.jpg)
Raphael (1483–1520). Saint Paul prêchant à
Athènes, 1515, 390 x 440, Victoria and Albert Museum
Saint Denys l’aréopagite
Évêque d'Athènes (1er s.)
Les Églises d'Orient, byzantines et syriaque, qui le fêtent aujourd'hui, en font le premier évêque d'Athènes, converti par saint Paul.
(Le Moyen Âge voulut donner une origine très apostolique à l'évêché de Paris. On savait qu'un des premiers évangélisateurs de cette région s'appelait saint Denys. Alors, tout simplement, on l'identifia avec Denys de l'Aréopage d'Athènes, et les parisiens en firent le premier évêque de Paris. Un mystique mit ses propres écrits sous son patronyme, avec beaucoup d'humilité. Et c'est ainsi que saint Denys connut une immense popularité aussi bien dans le petit peuple que parmi les théologiens qui reconnurent dans le pseudo-Denys un des plus grands auteurs mystiques. Saint Denys, celui qui fut évêque de Paris, est fêté le 9 octobre.)
Denys l’aréopagite fut converti à la foi de Jésus-Christ par l’apôtre saint Paul.
On l’appelle aréopagite du quartier de la ville où il habitait. L'aréopage était le quartier de Mars, parce qu'il y avait un temple dédié à ce dieu. Les Athéniens donnaient aux différentes parties de la ville le nom du dieu qui était honoré; ainsi celle-ci était appelée Aréopage parce que Ares est un des noms de Mars.
Source: La légende dorée de Jacques de Voragine (site de l'abbaye Saint Benoît, Suisse)
Le 3 octobre, commémoraison de saint Denys l’Aréopagite, qui donna son adhésion au Christ après le discours de l’Apôtre saint Paul devant l’Aréopage et fut établi premier évêque des Athéniens.
Martyrologe romain
SOURCE : https://nominis.cef.fr/contenus/saint/8401/Saint-Denys-l-areopagite.html
Portrait de Denys l'Aréopagite dans un manuscrit
byzantin offert à l'abbaye de Saint-Denis par Manuel II Paléologue. Œuvres complètes de saint
Denys l'Aréopagite, musée du Louvre, vers 1403-1405.
BENOÎT XVI
AUDIENCE GÉNÉRALE
Mercredi 14 mai 2008
Pseudo-Denys l'Aréopagite
Chers frères et sœurs,
Je voudrais aujourd'hui, au cours des catéchèses sur les Pères de l'Eglise, parler d'une figure très mystérieuse: un théologien du sixième siècle, dont le nom est inconnu, qui a écrit sous le pseudonyme de Denys l'Aréopagite. Avec ce pseudonyme, il fait allusion au passage de l'Ecriture que nous venons d'entendre, c'est-à-dire à l'histoire racontée par saint Luc dans le chapitre XVII des Actes des Apôtres, où il est rapporté que Paul prêcha à Athènes sur l'Aréopage, pour une élite du grand monde intellectuel grec, mais à la fin la plupart des auditeurs montrèrent leur désintérêt et s'éloignèrent en se moquant de lui; pourtant certains, un petit nombre nous dit saint Luc, s'approchèrent de Paul en s'ouvrant à la foi. L'évangéliste nous donne deux noms: Denys, membre de l'Aréopage, et une certaine femme, Damaris.
Si l'auteur de ces livres a choisi cinq siècles plus tard le pseudonyme de Denys l'Aréopagite, cela veut dire que son intention était de mettre la sagesse grecque au service de l'Evangile, d'aider la rencontre entre la culture et l'intelligence grecque et l'annonce du Christ; il voulait faire ce qu'entendait ce Denys, c'est-à-dire que la pensée grecque rencontre l'annonce de saint Paul; en étant grec, devenir le disciple de saint Paul et ainsi le disciple du Christ.
Pourquoi a-t-il caché son nom et choisi ce pseudonyme? Une partie de la réponse a déjà été donnée: il voulait précisément exprimer cette intention fondamentale de sa pensée. Mais il existe deux hypothèses à propos de cet anonymat et de ce pseudonyme. Une première hypothèse dit: c'était une falsification voulue, avec laquelle, en antidatant ses œuvres au premier siècle, au temps de saint Paul, il voulait donner à sa production littéraire une autorité presque apostolique. Mais mieux que cette hypothèse - qui me semble peu crédible - il y a l'autre: c'est-à-dire qu'il voulait précisément faire un acte d'humilité. Ne pas rendre gloire à son propre nom, ne pas créer un monument pour lui-même avec ses œuvres, mais réellement servir l'Evangile, créer une théologie ecclésiale, non individuelle, basée sur lui-même. En réalité, il réussit à construire une théologie que nous pouvons certainement dater du VI siècle, mais pas attribuer à l'une des figures de cette époque: c'est une théologie un peu désindividualisée, c'est-à-dire une théologie qui exprime une pensée et un langage commun. C'était une époque de dures polémiques après le Concile de Chalcédoine; lui, en revanche, dans sa Septième Epître dit: "Je ne voudrais pas faire de polémiques; je parle simplement de la vérité, je cherche la vérité". Et la lumière de la vérité fait d'elle-même disparaître les erreurs et fait resplendir ce qui est bon. Et avec ce principe, il purifia la pensée grecque et la mit en rapport avec l'Evangile. Ce principe, qu'il affirme dans sa septième lettre, est également l'expression d'un véritable esprit de dialogue: ne pas chercher les choses qui séparent, chercher la vérité dans la Vérité elle-même, qu'ensuite celle-ci resplendisse et fasse disparaître les erreurs.
La théologie de cet auteur, tout en étant donc pour ainsi dire "suprapersonnelle", réellement ecclésiale, peut être située au VI siècle. Pourquoi? Il rencontra dans les livres d'un certain Proclus, mort à Athènes en 485, l'esprit grec qu'il plaça au service de l'Evangile: cet auteur appartenait au platonisme tardif, un courant de pensée qui avait transformé la philosophie de Platon en une sorte de religion, dont le but à la fin était de créer une grande apologie du polythéisme grec et de retourner, après le succès du christianisme, à l'antique religion grecque. Il voulait démontrer que, en réalité, les divinités étaient les forces en œuvre dans le cosmos. La conséquence était que l'on devait considérer le polythéisme plus vrai que le monothéisme, avec un unique Dieu créateur. C'était un grand système cosmique de divinités, de forces mystérieuses, celui que nous montre Proclus, pour qui dans ce cosmos déifié l'homme pouvait trouver l'accès à la divinité. Il distinguait cependant les voies pour les simples, qui n'étaient pas en mesure de s'élever aux sommets de la vérité - pour eux certains rites même superstitieux pouvaient suffire - et les voies pour les sages, qui en revanche devaient se purifier pour arriver à la pure lumière.
Cette pensée, comme on le voit, est profondément antichrétienne. C'est une réaction tardive contre la victoire du christianisme. Un usage antichrétien de Platon, alors qu'était déjà en cours un usage chrétien du grand philosophe. Il est intéressant que ce Pseudo-Denys ait osé se servir précisément de cette pensée pour montrer la vérité du Christ; transformer cet univers polythéiste en un cosmos créé par Dieu, dans l'harmonie du cosmos de Dieu où toutes les forces sont une louange à Dieu, et montrer cette grand harmonie, cette symphonie du cosmos qui va des séraphins, aux anges et aux archanges, à l'homme et à toutes les créatures qui ensemble reflètent la beauté de Dieu et sont une louange à Dieu. Il transformait ainsi l'image polythéiste en un éloge du Créateur et de sa créature. Nous pouvons de cette manière découvrir les caractéristiques essentielles de sa pensée: elle est tout d'abord une louange cosmique. Toute la création parle de Dieu et est un éloge de Dieu. La créature étant une louange de Dieu, la théologie de Pseudo-Denys devient une théologie liturgique: Dieu se trouve surtout en le louant, pas seulement en réfléchissant; et la liturgie n'est pas quelque chose que nous avons construit, quelque chose d'inventé pour faire une expérience religieuse au cours d'une certaine période de temps; elle est un chant avec le chœur des créatures et l'entrée dans la réalité cosmique elle-même. Et c'est précisément ainsi que la liturgie n'apparaît plus seulement ecclésiastique mais devient vaste et grande, devient notre union avec le langage de toutes les créatures. Il dit: on ne peut pas parler de Dieu de manière abstraite; parler de Dieu est toujours - dit-il avec un mot grec - un "hymnein", un chant pour Dieu avec le grand chant des créatures, qui se reflète et se concrétise dans la louange liturgique. Toutefois, bien que sa théologie soit cosmique, ecclésiale et liturgique, elle est également profondément personnelle. Il créa la première grande théologie mystique. Le mot "mystique" acquiert même avec lui une nouvelle signification. Jusqu'à cette époque, pour les chrétiens ce mot était équivalent au mot "sacramentel", c'est-à-dire ce qui appartient au "mysterion", au sacrement. La parole "mystique" devient avec lui plus personnelle, plus intime: elle exprime le chemin de l'âme vers Dieu. Et comment trouver Dieu? Nous observons de nouveau ici un élément important dans son dialogue entre la philosophie grecque et le christianisme, en particulier la foi biblique. Apparemment, ce que dit Platon et ce que dit la grande philosophie sur Dieu est beaucoup plus élevé, est beaucoup plus vrai; la Bible apparaît assez "barbare", simple, précritique dirait-on aujourd'hui; mais lui remarque que c'est justement ce qui est nécessaire parce qu'ainsi nous pouvons comprendre que les concepts les plus élevés sur Dieu n'arrivent jamais jusqu'à sa vraie grandeur; ils sont toujours inappropriés. En réalité, ces images nous font comprendre que Dieu est au delà de tous les concepts; dans la simplicité des images, nous trouvons plus de vérité que dans les grands concepts. Le visage de Dieu est notre incapacité d'exprimer réellement ce qu'Il est. Aussi parle-t-on - comme le fait Pseudo-Denys - d'une "théologie négative". Nous pouvons plus facilement dire ce que Dieu n'est pas, plutôt que d'exprimer ce qu'Il est véritablement. Ce n'est qu'à travers ces images que nous pouvons deviner son vrai visage, et de l'autre côté ce visage de Dieu est très concret: c'est Jésus Christ. Et bien que Denys nous montre, en suivant en cela Proclus, l'harmonie des chœurs célestes, de telle façon qu'il nous semble que tous dépendent de tous, il reste vrai que notre chemin vers Dieu demeure fort éloigné de Lui; Pseudo-Denys nous montre que, finalement, la route vers Dieu est Dieu lui-même, Lequel se rapproche de nous en Jésus Christ.
C'est ainsi qu'une théologie tellement grande et mystérieuse devient également très concrète autant dans l'interprétation de la liturgie que dans le discours tenu sur Jésus Christ: avec tout cela, Denys l'Aréopagite eut une grande influence sur toute la théologie médiévale, sur toute la théologie mystique autant en Orient qu'en Occident, il fut presque redécouvert au treizième siècle notamment par saint Bonaventure, le grand théologien franciscain qui dans cette théologie mystique trouva le moyen conceptuel d'interpréter l'héritage tellement simple et profond de saint François: le "poverello", avec Denys, nous dit finalement que l'amour voit plus que la raison. Là où se trouve la lumière de l'amour on ne souffre plus des ténèbres de la raison; l'amour voit, l'amour est un œil et l'expérience nous donne plus que la réflexion. Quelle que soit cette expérience, Bonaventure le vit en saint François: c'est l'expérience d'un cheminement très humble, très réaliste, jour après jour, c'est cela aller avec le Christ, en acceptant sa croix. Dans cette pauvreté et dans cette humilité, dans l'humilité que l'on éprouve également dans la vie ecclésiale, on fait une expérience de Dieu qui est plus élevée que celle que l'on atteint par la réflexion: à travers elle, nous touchons réellement le cœur de Dieu.
Il existe aujourd'hui une nouvelle actualité de Denys l'Aréopagite: il apparaît comme un grand médiateur dans le dialogue moderne entre le christianisme et les théologies mystiques de l'Asie, dont la caractéristique la plus connue est la conviction selon laquelle on ne peut pas dire qui est Dieu; on ne peut parler de Lui que sous forme négative; on ne peut parler de Dieu qu'avec le "ne pas", et ce n'est qu'en entrant dans cette expérience du "ne pas" qu'on Le rejoint. On voit ici une proximité entre la pensée de l'Aréopagite et celle des religions asiatiques: il peut être aujourd'hui un médiateur comme le il fut entre l'esprit grec et l'Evangile. On voit ainsi que le dialogue n'accepte pas la superficialité. C'est justement quand quelqu'un entre dans la profondeur de la rencontre avec le Christ que s'ouvre également le vaste espace pour le dialogue. Quand quelqu'un rencontre la lumière de la vérité, on s'aperçoit qu'il est une lumière pour tous; les polémiques disparaissent et il devient possible de se comprendre l'un l'autre ou au moins de parler l'un avec l'autre, de se rapprocher. Le chemin du dialogue est justement la proximité dans le Christ à Dieu dans la profondeur de la rencontre avec Lui, dans l'expérience de la vérité qui nous ouvre à la lumière et nous aide à aller à la rencontre des autres: la lumière de la vérité, la lumière de l'amour. Et il nous dit en fin de compte: empruntez la voie de l'expérience, de l'expérience humble de la foi, chaque jour. Le cœur devient alors grand et peut voir et illuminer également la raison pour qu'elle voie la beauté de Dieu. Prions le Seigneur pour qu'il nous aide aujourd'hui aussi à mettre au service de l'Evangile la sagesse de notre époque, en découvrant à nouveau la beauté de la foi, la rencontre avec Dieu dans le Christ.
* * *
Je suis heureux de vous accueillir chers pèlerins
francophones, en particulier les jeunes des collèges du Vésinet et de
Sallanches, du Lycée de Chateauneuf de Galaure et de l’École d’évangélisation
de Paray-le-Monial. Que le don de l’Esprit Saint fasse de vous les messagers,
pleins de joie, de la Bonne Nouvelle du salut. Avec ma Bénédiction apostolique.
APPEL
En cet instant, ma pensée va aux populations du Sichuan et des provinces limitrophes en Chine, durement frappées par le tremblement de terre, qui a causé de très nombreuses pertes humaines, de très nombreux disparus et des dégats incalculables. Je vous invite à vous unir à moi dans la prière fervente pour tous ceux qui ont perdu la vie. Je suis spirituellement proche des personnes frappées par une catastrophe si dévastatrice: nous implorons pour elles de Dieu le réconfort dans la souffrance. Que le Seigneur accorde son soutien à tous ceux qui sont engagés dans le service pour apporter les premiers secours.
© Copyright 2008 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
SOURCE :
SAINT DENYS
J’ai déjà remarqué que chaque élu reçoit l’attrait
surnaturel suivant une forme qui s’adapte à son caractère propre. Saint
Augustin est appelé par un livre ; saint Paul par la foudre, les Rois Mages par
une étoile. Saint Denys, lui, fut appelé par une éclipse de soleil.
Le Docteur de la négation transcendante, celui qui
devait épuiser, pour nommer Dieu, la parole humaine et déclarer ensuite
qu’aucun nom ne suffirait, et faire mourir la parole dans le silence supérieur,
celui-là fut appelé par une éclipse de soleil. Il était loin du Golgotha ; il
était sur les bords du Nil, le jour du crucifiement, quand il reçut en Égypte
la visite de l’obscurité.
Il comprit qu’une commotion agitait le ciel et la
terre. Se souvenant de la leçon solennelle que l’ombre lui avait donnée, le
Vendredi-Saint, il se réfugia dans l’ombre sacrée pour y vivre au-dessus des
pensées humaines.
