71
71
PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY AND
ITS TRANSFORMATION OF NEOPLATONISM
PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY AND
ITS TRANSFORMATION OF NEOPLATONISM
Andrew Itter
La Trobe University
Bendigo
Andrew Itter
La Trobe University
Bendigo
Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus,
by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his
flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true
heart full of assurance of faith…
Heb. 10:19-22. (RSV)
Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus,
by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his
flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true
heart full of assurance of faith…
Heb. 10:19-22. (RSV)
Introduction
Introduction
The pseudo-Dionysius has come to be known in the west as the great exponent of
negative, or apophatic, theology. Christian mysticism has been pervaded by a belief
that whatever is predicated of God must, in the end, be negated in order for union
with Him to be attained. This is well known and need not be rehearsed here. It is
interesting, however, that such an enigmatic conception of spiritual assent should be
coupled with such an enigmatic historical personage. During the middle-ages, the
works of this figure known as Dionysius the Areopagite were said to have come from
the hand of Paul’s convert on the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17:34), and were
enormously influential. Such notable figures as Maximus the Confessor, John Scotus
Eriugena, and St. Thomas Aquinas owed a great deal to the works of the Areopagite.
One wonders whether or not the works would have been as influential had it been
known that they were written somewhere between CE 485 and 532, rather than at a
period shortly after Paul’s visit to Athens. These dates have been determined for two
very obvious reasons. Firstly because of the strong Neoplatonic influence identified
throughout the works, in particular of Proclus, who was head of the Academy in
Athens in the period leading up to his death in 485, and secondly that they were
mentioned in defence of Monophysitism by the Severians of Antioch in 532. Little
else is known about the man who wrote them. Scholars generally agree that the works
The pseudo-Dionysius has come to be known in the west as the great exponent of
negative, or apophatic, theology. Christian mysticism has been pervaded by a belief
that whatever is predicated of God must, in the end, be negated in order for union
with Him to be attained. This is well known and need not be rehearsed here. It is
interesting, however, that such an enigmatic conception of spiritual assent should be
coupled with such an enigmatic historical personage. During the middle-ages, the
works of this figure known as Dionysius the Areopagite were said to have come from
the hand of Paul’s convert on the Areopagus in Athens (Acts 17:34), and were
enormously influential. Such notable figures as Maximus the Confessor, John Scotus
Eriugena, and St. Thomas Aquinas owed a great deal to the works of the Areopagite.
One wonders whether or not the works would have been as influential had it been
known that they were written somewhere between CE 485 and 532, rather than at a
period shortly after Paul’s visit to Athens. These dates have been determined for two
very obvious reasons. Firstly because of the strong Neoplatonic influence identified
throughout the works, in particular of Proclus, who was head of the Academy in
Athens in the period leading up to his death in 485, and secondly that they were
mentioned in defence of Monophysitism by the Severians of Antioch in 532. Little
else is known about the man who wrote them. Scholars generally agree that the works
72
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
72
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
appear to be those of a Syrian monk, especially in view of the many formative references
to eastern orthodox ecclesiology. One can also see a markedly eastern orthodox
theology in the works that represents something of a culmination of their influences.
It is possible to trace both Alexandrian and Cappadocian influences in Dionysian
theology, which are beyond the scope of this paper, but which make for a very cogent
geographical and philosophical connection to Syria. The most obvious primary
influence, however, is Paul’s reference to the ‘unknown god’ in the Acts of the
Apostles, (Acts 17:23) and the further implication of Paul’s need to Hellenise his
theology in order to convert the sophisticated likes of the Stoics and Epicureans
(Acts 17:18).1 The works stand today as a highly successful synthesis of Hellenistic
and Christian philosophies, and as a successful culmination of the Pauline agenda.
Our present concern is to see how mystical theology, described in the relatively
small treatise De mystica theologia, stands as the principle by which the active life of
the Christian can be begun and consummated. Studies in English in particular have
concentrated, not only on providing some answers to this question, but also on how
Dionysian ecclesiology, expounded in De ecclesiastica hierarchia, operates through
the exalted expectations of mystical theology. Denys Rutledge believes that the
disjuncture between these two works has been exacerbated for readers of English.
He writes:
appear to be those of a Syrian monk, especially in view of the many formative references
to eastern orthodox ecclesiology. One can also see a markedly eastern orthodox
theology in the works that represents something of a culmination of their influences.
It is possible to trace both Alexandrian and Cappadocian influences in Dionysian
theology, which are beyond the scope of this paper, but which make for a very cogent
geographical and philosophical connection to Syria. The most obvious primary
influence, however, is Paul’s reference to the ‘unknown god’ in the Acts of the
Apostles, (Acts 17:23) and the further implication of Paul’s need to Hellenise his
theology in order to convert the sophisticated likes of the Stoics and Epicureans
(Acts 17:18).1 The works stand today as a highly successful synthesis of Hellenistic
and Christian philosophies, and as a successful culmination of the Pauline agenda.
Our present concern is to see how mystical theology, described in the relatively
small treatise De mystica theologia, stands as the principle by which the active life of
the Christian can be begun and consummated. Studies in English in particular have
concentrated, not only on providing some answers to this question, but also on how
Dionysian ecclesiology, expounded in De ecclesiastica hierarchia, operates through
the exalted expectations of mystical theology. Denys Rutledge believes that the
disjuncture between these two works has been exacerbated for readers of English.
He writes:
Since, in England especially, his brief Mystical Theology is best known, most commonly
indirectly through the late medieval Cloud of Unknowing, while the present treatise
[i.e. the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy] is comparatively unknown, an exaggerated concept
has been formed of the writer’s ‘otherworldliness’, omitting to notice that the Christian
is invited to walk away from things in order to find them. The result has been to
remove the lower rungs of the ladder of hierarchy…reducing it almost to a variety of
Indian rope trick, with no visible means of support and stretching up into the
unknown.2
Since, in England especially, his brief Mystical Theology is best known, most commonly
indirectly through the late medieval Cloud of Unknowing, while the present treatise
[i.e. the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy] is comparatively unknown, an exaggerated concept
has been formed of the writer’s ‘otherworldliness’, omitting to notice that the Christian
is invited to walk away from things in order to find them. The result has been to
remove the lower rungs of the ladder of hierarchy…reducing it almost to a variety of
Indian rope trick, with no visible means of support and stretching up into the
unknown.2
This is a pertinent point and one that illustrates our present difficulty. Thomas
Campbell, like Rutledge a translator of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, laments the
neglect of a treatise that provides an insight into the early formations and
This is a pertinent point and one that illustrates our present difficulty. Thomas
Campbell, like Rutledge a translator of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, laments the
neglect of a treatise that provides an insight into the early formations and
1
2
See the work of W.L. Knox. St Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press, 1939). Knox asserts that the mockery made of Paul’s sermon on the Areopagus
by the Stoics and Epicureans made it evident that he needed to Hellenise in order to
express the Christian message to his Greek philosophical contemporaries.
D. Rutledge, Cosmic theology, the ‘Ecclesiastical Hierarchy’ of pseudo-Denys: an
introduction (London: Routledge, Kegan & Paul, 1964), 4-5.
1
2
See the work of W.L. Knox. St Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge: Cambridge
Univ. Press, 1939). Knox asserts that the mockery made of Paul’s sermon on the Areopagus
by the Stoics and Epicureans made it evident that he needed to Hellenise in order to
express the Christian message to his Greek philosophical contemporaries.
D. Rutledge, Cosmic theology, the ‘Ecclesiastical Hierarchy’ of pseudo-Denys: an
introduction (London: Routledge, Kegan & Paul, 1964), 4-5.
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
73
73
interpretations of our most important Christian rites.3 For Campbell, too much emphasis
has been placed on the problem of Dionysius’ pseudonymity to the exclusion of a
more a valuable interpretation of his theology. He writes:
interpretations of our most important Christian rites.3 For Campbell, too much emphasis
has been placed on the problem of Dionysius’ pseudonymity to the exclusion of a
more a valuable interpretation of his theology. He writes:
The historic dress is of meagre importance. The author rests his arguments on Scripture
and Tradition and reason, not on his own authority. Nothing was more natural than
that a later writer, himself greatly influenced by Greek philosophy, should adopt the
one name in the New Testament which combined Greek culture with Christian faith.4
The historic dress is of meagre importance. The author rests his arguments on Scripture
and Tradition and reason, not on his own authority. Nothing was more natural than
that a later writer, himself greatly influenced by Greek philosophy, should adopt the
one name in the New Testament which combined Greek culture with Christian faith.4
In order to attain a fuller understanding of Dionysian liturgy, we need to pay
particular attention to the mystical elements of his system before proceeding. What
appears to be a cold and rigid philosophical system far removed from an oversentimentalised religiosity, is in fact a haven for those Christians not willing to remain
in the sphere of intellectual indefensibility. Over and against modern philosophical
systems bereft of religious content, Dionysian theology is both deeply speculative
and warmly realisable. Dionysian mysticism, though highly esoteric, provides an
impetus to a fuller understanding of the most common forms of the Christian religion.
This appreciation provides for a fresh vision of Christianity and its main tenets. For
instance, Dionysius writes:
In order to attain a fuller understanding of Dionysian liturgy, we need to pay
particular attention to the mystical elements of his system before proceeding. What
appears to be a cold and rigid philosophical system far removed from an oversentimentalised religiosity, is in fact a haven for those Christians not willing to remain
in the sphere of intellectual indefensibility. Over and against modern philosophical
systems bereft of religious content, Dionysian theology is both deeply speculative
and warmly realisable. Dionysian mysticism, though highly esoteric, provides an
impetus to a fuller understanding of the most common forms of the Christian religion.
This appreciation provides for a fresh vision of Christianity and its main tenets. For
instance, Dionysius writes:
The most evident idea in theology, namely, the sacred incarnation of Jesus for our
sakes, is something which cannot be enclosed in words nor grasped by any mind…5
The most evident idea in theology, namely, the sacred incarnation of Jesus for our
sakes, is something which cannot be enclosed in words nor grasped by any mind…5
This epitomises the Dionysian apophasis; that is that the central event in the
Christian revelation is something about which nothing can be said or thought. Yes,
Christ appeared as an affirmable historical personage, but the mystery of his
incarnation is ineffable and can in no way be circumscribed. Thus the question
remains: how does one affirm Christ in order to begin one’s salvation if the Incarnation
itself is something that ‘cannot be enclosed in words nor grasped in any sense?’
How does one realise the mystery?
This epitomises the Dionysian apophasis; that is that the central event in the
Christian revelation is something about which nothing can be said or thought. Yes,
Christ appeared as an affirmable historical personage, but the mystery of his
incarnation is ineffable and can in no way be circumscribed. Thus the question
remains: how does one affirm Christ in order to begin one’s salvation if the Incarnation
itself is something that ‘cannot be enclosed in words nor grasped in any sense?’
How does one realise the mystery?
3
4
5
T.L. Campbell, Dionysius the pseudo-Areopagite: the ‘Ecclesiastical Hierarchy’
(Washington: Univ. Pr. of America, 1981), 1.
ibid., 11.
DN 648A. Divine names, Mystical theology, Celestial hierarchy, Ecclesiastical hierarchy,
and the Epistles will be abbreviated as DN, MT, CH, EH and Ep, respectively. All these
works are cited from Pseudo-Dionysius: the complete works, The Classics of Western
Spirituality, trans. Colm Luibheid (New York: Paulist Pr., 1987). Passage numbering used
in these translations is taken from J.P Migne’s Patrologia Græca Vol 3.
3
4
5
T.L. Campbell, Dionysius the pseudo-Areopagite: the ‘Ecclesiastical Hierarchy’
(Washington: Univ. Pr. of America, 1981), 1.
ibid., 11.
DN 648A. Divine names, Mystical theology, Celestial hierarchy, Ecclesiastical hierarchy,
and the Epistles will be abbreviated as DN, MT, CH, EH and Ep, respectively. All these
works are cited from Pseudo-Dionysius: the complete works, The Classics of Western
Spirituality, trans. Colm Luibheid (New York: Paulist Pr., 1987). Passage numbering used
in these translations is taken from J.P Migne’s Patrologia Græca Vol 3.
