In this paper we are going to expose the meaning of the word perichoresis and the role that it had in trinitarian and christological theology of Cappadocian fathers, pseudo- Cyril of Alexandria, Leontius Byzantius and Maximus the Confessor. Perichoresis is a Greek term used to describe the triune relationship between each person of the Godhead. It can be defined as co-indwelling, co-inhering, and mutual interpenetration. The relationship of the Triune God is intensified by the relationship of perichoresis. This indwelling expresses and realizes fellowship between the Father and the Son. Lossky asserts that Origen was the first to formulate the doctrine which was later to be called perichoretic, or the doctrine of the ‘communication of idioms’. The first father who used the noun perichoresis was Gregory Nazianzus, one of the Cappadocian fathers. He used the term when he was speaking about the relation between the natures of Christ, divine and human. Another Cappadocian father, Gregory of Nyssa does not use the noun but only the verb perichoreo in order to show the Son’s eternal existence. Cyril of Alexandria (pseudo- Cyril) applied περιχώρησις in a trinitarian sense to the idea of co-inherence. He saw two causes of divine unity: the identity of essence and the mutual perichoresis presupposing their threenes. He applied περιχώρησις in a trinitarian sense to the idea of co-inherence. The special contribution of Leontius Byzantius consisted in the clarification of the concept of enhypostasia, according to which the human nature of Christ is fully personal (enhypostatic) by being manifested within the hypostasis of the incarnated Christ, without this hypostasis being an expression of a single nature. Another father, Maximus used the same word perichoresis maintained that the human nature of Christ reciprocates with the divine nature of Christ. The confessor maintained that the human nature of Christ reciprocates with the divine nature of Christ. So in fathers’ teaching had to analyze that the fundamental basis of the Trinitarian perichoresis is the one essence of the three persons in God and on the other had the term is also applied to the close union of the two natures in Christ. Although the power that unites the two natures proceeds exclusively from Christ's divinity, the result is a most intimate coalescence. The Godhead, which itself is impenetrable, penetrates the humanity, which is thereby deified without ceasing to be perfectly human.
| Published in | International Journal of European Studies (Volume 1, Issue 1) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ijes.20170101.14 |
| Page(s) | 21-29 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2017. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Perichoresis, Godhead, Two Natures of Christ, Cappadocian Fathers, Cyril of Alexandria, Leontius Byzantius, Maximus the Confessor
| [1] | This paper was resented in the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Belgrade, 22-27 August 2016. |
| [2] | Lampe, G. W. H. (ed.), A Patristic Greek Lexicon, publ. Clarendon, Oxford 1961, p. 1077. M. G. Lawler, “Perichoresis: New Theological Wine in An Old Theological Wineskin”, Horizons 22.1 (Spring 1995), p. 49. |
| [3] | Anaxagoras, fragment 12b. A. Denefee, “Perichoresis, circumincession, circuminsessio. Eine Terminologische Untersuchung”, Zeitschrift fur Katolische Theologie 47 (1923), p. 497- 532. D. Manastireanu, “Perichoresis and the early Christian doctrine of God”, Archaevs XI-XII (2007-2008), (p. 61-93), 62. V. Harrison, “Perichoresis in the Greek Fathers”, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 35.1 (1991), p. 54. I. Sahinidou, “Christological Perichoresis”, Open Journal of Philosophy, 4 (2014) 552-559, http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojp.2014.44057, p. 553. |
| [4] | Torrance, T. F., The Christian Doctrine of God, One Being Three Persons, T & T Clark, Edinburgh 1996, p. 102 |
| [5] | Acts 17:28. |
| [6] | “A human rational construct which has been developed under the constraints of revelation and inspiration, a process of thinking theologically under the impact of the economy of creation and redemption”, C. Gunton, The One, the Three and the Man. God, Creation and the Culture of Modernity, Cambridge 1993, p. 164. |
| [7] | Jn 5:19. |
| [8] | 1 Cor. 2:10, 11. |
| [9] | Athanasius of Alexandria, To Serapion, III, 4, PG 26, 632AB. |
| [10] | Jn 17:1. |
| [11] | Jn 16: 14. |
