Saint Maximus the Confessor on Dionysius

Saint Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662) stands as the most important Orthodox interpreter of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, whose theological integration and commentary work established the authoritative Orthodox understanding of the Dionysian corpus for all subsequent generations.

Icon of Saint Maximus the Confessor, primary Orthodox interpreter of Dionysius
Maximus's Crucial Role: As a student of Dionysius, Maximus was one of many Christian theologians who preserved and interpreted the earlier Neo-Platonic philosophy, while securing orthodox reception of the Dionysian corpus through his systematic Christological interpretation.
  1. Historical Context and Background
  2. The Scholia Question
  3. The Mystagogy and Ecclesiastical Hierarchy
  4. Christological Integration
  5. Theological Synthesis
  6. Orthodox Defense and Reception
  7. Legacy and Influence

Maximus's encounter with Dionysian theology began during his exile in Carthage. When the Persians conquered Anatolia, Maximus was forced to flee to a monastery near Carthage. It was there that he came under the tutelage of Saint Sophronius, and began studying in detail with him the Christological writings of Gregory of Nazianzus and Dionysius the Areopagite.

According to I.P. Sheldon Williams, Maximus's achievement was to set these doctrines into a framework of Aristotelian logic, which both suited the temper of the times and made them less liable to misinterpretation.

The theological context of Maximus's work included several major controversies:

Christological Controversies:

  • Monophysite appropriation of Dionysian theology
  • Monothelite heresy threatening orthodox Christology
  • Need for orthodox interpretation of mystical theology

Philosophical Challenges:

  • Integration of Neoplatonic philosophy with Christian doctrine
  • Defense against Origenist speculation
  • Development of orthodox mystical theology

Dionysian Reception Issues:

  • Questions about authenticity (post-Hypatius challenge)
  • Misuse by heterodox parties
  • Need for systematic orthodox commentary
  • Integration with Chalcedonian Christology

Maximus approached Dionysian theology with distinctive principles:

  • Christocentric Focus: All theology centered on the Incarnate Logos
  • Orthodox Hermeneutics: Reading through Church tradition
  • Experiential Emphasis: Mystical knowledge through liturgical practice
  • Systematic Integration: Fitting Dionysius into broader patristic theology

Modern scholarship has clarified the complex question of Maximian scholia authorship. The original edition in Latin of Balthasar Corderius (Antwerp 1634) attributes all of the Scholia to Maximus, but the authorship has been questioned with Hans Urs von Balthasar (1940, 1961) attributing some of the Scholia to John of Scythopolis.

Recent research by Beate Regina Suchla has provided crucial clarification:

Approximately 600 scholia (about 70% of total length) are now attributed to John of Scythopolis rather than Maximus. These constitute the earliest systematic commentary on Dionysius, written c. 540.

John's approach focused on:

  • Defense of orthodoxy against Apollinarian charges
  • Proof of apostolic authenticity
  • Integration with Chalcedonian theology

Maximus's authentic scholia represent a smaller but theologically significant portion. These demonstrate his distinctive theological concerns:

  • Christological integration
  • Anti-Origenist interpretation
  • Emphasis on deification (theosis)

Key characteristics:

  • Focus on incarnate Logos as cosmic principle
  • Development of essence-energies distinction
  • Integration with liturgical mysticism
The combined Scythopolitan-Maximian tradition shaped all subsequent Orthodox reception of Dionysius. The thirteenth-century Parisian corpus provided an important reference point by combining... glosses and scholia by Maximus the Confessor, John of Scythopolis and others.

Even with the reduced corpus of authentic Maximian scholia, his interpretive influence remains decisive:

In his genuine scholia, Maximus demonstrates awareness of textual and historical issues. Among other things, Maximus was aware that the reference to Ignatius of Antioch in DN 4.12 raised questions about the historicity of the CD, which of course he defended.

Maximus's Mystagogy represents the most sophisticated Orthodox interpretation of Dionysian liturgical theology. The Mystagogy is St. Maximos the Confessor's commentary on the Eucharistic synaxis, which we commonly refer to today as the Divine Liturgy. Maximos's commentary is the second oldest such commentary after Dionysios the Areopagite's On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which the Confessor refers to in his own work.

