The Fourth Century as the “Golden” Age of the Church (Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos)

The Fourth Century as the “Golden” Age of the Church 

By Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou

(Lecture to the Educators of the city of Nafpaktos on January 30, 2013,
and to the Assembly of Clergy of the Sacred Metropolis of Kifisia on February 14, 2013)

I thank you for responding to my invitation to attend this event today, which I established here many years ago, from the very first year of my arrival in Nafpaktos. Each year I develop various topics related to the life, teaching, and work of the Three Hierarchs, and I attempt to touch upon aspects that go somewhat beyond what is commonplace and customary. The subject of today’s lecture is: “The fourth century (in which the Three Hierarchs lived) as the ‘golden’ age of the Church.”

The fourth century has been characterized by many theologians and students of Church history as the “golden age of the Church.” This is due to many factors.

First, the organization of ecclesiastical life after the end of the persecutions and the issuance of the Edict of Milan.

Second, the encounter between major theological and religious currents — namely Jewish thought, Christian revelation, Gnostic teaching, and Greek philosophy.

Third, the formulation of dogmas and ecclesiastical life because of the many heresies and schismatic situations observed during that period.

Fourth, the appearance of great Fathers in the Church, among whom were the Three Hierarchs.

All of these will be examined in greater detail below, so that we may better understand the great treasure that has been handed down to us and our duty to preserve it for future generations.

1. The Edict of Milan

The fourth century began with the great and harsh persecutions ordered by Diocletian. Millions of martyrs were sacrificed in order to confess their faith in the Triune God. This persecution was in fact instigated by Diocletian’s son-in-law Galerius, who later issued an edict in April 311 in Nicomedia or Serdica, by which he brought the persecution to an end. Galerius permitted Christian worship, on the condition that Christians did nothing contrary to the laws of the State and that they prayed for the emperor. He also ordered that confiscated and expropriated places of prayer be returned to Christians, in exchange for compensation.

The issuance of this edict was due, on the one hand, to the positive influence of Constantine the Great upon Galerius, and on the other hand to Galerius’ illness, from which he died shortly thereafter.

Two years later, in 313, an edict known as the Edict of Milan was issued, because it was signed in Mediolanum (modern Milan, Italy), following a meeting between Constantine the Great and Licinius. This year we commemorate 1,700 years since the issuance of the Edict of Milan, which is of great importance.

There are two texts of this edict that differ from one another. One is preserved by Lactantius, who copied the document published in Nicomedia by Licinius after the separation of Bithynia (Asia Minor) from Maximinus. The other text is preserved by Eusebius, who translated the text published in Caesarea of Palestine. These two documents, which were originally one and bore the names of Constantine the Great and Licinius, are known as the Edict of Milan.

Historians attempt to explain these differences and provide various interpretations, which do not concern us here. What is important is that the Edict of Milan granted full freedom to the citizens of the Roman State to embrace Christianity and full freedom in the performance of worship. It also ordered the full return of expropriated or donated places of prayer and communal properties, without compensation from the Christians.

With this edict, Christianity was free to perform its worship and receive believers, but it was not yet designated as the official religion of the State.

I will cite two passages from the Edict of Milan, as preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea, referring to religious freedom:

“Since long ago we have been considering that freedom of religion should not be denied, but that the mind and will of each individual should be granted authority to practice divine matters according to his own choice, we commanded that Christians also retain the faith of their sect and religion.”

And:

“When I, Constantine Augustus, and I, Licinius Augustus, fortunately met at Milan and discussed all matters pertaining to the welfare and benefit of the public, among other things we deemed it proper first of all to decree those matters in which reverence and respect for the divine are contained, that is, that we grant to Christians and to all people free choice to follow whatever religion each wishes.”

This edict marked the end of persecutions against Christianity, granted freedom of worship, and opened the way for Christianity later to become the official religion of the State.