| [12] | Gregory of Nazianzen, The Fifth Theological Oration. On the Holy Spirit, Oration 31, 9, PG 36, 141CD, transl. by Ch. G. Browne and J. Ed. Swallow, From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. ed. by Ph. Schaff and H. Wace, Christian Literature Publishing Co., Buffalo, NY 1894, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310231.htm [access: 18.04.2016]: “For the Father is not Son, and yet this is not due to either deficiency or subjection of Essence; but the very fact of being Unbegotten or Begotten, or Proceeding has given the name of Father to the First, of the Son to the Second, and of the Third, Him of Whom we are speaking, of the Holy Ghost that the distinction of the Three Persons may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the Godhead. For neither is the Son Father, for the Father is One, but He is what the Father is; nor is the Spirit Son because He is of God, for the Only-begotten is One, but He is what the Son is. The Three are One in Godhead, and the One Three in properties;”; Also cf ibidem- Oration 31, 10, PG 36, 144AB; Oration 31, 28, PG 36, 164D, 165A. |
| [13] | Basilius of Caesarea, Lettre 214, 4, PG 32, 789A. Cf. E. Artemi, “The term idion and its uses in the teaching of Great Athanasius, Cappadocian fathers and Cyril of Alexandria”, in Epistimoniki Epitheorosi, vol. 4th, Hellenic Open University, Patra 2011, p. 63-86. |
| [14] | Jn 3:16. |
| [15] | Ibidem 15:26. |
| [16] | D. Manastireanu supports that the use of this term included the danger of Monophysitism implicit in the Stoic notion of mixture with which Christological perichoresis is associated. Many scholars of theology consider the mere affirmation of the non-commingling of natures in the process of interpenetration to be a sufficient safeguard. Cf. D. Manastireanu, A Perichoretic Model of the Church. The Trinitarian Ecclesiology of Dumitru Staniloae, Brunel University 2004, p. 75. |
| [17] | Van Inwagen, P., “And yet there are not three Gods but one God”, in Thomas V. Morris, ed., Philosophy and The Christian Faith, Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana 1988, p. 243. |
| [18] | Liakouras, K. El., The mystery of the Holy Trinity in thesaurus of Cyril of Alexandria, Athens 2005, p. 34-39. |
| [19] | Xexakis, N., Orthodox Dogmatic theology. The theology for homoousion, vol. II, publ. Ennoia, Athens 2006, p. 123. |
| [20] | Ibidem. |
| [21] | Mat. 28:19. |
| [22] | Basilius of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit, XVIII, 44, PG 32, 148CD, 149A; trans. by Blomfield Jackson, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 8, ed. Ph. Schaff and H. Wace, Christian Literature Publishing Co., Buffalo - NY 1895, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm [access 18 July 2016]. |
| [23] | Ibidem, XVIII, 45, PG 32, 149AB. |
| [24] | Ibidem. |
| [25] | C. A. Disandro, “Historia semántica de perikhóresis”, StPatr 15, TU 128 (Berlin 1984) 444: “De aquí transcurre a través de San Gregorio Nazianzeno († 390) hasta la prosa de San Máximo Confesor († 662), quien parece dar el vocablo perikhóresis su ubicación semantic definitive en tres direcciones: a – triadológica; b – Christológica; c – en la teología de la pistis, o sea en la eclesiología”. |
| [26] | Gregory of Nazianzus, On the Death of his Father, Orat. 18, 42, PG 35, 1041A. Here, the word has the meaning “interchange produced by the revolution of successive cycles”. By this way Gregory shows how life and death are present in each other and thus are ‘mixed’ or ‘interpenetrated’, in the Stoic sense. Cf. D. Manastireanu, “Perichoresis and the early Christian doctrine of God”, Archaevs XI-XII (2007-2008), (p. 61-93), 65. Gregory of Nazianzus, Concerning Peace 2, PG 35, 1136B. Here the word has the context of the things that coinhere or make room for one another and are converted into one another. Gregory of Nazianzus, To future governors of Nazianzus, Orat. 17, PG 35, 972A. |
| [27] | Gregory of Nazianzus, To Cledonius the Priest against Apollinarius, Epistle CI, 31, PG 37, 181C. |
| [28] | Randall Otto, “The use and abuse of Perichoresis in recent theology”, Scottish Journal of Theology 54 (2001), p. 366–384; G. L. Prestige, “περιχωρέω and περιχώρησις in the Fathers», Journal of Theological Studies 29 (1928), p. 242–252; R. Cross, “Christological predication in John of Damascus”, Mediaeval Studies 62 (2000), p. 69–124; and W. Pannenberg, Jesus – God and Man, 2nd ed., trans. Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe, Westminster Press, Philadelphia 1977. My rendition of the historical material owes much to these sources. Gregory of Nazianzus, To Cledonius the Priest against Apollinarius, Epistle CI, 31, PG 37, 181C. |
| [29] | D. F. Stramara jr., “Gregory of Nyssa’s Terminology for Trinitarian Perichoresis”, Vigiliae Christianae, 53.3 (1998), (257–263), p. 263. |