74
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
74
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
This point brings us back to the importance of where salvation begins for
Dionysius. As Andrew Louth claims:
This point brings us back to the importance of where salvation begins for
Dionysius. As Andrew Louth claims:
The first thing to notice about these various theologies is that in them we learn how we
can celebrate (hymnein). These theologies are not about how we can predicate qualities
of God, but about how we can praise him. For Denys theology is not concerned
primarily with intellectual, academic matters (though his Divine Names was used as a
text book on analogical predication of God in the medieval West), rather it is concerned
with the creature’s response of praise and worship to the Love of God.6
The first thing to notice about these various theologies is that in them we learn how we
can celebrate (hymnein). These theologies are not about how we can predicate qualities
of God, but about how we can praise him. For Denys theology is not concerned
primarily with intellectual, academic matters (though his Divine Names was used as a
text book on analogical predication of God in the medieval West), rather it is concerned
with the creature’s response of praise and worship to the Love of God.6
Devoted to establishing the profound meaning behind the liturgy, Dionysian
ecclesiology served the needs of the Christian community as a whole, not just the
few who can understand the profundities of mystical theology. In this respect
Dionysian soteriology is irrevocably tied to the liturgy. Louth goes on to demonstrate
how the supreme example of mystical union, Moses’ ascent of Mount Sinai, is
pervaded by ‘liturgical echoes’. The ‘mysterious darkness of unknowing’7 is itself
replicated in the ‘hidden (and perhaps also silent) consecration in the sanctuary’,8 at
which time those who have not undergone purification are excused from the liturgy.
Paul Rorem neatly sums up this idea, stating that, ‘The Mystical Theology is a
methodological parenthesis in the overall flow of the pseudo-Dionysian corpus,
summarising the preceding material and pointing the way to the anagogical treatises
and the spiritual uplifting yet to come.’9 The liturgy, which makes up a large proportion
of those ‘anagogical treatises’, holds the key to both the beginning and achieving of
unio mystica. It can be seen as somewhat of a practical application of the Mystical
Theology itself, being the base, or rather the framework in which Dionysius’ mystical
union takes place.
Rorem’s studies into the terminology of Dionysius have prompted a review in
how we approach the Corpus Areopagiticum. He believes that the author’s chief
concern with regards to the liturgy was not the rites themselves but how they were
interpreted. The Areopagite’s theory of anagogy, or spiritual interpretation, tied
closely to the language he uses, revolves around an understanding of biblical and
liturgical symbols. This enables a creative hermeneutic process. Just as the
Devoted to establishing the profound meaning behind the liturgy, Dionysian
ecclesiology served the needs of the Christian community as a whole, not just the
few who can understand the profundities of mystical theology. In this respect
Dionysian soteriology is irrevocably tied to the liturgy. Louth goes on to demonstrate
how the supreme example of mystical union, Moses’ ascent of Mount Sinai, is
pervaded by ‘liturgical echoes’. The ‘mysterious darkness of unknowing’7 is itself
replicated in the ‘hidden (and perhaps also silent) consecration in the sanctuary’,8 at
which time those who have not undergone purification are excused from the liturgy.
Paul Rorem neatly sums up this idea, stating that, ‘The Mystical Theology is a
methodological parenthesis in the overall flow of the pseudo-Dionysian corpus,
summarising the preceding material and pointing the way to the anagogical treatises
and the spiritual uplifting yet to come.’9 The liturgy, which makes up a large proportion
of those ‘anagogical treatises’, holds the key to both the beginning and achieving of
unio mystica. It can be seen as somewhat of a practical application of the Mystical
Theology itself, being the base, or rather the framework in which Dionysius’ mystical
union takes place.
Rorem’s studies into the terminology of Dionysius have prompted a review in
how we approach the Corpus Areopagiticum. He believes that the author’s chief
concern with regards to the liturgy was not the rites themselves but how they were
interpreted. The Areopagite’s theory of anagogy, or spiritual interpretation, tied
closely to the language he uses, revolves around an understanding of biblical and
liturgical symbols. This enables a creative hermeneutic process. Just as the
6
7
8
9
A. Louth, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition: from Plato to Denys (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1981), 166.
MT 1001A.
A. Louth, Denys the Areopagite (Wilton: Morehouse-Barlow, 1989), 101.
P. Rorem, ‘The Place of the mystical theology in the pseudo-Dionysian corpus’. Dionysius
4 (1980) 96.
6
7
8
9
A. Louth, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition: from Plato to Denys (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1981), 166.
MT 1001A.
A. Louth, Denys the Areopagite (Wilton: Morehouse-Barlow, 1989), 101.
P. Rorem, ‘The Place of the mystical theology in the pseudo-Dionysian corpus’. Dionysius
4 (1980) 96.
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
75
75
congregation partakes in the sacraments, interpretation can be understood as a
cognitive participation in the symbols themselves. We must therefore consider
liturgical interpretation since it is irrevocably bound to Dionysian soteriology.
However, before doing so, it will be useful to see what Dionysius appropriated
from his philosophical milieu. The most significant element here is Neoplatonism;
Dionysius’ use of it shows just how realisable philosophical speculation can be in a
liturgical, or in this case theurgical, context.
congregation partakes in the sacraments, interpretation can be understood as a
cognitive participation in the symbols themselves. We must therefore consider
liturgical interpretation since it is irrevocably bound to Dionysian soteriology.
However, before doing so, it will be useful to see what Dionysius appropriated
from his philosophical milieu. The most significant element here is Neoplatonism;
Dionysius’ use of it shows just how realisable philosophical speculation can be in a
liturgical, or in this case theurgical, context.
Neoplatonic Theurgy
Neoplatonic Theurgy
Many scholars believe that Neoplatonism’s later exponents, Proclus and Iamblichus,
assimilated theurgy, literally the ‘work of god,’ from various sources. Louth writes:
Many scholars believe that Neoplatonism’s later exponents, Proclus and Iamblichus,
assimilated theurgy, literally the ‘work of god,’ from various sources. Louth writes:
It seems to have been fashioned on analogy with qeologiva" : as a qeolovgo" is one
who can speak of the divine or declare divine things, so a qeouvrgo", a theurgist, is one
who can do divine things, or tap the divine power on a human level, by offering
sacrifices that influence the course of events, performing divination, uttering oracles.10
It seems to have been fashioned on analogy with qeologiva" : as a qeolovgo" is one
who can speak of the divine or declare divine things, so a qeouvrgo", a theurgist, is one
who can do divine things, or tap the divine power on a human level, by offering
sacrifices that influence the course of events, performing divination, uttering oracles.10
E.R. Dodds claims:
E.R. Dodds claims:
So far as we know, the earliest person to be described as one was Julianus who lived
under Marcus Aurelius. Probably…he invented the designation to distinguish himself
from mere qeoloVgoi: the qeoloVgoi talked about the gods, he “acted upon” them, or
even, perhaps, “created” them.11
So far as we know, the earliest person to be described as one was Julianus who lived
under Marcus Aurelius. Probably…he invented the designation to distinguish himself
from mere qeoloVgoi: the qeoloVgoi talked about the gods, he “acted upon” them, or
even, perhaps, “created” them.11
Iamblichus also makes a clear distinction between ‘discussion’ of the divine, and
the work, or ‘experience’ of the divine, for he writes, ‘in all things we shall give to
each that which is appropriate. And such questions, indeed, as are theological, we
shall answer theologically; such as are theurgic, theurgically.’12 Given the overt
preference for theurgy throughout On the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans,
and Assyrians, Iamblichus clearly felt the need to promulgate the active and
experiential side of religion, a notion for which pseudo-Dionysius had much sympathy.
Iamblichus also makes a clear distinction between ‘discussion’ of the divine, and
the work, or ‘experience’ of the divine, for he writes, ‘in all things we shall give to
each that which is appropriate. And such questions, indeed, as are theological, we
shall answer theologically; such as are theurgic, theurgically.’12 Given the overt
preference for theurgy throughout On the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans,
and Assyrians, Iamblichus clearly felt the need to promulgate the active and
experiential side of religion, a notion for which pseudo-Dionysius had much sympathy.
10
11
12
A. Louth, ‘Pagan theurgy and Christian sacramentalism in Denys the Areopagite’, Journal
of Theological Studies 37 (1986) 432.
E.R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley: Univ. of California Pr., 1971).
Appendix II: ‘Theurgy’, 283.
Iamblichus, On the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians, trans. T. Taylor
(London: Stuart and Wilkins, 1968) 1. 2.
10
11
12
A. Louth, ‘Pagan theurgy and Christian sacramentalism in Denys the Areopagite’, Journal
of Theological Studies 37 (1986) 432.
E.R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (Berkeley: Univ. of California Pr., 1971).
Appendix II: ‘Theurgy’, 283.
Iamblichus, On the Mysteries of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Assyrians, trans. T. Taylor
(London: Stuart and Wilkins, 1968) 1. 2.
76
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
76
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
Though knowledge of theurgic rites is quite limited, scholars like Dodds and
Hans Lewy13 have been able to give an account of their experiential underpinnings
using surviving Neoplatonic texts. Dodds comments on Iamblichus’ work:
Though knowledge of theurgic rites is quite limited, scholars like Dodds and
Hans Lewy13 have been able to give an account of their experiential underpinnings
using surviving Neoplatonic texts. Dodds comments on Iamblichus’ work:
The de mysteriis is a manifesto of irrationalism, an assertion that the road to salvation
is found not in reason but in ritual. It is not thought that links the theurgists with the
gods: else what should hinder theoretical philosophers from enjoying theurgic union
with them? The case is not so. Theurgic union is attained only by the efficacy of the
unspeakable acts performed in the appropriate manner, acts which are beyond all
comprehension, and by the potency of the unutterable symbols which are
comprehended only by the gods. […] Without intellectual effort on our part the
tokens…by their own virtue accomplish their proper work.14
The de mysteriis is a manifesto of irrationalism, an assertion that the road to salvation
is found not in reason but in ritual. It is not thought that links the theurgists with the
gods: else what should hinder theoretical philosophers from enjoying theurgic union
with them? The case is not so. Theurgic union is attained only by the efficacy of the
unspeakable acts performed in the appropriate manner, acts which are beyond all
comprehension, and by the potency of the unutterable symbols which are
comprehended only by the gods. […] Without intellectual effort on our part the
tokens…by their own virtue accomplish their proper work.14
The emphasis again here is upon both action and work. It was not enough for the
theurgist to worship gods by passive speculation, he had to engage, identify with,
‘possess’ them, in a way that was tactile rather than cognitive.
Integral to these ‘unspeakable acts’ was the idea of cosmic sympatheia. James
Coulter sums this notion up, quoting and simplifying Dodds’ commentary on Proclus:
The emphasis again here is upon both action and work. It was not enough for the
theurgist to worship gods by passive speculation, he had to engage, identify with,
‘possess’ them, in a way that was tactile rather than cognitive.
Integral to these ‘unspeakable acts’ was the idea of cosmic sympatheia. James
Coulter sums this notion up, quoting and simplifying Dodds’ commentary on Proclus:
A closely related notion [to that of cause and effect in Proclus], it seems, is that of
“sympathy”… a bond of “shared feeling” between some object in the visible world
and unseen reality. Because of this ‘sympathy,’ objects may have “receptivity”
(epitedeiotes), i.e. “a capacity for the reception of a synthema or symbolon, a magical
correspondence which links each material thing entautha with a particular spiritual
principle or group of principle ekei.” It is through a desire for identification with this
synthema, and through it with the cause that matter, which otherwise possesses no
energeia, i.e. a capacity to act on its own, reverts to its originative source.15
A closely related notion [to that of cause and effect in Proclus], it seems, is that of
“sympathy”… a bond of “shared feeling” between some object in the visible world
and unseen reality. Because of this ‘sympathy,’ objects may have “receptivity”
(epitedeiotes), i.e. “a capacity for the reception of a synthema or symbolon, a magical
correspondence which links each material thing entautha with a particular spiritual
principle or group of principle ekei.” It is through a desire for identification with this
synthema, and through it with the cause that matter, which otherwise possesses no
energeia, i.e. a capacity to act on its own, reverts to its originative source.15
Therefore, ‘the theurgist’s aim,’ writes A.H. Armstrong, ‘was, through incantations
and the mysterious properties of certain stones, herbs, and other material substances,
to set in motion a chain of sympathies running up through a whole “series” to the
god he was trying to evoke.’16 This appears a very strange mode of worship given
Therefore, ‘the theurgist’s aim,’ writes A.H. Armstrong, ‘was, through incantations
and the mysterious properties of certain stones, herbs, and other material substances,
to set in motion a chain of sympathies running up through a whole “series” to the
god he was trying to evoke.’16 This appears a very strange mode of worship given
13
14
15
16
See H. Lewy’s Chaldean oracles and theurgy (Cairo: Imprimerie de L’Institut Francais
D’Archeologie Orientale, 1956).