2. The Encounter of the Major Theological Currents

With the freedom that was granted to it, Christianity began to develop and to receive new members into its fold through Baptism and Chrismation, and it celebrated its worship freely, especially the mystery of the Divine Eucharist. A revival and reorganization of ecclesiastical life began after the devastation of persecutions and martyrdoms. However, freedom also created other temptations, the chief of which were heresies and schisms. Thus, the Church sought to establish places of worship, that is, churches, to define the manner in which it would receive new members, to organize its system of governance, and naturally to confront heretics and schismatics. A characteristic feature of the fourth century is that major philosophical and religious currents, which had dominated the first centuries of Christianity — especially the second and third centuries — came together. A presentation of these religious currents will be given in order to ascertain the great significance of their encounter with Christianity.

The principal religious current of that period, especially in Palestine, was Judaism. Christianity developed in the regions of Palestine and subsequently went beyond its borders into the then-known world. The Apostles were Jews by origin and, as was natural, were familiar with the Old Testament and its interpretive traditions, the Talmud — that is, they knew the Law and its interpretations — but ultimately they also accepted the new revelation that Christ brought into the world. From their reading of the Old Testament, the Apostles knew that in the Prophets the Lord of Glory was revealed, the Angel of Great Counsel, who made known to them the truth of God and the incarnation of Christ. Subsequently they found the Messiah and understood from their own experience that the Angel of Great Counsel, the Yahweh of the Old Testament, the Lord of Glory, became man. They experienced His uncreated glory on Mount Tabor, saw Him risen, and received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, thus becoming members of His Body.

It is natural that their thought and terminology were purely Old Testament in character. The Apostle Paul, in his epistles, spoke of the Lord of Glory, of the carnal, psychic, and spiritual man, of the Church as the Body of Christ, of the Light of God in the human heart, and so forth. Thus, the entire thought and terminology of the New Testament — that is, the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles — are purely Hebrew, but with a new interpretation in accordance with the revelation of Christ. Of course, the Jews of that time who did not accept Christ continued to read the Old Testament, but they could not accept what concerned the coming of Christ, nor the preaching of Christ and the Apostles that Christ is the Son of God, and for this reason they persecuted the Apostles and Christians in general. Philo the Jew, who lived in Alexandria and was a contemporary of Christ, also adopted certain Hellenistic elements in his teaching.

During the second century a movement known as Gnosticism developed. This was a “philosophical–spiritualistic–religious–mystical–magical complex of various views that were formulated during the first Christian centuries.” Gnosticism constituted a religious syncretism of that era. In its teaching there coexist, intermingled, various heterogeneous elements from the mythology of the Egyptians, Babylonians, and other Eastern peoples, from Greek tradition and philosophy, and from Christian theology.

A basic principle of Gnosticism is that there exists a distinction between a good and an evil god; that the good God is a transcendent being who has no relation to the world, whereas the creator of the world is the evil god, identified with the God of the Old Testament. The salvation of man is not achieved through faith, but through knowledge, which “constitutes a higher, spiritual, intuitive divine form of knowledge, contrasted both with science, which has worldly content, and with religious faith, which proceeds from dogma.” This knowledge is an inner spark, and man is saved through it. Jesus is the supreme ruler, the savior sent by the good God to rekindle these sparks that exist within human beings and to assist in their restoration.

Gnostics of the early centuries were active in various parts of the then-known world, such as Basilides in Egypt, Bardaisan in Mesopotamia, Marcion in Sinope and Rome, Carpocrates in Alexandria, and Mani in Persia, who was also the founder of Manichaeism. Gnosticism was confronted by the Apostolic Fathers, chiefly Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who wrote the work Against Heresies (“Refutation and Overthrow of the Falsely So-Called Knowledge”). Gnosticism was regarded as a threat to Christianity because it questioned the divinity of Christ, the revelations of God in the Old and New Testaments, undermined the redemptive sacrifice of Christ, and laid the foundations for a theological and philosophical dualism (the distinction between a good and an evil god), while at the same time overemphasizing the value of the human being, within whom the sparks of knowledge are said to exist, thus disregarding faith in the revelation of God.

Another current that predominated in the third century was ancient Greek philosophy — of Plato and Aristotle — not only in Athens but also in Alexandria and Antioch, which influenced certain Christian theologians. The philosophical schools in which Greek philosophy was taught continued to function, and the works of the ancient Greek philosophers circulated widely. From the third century onward, Neoplatonism developed as an attempt to revive ancient Platonism with new elements. The basic teaching of Neoplatonism is that reality is divided into four levels: the One, which is essence; the intellect; the soul; and the sensible world. Each of these proceeds from the preceding one through emanation, and between them exists the so-called “chain of being.” Thus, from the abundance of the One (essence) the intellect came into being by emanation; from the abundance of the intellect the soul came into being by emanation; and from the abundance of the essence of the soul the sensible world came into being by emanation.

