Aspects of the theory of the divine “union” and “distinction” according to George Pachymeres
The prominent theological question of the union and distinction between the divine essence, the divine Persons and the divine energies, as well as other divine self-founding conditions, has caused the interest of the Byzantine Christian thinkers, who attempted through specialized theoretical approac...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Ukrainian |
| Published: |
EIKΩN, publishing house of the Volyn Orthodox Theological Academy
2020-10-01
|
| Series: | Волинський благовісник |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://vb.vpba.edu.ua/2121 |
| _version_ | 1819132277608677376 |
|---|---|
| author | Lydia Petridou |
| author_facet | Lydia Petridou |
| author_sort | Lydia Petridou |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The prominent theological question of the union and distinction between the divine essence, the divine Persons and the divine energies, as well as other divine self-founding conditions, has caused the interest of the Byzantine Christian thinkers, who attempted through specialized theoretical approaches to analyze, form synthetic judgments and express interpretive extensions in clear methodological and conceptual frames. In this study, I attempt to present some aspects of the way in which George Pachymeres (c.1242-1310) structures this theory in his Paraphrasis of De divinis nominibus of Dionysius the Areopagite. Specifically, I investigate in what way the Byzantine thinker associates the concepts of “union” and “distinction” with the divine essence and the divine Persons, that is to say, with the self-founding way in which the divine reality exists, and how the two concepts are explained with respect to the demiurgic divine providences and processions, that is to say, the divine self-founding conditions. The most important conclusion drawn is that Pachymeres presents the divine way of existing in total, both per se and as ad extra demiurgic economy, but without causing any confusion or contradiction. In this context, I discuss both the names that describe the Trinity as a whole and those which relate to every divine hypostasis in particular and distinctively from the rest, with circumincession being the foundation of any approach performed. The monistic model arisen is extremely dynamocratic. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-22T09:28:51Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d0c5d36a5a0e45e2a128649cb7ffb02a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2519-4348 |
| language | Ukrainian |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-22T09:28:51Z |
| publishDate | 2020-10-01 |
| publisher | EIKΩN, publishing house of the Volyn Orthodox Theological Academy |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Волинський благовісник |
| spelling | doaj.art-d0c5d36a5a0e45e2a128649cb7ffb02a2022-12-21T18:31:01ZukrEIKΩN, publishing house of the Volyn Orthodox Theological AcademyВолинський благовісник2519-43482020-10-01827129510.33209/2519-4348-2707-9627-2020-8-85Aspects of the theory of the divine “union” and “distinction” according to George PachymeresLydia Petridouhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0055-5685The prominent theological question of the union and distinction between the divine essence, the divine Persons and the divine energies, as well as other divine self-founding conditions, has caused the interest of the Byzantine Christian thinkers, who attempted through specialized theoretical approaches to analyze, form synthetic judgments and express interpretive extensions in clear methodological and conceptual frames. In this study, I attempt to present some aspects of the way in which George Pachymeres (c.1242-1310) structures this theory in his Paraphrasis of De divinis nominibus of Dionysius the Areopagite. Specifically, I investigate in what way the Byzantine thinker associates the concepts of “union” and “distinction” with the divine essence and the divine Persons, that is to say, with the self-founding way in which the divine reality exists, and how the two concepts are explained with respect to the demiurgic divine providences and processions, that is to say, the divine self-founding conditions. The most important conclusion drawn is that Pachymeres presents the divine way of existing in total, both per se and as ad extra demiurgic economy, but without causing any confusion or contradiction. In this context, I discuss both the names that describe the Trinity as a whole and those which relate to every divine hypostasis in particular and distinctively from the rest, with circumincession being the foundation of any approach performed. The monistic model arisen is extremely dynamocratic.http://vb.vpba.edu.ua/2121george pachymeresuniondistinctiondivine essencedivine persons. |
| spellingShingle | Lydia Petridou Aspects of the theory of the divine “union” and “distinction” according to George Pachymeres Волинський благовісник george pachymeres union distinction divine essence divine persons. |
| title | Aspects of the theory of the divine “union” and “distinction” according to George Pachymeres |
| title_full | Aspects of the theory of the divine “union” and “distinction” according to George Pachymeres |
| title_fullStr | Aspects of the theory of the divine “union” and “distinction” according to George Pachymeres |
| title_full_unstemmed | Aspects of the theory of the divine “union” and “distinction” according to George Pachymeres |
| title_short | Aspects of the theory of the divine “union” and “distinction” according to George Pachymeres |
| title_sort | aspects of the theory of the divine union and distinction according to george pachymeres |
| topic | george pachymeres union distinction divine essence divine persons. |
| url | http://vb.vpba.edu.ua/2121 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lydiapetridou aspectsofthetheoryofthedivineunionanddistinctionaccordingtogeorgepachymeres |