Dodds, The Greeks and the irrational, 287.
J. A. Coulter, The Literary microcosm: theories of interpretation of the later Neoplatonists
(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976), 55.
A.H. Armstrong, An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy (London: Methuen , 1956), 202.
13
14
15
16
See H. Lewy’s Chaldean oracles and theurgy (Cairo: Imprimerie de L’Institut Francais
D’Archeologie Orientale, 1956).
Dodds, The Greeks and the irrational, 287.
J. A. Coulter, The Literary microcosm: theories of interpretation of the later Neoplatonists
(Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976), 55.
A.H. Armstrong, An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy (London: Methuen , 1956), 202.
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
77
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
77
the philosophical origins of Neoplatonism, yet Proclus saw fit to call theurgy ‘more
excellent than all human wisdom’.17 But given the metaphysic behind emanationism,
it is perhaps not quite as peculiar as it sounds. After all, as Armstrong asserts, the
later Neoplatonists believed that:
the philosophical origins of Neoplatonism, yet Proclus saw fit to call theurgy ‘more
excellent than all human wisdom’.17 But given the metaphysic behind emanationism,
it is perhaps not quite as peculiar as it sounds. After all, as Armstrong asserts, the
later Neoplatonists believed that:
[The] effects of a higher principle reached further down the scale of being than the
effects of a lower principle and consequently that something very low in the scale of
reality might participate in something very high with fewer intervening terms than
were necessary in the case of a higher participating principle. Thus for Proclus matter
(and consequently the material objects used by the theurgists) participated in the One
through fewer intervening terms than the human soul or even the intellect.18
[The] effects of a higher principle reached further down the scale of being than the
effects of a lower principle and consequently that something very low in the scale of
reality might participate in something very high with fewer intervening terms than
were necessary in the case of a higher participating principle. Thus for Proclus matter
(and consequently the material objects used by the theurgists) participated in the One
through fewer intervening terms than the human soul or even the intellect.18
Matter, being the lowest level of reality, or very end, of the Neoplatonic scale of
being, is thus only one ‘quantum leap’ from union with the divine ‘the hierarchy of
existence is simple at both ends, top and bottom, and more complex in the middle,’
says Louth helpfully.19 If certain material objects can be endowed with a potency
analogous to that of any higher being, then its closest ‘sympathetical’ correspondent
could quite possibly be the divine ‘encompasser’ of all things. This notion is in some
respects very close to the Christian personal God who, through the one simultaneous
act of creation, could well be standing right beside you rather than in the inscrutable
heights of hierarchy.
The pagan idea of bestowing an inanimate object with life, or with some
transformative power, is one of two kinds of theurgy claims Dodds.20 ‘telestikhv,
(telestikê)’ he writes of the kind we are directly concerned with, ‘sought to induce
the presence of a god into an inanimate “receptacle”,’ via the correspondent sympathy
with a higher being we just spoke of. telestikhv, is an art that takes matter, the
outermost (or most ‘far off’, if one is to be etymologically correct about the Greek
root tele) reality in the emanative process, the ‘end’, or ‘result’ of it, and endows it
with potency. Through the very work of the theurgist the Neoplatonist could
communicate thus with the gods, or the One.
Matter, being the lowest level of reality, or very end, of the Neoplatonic scale of
being, is thus only one ‘quantum leap’ from union with the divine ‘the hierarchy of
existence is simple at both ends, top and bottom, and more complex in the middle,’
says Louth helpfully.19 If certain material objects can be endowed with a potency
analogous to that of any higher being, then its closest ‘sympathetical’ correspondent
could quite possibly be the divine ‘encompasser’ of all things. This notion is in some
respects very close to the Christian personal God who, through the one simultaneous
act of creation, could well be standing right beside you rather than in the inscrutable
heights of hierarchy.
The pagan idea of bestowing an inanimate object with life, or with some
transformative power, is one of two kinds of theurgy claims Dodds.20 ‘telestikhv,
(telestikê)’ he writes of the kind we are directly concerned with, ‘sought to induce
the presence of a god into an inanimate “receptacle”,’ via the correspondent sympathy
with a higher being we just spoke of. telestikhv, is an art that takes matter, the
outermost (or most ‘far off’, if one is to be etymologically correct about the Greek
root tele) reality in the emanative process, the ‘end’, or ‘result’ of it, and endows it
with potency. Through the very work of the theurgist the Neoplatonist could
communicate thus with the gods, or the One.
17
18
19
20
Proclus, The Platonic Theology, trans. T. Taylor, vol. 1, bks 1-3 (New York: Selene, 1985),
1. 26.
Armstrong, An Introduction, 202. He ends this paragraph in parenthesis: ‘It would be an
interesting and valuable exercise to work out the differences between this conception and
Catholic sacramentalism.’
Louth, Origins, 162.
Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, 294-5.
17
18
19
20
Proclus, The Platonic Theology, trans. T. Taylor, vol. 1, bks 1-3 (New York: Selene, 1985),
1. 26.
Armstrong, An Introduction, 202. He ends this paragraph in parenthesis: ‘It would be an
interesting and valuable exercise to work out the differences between this conception and
Catholic sacramentalism.’
Louth, Origins, 162.
Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, 294-5.
78
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
78
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
‘Christian Magic?’
‘Christian Magic?’
Pseudo-Dionysius uses the term theourgia and its derivatives21 a considerable
number of times in his corpus. In light of the preceding issue, and given the
Neoplatonic climate in which he was writing, we can assume that he used it in much
the same way as Proclus or Iamblichus. However, as always with Christianity, we
have to understand the fundamental importance of the Incarnation in any of its
theological systems; theurgy is no exception. The convergence and divergence
between Neoplatonism and Christianity on this particular issue appears to have
something to do with the notion of sympatheia, and is worth delving into at this
point.
In a discussion concerning the ‘supernatural nature of Jesus’, and in a rather
blatant violation of his pseudonymity, Dionysius speaks of his teacher Hierotheus:
Pseudo-Dionysius uses the term theourgia and its derivatives21 a considerable
number of times in his corpus. In light of the preceding issue, and given the
Neoplatonic climate in which he was writing, we can assume that he used it in much
the same way as Proclus or Iamblichus. However, as always with Christianity, we
have to understand the fundamental importance of the Incarnation in any of its
theological systems; theurgy is no exception. The convergence and divergence
between Neoplatonism and Christianity on this particular issue appears to have
something to do with the notion of sympatheia, and is worth delving into at this
point.
In a discussion concerning the ‘supernatural nature of Jesus’, and in a rather
blatant violation of his pseudonymity, Dionysius speaks of his teacher Hierotheus:
[M]y famous teacher has marvelously praised in his Elements of Theology whatever
he learned directly from the sacred writers, whatever his own perspicacious and
laborious research of the scriptures uncovered for him, or whatever was made known
to him through that more mysterious inspiration, not only learning but also experiencing
the divine things. For he had a ‘sympathy’ with such matters, if I may express it this
way, and he was perfected in a mysterious union with them and in a faith in them
which was independent of any education.22
[M]y famous teacher has marvelously praised in his Elements of Theology whatever
he learned directly from the sacred writers, whatever his own perspicacious and
laborious research of the scriptures uncovered for him, or whatever was made known
to him through that more mysterious inspiration, not only learning but also experiencing
the divine things. For he had a ‘sympathy’ with such matters, if I may express it this
way, and he was perfected in a mysterious union with them and in a faith in them
which was independent of any education.22
Again we have the same opinion as that of Iamblichus and Proclus about the
superiority of experiencing ‘divine things’, to that of mere erudite speculation about
them. Hierotheus ‘experienced’ a ‘mysterious union’ through a ‘shared feeling’ with
divine things. He partook of the divine in a way that was beyond comprehension, in
a way that can only take place through an identification with, or through possession
by/of, the divine. Like Paul, he no longer lived, but the divine lived in him in an
Again we have the same opinion as that of Iamblichus and Proclus about the
superiority of experiencing ‘divine things’, to that of mere erudite speculation about
them. Hierotheus ‘experienced’ a ‘mysterious union’ through a ‘shared feeling’ with
divine things. He partook of the divine in a way that was beyond comprehension, in
a way that can only take place through an identification with, or through possession
by/of, the divine. Like Paul, he no longer lived, but the divine lived in him in an
21
22
Louth, ‘Pagan theurgy’, 433-4. He claims that the term and its derivatives occur twentyfive times throughout the corpus. Also see his Denys, 73.
DN 648B. Rorem writes: ‘The term “sympathy” is rather linked to “experiencing” (paqwVn)
and together they indicate a personal rapport with the divine.’ He also claims that the
inclusion of the proviso ‘if I may express it this way’, suggests that Dionysius is a little
uncomfortable with the terminology. Rorem cites other examples of the Areopagite’s
reservations about certain terms that may or may not give away his pseudonymity. See his
Biblical and Liturgical Symbols within the pseudo-Dionysian Synthesis (Toronto: Pontifical
Institute of Medieval Studies, 1984), 134.
21
22
Louth, ‘Pagan theurgy’, 433-4. He claims that the term and its derivatives occur twentyfive times throughout the corpus. Also see his Denys, 73.
DN 648B. Rorem writes: ‘The term “sympathy” is rather linked to “experiencing” (paqwVn)
and together they indicate a personal rapport with the divine.’ He also claims that the
inclusion of the proviso ‘if I may express it this way’, suggests that Dionysius is a little
uncomfortable with the terminology. Rorem cites other examples of the Areopagite’s
reservations about certain terms that may or may not give away his pseudonymity. See his
Biblical and Liturgical Symbols within the pseudo-Dionysian Synthesis (Toronto: Pontifical
Institute of Medieval Studies, 1984), 134.
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
79
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
79
ecstatic union.23 To merely know about God still takes place from a position in
relation to Him; experiencing God, in effect, removes that relationship24 so that one
can ‘feel’ with, or empathise with Him only thus can deification take place.
Hierotheus is significant in the Corpus Areopagiticum, for he exemplifies the
whole notion of action or experience as superior to that of speculation, though he
seems to have been a scriptural theologian as well.25 The Neoplatonic idea of sympathy
appears somewhat transformed by that of the Christian notion of ‘suffering’, drawn
from the Passion and other relevant biblical passages.26 The word ‘suffer’, or
‘experience’ is the normal translation of the Greek pavscw, from which we derive the
word paschal. 27 Hierotheus’ ‘theopathic state’, as Louth calls it, refers to the
submission of himself (like the paschal lamb of God) and all his determinations to the
will of God, to the extent that his own way of knowing is negated, and it is God who
lives in him.28 Rather than a ‘sympathy’ running up toward a superior being, or even
directly to the One, through empowered material objects, the participant ‘learns’ and
‘suffers’ directly with Christ through the potency of the sacraments.
To return to theurgy for a moment, Rorem makes a fundamental distinction between
Neoplatonic and Christian understandings of the term. He writes:
ecstatic union.23 To merely know about God still takes place from a position in
relation to Him; experiencing God, in effect, removes that relationship24 so that one
can ‘feel’ with, or empathise with Him only thus can deification take place.
Hierotheus is significant in the Corpus Areopagiticum, for he exemplifies the
whole notion of action or experience as superior to that of speculation, though he
seems to have been a scriptural theologian as well.25 The Neoplatonic idea of sympathy
appears somewhat transformed by that of the Christian notion of ‘suffering’, drawn
from the Passion and other relevant biblical passages.26 The word ‘suffer’, or
‘experience’ is the normal translation of the Greek pavscw, from which we derive the
word paschal.27 Hierotheus’ ‘theopathic state’, as Louth calls it, refers to the
submission of himself (like the paschal lamb of God) and all his determinations to the
will of God, to the extent that his own way of knowing is negated, and it is God who
lives in him.28 Rather than a ‘sympathy’ running up toward a superior being, or even
directly to the One, through empowered material objects, the participant ‘learns’ and
‘suffers’ directly with Christ through the potency of the sacraments.
