Gregory of Nyssa’s (Relational) Doctrine of Grace as an Ontology of History in Ecumenical Perspective

Abstract

The paper shows the relevance of Gregory of Nyssa’s Trinitarian ontology for Ecumenism. In fact, the Cappadocian’s rereading of the relationship between ontology and history makes it possible to combine dynamics and being in his reading of divinization as epektasis. This seems to be relevant from the perspective of Luther studies, as it shows that Tuomo Mannermaa’s interpretation of the Reformer’s thought could be interpreted as relational and not merely dialectical. In the end, it seems that the research on a true theological ontology and the deepening of the theology of history can be useful for a better understanding of Luther’s intention and inspiration in his doctrine on grace.

Full text

Theological Research ■ volume 8 (2020) ■ p. 23–44
doi: https://doi.org/10.15633/thr.4126
G M
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6827-4436
Pontical University ofthe Holy Cross, Italy
regory ofyssa’s (elational)
orine ofrace asan ntology
ofiory incumenical erspeive
A
e paper shows the relevance ofGregory ofNyssa’s Trinitarian ontology for
Ecumenism. Infact, the Cappadocian’s rereading ofthe relationship between
ontology and history makes itpossible tocombine dynamics and being inhis
reading ofdivinization asepektasis. is seems tobe relevant from the perspec-
tive ofLuther studies, asit shows that Tuomo Mannermaa’s interpretation
ofthe Reformer’s thought could beinterpreted asrelational and not merely
dialectical. Inthe end, itseems that the research onatrue theological ontology
and the deepening ofthe theology ofhistory can beuseful for abetter under-
standing ofLuther’s intention and inspiration inhis doctrine ongrace.
K
Gregory ofNyssa, Luther Studies, Tuomo Mannermaa, eology ofHistory,
Ecumenism

Giulio Maspero
24
. I:
T C T O
e th century was marked byan extraordinary charismatic ourish-
ing inthe Catholic Church. is trigged awide and deep theological
development that isnow pointing toTrinitarian ontology from very
dierent perspectives. e core element ofthis process isthe awareness
ofthe relation between charisma and communion. Infact, every charis-
ma isgiven tosomeone inaparticular historical situation characterized
byecclesiastical and spiritual elements.
is means that the eort tobe faithful toacharismatic eusion
should also take into account what inthe original gift isessential and
what was only determined bythe historical circumstances and the ne-
cessity toreact against adistortion ofthe Gospel orto compensate for
alack inChristian life. is isconnected also tothe necessity ofadia-
chronic approach that accompanies every enduring phenomenon. Its
very success, in fact, implies a rich Wirkungsgeschichte that should
bestudied and analysed tobe preserve communion and the life itself
originated bythe charismatic gift.
What ishappening now isthat from within dierent realities inthe
Catholic Church born out of those charismatic eusions in the last
century atheological thought isemerging that aims atarelational re-
shaping ofontology. e point isthat behind the particular elements
which characterized the initial moment of the charismatic eusions
areal new way oflooking atreality asawhole should appear.
is observation suggests that Tuomo Mannermaa’s interpretation
ofLuther can beread, from the suggested perspective, asareal eort
tobe faithful tothe Reformer’s inspiration. e Finnish criticism of
Hermann Lotze’s Kantian presuppositions and his nominalistic un-
derstanding of grace and justication brought toan explicit reread-
ing of ontology from a real Trinitarian perspective. is happened
in dialogue with the Orthodox Church, particularly with reference
tothe meaning oftheosis. e concept isakey one, asthe role ofgrace
inWestern theology isplayed bydeication inthe Eastern approach.
Itcan beshown that the theological work ofthe Greek Fathers ofthe
Church was accompanied and consisted ofareal reshaping ofontol-
ogy inthe light ofChristian Revelation. e core ofthis development
was the role and concept ofrelation, which was necessary considered
anaccident inclassical metaphysics, but could not be such according

Gregory ofNyssa’s (Relational) Doctrine ofGrace…
25
tothe Gospel because the very names ofthe divine Persons brought
with themselves a ineludible reference to relation. What happened
inhistory lifted the veil onanew view onthe immanent dimension
ofthe First Principle Himself. Being and history appeared together
ina unprecedented synthesis that revolves around relation.
e Finnish approach toLuther seems toperfectly t in this pic-
ture. Few words byMannermaa could besucient: “[T]he concrete
reality ofthe historical Jesus and the whole narrative ofGod’s history
with mankind (Heilsgeschichte) are the foundation onwhich a theo-
logical ontology as Trinitarian ontology must be conceptualized.”
Risto Saarinen’s description ofthe ontological role ofrelation, related
to Augustine’s inuence onLuther, conrms the reading.
Recent studies have shown how Gregory ofNyssa developed areal
Trinitarian ontology through his reinterpretation ofthe role ofrelation,
both as schesis and aspros ti, according to the Greek classical philo-
sophical expressions. Heresemantized them inorder tointroduce re-
lation itself into the divine substance, enabling inthis way arereading
ofGod’s action infavour ofthe human being asan expression ofHis
being. is line ofreasoning with guide usin the following theological
and ontological exploration.
 T. Mannermaa, Doctrine ofJustication and Trinitarian Ontology, in: Trinity,
Time, and Church. AResponse tothe eology ofRobert W.Jenson, ed. C.Gunton, Grand
Rapids , p..
 Cfr. R.Saarinen, Martin Luther and Relational inking, in: Oxford Encyclope-
dia ofMartin Luther, ed. P.Hinlicky, Oxford , pp. –.
 Cfr. G. Maspero, Patristic Trinitarian Ontology, in: Rethinking Trinitar-
ian eology: Disputed Questions And Contemporary Issues inTrinitarian eology, eds.
R.J.Wozniak, G.Maspero, London–New York , pp. – and G.Maspero, Es-
sere erelazione. L’ontologia trinitaria diGregorio diNissa, Roma . Toappear inEng-
lish asBeing and Relation. Gregory ofNyssa’s Trinitarian Ontology.
 As itwould behighlighted inthe nal section, this operation does not per-
fectly overlap with Augustine’s one, ashe only juxtaposed relation and substance. Cfr.
G.Maspero, Relazione eontologia inGregorio diNissa eAgostino, “Scripta eologica”
(), pp. –.

