By Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou
On June 25, 2013, I attended, in the Conference Hall of the Theological School of Thessaloniki, the defense of the dissertation of Mr. Georgios Siskos, which was submitted to the Department of Pastoral and Social Theology, on the topic “The Interpretive Framework of the Christology of Saint Maximus the Confessor,” following a request by the doctoral candidate.
The truth is that I myself also showed interest in this dissertation, because I had discussed it with its author during the course of its preparation and had discerned its exceptional importance for the Church, theology, and our time.
The seven-member committee consisted of Professors Despo Lialiou, Demetrios Tselengidis, Konstantinos Christou, His Eminence Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Prousa, Vasilios Tsigos, Symeon Paschalidis, and Fr. Christos Filiotis-Vlachavas. During the defense of the dissertation, statements and questions were posed by the professors, and the candidate under evaluation responded thoroughly, as an excellent connoisseur of the subject — both from the perspective of the teaching of Saint Maximus in relation to Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian Christology, and from the perspective of contemporary theological bibliography on this topic.
The entire discussion impressed me because it was conducted at a high academic and theological level, which honors the Theological School and demonstrates its contribution to scholarship and to the Orthodox Church. I wished that at some point such a discussion of dogmatic content might take place within the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece.
The author does not philosophize abstractly over the texts he studies, nor does he speculate or act arbitrarily; rather, he works philologically and historically, investigating the meaning of the words and phrases used, while also interpreting them theologically.
When the professors finished their questions and received well-documented and comprehensive answers from the candidate, they asked me, if I wished, to offer a few remarks. It is true that this was the first time I had participated in such a process, yet the professors showed particular respect and honor toward my person.
Among other things, I expressed my joy at the high theological level of the discussion that had taken place — which demonstrates the theological work being done in the Theological Schools — and I emphasized that Saint Maximus is a great Father of the Church because he closely united the hesychastic tradition with the confession of faith. Because he was a hesychast and possessed experiential knowledge of God, for this reason he was also a great theologian and Confessor.
I then stressed that it is of great importance to read the texts of the Fathers of the Church carefully, to understand their teaching in depth, and not to attempt to adapt it to one’s own interpretive processes. It is very important to see precisely what a Father writes, regardless of whether one agrees with him or not. In the dissertation under evaluation, which I read, I observed an excellent understanding of the texts of Saint Maximus, as well as of those of other Chalcedonian or anti-Chalcedonian theologians.
Texts of the Cappadocian Fathers — namely Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory the Theologian, and Saint Gregory of Nyssa — are identified, in which reference is made to essence/nature and person/hypostasis, and it is recorded how these terms are transferred by Saint Maximus into Christology.
I then underlined the contemporary relevance of the teaching of Saint Maximus, because, beyond the discussion taking place between Orthodox and Monophysite/anti-Chalcedonian theologians, today there is also a discussion concerning the will in the human person. One observes that, whereas scholasticism identifies energy with essence, personalism connects energy with person/hypostasis.
Finally, I congratulated the candidate for having had an exceptional supervisor, Professor Despo Lialiou, who carefully followed the entire development of this study, and I also praised her for having brought forth such a capable student.
After deliberation, the seven-member committee of professors decided unanimously to award the dissertation the grade of excellent with distinction.
In what follows, I shall offer a brief, concise, and necessarily selective presentation of this important doctoral dissertation on the interpretive framework of the Christology of Saint Maximus the Confessor.
1. My Engagement With Saint Maximus the Confessor
The teaching of Saint Maximus the Confessor (580–662) attracted me from the 1970s. I read primarily his ascetical and theological writings, the chapters “On Love,” “On Theology,” and “On the Prayer ‘Our Father,’” which are included in the Philokalia of the Holy Neptic Fathers and which, as it appears, are his early works. They benefited me greatly in my pastoral ministry, because through them I perceived his entire ascetical teaching, his hesychasm, and the manner in which he theologized.
Later, I read many of his texts that refer to the Mystagogy, his interpretation of the writings of Saint Dionysios the Areopagite, his solutions to difficulties in the works of Saint Dionysios and Saint Gregory the Theologian, his exegetical texts, his letters, and so forth. Saint Maximus is spiritually akin to the earlier Fathers of the Church, and for this reason he understood their teaching excellently.
I then studied his dogmatic and polemical works with which he confronted the heresies of Monoenergism and Monothelitism, thereby contributing to the establishment of Orthodox dogma at the Sixth Ecumenical Synod — namely, that in Christ there are two energies and two wills, divine and human, which operate in His one person. Clearly, this represents the continuation of the teaching of the Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod.
This engagement of mine is evident in all the works I have published since the 1980s. It is characteristic that a large ascetical portion of the teaching of Saint Maximus was included in my first major book, Orthodox Psychotherapy, published in 1985. I realized that Saint Maximus analyzed in depth the ascetical teaching of the Church through its theological and therapeutic character, which is observed throughout our ecclesiastical tradition, and that he viewed it as connected with the Mysteries. His interpretation in the Mystagogy unites hesychasm, the Eucharist, and eschatology.
Thus, those who undervalue and slander the Philokalia of the Holy Neptic Fathers, including the texts of Saint Maximus the Confessor, claiming that they supposedly distort ecclesiastical tradition and “religionize” it — asserting that the manner in which they were composed constitutes a religionization of the ecclesial event — commit a great theological and ecclesiastical error, since these texts clearly presuppose mysterial life.
I continued by studying every serious work that came to my attention concerning the teaching of Saint Maximus on theology, Christology, anthropology, ecclesiology, cosmology, and eschatology. Through these studies I recognized the value and importance of this great seventh-century Father of the Church, who played a decisive role in the formulation of dogma through struggle, confession, sacrifice, and a martyric mindset.
2. The Structure of the Dissertation
It is well known that Saint Maximus the Confessor lived during a difficult ecclesiastical period and, making use of the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon, prepared the ground for the decision of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, which completed the Church’s teaching on Christology and thus addressed all heresies related to Christological matters.
The dissertation of Mr. Georgios Siskos deals, with exceptional success — as its title indicates — with the interpretive framework of the Christology of Saint Maximus the Confessor. Good dissertations usually focus on particular issues and highlight important details that advance scholarly research on an author or a specific topic within a given historical period. Thus, this dissertation is limited to the Christology of Saint Maximus and essentially to its interpretive framework.
This means that the examination of Saint Maximus’s Christology is carried out on the basis of his texts in which he responds to the Nestorians, the anti-Chalcedonians — especially Severus — the Monoenergists, and the Monothelites, whose texts are also studied. A careful reading and interpretation of these texts is undertaken, of the terms used by all parties, and of their Orthodox resolution in Saint Maximus, and secure conclusions are drawn.