To return to theurgy for a moment, Rorem makes a fundamental distinction between
Neoplatonic and Christian understandings of the term. He writes:
The pseudo-Areopagite transformed the term ‘theurgy’ from the objective genitive of
the Chaldean Oracles and Iamblichus, i.e. ‘the work of God’ as work addressed to the
gods, to a subjective genitive suggesting God’s own work. This use of ‘theurgy’ and
The pseudo-Areopagite transformed the term ‘theurgy’ from the objective genitive of
the Chaldean Oracles and Iamblichus, i.e. ‘the work of God’ as work addressed to the
gods, to a subjective genitive suggesting God’s own work. This use of ‘theurgy’ and
23
24
25
26
27
28
See also DN 681D-684A where pseudo-Dionysius describes the event of the Dormition
of the Virgin Mary, an event which both he and Hierotheus purportedly witnessed:
‘[Hierotheus] was so caught up, so taken out of himself, experiencing communion with the
things praised.’ Rorem believes the terminology of this ‘experiencing’ is ‘thoroughly
eucharistic’ since it is very similar to the language used in that rite. See Symbols, 135.
Relationship in this sense is that which separates us from God. To effectively remove that
relationship is to become one with God (henôsis).
See DN 648B.
For example Heb 5: 8. ‘Although he was a Son he learned obedience through what he
suffered.’ (RSV) [my italics]
Rorem, Symbols, 136.
This idea is very close to the heretical notion of Theopaschatism, a doctrine that asserts
that ‘God suffered.’ See for example DN 644C. ‘An instance of differentiation is that
benevolent act of God in our favour by which the transcendent Word wholly and completely
took on our human substance and acted in such a way as to do and suffer all that was
particularly appropriate and exalted within his divinely human activity.’
23
24
25
26
27
28
See also DN 681D-684A where pseudo-Dionysius describes the event of the Dormition
of the Virgin Mary, an event which both he and Hierotheus purportedly witnessed:
‘[Hierotheus] was so caught up, so taken out of himself, experiencing communion with the
things praised.’ Rorem believes the terminology of this ‘experiencing’ is ‘thoroughly
eucharistic’ since it is very similar to the language used in that rite. See Symbols, 135.
Relationship in this sense is that which separates us from God. To effectively remove that
relationship is to become one with God (henôsis).
See DN 648B.
For example Heb 5: 8. ‘Although he was a Son he learned obedience through what he
suffered.’ (RSV) [my italics]
Rorem, Symbols, 136.
This idea is very close to the heretical notion of Theopaschatism, a doctrine that asserts
that ‘God suffered.’ See for example DN 644C. ‘An instance of differentiation is that
benevolent act of God in our favour by which the transcendent Word wholly and completely
took on our human substance and acted in such a way as to do and suffer all that was
particularly appropriate and exalted within his divinely human activity.’
80
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
80
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
derivatives applies both to God’s saving work as a whole, as praised during the
synaxis, for example, and also to his specific divine acts in Christ.29
derivatives applies both to God’s saving work as a whole, as praised during the
synaxis, for example, and also to his specific divine acts in Christ.29
The work of God relates specifically to God’s own work as manifested through
Christ.30 This bestows upon the sacraments, namely illumination (baptism), synaxis
(the Eucharist), and the myron (ointment or oil), as replications of those divine works
the consecration by which they become potent symbols, and through which salvation
can take place.31 Placid Spearitt communicates this concept very well:
The work of God relates specifically to God’s own work as manifested through
Christ.30 This bestows upon the sacraments, namely illumination (baptism), synaxis
(the Eucharist), and the myron (ointment or oil), as replications of those divine works
the consecration by which they become potent symbols, and through which salvation
can take place.31 Placid Spearitt communicates this concept very well:
[T]he close connection of these sacramental qeourgivai with the works of God and
Christ in history ensures a thorough exorcism of all that is distinctively pagan or
magical in those sources. The Christian sacraments are indeed regarded as consecrated,
made holy in themselves…the eucharist is there so that we can communicate with its
author; the oil sanctified so that we can be sanctified through its use. And in baptism
we are not only made holy, but we become ourselves qeourgikoiv, active participants
in the accomplishment of God’s (especially liturgical) works.32
[T]he close connection of these sacramental qeourgivai with the works of God and
Christ in history ensures a thorough exorcism of all that is distinctively pagan or
magical in those sources. The Christian sacraments are indeed regarded as consecrated,
made holy in themselves…the eucharist is there so that we can communicate with its
author; the oil sanctified so that we can be sanctified through its use. And in baptism
we are not only made holy, but we become ourselves qeourgikoiv, active participants
in the accomplishment of God’s (especially liturgical) works.32
He cites EH 372A-B as an example of this:
He cites EH 372A-B as an example of this:
Jesus enlightens our blessed superiors,33 Jesus who is transcendent mind, utterly
divine mind, who is the source and the being underlying all hierarchy, all sanctification,
all the workings of God, who is the ultimate in divine power. He assimilates them, as
much as they are able, to his own light. As for us, with that yearning for beauty which
29
30
31
32
33
Rorem, Symbols, 14-15.
See for example EH 429C & 432B.
I.P. Sheldon-Williams claims that the sympathy of the particular god evoked through the
objects in the Neoplatonic rite was ‘regarded as a force of nature, the demonic and divine
powers inhere in the sensible objects naturally,’ whereas in the Christian liturgy, they are
there by ‘sacramental grace.’ He believes this to be much more akin to ‘Gregorian anagogy
than to the theurgy of the pagans.’ The Cambridge history of later Greek and early
medieval philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1967), 458. Similarly Louth writes
of the inversion of theurgy by this ‘Christian Proclus.’ ‘The use of material elements in the
sacraments, however, is a matter of institution, not of occult fitness: they are vehicles of
grace not because of what they are materially, but because of their use in a certain symbolic
context.’ See Origins, 164.
P. Spearitt, ‘A Philosophical enquiry into Dionysian mysticism’. Dissertation (PhD).
Univ. of Fribourg (1968) 122-123.
By which he means the angels.
Jesus enlightens our blessed superiors,33 Jesus who is transcendent mind, utterly
divine mind, who is the source and the being underlying all hierarchy, all sanctification,
all the workings of God, who is the ultimate in divine power. He assimilates them, as
much as they are able, to his own light. As for us, with that yearning for beauty which
29
30
31
32
33
Rorem, Symbols, 14-15.
See for example EH 429C & 432B.
I.P. Sheldon-Williams claims that the sympathy of the particular god evoked through the
objects in the Neoplatonic rite was ‘regarded as a force of nature, the demonic and divine
powers inhere in the sensible objects naturally,’ whereas in the Christian liturgy, they are
there by ‘sacramental grace.’ He believes this to be much more akin to ‘Gregorian anagogy
than to the theurgy of the pagans.’ The Cambridge history of later Greek and early
medieval philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Pr, 1967), 458. Similarly Louth writes
of the inversion of theurgy by this ‘Christian Proclus.’ ‘The use of material elements in the
sacraments, however, is a matter of institution, not of occult fitness: they are vehicles of
grace not because of what they are materially, but because of their use in a certain symbolic
context.’ See Origins, 164.
P. Spearitt, ‘A Philosophical enquiry into Dionysian mysticism’. Dissertation (PhD).
Univ. of Fribourg (1968) 122-123.
By which he means the angels.
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
81
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
81
raises us upward (and which is raised up) to him, he pulls together all our many
differences. He makes our life, disposition, and activity something one and divine, and
he bestows on us the power appropriate to a sacred priesthood.
raises us upward (and which is raised up) to him, he pulls together all our many
differences. He makes our life, disposition, and activity something one and divine, and
he bestows on us the power appropriate to a sacred priesthood.
‘If [pseudo-Dionysius] admits theurgy into his system, he puts it under the control
of Jesus,’ summarises Spearitt.34 Given that theurgy most often refers to the works of
the incarnate Christ,35 and also, as Rorem asserts,36 that it refers to the subjective
genitive of God’s work, we can begin to see a much clearer contrast between the
soteriological systems of Dionysius and the Neoplatonists.
The Christian philosophical understanding of teleology, a word derived from the
Greek term telos, and closely connected to the Greek root tele already mentioned,
helps us appreciate this point. Teleology expresses the notion of how men perceive
the relationship (that is Christ) between themselves and God. Phenomena can be
explained by the ‘purpose they serve, rather than by postulated causes’.37 Which is
to say that the epistemological structures derived from a metaphysical, or intellectually
intuitive point of focus, are replaced by an appreciation for what is perceived by the
senses, and coupled with a faith in the divine ordering and purpose of all things. One
can effectively know of God without philosophical endeavour. The hierarchy
constructed of different ways of knowing is levelled, so to speak, to a demotic
horizontality where all men are within reach of the inner sanctuary, the Holy of Holies,
through Christ and creation. Expressed through the sacraments, which pseudoDionysius calls ‘Mysteries’, or in the original Greek, teletaiv/,38 the telestic art we
described earlier is no more evident than in the partaking of the body and blood of
Jesus, through whom all return to the Father. However, the earth rites of the pagans
are somewhat transformed by the teleological principle of the Incarnation. Rising
from effects to cause, from the body and blood of Christ in the sacraments, to the
meaning of Christ itself, one does not evoke a ‘sympathy’, so much as one partakes
of, or ‘suffers’ with, God directly. This notion holds deep implications for the
effectiveness of the sacraments. The Areopagite most certainly appropriated the
notion of theurgy from the Neoplatonists to express his own understanding of the
Christian liturgy, but to reiterate Spearitt’s claim, it is thoroughly under the control of
Jesus and his divine acts in the world.
‘If [pseudo-Dionysius] admits theurgy into his system, he puts it under the control
of Jesus,’ summarises Spearitt.34 Given that theurgy most often refers to the works of
the incarnate Christ,35 and also, as Rorem asserts,36 that it refers to the subjective
genitive of God’s work, we can begin to see a much clearer contrast between the
soteriological systems of Dionysius and the Neoplatonists.
The Christian philosophical understanding of teleology, a word derived from the
Greek term telos, and closely connected to the Greek root tele already mentioned,
helps us appreciate this point. Teleology expresses the notion of how men perceive
the relationship (that is Christ) between themselves and God. Phenomena can be
explained by the ‘purpose they serve, rather than by postulated causes’.37 Which is
to say that the epistemological structures derived from a metaphysical, or intellectually
intuitive point of focus, are replaced by an appreciation for what is perceived by the
senses, and coupled with a faith in the divine ordering and purpose of all things. One
can effectively know of God without philosophical endeavour. The hierarchy
constructed of different ways of knowing is levelled, so to speak, to a demotic
horizontality where all men are within reach of the inner sanctuary, the Holy of Holies,
through Christ and creation. Expressed through the sacraments, which pseudoDionysius calls ‘Mysteries’, or in the original Greek, teletaiv,38 the telestic art we
described earlier is no more evident than in the partaking of the body and blood of
Jesus, through whom all return to the Father. However, the earth rites of the pagans
are somewhat transformed by the teleological principle of the Incarnation. Rising
from effects to cause, from the body and blood of Christ in the sacraments, to the
meaning of Christ itself, one does not evoke a ‘sympathy’, so much as one partakes
of, or ‘suffers’ with, God directly. This notion holds deep implications for the
effectiveness of the sacraments. The Areopagite most certainly appropriated the
notion of theurgy from the Neoplatonists to express his own understanding of the
Christian liturgy, but to reiterate Spearitt’s claim, it is thoroughly under the control of
Jesus and his divine acts in the world.
34
35
36
37
38
Spearitt, Dionysian mysticism, 123.
Louth writes: ‘it is very striking that, in more than a third of its occurrences (nine out of
twenty-five), qeourgiva refers to the divine activity of the Incarnate Christ.’ He cites for
example CH 181B: ‘the divine and human work of Jesus.’ See ‘Pagan theurgy’. 434.
