Neopatristic synthesis is a direction in Russian theology and philosophy that combines the Byzantine religious and philosophical tradition (and terminology) with the challenges of modern society.
Content
History
Neopatristic synthesis was declared by the Russian philosopher Georgy Florovsky in 1936 at a theological conference in Athens and was picked up by conservative philosophers gravitating to Orthodox dogma [1] .
Examples of this new “synthesis” in patrology were the works of Florovsky himself, “Eastern Fathers of the IV Century” (1931) and “Byzantine Fathers of the V — VIII Century” (1933), and in Historiosophy, his “ Ways of Russian Theology ” (1937), which became Original manifesto of "neopatristic synthesis" [2] .
Other names for this movement should be noted - Protopresbyter Nikolai Afanasyev (1893–1966), Archimandrite Kiprian (Kern) (1899–1960), Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein) (1900–1985), and Protopresbyters Alexander Shmeman (1921–1983) and John Meyendorf (1926-1992). However, the greatest significance in this movement, in any case in the context of the history of philosophy, was Vladimir Nikolaevich Lossky (1903-1958) [3] , whose "Essay on the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church" (1944) is often regarded as a kind of "reference book" of the Neo-Patriotic synthesis [4] .
But soon enough, the influence of the patristic revival spread beyond the boundaries of Russian Orthodoxy, and in Greece it became entrenched in the 1960s. His mouthpiece was the journal Sinoro (Border) (1964-1967), published by a small group of theologians who took the lead in disseminating this theology in Greece. Led by Christos Yannaras and John Zizioulas, this group turned over the Western-oriented method of theological study in Greece, replacing it with what became known as "theology of the 60s." Like their Russian predecessors, Greek theologians of the 1960s considered themselves to be faithful heirs to the religious tradition (in particular, the mystical and patristic tradition of the East), which was supposed to be cleared of the annoying pollution of Western theology, especially jurism and scholasticism [4] .
In the post-Soviet era, the ideas of neo-patristic synthesis were embodied in the concept of “ synergistic anthropology ” by Sergey Khoruzhego [5] .
In 2010, the Greek city of Volos hosted a conference on neopatristic synthesis [6]
Key Ideas
If one element of the synthesis is Eastern patristics ("patristic theology" or "patristic tradition" [7] ), then the second is the existentialism of Martin Heidegger , which is close to personalism [8] [9] .
In the framework of patristicism, the “eastern fathers of the 4th century” ( Athanasius the Great , Vasily the Great and Gregory the Theologian ) are particularly distinguished, who distinguished between the concepts of essence (nature) and hypostasis, and also identified the face and hypostasis [10] . Also often mentioned are Gregory of Nyssa , Dionysius the Areopagite , Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus . The criterion of truth in neopatristic synthesis is consensus patrum (consensus of the Church Fathers) [11]
According to the philosopher Arkady Mahler [3] :
The task of "neopatristic synthesis" <...> at first glance is similar to those set by I. Kireevsky and V. Solovyov - to state the "unconditional foundations" of Orthodoxy adequately using modern philosophical language. However, the fundamental difference between Florovsky’s “synthesis” is that the emphasis is not on the use of the modern language of philosophy (as the Slavophiles, Solovyov and his followers actually did from his point of view), but on the revival of genuine Orthodox philosophy, the philosophy of “church Hellenism,” embodied in Byzantine patristicism. Unconditional adherence to the dogmatic norms of the Orthodox-patristic tradition, combined with a rational and systematic approach to the presentation of these norms and dialogue with opponents, fundamentally distinguishes this movement from the philosophy of the “ Russian religious renaissance ” with its voluntarism in dogmatic issues and the apology of irrational.
Neopatristic synthesis is a "return to the fathers ", "de-Westernization" [11] , a response to the dominance of Western, often secular (liberal, "enlightening", materialistic) philosophy [12] . In contrast to humanism, the idea of “deification” ( theosis ) is affirmed . An essential role in neopatristic synthesis is played by the ideas of hesychasm (the teachings of Gregory Palamas ): monastic asceticism ( clever work ), the perception of God as the “uncreated” Tabor light , and also the distinction between essence and energy ( grace ) in God. Moreover, in contrast to Aristotelianism, power ( Greek. Δύναμις ) and energy are not opposed, but combined [13] .
Neopatristic synthesis opposes Russian pantheistic sophiology [3] [11] , arguing for the difference between God and "creature" ("fallen nature"). Also, the fathers of neopatristic synthesis have negative reviews of Eurasianism , which was criticized for the "passionate pathos of the flesh" and the "pink tale of paganism" [14] .
A distinctive feature of the Greek supporters of the patriotic revival were [4] :
- understanding of the Church as a Eucharistic community;
- great interest in apophatic theology;
- focus on deification (theosis) as the fate of people;
- new discovery of Byzantine iconography;
- the revival of interest in monasticism; and
- dialogue with modern philosophical movements, such as existentialism and phenomenology.
Bishop Hilarion (Alfeev) criticized the neo-patristic synthesis for “ Byzantism ” (extra-contextual reading of the Holy Fathers of the Church) and rejection of “Hebraism” (Semitic spiritual tradition), which is incompatible with the catholic nature of the Church . According to Hilarion, the claimed neopatristic synthesis did not take place in the 20th century [15] .
Pantelis Kalaicidis singles out “anti-Western” and “ anti-ecumenical ” attitudes in a neopatric synthesis [11] .
Notes
- ↑ Balagurov O. A. The problem of preserving the cultural identity of Russia: neopatristic synthesis as a response to the challenges of the Faustian civilization of the West
- ↑ T. Borozenets About the failed Orthodox view of Thomas Aquinas’s teaching, neopatristic synthesis, tendentiousness or confessionalism
- ↑ 1 2 3 Arkady Mahler Orthodox theology and philosophical Hellenism in the works of Vladimir Lossky. 2004
- ↑ 1 2 3 Why I Am Not Orthodox - ABC Religion & Ethics
- ↑ NG Religions: The Liberation of the “Prophet of Orthodoxy”. The legacy of the religious thinker Archpriest George Florovsky gets rid of the fetters of idealization
- ↑ The theological conference “Neo-patristic synthesis or post-patristic theology” was held in the Greek city of Volos
- ↑ Nesteruk A.V. Neopatristic synthesis
- ↑ Khoruzhiy S. S. The idea of neopatristic synthesis as a missed message. 2014
- ↑ A. Ukhov. Existentialism in Neopatristic Synthesis
- ↑ Zakharov G. E. Trinitarian disputes of the 4th century in the light of neopatristic synthesis prot. George Florovsky. 2011
- ↑ 1 2 3 4 Kalaicidis P. From "return to the fathers" to the need for modern Orthodox theology
- ↑ Balagurov O. A., Oceansky V. P. Neopatristic synthesis as a response to the challenges of controlled pseudomorphosis. 2012
- ↑ Uncreated energies
- ↑ Florovsky G.V. Eurasian temptation
- ↑ Hilarion (Alfeev). “Neopatristic synthesis” of the 20th century and contextual reading of the Fathers. 2000
Literature
- Khoruzhiy S. S. Neopatristic synthesis and Russian philosophy // Questions of philosophy . 1994. No 5
- Sophiology and neopatristic synthesis. Theological results of philosophical development (collection of articles). PSTGU , 2013.294 s. ISBN 978-5-7429-0816-6