The author does not speculate philosophically on the texts he studies, nor does he act arbitrarily, but works philologically and historically, investigating the meaning of words and phrases while also interpreting them theologically. He employs a strict scientific method, and through extensive and at times exhaustive footnotes, those who speculate arbitrarily upon the texts are critically assessed.
Thus it is demonstrated that Severus distorts the teaching of Saint Cyril of Alexandria by remaining only at the external verbal level of his teaching, whereas the Fathers of the Synod of Chalcedon and Saint Maximus are genuine interpreters of the essence of Saint Cyril’s teaching.
The dissertation is structured in three parts. The first part deals with the two natures — divine and human — in Christ, that is, how the two natures operate in the one hypostasis of the Logos. The second part addresses the two energies of Christ and, more generally, the anti-Monoenergist polemical teaching of Saint Maximus. The third part discusses Saint Maximus’s teaching on the two wills in Christ and thus presents his teaching against Monothelitism.
These three parts are divided into individual chapters in which the Christological teaching of Saint Maximus is presented and the entire subject is analyzed with significant observations and new insights into the teaching of this divinely-wise Father of the Church.
I enjoy reading dissertation texts by careful researchers, because I know that their authors, as a rule, conduct thorough research in the sources and, on the basis of this research, evaluate the existing bibliography. When I begin studying such a book, I first read the foreword, the introduction, and the conclusions, in order to enter into the essence of the subject, since in these three sections one can briefly grasp the entire thought of the researcher. After entering into the meaning of the topics addressed, I then proceed calmly and attentively to study the chapters of the dissertation, seeking to identify what new contribution each researcher brings with his work. I did the same with this dissertation.
In the foreword, the author observes the manner in which contemporary theological scholarship attempts a “readjustment of ecclesiastical hermeneutics,” whereby “the sources are interpreted through philosophical, sociological, and psychological tools, in order to yield answers to the questions of contemporary humanity.” This “transcription” of patristic texts into the data of our era involves many dangers, since the texts are not understood seriously and are treated as a “museum exhibit” unless they are speculatively, philosophically, or sociologically reinterpreted for our time, thereby undermining the identity of the experience of the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Fathers. The author states that he will attempt to understand the thought of Saint Maximus with a “priority of discipleship and obedience” to his texts, and this he achieves throughout the pages of his dissertation.
In the introduction, the purpose of the dissertation is analyzed, namely “the historical-dogmatic investigation and analysis of the interpretive framework within which the terms and formulations concerning the exposition of the Christological dogma are understood by Saint Maximus the Confessor.” In order to understand this interpretive framework, the historical causes of the texts are sought; the manner in which ecclesiastical and philosophical tradition is received in historical circumstances is examined; an “anatomy of the Monothelite construct with regard to the presuppositions of its creators” is undertaken; and the “polemical reinterpretation of the Monothelite construct” is investigated.
Subsequently, reference is made to the directions observed in the Christological formulations of Saint Maximus, to the concepts he employs, as well as to the terms of the earlier tradition. Reference is also made to the bibliography on his teaching in various theological areas by contemporary theologians, as the author reads and appropriately evaluates Greek-, English-, French-, and German-language scholarship. Thus, the reader is sufficiently informed about the research conducted on the theology of this Holy Father, in order then to identify the topic of the interpretive framework of Christology, which constitutes the new contribution of this dissertation. In the introduction, an analysis is also provided of what each of the three parts and their respective chapters contain, so that the reader may be prepared for the reading of the work.
At the end of the book, the conclusions from the analysis of the interpretive framework are presented — in both Greek and English — through which Saint Maximus is led to the confession of the incarnate Son and Word of God with specific formulations and terms.
3. Main Points of the Dissertation
From the study of the teaching of Saint Maximus the Confessor, as analyzed in the present dissertation, it is established that his Christological formulations are divided into three periods.
The first period includes those formulations expressed by Saint Maximus before the appearance of the Monothelite heresy. This period is characterized as the “pre-Monothelite period” and is marked by precision and fidelity to the Definition of Chalcedon. During this period, the Cappadocian Trinitarian terms — essence, nature, person, and hypostasis — are transferred into Christology.
The second period includes the Christological formulations found in Saint Maximus’ anti-Monoenergist works, in his struggle against the Christology of Severus and in defense of the decision of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod held at Chalcedon, against the anti-Chalcedonians and the Nestorians. At this stage, however, there is still no reference to the Monothelite heresy.
This dissertation is not intended merely to remain on university library shelves or to occupy only specialized theologians, but rather to offer essential elements to the Church in order to confront various contemporary theological challenges.
The third period includes those Christological formulations found in his anti-Monothelite works, in which the framework of the Monothelite heresy and the struggle of the Orthodox become evident. Monothelitism arose from the attempt of Emperor Heraclius to reconcile the faith of Chalcedon with the anti-Chalcedonians, often by using “meanings drawn from Nestorian Christology.”
The author notes that this division into periods serves systematic purposes, since in many of Saint Maximus’ texts energy and will are examined together, while the interpretive principles governing the affirmation of two energies differ from those governing the affirmation of two wills.
It is not easy to record the conclusions of this dissertation within the limits of this brief presentation; therefore, four key points will be highlighted.
First. The transfer of Cappadocian terminology from Trinitarian theology to Christology is identified with regard to the terms essence, nature, hypostasis, and person. Texts of the Cappadocian Fathers — Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory the Theologian, and Saint Gregory of Nyssa — are examined in which essence/nature and person/hypostasis are discussed, and it is shown how these terms are transferred by Saint Maximus into Christology. It is demonstrated that Saint Maximus was thoroughly familiar with Cappadocian theology and at the same time made use of and systematized the entire post-Chalcedonian tradition on the subject.
Two pairs of concepts are involved.
The first pair is “identity and otherness.” In Trinitarian theology, as taught by the Cappadocian Fathers, there is identity of nature and otherness of hypostases, since the Persons of the Holy Trinity share the same nature but have distinct hypostases. In Christology, however, these terms are expressed differently: in Christ there is identity of hypostasis and otherness of natures, since the two natures in the one hypostasis of the Word are united without change, without division, without confusion, and without alteration.
The other pair is “union and distinction.” In Trinitarian theology there is unity of nature and distinction of hypostases, while in Christology there is unity of hypostasis — one hypostasis of the Word — and distinction of natures, divine and human.
Thus, the terms nature/essence and person/hypostasis are used with different meanings in Trinitarian theology and Christology, yet the truth is preserved that Christ is the one hypostasis of the Holy Trinity who assumed human nature and united it without change, without division, without confusion, and without alteration to His hypostasis.