See note 29.
‘teleology’,The Concise Oxford Dictionary (9th ed.).
The Cambridge History, 464. See also Louth, Denys, 52.
34
35
36
37
38
Spearitt, Dionysian mysticism, 123.
Louth writes: ‘it is very striking that, in more than a third of its occurrences (nine out of
twenty-five), qeourgivai refers to the divine activity of the Incarnate Christ.’ He cites for
example CH 181B: ‘the divine and human work of Jesus.’ See ‘Pagan theurgy’. 434.
See note 29.
‘teleology’,The Concise Oxford Dictionary (9th ed.).
The Cambridge History, 464. See also Louth, Denys, 52.
82
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
82
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
With all this in mind we can now more fully appreciate the Areopagite’s unequivocal
assertion, made in his ‘contemplation’ on the synaxis, (that is ‘gathering’ or
‘communion’) that ‘The divine works are the consummation of the divine words.’39
Rorem believes that Dionysius is ‘playfully summarising’ New Testament
Christianity’s relationship to Old Testament Judaism,40 that is, that the purificatory
legal hierarchy (people of the Law) is illuminated by the ecclesiastical hierarchy
(Christians).41 But ultimately it champions the active over the speculative life of
‘doing’ rather than ‘saying’42 what is divine, through the very acts of Jesus the man.
The words of Dionysius himself best conclude this very point:
With all this in mind we can now more fully appreciate the Areopagite’s unequivocal
assertion, made in his ‘contemplation’ on the synaxis, (that is ‘gathering’ or
‘communion’) that ‘The divine works are the consummation of the divine words.’39
Rorem believes that Dionysius is ‘playfully summarising’ New Testament
Christianity’s relationship to Old Testament Judaism,40 that is, that the purificatory
legal hierarchy (people of the Law) is illuminated by the ecclesiastical hierarchy
(Christians).41 But ultimately it champions the active over the speculative life of
‘doing’ rather than ‘saying’42 what is divine, through the very acts of Jesus the man.
The words of Dionysius himself best conclude this very point:
Now there is no need to tell of the loving-kindness of Christ, bathed as it is in peace.
But we must learn from it to cease from strife within ourselves, against each other and
against the angels. We must work together and with the angels to do the things of God,
and we must do so in accordance with the Providence of Jesus ‘who works all things
in all,’ making that Peace which is ineffable and was foreordained from eternity,
reconciling us to himself and in himself to the Father.43
Now there is no need to tell of the loving-kindness of Christ, bathed as it is in peace.
But we must learn from it to cease from strife within ourselves, against each other and
against the angels. We must work together and with the angels to do the things of God,
and we must do so in accordance with the Providence of Jesus ‘who works all things
in all,’ making that Peace which is ineffable and was foreordained from eternity,
reconciling us to himself and in himself to the Father.43
Salvation through Interpretation
Salvation through Interpretation
It is evident just how fundamental the sacraments are in Dionysian liturgical theology,
given that they represent Jesus and the works he did, and therefore act as the
consecrative power behind Christian soteriology. Since it was fundamental to the
efficacy of the sacraments that they be endowed with potencies that reflected divine
grace, Dionysius’ treatment of them in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy is best understood
It is evident just how fundamental the sacraments are in Dionysian liturgical theology,
given that they represent Jesus and the works he did, and therefore act as the
consecrative power behind Christian soteriology. Since it was fundamental to the
efficacy of the sacraments that they be endowed with potencies that reflected divine
grace, Dionysius’ treatment of them in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy is best understood
39
40
41
42
43
EH 432B. Or as Rorem states in his note (82) on this passage: ‘Literally, “the theurgies are
the consummation of the theologies.”’ The Complete works, 214.
Rorem, Symbols, 14-15. This is a further interesting point but one that is outside the scope
of this article.
See EH 429C-432B, for an account of the books of the Bible arranged to show how the Old
Testament theologically understood God, and how the New Testament theurgically
understands God. ‘It seems to me,’ writes the Areopagite, ‘that this sequence, coming as
it does from God and prescribed as it is by hierarchical order, demonstrates how the one
forecast the divine works of Jesus, while the other described how he actually achieved
them. The one wrote truth by way of images, while the other described things as they
happened.’ Again the motif of the immediacy of the Christian to God is observed. See also
EH 501C-D and also Rorem’s Symbols, 29-30.
Perhaps another, more mundane implication of the word ‘apophatic’. ‘Stop talking about
it, do it!’
DN 953A.
39
40
41
42
43
EH 432B. Or as Rorem states in his note (82) on this passage: ‘Literally, “the theurgies are
the consummation of the theologies.”’ The Complete works, 214.
Rorem, Symbols, 14-15. This is a further interesting point but one that is outside the scope
of this article.
See EH 429C-432B, for an account of the books of the Bible arranged to show how the Old
Testament theologically understood God, and how the New Testament theurgically
understands God. ‘It seems to me,’ writes the Areopagite, ‘that this sequence, coming as
it does from God and prescribed as it is by hierarchical order, demonstrates how the one
forecast the divine works of Jesus, while the other described how he actually achieved
them. The one wrote truth by way of images, while the other described things as they
happened.’ Again the motif of the immediacy of the Christian to God is observed. See also
EH 501C-D and also Rorem’s Symbols, 29-30.
Perhaps another, more mundane implication of the word ‘apophatic’. ‘Stop talking about
it, do it!’
DN 953A.
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
83
as a methodology in interpreting their symbolical significance. The treatise itself
attempts to direct the catechumen beyond just a literal interpretation of the sacraments,
to that which gives them meaning. In so doing the catechumens may begin to assimilate
themselves to that divine grace. For this is what is meant by interpretation in the
theology of Dionysius: if one can effectively engage with the sacrament, one can
effectively engage with its inner meaning, in this case, with grace itself.
The treatise is itself divided into sections beginning with an account of the
operation of hierarchy itself. Calling upon Jesus, ‘the source and the perfection of
every hierarchy,’44 Dionysius describes hierarchy as that which comes from the ‘font
of life’, namely the Trinity, and thus reflects, or is analogous to, the very operation of
God Himself. Its ‘common goal…consists in the continuous love of God and of
divine things.’ He goes on to tell of how the angelic hierarchy communicates
knowledge, and how that knowledge is made suitable for us ‘by means of the variety
and abundance of composite symbols.’ He ends this introduction with a warning
that symbol has a twofold purpose, that of revealing meaning to those initiated into
the hierarchy, and that of concealing meaning from those who are not. As Dionysius
writes, citing I Cor 8:7, ‘For not everyone is holy and, as scripture affirms, knowledge
is not for everyone.’45
What follows is an account hierarchic in itself, of the main rites of the hierarchy.
These are the mysteries, or teletai of illumination, synaxis and myron, followed by
the consecration ceremonies of the clerical orders and of those being initiated
respectively. The treatise then ends with an account of the rite for the dead, bringing
the hierarchy back full circle to the divine birth, or what is called the death in Jesus
(baptism). All these sections are again, however, divided into three: an introduction
to the rite, a ‘narrative account’ or description of it, and finally a section that interprets
the rite an account that attempts to reveal the essence of what the rite symbolises
and what it achieves. These sections are simply labelled ‘contemplation’.46
as a methodology in interpreting their symbolical significance. The treatise itself
attempts to direct the catechumen beyond just a literal interpretation of the sacraments,
to that which gives them meaning. In so doing the catechumens may begin to assimilate
themselves to that divine grace. For this is what is meant by interpretation in the
theology of Dionysius: if one can effectively engage with the sacrament, one can
effectively engage with its inner meaning, in this case, with grace itself.
The treatise is itself divided into sections beginning with an account of the
operation of hierarchy itself. Calling upon Jesus, ‘the source and the perfection of
every hierarchy,’44 Dionysius describes hierarchy as that which comes from the ‘font
of life’, namely the Trinity, and thus reflects, or is analogous to, the very operation of
God Himself. Its ‘common goal…consists in the continuous love of God and of
divine things.’ He goes on to tell of how the angelic hierarchy communicates
knowledge, and how that knowledge is made suitable for us ‘by means of the variety
and abundance of composite symbols.’ He ends this introduction with a warning
that symbol has a twofold purpose, that of revealing meaning to those initiated into
the hierarchy, and that of concealing meaning from those who are not. As Dionysius
writes, citing I Cor 8:7, ‘For not everyone is holy and, as scripture affirms, knowledge
is not for everyone.’45
What follows is an account hierarchic in itself, of the main rites of the hierarchy.
These are the mysteries, or teletai of illumination, synaxis and myron, followed by
the consecration ceremonies of the clerical orders and of those being initiated
respectively. The treatise then ends with an account of the rite for the dead, bringing
the hierarchy back full circle to the divine birth, or what is called the death in Jesus
(baptism). All these sections are again, however, divided into three: an introduction
to the rite, a ‘narrative account’ or description of it, and finally a section that interprets
the rite an account that attempts to reveal the essence of what the rite symbolises
and what it achieves. These sections are simply labelled ‘contemplation’.46
44
44
45
46
EH 373B.
EH 376C.
Rorem suggests that this structure follows in the steps of Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of
Moses, a work that is subdivided in the same manner.See Rorem’s note 17 attached to the
beginning of the rite of illumination in The Complete works. Also see his Symbols, 44. He
believes that Dionysius’ contemplations are very similar to Antiochene exegetical theory,
or what is generally understood of the word theôria. Louis Bouyer also cites Patristic
examples, i.e. Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, who use the term theôria as more than just
intellectual operation. It seems rather to express something in the line of Hierotheus’
‘experience’ of the divine. See his History of Christian spirituality, (London: Burns and
Oats, 1968) vol. 1, 409-10.
83
45
46
EH 373B.
EH 376C.
Rorem suggests that this structure follows in the steps of Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of
Moses, a work that is subdivided in the same manner.See Rorem’s note 17 attached to the
beginning of the rite of illumination in The Complete works. Also see his Symbols, 44. He
believes that Dionysius’ contemplations are very similar to Antiochene exegetical theory,
or what is generally understood of the word theôria. Louis Bouyer also cites Patristic
examples, i.e. Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, who use the term theôria as more than just
intellectual operation. It seems rather to express something in the line of Hierotheus’
‘experience’ of the divine. See his History of Christian spirituality, (London: Burns and
Oats, 1968) vol. 1, 409-10.
