Triadology

The whole journal issue is available at
http://www.collegepublications.co.uk/downloads/ifcolog00035.pdf

Abstract

The intuition of number implied in the Byzantine notion of Holy Trinity is
inconsistent and, more specifically, paraconsistent. The corresponding paraconsistent numbers can be called ‘quasi-ordinals’ taking in mind their ‘duals’, the
numbers introduced for paracomplete quantum logics by Newton da Costa et
al., which are called ‘quasi-cardianls’.

This article builds on C. S. Peirce’s suggestive blueprint for an inclusive outlook that grants reality to his three categories. Moving away from the usual focus on (contentious) cosmological forces, I use a modal principle to partition various ontological layers: regular sign-action (like coded language) subsumes actual sign-action (like here-and-now events) which in turn subsumes possible sign-action (like qualities related to whatever would be similar to them). Once we realize that the triadic sign’s components are each answerable to this asymmetric subsumption, we obtain the means to track at which level of complexity semiosis finds itself, in a given case. Since the bulk of such a “trinitarian” metaphysics would be devoted to countenancing un-interpreted phenomena, I argue that current misgivings about sign-based ontologies are largely misplaced.

Starting from the idea that the authority in the Church finds its source in God our Father, together with Tillard, the primacy is seen as service, whose nature is: sacramental (Eucharistic), episcopal, martyriological, agapean, personal - corporate. This is why Tillard's opus provokes the Roman Catholic theology, it is even provoked in a positive manner in order to defend diaconal, and not the autocratic service of the primate. The Orthodox Church is faced with a challenge to openly confirm its own tradition conscience and the truth that it has never existed without the primal on the ecumenical level and that it, after the schism, recognized one in the person of the Archbishop of Constantinople. His primacy has never been, and should never be equal to the primacy of the Roman Bishop of the second millennium, but it must not be reduced to a fluid and imprecise primacy of honour, without clear powers of government.

The article is the first part of our study concerning some possible repercussions
and influences between the sixth-century thinker Leontius of Byzantium, in whose writings a complex logical, theological and philosophical apparatus for solving dogmatic controversies was being formed, on the one hand, and proto-Palamite
and proto-anti-Palamite (Latinophile) thought of the thirteenth- and fourteenth-century
Byzantium, on the other. Although one cannot say about Leontius’ direct influence upon the representatives of the both hostile camps (resp., Theophanes of Nicaea and John XI Veccus), we can still discern some links in the logical chain of continuity between their ideas and Leontius’. These links include: a typology of «vertical»
and «horizontal» Divine — human relations in Leontius and Theophanes (this is an example of Leontius’ ideas being possibly positively received and appropriated by Theophanes); but on the other side we see an almost complete setback from Leontius’ ideas and heritage in the chaotic dogmatic system by Veccus, although some limited number of Leontius’ categories might have been used by John. We make the case study of Veccus’ On the Union Between the Churches of the Old and the New Rome in which text we single out and analyze the 34 points of thought in which the Latinophile patriarch dissociated himself from both the Orthodox dogmatics and Byzantine philosophy in general. As the main trait of Veccus’ doctrine which had been criticized earlier by Leontius we call tritheism. Indeed this is a continuation of all our previous research, especially on Veccus and Greek-Latin polemics.

The line separating the
Orthodox from the Filioquist triadology consists in the theological method. The primary
elements of the Filioquist doctrine are dialectical thinking and essentialism, doubled by a
logic of the separation – because the self-sufficient reason’s cataphatism cannot overcome
agnosticism –,whereas the Orthodox perspective embraces a Trinitarian vision within the
Holy Spirit, equally apodictic and apophatic, personalistic and ontological. It is the dogmatic of
the ecclesial, spiritual and contemplative experience versus the dogmatic of rational
speculation. For the Orthodox Church Filioque has been and still remains a heresy condemned
by the pan-orthodox synods and the holy fathers who have exerted their authority in the
Church. From a dogmatic point of view, Filioque remains one of the crucial obstacles against the
ecclesial reunification of Christendom.
Despite having shown open-mindedness towards the Orthodox standpoint the Catholic
Church has not relinquished Filioque, if not reaffirmed it in its official documents. Even
more so, there are only insufficient signs of it renouncing the filioquist vision which
penetrates its entire system of doctrines, and the theological method that has led to this
doctrinarian innovation. Contemporary Catholic theology admits to a “complementary”
validity of the Orthodox teaching on the Holy Spirit’s proceeding, but only in as much as it
can be integrated in the Catholic filioquist triadology.