Giulio Maspero
26
. M  G: R G
Christian ontological vision and classical metaphysics present some
radical dierences. e latter ischaracterized byan eternal ontological
level, which embraced both God and the world. e dierence between
them isexpressed interms ofdescending grades ofontological perfec-
tion, degradating from the rst principle. According toChristian Rev-
elation, onthe other hand, there exist two dierent and sharply distinct
ontological orders. e rst iseternal and coincides with divine nature,
i.e. the Trinity, the second iscreated and came into being byGod’s will.
But this implies that from the Christian perspective ofthe Greek Fa-
thers the rst Principle can only bepartially known and only through
Revelation, while creation coincides with the scope explored inprior
philosophical research.
It isnatural that the conception ofdeication substantially changes
in the transition between these two ontological visions. Infact, the
philosophical approach essentially consists in moving up the ladder
ofbeing, travelling with intellect along the dierent ontological steps
which stand between man and God, like ameson, a mediator of in-
termediate metaphysical density. Instead, inthe Christian context be-
tween God and the world there isnothing, i.e. an innite gap. is
makes deication, inthe metaphysical sense, impossible because there
isno access tothe divine from below. Onthe contrary, itbecomes acces-
sible only through the gift ofgrace. Itcomes from the absolute Other,
who isso transcendent asto beable tolower Himself, because Hehas
noneed of statically defending His position. So He makes Himself
man, dynamically combining eternity and time inarelationship whose
ontological strength isinnite since itis founded inthe personal depth
of God Himself. Salvation can beread as revelation and expression
ofthe immanent relational dimension ofGod.
is dierence was perceived and theologically elaborated in the
fourth century, when the Trinitarian developments dealt with the for-
midable issue ofidentifying aprinciple ofpersonal distinction that was
not substance, but could befound within substance itself. Each ofthe
three divine Persons, infact, isthe very one substance, being atthe same
time relationally distinct form the other two. From the beginning the
discussion was focused onthe relation, toward which the very names
of the divine Persons pointed. It belonged to the relational realities,
indicated byAristotle asthe realities that are pros ti, that is, revealed

Gregory ofNyssa’s (Relational) Doctrine ofGrace…
27
through something, and then connected inthe tradition ofthe com-
mentators ofAristotle’s Categories asschesis. is term depends onthe
Greek echein, the verb tohave, and indicates disposition, understood
asan external addition. is isconsidered the minimum ofthe accidents,
because itnot only needs asubstance inwhich tosubsist, but even two.
From the theological standpoint the philosophical discussion be-
came extremely relevant, especially inthe fourth century when Arius,
inhis criticism ofthose who armed the divinity ofthe Son, explic-
itly denied that the logos could pertain torelations, followed inthis
byEusebius. Gregory ofNyssa, onthe other hand, can state clearly the
opposite, because his theology also contains areformulation ofontolo-
gy asan extension ofclassical metaphysics precisely inthe sense ofrec-
ognizing animmanent dimension tothe divine substance inwhich the
eternal relationships ofthe three divine Persons are found.
e fundamental element from the ontological point ofview isthat
between God and the world there isatrue innite gap. e distinc-
tion between them isnot based onthe existence ofdierent subs tances
which occupy anintermediate position within the same ontology. But
now we have two dierent ontologies connected only by relations.
Gregory, following inthe footsteps ofAthanasius and Basil, developed
this doctrine to answer Eunomius, who spoke of the three Persons
ofthe Holy Trinity asthree dierent substances. Hedid not use the
proper names ofthe Persons, rather made anappeal tophilosophical
terminology. e Bishop ofNyssa explained:
But I think the reason for this new invention of names is obvious
to everybody: all men when they hear the titles “father” and “son”
 Cfr. A.Conti, Lateoria della relazione nei commentatori neoplatonici delle Cate-
gorie diAristotele, “Rivista Critica diStoria della Filosoa” (), pp. –.
 Arius, Letter toAlexander Bishop ofAlexandria, in: Athanasius, De synodis, ,
,in: Athanasius Werke,II/, ed. H.-G. Opitz, Berlin , p., .
 See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical eology, ,, ,–,, in: Eusebius Werke, ,Hrsg.
G.C. Hansen, E.Klostermann, Berlin , pp. –.
 Gregory ofNyssa, Oratio Catechetica Magna, Hrsg. E. Mühlenberg, Leiden
 (Gregorii Nysseni Opera [=GNO]III/), , –.
 Avery interesting and balanced study onthis subject isX. Batllo, Ontologie
scalaire etpolémique trinitaire, Münster .
 Gregory ofNyssa, Contra Eunomium I,, –, (GNO I,, –, ).

Giulio Maspero
28
immediately recognize from the very names their intimate and nat-
ural relation toeach other (φυσικὴν πρὸς ἄλληλα σχέσιν). Commu-
nity ofnature (τὸ γὰρ τῆς φύσεως συγγενὲς) is inevitably suggested
bythese titles.
In this text the community of nature and the reciprocal relation
are linked together both for the divine dimension and for the created
one. e very names ofthe divine Persons speak ofsuch arelation that
implies identity ofnature between those who are linked byit. Inthis
way, the relations indivinis cease tobe considered mere accidents: thus
is opened the possibility to reread the relation asperfection on the
creatural level aswell.
is novelty with respect tothe philosophical heritage can beclear-
ly seen in On the Soul and Resurrection, that has been explicitly con-
ceived byGregory of Nyssa on the model ofthe Socratic dialogues,
soto beknown asa“Christian Phaedo.”
e role ofSocrates isattached toMacrina, towhom Gregory ques-
tions how itis possible that the aspiration toward the good remains
inmen and women who lead alife according tovirtue (κατ΄ ἀρετὴν
βίον). Alife according tovirtue isactually attracted tothe Good ofde-
sire (δι΄ ἐπιθυμίαν) with which God pulls itto Himself asakind ofrope
(τινα σειράν). Once every irrational desire has faded, how isit possible
that the aspiration towhat isbetter remains?
e response ofMacrina resumes the Platonic-Aristotelian teach-
ing onthe human rational faculty: infact, the faculty “of contemplat-
ing and ofdiscerning” (τὸ θεωρητικόν τε καὶ διακριτικὸν) isprecisely
ofthat part ofthe soul which issimilar toGod (θεοειδοῦς) because
 Gregory ofNyssa, Contra Eunomium I,, –, (GNO I,, –).
 See G.Maspero, Essere erelazione, op. cit.
 See C. Apostolopoulos, Phaedo Christianus: Studien zur Verbindung und Ab-
wägung zwischen dem platonischen Phaidon und dem Dialog Gregors von Nyssa Über die
Seele, Frankfurt a. M.–Bern ; H.M. Meissner, Rethorik und Teologie: Der Dialog
Gregors von Nyssa Deanima etresurrectione, Frankfurt a.M. ; M.Pellegrino, Ilpla-
tonismo diS. Gregorio Nisseno nel dialogo “Intorno all’anima ealla risurrezione”, “Rivista
diFilosoa Neo-scolastica” (), pp. –.
 Gregory ofNyssa, Dialogus deanima etresurrectione, in: S.P. N.Gregorii Epis-
copi Nysseni Opera quae reperiri potuerunt omnia, tomus tertius, ed. J.-P. Migne, Parisiis
, col. A (Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca [=PG] ).