“Composite nature” means that two natures are united into one, whereas “composite hypostasis” means that the two natures, without losing their natural properties, are united in one hypostasis. By interpreting the term “composite hypostasis,” Saint Maximus clearly distinguishes it from the Christology of Severus of Antioch and from the Christology of Nestorius, and by means of this term he also nullifies Monoenergism and Monothelitism.
Without this interpretive distinction one falls either into “acute confusion,” as with Sabellius and Eutyches (the Monophysites), or into “acute division,” as with Arius and Nestorius. The Nestorians and anti-Chalcedonians misused these terms and thus fell into heresies condemned by the Church.
Saint Maximus also employs the Cappadocian terms “logos of nature” and “mode of existence,” in relation to the “function of number.” In Cappadocian Trinitarian theology, the logos of nature refers to the one nature of God, while the mode of existence refers to the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. In Christology, however, these terms are applied differently: in Christ the logos of nature is two and not one — otherwise one arrives at Monophysitism — and the mode of union is one and not two — otherwise one arrives at Nestorianism. Saint Maximus thus “transcribes” this scheme from Trinitarian theology into Christology.
Second. Through his teaching, Saint Maximus the Confessor refutes both Severus and Nestorius and remains faithful to the theological foundation of the Synod of Chalcedon.
It is significant that both Nestorius and Severus begin from the same fundamental axiom: that in Christ each nature necessarily possesses its own hypostasis. Yet they reach different conclusions: Nestorius speaks of a relative union of two natures – hypostases, while Severus speaks of a composite nature – hypostasis in Christ.
It is further noted that Severus was a “fanatical adherent of the Christological terminology of Saint Cyril,” accepting the phrase “one nature of the Word incarnate” and believing that the Chalcedonian Definition betrayed Saint Cyril’s theology and allowed Nestorian blasphemies to prevail. For this reason, he regarded the Chalcedonian Definition as Nestorian.
Saint Maximus, however, through careful study of Saint Cyril’s texts in light of the Chalcedonian Definition, demonstrates that Cyril’s teaching is in full agreement with Chalcedon, that in the hypostasis of the Word of God the two natures — divine and human — are united, and he refutes Severus’ claim that his own teaching faithfully represents Saint Cyril. Thus, Severus is shown to distort Cyril’s teaching, remaining on a merely verbal level, while the Fathers of Chalcedon and Saint Maximus are the true interpreters of its substance.
Third. Through his struggles in the second and third phases of his polemical theology, Saint Maximus rejects the heresies of Monoenergism and Monothelitism, both of which sought to reconcile Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian Christology.
Monoenergism first appeared as a conciliatory attempt between Chalcedonian Orthodox and anti-Chalcedonian Monophysites, notably in the union of 633 AD between the Severian party and Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria, the first official Monoenergist text. This text avoids the term person, adopts Severus’ expressions “from two natures” and “one nature of the Word incarnate,” and introduces the phrase “one theandric energy,” attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, thereby nullifying Chalcedon and excluding Leo’s Tome.
Monothelitism followed the same path, beginning with the Ekthesis of Emperor Heraclius in 638 AD, likely composed by Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, which attempted to bridge Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian Christology, often using Nestorian terminology. Saint Maximus opposed these efforts, firmly rejecting any compromise in matters of faith.
Fourth. To understand concisely the foundation of Saint Maximus’ theological thought, certain key terms are highlighted. Central among them is “composite hypostasis,” used to express Orthodox Christology in contrast to the notion of “composite nature.” By this term Saint Maximus affirms two natures, energies, and wills in the one hypostasis of Christ, thereby rejecting Monoenergism and Monothelitism.
He also distinguishes between “natural will” and “gnomic will.” In Christ there are two natural wills, divine and human, corresponding to His two natures, but no gnomic will, since a gnomic will would imply deliberation and change and thus introduce a second hypostasis. The acceptance of a gnomic will in Christ inevitably leads to Nestorianism.
Finally, Saint Maximus emphasizes the “interpenetration" (symphýia) of the divine and human wills in Christ, by which the human will freely consents to the divine will. This term, transferred from Trinitarian theology into Christology, safeguards both the full humanity of Christ and the unity of His person.
Together with the terms logos of nature and mode of union, these concepts express the Christology of Saint Maximus, through which he successfully confronted Monoenergism and Monothelitism.
4. The Contemporary Relevance of the Topic
The topic, as developed in the present dissertation, is marked by seriousness, because its author offers an authentic interpretation of the terms, formulations, and Christological teaching of Saint Maximus the Confessor, while at the same time possessing remarkable contemporary relevance. This is not a dissertation intended to remain on the shelves of university libraries and concern only specialist theologians, but one that offers essential contributions to the Church in order to address various contemporary theological challenges.
The first challenge is identified in the dialogue with the anti-Chalcedonians (Monophysites). It is important that the correct interpretation of Christological terms and formulations be examined, because these determine Orthodox faith or deviation from it. This concerns the very life of the Church and its theology, which is also the sure guide to salvation. Theological issues cannot be employed for political purposes. Whenever Orthodox theology has been subordinated to political or social agendas, it has caused turmoil within the Church and ultimately such attempts have ended in failure.
This challenge is particularly acute in our time, not only because dialogues are taking place between Orthodoxy and anti-Chalcedonian Monophysites, but also because some Orthodox theologians attempt to support the view that the Fathers who condemned heretics at the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Ecumenical Synods did so without adequately understanding their teaching. This argument is very weak—if not deliberately misleading—and I would say unscientific, because it is impossible for modern theologians to understand the texts of the heretics better after seventeen centuries than the Fathers who were their contemporaries and knew not only their texts and interpretations, but also their consequences within the ecclesiastical sphere.
The second challenge is found in the contemporary “spread” of personalism. Various personalist views are voiced opportunely and inopportunely in theological, ecclesiastical, and even monastic contexts. Whereas in patristic teaching the will is an appetite of nature, in personalism the will is connected with the person–hypostasis. This constitutes a return to the Nestorian heresy, in which the will is linked to the person. Moreover, it is often emphasized — indeed excessively — that nature is connected with necessity, a claim previously made by Arians, Apollinarians, Nestorians, and Monothelites, leading to the conclusion that freedom is connected with the person.
This produces unforeseeable consequences for Triadology, Christology, and, of course, Soteriology. In the Triune God there is communion of nature–essence and energy, not communion of persons, since the persons possess both communicable and incommunicable properties (the mode of existence). In the person of Christ there is communion of natures, not communion of persons, because if the latter were the case, it would be pure Nestorianism.
The Monothelites likewise attributed the will to the hypostasis rather than to nature. Saint Maximus overturns this heretical view and connects the will with nature. He grounds this in three factors: first, in prior Triadology, since in the Triune God there is one nature and one will; second, in the anthropology of the Fathers, who identified free choice with the will; and third, in the teaching of Saint Gregory the Theologian and Saint Gregory of Nyssa that in Christ there exists a perfect human nature, in order to refute the Christology of Apollinaris.