The paper presents the newfound fragments of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s «Commentary on John» translated into Russian. The fragments in question were discovered after critical edition of this Commentary by Ph. Pusey was published in 1872. The Introduction reminds 7–8th books of the Commentary had been lost. It provides the brief overview of earlier publications containing fragments of the lost books by J. Aubert, A. Mai, J.-P. Migne and Ph. Pusey. The latest publications of J. Reuss (1944, 1966), A. Alexakis (1996) and K. Zawadzki (2018) who complemented the Commentary with new fragments are mentioned as well. The overview of content of the newfound fragments is presented. Basing on specifics of triadological terminology, the assumption is made that the two fragments of the Cod. Paris. gr. 1115 published by Alexakis do not actually belong to St. Cyril of Alexandria. The statement of Zawadzki who dates the fragment of Cod. Athon. Pantocr. 28 (discovered by him) to the times of Nestorian controversy due to occurrence of the expression «God-bearing man» (ἄνθρωπος θεοφόρος) in it is criticized. It is suggested that the abovementioned expression had been circulating long before the controversy, and criticism of dualism in christology is also encountered in the early works of St. Cyril. The conclusion is drawn that occurrence of the expression «God-bearing man» in the St. Cyril’s Commentary does not provide grounds to reject its traditional attribution to the period before 428/429.

The Trinitarian teaching is the central doctrine of the Christian religion. The Christians believe in one God who has three persons. The truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Our faith in the Triune God is not a man-made discovery, but revelation from God. He who is unapproachable for man, reveals Himself to man and becomes approachable. Isidore of Pelusium strongly underlines that, the hypostases of the three Persons of God are equal, because "one being a substance of the divine Trinity" 1. The Triune God is known "in their own hypostases" 2. The divine nature doesn't exist outside the hypostases of the Holy Trinity, nor vice versa, and they do not exist without the knowledge at their own nature. The revelation of the three divine Persons of the Triune God, each person is a perfect God, refutes the heretical beliefs of Montanus and of Sabellius. Montanus claimed that he was the organ of the Paraclete 3. Also, Sabelius taught that there is one God in three hypostases but a "triprosopos Hypostasis", so he negated the existence of the three divine persons 4. Isidore wants to exercise controversy to the remaining of supporters of various sects, such as the Arians, Sabellians, Apollinaristes and several others. He points out that the essence of the Godhead is one and the three persons of the Holy Trinity have the same essence, but the hypostasis is something different, and every person has the divine own substance 5. It is therefore a big mistake if someone refers to "the shrinkage of hypostasis as a compound of substance" 6. Anyhow, Christ revealed the divine