In his introduction to the Mystagogy, Maximus directly acknowledges Dionysius:1

"But since the symbols of the sacred celebration of the holy synaxis have also been considered by the most holy and truly divine interpreter Dionysius the Areopagite in a manner which is worthy of his great mind in his treatise Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, it should be known that the present work will not repeat these same things nor will it proceed in the same manner."

Maximus continues: "Instead, my subject will be those things which God in his goodness wanted him to leave for others for the interpretation and exercise of the habit of these things in accordance with their desire for divine things."

Maximus intentionally patterns the Mystagogy according to Dionysius's Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, an influence apparent in the former's conviction that earthly realities symbolize spiritual realities because both share a Creator.

Dionysian Approach (Ecclesiastical Hierarchy):

  • Strictly hierarchical progression
  • Emphasis on ordered mediation
  • Separation between sacred and profane
  • Focus on ecclesiastical orders

Structure:

  • Hierarchical descriptions of orders
  • Sacramental symbolism
  • Angelic parallels
  • Ordered ascent to God

Maximian Development (Mystagogy):

  • Christocentric integration
  • Eschatological understanding
  • Cosmic liturgical vision
  • Universal deification

Structure:

  • Chapters 1-7: Symbolic parallels (God, Church, person, Scripture)
  • Chapters 8-21: Liturgical elements and spiritual realities
  • Chapters 22-24: Stages of spiritual progress

John Meyendorff has noticed an implicit 'Christological corrective' made by Maximus the Confessor with regard to the writings ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite. The conclusion drawn is that Maximus' eschatological understanding of the liturgy is to be seen as an implicit corrective to Dionysius' strictly hierarchical notion of the Church, the church building and the liturgical rites, which implies an opposition or separation between the 'Sacred' and the 'Profane'.

Key aspects of this corrective include:

Maximus's cosmic vision transcends Dionysian hierarchical limitations:

  • The incarnate Logos as cosmic principle
  • Integration of all creation in liturgical celebration
  • Overcoming sacred/profane distinctions
  • Universal participation in divine life

Eschatological dimension absent in Dionysian static hierarchy:

  • Liturgy as anticipation of final consummation
  • Dynamic movement toward theosis
  • Temporal progression toward eternal fulfillment
  • Cosmic transformation through divine energies

Enhanced participatory understanding:

  • Direct access to divine energies
  • Reduced emphasis on strict hierarchical mediation
  • Greater role for lay participation
  • Liturgy as cosmic theophany

Maximus's distinctive contribution involves the systematic integration of Dionysian theology with Chalcedonian Christology. In his authentic scholia, Maximus demonstrates how "Plato understood the ideas and paradigms in a lowly manner unworthy of God; Dionysius, on the other hand, used the same word, but explained its meaning in a pious manner, saying that the divine wills are defining and creative."2

His thought was initially used by Miaphysites to back up parts of their arguments but his writings were eventually adopted by other church theologians, primarily due to the work of John of Scythopolis and Maximus the Confessor in producing an orthodox interpretation.

Maximus employed Dionysian theology in his defense of orthodox Christology against the Monothelite heresy:

Dionysian Foundation:

  • Divine energies distinct from essence
  • Theandric activity in Letter 4
  • Multiple divine names and operations
  • Dynamic understanding of divine action

Maximian Development:

  • Two wills corresponding to two natures
  • Human will deified but not destroyed
  • Synergy between divine and human energies
  • Christological foundation for theosis

Orthodox Integration:

  • Christ as perfect mediator between divine and human
  • Incarnation as cosmic restoration
  • Human nature fully deified through divine energies
  • Liturgical participation in theandric mystery

Theological Implications:

  • Foundation for Palamite theology
  • Development of essence-energies distinction
  • Integration of mystical and dogmatic theology
  • Cosmic vision of salvation

In his Mystagogy, Maximus situates deification within the climax of the Divine Liturgy: the consecration and reception of the Eucharist. This represents a synthesis of Dionysian hierarchical theology with Maximian emphasis on universal deification:

Maximus suggests that deified Christians reintegrate some of their interior dispersion due to sin and thereby imitate divine simplicity: "[Christians] are deified by grace and made like the undivided identity [God] by participation."