| [30] | Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius I, 1, PG 45, 280B; Idem, On the Soul and the Resurrection, PG 46, 113B; Idem, On the Work of the Six Days, PG 44, 96A, 108B; Funeral speech for Plancilla empress, PG 46, 888D. |
| [31] | D. F. Stramara jr., “Gregory of Nyssa’s Terminology for Trinitarian Perichoresis”, Vigiliae Christianae, 53.3 (1998), (257–263), p. 258. |
| [32] | Gregory of Nyssa, Epistle 38- To Gregory on the Divine Ousia and Hypostasis, PG 32, 325-340. |
| [33] | Ibidem, PG 32, 332D-333A. |
| [34] | Macarius of Egypt, Concerning Patience and Discrimination, PG 34, 869A. |
| [35] | Ibidem. |
| [36] | Cyril of Alexandria (pseudo Cyril), On the Holy trinity, 10, PG 77, 1144C. |
| [37] | Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 39 - In Holy Lights, 11, PG 36, 345CD. |
| [38] | Cyril of Alexandria (pseudo Cyril), On the Holy Trinity, 10, PG 77, 1144B. |
| [39] | S. Stamatović, “The Meaning of Perichoresis”, Open Theology 2 (2016) 303–323, p. 318, ref.64, http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/opth.2016.2.issue-1/opth-2016-0026/opth-2016-0026.xml: “It is not surprising at all that perichoresis as a technical term appeared only in the late Patristics, i.e. only after those Christological formulas articulated by the Council of Chalcedon (451). For as we know, Chalcedonian Confession defines that one and the same Christ is acknowledged “in Two Natures unconfusedly (ασυγχύτως), unchangeably (ατρέπτως), indivisibly (αδιαιρέτως), inseparably (αχωρίστως), the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis,” and the notion of perichoresis was coined only as a means to explain how such a thing is possible”. |
| [40] | O. D. Crisp, “Problems with perichoresis”, in Divinity and Humanity: The Incarnation Reconsidered, Cambridge University Press, http://assets.cambridge.org/97805216/95350/excerpt/9780521695350_excerpt.pdf, (p. 1-10), p. 1. Also Idem, “Problems with perichoresis”, Tyndale Bulletin 56.1 (2005) 119-140, p. 119. |
| [41] | R. Otto, “The use and abuse of Perichoresis in recent theology”, Scottish Journal of Theology 54 (2001), p. 368. Cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, To Cledonius the Priest against Apollinarius, Epistle CI, 31, PG 37, 181C. |
| [42] | Cyril of Alexandria (pseudo Cyril), On the Holy trinity, ch. 28, PG 77, 1120A-1173D. |
| [43] | Idem, On the Holy trinity, 10, PG 77, 1144B. |
| [44] | Cyril of Alexandria, Five tomes against Nestorius, V, 5, ΑCO, τ. 1, 10, 6, p. 10244 (=PG 76, 237C). Idem, That Christ is One, SC 97, 72917-18 (=PG 75, 1280B). Ibidem, 72919 (=PG 75, 1280B). Idem, On Isaiah, Ι, 4, PG 70, 176Β. Idem, Solutions of the twelve chapters, 9, ACO, τ. 1, 10, 5, p. 2320-21 (=PG 76, 308D). cf. Idem, To Calosyrius, 6, Pusey, vol. III, p. 5584-5 (=PG 76, 1088D, 1089A). Idem, Thesaurus, 14, 23, 32, PG 75, 237C, 381Α, 552C. |
| [45] | Kelly, J. N., Early Christian Doctrines, London 19684, p. 311. Artemi, E., The triadological teaching of Isidore of Pelusium and its relation with Cyril’s of Alexandria teaching concerning the Triune God, Athens 2012, p. 24, ref. 10. |
| [46] | Jn 17:5. |
| [47] | Jn 1:1, 14 |
| [48] | Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua, 112b, PG 91, 1053AB. |
| [49] | Gregory of Nazianzus, To Cledonius the Priest against Apollinarius, Epistle CI, 31, PG 37, 181C. |
| [50] | Prestige, G. L., “περιχωρέω and περιχώρησις in the Fathers”, Journal of Theological Studies 29 (1928), p. 243. |
| [51] | Maximus the Confessor, Questions to Thalassius, PG 90, 244-785. |
| [52] | Idem, Ambigua, PG 91, 1033-1417. |
| [53] | Idem, 2nd letter to Thomas, PG 91, 1032AB. |
| [54] | Leontius Byzantius, Against the Nestorians and the Eutychians, 2, PG 86, 1320B. Cf. Prestige, L. G., God in Patristic Thought, SPCK, London 1959, p. 292. |
| [55] | Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua, 112b, PG 91, 1053AB. |
| [56] | Gregory of Nazianzus, To Cledonius the Priest against Apollinarius, Epistle CI, 31, PG 37, 181C. |
| [57] | Harrison, V., “Perichoresis in the Greek Fathers”, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 35.1 (1991), p. 57. |
| [58] | Maximus the Confessor, Questions to Thalassius, PG 90, 340B. |
| [59] | Idem, Disputation with Pyrrhus, PG 91, 287A. |
| [60] | Idem, Opusculum de anima, PG 91, 358B. |
| [61] | I. Sahinidou, “Christological Perichoresis”, Open Journal of Philosophy, 4 (2014), 552-559, http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojp.2014.44057, p. 556. |
| [62] | Maximus the Confessor, On various difficulties, PG 91, 1097AB. |