84
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
84
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
Rorem argues that the emphasis on interpretation in these chapters clearly indicates
that the Areopagite is not so much concerned with the rites themselves, since his
descriptions of them are quite limited, but that he is concerned rather with the
‘anagogical value’ of their interpretation.47 He writes:
Rorem argues that the emphasis on interpretation in these chapters clearly indicates
that the Areopagite is not so much concerned with the rites themselves, since his
descriptions of them are quite limited, but that he is concerned rather with the
‘anagogical value’ of their interpretation.47 He writes:
For pseudo-Dionysius the elevation is not accomplished so much by the rituals or
sacred symbols themselves as in their spiritual understanding. By knowledge of sacred
things, the faithful are uplifted in and to contemplations, to the truth, to knowledge,
and to enlightenment. The idea of uplifting therefore is not simply a symbol for
spiritual progress in general but is also the primary pseudo-Dionysian expression for
the process of interpreting…symbols. The word :ajnagwghv can now serve as a
technical term meaning ‘interpretation of the symbolical’ whether liturgical or biblical.48
For pseudo-Dionysius the elevation is not accomplished so much by the rituals or
sacred symbols themselves as in their spiritual understanding. By knowledge of sacred
things, the faithful are uplifted in and to contemplations, to the truth, to knowledge,
and to enlightenment. The idea of uplifting therefore is not simply a symbol for
spiritual progress in general but is also the primary pseudo-Dionysian expression for
the process of interpreting…symbols. The word ajnagwghv can now serve as a technical
term meaning ‘interpretation of the symbolical’ whether liturgical or biblical.48
Rorem’s studies of Dionysian liturgical theology have been chiefly aimed at
illustrating how this relationship between interpretation and anagogy, or uplifting,
occurs. Drawing upon Patristic hermeneutic theory, Platonic epistemological
anamnesis, and the marked comparisons to be made between the liturgy and
Neoplatonic theurgy, Rorem believes that sacramental interpretation exemplifies the
soteriological aspects of Dionysian theology. He writes:
Rorem’s studies of Dionysian liturgical theology have been chiefly aimed at
illustrating how this relationship between interpretation and anagogy, or uplifting,
occurs. Drawing upon Patristic hermeneutic theory, Platonic epistemological
anamnesis, and the marked comparisons to be made between the liturgy and
Neoplatonic theurgy, Rorem believes that sacramental interpretation exemplifies the
soteriological aspects of Dionysian theology. He writes:
When the terminology of ‘uplift’ is used, [the] ascending movement is described
in…detail and is tied to the interpretation of symbols. The author’s general statements
of the ‘return’ are specified by his epistemologically more concrete explanations of an
uplifting through the angels’ scriptural representations to their most divine simplicity,
or through the sequential parts of the sacrament of myron to its oneness. These
examples call our attention back to the ‘anagogical’ methodology in the Areopagite’s
biblical hermeneutics and sacramental theology…it is in the occurrences of the language
of ‘uplifting’ that the intermediate steps and specific method of upward process are
spelled out.49
When the terminology of ‘uplift’ is used, [the] ascending movement is described
in…detail and is tied to the interpretation of symbols. The author’s general statements
of the ‘return’ are specified by his epistemologically more concrete explanations of an
uplifting through the angels’ scriptural representations to their most divine simplicity,
or through the sequential parts of the sacrament of myron to its oneness. These
examples call our attention back to the ‘anagogical’ methodology in the Areopagite’s
biblical hermeneutics and sacramental theology…it is in the occurrences of the language
of ‘uplifting’ that the intermediate steps and specific method of upward process are
spelled out.49
Thus the interpretation of sensible symbols is the means by which knowledge is
assimilated by us as humans, and a means by which we achieve a unity of all our
ways of knowing. As Spearitt claims, it is ‘a concentration of the various intellectual
faculties…into the unity of the soul.’50 Since our very being is defined by our capacity
Thus the interpretation of sensible symbols is the means by which knowledge is
assimilated by us as humans, and a means by which we achieve a unity of all our
ways of knowing. As Spearitt claims, it is ‘a concentration of the various intellectual
faculties…into the unity of the soul.’50 Since our very being is defined by our capacity
47
48
49
50
Rorem, Symbols, 7, note 17.
P. Rorem, ‘Iamblichus and the anagogical method in pseudo-Dionysian liturgical theology’,
Studia Patristica 17, part 1 (1982) 455-456.
Rorem, Symbols, 102.
Spearitt, Dionysian Mysticism, 105.
47
48
49
50
Rorem, Symbols, 7, note 17.
P. Rorem, ‘Iamblichus and the anagogical method in pseudo-Dionysian liturgical theology’,
Studia Patristica 17, part 1 (1982): 455-456.
Rorem, Symbols, 102.
Spearitt, Dionysian Mysticism, 105.
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
85
to know the divine, a gaining of knowledge through the interpretation of symbol
‘draws our fragmented lives together into a one-like divinisation’.51 As in the synaxis
itself, it brings together and lifts upward.
Unlike humans, the angels are able to reconcile the divisions of their being in a
purely internal and noetic fashion.52 But for us whose modes of perception have a
‘dependence upon extension in space and upon sequence in time as the starting
points for knowledge’,53 symbolism plays a vital part in our own reconciliation. The
symbols have to be engaged in a way that the knowledge concealed by them can be
revealed and thus assimilated by the cleric who is interpreting them. One has to
recollect the knowledge, comprehend it, in a way that it becomes one’s own knowledge,
or to put it another way, that one’s being is assimilated to a higher epistemic order. In
this way ‘anagogical movement is not primarily “away from” the perceptible symbols
but rather “through” or “by means of them”.’54 Interpretation of symbol is thus
analogous, though externally expressed, to the angel’s own noetic reconciliation.
Between the interpreter and the knowledge he wishes to gain, lies the symbol
both concealing and revealing knowledge, and, depending on that interpreter’s
capacity to know the divine, determines what one’s relationship to God is. This is
basic to any kind of exegesis, but it allows us to see the human being’s unique
position in God’s hierarchy. Given that the angels have a more perfect share in the
divine illuminations, they remain perfect and free within the confines of that hierarchy.
Yet for human beings who have the freedom to interpret, or to peel away the symbolic
veils that divide them from God, they necessarily also have the ability to keep
themselves separated from God. Their freedom of will is given via his choice not to
know; inversely, it is a knowledge that, if gained, would perfect their very being.
For Dionysius, hierarchy itself is formed of these symbolic veils that conceal and
reveal God, and which can only be bypassed through Christ. And given that Christ
is the perfection of everything made manifest, and the sacraments symbolise that
perfection in a way that is understandable to us, their interpretation can thus be
understood in the same manner as that by which we are to understand the imitation
of Christ. By assimilating ourselves through interpretation to the knowledge
symbolised by the sacraments of which we partake, we are in effect becoming
assimilated to the apophatic and transcendent Christ himself. Interpreting Christ, or
the Word of God, is an anagogical process in itself. The power of the symbol is there
51
52
53
54
EH 424C.
EH 373A-B.
Rorem, Symbols, 82.
ibid., 104.
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
85
to know the divine, a gaining of knowledge through the interpretation of symbol
‘draws our fragmented lives together into a one-like divinisation’.51 As in the synaxis
itself, it brings together and lifts upward.
Unlike humans, the angels are able to reconcile the divisions of their being in a
purely internal and noetic fashion.52 But for us whose modes of perception have a
‘dependence upon extension in space and upon sequence in time as the starting
points for knowledge’,53 symbolism plays a vital part in our own reconciliation. The
symbols have to be engaged in a way that the knowledge concealed by them can be
revealed and thus assimilated by the cleric who is interpreting them. One has to
recollect the knowledge, comprehend it, in a way that it becomes one’s own knowledge,
or to put it another way, that one’s being is assimilated to a higher epistemic order. In
this way ‘anagogical movement is not primarily “away from” the perceptible symbols
but rather “through” or “by means of them”.’54 Interpretation of symbol is thus
analogous, though externally expressed, to the angel’s own noetic reconciliation.
Between the interpreter and the knowledge he wishes to gain, lies the symbol
both concealing and revealing knowledge, and, depending on that interpreter’s
capacity to know the divine, determines what one’s relationship to God is. This is
basic to any kind of exegesis, but it allows us to see the human being’s unique
position in God’s hierarchy. Given that the angels have a more perfect share in the
divine illuminations, they remain perfect and free within the confines of that hierarchy.
Yet for human beings who have the freedom to interpret, or to peel away the symbolic
veils that divide them from God, they necessarily also have the ability to keep
themselves separated from God. Their freedom of will is given via his choice not to
know; inversely, it is a knowledge that, if gained, would perfect their very being.
For Dionysius, hierarchy itself is formed of these symbolic veils that conceal and
reveal God, and which can only be bypassed through Christ. And given that Christ
is the perfection of everything made manifest, and the sacraments symbolise that
perfection in a way that is understandable to us, their interpretation can thus be
understood in the same manner as that by which we are to understand the imitation
of Christ. By assimilating ourselves through interpretation to the knowledge
symbolised by the sacraments of which we partake, we are in effect becoming
assimilated to the apophatic and transcendent Christ himself. Interpreting Christ, or
the Word of God, is an anagogical process in itself. The power of the symbol is there
51
52
53
54
EH 424C.
EH 373A-B.
Rorem, Symbols, 82.
ibid., 104.
86
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
86
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
by divine grace, and so in peeling away the symbolic expression of that grace, we are
left with its essence, the symbol becomes dross, so to speak, and the content is
revealed.
In a passage discussing the ‘divine mysteries’, Dionysius describes the unveiling
of the divine Thearchy itself through the uncovering and contemplation of symbols:
by divine grace, and so in peeling away the symbolic expression of that grace, we are
left with its essence, the symbol becomes dross, so to speak, and the content is
revealed.
In a passage discussing the ‘divine mysteries’, Dionysius describes the unveiling
of the divine Thearchy itself through the uncovering and contemplation of symbols:
What is necessary is to uncover [symbols], to see them in their naked purity. By
contemplating them in this manner we can revere that ‘source of life’ flowing into
itself. We see it remaining within itself, a unique and simple power, source of its own
movement and activity, which is never failing and which is the knowledge of all
knowledge by virtue of its own perpetual self-contemplation.55
What is necessary is to uncover [symbols], to see them in their naked purity. By
contemplating them in this manner we can revere that ‘source of life’ flowing into
itself. We see it remaining within itself, a unique and simple power, source of its own
movement and activity, which is never failing and which is the knowledge of all
knowledge by virtue of its own perpetual self-contemplation.55
The prior level of knowledge of the ascending soul is replaced by a knowledge
more analogous to that of Jesus, until it reaches that which transcends knowledge
completely the known therefore becomes the knower of all things and thus assimilated
to the pure subject of God Himself.
Interpretation therefore is another expression of the mystical theology, since it
too requires the negation of a known being in favour of the knower who is beyond
being. For ‘as one becomes fit to approach these divine things one is given the grace
of assimilation.’56 ‘The author’s negative or mystical “theology”,’ writes Rorem, ‘is
not a general theory of spiritual knowledge but a specific method of interpreting the
scriptures,’57 and thus the liturgy as well. Knowledge attained is ameliorative and
uplifting, and this itself is only achieved through interpretation, or the act of
contemplation.
A slightly different way of appreciating the idea of the anagogical nature of the
liturgical symbols can be seen by appreciating the ascent through interpretation as
inverse to that of the descent through creation. Rorem, quoting from René Roques,
states that ‘it is necessary that the anagogy correspond to the condescension,’ by
which he means the providential act of creation. ‘By a movement rigorously inverse’
to that of the divine procession, the anagogical return must operate through a priori
knowledge, and which is the inverse to that by which the divine knows us.58 God’s
knowledge of us is reciprocated by our knowledge of Him and how we may return
back to Him, a knowledge which, however, is clouded in the myriad of symbols of
which being and becoming are made. By becoming more analogous to the intelligible
The prior level of knowledge of the ascending soul is replaced by a knowledge
more analogous to that of Jesus, until it reaches that which transcends knowledge
completely the known therefore becomes the knower of all things and thus assimilated
to the pure subject of God Himself.
Interpretation therefore is another expression of the mystical theology, since it
too requires the negation of a known being in favour of the knower who is beyond
being. For ‘as one becomes fit to approach these divine things one is given the grace
of assimilation.’56 ‘The author’s negative or mystical “theology”,’ writes Rorem, ‘is
not a general theory of spiritual knowledge but a specific method of interpreting the
scriptures,’57 and thus the liturgy as well. Knowledge attained is ameliorative and
uplifting, and this itself is only achieved through interpretation, or the act of
contemplation.
A slightly different way of appreciating the idea of the anagogical nature of the
liturgical symbols can be seen by appreciating the ascent through interpretation as
inverse to that of the descent through creation. Rorem, quoting from René Roques,
states that ‘it is necessary that the anagogy correspond to the condescension,’ by
which he means the providential act of creation. ‘By a movement rigorously inverse’
to that of the divine procession, the anagogical return must operate through a priori
knowledge, and which is the inverse to that by which the divine knows us.58 God’s
knowledge of us is reciprocated by our knowledge of Him and how we may return
back to Him, a knowledge which, however, is clouded in the myriad of symbols of
which being and becoming are made. By becoming more analogous to the intelligible
55
56
57
58
Ep 9 1104B-C.
EH 428B.
Rorem, Symbols, 18.
ibid., 64.
55
56
57
58
Ep 9 1104B-C.
EH 428B.
Rorem, Symbols, 18.
ibid., 64.