The third challenge is the theory of Neo-Chalcedonianism. This theory has been presented by both foreign and Greek theologians with differing interpretive content. Through so-called Neo-Chalcedonianism, an attempt was made to reinterpret the decision of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod so that moderate Monophysites — namely the Severians — could be united with Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians. This was the policy of Emperor Justinian.
According to Neo-Chalcedonian theory, the Third Ecumenical Synod was based on the teaching of Saint Cyril of Alexandria and his well-known phrase “one nature of the Word incarnate,” and therefore condemned Nestorius and Nestorianism, and thus was allegedly a Monophysitizing synod. The Fourth Ecumenical Synod, which relied on the Tome of Leo, corrected the Third Synod by accepting that Christ has two natures and in some way returned to Nestorianism, since it did not condemn the Nestorians Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa. The Fifth Ecumenical Synod, which condemned these three Nestorian theologians, interpreted the decisions of the Fourth Synod with a different spirit in order to reconcile divisions, and this is characterized as Neo-Chalcedonianism.
Such a theory overturns the foundations of the Church, because it presents the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Synods as changing dogmatic views — especially in Christology — as if they were reasoning and acting opportunistically rather than through the energy of the Holy Spirit.
Father John Romanides wrote that the Neo-Chalcedonian theory of Latin, Protestant, Russian, and Greek theologians has been proven erroneous. According to this theory, the Fifth Ecumenical Synod supposedly reinstated the Twelve Chapters of Cyril at the expense of the Tome of Leo and the definition of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod — chapters which the Fourth Synod allegedly bypassed. In his study "The Twelve Chapters of Cyril at the Fourth Ecumenical Synod", he demonstrated both that the Fifth Ecumenical Synod remained faithful to the Fourth Synod’s use of the Twelve Chapters of Cyril as the criterion of Orthodox Christology, including the Tome of Leo, and that there is identity in the Christology of the three Ecumenical Synods (Third, Fourth, and Fifth). Indeed, in the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, the Twelve Chapters of Cyril dominate the Fathers’ discussions concerning the Tome of Leo.
In another study, Father John Romanides wrote that Vatican theologians, in order to support papal infallibility, taught that Pope Leo of Rome and his Tome were the basis of the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, which supposedly corrected the Monophysite and Theopaschite tendencies of Cyril of Alexandria. Because the Cyrillians refused to accept the Fourth Ecumenical Synod due to the “victory” of Pope Leo, Emperor Justinian convened the Fifth Ecumenical Synod allegedly to reinterpret the Synod of Chalcedon within strict Cyrillian categories. This imperial “new interpretation” of Justinian is called Neo-Chalcedonianism.
Nevertheless, according to Father John Romanides, this is a “myth,” because anyone who reads the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod discovers that for days the Fathers examined the Tome of Leo alongside the letters of Saint Cyril against Nestorius, which formed the basis of the decision of the Third Ecumenical Synod. As stated in the definition of the Fourth Synod, the letters of Saint Cyril and the letter of Archbishop Leo of Rome to Archbishop Flavian of New Rome “rightly concurred in confirming the Orthodox dogmas.” Thus, according to Father Romanides, “Cyril, and not Leo, was the key to the Synod of Chalcedon.” Consequently, the theory of Neo-Chalcedonianism does not stand, although it is taught at the Theological School of Athens “as historical reality.”
In any case, the Church, through her Holy Fathers, fully accepts the decisions of these three Ecumenical Synods (Third, Fourth, and Fifth). The immense contribution of Saint Maximus lies in demonstrating the absolute unity of these Synods, since the texts of the Fathers were used in formulating the dogmatic definitions of each Synod. Saint Maximus, as a grace-filled bearer of the unified tradition, through his unparalleled philosophical and literary gifts, presents with balanced clarity and concision the Consensus Patrum of the earlier tradition. He does this by establishing criteria for interpreting Monophysite and Dyophysite formulations of earlier Fathers, which were exploited at will by each heretical group to justify its own interpretation — something very similar to what happens today.
The fourth challenge is post-patristic and contextual theology. This refers to the attempt by some contemporary theologians to reinterpret the teaching of Saint Maximus using new “tools” and presuppositions and to place it within new frameworks in order to support their own interpretations of spiritual life. This, however, constitutes a distortion of authentic patristic Orthodox teaching and a departure from genuine Orthodox dogma.
All four of these challenges are addressed through the overall treatment of the dissertation topic by Mr. Georgios Siskos, which is why it is significant for the Church, theological scholarship, and the contemporary world.
The topic of the dissertation, as emphasized, concerns the interpretive framework of the Christology of Saint Maximus the Confessor and remains firmly grounded in this basis through examination of the texts. One might think, upon reading Saint Maximus’s Christological terms and formulations, that he is philosophizing. However, this is not a correct assessment. While Saint Maximus responds to heretical arguments during his polemical struggles, in reality he is a hesychast, as is evident in his early works, such as the Chapters on Love and Theological Chapters.
Saint Maximus knew very well the hesychastic tradition of the Church — that is, the precise presuppositions of Orthodox theology: practical philosophy (praxis), natural theoria (illumination), and mystical theology (theosis). He not only wrote about the purifying, illuminating, and deifying energy of God, but undoubtedly had personal experience of divine grace. Thus, his foundation is experience, and his effort to secure theological terminology serves to respond to heretical arguments and to express the Church’s experience in the language of his time. Without recognizing this reality, one might think that Saint Maximus philosophizes and thus do him injustice.
5. The Author of the Dissertation
In concluding these brief reflections on this important dissertation, it must be noted that its author has waged a great and successful struggle to read and understand thoroughly the teaching of Saint Maximus, remaining faithful to the Christological terms and formulations used by the Saint, and to expose the misinterpretations introduced at times by various theologians. His qualities — methodical approach, mastery of the subject, careful and objective use of sources with scholarly rigor, philological and historical investigation, and ecclesial mindset — make this dissertation a model of theological and ecclesiastical discourse. It thus constitutes a strong theological hope for the science of theology and for the Orthodox Church.
Mr. Georgios Siskos studied with exceptional diligence all the texts of Saint Maximus the Confessor, the analyses made by contemporary theologians on his teaching and related topics, and he addresses misinterpretations and deviations from Orthodox dogma. This is especially evident in the footnotes, which are a true treasure. Anyone who reads them carefully will realize that the author has an excellent grasp of the subject, is fully informed about contemporary trends in the interpretation of Saint Maximus, and exercises both indirect and direct constructive criticism of theologians who misinterpret Saint Maximus’s teaching and ultimately distance themselves from the faith of the Orthodox Church.
