[1] Evdokimov P. “Orthodoxy.” BBI, M., 2002. Pp. 194-195.

[2] Skurat K. E. “Textbook on patrolology for 3rd year MDA. Post-Nicene period 4-5 centuries.” MDA, 1991. Electronic version. Page 27.

[3] Losev A.F. “History of ancient aesthetics.” “Results of a thousand years of development. Book 1." Publishing house "AST-Folio", 2000. Pp. 71-73.

[4] See: Popov I.V. “Patrology. Short course." Publishing house "Spiritual Enlightenment", M., 2003. Pp. 183-185; Sagarda N.I. “Lectures on patrolology. 1st-4th centuries". Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2004. Pp. 631-636.

[5] Sagarda N.I. “Lectures on patrolology. 1st-4th centuries". Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2004. Pp. 664-665.

[6] Popov I.V. “Patrology. Short course." Publishing house "Spiritual Enlightenment", M., 2003. Pp. 213-214.

[7] "Early Christianity". Collection of monographs in two volumes. Publishing house "AST-Folio", M., 2001. Volume 1. Page 288-289. See also: Spassky A. “History of dogmatic movements in the era of the Ecumenical Councils.” Reprint edition;

[8] «

Early Christianity". Collection of monographs in two volumes. Publishing house "AST-Folio", M., 2001. Volume 1. Page 290.

Priest Maxim Mishchenko

Controversial issues

At the same time, the views of Gregory of Nyssa on the eschatological process, the affirmation of the finitude of hellish torment and “universal restoration” (apocatastasis) are considered extremely controversial. According to Gregory, after the resurrection and the Last Judgment, when evil and vice disappear, all sinners and even Satan himself will be saved by Divine fire. These views of his have always caused objections in the Church. For example, the Monk Barsanuphius the Great said this about these theological views of Gregory of Nyssa: “Do not think that people, although saints, can completely comprehend all the depths of God... If a holy man speaks about the above-mentioned opinions, then you will not find him confirming the words his own, as if he had a confirmation from above, but they stemmed from the teachings of his former teachers, and he, trusting their knowledge and wisdom, did not ask God if this was true.”

The screensaver features a medieval book miniature. Photo

Orthodox Life

The future always scares us with its unknown. But maybe by learning a little about him, we can make him less intimidating?

We are talking, of course, not about the future of earthly life, but about the much more “inconvenient” and so far inaccessible life after death. I am sure that knowledge alone is not enough here, since the possibility of achieving blissful eternity does not depend on this. However, everything must begin with knowledge, because thanks to it we can get a fairly specific understanding of what we are striving for and what to do. Naturally, here we do not pretend to provide exhaustive information on the issue raised.

Let's divide our short story into thematic parts and the first thing worth talking about is the perception of death. Of course, we all understand that it should not exist, that its appearance is a human tragedy. But on the other hand, by introducing death, the Lord put into it a good cleansing property. This is how St. writes about it. Gregory: “Since by free movement we have drawn ourselves into communication with evil, with some kind of pleasure, as if some kind of poison seasoned with honey, mixing evil into our nature, and through this depriving ourselves of bliss, which, as we imagine, consists of this, in order not to suffer, they were transformed into vice: then for this reason a person, like some meager vessel, again decomposes into the earth, so that, after the separation of the filth he has now perceived, he can be recreated by resurrection into his original form.” The saint illustrates the necessity and meaning of death with a good example. Let us assume that lead was poured into a certain vessel, but the owner of this vessel decided to clean it for future use for good purposes. If he has the necessary knowledge and skills, to complete the task he needs to destroy this vessel, remove the frozen metal from there, and then put everything back together. The parallel, I think, is clear. Thus, death is a “reboot” of human nature in order to cleanse it from the admixture of sin and vice.

