Máximo, o Confessor: Opúsculos

      

As “Pequenas Obras Teológicas e Polêmicas” reúnem trabalhos que se espalham por toda a carreira de Máximo o Confessor e sondam um número   de questões teológicas e definições levantadas das controvérsias doutrinais de seu tempo. De particular interesse   é o Opusculum 6 que Máximo compôs especificamente para combater o monotelismo e definir   mais precisamente sua doutrina   das duas vontades de Jesus Cristo  .

Usamos tanto citações apresentadas em LITURGIA CÓSMICA e na tradução inglesa do Opusculum 6, em ON THE COSMIC MYSTERY OF JESUS CHRIST.

---

[65A] If you understand Jesus’s prayer, Father  , if possible, let [65B] this cup pass from me (Mt   26:39), which gives the indication of resistance (systole), as expressed by the man “not that we conceive in the role of Savior (for his will in no way contradicts God  , since it has been completely deified), but who is just like us, seeing as the human will does not always follow God but so often resists and contends with him,” as the divine Gregory says, what do you make of the rest of the prayer, Let not what I will, but what you will prevail? Is it a matter of resistance (systole) or courage (andreia  ), of agreement (synneusis  ) or disagreement (diastasis)? Certainly no one of a right mind   will dispute that it is a matter neither of contention (antiptosis) nor cowardice (deilia) but of perfect harmony (symphuia) and concurrence (synneusis).

And if it is a matter of perfect harmony and concurrence, whom do you [65C] understand as the subject? The man who is just like us, or the man we consider in the role of Savior? If it is from the man who is just like us, then our teacher Gregory errs when he declares .. seeing as the human will does not always follow God but so often resists and contends with him.” For if it follows God, it is not resisting him, and if it is resisting him, it is not following him. These two assertions, being contrary, mutually nullify [68A] and exclude each other. If, however, you understand the subject of the phrase Let not what I will, but what you will prevail to be not the man just like us but the man we consider as Savior, then you have confessed the ultimate concurrence of his human will with the divine will, which is both his and the Father’s; and you have demonstrated that with the duality of his natures there are two wills (theleseis) and two operations (energeiai) respective to the two natures, and that he admits of no opposition between them, even though he maintains all the while the difference between the two natures from which, in which, and which he is by nature.

But if, constrained by these arguments, you proceed to say that the negation Not [68B] what I will comes neither from the man who is just like us, nor from the man whom we consider in the role of Savior, but rather refers, as a negation, to the eternal divinity of the Only-Begotten — which [ipso facto] excludes his willing something for himself separately from the Father — then you are compelled to refer what is willed, which is precisely the declining of the cup, to the very same eternal divinity. For even if you say that the negation is the negation of his willing something for himself separately from his Father, it is nevertheless not a dismissal of what is willed itself. For it is impossible for the negation to apply to both things: the Only-Begotten’s willing something for himself separately from the Father and that which is willed itself. Otherwise, since the Father and the Son always share a common will, negation would be negation of what is willed by God, namely, our salvation — and we know that is what God wills by his very nature. But if it is impossible for the negation to apply to both things mentioned above, it is obvious that if you opt to apply it to the Son willing something for himself, in order to affirm the common [68C] will between Father and Son, you are not repudiating what is willed, namely, the declining of the cup, but you are in fact ascribing that declining to their common and eternal divinity, to which you have also referred the exercise of will in the negating.

Now if even the thought of such reasoning is repugnant, then clearly the negation here — Not what I will — absolutely precludes opposition and instead demonstrates harmony between the human will of the Savior and the divine will shared by him and his Father, given that the Logos   assumed our nature in its entirety and deified his human will in the assumption. It follows, then, that having become like us for our sake, he was calling on his God and Father in a human manner (anthropoprepos) when he said, Let not what I will, but what you will prevail, inasmuch as, being God by nature, he also in his humanity has, as his human volition, the fulfillment   of the will of the Father. This is why, considering both of the natures from which, [68D] in which, and of which his person was, he is acknowledged as able both to will and to effect our salvation. As God, he approved that salvation along with the Father and the Holy Spirit  ; as man, he became for the sake of that salvation obedient to his Father unto death, even death on a cross (Phil 2:8). He accomplished this great feat of the economy of salvation for our sake through the mystery of his incarnation. [Tr. Blowers & Wilkens]