The Byzantine criticism of the primacy of Rome cannot be fully understood without taking into account the progressive development of the Byzantine proto-Palamite and Palamite ecclesiology from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries. In this pamphlet we have tried to show that, first of all, since its very appearance in the twelfth century the criticism in question was inextricably intertwined with the Filioque debate and with the development of the Byzantine notion of the interpenetration (perichoresis) of the Hypostases within the Holy Trinity. We see this development in Nicetas Seides (ca. 1112) already, and then the notions of the interpenetration and of the ‘eternal rest’ of the Holy Spirit in the Son feature prominently in all the major triadological works of such basic authors for the Roman primate criticism as John X Camateros (1199 – 1200), Germanus II (1223–1240), Nicephorus Blemmydes, Theodore II Lascaris, Georges Acropolites (50-es of the 13th century), Georges of Cyprus, Georges Moschambar (70-es and 80-es of the same century), Nilus Cabasilas, Barlaam the Calabrian (30-es of the 14th century) and, as a result of this two-centuries development, in Gregory Palamas himself.
Unlike the Latin theological tradition (cf., e.g., in Joslenus of Soisson and John Quidort), the Byzantines tended to underline the ‘inner-Trinitarian symmetry’ between the Son and the Spirit, making emphasis also on the thought that Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of God, is the only Giver of the charisms of the Spirit to the Church. If we compare this line of reasoning with what Innocent III wrote to John X Camateros, as well as with some odd expressions of Peter Damiani and Constantine Stilbes, we will come to the conclusion that the privilege and prominence of St Peter, so often spoken of by the Pope, were nothing else than a special ‘super-charism’ of the Spirit, giving Peter and his successors a special power over the whole Church. This charism makes its bearer, i.e., the Pope himself, a kind of a ‘second reason’ of the charisms of the Spirit being given to the other bishops and to the Church in its entirety. Consequently, the Roman Church tends to be a ‘superior’ part of the Church Universal.
Such a preeminence of a singular chair is inadmissible for John X Camateros, Barlaam the Calabrian and other Orthodox polemicists. Such a preeminent position makes Innocent’s and Damiani’s ecclesiology a kind of an ‘ecclesiological Filioque’, where Christ as the invisible Head of the Church holds the place of God the Father, Pope as the visible head is similar to the Son, and the Holy Spirit seems to be a kind of a subordinate Person, ranking second after the two first ones. We see the guidelines for building such a model in the famous correspondence between Innocent III and John X Camateros.
Instead, the Byzantines always took pains to explain to their Western counterparts that Pope could only be conceived as a successor of St. Peter insofar as (and as long as) he kept on preserving Orthodox dogmas, including that of the Trinity, and executed no capitulation of conscience. It was especially true for them, as Peter himself had the very same charisms, including that of the remission of sins, as all the other Apostles did. Such equality in the charisms of the Trinity was a corollary of the Divine Persons’ mutual eternal interpenetration into each other. These two lines of thought – the Trinitarian one and the ecclesiological one – intersected in the writings of the great theologians of the thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries, including even the representatives of the both hostile camps within the Hesychast controversy. Most likely, Nilus Cabasilas was followed in his anti-Latin considerations by Barlaam the Calabrian (and not vice versa), as Marie-Hélène Congourdeau has very convincingly tried to demonstrate in 2013. It means that both camps strove to preserve the cultural and spiritual autonomy of the Byzantines, whatever they could take it to mean, from the increasing power of the West.

In this paper I intend to point out the common features and differences between the theological anthropology of Father Stăniloae and Martin Buber’s personalist view. To do so, I will concentrate on the role played by the presence of human and divine otherness within relation, seen as an event that places man within a type of personal existence, which is totally different from that inherent to an individual. In order to describe this becoming of an individual within person, I will expose in the first part of this paper Martin Buber’s vision from I and Thou on this subject. This exposition of Buber’s relational ontology intends to underline a conceptual pattern which is to be found again in the theology of
Father Stăniloae, but which Stăniloae overcomes by referring anthropology to triadology, in virtue of an iconic relation between the two ontological levels.

"The Triune God exists "beyond" of the world and therefore the human being fails to know Him through his own forces. God reveals His idioms but He never reveals His ousia – nature. Isidore urges that the deity should be accepted only by His existence and actions, and the human should not make any effort to investigated God’s substance, because it is impossible for people and for the heavenly hosts too. Isidore teaches that the Immaculate and ineffable divine nature is far from any time and place, so there is no significance into the numeric «order» of the persons in the Trinity.

Cyril underlines that the ousia of God is God. It is the energies of God that enable us to have an experience of the Divine. At first through sensory perception and then later intuitively or noetically. The essence, being, nature and substance (ousia) of God are uncreated and incomprehensible. God's ousia is defined as "that which finds no existence or subsistence in another or any other thing". Cyril underlines that human beings’ communion in the divinity of Christ means people’s union with the Trinity, which in its turn allows the divine nature to pervade and permeate people, just as fire heats a piece of iron and makes it glow  All the man has to do after believing in Christ and discovering HIS communion with him is to give the gOD, ineffable beauty of the nature of the Trinity the chance to dawn within people, to shine and to glow.



"