Après avoir écouté les paroles de la nuit, il entendit
les paroles de saint Paul ; il entendit les paroles de Hierothée ! Quel homme !
Disciple de saint Paul et Maitre de saint Denys ! Maître de saint Denys ! quel titre
! Quel homme devait être celui après lequel saint Denys n’osait plus parler ? Quel
homme que celui qui rendit saint Denys timide et qui l’inclina vers le silence
énorme dont il ne sortait que par un effort, dont il s’accusait de sortir, disant
à ses contemporains et à la postérité qu’après la parole d’Hiérothée il avait honte
de la sienne ! Ce fut un jour solennel dans l’histoire intellectuelle et
morale du monde que celui où saint Denys comparut devant l’Aréopage d’Athènes.
Athènes ! Quels souvenirs parfaitement païens ce nom réveille ! Et cependant,
voici le Foudroyé du chemin de Damas qui arrive là un jour, entre le Parthénon
et le temple de Thésée, avec son bâton et sa parole. Mais entre le Parthénon et
le temple de Thésée, il y avait un autel dressé au Dieu inconnu : l’invincible
espérance avait l’air de s’être réfugiée là. Dans cette patrie de l’erreur et
de l’erreur systématique, dans cette Athènes subtile, railleuse et médiocre,
dans cette capitale du paganisme, le Dieu inconnu s’était réservé une place inconnue.
Et saint Paul en profita. Saint Paul et Athènes ! Quel contraste immense ! Si
saint Jérôme avait parlé devant l’Aréopage, à la bonne heure, cela se comprendrait
! Mais saint Paul ! le grand contemplateur de la rhétorique, l’ennemi juré des
phrases, des subtilités, des querelles de mots, qui ne veut rien invoquer des
choses de la sagesse humaine, le voilà devant cette Athènes qui imposa la finesse
et la petitesse même au génie grandiose et oriental de Platon. C’est devant cette
assemblée que saint Paul porte la parole. Mais, au nom du Dieu inconnu,
quelqu’un se lève pour le suivre. C’est Denys, qui sera saint Denys. C’est
celui qui se promenait en Égypte le Vendredi-Saint, pendant l’éclipse de soleil
; c’est celui qui dit alors : « Il se fait en ce moment une révolution dans les
choses divines. » C’est celui qui plus tard écrira le Traité des noms divins ; et peut-être qu’au nom du Dieu inconnu il
sentit frémir en lui l’Esprit qui allait l’emporter.
Denys, le dépositaire de la science grecque et de la science
égyptienne, qui portait en lui la métaphysique occidentale et la métaphysique
orientale ; Denys, qui va devenir saint Denys, se fait le disciple d’Hiérothée,
et quand, devenu saint Denys, il ose ouvrir la bouche, c’est pour s’excuser en
tremblant, car Hiérothée a parlé.
« Il convient, dit le grand saint Denys, de repousser
un reproche qu’on pourrait me faire. Puisque mon illustre maître Hiérothée a
fait un admirable recueil des éléments de théologie, devais-je écrire après lui
? Certainement, s’il eût développé la somme entière de la théologie, nous ne
serions jamais tombés dans cet excès de folie et de témérité d’imaginer que
nous parlerions des mêmes choses d’une façon plus profonde et plus divine que
lui ; nous n’aurions pas commis cette lâcheté envers notre ami et maître,
auquel, après saint Paul, nous devons l’initiation à la science divine, nous
n'eussions pas essayé de prendre sa place et de lui dérober la gloire de ses
sublimes enseignements. Mais comme il exposait sa doctrine d’une façon vraiment
élevée, comme il cachait sous un seul mot beaucoup de choses, destinées aux
grandes intelligences, nous avons reçu l’ordre de développer, à l’usage des
petits et des faibles, les pensées que nous a transmises cet immense génie. Je
vous ai envoyé son livre ; vous me l’avez renvoyé, déclarant qu’il surpasse la
portée ordinaire. En effet, je le regarde comme le guide des esprits avancés
dans la perfection, qui vient à la suite des oracles des apôtres, et je crois qu’il
faut le réserver aux hommes supérieurs. »
Quel était donc cet homme, quel était donc ce
philosophe auprès de qui saint Denys n’est qu’un maître élémentaire, un
vulgarisateur qui met les choses sublimes à la portée des foules, lui, saint
Denys ! Et s’il fallait compter sur la terre combien d’esprits sont capables de
comprendre, même de loin ce vulgarisateur, le dénombrement de cette partie de
la population du globe serait bientôt fait. Saint Denys a eu raison de parler. Au
lieu de diminuer la gloire de son maître, c’est lui qui en a perpétué le
souvenir. Les oeuvres d’Hiérothée sont en partie perdues ! Il paraît que la
terre n’était pas digne de les garder. Mais nous en connaissons par saint Denys
la substance. La doctrine d’Hiérothée a été étudiée, analysée, développée par
son sublime élève. Dans cet aperçu rapide, plus historique que métaphysique, je
n’essayerai pas de la commenter. Je l’ai fait dans deux ouvrages (1).
J’indique seulement ici quelques faits peu connus, et
je ferai quelques citations aussi sublimes qu’ignorées.
Jésus-Christ avait quitté la terre, laissant sa mère à
saint Jean.
Saint Denys voulut voir la Vierge. Il fallait une
lettre de recommandation. Il parait que saint Paul la lui donna. Saint Denys
fut reçu.
C’était à Éphèse probablement. Quand il rendit compte
de son entrevue :
« J’ai fait un effort, dit-il, pour me souvenir qu’il
n’y a qu’un Dieu. J’ai fait un effort pour ne pas tomber à genoux et adorer la
créature. »
Quelque temps après Marie, mère de Dieu, mourait en
présence des apôtres. Cette réunion extraordinaire des douze hommes dispersés
dans le monde offre un caractère frappant qui n’a peut-être jamais été suffisamment
remarqué. Quelle singulière solennité ! Ces pêcheurs galiléens, devenus tout à
coup orateurs et thaumaturges, se dispersent aux quatre vents du ciel. Le souffle
qui les emporte touche à la fois l’Orient et l’Occident. Ils vont à Rome ; ils
vont en Perse; ils vont dans l’Inde. Celui qui avait peur des plaisanteries
d’une servante va mourir tout à l’heure crucifié la tête en bas. Ils sont
partis ; les voilà qui reviennent pour un moment. Ils suspendent un moment
leurs gigantesques travaux. Caligula régnait probablement, à moins que ce ne
fût Claude, ou déjà Néron; car l’année est inconnue. Cette femme obscure, dont
les peuples ni les rois n’ont entendu parler, va mourir à Éphèse. Le bruit s'en
répand mystérieusement; porté sur l’aile de je ne sais quel oiseau, il va aux
extrémités de la terre.
Marie va mourir. Les apôtres reviennent, avec eux
Hiérothée et Denys.
Le souvenir de la mort de Marie et des paroles prononcées
autour d’elle par les apôtres réunis réveille chez saint Denys cette admiration
fidèle, éternelle, enthousiaste du disciple pour le maître; admiration
touchante et presque naïve, qui fait éprouver à l’Aréopagite, toutes les fois
que le nom glorieux de son maître tombe sous sa plume, le besoin de s’excuser,
de lui rendre hommage et de s’effacer devant lui.
« Je me suis abstenu scrupuleusement, dit-il, de toucher
aucunement à tous ces points que notre glorieux maître a expliqués clairement,
pour ne pas toucher à ce qu’il a dit. Toute
parole vient mal après la sienne. (Quel enthousiasme dans ce mot ! « Toute
parole vient mal après la sienne, car il brillait même entre nos pontifes
inspirés, comme vous avez pu le constater vous-même, quand vous et moi nous
vînmes contempler le corps sacré qui avait produit la Vie et porté Dieu. Là se
trouvaient Jacques et Pierre, chefs suprêmes des théologiens. Alors il sembla
bon que tous les pontifes, chacun à sa manière, célébrassent la toute-puissante
bonté du Dieu qui s’était revêtu de notre infirmité. Or, après les apôtres,
Híérothée surpassa les autres orateurs, ravi et transporté hors de lui-même,
profondément ému des merveilles qu’il publiait, et admiré par tous les assistants,
amis ou étrangers, comme un homme inspiré du ciel. « J’ose dire que Hiérothée
fut le panégyriste de la divinité !
Mais à quoi bon vous redire ce qui fut prononcé en cette glorieuse assemblée ?
Car, si ma mémoire ne me trompe pas, j’ai entendu répéter par votre bouche,
Timothée, quelques fragments de ces louanges divines. »
Si, descendant de là-haut, nous nous souvenons de la
nature humaine, si prompte à dénigrer, même quand elle estime, même quand elle
admire, si prompte à rabaisser, fût-ce par un petit mot presque imperceptible,
celui qui vient de s’élever au-dessus de vous, nous serons plus profondément
pénétrés de cet enthousiasme humble et brûlant en vertu duquel saint Denys se
cache et s’efface derrière son maître. Plus il se cache, plus il se montre.
Plus il s’abaisse, plus il s’élève. Le lecteur ne sait trop qui admirer le plus
et confond dans une louange commune le maître qui a su faire un tel disciple,
et le disciple qui a su porter de cette façon le poids d un tel maître. Car c’est
une charge, c’est une responsabilité, c’est un fardeau, qu’un tel dépôt, le
dépôt qu’Hiérothée avait confié à Denys, et la simplicité qui ne se regarde pas
était aussi nécessaire, pour le garder fidèlement, que l’intelligence qui
regarde la lumière.
Si Hiérothée fut le métaphysicien des choses supérieures,
il est évident qu’il ne s’en tint pas à la théorie. Denys le caractérise par ce
mot superbe : Erat patiens divina. «
Il était le patient des choses divines. » Patient signifie expérimentateur. Il
était le sujet des opérations divines. Nous trouvons dans ses hymnes sur l’amour
divin un passage, cité par saint Denys, qui nous ouvre quelque horizon sur la
nature des pensées de son maître.
« Par l’amour, dit Hiérothée, par l’amour, quel qu’il soit,
divin, angélique, rationnel, animal ou instinctif, nous entendons cette
puissance qui établit et maintient l’harmonie parmi les êtres, qui incline les
plus élevés vers ceux qui le sont moins, dispose les égaux à une fraternelle
alliance, et prépare les inférieurs à l’action providentielle des supérieurs…
Rassemblons et résumons tous ces amours divisés en un seul et universel amour,
père fécond de tous les autres. A une certaine hauteur apparaîtra le double
amour des âmes humaines et des esprits angéliques, et bien loin, bien loin par
delà brille et domine la cause incompréhensible et infiniment supérieure de
tout amour, vers laquelle aspire unanimement l’amour de tous les êtres, en
vertu de leur nature propre… Ramenant donc tous ces ruisseaux divers à la
source unique, disons qu’il existe une force simple, spontanée, qui établit
l’union et l’harmonie entre toutes choses, depuis le souverain bien jusqu’à la
dernière des créatures, et de là remonte par la même route, à son point de départ,
accomplissant d’elle-même, en elle-même et sur elle-même, sa révolution
invariable. »
Ces considérations générales nous indiquent à peu près
la nature du regard qu’il jetait sur la création. La page que je vais citer
nous donnera une idée de la hauteur de ses vues théologiques et du coup-d’oeil
qu’il jetait sur l’incarnation du Verbe.
« La divinité du Seigneur Jésus-Christ, dit Hiérothée,
est la cause et le complément de tout ; elle maintient les choses dans un
harmonieux ensemble sans être ni tout ni partie; et cependant elle dit tout et
partie, parce qu’elle comprend en elle et qu’elle possède par excellence le
tout et les parties. Comme principe de perfection, elle est parfaite dans les
choses qui ne le sont pas ; et, en ce sens qu’elle brille d’une perfection
supérieure et antécédente, elle n’est pas parfaite dans les choses qui le sont.
Forme suprême et originale, elle donne une forme à ce qui n’en a pas, et dans ce
qui a une forme elle en semble dépourvue, précisément à cause de l’excellence
de la sienne propre. Substance auguste, elle peut s’incliner vers les autres substances
sans souiller sa pureté, sans descendre de sa suprême élévation. Elle détermine
et classe entre eux les principes des choses et reste éminemment au-dessus de tout
principe et de toute classification. Elle fixe l’essence des êtres. Sa
plénitude apparaît en ce qui manque aux créatures. Sa surabondance éclate en ce
que ces créatures possèdent. Indicible, ineffable, supérieure à tout
entendement, á toute vie, à toute substance, elle a surnaturellement ce qui est
surnaturel et suréminemment ce qui est suréminent. De là vient (et puissent
nous concilier miséricorde les louanges que nous donnons à ces merveilles qui
surpassent l’intelligence et la parole) ; de là vient qu’en s’abaissant jusqu’à
notre nature et s’unissant à elle, le Verbe divin fut au-dessus de notre
nature, non-seulement parce qu’il s’est uni à l’humanité, sans altération ni
confusion de sa Divinité, et que sa plénitude infinie n’a pas souffert de cet
ineffable anéantissement, mais encore, ce qui est admirable, parce qu’il se
montra supérieur à notre nature dans les choses mêmes qui sont propres à elle,
et qu’il posséda d’une façon transcendante ce qui est à nous, ce qui est de
nous. »
C’est ainsi que saint Hiérothée parlait de l’Incarnation.
Les ouvrages d’Hiérothée sont perdus pour la plupart. Perte incalculable dont
personne ne mesure la dimension. J’ai voulu demander à l’histoire ses trop
rares documents, et reconstruire un peu la grande figure d’Hiérothée, et offrir
au lecteur la gloire presque oubliée de cet illustre inconnu.
(1) L’Homme,
par Ernest Hello, Chap. Saint Denis l’Aréopagite. M. Renan, l’Allemagne et l’athéisme au dix-neuvième siècle par
Ernest Hello (Douniol).
SOURCE : https://archive.org/stream/PhysionomiesDeSaintsParErnestHello/physionomies%20de%20saints_djvu.txt
Saint Denis l'Aréopagite, évêque d'Athènes, vitrail de l'église Saint-Roch de Paris
SOURCE : http://www.abbaye-saint-benoit.ch/voragine/tome03/154.htm
.jpg)
Clemente de Torres (1662–1730). San Dionisio Aeropagita, circa 1720, 222,5 X
151, Museo de Bellas Artes de Sevilla
BENEDICT XVI
GENERAL AUDIENCE
Pseudo-Dionysius, the Areopagite
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
In the course of the Catechesis on the Fathers of the
Church, today I would like to speak of a rather mysterious figure: a
sixth-century theologian whose name is unknown and who wrote under the
pseudonym of Dionysius the Areopagite. With this pseudonym he was alluding to
the passage of Scripture we have just heard, the event recounted by St Luke in
chapter 17 of the Acts of the Apostles where he tells how Paul preached in
Athens at the Areopagus to an elite group of the important Greek intellectual
world. In the end, the majority of his listeners proved not to be interested
and went away jeering at him. Yet some, St Luke says a few, approached Paul and
opened themselves to the faith. The Evangelist gives us two names: Dionysius a
member of the Areopagus and a woman named Damaris.
If five centuries later the author of these books
chose the pseudonym "Dionysius the Areopagite", it means that his
intention was to put Greek wisdom at the service of the Gospel, to foster the
encounter of Greek culture and intelligence with the proclamation of Christ; he
wanted to do what this Dionysius had intended, that is, to make Greek thought
converge with St Paul's proclamation; being a Greek, he wanted to become a
disciple of St Paul, hence a disciple of Christ.
Why did he hide his name and choose this pseudonym?
