On Some Problems Related to the Characterization of Vladimir Lossky’s Heritage
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu28.2019.202Abstract
The content of this article is a critical analysis of the characteristics that are commonly attributed to the theology of Vladimir Lossky. It is customary to speak of Lossky as a representative of the “Parisian school” of theology, a follower of the “neopatristic synthesis” and a “palamite” or “neopalamite”. Looking in detail at the history and possible meanings of these three concepts, the author shows that they cannot be applied to the personality and work of Lossky. Firstly, the name “Parisian school” is too vague and ambiguous, and there is no way to clearly identify which of the Russian theologians-emigrants can be considered as its representatives. Secondly, the appeal to and creative assimilation of the Holy Father’s heritage took place before the introduction of the term “neopatristic synthesis”; especially, it does not apply to Lossky, who was not a follower of Florovsky and did not develop his ideas. Third, Vladimir Lossky’s close attention to the teachings of Gregory Palamas about the difference between the essence and the energies in God and about noncreated grace should be assessed in the context of his dialogue with Catholics and his criticism of the thomism. This conceptual analysis also clarifies some of the circumstances associated with Lossky’s main intention, namely his desire to introduce mystical theology and the spirituality of Orthodoxy to his Western interlocutors — Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants.
Keywords:
Vladimir Lossky, Parisian school, neopatristics, palamism and neopalamism, difference of the essence and the energies in God, non-created grace
Downloads
References
References
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Articles of "Issues of Theology" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.