СОДЕРЖАНИЕ От составителя………………………………………………………………………………..9 Г. И. Беневич

СОДЕРЖАНИЕ
От составителя………………………………………………………………………………..9
Г. И. Беневич
Богословско-полемические сочинения прп. Максима Исповедника и его полемика против
моноэнергизма и монофелитства
1.
О
настоящем
издании………………………………………………………………11
2. Opusc. 1 и проблема соединения Трудностей к Фоме и Трудностей к Иоанну…13
3.
Предыстория
моноэнергистской
унии
Кира……………………………………16
4. Моноэнергистская уния и реакция на нее св. Софрония…………………….21
5.
6.
Псифос………………………………………………………………………………….24
Письмо
19………………………………………………………………………………27
7. Патриаршество свт. Софрония, вопрос о «Кипрском соборе» − альтернативная
история…………………………………………………………………………………………32
8. «Богомужеское действие» в Трудностях к Фоме в контексте полемики с
моноэнергизмом……………………………………………………………………………….45
9.
Предыстория
10.
Особенности
11.
После
монофелитства
и
полемики
с
ним……………………………56
Экфесиса…………………………………………………………….65
Экфесиса……………………………………………………………………..70
12. Богословско-полемические сочинения 640–643 гг. – порядок написания и главные
темы…………………………………………………………………………………………….79
13. О толковании унитарных формул в opusc. 7, 8 и 20……………………………87
14.
Толкование
Гефсиманского
моления
и
проблема
относительного
усвоения…….....................................................................................................................97
15. Новое в позиции прп. Максима после 643 г. – мнения и гипотезы………114
16.
Opusc.
16
и
вопрос
о
природной
и
гномической
воле……………………………………………………………………………………………117
17. Отказ прп. Максима от γνώμη и προαίρεσις во Христе. Философско-богословские
аспекты………………………………………………………………………………………..123
18. Альянс с Римом. Диспут с Пирром: историческая реальность и текст…143
19. На пути к Латерану. Исторические события и сочинения прп. Максима 645–648
гг………………………………………………………………………………………………155
20. Opusc. 11 и статус Латеранского собора………………………………………162
21. Вместо заключения. Проблемное поле в современных обсуждениях Богословскополемических
сочинений……………………………………………169
Примечания……………………………………………………………………………………182
Прп. Максим Исповедник
БОГОСЛОВСКО-ПОЛЕМИЧЕСКИЕ СОЧИНЕНИЯ (Перевод opusc. 1 и 20 – А. М.
Шуфрина, opusc. 12 – З. А. Барзах, остальные – Д. А. Черноглазова)
Opusc. 1. Марину, преподобнейшему пресвитеру ……………………………………299
Opusc. 2. Его же [послание] к тому же Марину из сочинения об энергиях и волях. Глава 50
………………………….……………………………………………………………..
Opusc. 3. Его же. Из того же сочинения. Глава 51 ………………………….…………….
Opusc. 4. Его же. Георгию, святейшему пресвитеру и игумену, спросившему посредством
письма
о
Христовом
таинстве
………………………….…………………
Opusc. 5. Его же …………………………………..……………………………………………
Opusc. 6. О словах: «Отче, если возможно, да минует Меня чаша сия!» (Мф. 26, 39) …
Opusc. 7. Его же. Догматический томос, отправленный на Кипр диакону Марину …
Opusc. 8. Копия письма, написанного во святых Максимом святейшему епископу
господину Никандру, о двух энергиях во Христе ………………………………………
Opusc. 9. Святым отцам, игуменам и монашествующим, и всем православным, живущим
на сем христолюбивом острове сицилийцев, смиренный и грешный Максим, недостойный
раб
………………………….…………………………………………
Opusc. 10. Святого Максима. Копия письма господину Марину, пресвитеру Кипра
Opusc. 11. Его же. Из послания, написанного в Риме ………………………….…………
Opusc. 12. Из письма того же святого Максима, написанного к славному Петру, где он
упоминает Пирра, святого Софрония, епископа Иерусалимского, и папу Гонория, а затем
чуть
позже
продолжает
…………………………………………………
Opusc. 13. Святого Максима. О двух природах Христа ………………………….………..
Opusc. 14. Максима Исповедника. Различные определения ……………………………
Opusc. 15. Святого Максима. Духовный и догматический томос, доказывающий, что
Экфесис василевса Ираклия, воспринятый как нововведение по наущению Сергия,
предстоятеля Константинопольского, не согласуется с божественным Писанием и отцами,
а согласуется с безбожными еретиками, воображающими в таинстве Христа Бога нашего
одновременно и слияние, и разделение. [Послание] написано из Рима святейшему
епископу Стефану Дорскому, подданному святому и апостольскому престолу святого
града
Христа
Бога
нашего
………………………
Opusc. 16. Великого Максима Исповедника. О двух волях единого Христа, Бога нашего
………………………….……………………………………………………………..