The author expresses his gratitude to his supervising professor, Mrs. Despo Lialiou, for her essential assistance throughout the preparation of the dissertation, as well as “for transmitting patristic teaching unadulterated by theological fashions and philosophical movements.”
The density of the author’s thought and the conciseness of his formulations may initially challenge the reader, but careful attention will allow one to appreciate the theological discourse, encounter the authentic thought of Saint Maximus the Confessor, perceive his struggle, and ultimately glorify God for the existence of such Fathers and their interpreters-disciples, who preserve the truth of salvation far from strange distortions and dangerous acrobatics.
In the Triune God there is communion of nature–essence and energy, not communion of persons, since the persons possess both communicable and incommunicable properties (the mode of existence). In the person of Christ there is communion of natures, not communion of persons; otherwise, it would be pure Nestorianism.
Expressing his ecclesial mindset, the author writes that “a theological dissertation belongs primarily to the Church of Christ, and to her it is dedicated.” He also confesses: “The entire approach to the work of Saint Maximus remains within what the author understands from the initiation of his spiritual father; therefore, the author remains perpetually indebted.” This honors him greatly, especially since the honor is directed to a distinguished cleric of our Church, Archimandrite Father Symeon Krajopoulos. Thus, this dissertation constitutes an ecclesiastical event, and as such it fills me with ineffable joy and moves me to glorify the Triune God.
In recent times in Greece, much attention has been given to the so-called economic crisis and its consequences. This fact cannot be ignored, but neither can the theological crisis be overlooked, because when Orthodox theology is distorted, ethos is distorted as well, along with the very presuppositions of human salvation. The theology of the Church must be closely united with her pastoral practice.
Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos.
The teaching of Saint Maximus the Confessor (580–662) attracted me from the 1970s. I read primarily his ascetical and theological writings, the chapters “On Love,” “On Theology,” and “On the Prayer ‘Our Father,’” which are included in the Philokalia of the Holy Neptic Fathers and which, as it appears, are his early works. They benefited me greatly in my pastoral ministry, because through them I perceived his entire ascetical teaching, his hesychasm, and the manner in which he theologized.
Later, I read many of his texts that refer to the Mystagogy, his interpretation of the writings of Saint Dionysios the Areopagite, his solutions to difficulties in the works of Saint Dionysios and Saint Gregory the Theologian, his exegetical texts, his letters, and so forth. Saint Maximus is spiritually akin to the earlier Fathers of the Church, and for this reason he understood their teaching excellently.
I then studied his dogmatic and polemical works with which he confronted the heresies of Monoenergism and Monothelitism, thereby contributing to the establishment of Orthodox dogma at the Sixth Ecumenical Synod — namely, that in Christ there are two energies and two wills, divine and human, which operate in His one person. Clearly, this represents the continuation of the teaching of the Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod.
This engagement of mine is evident in all the works I have published since the 1980s. It is characteristic that a large ascetical portion of the teaching of Saint Maximus was included in my first major book, Orthodox Psychotherapy, published in 1985. I realized that Saint Maximus analyzed in depth the ascetical teaching of the Church through its theological and therapeutic character, which is observed throughout our ecclesiastical tradition, and that he viewed it as connected with the Mysteries. His interpretation in the Mystagogy unites hesychasm, the Eucharist, and eschatology.
Thus, those who undervalue and slander the Philokalia of the Holy Neptic Fathers, including the texts of Saint Maximus the Confessor, claiming that they supposedly distort ecclesiastical tradition and “religionize” it — asserting that the manner in which they were composed constitutes a religionization of the ecclesial event — commit a great theological and ecclesiastical error, since these texts clearly presuppose mysterial life.
I continued by studying every serious work that came to my attention concerning the teaching of Saint Maximus on theology, Christology, anthropology, ecclesiology, cosmology, and eschatology. Through these studies I recognized the value and importance of this great seventh-century Father of the Church, who played a decisive role in the formulation of dogma through struggle, confession, sacrifice, and a martyric mindset.
2. The Structure of the Dissertation
It is well known that Saint Maximus the Confessor lived during a difficult ecclesiastical period and, making use of the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon, prepared the ground for the decision of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, which completed the Church’s teaching on Christology and thus addressed all heresies related to Christological matters.
The dissertation of Mr. Georgios Siskos deals, with exceptional success — as its title indicates — with the interpretive framework of the Christology of Saint Maximus the Confessor. Good dissertations usually focus on particular issues and highlight important details that advance scholarly research on an author or a specific topic within a given historical period. Thus, this dissertation is limited to the Christology of Saint Maximus and essentially to its interpretive framework.
This means that the examination of Saint Maximus’s Christology is carried out on the basis of his texts in which he responds to the Nestorians, the anti-Chalcedonians — especially Severus — the Monoenergists, and the Monothelites, whose texts are also studied. A careful reading and interpretation of these texts is undertaken, of the terms used by all parties, and of their Orthodox resolution in Saint Maximus, and secure conclusions are drawn.
The author does not speculate philosophically on the texts he studies, nor does he act arbitrarily, but works philologically and historically, investigating the meaning of words and phrases while also interpreting them theologically. He employs a strict scientific method, and through extensive and at times exhaustive footnotes, those who speculate arbitrarily upon the texts are critically assessed.
Thus it is demonstrated that Severus distorts the teaching of Saint Cyril of Alexandria by remaining only at the external verbal level of his teaching, whereas the Fathers of the Synod of Chalcedon and Saint Maximus are genuine interpreters of the essence of Saint Cyril’s teaching.
The dissertation is structured in three parts. The first part deals with the two natures — divine and human — in Christ, that is, how the two natures operate in the one hypostasis of the Logos. The second part addresses the two energies of Christ and, more generally, the anti-Monoenergist polemical teaching of Saint Maximus. The third part discusses Saint Maximus’s teaching on the two wills in Christ and thus presents his teaching against Monothelitism.
These three parts are divided into individual chapters in which the Christological teaching of Saint Maximus is presented and the entire subject is analyzed with significant observations and new insights into the teaching of this divinely-wise Father of the Church.
I enjoy reading dissertation texts by careful researchers, because I know that their authors, as a rule, conduct thorough research in the sources and, on the basis of this research, evaluate the existing bibliography. When I begin studying such a book, I first read the foreword, the introduction, and the conclusions, in order to enter into the essence of the subject, since in these three sections one can briefly grasp the entire thought of the researcher. After entering into the meaning of the topics addressed, I then proceed calmly and attentively to study the chapters of the dissertation, seeking to identify what new contribution each researcher brings with his work. I did the same with this dissertation.