According to Neoplatonism, the soul is distinguished into the cosmic soul, “by means of which indeterminate matter receives form” and thus sensible things are formed, and the human soul, “which constitutes the form of the body that bears it.” The destiny of the human being is the return of the soul from the influence of the body to the original One from which it came. Thus, three stages are spoken of: remaining, procession, and return. Neoplatonism took shape in various schools in the major cities and regions of the Roman Empire, such as Rome, Alexandria, Syria, Pergamon, Athens, and so forth, and its representatives included Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and others. Neoplatonism, which appeared in the third century, survived in various forms through all the centuries, up to the philosophy of our own time.

The result of all these philosophical and religious currents was that some Christian theologians were influenced by them, philosophizing about the revealed truth of Christ and developing what is called Hellenized Christianity. These were theologians who attempted to understand and interpret Christian teaching through Greek philosophy and the philosophical and religious currents of their time. The Christian theologians of this category theologized in a more philosophical manner, without possessing personal experience of the revelation of Christ, and thus they Hellenized Christianity, departed from Christian teaching, and ended up in heresies.

In this category belong Paul of Samosata, Lucian of Antioch, Sabellius, Arius and the Arians, and Eunomius, whom the Fathers of the Church confronted. All of them attempted to interpret Christian theology using Greek philosophy, in matters concerning the relationship between the Persons of the Holy Trinity, the incarnation of the Word of God and the union of the two natures in Christ, and the creation of the world. They spoke of person and hypostasis, of essence and energies, of metaphysical, immutable and mutable realities, of entelechy, and so on.

These philosophical, religious, and theological currents shaped the climate in the Church of the first three centuries and dominated the views of certain theologians on theological matters. These heretical views naturally influenced Christians, and the bishops sought to confront them. This constituted a new challenge for the Christian Church. Whereas in the early centuries the challenge concerned the confession of faith expressed through martyrdom, which produced the martyrs, in the third and fourth centuries the challenge concerned the confession of faith in the terms of that era and brought forth the Great Fathers of the Church.

3. The Formation of Orthodox Theology and Life

In the fourth century the Church found itself facing these challenges, which stemmed from Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy, and especially Neoplatonism. It therefore had to confront all these philosophical and religious currents and to express its revelatory truth through new terminology. Thus, without losing in the least the content of Revelation, it adopted a new vocabulary. In this way it also confronted the danger posed by the heretics who expressed the so-called “Hellenized Christianity” and who were transforming Christianity into a form of Hellenism, with its own philosophical way of thinking. Thus, from this encounter, through her Fathers, the Church expressed what Fr. George Florovsky called “Christianized Hellenism.” The distinctive features that characterize this truly laborious effort can be identified in two indicative dates, namely the year 325 AD, when the First Ecumenical Synod was convened in Nicaea of Bithynia, and the year 381 AD, when the Second Ecumenical Synod was convened in Constantinople.

The period preceding the First Ecumenical Synod, as well as the period between the First and Second Ecumenical Synods, was very important for the Church, because during that time she struggled to shape the new reality and to express authentic theology through new terms, which have remained in the Church to this day. The champion at the First Ecumenical Synod was Saint Athanasios the Great, and at the Second Ecumenical Synod Saints Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa, and indirectly also Saint Basil the Great, who had reposed before the Synod convened (379 AD), but through his teaching and work prepared the entire theology of that Synod. What follows will highlight certain points that show what took place in the Orthodox Church in the fourth century, just after she emerged from the period of persecutions and martyrdom, and how she confronted the challenge of heresies on this issue.