Opusc. 17. Его же. О терминах, [означающих] разграничение…………….…………
Opusc. 18. Термины, [означающие] единство…………….………………………….……
Opusc. 19. Первая апория диакона Феодора, византийского ритора и синодикария
архиепископа
константинопольского
Павла
……………………………………………..
Opusc. 20. Догматический томос к пресвитеру Марину ……………………..…………
Opusc. 21. Его же. О качестве, особенности и различии Феодору, диакону в Мазарии
[Сицилия]
…………………………………
Opusc. 22. Еще [одно творение] божественного Максима ………………………………..
Opusc. 23. Того же Максима. Главы о сущности и природе, ипостаси и лице ………..
Opusc. 24. Блаженного Максима. О том, что невозможно говорить об одной воле у Христа
………………………….……………………………………………………………..
Opusc. 25. Его же. Десять глав о двух волях Господа и Бога и Спасителя нашего Иисуса
Христа.
Обращено
к
православным
………………………………………..
Opusc. 26. Из вопросов, заданных ему монахом Феодором …………………………
Opusc. 27. Различные определения святых и богоносных отцов наших, о двух энергиях
Господа,
Бога
и
Спасителя
нашего
Иисуса
Христа
…………………………..
Opusc. 3а ………………………………………………………………………………………483
Комментарии …………………………………………………………………………………485
Приложение
Г. И. Беневич
Прп. Максим Исповедник в России………………………………………………………..679
Указатель цитат и упоминаемых отрывков из Священного Писания……………………721
Указатель упоминаемых сочинений прп. Максима Исповедника……………………….725
Предметно-тематический указатель……………………………………………………….735
Сравнительная таблица вариантов переводов основных терминов в описании волевого
акта у прп. Максима ……………………………………………………………………….754
Хронологическая таблица истории монофелитских споров….………………………….758
Библиография и список сокращений………………………………………………………765
Именной указатель………………………………………………………………………….779
Summary……………………………………………………………
Summary
This volume contains an annotated Russian translation of a culminating Christological
work by Maximus the Confessor: Opuscula Theologica et Polemica (Opusc.). The translation
was made by Arkadi Choufrine (Princeton University) and Dmitry Chernoglazov (St. Petersburg
State University) and edited by Grigory Benevich (Russian Christian Academy for the
Humanities), who also wrote an introduction and commentary to the text. This edition represents
the most detailed analysis of the work to date. The book can be treated as a continuation and a
development of the work written by Benevich and Choufrine that is represented in a monograph,
St Maximus the Confessor. Refutation of Origenism and Monoenergism, published by St
Petersburg University Press in 2007.
In the previous work, the two major contributions made by Maximus Confessor to the
theological tradition, namely his refutations of Origenism and Monoenergism, were studied as
belonging to the same context. In the present work, the main emphasis is on Maximus’s polemics
against the Monoenergists and the Monothelites. However, his works of the previous period are
also taken into consideration as an important basis for the development of his thought.
Maximus’s views in the Opusc. are shown to be a reformulation and development of his views
from the previous period; though some tensions between them (especially in the context of the
last
period
of
Maximus’s
polemics
against
the
Monothelites)
are
also
noted.
In the introduction, G. Benevich gives an overview of the historical and theological context of
Opusc., taking account of the most recent scholarship in patristics and church history. The main
themes of the introduction to the present translation can be seen from the titles of its chapters:
Opusc. 1 and the combination of Ambigua ad Thomam and Ambigia ad Iohannem; Prehistory of
the Monoenergist Union of Cyrus; Monoenergist Union and St. Sophronius’s reaction; Letter 19
of Maximus the Confessor; Patriarchate of St. Sophronius and the question of “the Council of
Cyprus” (an alternative history); “God-man activity” in the Ambigua ad Thomam in the context
of the Monoenergist crisis; Prehistory of Monothelitism and of the polemics against it; Special
features of the Ecthesis; After the Ecthesis; Theological and polemical writings of 640−643, their
order and main themes; On the interpretation of the unitary formulas in opusc. 7, 8 and 20;
Interpretation of the Gethsemane prayer and the problem of the relative appropriation; Opinions
and hypotheses on what was new in St Maximus’s position after 643; Opusc. 16 and the issue of
natural and gnomic will; Maximus’s refusal of γνώμη and προαίρεσις in Christ, philosophical
and theological aspects; Alliance with Rome; Dispute with Pyrrhus, historical reality and text;
On the way to the Lateran Council; Historical events and St. Maximus’s works of 645−648;
Opusc. 11 and the status of the Lateran Council; In lieu of a conclusion, Problems in the current
discussions of the Opusc.
