Messalians were one of the most famous and at the same time mysterious and varied rigorous ascetic movements in the early Church. The author of the article, basing on the early Christian catalogs of heresies, written by Epiphanius of Salamina, Theodoretus of Cyrus, John Damascene and Augustine, and the contemporary literature of the subject, seeks to answer the question whether Messalians should be regarded as a kind of harmless sect or rather as a heresy proclaiming serious doctrinal errors. The conclusion is that the theological argumentation of the practice of continuous prayer in the messalian movement undermined the principal principles of orthodox pneumatology, sacramentology, ecclesiology and soteriology. It is true that in the analyzed descriptions of heresies contained in early Christian sources one must take into account the plentiful use of the invective, which often overwhelms the true image of the described movement, but in the case of the Messalians the repetition of the same allegations orders to see them not only as the ascetic movement but above all as the dangerous doctrinal heresy.
PL
Mesalianie byli jednym z najsłynniejszych, a równocześnie tajemniczych i niejednolitych rygorystycznych ruchów ascetycznych w starożytnym Kościele. Autor artykułu na podstawie wczesnochrześcijańskich katalogów herezji Epifaniusza z Salaminy, Teodoreta z Cyru, Jana Damasceńskiego i Augustyna oraz współczesnej literatury przedmiotu stara się odpowiedzieć na pytanie, czy należy traktować mesalian bardziej jako rodzaj niegroźnej sekty czy raczej jako herezję głoszącą poważne błędy doktrynalne. Dochodzi do wniosku, że mesaliańskie uzasadnienie teologiczne praktyki ciągłej modlitwy podważało główne zasady ortodoksyjnej pneumatologii, sakramentologii, eklezjologii i soteriologii. Wprawdzie w analizowanych opisach herezji, pochodzących z wczesnochrześcijańskich źródeł, należy wziąć pod uwagę obfite stosowanie inwektywy, niejednokrotnie zacierającej prawdziwy obraz opisywanego ugrupowania, niemniej jednak w przypadku mesalian powtarzające się te same zarzuty nakazują widzieć w nich nie tylko ruch ascetyczny, ale przede wszystkim niebezpieczną herezję doktrynalną.
The catalog of the heresies of Filastrius of Brescia, like other early Christian collections of informations about heterodox movements at the time, testifies the existence of groups characterized by excessively rigorous asceticism. Their description is the subject of the article. Most of these unorthodox paramonastic movements were based on the Gnostic and Manichean assumptions. The groups that accentuated the exaggerated role of prayer, among which the Messialians were the leaders, have gained wide coverage. Descriptions of their activities take up a lot of space in the early Christian catalogs of heresies, especially in the case of John of Damascus. Filastrius, however, for some reason misguided the activity of the Messalians. This fact requires a careful treatment of the historical credibility of his work on heresies.
The main question that the present paper tries to answer is as follows: since two discordant precepts concerning work were to be found in the New Testament, how did monks behave? One precept treated work as a duty, the other recommended not to care about one’s maintenance. The monks followed in their behaviour either the first or the second precept. As a result of disputes that took place in the fourth century the opinion prevailed that work was the better choice. It is important for us to find out when and under what circumstances that choice was done by the majority of the monastic movement in the East. It is also important to see what arguments were used by the monks of Late Antiquity in order to settle the conflict between the two discordant precepts. This conflict worried many and caused a renewal of a dispute that seemed to have been closed. Two ways of reasoning in favour of monastic work were generally used: monks might and should pray and work at the same time, satisfying both precepts; monks ought to work in order to be able to give alms, and this conferred to work a meaning that went beyond immediate usefulness. Praying and working at the same time was not always feasible in actual practice, but this did not bother authors of ascetic treatises.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.