One part of the answer I have already given: he wanted, precisely, to express
this fundamental intention of his thought. But there are two hypotheses
concerning this anonymity and pseudonym. The first hypothesis says that it was
a deliberate falsification by which, in dating his works back to the first
century, to the time of St Paul, he wished to give his literary opus, a quasi
apostolic authority. But there is another better hypothesis than this, which
seems to me barely credible: namely that he himself desired to make an act of
humility; he did not want to glorify his own name, he did not want to build a
monument to himself with his work but rather truly to serve the Gospel, to
create an ecclesial theology, neither individual nor based on himself.
Actually, he succeeded in elaborating a theology which, of course, we can date
to the sixth century but cannot attribute to any of the figures of that period:
it is a somewhat "de-individualized" theology, that is, a theology
which expresses a common thought and language. It was a period of fierce
polemics following the Council of Chalcedon; indeed he said in his Seventh
Epistle: "I do not wish to spark polemics; I simply speak of the truth, I
seek the truth". And the light of truth by itself causes errors to fall
away and makes what is good shine forth. And with this principle he purified
Greek thought and related it to the Gospel. This principle, which he affirms in
his seventh letter, is also the expression of a true spirit of dialogue: it is
not about seeking the things that separate, but seeking the truth in Truth
itself. This then radiates and causes errors to fade away.
Therefore, although this author's theology is, so to
speak, "supra-personal", truly ecclesial, we can place it in the
sixth century. Why? The Greek spirit, which he placed at the service of the
Gospel, he encountered in the books of Proclus, who died in Athens in 485. This
author belonged to late Platonism, a current of thought which had transformed
Plato's philosophy into a sort of religion, whose ultimate purpose was to
create a great apologetic for Greek polytheism and return, following
Christianity's success, to the ancient Greek religion. He wanted to demonstrate
that in reality, the divinities were the active forces in the cosmos. The
consequence to be drawn from this was that polytheism must be considered truer
than monotheism with its single Creator God. What Proclus was demonstrating was
a great cosmic system of divinity, of mysterious forces, through which, in this
deified cosmos, man could find access to the divinity. However, he made a
distinction between paths for the simple, who were incapable of rising to the
heights of truth - certain rites could suffice for them - and paths for the
wise who were to purify themselves to arrive at the pure light.
As can be seen, this thought is profoundly
anti-Christian. It is a late reaction to the triumph of Christianity, an
anti-Christian use of Plato, whereas a Christian interpretation of the great
philosopher was already in course. It is interesting that this Pseudo-Dionysius
dared to avail himself of this very thought to demonstrate the truth of Christ;
to transform this polytheistic universe into a cosmos created by God, into the
harmony of God's cosmos, where every force is praise of God, and to show this
great harmony, this symphony of the cosmos that goes from the Seraphim to the
Angels and Archangels, to man and to all the creatures which, together, reflect
God's beauty and are praise of God. He thus transformed the polytheistic image
into a praise of the Creator and his creature. In this way we can discover the
essential characteristics of his thought: first and foremost, it is cosmic
praise. All Creation speaks of God and is praise of God. Since the creature is
praise of God, Pseudo-Dionysius' theology became a liturgical theology: God is
found above all in praising him, not only in reflection; and the liturgy is not
something made by us, something invented in order to have a religious
experience for a certain period of time; it is singing with the choir of
creatures and entering into cosmic reality itself. And in this very way the
liturgy, apparently only ecclesiastical, becomes expansive and great, it
becomes our union with the language of all creatures. He says: God cannot be
spoken of in an abstract way; speaking of God is always - he says using a Greek
word - a "hymnein", singing for God with the great hymn of
the creatures which is reflected and made concrete in liturgical praise. Yet,
although his theology is cosmic, ecclesial and liturgical, it is also
profoundly personal. He created the first great mystical theology. Indeed, with
him the word "mystic" acquires a new meaning. Until then for
Christians such a word was equivalent to the word "sacramental", that
is, what pertains to the "mysterion", to the sacrament.
With him the word "mystic" becomes more personal, more intimate: it
expresses the soul's journey toward God. And how can God be found? Here we note
once again an important element in his dialogue between Greek philosophy and
Christianity, and, in particular biblical faith. Apparently what Plato says and
what the great philosophy on God says is far loftier, far truer; the Bible
appears somewhat "barbaric", simple or pre-critical one might say
today; but he remarks that precisely this is necessary, so that in this way we
can understand that the loftiest concepts on God never reach his true grandeur:
they always fall short of it. In fact these images enable us to understand that
God is above every concept; in the simplicity of the images we find more truth
than in great concepts. The Face of God is our inability to express truly what
he is. In this way one speaks - and Pseudo-Dionysius himself speaks - of a
"negative theology". It is easier for us to say what God is not
rather than to say what he truly is. Only through these images can we intuit
his true Face, moreover this Face of God is very concrete: it is Jesus Christ.
And although Dionysius shows us, following Proclus,
the harmony of the heavenly choirs in such a way that it seems that they all
depend on one another, it is true that on our journey toward God we are still
very far from him. Pseudo-Dionysius shows that in the end the journey to God is
God himself, who makes himself close to us in Jesus Christ. Thus, a great and
mysterious theology also becomes very concrete, both in the interpretation of
the liturgy and in the discourse on Jesus Christ: with all this, Dionysius the
Areopagite exerted a strong influence on all medieval theology and on all
mystical theology, both in the East and in the West. He was virtually
rediscovered in the 13th century, especially by St Bonaventure, the great
Franciscan theologian who in this mystical theology found the conceptual instrument
for reinterpreting the heritage - so simple and profound - of St Francis.
Together with Dionysius, the "Poverello" tells us that in the end
love sees more than reason. Where the light of love shines the shadows of
reason are dispelled; love sees, love is an eye and experience gives us more
than reflection. Bonaventure saw in St Francis what this experience is: it is
the experience of a very humble, very realistic journey, day by day, it is
walking with Christ, accepting his Cross. In this poverty and in this humility,
in the humility that is also lived in ecclesiality, is an experience of God
which is loftier than that attained by reflection. In it we really touch God's
Heart.
Today Dionysius the Areopagite has a new relevance: he
appears as a great mediator in the modern dialogue between Christianity and the
mystical theologies of Asia, whose characteristic feature is the conviction
that it is impossible to say who God is, that only indirect things can be said
about him; that God can only be spoken of with the "not", and that it
is only possible to reach him by entering into this indirect experience of
"not". And here a similarity can be seen between the thought of the
Areopagite and that of Asian religions; he can be a mediator today as he was
between the Greek spirit and the Gospel.
In this context it can be seen that dialogue does not
accept superficiality. It is precisely when one enters into the depths of the
encounter with Christ that an ample space for dialogue also opens. When one
encounters the light of truth, one realizes that it is a light for everyone;
polemics disappear and it is possible to understand one another, or at least to
speak to one another, to come closer. The path of dialogue consists precisely
in being close to God in Christ, in a deep encounter with him, in the
experience of the truth which opens us to the light and helps us reach out to
others - with the light of truth, the light of love. And in the end, he tells
us: take the path of experience, the humble experience of faith, every day.
Then the heart is enlarged and can see and also illumine reason so that it
perceives God's beauty. Let us pray to the Lord to help us today too to place
the wisdom of our day at the service of the Gospel, discovering ever anew the
beauty of faith, the encounter with God in Christ.
Appeal for the People of China
My thoughts turn at this moment to the populations of
Sichuan and the neighbouring Provinces in China, severely hit by the earthquake
that has taken a heavy toll of human life with thousands missing and caused
inestimable damage. I invite you to join me in fervent prayer for all those who
have lost their lives. I am spiritually close to the people sorely tried by
such a devastating calamity. Let us implore God for relief for the suffering.
May the Lord sustain all the rescue workers involved in responding to the
immediate needs.
* * *
I welcome all the English-speaking visitors present today, including the groups from England, Ireland, Japan, The Philippines, Trinidad and Tobago, and the United States of America. May your visit to Rome be a time of deep spiritual renewal. Upon all of you I invoke God’s abundant blessings of joy and peace.
© Copyright 2008 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
SOURCE : http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20080514.html
.jpg)
The beginning of Ambrose Traversari’s Latin translation of the Pseudo-Dionysian “Celestial Hierarchy” in the manuscript Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. lat. 171, fol. 1r.
Saint Dionysius the Aeropagite
Also
known as
- Denis
the Aeropagite
- Dionysius
of Athens
Profile
Assessor of the Areopagus in Athens, Greece. Converted from paganism to Christianity by Saint Paul the Apostle (Acts 17:34). Married to Saint Athens. Early writers say he became the first bishop of Athens, and was martyred. Later writers confused his story with that
of Denis of France and others of the name in
that period, and attributed any number of writings to him.
- burned to death c.95 in Athens, Greece
Readings
Some of the
people became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a
member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of
others. – Acts 17:42
MLA Citation
- “Saint Dionysius the Aeropagite“. CatholicSaints.Info. 4 February 2019. Web. 19 January 2021. <https://catholicsaints.info/saint-dionysius-the-aeropagite/>
SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/saint-dionysius-the-aeropagite/
Antoine Caron (1521–1599). Dionysius Areopagite and the eclipse of Sun, 1541, Getty Center
Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite
By "Dionysius
the Areopagite" is usually understood the judge of the Areopagus who, as
related in Acts 17:34, was converted to Christianity by the preaching of St. Paul, and according to Dionysius of Corinth (Eusebius, Church History III.4) was Bishop of Athens.
In the course of time,
however, two errors of
far-reaching import arose in connection with this name. In the first place, a
series of famous writings of a rather peculiar nature was ascribed to the
Areopagite and, secondly, he was popularly identified with the holy martyr of
Gaul, Dionysius, the first Bishop of Paris. It is
not our purpose to take up directly the latter point; we shall concern
ourselves here (1) with the person of
the Pseudo-Areopagite; (2) with the classification, contents, and characteristics
of his writing; (3) with their history and transmission; under this head the
question as to the genuineness of, origin, first acceptance, and gradual spread
of these writings will be answered.
Deep obscurity still hovers about the person of
the Pseudo-Areopagite. External evidence as to the time and place of his birth,
his education,
and latter occupation is entirely wanting. Our only source of information
regarding this problematic personage is the writings themselves. The clues
furnished by the first appearance and by the character of the writings enable
us to conclude that the author belongs at the very earliest to the latter half of
the fifth century, and that, in all probability, he was a native of Syria. His
thoughts, phrases, and expressions show a great familiarity with the works of
the neo-Platonists,
especially with Plotinus and Proclus. He is also thoroughly versed in the
sacred books of the Old and New Testament,
and in the works of the Fathers as far as Cyril of Alexandria.
(Passages from the Areopagitic writings are indicated by title and chapter. in
this article D.D.N. stands for "De divinis nominibus"; C.H. for
"Caelestis hierarchia"; E.H. for "Ecclesiastica
hierarchia"; Th.M. for "Theologia mystica", which are all found
in Migne,
P.G., vol. III) In a letter to Polycarp (Ep.
vii; P.G., III, 1080 A) and in "Cael. hier." (ix, 3; P.G. III, 260 D)
he intimates that he was formerly a pagan, and
this seems quite probable, considering the peculiar character of his literary
work. But one should be more cautious in regard to certain other personal
references, for instance, that he was chosen teacher of the
"newly-baptized" (D.D.N., iii, 2; P.G., III, 681 B); that his
spiritual father and guide was a wise and saintly man, Hierotheus by
name; that he was advised by the latter and ordered by his own superiors to
compose these works (ibid., 681 sq.). And it is plainly for the purpose of
deceiving that he tells of having observed the solar eclipse at Christ's Crucifixion (Ep.,
vii, 2; P.G., III, 1081 A) and of having, with Hierotheus,
the Apostles (Peter and James), and other hierarchs, looked upon "the
Life-Begetting, God-Receiving body, i.e., of the Blessed Virgin" (D.D.N.,
iii, 2; P.G., III, 681 C). The former of these accounts is based on Matthew 27:45,
and Mark
15:33; the latter refers to the apocryphal descriptions
of the "Dormitio Mariae". For the same purpose, i.e., to create the
impression that the author belonged to the times of the Apostles and that he
was identical with the Areopagite mentioned in the Acts, different persons,
such as John
the Evangelist, Paul, Timothy, Titus, Justus, and Carpus, with whom
he is supposed to be on intimate terms, figure in his writings.
The doctrinal attitude
of the Pseudo-Areopagite is not clearly defined. A certain vagueness, which was
perhaps intended, is characteristic of his Christology,
especially in the question concerning the two natures in Christ. We may well
surmise that he was not a stranger to the latter, and rather modified, form
of Monophysitism and
that he belonged to that conciliatory group which sought, on the basis of
the Henoticon issued
in 482 by Emperor Zeno (Evagrius,
Hist. Eccl., III, iv), to reconcile the extremes of orthodoxy and heresy. This
reserved, indefinite attitude of the author explains the remarkable fact that
opposite factions claimed him as an adherent. As to his social rank, a careful
comparison of certain details scattered through his works shows that he
belonged to the class of scholars who were known at the time as scholastikoi.
The writings themselves form a collection of four
treatises and ten letters. The first treatise, which is also the most important
in scope and content, presents in thirteen chapters an explanation of the
Divine names. Setting out from the principle that the names of God are
to be learned from Scripture only, and that they afford us but an
imperfect knowledge of God,
Dionysius discusses, among other topics, God's goodness,
being, life, wisdom, power, and justice. The
one underlying thought of the work, recurring again and again under different
forms and phrases, is: God, the One
Being (to hen), transcending all quality and predication, all affirmation and
negation, and all intellectual conception,
by the very force of His love and goodness gives
to beings outside Himself their countless gradations, unites them in the
closest bonds (proodos), keeps each by His care and direction in its appointed
sphere, and draws them again in an ascending order to Himself (epistrophe).
While he illustrates the inner life of the Trinity by metaphors of blossom and
light applied to the Second and Third Persons (D.D.N., ii, 7 in P.G., III, 645
B), Dionysius represents the procession of all created things from God by
the exuberance of being in the Godhead (to
hyperpleres), its outpouring and overflowing (D.D.N., ix, 9, in P.G., III, 909
C; cf. ii, 10 in P.G., III, 648 C; xiii, 1 in P.G., III, 977 B), and as a
flashing forth from the sun of the Deity (D.D.N., iv, 6 in P.G., III,701 A; iv,
1 in P.G., III, 693 B). Exactly according to their physical nature created
things absorb more or less of the radiated light, which, however, grows weaker
the farther it descends (D.D.N., xi, 2 in P.G., III, 952 A; i, 2 in P.G., III,
588 C). As the mighty root sends forth a multitude of plants which it sustains
and controls, so created things owe their origin and conservation to the
All-Ruling Deity (D.D.N., x, 1 in P.G., III, 936 D). Patterned upon the
original of Divine love,
righteousness, and peace, is the harmony that pervades the universe (D.D.N.,
chapters iv, viii, xi). All things tend to God, and in
Him are merged and completed, just as the circle returns into itself (D.D.N.,
iv, 14 in P.G., III, 712 D), as the radii are joined in the centre, or as the
numbers are contained in unity (D.D.N., v, 6 in P.G., III, 820 sq.). These and
many similar expressions have given rise to frequent charges of Pantheism against
the author. He does not, however, assert a necessary emanation
of things from God,
but admits a free creative act on the part of God (D.D.N.,
iv, 10, in P.G., III, 708 B; cf. C.H., iv, 1 in P.G., III, 177 C); still the
echo of neo-Platonism is
unmistakable.
