Глава 2: Исхождение Святого Духа

I. The first attempts at teachings about the procession of the Holy Spirit: διὰ and et (que). The question of the procession of the Holy Spirit - from the Father alone, or from the Father through the Son, or from the Father and the Son - has received absolutely exceptional significance in the teaching about the Holy Spirit; one might say, it has filled pneumatology and at the present time, in fact, almost exhausts it. In any case, this is the only question that has really been developed in pneumatology over the last millennium - everything else seemed to not exist. This is a distortion of dogmatic thought and its one-sidedness. In the centuries-old controversy, both sides have already contributed a sufficient amount of polemical passion, and, instead of continuing it, inventing new means to defeat the enemy, isn’t it time to return to the starting point, namely to the main problematic, in order to subject it itself to critical revision? For, in addition to this or that solution to the question, one should ask oneself whether it has a right to exist in this form, whether this is not a false problem that inevitably leads to a sterile logomachy? You need to ask yourself in all precision and responsibility the question of what is being discussed and asked here, as well as what can and should be asked about and what should not and cannot be asked about in the problem of the procession of the Holy Spirit. And it must be said in advance that it has already received a perverted Catholic-scholastic formulation, which was tacitly accepted by the Eastern patriarchs, starting with Photius, and this is the decisive victory that Catholic theology has so far won over Orthodox, and moreover, more decisive than in the field of all sorts of patristic quotes and scholastic tricks. The decisive battle of the dialectical one-sidedness of mono-patrism and filioquism must be fought on the basis of criticism, namely the study of the problematic itself. The most natural way is to study the story through a historical analysis of the relevant teachings in the patristic and post-patristic era. And first of all, it should be stated that the question of the origin of St. The Spirit, as such, simply does not exist for patristic theology and is not introduced into it spontaneously. The procession itself, in contrast to birth, is considered by the fathers as an inexpressible and incomprehensible mystery, only indicated, but not at all revealed in this word. Therefore, the Latin taking into one bracket birth and procession, as duae processiones, represents, of course, a violent abstraction and abuse: they are so individual, each in its own way, that they cannot be counted as duae, even processiones. 110 Therefore, the procession is not considered by the fathers in itself, but only in connection with ideas more accessible to us and in the light of them. You can ask yourself as a preliminary question: what is the history of introducing the formula: “who proceeds from the Father” into the Constantinople symbol? What were the immediate motives for this godly act? There is no historical answer to this question. This formula seemed to come by itself, of course, from the Gospel text (John 15:26) and fell into place. In this respect, its historical origin is fundamentally different from the Nicene ὁμοούσιος, which was the fruit of an intense dogmatic struggle and was in fact an answer to the controversial question posed by the heresy, and at the same time a decisive Nicene victory. We know nothing of the kind in relation to “those who proceed from the Father.” These words themselves, together with the other words of the 8th member of the symbol: “who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke the prophets,” served a specific purpose: namely, to be a descriptive expression of one general thought, which, however, is not directly expressed in its own words in the symbol. This is precisely about the Divinity of the Spirit: the Holy Spirit is God, the equally divine hypostasis, “the one and only one of the Holy Trinity.” We know that this is the historical defect of the symbol, which can and must be fulfilled and, of course, has long been filled in catechetical teaching. The eighth member of the creed is clearly incomplete. Therefore, it is actually replenished by the Church. The actual scope of the dogmatic teaching of the 8th member of the symbol comes down to a reflection of the teaching of the Pnepmatomachians (Macedonians) about the created nature of the Holy Spirit and the affirmation of His equal divinity. This is the dogmatic intention of the 8th member of the symbol, although implemented descriptively and hesitantly. This intention did not include the deliberate establishment of the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit in all its accuracy and completeness. This, of course, does not diminish the dogmatic obligatory nature of the formula of the 8th term. What does it contain? This question leads us to a more general judgment about the formulation and meaning in which the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit arose in this era in church thought. What were its problems and its axioms? We have already seen that the main task of the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity is to overcome subordinationism of various types, first in Christology - Arianism, and then in pneumatology - Macedonianism, as denying the equal divinity of the Third Hypostasis and proclaiming the createdness of the Holy Spirit. This heresy, which undermined the foundations of Orthodoxy in its own way no less than Arianism, is what the patristic thought of the era takes into account most of all in its aspirations; it is guided by this problem. 111 Therefore, it is natural that one of the main arguments against subordinationism is the proof of the homoousianism of the entire Holy Trinity, in particular the Holy Spirit, and this, in turn, naturally finds support for itself in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. This is the most general thought of the fathers in connection with the procession. This idea is affirmed and formalized further in connection with the main idea of ​​patristic theology, namely the monarchy of the Father, as connecting and justifying the Holy Trinity in Its trinity. Because of this, the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit is primarily posed in the sense of His procession from the Father. To this we must also add that feature of patristic theology that it wants to be not dyadic, dividing the Holy Trinity into two dyads, but triadic, establishing threefold concrete relationships, albeit on the basis of the monarchy of the Father. Therefore, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. is not limited to His relationship to the Father, but also extends to His relationship to the Son. All these motives are connected, intersected, intertwined in patristic pneumatology, so that they are not always easy to distinguish. Let us dwell on the teachings of individual fathers. I. St. Athanasius of Alexandria Predecessors of St. Af[anasia] in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in the West and East, Tertullian and Origen, stand on the basis of subordinationism. Therefore, it is quite natural that, in accordance with the doctrine of the inequality of hypostases, they also have a gradation by origin. Only the Son comes directly from the Father, while the Spirit comes directly from the Son and only ultimately from the Father. 112 St. Athanasius fights precisely against subordinationism, moreover, in its extreme form of Arianism and Doukhoborism. For this reason alone, the doctrine of the two-degree origin of hypostases is alien to him. On the contrary, with all his strength he affirms homoousianism - the consubstantiality and coexistence of all three hypostases. “Just as the Son, who is in the Father and in whom the Father is, is not a creature, but belongs to the Father’s essence, so it is not permissible to classify the Spirit, who is in the Son and in whom the Son is among the creatures and separate from the Word, and to represent the Trinity as imperfect” (To Serap., paragraph 1:21). Having established the consubstantiality of all three hypostases, St. Athanasius poses one more essential problem of triadology - namely, the mutual threefold relationship of the hypostases - and resolves it, as we have already seen, by distinguishing two dyads in the Holy Trinity - the Father and the Son and the Son and the Holy Spirit, with the Son being the connecting link. The Holy Spirit reveals the Son as His “image,” and through this reveals the Father. Thus St. Athanasius connects the three hypostases into the trinity of the Holy Trinity. From this it is obvious that the question of the origin of the Holy Spirit as such remains completely outside the purview of the Holy Spirit. Athanasius and his problems. General teaching of St. Basil the Great in relation to the Holy Trinity is determined, on the one hand, by the establishment of a separate trinity of hypostases, connected by the monarchy of the Father, and on the other, by his opposition to subordinationism, which he had before him in the form of late Arianism, namely in Eunomianism, as well as Doukhoborism (Macedonianism). Naturally, he was faced with the question of how to coordinate the three hypostases in the unity of the Holy Trinity and, in particular, what place to assign to the Holy Spirit in it, in the threefold relationship connected by the monarchy of the Father. The main place of the ep. 38 (to Brother Gregory) begins precisely with a threefold relationship: “from the Father the Son, by whom all things received being and with whom the Holy Spirit is always inseparably represented. He cannot even think of the Son without being pre-empowered by the Spirit.” Further St. the father traces this relationship to the origin of St. The Spirit, like the Son, is from the Father as the cause: “therefore, since the Holy Spirit, from Whom every gift is poured out upon the creation, is good, since it is united with the Son, with Whom it is inseparably represented, so it has an existence dependent on guilt - the Father τῆς δὲ τοῦ Πατρὸς αἰτίας ἐξημμένον ἔχει τὸ εἶναι, 113 from Whom it comes, then the distinctive sign of His hypostatic property is that it is known through the Son and with the Son (the moment of trinity) and has existence from the Father (the moment of monarchy). The Son, who by Himself and together with Himself makes the Spirit proceeding from the Father known, having alone shone forth from the unborn Light, by distinctive signs has nothing in common with the Father or the Holy Spirit, but alone is known by the mentioned signs. And “he who is above all is God” alone has that predominant sign of His hypostasis, that He is the Father, and His existence is not due to any guilt, but by this sign He is actually known.” The idea of ​​the inseparable trinity of relationships is further developed in the following words: “whoever has the Son in his mind does not separate from the Son and the Spirit, but... imprints in itself a united faith in three persons. And whoever named only the Spirit, in this confession embraces also the One whose Spirit it is. since the Spirit is Christ (Rom. 8:9), and He is from God, as the apostle says. Paul (1 Cor. 2:12), just as he who takes hold of one end of a chain attracts its other end, so he who attracts the Spirit, through Him draws to himself both the Son and the Father. And whoever truly receives the Son will have Him in himself, bringing down both His Father and His own Spirit. For he who always exists in the Father cannot be cut off from the Father, and he who produces everything about Him can never be separated from his own Spirit. And equally, whoever has received the Father has received both the Son and the Spirit in effect. For it is impossible to imagine mentally any kind of section or division, so that they either imagine the Son without the Father, or the Spirit is separated from the Son, but on the contrary, we find between Them some kind of ineffable and unthinkable both communication and division; “neither the difference of hypostases dissolves the continuity of nature, nor the community of essence merges the distinctive features.” “Through the one Son He (the Holy Spirit) is united and with Himself completes the revered and blessed Trinity... He is called the Spirit of Christ, as united with Christ by nature (Rom. 8:9). 114 Therefore He alone worthily glorifies the Lord. For the Lord said: “He will glorify Me” (John 16:14) not as a creature, but as the Spirit of Truth, clearly showing the truth in Himself, and as the Spirit of wisdom, in His greatness revealing Christ, God’s power and God’s wisdom. And as the Comforter, He shows in Himself the goodness of the Comforter who sent Him, and in His dignity He reveals the greatness of Him from whom He came.” 115 Further, completely in the spirit of St. Athanasius V. and repeating him, says St. Vasily V.: “Just as we see the Father in the Son, so in the Spirit the Son... there is worship in the Son, as in the image of God the Father, so there is worship in the Spirit, since He shows Himself the Divinity of the Lord.” 116 “The image of God is Christ, but the image of the Son is the Spirit.” “The Son is the Word of God, and the Spirit is the verb of the Son.” These thoughts have a defining and guiding significance in the Trinitarian doctrine of St. Vasily V.: The Father as the “reason of being” of the Spirit, 117 the Son as united with Him: “The Spirit is united with the Son,” “always thought of with Him inseparably, without any interval.” “The Son alone, through Himself and together with Himself, makes it possible to know the Spirit who proceeds from the Father.” 118 Of course, this triple connection of the three hypostases, in particular the Son and the Holy Spirit, is far from consistently outlined in different places in the works of the saint. Basil V. This feature is used by filioquists to snatch and reinterpret various texts in their own favor outside the general teaching and especially outside the problematics of St. father, to whom in general the problems of the filioquistic procession of the Holy Spirit are completely alien. Therefore, his expressions that are supposedly favorable to filioquism, if only they exist, I personally do not see such, are either ambiguous or controversial and, most importantly, for this purpose they are subject to interpretation completely not in the spirit of the Holy Spirit. Vasily V. 119 It must be said simply that for Vasily V. the problem of finding the Holy Spirit from the Father only or from the Father and the Son and in the later sense simply does not exist, and his corresponding statements therefore do not apply to this issue. St. Basil V. in a controversy about the location of St. The Spirit is simply neutral, he concerns it only within the limits of his own doctrine, which undoubtedly includes the monarchy of the Father as the “cause”, and His union with the Spirit through the Son in the trinitarian connection of the Holy Trinity. III. St. Gregory the Theologian Even Catholics do not find filioque in him, except through the conclusions attributed to him from his judgments. 120 At St. Gregory the Theologian, there are predominantly two main Cappadocian motifs in triadology: the trinity of equally divine hypostases, having their own hypostatic characteristics and united by the unity of the divine nature, and as a coordinating principle - the monarchy of the Father (the threefold relationship of hypostases in St. Gregory is less expressed in the doctrine of the immanent Trinity, in the doctrine of the economic Trinity he generally follows St. Athanasius). “But if the Son and the Spirit are co-eternal with the Father, then why are they not co-eternal? Because they are from the Father, although not after the Father. It is true that the beginningless is eternal, but the eternal does not need to be without beginning, since it is soon raised to the Father as to the beginning. So the Son and the Spirit are not without beginning in relation to the Author” (Or. XXIX). “We honor the unity of command... which constitutes the equality of unity, the consubstantial will, the identity of the movement and direction towards the One of those Who are from the One.” “The Father is the parent and the creator... The Son is the begotten, the Spirit is the brought forth” (ib.). “We must know one God the Father, without beginning and unbegotten, and one Son and one Spirit, having being from the Father, conceding ungeneracy to the Father and begottenness to the Son” (Or. XXXII). St. does not go further than this general principle of the unity of command of the Father. Gregory the Theologian, who in the doctrine of the threefold relationship is limited only to the juxtaposition of hypostases, as, for example, “It (the Divinity) is the Three Infinite infinite co-naturalness, where Each, intelligible in itself, is God, like the Father and the Son, the Son and the Holy Spirit, with the preservation of personal properties in each, and the Three, intelligible together, are also God: the first because consubstantiality, the latter due to unity of command” (Or. XL.). On the contrary, in relation to the economic Trinity, in the incarnation of God, St. Gregory Bogosl. establishes the relationship between the action of the Second and Third hypostases, although, of course, no filioquistic conclusions can be drawn from this (Or. XLI), just as St. himself does not make them. Gr. B., and even far from them. 121 In general it must be said that St. Gregory the Theologian, for all the sublimity and eloquence of his theological “Words,” is not characterized by new elements of the problem, as well as new ideas in the Trinitarian teaching, which would not have been expressed by his predecessors (especially St. Athanasius) and contemporaries (St. Vas. Vel. and St. Gregory of N[issa]). As we already know, St. Gregory of Nyssa shares the general attitude of the Cappadocians on the Trinitarian question. He continues the fight against Eunomius, and in particular against his Doukhoborism, begun by his brother St. Vasily V., and here his main interest is to show the equal divinity of the Holy Spirit, which for him establishes the monarchy of the Father and the mutual connection of all three, hypostatically qualified, persons of the Holy Trinity. In particular, his attention is focused on the fact that the Third Person does not come from the Father directly, like the Son, but indirectly, after the Son, and this peculiarity stated by him does not receive further interpretation from him (and from the Catholic side it is interpreted, of course, as containing a filioque). The main text in this regard is the following: “confessing the indifference of nature, we do not deny the difference between being a cause and coming from a cause, knowing that this is the only thing that distinguishes one from the other, namely, that, as we believe, one person is the cause, and the other from the cause. And in the fact that from the cause, we imagine another difference: for one is directly προσεχῶς from the first, the other from the first through what is direct from it, which is why the only begotten undoubtedly remains with the Son, and the Spirit undoubtedly also belongs to being from the Father (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς εἶναι), p.h. mediation (μεσιτείας) of the Son and Him preserves consubstantiality, and does not remove the Spirit from the natural relationship to the Father.” 122 The next place of similar meaning (in which Catholics 123 also find, of course, filioque) is contra Eunom. 1, 36 (Mg. t. XIV, p. 416, p. n. V, 202). “For it is impossible to truly contemplate the Lord, according to the word of the Apostle, except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). And through the Lord, who is the beginning of everything, we find that above every beginning, God is above all (Rom. 9:5), for the original good can be known only in the form of the Invisible (Col. 1:15). But, as if going in the opposite direction, after the main thing in the knowledge of God (I mean God who exists above all), through what is close and characteristic of Him, escaping in thought, from the Father through the Son we approach the spirit (ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός διὰ τοῦ ϒἱοῦ πρὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα ἀναχωροῦμεν "(The last place, which seems clearly filioquistic to Catholic filioquistic theology, does not contain anything more than an indication of the sequence of consideration arising from taxis, and no other, more definite idea can be squeezed out from here.) Next is a comparison of the three. hypostases with three suns. From the “unborn Sun (Father) will shine “another Light proceeding from Him,” “another Sun, born co-shine with Him,” “and another similar light, not separated by any temporal distance from the born Light, but shining through Him (δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐκλάμπον), having the cause of hypostasis (τῆς ὑποστάσεως αἰτίαν) in the primitive Light.” This Light has no difference with other Light, “exalted in all perfection to the highest level, intelligible with the Father and the Son, numbered according to the Father and the Son, and by Himself granting to all who are capable of becoming partakers (Eph. 2:18) the intelligible light that is in the Father and the Son.” Of course, “through the Son shining forth” cannot be interpreted in the sense of “the cause of the hypostasis,” which here also refers to the Father, just as in general, in all its uncertainty (in relation to the immanent and economic Trinity), this expression does not lend itself to precise interpretation. There remains one more place from contra Eunom. 1, § 42, t. XLV, e. 464, p. n. V, 259 – 60): “just as the Son is united with the Father and, having being from Him, is not later than Him in being, so the Holy Spirit is united with the Son, who is only in thought in relation to the cause (ἐπίνοια μόνη κα τὰ τὸν τῆς αἰτίας λόγον) is mentally imagined before the hypostasis of the Spirit. Temporary intervals have no place in pre-eternal life, so that, with the exception of the concept of cause τοῦ λόγου τῆς αἰτίας, the Holy Trinity has nothing inconsistent with itself.” “In thought in relation to the cause” obviously refers to the origin of the Son from the Father, precisely in the order of taxis, as the Second Hypostasis, which only in human ἐπινοία precedes the Third, 124 and, of course, this same understanding finds confirmation at the end of this tirade, where the “concept of cause” in the entire Holy Trinity can only refer to the Father, and the Son alone could not be called holy. Gregory of Nyssa is the cause of the Holy Spirit, even from the point of view of filioquism. The general point of view of St. Gregory of Nyssa on the relationship of the persons of the Holy Trinity is expressed in the following judgments. “If in the uncreated nature wonderful Persons and names appear: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then is it possible for an inquisitive and inquisitive mind to recognize in the essence, uncreated and eternal, in which the Father is beginningless and unborn and is always mentally represented as Father, and from Him continuously, without any distance (κατὰ τὸ προσεχὲς ἀδιαστάτως) the Only Begotten Son is mentally imagined together with the Father, through the Son and with Him (δι' αὐτοῦ δὲ καὶ μετ’ αὐτοῦ), before thought will encounter some kind of emptiness and unrealized environment, immediately united (συνεμμένως) the Holy Spirit is comprehended, being no later than the Son in being, τὴν ὕπαρξιν, so that the Only Begotten was once intelligible without the Spirit, but He too, having the cause of being (τὴν αἰτίαν τοῦ εἶναι) from God of all (from where the Only Begotten Light), shining through the true light (διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ φωτός ἐκλάμψεν)". 125 This tirade speaks of the correlation in the essence of the Holy. Trinity, where there is no sequence or intervals, and in mental representation, where thought discursively moves from one to another and the order of taxis. A similar thought is expressed in the “great catechumen Word”, which speaks of the Spirit’s accompaniment to the Word: “Having been taught about the Spirit of God, that He accompanies the Word τὸ συμπαρομαρθοῦν... we understand the power that is contemplated in its own hypostasis, which cannot be separated by any from God, in whom it abides, nor from the Word of God, with whom it accompanies.” 126 This concomitance has a meaning similar to the mediation of the Son; by this the Holy Father wants to express both the economic relationship of the hypostases and their relationship in taxis. As can be seen from these comparisons, St. Gregory of Nyssa does not pose the question of the participation or non-participation of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit, and certain conclusions - equally in both directions - constitute a kind of interpretation. Summing up the overall observations of the statements of the Cappadocians, we have to say that to the extent that the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit arose for them, they consciously and responsibly express only one thought - about the monarchy of the Father and, therefore, about the procession of the Holy Spirit precisely from the Father. However, they never give this thought the exclusivity that it received in the era of filioquistic strife after Photius, in the sense of ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός. On the contrary, the question of origin is intertwined for them with the general question of the threefold relationship of the three hypostases. This teaching did not reach a clear and responsible formulation among them, but it never divided the Holy Trinity into two dyads based on origin: the Father and the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit; on the contrary, this relationship was understood as threefold. And the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit. therefore, it received for itself, although imprecise, expression in such words as “with the Son and through the Son,” “directly and through mediation,” “the mediation of the Son,” etc., and the most typical and generalizing, although by no means fully defined, way of expressing this threefold relationship is διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ. Therefore, naturally, it received a complete expression from St. John of Damascus in his doctrine: διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ. Therefore, διὰ has been characteristic of Eastern pneumatology since the 4th century, and indeed there has never been a time when it was not characteristic of it. But the holy fathers, one might say, did not even suspect the possibility of the filioquistic use that was and is being made on the Catholic side through forced introjections. The early eastern διὰ has nothing to do with the Catholic filioque. It must be admitted that among the Eastern fathers there is not a single one who could bring such a triumph to the filioquists as St. Epiphanius. In him we find a whole series of repeatedly used expressions that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son (παρὰ P., καὶ ϒ.), from the Father and the Son (ἐκ P., καὶ ϒ.), from the Father and from the Son (παρὰ P., ἐκ ϒ.), from Both (ἐκ άμφοτέρων), from the same essence (οὐσίας) of the Father and the Son, and similar expressions, which, of course, cannot at all be weakened by artificial interpretations, which is usual among Orthodox apologists (for example, in Bishop Sylvester, Dogmatic Theology, II, 474 Sl.). The external similarity of the teachings of St. The epiphany with the later filioquism is so striking that it is even suggested that there are Western influences here. However, this assumption is completely unnecessary, because in the 4th century in the West there was no filioquism in the later sense, just as there was no anti-filioquism in the East, and the question of filioque did not really arise in theological consciousness. The only theologian whose influence could be discussed here at all is Bl. Augustine with his work "De Trinitate", which St. Epiphanius, of course, could not know, not only due to the general alienation of the Eastern and Western worlds, but also due to the fact that De Trinitate appeared after his death (403). But in general it is difficult to talk about the actual teaching about the Holy Spirit. Epiphany, etc. due to the general nature of his writings, he dwells on this issue only in passing. The main text on which theologians rightly focus is St. Epiphany of Gakov: “coming from the Father and receiving from the Son (λαμβάνον), He is not alien to the Father and the Son, but from the same being, from the same deity, from the Father and the Son” (Advers. Haer. 62, paragraph 4). “The Spirit is from Christ or from both παρ 'ἀμφοτέρων, as Christ says: “He comes from the Father and will take from Mine” (ὃ παρά τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται καὶ οὖτος ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λὴψεται ). Here an equal sign is placed, on the one hand, between the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the taking from the Son, and on the other, the procession from the Father and the Son, from both and under. This equality is typical of the general vagueness and ambiguity of St. pneumatology. Epiphany. In fact, being from the Father refers to the immanent Trinity, has an eternal character, and “taking from Mine” refers to the economic Trinity, to the realm of the incarnation. Of course, it is impossible to deny any connection between the immanent and economic Trinity, but it is also impossible to identify these relationships so straightforwardly (together with Latin theology), as St. Epiphanius, simply counting: “from both” - the hypostases of the Father and the Son. One can say about the pneumatology of St. Epiphany only that he imprecisely and primitively, without any theological sophistication of concepts, expresses the general idea of ​​the threefold relationship of hypostases, and in particular about the threefold self-determination of the Holy Spirit, not only in relation to the Father, through procession, but also to the Son, for the expression of which the St. Epiphanius lacks a theological formula, and he expresses this idea, so to speak, descriptively. This is, of course, an essential and completely Orthodox thought. In this light, a number of his images and definitions receive their meaning (Ancor. p. 67, 71, haer. LXXIV. p. 7), and this is the general meaning of his τὸ παρ’ άμφοτέρων, for example, in the following words: “St. The Spirit is the Spirit of truth, the third light from the Father and the Son; He testifies of the Son, being from the Father and from the Son. He is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, not by any composition, like our soul and body, but in the middle between the Father and the Son, the third of the Father and the Son by name; proceeding from the Father and receiving from the Son, He is not alien to the Father and the Son, but from the same being, from the same Divinity, from the Father and the Son. He is from Christ or (!!) from both” (etc., see above). This whole tirade is aimed at showing the place of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity not only in relation to procession, which is only a particular and, rather, a means for expressing the general threefold relationship, but precisely this latter. In other words, before St. Epiphanius faces the same problem that existed for St. Athanasius, and for the Cappadocians, is about the Holy Trinity, and not at all about the procession as such. Haer has a similar meaning. 7, 3, n. 16: “The Holy Spirit, being from (ἐκ) the Father, through (διὰ) the Son is given to believers or appears through the Son,” “searches the depths of God and proclaims the same of the Son” (Ancor. 1, 7). “He is the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son, not by composition, as we have soul and body, but He is in the middle (ἐν μέσῳ) of the Father and the Son, from (ἐκ) of the Father and the Son” (Ancor. 8.71). The Spirit “breathes from the Father and the Son” (Anc. 75). All this pneumatology is, of course, still very imperfect, but its general intention is much broader than just the question of origin, and in particular the doctrine of filioquism. St. Epiphanius wants to unite the doctrine of the Son and the Holy Spirit, of Christ and the Paraclete into a single Trinity doctrine. One can draw from here one more conclusion, of a historical nature, which suggests itself from observing the currents of patristic thought in matters of pneumatology: the patristic teaching of the 4th century remains alien to that exceptional character that became an affiliation of Orthodox theology after St. Photius, under the influence of repulsion from filioquism. Although we do not have here that pure filioquism that Catholic theologians find here, we also do not have that, so to speak, afilioquism or anti-filioquism, which has become something like Orthodox, or rather anti-Catholic, dogma. The Eastern fathers of the 4th century approach this question, which was by no means ripe for a solution in them, as an open one, and in some cases they allow a great bias towards filioquism, and in any case, towards διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ, in all the still preliminary uncertainty of this concept. Among the fathers who most deviated in this direction is St. Epiphanius. VI. St. Cyril of Alexandria St. Cyril of Alexandria is even more than St. Epiphanius, can present difficulties for polemicists with Catholics and bring triumph to filioquists (starting with Veccus), because it is not only common for him to call the Holy Spirit his own - ἴδιος to the Son in all the uncertainty and ambiguity of this expression, but also to talk about the origin (πρόεισι) of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son or even “Both”. To attribute this only to a temporary, “economic” procession, as Orthodox polemicists strive to prove, is not only not always possible, but sometimes simply impossible, although along with this there are a number of places that speak of procession specifically from the Father. In our opinion, it is simply impossible to combine these texts into one consistent whole and to derive any theological theory from here. It is necessary to know in general the nature of the writings of St. Kirill in order to imagine the impossibility of summing up the exact results of his pneumatology. It should simply be said that the problem of the procession of the Holy Spirit as such did not exist for him. It arose for him only in connection with the general task of fighting the pneumatomachians, who denied the Divinity of the Spirit and considered Him to be a creature, as well as with his own personal struggle against Nestorianism. The thesis that he invariably strives to prove is that the Holy Spirit has a divine nature and that He is “proper” to Christ as the God-man, and not only as a human prophet, i.e. not from without, but from within. He looks at pneumatology not from itself, but from Christology, and the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit is touched upon by him incidentally, only in Christology. We do not find in him a special treatise on the Holy Spirit, and even where this might be expected, in his writings on the Holy Trinity, he does not make procession the subject of special study (De Trinitate, li b. VII). Most often, his statements are made incidentally, in comments, polemics, letters, etc. There is, however, one main motive for the Trinitarian theology of St. Cyril, which runs through him as a red thread, is precisely the trinity of relationships between the hypostases of the Holy Trinity. He devotes special attention to this and, in connection with this, most often touches on the question of the “proceeding” of the Holy Spirit, or rather, His relationship not only to the Father, but also to the Son. The need for precisely this, and not another, problematic is connected for him with his Christology, and when he speaks of the Son, he often means Christ. His “Nestorian” opponents, separating two natures, but Christ with their hypostases, thereby isolated Jesus from the Trinity of the Holy Trinity and, as it were, disincarnated the Logos with the Sublated Spirit resting on Him. Intention of St. Cyril’s goal was to prove that not only the Logos, but precisely the divine Christ, with “His one incarnate nature,” is “the one and only one of the Holy Trinity,” having one nature and personal connection with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and especially with the Holy Spirit, resting on Him by virtue of natural unity and hypostatic connection, and not as on the prophets, as an alien, foreign, or rather supernatural, force. Therefore, one indisputable conclusion can be drawn regarding pneumatology in St. Kirill: he strives to comprehend the Third Hypostasis not only through the First, but also through the Second, and in this sense it should be said that he is generally characterized by διὰ τοῦ ϒἱοῦ, in all the uncertainty and ambiguity of this expression. But this fact cannot and should not be denied. Let us try, on the basis of a number of individual passages from his writings (far from exhaustive, which is impossible to do without a special monographic study of this side of the teachings of St. Cyril, which is not yet available) to show the nature of his statements. On the one hand, St. Cyril repeatedly says that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, considering this as a self-evident, self-evident truth. But along with this, he puts forward, also without trying to coordinate both positions, the thesis about the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son, from the Son, from the Father and the Son, from Both (like St. Epiphanius), and it is very difficult to really distinguish whether his thought refers to the pre-eternal immanent or economic procession in time. “Just as πρόεισιν proceeds from (ἐκ) the Father, His Holy Spirit, belonging to Him by nature, in the same way through (διὰ) the Son himself, naturally (φυσικῶς) through Him and coequal with Him. 127 Therefore, he is glorified through the Spirit, from himself, since he is thought of glorifying Himself through his own δι’ ἴδιου Spirit... His Spirit is peculiar to Him, and the Holy Son from the Father cannot in any way be thought of apart from the Spirit.” 