On Some Problems Related to the Characterization of Vladimir Lossky’s Heritage

Abstract

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.