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
87
87
triads who illuminate and remain transcendently above those they illuminate, the
ascending soul remains fixed in the human state of being, whilst at the same time,
through anagogical interpretation, acquiring knowledge that ascends, or rather uplifts
it back to God. Again, we have that fundamental inversion that the whole teleological
point of view brings with it. Man, whose epistemic and ontic state is divided by a
symbolic veil, can ascend upward through the light of his illumination by God. We
turn upward to the beneficent ‘Rays of God’ as Dionysius claims. Our knowledge
reflects upward to reciprocate God’s downward knowledge of/to us.
triads who illuminate and remain transcendently above those they illuminate, the
ascending soul remains fixed in the human state of being, whilst at the same time,
through anagogical interpretation, acquiring knowledge that ascends, or rather uplifts
it back to God. Again, we have that fundamental inversion that the whole teleological
point of view brings with it. Man, whose epistemic and ontic state is divided by a
symbolic veil, can ascend upward through the light of his illumination by God. We
turn upward to the beneficent ‘Rays of God’ as Dionysius claims. Our knowledge
reflects upward to reciprocate God’s downward knowledge of/to us.
Two Lives: Saved and Safe
Two Lives: Saved and Safe
Louth asserts that the ecclesiastical hierarchy does not act as a ladder by which
individual souls ascend to God, but rather as an uplifting of all its participants at once
in a kind of soteriological framework. ‘Hierarchy is the outreach of God’s love,’ writes
Louth, ‘it is not a ladder we struggle up by our own efforts…[it] is a community that
is being saved and mediates salvation.’59 By remaining fixed in our human state, and
at the same time ascending together, the hierarchy reflects the working of the Thearchy
itself. For as the Thearchy beneficently proceeds of itself into creation, it is also that
very expression of itself by which all its creatures may find their way back to it. It
simultaneously proceeds and recedes in an inexpressible and incomprehensible way
it is at once rest and motion. So too is ‘our’ hierarchy a procession from the divine,
and, via the divine framework, so too can it recede back to it through its ‘sacred
mystagogy’ that is, through guidance into the uplifting mysteries of the sacraments.
We can however, determine two kinds of ascent in this idea. The ascending soul
can be seen as one who actively seeks knowledge of the divine in order to unite with
it, or as one who simply and passively maintains its position in that hierarchy. Salvation
holds within it the two-fold meaning of both saved and safe. One is saved, being
united with God in the inscrutable heights, or one is merely safe from evil in one’s
own particular position within the hierarchy. As Dionysius writes:
Louth asserts that the ecclesiastical hierarchy does not act as a ladder by which
individual souls ascend to God, but rather as an uplifting of all its participants at once
in a kind of soteriological framework. ‘Hierarchy is the outreach of God’s love,’ writes
Louth, ‘it is not a ladder we struggle up by our own efforts…[it] is a community that
is being saved and mediates salvation.’59 By remaining fixed in our human state, and
at the same time ascending together, the hierarchy reflects the working of the Thearchy
itself. For as the Thearchy beneficently proceeds of itself into creation, it is also that
very expression of itself by which all its creatures may find their way back to it. It
simultaneously proceeds and recedes in an inexpressible and incomprehensible way
it is at once rest and motion. So too is ‘our’ hierarchy a procession from the divine,
and, via the divine framework, so too can it recede back to it through its ‘sacred
mystagogy’ that is, through guidance into the uplifting mysteries of the sacraments.
We can however, determine two kinds of ascent in this idea. The ascending soul
can be seen as one who actively seeks knowledge of the divine in order to unite with
it, or as one who simply and passively maintains its position in that hierarchy. Salvation
holds within it the two-fold meaning of both saved and safe. One is saved, being
united with God in the inscrutable heights, or one is merely safe from evil in one’s
own particular position within the hierarchy. As Dionysius writes:
Salvation is that which preserves all things in their proper places without change,
conflict, or collapse toward evil, that it keeps them all in peaceful and untroubled
obedience to their proper laws, that it expels all inequality and interference from the
world, and that it gives everything the proportion to avoid turning into its own
opposite and to keep free of any kind of change of state.
Salvation is that which preserves all things in their proper places without change,
conflict, or collapse toward evil, that it keeps them all in peaceful and untroubled
obedience to their proper laws, that it expels all inequality and interference from the
world, and that it gives everything the proportion to avoid turning into its own
opposite and to keep free of any kind of change of state.
Thus it is that the ecclesiastical hierarchy both remains as it is, and ascends at the
59
Louth, Denys, 41.
59
Louth, Denys, 41.
88
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
same time, allowing it as an entire community to remain free of sin. Like the soul that
is firmly set upon the Good which, in ‘granting enlightenments proportionate to each
being…draws sacred minds upward to its permitted contemplation.’ The ecclesiastical
hierarchy does ‘not venture toward an impossibly daring sight of God, one beyond
what is duly granted,’ nor ‘go tumbling downward where [its] own natural inclinations
would take [it]. No. Instead [it is] raised firmly and unswervingly upward in the
direction of the ray which enlightens [it].’60 Alternatively, Louth explains that, beyond
the ascent from catechumen to contemplative, any further ascent is ‘a matter of
special divine ordination or vocation’.61 This provides for that soul whose special
vocation it is to seek for the union achieved through knowledge itself, a union that
results in the complete negation of any human determination. That is the agnôsia of
Moses as he finds himself in complete assimilation of where God dwells, but who
nonetheless remains human.
One final point is worth mentioning in this respect, and that is the Areopagite’s
lack of differentiation between active and contemplative orders. ‘As he explains each
sacred rite,’ writes Louth, ‘Denys passes from the “mystery” to “contemplation”
(theôria): and all the baptised are expected to contemplate, to watch, to take part in,
to be involved in the movement of God’s love. It is the rank of the holy people whom
Denys calls the “contemplative order”.’62 Contemplation is thus the process by
which each cleric, according to his capacity, interprets or engages the sacred symbols
and is assimilated to them. Spearitt claims that anagogy ‘combines a willing
recognition of the positive function of material symbol, with an unequivocal assertion
of the priority of the non-material reality that it signifies.’ 63 He continues:
88
Thus it is that the ecclesiastical hierarchy both remains as it is, and ascends at the
same time, allowing it as an entire community to remain free of sin. Like the soul that
is firmly set upon the Good which, in ‘granting enlightenments proportionate to each
being…draws sacred minds upward to its permitted contemplation.’ The ecclesiastical
hierarchy does ‘not venture toward an impossibly daring sight of God, one beyond
what is duly granted,’ nor ‘go tumbling downward where [its] own natural inclinations
would take [it]. No. Instead [it is] raised firmly and unswervingly upward in the
direction of the ray which enlightens [it].’60 Alternatively, Louth explains that, beyond
the ascent from catechumen to contemplative, any further ascent is ‘a matter of
special divine ordination or vocation’.61 This provides for that soul whose special
vocation it is to seek for the union achieved through knowledge itself, a union that
results in the complete negation of any human determination. That is the agnôsia of
Moses as he finds himself in complete assimilation of where God dwells, but who
nonetheless remains human.
One final point is worth mentioning in this respect, and that is the Areopagite’s
lack of differentiation between active and contemplative orders. ‘As he explains each
sacred rite,’ writes Louth, ‘Denys passes from the “mystery” to “contemplation”
(theôria): and all the baptised are expected to contemplate, to watch, to take part in,
to be involved in the movement of God’s love. It is the rank of the holy people whom
Denys calls the “contemplative order”.’62 Contemplation is thus the process by
which each cleric, according to his capacity, interprets or engages the sacred symbols
and is assimilated to them. Spearitt claims that anagogy ‘combines a willing
recognition of the positive function of material symbol, with an unequivocal assertion
of the priority of the non-material reality that it signifies.’ 63 He continues:
There is no great play on the opposition between Mary and Martha, between
contemplative and active life…Contemplation is not an end in itself. There is in Denis
none of the intellectualism which is popularly supposed to be the great Hellenic threat
to the Christian primacy of love. Not only is love the motive force behind the intellectual
processes, but in its ultimate stage of ecstasis, love is the activity into which
contemplation leads.64
There is no great play on the opposition between Mary and Martha, between
contemplative and active life…Contemplation is not an end in itself. There is in Denis
none of the intellectualism which is popularly supposed to be the great Hellenic threat
to the Christian primacy of love. Not only is love the motive force behind the intellectual
processes, but in its ultimate stage of ecstasis, love is the activity into which
contemplation leads.64
Or this from Rutledge:
60
61
62
63
64
DN 588D-589A. As Louth claims, this is reminiscent of Piccarda’s reply to Dante in the
Paradiso (III. 70-5, 79-85). She explains that the angels have no desire to be closer to God,
since it is in the maintenance of their very position in the hierarchy that closeness to the
divine is achieved.
Louth, Origins, 171.
Louth, Denys, 109. See EH 536D.
Spearitt, Dionysian Mysticism, 110.
ibid., 111.
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
60
61
62
63
64
DN 588D-589A. As Louth claims, this is reminiscent of Piccarda’s reply to Dante in the
Paradiso (III. 70-5, 79-85). She explains that the angels have no desire to be closer to God,
since it is in the maintenance of their very position in the hierarchy that closeness to the
divine is achieved.
Louth, Origins, 171.
Louth, Denys, 109. See EH 536D.
Spearitt, Dionysian Mysticism, 110.
ibid., 111.
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
89
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
89
Or this from Rutledge:
I think he would have been…surprised at the idea that contemplative Christians were
not also ‘active,’ and that there might even be opposition between contemplation and
action. There is in fact nothing in these writings to suggest that their author is aware of
any conflict between action as such and the contemplation which is an ability to
transcend sensible, material realities, or rather penetrate beyond their external aspects.
It is in fact for him a postulate of man’s nature that he must always start from the
sensible and material.65
One cannot but engage in these symbols in a way that draws the mind up to their
higher and inner content. The lower orders contemplate through their actions, through
the very imitation of Christ’s works. The interpretation is their very ineffable actions
that have become internalised to affect their mind and body. Alternatively, even the
traditional contemplative is, in Dionysius’ opinion, active:
I think he would have been…surprised at the idea that contemplative Christians were
not also ‘active,’ and that there might even be opposition between contemplation and
action. There is in fact nothing in these writings to suggest that their author is aware of
any conflict between action as such and the contemplation which is an ability to
transcend sensible, material realities, or rather penetrate beyond their external aspects.
It is in fact for him a postulate of man’s nature that he must always start from the
sensible and material.65
One cannot but engage in these symbols in a way that draws the mind up to their
higher and inner content. The lower orders contemplate through their actions, through
the very imitation of Christ’s works. The interpretation is their very ineffable actions
that have become internalised to affect their mind and body. Alternatively, even the
traditional contemplative is, in Dionysius’ opinion, active:
He will be more active than passive. Having adopted impassibility and endurance as
the guiding norm of his state he will be seen, like a doctor, helping others who are
possessed by these things [i.e. the ‘illusions’ or the ‘terrors’ of evil].66
As the mystical theology is realised in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, so too the
contemplative is realised in his or her actions. Conversely, the ecclesiastical hierarchy
is realised mystical theology, just as the active life is realised contemplation. Two
lives, two worlds coalesce as they come together in a place of consecration, and
engage in the anagogical process. The most esoteric of doctrines is revealed in the
most exoteric of methods.67
Partaking of the Way
The symbols of the liturgy, especially those of the synaxis, make ‘present’ Christ so
that we can partake of him; they are ‘Christ actually given’ as Bouyer puts it. The
synaxis, is the central rite of the ecclesiastical hierarchy since it focuses upon that
very act of God in which Christ is realised as a man, when God truly takes on flesh,
and the gap, or abyss is bridged. Rutledge describes the centrality of the very partaking
65
66
67
Rutledge, Cosmic Theology, 169.
EH 433C.
To use a common religious symbol, the circumference of a circle is there only because there
is a centre, and the centre, though hidden, is only given expression by its circumference.
He will be more active than passive. Having adopted impassibility and endurance as
the guiding norm of his state he will be seen, like a doctor, helping others who are
possessed by these things [i.e. the ‘illusions’ or the ‘terrors’ of evil].66
As the mystical theology is realised in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, so too the
contemplative is realised in his or her actions. Conversely, the ecclesiastical hierarchy
is realised mystical theology, just as the active life is realised contemplation. Two
lives, two worlds coalesce as they come together in a place of consecration, and
engage in the anagogical process. The most esoteric of doctrines is revealed in the
most exoteric of methods.67
Partaking of the Way
The symbols of the liturgy, especially those of the synaxis, make ‘present’ Christ so
that we can partake of him; they are ‘Christ actually given’ as Bouyer puts it. The
synaxis, is the central rite of the ecclesiastical hierarchy since it focuses upon that
very act of God in which Christ is realised as a man, when God truly takes on flesh,
65
66
67
Rutledge, Cosmic Theology, 169.