In theology — that is, Trinitarian theology — a new terminology was employed, within which the entire revelatory theology of the Holy Trinity was preserved. Thus, whereas previously there had been reference to the “thrice-radiant Light,” the three Lights — of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — now the Great Fathers, without abandoning this biblical terminology, spoke of persons, essence, energy, and mode of existence, in order to express the relationships among them. God is three persons-hypostases; there is one common essence and energy; each person has his particular mode of existence, the so-called hypostatic property; and man participates in the energy of God and not in His essence. In this way the Fathers of the Church confronted all the heresies that had appeared and preserved the revelatory theology. This is the so-called polemical theology. Ultimately, in the hymnography of the Church, as well as in the patristic texts, both biblical and patristic terminology were preserved.

In Christology, the Fathers, using the terms of philosophizing theologians, made a different use of them in order to express the dogmas more accurately. Whereas the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have one nature and energy in the three Persons, Christ has two natures and energies, divine and human, in His one person. In the hymnography of the Church, as well as in the patristic texts, on this issue too both the biblical theology — which speaks of the Angel of Great Counsel and the Lord of glory — and the patristic terminology concerning the two natures, divine and human, united in the one person of the Logos, were preserved.

In ecclesiology, a great effort was made to safeguard the unity of the local Churches. The Fathers achieved this through the Sacred Canons of the Local and Ecumenical Synods, which speak of the manner in which the gifts of each member of the Church operate and of the episcocentric understanding of the Church. In addition, the administrative system of the Roman Empire — with its provinces, dioceses/exarchates, and prefectures — was adopted in order to form the synodal system of Church administration. With this arrangement the metropolitan system was defined at the First Ecumenical Synod; at the Second Ecumenical Synod the supra-metropolitan system was instituted, which later developed into the patriarchal system of administration. In this way schisms and divisions were confronted, and the unity of the Church was preserved.

In Eucharistic theology, attention and focus were centered on the Divine Eucharist in relation to the other Mysteries of the Church. It is well known that the Divine Eucharist, together with the dogmas and Holy Scripture, constitutes the center of ecclesiastical life. Clergy, monks, and laypeople gather at the Divine Eucharist in order to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ. Thus, the Three Hierarchs also composed prayers for the Divine Eucharist, which bear their names.

In anthropology, an effort was made to define the teaching on what man is, who created him, and what the purpose of his life is. The teaching concerning the “image” and “likeness” of man was developed in particular, and these terms were interpreted theologically. The truth was presented that man is not a creation of an evil god, nor the result of nothingness, but a work of God, and that the soul did not pre-exist the body, nor the body the soul.

In monastic life, the rules and conditions were defined through which monks could live ecclesially and evangelically. For after the end of the persecutions and the ensuing secularization of ecclesiastical life, withdrawal from the world developed to an extreme degree and could evolve into a kind of Christian anarchism. The Church, through her enlightened Fathers, established the rules by which monks would be organized into cenobitic communities and, most importantly, would be under the pastoral guidance of the bishops of the city.

Special attention was given to the pastoral guidance of the members of the Church, because the faithful had to be educated in order truly to live the life in Christ within the Church. From this perspective we must view the homilies of the Fathers delivered during liturgical and worship gatherings, which refer to both dogma and ascetic practice. Thus, the Church, especially in the fourth century, worked systematically for her organization and development, having now acquired her freedom. The fourth century is a very significant century for the whole of ecclesiastical life, which creatively confronted all the challenges of that era.

4. The Three Hierarchs, especially Saint Basil the Great

In this organizational effort of the Church, great Fathers played an important role, such as the Three Hierarchs — namely Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory the Theologian, and somewhat later Saint John Chrysostom. To these must be added Saint Athanasios the Great, who preceded them and whom those who followed regarded as their theological elder, as well as Saint Gregory of Nyssa, the brother of Saint Basil the Great, and other Fathers.

Saint Basil the Great

Saint Basil the Great and Saint Gregory the Theologian studied in the philosophical schools of their time, including those of Athens, and became acquainted with the entire learning of their age. The same was true of Saint John Chrysostom, who had as his teacher the rhetorician Libanius, who held him in high esteem.

Thus, the Three Hierarchs possessed exceptional gifts: great intellectual capacity, knowledge of the philosophical currents of their time, and, moreover, spiritual experience of God. All three of these characteristics were sufficient to help them play such a great role in that era. They were ideal figures to bring about the encounter between Christian Revelation and Greek thought, without any syncretism being achieved. This was not merely the result of their knowledge of contemporary learning, which they had acquired, nor simply the fruit of their great intellectual gifts, but was also due to their experience of God. They did not merely know great ascetics of their time; they themselves lived in the desert, and through purification and the illumination of the nous they attained the vision of the glory of God. With such great gifts they were able to play a decisive role in their era.