With such reasoning about death in St. Gregory's understanding of all human nature is closely connected. Thus, he writes, the body does not disappear completely, but simply disintegrates into its component parts. Moreover, the soul is inextricably linked with each of these parts. On the one hand, here the saint explains the possibility of a future resurrection, and also proves the identity of the resurrected bodies with those in which we find ourselves today. On the other hand, here one can see his deep conviction in God’s creation of man as inextricably whole and, despite the appearance of death, this integrity is still preserved. It seems to me that if we delve deeper into this thought, it can greatly change our perception of death, since in it there is no destruction of even one part of human nature, i.e. the body continues to exist and maintain a connection with the soul, only in a different form.

A natural continuation of the topic of death is a conversation about the posthumous fate of the soul. God, writes St. Gregory, providentially divided a person’s life into two parts, i.e. again we see an inspiring message about the unreality of death, as the absence of life at all. But then the saint already sounds a very strict sentence, allowing you to feel the urgency of the realization of the freedom given to man. He writes that we choose between good here and evil there, and vice versa - between evil here and good there. Those. by perceiving good in an earthly sense and indulging in it, a person will change his fate to the diametrically opposite one in the afterlife. But if he endures evil, again in the earthly sense, then he will certainly achieve bliss after death. That is why it is so important for us to learn resignation and gratitude to God precisely in those cases and situations when we feel bad. Consider that every time we experience illness, the death of loved ones, or other shocks, we can gain something that we would never have acquired without them. Yes, we don’t want this to happen again, we would never agree to go through troubles again and would not wish them on someone else, but since they have already happened, then we need to be able to rebuild ourselves and make the most of them. Only in this way can we move from the pole of earthly evil to the pole of eternal goodness, bliss and love. The aspiration of the human will is critically important here, since it is precisely this that determines our movement in one direction or another.

After death, the soul directed towards God, according to St. Gregory, does not go into a state of rest, but continues her ascent to the One to whom she aspired during her stay with the body. We understand perfectly well that improvement, development in the infinite God can also be infinite. Only now in the souls of the righteous the movement of irrational forces ceases, and the ascension to God is much easier. “The soul, pure from all vice, now enters into communion with the Divine, united with what is characteristic of it,” the saint notes and adds that only one who is in darkness can desire light, and upon achieving it, the desire is replaced by pleasure. “Having become completely like God in simplicity and uniformity,” continues St. Gregory, - the soul loves this simple, immaterial and only good worthy of love, enters into the closest unity with it with love-filled disposition and activity, conforming itself to what it always finds and accepts, and through assimilation to the good, becoming similar to the nature of that which partakes."

The condition of sinners is the complete opposite. Accustomed to striving for the sensual pleasures of the body, when deprived of it, the soul retains these aspirations, which is the core of torment. And the stronger the attachment to earthly things, the stronger the torment will be. “So for the lovers of flesh, after the transition to the invisible and subtlest life has been completed,” writes St. Gregory, “it is, of course, impossible not to attract with you some kind of carnal stench, from which the torment becomes even more severe for them, because the soul from this circumstance becomes more coarsely reified.” But the saint also has encouraging reasoning on this matter. He says that since the soul is godlike, it does not completely lose its connection with God, but retains some desire for Him. She is the bearer of the image of the Lord, and from here arises an attraction to the Prototype. But if for the righteous this attraction is pleasant, then for sinners, although it is unpleasant and inconvenient, it is still not impossible. This, in fact, is the essence of the upcoming healing for those who are now suffering. Here we see hope not only for us, but also for our deceased relatives, for whom we pray.

As a result, this entire period of separation of soul and body must come to its end - the resurrection from the dead. First of all, all our hopes and aspirations are connected with the act of restoring a person, and before that, we need to do everything possible to save ourselves and the people close to us.

So, we see that what has been said is quite simple and understandable. The difficulty lies in its implementation in practice. But, as Kant said, if there is a goal and means to achieve the goal, then the goal is fundamentally achievable, so we focus on such saints as Gregory of Nyssa, we do not give up, we continue to work with boldness and gratitude to God.

Archpriest Vladimir Dolgikh