128 Here the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son is connected with His coexistence with the Son. Of course, this thought can also be directed towards the filioque. The following passage is distinguished by a similar duality: 129 “The Spirit is the Son’s own, and not from the outside, as we are told, given from the Father, but inherent in Him naturally, as well as in the Father, and through Him proceeds πρόεισι, distributed to the saints, as it corresponds to everyone, distributed from the Father.” Next, it speaks of the Incarnation, in which He, remaining the Son, but accepting the seed of Abraham, also receives the Holy Spirit, so that we all have Him through Him. “The Only Begotten does not receive for Himself the Spirit, which is His, and in Him, and through Him”... The same thought is expressed in the title of Chapter 130 1. XI book. commentary on John: “(about) what is natural from God (the Father), and in the Son is the Holy Spirit, and through Him, and in His essence.” “It is said that He received His Spirit from the Only Begotten. Proceeding (προίόν) through Him naturally, as His own with everything that He has completely, it is said, takes from Him.” 131 “The Holy Spirit is proper to God the Father, but no less proper to the Son himself, not as one and the other separately (ἕτερον καὶ ἕτερον) or partially (μεριστῶς) conceived and present in everyone, but as being from the Father and in the Father by nature By the Son, being the true fruit of His essence, He brings forth, He by nature has in possession His own Spirit, poured out from the Father, through the Son, but given to the creature, not in an auxiliary manner or conceived in subordination, but, as has just been said, pouring out from the very essence of the Father to receive it through the Consubstantial Word. 132 “Keep them, O Holy Father, in Thy truth,” i.e. in Your Word, in which and through which the Spirit is and proceeds.” 133 In “Dialogue on the Holy Trinity” 134 we read: “A. Whom we call our own the Holy Spirit. - Is there one God the Father, of course (ἤγουν), and the Son, - or is it separate ἀναμέρως of each of both as one from the Father through the Son due to the identity of essence? 135 Q. I think so.” Further, it is said about the unity of divinity in the Father and the Son, so that there are not two Gods, and about this same unity it is said that the Holy Spirit is of the same essence and pours out from the Father, as it were, a source. Again in the commentary on John we read: “the Holy Spirit is revered as not alien (ἀλλότριος) to the essence of the Only Begotten, but proceeds naturally from it, having nothing else in itself except the identity of the essence, although it is thought of as self-hypostatic (ἱδιοσύστατος).” 136 St. Cyril further puts the following words into the mouth of the Lord: “It will be a sign to you that the Spirit is in every way from My essence and is, as it were, My mind, that He will announce the future, just as I do... For He, as I say, will not predict the future for you, unless you are in Me and proceeding through Me (καὶ δι’ ἐμοῦ προιὸν), and if it does not come from Me, there will not be the same essence with Me.” 137 In Thesaurus, t. 75, p. 585, we even meet directly: “proceeds (πρόεισι) (the Holy Spirit) both from the Father and from the Son,” 138 and in another place (Ad reginas, p. 1408): “proceeds through both δι’ ἀμφοῖν).” Such is the motley spectrum of the sayings of St. Cyril about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, from the Son, from Both, etc., which can be further multiplied. 139 It remains to dwell on the most famous passage from the 9th anathematism against Nestorius, where it was said about the Spirit that He belongs (ἴδιος) to the Son, and which caused the following objection from Bl. Theodoret: “if (Cyril) calls the Spirit proper to the Son in the sense that He is co-natural with the Son and comes from the Father, then we agree with him and recognize his sayings as correct; if it is that the Spirit has existence from the Son or through the Son, then we reject it as blasphemous and impious. For we believe in the Lord, who said: “The Spirit of Truth who proceeds from the Father.” Anathematism of St. Cyril was directed against the Nestorian thought that Jesus was a man who had the grace of the Holy Spirit as a power “alien” to him. St. Cyril, claiming that He was the true God, thereby taught that He has the Holy Spirit as characteristic of Himself, according to divine consubstantiality. And in response to the reproaches of Bl. Theodoret, he explains even more clearly (in a letter to Bishop Evoptius) this thought of his, namely, that although the Holy Spirit comes from God the Father, according to the word of the Savior, it is not alien to the Son, for the Son has everything together with the Father.” And in a letter to the eastern bishops, John, etc., it is said: “we do not allow... to change even one saying in the Nicene (sic!) symbol... for it was not they who spoke, but the Spirit of God and the Father himself, who proceeds from Him.” It is instructive, equally for both disputing sides (Orthodox and Catholics), that St. Cyril simply does not notice the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, but remains entirely occupied with confirming his Christological thesis that Christ, as the Son, is equally divine with the Father, and therefore is not alien, inherent in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, this contraverse has nothing to do with the filioque, pro or contra. And this failure to notice is characteristic of the entire position of St. Kirill on this issue. Thus, it should be recognized that, without being confronted with the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit, St. Cyril incidentally makes statements that, although, of course, can in no way be interpreted in the sense of the later filioque, but for the same reason cannot be used against him. In general, it does not lend itself at all to a straightforwardly simplified interpretation in the spirit of the later ἐκ μόνου or filioque. He seeks (although he does not find) an expression of the idea of ​​the threefold relationship in the Holy Trinity, in particular in the procession of the Holy Spirit, and this question exists for him not in a pneumatological, but primarily in a Christological formulation. Of course, for him there is no doubt about the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, but this position clearly does not exhaust the whole question for him. He seeks to understand it in the light of the trinity and in individual expressions sometimes approaches the filioque just as much as in other cases he seems to start from it. In any case, if we look for the group of theologians to which St. Kirill should be classified in his pneumatology, then he most likely should be classified as a supporter of the doctrine of διὰ τοῦ ϒίοῦ. VII. Didim of Alexandria Didymus, in his writings devoted to the Trinitarian question (De trinitate and De Sp. S-to), like the Cappadocians in the fight against the Arianists and Pneumatomachians, defends the origin of both the Son and the Holy Spirit from the Father and thereby affirms their divinity and consubstantiality. 140 “From Him (the Father) and together with Him these blessed hypostases shone ineffably” (De Trinitate 2, b, Mg. t. 39, p. 520), “as from Him and together with Him the Holy Spirit shone.” (ib. 2, 4, p. 481), “co-hypostatic and co-natural” (2. 2, p. 460), “co-begotten Son” and “co-created Spirit” (2, 3, p. 477). In the development of this general thought, Didymus naturally contains thoughts related to the threefold relationship of the divine hypostases. “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and dwells (μένει) with the Son in a divine manner” (1, 31, p. 425). “The three blessed hypostases did not shine in the one Divinity at different times; but always the First, then with Her and from Her the Other and the other are co-eternal, as the radiance is co-eternal with fire... The Word is not born and is not revealed if the Spirit does not strive with Him, the Spirit does not emanate” (2, 27, p. 761). “The Spirit, which originally came from the Father and is always present everywhere, returns to Him as His Spirit, inseparably inherent in His Divinity. Inexpressibly He came forth from His nature and again returns to Him, and He has an origin (πρόοδον) from the Father as coming from Him, and He remains (He has) in the Father (εἰς τὸν Πατέρα), being one and the same with Him; having departed, He returns to Him who gave rise (γευνήσαντα), for He, being one and the same essence, cannot be outside of being with the Father” (II, 12, p. 673). Regarding In. 14.26 and Matt. 10, 20 Didymus notes: “if the Holy Spirit, as shown, is equal in honor to the Father, then he is equal in honor to the Son, as is confessed: it is clear that the divine hypostases have a rapport with each other. Yet all have His equal ἴδα and are completely equal to each other. The Son is equal to the Father, and the Spirit is equal to the Son; it is clear that in the same way He is equal to the Father” (I, p. 725). On the path of theology, Didyma does not abandon the independent question of the advent of the Holy Spirit, and his main attention is focused on the relationship of the hypostases of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father. Therefore, it is difficult to expect filioquistic motives from him, and if individual texts are cited, then they are not indisputable in their meaning or even authenticity. The first text (II, 2 p. 475) contains an interpretation of Ps. 35, 10: in Your light we will see light, i.e. “in Thy Son, in the mirror of Thy glory, Thy Holy Spirit.” “Show us the light of Your countenance upon us” (Ps. 4:7). What other spirit could there be, which comes from the Father or from the Light, about which John proclaimed in his first epistle: God is light” (1 John 1.5), in the Gospel about the Only Begotten: “I am light” (8.12). “I am life” (14, 6). This place 141 is very unclear: in the first text (1 John 1.5) the light is the Holy Trinity or the Father; the second, of course, refers to the Son. The idea of ​​the Spirit descending from the Father or from the Son is, in any case, strange and makes us assume corruption of the text rather than filioquism. 142 In general, Didim is rather colorless in this regard. St. John of Damascus, completing the development of patristics and summing up its results - in particular in this question of the procession of the Holy Spirit - expounds a certain doctrine about the monarchy of the Father, 143 connecting it, however, with the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son (δι υἱοῦ), which is, therefore, the last testament patristic theology on this issue. In order to more accurately understand this idea of ​​his, it is not enough to read the texts thoroughly. The Holy Spirit is first of all called “proceeding from the Father and resting in the Son” (Crit. Ill. Orthodox Faith, I, VIII). This thought includes, as a necessary moment of procession, resting on the Son. Consequently, this procession takes place on the Son, and not without reference to the Son - in the mutual conditioning of both. Further, in the same context, the mediatorial significance of the Son is spoken of in the giving of the Spirit to creation (i.e. in the economic Trinity): “coming from the Father, given through the Son and (received) by all creation.” What follows is a series of texts that clearly speak of the eternal procession. “The Father is the Parent of the Word and through the Word the Producer of the Spirit... the Holy Spirit. there is the power of the Father, manifesting the hidden Divinity, emanating from the Father through the Son, as He Himself knows, but not through birth. The Father is the Source and cause αἰτία of the Son and the Holy Spirit... The Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father, but the Spirit of the Father, as if emanating from Him, for there is no excitement (ὁρμή) without the Spirit. He is the Spirit and the Son, but not because from (ἐκ) Him, but because through Him, He proceeds from the Father, for there is only one author (μόνος γὰρ αἴτιος) the Father” (I, XII). 144 As we see, δι’ ϒἱοῦ in St. John of Damascus is completely compatible with the idea of ​​the guilt of the one Father; it does not reject it or even limit it. At the same time, it is impossible, on the basis of authentic texts, to attribute it exclusively to a temporary revelation, a message to the world (which Orthodox apologists sometimes try to do, for example, the Most Rev. Sylvester, ts.s., II, 544), in any case, this does not exhaust the entire thought of St. father. What does διὰ mean here? Different interpretations have been proposed: both in the sense of cause, then it approaches ἐκ, differing only in shade (and in this case, filioquistic content is embedded in the doctrine of St. John of Damascus), and - less decisively, but also less clearly - in the sense of condition (Bolotov, Kochomsky), and, finally, in the sense of “circumstances of place and time”, environment, although in application to eternal relations, therefore, in general as, and not that (this is the general interpretation of Bogorodsky, ts.s., chapter II), or, finally, in relation to the image of the temporary sending. 145 Each of these different interpretations can provide well-known arguments, but at the same time cannot claim to be indisputable. In this case, in our understanding, it does not exist, and cannot exist due to the absence of a definite doctrine on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit from St. himself. John of Damascus. The latter, faithful to his general task, conscientiously reproduces the teaching that, as we have seen, is the guiding one - despite all the differences in verbal shades in its expression - in all Eastern theology. This teaching combines two theological, so to speak, postulates: the first is about the sole guilt or monarchy of the Father, the second is about the triple connection of all hypostases. 146 The first postulate receives a relatively simple and clear, traditional expression in the general idea of ​​the monarchy of the Father. The second postulate - about the threefold nature of the hypostatic determinations in the Holy Trinity - remains symbolized rather than theologically expressed in this διὰ, in the doctrine of the origin of the Holy. the Spirit from the Father through the Son, as well as about the union of the Father with the Son through the Holy Spirit. 147 This formula through the Son, which is used by St. John of Damascus, as self-evident and not requiring further explanation, is not at all intelligible and requires further interpretation - no matter in which direction. It can only be understood in the context of theological doctrine, which is the Catholic filioque, as one of the possibilities, and in the eyes of Catholic theologians, the only one, although St. Joan of Damascus is undoubtedly absent. On the Orthodox side, it has not yet received a theological interpretation 148 and is even reluctantly accepted in its real meaning. 149 The interpretation available from St. is also involved (mainly from the Catholic side). John of Damascus is common to all patristic pneumatology, starting with St. Athanasius the Great, the idea that the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son, just as the Son is the image of the Father. Of course, this thought has no direct relation to the filioque, or indeed to the image of the procession. And the immediate conclusion that follows from here can be made only in one direction - namely the unity of this divine image, which is what we find in St. himself. John of Damascus: “three faces, but one image (εἰκών), three distinctive features, but one image μία ἐκτύπωσις).” 150 And as St. Father in the third word about icons: “we come to know Christ, the Son of God and God, through the Holy Spirit and in the Son we contemplate the Father.” 151 Neither do those physical comparisons that abound in St. John of Damascus. In the first place here is the comparison of the Father, already known to us. Son and Spirit with mind, intelligence and breath: 152 “the word is the messenger of the mind, and what the word reveals is breath.” 153 Obviously, the content of these images has no significance for the interpretation of the theology about δια τοῦ ϒἱοῦ. To an even greater extent, the same can be said about other comparisons from the natural world that are found in St. John of Damascus: source, stream and outpouring, rose trunk, color and fragrance; sun, light and ray. In any case, these images of the trinity do not have any trinitarian content. So, the development of patristic pneumatology on the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit ends in the person of St. John of Damascus teaching about the guilt of the Father, who is the “cause of being” of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, but with some participation in this procession of the Son. This is expressed by the formula διὰ τοῦ ϒἱοῦ in all the uncertainty of this concept. And what is remarkable is that this patristic formula is included, as a matter of course, without any discussion, as well as without any objection, on behalf of the fathers of the VII Ecumenical Council, in the solemn confession of faith sent to the Eastern patriarchs. This epistle, considered at the council and therefore having all its authority for itself, reads: “I believe... and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord who gives life, proceeding from the Father through the Son (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός δι ϒἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον)". 154 The same fathers confessed their faith according to the symbol of Nice-Constantinople, as the apostolic, paternal Orthodox faith. 155 What follows obviously from this? Of course, only that in the formula διὰ τοῦ ϒἱοῦ St. the fathers did not feel either an increase or an illegal innovation, but only a certain explanation or revelation of the thought of the symbol, no more, otherwise such a combination of both in the confession of the same council would have been incomprehensible. Thus, the 8th member of the symbol of faith was considered in the ancient Church as still permissible, and, therefore, in need of further explanation or dogmatic interpretation, which is the addition: διὰ τοῦ ϒἱοῦ. We can say that from here it is also possible to establish a certain gradation or distinction in the dogmatic definition of the procession of the Holy Spirit: if the procession from the Father, attested by Christ himself, is a church-binding dogma, then the explanatory διὰ does not have such dogma force, but belongs to the field of theology, theological opinions, theologumena. At the same time, in its lack of clarity, being deprived of final church sanction, this διὰ is not so much a dogmatic definition, which was never accepted and was not even discussed by the Church, but rather a theological testament of an era passing into history for future pneumatology - rather a question mark than a responsible statement, and this question itself is much more significant than the so far preliminary answer. It contains a tacit indication that when discussing the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, one cannot limit oneself to establishing one procession from the Father, forgetting or not including the participation of the Son, even if in itself this remains unclear and even ambiguous. However, it means, in any case, that the Niceno-Constantinopolitan formula was not considered exhaustive by the ancient fathers. And therefore, the opposite opinion, which triumphed later, was actually a new interpretation of ἐκ τοῦ Πατρος as ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός. Thus, it must be recognized as not corresponding to ancient Eastern speculation. On the contrary, as we have seen, the overwhelming and decisive majority of the Eastern Fathers, one might say almost all of them, in different expressions and with individual nuances, unanimously professed this διὰ, which is the dominant teologumenon of the Eastern Church in the era of the ecumenical councils. Thus, although the premature dogmatization of explanatory additions to the symbol is not legitimized, at the same time it also demonstrates a certain incompleteness or incompleteness of this dogmatic definition. IX. Western Theology: St. Augustine Western theology, headed by Bl. Augustine, in his person, establishes a completely different line in the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit than the one that emerged in the East. There we have, as the predominant motif of pneumatology, the idea of ​​the monarchy of the Father, which is only supplemented by the more or less vaguely expressed idea of ​​διὰ τοῦ ϒἱοῦ. Here the principle of understanding the Holy Trinity as a system of internal relations from which it is constructed decisively triumphs, and in pneumatology this leads to the triumph of the filioquistic principle. In particular, the Trinitarian theology of Bl. Augustine, no matter how Orthodox apologists sometimes try to belittle this indisputable fact, is essentially filioquistic. 156 This feature of him cannot be interpreted and applied only to the temporary procession of the Holy Spirit. The doctrine that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son or from both (de Ambobus) is confirmed by numerous texts 157 from various works of Blessed. Augustine, 158, he finds a systematic exposition in “De Trinitate” (mainly in book XV). It corresponds to the general task of Trinitarian theology in Bl. Augustine, which combines the understanding of the Holy Trinity as relationships arising in a single nature. The initial sign here is, as we have already seen, the unity of nature, and not the trinity of hypostases: not three hypostases have a single nature, but in a single nature three hypostases arise by mutual correlation, per relationes ad invicem. To this we must also add that feature of Augustinian theology, which, although not expressed expressis verbis, nevertheless permeates all of his constructions: this is a purely Tertullian, generally Western idea, which completely equates this essence or divine nature with the Father. 159 Thanks to this, the system of relations in the Holy Trinity receives its stable center in the Father, similar (though not identical) to the Eastern principle of the monarchy of the Father. The system of Western relativism turned out to be more favorable than that of Eastern hypostatic trinitarianism in posing (if not resolving) the question of hypostases as tripartite relationships and mutual determinations. In particular, this ternary formulation of the question is used by Bl. Augustine and to the relationship between the Father and the Holy Spirit, which for him is completed and complicated by the question of the participation of the Son in this procession, filioque. This general trend in the tripartite understanding of the Trinity relationships is joined by a special motive in the doctrine of the Third Hypostasis, which constitutes the peculiarity and genuine contribution of Bl. Augustine in general pneumatology. This is precisely the teaching about the Holy Spirit as intra-Trinitarian love - love between the Father and the Son: Sp-s S-s ineffabilis est Patris Fillioque communio... donum amborum (De Trin. 1. V, p. XI, 12, Mg. t. 42, p. 919). "Sp. S-s.secundum Scripturas Sanctas nec Patris solius est, nec Filii solius, sed amborum: et ideo communionem, qua invicem se diligunt Pateret Filius, nobis insinuat charitateni.” (Lib. XV, p. XVII, p. 1080). (Cf. In. Ioa. tr. 99 6, Mg. t. 35, p. 1888; cf. de agon. p. 16. n. 18; de symb. ad catech. serm. 4. p. 9. n. 9). “Et si charitas, qua Pater diligit Filium, et Patrem diligit Filius; ineffabiliter communionem demonstrat am borum: quid convenientius, quam ut ille dicatur charitas proprie Sp. S-s. est communis amborum" (De Trin. lib. XV. cap. XIX, 37, p. 1086). Although this postulate does not indisputably entail any definite conclusions about the procession of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless Augustine makes it straightforward in the sense that if the Holy Spirit. unites the Father and the Son with hypostatic love, then, consequently, He comes from both: Pater et Filius unicum principium Spiritus Sancti: fatendum est Patrem et Filium unicum principium esse Sp-s S-ti. non dua principia (ib., pp. xiv, 15, pp. 920–1). Nec possumus dicere quod Sp. S-s. et a Filio non procedat (1. IV, p. XX. 29, p. 908). The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is explained from different sides by Bl. Augustine. First of all, he points out that the Holy Spirit is given not only by the Father, but also by the Son, is Their donum commune (De Trin; 1. V, pp. 14-15), and the property of the Spirit to be a gift of Both, realized in a temporary sending, also has an eternal basis for itself. This also stems from the fact that the Spirit is given to the apostles by Christ. “That He (the Holy Spirit) comes from the Father and the Son, we learn this from the fact that the Son himself says: He comes from the Father, and having risen from the dead and appearing to His disciples, He blew and said: “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:22), in order to show through this that He also comes through Him.” 160 The general basis that the Holy Spirit also comes from the Son is, according to bl. Augustine, that it is given to Him by the Father. “From whom the Son has that He is God, from Him He also has that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him, and therefore the Holy Spirit has from the Father Himself this, that He proceeds from the Son in the same way as from the Father... The Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father to (in) the Son and then from the Son for the sanctification of creation, but proceeds together from both, although the Father gave to the Son that which the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him in the same way, as well as from Himself” (Ibid.). 161 We find at bl. Augustine, in further clarification of the thought about the procession of the Holy Spirit “from Both,” distinguishes between the Father, as the primary cause, and the Son, as the secondary cause: “The Son is born of the Father, and the Holy Spirit initially - principaliter - comes from the Father, and just as the Father, without any interval of time, gives the same to the Son, it proceeds together from One and the Other” (De Trin. 1. XV, p. XXVI. paragraph 47). Elsewhere this idea receives even more definite expression. Pater ergo principium non de principio: Filius principium de principio: sed utrumque simul non duo, sed unum principium. 162 B De Trin. 1. V, p. XIV. n. 15, bearing the title Pateret Filius unicum principium Sp. S-ti (pp. 920–1), we read: fatendum est Patrem et Filium principium esse Sp-s S-ti, non duo principia; sed sicut Pater et Filius unus Deus, et ad creaturam relative unus creator et unus Dominus, sic relative ad Sp-m S-m, unum principium; ad creaturam vero Pateret Filius et Sp-s S-s unum principium, sicut creator et unus Dominus. It cannot be said that such an analogy between the relationship of the Trinitarian God, as the single Creator in relation to creation, and the Father and the Son, as the single principium of the Holy Spirit, was in itself convincing (if only because in the first case we have the entire Holy Trinity in relation to creation, and in the second - only the Duality of the Father and the Son in relation to God - the Holy Spirit, i.e. the relationship is essentially non-identical and therefore does not allow explanation one through the other or even just analogies with each other). Here the later thesis of Catholic filioquism is outlined, but does not develop further, towards the Florentine formula (“essentiam suam suumque esse subsistens habet ex Patre simul et Filio... tanquam ab uno principio et unica inspiratione”) and further conjectures of the same theology that the procession from Both refers to the unity of nature, and not to the hypostatic Their discrimination. Bl. Augustine does not go further than the general formula: “... de quo procedit principaliter Sp – s s-s nisi Deus Pater. Ideo autem addidi, Principaliter, quia et de Filio Sp-s is-s procedere repentur. Sed hoc quoque illi Pater dedit" (De Trin. XV, p. XVII, n. 29, p. 1086). 163 (Here there is still no precise distinction between the principium imprincipiatum and the princ. principiatum of later Catholic theology.) In general, the doctrine of Bl. Augustine on the procession of the Holy Spirit is difficult to reduce to a coherent theology in all parts. However, it can be said that the basic foundations of the future filioquistic theology can already be felt here, although they are far from receiving systematic expression. The main idea of ​​his pneumatology, namely the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, is not accidental and episodic, but central, which permeates all of his theology, and this fact cannot be diminished by artificial interpretations. 164 Historically, it is even more important that Bl. Aug. does not stand alone here, but is the founder of all Western theology about the procession of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, it is worthy of attention that this thought is presented not polemically, but positively and with some naive spontaneity, as generally the only possible and self-evident doctrine about the procession of the Holy Spirit “from Both.” Thus, we have in Augustinism an already defined Western type of doctrine of the origin of St. The Spirit from the Father and the Son, in contrast (but not yet in opposition) to the eastern δι’Υἱοῦ. Both types exist simultaneously and in parallel, strictly speaking, without knowing about each other until the time has come for their mutual identification, collision, competition and, finally, mutual rejection. 165 To this we must also add that the indicated reception of Augustinian filioquism in the West took place spontaneously, without the participation of doctrinal theology, without new efforts to theologically understand and prove this teaching. It is simply confessed as a matter of course and the only possible one. A number of Western writers, including popes who are revered as saints by the Eastern Church, profess the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son: Pope Leo I the Great, 166 Pope Gregory I the Great (†604) 167 and a number of bishops, 168 as well as church writers (Prosper of Aquitaine, Deacon Paschasius, Maximus of Turin, Paulinus of Nolan, Vigilius of Thapsenus, 169 Boethius 170 ). And what is even more striking is that there are almost no voices that disagree with this Western doctrine. 171 The real birthplace of not only theological, but also ecclesiastical dogmatic filioquism was, as is known, the Spanish Church, which, in the fight against Arianism, wanted to exalt and establish the divinity of the Son through the assimilation of His participation in the emission of the Holy Spirit. Isidore, Bishop of Seville (600), already strongly professes this doctrine. Sp. Ss ideo praedicatur Deus, quia ex Patre Filioque procedit et substantiam eorum habet. 172 “The Holy Spirit is called God because it proceeds from the Father and the Son” and therefore “is called the Spirit of Both.” The doctrine of filioque also penetrates into liturgical texts and conciliar decrees. Here the custom of reading the credo at the liturgy with the addition of filioque first appeared. Without going into the controversial history of individual council decrees, 173 one can, in any case, state that in a number of local councils confessions of faith with filioque were read, accepted and approved. Further, this same teaching, with the adoption of the addition filioque, spread to Gaul, where it found a patron in the person of Charlemagne, who at the Council of Aachen (809) not only legitimized it dogmatically, but even turned to Pope Leo III for permission to include the filioque in the credo (although this time this last petition was rejected). However, for a number of centuries this teaching became self-evident in the Western Church before it was accepted in symbol. The presentation of this silent reception of the filioque belongs to church history. From a dogmatic point of view, it seems essential to ask oneself whether this established difference between the Eastern and Western Churches was felt as such, and whether it immediately caused dogmatic strife. We must also remember that this difference arose and existed already in the era of ecumenical councils, which, however, did not prevent the communication of the Western and Eastern churches, as well as their ecumenical unction. Of course, the cultural and historical wall that separated both worlds, with its height, obscured much in the details of their church life, in which, moreover, from the very beginning there was also a difference between the Western and Eastern rites. However, there were cases when the difference in the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit, established between East and West, became known to both sides, and it is interesting to observe what kind of reaction this caused. The first such case took place during the era of Monothelite disputes, when the Lateran Council of 659 was convened in the West by Pope Martin, which anathematized the Monothelites. Although at this council the creed was read without fïlioque, it became known in the Monothelitian circles of Constantinople that in his synodikon to the council Pope Martin expounded the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, as well as from the Father. This fact is known to us from a passage in the letter of St. Maximus the Confessor to the Cypriot presbyter Marinus (655). Here St. Maxim is trying to rehabilitate the pope and present Western teachings in an Eastern spirit. “They cited in their justification the sayings of the Latin fathers, as well as Cyril of Alexandria (in his interpretation of John). By this they discovered that they do not represent the Son as the cause (αἰτίαν) of the Holy Spirit, for they know that one Father is the cause of the Son and the Spirit, One by birth, the other by procession, but they only show that He proceeds through Him (προιέναι), thereby denoting the affinity and immutability of essence.” 174 This, undoubtedly adaptive, interpretation of the Western theologum indicates that the confessor of Orthodoxy, St. Maxim did not perceive it as a heretical deviation, which could lead to church division 175 even in the then hostile Constantinople. 176 This tolerance is obviously explained by the fact that a certain dogmatic uncertainty remained on this issue. 177 And the same reason, one must think, explains the fact that “if the Western at the VI and VII Ecumenical Councils did not present their fï lioque to the Eastern, then the Eastern did not raise the question of this to them for the final clarification of the bewilderment caused by the Synodik of St. Martin" (Bolotov, thesis 23). Moreover, the synodikon of Patriarch Tarasius at the VII Ecumenical Council, which, as we know, contained the formula “through the Son,” was not protested in Rome, but was accepted as Orthodox (despite the fact that in the extreme filioquistic circles of Emperor Charles it was protested - in Libri Carolini: E x Patre et ex Filium Sp- m S- ni, non ex Patre per Filium procedere recte creditur: 1. III. 3. P. h. t. A century and a half later (809), an episode took place that again raised the same question about filioque in connection with the strife between the Frankish monks on the Mount of Olives and the Orthodox with the monk of the monastery of St. Savva John at the head. 178 The confusion was caused by the fact that Western monks read the symbol with a filioque. 179 The Western "heresy" was noticed, and the incident gave rise to the (unsurvived) controversy of Pope Leo III (who was a strong supporter of the filioque, although he opposed its inclusion in the symbol) with the monks and the Patriarch Thomas of Jerusalem. However, whatever it was, the fact remains that at the beginning of the 9th century “the Jerusalem affair, in any case, did not become a reason for breaking off communication with the Western Church because of the filioque” (Bolotov, thesis 24). And to this the same Bolotov adds (thesis 25) that “no matter how sharp and decisive the speech of St. Photius was against the Western “heresy,” St. Photius and his successors had communion with the Western Church, without receiving (and, apparently, not demanding) from it a conciliar renunciation verbis explicissimis from the filioque,” ​​and, therefore, “it was not the question of the filioque that caused the division between the churches” (thesis 26). What does this historical fact dogmatically mean? Of course, the mutual tolerance of the East and the West, whose relations have so many times been poisoned by mutual rivalry and lust for power, in a matter of such paramount doctrinal importance cannot be explained either by peacefulness or indifference; it has deeper and precisely dogmatic reasons. The fact is that the generally accepted and church-binding definition of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the 8th member of the Nicaeo-Constantinopolitanum is significantly incomplete, and, moreover, in different respects. We have already pointed out the absence here of a direct confession of the Holy Spirit by God. But in His relation to other hypostases we have the same incompleteness: the member contains only a definition of the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father, namely through procession: “who proceeds from the Father,” but it does not contain anything about the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son. And this incompleteness is essential and organic, for in the general teaching about the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity there cannot be a definition of the relationship of the Holy Spirit not only to the Father, but also to the Son. Gospel text about the origin of St. The Spirit from the Father, introduced by the 8th member of the symbol, cannot therefore receive a restrictive or even prohibitive interpretation in relation to further dogma; on the contrary, it necessarily presupposes such. And this feeling of incompleteness of the 8th member of the symbol, although not formulated verbis expressis, was always felt, and it was replenished as much as possible. However, the Church did not have a dogmatic definition about the Holy Spirit in His relation to the Son, which remained (and remains) dogmatically sought, and therefore in this area we have only private theological opinions, condensed into teologumena, Western and Eastern: διὰ and que. It must be said that these dogmatic searches were not invariably directed only towards the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit, for the general question about the relationship between the Second and Third Hypostases is much broader and can be posed on a different plane (as, for example, with St. Athanasius). “Origin” is only one of the particular possibilities for posing this general question. However, historically it turned out that this general question about the attitude of St. The Spirit to the Son - in the East in private and often random statements, in the West more persistently and doctrinally - began to be raised only in application to the procession (or non-procession) of the Holy Spirit from the Son. This formulation of the question in its exclusivity has never been the subject of critical verification and dogmatic study, but was accepted as self-evident, of course, by analogy with the definition of the symbol of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. But since there was no church dogmatic definition here yet, since the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father in its entirety is not such, then a certain breadth of views, or theologems, which largely disagreed with each other, was natural and the only possible. The question of the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son in the era of the ecumenical councils remained still in the theological stage, and the presence of two types of theological opinions did not cause church division even to the extent that this occurred with respect to the fighting theological schools in Christology. For pneumatology, the time of dogmatization had not yet arrived; it was preceded by a state of dogmatic quest, which, however, occurred much less intensely than in the Christological field, and therefore was not a reason for Church division. However, this state of affairs has been changing since about the 9th century, and the normal development of dogmatic creativity and the natural maturation of dogma are disrupted and complicated by facts of a different order, which are not actually related to dogmatic differences of opinion about the Holy Spirit. One of these external facts is the power-hungry rivalry between Western and Eastern hierarchs, which was complicated by two catastrophes: the first was the conquest of Byzantium by the crusaders, who, with their violence and crimes, created enmity between the West and the East for many centuries, the second was the fall of Byzantium and the long-term absence for it of cultural continuity, capable of not only waging a spiritual struggle, but having theological cooperation with the West. The fact of the internal church life, which also separated the West and the East for centuries, was the Roman papacy with its universalistic claims. In relation to the doctrine of St. In spirit, the papacy manifested itself by dogmatizing the Western theologumen fïlioque, giving it the meaning of a universally binding dogma, introducing it into the Western symbol (on the verge of the second 1000th anniversary). Thus, private opinion turned into an arbitrary statement - αἵρεσις. Through this, the entire East, accused of heresy, found itself in a state of necessary defense against dogmatic violence. The East, in turn, proclaimed the denial of papal dogma as already accepted church dogma, although this acceptance was not found either in the East, or in the West, or at the general ecumenical council. It remained and remains only in the position of theological opinion, at most - theologumena. This state of affairs marks the beginning of the next, unfavorable and unfruitful era in the history of the dogma of the Holy Spirit, which is determined by the struggle between Western filioquism and Eastern anti-filioquism. This can also, in terms of the history of the Eastern Church, be defined as Photianism and anti-Photianism. The providence of God allowed that the most necessary and mysterious question of theology was plunged into the abyss of a struggle for power. And real dogmatic discussion still awaits the time when these complicating motives will lose their force and questions will be posed on the merits. The second era in the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit - the Greco-Latin polemic: Fotivian, anti-Latin, theology against Latin filioquism 1. The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit by Patriarch Photius. The ninth century is the edge of a new era in the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. The peaceful coexistence of two options in the doctrine of the origin of the Holy Spirit, Eastern and Western: Greek διὰ and Latin que, comes to an end, and the era of first polemical opposition and then dogmatic division begins. Outwardly, it begins with the polemical speech of Patriarch Photius - in his epistle to the eastern bishops of 866, and most importantly, in his famous treatise Λόγος περὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος, written around 885. 180 This treatise has hitherto served as an argument for anti-Latin polemics, although its dogmatic significance should not be exaggerated. Its polemical orientation makes it generally one-sided, more anti-Latin than Orthodox, despite the presence of strong arguments against filioquism 181 . The most important thing that is characteristic of polemical theology in general, and not of positive theology as its weakness, is the entire acceptance of the entire Latin problematic, which, of course, is more important than the rejection of the doctrine itself. In this sense, we can say that Patriarch Photius is the first of the Eastern theologians to Latinize the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit, and it was in this treatise that the first, so to speak, bloodless victory of Latin theology over Eastern theology took place. P. Photius paved the way for Latinizing polemics against Latin theology, and so it remains to this day, and, however, this property of Photius’ theology went unnoticed either from the Latin or from the Eastern side. P. Photius received from the Latins an understanding of the problem of the procession of the Holy Spirit as the source of His origin, and only in a different understanding of this source does he differ from the Latins. As a result, the Photius antithesis either-or arose: from the Father alone ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς or from both: the Father and the Son. Orthodox theology, in the person of Photius, adopted the first alternative as expressing the true Orthodox teaching. At the same time, of course, there was a distortion of the Orthodox tradition, first of all by Photius himself, and then a general darkening of it in the Orthodox consciousness. As we saw above, the holy fathers did not yet raise the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit as such - from the Father only or from the Father and the Son. This question always arose before them in a more general and complex complex: in connection either with the doctrine of the monarchy in the Holy Trinity, or about the relationship of the hypostases, in particular the Second and Third, or was generally included in a more general theology. From here arises διὰ in all its ambiguity and uncertainty, together with all the sayings akin to it: ἔμμέσως, ἴδιος, ἐκ Πατρὸς καὶ ϒἱοῦ, ές ἀμφοῖν and so on. In the Latin-Greek dispute, these expressions received a new interpretation, unusual for them among the Eastern fathers. They began to ask only about the relationship between διὰ and ἐκ or que: whether διὰ τοῦ ϒἱοῦ and ἐκ τοῦ ϒἱοῦ are equal or unequal, this is what dogmatic disputes of the 13th–15th centuries are full of. In Patriarch Photius, this question has the same essentially, although still preliminary, formulation. It is an extremely strange and amazing fact that the multi-learned Patriarch Photius, who, of course, knew the Greek fathers better than many of his predecessors and contemporaries, completely ignores the fact that the patristic teaching about the descent of the Holy Spirit, with its and other additional definitions, at this point differs significantly from his own. His anti-Latin ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς is the Latin filioque with a minus: so to speak, non-filioque, anti-filioque, while the patristic teaching is neither one nor the other, but something third, albeit in a rudimentary and often contradictory expression. Patriarch Photius represents the fathers as Photians, which they actually are not, and this stylization was accepted as reality for a long time, until a more careful study of the patristic texts (first in the 13th-15th, and then in the 19th centuries) put an end to this error. But Patriarch Photius not only pretends that he is expounding the generally accepted Eastern doctrine, he is also trying to make the Western Fathers of the Church - Ambrose and Augustine - his like-minded people. Only reluctantly does he admit the possibility of difference of opinion with them on this point 182, or else he seizes on the argument of distortions (chap. 71), which is so often used by both sides in this Greco-Latin feud. He further attracts, as his like-minded people, Western popes, starting from St. Leo the Great, Vigilius, Agathon, Gregory and Zechariah, even Leo IV (on the basis of his rejection of the addition to the symbol, although it was accompanied by the adoption of Western dogma), Benedict, John VIII (“our John”), Hadrian. But history testifies that all these popes shared the Western teaching about the filioque, although they did not yet include it in their solemn confessions of faith (just as at the VII Ecumenical Council the general confession of the fathers, proclaimed by Patriarch Tarasius and including διὰ, was accepted by both Eastern and Western, although this did not prevent them from uniting in a common confession of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan symbol). Patriarch Photius's historical description of the position of the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit in the East and West is tendentiously incorrect, no matter what the reasons: whether this was a consequence of the lack of historical knowledge in this era or dogmatic bias. And this incorrectness served as an additional temptation to give this dogmatic question that one-sided, purely Latin formulation that it received in the West, partly even before Patriarch Photius, but definitely and decisively after Patriarch Photius - as antiphotianism. Latin anti-Photianism, which in the further development of scholasticism developed into a consistent and integral doctrine, as well as anti-Latin Photianism, which was perceived in the East as a worthy legacy and the last generalization of patristic theology, although, of course, it was not such at all - this antithesis was the sad lot of pneumatology even to this day. The matter has taken the form as if Photianism and anti-Photianism generally exhaust all the possibilities of pneumatology, which only has to make a choice between both. In reality, this is not only incorrect, but it is a fatal, albeit centuries-old, misunderstanding that it is time to get rid of and overcome. However, let us turn to the main provisions of the doctrine of Patriarch Photius. Patriarch Photius, together with his opponents, understands the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit exclusively as a question of causality, and all his arguments against the filioque relate to this central problem. First we have a question in abstracto: “3. If from one culprit αἰτίον - the Father, both the Son and the Spirit come... and if the Son is also the creator of the Spirit... then is it consistent not to say that the Spirit is the creator of the Son? 4. On the other hand, if the Son is not alien to the paternal ineffable simplicity, and the Spirit belongs to the two culprits and occurs through a double procession, then does not complexity follow from here? 183 Here is also added the argument of the violation of the personal properties of the Father and the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit from Both: the distinctive property of the Father was communicated to the Son, and “the two God-originating hypostases merged into one person” (9), and at the same time, “dissection and division of the inseparable” is accomplished, since one of the properties, the production of the Holy Spirit, is communicated by the Father to the Son, and the other, birth, is not communicated (10). The main and decisive argument against the filioque of Patriarch Photius is the violation of the principle of monarchy: 11. “If in the Holy Trinity two principles αἴτια are represented, then where will the power of unity of command be? and if we admit these two principles in the Holy Trinity, then shouldn’t we also allow a third principle” (12). “The many-beginning beginning πολύαρχον αρχήν” (13). “And finally, if with the Fatherly principle and the guilt αἰτίαν of the Consubstantial there is a beginning and guilt - the Son, then how can we avoid, so as not to allow in the Trinity, various principles - one without beginning and based on itself, and the other subordinate and at the same time serving as the beginning?” (14, cf. 42). This argument of the duality of principles is, of course, the most significant in P. Photius, against which Catholic theology puts forward the doctrine of una spiratio duorum, and a distinction is made between principium imprincipiatiim and principium principialum, so that this dogma, which by no means adorns Latin theology, is also historically inspired by antiphotianism. Of course, the crushingness of this argument of Patriarch Photius stands and falls along with his understanding of the procession as culpability, which is entirely shared by his Catholic opponents. But he, in any case, should be compared and verified in relation not only to the Western filioque, but also to the Eastern διὰ. Next, Patriarch Photius puts forward a number of particular theses in the field of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. First of all, there is an argument about the personal property of the Father's hypostasis: if the Father is the culprit of those who come from Him not in relation to the nature of οὐ τῶ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως, but in relation to hypostasis, and no one has yet attributed this property to the hypostasis of the Son, then “the Son in no way can be the culprit of any of the persons Holy Trinity" (15). If we assume that the Son is also the author of the Spirit, then it turns out that either the Son is part of the Father’s hypostasis, or he complements the person of the Father, which is recognized as insufficient before this addition (31). “Thus the Son receives the Fatherly part, the terrible Sacrament of the Trinity is divided into the Two” (16), in general “the distinctive properties of the hypostases are mixed” (18), and “the very hypostasis of the Father is completely resolved in nature” (19). The following argument relates to the essence of the entire Holy Trinity (chap. 17, 36, 64, cf. also ch. 46). “Everything that is not common to the omnipotent consubstantial Trinity belongs to only one of the three; the procession of the Holy Spirit is not common to the three of them, therefore, it belongs to One and only One of the three.” 184 Further, the consequences that can be drawn from Western teaching regarding the Holy Spirit itself are outlined. Firstly, it is asked whether anything is added to the Spirit as a result of His proceeding not only from the Father, but also from the Son (31), and whether the Spirit differs from the Father in greater features than the Son? (32). It is the Son who will be closer to the Father’s being οὐσίας, and therefore the Spirit has to yield to the Son in consubstantial affinity with the Father,” this results in a new Macedonianism (32). 185 Further, doesn’t it follow from the participation of the Son in the behavior of the Spirit that the Spirit also produces “something else,” so that not three, but four or more hypostases will result (37–38). And in general, the Holy Spirit is diminished before the Son: “God-fighting language not only calls the Son greater than the Spirit, according to hypostasis, but also distances the Spirit from closeness to the Father” (41). These theological arguments are also joined by biblical ones - namely, the peculiar exegesis of John. 16:14: “He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and declare it to you” in relation to the Father: “What is mine is in the Father; The Spirit receives from the Father, and the Father’s things are Mine.” Consequently, He seems to proclaim: “Although I speak from Mine, you should direct your thoughts to My Father, and not turn to others” (29), and therefore “the expression: He receives from Mine points to the face of the Father” (30). Thus, the correct idea about the unity of the Father and the Son is applied here incorrectly; it is precisely the direct meaning of the saying that is erased from Mine, which, of course, requires its own explanation. Likewise, the texts of Gal. 4, 6: The Spirit of His Son is interpreted in relation to “one-nature, one-essence” (48–58), but the hypostatic relation expressed here is ignored. This is the essential content of Photius' treatise. It remains within the limits of polemics and does not contain a positive teaching about the Holy Spirit, and in particular about the relationship between the Second and Third Hypostasis, to which so much space is given in patristic writing, in particular in the theology of διὰ. The question is reduced to the causal origin of the Holy Spirit from one or two hypostases and remains in this formal abstraction, which makes it possible to see in Patriarch Photius the founder of the scholastic trend in pneumatology, which so triumphed in the West. As the most important motives in the theology of Photius, two questions should be highlighted: about the monarchy or diarchy in the Holy Trinity and about the relationship of the divine hypostasis and nature to the procession of the Holy Spirit. The charge of diarchy, which he presented in relation to the filioquists, of course, deserves attention and, undoubtedly, caused alarm in their ranks, although justice requires it to be said that the same difficulty has not been eliminated at all in Eastern theology, in particular even in St. I. Damaskina. Also the question of unity and difference in St. The Trinity in relation to hypostasis and nature is outlined rather than explained by Patriarch Photius. But in any case, habent sua fata libelli, and the fate of the “Mystagogy” of Patriarch Photius turned out to be exceptional in the sense that the impression it made and the attention devoted to it completely do not correspond to the real merits of this work, which is far from becoming a classic of its kind, and is rather secondary. The work of Patriarch Photius was criticized both in general and in particular, in chapters and arguments, both in Latin and in Greek-Uniate writing, starting from Patriarch John Beccus and Hugo Etherian 186 to Cardinal Hergenreter and modern Latin theologians, inclusive. This is a clear sign that the opponents stand on the same ground. But transferring the question to another ground is the main task of modern thought - to overcome Photianism and anti-Photianism, as Latin wisdom, equally in its Western and Eastern variants. It is remarkable that the defenders of Orthodox dogma after Patriarch Photius could make little use of his work due to the fact that it quickly became outdated, equally in both its patristic and theological parts. The Orthodox had before them opponents armed incomparably better than Patriarch Photius, and they had to seek their own answers to their patristic and theological arguments. This is how things stand in the 13th century and later. The significance of Photius' treatise for church history is much greater than for theology, and in general it must be recognized not as positive, but negative. First of all, it consolidated the scholastic interpretation of the question of mutual hypostatic relationships in the Holy Trinity as relationships of causal origin, and secondly, and this is the most important thing, subsequent centuries in the East believed in Photius as the true exponent of the Orthodox teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit from one Father, ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς μόνον (Mg. 102, p. 392), although in fact such a formula is completely unusual, as we have seen, for patristic theology. 187 In general, the thoroughly rationalistic and scholastic treatise of P. Photius does not at all justify the pretentious title “Mystagogia” that it bears. II. Latin-Greek controversy in the 13th century in connection with the Lyon Cathedral of 1274 The treatise of Patriarch Photius actually marked the beginning of a very specific polemic between the Latins and the “Latin-wise” (λατινοφρόνες) on the one hand, and between the Latin-phobic and Photianists, on the other. This polemic took on an extremely fierce and one-sided character: all of pneumatology was reduced to the question of accepting or not accepting the filioque. The true patristic tradition of the teaching about the Holy Spirit was violated through this narrowing, and in the works of St. Fathers began to look only for arguments for or against the filioque. The Latins and Latin scholars did not remain indebted to Patriarch Photius, and in refutation of Photius’ “Mystagogy” a whole mountain of treatises was written, in which not a single position of Patriarch Photius remained unexamined or undiscussed, so that these refutations quantitatively at least immeasurably exceed the small treatise of St. Photius. 188 The main thrust of the polemic was directed against two of Photius’s propositions: firstly, that the Latin filioque is an innovation that has no basis in church tradition, and, secondly, that it introduces two principles in the Holy Trinity and violates the monarchy (the remaining theological arguments are adapted to refute this thesis, follow from it and are connected with it). It must be said in advance that the first task - to show the incorrectness or at least one-sidedness of the patrolological statements of P. Photius - was resolved by the opponents exhaustively and irrefutably. A genuine study of the patristic texts has shown what we already know, namely, that Photianism does not at all coincide with patristic theology in matters of both the procession of the Holy Spirit and, in general, His place in the Holy Trinity, and in this sense, as the Latins could rightly claim, Photianism itself is a theological innovation. The second task, dogmatic, finally led Catholic theology and dogmatics onto the wrong paths, which led to the dogmatic definition of the Council of Florence and all the tricks of filioquistic theology. The latter, however, begins already from bl. Augustine, but in Photianism it found for itself, so to speak, spiritual incitement, becoming anti-Photianism in its own way. In general, the fruits of the Latin-Photian feud turned out to be poisoned by the poison of schism for both sides, and one can only wish that theology would finally be brought out of this impasse. All this extensive polemical literature, only partially published, still awaits monographic research, without which it is difficult to give exhaustive encouragement. Our task, of course, is not part of such a study, and therefore here we have to limit ourselves to the most general characteristics. In the development of this writing, two waves can be observed, corresponding to two national attempts, however, that turned out to be fruitless: the Second Council of Lyon in 1274 (union with Emperor Michael Palaiologos) and the Council of Ferraro-Florence in 1438–39. Each of these events gives rise to a vast literature with an intensification of theological passions and polemical tension, which then subsides comparatively, 189 however continuing intermittently even to this day. On the Latin side, the earliest polemical treatises against Photianism belong to 190 Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury (12th century): “De processione Spiritus Sanicti contra graecos” (Mg. P. L. t. 158) - and Hugo Etherianus: de haeresibus quos graeci in latinos devolvunt (Mg., t. 202). Anselm already establishes against Photius that “cum Sp-s S-s dicitur esse de Patre et deFilio, non est de duobus principiis, sed de uno, quod est Pater et Filius, sicut est de uno Deo qui est Pater et Filius, (cap. XVIII, col. 342, cf. cap. XXIII, col. 318). This idea is further explained by similarity, namely, that God, being in three persons, in relation to creation is one Creator. The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is understood as “essentia S-ps S-ti de essentia Patris, quae una est in tribus” (ib). Also, Hugo Etherianus (c. 1170) in his ponderous treatise proves (in particular, against Nicholas, Bishop of Metho) that if the Holy Spirit emanates from the Father and the Son, then He has not two, but one principium. Here an argument appears that will gain great significance later: “Pater, cum Spiritus emissor est, aut in eo quo differt a Filio ipsum emittit aut secundum id quo non differt: at in eo quo differt non emittit... non in eo quo differt Pater a Filio emittit Pater Spiritum, sed in eo quo communicat” (lib. p. VIII, col. 245). 191 On the Greek side, the defense of the Latin doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit begins already in the 12th century, with the treatise “Six Dialogues” (between a Greek and a Latin) by Niketas of Maronea, Archbishop of Thessalonica 192 who supported the unionist aspirations of Emperor Manuel I Comnenos. (Reading these dialogues allegedly inclined Io. Veccus to Latin; Hugo Ether also used them.) Excerpts from them were published in Mg. S. Gr., t. 139, col. 169–220. After a dialogical discussion of pro and contra, the author comes to the conclusion about the identity of the Western e filio and the Eastern δι’ύἱοῦ, although he speaks out against the prefix in the symbol. A free discussion of the issue essentially shows that at this time Photianism had not yet become an official Orthodox doctrine, and the issue remained open for discussion, at least with the favor of the court. In the opposite sense, Andronikos Kamateros 193 is a high official who, on behalf of the same Emperor Manuel, compiled the “Sacred Oplophy” (following the example of Panoplia of Euthymius Zigabenus of the 11th century). In the anti-Latin part, it contains a dialogue about the procession of the Holy Spirit, as well as a collection of patristic passages testifying against Latin doctrine. We know this part from the refutation of P. John Veccus, 194 who step by step interprets them all in his own way, and syllogisms against the Latins, borrowed from previous writers: Patriarch Photius and others 195 The conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders, with all their violence, which caused natural bitterness on the part of the Greeks, was also reflected in the polemical literature against Latinism in the 13th century, which has not reached us. 196 However, in the second half of the 13th century, a reaction towards Latinism was already revealed again, which was expressed in the literary activity of Nikephoros Blemmydes, who wrote two essays in its defense, although he publicly opposed the Latins. (It was the reading of the works of Blemmydes in prison that convinced P. I. Veccus and made him a supporter of Latinism.) A number of patristic testimonies favorable to this are given here. The most important and interesting part of the Antiphotian polemic belongs not to the West, but to the East - the Byzantine writing of the 13th century, that is, the era of the Second Council of Lyons, and its most significant representative is, of course, the Patriarch of Constantinople John Beccus, a personality equally outstanding both in his theological talent and in the moral courage with which he professed his convictions during his life. He sealed his loyalty to them twice, by imprisonment and imprisonment. What is remarkable about his life is the fact that he began as an opponent of the union with the Latins, which was already being prepared in Constantinople by the emperor, and as such he, being a chartophylax, was deposed and imprisoned, and it was the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit that was the main subject of controversy for him. In prison he was given the writings of the Latinophrons on this issue, in particular Blemmydes (see. above), and they made such an impression on him that he became as ardent a defender of Western teaching as he had previously been a staunch opponent of Latinism. After the triumph of Latinism in the Union of Lyons in 1274, 197 p. Joseph, who did not sympathize with the union, retired to a monastery, and John Veccus was elevated to the patriarchal throne (1275), as a convinced supporter of the union. He was patriarch (with a break) until 1282. After the death of Emperor Michael Palaiologos, under his son Andronikos, persecution began against those who had united and, of course, against I. Veccus, who did not change his beliefs at the behest of the emperors, like most of his contemporaries, and primarily following the example of his main antagonist, who later replaced him on the patriarchal throne, George (Gregory) of Cyprus. He was sent into exile, tried at the council and then sent to a new exile, where he died in captivity. From the darkness of this imprisonment we hear the courageous voice (in polemics and apology) of this confessor of his convictions, head and shoulders above his rivals and contemporaries in intelligence and character. The writings of John Becca are collected in volume 142 of the Minya collection (Greek series) and represent a series of short and extensive treatises devoted to union apologetics, with primary attention to the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Vek shows himself here to be a skilled polemicist and a deep expert in patristic writing. In any case, with his collection of patristic opinions, he completely abolishes the stylized-mythical presentation that is characteristic of the Mystagogy of Patriarch Photius. And. in fact, already from Veccus the fact of the patristic διὰ can be considered firmly established, although his own interpretation of this δια is excessively dependent on his Latin wisdom. If we compare the strength of the patristic argumentation of Veccus and the Latin polemicists, then his advantage is undeniable, although he uses the one-sided scholastic method that is dominant in this area: he collects patristic texts favorable to his tendency, outside the general composition of the entire teaching of a given father, 198 i.e. suffers from the same patristic Talmudism, due to which both supporters of the filioque boast of finding up to 600 places from the fathers that are favorable for them, 199 and opponents (like Zernikava) are not inferior to them in this. 200 However, as a preliminary acquaintance, for a factual account of the situation, such “oplophics”, collections of all weapons, had their significance, and it can be said that Veccus reveals for his contemporaries, and, of course, not for them alone, the actual position of the question of the Holy Spirit in patristic writing. Of his works of pneumatological significance, the following can be named: 1) “On the Church Peace,” a fragment devoted, in particular, to the history of the relationship between N. Photius and Patriarch Nicholas I: 2) “On the unity and peace of the churches of ancient and new Rome” (Mg., t. 142. col. 16 - 157), where, after mournful lamentations about the old division. Veccus examines the dogmatic obstacles to unity and, mainly, the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit with polemics against Patriarch Photius, Fournus, Nicholas of Metho, Theophylact of Bulgaria: 3) “On the procession of the Holy Spirit” - an analysis of the fatherly teachings, and in particular the question of δευτερεύειν Son and taxis in the Holy Trinity, in connection with the doctrine of διὰ; 4) Letter to Agalian Alexy, deacon, (from prison) on the same topic; 5) To Constantine, archdeacon, three letters, on the same topic; 6) three letters to Theodore, Bishop of Sugdea, also on the topic of union with Rome; 7) Objections to Andronicus Camather (col. 396–613), on patristic testimonies about the procession of the Holy Spirit, polemical commentary; 8) Refutation of Mystagonia by P. Photius (p. 728–864), v. an important treatise representing a critical commentary (amply used by Hergenreter in his Animadversiones); 9) Three personal apologies (including the dying testament), and, finally, 10) Epigraphae, a systematic collection of sayings of the holy fathers on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, divided into 13 sections (evidence of the equivalence of δια and ἐκ). Among the like-minded people of Veccus, the scientist chartophylax of the Universal Church, Constantine Meliteniot, deserves attention with his treatise (1275) De ecclesiastica unione latinorum etgraecorum et de processionie Spiritus Sancti per Filium. (Migne, s-gr. t. 141, oratio 1, col. 1032–1137). Here, after patristic excursions, an extraordinary thought is essentially expressed, which can rarely be found in the entire contraverse: “it is necessary for the Holy Spirit of the Father to be through the Son, so that the Trinity has coherence and is inseparable in Itself and so that there is no division or divergence in It. If not, then how will the unity of the Holy Trinity be preserved? What will be the relationship between the Father and the Son?.. What remains? The Holy Spirit is determined to be in no other way (πέφυκεν τοῦ εἶναι) than through the Son from the Father, so that The Holy Trinity was understood inseparably and coherently” (1084). “If the Spirit is always inseparably co-present with the Son and He cannot be conceived apart from his relation to the Son, it is clear (!) that He receives His existence through Him. If not, what prevents us from thinking of the Son without the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit without the Only Begotten?” (1085). Boratio II proves on the basis of the fathers the identical meaning of διὰ and ἐκ (col. 1145 ff.) The seductive question of forgeries in the manuscripts of the fathers, which plays such a role in the debates of the Council of Florence, is examined in detail. As a result, the statement is made: “so, no one of all said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, but many of the saints speak of the proceeding of the Holy Spirit from the Son” (p. 1233). Among Veccus’s followers is Deacon George Metochites, who shared his imprisonment (under Andronicus) (his polemic with Maxis Planud: Mg. t. 141, pp. 1276–1307, and Mitrophan of Crete; pp. 1308–1405). He also insists that nowhere in the Holy Scriptures or in the Fathers is it said that... “The Father is the only source of the Holy Spirit” (1376). The central place in the history of the issue is occupied by the polemics of two patriarchs: the deposed John Veccus and, shortly after that, George (Gregory) of Cyprus (still a recent unionist), who ascended the patriarchal throne. The polemic on both sides is conducted in an extremely passionate and harsh tone, with unnecessary verbosity, with generous excommunications and anathematizations (especially from St. Gregory) for a simple difference of theological opinions, but it sums up the dogmatic result of the pneumatological work of the 11th - 13th centuries. What is primarily important here is the treatise of St. Gregory of Cyprus on the procession of the Holy Spirit (Mg. s. gr. t. 142, col. 269–300), to which Patriarch John Beccus responded (“answer to the scroll of Cyprus and against his newly discovered heresies”: Mg. a gr. t. 141, pp. 896–925). Both treatises are primarily polemics regarding various patristic texts (St. Cyril Al., the Areopagite, the Cappadocian Fathers, etc. - without citation). It is completely impossible to present outside of a special monographic study and is essentially a boring, picky and rather sterile logomachiy. 201 Chronologically, this polemical battle is preceded by Gregory’s “exposition of the scroll of faith against Veccus” (Mg. t. 142, col. 233–247), his “Epistle” to the emperor Andronicus Komnenos and “Confession of Faith” (Mg. t. 142, col. 247–252). P. John Veccus, in turn, answered: “To the scroll of Cyprus against his newly discovered heresies” (Mg. t. 141, col. 864–896), also with patristic texts. 202 P. Gregory thus expounds the “foreign” dogma of the Latin philosophies, as if “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, and the Only Begotten is His Author, as well as the Father” (Scroll of Faith, Christ. Reading 1, 345); The “native” dogma teaches that the Father is “the natural principle and cause of the Son and the Spirit” (347). The Holy Spirit “has origin from the Father and is proud of Him as the Creator of existence in essence, just like the Son” (349). The Son “has a Spirit of the same essence and akin to Himself, which is from the Father; however, it is not so that He is the Author of the Spirit, either alone or together with the Father, so that the origin of the Holy Spirit is through the Son and from the Son” (249). 203 In relation to the “writing of some” (the fathers), that the Holy Spirit comes from the Son and through the Son, p. Gregory expresses his main idea, which is repeatedly repeated in filioquistic polemics, as if this scripture 204 “appears to shine and manifest Him (the Holy Spirit) from there (from the Son and through the Son); for, undoubtedly, the Comforter eternally shines and appears through the Son, like light from the sun through a ray; He also reveals His message, alms and messenging to us; and not at all that He comes (ὑφίστατα i) through the Son and from the Son and receives being through Him and from Him” (Sar. 3. ib. 356). “The Word through the Son indicates only His origin and eternal radiance, and not simply His being (τὴν εἰς ἀίδιον ἔκφανσιν, οῦ τὴν εἰς τὸ εἶναι καθαρῶς σημαίνειν βούλεται πρόοδον) (ib., cf. cap. 9, 360). What exactly this eternal radiance means in relation to and in contrast to procession is difficult to say. 205 P. Gregory of Cyprus is looking here for a theologum about the relationship of the Father and the Son to the Holy Spirit, but, constrained by schemes of causal origin, he does not find it and, instead of clear theological concepts, is saved in meaningless phraseology. John Veccus easily overturns the enemy’s construction based on the distinction of “origin into eternal radiance, and not just into being.” “I cannot understand how this subtle and wondrous theologian manages to distinguish between the origin of the Spirit through the Son into eternal radiance and His origin simply into being... what else could be the origin of the Spirit through the Son into eternal radiance, if not the origin of His hypostasis from the Father through the Son?” (Response to the scroll, Sar. 5, Christ. Reading I, 586–7). “Let it be, in your opinion, the procession of the Spirit from the Father through the Son to mean His shining from the Father through the Son... but... what will you have to do with the pretext through (διὰ)? It points to mediation. But in what sense do you understand this mediation? Do you imagine the Only Begotten as a ministering instrument during the illumination of the Spirit from the Father through Him, which you have imagined, or, in order to avoid the blasphemy that follows from this, will you find it necessary to confess Him as a natural mediator in this illumination? If the Holy Spirit naturally manifests itself through the Son, and, in your opinion, it is the same that He comes through the Son, then will you really still resist reconciliation with those who say that the Holy Spirit comes from both? (ib. cap. 6,587–588, cd. pp. 7,588–589). Therefore, concludes Veccus, “I do not see whether this eternal shining of the Spirit through the Son is anything other than eternal origin” (p. 9, 591), and how can the Spirit be thought of as eternally shining through the Son, if He is not thought of as having origin through the Son? (Ib., p. 9, 592). Here in this debate the advantage belongs to Veccus. We have the opposite in another question - about the procession of the Holy Spirit from hypostasis or from essence, λόγῳ φύσεως or λόγῳ ὑποστάσεως. Gregory of Cyprus attacks his opponents for their assertion, “as if the single essence (οὐσία) and the Divinity of the Father and the Son is the cause of the origin of the Spirit, which of those who have the mind has never said or thought, for it is not the common essence and nature that is the cause of hypostasis, since in itself this common essence is not capable of either giving birth or bringing forth indivisibles, but an essence with properties (ἡ δὲ μετ ἵδιομάτων οὐσία)” (Exposition of Faith 6, Chron. 1889.1, p. 359). It is also condemned for the fact that they “dogmatize that the Father and the Son together are the authors of the Holy Spirit, and not as two principles and two causes, and that the Son is as much a communion with the Father as this communication can be expressed by the preposition through (διὰ), and by the difference and by the strength of the prepositions they determine the difference in the causes of the Spirit, otherwise presenting the Father as the author of the Spirit and otherwise the Son, and introduce the number and plurality of the causes of the Spirit.” (ib. 7.359). Finally, Gregory of Cyprus condemns opponents who “insist that the Father is the author of the Holy Spirit. οῦ λόγῳ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, τῶ δὲ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως - not hypostatically, but naturally, and from here drawing the conclusion that the Son must necessarily be the culprit the Holy Spirit, as having one λόγον τῆς φύσεως with the Father.” Meanwhile, “it will follow from here that, firstly, the Spirit himself must be the cause of someone, since He has one λόγον τῆς φύσεως with the Father, and secondly, a whole series of causes must arise, since all the hypostases participating in nature will also participate in causality; and thirdly, the common essence and nature will be the cause of hypostases, which is prohibited by reason, and together with reason and nature itself” (ib. 8. 359–60). 206 Gregory K. returns to the same question in his treatise on the origin of St.D yxa. He points out here that although the Spirit, confessed from the essence of the Father, is confessed to come from the essence of the Son, nevertheless, through this very thing He is not also confessed from the hypostasis of the Son. “Another thing is, if it were possible to unite (ἕνίζεσθαι) the Son with the Father and according to hypostasis, as we unite them in essence, then the Holy Spirit would indeed be from the hypostasis of the Son. And since by one hypostasis He (the Son) is separated from the Father and, so to speak, bifurcated (διάζεται) with Him, then whence does it follow that we must confess the Holy Spirit from the Son on the basis that He (the Spirit) is from the Father and that the essence of the Father and the Son is one and the same? (Christ. Reader 1889. II.? 91–393) “We do not confess the Father as the beginning and cause because we recognize the Son and the Spirit from His essence, but on the contrary, since He is the natural beginning and cause (ἀρχὴ φυσικὴ καὶ αἰτία), essentially (οὐσιωδῶς) arising (ὐποστάντων) from Him dispassionately and before time, therefore He is from His essence” (ib. 294. cf. 301), and “The Son differs from the Father in that He is from the Cause, and at this point unites with the Spirit, Who is also from the Cause, since from the Father, and thus is not at all the Author of the Spirit, nor Blown from Him” (ib. 308–9). In the final analysis, “the procession of the Holy Spirit means nothing more than the very manner of His origin (τρόπον αίποΰ τῆς ὑπαρξεως) (Apology, ib., 548). На тот аргумент Григория К., что Дух Св. исходит от Огня οῦ λογῳ τῆς φύσεως, но τῆς ὑποστάσεως и, следовательно, исходя от Отца, не исходит из Сына, Иоанн Векк отвечает утверждением, что так богословствовать – значит идти «вопреки преданию святых отлов», которые допускали оба эти утверждения. «По нашему мнению, нет никакого различия между этими двумя терминами: можно называть Отца и виновником тех, Которых Он действительно есть виновник, в том и другом смысле, как это действительно мы видим у наших отцов-богословов, которые в одно время богословствуют, что Отвиновные от сущности Oma, в другое, что Они из Его ипостаси» (Отв. на свиток 12, Хр. Чт. 1889, 1, 596, cf. 15, 15). Не вникая в этот аргумент противника по существу, И. Векк разражается следующей патристической диатрибой. «Спрашиваем: «кто установил принимать за догмат, что Отец есть виновник Духа οῦ τῶ λόγῳτῆς ὑποστάσεως, ἀλλὰ τῶ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως"? Отвечаем: никто, – напротив, все предали, что Он есть виновник Духа в том и другом смысле, т. е. и λόγῳ ίητοστά σεως и / άγω αώσεως . But if we, in turn, asked which of all the church catchers known to us claimed that there is no difference between the terms διὰ τοῦ προσεχῶς and προσεχῶς? he would not be able to refer to any Church Father. If we asked: which of the church fathers understands the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son in a double sense - the procession from the Father and the procession through the Son, in the sense of eternal radiance, and not in the sense of origin into being - he would have nothing to answer. If one were to ask: who theologized that the Holy Spirit has existence for them directly and directly from the Father, he would only have to refer to himself. If we asked: who determined that the expression “proceeds from the Father through the Son” means one thing, and the expression “has an origin, or, what is the same, origin from the Father through the Son” means something else, he would have to defend himself with the statement that he himself determines this... If we asked: who of the catch determined to consider the essence of the Father to be hypostatic when it comes to the fact that the Holy Spirit. from the essence of the Father, and the essence of the Son is hypostatic, when it is said that He is from the essence of the Son, he would have to attribute this fabrication to himself and to his personal fabrications. If we asked: who separates the essence of the Father from His hypostasis, when it comes to Him as the cause of those existing from Him, and determines that the expression “to be from the essence of the Father” should be understood in two senses - the words “from the essence” indicate consubstantial ones, and the words “from the Father” indicate guilt from His hypostasis, he would not have found anything to answer, etc. (ib. 15, 601 - 2). Veccus’s general conclusion can be expressed in the words that “the prepositions διὰ and ἐκ are used as the same meaning,” and, having been convinced of this, we “have made peace with those who say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, accepting with love and respect His very procession from the Father through the Son” (ib. 3, 585, cf. 10,593) 207 “as followers and imitators of our fathers” (ib. 4, 565), and Gregory K. equally refers to the holy fathers 208 What are the results of the dogmatic controversy about the procession of the Holy Spirit in the 13th century? Нельзя не сказать, что они ничтожны, если только не прямо отрицательны, не приведя ни к какому соглашению и ни к какому даже выяснению вопроса, но лишь к взаимному ожесточению (причем надо еще добавить, что фактически незримое, но решающее значение нередко имели здесь не догматические аргументы, но придворные настроения и карьерные соображения, чего нельзя сказать только об одном Векке). С одной стороны, установилась патристическая схоластика, с подсчетом разных мест у отцов pro и contra, причем преимущественно вне догматического их контекста. Правда, в результате этого пересмотра уже были установлены значительные колебания и различия в оттенках мысли в суждениях снятых отцов, которые раньше представлялись в упрощенно-стилизованном виде (как еще у п. Фотия). I. has special merits here. Vekk, but this only gave rise to a special technique of parrying texts with countertexts - which sad art has since continued to develop, with ever greater cunning, but also greater futility. The general question of how one should read and understand the patristic teachings as a whole, in their historically relative reason, has not yet arisen. Essentially, the main dogmatic result of this polemic is that the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit received a final interpretation in the sense of causal origin, and the dispute was only about whether the Son had his share of participation in the causal origin of the Holy Spirit. What was outlined by n. Photius was here taken by both disputing parties as a matter of course in the problematic. It never occurred to anyone to subject this very issue to critical research and verification, and it was entirely inherited by polemicists in the 15th century, as well as by later ones. The question of the Holy Spirit was thereby extremely soulless and schematized, and pneumatology turned into some kind of etiology (αἰτιολογία), like all triadology. Both sides occupied opposite poles in this etiology, with a complete inability to understand and accept each other, so that where one said yes, the other with the same reason said no, and only the choice of one or the other statement was possible. No life of thought, no dialectic can be seen in this static opposition, and the choice of one position or another, associated with the condemnation and denial of the opposite, is inevitably marked by a schismatic spirit that initially permeates this contraverse, and this is the same for both sides, each of which considered itself the keeper of the truth. The schismatic spirit, of course, most of all does not correspond to pneumatology. In the 14th century, the prolific writer St. also entered the Latin-Greek polemic about the procession of the Holy Spirit. Gregory Palamas, whose unpublished treatises 209 are known only from excerpts from the works of polemicists directed against him. 210 As far as can be judged from these passages, Palamas's treatises do not advance any new arguments. All this controversy on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit was raised in connection with the Union Council, II Lyon in 1274 under Pope Gregory X (according to Western accounts, the XIV Ecumenical Council). However, at the council itself there was no debate, and the Greek representatives came to the council only to testify to their submission to Rome and present the confession of faith to the emperor. Michael Palaiologos, which was to become the confession of the entire Greek Church. Here, along with the recognition of papal primacy, the primacy of the Roman Church and its guiding significance in the entire Ecumenical Church, purgatory, etc., the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son was proclaimed: credimus et Spiritum Sanctum, plenum et perfectum verumque Deum ex Patre Filioque procedentem. 211 On behalf of the council, after its termination, the pope promulgated the following dogmatic definition (canon 1), in which for the first time the Latin doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit receives official expression: 212 Sp. Ss aeternaliter ex Patre et Filio non tanquam ex duobus principiis, sed tanquam ex uno principio, non duabus spirationibus sed unica spiratione procedit... This contains not only the Roman Church, but also the hoc habet orthodoxorum Patrum atque Doctorum Latinorum pariter et Graecorum incommutabilis et vera sententia. And therefore sacro approbante consilio, damnamus et reprobamus qui negare praesumpserint, aeternaliter Sp-m S-m ex Patre Filioque procedere, sive etiam temerario ausu asserere, quod Sp. S-s e x Patre et Filio, tanquam ex duobus principiis, et non tanquam ex uno, procedat. However, this union from above with all its dogmatic definitions did not pass the first test. It was enough to have a change of emperors on the Byzantine throne, in which the place of Michael Palaeologus was taken after his death by his son Andronikos, who was hostile to her, and not a trace remained of the union, and its few sincere supporters in the hierarchy, with John Veccus at the head, were expelled and imprisoned, while the insincere, like George of Cyprus, hastened to testify to their loyalty, now pleasing to the authorities. Orthodoxy. The church masses, always indifferent or hostile to the union with the Latins (after all the horrors of violence committed by the crusaders), 213 with their negative “reception” annulled the pseudo-ecumenical council along with its union. The attempt at union, caused not by religious, but by utilitarian-political motives (fear of new crusaders), was thereby doomed to failure. 3. Latin-Greek controversy in the 15th century, in connection with the Ferraro-Florence Council of 1438–9 The next wave of dogmatic excitement comes in connection with a new attempt at union, and this time had the initiative on the part of the emperor, namely John Palaiologos, and also connected with political interests, with the hope of obtaining military assistance against the Turks through the union. Unlike the Council of Lyon, the Council of Florence was accompanied by long debates on controversial issues, in particular the procession of the Holy Spirit. 214 These debates opened, at the request of the Greeks, by discussing the question of the legality or illegality of the addition filioque - and from the Son in the Western symbol, regardless of the truth or untruth of its essence. Although, of course, this prefix really showed the undue self-assertion of the West in relation to the East and, what is especially important here, the autocracy of the Roman throne is already felt in this (so, in essence, here we are talking more about the latter), however, for a dogmatic discussion of the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, such an order cannot but be considered ugly and even unnatural. In the debate about the prefix in the symbol, approximately the first two months (October - November, until the beginning of December 1438) of the cathedral meetings (15 in number) in Ferrara passed fruitlessly for dogmatic discussion. The Orthodox tried to bring as much historical and patristic evidence as possible in favor of the external inviolability of the symbol, Catholics argued that the addition only matters for clarification. 215 With the transfer of the council to Florence, from March 1439, a debate opened on the substance of the procession of the Holy Spirit. In fact, they were conducted on the Greek side by Archbishop Mark Eugenicus of Ephesus, and on the Latin side by the Dominican provincial John de Monte Negro from Ragusa. Eight meetings were devoted to this issue (from March 3 to March 24), and at the last two, Mark Eugenicus was absent, John discussed the matter alone. The most significant part of the debate is devoted to the analysis of paternal evidence, with each side trying to cite the relevant texts in its favor. We know that this is quite possible, and the parties are widely taking advantage of this opportunity. On the Catholic side, of course, the texts of St. Epiphany (from Ancoratus), St. Cyril, as well as some expressions of St. Basil the Great; with the Orthodox - counter texts from the same fathers and others, to St. Maximus the Confessor (for some reason, texts from St. John of Damascus remain outside of consideration). 216 A lot of time and attention is spent on disputes and mutual accusations of forgeries and interpolations (and three whole sessions were spent on a dispute about the interpolation already known to us at the beginning of Book III of St. Basil the Great “Against Eunomius”). The debate is conducted randomly and unsystematically, the method of using patristic texts corresponds to the already established type of patristic scholasticism, i.e. What is being considered is not the general teaching of a given father, but his individual, sometimes random expressions, even slips of the tongue, and naturally, this method of the patristic Talmud could not produce any positive results; both sides reached a dead end. In particular, the texts of St. Epiphany. St. Basil the Great (“Against Eunomius”, from Books V and III, etc.), St. Kirill, bl. Theodoret, St. Athanasius V., St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Dionysius, individual expressions of the fathers of the ecumenical councils and their definitions (first, second, third) and, finally, the message of St. Maxima. Less attention was paid to biblical texts (in the meeting on March 17, Mark of Ephesus began to analyze the texts, but quickly moved back to patristics). There was absolutely no mention of Photius and all the polemical writing of the 13th century, although its influence can, perhaps, be felt in the finished equipment of patristic texts on both sides. However, to be fair, in this the theologians of the 13th century are superior to their successors (however, one must also take into account the cramped conditions in which the debates took place, thanks to which I found something accidental in them). We must admit that both are opponents. Mark and John, in this essentially barren logomachy, had approximately equal forces, although John surpassed Mark in scholastic sophistication and subtlety, but this superiority is formal and is not of decisive importance. These debates had no theological content or significance. The opponents once again repeated their opinions and mutual accusations, only to disperse in new mutual misunderstanding and bitterness. And at the same time, the most remarkable thing is that in the most essential things they were much closer to each other than they thought - or rather, they shared a common point of view on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit. It was both sides who understood this procession as the origin of the Holy Spirit, His ὕπαρξις or τὸ εἶναι, and only differed in their understanding of the sources of origin. And both sides did not know and did not want to know any other interhypostatic relationships other than origin. With the truth or falsity of this premise the whole controversy stands and falls. But the parties do not argue about it. The debate does not even once rise to the general topic of the Holy Trinity and the intra-Trinity relationships of the hypostases, but they begin from the beaten paths of purely filioquistic controversies and end there. Therefore, their entire content boils down to the question of one or two reasons for the origin of the Holy Spirit. Spirit, and Mark Eugenicus sees this single cause in the hypostasis of the Father, and John proves that the procession of the Holy Spirit from both hypostases does not shake the unity of His cause. 217 This is essentially what the problem of pneumatology, extremely impoverished and scholastically dried up, boils down to. Of course, it was never put this way in patristic writing. The main victory of Catholics over the Orthodox in this controversy, before and now, is achieved precisely in this problem of origin, which, without noticing it, the Orthodox accepted as the only possible one, and they see their Orthodoxy only in a certain type of doctrine about the origin of the Holy Spirit, namely from the Father. And here Mark Eugenicus, in advance and without a fight, laid down his arms before his opponents, and the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit at the Council of Florence remained not explained, but obscured. 218 We will not dwell on further negotiations between the Latins and Greeks, no longer in general sessions, but in private meetings, for this is not of dogmatic interest. The completely Latin formula about the procession of the Holy Spirit triumphed and was accepted by the Greeks, or rather, it was imposed on them. The wave of dogmatic excitement after the Council of Florence, not recognized in Byzantium, was felt until its fall and even after it. The dogmatic polemic continues in writing, and its main participants remain the same cardinals Vissarion and Mark, who are already clashing with each other, and the main subject of this polemic remains the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit. This polemic has never been the subject of a special monographic study 1), which is necessary for its full scientific development, although it can be said in advance that it does not represent independent dogmatic value. The advantage of talent, learning and style is clearly on the side of Vissarion in comparison with his opponent Mark Eugenicus. It is impossible not to note the strong influence of Latin dogmatics (both refer to Thomas Aquinas, whose “Summ a” had already been translated into Greek). Their works (some previously published by the tireless bibliographers of the 17th century, the Uniate Greeks L. Allatius and P. Arcudius) were published in the patrolology of Migne, ser. gr.. in volumes 160 and 161 2). In the polemics of the 15th century, even more than of the 13th century, that exclusive assessment of patristic texts is consolidated, which in fact almost equates them to the Word of God. This blatant exaggeration unites both fighting sides; it is characteristic, in particular, of Vissarion, who thanks to this faces a peculiar difficulty. His knowledge of patristics, not only Eastern, but also Western, which cannot generally be said about Eastern theologians, 219 is so deep that he could not help but see a fundamental difference in the Eastern and Western traditions regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit - ἐκ and διὰ. At the same time, he could not allow not only contradictions, but also differences of speech between the fathers. Hence, he faces a unique apologetic task - to clarify and smooth out this difference, to make it imaginary through interpretation. 220 The opposite side also accepted the same principle - the consent and infallibility of the fathers. And the more the study of the original patristic texts deepened - in this regard, the 13th and even more so the 15th centuries made enormous progress compared to the 9th century of Photius - the more hopeless it became to come to any lasting and indisputable conclusion. In fact, there is neither uniformity nor even complete agreement among the fathers on the issue of the location of the Holy Spirit, for the simple reason that this very problem in general, and especially in its later formulation, did not arise at all for many fathers. If she did get up, she was considered each time as part of a peculiar dogmatic complex. Therefore, logomachy, based on the Talmudic use of patristic texts, was doomed in advance to hopelessness. If we exclude the forgeries and distortions of which the sides of their opponents were mutually accused and suspected, then a simple and clear fact will appear before our eyes: a uniform and consistent patristic teaching about the origin of St. Spirit does not exist at all. Existing individual numerous statements can be interpreted in different directions and in different meanings when applied unilaterally and exclusively. The centuries-long debate turned out to be fruitless, and the issue was brought to a hopeless dead end. This competition with patristic texts continues to this day, but it is just as hopeless. The positive result here is only this: the selection and study of authentic texts, a comparison of which can convince of only one thing - the existence of differences in paternal opinions and statements on the issue at hand, in the absence of a single common tradition. But, in any case, the predominance belongs in the East - διὰ (in the complete absence of the Photius ἐκ μόνου), in the West - ἐκ or que. But the very idea of ​​equating patristics with the Word of God and its inerrancy is not only a scholastic exaggeration, but also a direct heresy. However, the stated main verbal difference between East and West, expressed in the formula ἐκ τοῦ ϒἱοῦ, or διὰ τοῦ ϒἱοῦ, Filioque, or per filium, raised the question of the true meaning of both movements, and, of course, the interpretation of Vissarion, with one on the other hand, and Mark Eugenics on the other, turned out to be different to the point of opposites, and each in his own way smooths out the shades of their meaning. According to Mark E[vgenic], “The Son is born from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from Him, and neither the Son participates in the procession, nor the Spirit in the birth; or due to the common origin ἅμα, τοῦ προόδου, and together with one another, as the fathers teach, the Holy Spirit is spoken of as proceeding through the Father, δι' ϒἱοῦ, that is, with the Son μετ’ϒἱοῦ and as the Son, although not born like Him, but it is not said of the Son that He is also born of the Spirit, because the name of the Son is relative σχετικόν, so that it would not seem that the Son is the Spirit” (Mg. t. 160, col. 16). So, for Mark διὰ = μετὰ, through, p. 221 In Vissarion’s interpretation, the difference between διὰ and ἐκ is determined by the fact that “έκ primarily means the equality of what is being discussed, but order τάξιν in relation to one to the other does not mean... διὰ, on the contrary, means primarily order, but not equality” 222 (Mg. t. 161, col. 398). Therefore, the Fathers, both Eastern and Western, paying attention to the equality or, better to say, the identity of the emanating power of the Father and the Son, say that “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that He exists and comes εἶναι καὶ προίέναι from the Father and the Son, - thereby wanting to show the identity of Their power in the emanation (Spirit)”, which “in one and the same process of production the Holy Spirit comes from both.” (p. 397, cf. 443). When they need to show more the order in which the Father and the Son are one to the other, then they teach that the Son comes from the Father through the Son and is εἶναι, from the Father through the Son and from God through the Son... There are also some of the holy men who paid attention either to one order, like most of the Eastern (like Damascene), or to one equality, like most of the Western" (col. 400), but they mean essentially the same thing and therefore do not contradict each other. 223 One cannot deny the wit of this consideration, although it remains untested in the analysis of individual texts or cases of use of both prepositions. In any case, this very contradiction testifies that when using one or another preposition, theological thought is by no means transparent and self-evident without interpretation, so to speak, in its raw form, and this attempt at interpretation in the polemics of Mark and Vissarion would deserve some attention. However, the dogmatic lessons of this controversy were forgotten at the Bonn Conference of Orthodox and Old Catholics. The latter was glad to find such a formula that could be relied upon equally against the fî lioque in the doctrinal Catholic interpretation, which, moreover, is clothed with all the coercion of dogma, and against the Photian ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, unacceptable to the West, as contrary to its tradition. The Exodus was found, as is known, in the Damascene διὰ τοῦ ϒἱοῦ, which was declared identical or equivalent to fîlioque, expressing its true meaning. Thus, a conciliation formula was found. However, we must not forget that this conciliatory formula, however with a completely opposite dogmatic coefficient, was precisely what was proclaimed in Vissarion’s theology and, more importantly, not only in the meetings of the Council of Florence, 224 but also in its very dogmatic definition. 225 Διὰ, although it is common among the holy fathers, in particular among St. John of Damascus, the last representative of the Eastern patristic doctrine, is not at all dogmatically self-evident; on the contrary, it requires a theological interpretation, which has not yet received. Therefore, the Bonn formula is devoid of a certain dogmatic meaning; one can say that in it the unknown is determined through the unknown. The figures of the Florentine era were, in any case, more vigilant and insightful as theologians, since they saw here an as yet unresolved problem, and not an imaginary evidence. Therefore, the Bonn Agreement on the Damascene formula, although it has practical significance in its negation of the imperious fîlioque, also does not represent a dogmatic definition, and is not accompanied by any theology, and does not even make an attempt at theological interpretation. But at the same time, it accepts without critical analysis the basic ideas of Damascene theology about the single causality of the Father, that is, precisely the point that is primarily subject to analysis. It has meaning only as eliminating the one-sided Photianism ἐκ μόνου and anti-Photianism - exclusive filioque, in order to give room to the uncertainty of διὰ, but it would be a mistake to take this uncertainty for a dogmatic achievement. The dogmatic polemic between the Latin and Eastern scholars is conducted on the basis of Latin issues; this expresses the accomplished victory of Latin theology, which has not yet been truly overcome by Orthodox dogma to this day. Typical problems of Thomism are discussed. So, for example, Marcus Eugenicus argues with Thomas Aquinas that the hypostases differ not in relation to the opposition σχέσιν - ἀντίθεσιν, but in terms of inconsistency - ἀντιφατικῶς. Thus the Father differs from the Holy Spirit, as ἀναίτιος and αίτιατός; The Son and the Holy Spirit differ ἀντιφατικῶς, as τὸ γεννητῶς εἶναι καὶ τὸ μὴ γεννητῶς αλλ’ἐκπορευτῶς. Distinction through the abuse of the negation μή (similar to the abuse of imaginary opposition in Thomas) turns into contradiction, so that by this method “all divine persons” are established. The same method is used to establish the distinction between the Son and the Holy Spirit; τὸ γὰρ ϒἱοῦ εἶναι καὶ τὸ μή ϒἱοῦ εἶναι δῆλον ἀντιματικῶς ἀντικεῖται, - it is clear that to be the Son and not to be the Son is opposed as a contradiction. 226 Mark Eugenicus tries to snatch his own weapon from Thomas, but in fact he is simply parodying it. Vissarion, in turn, in his post-Florentine writings tries in different ways to prove the main thesis of Latin theology about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as a single principle. He does this with literary skill (and in this sense leaves his opponent far behind), with a peculiar oriental flavor and considerable knowledge of Greek patristics, but, in general, his thought moves within the framework of Thomism and Latin filioquism in general. In proof of the unity of the principle from which the Holy Spirit emanates, he, following Western theologians, alternately dives from hypostasis to ousia and vice versa. Here is an outline of his thoughts. Having defined the personal property of the First Hypostasis as paternity, and not the production of the Holy Spirit, which is only added to it, he is forced to attribute this product to the properties of the divine nature. But the nature in the Holy Trinity is one for both the Father and the Son. From this it follows that “the Holy Spirit is from the essence of the Father and the Son and has a beginning from their essence” (col. 369). But the essence is inseparable from the hypostasis, and in this case the hypostasis of the Father and the Son. T. Oh, the conclusion is that the Holy Spirit emanates from the hypostasis of the Father and the Son. 227 But with the unity of the divine nature inherent in the three hypostases, does not the Holy Spirit also proceed from Himself, since He also has the same single essence? But this consideration is given by the fact that such self-origin would contradict His hypostatic property, just as it contradicts the hypostatic property of the Father to be born, and to give birth to the Son. Therefore, the Holy Spirit, which is characterized by procession, is not born and does not expel. Vissarion, like all Catholic theology, takes refuge under the shadow of the concept of “personal property” in order to evade the consistent application of its own logical principle. Also added here is the distinction between the participation of both hypostases in the communication of the Holy Spirit, according to which the Father is the first cause, or the beginning, from which or from which (έξ οὐ ὑφ’ οὐ), while the Son is the beginning by which (ῳ) - this is an idea characteristic of Latin theology, distinguishing principium imprincipiatum and pr. principiatum. 228 The origin of the Holy Spirit from both hypostases is explained by the participation of all three hypostases in the creation of the world, which in fact does not represent any analogy: the world is created by the triune God, and each of the hypostases creates it in its own special way, according to its hypostatic property. But this is the action of Bora in extra-divine, created existence, which is different from the eternal trinitarian relationship. The question of sending the Holy Spirit into the world is viewed in the same light. Orthodox opponents of Vissarion (and after them modern theologians) strive to reduce all those texts that testify to the connection of the Second and Third Hypostases exclusively to the actions of the economic Trinity in the world, separating them from their eternal, immanent relationship and thereby introducing a well-known trinitarian occasionalism. On the contrary, in Latin theology, of which Vissarion is a representative in this case, such actions are straightforwardly and invariably raised to relations of origin; the Son sends the Holy Spirit because He comes from the Father and the Son. 229 This is the dogmatic result of the Florentine competition. If in fact the union proclaimed at this council was rejected without a new and further discussion (the conqueror was already at the gates of Byzantium), then the dogmatic results of this council turned out to be of little fruit. They are significant only insofar as they reveal the actual position of the question of fîlioque in the East and West and the irreconcilable disagreement of the parties. It seems that on both sides all possible arguments pro and contra have already been exhausted, and, if I’m not mistaken, the rest did not add and can hardly add anything new to this disagreement, which remains in all its irreconcilability. One cannot help but see in this one of the strangest paradoxes in the history of dogma, one of the most hopeless dogmatic dead ends, in which each side, with visible reason, considers itself right and, of course, the opposite side is wrong. On this path, all paths have been trodden and all points have been explored, but mutual understanding has not been achieved in any way. Looking from the outside and formally discussing this failure, it remains to be seen that one of the parties is in heresy, moreover, heretical bitterness. To get out of the deadlock, you need to rise above this antithesis. The external victory was won by the West. First, a Western dogmatic definition was adopted, in which for the first time the basic tenets of Western theology were expressed with full consciousness and clarity. Secondly, the most talented representatives of the East went over to the side of Western theology, and above all Vissarion of Nicea, who, in terms of education, culture and talent, undoubtedly held the first place in the Eastern delegation (and this transition was accomplished, of course, by the power of internal conviction, and not external self-interest; it was an indisputable victory - and at the same time the conquest - of the West over the East). But Isidore of Kyiv should be added here, as well as George Scholarius (although he later fell away), and others. On the side of the representatives of Greek theology, in fact, only Mark Eugenicus remained, who by no means represented such a theological force that it could be opposed to Western opponents, as well as to Vissarion: the decline of Eastern theology, which had already lasted for a long time, manifested itself here against the background of its Western tension. Thirdly, and most importantly, the opponents fought with unequal means in the sense that the Western ones had an already developed doctrine of filioquistic theology, while the Eastern ones did not have such theology and based their teaching on the power of conservatism, factual tradition. The latter, however, upon closer examination, turned out to be not at all as uniform as expected, which is why the ground was clearly lost under the feet of the eastern ones, as was perceived by the most sensitive representatives of them. Theology, even incorrect or one-sided, inevitably overcomes the absence of theology, and in the dispute between East and West about the procession of the Holy Spirit, theology won. This victory of theological doctrine was accepted as a dogmatic victory, and doctrinal definitions were given the force of dogma. And this dogmatic, essentially premature, and perhaps unnecessary definition, instead of uniting the Eastern and Western Churches, separated them even more. It introduced actual dogmatic disagreement, to which paramount dogmatic significance was given, but to the importance of the subject. Those who were hitherto schismatics now mutually turned out to be heretics. This is the sad and negative result of the Council of Florence. In order to make a general dogmatic conclusion, it is necessary to become familiar with the Florentine dogma in connection with the Western doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. 4. Western doctrine and Florentine dogma Differences between the West and the East in the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit, as we know, have always existed within the framework of patristic theology. But these differences in the 9th - 15th centuries, under the influence of a schismatic spirit, together with the decline of church love, hardened into dogmatic disagreements, and the last, already completely negative result of this difference is the new Western dogma of the filioque. The East, fortunately, did not establish such a dogma, but, as has happened more than once, here the place of dogma was taken by the negation of Catholic dogma, its anti-dogma, as it were. Of course, both of them were essentially equally premature and premature and, most importantly, essentially polemical. True, it can be pointed out that the dogmas of the ecumenical councils arose in the struggle and rejection of heresies and in this sense they were also not alien to polemics. However, there is a difference in quantity, which also translates into quality: then it was a question of the ejection of individual false teachers and the rejection of obvious heresy that was destroying the Christian faith (Arianism, Eutychianism, Macedonianism, Monophysitism and even, in a certain sense, iconoclasm). Here we have an unfinished theological dialectic and a different tradition of the two parts of the Church. As long as there was mutual love, albeit coupled with a certain degree of ignorance about each other, this difference was tolerated painlessly. But when love dried up and mutual anathematism thundered, then these doctrinal differences turned out to be convenient pretexts for mutual hatred, along with other most insignificant ones. The crimes of the Crusaders in the East, which poisoned relations between East and West for centuries, the arrogance of the West, together with the East’s own arrogance, and, finally, the gradually increasing papal power with its claims, expressed both in the addition to the symbol and in claims to dogmatic legislation - all this turned the pneumatological dogma into a weapon of mutual struggle. And the question about it, in addition to its direct meaning, became a means of bringing the opposing side to its knees or defending its independence. This is how he was experienced both in Lyon and in Florence. And dogmatic definitions about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which were still officially absent before these councils, now arose as unional, in fact schismatic, formulas. In their very origin there was a sin against love, and, premature and therefore unnecessary, they were a dogmatic misfortune for the Church, which was divided into two parts. East and West, by their very existence, which, moreover, turned out to be so sadly connected with the false dogma of papal primacy and infallibility. For the conversation was primarily about him, about this primate, and we must wait for the “favorable summer of the Lord” when this association will finally be destroyed and the question posed on the merits will be turned to further investigation. Signs of its approach, together with a new awakening of interest in the substantive issue, seem to be already emerging, starting with the Bonn Conference. And the winged word of Prof. V.V. Bolotov that disagreement about filioque ceases to be impedimentum dirimens is already the actual slogan of our time. The Constitutio de processione Spiritus Sancti 230 of the Second Council of Lyon (1274) contains the following definition about this: Sp-s S-s aeternaliter ex Patre et Filio, non tanquam ex duobus principiis, sed tanquam ex uno principio, non duobus spirationibus, sed unica spiratione procedit. And this is declared not only by the original teaching of the Roman Church, as mater omnium fidelium et magistra, but also by the general judgment of the fathers and teachers of the church, both Latin and Greek (which, of course, clearly contradicts historical evidence). Denial of this teaching is condemned and rejected. Here, therefore, is already expressed that side of the filioquistic teaching that the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son, proceeds from one, and not from two principles, and with one, and not two inspirations (spiratio). Obviously, the edge of this definition is directed against the argument of Patriarch Photius, and is - intentionally or unintentionally - anti-Photian. This idea is repeated in the Decretum pro Graecis of the Council of Florence 231 (from the bull Laetentur coeli) with some amplifications and arguments: Sp-s S-s ex Patre et Filio aeternaliter est, et essentiam suam suumque esse subsistens (in Greek translation: τὴν ἑαυτοῦ οὐσίανκαὶ τὸ ὑπαρκτικὸν αὐποῦ) habet ex Patre simul et Filio, et ex utroque aeternaliter tamquam ab uno principio et unica spiratione procedit; declarantes, quoque id, quod sancti Doctores et Patres dicunt, ex Patre per Filium procedere Sp-m S-m, ad hanc intelligentiam tendit, ut per hoc significetur, Filium quoqe esse secundum Graecos quidem causam, secundum Latinos vero principium subsistentiae Sp- s S-ti sicut et Patrem. Et quoniam omnia, quae Patris sunt, Pater ipse unigenito Filio suo gignendo dedit, praeter esse Patrem, hoc ipsum quod Sp-s S-s procedit ex Filio, ipse Filius a Patre aeternaliter habet, a quo etiam aeternaliter genitus est. (“The Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has His essence and His substantial existence from the Father, and together from the Son, and eternally comes from both, as from one beginning and by one inspiration; it is explained that what the holy fathers and teachers say that the Holy Spirit emanates from the Father through the Son, is intended to express that the Son and, according to Greek teaching, as and the Father is the cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit. And since everything that is characteristic of the Father, the Father himself gave at birth to His only begotten Son, in addition to being the Father, the very thing that the Holy Spirit comes from the Son, the Son himself eternally has from the Father, from whom He was eternally born." 232 In Decretum pro Jacobitis we also have the following extremely important definition: Solus Pater de substantia sua genuit Filium, solus Filius des solo Patre est genitus, solus Sp-s S-s simul de Patre procedit et Filio. Hae tres personae sunt unus Deus, et non tres dii: quia trium est una substantia, una essentia, una natura, una divinitas, una immensitais, una aeternitas, omniaquae sunt unum ubi non obviat relationis oppositio (“These three persons are one God, and not three gods: for to three belongs one substance, one essence, one nature, one divinity, one immensity, one eternity, and everything is one where there is no opposition of relation,” - namely, according to John, by origin). It is further explained that the Father is wholly (totus) in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; The Son is entirely in the Father and entirely in the Holy Spirit; The Holy Spirit is entirely in the Father and entirely in the Son; no one precedes another by eternity, and does not exceed in greatness, and does not exceed in power. The emergence (exstitit) of the Son from the Father is eternal and without beginning, as is the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. The Father, what He is or has, does not have from another, but from Himself, and is principium sine principio; The Son, what He is or has, has from the Father and is principium de principio. Sp-s S-s that He is or has, has from the Father together with the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one beginning, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of creation, but one beginning (unum principium). 233 As can be established on the basis of the above texts, the dogmatic definitions of the Western Church on the procession of the Holy Spirit contain the following provisions: 1). The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, not as from one, unica inspiratione (II Lyon and Florence Councils). 2). This procession means the origin of the Holy Spirit, i.e. His acceptance of “essence and substantial being” from the Father and the Son as one principle. 3). The Father transfers everything to the Son in His birth, except for being the Father, and traces, and the ability to produce the Holy Spirit. The difference between the Father and the Son in relation to the message of the Holy Spirit is like between the original principium sine principio and pr. de principle. 4). Although the original eternity of the three hypostases in God is proclaimed, the initial principle in the understanding of the Holy Trinity is the impersonal and, as it were, pre-hypostatic divine principle, which is designated as unus Deus, una substantia, una divinitas, and it in itself or by itself substantiates not only the unity of the trinitarian God, but also the very existence of the hypostases solus Pater ex substantia sua genuit Filium. In this impersonal substance “omnia sunt unum” (the word usage itself is characteristic here - omnia, - of the middle, impersonal kind), and only the opposition of relations (by origin - originis) establishes a hypostatic distinction, sola relatio multiplicative personas. 234 All these definitions do not represent anything new for Latin theology. They have long been expressed in it, starting with Hugo Etherian and Anselm, with the greatest consistency in Thomas Aquinas, and now they have received the force of dogmatic definitions: what was only a doctrine has received a dogmatic stamp. Let us dwell briefly on the relevant ideas of Thomas Aquinas. 235 The basis of his constructions is the Augustinian impersonalism already known to us, due to which hypostases arise primarily as relations in the original unity of the Divine, precisely as relations of origin (origo). 236 According to this relativism, persons are the very relations, so that paternity is the Father, sonship is the Son, procession is the Holy Spirit. 237 Essence in the Divinity is res absoluta, while distinctions exist only secundum rem relativam (Qu. XXIII, art. III). Relationships arise through processiones – secundum emanationem intelligibilem (qu. XXVI, a. I). In intellectuali natura there is a twofold processio: as actio intellectus et actio voluntatis (qu. XXVII, a. III), and beyond these two there can no longer be a processio in God (qu. XXVIII, a. V). Those relations that arise according to the processiones divinae in the Divinity, in identitate naturae, are relationes reales (Qu . XXVIII, a. I). Thus, in God there is a real distinction, not in the absolute or essence, but in the relative. 238 In this realm of the relative there are relations of opposition, relationes oppositae, of which one is procedentis a principio, and the other ipsius principii: fatherhood and sonship, inspiration and procession (Qu. XXVIII, a. IV). There are plures relationes in divinis, from which it follows that sint plures res subsistentes in divina natura, and this is plures personae in divinis (Qu. XXX, a. I). “In the deity (in divinis) there is one person who occurs (procedit) per modum naturae ut amor, and another person who procedit per modum naturae ut filius” (a. II). “Plural (plures) persons are multiple relations, substantial ones are subsistentes, mutually (ad invicem) distinct. But real difference in real relations exists only on the basis of relative opposition (relationis oppositae). Consequently, the two opposite relations must be confined (pertinere) to two persons. If any relationship is not opposite, it means that they are necessarily confined to the same person. Therefore, paternity and sonship, insofar as they are opposite (oppositae) relations, 239 are necessarily confined to two persons. So, “substantial (subsistens) paternity is the person of the Father, and substantial sonship is the person of the Son” (a. II). Hence the necessity for the Holy Spirit to come not only from the Father, but also from the Son. “If He were not from the Son, He could in no way differ from Him... What is said about the deity without reference - in divinis absolute, refers to the unity of essence. So, it follows that the divine Persons differ mutually only in relationships. Relations cannot distinguish persons except by how much they are opposite... The Father has two relations, one of which relates to the Son, and the other to the Holy Spirit; however, they, not being opposite, 240 do not establish two persons, but are confined (perlinent) only to one person of the Father. If in the Son and the Holy Spirit one could find only two relations by which each relates to the Father, these relations would not be mutually opposite, just like the two relations by which the Father relates to them. From here, just as there is one person of the Father, it would follow that the person of the Son and the Holy Spirit would be one, as having two relations opposite to the two relations of the Father... Consequently, it is necessary that the Son and the Holy Spirit should mutually relate by opposite relations. Non autem possunt esse in divinis aliae relations oppositae, nisi relationes originis, ut supra probatum est. qu. 28, 4 (Qu. XXXVI, a, II). Here, with complete clarity, the doctrine of filioque is a logical consequence postulated from the doctrine of hypostases as relations of origin, and its source is no longer revelation, but scholasticism with its false conclusions, so one would like to say to it: hands off! Using the same universal means of the theory of hypostases as relations by contrast, the following theorem of the filioquistic doctrine is postulated, namely, about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but from one. “The Father and the Son are one in everything, and nothing separates them from their opposite relationship. From here, since the fact that there is a beginning - the principium of the Holy Spirit, they are not relatively opposed, it follows that the Father and the Son are the one beginning of the Holy Spirit" (Qu. XXXVI, a. IV). The impersonal relativism 241 of this teaching leads to the following general conclusion: “the relation in divinis is not, as it were, an accident inherent in the subject inhaerens in subiecto, but is the divine essence itself, trace., substantially - subsistens, just as the subsistit divine essence is substantial. Consequently, just as divinity is God, divinitas est Deus, so divine paternity is God the Father, who is a divine person. So, the divine person means relation as substantial - persona igitur divina significat relationem ut subsistentem (Qu. XXIX, a. IV, italics in Thomas Aquinas). This conclusion means impersonalism: in the impersonal and pre-personal Divinitas, persons arise from relationships as substantial accidents, and ontological priority belongs to this Divinitas, while persons arise as accidents, albeit substantial ones. One can state here a significant deformation of the Trinity dogma. In the latter, no priority is established for nature or hypostasis. Both are recognized as ontologically primordial eternity, alien to any origin of one principle from another in their inseparable, eternal conjugacy. The theology of Thomas Aquinas became generally guiding for Catholic doctrine, both in the substantiation of the Holy Trinity on two processions (processiones) - intellect and will, 242 and in impersonalism with the doctrine of hypostases as relationships. Seeing neither the possibility nor the expediency of considering the numerous dogmatic works of Catholic theology, let us dwell as an example on one, but perhaps the most significant, and at the same time typically scholastic, namely the dogmatic system of Scheeben. 243 The latter interprets the hypostases as “solely and essentially determined by the fact that they stand to each other in an eternal relation of origin (im ewigen Urspungsverhä ltniss)” (831), and “the plurality of persons is and can be produced only through the production (Produktion) of others from the first” (839). “Internal divine products are true products,” and from this it naturally follows that these products must essentially be thought of as the communication of the divine nature from one subject to another, and therefore, precisely as the production of other subjects... This production is aimed at communicating the perfection of the producer to another subject and the possession of it; and since it invests in the product all the perfection, its own essence and nature, then all products must “be truly recipients and bearers and possessors of the divine nature and essence or divine hypostases and lindens” (855). “Personal products in God are just as true products as creation and material birth, and therefore their products stand in relation to the producer inadequately in relation to the simple justification in which the essential properties of essence to being stand” (860). “Since a new substance is not created here, they, in contrast to creation and material birth, more have the character of simple justification,” having in God a principium rather than a causa. “Since they are derived from the beginningless vital activity of God, its product is as beginningless as its principle... therefore they can and must be eternal as such” (861). “Personal production in God is consistent with creation and material production in that the fertility (Fruchtbarkeit) of nature is that in which and through which the producing subject has power and uses it to produce” (864). This is Scheeben's general understanding of the Holy Trinity as the product of a productive nature. Against this background, of course, the products of the Third Hypostasis are easily accommodated, the explanation of which does not differ here in any special features. Triadology, like pneumatology, takes on the character of a doctrine of origin or production. Turning to the criticism of filioquistic theology, one cannot help but be struck first of all by its restoration of Tertullian triadology, albeit in a hidden form. It does not say directly that the Father is greater than the Son, Who, as a derivatio or partitio, is only a part of the Divinity, and the Son is greater than the Holy Spirit for the same reason. However, the principle of the origin of one hypostasis from another leads here to quantitative subordinationism. But a similar principle is hidden at the bottom of filioquism. In fact, let us take his scheme of hypostatic “products”: the Father, producing the Son, imparts to Him the fullness of the divine nature, together with the ability to bring forth the Spirit, although without the ability to give birth, for this does not correspond to His personal property; The Father and the Son impart to the Holy Spirit the same fullness of the divine nature, but without the ability to give birth and procreate, which does not correspond to His personal nature. As a result of such derivatio, a hypostatically decreasing profession of the Divine is obtained: Father - the fullness of nature, Deitas, Son - Deitas minus the generative power; The Holy Spirit is Deitas minus the birthing and exhausting power. Although this difference is motivated by hypostatic properties, this does not change the fact that the hypostases turn out to be unequal to each other, that is, unequally divine. And this affirms not only hierarchical, but also ontological subordinationism, and consequently, the dogma of trinity is distorted. This subordinationism is expressed in the teaching of filioquism that, although both the Father and the Son are the principium of the Holy Spirit, however, in a different sense, it is the Father who is the beginningless beginning - principium imprincipiatum, and the Son is the beginning, which itself has a beginning for itself: pr. principiatum. This distinction, which is a weapon of defense in the hands of Catholic polemicists, can have only one meaning: hypostatic subordinationism of the ontological type (Tertullian-Origenian). Next, it should be pointed out that in the construction of the filioquistic dogma, the trinity of the Holy Trinity is destroyed, and It is dissected into two Duos. This is exactly what the Photian doctrine was reproached from the Catholic side for, and, moreover, it must be said, not without reason, at least in extreme applications of the principle ἐκ μόνου, as excluding the threefold relationship of hypostases: The Trinity here consists of two Duos: Father - Son and Father - Holy Spirit, an angle is obtained, but not a triangle: these Twos close together into a trinity, there never was, and... I think it cannot be shown. The difficulty of the situation for filioquistic theology is further increased by the fact that the hypostases in it are established for each other by the relation of origin in opposition. The Holy Spirit must, they constantly repeat, come from the Son, so that, differing from Him, it exists for Him as a hypostasis. What do we actually see? Is this postulate fulfilled in the filioquistic dogma? No, it doesn't work. If the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son, moreover, not in Their hypostatic difference as Two, but in their unity, una inspiratione, then the required opposition of origin arises not between the Father and the Holy Spirit, or the Son and the Holy Spirit, but between the dual unity of the Father-Son and the Holy Spirit. From here it follows, strictly speaking, to conclude that the Holy Spirit does not exist as a hypostasis, neither for the Father, nor for the Son. The doctrine of hypostatic origins by contrast leads to such absurdity, at least in its filioquistic application. St. The Trinity is divided into the Father-Son Duo and another Father-Son and Holy Spirit Duo. This brings us directly to the very heart of the filioquistic dogma, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, not as from two causes, but from one: unus spirator, una inspiratione. This postulate can be realized only by that method of thinking, which (in application to Vissarion) we defined as immersion (diving) from hypostasis into nature and vice versa. In fact, the unity that is sought for the Father and the Son in the unity of spiration is nothing other than the divine nature, one and identical in the trinitarian Godhead. But, firstly, how can nature, so to speak, extra-hypostatically, immersed in its own depth, “produce” hypostasis, if hypostatic being is transcendental for it? Here, more than anywhere else, the impersonalism of Catholic triadology is manifested, in which nature is the origin of the Holy Trinity, and in it and through it, through differentiation, hypostases arise. On the other hand, if one dives from the surface, where the hypostatic differences of the Father and the Son exist, into the depths of pre-hypostatic or sub-hypostatic nature, 244 then how can one distinguish in this depth two different hypostases, the Father and the Son, and confess the procession of the Holy Spirit from Their dual unity? Isn’t it here that a similar and parallel conclusion is imposed by itself, that the Son is born - in the divine nature - from the Father and the Holy Spirit, by a single birth - not in that in which they differ, but in that in which they are identical? The logical chain of inferences is actually interrupted at the point at which this immersion from the hypostases into nature takes place: from the unity of nature the hypostases are not visible, and it is completely impossible, having hidden from their distinction into indifference, then triumphantly declare that this has proven precisely their dual unity: such a statement remains logically arbitrary. To this we must, of course, add that in general hypostases cannot not only be really separated, but also logically conceived from nature, just as nature cannot be understood from hypostasis. We repeat, the argument of the unity of nature, as hypostatic indifference, could be used (of course, without any positive result) in all three directions: on the basis of it, the origin of the Father from the Son and Spirit, and the Son from the Father and Spirit, and the Spirit from the Father and Son could be proven, but in essence nothing can be proven, for there is no hypostatic nature in which the difference of hypostases would be extinguished. exists. Nature is truly one and identical in the consubstantiality of three hypostases, but it is also hypostasized through and through, by the Trinity in one or one in the Trinity, by a single trinitarian subject, by the three persons of the Holy Trinity. And therefore the filioquistic postulate: from the Father and the Son as a single beginning, in their hypostatic indifference, contradicts the very essence of the Trinity dogma. The main weakness of the entire Catholic triadology, which also underlies the filioquistic doctrine, is, of course, the general doctrine of hypostases as relations, in particular the relations of origin by opposition. This impersonalistic doctrine asserts that hypostases arise due to distinctions in the one Divinity, which in turn have their basis in relations of opposition: in divinis omnia sunt unum where there is no relationis oppositio. The very hypostases are the essence of the relationship: Father - fatherhood, Son - sonship, Holy Spirit - procession. This statement is a theological absurdity that exposes this impersonalism. The relation itself is a predicate, but not a subject, and it cannot become one. The relationship exists and arises only where there are related ones, it is grounded by them and arises between them, but does not ground them. 245 The fictitious argument of filioquism that the Holy Spirit must emanate from the Father and the Son in order to exist for the Son, differing from Him in an opposite relationship, 246 abolishes the very existence of the hypostasis as such. The argument in favor of the filioque about the necessity of the hypostatic distinction between the Son and the Spirit is false. But this brings us to the very last generalization of filioquistic theology, namely the doctrine of hypostatic processions or productions, which lies at its basis. Catholic triadology now actually comes down to the doctrine of these products (and, as we have seen, it has infected Eastern theology with this, so that they began to argue only about different understandings of these products, but not about them themselves). Meanwhile, this teaching about hypostases as origins and about the Holy Trinity as a system of origins is arbitrary and ultimately incorrect. The fact is that the hypostases, pre-eternal and co-eternal, do not know and do not have any origin. For their existence, they do not need the presence of relations of origin, in particular and in contrast. They are the subjects of relations, as related to each other, but not at all these relations themselves. The existence of hypostases - in the ontological sense - is immanent to nature, since the Spirit is hypostatic nature, the indissoluble, ontological unity of nature and hypostasis, hypostasis in the absolute subject in itself and, in addition to the relationship to nature, as personal self-consciousness, is triple or trinitarian. The trinitarian subject is one, but he is also three persons in a hypostatic, and not just a natural relationship. 247 In this sense, all three hypostases are equally without beginning, and in relation to their equally without beginning existence, they do not know the origin of one another - they are eternally essence. And in this sense, the entire theology of hypostatic origins or production is vicious and false, both in general and in particular, and the filioquistic doctrine is entirely the theology of origins and must be rejected as such. The one and a half thousand year old hypnosis of this dogmatic prejudice must be eliminated, equally in Western theology, which is the source of infection, and in Eastern theology, which is also affected by it. By what right do Western theologians speak of duae processiones or productiones, arbitrarily generalizing under this name the birth of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit? And first of all, who told them that these specifically hypostatic relationships can be understood and generalized as origins, as if two types of causal dependence? Neither birth nor procession is origin at all, for the coequal and equally divine and co-originating hypostases do not know such. And there is absolutely no reason to count birth and procession as two origins or products, and then to abstract them into “relations of origin by contrast.” As we have already seen, in patristic theology this ambiguous concept, tempting to misinterpretation, appears in application to the First Hypostasis (in connection with the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father). And here it was already fraught with the danger of wine-making (with inevitable subordinationism) in understanding the mutual relations of hypostases, but this dogmatic temptation had already fully manifested itself in Western theology, along with the latinized Eastern one. Finally, it must be said loudly that neither fatherhood, nor sonship, nor procession, nor birth, nor birth, nor degeneration, are different images of origin, they do not speak at all about origin, but about specific relationships of equal hypostases. This deceptive mirage of theology has generated and continues to generate its own illusions, and above all false problematics - imaginary equations with solutions through imaginary roots. All filioquistic theology is such a mirage, as well as anti-filioquistic theology, which is much closer to it in essence in its initial assumptions and related problems, rather than differing from it in its solutions. Understanding the Holy Trinity as a system of origin has the consequence of dissecting It into paired, dyadic relationships with a violation of the basic principle of trinity, namely triplicity, and not the duality of all hypostatic relationships: the hypostasis of the Father is determined only in relation to the birth of the Son, as well as vice versa; the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is only in relation to the Father who plagues Her (and among Catholics, the Son). But the Father is the Father not only as the Parent of the Son, but also as the Producer of the Spirit (“who proceeds from the Father”), and the Son is the Son not only as the One who is born, but also as the one who receives the rest of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit not only as emanating from the Father, but also resting on the Son. Every hypostasis establishes for itself not only a dual relationship with each of the other hypostases, but also a threefold relationship with both others, and these relationships are not at all relationships of “origin” or opposition. The principle of production or procession should be completely abandoned in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. 5. General conclusions regarding διὰ τοῦ ϒἱοῦ and filioque The external result of the one and a half thousand years of logomachy regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit in the positive dogmatic sense did not turn out to be positive. Despite the greatest efforts of thought, the question never emerged from a state of dogmatic vagueness, and the efforts of scholasticism, patristic and exegetical research turned out to be fruitless. More and more lace was woven, mountains of all kinds of texts were piled up, and the only result was that each side, gritting its teeth in an effort of will and, of course, bona fide, remained in its opinion, being at the same time powerless to convince the enemy. Attempts to defeat the enemy not by force of persuasion, but by forced submission to tradition also did not lead and cannot lead to anything, because patristic sources are not inexhaustible, on the contrary, they are already exhausted and, however, do not give the expected answer in the sense of a clear, uniform and indisputable solution to the question, which thus hangs in hopelessness. The ecclesiastical and practical results of the filioquistic dispute are completely negative. The dogmatic question was a weapon of power and self-defense. This has been the case since Photius, from his first pneumatological speech, and this continued from the side of imperious and proud Rome and at both union councils, in Lyon and Florence, the filioque became a symbol of papal absolutism or its negation (which is why the question of inserting the filioque into the symbol turned out to be even more important for the Greeks in Florence than the content of the dogma itself). If in other dogmatic differences of opinion, in which “the most skillful were revealed,” power-hungry and, in this sense, also schismatic attacks were mixed in. However, they never merged and became identified with the dogmatic questions themselves to such an extent as was the case here. But this, so to speak, primacy of schismatism in such a dogmatic question as about St. The Spirit, in itself, dooms this dogmatic contraversion to sterility, for where there is no will to unity, but there is a will to submission, there cannot descend into the heart “that which pleases the Holy Spirit and us.” In the history of dogma there is no example of a discussion more alien to this will of the Holy Spirit than disputes about the Spirit. However, if six or seven centuries ago these disputes and this difference of opinion aroused passions in the excitement of sports logomachy and mutual bitterness in the struggle for power, now the coals of the once-blazing fire are already covered with the ashes of indifference, and although the old words of mutual accusation of heresy are still spoken, both disputing parties do not truly believe in it. And the court of an impartial historian, whose voice can be considered here as a testimony of conscience, scientific and dogmatic, has already pronounced the judgment: filioque does not constitute an impedimentum dirimens for the reunification of the divided Church. It is remarkable that this filioquistic strife killed interest in the entire theology about the Holy Spirit. We have already noted above that in the era of ecumenical councils dealing with issues of Christology, the dogma about the Holy Spirit turned out to be completely undisclosed and even remained unnoticed. The definition of the 8th member of the Constantinopolitanum contains only the recognition of the divinity of the Third Hypostasis and the equidivinity of Her two other hypostases (and, as we know, not in a direct, but only in an indirect formula). It cannot at all consider the dogma about the Holy Spirit to be exhaustive. But it remains in the same form throughout the subsequent era, so that filioquistic disputes actually became an obstacle to genuine pneumatology, as having no spirit. Discussed in the icy void of scholastic abstraction, they were never expanded or generalized towards genuine, meaningful pneumatology. True, they constantly included more vital questions, such as, for example, about the sending of St. the Spirit into the world - from the Father and the Son or from the Father through the Son, but they were not considered in themselves, but only as an argument in favor of one or another scheme of the procession of the Holy Spirit, that is, they were actually interpreted in such a meager, one-sided and perverted way that, one might say, it would be better not to consider them at all. (Of course, this did not prevent the fact that in the relevant parts of dogmatics particular teachings about grace, about the action of the Holy Spirit in the Church, about salvation, about the Church, etc., were and are being expounded, but this presentation is invariably oriented on particular issues of dogmatics, but is not connected and is not raised to the general teaching about the Holy Spirit.) To this we must add the following. Both sides in this dogmatic dispute mutually branded and anathematized each other for perverting the most important dogma about the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it would naturally be expected that the presence of such a significant heresy or such a primary dogmatic disagreement should permeate the entire life of both Churches and their entire doctrine. For many years, as best I could, I looked for traces of this influence, tried to understand what the matter was, what the vital significance of this difference was, where and in what way it manifested itself in practice. And I admit, I didn’t know how to find it and I don’t find it, and even more than I don’t find it, I outright deny it. It is not present in the entire patristic teaching about the actions of the Holy Spirit in the world, about His “sending down,” in the teaching about the gifts of the Holy Spirit, about the sacraments, about grace, etc. Here, the original dogmatic difference is simply forgotten. Rather, one can even say that it is not dogmatic, but practical filioquism that reigns here, in the sense that no one disputes and cannot dogmatically dispute the sending of the Holy Spirit. Spirit by the Father through the Son or by the Son, as Christ himself testifies to this, and even in the most basic text: “When the Comforter comes, I will send him to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, he testifies of Me” (John 16:26, see other texts below). The result is a strange dogma without dogmatic force. Of course, in the West (and not only in Catholic, but also Protestant and Anglican circles, despite the