Gregory ofNyssa’s (Relational) Doctrine ofGrace…
29
inthese activities wegrasp the divine (τὸ Θεῖον). Once puried either
inthe present life orafter death, nothing will beable toprevent the
soul from contemplating the Good, which byits very nature attracts
(ἑλκτικόν πως κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν) each being that turns its face
toIt. e Good isidentied, infact, bynature with divinity itself (τὸ
Θεῖον) and the puried soul isfound inunion (συνάφειαν) with what
isthe most proper and familiar toit. Inthis way there would nolon-
ger beneed for the movement ofdesire (τῆς κατ΄ ἐπιθυμίαν κινήσεως).
us passion will nolonger benecessary because there will bethe frui-
tion inwhat the soul truly knows, contemplating inits own beauty the
archetype asin amirror and inan image (ἐν κατόπτρῳ καὶ εἰκόνι).
And the reason isthat:
the true assimilation (ὁμοίωσιν) toGod consists inthe fact that our
life reaches imitation tothe transcendent substance inacertain way.
In fact the life ofGod isnot subjected tomovement like that ofmen,
whose desires are connected tothe Good that islacking. e divine na-
ture, instead, does not lack anything and isidentied with the Good
itself. e reference toPlatonism isevident both inthe articulation
ofthe question and inthe vocabulary.
However, itis precisely here that the ontological novelty enters into
that was elaborated inthe context ofthe Trinitarian reection specic
tothat time period. Gregory says, infact, that the soul
conformed to the properties of the divine nature, imitates the supe-
rior life (τὴν ὑπερέχουσαν ζωὴν), insuch away that nothing remains
 Gregory ofNyssa, Dialogus deanima etresurrectione (PG , B).
 Gregory ofNyssa, Dialogus deanima etresurrectione (PG , C).
 Gregory ofNyssa, Dialogus deanima etresurrectione (PG , C).
 Gregory ofNyssa, Dialogus deanima etresurrectione (PG , C–A).
 e Dialogus deanima etresurrectione has aclear terminus post quem inthe death
ofMacrina, completed inJuly of : the datings inthe reading range from the end
of to. Bythat time Gregory ofNyssa had already developed the essential ele-
ments ofhis ontological redevelopment ofthe schesis inthe response toEunomius con-
tained inthe Contra Eunomium IandII, composed during . See, P.Maraval, Crono-
logia delle opere, in: Gregorio diNissa. Dizionario, edd. L.F. Mateo Seco, G.Maspero,
Roma , pp. –.

Giulio Maspero
30
but the disposition of love (τῆς ἀγαπητικῆς διαθέσεως), which nat-
urally tends toward the Good. Infact, love is this: the interior rela-
tion (ἐνδιάθετος σχέσις) toward that which isdesired inthe heart (τὸ
καταθύμιον).
Essential isthe consideration that evil isnot asomething, but rath-
er mere non-being, insuch away that, once united tothe Good, the
soul lacks nothing and is at the peak of beatitude. Juxtaposing this
ontological consideration with the Pauline doctrine ofthe superiority
ofcharity, whose act remains (ἡ κατὰ τὴν ἀγάπην ἐνέργεια μένει) even
ineternity, Gregory states:
e life ofthe Supreme nature (τῆς ἄνω φύσεως) is love (ἀγάπη), be-
cause the Good isabsolutely loveable for the one who knows it. And
the Divinity knows itself, and the knowledge becomes love, insofar
aswhat isknown isthe Good bynature.
e resolution ofthe tension between desire and divinity present
inGreek metaphysical thought, intrinsically connected tothe concep-
tion ofdesire itself asapotency, isbased onthe new conception ofsche-
sis, which isno longer considered amere accident orintermediate grade
distinct from the elements united toit—analogically towhat happened
with logos.
e Trinitarian reection led toarethinking ofthe ontology ofthe
one and triune God, modifying the classical categories ofrelation and
substance, inorder tointroduce the rst into the second, subtracting
itfrom the merely accidental. However, this allows usto think ofthe
relation between God and man interms ofarelational participation,
i.e. schetical, which does not have need ofan intermediary ontological
meson. Love, understood asan immanent relation, isthus interpreted
asan essential element ofthe divine nature, and the latter isno longer
reduced only topure thought orthe eidetic dimension, but isnow alife
ofknowledge and love.
 Gregory ofNyssa, Dialogus deanima etresurrectione (PG , C)
 Cf. Gregory ofNyssa, Dialogus deanima etresurrectione (PG , C).
 Gregory ofNyssa, Dialogus deanima etresurrectione (PG , C).
 On the resemantization of Logos in Gregory’s Trinitarian Ontology, see
G.Maspero, Patristic Trinitarian Ontology, op. cit.