EH 433C.
To use a common religious symbol, the circumference of a circle is there only because there
is a centre, and the centre, though hidden, is only given expression by its circumference.
90
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
of the bread and wine within that rite:
90
and the gap, or abyss is bridged. Rutledge describes the centrality of the very partaking
of the bread and wine within that rite:
We have in fact come now to the central point of the rite, which is itself, we must
remember, the summit of the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy. All that has gone before
was preparatory to this, yet not merely preparatory; I think in the author’s view it is
rather the outer circumference, the fringe, of the veil of sensible signs in which the
spiritual reality is to be presented. Indeed, I think he would see the whole of the visible
creation as forming a single great variegated robe of sensible signs round this one
central symbol, in which it is all carried up into the invisible world of ‘spiritual
realities’ and united to the One from which it receives its being. For him it is the one
single point of contact and synaxis, union, between the invisible and the visible worlds,
at which the latter receives a being which is fulfilled only by a return to unity, by
‘losing itself’ so far as external evidence goes…all these have been so many ‘sensible
signs’ revealing, and in their own degree making present, what they signify…and
through this symbol the participant is to enter into communion with, become one
with, all that has been symbolised. In all this we must not lose sight of the fact that it
is ultimately a person, the Word Incarnate, with whom the communicant is thus
united, in such a way as to become involved in, transplanted into, his life, being and
every action, and return to heaven with him.68
Thus the central rite of celebrating the Incarnation can be seen as the revealing of
the ‘form of God’ itself. Just as the sculptor mentioned in the Mystical Theology69
chipped away the affirmations that held the statue in the block, so too do all the rites
and accoutrements, or, dare I say, artifices, surrounding the Eucharist give form to its
ineffable act of consecration. As a door-frame gives form to the doorway through
which one has to pass, all centres upon that moment when Christ is made present and
thus able to be partaken of and assimilated with. Thus Dionysius writes:
We have in fact come now to the central point of the rite, which is itself, we must
remember, the summit of the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy. All that has gone before
was preparatory to this, yet not merely preparatory; I think in the author’s view it is
rather the outer circumference, the fringe, of the veil of sensible signs in which the
spiritual reality is to be presented. Indeed, I think he would see the whole of the visible
creation as forming a single great variegated robe of sensible signs round this one
central symbol, in which it is all carried up into the invisible world of ‘spiritual
realities’ and united to the One from which it receives its being. For him it is the one
single point of contact and synaxis, union, between the invisible and the visible worlds,
at which the latter receives a being which is fulfilled only by a return to unity, by
‘losing itself’ so far as external evidence goes…all these have been so many ‘sensible
signs’ revealing, and in their own degree making present, what they signify…and
through this symbol the participant is to enter into communion with, become one
with, all that has been symbolised. In all this we must not lose sight of the fact that it
is ultimately a person, the Word Incarnate, with whom the communicant is thus
united, in such a way as to become involved in, transplanted into, his life, being and
every action, and return to heaven with him.68
Thus the central rite of celebrating the Incarnation can be seen as the revealing of
the ‘form of God’ itself. Just as the sculptor mentioned in the Mystical Theology69
chipped away the affirmations that held the statue in the block, so too do all the rites
and accoutrements, or, dare I say, artifices, surrounding the Eucharist give form to its
ineffable act of consecration. As a door-frame gives form to the doorway through
which one has to pass, all centres upon that moment when Christ is made present and
thus able to be partaken of and assimilated with. Thus Dionysius writes:
Then [the hierarch] performs the most divine acts and lifts into view the things praised
through the sacredly clothed symbols. 70 The bread which had been covered and
undivided is now uncovered and divided into many parts. Similarly, he shares the one
cup with all, symbolically multiplying and distributing the One in symbolic fashion.
With these things he completes the most holy sacred act. For because of his goodness
and his love for humanity the simple, hidden oneness of Jesus, the most divine Word,
has taken the route of incarnation for us and, without undergoing any change, has
become a reality that is composite and visible. He has beneficently accomplished for
68
69
70
Rutledge, Cosmic Theology, 109-10.
MT 1025B.
This lifting the sacraments to be viewed, or made present, is reiterated many times in the
rite of synaxis. See also EH 425D & 440B.
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
Then [the hierarch] performs the most divine acts and lifts into view the things praised
through the sacredly clothed symbols. 70 The bread which had been covered and
undivided is now uncovered and divided into many parts. Similarly, he shares the one
cup with all, symbolically multiplying and distributing the One in symbolic fashion.
With these things he completes the most holy sacred act. For because of his goodness
and his love for humanity the simple, hidden oneness of Jesus, the most divine Word,
has taken the route of incarnation for us and, without undergoing any change, has
68
69
70
Rutledge, Cosmic Theology, 109-10.
MT 1025B.
This lifting the sacraments to be viewed, or made present, is reiterated many times in the
rite of synaxis. See also EH 425D & 440B.
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
91
ITTER: PSEUDO-DIONYSIAN SOTERIOLOGY
us a unifying communion with himself. He has united our humility with his own
supreme divinity.71
This is the revelation of mystical theology itself, since the sacramental action is
beyond words, and affects itself through the negation of the participant’s way of
knowing. It is the very ‘practice of the negative dialectic’:72 centrally, both apophasis
and agnôsia at once. The mystical union occurs at that very point when the sacrament
touches the lips of the participant. The participant is received by the divine and
kissed. ‘[Christ] receives them with completely open arms and greets them with a
kiss.’73 It signifies that moment when the material of which the symbols are made
(matter being the very end-point of creation itself) is endowed with divine grace
through the evocation of the hierarch, ‘lifted into view’, or made present, and partaken
of. The very transcendent cause is revealed through Christ and communicated to all.
The more receptive the participant is to receive the abundance of God, the more
intimate the communion with Him. ‘Apophatic anagogy’ as Rorem calls it, is achieved
in partaking of the inexpressible and incomprehensible conjunction of God and man,
exemplified in Christ, who is God-made-man. The participant ‘literally’ partakes of
that infinite abyss between himself and the divine, and in so doing creates for himself
a bridge by which to cross it. Thus it is by the body and blood of Christ, the High
Priest, that every person can enter the Holy of Holies. This is the mystical connection,
relationship, bridge, doorway, or whatever, that is achieved in the synaxis. As Bouyer
asserts:
become a reality that is composite and visible. He has beneficently accomplished for
us a unifying communion with himself. He has united our humility with his own
supreme divinity.71
This is the revelation of mystical theology itself, since the sacramental action is
beyond words, and affects itself through the negation of the participant’s way of
knowing. It is the very ‘practice of the negative dialectic’:72 centrally, both apophasis
and agnôsia at once. The mystical union occurs at that very point when the sacrament
touches the lips of the participant. The participant is received by the divine and
kissed. ‘[Christ] receives them with completely open arms and greets them with a
kiss.’73 It signifies that moment when the material of which the symbols are made
(matter being the very end-point of creation itself) is endowed with divine grace
through the evocation of the hierarch, ‘lifted into view’, or made present, and partaken
of. The very transcendent cause is revealed through Christ and communicated to all.
The more receptive the participant is to receive the abundance of God, the more
intimate the communion with Him. ‘Apophatic anagogy’ as Rorem calls it, is achieved
in partaking of the inexpressible and incomprehensible conjunction of God and man,
exemplified in Christ, who is God-made-man. The participant ‘literally’ partakes of
that infinite abyss between himself and the divine, and in so doing creates for himself
a bridge by which to cross it. Thus it is by the body and blood of Christ, the High
Priest, that every person can enter the Holy of Holies. This is the mystical connection,
relationship, bridge, doorway, or whatever, that is achieved in the synaxis. As Bouyer
asserts:
[T]he experience of the divine realities…is ‘mystical’, we can say that it is such as
being the experience of those truths of faith of which Scripture speaks, of that reality
of faith which is communicated to us in the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist.
What is hidden under the expression of the one and under the sacramental symbols of
the other is what is experienced in ‘mystical theology.’74
The synaxis, in effect, draws all expressions of division into the ‘one-like’ unity of
divinisation, including those divisions of the participant’s own intelligent and rational
soul,75 and of those between that soul and God. The participant is like unto an angel,
reconciled within himself through surrender of his will to God. In this way, ‘each
71
72
73
74
75
EH 444A-B.
The Cambridge History, 467.
Ep 8 1088A.
Bouyer, History of Christian Spirituality, 411.
See EH 424C. Synaxis ‘forges a divine unity out of the divisions within us.’
91
[T]he experience of the divine realities…is ‘mystical’, we can say that it is such as
being the experience of those truths of faith of which Scripture speaks, of that reality
of faith which is communicated to us in the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist.
What is hidden under the expression of the one and under the sacramental symbols of
the other is what is experienced in ‘mystical theology.’74
The synaxis, in effect, draws all expressions of division into the ‘one-like’ unity of
divinisation, including those divisions of the participant’s own intelligent and rational
soul,75 and of those between that soul and God. The participant is like unto an angel,
reconciled within himself through surrender of his will to God. In this way, ‘each
71
72
73
74
75
EH 444A-B.
The Cambridge History, 467.
Ep 8 1088A.
Bouyer, History of Christian Spirituality, 411.
See EH 424C. Synaxis ‘forges a divine unity out of the divisions within us.’
92
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
92
COLLOQUIUM 32/1 (2000)
celebration of the Eucharist,’ writes Rutledge, ‘is the re-presentation of the whole
work of Redemption.’76 And, as Dionysius himself states:
celebration of the Eucharist,’ writes Rutledge, ‘is the re-presentation of the whole
work of Redemption.’76 And, as Dionysius himself states:
[The] divine ordinances grant divine communion…for the soul by way of pure
contemplation, and…for the body by way of the imagery…through the most sacred
symbol of divine communion. The entire person is made holy, the work of his salvation
is all-embracing, and the full rites make known the totality of the resurrection that is
to come.77
[The] divine ordinances grant divine communion…for the soul by way of pure
contemplation, and…for the body by way of the imagery…through the most sacred
symbol of divine communion. The entire person is made holy, the work of his salvation
is all-embracing, and the full rites make known the totality of the resurrection that is
to come.77
Conclusion
Conclusion
Although we cannot deny the immense emphasis placed on the vertical and hierarchic
notions in Dionysian soteriology, we cannot overlook his emphasis on the horizontal
plane of common worship. Dionysius conveys the essence to which ecclesiology is
the substance; one is meaningless without the other. If God remains hidden despite
the most intimate of spiritual assents, He must also be realised as hidden yet mystically
attainable in the most outer methods of our worship. For Dionysius, this was not to
be accomplished just in the contemplation of the cold face of divine transcendence,
but was to be found first and foremost in the warm kiss of peace of the immanent yet
incomprehensible Christ. What is negative is, in effect, made positive through divine
communion for the apprehension of the Christian community, provided one retains
the notion that one is partaking of that which is negative in principle. The negative
and positive dialectic create an inviolable whole, and this can only be conveyed by
Dionysius if the relationship between his Mystical Theology and his Ecclesiastical
Hierarchy remains unbroken.
Although we cannot deny the immense emphasis placed on the vertical and hierarchic
notions in Dionysian soteriology, we cannot overlook his emphasis on the horizontal
plane of common worship. Dionysius conveys the essence to which ecclesiology is
the substance; one is meaningless without the other. If God remains hidden despite
the most intimate of spiritual assents, He must also be realised as hidden yet mystically
attainable in the most outer methods of our worship. For Dionysius, this was not to
be accomplished just in the contemplation of the cold face of divine transcendence,
but was to be found first and foremost in the warm kiss of peace of the immanent yet
incomprehensible Christ. What is negative is, in effect, made positive through divine
communion for the apprehension of the Christian community, provided one retains
the notion that one is partaking of that which is negative in principle. The negative
and positive dialectic create an inviolable whole, and this can only be conveyed by
Dionysius if the relationship between his Mystical Theology and his Ecclesiastical
Hierarchy remains unbroken.
76
77
Rutledge, Cosmic Theology, 95.
EH 565B.
76
77
Rutledge, Cosmic Theology, 95.
EH 565B.