It was previously emphasized that Christianity began with a different terminology — namely, Hebrew thought as shaped by the new Revelation — then encountered Gnosticism and Hellenism, especially Neoplatonism, and finally was articulated in its basic points with the significant help of the Three Hierarchs.

Without diminishing the importance of all the Fathers of the Church — since each has his own gift and distinctive contribution to the Church — it may nevertheless be noted that Saint Basil the Great occupies a particularly important place. I believe that he constitutes a central figure among the Fathers of the fourth century, and this is proven by the fact that all the other Holy Fathers recognized him as a leading personality. An indicative reference will be made to certain points in which the contribution of Saint Basil the Great to the Church becomes evident with regard to the theological and ecclesiastical issues that arose in the fourth century.

In theological matters (the Trinitarian God), he was the one who defined the distinction between time, the eternal, and the everlasting, as well as the distinction between “what God is,” which we know from His energies, “what He is” in His essence, and “how He is,” namely the Persons of the Holy Trinity, which we do not know. Furthermore, Saint Basil identified the terms “person” and “hypostasis” in order to confront the various heretics of his time, especially Eunomius, and he defined the distinction between person-hypostasis and essence. He also spoke of the unparticipated character of the essence of God and the participable character of His energies, and he clarified the true meaning of the mode of existence of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. Through coordinated and arduous journeys, despite his fragile health, he safeguarded the unity of the Church, which in the period between the First and Second Ecumenical Synods was afflicted by schisms and divisions. The journeys he undertook and the letters he sent to various bishops show that he was a true ecclesiastical leader.

With genuine wisdom and pastoral sensitivity he regulated ecclesiastical, canonical, and pastoral issues that concerned the bishops and clergy of his time, addressing them with a spirit of wisdom and prudence. The canonical letters of Saint Basil the Great are significant; they contain his ninety-two canons and reveal the wisdom and greatness of this great ecclesiastical man and Saint of the Church. The Church, through the Second Canon of the Penthekti Ecumenical Synod, received and confirmed these texts as ecclesiastical and canonical. Reading the majestic prayers he composed, which constitute the Divine Liturgy that bears his name, one marvels at the richness of his inner state, his theological fullness, and above all his spiritual experience, for there becomes evident the way in which he himself approached God, his manner of prayer, and his abundant spiritual experiences. His teaching on man, his analysis of the image and likeness, the purpose of human existence and its mission within the Church, constitute a splendid mirror of his entire personality. His ascetical writings — such as the Ascetical Discourses: the “Longer Rules” and the “Shorter Rules,” as well as the “Ascetical Constitutions” — prove him to be the great organizer of monastic life. Reading these texts, one realizes how deeply he knew the human soul, its passions, and the way in which monks can attain union with God.

His homilies reveal the richness of his soul and the scientific knowledge he had acquired through study and learning, for in his interpretation of the Hexaemeron he succeeded in gathering together all the scientific knowledge of his time and addressing it theologically. His exegetical analyses of the Psalms of David also reveal his prayerful disposition and the vision of God that he had acquired. His homilies demonstrate a discerning yet vigorous engagement with the social issues of his time, addressing the rich and the poor, human passions, and social disorders. The letters he sent to his friend Saint Gregory the Theologian, to his brother Saint Gregory of Nyssa, and to other bishops show the hesychastic tradition he had lived, as well as the sorrows and trials he had endured.

When one reads the entire theological and ecclesiastical work accomplished by Saint Basil the Great — with his profound empirical theological knowledge, his astonishing discernment, and his ecclesiastical seriousness, all before the age of forty-nine, when he reposed — one is struck by the great capacity of his intellect, his remarkable organizational abilities, and his visions of God, which he had acquired both in the desert and in his later life. This explains why his written works determined the decisions of the Church in subsequent centuries — for example, during the period of iconoclasm, the decision of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, and also during the hesychastic controversies — since in the teaching of Saint Basil the Great the entire hesychastic tradition and experience is found in seed form, as it was defined in the fourteenth century and to which Saint Gregory Palamas also refers. In the whole life of the Church, the personality, work, and teaching of Saint Basil the Great occupy a central place. In order to demonstrate his great stature, four important books will be mentioned — among many others in circulation — in which the reader can discern the multifaceted personality of Saint Basil the Great.