Gregory ofNyssa’s (Relational) Doctrine ofGrace…
31
erefore, deication does not come about only by means of in-
tellectual knowledge, but true knowledge isthat which ishad inlove
and which leads through this tounion. Such expressions donot have
amerely emotive signicance, because Revelation allows usto reinter-
pret desire and will through authentically ontological lenses. Deica-
tion isrealized not asareduction orassimilation ofthe human tothe
divine, but asamutual inhabitation that isable tomaintain the distinc-
tion ofnature thanks tothe relation.
It isto benoted that Gregory ofNyssa isthe rst and practically the
only one tomake recourse tothe expression endiathetos schesis. e di-
vine substance ischaracterized byan immanent dimension that isab-
solutely distinct from created nature, which incontrast tothe Absolute,
has the possibility ofnon-existence. is immanent dimension ismade
upof the Father, the Son (who isthe Logos), and the Holy Spirit. e
distinction between the ree ispurely relational: for this reason the
Persons are within the substance and do not constitute diverse sub-
stances, but they perfectly identify with the one innite substance and
divine nature, which cannot beconned orlimited.
is ontological interpretation oflove bymeans ofthe endiathetos
schesis ispresent inacouple ofother passages from Gregory’s works.
Especially important is the one in homily II of his In Canticum
canticorum, as it clearly points at the altered participative structure.
Infact, Gregory comments onSong :-, interpreting the words ofthe
bride who says she has become black from not having been vigilant
and having lost her purity (καθαρότητος), being clothed inleather gar-
ments (cf. Gen :). Now, however, thanks tothe encounter with the
divine Groom, Righteousness has come tolove her anew (ἀγαπήσασάν)
 e only other occurrence isfrom the sixth century: Eliae (olim Davidis) in
Ari stotelis categorias commentarium, in: Eliae inPorphyrii Isagogen etAristotelis cate gorias
commentaria, ed. A.Busse, Berolini , , (Commentaria inAristotelem Graeca
[=CAG] .).
 For InEcclesiasten homiliae (GNO V,, –) see the next section.
 For anice analysis ofthe recurrence ofthe schesis inthe InCanticum Cantico-
rum see: I.Vigorelli, Desiderio ebeatitudine: schesis nell’In Canticum canticorum diGre-
gorio diNissa, “Annales eologici” (), pp. –.
 Regarding this interpretation, see J.Daniélou, Platonisme etthéologie mystique,
Paris , pp. –; –; J.Daniélou, L’être etle temps chez Grégoire deNysse, Leiden
, pp. –.

Giulio Maspero
32
giving back toher her lost beauty. And the text continues, explaining
that:
us, ceasing tospeak tothe young women, the bride goes back topet-
ioning the groom, taking the name ofthe one who hehad desired asan
intimate relation (ἐνδιάθετον σχέσιν) tohim.
e theme of the name is fundamental both in Judeo-Christian
theology, and inthe theological perspective ofthe debate with Euno-
mius. Infact, while the latter armed that the term unbegotten indicat-
ed the divine substance, insuch away that the begotten Son could not
beconsidered God precisely onaccount ofbeing begotten and not un-
begotten, the Cappadoccian Fathers held God tobe ineable, insuch
away that any name would beuseful tospeak ofHim, but noname
could express Him fully. God isknowable through His actions inour
favour inthe divine economy, that is, inthe history ofsalvation. us
the bride says:
“Tell me, you whom myheart loves,” (Song :). Infact, Icall you such,
because your name isbeyond every other name, and for every rational
nature it is ineable and incomprehensible. erefore, the relation
(σχέσις) ofmy soul with you isfor you the name that gives knowledge
ofyour goodness.
Only love, being arelation, can beaname ofGod, making the Trin-
ity, known, because the triune God isrelational. Love isthe reciprocal
relation that unites the bride with the Groom who loved her when she
was all black through sin. She wonders, infact, how she could not love
Him who loved her from the beginning, who loved her, oering His
life for her, shedding His Blood.
e essential point isthat love ishere understood not only asade-
sire for beauty, according tothe Platonic schema, but asagift ofone-
self. Inthis consists the novelty. e participation inthe Good isnot
 See Gregory ofNyssa, InCanticum canticorum (GNO VI, , –).
 GNO VI, , –.
 See J.Daniélou, Platonisme etthéologie mystique, op. cit., pp. –.
 Gregory ofNyssa, InCanticum canticorum (GNO VI, , –).
 See Gregory ofNyssa, InCanticum canticorum (GNO VI, , –, ).

Gregory ofNyssa’s (Relational) Doctrine ofGrace…
33
based onanecessary ontological structure that requires arigid hierar-
chy inorder tosafeguard the distinction between God and the world.
Rather, the participation isagift from the source. e bride says this:
I, running toward you who are the source, will sip from the divine drink
with which you quench the thirst ofthe thirsty, with water owing
from your side because the wound has opened this source. And who-
ever drinks ofthis becomes asource ofwater that will ow forth for
life eternal ( Jn :).
is participation based ongiving and loving, which will inturn
give rise togift and love, explains salvation asareal ontological change
of the human being made possible by the presence ofGod in him
orher. Infact, the bride says that she has become righteous and beauti-
ful again insofar asRighteousness has loved her, receiving through the
personal relation areal participation inthe very life ofGod.
. U  C:
E  H
But this does not implies any confusion between the Creator and the
creature. Gregory traces aparallelism between the two ontological lev-
els, but heis perfectly aware ofthe dierences between them: inGod
schesis perfectly communicates the innite and eternal divine nature,
sothat each Person isnumerically the same substance, whereas atthe
human level itonly communicates aparticipation into the human na-
ture.
is can also beseen, for example, inhis Commentary onthe Song
of the Songs. Elias Moutsoulas has highlighted that commenting
onthis book Gregory, unlike Origen, is mainly concerned about the
ontological relationship between God and the human person. e
Cappadocian stresses atthe same time the absolute dierence between
the divine nature and the world, onone hand, and the freedom ofthe
loving relationship with the human beings, onthe other:
 Gregory ofNyssa, InCanticum canticorum (GNO VI, , –).
 Cfr. E.Moutsoulas, Γρηγόριος Νύσσης, Βίος, Συγράμματα, Διδασκαλία, A th -
ens , p..