The same thoughts, or their applications to certain
orders of being, recur in his other writings. The second treatise develops in
fifteen chapters the doctrine of
the celestial hierarchy,
comprising nine angelic choirs which are divided into closer groupings of three
choirs each (triads). The names of the nine choirs are taken from the canonical
books and are arranged in the following order. First triad: seraphim, cherubim,
thrones; second triad: virtues, dominations, powers; third triad:
principalities, archangels, angels (C.H., vi, 2 in P.G., III, 200 D). The
grouping of the second triad exhibits some variations. From the etymology of
each choir-name the author labours to evolve a wealth of description, and, as a
result, lapses frequently into tautology. Quite characteristic is the
dominant idea that
the different choirs of angels are
less intense in their love and knowledge of God the
farther they are removed from him, just as a ray of light or of heat grows
weaker the farther it travels from its source. To this must be added another
fundamental idea peculiar
to the Pseudo-Areopagite, namely, that the highest choirs transmit the light
received from the Divine Source only to the intermediate choirs, and these in
turn transmit it to the lowest. The third treatise is but a continuation of the
other two, inasmuch as it is based upon the same leading ideas. It
deals with the nature and grades of the "ecclesiastical hierarchy"
in seven chapters, each of which is subdivided into three parts (prologos,
mysterion, theoria). After an introduction which discusses God's purpose
in establishing the hierarchy of
the Church,
and which pictures Christ as its Head, holy and supreme, Dionysius treats of
three sacraments (baptism, the
Eucharist, extreme unction), of the three grades of the Teaching Church (bishops, priests, deacons), of
three grades of the "Learning Church" (monks,
people, and the class composed of catechumens,
energumens, and penitents), and, lastly, of the burial of the dead [C.H., iii,
(3), 6 in P.G., III, 432 sq.; vi, in P.G., III, 529 sq.] The main purpose of
the author is to disclose and turn to the uses of contemplation the deeper mystical
meaning which underlies the sacred rites, ceremonies, institutions, and
symbols. The fourth treatise in entitled "Mystical Theology", and
presents in five chapters guiding principles concerning the mystical union
with God,
which is entirely beyond the compass of sensuous or intellectual perception
(epopteia). The ten letters, four addressed to a monk, Caius,
and one each to a deacon,
Dortheus, to a priest,
Sopater, to the bishop of Polycarp, to
a monk,
Demophilus, to the Bishop Titus, and to the Apostle John, contain, in part,
additional or supplementary remarks on the above-mentioned principal works, and
in part, practical hints for dealing with sinners and unbelievers. Since in all
of these writings the same salient thoughts on philosophy and theology recur
with the same striking peculiarities of expression and with manifold references,
in both form and matter,
from one work to another, the assumption is justified that they are all to be
ascribed to one and the same author. In fact, at its first appearance in the
literary world the entire corpus of these writings was combined as it
is now. An eleventh letter to Apollophanes, given in Migne, P.G.,
III, 1119, is a medieval forgery based
on the seventh letter. Apocryphal, also, are a letter to Timothy and a second
letter to Titus.
Dionysius would lead us to infer that he is the author
of still other learned treatises, namely: "Theological Outlines"
(D.D.N., ii, 3, in P.G., III 640 B); "Sacred Hymns" (C.H., vii, 4 in
P.G., III, 212 B); "Symbolic Theology" C.H., xv, 6 in P.G., III,336
A); and treatises on "The Righteous Judgment of God" (D.D.N., iv, 35
in P.G., III, 736 B); on "The Soul" (D.D.N., iv, 2 in P.G., III, 696
C); and on "The objects of Intellect and Sense" (E. H., i, 2 in P.G.,
III, 373 B). No reliable trace, however, of any of these writings has ever been
discovered, and in his references to them Dionysius is as uncontrollable as in
his citations from Hierotheus.
It may be asked if these are not fictions pure and simple, designed to
strengthen the belief in
the genuineness of the actually published works. This suspicion seems to be
more warranted because of other discrepancies, e.g., when Dionysius, the priest, in
his letter to Timothy, extols the latter as a theoeides, entheos, theios
ierarches, and nevertheless seeks to instruct him in those sublime secret
doctrines that are for bishops only
(E.H., i, 5 in P.G., III, 377 A), doctrines, moreover, which, since the
cessation of the Disciplina
Arcani, had already been made public. Again, Dionysius points out
(D.D.N., iii, 2 in P.G., III, 681 B; cf. E.H., iv, 2 in P.G., III, 476 B) that
his writings are intended to serve as catechetical instruction
for the newly-baptized. This is evidently another contradiction of his
above-mentioned statement.
We may now turn to the history of the Pseudo-Dionysian
writings. This embraces a period of almost fifteen hundred years, and three
distinct turning points in its course have divided it into as many distinct
periods: first, the period of the gradual rise and settlement of the writings
in Christian literature,
dating from the latter part of the fifth century to the Lateran Council, 649;
second, the period of their highest and universally acknowledged authority,
both in the Western and Eastern Church,
lasting till the beginning of the fifteenth century; third, the period of sharp
conflict waged about their authenticity, begun by Laurentius Valla, and closing
only within recent years.
The Areopagitica were formerly were supposed to have
made their first appearance, or rather to have been first noticed by Christian writers,
in a few pseudo-epigraphical works which have now been proved to be the
products of a much later period; as, for instance, in the following:
Pseudo-Origenes, "Homilia in diversos secunda"; Pseudo-Athanasius,
"Quaestiones ad Antiochum ducem", Q. viii; Pseudo-Hippolytus, against
the heretic Beron;
Pseudo-Chrysostom, "sermo de pseudo-prophetis." Until more recently
more credit was given to other lines of evidence on which Franz Hipler endeavoured
to support his entirely new thesis, to the effect that the author of the
writings lived about the year 375 in Egypt,
as Abbot of
Rhinokorura. Hipler's attempts, however, at removing the textual
difficulties, ekleipsis, adelphotheos, soma, proved to be unsuccessful. In
fact, those very passages in which Hipler thought that the Fathers had made use
of the Areopagite (e.g., in Gregory of Nazianzus and Jerome) do
not tell in favor of this hypothesis; on the contrary, they are much better
explained if the converse be assumed, namely, that Pseudo-Dionysius drew from
them. Hipler himself, convinced by the results of recent research, has
abandoned his opinion. Other events also, both historical and literary,
evidently exerted a marked influence on the Areopagite: (1) the Council of Chalcedon (451),
the Christological terminology
of which was studiously followed by the Dionysius; (2) the writings of
the neo-Platonist Proclus
(411-485), from whom Dionysius borrowed to a surprising extent; (3) the
introduction (c. 476) of the Credo into the liturgy of the Mass, which is
alluded to in the "Ecclesiastical Hierarchy" [iii, 2, in P.G., III,
425 C, and iii, (3), 7 in P.G., III, 436 C; cf. the explanation of Maximus in
P.G., IV, 144 B]; (4) the Henoticon of
the Emperor Zeno (482), a formula of union designed for the bishops, clerics, monks, and
faithful of the Orient, as a compromise between Monophystism and orthodoxy.
Both in spirit and tendency the Areopagitica correspond fully to the sense of
the Henoticon;
and one might easily infer that they were made to further the purpose of
the Henoticon.
The result of the foregoing data is that the first
appearance of the pseuodo-epigraphical writings cannot be placed earlier than
the latter half, in fact at the close, of the fifth century.
Having ascertained a terminus post quem, it is
possible by means of evidence taken from Dionysius himself to fix a terminus
ante quem, thus narrowing to about thirty years the period within which these
writings must have originated. The earliest reliable citations of the writings
of Dionysius are from the end of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth
century. The first is by Severus, the head of a party of moderate Monophysites named
after him, and Patriarch of Antioch (512-518).
In a letter addressed to a certain abbot, John
(Mai, Script. vett. nov. coll., VII, i, 71), he quotes in proof of
his doctrine of
the mia synthetos physis in Christ the Dionysian Ep. iv (P.G., III,
1072 C), where a kaine theandrike energeia is mentioned. Again, in
the treatise "Adversus anathem. Juliani Halicarn." (Cod. Syr. Vat.
140, fol. 100 b), Severus cites a passage from D.D.N., ii, 9, P.G., III, 648A (abba
kai to pases — thesmo dieplatteto), and returns once more to Ep. iv. In the
Syrian "History of the Church" of Zacharias (e. Ahrens-Kruger, 134-5)
it is related that Severus, a man well-versed in the writings of Dionysius
(Areop.), was present at the Synod in Tyre (513).
Andreas, Bishop of Caesarea in
Cappodocia, wrote (about 520) a commentary on the Apocalypse wherein he quotes
the Areopagite four times and makes use of at least three of his works (Migne, P.G.,
CVI, 257, 305, 356, 780; cf. Diekamp in
"Hist. Jahrb", XVIII, 1897, pp. 1-36). Like Severus, Zacharias Rhetor
and, in all probability, also Andreas of Cappodocia, inclined to Monophysitism (Diekamp, a
"Book of Hierotheus"---Hierotheus had
come to be regarded as the teacher of Dionysius---existed in the Syrian
literature of that time and exerted considerable influence in the spread of
Dionysian doctrines. Frothingham (Stephen Bar Sudaili, p. 63 sq.) considers the
pantheist Stephen Bar Sudaili as its author. Jobius Monachus, a contemporary of
the writers just mentioned, published against Severus a polemical treatise
which has since been lost, but claims the Areopagite as authority for the orthodox teaching
(P.G., CIII, 765). So also Ephraem, Archbishop of Antioch (527-545),
interprets in a right sense the well-known passage from D.D.N., i, 4, P.G.,
III,, 529 A: ho haplous Iesous synetethe, by distinguishing between synthetos
hypostasis and synthetos ousia. Between the years 532-548, if not
earlier, John of Scythopolis in
Palestine wrote an interpretation of Dionysius (Pitra, "Analect.
sacr.", IV, Proleg., p. xxiii; cf. Loof's, "Leontius of
Byzantium" (p. 270 sq.) from an anti-Severan standpoint. In Leontius of Byzantium (485-543)
we have another important witness. This eminent champion of Catholic doctrine in
at least four passages of his works builds on the megas Dionysios (P.G.,
LXXXVI, 1213 A; 1288 C; 1304 D; Canisius-Basnage, "Thesaur. monum.
eccles.", Antwerp,
1725, I, 571). Sergius of Resaina in Mesopotamia, archiater and presbyter (d.
536), at an early date translated
the works of Dionysius into Syriac. He admitted their genuineness, and for
their defence also translated into Syriac the already current
"Apologies" (Brit. Mus. cod. add. 1251 and 22370; cf. Zacharias
Rhetor in Ahrens-Kruger, p. 208). He himself was a Monophysite.
By far the most important document in the case is the
report given by Bishop Innocent of Maronia of
the religious debate held at Constantinople in 533 between seven orthodox and
seven Severian speakers (Hardouin II,
1159 sq.). The former had as leader and spokesman, Hypatius, Bishop of
Ephesus, who was thoroughly versed in the literature of the subject. On the
second day the "Orientals" (Severians) alleged against the Council of Chalcedon,
that it had by a novel and erroneous expression
decreed two natures in Christ. Besides Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Gregory Thaumaturgus,
and Felix and Julius of Rome, they
also quoted Dionysius the Areopagite as an exponent of the doctrine of
one nature. Hypatius rejected as spurious all these citations, and showed that
Cyril never made the slightest use of them, though on various occasions they
would have served his purpose admirably. He suspects that these falsifiers
are Apollinarists.
When the Severians rejoined that they could point out in the polemical writings
of Cyril against Diodorus and Theodore the use made of such evidence, Hypatius
persisted in the stand he had taken: "sed nunc videtur quoniam et in illis
libris [Cyrilli] haeretici falsantes addiderunt ea". The references to the
archives of Alexandria had just as little weight with him, since Alexandria,
with its libraries,
had long been in the hands of the heretics.
How could an interested party of the opposition be introduced as a witness?
Hypatius refers again especially to Dionysius and successfully puts down the
opposition: "Illa enim testimonia quae vos Dionysii Areopagitae dicitis,
unde potestis ostendere vera esse, sicut suspicamini? Si enim eius erant, non
potuissent latere beatum Cyrillum. Quis autem de beato Cyrillo dico, quando et
beatus Athanasius,
si pro certo scisset eius fuisse, ante omnia in Nicaeno concilio de
consubstantiali Trinitate eadem testimonia protulisset adversus Arii diversae
substantiae blasphemias". Indeed, as to the consubstantiality of
the Father and the Son the Areopagite has statements that leave no room for
misinterpretation; and had these come from a disciple of the Apostles, they
would have been all the more valuable. Hereupon the Severians dropped this
objection and turned to another.
The fact must, indeed, appear remarkable that these
very writings, though rejected outright by such an authority as Hypatius, were
within little more than a century looked upon as genuine by Catholics,
so that they could be used against the heretics during
the Lateran Council in 649 (Hardouin III,
699 sqq.). How had this reversion been brought about? As the following grouping
will show, it was chiefly heterodox writers, Monophysites, Nestorians,
and Monothelites,
who during several decades appealed to the Areopagite. But among Catholics also
there were not a few who assumed the genuineness, and as some of these
were persons of
consequence, the way was gradually paved for the authorization of his writings
in the above-mentioned council. To the group of Monophysites belonged:
Themistius, deacon in
Alexandria about 537 (Hardoiun, III, 784, 893 sq., 1240 sq.); Colluthus of
Alexandria (Hardouin III,
786, 895, 898); John Philoponus, an Alexandrian grammarian, about 546-549 (W.
Reichardt, "Philoponus, de opificio mundi"); Petrus Callinicus, Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, in
the latter half of the sixth century, cited Dionysius in his polemic against
the Patriarch Damianus of Alexandria (II, xli, and xlvii; cf. Frothingham, op.
cit., after Cod. Syr. Vat., 108, f. 282 sqq.). As examples of the Nestorian group
may be mentioned Joseph Huzaja, a Syrian monk,
teacher about 580 at the school of Nisibis (Assemani,
Bibl. orient., vol. III, pt. I, p. 103); also Ischojeb, catholicos,
from 580 or 581 to 594 or 595 (Braun, "Buch der Synhados", p. 229
sq.); and John of Apamea,
a monk in
one of the cloisters situated
on the Orontes, belonging most probably to the sixth century (Cod. Syr. Vat.,
93). The heads of the Monothelites,
Sergius, Patriarch of
Constantinople (610-638), Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria (630-643),
Pyrrhus, the successor of Sergius in Constantinople (639-641), took as the
starting point in their heresy the
fourth letter of Dionysius to Caius, wherein they altered the oft-quoted
formula, theandrike energeia into mia theandrike energeia.
To glance briefly at the Catholic group
we find in the "Historia Euthymiaca", written about the middle of the
sixth century, a passage taken, according to a citation of John Damascene (P.G.,
XCVI, 748), from D.D.N., iii, 2, P.G., III, 682 D: paresan de — epakousas.
Another witness, who at the same time leads over to the Latin literature,
is Liberatus
of Carthage (Breviarium causae Nestor. et Euthych., ch. v).
Johannes Malalas,
of Antioch, who died about 565, narrates, in his "Universal
Chronicle", the conversion of the judge of the Areopagus through St. Paul (Acts 17:34),
and praises our author as a powerful philosopher and antagonist of the Greeks
(P.G., XCVII, 384; cf. Krumbacher, Gesch. d. byz. Lit.", 3rd ed., p. 112
sq.). Another champion was Theodore, presbyter.
