Apophaticism and cataphaticism

Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev

Lectures at the Divinity Faculty of the University of Cambridge. Spring 1999 

There are several reasons for us to state that St Gregory Nazianzen is one of the central figures in the entire history of Eastern Christian theology and mysticism.

First of all, Gregory’s theology is very central to the entire Byzantine Tradition. In Byzantium he was known as ‘The Theologian’ and was the most quoted author, after the Bible, in the ecclesiastical literature.[1] The corpus of his writings (especially his Discourses), have become not only an integral part of Byzantine paradosis (Tradition); it was in fact regarded as regula fidei (‘the rule of faith’), almost as sacred scripture. No other Byzantine author ever enjoyed such appreciation, popularity and unquestionable authority.

Secondly, all major Byzantine theologians after Gregory were profoundly influenced by him, including Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, Symeon the New Theologian and Gregory Palamas. All of them saw in Gregory not only a gifted dogmatist and Christian rhetorician, but also a profound mystic, whose spiritual insights contributed much to the development of Eastern Christian mystical tradition. It should be noted that, as there was no divorce of dogmatic theology and mysticism in the Christian East,[2] the appellation ‘The Theologian’ referred to both theology and mysticism, or rather it referred to the theology which was deeply rooted in mystical experience.

Thirdly, there are stereotypes in the modern Western scholarship which have led to a certain underestimation of Gregory Nazianzen as a mystical writer. Speaking of Byzantine mysticism, modern scholars most often mention Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor, as well as, sometimes, Evagrius and ‘Macarian Homilies’, but disregard Gregory Nazianzen. This approach, which became common from the time of Jean Daniélou and Hans Urs von Baltasar, has no justification from within the Byzantine tradition itself. By placing Gregory Nazianzen in the very centre of Byzantine mystical tradition I shall try to redress the balance and to restore traditional understanding of this great theologian of the fourth century.

Gregory Nazianzen was born into a noble Christian family: his father was bishop of Nazianzus. After many years of study, first in Cappadocia, then in Alexandria, and finally in Athens, Gregory became a priest helping his father in Nazianzus. He was then made Bishop of Sasima by his friend Basil the Great but never went to his diocese. In the theological controversies of 370s he took a very evident Nicene position, as well as openly proclaiming the divinity of the Holy Spirit. In 379 he was invited by a small group of the Nicene Orthodox to Constantinople (whose churches were still occupied by Arians) and it was there that he preached his famous Theological Discourses, which became a manifesto of the Nicene faith. In 380 Gregory was officially recognized as Archbishop of Constantinople by Emperor Theodosius but was deposed the following year by the Second Ecumenical Council. He spent his last years at the family estate in Arianzus, composing theological and didactic poetry.

            In what follows I shall discuss the most characteristic themes of Gregory Nazianzen’s theology and mysticism. I shall begin with the theme of true theology as a mystical ascent to God. I shall then turn to the themes of God as mystery and the divine names. The theme of God as light, which will be discussed next, is very important both for Gregory and for subsequent mystical tradition of the Christian East. Then the themes of illumination, purification, prayer and the vision of God will be reflected upon. I shall then analyze Gregory’s doctrine of deification, which is indeed the very core of his theology and mysticism. Finally, I shall speak of how the mystical theology of St Gregory influenced subsequent Byzantine authors, such as Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus.

Apophaticism and cataphaticism

             The paradox of every word about God is that God in His essence is incomprehensible for the human reasoning and cannot be adequately explained or depicted by any human word. A true Christian piety, in Gregory’s opinion, consists ‘not so much in frequently speaking about God but rather in keeping silence about Him’.[3] God reveals Himself to the human person not through words, but above words, in an encounter with Him in prayer. This encounter takes place in a deep silence of tongue and thought. Hence the preference given by many Eastern Fathers to the apophatic approach in theology, when we speak not about what God is, but about what He is not. Successively denying everything which is not God,- and indeed He is nothing of what could be affirmed,- the person is left somehow deprived of words and falls silent. When all words are exhausted, there opens up the possibility of an encounter with God in a depth where words are no longer necessary.

            The apophatic theology, whose roots are found in Philo and Clement of Alexandria, was specially developed by Gregory of Nyssa and Denys the Areopagite. As far as Gregory Nazianzen is concerned, he was not an unreserved adherent of the apophatic approach. He understood its obvious advantages, but he also perceived its major disadvantage, namely that absence of words does not necessarily lead one to a real encounter with the living God. In order to bring people to God, Gregory claims, one should speak about him, and not only in negative terms, but also in positive affirmations: and this is in spite of the fact that no positive affirmation about God can be exhaustive. Gregory Nazianzen was perhaps more pragmatic than his friend Gregory of Nyssa and was more than the latter concerned about the practical usefulness of his preaching: this is why he though that one can speak affirmatively even about God’s nature. The cataphatic theological approach is perhaps only an addendum to the apophatic approach. However, without this addendum the apophatic approach may lead nowhere: 

...An inquirer into the nature of a real being cannot stop short at saying what it is not but must add to his denials a positive affirmation... A person who tells you what God is not but fails to tell you what He is, is rather like someone who, asked what twice five are, answers, ‘not two, not three, not four, not five, not twenty, not thirty, no number, in short, under ten or over ten’. He does not deny it is ten, but he is also not settling the questioner’s mind with a firm answer. It is much simpler, much briefer, to indicate all that something is not by indicating what it is, than to reveal what it is by denying what it is not.[4] 

            This might seem an inadmissible simplification, at least because the nature of God is not the same as ‘twice five’, and if there is a simple answer on ‘what twice five are’, there is and can be no answer of the same kind on ‘what God is’. However, Gregory does not claim that it is possible to give a simple and exhaustive answer about the nature of God. As we shall see soon, when speaking of God, he insists on the incomprehensibility of the divine nature and essence. In practice he uses apophatic terminology as regularly as cataphatic. Yet he argues that a positive affirmation about God can set someone’s mind with an answer about God, while an unbroken chain of negations may at times lead one away from Him.