Giulio Maspero
34
You are truly beautiful– not only beautiful, but the very essence (οὐσία)
ofthe Beautiful, existing forever assuch, being atevery moment what
you are, neither blooming when the appropriate time comes, nor put-
ting o your bloom atthe right time, but stretching (συμπαρατείνων)
your springtime splendor out tomatch the everlastingness ofyour life–
you whose name islove ofhumankind (φιλανθρωπία).
In this text the languages ofpoetry and ontology meet: the very
name ofGod isLove, that isa relation that does not fade away but
is stronger than the passing of time. History and eternity are knot-
ted together bythe verb συμπαρατείνω, that derives from τείνω just
asἐπέκτασις.
e latter comes from Phil :, where Paul says: “Brothers, Ido not
reckon myself ashaving taken hold of it; I can only say that forget-
ting all that lies behind me, and straining forward towhat lies infront
(ἔμπροσθεν ἐπεκτεινόμενος), Iam racing towards the nishing-point
towin the prize ofGod’s heavenly call inChrist Jesus.”
Jean Daniélou dened epektasis asfollows: “For the Platonist, onthe
other hand, change can only bedeterioration; for the spiritual and the
divine are identical, and the divine isunchangeable. But once weestab-
lish the transcendence ofthe divine with respect tothe created spirit,
another sort ofchange becomes possible, the movement ofperpetual
ascent. is movement tends towards the Immovable, and under this as-
pect itis atthe opposite pole tothe meaningless motion ofthe material
world: itis process ofunication and concentration. But the ultimate
unity and stability are never achieved; the soul isconceived asaspiri-
tual universe ineternal expansion towards the innite Darkness.”
e dierent meanings of the two forms derived from τείνω –
συμπαρατείνω and ἐπέκτασις– are determined bythe couple ofprepo-
sitions which precede it: inthe rst one, sun and para express the co-
extensive dimension that characterizes God’s eternal ontology, inthe
latter, epi and ekexpress inthe same time the simultaneous union (epi,
 Gregory ofNyssa, InCanticum canticorum (GNO VI, , –, ); Gregory
ofNyssa, Homilies onthe Song ofSongs, trans. R.A. Norris, Atlanta , p..
 Phil :–.
 J. Daniélou, From Glory toGlory: Texts from Gregory ofNyssa’s Mystical Writings,
Crestwood , pp. –.

Gregory ofNyssa’s (Relational) Doctrine ofGrace…
35
Greek for “at” or“towards”) and excess (ek, Greek for “out of ”) which
mark the relationship between the creature and the Creator.
Epektasis and apophatism inGregory’s theological architecture are
the hallmarks ofthe new ontological framework characterized bythe
gap between the higher uncreated nature and the lower created nature.
In fact, only the Incarnation ofthe eternal Logos could have made
known the higher ontology, i.e. divine immanence, because only afree
action ofthe Divinity could ll the innite gap between the two na-
tures. Inthis way, Christ isthe Logos who becomes truly human with-
out ceasing tobe divine, in such away that Heis not inbetween the
two ontologies, asthe Arians thought, but that Heperfectly belongs
toboth natures.
is means that only through Christ and His esh we can get
toknow something about the Trinity whose splendor isexcessive for
our mind. e apophatic dimension has inGregory adeep Christo-
logical dimension not always suciently stressed: for example, com-
menting onSong :, the Cappadocian interprets the shadow bythe
bed ofthe Bride and the Bridegroom asareference tothe economy
ofIncarnation, because only through the “shadow” ofthe human nature
ofChrist the pure rays ofdivine glory could reach the creatures with-
out destroying them. is line ofinterpretation istypical inGregory’s
theological grammar: for example, hereads the theophany ofthe Burn-
ing Bush asaprophecy ofthe Incarnation ofthe Logos inthe Virgin’s
Womb. e ontological gap implies that revelation always takes place
through aveil.
is means that itis not possible toget toknow God through asub-
stantial connection, but the innite gap can only belled byrelation.
Noname can express God’s essence, but His relation (σχέσις) with the
soul isatrue name that makes known God asLove. is isthe experi-
ence ofthe Bride inthe Song, who discover within herself apath toget
 Cfr. J.Daniélou, From Glory toGlory, op. cit., p..
 Cfr. G.Maspero, L’ontologia trinitaria nei Padri Cappadoci: prospettiva cristolo-
gica, in: Trinità inrelazione: Percorsi diontologia trinitaria dai Padri della Chiesa all’Ide-
alismo tedesco, acura diC. Moreschini, Panzano inChianti , pp. –.
 Cfr. Gregory ofNyssa, InCanticum canticorum (GNO VI, , –, ).
 Cfr. Gregory ofNyssa, Oratio indiem natalem Christi (GNO X/, –).
 Cfr. Gregory ofNyssa, InCanticum canticorum (GNO VI, , –).

Giulio Maspero
36
intouch with the Higher nature, that ontologically isLove (ἀγάπη).
From this perspective itis possible tosee the theological meaning ofthe
following denition, that is the third and last text where endiathetos
schesis appears inGregory’s works:
Love (φίλτρον) is the interior relation (ἡ ἐνδιάθετος σχέσις) to what
isdesired inthe heart and iscaused bypleasure orpassion.
So itis exactly the ontological reshaping ofrelation that makes pos-
sible toconceive epektasis asadynamical relationship ofhistory and
being, asfor the soul inDialogus deanima etresurrectione, who through
love becomes similar tothe divine nature, that isLove, being pure dis-
position oflove, that isapure immanent relation toGod.
is very ontological understanding ofrelation seems tofound the
possibility of epektasis. One ofGregory’s best descriptions ofthis in-
nite progress ofthe soul is his ontological interpretation of Moses’
ascent:
[Moses] shone with glory. Although exalted (ἐπαρθεὶς) bysuch mag-
nicence, hestill burns with desire: heis insatiable tostill have more
and still has thirst for that which constantly lled him tohis pleasure;
and, asif hehad not yet enjoyed it, heasks for more: hebeseeches God
that Heappear tohim asHe isin Himself and not merely inthe meas-
ure inwhich he, Moses, can participate inHim.
His desires grows inthe measure that his relationship with God
becomes stronger. Itis fundamental that his participation ispresented
from the perspective of God’s true being, and not from that of hu-
man potency. Itseems that the new ontological dimension ofrelation
changes creature itself:
It seems tome that Moses takes onthese sentiments to create adis-
position (διαθέσει) of soul that is enamoured of what is beautiful
by nature.
 Gregory ofNyssa, Dialogus deanima etresurrectione (PG , C).
 Gregory ofNyssa, InEcclesiasten (GNO V,, –).
 Gregory ofNyssa, Devita MosisII, ,- (GNO VII/, –).
 Gregory ofNyssa, Devita Mosis,II, ,- (GNO VII/, ).