Though it is difficult to locate him chronologically, he was, according
to Le
Nourry (P.G., III, 16), an "auctor antiquissimus" who
flourished, at all events, before the Lateran Council in 649 and, as we learn
from Photius (P.G., CIII, 44 sq.), undertook to defend the genuineness of the
Areopagitic writings. The repute, moreover, of these writings was enhanced in a
marked degree by the following eminent churchmen:
Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria (580-607), knew and
quoted, among others, the D.D.N., xiii, 2, verbatim (P.G., CIII, 1061; cf. Der
Katholic, 1897, II, p. 95). From Eulogius we naturally pass to Pope Gregory the Great,
with whom he enjoyed a close and honourable friendship. Gregory the Great (590-604),
in his thirty-fourth homily on
Like, xv, 1-10 (P.L.L. XXVI, 1254), distinctly refers to the Areopagite's
teaching regarding the Angels:
"Fertur vero Dionysius Areopagitica, antiquus videlicet et venerabilis
Pater, dicere" etc. (c.f. C.H., vii, ix, xiii). As Gregory admits
that he is not versed in Greek (Ewald, Reg., I,28; III, 63; X, 10, 21) he
uses fertur not to express his doubt of
the genuineness, but to imply that he had to rely on the testimony of others,
since at the time no Latin version existed. It is, indeed, most probable that
Eulogius directed his attention to the work.
About the year 620, Antiochus Monachus, a member of
the Sabas monastery near Jerusalem,
compiled a collection of moral "sentences" designed for the members
of his order (P.G., LXXXIX, 1415 sqq.). In the "Homilia (capitulum)
LII" we discover a number of similar expressions and Biblical examples
which are borrowed from the eighth letter of Dionysius "ad Demophilum"
(P.G., III, 1085 sq.). In other passages frequent reference is made to the
D.D.N. In the following years, two Patriarchs of Jerusalem,
both from monasteries,
defend Dionysius as a time-honoured witness of the true doctrines.
The first is the Patriarch Modestus (631-634), formerly abbot of
the Theodosius monastery in
the desert of
Judah. In a panegyric on the Assumptio Mariae (P.G., LXXXVI, 3277
sq.) he quotes sentences from the D.D.N., i, 4; ii,10; from the "Theologia
Mystica", i, 1; and from Ep. ii. The second, a still brighter luminary in
the Church,
is the Patriarch Sophronius (634-638), formerly a monk of
the Theodosius monastery near Jerusalem.
Immediately after his installation he published an epistula synodica,
"perhaps the most important document in the Monothelitic dispute".
It gives, among other dogmas,
a lengthy exposition of the doctrine of
two energies in Christ (Hefele,
Conciliengesch., 2nd ed., III, 140 sqq.). Citing from "Eph. iv ad
Caium" (theandrike energeia), he refers to our author as a man through
whom God speaks
and who was won over by the Divine Paul in a Divine manner (P.G., LXXXVII,
3177). Maximus Confessor evidently rests upon Sophronius, whose friendship he
had gained while abbot of
the monastery of Chrysopolis in
Alexandria (633). In accordance with Sophronius he explains the Dionysian
term theandrike energeia in an orthodox sense,
and praises it as indicating both essences and natures in their distinct
properties and yet in closest union (P.G., XCI, 345). Following the example of
Sophronius, Maximus also distinguishes in Christ three
kinds of actions (theoprepeis, anthropoprepeis and miktai) (P.G., IV,
536). Thus the Monothelites lost
their strongest weapon, and the Lateran Council found the saving word (Hefele, op.
cit., 2nd ed., III, 129). In other regards also Maximus plays an important part
in the authorization of the Areopagitica. A lover of theologico-mystical
speculation, he showed an uncommon reverence for these writings, and by his
glosses (P.G., IV), in which he explained dubious passages of Dionysius in
an orthodox sense,
he contributed greatly towards the recognition of Dionysius in the Middle Ages.
Another equally indefatigable of Dyophysitism was Anastasias, a monk from
the monastery of
Sinai, who in 640 began his chequered career as a wandering preacher. Not only
in his "Guide" (hodegos), but also in the "Quaestiones" and
in the seventh book of the "Mediations on the Hexaemeron", he
unhesitatingly makes use of different passages from Dionysius (P.G. LXXXIX). By
this time a point had been reached at which the official seal, so to speak,
could be put on the Dionysian writings. The Lateran Council of 649 solemnly
rejected the Monothelite
heresy (Hardouin III,
699 sq.). Pope
Martin I quotes from D.D.N., ii, 9; iv, 20 and 23; and the "Ep.
ad Caium"; speaks of the author as "beatae memoriae Dionysius",
"Dionysius egregius, sanctus, beatus," and vigorously objects to the
perversion of the text: una instead of nova Dei et viri
operatio. The influence which Maximus exerted by his personal appearance
at the council and by his above-mentioned explanation of theandrike
energeia is easily recognized ("Dionysius duplicem [operationem]
duplicis naturae compositivo sermone abusus est" — Hardouin,
III, 787). Two of the testimonies of the Fathers which were read in the fifth
session are taken from Dionysius. Little wonder, then, that thenceforth
no doubt was
expressed concerning the genuineness of the Areopagitica. Pope Agatho,
in a dogmatic epistle directed to the Emperor Constantine (680)
cites among other passages from the Fathers also the D.D.N., ii, 6. The Sixth
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680) followed in the footsteps of the
Lateran Synod, again defended "Eph. iv ad. Caium" against the
falsification of Pyrrhus, and rejected the meaning which the Monothelite Patriarch
Macarius assigned to the passage (Hardouin III,
1099, 1346, 1066). In the second Council of Nicaea (787) we find the
"Celestial Hierarchy" of the "deifer Dionysius" cited
against the Iconoclasts (Hardouin IV,
362). This finishes the first and darkest period in the history of the
Areopagitica; and it may be summarized as follows. The Dionysian writings
appeared in public for the first time in the Monophysite controversies.
The Severians made use of them first and were followed by the orthodox.
After the religious debate at Constantinople in 533 witnesses for the
genuineness of the Areopagitica began to increase among the different heretics.
Despite the opposition of Hypatias, Dionysius did not altogether lose his
authority even among Catholics,
which was due chiefly to Leontius and Ephraem of Antioch. The number of orthodox Christians who
defended him grew steadily, comprising high ecclesiastical dignitaries who had
come from monasteries.
Finally, under the influence of Maximus, the Lateran Council (649) cited him as
a competent witness against Monothelism.
As to the second period, universal recognition of the
Areopagitic writings in the Middle Ages,
we need not mention the Greek Church,
which is especially proud of him; but neither in the West was a voice raised in
challenge down to the first half of the fifteenth century; on the contrary, his
works were regarded as exceedingly valuable and even as sacred. It was believed
that St.
Paul, who had communicated his revelations to his disciple in
Athens, spoke through these writings (Histor.-polit. Blatter, CXXV, 1900, p.
541). As there is no doubt concerning
the fact itself, a glance at the main divisions of the tradition may
suffice. Rome received
the original text of the Areopagitica undoubtedly through Greek monks. The
oppressions on the part of Islam during
the sixth and seventh centuries compelled many Greek and Oriental monks to
abandon their homes and settle in Italy. In Rome itself,
a monastery for
Greek monks was
built under Stephen
II and Paul I. It
was also Paul
I (757-767) who in 757 sent the writings of Dionysius together
with other books, to Pepin in France. Adrian I (772-795)
also mentioned Dionysius as a testis gravissimus in a letter
accompanying the Latin translation of the Acts of the Nicaean Council (787)
which he sent to Charlemagne.
During the first half of the ninth century the facts concerning Dionysius are
mainly grouped around the Abbot Hilduin of Saint-Denys at Paris.
Through the latter the false idea that
the Gallic martyr Dionysius
of the third century, whose relics were
preserved in the monastery of
Saint-Denys, was identical with the Areopagite rose to an undoubted certainty,
while the works ascribed to Dionysius gained in repute. Through a legation from
Constantinople, Michael II had sent several gifts to the Frankish Emperor
Louis the Pious (827), and among them were the writings of the Areopagite,
which gave particular joy and honour to
Hilduin, the influential arch-chaplain of Louis. Hilduin took care to have them
translated into Latin and he himself wrote a life of the saint (P.L.,
CVI, 13 sq.). About the year 858 Scotus Eriugena,
who was versed in Greek, made a new Latin translation of the Areopagite, which
became the main source from which the Middle Ages obtained
a knowledge of
Dionysius and his doctrines. The work was undertaken at the instance of Charles
the Bald, at whose court Scotus enjoyed
great influence (P.L., CXXII, 1026 sq.; cf. Traube, "Poet. lat. aev.
Carol.", II, 520, 859 sq.). Compared with Hilduin's, this second
translation marks a decided step in advance. Scotus, with
his keen dialectical skill
and his soaring speculative mind, found in the Areopagite a kindred spirit.
Hence, despite many errors of
translation due to the obscurity of the Greek original, he was able to grasp
the connections of thought and to penetrate the problems. As he accompanied his
translations with explanatory notes and as, in his philosophical and theological writings,
particularly in the work "De divisione naturae", (P.L., CXXII), he
recurs again and again to Dionysius, it is readily seen how much he did towards
securing recognition for the Areopagite.
The works of Dionysius, thus introduced into Western
literature, were readily accepted by the medieval Scholastics.
The great masters of Saint-Victor at Paris,
foremost among them the much admired Hugh, based their teaching on the doctrine of
Dionysius. Peter
Lombard and the great Dominican and Franciscan scholars, Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas,
Bonaventure, adopted his theses and arguments. Master poets, e.g. Dante, and
historians, e.g. Otto
of Freising, built on his foundations. Scholars as renowned as Robert Grosseteste of
Lincoln and Vincent
of Beauvais drew upon him freely. Popular religious books, such
as the "Legenda aurea" of Giacomo da Voragine and the "Life of
Mary" by Brother Philip, gave him a cordial welcome. The great
mystics, Eckhardt, Tauler, Suso, and
others, entered the mysterious obscurity of Dionysius with holy reverence. In
rapid succession there appeared a number of translations: Latin translations by
Joannes Sarrazenus (1170), Robert Grosseteste (about
1220), Thomas Vercellensis (1400), Ambrosius Camaldulensis (1436), Marsilius
Ficinus (1492); in the sixteenth century those of Faber Stapulensis,
Perionius, etc. Among the commentaries that of Hugh of Saint-Victor is notable
for its warmth, that of Albertus Magnus for
its extent, that of St.
Thomas for its accuracy, that of Denys the Carthusian for
its pious spirit
and its masterly inclusion of all previous commentaries.
It was reserved for the period of the Renaissance to
break with the time-honoured tradition. True, some of the older Humanists, as
Pico della Mirandola, Marsilius Ficinus, and the Englishmen John Colet, were
still convinced of the genuineness of the writings; but the keen and daring
critic, Laurentius Valla (1407-1457) in his glosses to the New Testament,
expressed his doubts quite
openly and thereby gave the impulse, at first for the scholarly Erasmus (1504),
and later on for the entire scientific world, to take sides either with or
against Dionysius. The consequence was the formation of two camps; among the
adversaries were not only Protestants (Luther,
Scultetus, Dallaeus, etc.) but also prominent Catholic theologians (Beatus
Rhenanus, Cajetan, Morinus, Sirmond, Petavius, Lequien, Le Nourry);
among the defenders of Dionysius were Baronius, Bellarmine,
Lansselius, Corderius,
Halloix, Delario, de Rubeis, Lessius,
Alexander Netalis, and others. The literary controversy assumed such dimensions
and was carried on so vehemently that it can only be compared to the dispute
concerning the Pseudo-Isidorian
decretals and the pseudo-Constantinian donation. In the
nineteenth century the general opinion inclined more and more towards the
opposition; the Germans especially,
Möhler, Fessler, Döllinger, Hergenröther, Alzog, Funk,
and others made no reserve of their decision for the negative. At this juncture
the scholarly professor Franz Hipler came forward and attempted to save the
honor of Dionysius. He finds in Dionysius not a falsifier, but a
prominent theologian of
the fourth century who, through no fault of his own, but owing to the
misinterpretation of some passages, was confounded with the Areopagite.
Many Catholics,
and many Protestants as
well, voiced their approval. Finally, in 1895 there appeared almost
simultaneously two independent researches, by Hugo Koch and by Joseph
Stiglmayr, both of whom started from the same point and arrived at the same
goal. The conclusion reached was that extracts from the treatise of the neo-Platonist Proclus,
"De malorum subsistentia" (handed down in the Latin translation of
Morbeka, Cousin ed., Paris, 1864), had been used by Dionysius in the treatise
"De div. nom." (c. iv, sections 19-35) A careful analysis brought to
light an astonishing agreement of both works in arrangement, sequence of
thought, examples, figures, and expressions. It is easy to point out many
parallelisms from other and later writings of Proclus, e.g. from his
"Institutio theologica", "theologia Platonica", and his
commentary on Plato's "Parmenides",
"Alcibiades I", and "Timaeus" (these five having been
written after 462).
Accordingly, the long-standing problem seems to be
solved in its most important phase. As a matter of fact, this is the decision
pronounced by the most competent judges, such as Bardenhewer, Erhard,
Funk, Diekamp,
Rauschen, De Smedt, S.J., Duchesne, Battifol; and the Protestant scholars
of early
Christian literature, Gelzer, Harnack, Kruger, Bonwetsch. The chronology being
thus determined, an explanation was readily found for the various objections
hitherto alleged, viz. the silence of the early Fathers, the later dogmatic
terminology, a developed monastic, ceremonial, and penitential system, the echo
of neo-Platonism,
etc. On the other hand it sets at rest many hypotheses which had been advanced
concerning the author and his times and various discussions---whether, e.g., a
certain Apollinaris, or Synesius, or Dionysius Alexandrinus, or a bishop of
Ptolemais, or a pagan hierophant
was the writer.
A critical edition of the text of the Areopagite is
urgently needed. The Juntina (1516), that of Basle (1539), of Paris (1562
and 1615), and lastly the principal edition of Antwerp (1634)
by Corderius,
S.J., which was frequently reprinted (Paris, 1644, 1755, 1854) and
was included in the Migne collection
(P.G., III and IV with Lat. trans. and additions), are insufficient because
they make use of only a few of the numerous Greek manuscripts and
take no account of the Syriac, Armenian,
and Arabic translations. The following translations have thus far appeared in
modern languages: English, by Lupton (London, 1869) and Parker (London, 1894),
both of which contain only the "Cael. Hierarchia" and the
"Eccles. Hier."; German, by Engelhardt (Sulzbach, 1823) and Storf,
"Kirkliche Hierarchie" (Kempten, 1877); French, by Darboy (Paris,
1845) and Dulac (Paris, 1865).
Sources
For the older literature, cf. CHEVALIER, Bio.
bibl. (Paris, 1905). Recent works treating of Dionysius: HIPLER, Dionysius
der Areopagite, Untersuchungen (Ratisbon, 1861); IDEM in Kirkchenlex.,
s.v.; SCHNEIDER, Areopagitica, Verteiligung ihrer Echteit (Ratisbon,
1886); FROTHINGHAM, Stephen Bar Sudaili (Leyden, 1886);
STIGLMAYR, Der Neuplatoniker Proklus als Vorlage des sog. Dionysius
Areopagita in der Lehre vom Uebel in Hist. Jahrb. der
Gorres-Gesellschaft (1895), pp. 253-273 and 721-748: IDEM, Das
Aufkommen der pseudo-dionysischen Schriften und ihr Eindringen in die
christliche Literatur bis zum Laterankonzil (Feldkirch, Austria, 1895);
KOCH, Der pseudepigraphische Charakter der dionysischen Schriften in Theol.
Quartalscrift (Tübingen, 1895), pp. 353-420; IDEM, Proklus, als
Quelle des Pseudo-Dionysius, Areop. in der Lehrer vom Bosen in Philologus (1895),
pp. 438-454; STIGLMAYR, Controversy with DRASEKE, LANGEN, and NIRSCHL in Byzantinische
Zeitschrift (1898), pp. 91-110, and (1899), pp. 263-301, and Histor.-polit.