| [63] | Ibidem. |
| [64] | Col. 1: 16-17. |
| [65] | Harrison, V., “Perichoresis in the Greek Fathers”, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 35.1 (1991), p. 61, 65. |
| [66] | Burger, H., Being in Christ: A Biblical and Systematic Investigation in a Reformed Perspective, Oregon 2009, p. 516. |
| [67] | 1 Cor. 12:13. |
| [68] | Maximus the Confessor, On various difficulties to John, PG 91, 1132C. |
| [69] | Maximus the Confessor, Four Hundred Chapters on Love, III, 25, PG 90, 1024BC. |
| [70] | Maximus the Confessor, Four Hundred Chapters on Love, IV, 19, PG 90, 1052C. |
| [71] | Idem, Epistle XXIV - To Constantine, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, PG 91, 609C. |
| [72] | Idem, Questions to Thalassius, LXIII, 35, PG 90, 692B. |
| [73] | “For the Only-Begotten Word of God hath saved us, putting on likeness to us in order that having suffered in the flesh and risen from the dead He might set forth our nature superior to death and decay”, Cyril of Alexandria, Quod unus sit Christus, SC 97, 77537-42 (=PG 75, 1357B). See also: " We proclaim the death according to the flesh of the only-begotten Son of God, and confess the return to life from the dead of Jesus Christ, and his ascension into heaven, and thus we perform in the churches an unbloody worship, and in this way approach mystical blessings (eulogia) and are sanctified, becoming participants in the holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. We do not receive this as ordinary flesh – God forbid! – or as the flesh of a man sanctified and conjoined to the Word in a unity of dignity, or as the flesh of someone who enjoys a divine indwelling. No, we receive it as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself", Cyril, Third Letter to Nestorius 7 (trans. John A. McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy [Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 2004] 270). See Henry Chadwick, “Eucharist and Christology in the Nestorian Controversy,” Journal of Theological Studies 2 (1951) 145-164; for the Commentary on John, see Lawrence J. Welch, Theology and Eucharist in the Early Thought of Cyril of Alexandria, Catholic Scholars’ Press, San Francisco 1993. |
| [74] | Armstrong, A. H., «Platonic Elements in St. Grecory of Nyssa's Doctrine of Man», Dominica Studies 1 (1948), 114. Papapetrou, K. Ε., H αποκάλυψις του Θεού και η γνώσις Αυτού, Athens 1969, p. 65. Κ. Β. Scouteris, «Eνανθρώπηση και Θέωση», Efimerios, vol 12, (December 1999), p.19. |
| [75] | Gifford, J. D., Perichoretic Salvation: The Believer's Union with Christ as a Third Type of Perichoresis, Oregon 2011, p. 117 |
| [76] | Nicolas Cabasilas, Interpretation of the Divine Liturgy, 28, PG 150, 428BC.Idem, On the Soul and the Resurrection, PG 46, 11-159. |
APA Style
Eirini Artemi. (2017). The Term Perichoresis from Cappadocian Fathers to Maximus Confessor [1]. International Journal of European Studies, 1(1), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijes.20170101.14
ACS Style
Eirini Artemi. The Term Perichoresis from Cappadocian Fathers to Maximus Confessor [1]. Int. J. Eur. Stud. 2017, 1(1), 21-29. doi: 10.11648/j.ijes.20170101.14
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ijes.20170101.14,
author = {Eirini Artemi},
title = {The Term Perichoresis from Cappadocian Fathers to Maximus Confessor [1]},
journal = {International Journal of European Studies},
volume = {1},
number = {1},
pages = {21-29},
doi = {10.11648/j.ijes.20170101.14},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijes.20170101.14},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijes.20170101.14},
abstract = {In this paper we are going to expose the meaning of the word perichoresis and the role that it had in trinitarian and christological theology of Cappadocian fathers, pseudo- Cyril of Alexandria, Leontius Byzantius and Maximus the Confessor. Perichoresis is a Greek term used to describe the triune relationship between each person of the Godhead. It can be defined as co-indwelling, co-inhering, and mutual interpenetration. The relationship of the Triune God is intensified by the relationship of perichoresis. This indwelling expresses and realizes fellowship between the Father and the Son. Lossky asserts that Origen was the first to formulate the doctrine which was later to be called perichoretic, or the doctrine of the ‘communication of idioms’. The first father who used the noun perichoresis was Gregory Nazianzus, one of the Cappadocian fathers. He used the term when he was speaking about the relation between the natures of Christ, divine and