Gregory ofNyssa’s (Relational) Doctrine ofGrace…
37
e terminology used byGregory isthat ofdisposition and ofthe
relatives, which are those realities adverbially described as turned to-
wards something else. Aristotle uses πρός τί πως ἔχειν as denition
ofrelation. And Gregory denes human perfection inrelational terms:
Perhaps the perfection ofhuman nature consists precisely inthe dispo-
sition (τὸ οὕτως ἔχειν) toalways want tohave more and more good.
So precisely the fact that deication is the participation inGod
Himself through the personal relation with His innite self implies
that the desire ofthe nite creature isalways full and always needs
tobe lled, because the very response ofGod makes the human person
more capable ofreceiving Him:
For this reason, the ardent lover of beauty (ὁ σφοδρὸς ἐραστὴς τοῦ
κάλλους) welcomes within himself what sometimes appears to him
tobe only animage ofwhat hedesires, and helongs tobe lled bythe
very gure of the archetype. is is the purpose of his audacious re-
quest, which goes beyond the limits ofdesire, that is, beyond the veils
ofbeauty, no longer though mirrors and reections, but face toface.
e voice ofGod gives what is asked through the very refusal of it,
showing inafew words animmeasurable abyss ofthought. e gener-
osity ofGod, infact, agrees tosatiate the desire ofMoses, but does not
promise tohim rest orsatiety.
From this perspective, apophatism isnot ano, but onthe contrary,
isprecisely the gift ofthe divine yes inthe relation ofmutual indwelling
between nite creature and innite Creator. us, tosee God consists
innever stopping towant tosee Him, turning the gaze always toHim
(πρὸς αὐτὸν) sothat, paradoxically, Moses islled with what hedesires
precisely because his desire isnever fully satised (δι΄ ὧν ἀπλήρωτος
ἡ ἐπιθυμία μένει). is is epektasis: every ending is but a beginning,
 Aristotle, Categoriae, a–, in: e Complete Works ofAristotle: e Revised
Oxford Translation, One-Volume Digital Edition, ed. J.Barnes, Princeton .
 Gregory ofNyssa, Devita Mosis I,, – (GNO VII/, ).
 Gregory ofNyssa, Devita MosisII, , –, (GNO VII/, , –).
 Cfr. Gregory ofNyssa, Devita MosisII, , – (GNO VII/, , –).
 Gregory ofNyssa, Devita MosisII, , (GNO VII/, , –).

Giulio Maspero
38
anew starting point ofthe ascent, inan ever growing union, always
perfect and always deeper. Commenting onSong :, Gregory has re-
course tothe image ofthe arrow, that isshot towards the divine nature
bythe Archer, i.e. Christ, but atthe same time travels towards the in-
nite and has already achieved its goal resting inHis hands.
e desire becomes aconstant disposition inthe personal relation
with God who dynamically unites the human person and God inan
eternal movement. Apophatism isthus the translation ofdivine tran-
scendence and ofits overow which draws inparticipation. For this
reason, just like desire, movement also changes meaning inthe onto-
logical grammar ofGregory ofNyssa:
erefore the reasoning shows that that which seems tobe feared–
Imean tosay that our nature ismutable – is instead awing for the
ight towards the greatest things, since itwould beapunishment for
usto not beable toundertake achange for that which isbetter. ere-
fore let not hewho sees inhis nature the disposition tochange become
aicted, but moving inevery thing towards that which isbetter and
transforming himself from glory toglory, let him change thus, becom-
ing every day constantly better, indaily growth, and perfecting himself
always more, without ever being able toreach the limit ofperfection.
For inthis consists true perfection: tonever stop growing towards the
best and toplace nolimits toperfection.
Perfection isno longer static inthe achievement ofagoal, because
when the goal isarelationship with the One who isinnite and eter-
nal then itis already reached within the dynamic ofan always growing
union. e human person is, thus, recognized asapilgrim not simply
provisionally but denitively, insofar ashis eternal perfection and glory
remain aneternal movement not only toward God, but inGod. Inthis
way the pilgrimage invia itself isrecognized asagrace and abeginning
ofglory.
 Cfr. Gregory ofNyssa, InCanticum canticorum (GNO VI, , –).
 Cor :. See J.Daniélou, From Glory toGlory, op. cit., p..
 Gregory ofNyssa, DePerfectione (GNO VIII/, , –, ).
 See J.Daniélou, LaColombe etla ténèbre dans lamystique byzantine ancienne,
“Eranos Jahrbuch” (), pp. –.

Gregory ofNyssa’s (Relational) Doctrine ofGrace…
39
Jean Daniélou has expressed this inavery eective form: “is ises-
sentially what Gregory is describing. Men always have the tendency
to stabilize, to x, the various stages ofperfection which they have
attained, and to see in the time-process a threat to their very transi-
tory moments ofhappiness. ey want torecover their past ecstasies,
togo, like Marcel Proust, insearch ofTime Past. For Gregory, onthe
contrary, the future isalways better than the past. But toovercome this
natural tendency ofthe soul, Gregory oers the support offaith, which
isan adherence toapromise. Here wehave the transition from poetry
to prophecy, from the anthropology of the Platonists to that of the
Bible. Paradise– and creation– isyet tocome. Wemust non longer try
torecall it, but tohope for its accomplishment. And thus forgetfulness,
asin tothe Platonist, here becomes avirtue. Wemust leave the known
togo towards the unknown, togo out, asRainer Maria Rilke would say,
into the Open.” is iswhy both Andreas Spira and Jean Daniélou
wrote onGregory’s conception oftime stressing its ontological revo-
lutionary meaning, because the perfection becomes dynamic, while for
Greek thought ithad tobe nite bynecessity.
If perfection isnow recognized indynamics, that means that atrue
revolution has changed ontology. In fact the metaphysical thought
linked motion to the potential element bringing to a static picture
ofDivinity and, because ofthat, ofbeing. Again with Jean Daniélou,
wecan see how deep the transformation was: “Now toovercome this
diculty Gregory had to destroy the equation: good =immutability,
and evil =change. And consequently hehad to show the possibility
ofatype ofchange which would not merely beareturn toimmobility–
that is, tobe amere negation ofchange. Here then isthe revolution
inthought which Gregory accomplished.”
e eternal beatitude ofthe human person isthus conceived inady-
namic sense, creating asort ofcontinuity between grace, the ascension
 J. Daniélou, From Glory toGlory, op. cit., p..
 See A.Spira, Letemps d’un homme selon Aristote etGrégoire deNyssa, in: Col-
loques internationaux duCNRS, Paris , p..
 J. Daniélou, L’être etle temps chez Grégoire deNisse, Leiden .
 See E.Mühlenberg, Die Unendlichkeit Gottes bei Gregor von Nyssa. Gregors Kri-
tik amGottesbegri der klassischen Metaphysik, Göttingen , pp. – and R.Guar-
dini, Das Ende der Neuzeit, Basel , pp. –.
 J.Daniélou, From Glory toGlory, op. cit., pp. –.