2 ) ‫ن‬ ‫دكأ‬ ‫و‬ ، ‫نكرج‬ ‫ن‬ ‫يأ‬ ً ‫نيت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫جيط‬ ‫نور.‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ض‬ ‫قد‬ ‫نا‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫نيتص‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ع‬ ‫قد‬ ‫نلٌن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫قدكأس‬ ‫نيتس‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ت‬ ُ ‫قدك‬ ‫نكقد‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ع‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ض‬ ‫ة‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫بدأس‬ ‫نيتن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫نك‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ة‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫بدأس‬ ‫نلوس‬ ‫ن‬ ‫أيت‬ ‫ج‬ ‫نكيل‬ ‫ن‬ ‫قدي‬ ‫نيتن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫نيت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫قد‬ ‫نة،‬ ‫ن‬ ‫قدكألس‬ ‫دوجلة‬ ‫نتو‬ ‫ن‬ ‫يس‬ ‫جر‬ ‫نا‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ع‬ ِ ّ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ُ ‫قس‬ ‫نو‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ية‬ ‫نرور‬ ‫ن‬ ‫أس‬ ‫د‬ ‫لة‬ ‫يو‬ ‫دألر‬ ( 3 ) . ‫نر‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ق.‬ ً ‫نك‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ج‬ ‫نة‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ل‬ ‫نكيل،‬ ‫ن‬ ‫قدي‬ ‫قطس‬ ‫نسق‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ل‬ ‫نيتة‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ل‬ ‫نا‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ع‬ ‫رة‬ ‫نو‬ ‫ن‬ ‫قست‬ ‫نيت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫وق‬ ‫قس‬ ‫جن‬ ‫نًن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫غ‬ ( 1 ) Δἰξήλε Ἀ. Ἀξηέκε, Σό κπζηήξην ηῆο ἐλαλζξσπήζεσο ζηνύο δύν δηαιόγνπο, «Πεξί ηῆο ἐλαλζξσπήζεσο ηνῦ Μνλνγελνῦο» θαί «Ὅηη εἷο ὁ Υξηζηόο», ηνῦ ἁγίνπ Κπξίιινπ

Here we compare terminology of Veccus and Leontius of Byzantium, first of all, in what such crucial notions as hypostasis and enhypostasised is concerned. We tend to believe that Veccus might not have read Leontius at all, that being the cause of his not having avoided even those pitfalls of triadology which had been obvious for Leontius himself. Also we analyze Georges Moschambar's charge of Tritheism directed against Veccus.

Resumen: La interpretación de los Salmos por Cirilo de Alejandría muestra cómo la presencia de Dios Uno y Trino embellece las vidas de los creyentes en Él. Dios ayuda a la gente a deshacerse de la tristeza y los problemas, y a encontrar la verdadera paz y felicidad en su vida. Dios escucha las oraciones de los justos y responde a sus peticiones. Cirilo explica esa gloriosa alabanza de la vida virtuosa, y la recompensa de Dios por esto produce un gran gozo y un resplandeciente destino para todos los seres humanos que creen en Dios. Los ángeles pueden ver el rostro de Dios, pero los hombres pueden ver solo la luz de su rostro. Cuando Cirilo dice rostro de Dios, quiere decir el punto de vista espiritual de todos los que existen en la tierra, y la luz del rostro es el conocimiento parcial de todos estos. La belleza de la presencia de Dios es un paraíso que elimina la única muerte real, la muerte del alma. La vida de los seres humanos sin Dios semejan a los colores de la imagen que se desvanecen. A diferencia de esto, la existencia de Dios da esperanza y anticipa la vida de las personas. Cirilo insiste en que la presencia de Dios en la vida de los seres humanos trae paz y amor. La humanidad manchada, recupera de nuevo la inmortalidad y retoma su belleza original, después de haber expulsado al pecado y, con él, a la muerte.

Nicholas Mesarites (ca. 1163/1164 – post 1214) was rather a " theologian of transition " , than an independent thinker. Yannis Spiteris discovered in 1977 that the entire chapter on the primacy of Rome in Mesarites' treatise The Account of the Political and Ecclesiastical Events of the Year 1214 turned out to be a large quote from the Sacred Arsenal (1173–1174) by Andronicus Camaterus. We have enlarged Spiteris' observations by discovering that Chs. 35–50 of the treatise are a large quotation (with the elements of a paraphrase) of the triadological section of the Arsenal, which was centered on the Filioque. We can conclude that Mesarites' piece might have served as a florilegium and a channel of transmission of Camaterus' ideas concerning the interpenetration of the Persons within the Holy Trinity and the inadmissibility of confounding their hypostatic properties, like the Holy Spirit's hypostatic projection by the Father, with the natural ones.

Богословие св. Кирилла Александрийского, как правило, рассматривается в рамках христологической полемики с Несторием, в то время как триадологическое учение святителя менее известно в русскоязычной патристике. Статья представляет собой изложение учения св. Кирилла о Троице, cодержащегося в созданных им до начала несторианского кризиса (428 г.) антиарианских трудах («Книга сокровищ о Святой и Единосущной Троице», «Диалоги о Святой Троице», «Толкование на Евангелие от Иоанна»). Рассматриваются следующие компоненты тринитарной доктрины святителя: имена и образы существования Ипостасей, взаимные отношения Лиц Троицы, вопрос об исхождении Святого Духа, преемственность теологии и икономии, развертывание и единство Ипостасей, соимманентность Лиц, концепция Троицы как последовательности образов. Особое внимание обращено на терминологический аппарат тринитарного дискурса святителя.