The first is the work of the distinguished Professor of Patrology Panagiotis Christou, titled Saint Basil the Great, in which the entire life and theological work of Saint Basil are presented. This book is written with full scholarly competence and maturity. In the first part, titled “Life and Conduct,” it presents the origin, studies, and quests of Saint Basil, his life as a monk and presbyter, and his episcopal, metropolitan, exarchal, and ecumenical activity. In the second part, Saint Basil is presented as an author through his preserved writings — his literary output, exegetical, dogmatic, and ascetical works, homilies, letters, and his Divine Liturgy. In the third part, the theological thought of Saint Basil is expounded with regard to the relationship between Christian and Greek education, the theological (Trinitarian) problem, the world and creation, Christ and the Church, his social views, monastic and spiritual life, and his eschatological teaching. In the fourth part, matters relating to the repose and commemoration of Saint Basil, the bibliography, and various tables are presented. It is a panoramic presentation of the life, conduct, and theology of this great ecclesiastical figure and Saint.

The second book is by the professor of Patrology Stylianos Papadopoulos, titled The Life of a Great Man: Basil of Caesarea. In this excellent and mystagogical work, the life, activity, and theology of Saint Basil the Great are presented through his own texts, the views of his contemporaries — such as Saint Gregory the Theologian and Saint Gregory of Nyssa — as well as ancient and modern sources. What is important is that the author, with knowledge of the sources and scholarly tools, presents vividly, graphically, and narratively the life, conduct, and theological thought of Saint Basil the Great — from his early years and studies, his monastic life, his life as a clergyman and bishop, his struggles for the peace and truth of the Church, for the alleviation of suffering, and finally for the repose of this great Saint. The book is easy to read, imbued with sacred participation, and is a model of how theology can be communicated to the people. The narrative is moving and inspiring.

The third book, titled Basileias, is a collective volume composed of papers presented in Thessaloniki through the cooperation of the Sacred Metropolis of Thessaloniki, the Faculty of Theology of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, and the Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies. In this collective volume, clergy and professors present their research on various essential aspects of the life, work, and theological thought of Saint Basil the Great. It is a remarkable volume, as various scholars present many facets of the personality of Saint Basil the Great.

The fourth book is the doctoral dissertation of Olympia Papadopoulou-Tsanana, titled The Anthropology of Saint Basil the Great. This book is truly a model doctoral dissertation on anthropology according to the teaching of Saint Basil the Great and is structured in five chapters. The first chapter, titled “This Is Man,” discusses the creation of man and the life of the first-created in Paradise. The second chapter, titled “Alienation from God,” develops the theme of the fall of man, its consequences, and addresses the problem of evil, presenting the relevant teaching on the devil, death, and sin. The third chapter, titled “The Economy of the Son Concerning Man,” sets forth Saint Basil’s teaching on the silent great mystery of human salvation, the incarnation of Christ, and the restoration and return of man to his ancient beauty. The fourth chapter, titled “Imitation of Christ,” presents the regeneration of man that takes place within the Church through the appropriation of the fruits of Christ’s incarnation by means of the Mysteries and the ascetical life. Finally, the fifth chapter, titled “The Consummation of This Age,” presents Saint Basil’s teaching on the universal resurrection of bodies, the judgment of God, and the deification of man. At the end, the summary and conclusions traverse the entire content of the dissertation. It is indeed a significant dissertation, in which wonderful truths are emphasized — the whole thought of Saint Basil the Great concerning man, his creation, fall, and deification —within a relatively brief span (133 pages).

After all this, one observation should be emphasized, which I consider important and which is the result of all my studies thus far on ecclesiastical life and patristic teaching. The fourth century constitutes a central point in the life and teaching of the entire Church, because then her teaching was formed and expressed in confronting all the theological and philosophical currents up to that time, and because it became the foundation of subsequent theology up to the present day. Everything that developed in the Church in later centuries by other Holy Fathers has its seed reference in the fourth century — that is, in the teaching of the Church as expressed by the Three Hierarchs, especially by Saint Basil the Great. All later Fathers certainly take into account the teaching of the Three Hierarchs and refer to them, or develop their teaching, and above all refer to the great personality of Saint Basil the Great and his doctrine.