In the foreword, the author observes the manner in which contemporary theological scholarship attempts a “readjustment of ecclesiastical hermeneutics,” whereby “the sources are interpreted through philosophical, sociological, and psychological tools, in order to yield answers to the questions of contemporary humanity.” This “transcription” of patristic texts into the data of our era involves many dangers, since the texts are not understood seriously and are treated as a “museum exhibit” unless they are speculatively, philosophically, or sociologically reinterpreted for our time, thereby undermining the identity of the experience of the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Fathers. The author states that he will attempt to understand the thought of Saint Maximus with a “priority of discipleship and obedience” to his texts, and this he achieves throughout the pages of his dissertation.
In the introduction, the purpose of the dissertation is analyzed, namely “the historical-dogmatic investigation and analysis of the interpretive framework within which the terms and formulations concerning the exposition of the Christological dogma are understood by Saint Maximus the Confessor.” In order to understand this interpretive framework, the historical causes of the texts are sought; the manner in which ecclesiastical and philosophical tradition is received in historical circumstances is examined; an “anatomy of the Monothelite construct with regard to the presuppositions of its creators” is undertaken; and the “polemical reinterpretation of the Monothelite construct” is investigated.
Subsequently, reference is made to the directions observed in the Christological formulations of Saint Maximus, to the concepts he employs, as well as to the terms of the earlier tradition. Reference is also made to the bibliography on his teaching in various theological areas by contemporary theologians, as the author reads and appropriately evaluates Greek-, English-, French-, and German-language scholarship. Thus, the reader is sufficiently informed about the research conducted on the theology of this Holy Father, in order then to identify the topic of the interpretive framework of Christology, which constitutes the new contribution of this dissertation. In the introduction, an analysis is also provided of what each of the three parts and their respective chapters contain, so that the reader may be prepared for the reading of the work.
At the end of the book, the conclusions from the analysis of the interpretive framework are presented — in both Greek and English — through which Saint Maximus is led to the confession of the incarnate Son and Word of God with specific formulations and terms.
3. Main Points of the Dissertation
From the study of the teaching of Saint Maximus the Confessor, as analyzed in the present dissertation, it is established that his Christological formulations are divided into three periods.
The first period includes those formulations expressed by Saint Maximus before the appearance of the Monothelite heresy. This period is characterized as the “pre-Monothelite period” and is marked by precision and fidelity to the Definition of Chalcedon. During this period, the Cappadocian Trinitarian terms — essence, nature, person, and hypostasis — are transferred into Christology.
The second period includes the Christological formulations found in Saint Maximus’ anti-Monoenergist works, in his struggle against the Christology of Severus and in defense of the decision of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod held at Chalcedon, against the anti-Chalcedonians and the Nestorians. At this stage, however, there is still no reference to the Monothelite heresy.
This dissertation is not intended merely to remain on university library shelves or to occupy only specialized theologians, but rather to offer essential elements to the Church in order to confront various contemporary theological challenges.
The third period includes those Christological formulations found in his anti-Monothelite works, in which the framework of the Monothelite heresy and the struggle of the Orthodox become evident. Monothelitism arose from the attempt of Emperor Heraclius to reconcile the faith of Chalcedon with the anti-Chalcedonians, often by using “meanings drawn from Nestorian Christology.”
The author notes that this division into periods serves systematic purposes, since in many of Saint Maximus’ texts energy and will are examined together, while the interpretive principles governing the affirmation of two energies differ from those governing the affirmation of two wills.
It is not easy to record the conclusions of this dissertation within the limits of this brief presentation; therefore, four key points will be highlighted.
First. The transfer of Cappadocian terminology from Trinitarian theology to Christology is identified with regard to the terms essence, nature, hypostasis, and person. Texts of the Cappadocian Fathers — Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory the Theologian, and Saint Gregory of Nyssa — are examined in which essence/nature and person/hypostasis are discussed, and it is shown how these terms are transferred by Saint Maximus into Christology. It is demonstrated that Saint Maximus was thoroughly familiar with Cappadocian theology and at the same time made use of and systematized the entire post-Chalcedonian tradition on the subject.
Two pairs of concepts are involved.
The first pair is “identity and otherness.” In Trinitarian theology, as taught by the Cappadocian Fathers, there is identity of nature and otherness of hypostases, since the Persons of the Holy Trinity share the same nature but have distinct hypostases. In Christology, however, these terms are expressed differently: in Christ there is identity of hypostasis and otherness of natures, since the two natures in the one hypostasis of the Word are united without change, without division, without confusion, and without alteration.
The other pair is “union and distinction.” In Trinitarian theology there is unity of nature and distinction of hypostases, while in Christology there is unity of hypostasis — one hypostasis of the Word — and distinction of natures, divine and human.
Thus, the terms nature/essence and person/hypostasis are used with different meanings in Trinitarian theology and Christology, yet the truth is preserved that Christ is the one hypostasis of the Holy Trinity who assumed human nature and united it without change, without division, without confusion, and without alteration to His hypostasis.
“Composite nature” means that two natures are united into one, whereas “composite hypostasis” means that the two natures, without losing their natural properties, are united in one hypostasis. By interpreting the term “composite hypostasis,” Saint Maximus clearly distinguishes it from the Christology of Severus of Antioch and from the Christology of Nestorius, and by means of this term he also nullifies Monoenergism and Monothelitism.
Without this interpretive distinction one falls either into “acute confusion,” as with Sabellius and Eutyches (the Monophysites), or into “acute division,” as with Arius and Nestorius. The Nestorians and anti-Chalcedonians misused these terms and thus fell into heresies condemned by the Church.
Saint Maximus also employs the Cappadocian terms “logos of nature” and “mode of existence,” in relation to the “function of number.” In Cappadocian Trinitarian theology, the logos of nature refers to the one nature of God, while the mode of existence refers to the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. In Christology, however, these terms are applied differently: in Christ the logos of nature is two and not one — otherwise one arrives at Monophysitism — and the mode of union is one and not two — otherwise one arrives at Nestorianism. Saint Maximus thus “transcribes” this scheme from Trinitarian theology into Christology.
Second. Through his teaching, Saint Maximus the Confessor refutes both Severus and Nestorius and remains faithful to the theological foundation of the Synod of Chalcedon.
It is significant that both Nestorius and Severus begin from the same fundamental axiom: that in Christ each nature necessarily possesses its own hypostasis. Yet they reach different conclusions: Nestorius speaks of a relative union of two natures – hypostases, while Severus speaks of a composite nature – hypostasis in Christ.
It is further noted that Severus was a “fanatical adherent of the Christological terminology of Saint Cyril,” accepting the phrase “one nature of the Word incarnate” and believing that the Chalcedonian Definition betrayed Saint Cyril’s theology and allowed Nestorian blasphemies to prevail. For this reason, he regarded the Chalcedonian Definition as Nestorian.