St. Cyril of Alexandria’s theology is considered generally within the framework of his christological polemic with Nestorius, whereas the saint’s triadological teaching is much less common in russian-language patristics. This article presents a summary of St. Cyril’s doctrine of the Trinity on the basis of his anti-Arian writings written before the beginning of the Nestorian crisis (428) (“The Book of Treasures about the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity”, “Dialogues about the Holy Trinity”, “Commentary on the Gospel of John”). The article examines such components of the saint’s trinitarian doctrine as the Hypostases’ names and modes of existence, the Trinity Persons’ mutual relations, the issue of the Holy Spirit’s procession, the continuity of theology and economy, the Hypostases’ deployment and unity, the Persons’ co-existence, the concept of the Trinity as a sequence of images. Special attention is paid to the terminological apparatus of the saint’s trinitarian discourse.

Marcellus of Ancyra tried with zeal to combat Arius, but he adopted the opposite extreme of modified Sabellianism. Marcellus taught that the Logos did not become a separate person until the incarnation, perhaps looking back to an earlier model of ‘two-stage’ Logos theology. This denial of a separate preexistent Son made Eusebius of Caesarea label his theology as ‘Sabellian’ throughout his text Against Marcellus. Marcellus’ dyo – prosopic christology is one in which the Logos, not as separate personal being, but as God himself in his activity, is joined to an man. On the other hand, Sabellius taught that the Logos or Word existed before the incarnation, but not as a distinct person, being immanent in the essence of the Deity as the divine reason. He was regarded as there in differing from St. John in the fourth gospel, denying that the Logos, the creating, revealing, and redeeming principle, is a person really and eternally distinct from the Father. In this paper we will try to compare the triadological teaching of Marcellus and of Sabellius in order to show Marcellus’ doctrine of the trinity isn’t a simple or successive modalism of Sabellius, although Eusebius of Caesarea may perhaps be excused for confusing it with Sabellianism. Unfortunately, the teaching of Sabellius is known to us only from a few fragments, and some of these not altogether consistent, in Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius of Cyprus and other fathers. To sum up if the God of Sabellianism was metamorphosed to meet the changing needs of the world, Marcellus’ God was expanded to meet the changing needs of the world.

In his lecture «Speculation in Colours» prince E. N. Trubetskoy quotes an unnamed «biographer» of St. Sergius of Radonezh, who reported that the saint «erected a church in the name of the Holy Trinity as a mirror for all those whom he had gathered for communal life, so that the contemplation of the Holy Trinity might vanquish the fear of the hateful dividedness of the world». It is however noteworthy, that detecting the source of this quotation has not been possible up to this day: in fact, none of the ancient Vitae of St. Sergius contains it. Besides, although we can say with certainty that it was St. Sergius who has initiated special veneration of the Holy Trinity in the Russian tradition, an analysis of text sources shows that the idea of unification of the whole creation on the model of the Trinitarian unity — that exactly idea which was elaborated by prince E. N. Trubetskoy on the basis of the passage cited — is not presented in them. This makes the author of this article believe that the source for this quotation belongs to a much later epoch. His research let him claim that the source of the quotation is a text by archimandrite Anthony (Khrapovitsky) which was interpolated by N. F. Fedorov into his own discourse and reproduced by prince Trubetskoy in Fedorov’s «transcription». This conclusion enables us to make our apprehensions about the Old Russian tradition more precise and to assess critically the concepts of modern theologians, philosophers and art scholars based on this quotation.
Keywords: icon, image, St. Andrei Rublev, Holy Trinity, St. Sergius of Radonezh, Prince E. N. Trubetskoy, N. F. Fedorov, Anthony (Khrapovitsky).