Reformation, which inherited the filioquistic dogma from Catholicism) there is a belief that the denial of the filioque belittles the Son, and the acceptance of Him exalts (historically this is an echo of the struggle against Arianism in Spain and Germany, which one of the indirect consequences there was the recognition of the filioque as an extra argument in favor equidivinity of the Son). But this argument is undoubtedly a dogmatic misunderstanding: to reject Arianism and recognize the equal divinity and consubstantiality of the Father of the Son, a filioquistic addition is completely unnecessary and unnecessary. The filioquists themselves can and should now admit this, namely that the source of the filioque for them is not Christology. True, one can find the religious-psychological, and further the dogmatic source of the doctrine of filioquism in that feature of Western Christianity, which can be called its Christocentrism. This is indeed a feature of Western Christianity, not only its special gift, but also its one-sidedness, thanks to which the dogma of the pope as the vicar of Christ becomes religiously and psychologically possible here, and the idea of ​​the Church is clearly centered here on the Second Hypostasis (equally or even more so in Protestantism). As a result of this, the dogmatic and practical balance is lost when comprehending the Second and Third hypostases, which precisely constitutes the essence of the dogma of the Church: the Church is the body of Christ, living by the Holy Spirit. But this ecclesiological feature, which may be the actual source of the filioque, is not identical with the filioquistic dogma itself as such. In its final and true sense, the dogma filioque - we affirm this once again - remains extra-vital and scholastically abstract, and in this practical sense it seems not to be a dogma, for dogma has not only a cognitive meaning, but also a practical one. But in connection with this, the question arises: does this dogma even exist theoretically? Is this not an imaginary dogma, and therefore not a dogma, a dogmatic misunderstanding, and, moreover, in both editions, both in the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and from the Father alone? This is the decisive question to which we are inevitably led by his very history. The entire Latin Photius controversy, with its framing of the question on both sides, is therefore reducible to an imaginary dogma because it proceeds from an imaginary problem, which necessarily leads only to a dogmatic misunderstanding. What is the misunderstanding and imaginary problem? It lies in understanding the procession of the Holy Spirit as origin; The same understanding of the birth of the Son is connected with this. Both are taken in one bracket, as two images of origin, duae productiones or duae processiones. In further development, this doctrine of origins is presented by each side in its own way, in particular the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, this origin is understood in the sense of the causal origin (or “productio”) of one hypostasis from another, as from its cause - αἰτία - causa, or beginning, ἀρχή - principium. And although in principle the hypostases are beginningless and coeval, in fact we are talking about their origin or the emergence of one from the other. None of the participants in the controversy tried to put before themselves and fully think through the meaning of this doctrine about the causal origin of the beginningless and causeless (supercausal) divine hypostases, which contains an obvious logical and ontological contradiction, precisely how the causeless is caused and the beginningless occurs. However, in the East, this idea of ​​understanding the Holy Trinity as connected by causal origin from the Father received the right of citizenship thanks to the doctrine of the Father as ἀναιτιατός, who is αἰτία of other hypostases, which are already αἰτιατοί (this is one of the options, moreover, the weakest, of the general and basic teaching about the monarchy of the Father, which by this the options are by no means exhausted). This idea of ​​αἰτία as applied to the Holy Trinity appeared in St. Basil and was reproduced by St. John of Damascus, and then was accepted by all subsequent theology without critical examination, as understandable and self-evident, while there is nothing more difficult to understand than this presumption. Generalized in the concept of "cause" or origin, the works - the birth of the Son and the progress of the Spirit - were counted as duae processiones, two varieties or two special cases of the general concept of causality. This generalization, which has an initial, fundamental significance, was also taken for granted and not subject to critical examination. In addition, the doctrine of St. The Trinity as a system of Two origins - intellect and will, processio intellectus and pr. voluntatis, and thus the understanding of the Holy Trinity was completed, brought into a frozen anthropomorphic form, not only on the basis of causality, but also on a certain internal necessity for the self-justification of the absolute - a kind of causal modalism. And theology was under such hypnosis of the centuries-old idea that it never allowed itself to ask about the legitimacy of its statement, about the truth of this basic premise that defines the entire triadology. Meanwhile, if you just ask yourself about the legitimacy of this premise, you inevitably end up with the conviction that it is false, and, therefore, all dogmatic conclusions based on it are false. From imaginary problems only imaginary dogmas can follow, dogmatic illusions that do not correspond to dogmatic reality, and therefore have nothing corresponding to them in life. And first of all, does this generalization of duae processiones itself have any basis in the Word of God, in direct Revelation? Are the birth of the Son and the procession of the Spirit connected anywhere in it, as two types of origin, duae processiones? Undoubtedly, nowhere and never. There is no biblical basis for them to be counted and accepted as two varieties: one and one, and not in their special concreteness, not amenable to the abstract generalization of the count and the identification hidden in it. Based on this generalization, hypostases can then be considered as relations of origin or, in the Eastern way, as “personal properties,” of which there are three. Such “counting” is already of the first importance violence and dogmatic arbitrariness, affecting the general understanding of the Holy Trinity. This counting of specifically different images of “origin” as two equal units entails further abstraction: As a result, the First Hypostasis is no longer understood in the concrete image of the Father - Parent and Creator, but as the “Beginning, Source and Cause” (St. John of Damascus), from which the Second and Third Hypostases receive their very being (αὐτὸ τὸ εἶναι), existence (ὕπαρξιν), and thus, in relation to the eternal existence of hypostases, the category of causal origin is applied. Of course, none of the fathers question the equality and equivalence of all hypostases, and therefore they deny the chronological understanding of this origin, leaving behind only the ontological one. However, this μετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος only moves, but does not eliminate a difficulty that has never been subjected to critical examination anywhere: what can causal origination in eternity mean? Is it even possible to talk here about the cause - αἰτία (with the whole group of concepts derived from here, ἀναίτιος, αἰτιατός)? This is an intellectual category, which has force only when applied to this empirical world, but is no longer applicable to Ding an sich, to the Divine. What does cause mean here, and is the Deity subject to causality? 248 If we ask ourselves whether the concept of reason and causation as applied to the Divine is biblical, evangelical, revealed by God, we must also answer with a decisive no. We find in the Bible only specific designations of the hypostases themselves and their relationships, and therefore the philosophical and theological concept of causality, which appeared in theological writing, does not have a biblical basis for itself, and not only in form (as ὁμοούσιος, which, absent in lexicology, in essence could be confirmed from the Bible and in this capacity approved by the Church), but also in essence. It appears inconspicuously in patristic writing (among the Cappadocians, St. John Dame). Хотя оно в отдельных речениях принимает у них довольно крайнее выражение в виде учения о получении самого бытия от Отца как причины, однако оно никогда не имело здесь логической отчеканенности, но употреблялось скорее описательно, наряду с другими выражениями: именно Отец есть корень (ῥίζα), источник (πηγή), начало (ἀρχή), причина (αἰτία). 249 Да античная древность и вообще не производила того учета категории причинности, которая столь свойственна новой философии, особенно с Канта. It is remarkable that in the “Philosophical Chapters” of St. Иоанна Дамаскина (где он излагает учение Аристотеля о категориях, положенное им в основу важнейших учений об ипостаси и усии и т. д.) совершенно отсутствует какое-либо учение о категории причинности, которая для него поэтому оставалась в стадии, так сказать, обывательского употребления, но не философской осознанности. And in general, observing the application of this category in the doctrine of St. The Trinity, where the word cause is invariably used as a logical image along with others, and not as a strict logical definition, we come to the conclusion that, denoting the relationship of hypostases with the concept of causality, the fathers mean to express, first of all, the idea of ​​unity of command, the monarchy of the Father. The one-sided causal understanding of patristic etiology is not characteristic of the fathers themselves, despite their own inaccurate use of words, but only in the era of post-patristic, scholastic epigonism, namely in the Photius-Latin dispute. In his criticism, St. Photius focused on the issue of procession as a doctrine of one or two causes, and in his ἐκ μόνου thereby consolidated one of several different meanings of patristic teaching. The Antiphotian teaching of the West went even further along this same path. The filioquistic doctrine is the doctrine of causality in God, and it drew into its orbit the anti-filioquistic doctrine, which became only a variant of the same causality. 250 But is the doctrine of causation, or the causal origin of hypostases, justified and the only possible one? Or is this a deviation from the correct path in the teaching of the Holy Trinity? Doesn’t this teaching inexorably lead to an understanding of hypostases as a relationship and their emergence in the impersonal, pre-causal divine nature? All this centuries-old filioquistic discord has not been touched by criticism in relation to its problematics, and thanks to this, a general conviction has been established not only in Catholicism, but also in Orthodox theology that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the doctrine of the causal origin of the Son from the Father and the Holy Spirit from the Father alone or from the Son. But, as shown above, patristic theology (before N. Photius) never raised this question about the causal origin of the Holy Spirit through the procession only from the Father (ἐκ μόνου) or from the Son. And even when it teaches about this procession, it always considers it in a more coherent complex, in the doctrine of the unity and unity of the Holy One. The Trinity and the relationship of hypostases, and this teaching is never brought to an accurate and final, logically dissected teaching about hypostatic origin. Of course, this issue was not discussed at the Second Ecumenical Council, where the 8th member was included in the symbol with the definition from the “Father who proceeds”: here it was an argument about the equal divinity of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity, i.e. here, too, this teaching was considered as a whole, and not as such. This explains the presence of different, not always consistent, definitions. Hence, depending on the complex of ideas, the presence in patristic writing of different definitions about the procession of the Holy Spirit is explained: both from the Father, and through the Son, and from both - from the Father and the Son. And all these definitions do not have the meaning of exclusive causality here. The Father is called, in relation to the Son, the Unbegotten, but this is only a negative definition. The Father is called the beginning, source, guilt, original hypostasis, for from Him the Son is born and from Him proceeds the Holy Spirit. But this does not mean that the Father is the cause of their origin (αὐτὸ τὸ εἶναι), for hypostases do not originate, they exist eternally. The relationship of the hypostases as Father, Son and Holy Spirit should be understood not from their origin, but from their specific self-determination. The Trinity of hypostases is given in its existence already within the most absolute hypostatic, i.e., trinitarian, subject, in the revelation of the absolute Self - as I, You, He, We, You. Catholic theology in vain takes the trouble to substantiate hypostases through their origin in relationships. It should, on the contrary, be affirmed that the three hypostatic centers of the triune Subject are already given, in addition to their hypostatic quality, as Father, Son and Spirit. The whole problem of origin in general and in particular in relation to St. The spirit is in connection with the impersonalistic assumption of the primacy of the divine nature over the hypostases, which therefore must arise in nature. On the contrary, the three hypostases are characterized by a subjective existence, so to speak, independent of nature, although, of course, such a contrast or distinction can only be made in abstraction, and not in re. The birth of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit cannot be generalized and counted as two “origins,” but they are the essence of two images of God in these two images of love. The Father is the Subject of this self-revelation, the Beginning, the “Guilt.” The Son is the One who gives Himself for this revelation of the Father, who reveals Him. Speaking. Word. There is no need at all to take birth in the anthropomorphic sense of birth-origin, for this side of birth belongs only to temporary, emerging existence. It must be taken as a spiritual image of the love of the One who gives birth and the One who is born, but by no means the one who produces and what happens. The Father - προβολεύς and the Spirit - outgoing, spirator and spirans, are also two images of mutual, self-revealing love, and outgoing is not origin. The Father, revealed in the Son, proceeds in His love, and this love is for Him the hypostatic Spirit, Spirator, the One who brings out the Spirit, loves Him through Him, breathes in Him, and the Spirit itself comes forth, giving Himself, His hypostasis for the service of Love, in order to be Love itself. It is not hypostasis that arises in procession, but the mutual service of love, the images of pre-eternal love are realized in it by the fact that the Father loves, and the Spirit is the hypostatic love of the Father. And the monarchy of the Father, the unity of command, the procession from the Father, is the very basis of this relationship, for there is only One who is revealed - the Father, who is both the parent and the creator, and this is the difference between Divine fatherhood and earthly fatherhood, which, although in the image of heavenly, is still not identical with it. And the Father is not a dual causa, which on one side is the Parent, gives birth, and on the other side the Producer, destroys, but a single desperate hypostasis: the Father as the Parent-Producer, truly the one πηγή, ἀρχή, αἰτία of the entire Holy Trinity. To count Parent and Producer, or birth and generation, as duae processiones, means to double and split up a single, trinitarian, triune act. The Father, even with this understanding, is the beginning (and in this sense the source, root, wine) in the Holy Trinity, the source hypostasis, for He reveals Himself in other hypostases, is the subject for them, in relation to which both other hypostases are the predicate and the connection. He is the ontological and logical center of the connection that the three hypostatic centers of the Divine trinity form. And it is absolutely impossible to belittle this originality and centrality of the First Hypostasis, nor to divide it with another hypostasis (as is done in the Latin interpretation, filioque), without violating and complicating this trinity. And in this - but, of course, only in this sense - one can even accept ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς, insofar as it means in a positive form the denial of duality or two-centrism in the Holy Trinity. However, this very ἐκ μόνου, causally understood (as St. Photius himself understood it along with his opponents) and thereby reducing the Holy Trinity to a system of causal relations, turns into just as one-sided and incorrect a doctrine as filioquism, with which it is identical, like the relief and concave side of the same image. It is precisely this that, in its causal interpretation, is also a dissection of the Holy Trinity on the basis of the causal relationship of the hypostases into two dyads that are not connected with each other. Or they are connected only by the unity of the beginning, with which each of the two causally occurring hypostases is causally related, but do not have any relationship of their own. In filioque, although an attempt is made to connect the Second and Third hypostases with a relation of causal origin, this attempt does not achieve the goal, for both dyads: Father - Son, Father - Son and Holy Spirit - still remain separated. In a word, the causal interpretation inevitably destroys the trinity of the Holy Trinity, and in this respect is completely equivalent to ἐκ μόνου and filioque. This trinity exists outside of any causality due to the trinity of the Divine Person, in which all three hypostases are present regardless of any origin. Each hypostasis is not produced by another hypostasis, like the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit, but self-determines itself, is qualified or “produces”: the Father is the image of the sacrificial love of the Father, the Son is the sacrificial love of the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the jubilant love of the Holy Spirit. To show definitively the inadmissibility of “origins” in the Holy Trinity, we must also add that this different quality of hypostases, or the fatherhood of the Father, the sonship of the Son and the spirituality of the Holy Spirit, is an eternal, and therefore absolutely immutable self-determination of the hypostases, in the Holy Trinity “there is no change or alteration of the walls.” Therefore, no change in hypostatic self-determination can be conceived: neither the Father can become the Son, nor vice versa, etc. But this is not due to the immutable relations of origin, which would introduce into the life of the Holy Trinity the principle of necessity with its mechanistic immutability, but due to the divine freedom of self-existence, aseitas, which has immutable force for all three hypostases. All hypostases pre-establish themselves, self-determining, and the self-determination of each of them includes, presupposes for itself not only separate, but also trinitarian, mutually hypostatic self-determination, in other words, it is both personal and trinity. So, to the doctrine of origin, or causal understanding. The Holy Trinity must be contrasted with the divine trinitarian aseitas, the Trinitarian self-existence. All hypostatic self-determinations are at the same time natural, for hypostasis does not exist outside of nature, just as nature does not exist outside of hypostasis. The identity of hypostasis and nature is so exhaustive that even their very distinction and, to that extent, opposition can only be made in abstracto. Precisely, although the really hypostatic nature or natural hypostasis are mutually identical, it is also not true that nature is not hypostasis and hypostasis is not nature. Despite their ontological conjugacy, there is an immutable ontological difference. There is no need to be confused by this apparent contradiction and the simultaneous identification and distinction of nature and hypostasis. Here thought deals with divine things, where the astonishing mind constructs its rational instrument of the laws of the identity of contradiction, antinomically pairs the contradictory and posits an “excluded” third between opposing judgments. One of the properties of such antinomic judgments is their irreversibility: if we say that a hypostasis is identical with its nature, which it has, then we cannot say, on the contrary, that nature is identical with the hypostasis that it possesses, although in fact in God there is no nature that is non-hypostatic or non-hypostasis. But here the difference is manifested that in the Trinitarian Godhead, each of the hypostases, like the entire Holy Trinity in trinity, are equally natural, that is, they have nature entirely and inseparably, and in this sense they are all nature. Nature, belonging to each of the hypostases, cannot be equated to only one of them. This inseparability of hypostasis and nature means that hypostatic determinations are self-determinations in nature as well. Thus, the fatherhood of the First Hypostasis realizes itself not only in the personal center, but also in natural self-determination, in the concrete hypostatic living out of one’s nature. And the same can be said about all three hypostases. Therefore, the hypostatic aseitas is not only a subjective self-consciousness, which is limited only to the realm of the divine subject, but also an objective or natural self-position. If hypostases, in particular the Father’s, as such, tend to give birth and in this express their Father’s self-consciousness and self-position, then this “birth” extends to the entire fullness of being of the First Hypostasis. In other words, the Father gives birth not only from Himself, but also from God, as was defined in the anathematism of the First Ecumenical Council: “from the womb before the star I gave birth to Thee.” In the same way, the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the hypostasis and the essence of the Father. This, by the way, is what the filioquist doctrine plays on: “ex uno principio, - not in that in which the Father and the Son differ, but in that in which they are one, namely in a single nature.” The mistake that is made here is that nature is conceived here separately from hypostasis, as some common fund or coincidence - precisely in this case, the undivided co-ownership of the Father and the Son. But no co-ownership of nature on the part of the hypostases actually exists, but rather there is separate ownership and sole ownership: both the Father and the Son have a completely divine nature, each in and for Himself, but do not own it together. At the same time, all three persons of the Holy Trinity have the same nature as the trinity of the Holy Trinity. Therefore, in the general relationship of hypostases to nature, two possibilities are given: the completeness of the individual possession of each of the equally divine hypostases (according to its hypostatic image) of the entire fullness of nature, as well as the possession of the entire Holy Trinity, the divine trinity, the entire divine nature in the image of the trinity. Consequently, one nature, equal to itself, equally belongs to the whole of the Holy. The Trinity, and each of the hypostases (here we once again have the antinomy of the identity of the different and the difference of the same). However, it is not given and even excluded, so to speak, ex hypothesi, that very case, which is imagined by the doctrine of filioquism, that the two hypostases, the Father and the Son, in their duality, have for themselves a nature in joint possession, as a certain common fund, from which they, as from a single principle, without differing from each other, draw the Holy Spirit. In other words, here a certain co-possession of the two hypostases is assumed by a single nature, which, as such a common ownership is understood as a certain fund. But nature is not a foundation, but always a hypostatic being, and there can be no place for co-ownership here, so this thought includes the separation of hypostatic and natural being, which through this is attributed the ability to belong - in different combinations - to one, two, three. This introduces tritheism in defining the relationship of trinitarian being to nature. A result is achieved that is completely opposite to that intended in filioquism: in order to be saved from the hypostatic difference between the two in the output of the Holy Spirit, an appeal is made to nature, in the darkness of which the hypostatic suns do not shine. But this conversion itself, for its feasibility, presupposes such a distance of nature from the hypostases, such an extra-hypostatic nature, thanks to which the hypostases turn out to be separate partners in a single nature, in co-ownership. Thus, the goal turns out to be unachieved, and at the same time the dogma of divine consubstantiality is destroyed. Nature as an independent principle, in which the difference of hypostases is extinguished and the two are as one, does not exist in the Divinity. The ray of each hypostasis penetrates to the very bottom and completely hypostasizes nature. Therefore, two hypostases cannot be posited, which are one in nature, as if losing their hypostatic separate personality: two hypostases, the Father and the Son, are and remain two in nature. If you insist that the Holy Spirit. comes from the Father and the Son, then it should be argued that this procession proceeds from two principles, and not from one, and Photius’s counter-argument of dual principles receives new strength. Returning to the question of aseitas in hypostatic self-determinations, we must say that it extends equally to the hypostatic and natural being of each of the hypostases. Following, the Father's hypostasis is the Father both hypostatically and naturally in His relationship with other hypostases, in birth and generation. But the same can be said about the Son, who is both naturally and hypostatically self-determined as the Son, precisely born. And the same, of course, should be said about the Holy Spirit, who is both naturally and hypostatically self-determined in His procession. But with all this, there is still a triune nature of the consubstantial Trinity, identical in substance with the nature of each of the individual hypostases, but modally, in the image of the hypostatic possession of it, as if different from it. The difference relates, of course, not to its essential essence, but to the image of the possession of the Holy Trinity by it in trinity and each individual hypostasis. St. The Trinity is a triple act of self-determination of hypostases, and each of the moments of this triplicity, despite the originality and equal divinity of all three hypostases, is correlated with the other two hypostases and in this sense is conditioned by them. The fullness of natural existence as self-revelation is given only in the trinity of hypostatic self-determinations. The Holy Trinity naturally exists only trinitarianly, “consubstantially and inseparably,” which is why each of the individual hypostatic images of natural existence not only exists, but co-exists in its inseparability with the others. Therefore, in general, it is impossible to understand each hypostasis in its separate personal existence except in the conjugation of triplicity. This gives rise to a general thesis, a kind of axiom regarding the Holy Trinity: all three hypostases in their character are neither singular nor dual, but triple. They must be understood not only from themselves, but from their threefold union. They are determined and shine not only by their own light, but also by the reflected light, which is reflected from other hypostases. It follows from this that all three hypostases must be understood separately and trinity, and any doctrine that turns the Holy Trinity into a system of origins and dyads is flawed at the very root. Therefore, all three hypostases must be understood, so to speak, in the context of these separate, but also threefold relationships. And above all - the Father's hypostasis. Of course, this is not accidental, but in full accordance with the triple self-determination of each of the hypostases, the Father is spoken of not only in relation to the Son, but also in relation to the Holy Spirit: “who proceeds from the Father.” This means that the Father is Father not only in relation to the Son, as a Parent, but also in relation to the Holy Spirit, as a Maker. Paternity is determined by birth-birth, but is not limited to parenthood alone. Thus, in contrast to earthly fatherhood, it necessarily includes the projection of the Spirit onto the Son: “this is My beloved Son.” However, if we apply the analogy of trinitarian existence to multihypostatic existence, then in created human existence the complex of fatherhood is also not limited to birth, but also includes the relationship of active love of the one who gave birth to the begotten, which is analogous in the created world to the hypostatic love of the Father for the Only Begotten. 251 In a similar way, the hypostasis of the Son is determined not only by the relationship to the Father, as the Born to the Parent, but also in Their mutual love, the reciprocal love of the Son, which is the Holy Spirit, not only resting on the Son, but also passing through the Son - not ἀμέσως, but ἐμμέσως, as St. fathers, the Holy Spirit is the union of love between the Father and the Son. Finally, and this is the most important thing for us in this matter, the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit necessarily includes this - not a dual, but a tripartite definition: the Holy Spirit can only be understood in relation to the Father and the Son, moreover, and in contrast to Catholic doctrine, not in relation to that in which these hypostases do not differ, do not exist separately, but in relation to that in which they are separate, hypostatic. And the triangle, which is the geometric symbol of the Holy Trinity, is determined not by lines, but by three points, which are only connected by these lines. Each point, or vertex of the triangle, is also in a complex relationship with two other points, it implies them for itself or, as it were, contains them. And in this, but only in this sense, filioquism is a self-evident prerequisite for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. In the latter, the relationship of the Third Hypostasis not only with the First, but also with the Second cannot be eliminated or forgotten: the Holy Spirit is such not only for the Father, but also for the Son. We can say that the Father begets the Son, just as the Son is born from the Father, with the necessary presence and in this sense the participation of the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father or the Father brings forth the Holy Spirit with the necessary presence or participation of the Son. If we use Bolotov’s expression “condition” (realizing all its inadequacy), then we can say that in the Holy Trinity, the Son is equally the condition of the Holy Spirit, just as the Holy Spirit is the condition of the Son, in a completely analogous way. All three hypostases are specific trinitarian relationships. It is precisely this truth of the threefold mutual determination of all hypostases that has always been recognized in patristic writing and was expressed in various ways, mostly descriptively, seeking for itself the most precise expression, although this latter was never found. Hence the visible diversity and apparent inaccuracy, ambiguity and even inconsistency of fatherly sayings on the issue of the relationship between the three hypostases. Not to mention the question of the “origin” of the hypostases of one from another, which has been intermingled with time and bringing its own special confusion, we cannot help but see one fundamental fact, which is most characteristic of patristic writing in this matter: here not only is there not one, uniform dogmatic definition, but there is a deliberate difference in the frequent expressions of one general thought, which they try in vain to smooth out by force reinterpretations. Here, before my eyes, the different shades in the expression of the general mutual relationship of the Trinity hypostases, in particular the Holy Spirit, are striking. to the Father and the Son, which are found by different fathers or by the same father in different places, and these differences, as a rule, never gave rise to misunderstandings or conflicts between the fathers themselves. 252 This mutual tolerance and even, as it were, connivance was especially evident in the difference between East and West in the general trinitarian doctrine, and in particular in the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Both “theologumen” (as Prof. Bolotov calls these opinions), διὰ and filioque, enjoyed the same right of citizenship before the start of the Latin-Photian feud. This difference was not felt as a difference of opinion, for, obviously, the unity in the general thought - namely, the threefold nature of the definition of each of the hypostases - seemed more significant than the particular differences in the definition of this triplicity. The first thought was a general idea and, as it were, taken for granted; the particulars, obviously, were considered not so much as dogmatic definitions or even “theologumen”, but rather as dogmatic conjectures, an attempt to express descriptively a thought that had not received, and even, moreover, was not yet looking for an exact dogmatic definition for itself. The axis of the Trinitarian dogma, its generally accepted initial truth, was the recognition of the monarchy of the Father, the primacy and centering significance of the Father's hypostasis, which was recognized by representatives of all directions. The question of the origin of one hypostasis from another, in particular about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father or from the Father and the Son, moreover, as from one or two reasons, although already outlined, was not yet brought into the spotlight, and the whole problem did not then receive the one-sidedness that became characteristic of it later. Thus, the state of the theological teaching about the Holy Spirit, in the West and the East, in the patristic era can best be likened to logology in the pre-Nicene era or Christology in the pre-Chalcedonian era, when various and widely divergent tendencies and theologemes of theology coexisted peacefully, with the difference, however, that pneumatology (unlike logology and Christology) still did not have its own Nicea, nor his Chalcedon. For the Second Council of Constantinople, which only briefly touched upon the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father with the words of the Gospel text and did not touch upon His relationship to the Son at all, cannot be considered as such. There has not yet been an Ecumenical Council dedicated to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and no dogmatic formula has been found that would have universal church binding. A dogmatic misfortune for the Church, which the Latin-Photian controversy in general is due to its schismatic spirit, turned out to be, in particular, the fact that both sides, the Eastern and Western Churches, felt themselves in possession of an imaginary dogma about the origin of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is either from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son. And both of these theological opinions, or doctrines, received the meaning of dogmas in the awareness of both fighting sides. Much of the blame here lay with the Western Church, which not only developed for its theologum a whole dogmatic structure, false in its premises and false in its conclusions, but also provided it with the stamp of papal infallibility (which is why, in fact, the filioque is, first of all, a dogma about the pope, as Prof. Bolotov noted in his theses). 253 In the East, the doctrine of St. Photius, which also represented a kind of innovation for the Eastern Church, and was infected with the same schismatic spirit, received a similar meaning as an imaginary dogma. The latter became more and more intensified, simultaneously with the internal split between East and West, which ended, although not immediately, with the mutual anathematization of the ill-fated year 1054. However, these contradictory theological opinions never received the force of dogma of the Universal Church. In particular, for the East Photianism cannot claim even the semblance of dogmatic authority that the filioque has for the West by virtue of its inclusion in papal infallibility. The East here has never been able to make ends meet and get unraveled in those discrepancies, and often contradictions of paternal opinions, which were not at all easy to bend under the Photian pseudo-dogma. At the same time, as shown above, the question of the origin of the Holy Spirit - equally in the East and in the West - was replaced by the question of origin. Such a question cannot exist at all regarding the co-originating trinity hypostases. 254 It is necessary to responsibly accept that fundamental historical and at the same time dogmatic fact, which in itself has a much greater dogmatic significance than the imaginary dogmas of origin. The fact is that “the Greek fathers and Augustine followed completely different paths in theology and came to two not at all identical theologumens” (Bolotov). At the same time, even “Photius and his successors had communion with the Western Church, without receiving (and, apparently, not demanding) from him a conciliar renunciation verbis explicissimis from filioque” (thesis 25). This mutual tolerance of different theological opinions, which, of course, would be inappropriate and even impossible in relation to fully established dogmas, corresponded to the correct dogmatic instinct of the Church, which correctly defines the boundaries of what is permissible and possible. And this centuries-old mutual tolerance testifies beyond doubt that the Church did not have a certain dogma then, just as it did not acquire it in a subsequent era. And the true tradition of the Church, which in this case was expressed with dogmatic restraint and uncertainty, must remain guiding us even now, because essentially nothing has changed in this matter and nothing decisive has happened. As before, so now the following position is guiding us: a certain dogma about the origin of the Holy. The Spirit, both in relation to the very meaning of procession and its image, does not exist, either because the time has not yet come for it, or because the answer to an imaginary question - about procession, understood as origin - can only be an imaginary dogma, and the Church does not dogmatize imaginaries. And if in the ancient Church various theologumena had the right to exist, in particular διὰ and filioque, then now they have the same right to exist, although not as dogmas, but only theologumena, theological opinions and hypotheses, different ways of theology. But they, these different opinions, should not be branded as heresy on either side. This is exactly the idea expressed by Prof. V.V. Bolotov, when he had the courage to proclaim that non-filioque divided the Church, just as now it is not an impedimentum dirimens for the reunification of the Church, that is, it is not a heresy in itself. Another specter, and perhaps the strangest, is becoming smaller on the paths of church reunification, on the basis of a competent and impartial court of an Orthodox Church historian. But Bolotov himself remains shrouded in the fog of imaginary problems and imaginary dogmas about the procession of the Holy Spirit as an origin. Having broken through this fog, having seen this imaginary, we can state with even greater conviction the absence of heresy where there are only various attempts to express the inexpressible, to describe the indescribable... For heresy here begins only when the schismatic spirit gains strength, turning theological opinions into “abstract principles”, in one-sidedness and in this sense in heresy (since the exact meaning of “heresy” αἵρεσις is precisely and primarily one-sidedness). And filioque, and “through the Son,” and “from Both,” and ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς, and other sayings can and should be understood (as they were understood by the ancient Church) not as contradictory, but as in a certain sense unambiguous, or at least monosemantic, not mutually exclusive, if only we liberate dogmatic doctrine from the imaginary problematic of procession as origin. The general and main idea of ​​the dogma about St. The Spirit and His “procession” lies in the fact that his relationship to the Father is determined on the basis of the “monarchy” of the Father, the Holy Spirit relates to Him as the Opener to the Revealed, and, moreover, not just as the Opener, but the Co-Revealer (together with the Son) of the Father. Hence the definition of the Holy Spirit, which follows from this internal relationship, is not dual, but threefold. It can be dogmatically described from different points, and these different dogmatic concepts essentially coincide, since they relate to the same Divine being. In particular, even the Photius interpretation of the formula can be justified: “who proceeds from the Father,” in the sense of “from one ἐκ μόνου the Father proceeding,” if only this thought is not attributed to an imaginary origin, but the procession itself is understood as the basic relationship between the Revealing Father and the Revealing hypostases of the Spirit and the Son. “From one Father” expresses the idea of ​​the “monarchy” of the Father, as the initial principle in the Holy Trinity, as the one Revealing One. Of course, such ἐκ μόνου - from the Father alone - only from the Father - does not at all have the restrictive and exclusive meaning that was given to it by St. Photius himself; it is compatible with the recognition of another relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son, arising on the basis of the procession from the Father. Further, διὰ τοῦ ϒἱοῦ can be understood, justified and accepted, as well as even filioque with its various variants (“from Both”, “proprietary” to the Son, etc.), and moreover, along with ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς and even ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, primarily in the general meaning that the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son is indicated here. The latter is not rejected, but is simply not indicated in the text: “it comes from the Father.” The relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son is by no means excluded, but is included or presupposed by His relationship to the Father. And all the considered formulas of procession, unless we understand it as origin, represent only different images of this threefold definition of the Third Hypostasis - not only in relation to the Father, but also to the Son. As different descriptions of this relationship, they can be accepted one along with the other, if only one does not give them a literal dogmatic meaning. The general meaning of these formulas can be expressed as follows: The Third Hypostasis must be understood simultaneously not only in relation to the First, - according to the principle of the monarchy of the Father, - but also in relation to the Son (just as the Hypostasis of the Son must be understood not only in relation to the Father, but also to the Holy Spirit). This also leads to a practical ecclesiastical conclusion. The dogmatic disagreement about the procession of the Holy Spirit, based on an incorrect understanding of procession as origin, testifies most of all to the fact that this question is not yet ripe for a dogmatic definition, which remains a matter, perhaps, not yet in the near future. Therefore, dogmatic differences of opinion, in themselves, not being impedimentum dirimens, should not be the basis for mutual accusations of heresy, since they can be understood in agreement, in any case, as not mutually exclusive of one another. It is not an imaginary heresy, but a schismatic Spirit and false dogmatization that maintains that division from which the ancient Church was free. Dogmatic differences of opinion are further complicated by the Western insertion into the filioque symbol, which bears the stamp of Roman absolutism, although it is now also retained by the confessions that separated from Rome (Anglicanism, Protestantism). Currently, there is a tendency to make this difference in symbol primarily an affiliation of Western and Eastern ritual in the general composition of different liturgical traditions. Initially, the filioqiie insert appeared in the West spontaneously and inconspicuously. It became militantly tendentious only after it became an instrument of the schismatic spirit on both sides. It was used as a means of struggle and division. But even if it is not disputed that this addition was a certain incorrectness in relation to the formal inviolability of the symbol adopted and confirmed in a number of ecumenical councils, initially it was only a kind of interpretation or gloss. We cannot insist with complete sincerity on the purely formal inviolability of the symbol, since we know that essentially dogmatic teaching was replenished in further decrees of the ecumenical councils themselves, although they formally confirmed the inviolability of the symbol. What is important, of course, is the meaning of the addition: can it be understood as a churchly acceptable theologumene, as it is now interpreted in the Old Catholic and Anglican Confession? So, if we remove the edge of dogmatic intransigence from the insertion of the filioque, then we have to reckon with the fact of centuries-old liturgical tradition, which, due to its long history, has acquired sacredness and a kind of inviolability. Therefore, tolerance could be shown even in relation to the Western addition to the symbol, which has become only liturgical, but has lost its dogmatic sharpness. The opposite of the schismatic spirit is church love, and love, in the words of the apostle, “covers all things” (1 Cor. 13:7). Dogmatically, the “case” of “origin” is still subject to further investigation. But the dissent in itself, expressed by the two traditions: filioque and δια τοῦ ϒἱοῦ, is neither a heresy, nor even a dogmatic error, but a doctrinal theological disagreement, which - in a relatively late dogmatic era - was prematurely and falsely dogmatized. There is no dogma about the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son, and therefore private opinions are not heresy, but simply dogmatic differences of opinion, which were turned into heresies by the reigning schismatic spirit, which generally willingly took advantage of all sorts of liturgical and even everyday disagreements. (Therefore, in the saddest era of the church schism, from the 11th century and after it, there were dozens of heresies in mutual accusations.) The best evidence of this is the fact that both sides, Western and Eastern, practically cannot find differences in their veneration of the Holy Spirit, despite their differences of opinion on the issue of His procession. It seems extremely strange that such a seemingly important dogmatic difference of opinion is not reflected in any way in practice, while normally dogma always has religious and practical significance and determines religious life. In this case, even the extreme zealots of the schismatic spirit have not yet been able to apply the imaginary dogma to life or indicate its practical consequences. It can be said that neither the Western nor the Eastern Churches know the vital heresy about the Holy Spirit, which would be inevitable if a dogmatic heresy existed. It may seem unexpected and strange that such a centuries-old discord, to which such paramount importance was attached, rests not on reality, but on a dogmatic ghost and misunderstanding: were the countless theologians who, on both sides, stood up for their truth, really mistaken, becoming victims of terrible exaggeration? Yes, they were mistaken, but not they themselves, as theologians, in their desire to find a satisfactory theological structure or doctrine, but the schismatic spirit that lived in them. The dispute about the Holy Spirit, the hypostasis of intra-Trinitarian Love, took place in an atmosphere of non-love, active schism, and was thereby doomed to sterility. The dogmatic strife about the Spirit was devoid of precisely the spirit, and therefore its result is sterility and emptiness. The filioquistic dispute includes and covers an important aspect of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, namely the special, dyadic, combination of the Second and Third Hypostases in its relation to the monarchy of the Father. Both the Western filioque and the Eastern διὰ rightly indicate the special connection of duality between the Second and Third Hypostases, which must never be forgotten when discussing the Holy Trinity. However, unfortunately, in Western theology the logical emphasis was transferred to the union of the Son with the Father in the emanation of the Holy Spirit, and thus a false dyadic union was postulated. The Eastern theologeme διὰ, although it never expressed the idea of ​​the dyadic union of the Son and the Holy Spirit with all accuracy and completeness, but in any case left the possibility of its comprehension. The idea of ​​the monarchy of the Father, which forms the very basis of the Trinitarian teaching, has been misunderstood precisely in relation to the supposed "descent." Meanwhile, its true meaning, which frees this idea from the otherwise inevitable admixture of ontological subordinationism, consists only in the fact that the First Hypostasis is the Revealing One, and in relation to Her, both other hypostases are Her two-hypostatic Revelation. This, of course, contains a certain hierarchism, a free hierarchism of the self-denying love of each of the trinitarian hypostases in the Holy Trinity, in which each hypostasis is characterized by its own image of specific hypostatic love, ὁ τρόπος τῆς ὑπάρξεως. In this threefold image of love, according to its meaning, only one is the subject (so to speak, the subject), the center of Revelation, and this is what the “monarchy” of the Father consists of, and in relation to Him the hypostases of Revelation, the Son and the Holy Spirit, are centered. These two hypostases not only differ as different images of this Revelation, the Word and the Spirit (so to speak, the predicate and the copula), but they are also united as a dual image of this Father’s self-revelation and, in relation to the monarchy of the Father, appear as a kind of dyad in which one cannot imagine one hypostasis without thereby imagining the other. In this dyadism the truth is expressed, expressed differently in the filioque and the Greek διὰ. The Son cannot be separated in hypostatic self-determination from the Spirit, nor vice versa. Moreover, both of them, in turn, cannot be separated from the Father, not only hypostatically, but also dyadicly. This dyadic nature of the relationship of the Son and the Holy Spirit to the Father as the “Beginning” is perversely expressed in the doctrine of duae processiones, of two “origins” from the Father through birth and procession. Both revealing hypostases together in a dyadic connection, like each of them separately, correlate with the Father as His Origin in the order of His self-revelation, and at the same time both of them are connected to each other as a single Revelation of the Father, but two-hypostatic. T. Oh, we can also say that the “being” of each of these two hypostases, in all the originality of their τρόπος ὑπάρξεως, depends not only on the Father, but also on the other, co-revealing hypostasis. Therefore, in relation to the Son, it should be said that He, being born of the Father, takes upon Himself from the Father the repose of the Holy Spirit, therefore, in His “being” is not divided (although separate) from the Holy Spirit. The existence of the Son, in all the originality of the Second Hypostasis, depends on a Patre spirituque. In the same way, we can say about the Spirit that He does not proceed from the Father in general and without object, but on the Son, trace., διὰ τοῦ ϒἱοῦ or filioque. This que or and, which Latin theology one-sidedly places only in one place, in fact stands everywhere where the trinitarian definition of each of the trinitarian hypostases should be expressed. But only this threefold definition is not a relation of “origin”, but a complex concrete relation of the Revealing and Revealing hypostases in their given correlation. It is this dual unity of the Second and Third Hypostases that is indicated by such texts in which the Spirit is called Christ’s: “Spirit of Truth” (John 16:13), “Spirit of the Son” (Gal. 4:6), “Spirit of Christ” (Rom. 8:9). This demonstrates the dyadic connection of the Son and the Spirit, their certain inseparability despite their separate personality. This, in turn, is also evidenced in cases of the opposite nature, precisely when the resting of the Holy Spirit on the Son and Their inseparability in this sense is indicated. This includes the general naming of the God-man Christ, and in His very name the name of the Third Hypostasis is silently included: “Anointed with the Holy Spirit.” We have the same thing both in the story of the descent of the Holy Spirit on Jesus in the Epiphany, as well as in His direct application to Himself of the messianic prophecy of Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me” and further (Isa. 61.1 = Luke 4.18). This also includes the entire series of texts in which the Lord says that He casts out demons with the Holy Spirit. “Therefore, what is procession? Explain to me the ungeneracy of the Father, then I too will dare to speak about the birth of the Son and the procession of the Spirit.”... we cannot “go into the depths of God and judge a nature that is so ineffable and inexplicable” (St. Gregory the Theologian, Homily 34, on the Holy Spirit). This fact is also recognized on the Catholic side, where they strive to find the teaching of filioque even in the earliest Eastern fathers. In particular, in the monograph by A. Kranich. Der Hl. Basilius in seiner Stellung zu Filioque. Braunsberg, 1882, where the most violent interpretation of the teachings of St. Basil the Great in a filioquistic spirit is nevertheless recognized: direkt und unmittelbar galt es ihm bloss die Goottheit des HI. Geistes, wie anderseits des Sohnes vertheidigen und zu schützen; darum kommt er nie ex professo auf den Ausgang des Hl. Geistes vom Sohne zu sprechen (9). Catholic doctrine does not stop at understanding this feature in the sense of later filioquism (see, for example, Palmieri. Saint Esprit. D. cat. d., V, I, pp. 774–776), thereby exposing its own subordinationism. Elsewhere: καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑφεστάναι. Wed. similar place in Homil. contra Sabellianos, 6. R. gr. XXXI. With. 642. On the Holy Spirit, 18. This place is considered by Catholics to testify to the filioquism of St. Basil the Great, of course, only through forced interpretations, but, obviously, it is also among those testifying in favor of διὰ του υἱοῦ. “The root and source of the Son and the Holy Spirit is the Father” (Horni, contra Sabel, et Arium, n. 4). However, this is the place: ἐκπορευόμενον πνεῦμα γνωρίζων – can be understood differently, namely through the attribution of words: διὰ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ μεθ ' ἑαυτοῦ to ἐκπορευόμενον - and then means: coming through the Son and together with the Son. In 5 books. “Against Eunomius” (which is no longer considered to belong to St. Basil the Great) we read a similar judgment: “if you do not believe that the Spirit proceeded from the mouth of God, then you cannot believe that the Word is from God... how can the inseparable Word from God and the Spirit from God through the Son be separated?” δι’ υἱοῦ. The given passages indicate that St. Vasily V. should be classified as a supporter of the doctrine of the procession of the Spirit διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ, in a sense that is subject to immediate clarification. Kranich, (C. cit.), who follows in this completely, and Palmieri (I. c.) makes the following general attitude: if St. Vasily V. objects to pneumatomachus only regarding the creation of the Holy Spirit by the Son, but does not object to His procession from the Son, especially since the procession of the Holy Spirit is traced back to the Father, from whom the Son also comes, which means “der hl. V. lehrt das Filioque" (42). In favor of this brilliant conclusion, in addition to the above-cited texts from the Ep. 38 and homil. With. sabell., cited contra Eunomium II, 34 (Mg. t. 29, p. 652). “To whom is it not clear that not a single action of the Son is separate from the Father, and everything that the Son has is not alien to the Father? How does Eunomius attribute the guilt of the Spirit to the Only Begotten, and turns His creation into a reproach to the nature of the Son? (We are talking about the Doukhobor teaching of E. that the Spirit was created by the Son). If you say this, introducing two principles that are contrary to one another, then you will be crushed along with Manichaeus and Marcion. If everything that exists is made dependent on one principle, then that which is said to be created by the Son is also raised to the first cause. Therefore, although we believe that everything was brought into being by God the Word, we do not deny that the author of everything is the God of all. Is there not an obvious danger in separating the Spirit from God? And the Apostle tells us about the Spirit, without division calling Him either Christ’s or God’s, when he writes: R. 8, 9 and also 1 Cor. 2:14, and the Lord calls Him the Spirit of truth, etc. He himself is the truth and comes from the Father (John 15:20). But Eunomius, to the humiliation of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, takes the Spirit from the Father and attributes Him primarily to the Only Begotten.” This dim passage contains a complete statement that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, but is not created by the Son, and at the same time indicates His connection with the Son in the most general and vague terms. Catholic writers also find filioque here, as well as in naming the Holy Spirit “the image of the Son” or the saying ῥῆμα of the Son (cf. above, in St. Aph.). “Through the one Son, the Holy Spirit is united with the one Father and with Himself completes the all-sung and blessed Trinity” (O D. St., 18), and “as the Son relates to the Father, so the Spirit relates to the Son” (ib., 17) - these Athanasian thoughts about the triple relationship fit into the Procrustean bed of filioquism. Even the notorious interpolated text at the beginning of the 3rd book comes into play. “Against Eunomius” about the Holy Spirit, the authenticity of which was the subject of controversy at the Council of Florence. Although the interpolation was also recognized by the editors of the Mg. edition, who excluded it from the text in a note, nevertheless, Catholic theologians (Kranich, Palmieri) still refer to it. The most important interpolated text reads: “from Him (from the Son) the Holy Spirit has its being, from Him it receives and proclaims to us and is completely dependent on this cause.” It is said here, therefore, that the Son is the only author of the existence of the Spirit. It is clear how much this thought contradicts the main, original thesis of the theology of St. Vasily V. about the monarchy of the Father. Truly, whoever proves more than is necessary proves nothing. For lack of anything better, Palmieri cites the well-known passage of Oratio XXXI, containing a comparison of the Holy Trinity with a spring, a spring and a stream, although here he seeks to find a hint of the filioque. But he does not say that St. Gregory himself immediately destroys the power of both this and other natural comparisons for explaining the Holy Trinity: “it is best to retreat from all images and shadows, both deceptive and far from reaching the truth.” You can grab onto the following tirade from the same speech: “everything that the Father has belongs to the Son, except unbegottenness; everything that the Son has belongs to the Spirit, except birth.” If, on the basis of this text, we attribute vis spirandi to the Son, i.e. He has everything that the Father has, except birth, then we have to attribute it to the Holy Spirit, who has everything that the Son has, except birth. But this very problem of vis spirandi is completely alien to St. Gregory the Theologian. Quod non sint tres dii. Mg. t. XLV, c. 133. Cp. epist. ad Heraclianum Mg. t. XLVI, c. 1092.3. Wed. Pal mieri. ib. 784–6. Of course, Palmieri (ib.) sees the same filioquism here too. Contra Eun. 1. § 26, Mg. t. XLV, p. 368–9, p. n. V, 148. Nota bene: here the same verb πρόεισι is applied to the procession of the Holy Spirit both from the Father and through the Son. St. Cyrilli Alex. Mg. t. 76, p. 184. (Adr. Nestor. I. IV). Tom. 73 p. 753. (Jn. Joan. L., I. V). De sancta trinitate dialogus VI, lom. 75, p. 1009. At Rev. Sylvester (II, 508) this text is tendentiously abbreviated. For all its vagueness, this passage comes closest to the Catholic ab utraque, ab uno principio. Tom. 74. in Io. Ev. I. XI, p. 444. Wed. ibid., I. XI. With. 541 (cited by the Most Reverend Sylvester II, 309, ib., p. 449 (ibid., p. 510, note I), ib. p. 552 (ibid.). Contra Julianum, t. 76, pp. 553, 556, 725; de trinit. dial. VII, p. 1092; Thesaurus, t. 75. pp. 1692, pp. 576, 578; Wed. De adoratione, t. 68, p. 148. For a summary in Russian, see Rev. Sylvester, c. s., ch. 11, 504 – 620, but also incomplete. Here we have an attempt to interpret these texts apologetically against the filioque, which is as tendentious as it is the opposite. Despite all the verbosity, the thought of St. Kirill cannot be definitively established. In Russian, for a comparison of texts, see Bogorodsky, op. cit., pp. 97–101. Langen (Die trinitar. Lehrdifferenz. 46–7) sees here almost the first expression of filioquism in Greek writing. We find an indisputable expression of the latter only in the work on the Holy Spirit, preserved only in the translation of Bl. Jerome and, of course, does not give any guarantees of accuracy (especially in view of the complete absence of such thoughts in the Greek works of Didymus). Here we read (lib. de Sp. S-to n. 34, Mg. t. 39, pp. 1063–1064): “The Savior says: “(He) will not speak from Himself, since not without Me and not without My and the Father’s testimony, for (He) is inseparable from My and the Father’s (My) will, for He is not from Himself, but from the Father and Me - quia non ex se, sed ex Patre et Me est” (a strange thought in general and a strange comparison): “let us assume that the procedat Spirit of truth proceeds from the Father and God gives illi (Son?) to those who ask the Holy Spirit (the text is unclear), however, since everything that the Father has is Mine (mea sunt), and the Spirit of My Father himself (mieus est) also receives from Mine” (item 38, p. 1066). The most coarsening of thought, not characteristic of Didymus. speaks of the low probability and authenticity of this text, which is, of course, referred to by Catholic theologians like Palmieri (1. p.). “All that the Son has. and the Spirit has even its very existence from the Father. And if anything is not the Father, then it is neither the Son nor the Spirit: and if there was anything the Father did not have, the Son and the Spirit do not have it: but through the Father, that is, because the Father exists, the Son and the Spirit exist, and through the Father the Son has, and also the Spirit has everything that he has... The Son and the Spirit are raised to one Author” (Chronicles, iz. Orthodox Faith I. VIII). “Although I speak of three hypostases, I nevertheless call one beginning ἀρχή, for the Father is the beginning of the Son and the Spirit, not in time, but in causality... The Father is the beginning and cause of the Word and the Spirit... I confess one beginning as the natural cause αἰτίαν φυσικὴν of the Word and the Spirit, namely the Father” (Contra manich., n. 4, Mg. t. 94, p. 1510). Wed. in the “Message about Trisv. songs,” where, in development of the general idea that each hypostasis is the true God, it is said about the Holy Spirit that “He comes from the Father through the Son and the Word, but not as the Son”... He is from the Father, but also to the Son (belongs), but not from the Son μή ἐξ ϒἱοῦ as the breath of the mouth of God, proclaiming Word.”Epist. de hymno tris. 27, Mg t. 95, p. 60. This interpretation is quite applicable in well-known cases: “St. The Spirit is the Spirit of God and the Father, as having proceeded from Him; He is also called the Spirit of the Son, since He appears through the Son and is communicated to creation, but not as if He had His being from it ὕπαρξιν” (Note. in Sab. Sanc t, n. 4. Mg. t. 96 p. 605). At St. John of Damascus, in particular, we have the following characteristic statement of this type about the Holy Spirit: “The Spirit is God, forming the medium between the born and the unborn and through the Son united with the Father. It is called the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Mind of Christ... The Holy Spirit is a sanctifying, hypostatic power, proceeding inseparably from the Father and resting in the Son, consubstantial with the Father and the Son (Crit. Ill. of the Orthodox Faith I, XII). It is characteristic that διὰ applies not only in relation to the Father through the Son to the Spirit, but to the Spirit through the Son in a general threefold connection. Bogorodsky (ts. p., 42–43) believes that the preposition δ ιὰ is used to designate a means, an instrument, by means of which something is done and can be translated by the words: through, through, with the help (“as causa Instrumentalis, - filioque”). Secondly, the preposition διὰ is used to denote: a) time in the meaning in continuation, b) space with the meaning through, among, between, in, and c) the manner of action, how something is done with the meaning “in”. It is used to designate a relationship by being, or, what is the same, a relationship of coexistence between certain objects and phenomena... the formula δι’ ϒἱοῦ would be equivalent to the expressions: “with the Son, together with the Son, in the Son.” The second interpretation is more consistent with Orthodox teaching, but one cannot help but admit that it is not intelligible enough in itself and requires theological interpretation. This is what Bogorodsky is looking for in vain (ts. op.); Neither is the interpretation of “through the Son” as a condition of procession by Bolotov and Kokhomsky. Therefore, such discrepancies are possible, such as the fact that Bogorodsky (ts. p., 41 ff.) refers “through the Son” to the eternal procession and sees “an indication of the method of obtaining being by the Spirit.” Rev. Sylvester here refuses to see anything other than the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son, temporary, in the sense of descent into the world - to creatures (ts. p., chapter II, 544). De trin. 2, Mg. t. 95, p. 13. Wed. in Bogorodsky, ch. VII, p. 147. “But the Word also needs breath (πνεῦμα), for our word is not without breath... And in God’s nature we must piously confess the existence of the Spirit of God, for the Word of God is not more insufficient than our word” (ib. I.VI, pp. 804–805) The entire anthropomorphic nature of this argument is obvious. The third word about icons. 48. To this was added the usual assurance after the Council of Ephesus: “we follow the ancient legalization of the Church, we preserve the definitions of the fathers, and we anathematize those who add or take away anything from the Church.” The uniqueness of the Western view in this sense, in contrast to the Eastern one, is fully recognized by Prof. V.V. Bolotov in his famous “Theses on the filioque”, in particular, cf. theses 9 – 13, 16. “The Western view differs from the Eastern theologumene, and it is impossible without exaggeration to explain either it (filioque) in the sense of δι’ ϒἱοῦ, or the views of the Eastern fathers in a sense identical to the Western” (vol. 9), and, in particular, ex Patre et Filio, as it is given by Bl. Augustine, is not consistent in meaning with the teaching of St. Eastern Fathers (vol. 12). He rightly notes that neither the private opinion of Bl. Augustine was not protested by the Eastern Church, nor were the Westerners, who preached the filioque to their flock, excommunicated from communion with the Eastern Church (v. 19–20). Compare, for example, the comparison in Palmieri. I, p. 801–4, in Russian by Rev. Sylvester, c. cit., vol. II, § 139, pp. 546–565. His predecessor in the West, Bl. Augustine has to a certain extent St. Ambrose of Milan, in whom, along with the main teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, as a related opinion one encounters the idea that Sp. S-s. procedit a Paire et Filio (De Sp. S. I. I, Cf. 120. Cf. Adamov, ts. s., p. 264). “The beginning of all divinity or better said. The deity is the Father (totius divinitatis vel si melius dicitur Deitatis principium Pater est)” De t rin. I.IV, c. 20, no. 29, p. 908). Ib. 1.XV. With. 26, no. 45. p. 1042–1043. In comm, on In. tr. n. 7–8 (cit. de Trin., XV, p. 27, n. 48, p. 1095) we read: “Why should we not believe that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son, when He is also the Spirit of the Son? For if He had not emanated from Him, then, having appeared to the disciples after His Resurrection, He - the Son - would not have breathed on them, saying: receive the Holy Spirit, for what else could this breath mean, if not that the Holy Spirit emanates from Him?.. So, if the Holy Spirit emanates from both the Father and the Son, then why did the Son say: He emanates from the Father? Why do you think, if not because He is in the habit of attributing what belongs to Himself to Him from Whom He Himself is? So, for example, He says: My teaching is not Mine, but the One who sent Me. If here we mean His teaching, which He, however, called not His own, but the teaching of the Father, then how much more must it be understood that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Him, in the place where He speaks; comes from the Father, so as not to say: comes from Me?” (Here we have a prototype of later methods of Catholic exegesis of this text.) Cf. Contra Maximum. Mg. t. 42, lib. II, p. XIV, I, p. 770. Wed. Contra serm Arianorum. I. 1, p. XXII, 20, p. 640; With. IV, p. 686. Wed. Contra Maxim. 1. II, p. V, p. 761. Contra Maximinum, 1. II, p. XVII, p. 4, p. 784. The quotation continues: sicut Pater Deus et FiliusDeus, ambo autem simul non duo dii, sed unus Deus. Nec Sp-m S-m ab utroque procedentem negabo esse principium; sed haec tria simul sicut unum Deum, ita unum dico principium. This also includes: “When the Son said about Him (about the Holy Spirit): He comes from the Father (John 15:26), he said because the Father is the auctor of His procession” (Contra Maxim., 1. II, p. 14, paragraph 1, p. 770). Wed. Rev. Sylvester, II, 561–562. Swete. History of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Cambridge 1876. b. 163: “after the death of S. Augustine Western Europe appears to have generally adopted the Augustinian view of the Procession almost without being conscious of the change thus made in its theology.” In the epistles to Turibius (epist. 15, p. l, Mg. s. 1. t. 54, p. 681): “qui (Holy Spirit) ab utroque processit”; serm. 75.3, ib. With. 402: The Holy Spirit is common to the Father and the Son; serm. 76. 2 col. 404: Spirit of the Father and the Son. “He (the Holy Spirit) always proceeds from the Father and the Son” (Dial. 1. II. n. 38. Mg. t. 76, p. 204) (in Greek translation: ἐν τῶ ϒἱῶ διαμένει. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit utrorum (Moral. XXX. 4, ib. p. 534). In a letter to Emperor Justin we read that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son sub una substantia deitatis (ep. 74. ad Justinum Mg. t. 63, p. 514). Sweet. (I.c., ch. VII) gives evidence of a number of Nile, African and other bishops professing ab utroque descent. The bishop's attention lingers. Fulgentius of Ruspensky (523), who writes: “hold firmly and beyond doubt that the same Holy Spirit, who is the one Spirit of the Father and the Son, proceeds from the Father and the Son (de Patre et Filio procedere). The prophetic and apostolic teaching teaches us that the Holy Spirit also proceeds (quoque procedere) from the Son” (De fide, p. II, paragraph 52, Mg. t. 65, p. 696). In a letter to Ferrand we read: “The divinity of the Son could not receive the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit himself comes from the Son as he comes from the Father, and is given by the Son as he is given by the Father... The Spirit is wholly (totus) the Father and wholly the Son, for He alone is naturally the Father and the Son,” etc. (Er. 14, 28; ib. p. 373). Wed. With. Fabian, fragm. 28 (Mg. t. 65, 732). Wed. texts at Sylvester Ave., c. pp., II, 556 ff. ... ex utrisque Sp-m S-m (De Trin., Mg. t. 64, p. 1254). Cp. y Sylvester Ave., in the same place. Etymologiae, VII, 3 (Mg. t. 82, p. 268). Wed. Differentiarum, 1. II, d. f; 3, p. 7. See Palmieri's summary of the issue. Filioque (D. de th. cat. XV, 2, pp. 230–9(2-?)59). Epist. ad. Marin. Cypr. presb., Mg. s. gr., t. 91, p. 136. Bolotov (in thesis 22) states: “when the Easterners read the filioque in the synod of St. Martin, they expressed their objections, but this matter was then settled, since the Easterners did not refuse to communicate with Martin.” In an even more conciliatory sense he interprets the thought of St. Maxima, a Latin writer of the second half of the 9th century, Anastasius the Librarian (in the collection Collectanea): in his letter to St. Maximus “makes it clear that the Greeks argue with him in vain, for we do not consider the Son to be the cause or beginning of the principium vel causam of the Holy Spirit, as they think, but, knowing the unity of the essence of the Father and the Son, we confess that both from the Father and from the Son proceeds the Holy Spirit, meaning by procession only the message missionem. Prudently citing those who are versed in both languages, he inclines towards peace, i.e. teaches us and the Greeks that in some respects the Spirit proceeds, but in others does not proceed from the Son, and shows how difficult it is to express the belonging of one language in another.” This is expressed, among other things, in the well-known words card. Rusticus (c. 549), who confesses that he considers “the question of whether He proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father” (Contr. Aceph.. Mg; s. I, t 67. p. 1237) to be “not yet completely resolved.” For the original text of the message of the Frankish monks to Pope Leo III, see the appendix of Swete, op. cit., 227–229. The monks, in their defense, could refer not only to the fact that they heard the same in the imperial chapel and read in various sources, in particular in Athanasianum. Issued by Cardinal Gergenreter: see Mg. R. Gr., t. 102 (with Latin translation), which provided him with extremely informative Animadversiones historicae et theologicae, which still remain the most thorough (though, of course, one-sided) critical study on this issue. The well-known three-volume study on Patriarch Photius also belongs to the same scientist, which is also unsurpassed, despite all its tendentiousness. The treatise of P. Photius is available in the Russian translation by E. Lovyagin under the title: “The Secret Word about the Holy Spirit” (Spiritual Conversation. 