Blatter (1900), CXXV, pp. 541-550 and 613-627; IDEM, Die Lehrer von
den Sakramenten und der Kirche nach Pseudo-Dionysius in Zeitschrift fur kath.
Theol. (Innsbruck, 1898), pp. 246-303; IDEM, Die Eschatologie des
Pseudo-Dionysius, ibid. (1899), pp. 1-21; KOCH, Ps.-Dionysius Areop.
in seinen Beziehungen zum Neoplatonismus und Mysterienwesen (Mainz, 1900).
See also the articles on Dionysius in the Patrologie of BARDENHEWER
(Freiburg, 1901), in the Realencyk. fur prot. Theol., and in the Dict.
of Christian Biography.
Stiglmayr, Joseph. "Dionysius the
Pseudo-Areopagite." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New
York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 19 Jan.
2021 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05013a.htm>.
Transcription. This article was transcribed for
New Advent by Geoffrey K. Mondello.
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. May
1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop
of New York.
Copyright © 2020 by Kevin Knight. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
SOURCE : https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05013a.htm
"Denis the Areopagite, first apostle to the
Gauls", from book 1, folio 1 recto of Les vrais pourtraits et vies
des hommes illustres grecz, latins et payens (1584) by André Thevet.
Weninger’s Lives of the Saints –
Saint Dionysius, and His Companions
Article
Athens, in Greece, was the birthplace of Saint
Dionysius, the great Apostle of France. Already in his youth he devoted himself
with so much zeal to the study of science, especially astronomy, that he was
rightly counted one of the most learned men of the city. Hence he became one of
the twelve judges or magistrates of Athens, who were called Areopagites,
because they administered justice at a place named Areopagus. When, at the time
of the Crucifixion of Christ, a three hours’ darkness, covered the earth,
Dionysius was at Heliopolis, and as he perceived that this darkness was against
the course of nature, he publicly declared while contemplating it: “Either the
Lord of nature is suffering, or the world is coming to an end.”
When, some years later, Saint Paul came to Athens and
announced to the inhabitants of the city the only true God and Redeemer, Jesus
Christ, he was taken to the Areopagus, that he might there justify his new
teachings. The holy Apostle did so with great energy, and when, in conclusion,
he spoke of the resurrection of Christ, and at the same time said that all men
would rise again from death, some shook their heads doubtingly, others derided
him, but some believed his words. Among the latter was Dionysius, who invited
Saint Paul into his house, and after being instructed by him, was baptized. The
holy Apostle perceived in Dionysius great abilities for disseminating the
Christian faith. Hence he instructed him most thoroughly in everything
pertaining both to faith and to the practice of a Christian life, and
consecrated him Bishop of Athens. Dionysius led many heathens by his sermons
and virtuous example to the knowledge of Christ, and to a life worthy of their
belief. At one time he made a journey to Jerusalem, as well to visit the places
watered with the blood of the Saviour, as also to see Mary, the Mother of the
Redeemer, who was still living. He afterwards related that, at the sight of
her, he was so much overcome, that he would have worshipped her as a Goddess,
had not his faith taught him that there was only one God.
Some years later, he appointed some one else to take
his place as bishop, and went to Rome to the holy Pope Clement. Greatly
rejoiced at his fervor and zeal to convert the heathen, the Pope sent him to
France; to win the inhabitants of so large a country to the sweet yoke of
Christ; as those, who had been sent thither by Saint Peter, were no longer
among the living. Saint Dionysius set out on his journey, accompanied by a
priest named Rusticus, and by Eleutherius, a deacon, and a few other zealous
men. Many say that he went first to Arles, where many had become Christians,
having been converted and baptized by Saint Trophimus. Here he remained for
some time to the great benefit of the faithful, to whom he gave a bishop, that
they might be strengthened and still better instructed in their new faith. From
Arles, the Saint repaired to Paris, the Capital of the land, where he preached
the Gospel with such energy, and confirmed his words by so many miracles, that
the inhabitants became converted in great numbers. They broke to pieces or
burned the idols they had until then worshipped, and erected several Churches
to the true God; one in honor of the Holy Trinity, others dedicated to the
Blessed Virgin, Saint Peter, Saint Paul and Saint Stephen. The first stood
where afterwards the Church of Saint Benedict was built, and where yet remain
in the chapel of Saint Denis, the words: “In this chapel Saint Dionysius
invoked the Holy Trinity.”
The devil, finding the rapid growth of Christianity
unendurable, incited against the Saint the idolatrous priests, who went to the
Pagan Governor, Fescennius, and accused the new teachers as seducers of the
people, and enemies of the gods. They at the same time insisted that he should
do away with them, if he would save the city from ruin. Fescennius immediately
had the Saint and his companions taken prisoners and brought into his presence.
Immediately on their arrival he commanded them to revoke the doctrines they had
preached and to worship the old gods. Dionysius, indignant at this order,
represented to the governor the falsity of the Pagan gods; but the blinded
tyrant gave no heed to his words and condemned him and the others to be
tortured. First they were scourged; then tied upon gridirons, and slowly
roasted, so that their death might be as painful as possible. The Almighty,
however, took from the fire all power to burn, and the holy martyrs remained
unharmed. Fescennius, still more embittered by this miracle, confined them in a
dark, damp dungeon, the air of which was stifling, and a few days later cast
them before wild beasts. But Saint Dionysius, by making the sign of the holy
Cross over himself and blessing the animals, made them so tame that they laid
themselves down quietly at his feet. The governor, more wild, more cruel than
the beasts of the forest, would not be conquered, but commanded Saint Dionysius
to be put upon the rack and to be torn with iron hooks. The holy Martyr bore
this torture fearlessly, and praised and thanked God that he was found worthy
to suffer for Christ’s sake, and ‘exhorted all present to be converted to
Christianity. All who were witnesses of the fearful spectacle were greatly
astonished and moved, that a man of 106 years bore with such undaunted courage
the most terrible pains, and had the fortitude to announce Christ even in the
agonies of death. A great many concluded from it,, that the faith he preached
must be true, and confessed publicly that they would embrace Christianity. Hence,
Fescennius, to end the martyrdom of the Saint, ordered him and his companions
to be beheaded. The joy which Saint Dionysius felt at this sentence can hardly
be expressed, as he looked upon his death as the commencement of eternal
happiness. When the head of the Saint was severed from his body, he, by a
wonderful miracle, seized the head with both hands, and carried it to a place
two miles from Paris. A city named after him was afterwards built on the spot,
in commemoration of this miracle. Catulla, a holy matron, who had been
converted by the Saint, went to meet him and received the head, which she
guarded as a precious treasure during the persecution, after which it was
buried with the rest of the body with all due honors. This great miracle had so
many witnesses, that its truth cannot be doubted. Many of the heathens who had
seen it were in consequence converted to Christianity. Three centuries after
the glorious death of Saint Dionysius, Saint Genevieve erected over his tomb, a
magnificent church, which again two centuries later, was changed by King
Dagobert into a still more splendid one, with a monastery attached to it which
in time became quite celebrated. The Kings of France selected this Church for
their last resting-place. There are still extant some learned books written by
Saint Dionysius; but the enemies of the Church refuse to acknowledge the Saint
as the author of them, because he clearly proves that those ceremonies and
customs which they have rejected, were already used in the Catholic Church,
more than a thousand years before Luther, and that the true Christians of those
days believed all that Catholics now believe in regard to holy Mass and other
articles. I know also that some Catholics, though for other reasons, doubt the
authenticity of the same works; but it is also known that many learned
Catholics have refuted the objections which have been brought against them.
There are also some historians, who maintain, that it was another Dionysius
that preached the Gospel in Paris, and suffered martyrdom there. Their reasons
for thus saying are, however, not conclusive. Many men, renowned for their
learning, give it as their conviction, that the objections raised against the
ancient traditions are groundless, and follow, as we have done, the Roman Breviary
and Martyrology.
MLA Citation
Father Francis Xavier Weninger, DD, SJ. “Saint
Dionysius, and His Companions”. Lives of the
Saints, 1876. CatholicSaints.Info.
10 May 2018. Web. 19 January 2021.
<https://catholicsaints.info/weningers-lives-of-the-saints-saint-dionysius-and-his-companions/>
SOURCE : https://catholicsaints.info/weningers-lives-of-the-saints-saint-dionysius-and-his-companions/
Nicolas Poussin (1594–1665). Saint
Denis l'Aréopagite couronné par un ange, 1620-1621, 173 X 108, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Rouen
Фрески церкви Спаса на Ильине, 1378.
Spas na Ilyine - Saint Dionysius Areopagite
Hieromartyr
Dionysius the Areopagite, Bishop of Athens
Commemorated on October 3
Saint Dionysius lived originally in the city of
Athens. He was raised there and received a classical Greek education. He then
went to Egypt, where he studied astronomy at the city of Heliopolis. It was in
Heliopolis, along with his friend Apollophonos where he witnessed the solar
eclipse that occurred at the moment of the death of the Lord Jesus Christ by
Crucifixion. “Either the Creator of all the world now suffers, or this visible
world is coming to an end,” Dionysius said. Upon his return to Athens from Egypt,
he was chosen to be a member of the Areopagus Council (Athenian high court).
When the holy Apostle Paul preached at the place on
the Hill of Ares (Acts 17:16-34), Dionysius accepted his salvific proclamation
and became a Christian. For three years Saint Dionysius remained a companion of
the holy Apostle Paul in preaching the Word of God. Later on, the Apostle Paul
selected him as bishop of the city of Athens. And in the year 57 Saint
Dionysius was present at the repose of the Most Holy Theotokos.
During the lifetime of the Mother of God, Saint
Dionysius had journeyed from Athens to Jerusalem to meet Her. He wrote to his
teacher the Apostle Paul: “I witness by God, that besides the very God Himself,
there is nothing else filled with such divine power and grace. No one can fully
comprehend what I saw. I confess before God: when I was with John, who shone
among the Apostles like the sun in the sky, when I was brought before the
countenance of the Most Holy Virgin, I experienced an inexpressible sensation.
Before me gleamed a sort of divine radiance which transfixed my spirit. I
perceived the fragrance of indescribable aromas and was filled with such
delight that my very body became faint, and my spirit could hardly endure these
signs and marks of eternal majesty and heavenly power. The grace from her
overwhelmed my heart and shook my very spirit. If I did not have in mind your
instruction, I should have mistaken Her for the very God. It is impossible to
stand before greater blessedness than this which I beheld.”
After the death of the Apostle Paul, Saint Dionysius
wanted to continue with his work, and therefore went off preaching in the West,
accompanied by the Presbyter Rusticus and Deacon Eleutherius. They converted
many to Christ at Rome, and then in Germany, and then in Spain. In Gaul, during
a persecution against Christians by the pagan authorities, all three confessors
were arrested and thrown into prison. By night Saint Dionysius celebrated the
Divine Liturgy with angels of the Lord. In the morning the martyrs were
beheaded. According to an old tradition, Saint Dionysius took up his head,
proceeded with it to the church and fell down dead there. A pious woman named
Catulla buried the relics of the saint.
The writings of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite hold
great significance for the Orthodox Church. Four books of his have survived to
the present day:
On the Celestial Hierarchy
On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy
On the Names of God
On Mystical Theology
In additional, there are ten letters to various
people.
The book On the Celestial Hierarchies was written
actually in one of the countries of Western Europe, where Saint Dionysius was
preaching. In it he speaks of the Christian teaching about the angelic world.
The angelic (or Celestial-Heavenly) hierarchy comprises the nine angelic Ranks:
Seraphim
Cherubim
Thrones
Dominions
Powers
Authorities
Principalities
Archangels
Angels
The account of the Synaxis of the Bodiless Powers of
Heaven is located under November 8.
The purpose of the divinely-established Angelic
Hierarchy is the ascent towards godliness through purification, enlightenment
and perfection. The highest ranks are bearers of divine light and divine life
for the lower ranks. And not only are the sentient, bodiless angelic hosts
included in the spiritual light-bearing hierarchy, but also the human race,
created anew and sanctified in the Church of Christ.
The book of Saint Dionysius On the Ecclesiastical
Hierarchies is a continuation of his book On the Celestial Hierarchies. The
Church of Christ, like the Angelic ranks, in its universal service is set upon
the foundation of priestly principles established by God.
In the earthly world, for the children of the Church,
divine grace comes down indescribably in the holy Mysteries of the Church,
which are spiritual in nature, though perceptible to the senses in form. Few,
even among the holy ascetics, were able to behold with their earthly eyes the
fiery vision of the Holy Mysteries of God. But outside of the Church’s
sacraments, outside of Baptism and the Eucharist, the light-bearing saving
grace of God is not found, neither is divine knowledge nor theosis
(deification).
The book On the Names of God expounds upon the way of
divine knowledge through a progression of the Divine Names.
Saint Dionysius’ book On Mystical Theology also sets
forth the teaching about divine knowledge. The theology of the Orthodox Church
is totally based upon experience of divine knowledge. In order to know God it
is necessary to be in proximity to Him, to have come near to Him in some
measure, so as to attain communion with God and deification (theosis). This
condition is accomplished through prayer. This is not because prayer in itself
brings us close to the incomprehensible God, but rather that the purity of
heart in true prayer brings us closer to God.
The written works of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite
are of extraordinary significance in the theology of the Orthodox Church, and
also for late Medieval Western theology. For almost four centuries, until the
beginning of the sixth century, the works of this holy Father of the Church
were preserved in an obscure manuscript tradition, primarily by theologians of
the Alexandrian Church. The concepts in these works were known and utilized by
Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius the Great, pre-eminent figures of the
catechetical school in Alexandria, and also by Saint Gregory the Theologian.
Saint Dionysius of Alexandria wrote to Saint Gregory the Theologian a
Commentary on the “Areopagitum.” The works of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite
received general Church recognition during the sixth-seventh centuries.
Particularly relevant are the Commentaries written by
Saint Maximus the Confessor (January 21). (trans. note: although many scholars
suggest that the “Areopagitum” was actually written by an anonymous sixth
century figure who employed the common ancient device of piously borrowing an
illustrious name, this in no way diminishes the profound theological
significance of the works.)
In the Russian Orthodox Church the teachings of Saint
Dionysius the Areopagite about the spiritual principles and deification were at
first known through the writings of Saint John of Damascus (December 4). The
first Slavonic translation of the “Areopagitum” was done on Mt. Athos in about
the year 1371 by a monk named Isaiah. Copies of it were widely distributed in
Russia. Many of them have been preserved to the present day in historic
manuscript collections, among which is a parchment manuscript “Works of Saint
Dionysius the Areopagite” belonging to Saint Cyprian, Metropolitan of Kiev and
All Rus (September 16) in his own handwriting.
According to one tradition, he was killed at Lutetia
(ancient name of Paris, France) in the year 96 during the persecution under the
Roman emperor Dometian (81-96). Today most scholars and theologians believe
that Saint Dionysius the Areopagite did not die in Gaul, and that Saint
Dionysius (or Denys) of Paris is a different saint with the same name.
Saint Demetrius of Rostov says that the Hieromartyr
Dionysius was beheaded in Athens, and that many miracles were worked at his
grave.
Aldersbach abbey ( Lower Bavaria ). Gate chapel ( 1767
): Altar fresco ( 1767 ) showing saint Dionysius Areopagita by Matthäus Günter.
Kloster Aldersbach ( Niederbayern ). Portenkapelle:
Altarfresko ( 1767 ) mit heiligem Dionysius Areopagita von Matthäus Günter.