Saint Maximus, however, through careful study of Saint Cyril’s texts in light of the Chalcedonian Definition, demonstrates that Cyril’s teaching is in full agreement with Chalcedon, that in the hypostasis of the Word of God the two natures — divine and human — are united, and he refutes Severus’ claim that his own teaching faithfully represents Saint Cyril. Thus, Severus is shown to distort Cyril’s teaching, remaining on a merely verbal level, while the Fathers of Chalcedon and Saint Maximus are the true interpreters of its substance.
Third. Through his struggles in the second and third phases of his polemical theology, Saint Maximus rejects the heresies of Monoenergism and Monothelitism, both of which sought to reconcile Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian Christology.
Monoenergism first appeared as a conciliatory attempt between Chalcedonian Orthodox and anti-Chalcedonian Monophysites, notably in the union of 633 AD between the Severian party and Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria, the first official Monoenergist text. This text avoids the term person, adopts Severus’ expressions “from two natures” and “one nature of the Word incarnate,” and introduces the phrase “one theandric energy,” attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, thereby nullifying Chalcedon and excluding Leo’s Tome.
Monothelitism followed the same path, beginning with the Ekthesis of Emperor Heraclius in 638 AD, likely composed by Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople, which attempted to bridge Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian Christology, often using Nestorian terminology. Saint Maximus opposed these efforts, firmly rejecting any compromise in matters of faith.
Fourth. To understand concisely the foundation of Saint Maximus’ theological thought, certain key terms are highlighted. Central among them is “composite hypostasis,” used to express Orthodox Christology in contrast to the notion of “composite nature.” By this term Saint Maximus affirms two natures, energies, and wills in the one hypostasis of Christ, thereby rejecting Monoenergism and Monothelitism.
He also distinguishes between “natural will” and “gnomic will.” In Christ there are two natural wills, divine and human, corresponding to His two natures, but no gnomic will, since a gnomic will would imply deliberation and change and thus introduce a second hypostasis. The acceptance of a gnomic will in Christ inevitably leads to Nestorianism.
Finally, Saint Maximus emphasizes the “interpenetration" (symphýia) of the divine and human wills in Christ, by which the human will freely consents to the divine will. This term, transferred from Trinitarian theology into Christology, safeguards both the full humanity of Christ and the unity of His person.
Together with the terms logos of nature and mode of union, these concepts express the Christology of Saint Maximus, through which he successfully confronted Monoenergism and Monothelitism.
4. The Contemporary Relevance of the Topic
The topic, as developed in the present dissertation, is marked by seriousness, because its author offers an authentic interpretation of the terms, formulations, and Christological teaching of Saint Maximus the Confessor, while at the same time possessing remarkable contemporary relevance. This is not a dissertation intended to remain on the shelves of university libraries and concern only specialist theologians, but one that offers essential contributions to the Church in order to address various contemporary theological challenges.
The first challenge is identified in the dialogue with the anti-Chalcedonians (Monophysites). It is important that the correct interpretation of Christological terms and formulations be examined, because these determine Orthodox faith or deviation from it. This concerns the very life of the Church and its theology, which is also the sure guide to salvation. Theological issues cannot be employed for political purposes. Whenever Orthodox theology has been subordinated to political or social agendas, it has caused turmoil within the Church and ultimately such attempts have ended in failure.
This challenge is particularly acute in our time, not only because dialogues are taking place between Orthodoxy and anti-Chalcedonian Monophysites, but also because some Orthodox theologians attempt to support the view that the Fathers who condemned heretics at the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Ecumenical Synods did so without adequately understanding their teaching. This argument is very weak—if not deliberately misleading—and I would say unscientific, because it is impossible for modern theologians to understand the texts of the heretics better after seventeen centuries than the Fathers who were their contemporaries and knew not only their texts and interpretations, but also their consequences within the ecclesiastical sphere.
The second challenge is found in the contemporary “spread” of personalism. Various personalist views are voiced opportunely and inopportunely in theological, ecclesiastical, and even monastic contexts. Whereas in patristic teaching the will is an appetite of nature, in personalism the will is connected with the person–hypostasis. This constitutes a return to the Nestorian heresy, in which the will is linked to the person. Moreover, it is often emphasized — indeed excessively — that nature is connected with necessity, a claim previously made by Arians, Apollinarians, Nestorians, and Monothelites, leading to the conclusion that freedom is connected with the person.
This produces unforeseeable consequences for Triadology, Christology, and, of course, Soteriology. In the Triune God there is communion of nature–essence and energy, not communion of persons, since the persons possess both communicable and incommunicable properties (the mode of existence). In the person of Christ there is communion of natures, not communion of persons, because if the latter were the case, it would be pure Nestorianism.
The Monothelites likewise attributed the will to the hypostasis rather than to nature. Saint Maximus overturns this heretical view and connects the will with nature. He grounds this in three factors: first, in prior Triadology, since in the Triune God there is one nature and one will; second, in the anthropology of the Fathers, who identified free choice with the will; and third, in the teaching of Saint Gregory the Theologian and Saint Gregory of Nyssa that in Christ there exists a perfect human nature, in order to refute the Christology of Apollinaris.
The third challenge is the theory of Neo-Chalcedonianism. This theory has been presented by both foreign and Greek theologians with differing interpretive content. Through so-called Neo-Chalcedonianism, an attempt was made to reinterpret the decision of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod so that moderate Monophysites — namely the Severians — could be united with Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians. This was the policy of Emperor Justinian.
According to Neo-Chalcedonian theory, the Third Ecumenical Synod was based on the teaching of Saint Cyril of Alexandria and his well-known phrase “one nature of the Word incarnate,” and therefore condemned Nestorius and Nestorianism, and thus was allegedly a Monophysitizing synod. The Fourth Ecumenical Synod, which relied on the Tome of Leo, corrected the Third Synod by accepting that Christ has two natures and in some way returned to Nestorianism, since it did not condemn the Nestorians Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa. The Fifth Ecumenical Synod, which condemned these three Nestorian theologians, interpreted the decisions of the Fourth Synod with a different spirit in order to reconcile divisions, and this is characterized as Neo-Chalcedonianism.
Such a theory overturns the foundations of the Church, because it presents the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Synods as changing dogmatic views — especially in Christology — as if they were reasoning and acting opportunistically rather than through the energy of the Holy Spirit.