Maximus the Confessor and Dionysius the Areopagite are two of the most important representatives of what is often called Christian Neoplatonism, yet each made markedly different use of Neoplatonic categories and concepts.3

Key differences in their approaches:

Dionysian Cycle:

  • Static hierarchical procession
  • Emphasis on remaining in divine transcendence
  • Return through hierarchical mediation
  • Cosmic order as eternal structure

Maximian Transformation:

  • Dynamic incarnational movement
  • Procession through Logos incarnation
  • Return through deified humanity
  • Cosmic liturgy as transformative process

Dionysian Divine Names:

  • Emphasis on divine transcendence
  • Apophatic theology as primary
  • Names as divine energies
  • Hierarchical revelation

Maximian Logoi:

  • Incarnate Logos as cosmic principle
  • Logoi as divine intentions in creation
  • Christological foundation for knowledge
  • Direct participation through liturgy

Dionysian Hierarchy:

  • Strict hierarchical orders
  • Mediated access to divine
  • Emphasis on ecclesiastical structure
  • Angel-human correspondence

Maximian Mediation:

  • Christ as universal mediator
  • Direct access through baptismal incorporation
  • Cosmic priesthood of creation
  • Liturgical participation in divine life

Maximus's theological vision encompasses the entire cosmos within liturgical reality. The church building and the human being and the cosmos are all mutually related and symbolically reflect each other. Further, in the liturgy we enter into the mystery of Christ.

This cosmic vision represents Maximus's unique synthesis of Dionysian symbolic theology with incarnational realism:

  • Cosmic Scope: All creation participates in liturgical offering
  • Christological Center: Incarnate Logos as cosmic priest
  • Transformative Action: Liturgy as actual cosmic transformation
  • Eschatological Goal: Final consummation in divine theophany

The definitive Orthodox acceptance of Dionysian theology came through Maximian influence at the Lateran Council of 649. Finally, under the influence of Maximus, the Lateran Council (649) cited him as a competent witness against Monothelitism.

This conciliar recognition established several crucial precedents:

  • Official Orthodox acceptance of Dionysian authenticity
  • Integration with Chalcedonian Christology
  • Authority for mystical theological method
  • Foundation for later Byzantine synthesis

Maximus's interpretive framework became the standard for Orthodox reception of Dionysius. His work on Dionysius the Areopagite was continued by John Scotus Eriugena at the request of Charles the Bald.

Key figures influenced by Maximian interpretation:

Byzantine Tradition:

  • John of Damascus: Systematic theological integration
  • Germanus of Constantinople: Liturgical commentary tradition
  • Photius: Continued acceptance and defense
  • Gregory Palamas: Development of essence-energies distinction

Theological Developments:

  • Hesychast tradition
  • Byzantine liturgical commentaries
  • Iconoclastic controversy resolution
  • Palamite theological synthesis

Western Reception:

  • John Scotus Eriugena: Direct continuation of Maximian work
  • Thomas Aquinas: Scholastic integration
  • Medieval mystics: Dionysian-Maximian synthesis
  • Renaissance theologians: Continued authority

Methodological Influence:

  • Integration of mystical and dogmatic theology
  • Liturgical foundation for theological method
  • Cosmic scope of theological vision
  • Christocentric interpretation of mystical experience

Maximus's interpretive framework became normative for Orthodox theology. From the 7th century onward, Dionysian theology was received through the lens of Maximian integration, ensuring its orthodox character and cosmic scope.

Key aspects of this transmission:

  1. Christological Integration: All mystical theology grounded in Incarnation
  2. Liturgical Realism: Cosmic liturgy as actual transformation
  3. Theosis Emphasis: Universal deification as theological goal
  4. Orthodox Hermeneutics: Church tradition as interpretive key

Contemporary Orthodox theology continues to draw on the Maximian interpretation of Dionysius:

Modern Applications:

  • Liturgical Theology: Understanding Divine Liturgy as cosmic event
  • Mystical Theology: Integration with dogmatic theology
  • Ecological Theology: Cosmic scope of salvation
  • Christological Studies: Enhanced understanding of theosis

Areas of Continued Development:

  • Integration with modern Orthodox theological method
  • Application to contemporary spiritual direction
  • Dialogue with Western mystical traditions
  • Development of Orthodox philosophical theology

As contemporary scholarship recognizes: "Maximus' doctrine of the logoi, including the centrality of the incarnate Logos to his metaphysics, is at once a radical critique of Origenism, a tacit dismissal of Dionysian hierarchies, and a comprehensive rethinking of Christian Neoplatonism."4

This assessment highlights Maximus's achievement in creating a distinctively Orthodox synthesis that preserved Dionysian insights while grounding them in Chalcedonian Christology and liturgical realism.