Giulio Maspero
40
ofthe soul, mystical experience, and Heaven. Paul isan example ofthis,
for hewas initiated into Paradise and raptured tothe third Heaven,
ashe reports itin Cor :–. For him, according toGregory, the good
reached did not become aterm ofdesire (ὅρον τῆς ἐπιθυμίας), but the
beginning ofanew upward surge:
In this way he[Paul] taught us, Ibelieve, that, regarding the blessed
nature ofthe Good, agreat part isconstituted bywhat wesometimes
nd ourselves; but innitely greater than what isgrasped each time
isthat which remains still beyond that, and this experience iscontinu-
ally repeated for those who participate of the Good, insofar as one
enjoys continual growth, which isactuated inthe entire eternity ofthe
ages through always greater realities.
is means that Gregory’s epektasis itself makes possible tospeak
oftheosis inatrue ontological way, preserving inaperfect way the on-
tological gap. is is the stronghold that defends the identication
ofgrace with pure gift, without necessity ofdiscarding its ontological
content.
For this reason, the ideal axis that unites the divine innity, apo-
phatism, and epektasis can continue with the Sacraments aspresence
ofChrist Himself:
He who has learned that Christ isthe Head ofthe Church, consider
rst ofall that every head is of the same nature (ὁμοφυής) and sub-
stance (ὁμοούσιος) with the body which issubject toit, and that there
isaunique connaturality (συμφυΐα) ofeach part inrelationship tothe
whole (πρὸς τὸ ὅλον), which thanks to a unique co-spiration (διὰ
μιᾶς συμπνοίας) actuates the conformity of sensation (συμπάθειαν)
of the parts together with the whole. erefore, ifsomething is ex-
ternal tothe body, itis also totally external tothe head. With this the
reasoning teaches usthat also each member must become that which
the head isby nature, tobe intimately united with the head (πρὸς τὴν
κεφαλὴν οἰκείως ἔχῃ). And we are the members that complete the
body ofChrist.
 Gregory ofNyssa, InCanticum canticorum (GNO VI, , ).
 Gregory ofNyssa, InCanticum canticorum (GNO VI, , –, ).
 Gregory ofNyssa, Deperfection (GNO VIII/, , –, ).

Gregory ofNyssa’s (Relational) Doctrine ofGrace…
41
From this perspective the union ofthe human being with God
is absolutely real and ontological. e new dynamical conception
ofeternity presents acontinuity between history and heaven, somuch
sothat itseems possible tospeak ofatrue union ofbeing and history.
. C:
E O H
From the ecumenical perspective, itis particular important tohighlight
that the core element ofthis ontology ofhistory isnot atheory, but
the real presence ofChrist inthe life ofthe Christians. Such anunion,
infact, isnot just amatter ofgood deeds or of clever understanding,
but takes place in the darkness of the night, like the spousal union
inthe nuptial bed, because God isbeyond all possibility ofunderstand-
ing. erefore the text ofthe InCanticum, inGregory’s reading, shows
abride who does not manage to reach the Groom but after the en-
counter continually seeks Him. us the union is apophatic precisely
because itis relational. Infact, paradoxically, specically inencounter-
ing the ontological excess ofGod, which renders impossible intellectual
comprehension ofHim, the possibility ofreal union with Him comes
about inthe personal dimension offaith. Gregory shows, commenting
onthe Song ofSongs, that God isnot inthe mind ofman, but abides
inhis heart. For this reason, hetells the bride:
After having recently abandoned them leaving behind all ofcreation
and abandoning all that isknown intellectually in creation, and aban-
doning each positive approach, infaith Ifound the beloved and Iwill
never again leave him clinging onto him whom Ifound with the grip
offaith until heis inmy inmost part. Certainly the inmost part isthe
heart that now becomes capable of receiving the divine indwelling
ofGod, once itreturns tothe condition inwhich itwas formed bythe
one who conceived it. Certainly one would not err who thought that
the mother isthe rst cause ofour sustinence.
is means that God cannot bereduced tohuman knowledge, even
ifthe presence ofthe Trinity inthe soul isperfectly real, aswell asthe
 Gregory ofNyssa, InCanticum canticorum (GNO VI, , –).

Giulio Maspero
42
ontological change ofthe baptised. Itis interesting tonote, infact, how
Gregory unites the exegetical perspective tothe ontological perspective,
reading the mother inwhose house the bride accepts the groom (see
Song :) asthe rst cause ofall things, that is, God Himself, whose
nature isabsolutely transcendent. But this rst Principle isnow rec-
ognized as the Holy Trinity, in whose light all creation and human
life change their meaning, presenting the relational dimension asthe
deepest level oftheir ontology.
In sum, itseems that Gregory’s Trinitarian Ontology enables toun-
derstand Mannermaa reading ofLuther asareturn tothe Reformer’s
criticism ofaquasi-arian idea ofthe church asaintermediate ontologi-
cal level, anon-relational mediation, that tarnished the gratuitousness
ofChristian salvation. is shows atthe same time both atheological
and ahistorical attention, that seems fundamental for ecumenism.
Christian faith stands onthe real presence ofGod inhistory given
byand in Jesus Christ the Risen. is consists ofadouble element,
both historical and ontological, that requires atthe same time anontol-
ogy ofhistory and aTrinitarian ontology asafoundation ofit. Gregory
ofNyssa’s thought oers anexample ofthis theological development,
that could betracked down, again ata historical level, to the origin
ofthe variety ofLuther’s interpretations. Acomparison ofAugustine’s
and Gregory’s Trinitarian ontology shows, infact, that the approach
ofthe former ismore linguistic and less creative and powerful from
the metaphysical perspective. Onthe contrary, the Cappadocian Father
could have recourse tothe rich tradition ofthe commentators ofAris-
totle’s Categories, developing from them anoriginal ontological view,
where relation isnot only ametaphysical co-principle with substance,
asin the Latin Father, but iswithin the divine substance itself.
is founds at the same time (a) apophatism with the cognitive
value of will and love, (b) the identication of theosis with epektasis
and (c) anew understanding ofhistory incontinuity with eschatology.
Will and relation, infact, have anontological dimension, that makes
possible the real change ofthe human person, without any confusion
between God and the creature.
e path sosketched suggests that the study ofTrinitarian ontology
and the apophatic approach can bevery eective inecumenical studies,
soto oer anaccessible route tocommunion, infull respect ofthe his-
tory and dierences ofeach Christian confessions.