Se l'autore di questi libri ha scelto cinque secoli dopo lo pseudonimo di Dionigi Areopagita vuol dire che sua intenzione era di mettere la saggezza greca al servizio del Vangelo, aiutare l'incontro tra la cultura e l'intelligenza greca e l'annuncio di Cristo; voleva fare quanto intendeva questo Dionigi, che cioè il pensiero greco si incontrasse con l'annuncio di San Paolo; essendo greco, farsi discepolo di San Paolo e così discepolo di Cristo.
Perché egli nascose il suo nome e scelse questo pseudonimo? Una parte di risposta è già stata data: voleva proprio esprimere questa intenzione fondamentale del suo pensiero. Ma ci sono due ipotesi circa questo anonimato coperto da uno pseudonimo. Una prima ipotesi dice: era una voluta falsificazione, con la quale, ridatando le sue opere al primo secolo, al tempo di San Paolo, egli voleva dare alla sua produzione letteraria un'autorità quasi apostolica. Ma migliore di questa ipotesi — che mi sembra poco credibile — è l'altra: che cioè egli volesse proprio fare un atto di umiltà. Non dare gloria al proprio nome, non creare un monumento per se stesso con le sue opere, ma realmente servire il Vangelo, creare una teologia ecclesiale, non individuale, basata su se stesso. In realtà riuscì a costruire una teologia che, certo, possiamo datare al sesto secolo, ma non attribuire a una delle figure di quel tempo: è una teologia un po' disindividualizzata, cioè una teologia che esprime un pensiero comune in un linguaggio comune. Era un tempo di acerrime polemiche dopo il Concilio di Calcedonia; lui invece, nella sua settima Epistola, dice: «Non vorrei fare delle polemiche; parlo semplicemente della verità, cerco la verità». E la luce della verità da se stessa fa cadere gli errori e fa splendere quanto è buono. Con questo principio egli purificò il pensiero greco e lo mise in sintonia con il Vangelo. Questo principio, che egli rivela nella sua settima Epistola, è anche espressione di un vero spirito di dialogo: cercare non le cose che separano, cercare la verità nella Verità stessa; essa poi riluce e fa cadere gli errori.
Quindi, pur essendo la teologia di questo autore, per così dire “soprapersonale”, realmente ecclesiale, noi possiamo collocarla nel VI secolo. Perché? Lo spirito greco, che egli mise al servizio del Vangelo, lo incontrò nei libri di un certo Proclo, morto nel 485 ad Atene: questo autore apparteneva al tardo platonismo, una corrente di pensiero che aveva trasformato la filosofia di Platone in una sorte religione filosofica, il cui scopo alla fine era di creare una grande apologia del politeisimo greco e ritornare, dopo il successo del cristianesimo, all’antica religione greca. Voleva dimostrare che, in realtà, le divinità erano le forze operanti nel cosmo. La conseguenza era che doveva ritenersi più vero il politeismo che il monoteismo, con un unico Dio creatore. Era un grande sistema cosmico di divinità, di forze misteriose, quello che mostrava Proclo, per il quale in questo cosmo deificato l'uomo poteva trovare l'accesso alla divinità. Egli però distingueva le strade per i semplici, i quali non erano in grado di elevarsi ai vertici della verità — per loro certi riti anche superstiziosi potevano essere sufficienti — e le strade per i saggi, che invece dovevano purificarsi per arrivare alla pura luce.
Questo pensiero, come si vede, è profondamente anticristiano. È una reazione tarda contro la vittoria del cristianesimo. Un uso anticristiano di Platone, mentre era già in corso un uso cristiano del grande filosofo. È interessante che questo Pseudo-Dionigi abbia osato servirsi proprio di questo pensiero per mostrare la verità di Cristo; trasformare questo universo politeistico in un cosmo creato da Dio – nell'armonia del cosmo di Dio dove tutte le forze sono lode di Dio – e mostrare questa grande armonia, questa sinfonia del cosmo che va dai serafini agli angeli e agli arcangeli, all'uomo e a tutte le creature che insieme riflettono la bellezza di Dio e rendono lode a Dio. Trasformava così l'immagine politeista in un elogio del Creatore e della sua creatura. Possiamo in questo modo scoprire le caratteristiche essenziali del suo pensiero: esso è innanzitutto una lode cosmica. Tutta la creazione parla di Dio ed è un elogio di Dio. Essendo la creatura una lode di Dio, la teologia dello Pseudo-Dionigi diventa una teologia liturgica: Dio si trova soprattutto lodandolo, non solo riflettendo; e la liturgia non è qualcosa di costruito da noi, qualcosa di inventato per fare un'esperienza religiosa durante un certo periodo di tempo; essa è il cantare con il coro delle creature e l'entrare nella realtà cosmica stessa. E proprio così la liturgia, apparentemente solo ecclesiastica, diventa larga e grande, diventa nostra unione con il linguaggio di tutte le creature. Egli dice: non si può parlare di Dio in modo astratto; parlare di Dio è sempre un hymnèin – un cantare per Dio con il grande canto delle creature, che si riflette e concretizza nella lode liturgica. Tuttavia, pur essendo la sua teologia cosmica, ecclesiale e liturgica, essa è anche profondamente personale. Egli creò la prima grande teologia mistica. Anzi la parola “mistica” acquisisce con lui un nuovo significato. Fino a quel tempo per i cristiani tale parola era equivalente alla parola “sacramentale”, cioè quanto appartiene al mystèrion, al sacramento. Con lui la parola “mistica” diventa più personale, più intima: esprime il cammino dell'anima verso Dio. E come trovare Dio? Qui osserviamo di nuovo un elemento importante nel suo dialogo tra filosofia greca e cristianesimo, tra pensiero pagano e fede biblica. Apparentemente quanto dice Platone e quanto dice la grande filosofia su Dio è molto più alto, è molto più “vero”; la Bibbia appare abbastanza “barbara”, semplice, precritica si direbbe oggi; ma lui osserva che proprio questo è necessario, perché così possiamo capire che i più alti concetti su Dio non arrivano mai fino alla sua vera grandezza; sono sempre impropri. Le immagini bibliche ci fanno, in realtà, capire che Dio è sopra tutti i concetti; nella loro semplicità noi troviamo, più che nei grandi concetti, il volto di Dio e ci rendiamo conto della nostra incapacità di esprimere realmente che cosa Egli è. Si parla così – è lo stesso Pseudo-Dionigi a farlo – di una “teologia negativa”. Possiamo più facilmente dire che cosa Dio non è, che non esprimere che cosa Egli è veramente. Solo tramite queste immagini possiamo indovinare il suo vero volto che, d'altra parte, è molto concreto: è Gesù Cristo. E benché Dionigi ci mostri, seguendo Proclo, l'armonia dei cori celesti, in cui sembra che tutti dipendano da tutti, il nostro cammino verso Dio, però, rimarrebbe molto lontano da Lui, egli sottolinea che, alla fine, la strada verso Dio è Dio stesso, il Quale si è fatto vicino a noi in Gesù Cristo.
E così una teologia grande e misteriosa diventa anche molto concreta sia nell’interpretazione della liturgia sia nel discorso su Gesù Cristo: con tutto ciò, questo Dionigi Areopagita ebbe un grande influsso su tutta la teologia medievale, su tutta la teologia mistica sia dell'Oriente sia dell'Occidente, fu quasi riscoperto nel tredicesimo secolo soprattutto da San Bonaventura, il grande teologo francescano che in questa teologia mistica trovò lo strumento concettuale per interpretare l'eredità così semplice e così profonda di San Francesco: Bonaventura con Dionigi ci dice alla fine, che l'amore vede più che la ragione. Dov'è la luce dell’amore non hanno più accesso le tenebre della ragione; l'amore vede, l'amore è occhio e l'esperienza ci dà più che la riflessione. Che cosa sia questa esperienza, Bonaventura lo vide in San Francesco: è l’esperienza di un cammino molto umile, molto realistico, giorno per giorno, è questo andare con Cristo, accettando la sua croce. In questa povertà e in questa umiltà – nell’umiltà che si vive anche nella ecclesialità – c'è un’esperienza di Dio che è più alta di quella che si raggiunge mediante la riflessione: in essa tocchiamo realmente il cuore di Dio.
Oggi esiste una nuova attualità di Dionigi Areopagita: egli appare come un grande mediatore nel dialogo moderno tra il cristianesimo e le teologie mistiche dell'Asia, la cui nota caratteristica sta nella convinzione che non si può dire chi sia Dio; di Lui si può parlare solo in forme negative; di Dio si può parlare solo col “non”, e solo entrando in questa esperienza del “non” Lo si raggiunge. E qui si vede una vicinanza tra il pensiero dell'Areopagita e quello delle religioni asiatiche: egli può essere oggi un mediatore come lo fu tra lo spirito greco e il Vangelo.
Si vede così che il dialogo non accetta la superficialità. Proprio quando uno entra nella profondità dell'incontro con Cristo si apre anche lo spazio vasto per il dialogo. Quando uno incontra la luce della verità, si accorge che è una luce per tutti; scompaiono le polemiche e diventa possibile capirsi l'un l'altro o almeno parlare l'uno con l'altro, avvicinarsi. Il cammino del dialogo è proprio l'essere vicini in Cristo a Dio nella profondità dell'incontro con Lui, nell'esperienza della verità che ci apre alla luce e ci aiuta ad andare incontro agli altri: la luce della verità, la luce dell'amore. E in fin dei conti ci dice: prendete la strada dell'esperienza, dell'esperienza umile della fede, ogni giorno. Il cuore diventa allora grande e può vedere e illuminare anche la ragione perché veda la bellezza di Dio. Preghiamo il Signore perché ci aiuti anche oggi a mettere al servizio del Vangelo la saggezza dei nostri tempi, scoprendo di nuovo la bellezza della fede, l'incontro con Dio in Cristo
Autore: Papa Benedetto XVI (Udienza Generale 14.05.2008)
Tra i pochissimi che, udito il forbito discorso tenuto da Paolo all'Aeropago di Atene, aderirono a lui, Luca nomina "Dionigi l'Aeropagita", membro cioè di quel tribunale, e pertanto appartenente all'aristocrazia ateniese, "e una donna di nome Damaris", forse Damalis; secondo una tradizione riferita da s. Giovanni Crisostomo essa sarebbe la sposa di Dionigi, ma si tratta soltanto di una supposizione senza prova alcuna.
In una lettera di Dionigi, vescovo di Corinto, contemporaneo di papa Sotero, scritta agli ateniesi prima del 175, è detto, come ci ha conservato Eusebio, che Dionigi L'Areopagita morì primo vescovo di Atene; solo una leggenda tardiva lo ha identificato con il primo vescovo di Parigi, martirizzato verso il 270. Tale identificazione troviamo nel Martirologio e nel Breviario Romano, al 9 ottobre Tuttavia nel Vetus Romanum Martyrologium, i due Dionigi sono chiaramente distinti l'uno dall'altro; al 3 ottobre, infatti, si legge: "Athenis, Dionysii Areopagitae, sub Adriano diversis tormentis passi, ut Aristides testis est in opere quod de Christiana religione composuit; e al 9 ottobre: " Parisiis Dionysii episcopi cum sociis suis a Fescennino cum gladio animadversi " (PL, CXXIII, col. 171).
La Cronaca che porta il nome di Lucius Dexter identifica s. Dionigi di Parigi con Dionigi l'Areopagita, ma comunemente si nega l'autenticità di questo scritto. Il primo che identificò i due Dionigi fu Hilduinus, abate di S. Dionigi (m. 840), nella Vita s. Dionysii,. Sotto il nome di Dionigi l'Areopagita, vengono citati gli scritti, che probabilmente un monaco siriaco, promosso all'episcopato, compose tra il 480 e il 530 e che conobbero il più grande successo ed esercitarono un grande influsso durante tutto il Medio Evo: De coelesti hierarchia; De mystica theologia; De ecclesiastica hierarchia; De divinis nominibus, e dieci epistulae . Secondo la VII ep., Dionigi e il sofista Apollophanes avrebbero visto l'eclissi del sole nel giorno della crocifissione e secondo De divinis nominibus (III, 2) D. avrebbe assistito alla Dormitio della S.ma Vergine.
Da queste notizie leggendarie si è creduto che l'autore di questi scritti fosse Dionigi l'Areopagita, il discepolo di Paolo: il primo ad affermarlo fu il patriarca monofisita Severo di Antiochia (512-18), in una disputa con gli ortodossi a Costantinopoli, sotto Giustiniano I (533). Ma il portavoce dei cattolici, Hypatios, vescovo di Efeso, osservò che se tali scritti fossero stati di Dionigi, non sarebbero stati ignorati né da s. Cirillo, né da s. Atanasio: argomentazione, questa, che vale ancor oggi.
Autore: Francesco Spadafora
Busto reliquiario di San Dionigi Aeropagita, 1800-50
ca Certosa di Firenze, Cappella-Oratorio di Santa Maria Nuova, interno
BENEDETTO XVI
UDIENZA GENERALE
Pseudo-Dionigi Areopagita
Cari fratelli e sorelle,
oggi vorrei, nel corso delle catechesi sui Padri della
Chiesa, parlare di una figura assai misteriosa: un teologo del sesto secolo, il
cui nome è sconosciuto, che ha scritto sotto lo pseudonimo di Dionigi
Areopagita. Con questo pseudonimo egli alludeva al passo della Scrittura che
abbiamo adesso ascoltato, cioè alla vicenda raccontata da San Luca nel XVII
capitolo degli Atti degli Apostoli, dove viene riferito che Paolo predicò
in Atene sull'Areopago, per una élite del grande mondo intellettuale greco, ma
alla fine la maggior parte degli ascoltatori si dimostrò disinteressata, e si
allontanò deridendolo; tuttavia alcuni, pochi ci dice San Luca, si avvicinarono
a Paolo aprendosi alla fede. L’evangelista ci dona due nomi: Dionigi, membro
dell'Areopago, e una certa donna, Damaris.
Se l'autore di questi libri ha scelto cinque secoli
dopo lo pseudonimo di Dionigi Areopagita vuol dire che sua intenzione era di
mettere la saggezza greca al servizio del Vangelo, aiutare l'incontro tra la
cultura e l'intelligenza greca e l'annuncio di Cristo; voleva fare quanto
intendeva questo Dionigi, che cioè il pensiero greco si incontrasse con
l'annuncio di San Paolo; essendo greco, farsi discepolo di San Paolo e
così discepolo di Cristo.
Perché egli nascose il suo nome e scelse questo
pseudonimo? Una parte di risposta è già stata data: voleva proprio esprimere
questa intenzione fondamentale del suo pensiero. Ma ci sono due ipotesi circa
questo anonimato coperto da uno pseudonimo. Una prima ipotesi dice: era una
voluta falsificazione, con la quale, ridatando le sue opere al primo secolo, al
tempo di San Paolo, egli voleva dare alla sua produzione letteraria un'autorità
quasi apostolica. Ma migliore di questa ipotesi — che mi sembra poco credibile
— è l'altra: che cioè egli volesse proprio fare un atto di umiltà. Non dare
gloria al proprio nome, non creare un monumento per se stesso con le sue
opere, ma realmente servire il Vangelo, creare una teologia ecclesiale, non
individuale, basata su se stesso. In realtà riuscì a costruire una
teologia che, certo, possiamo datare al sesto secolo, ma non attribuire a una
delle figure di quel tempo: è una teologia un po' disindividualizzata, cioè una
teologia che esprime un pensiero comune in un linguaggio comune. Era un tempo
di acerrime polemiche dopo il Concilio di Calcedonia; lui invece, nella sua settima Epistola,
dice: «Non vorrei fare delle polemiche; parlo semplicemente della verità, cerco
la verità». E la luce della verità da se stessa fa cadere gli errori e fa
splendere quanto è buono. Con questo principio egli purificò il pensiero greco
e lo mise in sintonia con il Vangelo. Questo principio, che egli rivela nella
sua settima Epistola, è anche espressione di un vero spirito di dialogo:
cercare non le cose che separano, cercare la verità nella Verità stessa; essa
poi riluce e fa cadere gli errori.