"But since the symbols of the sacred celebration of the holy synaxis have also been considered by the most holy and truly divine interpreter Dionysius the Areopagite in a manner which is worthy of his great mind in his treatise Ecclesiastical Hierarchy..." - Saint Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogy Introduction

"These things I have explained to the best of my ability as I have been taught, as the reward of obedience, not daring to touch on matters more mystical and sublime. But should any devout person desire to know them let him read what has been divinely worked out by Saint Dionysius the Areopagite..." - Saint Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogy Conclusion5

"Plato understood the ideas and paradigms in a lowly manner unworthy of God; Dionysius, on the other hand, used the same word, but explained its meaning in a pious manner, saying that the divine wills are defining and creative." - Maximian Scholion (authentic)6

Saint Maximus the Confessor's interpretation of Dionysius the Areopagite represents one of the most significant achievements in Orthodox theological synthesis. Through his integration of Dionysian mystical theology with Chalcedonian Christology, Maximus secured the Orthodox reception of the Areopagite corpus while developing a cosmic vision of liturgical transformation that would influence all subsequent Orthodox theology.

Maximus's lasting contributions include:

  • Christological Integration: Grounding mystical theology in Incarnational realism
  • Cosmic Liturgy: Understanding the Divine Liturgy as cosmic transformation
  • Orthodox Hermeneutics: Reading Dionysius through Church tradition
  • Theological Method: Integration of mystical and dogmatic theology

The Maximian interpretation ensured that Dionysian theology would serve Orthodox theosis while avoiding both Origenist speculation and static hierarchical limitations. This synthesis continues to inform Orthodox theological method and spiritual practice, demonstrating the enduring value of patristic theological interpretation for the Church's ongoing life and mission.

Armstrong, Jonathan J., trans. Saint Maximus the Confessor, On the Ecclesiastical Mystagogy: A Theological Vision of the Liturgy. Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2019.

Balthasar, Hans Urs von. Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to Maximus the Confessor. Translated by Brian E. Daley. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003.

Constas, Maximos. "Maximus the Confessor, Dionysius the Areopagite, and the Transformation of Christian Neoplatonism." Analogia 1.2 (2017): 1-12.

Louth, Andrew. "St. Denys the Areopagite and St. Maximus the Confessor: a Question of Influence." Studia Patristica 27 (1993): 166-167.

Meyendorff, John. "Notes sur l'influence dionysienne en Orient." Studia Patristica 2 (1957): 547-552.

Rorem, Paul, and John C. Lamoreaux. John of Scythopolis and the Dionysian Corpus: Annotating the Areopagite. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

Suchla, Beate Regina. "Die sogenannten Maximus-Scholien des Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagiticum." Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen I. Philologisch-Historische Klasse (1980) 3: 31-66.

Świtkiewicz-Blandzi, Agnieszka. "Notes about Denys the Areopagite's The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and its Influence on Maximus the Confessor's Mystagogy." Archiv für mittelalterliche Philosophie und Kultur 6 (2000): 1-22.

  1. Saint Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogy, Introduction, quoted in "St Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogy," Максимологија, accessed August 10, 2025. ↩︎

  2. Maximian Scholion on Divine Names, quoted in "Maximus the Confessor and the Reception of Dionysius the Areopagite," Academia.edu, accessed August 10, 2025. ↩︎

  3. Maximos Constas, "Maximus the Confessor, Dionysius the Areopagite, and the Transformation of Christian Neoplatonism," Analogia 1.2 (2017): 1-12. ↩︎

  4. Ibid. ↩︎

  5. Saint Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogy, Conclusion, quoted in "St Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogy," Максимологија, accessed August 10, 2025. ↩︎

  6. Maximian Scholion, quoted in "Maximus the Confessor and the Reception of Dionysius the Areopagite," Academia.edu, accessed August 10, 2025. ↩︎