Gregory ofNyssa’s (Relational) Doctrine ofGrace…
43
B
Apostolopoulos C., Phaedo Christianus: Studien zur Verbindung und Abwägung
zwischen dem platonischen Phaidon und dem Dialog Gregors von Nyssa Über
die Seele, Frankfurt a.M.–Bern .
Aristotle, Categoriae, in: e Complete Works of Aristotle: e Revised Oxford
Translation, One-Volume Digital Edition, ed. J.Barnes, Princeton .
Arius, Letter to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria, in: Athanasius, De synodis,
,,in: Atanasius Werke,II/, ed. H.-G. Opitz, Berlin .
Batllo X., Ontologie scalaire etpolémique trinitaire, Münster .
Conti A., Lateoria della relazione nei commentatori neoplatonici delle Categorie
diAristotele, “Rivista Critica diStoria della Filosoa” (), pp. –.
Daniélou J., LaColombe etla ténèbre dans lamystique byzantine ancienne, “ Era -
nos Jahrbuch” (), pp. –.
Daniélou J., L’être etle temps chez Grégoire deNisse, Leiden .
Daniélou J., From Glory toGlory: Texts from Gregory ofNyssa’s Mystical Writ-
ings, Crestwood .
Daniélou J., Platonisme etthéologie mystique, Paris .
Gregory ofNyssa, Contra Eunomium I,ed. W.Jaeger, Leiden  (Gregorii
Nysseni Opera I).
Gregory ofNyssa, DePerfectione, ed. W.Jaeger, Leiden  (Gregorii Nys-
seni Opera VIII/).
Gregory ofNyssa, Devita Mosis I,ed. H.Musurillo, Leiden  (Gregorii
Nysseni Opera VII/).
Gregory ofNyssa, Devita MosisII, ed. H.Musurillo, Leiden  (Gregorii
Nysseni Opera VII/).
Gregory ofNyssa, Dialogus deanima etresurrectione, in: S.P. N.Gregorii Epis-
copi Nysseni Opera quae reperiri potuerunt omnia, tomus tertius, ed. J.-P. Mi-
gne, Parisiis  (Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Graeca ).
Gregory ofNyssa, Homilies onthe Song ofSongs, trans. R.A. Norris, Atlanta
.
Gregory ofNyssa, InCanticum canticorum,ed. H.Langerbeck, Leiden 
(Gregorii Nysseni Opera VI).
Gregory ofNyssa, InEcclesiasten homiliae, eds. J.McDonough, P.Alexander,
Leiden  (Gregorii Nysseni Opera V).
Gregory ofNyssa, Oratio Cathechetica Magna, ed. E.Mühlenberg, Leiden 
(Gregorii Nysseni OperaIII/).
Gregory of Nyssa, Oratio indiem natalem Christi, eds. E. Rhein, F.Mann,
F.R.Tesón, H.Polack, Leiden  (Gregorii Nysseni Opera X/).

Giulio Maspero
44
Guardini R., Das Ende der Neuzeit, Basel .
Mannermaa T., Doctrine of Justication and Trinitarian Ontology, in: Trin-
ity, Time, and Church. AResponse tothe eology ofRobert W.Jenson, ed.
C.Gunton, Grand Rapids , pp.–.
Maraval P., Cronologia delle opere, in: Gregorio di Nissa. Dizionario, edd.
L.F.Mateo Seco, G.Maspero, Roma , pp.–.
Maspero G., Essere erelazione. L’ontologia trinitaria diGregorio diNissa, Ro-
ma .
Maspero G., L’ontologia trinitaria nei Padri Cappadoci: prospettiva cristologica,
in: Trinità inrelazione: Percorsi diontologia trinitaria dai Padri della Chie-
sa all’Idealismo tedesco, a cura diC. Moreschini, Panzano inChianti ,
pp.–.
Maspero G., Patristic Trinitarian Ontology, in: Rethinking Trinitarian eolo-
gy: Disputed Questions And Contemporary Issues inTrinitarian eology, eds.
R.J.Wozniak, G.Maspero, London–New York , pp.–.
Maspero G., Relazione e ontologia inGregorio di Nissa e Agostino, “Scripta
eologica” (), pp. –.
Meissner H.M., Rethorik und Teologie: Der Dialog Gregors von Nyssa Deanima
etresurrectione, Frankfurt a.M. .
Moutsoulas E., Γρηγόριος Νύσσης, Βίος, Συγράμματα, Διδασκαλία, Athens
.
Mühlenberg E., Die Unendlichkeit Gottes bei Gregor von Nyssa. Gregors Kritik
amGottesbegri der klassischen Metaphysik, Göttingen .
Pellegrino M., Ilplatonismo diS. Gregorio Nisseno nel dialogo “Intorno all’anima
ealla risurrezione”, “Rivista diFilosoa Neo-scolastica” (), pp. –
.
Saarinen R., Martin Luther and Relational inking, in: Oxford Encyclopedia
ofMartin Luther, ed. P.Hinlicky, Oxford , pp.–.
Spira A., Letemps d’un homme selon Aristote etGrégoire deNyssa, in: Colloques
internationaux duCNRS, Paris , pp.–
Vigorelli I., Desiderio ebeatitudine: schesis nell’In Canticum canticorum diGrego-
rio diNissa, “Annales eologici” (), pp. –.