Abstract: In this article, focusing on the work of Nicholas of Methone entitled Refutation of Proclus’ Elements of Theology (Ἀνάπτυξις τῆς Θεολογικῆς Στοιχειώσεως Πρόκλου Πλατωνικοῦ Φιλοσόφου), I study the concept of movement as it appears in the metaphysical level of the Holy Trinity. My purpose is to show that the author preserves the philosophical meaning of the concept in question, but without getting out of the Christian frame. My study is divided into six particular sections. In the first one I attempt to approach Nicholas’ thoughts on the movement as a mode of communication between the three Persons of the Holy Trinity. In the second one, I investigate his views on movement in the sense of distinction of the divine essence from the divine energies. In the third one, I examine his positions on how movement is distinct from change. In the fourth one, I approach some more particular aspects of the divine movement. In the fifth one, I attempt to see in comparison his opinion regarding metaphysical self-movement and natural self-movement together with their epistemological extensions. Finally, I discuss his thought on the double movement of the angels. The most important conclusion that I draw is that, when speaking of the metaphysical level, movement is for Nicholas the factor which distinguishes the divine transcendence from the divine creativity.

Authors: Terezis, Christos Ath.

DOI: 10.17846/CL.2023.16.1.47-56

Publication order reference: Prof. Christos Ath. Terezis; Department of Philosophy, University of Patras, 26500, Rion-Patras, Greece; email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Source: Konštatínove listy, 2023, vol.: 16, issue: 1, pages: 47-56 (PDF file)

Keywords: NICHOLAS OF METHONE, MOVEMENT, HOLY TRINITY, DIVINE ESSENCE, DIVINE ENERGIES, METAPHYSICAL SELF-MOVEMENT

Language: ENGLISH

Recommended Citation:
Terezis, Christos Ath. 2023. Movement as a Mode of Being of the Holy Trinity in Nicholas of Methone. In Konštantínove listy [Constantine’s Letters] 16/1, 47-56.