Father John Romanides wrote that the Neo-Chalcedonian theory of Latin, Protestant, Russian, and Greek theologians has been proven erroneous. According to this theory, the Fifth Ecumenical Synod supposedly reinstated the Twelve Chapters of Cyril at the expense of the Tome of Leo and the definition of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod — chapters which the Fourth Synod allegedly bypassed. In his study "The Twelve Chapters of Cyril at the Fourth Ecumenical Synod", he demonstrated both that the Fifth Ecumenical Synod remained faithful to the Fourth Synod’s use of the Twelve Chapters of Cyril as the criterion of Orthodox Christology, including the Tome of Leo, and that there is identity in the Christology of the three Ecumenical Synods (Third, Fourth, and Fifth). Indeed, in the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, the Twelve Chapters of Cyril dominate the Fathers’ discussions concerning the Tome of Leo.
In another study, Father John Romanides wrote that Vatican theologians, in order to support papal infallibility, taught that Pope Leo of Rome and his Tome were the basis of the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, which supposedly corrected the Monophysite and Theopaschite tendencies of Cyril of Alexandria. Because the Cyrillians refused to accept the Fourth Ecumenical Synod due to the “victory” of Pope Leo, Emperor Justinian convened the Fifth Ecumenical Synod allegedly to reinterpret the Synod of Chalcedon within strict Cyrillian categories. This imperial “new interpretation” of Justinian is called Neo-Chalcedonianism.
Nevertheless, according to Father John Romanides, this is a “myth,” because anyone who reads the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod discovers that for days the Fathers examined the Tome of Leo alongside the letters of Saint Cyril against Nestorius, which formed the basis of the decision of the Third Ecumenical Synod. As stated in the definition of the Fourth Synod, the letters of Saint Cyril and the letter of Archbishop Leo of Rome to Archbishop Flavian of New Rome “rightly concurred in confirming the Orthodox dogmas.” Thus, according to Father Romanides, “Cyril, and not Leo, was the key to the Synod of Chalcedon.” Consequently, the theory of Neo-Chalcedonianism does not stand, although it is taught at the Theological School of Athens “as historical reality.”
In any case, the Church, through her Holy Fathers, fully accepts the decisions of these three Ecumenical Synods (Third, Fourth, and Fifth). The immense contribution of Saint Maximus lies in demonstrating the absolute unity of these Synods, since the texts of the Fathers were used in formulating the dogmatic definitions of each Synod. Saint Maximus, as a grace-filled bearer of the unified tradition, through his unparalleled philosophical and literary gifts, presents with balanced clarity and concision the Consensus Patrum of the earlier tradition. He does this by establishing criteria for interpreting Monophysite and Dyophysite formulations of earlier Fathers, which were exploited at will by each heretical group to justify its own interpretation — something very similar to what happens today.
The fourth challenge is post-patristic and contextual theology. This refers to the attempt by some contemporary theologians to reinterpret the teaching of Saint Maximus using new “tools” and presuppositions and to place it within new frameworks in order to support their own interpretations of spiritual life. This, however, constitutes a distortion of authentic patristic Orthodox teaching and a departure from genuine Orthodox dogma.
All four of these challenges are addressed through the overall treatment of the dissertation topic by Mr. Georgios Siskos, which is why it is significant for the Church, theological scholarship, and the contemporary world.
The topic of the dissertation, as emphasized, concerns the interpretive framework of the Christology of Saint Maximus the Confessor and remains firmly grounded in this basis through examination of the texts. One might think, upon reading Saint Maximus’s Christological terms and formulations, that he is philosophizing. However, this is not a correct assessment. While Saint Maximus responds to heretical arguments during his polemical struggles, in reality he is a hesychast, as is evident in his early works, such as the Chapters on Love and Theological Chapters.
Saint Maximus knew very well the hesychastic tradition of the Church — that is, the precise presuppositions of Orthodox theology: practical philosophy (praxis), natural theoria (illumination), and mystical theology (theosis). He not only wrote about the purifying, illuminating, and deifying energy of God, but undoubtedly had personal experience of divine grace. Thus, his foundation is experience, and his effort to secure theological terminology serves to respond to heretical arguments and to express the Church’s experience in the language of his time. Without recognizing this reality, one might think that Saint Maximus philosophizes and thus do him injustice.
5. The Author of the Dissertation
In concluding these brief reflections on this important dissertation, it must be noted that its author has waged a great and successful struggle to read and understand thoroughly the teaching of Saint Maximus, remaining faithful to the Christological terms and formulations used by the Saint, and to expose the misinterpretations introduced at times by various theologians. His qualities — methodical approach, mastery of the subject, careful and objective use of sources with scholarly rigor, philological and historical investigation, and ecclesial mindset — make this dissertation a model of theological and ecclesiastical discourse. It thus constitutes a strong theological hope for the science of theology and for the Orthodox Church.
Mr. Georgios Siskos studied with exceptional diligence all the texts of Saint Maximus the Confessor, the analyses made by contemporary theologians on his teaching and related topics, and he addresses misinterpretations and deviations from Orthodox dogma. This is especially evident in the footnotes, which are a true treasure. Anyone who reads them carefully will realize that the author has an excellent grasp of the subject, is fully informed about contemporary trends in the interpretation of Saint Maximus, and exercises both indirect and direct constructive criticism of theologians who misinterpret Saint Maximus’s teaching and ultimately distance themselves from the faith of the Orthodox Church.
The author expresses his gratitude to his supervising professor, Mrs. Despo Lialiou, for her essential assistance throughout the preparation of the dissertation, as well as “for transmitting patristic teaching unadulterated by theological fashions and philosophical movements.”
The density of the author’s thought and the conciseness of his formulations may initially challenge the reader, but careful attention will allow one to appreciate the theological discourse, encounter the authentic thought of Saint Maximus the Confessor, perceive his struggle, and ultimately glorify God for the existence of such Fathers and their interpreters-disciples, who preserve the truth of salvation far from strange distortions and dangerous acrobatics.
In the Triune God there is communion of nature–essence and energy, not communion of persons, since the persons possess both communicable and incommunicable properties (the mode of existence). In the person of Christ there is communion of natures, not communion of persons; otherwise, it would be pure Nestorianism.
Expressing his ecclesial mindset, the author writes that “a theological dissertation belongs primarily to the Church of Christ, and to her it is dedicated.” He also confesses: “The entire approach to the work of Saint Maximus remains within what the author understands from the initiation of his spiritual father; therefore, the author remains perpetually indebted.” This honors him greatly, especially since the honor is directed to a distinguished cleric of our Church, Archimandrite Father Symeon Krajopoulos. Thus, this dissertation constitutes an ecclesiastical event, and as such it fills me with ineffable joy and moves me to glorify the Triune God.
In recent times in Greece, much attention has been given to the so-called economic crisis and its consequences. This fact cannot be ignored, but neither can the theological crisis be overlooked, because when Orthodox theology is distorted, ethos is distorted as well, along with the very presuppositions of human salvation. The theology of the Church must be closely united with her pastoral practice.
Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos.