For example, the later Ecumenical Synods, on essential issues, rely on the Three Hierarchs; Saint Maximus the Confessor relies on the teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers to confront the Christological heresies of his time; Saint John of Damascus, this preeminent dogmatic theologian of the Church, regards Saint Gregory the Theologian — who lived four centuries before him — as his spiritual father; Saint Gregory Palamas, who lived in the fourteenth century and confronted Barlaam, who expressed Augustinian theology as presented by Western scholasticism, frequently refers to the teaching of the Fathers of the fourth century and especially of Saint Basil the Great; and the same is done by the later Philokalic Fathers of the eighteenth century.

Therefore, the core of Orthodox theology of the Church, which has reached down to our own day — and which is, of course, prophetic, apostolic, and patristic — is the fourth century, and essentially the teaching of the Three Hierarchs, particularly that of Saint Basil the Great.

My beloved,

At many points in this address it was emphasized that many theologians have observed that the fourth century — for the reasons noted above, and above all because of the theological work of the great Fathers — is regarded as the “golden age” of the Church. It was then that the foundations were laid for the entire organization and theological expression of ecclesiastical life. Yet, in the end, I consider that the fourth century is characterized as the “golden age” of the Church not simply because of the decisions of the first two Ecumenical Synods, nor merely because of the organization of the Church, but because of the existence of great ecclesiastical figures — among whom are the Three Hierarchs, especially Saint Basil the Great — who closely united praxis with theoria and helped the Church during a difficult period.

When we study their lives carefully, we discover that they followed the entire method of knowing God, as described by the Prophets, the Apostles, and the Fathers of all ages: purification, illumination, and deification. This is the hesychastic method — the prayer of the heart and the experience of the uncreated glory of God. The Fathers to whom we referred above are deified in the full sense of the word. And with this perspective they helped their flocks to live the ecclesiastical life; thus they led many to holiness and deification.

This is why Father John Romanides used to say that every century in which the majority of Christians attain deification through purification and illumination is a “golden age” of the Church. This means that in such a time this method of knowing God is preserved. After all, true ecclesiastical history consists of the synaxaria of the Saints. Everything else moves on the periphery and on the surface. The Saints who know, by experience, the mystery of theology and salvation — through praxis and theoria — are the hidden spiritual glands of ecclesiastical life.

Father John Romanides said: “Every time an Orthodox Christian reaches illumination, he already participates in the fruits of the experience of deification, which he tastes in illumination and which is completed when he attains deification. Thus, the ‘golden age’ can, I think, be described as follows: when the majority of Christians reach illumination, the purification of the heart, and many of them also reach deification, then we have a ‘golden age.’ Therefore, this is the criterion by which we judge where we stand. So, did Christians in the early centuries have this? Of course they did. It is borne witness to by the many relics we possess from that era, from the martyrs.”

What is important is that the patristic period never ended, but continues within the Church, which brings forth Fathers. The Fathers are the great theologians who came to know God by experience and then theologized without error. The view that patristic theology ended in the eighth century, that scholastic theology developed in the eleventh to thirteenth centuries and is superior to the patristic tradition, and that subsequently Russian theology developed as superior to both, is heterodox from an Orthodox perspective. The saying of Saint John of Damascus is well known: “Do not remove the ancient landmarks which our Fathers set, nor transgress the divine Tradition.” Unfortunately, contemporary theology has made serious mistakes and, in certain fundamental points, has detached itself from the ecclesiastical patristic teaching.

Within this perspective we celebrate the commemorations of the Saints and the feast of the Three Hierarchs. We do not simply honor those who worked intellectually and connected Hellenism with Christianity, but we honor those great Fathers who, by their life, work, and theology, glorified the Triune God and were glorified by Him, and were deemed worthy to live within the divine and uncreated Light. Thus they stand for all of us — clergy and laity alike, shepherds and teachers — as models of the divine life and radiant examples worthy of imitation.

Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos.