T h e U n ex p e c te d G o d : H ow C h r i s t i a n Fa i t h D i s c ove r s t h e H o l y S p i r i t

T h e D u q u e s n e u n i v e r s i T y 7 T h a n n u a l

h o l y s p i r i T l e c T u r e a n D c o l l o q u i u m

September 23, 2011power Center ballroom

Featuring Special Guest

Fr. brian e. Daley, S.J. The Catherine F. Huisking Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame, IN

2

2 3

“The Spirit in the New Millennium: The Duquesne University Annual Holy Spirit Lecture and Colloquium” was initiated in 2005 by Duquesne University President Charles J. Dougherty as an expression of Duquesne’s mission and charism as a university both founded by the Congregation of the Holy Spirit and dedicated to the Holy Spirit. It is hoped that this ongoing series of lectures and accompanying colloquia will encourage the exploration of ideas pertaining to the theology of the Holy Spirit. Besides fostering scholarship on the Holy Spirit within an ecumenical context, this event is intended to heighten awareness of how pneumatology (the study of the Spirit) might be relevantly integrated into the various academic disciplines in general.

This lecture may be read online at www.duq.edu/holy-spirit. You can contact us at holyspirit@duq.edu. Radu Bordeianu, Ph.D., serves as the director.

T h e S p i r i t i n t h e N e w M i l l e n n i u m :

4

2 0 1 1 C o l l o q u i s t s

•Dr.RaduBordeianu

Assistant Professor, Theology, Duquesne University

•Dr.EdwinChr.vanDriel

Assistant Professor, Theology, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

•Dr.ThomasFitzGerald

Dean and Professor of Church History and Historical Theology, Holy Cross Greek

Orthodox School of Theology

•Dr.WilliamBuhrman

Associate Professor, Theology, St. Mary’s University

•Dr.BogdanBucur

Assistant Professor, Theology, Duquesne University

•Dr.GeorgeDemacopoulos

Associate Professor and Co-Director, Orthodox Christian Studies,

Fordham University

•Dr.JamesOkoye,C.S.Sp.

Professor of Old Testament Studies, Biblical Literature and Languages,

Catholic Theological Union

•Dr.ElizabethDreyer

Professor of Religious Studies, Fairfield University

4 5

B I O G R A P H Y L E C T U R E RFr. Brian Daley, S.J.,isa1961graduateofFordhamUniversity.Hestudied

atOxfordfrom1961to1964asaRhodesScholar,thenenteredtheSociety

ofJesus.AftertheologicalstudiesinFrankfurt,Germany,andordinationto

thepriesthoodin1970,hereturnedtoOxford,topursueaD.Phil.

Fr.Daleythentaughthistoricaltheologyfor18yearsattheWestonJesuit

SchoolofTheologyinCambridge,Mass.,beforemovingtoNotreDame

in1996.HeistheauthorofThe Hope of the Early Church(1991,2002),

On the Dormition of Mary: Early Patristic Homilies(1998),andGregory

of Nazianzus(2006)aswellasnumerousarticlesandbookchapters.He

isalsothetranslatorofHansUrsvonBalthasar’s,Cosmic Liturgy: The

Universe According to Maximus the Confessor(2003).

6

T h e U n ex p e c te d G o d : H ow C h r i s t i a n Fa i t h D i s c ove r s t h e H o l y S p i r i t

Fr. Brian E. Daley, S.J.

InthenineteenthchapteroftheActsoftheApostles,St.LuketellsusofPaul’ssecondarrivalinthegreatcityofEphesus,onthewestcoastofAsiaMinor,probablyshortlyafter theyear50.Otherearlydisciples, includingPaul, had been there briefly before, and had entered into discussionswith localsynagoguemembersaboutwhether Jesuswas theMessiah, thefulfillmentof Israel’sage-oldhopes.Apollos,awell-educatedAlexandrianJew who had himself come to believe Jesus was the fulfillment of God’ssavingplan,apparentlyhadspentsome time inEphesusbeforePaul,andhadargued impressively that Jesuswas truly theMessiah Israelhadbeenwaitingfor.Heseemstohavefoundsomereceptivelisteners.ButApolloswas,insomeways,aself-taughtChristian,andalthoughadeeplycommittedone,had someodd ideasand religiouspractices; for example, Luke tellsus,“heknewonlythebaptismofJohn”–thatexpressionofconversionandmoralreadinessfortheKingdomofGodthatJesushimselfhadreceivedattheBaptist’shands.SoPaul,onhissecondarrivalinthecity,gotintouchagainwith the small communityof followersof Jesus there– convertsofApollos, perhaps, numbering some twelve in all – and asked them, inthecourseoftheirdiscussion,“DidyoureceivetheHolySpiritwhenyoubecamebelievers?”Theiranswerwasmarkedbydisarmingdirectness:“No,wehavenotevenheardthatthereis aHolySpirit.”1Paulhadworktodo,andwereadthathebeganbyre-baptizingthem“inthenameoftheLordJesus,”andlayinghandsonthemsothattheywouldreceivetheHolySpiritaswell.TheresultwasacharismaticoutpouringofspiritualgiftsthatbecameafamiliarfeatureoftheearlyChristianexperienceoffaith.2

DespitethefactthatJesustalksabouttheHolySpiritwithsomefrequencyintheGospelofJohn,andthatPaul,inhisletters,speaksoftheSpiritastheonewhoenables thebeliever tocall Jesus“Lord”and tocryout toGod,“Abba,Father!”3–asthegiverofthespiritualgiftsthatbindthecommunitytogetherasChrist’slivingbody4–manyChristiansthroughtheagesmightinallhonesty,echowhattheEphesianssaid.Ithasoftenbeenremarked,forinstance,thatWesterntheologysincethehighMiddleAgeshasshownanunderdevelopedawarenessofthepresenceandactivityoftheHolySpiritinthelifeoftheChurch.Whilethisisnotuniversallytrue,surelyitdoesseemrighttosaythatthedevotionandtheologicalunderstandingofmostordinary

6 7

CatholicandProtestantlaypeople,aswellasthoseofmostcatechistsandSundaypreachers,havebeenfocusedfarmoreonthepersonofJesusthanontheSpirithegivesus.5InapowerfulpiecepublishedinaGermanCatholicnewspaperatPentecostin1970,KarlRahnersuggestedthatthistendencytoignoretheHolySpiritintheChurch’sdailylifemaybeduenotsimplytoignoranceorinattention,butalsotoapervasive,iflargelyunarticulatedfear:

WeintheChurchwouldbeabletodiscoverandexperiencetheSpiritoftheLordmoreeasilyandmorepowerfullyifwewerenotafraidofhim.HeisinfacttheSpiritoflife,offreedom,ofconfidence,ofhopeandjoy,ofunity,andthusofpeace.WemightsupposethathumanslongfortheHolySpiritmorethananythingelse.ButthisistheSpiritwhoconstantlybreaksthroughallfrontiersinordertogiveusthesegifts,whoseekstodeliverupeverythingtotheincomprehensibilitywhichwecallGod…Itisnotsurprisingthatweareafraidofhim.Forwealwayswanttoknowwhatweareinvolvedin,wewanttohavetheentriesinourlife’saccount-bookclearlybeforeusandtobeabletoaddthemuptoafigurethatwecanclearlygrasp.Wearefrightenedofexperimentswhoseoutcomecannotbeforeseen…WeareafraidoftheSpirit.Inaword,heistooincalculableforus.6

Rahner surely has a point, not only in indicating the psychologicaluneaseexperiencedbyChurch leadersbefore theunpredictable impulsesandinsightsthatChristianfaith,sincePaul,hasseenasworksoftheSpirit– what we might call the “charismatic” or unstructured side of Christianexperience.Healsoseemsrightinsuggestingthatthisdynamicdimensionofourlifeoffaith,thismightydivine“wind,thatblowswhereitwill”7andthatrushedonthedisciplesatPentecost,isallthemoremysterious,andthusallthemorefearfulforus,becauseitisrootedinGod’sownfundamentalincomprehensibility:inwhattheTruthattheheartofthingsreallyis.

Inafamousarticlefirstpublishedin1948,“TheProcessionoftheHolySpirit in OrthodoxTrinitarian Doctrine,”8Vladimir Lossky argues that thedivergentunderstandingsofthepersonaloriginoftheHolySpiritwithintheMysteryofGod,whichhavedevelopedinclassicalOrthodoxandCatholictheologysincethetimeofSt.PhotiusandtheCarolingians–thedisputeoverthewordFilioque intheLatinversionoftheCreedofConstantinople,andthedifferingtheologicalassumptionsbehindit–are“thesoledogmaticgroundsfor the separationof East andWest.”9Although, tomost readers, Lossky’sunderstandingoftheWesterndoctrineoftheprocessionoftheHolySpirit“fromtheFatherandtheSon”seemsexcessivelyslantedtoday,becauseitis

8

sodependentontheWesterntreatmentsoftheTrinityinpost-Reformationscholastichandbooksandon thecharacterizationofEasternandWesternTrinitariantheologypopularizedbyThéodoredeRegnonattheendofthe19thcentury,10Lossky’sunderlyingcritiqueofmuchWesternpneumatologyseems, in one respect, at least, well-taken: in attempting to express howtheunknowableGodofIsrael,andJesustheLord,andtheSpiritsentforthbyJesusontheChurch,areallasingledivinesubstance,differentiatedbygeometricallyconceived“relationsofopposition”thataloneallowthemtodefineeachotherinreciprocalterms,LatinscholastictheologyrantheriskoftransformingourawarenessoftheholyTrinityintoalogicalconundrumaboutunityandmultiplicity,“theGodof thephilosophersandsavants.”11 TheSpirit,formanyWesternChristians,hasbeenunintentionallydistancedfromtheexperienceofthefaiththat“seeksunderstanding.”Andifitistruethattheology,likethewiderlifeoffaith,wantsto“knowwhatitisinvolvedin,” to get a handle on its accounts,12 then the Holy Spirit, the one whopersonallyrealizestheinconceivablepresenceofGodineachandinallofus,constantlyremindsus thatsuchcontrolof theinfinite liesbeyondourgrasp.ThatitselfmaybetheSpirit’sgreatestgifttohisChurch.

My argument here is simply that our consciousness of the Spirit’simmediacy to us as graced creatures - our sense of his differentiated,supremely“personal”relationshipbothtousandtotheunknowableGod,alongwithourinabilitytofittheSpiritintoeitherhistoricalorphilosophicalcategories – is really what most distinguishes this “person” of theTrinitywithinourfeeble,strugglingattemptstomakesenseoftheMysteryofGod.IntheSpirit,wecomefacetofacewithGodasuncontrollablereality.Andthisveryclosenessandelusiveness, I suggest,presentsuswith theSpirit’scrucialimportanceforourfaithasChristians.

GregoryofNazianzus,thePatristicage’sgreatestpromoterofaconceptionofGodwhoisatoncebothasingle,transcendentreality–thesourceandground of all that is – and the three distinct, timelessly related personalforceswhomwecallFatherandSonandHolySpirit,13confessedhisownembarrassmentatbeingunabletospecifythepersonalcharacteristicsandthemodeoforiginoftheSpiritasclearlyandunambiguouslyasthatoftheSon.TherelationshipofFathertoSon,afterall,ispresentedtousfirstofallinthedescriptionofJesusintheGospels:JesuspraystotheGodofIsraelas“Father,”andurgeshisfollowerstoprayinthesameway;14heclaimstohavereceivedfromhisFather,the“Lordofheavenandearth,”uniquepersonalknowledgeandauniqueroleasrevealerofGod’sidentity.15 IntheFourthGospel,hespeaksofhimselfasdwellingin theFatherandhavingtheFatherdwellinginhimself,16andalsoasbeingintheworldinordertorevealtheFatheranddemonstratetheFather’sloveforthedisciples;17hebringsabout

8 9

perfect unity between his disciples and his Father, modeled on his ownunitywithhimasSon.18Bycontrast,God’sSpirit–whomGregoryclearlyidentifies as the Holy Spirit of theTrinity – is presented in the Scripturesin much less concrete terms: a breath of God moving over the primevalwaters,19 the energy enabling skilled craftsmen to carry out God’s designfortheTabernacle,20theinnerforcethatcomessuddenlyonhumanbeingstoenablethemtomoveandspeak,ecstatically,asGodwills.21SoGregorybeginshis longest treatmentof theSpirit–hisFifth Theological Oration–withwhathesuggestsisthecriticismoftheopponentsoftheNicene,andso(forhim)theTrinitarian,conceptionofGod:“Whatwouldyoutellus,theysay,abouttheHolySpirit?FromwhatsourcedoyouthrustonusastrangeandunscripturalGod(xenon theon kai agraphon)?”22TheGospelsdonotofferusthesamesortofconcreteimagesthatitprovidestohelpusunderstandhowJesus,theprophetandwonder-worker,mightberelatedtoIsrael’sGodasSontoFather.TheSpirit,intheGospels,ismainlyapromiseforthefuture,acomforterforthediscipleswhenJesusisnolongerwiththem,23acounselorsent from the Father who will bear witness to what Jesus has taught,24 acontinuing guide who will glorify Jesus in his absence by taking up thedivinetruthJesushasreceivedfromhisFatherand“declaringit”tothem.25 Butwhoandwhatisthiscomforterandguide?Howshallweimaginehim?Incomparisonwiththefamiliar,humanfigureoftheSaviorinScripture,theSpiritappears tomany,Gregoryconcedes,as “a strangeand interpolated(parenggrapton) God,” a force whose divine status and personal identity,conceivedbyhimandhiscontemporariesassomehowonaparwithFatherandSon,has in factsimplybeenread into thesourcesof revelationbyaseeminglyexpansionistpiety.

ItisimportanttokeepinmindthatGregory’sorationontheHolySpiritis thefifthandfinalpartofa series aimedataffirming theconceptionofGodaffirmedbytheCouncilofNicaeain325,andhotlycontestedoverthefiftyyearsthatfollowed.ThisNicenefaithaffirmedthatJesus,theLord,wasnot simply God’s unique representative, the divine agent of creation andsavioroftheuniverse(whichAriansofeverystripewouldhaveconceded);inaddition, itmadeitclearthat Jesus,asSonof theFather, isGod inthesame sense that the Father is: “from the substanceof the Father,” “of thesamesubstancewiththeFather;”thesame thingthattheonlyGodofIsraelis!Jesusis“Godwithus.”

InthesediscoursesontheTrinity,Gregory,too,clearlyaffirmstheNiceneunderstandingofChristtheSon:

Heseemstome,afterall,tobecalledSonbecauseheisthesamethinginessence(tauton… kat’ ousian)astheFatheris.Andnotonly

10

this,butbecauseheisfromhim.Heisan‘onlySon,’notbecauseheistheonlyonefromtheonlyOne,andonlythat,butbecauseheisthisinauniqueway,andnotasbodies[arefrombodies].Andheis“Word,”becauseheisrelatedtotheFatherinthewayawordisrelatedtoamind:notjustbecauseofthepassionlesscharacterofhisgeneration,butalsobecauseheiscontinuouswithhim,andproclaimshim.26

GregorythenprovidesaquicksummaryofalltheBiblicaltitlesappliedtoJesus,inhisroleasrevealerofGodandSavioroffallenhumanity,muchasOrigenhaddoneat thestartofhisCommentary on John; in response,heurgeshisreaderstoenterintotheprocessofcontemplatingthesetitles,forthesakeoftheirownsalvation:“Walkthroughthem,”hesays,“throughthosethatarelofty,inadivineway;throughthosethathaveabodilyring,withhumancompassion;orrather,walkthroughalloftheminadivineway,thatyoumaybecomeGod,ascendingonhighfromherebelow,throughhimwhohascomedownfromonhighforoursakes.”27AssertingthefulldivinityofChristtheSon,inotherwords,dependsonmeditating,withtheguidanceof the Church’s confessions, on what the Scriptures tell us about Jesus –taking a leisurely stroll through their images and puzzling formulations,learningfromthemhistrueidentitythroughcarefulandreverentpersonalreflection.

Soatthestartofhisnextandfinalpieceintheseries–theFifth Theological Oration –Gregoryturnswithundoubteddaringtoapplythissamemethodofcontemplativeargumenttothethirdagentnamedinthebaptismalformula:the third “member” of the triune God, whose unity and distinction andreciprocalbalancehascome,forhim,toconstitutethefinalsummationofapostolicfaithinthesavingdivineMystery.Hewrites:

WearesoconfidentinthedivinityoftheSpirit–theonewhomwehonor–thatweevenbeginouraccountofthedivinityfromthere,applyingthesametermstotheTrinity,evenifthismayseemboldtosome.TheFather‘wasthetruelight,whichenlightenseveryhumanbeingcomingintotheworld.’28TheSon‘wasthetruelight,whichenlightenseveryhumanbeingcomingintotheworld.’The‘otherAdvocate’29was‘thetruelight,whichenlightenseveryhumanbeingcomingintotheworld.’‘Was’and‘was’and‘was’–butitwasonething!Lightandlightandlight:butone light,andoneGod!ThisiswhatDavidimaginedlongago,whenhesaid,‘Inyourlightweshallseelight.’30Nowwehaveseenandproclaim:fromthelightoftheFatherwegrasptheSonaslight,inthelightof

10 11

theSpirit–aconciseandsimpleaccountofwhatGodisasTrinity(te-s Triados theologian).31

AfterfourteencenturiesofconfessingGodasTrinityintheChurchesofEastandWest–oftakingthebaptismalformulaattestedinthelastchapterofMatthew’sGospelasaconceptualmodelforunderstandingtheultimaterealityofGodattheheartofallthings–allofthissurelywillsoundfamiliar,even formulaic, to most of us. It was anything but this at the end of thefourthcentury,however;Gregory’sacknowledgedgeniusasaninterpreteroftheologicaltraditionsandashaperoftheologicalphrasesrests,aboveall,onhissuccessatbringingtogetherfortheChurchthisstaggeringlysimplesummary of what Biblical faith is really about.This is why he is called“GregorytheTheologian”–Gregory,whoteachesushowtotalkaboutGod!To seehis achievement inperspective, and tograsphow, in theprocess,heengagestheveryvaguenessofwhatScripturehastosayaboutthethirdhypostasis inourconfession,themysterious“SpiritofGod,”wemusttakeaquicklookbackwardatthediscussionsthatleduptohisoriginalattempttoformulateadistinctivelyChristiantheologia.

I. beFore nICaea Since the time of Matthew’s Gospel, at least, Christians baptized new

membersofthecommunity“into(eis)the name[meaningpower,presence,mysterious reality] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”teaching them to observe all Jesus’ commands (Matt. 28.19-20) withinthe community of faith. Faith in Jesus seems from the beginning to haveaffirmed,inarealandprofoundsense,thatJesuswasandisthedivineSaviorofhumanity,and thathehassentonhischurch the life-giving,propheticSpiritwhopersonallyenablesthefaithfultocallJesus“Lord,”andtoaddressGodas“Father.”Yet,asJohnHenryNewmanobservesinhisEssay on the Development of Christian Doctrinein1845,itwouldbeaseriousmisreadingofearlyChristianauthorstoassumethattheyhad,beforethelastquarterofthefourthcenturyattheearliest,thesameunifying,formallycohesivesenseofhowthesedivineagentsinteractthatwefindarticulatedbyGregoryinhisOrations.32

Inthefirstorseconddecadeofthethirdcentury,forinstance,Tertullianof Carthage – the first major Latin-speaking theologian – wrote an entiretreatiseagainstsomeonehecalls“Praxeas”(suggesting,perhaps,“trickster”in Greek), who apparently was promoting a radically unitary conceptionoftheGodwhohascreatedandredeemedus.Usingallhisrhetoricalandlexicallycreativeskills,TertullianinsiststhatalthoughthereiscertainlyonlyoneGod,andoneoikonomia ordivine“planofmanagement”withinhuman

12

history,stillChristiansbelieve

thatthisone,onlyGodhasalsoaSon,hisWord,whoproceededfromhimself,bywhomallthingsweremade,andwithoutwhomnothingwasmade.HimwebelievetohavebeensentbytheFatherintotheVirgin,andtohavebeenbornofher,beingbothManandGod…;whosentalsofromheavenfromtheFather,accordingtohisownpromise,theHolySpirit,theParaclete,thesanctifierofthefaithofthosewhobelieveintheFather,andintheSon,andintheHolySpirit…[TheChurch’sruleoffaithholds]thatallareof One,namelybyunityofsubstance;whilethemysteryoftheeconomyisstillguardedwhichdistributestheunityintoatrinity,settingforthFatherandSonandSpiritasthree:three,however,notinqualitybutinsequence,notinsubstancebutinaspect,notinpowerbutinmanifestation,yetofonesubstanceandonequalityandonepower,seeingitisoneGod.33

Tertullian’s language here anticipates, in many ways, what will laterbecomemain featuresof theorthodoxunderstandingofGod inbothEastandWest.Yethismainpurpose–whichistoarguethatthecausalunityormonarchia ofGodisnotcontradictedbytheChurch’saffirmationthat theFather isdistinct fromtheSon, theSonother thantheSpirit– isachievedaccordingtothematerialmodelofalivingorganism,orofthedistributionoffluid.Thepositionof theSonwithin theflowofexistence,asreceivinghis“substance”fromtheFather,ispreciselywhatenableshimtopassthatsubstanceontotheHolySpirit,andtomaintainboththeirunityandtheirdistinctorder.

FortheSpiritisthirdwithGodandhisSon,asthefruitoutoftheshootisthirdfromtheroot,andtheirrigationcanaloutoftheriverthirdfromthespring,andtheilluminationpointoutofthebeam[oflight]thirdfromthesun:yetinnorespectishealienatedfromthatoriginfromwhichhederiveshisproperattributes.Inthiswaythethree(trinitas),proceedingbyintermingledandconnecteddegreesfromtheFather,innorespectchallengesthemonarchy,whileitconservesthequalityoftheeconomy.34

A Greek-speaking contemporary of Tertullian, whose identity andworkshave longbeen shrouded inuncertainty,wasacertainHippolytus,probablyanativeofAsiaMinorwhocameasapresbytertoRomeattheendof the secondcentury.35His little treatiseAgainst Noetus,perhapswritten

12 13

between 210 and 215, seems to be taking issue with the same radicallyunitaryunderstandingofGod’sagencyinhistorythatTertullianhadrejected,althoughthattheologywasclearlyfashionableinRomancirclesatthetime.Hippolytus’workisintendedtoaffirmthatthesinglenessofGod,groundedin Biblical faith, is not incompatible with God’s being in some sensemanifold,aswell.

ForGodwasnotWord-lessnorWisdom-lessnorPower-lessnorMind-less.Buteverythingwasinhim,andhewashimselftheAll…ForeverythingthathascomeintobeinghecontrivesthroughWordandwisdom–creatingbyWordandsettingindueorderbyWisdom.Soitisthathemade[things]inaccordancewithhiswill…ThisWord,whichhehasinhimselfandisinvisibletotheworldthatisbeingcreated,hemakesvisible.Inutteringwhatwasformerlyasound,andinbringingforthlightoutoflight,hesentforthinthecreation,asitsLord,hisownMind,whichpreviouslywasvisibletohimselfalone…Andsoitisthatanothertookhisstandbesidehim.NowwhenIsay‘other’,Iamnotsayingtherearetwogods.Butitislikelightoutoflight,orlikewateroutofaspring,orlikeasunbeamoutofthesun.ForthereisasinglePowerthatcomesoutoftheAll.ButtheAllistheFather,andthePowerthatcomesoutofhimistheWord.36

ForHippolytus,therelationofSonorWordtoGodisdescribedhereinmental,anthropologicalterms,aswellasintheimagesofmaterialflowthatTertullianuses;nothingissaidexplicitlyhereabouttheHolySpirit.Afewparagraphsfurtheron,however,HippolytuscautiouslytriestoincludetheSpiritinhisdescriptionofthissamedivine“management”or“economy”bywhichGodformshistory.Hedoesthisnowinclearlypersonalterms:

WhileIwillnotsaythattherearetwogods–butratherone[heinsists]–Iwillsaytherearetwo“persons”(proso−pathoughtheFatherisone,therearetwopersons–becausethereistheSonaswell;andthereisathirdthing,too–HolySpirit…FortheonewhocommandsistheFather,theonewhoobeysistheSon,andtheonewhopromotesmutualunderstandingsistheHolySpirit.HewhoisFatherisoverallthings,andtheSonisthroughallthings,andtheHolySpiritisinallthings.37

Basing his argument on Jesus’ language in the Gospels, HippolytusseemstohavenodifficultyinspeakingofFatherandSonastwoindividuals

14

in relationship with each other: two “persons,” like two characters in anancientplay.ButtheHolySpiritisnotsoclearlyprofiledinScripture,andHippolytuspreferstospeakoftheSpiritsimplyintermsofwhatthisunifyingforceofGodachievesintheworldafterChrist,as“athirdeconomy”whichweexperiencesimplyinthegraceGodgivesus.

II. tHe nICene ControVerSYMostof thefiercedebates thatoccupied theChurch’s attention in the

middle of the fourth century centered on the status of the Son, whomChristiansrecognizeasincarnateinJesus,andonthecharacteroftheSon’sunitywith theGodof Israel,whomhecalled“Father.”The familiarcreedformulatedattheCouncilofNicaeain325–doubtlessanexpandedformof an earlier baptismal creed used in Antioch and Palestine – is mainlyfocusedongivingamoreprecisedefinitionofhowtheSonisrelatedtotheFather,withoutbeingsimplyidenticalwithhim.InthecontextofthedebatesbetweenAriusandthebishopswhoopposedhim,itseemedsufficientsimplytoaddattheend,withoutfurtherexplanation,“and[Ibelieve]intheHolySpirit.”By the late350s,however,asconsensusgradually formedaroundtheappropriatenessofconfessingtheSontobesubstantiallyonewiththeFather,attentionturnedagaintotheSpirit.What“substantial”status,whatontologicalrole,couldorthodoxfaithunderstandtheSpirittohave?DoestheSpiritoperateinhistoryasadistinctagent–acharacterinthedramaofsalvation,apersona?OristheSpiritbetterconceivedasHippolytusseemstohaveconceivedofhim(orit):asgrace,asGod’ssanctifyingoperation,asaninitiativeor“economy”thatneednotbethoughtofashavingpersonalstatus.

ThefirsthintwehaveofanewreflectionontheSpiritasanactiveanddistinctaspectofthedivinerealityemergesinAthanasius’correspondencewithbishopSarapionofThmuis,anEgyptianfriendandsupporter,whoisalso an important source for our knowledge of early Christian liturgicalprayer.Athanasius,duringhisthirdexilefromhissee(356-361),receivedaletterfromSarapion,probablyin359orearly360,tellinghimofagroupintheEgyptianChurchwhowerepromulgatingthenotionthat“theSpiritofGod,”spokenofintheBible,issimplyawayoftalkingaboutGod’sgraciousactivity,orperhapsevenabout anoblecreature,differingonly indegreefromother spiritsorangels; inanycase, theSpiritmustbe thoughtofascompletelyunliketheSon,whoistheSavior–anagentofGod’sworkintheworld.LanguageintheScripturesreferringtotheSpiritasaccomplishingtheworksofGodonhisowninitiativeistobetaken,thegroupseemstohavetaught, as simple “figures of speech” – tropoi; hence the condescendinglabelAthanasiususesforthem,theTropici.

14 15

Athanasius’ response to Sarapion has come down in the form of fourletters,38 inwhichhe argues from the Scriptures, and from the traditionalChristian understanding of the Spirit’s role in baptism and in the life oftheChurch, that theSpirit clearlyplays adistinctive role in the salvationofbelievers,whichiscoordinatewiththatoftheFatherandtheSon,asafullandactivecollaboratorinthecontinuingdramaofhumandivinization.Athanasius’lineofargumentissimilartowhatheemploystoestablishthefullGodheadoftheSoninhispro-Nicenewritings:iftheSpiritisacreature,orasimpleforceorinstrumentofFatherorSon,howcanhebepresentedinsomanypartsofScriptureasadistinctagent,asonewhoplaysanactiveroleinunitingbelieverstotheSon,andthroughtheSontotheFather?PaulandJohnsuggest,forinstance(Rom8.9-11;John17.21),thatitistheSpiritwhomakestheSonpresentinus,justastheSonmakespresenttheFather;similarly, the Spirit is said to “glorify” the Son (John 16.14), as the Son“glorifies”theFather(John17.4).39JustastheSondefinitivelyreveals“whathehasheardfromtheFather”totheworld(John8.26),theSpiritwill“takefromwhatbelongs to the Son” anddeclare it tohis disciples after Jesus’glorification (John16.14).40Athanasiuseven suggests that theSpirit is the“image”oftheSon,justastheSonisthe“image”oftheFather.Asaresult,theSonis“in”theSpiritinthesamewaythattheFatheris“in”him:asanoriginalorarchetypeis“in”whatrepresentsit.41SoJesus’statementthattheSpiritofTruth“proceedsfromtheFather”(John15.26)isonlytrue“becauseitisfromtheWord,whoisconfessedtobefromtheFather,that[theSpirit]shinesforthandissentandisgiven.”42

Athanasius’pointhereisnotsomuchtoofferawaytothinkabouttheSpirit’soriginassomethingmediatedbytheSon,astoinsistthattheSpiritis,insomeway,apersonalagentintheworkofsalvation,justastheSonis,andthattheSpiritmustthereforebe“proper(idion)totheSonandnotalien(xenon) toGod.”43TheanalogyAthanasiusdrawsisreallycenteredonhisconvictionthattheSon–andthereforetheSpirittheSonsends–mustbothtrulybedivineagentsiftheyaretoworkhumanenlightenmentandrenewal.Hewrites:

If,inregardtoorder(taxis)andnature(physis),theSpiritbearsthesamerelationtotheSonastheSondoestotheFather,willnothewhocallstheSpiritacreaturenecessarilyholdthesametobetruealsooftheSon?ForiftheSpiritisacreatureoftheSon,itwillbeconsistentforthemtosaythattheSonisacreatureoftheFather.44

GiventhesayingsoftheNewTestamentabouttheSpiritandhisrelationtoJesus,Athanasiusconsidersit imperativethatChristianfaithregardsthe

16

Spirit, too, as anuncreatedagentwhocollaborates in the savingworkofGod.

ThesituationinAsiaMinorinthemid-370s,whenthegreatCappadocianFathersweredevelopingtheirownwayofunderstandingtheSpiritandhiswork, seems to have been somewhat different from whatAthanasius hadconfronted in Egypt twenty years before.Usually ancient sources identifyopposition to the identification of the Holy Spirit as a divine agent withMacedonius, thebishopofConstantinoplewhowas forcedtoresign fromhisseein360,apparentlyunderpressurefromtheradicalwingoftheanti-Niceneor“Arian”partyledbyEunomiusofCyzicus.45Macedoniusseemstohavesympathized,inthelate350s,withthe“homoiousian”groupassociatedwith Basil of Ancyra, who sought to find a middle ground between thesupportersandopponentsofNicenetheologybyspeakingoftheSonas“liketheFatherinsubstance”;accordingtothehistorianSozomen,MacedoniusoriginallyalsoregardedtheHolySpirit,encounteredinbaptismandtheother“mysteries”orsacramentalactionsoftheChurch,asessentiallysubordinatedto the Son, a “minister and servant” in the realization of God’s graciouswork.46Whateverhisownoriginalposition,Macedoniusseemstohavebeenbasicallyamoderateinthedevelopingdiscussionofhowthethreedivineagents or “hypostases” in the work of salvation are all God - unwittinglylendinghisnametotheso-called“Spirit-fighters”ofAsiaMinor,astheywerecategorizedinthe360s.“Macedonianism”laterbecamethedesignationforaheresyMacedoniushimselfmaynothavedirectlypromoted.47

III. tHe CappaDoCIan FatHerS anD tHe trInItYTheearliestinfluentialworktoarguedirectlyagainsttheseAsiandoubts

aboutthestatusoftheSpiritwasBasilofCaesaraea’sfamoustreatiseOn the Holy Spirit,whichwasprobablycompletedinitspresentformabout375.Theoriginof thefirstpartof thisworkwasapparentlya long theologicaldiscussionBasilhadhadthepreviousyearwithafriendandformermentor,Eustathius, bishop of Sebaste in Eastern Asia Minor. A charismatic andinfluentialascetic,Eustathius–likehisprotégéMacedonius–seemsalsotohaveassumedthatFather,SonandHolySpiritreferredtoanorderedrankingofactorswithinGod’ssavingwork.ThoughbothEustathiusandMacedoniuswerewillingtoaffirmthatChrist,presentedintheGospelsasLordandSon,is “like the Father in all things,” even “substantially like” the Father, thecharacteroftheSpiritwhocomesonJesus,andwhomJesuspromisestohisfollowers–theSpirit’s“personality,”onemightsay,andwayofworking–waslessclearinScriptureandtradition.TheSpirit,Eustathiusandhisfollowersagreed,isourownmeansofunionwiththeLordJesus,ourownaccesstothetranscendentGod.ButpreciselybecausetheSpiritissocentrallyinvolved

16 17

inChristianexperience,sointeriortoholyindividualsandtotheChurch–andparticularlybecausetheformofmonasticlifeformenandwomenthatEustathius energetically fostered probably understood itself as thoroughlydrivenbytheSpiritofGod–EustathiusseemstohaveidentifiedtheSpiritaspartofGod’sgraciouswork oftransformationwithincreatures,ratherthanaspart of the Divine Mysteryitself.

Basil’streatiseontheSpiritapparentlyusedthenotesofhisownformalconversationwithEustathiusabouttheSpirit’sstatus–largelyadiscussionof theimplicationsof thevariousdoxologiesandprayers inwhichFather,Son and Holy Spirit are invoked,with their connectingprepositions – asthefirsteightchaptersofamuchlongerreflectiononjustwhatthetraditionofChristianfaithandworship,drawingfromtheScriptures,impliesaboutthe faces we discern in God. Basil clearly wants to affirm that the Spiritis, insomesense,acoordinateagent,alongwith Jesusand theone Jesuscalls“Father,”inaccomplishingthetransforminganddeifyingworkofGodin human history; the Spirit, too, is called “Lord” in II Cor. 3.17, and isgivenglory in theChurch’sprayeralongsideFatherandSon. If theFatheris theoriginating source (arche-)ofall thatis, theSonis theinstrumentor“creative cause,”andtheSpirit the“perfectingcause.”48SoBasilpointstotheimpliedunityofactionandnaturesharedbythethree,although–unlikeAthanasiusfifteenyearsbefore–henoticeably stops shortof applying totheSpiritthetermhomoousion,“ofthesamesubstance,”thatNicaeahadascribedtoSonandFather.49GregoryofNazianzus,hisfriendandassociateinministry,inacelebratedexchangeoflettersfromthelate370s,criticizesBasilfor“managing”theTruthinanoverlydiplomaticway,byavoidingthisinflammatoryterm.50

IntheFifth Theological Oration,whichwehavediscussedabove,GregoryofNazianzushimself ismuch lesshesitant to affirm that Father, SonandSpirit aredistinctagentswhonevertheless sharea single, if transcendent,substance.UnlikethemultiplegodsassumedbytheGreekstobeatworkinnature,hewrites,“eachofthemhasunitywithwhatisjoinedtoitasmuchas itdoeswith itself:by identityofsubstanceandofpower.”51Gregory isprimarilyconcernedthroughoutthisessaytoaffirmthattheSpirit,forwhomtheScripturesdonotprovidethesamekindofunambiguouspersonalprofilethattheydofortheSon,isclearlyabeingwhoexistsandactsforhimself,yetalwayswithintheuniquerealityofGod.IftheSpiritissimplyanactivity(energeia)ascribedtoGod,howcanhebedescribedinScriptureashimselfspeakingandactingandbeing“grieved”;52“butifheisacreature,howisitthatwebelieveinhim,orthatweareperfectedinhim?”53ButGregorythenraisestheinevitableconundrumimpliedbysuchScripturalevidence:iftheSpiritisGodandnotacreature,howdoweimagineandspeakofhisplace,

18

hisoriginwithinthedivineMystery?

Surelyheiseitherunbegottenorheisbegotten.Butifheisunbegotten,therearetwobeingswithoutcause.Butifbegotten,youwillmakeafurtherdistinction:eitherthisSpiritisoutoftheFather,oroutoftheSon.AndifheisoutoftheFather,therearetwoSons,whoarebrothers…ButifheisfromtheSon,thenGodtheGrandsonhasappearedbeforeus!54

Apparentproblemsabound,butGregory insistshere,amidstabundantironic comment on his critics, that we must seek for “some higher formof relationship” by which Son and Spirit are related to the Father and toeachother,freefromimagesofgenderandphysicalrelationship.55Relyingfor his paradigm on John 15.26 in which Jesus refers to “the Spirit, whoproceeds(ekporeuetai)fromtheFather,”Gregorygoesontosuggestthat“theproceedingone”(to ekporeuton)shouldnothimselfbethoughtofintermsoffatherhoodorsonship,butshouldsomehowbeconceivedofasbetween theFather,whohasnosource,andtheonewhoisbegottenasSon:

Insofarasheproceedsfromhimheisnotacreature;butinsofarasheisnotbegotten,heisnotaSon;andinsofarasheisbetween(meson)theUnbegottenoneandtheBegotten,heisGod...What,then,is ‘procession’?Youtellmewhattheunbegottennessofthe Fatheris,andIwillexplaininnaturaltermsthebegettingoftheSonandtheprocessionoftheSpirit,andwewillbothbedrivenoutofourmindsfortryingtopeerintotheMysteryofGod!Whoarewetodothesethings,wewhocannotknowwhatliesjustunderourfeet…?56

ForGregoryhere,tospeakoftheSpiritas“proceeding”fromtheFatheris to leave his relationship appropriately undefined, but to suggest it isdifferentfrom,eveninsomewaypriorto,thebegettingoftheSonwhomwerecognize,inhisincarnateexistence,asJesus.57

In May and June of 381, an assembly of Eastern bishops was calledtogetherbytheEmperorTheodosiusatConstantinople,undertheleadershipoftheagedbishopMeletiusofAntioch,toconfirmwhathadbythenbecomeapro-NiceneconsensusintheEasternChurches,whichseemtohavebeenwearybynowwithdecadesofwranglingover the likenessor unlikenessofSontoFather.ThecreedproducedbytheCouncilof381(whichmanymodernChristians simply know, imprecisely, as “theNiceneCreed”)wasessentiallytheformulaof325,inslightlysimplifiedterms,withanexpanded

18 19

finalsectiondealingwiththeroleoftheSpiritinhistoryandinthebeingofGod.FollowingBasil’scautiousexample,itstopsjustshortofcallingtheSpirit“God”oraffirmingheis“consubstantial”withFatherorSon;itemphasizessimplythattheSpiritis“adoredandglorified”alongwiththem,andthatheisgiventoGod’speopleincharisms–he“spokethroughtheprophets.”ByappendingtothisbriefdescriptionphrasesontheunityandsanctityoftheChurch,onbaptism,andonChristianhope foreverlasting life, theCreedalsosuggeststhattheSpiritliesattherootofthesecoreChristianexperiencesofcommonlifeandhope.Initself,thecreedof381seemsnottohavebeenintendedtodefinetheSpirit’srelationshiptoeitherFatherorSon,ortoaffirmordenyanydetailedunderstandingof theSpirit’sorigin;alluding to John15.26,asGregoryhaddone,itsimplyaffirmsthattheSpirit“proceedsfromtheFather.”Godthe“sourcewithoutsource(arche− anarchos)”isultimatelytheonewhogivestheSpirithissubstantialandindividualbeing.

IV. aFter tHe CappaDoCIanSDuringthedecadessurroundingtheCouncil,approachestoformulating

the mysterious character of the Spirit’s origin within the Mystery of Godvariedwidely.ForinstanceDidymustheBlind–theAlexandrianexegeteandtheologian–inhisowntreatiseOn the Holy Spirit (roughlycontemporarywithBasil’s),insiststhattheSpiritsharesboththesubstanceandthesavingwillofFatherandSon,becauseof theradical,orderedsimplicityofGod:“FortheSonisnothingelsebutwhathasbeengivenhimbytheFather,andtheSpiritisnoothersubstancebesidesthatwhichhasbeengivenhimbytheSon.”58AnothertreatiseOn the Holy Trinity,ascribedtoDidymusandprobably from the sameAlexandrianmilieu (whetherornot it is actuallyDidymus’work),arguesthateventhoughdifferentterms–“begetting”and“proceeding”–areusedinScripturefortheoriginsofSonandSpirit,bothtermssuggestthatthetwoshareequallyintheworkofcreationandrenewal,“forallbegettingandproceedingarerealizedbybeingsthatareequalandlikeeachother.”59

CyrilofAlexandria,inhisworksontheTrinityaswellasinanumberofpolemicalwritingsonthepersonofChrist,hasagreatdealtosayabouttheHolySpirit,aswell.HeinsiststhattheSpiritistrulydivineandproper(idion)tothedivinesubstance–“asitwere,aqualityofhisholiness.”60UsingtheEusebianimageofthefragrancethatmakesperfumepresenttothesenses,even though it is materially distinct from the perfume itself, Cyril affirmsthattheSpirit,whois“asitwere,thefragranceofGod’ssubstance,”givestocreatures“ashareinthatsubstancewhichisaboveallthings.”61Infact,CyrilseemstoconceiveofthedistinctiveroleoftheSpiritintheworldtobeitsintimate,internalpresencewithinintelligentcreatures,enablingthemto

20

participateintheinnerlifeofGod;fromourperspectiveascreatures,atleast,theSpiritisthus“thecompletion(symplērōma)oftheholyTrinity.”62SoinhisseventhDialogue on the Trinity,CyrilhashisinterlocutoraskwhethertheSpiritisconsubstantialwithFatherandSon,andanswers:“Certainly,sinceitisnototherwisepossiblefortheholyonestobeenrichedbyparticipatinginGodthanbyreceivingtheSpirit.Forwearemadeperfectbybecoming‘sharersinthedivinenature’.”63TheSpiritinvolvesusinthelifeofGod,andinthatsenseplungesuspersonallyintoGod’sineffableandindefinablelife;forhumans,salvationandthefulfillmentofGod’screativedesignrequirenoless.Inperfectingus,heperfectstheveryMysteryofGod.

BeforeleavingthisquicktourofPatristicreflectionsontheHolySpirit,itseemsessentialatleasttolookbrieflywestwardsatAugustineofHippo’sapproach to the Mystery of the Spirit’s person and deity, if only becauseAugustine isoften identifiedbymodern theologians,ofEastandWest,asbeingtheoriginatorofastyleofthoughtthatsoemphasizesthesubstantialunityofFather,SonandSpiritthattheirpersonaldistinctionsarelostfromview. Itwouldbe impossible todiscussAugustine’s theologyof theHolySpirit,orhisoriginal,oftenhighlyspeculativeengagementwiththeMysteryofthetriuneGod,withanyadequacyhere.Still,itisimportanttonotethatwhileAugustinedoes,inseveralsectionsofhismonumentaltreatiseOn the Trinity,affirmthat theSpirit“proceeds” fromboth theFatherandtheSontogether,assomeoftheLatinFathershaddonebeforehim,healsostatesclearly,inbothhisearlyaddressOn the Faith and the Creed(393),andhislateHandbook (Enchiridion)on Faith, Hope, and Love (421)thattheSpiritis“theSpiritoftheSon”butproceedsonlyfromtheFather.64

In the De Trinitate, as readers sometimes forget,Augustine begins hisreflections with the Scriptures and the Church’s traditional faith. So heaffirms,nearthestartofthefirstbook,that

AccordingtotheScripturesFatherandSonandHolySpirit,intheinseparableequalityofonesubstance,presentadivineunity;andthereforetherearenotthreegodsbutoneGod;althoughindeedtheFatherhasbegottentheSon,andthereforehewhoistheFatherisnottheSon;andtheSonisbegottenbytheFather,andthereforehewhoistheSonisnottheFather;andtheHolySpiritisneithertheFathernortheSon,butonlytheSpiritoftheFatherandoftheSon,himselfcoequaltotheFatherandtheSon,andbelongingtothethreefoldunity.”65

TheHolySpirit,hegoesontoinsist,iscertainlynotacreature,but“trueGod”;66equaltoFatherandSoneternally,sharingintheineffablerealityor

20 21

“substance”ofallthatitistobeGod.InBook2ofthesamework,AugustinereflectsonJohn16.13,whereJesustellsthedisciplestheSpirit,intimetocome,“willglorifyme,becausehewillreceiveofmineandwill tell it toyou,”addingimmediatelythat“allthattheFatherhasismine;thatiswhyIsaid,‘Hewillreceiveofwhatismineandwilltellittoyou’.”AugustinepointsoutthatthisdepictiondoesnotmaketheSpiritanylessthantheSoninstatus,“sinceboththeSonisfromtheFatherandtheHolySpiritproceedsfromtheFather”;yettheyarenottwosons,because,inawayimpossibletoexplainfully,inGodbeingaSonisdifferentfrom“proceeding.”67

InBook5,Augustineisdirectlyengagingtherecently-coinedCappadocianterminologyofuniversalandindividual,substanceoressenceandhypostasisor“person,”assuchlanguageisappliedtotheMysteryofGod.HefurtherreflectsonhowtheFathercanbethesourceofbothSonandSpiritwithouthavinggeneratedtwosons.HeconcludesthatScripturesuggeststheSpirit“comesforth”inadifferentway:“hecomesforth,yousee,notasbeingbornbutasbeinggiven,andsoheisnotcalledson,becausehewasnotbornliketheonly-begottenSon,normadeandbornadoptivelybygrace likeus.”68 AugustineidentifiesthecharacteristicfeatureoftheSpirit’sexistencehere,inotherwords,asthefactthatheisgivenratherthanbegottenorcreated.As “God the gift,” he exists eternallywithin thedivineMystery, givenbyFather to Son and returned by Son to Father in a structured sequence ofcausationbeyondtime,andultimatelygivenbybothofthemtocreatures,asthecenterofourdivinization.Itisthatcharacteristicofbeinggiven that,forAugustine,providesuswiththesharpestcluetowhotheSpirituniquelyis,andhowtheSpirituniquelyworks.AndsincetheScripturespresentJesusbothasspeakingabouttheSpiritas“sentbytheFather”inhisname(John14.26)andasgivenbyJesushimself“fromtheFather”(John15.26)tothedisciples and the Church,Augustine concludes that both Father and Sonmustbeseen(althoughindifferentways)ashisgivers,andsoasthesourceofthispowerfulgift.Hewrites:

Ifthereforewhatisgivenalsohashimitisgivenbyasitsorigin,becauseitdidnotreceiveitsproceedingfromhimfromanywhereelse,wemustconfessthattheFatherandtheSonaretheoriginoftheHolySpirit;nottwoorigins,butjustasFatherandSonareoneGod,and–withreferencetocreation–onecreatorandoneLord,so,withreferencetotheHolySpirittheyareoneorigin…69

YetAugustinemakes itclear that thisability tobe,withhisFather, thegiverandpersonalsourceoftheSpirit,belongstotheSoninawaythatisitselfderived inhisgeneration,alongwithhisverySonship:bestowedby

2222

theFathereternallyontheSonaspartofbegettinghim.Sohespecifies,inBook15:

InthistriadonlytheSoniscalledtheWordofGod,andonlytheHolySpiritiscalledthegiftofGod,andonlytheFatheriscalledtheonefromwhomtheWordisbornandfromwhomtheHolySpiritprincipallyproceeds.Iadded‘principally,’becausewehavefoundthattheHolySpiritalsoproceedsfromtheSon.ButthistoowasgiventheSonbytheFather…70

PartofthereasonforfuturemisunderstandingsbetweenEastandWest,surely, is the slightly different understandings of the word “proceed” thatdevelopedinthecontextofTrinitarianthought.ForAugustine,itisagenericnotion implying movement from one point to another, as from source togoal;forthelaterGreektradition,itcametohaveamoretechnicalyetlesspositivelydefinedmeaning,basedexclusivelyonJohn15.26:originwithinGodthatisnotgeneration.YetbothAugustineandhisGreekcontemporariesrecognizethattheHolySpirit’swayofcomingforthfromGodisnotsuchastomaketheSpiritasecondsonoftheFather,letaloneagrandchild;andallofthemrecognizethatitisthecomingoftheSpiritintotheworld,astheonesentfromGodbytherisenChrist,asfromChrist’sowndivinefullness,thatgivesustheonlyglimpsewehaveoftherelationshipsthatconstitutetheMysteryofGod.

In thecenturies that followedtheCouncilof381,asmostofusknow,ChristiansofEastandWestbecameincreasinglyembroiledindebateoverthepreciserelationshipoftheSpirittoFatherandSoninhisorigin,andonthelegitimacyoftheinsertionofthewordFilioque–“andfromtheSon”–intotheBiblicalstatementoftheCreedof381thattheSpirit“proceedsfromtheFather.”ThisfatefuladditionfirstappearedintheLatintranslationoftheCreedthatwasprobablypromulgatedforSpanishusebytheThirdSynodofToledoin587–atranslationthatwaslaterpromotedastheonlyorthodoxprofessionoffaithbytheEmperorCharlemagneandhistheologicaladvisorsattheendoftheeighthcentury.Fromthatpointon,whathadbegunasasmallbutcharacteristicdifferenceintheologicalterminologyandhomileticidiomquickly grew intoadifferenceofhowEast andWest conceivedChristianorthodoxy–andtheFilioque controversycamemenacinglyintoitsown!71

V. ImaGInInG tHe SpIrIt toDaYMyargumenthere, in theperhapsoverabundant sketch I haveoffered

of thebeginningsofaChristian theologyof theSpiritChristhasgivenus,is that the question of the Spirit’s “hypostatic” origin within the divine

22 232322

Mystery – whether the Spirit “proceeds” forth eternally from the Fatheralone and is sent out into creatures, in time, by the Son, as Photius andtheEasterntraditionwouldargue,withincreasingintensity;orwhethertheSpirit “proceeds” fromFatherandSon together,although indifferentiatedways, and is first of all the personal expression of their mutual love andcommunion,asCarolingianandmedievaltheologiansintheWest,inspiredbyAugustine,wouldinsist–isreallynot theissuethatmainlycaughttheattentionoftheologicalwriterseitherinEastorWestduringtheformative,pre-medieval centuries. For the Fathers, as I have tried to showhere, theabidingquestionwashow to conceive of the Spiritatall.Scripturetellsusoftenabout“theSpiritofGod,”workingintheprophetsandpeopleofIsrael,sentbyGodonJesusathisbaptism,giventotheApostlesandtheirhearersinJerusalemonthefirstChristianPentecost.ButofwhatandofwhomistheBiblespeaking?IsthisSpiritaninstrumentofGod’ssavingworkonearth?IsitawayoftalkingaboutGod’sactionsofsanctificationandilluminationincreatedminds–God’spower,God’screativegrace?Is“theSpiritofGod,”perhaps,amediatingcreatureitself–akindofangel?CanthisSpirititselfbeGod?Andifitis,canitbetrulydistinctfromthetranscendentFather,fromwhomallrealityflowsforth?CanitbetrulydistinctfromtherisenLord,whosendsit?

The Scriptures, Gregory of Nazianzus reminds us, really offer us littledirect help in answering these questions. Both in the OldTestament andtheNew,theGodofIsraelrevealshimselfincreasinglyastheonly God,thesolecreator,theonecompanionandguideofIsrael,“aGodmercifulandgracious,slowtoanger,andaboundinginsteadfastloveandfaithfulness,”butwho holds all people responsible for theirmoral actions (Ex 34.6-7).ThisGodisuniqueandbeyonddepicting,yethehasadecidedpersonality.Jesus,themanfromNazarethwhomChristianscallLordandSonofGod,ultimatelycametoberecognizedbymainstreamChristians–bythemid-fourthcentury,atleast–asalsoGodinthefullsenseoftheword,sharingintheverysubstance,theinconceivablereality,oftheonehecalls“Father”:inthewordsofthecreedofNicaea,heis“GodfromGod,lightfromlight,trueGodfromtrueGod.”ButtheSpiritofGod,theSpiritsentbyChrist,issurelymuchmoredifficultforthefaithfulreaderofScripturetocharacterizeandidentify;theSpiritdoestheworkofGod,butseemstolacka“face”–aprosōpon; theSpirit isagift,a force,butseemsnot tohavetheindividualconcretenessthatGreekphilosophyreferredtobythetermhypostasis.SoGregorydepictshisopponentsasarguingagainsthim–againsthisradicalaffirmationthattheHolySpirit,too,isfullydivine,andispartofaTrinityofequal“persons”–thatsuchanotionofGodis“strange”and“unscriptural,”something“readinto”Biblicalfaith.Hisownefforts,aswellasthoseofhis

24

contemporariesAthanasiusandDidymus,BasilandAugustine,arepreciselytoargueonthebasisofScriptureandoftheChurch’scontinuingexperienceofprayerandbaptismandinnertransformation,thattheSpiritgiventousisalsoGod,also“personal”inthemysteriousyetcentralsenseofthatword–thattheSpiritmustalsobeactive,powerful,unpredictable,yetcapableofdefiningpersonalrelationshipswithintheMysteryofGod–ifthesalvationpromisedusintheGospelsistocometorealization.

TheproblemwiththeSpirit,forearlyChristianwritersand,Isuspect,forusstill,isthathe–orshe,orit!–issimplytoo close to us,toomuchinvolvedin our own lives of faith, to be adequately conceived or imagined.TheFather,astranscendentsourceofallthatis,liesbeyondourimagining,yetisgraduallyrevealedintheHebrewBibleashavingadistinctiveandcomplexprofile;heisamajesticcharacterwhospoketoAbrahamandMoses,whosejudgmentsandpromisesaresketchedoutbytheprophets.TheSonstandsnexttousinthefullnessofJesus’humanform,speaksourlanguage,hangsonthecrossinthefullnessofhishumanvulnerability,istransfiguredonMountTabortorevealthefullnessofhuman,aswellasdivine,beauty.TheSpirit,bycontrast,descendsontheprophetsandJesusininnerpower,appearsovertheheadsoftheTwelveas“tonguesoffire”(Acts2.3),andsweepsthemonintoanewageofhumanhistory“withthesoundliketherushofamightywind” (Acts2.2).Likeany favorablewind, theSpirit isbehindus, thefirebrightensour lives fromabove, thepower transformsuswithin; yet noneofthesefiguresisreallyobjectiveandvisibleasanactorbeforeus;noneofthemhasa“face.”CyrilofAlexandriaspeaksoftheSpiritsimplyas“theonewhobrings theTrinity to itscompletion(to symplērōtikon tēs triados),72andwhoforthatreason“bringstherenewalofcreationtofulfillment,”aswell.73 IntheworkandbythepresenceoftheSpirit,theinvolvementofGodinourworldenfoldsusandcommunicatestousmysteriously,beyondideas, thestructureofGodasGodis.SoGregoryofNazianzus–inanoft-citedpassagefromtheThird Theological OrationthattrulystretchesthelimitsofBiblicaldiscourse–remarksofthedistinctiveChristianconceptionofGod:

ForthisreasontheMonad,setinmotionfromthebeginningintoaDyad,74hascometorestinaTriad.Andthis,forus,istheFatherandtheSonandtheHolySpirit.Theoneisbegetterandemitter,butImeanthisinawaybeyondpassionandtimeandbodies.Oftheothertwo,oneisbegotten,theotheremitted–orhoweverelseonewantstospeakofthem,whenallvisibleconnotationsarecompletelyremoved.75

WhatwewanttosayaboutGod,onthebasisof theScriptureandthe

24 25

experienceoflivingfaith,hasadirectionandanorder(taxis), a“movement,”whichcanonlyberegardedascompletewhentheSpiritofGodisunderstoodtobeGod’shypostaticandconsubstantialcompletion.Butthecharacterofhiscoming-forthfromGodandwithinGodisbeyondimagining.

Inanarticlepublished inFrench in1981, thedistinguishedRomanianOrthodoxtheologianDumitruStaniloaereflectsontheChristianbeliefthattheHolySpirit,astheonewhobringstheTrinitarianlifeofGodtoitsfullnessandcompletion,isreallytheonewhoallowsFatherandSontoexperienceeachotheraspersonsincommunion:tofindcompletionineachother,to“rejoice”ineachother,withoutdominatingeachotherorcompetingwitheachother.Forpreciselythatreason,itistheHolySpiritofGodin uswhoenablesus,too,tomovebeyondhumanindividualismandisolation,andtodiscovertheunityinlove,the“transparency”toGodandtoeachother,thatisthefoundationofpersonalrelationshipsandofChristiancommunity.Fr.Staniloaewrites:

BytheSpirit,webecomeconsciousofourunitywithChrist,andamongourselvesastheBodyofChrist.BytheexperienceoftheSpirit’spower,Christbecomestransparentforus.ItisalsobytheHolySpiritthatGodsustainstheworld,actswithinit,and–bymeansofthemysteryoftheChurch–leadsittoitsgoal(telos),toitsrealization.ItisbytheHolySpiritthatherealizeshisprojectofsalvationandofthedivinizationoftheworld…SojustasintheTrinitytheHolySpiritrevealsthattheFatherandtheSonaredistinctyetoneinessence,unitedbylove,sotheHolySpiritconsecratesusasdistinctpersons,whilebuildingusintoaChurch,unitingusbythejoyoffullcommunion.BytheHolySpirit,weenterintotheloveofFatherandSon…76

Perhapsthispowerfulyetundefinable,unimaginabledriveoftheSpiritwithin us towards communion with God and with each other is reallythemainreasonwemodernChristians tend tobe,asRahnerremindsus,afraidof theSpirit, resistant tohispower.Asbelievers livinginaChurch,wewant tobeable todefineourselvesoveragainstoneanother, toholdonto–orretrieve–doctrinesandpracticesthatgiveusidentity,tofindourowndistinctiveprofilewithina resistantor indifferentworld.Yet, rightasthisinstinctis,theSpiritseemstourgeusonbeyondit:towardsfreedom,towardsthe“newlaw”of“theloveofChristthatsurpassesknowledge”(Eph3.19),77towardsanew,spirituallyunifiedcreationthatis,attheveryleast,exciting, but also unfamiliar and threatening. As Cardinal Walter Kasperwroteinthe1970s,“TheSpiritis,bothwithinGodandbetweenGodand

26

theworld,thebondofunity:aunityinlovewhich,inthatitunifies,alsosetsusfree.HeisthefreedomandtheoverflowoftheloveofGod…Heisthecreative,renewingpower,whichirresistiblyleadsallreality,throughJesusChrist,toitseschatologicalfulfillment.”78Anditisthateschatologicalunityinlove,thatfinalcommunionfoundedonGod’sfreedomandcreativepower,whichappearstoallofus,atoncesoinvitingandsodangerous.

Forthelasthundredyearsandmore,Christianshavetalkedincreasinglyaboutourneed forunity inChrist: aunity that canacceptdifferences intheology and practice and Church structure, that can speak and prayandpreach inawiderangeofvoices,because it is foundedoncommonfaith andonacommon share in the loveofGod.This iswhatwemeanby Christian reunion. As Catholics and Orthodox especially, we see allthethingsweshareinourlongtraditionoffaithandspirituality,ofChurchleadershipand sacramentalpractice, andaremoved toquestionwhetheror not the considerable theological and ecclesial differences that do stilldivideusaresignificantenough,realenough,topreventusfromsharingtheEucharisttogether,andfromfindingaunitywithinourdifferencesthatwillsustainacommonmissiontotheworld.Charismaticleaders–spirit-filledrepresentativesofourChurches–likePatriarchAthenagorasandPopePaulVI in themid-1960s,haveoccasionally takenbold steps towardsmakingsuchChristianreunionafact,inwayswestillfindhardtoimagine.Andyetthosespontaneousecumenicalgesturesofahalf-centuryagoseemtodaytobebearinglittleobviousfruit.AssomeonewhohastakenpartinCatholic-Orthodoxdialoguefor thirtyyears, Iknowtherearegoodreasonsforourecumenicalhesitation;asenseofresponsibilitytowardsourancestorscallsustobetruetoourrespectiveidentities, towardsourwaysof formulatingtruthandparticipatingintheMysteryofGod’slife.Butthereasonweholdsotightlyontoourdifferences,Isuspect,isalsoatleastpartlybecausewe,too,arestillafraidtodiscoverforourselvesthedynamicdivinerealityoftheHolySpirit:afraidtoletgoofourcontrolofthelifeoffaithanditshallowedformulas,andoftheinstitutionalstructuresinwhichwehavelearnedthem,andtoliveinthefreedomofayet-unimaginablenewcreation–afraidtobecomemorelikeGodasGodis.Aswestandhesitatingbeforethebrinkofcommunion,letusatleastpraythatthisSpirit–God’sowninternalbondofloveandjoy–mightbeanewandunexpecteddiscoveryforallofusinourday,theguidingforcefortheworld’stransformation.AndaswereachforwardintotheChristianunknown,letusboldlymakeourinvocation,ourepiclesis,together:“Come,HolySpirit!”

26 27

noteS

1Acts19.2.

2Acts19.5-6.

3ICor12.3;Rom8.15.

4ICor12.4-13;14.1-2;etc..

5ForadiscussionofthetraditionalOrthodoxcritiqueof“Christomonism”amongLatinCatholics,seeYvesCongar,“Pneumatologieou‘Christomonisme’danslatraditionlatine?”inEcclesia a Spiritu sancto edocta(Gembloux,1970),41-63.SeealsoWalterKasper,“DieKirchealsSakramentdesGeistes,”inWalterKasperandGerhardSauter(eds.),Kirche – Ort des Geistes(Freiburg:Herder,1976)14-55,esp.14-25.

6KarlRahner,“FearoftheSpirit:ThoughtsforPentecost,”inOpportunities for Faith: Elements of a Modern Spirituality(trans.EdwardQuinn;NewYork:Seabury,1974)41-42.

7John3.8.

8OriginalFrenchpamphlet:La Procession du Saint-Esprit dans la doctrine trinitaire Orthodoxe(Paris:EditionsSetor,1948).EnglishtranslationbyGeorgeEvery,The Eastern Churches Quarterly7(1948)31-53;reprintedinLossky,In the Image and Likeness of God(Crestwood,NY:St.Vladimir’s,1974)71-96.

9In the Image and Likeness of God 71.

10ThéodoredeRegnon,Études de théologie positive sur la sainte Trinité(Pasris:Retaux,1898);incriticism,seeMichelR.Barnes,“DeRégnonReconsidered,”Augustinian Studies26(1995)51-79.ForacarefulsummaryandcritiqueofLosskyandother20th-centuryOrthodoxapproachestothequestion,seeYvesCongar,I Believe in the Holy Spirit3(trans.DavidSmith;NewYork:Seabury,1983)72-78;208-212.SeealsoAndrédeHalleux,“OrthodoxieetCatholicism:dupersonnalismeenpneumatologie,”Revue théologique de Louvain6(1975)3-30.

11In the Image and Likeness of God88;seealsoibid.,85,89.

12SeeRahner,“FearoftheSpirit”(above,n.6).

13See,forexample,suchclassicsummariesoftheChurch’semergingconceptionofGodasTrinityasOr.20.5-11;Or.29.2;Or.42.24.AttemptstoexpressthenotionofGodasradicallythreeandyetinseparablyone,threehypostasesorconcreteindividualsindistinctiverelationshipswitheachotherthatinthemselvesformourabilitytorecognizethem,areaconstantthemerepeatedbyGregoryinavarietyofelegant,subtle,yettheologicallyprofoundways.Anexampleappearsinhis

28

Oration20,“OnTheology,andtheAppointmentofBishops,”whichsketchesoutGregory’sunderstandingofthenotionofGodthatisimpliedbytheNicenecreed–forhimatouchstoneoftheOrthodoxfaiththatoughttobeprofessedbyallinpositionsofChurchleadership:“SoweadoretheFatherandtheSonandtheHolySpirit,dividingtheirindividualities(hypostases)butunitingtheirgodhead;andweneitherblendthethreeintoonething,lestwebesickwithSabellius’disease,nordowedividethemintothreealienandunrelatedthings,lestweshareArius’madness…Inthisway,accordingtomyargument,theunityofGodwouldbepreserved,andSonandSpiritwouldbereferredbacktooneoriginalcause,butnotcompoundedorblendedwitheachother;theirunitywouldbebasedonthesingle,self-identicalmovementandwillofthedivinebeing,ifImayputitthatway,andonidentityofsubstance.Butthethreehypostaseswouldalsobepreserved,withnoamalgamationorreductionorconfusionconceivedinourthought…”(Or20.5,7)

14SeeMatt6.9;Luke11.2.

15Matt11.25-27.

16John14.10.

17John16.25-28.

18John17.20-23.

19Gen1.2.

20Ex31.3.

21ISam10.10;19.20.

22GregoryofNazianzus,Or.31.1(SC250.276).

23John14.26.

24John15.26.

25John16.13-15.

26GregoryofNazianzus,Or.30.20(SC250.266).

27Ibid.21(SC250.274).

28John1.9.

29John14.16.

30Psalm35.10(LXX).

28 29

31GregoryofNazianzus,Or.31.3(SC250.278-280).

32Newmanwrites,“Letusallowthatthewholecircleofdoctrines,ofwhichourLordisthesubject,wasconsistentlyanduniformlyconfessedbythePrimitiveChurch,thoughnotratifiedformallyinCouncil.ButitsurelyisotherwisewiththeCatholicdoctrineoftheTrinity.Idonotseeinwhatsenseitcanbesaidthatthereisaconsensusofprimitivedivinesinitsfavour…OfcoursethedoctrineofourLord’sdivinityitselfpartlyimpliesandpartlyrecommendsthedoctrineoftheTrinity;butimplicationandsuggestionbelongtoanotherclassofargumentswhichhasnotyetcomeintoconsideration…TheCreedsofthatearlydaymakenomentionintheirletteroftheCatholicdoctrineatall.TheymakementionindeedofaThree;butthatthereisanymysteryinthedoctrine,thattheThreeareOne,thatTheyarecoequal,coeternal,allincreate,allomnipotent,allincomprehensible,isnotstatedandnevercouldbegatheredfromthem.Ofcoursewebelievethattheyimplyit,orratherintendit.Godforbidweshoulddootherwise!Butnothinginthemereletterofthosedocumentsleadstothatbelief.Togiveadeepermeaningtotheirletter,wemustinterpretthembythetimeswhichcameafter.”(An Essay on the Development of Doctrine,inJamesGaffney[ed.],Conscience, Consensus, and the Development of Doctrine[NewYork:Doubleday,1992]55-56.)

33Against Praxeas2(trans.E.Evans[London:SPCK,1948]132[altered]).

34Ibid.8(Evans140).Evanstranslatestrinitasheresimplyas“Trinity,”butthismaybesuggestingaconceptualizationofFather,SonandSpiritasasingleGodthatismoreontologicallyadvancedthanTertullianwasreadytoaffirm.

35OnthecomplexproblemofthedateandoriginofthevarioustreatisesfromthethirdcenturyattributedtoHippolytus,seemostrecentlyJ.A.Cerrato,Hippolytus between East and West: The Commentaries and the Provenance of the Corpus (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002).

36HippolytusofRome,Contra Noetum10.1–11.1(trans.RobertButterworth[London:HeythropMonographs,1977]68-70).

37Ibid.14(Butterworth74)[altered].

38SC15.ForanEnglishtranslationoftheseletters,withintroductionandcommentary,seeC.R.B.Shapland,The Letters of Saint Athanasius concerning the Holy Spirit(NewYork:PhilosophicalLibrary,1951).Shaplanddatestheletterstosometimebetween356and362,andsuggeststhatletters2and3probablyoriginallyformedasingleletter.Letter4seemstobeabriefsummaryoftheearlierthree.Letter1,inanycase,isclearlythemostsubstantial.Forthedatingandcircumstancesoftheletters,seeShapland16-18;forasummaryoftheirtheologyoftheSpirit,see34-43.

39Athanasius,To Sarapion1.20(Shapland113).

40Ibid.

30

41To Sarapion1.21(Shapland119).

42To Sarapion1.20(Shapland117),

43To Sarapion1.25(Shapland128).

44To Sarapion1.21(Shapland118-119).

45SeeShapland25,followingLoofs.

46Sozomen,HE4.27;seealso4.13;4.22;Socrates,HE4.25.

47ForbriefattemptstosituateMacedonius’wayofconceivingtheSpiritwithinfourth-centurycontroversy,seeLewisAyres,Nicaea and its Legacy(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2004)214-218;KhaledAnatolios,Retrieving Nicaea: the Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine(GrandRapids:BakerAcademic,2011)24-26.

48On the Holy Spirit16.37-38.In16.37,hedrawsonICor12.5-6tomakethisdistinction.

49Athanasius,bycontrast,doesapplythisinflammatoryadjectiveafewtimestotheHolySpiritinhisLetters to Sarapion.ContrastingtheSpirittothemanyangelsandotherspiritualforcescarryingoutGod’sworkincreation,heconcludes:“ItisobviousthattheSpiritdoesnotbelongtothemany,norisheanangel.Butbecauseheisone,and,stillmore,becauseheispropertotheWordwhoisone,heispropertoGodwhoisone,andoneinessence(homoousion)withhim.”(1.27;trans.Shapland133;seealsoLetter2.3and2.5;3.1)ItisstrikingthatforAthanasiushere,thereasonwecansaytheSpiritisofthesamesubstanceasGodisthatheis“proper(idion)”totheSon,andthereforeidentifiedwiththedivinesubstanceinthesamewaytheSonis.

50SeeGregoryNazianzus,Letter58,andhissomewhatapologeticallusiontoBasil’sangerovertheimpliedaccusationofdishonesty,inLetter59.

51Or.31.16(SC250.306).Inlateantiquephilosophy,itisassumedthateverysubstancehasthe“power”(dynamis)toact(energein)inspecificways.InhisEpiphanyoration,On the Holy Lights,Gregorydevelopshisunderstandingalittlemorefully:“For‘thereisoneGod,theFather,ofwhomareallthings,andoneLordJesusChrist,bywhomareallthings’(ICor8.6),andoneHolySpirit,inwhomareallthings;yetthesewords‘of,’‘by,’and‘in’donotdenoteadifferenceofnature…,buttheycharacterizetheindividualities(hypostaseis)ofanaturewhichisoneandunconfused…Thereis,then,oneGodinthree,andthesethreeareone,aswehavesaid.”(Or39.12).Ontheroleplayedbytheideaof“power”inCappadocianthought,seeMichelRenéBarnes,The Power of God. Dynamis in Gregory of Nyssa’s Trinitarian Theology(Washington:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2001).

30 31

52GregoryseemstobealludingheretopassagessuchasMatt12.20;John14.26;Acts13.2;Eph4.30;Job4.9.

53Or.31.6.

54Ibid.7.

55Ibid.

56Or.31.8.

57ThemaininspirationforthisideathattheSpiritisinsomewaypriorto,andresponsiblefor,thebeingoftheSonmaysimplybehisroleintheconceptionoftheSoninhumanformbytheVirginMary:seeLuke1.35.

58Didymus,On the Holy Spirit165-166(SC386;Paris:Cerf,1992,pp.284-6).Thiswork,probablycomposedaround375,hasonlysurvivedinatranslationbyJerome,madeatleasttenyearslater.DidymusalsoarguesherethattheSpiritissentbyGod,justastheSonis,yetnotpreciselyasaSon;soheis“joinedtotheSoninunity”andiscalled,inScripture,“theSpiritoftheSon.”Ibid.139(SC386,p.272).

59On the Trinity2.2.22(ed.IngridSeiler;Meisenheim:Hain,1975,p.28).Forthedebateabouttheauthorshipofthiswork,seeLouisDoutreleau,“Le‘DeTrinitate’est-ill’oeuvredeDidymel’Aveugle?”Recherchesdesciencereligieuse45(1957,pp.514-557[againstDidymanauthorship],butalsoDoutreleau’snoteinhiseditionofDidymus’On the Holy Spirit(SC386;204-205),wherehechangeshismind.SeealsoC.Bizer,Studien zu den pseudoathanasianischen Dialogen(Bonn1970)[againstDidymanauthorship]andAlasdairHeron,Studies in the Trinitarian Writings of Didymus the Blind: His Authorship of the Adversus Eunomium IV – V and the De Trinitate(Diss.Tübingen,1972)[infavorofDidymusasauthor].

60CommentaryonJohn14.23(ed.Pusey2[Oxford,1872;repr.Brussels:Culture et Civilisation,1965]499).ForamuchmoredetailedconsiderationofCyril’streatmentoftheHolySpirit,seemyarticle,“TheFullnessoftheSavingGod:CyrilofAlexandriaontheHolySpirit,”inThomasG.WeinandyandDanielA.Keating(eds.),The Theology of St. Cyril of Alexandria(London:T.andT.Clark,2003)113-149.

61CommentaryonJohn16.15(ed.Pusey2.639).ThisimageoffragranceandtheperfumefromwhichitcomesrecallsEusebiusofCaesaraea’simageoftheWord’srelationshiptotheFather,aswellasofGod’sgiftoftheSpirittomakeallofhispeople“Christs”:seeDemonstratio Evangelica4.15(trans.WilliamFerrar,(repr.GrandRapids:Baker,1981)194-196.

62Thesaurus34(ed.Pusey[Oxford]608b).

63Dialogues on the Trinity7(Pusey637bc).

32

64De fide et symbolo9.19;Enchiridion9.3.OnAugustine’s“subtle”andcarefullynuancedconceptionoftheoriginofSonandSpiritwithintheMysteryofGod,seetheimportantarticlebyGeraldBonner,“St.Augustine’sDoctrineoftheHolySpirit,”Sobornost4(1960)51-66,esp.60-66.WhileconcedingsignificantdifferencesbetweentheclassicpositionsoftheOrthodoxandCatholictraditionsonthispoint,Bonnerwrites:“itseemstomethatAugustine’sdoctrineoftheprocessionoftheHolySpiritisagreatdeallessrevolutionary,andagreatdealclosertothethoughtoftheGreeks,thanhehasusuallybeengivencreditfor,whetherforpraiseorblame.AsIreadit,histeachingofprocession‘fromtheFatherandtheSon’isequivalentto‘fromtheFatherthroughtheSon,’andcertainlydoesnotimplythatthemodeoftheprocessionisthesameinbothcases.”(Bonner65)

65Augustine,On the Trinity1.7(trans.EdmundHill;NewYork:NewCity,1991)69.

66Ibid.1.13.

67Ibid.2.5(Hill100).

68Ibid.5.15(Hill199).

69Ibid.

70Ibid.15.29.InhislatetreatiseContra Maximinum Arianumfrom427-428,AugustineinsiststhatwhileChristiansmustholdthattheSpirit“proceedsfromboth”theFatherandtheSon,hehimselfisnotatallsurewhatthedifferencereallyisbetween“beingborn”and“proceeding”.“Noteverythingthatproceedsisborn,”heobserves,“althougheverythingthatisbornproceeds.”“Proceeding,”forhim,isclearlythemoregeneraltermfor“comingforthfrom,”anddoesnotbringwithitselfanyfurtherpreciseimplications.Augustinedoesgoon,however,toinsistthatintheChristianunderstandingofGod,theSpiritproceedsprincipaliter(i.e.,“asfromanultimatesource”orprincipium)fromtheFather,and“proceedsfromtheSonbythegiftoftheFather;fortheorigin(auctor)ofhisprocessionistheFather,whobegotsuchaSon,andinbegettinggavehim[thestatus]thattheHolySpiritmightalsoproceedfromhim.”(Contra Maximinum Arianum2.14.1)

71Withhischaracteristiceirenism,MaximusConfessoralreadyrecognized,inaworksenttotheCypriotpriestMarinusinthemid-640s,thatwhentheLatinsofeventhatperiodspeakofthe“procession”oftheSpiritfromFatherandSon,“theyarenotmakingtheSonintothecauseoftheSpirit.TheyrecognizetheFatherastheuniquesourceoftheSonandtheSpirit…ButtheyaretryingtoshowthattheSpiritproceedsthroughtheSon,andthereforethatthereisacommunityofessence.”HegoesontoaddthatthedisagreementofLatinsandGreeksonthispointissimplyterminological:“Itisimpossibleforthemtoexpresstheirthoughtadequatelyinanotherformulation,inanotherlanguage,inthesamewaythattheydointheirownlanguage,theirmothertongue;we,afterall,areinthesamesituationwithour language!”(Maximus,Opusculum10,To Marinus;PG91.133-136).

32 33

ForadiscussionoftheoriginsanddevelopmentofthiscentralcontroversybetweenOrthodoxandWesternChristians,alongwiththeologicalreflectionsandpracticalsuggestionsonhowtomovebeyondit,seethe2003jointstatementoftheNorthAmericanOrthodox-CatholicConsultation,“TheFilioque:aChurch-DividingIssue?”Seealsomytwo-partarticle,“RevisitingtheFilioque,”Pro Ecclesia10(2001)31-62;195-212.

72Thesaurus34(PG75.608d).

73SeealsoCyril’sCommentary on John1.1(PuseyI,25):“…SowhentheHolySpiritisaddedtothenumber[ofFatherandSon],andiscalledGodalongwiththem,theholyandadorableTrinitypossessesitsownproperfullness(plērōma);”andibid.14.25-26(PuseyII,507):likethehumanwillthatbringsthemind’spurposestofulfillment,theHolySpiritis“nototherbynature,butakindofpartthatbringsthewholetocompletionandexistswithinit.”

74SeeJohn1.1:“InthebeginningwastheWord…”

75GregoryofNazianzus,Oration29.2(SC250.180).

76DumitruStaniloae,Prière de Jésus et experience du Saint-Esprit(Paris:DescléedeBrouwer,1981)101-102.

77SeeThomasAquinas,STIaIIae,Q106,a.1:“ThatwhichispreponderantinthelawoftheNewTestament,andwhereonallitsefficacyisbased,isthegraceoftheHolySpirit,whichisgiventhroughfaithinChrist.ConsequentlytheNewLawischieflythegraceitselfoftheHolySpirit,whichisgiventothosewhobelieveinChrist.”(trans.EnglishDominicanProvince[Westminster,MD:ChristianClassics1981]2.1004)

78WalterKasper,“DieKirchealsSakramentdesGeistes,”inWalterKasperandGerhardSauter,Kirche – Ort des Geistes(Freiburg:Herder1976)34-35.

34

2 0 1 1 C o l l o q u i u m R e a d i n g sAugustineofHippo.Sermons 267 (On the Day of Pentecost).TranslatedbyEdmundHill.EditedbyJohnE.Rotelle.Vol.III/7.274-76.NewRochelle,NY:NewCityPress,1993.

_____.The Trinity.TranslatedbyEdmundHill.EditedbyJohnE.Rotelle.Brooklyn,NY:NewCityPress,1991,418-29.

BasilofCaesaraea.On the Holy Spirit.Crestood,NY:St.Vladimir’sSeminaryPress,1980.

Bulgakov,Sergius.The Comforter.TranslatedbyBorisJakim.GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2004,53-73.

Congar,Yves.I Believe in the Holy Spirit: The River of the Water of Life Flows in the East and in the West.TranslatedbyDavidSmith.Vol.3.NewYork:SeaburyPress,1983,79-95;133-154;165-173.

GregoryNazianzen.“FifthTheologicalOration(OntheHolySpirit).”InNicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,editedbyPhilipSchaff.Vol.7.GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,1999,318-28.

NorthAmericanOrthodox-CatholicTheologicalConsultation.«TheFilioque:AChurch-DividingIssue?AnAgreedStatementoftheNorthAmericanOrthodox-CatholicTheologicalConsultation.SaintPaul’sCollege,Washington,DC.October25,2003.»

Staniloae,Dumitru.Orthodox Spirituality: A Practical Guide for the Faithful and a Definitive Manual for the Scholar.TranslatedbyArchimandriteJerome(Newville)andOtiliaKloos.SouthCanaan,PA.:St.Tikhon’sSeminaryPress,2002,46-68;195-203.

34 35

P r e v i o u s L e c t u r e sAvailableatwww.duq.edu/holy-spirit.

2010 “Dust and DNA: The Intertwining of Word Robert D. Hughes III and Spirit in History and the Trinitarian Life”

2009 “Whose Sins You Shall Forgive … The Holy Sandra M. Schneiders Spirit and the Forgiveness of Sin(s) in the Fourth Gospel”

2008 Creative Giver of Life: Elizabeth A. Johnson An Ecological Theology of the Holy Spirit

2007 The Holy Spirit in the Liturgy of Saint The Right Rev. Bishop John Chrysostom Kallistos Ware

2006 The Holy Spirit and Ecumenical Dialogue: Cardinal Walter Kasper Theological and Practical Dimensions

2005 The Holy Spirit, Witness, and Martyrdom Geoffrey Wainwright

Theo

log

y D

epa

rTm

enT

600

For

bes

av

enu

e

piTT

sbu

rg

h, p

a 1

5282

reT

ur

n s

erv

ice

req

ues

TeD

Ho

ly S

piri

t Lec

ture

and

Co

lloqu

ium