human. Another Cappadocian father, Gregory of Nyssa does not use the noun but only the verb perichoreo in order to show the Son’s eternal existence. Cyril of Alexandria (pseudo- Cyril) applied περιχώρησις in a trinitarian sense to the idea of co-inherence. He saw two causes of divine unity: the identity of essence and the mutual perichoresis presupposing their threenes. He applied περιχώρησις in a trinitarian sense to the idea of co-inherence. The special contribution of Leontius Byzantius consisted in the clarification of the concept of enhypostasia, according to which the human nature of Christ is fully personal (enhypostatic) by being manifested within the hypostasis of the incarnated Christ, without this hypostasis being an expression of a single nature. Another father, Maximus used the same word perichoresis maintained that the human nature of Christ reciprocates with the divine nature of Christ. The confessor maintained that the human nature of Christ reciprocates with the divine nature of Christ. So in fathers’ teaching had to analyze that the fundamental basis of the Trinitarian perichoresis is the one essence of the three persons in God and on the other had the term is also applied to the close union of the two natures in Christ. Although the power that unites the two natures proceeds exclusively from Christ's divinity, the result is a most intimate coalescence. The Godhead, which itself is impenetrable, penetrates the humanity, which is thereby deified without ceasing to be perfectly human.},
year = {2017}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - The Term Perichoresis from Cappadocian Fathers to Maximus Confessor [1] AU - Eirini Artemi Y1 - 2017/05/18 PY - 2017 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijes.20170101.14 DO - 10.11648/j.ijes.20170101.14 T2 - International Journal of European Studies JF - International Journal of European Studies JO - International Journal of European Studies SP - 21 EP - 29 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2578-9562 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijes.20170101.14 AB - In this paper we are going to expose the meaning of the word perichoresis and the role that it had in trinitarian and christological theology of Cappadocian fathers, pseudo- Cyril of Alexandria, Leontius Byzantius and Maximus the Confessor. Perichoresis is a Greek term used to describe the triune relationship between each person of the Godhead. It can be defined as co-indwelling, co-inhering, and mutual interpenetration. The relationship of the Triune God is intensified by the relationship of perichoresis. This indwelling expresses and realizes fellowship between the Father and the Son. Lossky asserts that Origen was the first to formulate the doctrine which was later to be called perichoretic, or the doctrine of the ‘communication of idioms’. The first father who used the noun perichoresis was Gregory Nazianzus, one of the Cappadocian fathers. He used the term when he was speaking about the relation between the natures of Christ, divine and human. Another Cappadocian father, Gregory of Nyssa does not use the noun but only the verb perichoreo in order to show the Son’s eternal existence. Cyril of Alexandria (pseudo- Cyril) applied περιχώρησις in a trinitarian sense to the idea of co-inherence. He saw two causes of divine unity: the identity of essence and the mutual perichoresis presupposing their threenes. He applied περιχώρησις in a trinitarian sense to the idea of co-inherence. The special contribution of Leontius Byzantius consisted in the clarification of the concept of enhypostasia, according to which the human nature of Christ is fully personal (enhypostatic) by being manifested within the hypostasis of the incarnated Christ, without this hypostasis being an expression of a single nature. Another father, Maximus used the same word perichoresis maintained that the human nature of Christ reciprocates with the divine nature of Christ. The confessor maintained that the human nature of Christ reciprocates with the divine nature of Christ. So in fathers’ teaching had to analyze that the fundamental basis of the Trinitarian perichoresis is the one essence of the three persons in God and on the other had the term is also applied to the close union of the two natures in Christ. Although the power that unites the two natures proceeds exclusively from Christ's divinity, the result is a most intimate coalescence. The Godhead, which itself is impenetrable, penetrates the humanity, which is thereby deified without ceasing to be perfectly human. VL - 1 IS - 1 ER -
Information
Email: