The experience of divine light and true authority in the Church

Introduction

It must be stated from the outset that the historical interest which the Byzantine world aroused amongst Western European scholars at the dawn of the modern era, Hieronymus Wolf and Abbot Du Cange, was due precisely to the way in which this Christian society had related, throughout its long and tumultuous history, to authority. Either it knew how to reject it, as in the case of the papacy’s claims to subordinate the Orthodox Church, or it knew how to embrace it as the foundation of a hierarchical society, built upon the dialogue and collaboration—sometimes contentious—between political and religious authority 1. The subject of authority in Byzantine society is, therefore, a fundamental one, as it manifests itself in many areas and aspects of public and private life, in the political and religious spheres, in the world of emperors and in the world of saints 2. It is found both in the political sphere, where emperors and high-ranking officials embodied absolute authority, but it is no less evident in the religious sphere, where the authority of the Church—that is, institutionalised, meets the spiritual authority—free and less constrained by canons—of the spiritually enlightened individual, who acquires it through mystical experience and who claims a role of authority and guidance.

Indeed, the question that remained unresolved even in 11th-century Byzantium is also the line of inquiry this study will follow: what is the true authority within the Church, or, rather, who holds it? Without claiming to offer the definitive answer to this great dilemma at this stage, a journey into the world of the saints, the hierarchs, ordinary people and, why not, the authorities of that time may prove more than interesting.

The World of Saint Simeon the New Theologian

The lives of the three protagonists of the great spiritual adventure at the turn of the 10th and 11th centuries – Simeon the Pious or the Studite (born in 917), Simeon the New Theologian (949–1022) and Nichita Stethatus or Pectoratus (1000–1080), unfolded during the most glorious era of the Byzantine Empire 3. Although it was an era of great military emperors (Nikephoros Phokas, John Tzimiskes and Basil II), it also witnessed the revival of classical studies and ‘early Byzantine humanism’, in an empire which at that time had a population of 12 million. In this society, it has been estimated that the monastic population accounted for around 1–1.5 per cent of the total population 4. This means that, out of the empire’s total population of 12 million, 150–200,000 were monks, living in over 7,000 monasteries and hermitages spread across a vast geographical area. In Constantinople and its surroundings alone, according to historians, there were 325 monasteries, with an average of 10–20 inhabitants. We are at that point in history when monks, across all hierarchical ranks, represented the spiritual elite of the Byzantine Church. Let us not forget that one of the great spiritual glories of this period was the founding, in 963, of the Great Lavra of Mount Athos, through the generosity of Emperor Nikephoros II Phokas (936–969)5. The emperor’s spiritual father was Saint Athanasius the Athonite, whose immense spiritual authority led him to adopt, in stark contrast to the refinement of the imperial court, austere monastic disciplines within the very heart of the great palace in Constantinople.

The world of Saint Symeon the New Theologian also witnessed the clash between two major currents in Byzantine society, both laying claim to authority. On the one hand, there was secular humanism, which had established itself in academic circles through the rediscovery of the models and sources of ancient authority and which was championed by figures such as Constantine/Michael Psellos (1017–1096), nicknamed ο ύπατος των φιλοσόφων, ‘consul of the philosophers’, John Xiphilinus (1064–1075) and Constantine Lichoudis (1059–1063). The latter two were humanists who became monks and later rose to become Patriarchs of Constantinople. On the other hand, there is the spiritual-charismatic humanism expressed by Simeon the Pious, Simeon the New Theologian or Nikitas Stethatos, and skilfully utilised for the benefit of the Church by Patriarch Michael Kerullarios (1043–1058).

The latter had been living for several years in a cold conflict with Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos (1042–1055) over the following issue: which of the two principal figures in the Byzantine world had the right and authority to bring about moral reform in society – the patriarch or the emperor? Against the backdrop of this crisis of authority, the theological debate—in which the dispute was played out on a different level—fits very well.

Theology: a subject for the classroom or a matter of spiritual paideia?

It is through this fundamental question that we can better grasp the authentic spirit of Byzantine theology, which flourished in the light of the monasteries, the cathedrals and the great Fathers, and which had not yet become an academic discipline, as would happen just two centuries later in the universities of the Latin West. At the level of theology, as a discourse interpreting Revelation, the representation of perfection in the last days constitutes one of the highest stages, opening up the perspective of the distant times of eschatology 6. The predilection for high theology, lived out through mystical experience and transmitted through that fruitful spiritual accompaniment between the father-teacher, himself experienced and tested through mystical experiences, and the disciple subject to spiritual authority, who received theological instruction as part of his spiritual formation, was one of the characteristics of this century of Byzantine splendour. However, Byzantium does not offer a unified method of theological thought; it always bears the imprint and spirit of the father who transmits it.

Theology, as the defender of truth, was concerned with triumph in the missions of Christian life, so that in every age its authority was embodied by different individuals, regarded as archetypes and models for the Church and its faithful. In this historical succession of models of authority, the martyr stands first, for he defended the Christian ideal with his own blood; he is the true philosopher of Christianity, the one who embraces the teachings of the faith as a way of life. During the medieval period, the monk embodied the prototype of the true and perfect Christian, who lives out the ideals of Christian theology and spirituality to the fullest 7. The same type of people who embody models of authority within the Church is also found in the Latin West, which has always valued Christian life and theology from the perspective of heroism 8. Both the martyr and the monk were crowned with the aura of authority characteristic of heroes.

Remaining within the sphere of theological discourse, it should be noted that, initially, the concept of theology referred to the dogma concerning the Triune God, with the inner workings forming the foundation, whilst Christology and soteriology were summarised under the term oikonomia 9 – the external work of the Holy Trinity, as we might put it. This relatively stable framework for the system of knowing God through the rationalisation of the discourse of Revelation received a very strong challenge in the final centuries of Byzantium from mystical theology, which viewed theology at its highest level, culminating in the mystical vision of God and the knowledge that results from it 7. Indeed, mysticism is a path that remains perpetually open, enabling theology to become creative not so much in terms of content, but above all in terms of access to profound insights and innovative perspectives on life.

Mysticism is a path that remains constantly open, enabling theology to become creative not so much in terms of content, but above all in terms of access to profound insights and renewing perspectives on life.

From this outline of the profile of Byzantine theology, as seen by Hans Georg Beck, we understand more clearly that the question of authority in the Church relates also to the theological realm, to knowledge and experience, and not merely to oikonomia, which was called upon to set in motion its sanctifying work and mission through the human ministry of the Church and its ministers.

On a theological level, there has long been a felt need for a permanent body, vested with high authority, which could be designated, by analogy with the Western Church, as the ecclesiastical magisterium. The ecumenical councils, which fulfilled their role in the 4th–8th centuries, are cited as the foundation for the entire Christian world, which sought sources of authority in matters of faith and life. In later centuries, the patriarchs claimed ‘a universal ecclesiastical teaching office’, without any practical results 10. Linked to this lack of a permanent pedagogical office is the absence of theological schools as institutions of training and as groups organised around fundamental methodological concepts 10. It is more a question of mentalities than of schools as such. This, as Hans Georg Beck states, lends ‘a diffuse character to theology’.

Nevertheless, Byzantine theology shone through its ability to consistently find a way for the teaching of the faith to be realised in spirituality, thereby nurturing the illustrious schools centred on innovative movements and on Fathers of the Church possessing charismatic authority. One such school can be found among the Palamites of the fourteenth century, who based their polemics on clear methodological principles, opposed to those employed by their adversaries, who were increasingly indebted to the scholastic system of thought.

The concept of a theological school is hard to find in late Byzantium, but that of a school of spirituality can be identified more readily, in which the emphasis on practical experience and lived reality would be predominant. Theology formed part of the category of classical subjects, those of ‘general education’ of a secular nature, at a rudimentary level. The study of theology involved, first and foremost, the adoption of the Aristotelian philosophical framework in relation to the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, without offering any further prospect of continuous deepening of theological study. Continuing education in theology entailed personal study and reading in the fields of hagiography, dogmatics and liturgy, drawing on the rich sources of the Church Fathers, particularly Saint John Chrysostom – all undertaken within the context of the father-disciple relationship 11. This paradoxical situation, however, also created greater freedom and independence with regard to the production of theological texts exclusively by the clergy. The same German Byzantinist poses a challenge when he states that ‘theology is not a privilege of the clergy, if indeed it is a privilege at all’. Following on from this statement, a statistic provides a very interesting picture: of the approximately 600 Byzantine authors who wrote theology of all kinds and are known by name, 100 are laypeople, that is, approximately 14 per cent 12.

The “spiritual revolution” of Saint Simeon the New Theologian

In this world of theologians and ambitious men, Saint Symeon was a mystical aristocrat who became a monk, without any suspicion of heresy—be it even veiled—and without the vocation of a belated martyr for the veneration of holy icons, as some of his hagiographers have sought to claim, yet possessing a remarkable power of persuasion. In him we can see the missionary mystic, convinced that all his mystical experiences are accessible to everyone, preaching with conviction this ideal of life, which he set out in veritable spiritual manifestos. Father John McGuckin identified three objectives of Saint Simeon the New Theologian’s ‘monastic programme’: the refocusing of monastic life on the experience of grace; unconditional obedience to the charismatic spiritual father; and the reconstruction of monasticism on a foundation of ‘13’ aristocratic power. Following this line of reasoning, the first two points of Saint Symeon the New Theologian’s programme were adopted by the Hesychasts; who made him an illustrious Palamite precursor, who heralded, more than three centuries in advance, the great revival set in motion by Saint Gregory Palamas.

Saint Symeon the New Theologian claimed for himself an authority superior to that of the thrones, both imperial and patriarchal. His spiritual manifesto asserts that the experience of divine light which he had whilst still in the world, even during his political career in the years 970 and 977, through his unconditional obedience to his spiritual father, was, in fact, the model by which Saint Simeon justified his own authority over the monks at the Monastery of Saint Mamas, from whom he demanded the same ‘14’ obedience. At the Monastery of Saint Mamas, Abbot Simeon applied the ancient rule of Studion to the letter, no longer willing to allow his monks to have any spiritual father other than the abbot. Here, authority is expressed as the practice of monastic life, in which a community expresses its unity through exclusive obedience to the abbot, who is both the spiritual guide and the confessor. This Lavrian model tended to become increasingly prevalent in Byzantium from the eleventh century onwards, through the influence and example of Saint Symeon the New Theologian, who presented himself to the monks as a true ‘director of consciences’15

Saint Symeon the New Theologian’s charismatic conception of authority entails the complete and correct embrace of theology, living out the teaching as a constant metanoia, spiritual guidance and the ascent towards deification. This ‘true recipe for spiritual perfection’ is summarised in a few points: apostolic Christianity means the Orthodox faith in Christ, the incarnate Son of God; repentance; the observance, as far as possible, of all the commandments, the guidance of a spiritual father, the attainment of dispassion and the conscious perception of the Holy Spirit. Saint Simeon expresses the validity of these concepts even more clearly when he says that ‘without this conscious experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, a person does not exist spiritually; without this experience, no one has the authority or the power to speak of God or to bring forth spiritual children”. Indirectly, Saint Simeon, through such a perspective, contrasts the charismatic personality of the saint with that of the institution 16, without any trace of anti-hierarchical intent, but merely as a reflection of the convictions derived from his own experience.

“[…] without this conscious experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, a person does not exist spiritually; without this experience, no one has the authority or the power to speak of God and to bring forth spiritual children.”

It is not the clergy and intellectuals who are, in fact, the truly apostolic teachers, theologians and fathers of the Church. He goes further and, in his second theological discourse ‘against those who attempt to engage in theology without the Spirit’, he condemns the ‘bad theologians’, who presume to speak of God ‘before they have been born of God and become His children’17. In doing so, both Saint Symeon the New Theologian and Nikita Stethatus champion the mystic’s right to serve as a teacher of the Church. This also reflects a rather uncomfortable reality, which shows that following the iconoclastic period there was a discrediting of the lay clergy, to the extent that monks came to claim a total monopoly on guidance and confession as regards the laity. In various guises, we might say that this situation is also encountered in our own day.

For all the beauty and clarity of such a path of spiritual development, there was a risk that this teaching, taken to extremes, might strip the hierarchy, in the name of the Holy Spirit, of its doctrinal role. This also explains the bitter confrontation between Saint Symeon the New Theologian and the patriarch’s chancellor, Metropolitan Stephen of Nicomedia, who was seeking to increasingly impose the authority of a magisterial office within the Church of Constantinople, to which even the mystical monks were expected to subscribe when it came to canonisations or prerogatives strictly pertaining to the patriarchal see 18.

The aim of Saint Simeon the New Theologian, as indeed of any mystic, is to describe the tension between the Kingdom of God and this world, to affirm the tension between institution and event, which is inherent in the Church 19. John Meyendorff concludes that, by adopting Saint Simeon’s position, Eastern Christianity recognised that ‘only the Spirit is the supreme criterion of truth and the sole ultimate authority’20 in matters of theology and the life of the Church.

‘The prophet, through the Spirit, opposed the patriarch chosen by men’

The charismatic experiences of Saint Symeon the New Theologian are based on the following axioms: the fulfilment of the commandments is equivalent to dispassion, grace is equivalent to its perception, whilst mystical perfection and the apostolate express the ‘21’ mystical experience. The much-invoked experience of light has, at its core, the issue of claiming and transmitting apostolic-type religious authority. In practice, Saint Simeon constructs a veritable framework for spiritual initiation, from which this type of authority is derived, taking as its model Saint Paul the Apostle’s vision of the light on the road to Damascus. This entails: conversion, repentance, purification, the perception of the light, and the reception of apostolic authority, to which is added the mediation of the spiritual father. The saint—in this case, the spiritual father—embodies the charismatic experience of tradition, its living meaning, which is not merely something inherited with respect and fidelity, but is, first and foremost, something lived and internalised 22.

The vision of the light is the central issue in the claim to and transmission of religious authority, which was assumed by Moses on Mount Sinai, by the Saviour Jesus Christ on Mount Tabor, by Paul on the road to Damascus, and by Stephen at the dawn of his martyrdom. All of them appeared before the world with unquestionable authority, from the height of which they preached, renewed lives and changed destinies.

With regard to the concept of authority that we are presenting, it should be noted that, under the evident influence of Saint Simeon, Nichita Stethatul, his disciple, recalls in his treatise on hierarchy, in Chapter V, of the spiritual participation of the lower ranks of the hierarchy in the prerogatives of the higher ranks, and declares that simple monks, who have received the Holy Spirit and the mystical knowledge of God, are equal to bishops, who have received only ordination from men and have not attained the wisdom of the Holy Spirit 23. This view, which is by no means comfortable for the Church’s magisterium, is complemented by another, that of Saint Simeon the New Theologian, who, when speaking of the gift of spiritual guidance, refers to the mystical experience of God, which even simple monks can attain, earning the right to guide others through their worthiness 24. This reality forms part of an ancient tradition of the Church, in which spiritual guidance was not strictly the preserve of the priesthood, but was undertaken by people with spiritual authority, many of whom were non-ordained.

In other words, from a mystical perspective, charismatic spiritual leaders form part of the hierarchy even without ordination, whereas laypeople do not 25. To better understand this tension and incompatibility between the two types of authority and the two irreconcilable spiritual programmes, we must return to the dispute within Byzantine society between the proponents of humanism, who espoused an organic view of humanity, and the mystics, who limited human perfection to the ascent of these spiritual stages. One programme was mystical and authoritarian, based on divine inspiration, on a sometimes arrogant separation from society and on contempt for culture, whilst the other was humanist-civil, based on reason and friendship, on the cultivation of the virtues of moderation and modesty, on study and on other forms of social solidarity 26.

Saint Symeon the New Theologian belonged to the first tradition, as the man who transcended the level of worldly culture, including theological authority, through mystical knowledge, whilst the second programme features Michael Psellos, the philosopher who does not oppose the ascetic ideal, but who firmly believes that the mind and the soul can be reconciled in the harmonious development of the human person.

In order to gain a thorough understanding of the state in which man must assume authority within the Church—not in terms of power, but of clear vision and spiritual responsibility—we propose two solutions, both of which converge, as we shall see below:

The mystical solution

‘Such was Simeon; such was the life he led, and such was the work of salvation he carried out: first he beautifully renounced the world and the things of the world, stripping himself of all passionate attachment to visible things; then, entering the arena of asceticism free from his own will, he valiantly triumphed over the enemy; advancing thus from stillness to the word, he took his seat among the priests and enlightened the people entrusted to him through the word of teaching, and brought many from being unworthy to being worthy of his God; and in the end, he fought through many trials for righteousness and upheld, undefeated to the very end, the martyrdom of his conscience”27

The ethical solution

“If you intend to ascend to a holy office, for example, that of metropolitan or bishop, do not accept this dignity until you have received, through fasting and vigils, a revelation from on high and the full assurance that it comes from God: and if God’s revelation is delayed, take courage, persevere, humble yourself before God, and you will see it in the fact that your life is pure and overcomes the obstacles of the passions. And what does the Metropolitan say? For even if you have been elected to the patriarchal throne without a divine vision, do not presume to take into your own hands the care of the Holy Church of God’28”.

From both these reflections—one by a theologian, the other by a layperson quoted with great joy for his high human and philosophical dignity—we see that true authority is earned through ascetic effort and confirmed through mystical insights. Only these elements can determine whether someone is truly called to assume a position of authority within the Church.

Today’s Interpretation of Saint Simeon the New Theologian

The interpretation of the significance of Saint Simeon the New Theologian in Byzantine theology takes two approaches: the Orthodox one, which highlights the traditional character of his teaching, and the Catholic interpretation, which emphasises the conflict between an enthusiastic, even anarchic mystic (with deviations from Orthodoxy) and a conservative, traditionalist and scholastic ecclesiastical institution, at a time when it sought to establish its own magisterium, following the Western model 29.

One of the Orthodox theologians who devoted himself to studying the personality and theology of Saint Symeon the New Theologian, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev 30, speaks not so much of a clash between a saint and tradition, but rather ‘of a debate concerning tradition itself’. Saint Symeon the New Theologian highlights ‘the mystical nature of true tradition’, which he contrasts with traditionalist-formalist falsification, as well as ‘the traditional nature of true mysticism’, as opposed to its subjectivist-anarchist and even humanist distortions. Metropolitan Hylarion argues that Saint Symeon the New Theologian was neither a Mesalian-type anarchic mystic, nor an unwitting Protestant, nor a mere charismatic, a forerunner of modern Pentecostalism; but rather a saint deeply rooted in the great spiritual and patristic tradition of the Orthodox East, which he embraced and lived out with great honesty 31.

Saint Symeon the New Theologian was, like all the great authentic mystics of the Christian Church, both a renewer and a preserver of tradition, a maximalist mystical prophet and a conservative. Without being contradictory, these statements show that his programme did not seek a reform or a revision of Tradition, but rather a revitalisation of it, particularly through the revival of the charismatic ideal of a wholly evangelical and apostolic life. This is why we see how, in his person, radicalism and maximalism coexist very well with tradition. It is precisely this maximalism that has inspired clergy and the faithful throughout history to keep the Orthodox tradition al7 alive.

[…] his programme did not seek a reformation or revision of Tradition, but rather its revitalisation, particularly through the revival of the charismatic ideal of a life wholly devoted to the Gospel and the apostolate.

This spiritual tradition has been preserved unaltered, like a common thread, and was passed down within the Orthodox monastic tradition through the Hesychasm of the 13th–14th and 18th centuries, with Saint Seraphim of Sarov († 1833), right up to the 20th century, with Saint Silouan the Athonite († 1936).

Through this strand of spirituality and mysticism, the chain of holiness has been preserved unbroken, its sole foundation of life and authority being the vision of God.

• 1

  Jonathan Harris, An Introduction to Byzantine History, translated from English by Mihai Moroiu, Baroque Books & Arts, 2021, Bucharest, p. 11.

• 2

  See also the edited volume by Pamela Armstrong (ed.), Authority in Byzantium, Routledge, 2016, New York.

• 3

  Timothy E. Gregory, A History of Byzantium, translated by Cornelia Dumitru, Polirom Publishing, 2019, Iași, p. 243.

• 4

  Saint Symeon the New Theologian. His Life and Times, Writings IV, introduction and translation by Deacon Ioan I. Ică Jr., Deisis Publishing, 2006, Sibiu, p. 77.

• 5

  Timothy E. Gregory, A History of Byzantium, translated by Cornelia Dumitru, Polirom, 2019, Iași, p. 244.

• 6

  Hans G. Beck, The Byzantine Millennium, translated from German by Lidia Rus, Nemira Publishing House, 2015, Bucharest, p. 211.

• 7a7b7c

  Ibid.

• 8

  See Jacques Le Goff, The Medieval Man, translated by Ingrid Ilinca and Dragoș Cojocaru, Polirom, 1999, Iași, pp. 14–15.

• 9

  Hans G. Beck, The Byzantine Millennium, Nemira Publishing House, 2015, Bucharest, p. 213.

• 10a10b

  Ibid., p. 217.

• 11

  Hans G. Beck, op. cit., p. 220.

• 12

  Ibid., p. 221.

• 13

  Rev. Prof. John A. McGuckin, ‘Saint Simeon the New Theologian and Byzantine Monasticism’ in Saint Simeon the New Theologian: The Man and His Times, Writings IV, pp. 357–422.

• 14

  Saint Symeon the New Theologian, The Man and His Era, Writings IV, p. 50.

• 15

  Rosemary Morris, Monks and Laymen in Byzantium, 843–1118, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 56.

• 16

  John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd revised edition, Nemira Publishing House, 2011, Bucharest, p. 112.

• 17

  Saint Symeon the New Theologian, Theological and Ethical Discourses, Writings I, Deisis Publishing, 2001, Sibiu, p. 84.

• 18

  Rosemary Morris, Monks and Laymen in Byzantium, 843–1118, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 89; Archbishop Vasili Krivoșein, *In the Light of Christ. The Life and Spiritual Teachings of Saint Symeon the New Theologian, translated by Rev. Prof. Ioan Vasile Leb and Hieromonk Gheorghe Iordan, EIBMBOR, 2005, Bucharest, p. 46.

• 19

  I refer to a recent, highly thought-provoking work on this subject: Giorgio Agamben, The Mystery of Evil: Benedict XVI and the End of the Ages, translated from Italian by Anamaria Gebăilă, Humanitas, 2023, Bucharest.

• 20

  John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, 2nd revised edition, Nemira Publishers, 2011, Bucharest, p. 113.

• 21

  Saint Symeon the New Theologian, The Man and His Times, Writings IV, p. 34.

• 22

  Saint Symeon the New Theologian, The Man and His Era, Writings IV, p. 51.

• 23

  Ibid., pp. 79–80.

• 24

  Rosemary Morris, Monks and Laymen in Byzantium, 843–1118, Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 93.

• 25

  Saint Symeon the New Theologian, The Man and His Era, Writings IV, pp. 79–80.

• 26

  Ibid., p. 83.

• 27

  Nichita Stithatul, ‘The Life and Conduct of Our Holy Father Simeon the New Theologian, Priest and Abbot of the Monastery of Saint Mamas in Xirokerkos’, in Simeon the New Theologian. Life and Times. Writings IV, p. 271.

• 28

  Katakalon Kekaumenos, ‘Strategikon (The Advice of a Byzantine General in Retreat)’, in Simeon the New Theologian. His Life and Times. Writings IV, pp. 441–442.

• 29

  Simeon the New Theologian. His Life and Times. Writings IV.

• 30

  Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, Saint Symeon the New Theologian and the Orthodox Tradition, Sofia Publishing House, 2010, Bucharest.

• 31

  Simeon the New Theologian. His Life and Times. Writings IV, p. 45.