1866). Hergenrother himself finds in the treatise “eine dialektische Gewandheit und seltenen Scharfsinn” (Photius, Bd. III. 156). See chap. 66–72, 78. “I do not say that they teach quite clearly what you refer to them for, but if it happened to them to say something like that - for they were people ... it happens that even the best people bear some traces of uncleanness on themselves - then one should, like the eldest sons of Noah, cover up the “fatherly indecency”, and “not expose it to shame” like Ham.” What can be said about this principle of scientific research? Mg. R. Gr., t. 102, p. I. 281–3. Wed. the same argument in positive form from Ch. 6–7. This abstract argument is no less abstractly objected to by Weck (whose argument is also reproduced by Hergenreter), namely, that the Son and the Spirit have in common (κοινόν) to be from the Father (τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός) (Animadvers. p. 482). The same argument in Chap. 35 is stated differently: “The Spirit proceeds from the Son by the same procession or the opposite procession from the Father. If the same, then how are the personal properties by which the Trinity is recognized and worshiped as Trinity not generalized (κινοῦνται, var. κοινοῦνται, the meaning is unclear), in the opposite case, blasphemy arises against the Father and the Son. Aeneas and Ratramnus do not yet know Photius in their polemical writings, except for individual arguments in the Latin presentation (Jugie. Theol. orient. I. 191). Jugie (1, p. 18) reproaches Patriarch Photius for depicting the Holy Trinity as an angle of two lines, but not as a triangle, like the Latins: loco binae rectae, quibus Graeci suam formulam a Patre per Filium procedit optime declarabant, viceque trianguli, quo latinorum conceptus representare potest, novator tamquam diagramma Trinitatis simplicem pos uit angulum, cuius summ itatem tenet Pater, Filium et Sp-m S-m hinc unde emittens– (180). In approx. 2 Jugie quotes from Amphilochia n. Photius: Mg. t. 51. p. 896, comparison of the Holy Trinity with the scales, in which trutina corresponds to the Father, and utraque lances to the other two hypostases (cf. also, pp. 205–8, Jugie, 181, n. 2). Jugie's reproach regarding the triadology of Patriarch Photius, which is actually divided into two dyads for him, is fair, but its strength remains even more true regarding Latin theology, which instead of the Trinity also puts two dyads: Father-Son and Father-Son-Spirit of the Holy Spirit. The most exhaustive but complete refutation of P. Photius is, of course, given by Gergenröther in his Animadversiones, which in this sense have not been surpassed, despite their chronological obsolescence. But this does not prevent the fact that, despite all their learning, they remain theologically sterile. A general guide to this debate is given, of course, in the manual: Krumbacher. Geschichte der Byzantinischen Literatur, 2– te Anfl., 1897, where the section of theological polemics is processed by Ehrhadt. For bibliography, see Palmieri, 1. p. Earlier than Photius and, therefore, even before the division of the churches, we have, in addition to Alcuin (Libellus de processione Sp-s S-ti ad Carolum Magnum, Mg. R. l., t. 101), two main treatises: Ratramnus Carbeiensis monachus, 9th century (Mg. P. h., 1.121): contra Graecorum opposita romanae ecclesiae infamantium libri quattuor, and Aeneas Parisiensis, Liber adversus Graecos (ibid.). The first proves the filioque with texts from the Holy Scriptures, the Eastern and Western Fathers, especially Bl. Augustine, the second follows the same method. Hugo Et. widely used by Gergenreter: Animadv. passim. Wed. Krumbacher, I. p. 89–90. Cm . Krumbacher, 1. p. 90. Mg., t. 141, col. 395–612: Adversus Andronicum Camaterum. The third polemicist of the Comneni century is Niketas Acominatus, who wrote Thesaurus Orthodoxiae, which in thought is a continuation of the Panoplia of Zigabenus, a collection of patristic testimonies against various heresies. He deals little with Latin (book 21) and by the way: see Mg., t. 39, col. 1001 – 1444, excerpts in Latin. language. His biography is woven into the biography of George of Cyprus, compiled by de Rubeis (Mg, S. Gr., t. 142). Here is the basic, dogmatic definition of the Second Council of Lyon (according to the Latin account of the XIV Ecumenical), which is set out in its First Canon and promulgated by Pope Gregory X (Denzingeri, n. 460):... “Sp-s S-s aeternaliter ex Patre et Filio, non tanquam ex duobus principiis, sed tanquam ex uno principio, non duabus processionibus, sed unica processione procedit. Hoc professa est hactenus, praedicavit et docuit... Romana ecclesia, hoc habet orthodoxorum patrum atque doctorum Latinorum et pariter Graecorum incommutabilis et vera Sententia.” (cf. Mansi, t. XXIV, col. 68). Further here the contrary teaching is anathematized. The Russian translator of the works of P. I. Veccus and P. G. Kiprsky rightly says: “the main reason for the futility of disputes about the procession of the Holy Spirit was, in addition to the incomprehensibility of the very subject of the dispute, the then dominant view of the nature of the works of the fathers and the methods of exegesis closely associated with it. These creations were considered divinely inspired in the same sense as the books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. No inaccuracies, omissions or misunderstandings were allowed in the dogmatic part of them. This often led to great difficulties... it was sometimes necessary to resort to artificial explanations” (On the history of disputes on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Christ. Reading. 1889, March, April, pp. 340–41.) Unfortunately, one cannot talk about this only in the past tense, because to a certain extent this is also a sad present. Hergenrother. Animadversiones, 1. p. Col. 422. Zernikav. Orthodox theological studies on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone. Per. from Latin, volume I-II. P. Gregory of Cyprus naturally had the last word against his imprisoned enemy - “the strongest apology against attacks on his scroll” (Mg. t. 142, col. 251–70). All this controversy is also available in the Russian translation by Prof. I. E. Troitsky with the general title: “On the history of disputes on the issue of the advent of the Holy Spirit” (Christian Reader, 1889, 1–11). All quotations are taken from this translation. The “Scroll of Faith” of St. Gregory also contains the text of the renunciation of the errors of St. John Veccus, obviously forced from him by the council that judged him. Wekk actually renounces this renunciation in further polemics, where he - from exile and from prison - supports his previous opinions. It is characteristic that in this polemic the patristic works on both sides are simply called γραφὴ - scriptures. This idea is repeated by St. Gregory in different places, but is by no means explained: “the eternal shining of the Holy Spirit through the Son, accompanying and implied together with His origin from the Father into being (συντρέχουσαν καὶ συνεπινομένην τῃ ἐκ Πατρὸς αθτοῦ εἰς τὸ εἶναι προσόδῳ)". “When we say that the Spirit is through the Son, we do not thereby destroy our confession that He is immediate, since proceeding and proceeding (ὑφιστάμενον) from the Father, from Whom the Son is born, comes into being (προέρχεται) through the Son, having perfect being from the Father Himself, in the same exact way as light is said to be through a ray from the sun, having the sun as the source and cause of its being, as its natural beginning: but at the same time passing and passing (διιόν καὶ προἴόν) and shining through a ray, from which, however, it has neither origin nor existence (ουσίωσις), but only goes (ἥκει) through him, as it is said, - but the beginning of being through him and from him in no way accepts, but (receives it) directly and directly from the sun, from which (accepts this being) the very ray through which the light passes appears” (Sp. Faith. 374-6). What can we say about this vague, helpless, wavering dogmatic thought, which tries to realize itself in physical comparisons, i.e. in the absence of tertium comparationis, explain the unknown through the unknown. Absolutely similar verbosity on the same topic and with the same ambiguity and with the same comparisons, see the treatise “On the Procession of the Holy Spirit” (Christian Reader, 1889, I, 325–6). Here is the general and final conclusion: (ib. 252): “So, the Holy Spirit appears and shines and comes from the Father as from the cause... just as He appears, and comes, and shines from the Son or from the Father through the Son, but from the Son not at all as the cause, whether He will be recognized as such alone or together with the Father, but, proceeding from the Father’s hypostasis, He abides in the Son and accompanies the Word. Passing through Him (προἴόν) without intervening and without origin, it manifests itself and shines eternally. Then it is given to creatures from Him and through Him it is communicated from the Father, being the Spirit of the Father and the Son, the only One of both and of the same glory.” Wed. the final word in the treatise on the procession of the Holy Spirit (Chronicles, 1889, 201 - 352). P. Gregory K. reproduces here the already well-known argument of P. Photius (without reference to it). On the contrary, Gregory of Cyprus says: we condemn those who say “as if the preposition through (διὰ) is everywhere in theology equivalent (ἵσοδύναμος) to the preposition from or from (ἐκ), and therefore insistently assert that it is completely indifferent to say: the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son” (Izl. . St. faith against Veccus, 5, Chr.. 1889, I, 357). “Where did the God-bearing fathers say that God the Father is the author of the Spirit through the Son? Where did they say that the Comforter is descended from the Son and through the Son? Where - that He, the Comforter, has origins from the Father and from the Son? (ib., ii. 362). The one who did this “falsely presented the sayings of the fathers as an insult to the fathers, not retreating even from such atrocities as distorting the text of sayings borrowed from them and distorting the meaning of sayings given in their intact form” (ib.). These include: a) Liber demonstrativus primus, quod non ex Filio, sed ex solo Patre procedit Sp-s S-s; b) L. secundus ex eodem argumento; c) In inseriptiones-epigraphas – I. Vecci (thus, the work of P. Vecci found a critic only a hundred years after its appearance, and about another hundred years later, Vissarion’s anti-criticism appeared on this criticism: Mg. t. 161, col. 137–244). In the same 14th century, such a polemicist was the outstanding writer Cydonius, who also influenced Vissarion: Demetrii Cydonii. Adversus Gregorium Palamam: Mg. t. 154, p. 837–864 (lists up to 20 of Palamas' arguments, with excerpts from it). He also owns “De processione Sp- s S-ti” (col.864–957) with clearly Latin argumentation. Denzingeri Enchiridion., p. 202 and 463. Wed. about this from prof. A. P. Lebedeva. Histor. essays on the state of Byzantium-Eastern. churches from the end of the 11th to the half of the 15th century. M., 1902, ch. I, pp. 1–44. Wed. Pichler. Gesch. der kirchlichen Trennung zwischen Orient und Occident etc. München. 1865.1– II. The sources regarding these debates, as well as the history of the council in general, are not entirely satisfactory. The official minutes, which were kept by secretaries in Latin and Greek, have been lost, and the most important source remains the detailed history of the cathedral in Greek, based on the acts and with excerpts from them, which is included in volume IX of the Harduini collection and in volume 31 of Mansi (we quote from Mansi). Only guesses are made about the identity of the author. These materials are supplemented by a collection of materials collected by the Vatican librarian O. Giustiniani in Latin, and here is finally added the essay of a council participant, the Greek Sylvester Syropulus: “Vera historia unionis non verae inter Graecos et Latinos, sive consilii Florentini exactissima narratio etc” (the author’s tendency is quite clear from the title). Similar in theme, but with the opposite tendency, is the pamphlet of Joseph of Metho: “Apology of the Council of Florence against Marcus Eugenicus” (Mg. s. gr., t. 159), even with service to the council (col. 1095–1105). From the literature we should mention, first of all, Hefele. Die Conciliengeschichte, French. lane L eclercq. Hist. des consiles. t.VII, 2. In Russian, anonymous (Gorsky) “History of the Council of Florence”, M. 1847, brief but documentary, although not entirely impartial. Fromann. Kritische Beitrage zur Geschichte der Florentiner Kirchenvereinigung. Halle, 1872. Wed. History of Flor. Cathedral, pp. 73 – 96. Hefele – Leclercq. I. s. 974· –985. Only in a private meeting between the Greeks did Mark Eugenicus allegedly refer to St. John of Damascus, and the defense of the guilt of the Father alone (East. Flor. collection, 145). John of Ragusa: “insofar as it is said about being from the Father, it is said about His hypostasis, and in so far as it is said about the Son, of course from His hypostasis: but since the nature of the Father and the Son is one and the same, est autem Patris producere, est etiam Filii, ita fu, ut ab uno Spiritus producatur (Mansi, XXXI, 929-30). Let us cite some of the most striking passages of a dogmatic nature from the controversy between Mark Eugenicus and John de Monte Negro. In connection with the question of taxis, Mark Evgenik expressed an interesting idea, which, however, remained undeveloped for him, and therefore stillborn. “The Spirit should not be considered third in number and order, for in the divine persons there is no first, second and third, and not one-two-three, but one and one essence; and since giving birth and producing is not a natural property, but a personal one, then if the Holy Spirit is produced producitur by the Father and the Son, then it will be from two persons, which are already two causes or principles.” John of Ragusa responds to this: “in no case, for we are not talking about two principles and two causes, but precisely about one reason and one beginning. For the Father as Father relates to the Son as the Father of the Son, and the Son relates to the Father as the Son of the Father, and without the existence of the Son it is impossible for Him to be the Father, for this is relative to one another. The Spirit, as the Spirit in itself, does not relate to the Son in the same way as the Father and the Son.... The Spirit must be related ad spirantem, while the spirantes are the Father and the Son, for the Spirit is the Father and the Son. So, they are spirant of the Holy Spirit. una spirativa vel productiva potentia, which productive potency, since it is the same in number, is originally understood as (belonging to) the Father, from whom the Son also has it. And in this sense we say that the Father and the Son are one principle (principium) and one cause of the Holy Spirit” (Mansi, ib. Sessio XXII, 829–832). “In divinity we speak of one beginning and one cause: the Father, the Son through birth, and the Spirit through procession. And since the Father, giving birth timelessly to the Son, also produces the Spirit, the Son receives from the Father both the being and production (producere) of the Spirit not from himself, but from that from which He has His being: on this basis, the Father is the cause of the Spirit primarily and simply; Consequently, there are not two reasons, insofar as everything that the Son has relates to the Father” (831 – 2). John develops this same idea in even more detail at the 24th meeting (in the absence of Mark Eugenicus, Mansi, ib. 881–2): “whoever sends, sends something of his own (ἴδιον - proprium), and from itself is what is sent, as, for example, when a prefect acts by command of the emperor, he does not act from himself, by order of the emperor; so the Son does not produce (producit, ἐκπορεύει) from Himself the Holy Spirit, but from the consubstantial Father, receiving this in His birth, having in Himself Fatherly and natural energy (δύναμιν - virtutem), produces (προβάλλει -producit) Himself The Holy Spirit, not originally (ὑπαρκτικῶς – principaliter), like the Father, for He is the root and source of the Divinity. For the Father is inseparable from essence (ousia), for He Himself is self-essence (αὐτοουσια - ipsessentia), and He is not understood as having an essence distinct from hypostasis: for it is not really (ἐνεργεία - re), and not merely by providence (ἐπινοία - ratione) that distinguishes the Father hypostasis from one's essence. So, the Father is an essential hypostasis (οὐσιώδης ὑπόστασις – substantialis hypostasis) and essentially (οὐσιωδῶς – substantialiter) begets the Son, and the Son is born as an essential hypostasis (οὐσιώδης καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπόστασις), and they are two hypostases, but one God and one nature (φύσις) of both, with which they are inseparably conceived (συνεπινοεῖται intelligitur) and St. Spirit, for Spirit, as Spiritum, should be treated ad spirantem. But since the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, as Scripture testifies, He is also the Spirit of the Son, trace., spirantes - πνέοντες are the Father and the Son. The Son also, in relation to the Father in Divinity, says: I and the Father are one, or: I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or: whoever has seen Me has seen the Father. So, according to the one spiratorial force of two persons or the one producing force (προβλητικὴν - producendi vim), there are not two spirators or two causes (αἰτίαι - causae), but one and the same cause, but, being the same in number, initially (ἀρχοειδῶς - originaliter) is thought of as (proper) the Father, from whom the Son also has it, and by this power (δυνάμει - virtute) the Father and the Son are called one reason, without confusion of persons. For there is a Father - and unborn, a Son - born, for a reason (guilt) Guilty κατὰ τὸ αἴτιὸν αἰτιατὸν; on an equal basis and St. We must give the Spirit some place (τάξιν - ordinem) in relation to the Father and the Son, so that there is no inevitable disorder (ἀταξία - confusio) in the deity (in divinis). Since the Father, giving birth to the Son, communicates this essence (ousia), as far as it is communicated to Him, and the Son receives it from the Father, as far as it is acceptable to Him, He communicates it and the Holy Spirit, as acceptable to Him from the Son himself: for there is one essence from which (καθ' ἥν – secundum quam) one is born, another proceeds. Thus, there is one beginning and cause ἀρχὴ καὶ αἰτια of the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son, and He comes from both. And as the fathers say. The Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son naturally (προιέναι δι’ ϒἱοῦ – φυσικῶς), then the Holy Spirit proceeds (ἔκπορεύεται procedit) from the Father and the Son, and διὰ in this case means both eh." (881 – 882). In support, the testimony of Western fathers is cited (St. Pope Leo V., Gregory Dvoeslov, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine and many others). 1) On Vissarion we have a valuable monograph by A. Sadov in Russian. Vissarion of Nicaea, St. Petersburg, 1883, with an outline of his polemical theology, but also far from exhaustive. 2) In the composition of Vissarion’s works, in the first place should be placed his Oratio dogmatica pro unione, said in one of the meetings of the Greeks during the Council of Florence (it is also in his acts, in Harduini and Mansi, t. 161, pp. 543–612). The most significant of Vissarion's dogmatic works is the epistle to Philanphropinus: de processione Sp- s S- tii, t. 161, p. 318–400. Next comes the already mentioned polemic with Gregory Palamas regarding the Epigraphae of I. Veccus: t. 161 col.–243–288 (9 passages), against the treatise of the monk Maximus Planuda: “De processione Sp-s S-ti (t. 161, pp. 309–317). Finally, a polemical treatise against the work of Mark Eugenicus on the journey of the Holy Spirit, inscribed with the name of George Scholarius in the first part (chap. 1–17, col. 11–138), but in the second part, from the 18th chapter, belonging to Vissarion: col. 137 - 144. (By the way, this George Scholarius was at the Florence Council, together with Vissarion, an ardent supporter of the union with the Latins and delivered three exhorting speeches on this topic: Mg. t. 160, col. 385 - 437, 440 - 470 and 476 - 524. He was so at odds with Marcus Eugenicus that there is even an assumption that there was not one, but two different Georges Scholarius, which, however, has no historical confirmation. Having become a monk under the name of Gennady, he became an implacable opponent of the union: for materials about his relationship with Marcus Eugenicus and his mood during the fall of Byzantium, see Mg. t. 160. He was also the first Patriarch of Constantinople under Turkish rule). The Latin treatise of George of Trebizond on the procession of the Holy Spirit (t. 151, pp. 769–828) and his on the same topic on the church (pp. 829–868) also belong to the same era, as does the letter to the Emperor of Trebizond by Gregory Protosinkel, Mamma, Patriarch of Kl, on the legitimacy of the prefix filioque. Of the dogmatic works of Mark Eugenicus, little can be named that deserves attention, except for the work on the procession of the Holy Spirit, which we have only in fragments in the polemical treatise of George Scholarius and Vissarion. Of the material collected in volume 160 of Migne, much of it is historical and theological in nature. Even Patriarch Photius, as noted above, does not have knowledge of Latin patristics, and he apparently did not know the Latin language (cf. Jugie, op. cit. I, 190), which Cardinal Vissarion mastered perfectly. We find the following characteristic judgments on this matter: “if anyone would dare to say that the fathers sometimes contradict themselves or each other, then he should be counted among the infidels and enemies of the cross (Mg. t, 161, p. 552 A). For if the leaders of (our) faith say (oh, absurdity) not the same thing, but some contradict each other, and others even contradict themselves, then our preaching is vain, and our faith is vain, for it is based on their words” (p. 552). So, taking this as a basis, we have the holy men and teachers of the East: Athanasius, Vasily, Gregory and Chrysostom, Cyril and Maxim, Tarasius and the rest of their brotherhood; We also have Westerners: Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Damasus, Gregory, Leo... all are general church teachers, fathers and leaders of the faith. They suffered a lot for the truth in this life, for which they died (physically), however (spiritually) they live not only with God, but also with us - in the writings and teachings they left behind, which should have the force of canons of faith with us and which we should honor and believe on a par with the Divine Scripture” (p. 556); Wed. Sadov, s. 128–9. And just as there are many places in the Holy Scriptures that seem contradictory, but in fact do not contain a contradiction, so one should treat seeming contradictions in paternal writing in the same way. The guiding principle of this patristic exegesis for Vissarion is that it should follow a more complete and clear expression of the same truth, which he naturally found in Western writers. It follows from this that the Eastern fathers in the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit must be understood in the spirit of Western teachers. Accordingly, Marcus Eugenicus, responding to the objection that the Church never professed ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, but ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός, says “what else did (He) say, if not the procession from one Father? For if not from the Son, then it is clear that from the Father alone” (p. 141). This is further confirmed by the reference that “it is not said about the birth of the Son: from the Father alone, and yet this goes without saying.” P[rotosinkel] Gregory Mamma rightly points this out to Marcus Eugenicus, that “the saints (fathers) do not teach ἐκ μόνου, but διὰ, through the Son, and from Both, εξ άμφόίν” (169). Wed. George of Trebizond, a 15th-century humanist who lived in Italy, distinguishes διὰ and ἐκ as relating to the first and second reasons. See his letter to John Kuvoklisius on the procession of the Holy Spirit (Mg. t. 161, col, 792–3). On the contrary, others argue that διὰ and ἐκ are simply identical in meaning when applied to the procession of the Holy Spirit. This is, for example, Gregory Protosinkel (Mamma, later Patriarch of Constantinople) in his letter to the Emperor of Trebizond (approximately 1448 - 50); “the same thing is meant (in expressions) both from the Son and through the Son. Why is it clear to those who want to thoroughly examine the question that where διὰ is used, it is preceded by ἐκ. In the same way, the connecting conjunction also has the preposition from as its antecedent” (Mg. 1.160, col. 241). In this interpretation of διὰ and ἐκ, Vissarion has a predecessor for himself in the person of Kydonius, a Latin polemicist of the 14th century. This writer is responsible for his objections to Gregory Palamas: Demetrii Cydonii. Adversus Gr. Paiamam (Mg. s. gr. t. 154, col. 837–864), as well as the treatise De processione Sp-s Sancti (ib., col. 864–957). Beginning with Cydonius, the influence of Western filioquistic theology with its problematics definitely invades Greek writing, the complete triumph of which we have in Vissarion. The difference between δια and ἐκ is interpreted by Cydonius in such a way that the first refers to the distinction of persons, the second to the identity of the Divine essence in the work of the Holy Spirit (De process. Sp. S-ti, cap. XI, col. 392–3). From the same century we also have Maxi mi Chrysobergi “De processione Sp-s S-t i oratio” (Mg. t. 154, c. 1217–1230). East. Florent. Council, VII, 144–145, 147, 156, etc. In particular, Patriarch Joseph in his opinion directly says that “through the Son means the same as from the Son” (156), and this equality became the guiding principle in the preparation and discussion of the dogmatic formula (159). Decretum pro Graecis, having established the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, adds: id, quod saneti Doctores et Patres dicunt, ex Patre per Filium procedere Spiritum Sanctum, ad hanc inteliigentiam tendit. (Denzingeri, 235, para. 691). Marci Eugen, Capita syllogistica, adv. Latinos (Mg. t. 161, cap. VI, col. 53. 73). In chapter XXIV, Mark proves in detail by logical considerations that to distinguish different things in the world, not opposition, but only difference is required. We have the same thing in divine things: “we do not need opposition to distinguish the Son and the Spirit, as Thomas (Aquinas) believes... different origins - πρόοδος - are sufficient to distinguish them” (col. 193). “The Son and the Spirit, coming from the Father in different ways, differ in the same way from the Father and from each other; from the First as coming from Him, but among themselves, for in a different way, although it is unknown and ineffable to us” (ib.). Vissarion objects to this in the spirit of Latin theology, that “being otherwise identical - ταυτό. The Father and the Son differ only in paternity and sonship, and that these properties alone constitute Their persons, not only according to the Latin “but also our Eastern teachers” (col. 204). Further, Vissarion expounds the usual Latin doctrine that the persons of the Holy Trinity, in particular the Son and the Holy Spirit, for their existence must differ from each other precisely by origin: Father and Son by paternity and sonship. The Spirit is from the Father, as well as from the Son, by walking, spirati ad spiralorem (164). “The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son,” we read in Vissarion’s answer to Plakuda, “is not one and the other, but one and the same. For the Spirit descends from Them, not because They are two and Two, but because They are both one. The Father and the Son are as much two persons as they are one essence, one God. Hence, by one action, as one God, They Both produce the Holy Spirit, also a single and simple being. For the work of one action is one, and the accomplishment is one” (col. 312). “Hearing that the primary cause is the Father, do not think that (having recognized this) we are thereby forced, even against our will, to say that the Son, not being the primary principle, otherwise produces the Spirit. This conclusion would have to be applied to the Son and in His relation to creation and in general to everything that the Son has: for the Son is not the primary cause of creation, so that everything that the Father has paternally and guiltlessly, the Son has filially and causally. And yet He himself (i.e., the Son) is guilt and is the same cause of existence with the Father” (col. 249, cf. Sadov, 141 – 142). Vissarion reasons as follows: “the inherent power of the Father and the Son to send, by which They Both send the Holy Spirit, as our (Greeks) recognize, is one and the same in the Father and the Son, or one and the other. But if one and the other, then, obviously, one will be larger, the other smaller. And therefore the messages will be different. Consequently, They will have more than one strength, more than one power, more than one action. It follows from this that they will be of different essences: for those who have unequal powers will have unequal ἄνισοι and essences, for power is from essence. But this is absurd and blasphemous. Consequently, this power (to send the Spirit) is not one and the other, but one and the same. But in the Father the power to send the Spirit exists in the place with the power to expel Him, for the Father always exhales the Holy Spirit and, exhaling, sends Him. Consequently, the Son sends the Spirit, (possessing) together with the power to exhale, producing Him” (col. 377). “The Son sends the Spirit no differently than the Father, for otherwise He (the Son) would have a different power with the Father. But the Father sends (the Spirit), producing His very face; traces, and the Son sends, producing Him” (p. 269). “It is impossible for the Holy Spirit to flow, pour out, or shine through the Son if the latter does not have existence through Him” (p. 177). In the sense of origin, Vissarion also interprets the fatherly thought that the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son (pp. 256–7, 376. 432). Enchiridion Denzingeri, p. 201, no. 460. Wed. confession of the emperor Michael Paleologus (ib., 202, paragraph 463). Ibid., 243, item 703. To this place Denzinger quotes the following (from the speech of John, the Latin theologian at the Council of Florence): “Est vero secundum Doctores tam Graecos quam Latinos sola relatio quae multiplicative personas in divinis processionibus, quae multiplicative personas in divinis productionibus, quae vocatur relatio originis, ad quam duo tantum spectant: a quo alius et qui ab alio.” This initial, pre-hypostatic impersonalism was expressed in the definition of the IV Lateran Council of 1215 (de errore Abbatis Ioachimi), which confirms, according to Peter of Lombardy, the expression about the Holy Trinity as una quaedam summa res... quae veraciter est Pater et Filius et Sp-s S-s... illa res, videlicet substantia, essentia sive natura divina (Densing. 191, n. 432). Although the “quadrupling” of the Holy Trinity is denied here by highlighting the fourth principle of nature, the identity of the hypostases with nature is established, ut distinctiones sint in personis etunitas in natura, however, it is nature that has ontological and logical primacy. The origin of the Son from the Father is accomplished through the transfer of substance (Suam Substantiam ei dedit, and then Both transfer the same substance to the Holy Spirit, so that all three, having the same substance, “eadem res est” (Compare this with my “Chapters on the Trinity.” Orthodox Thought, II, pp. 76–85). Wed. “Chapters on the Trinity,” excursion: the doctrine of hypostasis and essence in Eastern and Western theology (Orthodox thought, 1, 80–8). Summa theologiae Qu. XL, art II: melius dicitur quod personae seu hypostases distinguantur relationibus quam per originem... personae sunt ipsae relations subsistentes. Qu. XL, art I: proprietates personales sunt idem cum personis ea ratione quod abstractum est idem cum concreto; sunt enim ipsae peisonae subsistentes ui paternitas est ipse Pater, et Filiatio-Filius, et processio – Sp-s S-s. Qu. XXVIII, a. III: oportet, quod in Deo sit realis distinctio, non quidem secundum rem absolutam, quae est essentia, in qua est summa unitas et simplicitas, sed sccundum rem relativam. Fatherhood and sonship are different, but not at all opposite, in a contradictory sense. Otherwise, one can count quite a few such oppositions: fatherhood and motherhood, brotherhood, sisterhood, etc. Strictly speaking, with logical consistency, the relations of birth and procession can be understood as opposites no less than the relations of fatherhood and sonship: in reality, here we have in both cases simply differences that cannot become contradictory opposites, because they have no place at all in the concrete plurality of being. The web of logic of scholastic theology does not stand the test in its own field. True, it is complicated by F[oma] A[quinsky] by the adoption of Boethius’s definition of the person as rationalis naturae, having being in itself esse per se (Qu. XXIX, a. I). However, this definition, which was also unclear in Boethius with his ancient limitations on the question of personality, does not have any further influence on Thomas A’s own deduction. In Schell's most significant, although not orthodox, speculative construction, this leads to the doctrine of the self-substantiation of the Holy Trinity as the Absolute. M. J. Scheeben. Handbuch der katholischen Dogmatik, Erster Band. 1878 (unveränderter Neudruck, 1925). Freiburg i Breisgau. The possibility of such immersion is in fact, of course, excluded by the inseparability and ontological identity of nature and hypostasis. This proposition that hypostases are equal to relations or properties associated with them entails new difficulties and inconsistencies. It turns out that some properties and relationships are hypostasis-forming, while others are not: in the Father, for example, His hypostasis is paternity, but not generation, although both of them are equally inherent in the Father’s hypostasis. Catholic dogmatics avoids the difficulty through a purely scholastic classification of the properties that form the hypostasis and those that do not. Is it necessary to insist that this very definition of the relationship by contrast is also far-fetched: between birth to birth, as between fatherhood and sonship, as between generation and origination. Spirano activa et passive, there is a difference, but not an opposite. The latter can be constructed in a similar way in the common case of dissimilarity. See above. See “Chapters on Trinity” (Orthodox Thought, I), deduction of the absolute subject. Prof. V.V. Bolotov, who takes the category of causality as a matter of course, tries to supplement it with the “God-appropriate” θεοπρεπῶς understood concept of condition, which he relates to the participation of the Son and the emission of the Spirit. Here is an example of one of the many patristic definitions: “St. The Spirit proceeds from the Father as the beginning (ἀρχή)), cause (αἰτία), source (πηγή) of the Divinity (Jounni Damasc. De recta sententia, n. I Contra Man, paragraph 4). To what extent the causal understanding of intra-Trinitarian relations, one might say, has eaten away at scholastic theology not only in the West, but also in the East, can be cited as an example in the judgment of the Kazan prof. Gusev, who in defense of this understanding refers to... Kant: “in vain do the filioquists imagine that the thought of the Son as the co-cause or second cause of the existence of the Spirit contributes to the philosophical understanding of the mystery of the Holy Trinity. This thought only obscures the matter. Kant rightly says that the fundamental law of our reason, without which reason reason itself would not exist, is the law by virtue of which we seek the unity of cause. The teaching of the Orthodox Church about the procession of the Spirit to existence only from the Father coincides with the requirements of this law, while the filioquistic teaching, falling into causal dualism, disagrees with it” (Prof. Gusev. Old Catholic response to our theses on the question of filioque and transubstantiation. Orthodox interlocutor, 1903, II, 328). This doctrine of St. According to Kant, the Trinity only in a caricature form expresses the general bias that turned out to be inevitable in causal problems. This idea is equally unacceptable not only for Catholic, but in fact even for Orthodox theology. This is how the modern Catholic theologian judges (M. Jugie. Theologia dogmatica Christianorum orientalium. t. I. Paris. 1926): Inter personas divinas non potest esse nisi relatio originis (207), and also: im persona una tantum proprietate hypostatica positiva constitui potest (195), why the personal property of the Father “est paternitas, non autem Spiratio " – (196). From this imaginary anti-trinitarian axiom further conclusions can be easily drawn. “Spiritus Sanctus procedit ex Patre aut quatenus est Pater, aut quatenus est Deus. Si prius, Sp-S-s necessario erit Filius, quod est contra Revelationenem; si posterius, tunc procedit etiam ex Filio, quia nullum signum concipi potest quo Pater sit Deus, quo Filius non aeque sit Deus. Proinde aut duo Filii in Trinitate, subverso personarum discrimine, admittendi, aut processio Sp-s S-ti etiam a Filio data est.” Elsewhere: Pater e t Filius non distinguntur inler se nisi relationibus oppositis palenitatis et filiationis; sed non distinguntur relatione spiritationis activae – Pater enim est Pater, non quia spiral, sed quia generat. Filius estFilius, non quia spirat, sed quia a Patre genitus... Hence “communicando esse divinum Spiritui S-to. Pater et Filius in una essentia unaque vi spirativa uniuntur, nec sub hoc respectu distinguntur, quamvis verum sit dicere hanc vim spirativam Patrem a se ipso habere, Filium autem a Patre” (191). This vis spirativa, one for two spirantes in one spirator, Jugie, following other Catholic theologians and not with much reason, likens to the single action of the trinity of God at the creation of the world (194). The well-known misunderstanding between St. Kirill Al. and blessed Theodorite was not motivated by pneumatological, but by Christological differences of opinion. Having established that the filioque is not an impedimentum dirimens dividing East and West, Bolotov poses the question: “What broke the communion of the one Catholic Church? I answer without hesitation: it was dissolved by the Roman papacy.” Wed. in the canon of St. Andrei Kritsky, Thursday, II. 8. glory: “The Father without beginning, the Son without beginning, the good Comforter, the righteous soul.”