In the wake of P. Sherwood and D. Bathrellos, a new attempt is made to suggest the order
in which the Opusc. were written. In this, not only textual and historical data has been taken into
consideration, but also the novelty and complexity of the issues that were, according to our
hypothesis, more and more complicated with the growth of the controversy. In the discussion of
Maximus’s interpretation of the Gethsemane prayer, emphasis is placed on the importance of his
theory of Christ’s relative and compassionate appropriation of our disobedience. Only within a
complex understanding of the two dimensions of the Maximus’s interpretation of the
Gethsemane prayer (essential or “physical” appropriation of the human will and relative
appropriation of our disobedience) can his view of this issue be properly understood. The process
of Maximus’s formulation of the relative appropriation concept in the context of his polemics
against the Monothelites is analyzed starting with its possible background in amb. 7.
Deification of the human energy and will in Christ from the moment of the Incarnation is treated
in this study as the foundation of the whole of Maximus’s teaching on Christ’s two energies and
wills. This deification was expressed differently in different periods of Maximus’s life. One way
of expressing it was the use of the unitary formulas in Christology. However, when polemics
against the Monothelites reached a climax after 643, Maximus avoided using these formulas. The
same concept of deification, however, was expressed by the notion of the human will’s σύμφυσις
(symphysis) with God’s will, which presupposed that from the moment of Incarnation it was
shaped and moved by God without losing its freedom. This deification kept both God’s and
human freedom, though Maximus’s Christological model was fundamentally different from that
of
the
Nestorians
and
the
semi-Nestorians
among
the
Chalcedonians.
His view was not that the two constituents implied by the Areopagite’s expression “theandric
energy” were not united in any real way (as a too literal reading of the Tome of Leo might
suggest); but that they were united in two ways. For Maximus, (as seen particularly from
Ambigua ad Thomam), there were two “theandric” energies in Christ, one of them being
manifested in His miracles and the other in His voluntary passions; rather than just two natural
energies and wills (one purely human and one purely divine). Even if some of the Monoenergists
did have the same idea (as Richard Price had recently proposed), only in Maximus do we find
the
most
clear
and
elaborate
expression
of
this
teaching.
In our discussion of Maximus’s refusal of γνώμη and προαίρεσις in Christ, we stress that these
notions in his later works were used with a different meaning compared to that of his works
written before the controversy against the Monothelites. We do not agree, however, with modern
attempts to reject or underestimate Maximus’s later teaching as occasional and purely polemical.
Refusal in Maximus’s later works of γνώμη and προαίρεσις in Christ and in the saints expressed
an important idea of an absence of the choosing process in a state of deification. In our study a
parallel is drawn between the Neoplatonist’s statement (beginning with Iamblichus) that
προαίρεσις is absent in gods and godlike souls and Maximus Confessor’s statement (made in his
polemics against the Monothelites) that προαίρεσις is absent in Christ and the saints. Our
understanding of Maximus’s interpretation of this matter presupposes particularly that in
Gethsemane Christ made a choice without choosing. In the last chapter of the introduction,
noting a set of problems in current discussions of the Opusc., we touch upon some papers
delivered at the International Symposium on Saint Maximus the Confessor (Belgrade, October
18−21, 2012). We focus particularly on those in which a concern was raised about the need to
save Orthodox teaching from a “totalitarian” holistic interpretation that would abolish the
difference between God and His creatures, as well as between the saints. In this context we
emphasize that Maximus’s late teaching, especially expressed in opusc. 1, put equal stress on the
need for a total deliverance of the human will to God (according to the pattern compassionately
given to us by Christ in Gethsemane), and on the personal difference between the saints in their
way of being and movement in God, which corresponds to the measure and character of their
love for Him. There is no need to keep deliberate choice and gnomic will in heavens for the
preservation of these personal differences.
An addendum to the present translation of the Opusc. contains a paper by G. Benevich:
“St Maximus Confessor in Russia.” This is a longer version of an article written in English for
the Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor (forthcoming), an observation of translations of
Maximus and scholarship on him in Russia. In this paper it is particularly noteworthy that many
views found in modern “personalistic” interpretations of Maximus’s teaching on Christ’s wills
had already been expressed in 1933 by Fr. Sergey Bulgakov. Bulgakov, however, was critical of
Maximus and openly rejected some of his ideas, (particularly, regarding the absence of a gnomic
will in Christ). On the other hand modern personalists, though they are also unhappy with this
teaching, often say that they are following Maximus’s thought.