Oratio 42, 15 Григорија Назијанзина у рецепцији Григорија Паламе Саже так: У тек сту се испи ту је Пала ми но тума че ње про грам ског изло же ња вје ре које Гри го ри је Нази јан зин даје у сво јој "опро штај ној бесје ди", саста вље ној при ли ком његовог повла че ња са епи скоп ског тро на у Цари гра ду. То тума че ње пре до че но је спрам ширег кон тек ста Нази јан зи но вих тео ло шких раз ма тра ња, гдје се пока зу је пре пли та ње "три ја доло шког" и "ико но миј ског" дис кур са о Богу, а извор но је укло пље но у Пала мин про је кат а) поле ми ке про тив fili o que, б) дока зи ва ња раз ли ко ва ња "сушта ства" и "енер ги ја" у Богу. Кључ за Пала ми но чита ње мје ста о којем је ријеч нала зи се у нагла ша ва њу "монар хи је Оца" и у фор му ли "од Оца кроз Сина у Све том Духу". Кључ не рије чи: Гри го ри је Пала ма, Гри го ри је Нази јан зин, Све та Тро ји ца, сушта ство, енерги је, ипо ста сна свој ства, при род на свој ства, монар хи ја, три ја до ло ги ја, ико но ми ја Увод Пита ње ути ца ја капа до киј ских ота ца на тео ло шку мисао Гри го ри ја Пала ме није, осим у неко ли ко навра та, зао ку пља ло наро чи ту пажњу истра жи ва ча. У поје ди ним је сту ди ја ма ука зи ва но на неке начел не тач ке доти ца ја (Habra 1957-1958; Damian 1996-1997), док се у извје сним слу ча је ви ма, не без прет ход не иде о ло шке аген де, насто ја ло пока за ти како изме ђу њих посто ји "темељ но несла га ње" (Houdret 1974). У ана ли за ма о који ма је реч фокус је ста вљан искљу чи во на могућ ност уте ме љења Пала ми ног раз ли ко ва ња "сушта ства" и "енер ги ја" у тек сто ви ма Капа до ки ја ца, при чему је пита ње Паламине зави сно сти кон крет но од Гри го ри ја Нази јан зи на махом ста вља но на спо ред ни коло сјек (Tor ran ce 2009: 58). 1 Међу тим, дуг "бра ните ља иси ха ста" јед ном од тро ји це "бого сло ва" Пра во слав не цркве, којег он већ у свом првом спи су дог мат ске при ро де озна ча ва као "нај ви шег у тео ло ги ји" (ὁ θεο-1 Ово важи чак и за уоп ште не пре гле де веза не за при су ство Гри го ри ја Нази јан зи на у визан тиј ској тео ло шкој мисли. Тако, реци мо, Louth 2012: 259, 263, гово ри о "дугој сјен ци коју је у исто ри ји византиј ске тео ло ги је бацио Гри го ри је Бого слов"; међу тим, прем да испи ту је његов ути цај на Мак си ма Испо вјед ни ка, Фоти ја, Псе ла и визан тиј ску литур гиј ску сви јест, Лаут чак ни не спо ми ње при су ство Нази јан зи но вих иде ја у дје ли ма Гри го ри ја Пала ме.

In this paper Saint Augustine`s egsegesis of the Old Testament theophanies in his work De Trinitate is discussed. Augustine`s hermeneutical principles are
observed in his egsegesis, one of wich is fundamental — In Vetere Novum lateat, et
in Novo Vetus pateat; also, his constitution of own theological thinking is analyzed.
This theological thinking is not formed as an autonomous speculation (so-callеd
intellectualism), but it`s shaped by three constituent factors, that stand in the hermeneutic circle in this order: Church — Bible — reason.
The main theological issues that are disscused in Augustine`s egsegesis of the
Old Testamen theophanies are triadology (with a critical attitude toward the socalled de Regnon paradigm) and the ontology of the figurative (figurate) presence
(praesentia) of God in theofanies, with an emphasis on delibarating about correctness of an unitarian interpretation of the Augustinian triadology (the example of
the Angel of the Lord in Sinai theophany).