Quindi, pur essendo la teologia di questo autore, per
così dire “soprapersonale”, realmente ecclesiale, noi possiamo collocarla nel
VI secolo. Perché? Lo spirito greco, che egli mise al servizio del Vangelo, lo
incontrò nei libri di un certo Proclo, morto nel 485 ad Atene: questo autore
apparteneva al tardo platonismo, una corrente di pensiero che aveva trasformato
la filosofia di Platone in una sorte religione filosofica, il cui scopo alla
fine era di creare una grande apologia del politeisimo greco e ritornare, dopo
il successo del cristianesimo, all’antica religione greca. Voleva dimostrare
che, in realtà, le divinità erano le forze operanti nel cosmo. La conseguenza
era che doveva ritenersi più vero il politeismo che il monoteismo, con un
unico Dio creatore. Era un grande sistema cosmico di divinità, di forze
misteriose, quello che mostrava Proclo, per il quale in questo cosmo deificato
l'uomo poteva trovare l'accesso alla divinità. Egli però distingueva le strade
per i semplici, i quali non erano in grado di elevarsi ai vertici della verità
— per loro certi riti anche superstiziosi potevano essere sufficienti — e
le strade per i saggi, che invece dovevano purificarsi per arrivare alla pura
luce.
Questo pensiero, come si vede, è profondamente
anticristiano. È una reazione tarda contro la vittoria del cristianesimo. Un
uso anticristiano di Platone, mentre era già in corso un uso cristiano del
grande filosofo. È interessante che questo Pseudo-Dionigi abbia osato servirsi
proprio di questo pensiero per mostrare la verità di Cristo; trasformare questo
universo politeistico in un cosmo creato da Dio – nell'armonia del cosmo di Dio
dove tutte le forze sono lode di Dio – e mostrare questa grande armonia, questa
sinfonia del cosmo che va dai serafini agli angeli e agli arcangeli, all'uomo e
a tutte le creature che insieme riflettono la bellezza di Dio e rendono lode a
Dio. Trasformava così l'immagine politeista in un elogio del Creatore e della
sua creatura. Possiamo in questo modo scoprire le caratteristiche essenziali
del suo pensiero: esso è innanzitutto una lode cosmica. Tutta la creazione
parla di Dio ed è un elogio di Dio. Essendo la creatura una lode di Dio, la
teologia dello Pseudo-Dionigi diventa una teologia liturgica: Dio si trova
soprattutto lodandolo, non solo riflettendo; e la liturgia non è qualcosa di
costruito da noi, qualcosa di inventato per fare un'esperienza religiosa
durante un certo periodo di tempo; essa è il cantare con il coro delle creature
e l'entrare nella realtà cosmica stessa. E proprio così la liturgia,
apparentemente solo ecclesiastica, diventa larga e grande, diventa nostra
unione con il linguaggio di tutte le creature. Egli dice: non si può parlare di
Dio in modo astratto; parlare di Dio è sempre un hymnèin – un cantare
per Dio con il grande canto delle creature, che si riflette e concretizza nella
lode liturgica. Tuttavia, pur essendo la sua teologia cosmica, ecclesiale e
liturgica, essa è anche profondamente personale. Egli creò la prima grande
teologia mistica. Anzi la parola “mistica” acquisisce con lui un nuovo
significato. Fino a quel tempo per i cristiani tale parola era equivalente alla
parola “sacramentale”, cioè quanto appartiene al mystèrion, al sacramento.
Con lui la parola “mistica” diventa più personale, più intima: esprime il
cammino dell'anima verso Dio. E come trovare Dio? Qui osserviamo di nuovo un
elemento importante nel suo dialogo tra filosofia greca e cristianesimo, tra
pensiero pagano e fede biblica. Apparentemente quanto dice Platone e quanto
dice la grande filosofia su Dio è molto più alto, è molto più “vero”; la Bibbia
appare abbastanza “barbara”, semplice, precritica si direbbe oggi; ma lui
osserva che proprio questo è necessario, perché così possiamo capire che i più
alti concetti su Dio non arrivano mai fino alla sua vera grandezza; sono sempre
impropri. Le immagini bibliche ci fanno, in realtà, capire che Dio è sopra
tutti i concetti; nella loro semplicità noi troviamo, più che nei grandi
concetti, il volto di Dio e ci rendiamo conto della nostra incapacità di
esprimere realmente che cosa Egli è. Si parla così – è lo stesso Pseudo-Dionigi
a farlo – di una “teologia negativa”. Possiamo più facilmente dire che cosa Dio
non è, che non esprimere che cosa Egli è veramente. Solo tramite queste
immagini possiamo indovinare il suo vero volto che, d'altra parte, è molto
concreto: è Gesù Cristo. E benché Dionigi ci mostri, seguendo Proclo, l'armonia
dei cori celesti, in cui sembra che tutti dipendano da tutti, il nostro cammino
verso Dio, però, rimarrebbe molto lontano da Lui, egli sottolinea che, alla
fine, la strada verso Dio è Dio stesso, il Quale si è fatto vicino a noi in
Gesù Cristo.
E così una teologia grande e misteriosa diventa anche
molto concreta sia nell’interpretazione della liturgia sia nel discorso su Gesù
Cristo: con tutto ciò, questo Dionigi Areopagita ebbe un grande influsso su
tutta la teologia medievale, su tutta la teologia mistica sia dell'Oriente sia
dell'Occidente, fu quasi riscoperto nel tredicesimo secolo soprattutto da San
Bonaventura, il grande teologo francescano che in questa teologia mistica trovò
lo strumento concettuale per interpretare l'eredità così semplice e così
profonda di San Francesco: Bonaventura con Dionigi ci dice alla fine, che
l'amore vede più che la ragione. Dov'è la luce dell’amore non hanno più accesso
le tenebre della ragione; l'amore vede, l'amore è occhio e l'esperienza ci dà
più che la riflessione. Che cosa sia questa esperienza, Bonaventura lo vide in
San Francesco: è l’esperienza di un cammino molto umile, molto realistico,
giorno per giorno, è questo andare con Cristo, accettando la sua croce. In
questa povertà e in questa umiltà – nell’umiltà che si vive anche nella
ecclesialità – c'è un’esperienza di Dio che è più alta di quella che si
raggiunge mediante la riflessione: in essa tocchiamo realmente il cuore di Dio.
Oggi esiste una nuova attualità di Dionigi Areopagita:
egli appare come un grande mediatore nel dialogo moderno tra il cristianesimo e
le teologie mistiche dell'Asia, la cui nota caratteristica sta nella
convinzione che non si può dire chi sia Dio; di Lui si può parlare solo in
forme negative; di Dio si può parlare solo col “non”, e solo entrando in questa
esperienza del “non” Lo si raggiunge. E qui si vede una vicinanza tra il
pensiero dell'Areopagita e quello delle religioni asiatiche: egli può essere
oggi un mediatore come lo fu tra lo spirito greco e il Vangelo.
Si vede così che il dialogo non accetta la
superficialità. Proprio quando uno entra nella profondità dell'incontro con
Cristo si apre anche lo spazio vasto per il dialogo. Quando uno incontra la
luce della verità, si accorge che è una luce per tutti; scompaiono le polemiche
e diventa possibile capirsi l'un l'altro o almeno parlare l'uno con l'altro,
avvicinarsi. Il cammino del dialogo è proprio l'essere vicini in Cristo a Dio
nella profondità dell'incontro con Lui, nell'esperienza della verità che ci
apre alla luce e ci aiuta ad andare incontro agli altri: la luce della verità,
la luce dell'amore. E in fin dei conti ci dice: prendete la strada
dell'esperienza, dell'esperienza umile della fede, ogni giorno. Il cuore
diventa allora grande e può vedere e illuminare anche la ragione perché veda la
bellezza di Dio. Preghiamo il Signore perché ci aiuti anche oggi a mettere al
servizio del Vangelo la saggezza dei nostri tempi, scoprendo di nuovo la
bellezza della fede, l'incontro con Dio in Cristo.
Saluti:
Je suis heureux de vous accueillir chers pèlerins
francophones, en particulier les jeunes des collèges du Vésinet et de
Sallanches, du Lycée de Chateauneuf de Galaure et de l’École d’évangélisation
de Paray-le-Monial. Que le don de l’Esprit Saint fasse de vous les messagers,
pleins de joie, de la Bonne Nouvelle du salut. Avec ma Bénédiction apostolique.
I welcome all the English-speaking visitors present
today, including the groups from England, Ireland, Japan, The Philippines,
Trinidad and Tobago, and the United States of America. May your visit to
Rome be a time of deep spiritual renewal. Upon all of you I invoke God’s
abundant blessings of joy and peace.
Mit Freude grüße ich alle Pilger und Besucher aus
allen Ländern deutscher Sprache. Gott - so verstehen wir von Pseudo-Dionysius
her - ist nicht bloßer Name oder Begriff, sondern eine Person, die Ursprung und
Ziel allen Lebens ist. Reinigen wir unser Herz, um in diese lebendige Beziehung
mit Gott eintreten zu können und dann Boten seiner Liebe zu werden. Ich freue
mich über die vielen, die aus allen Teilen Deutschlands heute unter uns sind,
und grüße sie ganz herzlich, wünsche ihnen gesegnete Zeit in Rom und Gottes
Segen auf allen ihren Wegen.
Saúdo os peregrinos de língua portuguesa,
especialmente com um cordial abraço ao numeroso grupo de visitantes provindos
do Brasil. Desejo a todos felicidades, paz e graça no Senhor! Faço votos de que
a luz de Cristo ilumine sempre a vossa fé para que tenham uma vida digna,
cristã e repleta de alegrias. Recebam a Bênção do Todo Poderoso que, de bom
grado, estendo aos vossos familiares e amigos.
Saludo cordialmente a los visitantes de lengua
española. En particular, a los peregrinos y grupos parroquiales venidos de
Costa Rica, España, México, Perú y de otros países latinoamericanos. Que la
visita a las tumbas de los Apóstoles acreciente en vosotros los deseos de
conocer más a Cristo y renueve vuestros propósitos de llevar una vida cristiana
cada vez más coherente y generosa. Que Dios os bendiga.
Saluto in lingua slovacca:
Zo srdca pozdravujem žiakov a pedagógov Základnej
školy Jána Pavla Druhého z Bratislavy-Vajnor. Bratia a sestry,
minulú nedeľu sme slávili sviatok Zoslania Ducha Svätého na apoštolov. Prosme
Boha o zoslanie darov jeho Ducha, aby sme odvážne svedčili o svojej kresťanskej
viere.
S láskou žehnám vás i vašich drahých. Pochválený buď Ježiš Kristus!
Traduzione italiana:
Di cuore saluto gli allievi e insegnanti della Scuola
elementare “Giovanni Paolo II” di Bratislava - Vajnory. Fratelli e
sorelle, domenica scorsa abbiamo celebrato la Solennità della Pentecoste.
Preghiamo Dio che mandi i doni del suo Spirito perché possiamo divenire
testimoni coraggiosi della nostra fede cristiana. Con affetto benedico voi ed i
vostri cari. Sia lodato Gesù Cristo!
Saluto in lingua polacca:
Pozdrawiam pielgrzymów z Polski, a szczególnie dzieci,
które po raz pierwszy przystąpiły do Komunii św. Drogie dzieci, niech Pan Jezus
zawsze mieszka w waszych sercach, aby były pełne Bożej miłości. Niech Jego
obecność uświęca was i wasze rodziny. Serdecznie wam błogosławię.
Traduzione italiana:
Saluto i pellegrini provenienti dalla Polonia, e in
particolare i bambini che per la prima volta ricevono la Santa
Comunione. Cari bambini, il Signore Gesù abiti sempre nei vostri cuori,
affinché siano colmi dell’amore di Dio. La Sua presenza santifichi voi e le
vostre famiglie. Vi benedico di cuore.
Saluto in lingua romena:
Adresez un călduros salut pelerinilor români, în mod
particular Seminarului Greco-Catolic din Cluj. Asigurându-vă pe voi şi pe toţi
conaţionalii voştri că vă port în rugăciunile mele, invoc asupra fiecărui
dintre voi Binecuvântarea mea Apostolică.
Traduzione italiana:
Rivolgo un cordiale saluto ai pellegrini rumeni, in
particolare al Seminario Greco-Cattolico di Cluj. Mentre assicuro per voi e per
tutti i vostri connazionali un ricordo nella preghiera, invoco su ciascuno la
mia Benedizione.
Saluto in lingua croata:
Od srca pozdravljam sve hrvatske hodočasnike, a
osobito krizmanike iz Hrvatske Katoličke Misije u Münchenu te visoke
dužnosnike Ministarstva obrane Republike Hrvatske. Neka Kristova blizina i mir
budu sigurnost i radost vaših života. Hvaljen Isus i Marija!
Traduzione italiana:
Saluto di cuore i pellegrini croati, particolarmente i
cresimandi della Missione Cattolica Croata di München e gli alti ufficiali del
Ministero della Difesa della Repubblica di Croazia. La vicinanza e la pace di
Cristo siano sicurezza e gioia per le vostre vite. Siano lodati Gesù e Maria!
* * *
Rivolgo un cordiale benvenuto ai pellegrini di lingua
italiana. In particolare saluto le Suore Cappuccine di Madre Rubatto, che
partecipano al loro Capitolo generale e le incoraggio a continuare nell’impegno
di adesione a Cristo, testimoniando coraggiosamente il Vangelo secondo il
carisma della venerata Fondatrice. Saluto con affetto i sacerdoti
provenienti da Trento e da Torino ed assicuro la mia preghiera affinchè il
loro ministero, sostenuto dalla grazia di Dio, sia sempre più fecondo.
Mi rivolgo, infine, ai giovani, ai malati e
agli sposi novelli. La Liturgia odierna ricorda l’Apostolo Mattia,
annoverato tra i Dodici per rendere testimonianza della risurrezione del
Signore. Il suo esempio sostenga voi, cari giovani, nella costante ricerca
di Cristo; incoraggi voi, cari malati, ad offrire le vostre sofferenze
affinché il Regno di Dio si diffonda in tutto il mondo; ed aiuti voi,
cari sposi novelli, ad essere testimoni dell'amore di Cristo nella vostra
famiglia.
APPELLO
Il mio pensiero va, in questo momento, alle
popolazioni del Sichuan e delle Province limitrofe in Cina, duramente colpite
dal terremoto, che ha causato gravi perdite in vite umane, numerosissimi
dispersi e danni incalcolabili. Vi invito ad unirvi a me nella fervida
preghiera per tutti coloro che hanno perso la vita. Sono spiritualmente vicino
alle persone provate da così devastante calamità: per esse imploriamo da Dio
sollievo nella sofferenza. Voglia il Signore concedere sostegno a tutti coloro
che sono impegnati nel far fronte alle esigenze immediate del soccorso.
© Copyright 2008 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
SOURCE : http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20080514.html
.jpg)
Atribuida a Vasco Pereira. San Dionisio Areopagita, Retablo
de la Virgen de Belén. 1588. Iglesia de la Anunciación, Sevilla. Pintura
manierista al óleo sobre tabla (h.),
J.-B. Thibaut. « Le pseudo-Denys l'Aréopagite et la « prière catholique » de l'Église primitive », Revue des études byzantines Année 1921 123 pp. 283-294 : https://www.persee.fr/doc/rebyz_1146-9447_1921_num_20_123_4284
Voir aussi : http://jesusmarie.free.fr/denis_areopagite_oeuvres.pdf