In his lecture «Speculation in Colours» prince E. N. Trubetskoy quotes an unnamed «biographer» of St. Sergius of Radonezh, who reported that the saint «erected a church in the name of the Holy Trinity as a mirror for all those whom he had gathered for communal life, so that the contemplation of the Holy Trinity might vanquish the fear of the hateful dividedness of the world». It is however noteworthy, that detecting the source of this quotation has not been possible up to this day: in fact, none of the ancient Vitae of St. Sergius contains it. Besides, although we can say with certainty that it was St. Sergius who has initiated special veneration of the Holy Trinity in the Russian tradition, an analysis of text sources shows that the idea of unification of the whole creation on the model of the Trinitarian unity — that exactly idea which was elaborated by prince E. N. Trubetskoy on the basis of the passage cited — is not presented in them. This makes the author of this article believe that the source for this quotation belongs to a much later epoch. His research let him claim that the source of the quotation is a text by archimandrite Anthony (Khrapovitsky) which was interpolated by N. F. Fedorov into his own discourse and reproduced by prince Trubetskoy in Fedorov’s «transcription». This conclusion enables us to make our apprehensions about the Old Russian tradition more precise and to assess critically the concepts of modern theologians, philosophers and art scholars based on this quotation.
Keywords: icon, image, St. Andrei Rublev, Holy Trinity, St. Sergius of Radonezh, Prince E. N. Trubetskoy, N. F. Fedorov, Anthony (Khrapovitsky).

The writings of Saint Sava, but also the first hagiographical works that describe his life, are consciously dedicated, underlining, promoting, protecting and defending faith in the Holy Trinity, the only true God. In this study, the author proves the hypothesis of the triadological basis of the entire Sava’s legacy, confirming the allegations from the very writings of our first archbishop, but also from the work of both the oldest Sava hagiographist. After that, the results obtained link with the still insufficiently explored attitude of the close relationship of faith and learning about the Trinity God with the establishment of the socio-political and church entity in the mentioned spatial and chronological frameworks.
Списи Светога Саве, али и прва агиографска дела, која описују његов живот, упадљиво посвећено, подвлаче, промовишу, утврђују и бране веру у Свету Тројицу, јединог истинитог Бога. У овој студији аутор доказује хипотезу о тријадолошком подмету целокупног Савиног опуса, поткрепљујући је наводима из самих списа нашег првог архиепископа, али и из дела обојице најстаријих С-виних хагиографа. Након тога, добијене резултате повезује са још увек недовољно истраженим ставом о блиској вези вере и учења о Тројичном Богу са устројавањем социо-политичког и црквеног ентитета у поменутим просторним и хронолошким оквирима.

Since Christian theology, in order to formulate the articles of faith, inevitably uses the categorical apparatus of historically established philosophical traditions, the problem of theological languages is objectively present. This problem is primarily connected with the revealing of a correct correlation between those languages, which is required for maintaining the unity of the Holy Tradition. The issue in question had obtained a special significance for the Russian theological tradition of the 19th and 20th centuries, due to a fundamental paradigm shift in philosophy in the modern era and under the rapid development of Russian religious philosophy. Father Sergius Bulgakov, in particular intended to illustrate that the basic Christian dogmas, which still had not had an adequate exposition, could only be explained in the “ language of Sophiology”. The present article analyzes the critique of the historical languages of theology, which was presented by Fr. Sergius in his so called “The big trilogy” that includes his last three large works (“The Lamb of God”, “The Comforter”, “Bride of the Lamb”), it also reveals the peculiarities of the sophiological language of his own. Finally, based on the undertaken analysis, the article suggests a conceptual characterization of the “language of Sophiology”, as well as a conclusion about the association between Fr. Sergius’ theological intentions and Russian “New Theology” of the early 20th century.

Keywords: Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, Sophiology, triadology, “New Theology”,
the Russian theological tradition.

Μετάφραση Dr George Awad Ibrahim
إن القديس إيسيذوروس والقديس كريلس قد قاما مبواجهة املشاكل العقيدية
لعصرهم على أساس تفسري وتعليم الكتاب املقدس. هدف القديسني هو تسليط الضوء
على احلقائق اإلهلية السامية اليت توجد يف النصوص الكتابية. هكذا أمكنهم تطوير
تعليمهم الالهويت موثق على األسس الكتابية.
ا املنهج الرمزي أو اجملازي
ً
ًش لقد كان إيسيذوروس يستخدم دائم ا هب
مفت ذه الطريقة

على املفاهيم السامية اليت ختتفي خلف حرف الكتاب املقدس. ألجل هذا السبب، ف

س

ر
نصوص الكتاب على أساس العهد القدمي، مبثل هذه الطريقة، لكي يصل إىل نتائج تبدوا
يف البدايات أن ليس هلا عالقة بالتعبري أو احلدث الذي يفسره: " ألن هذه النصوص
ُفيد هؤالء الذين لديهم ذهن متدرب على
لديها رموز رائعة ت البحث بدقة"

.
إ