On the issue of Filioque

Contents of Diamonds A. Works of prof. V.V. Bolotov on the issue of the Filioque and the controversy about his “Theses on the Filioque” in Russian literature I. Theses on the “Filioque” I. II. III. IV. V.VI. II. Letter to Archbishop Anthony of Finland February 9/10, 1893 III. On the meaning of the order of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity according to the view of the Eastern saints. fathers IV. Abstract proposed at the meeting of the Commission on the Old Catholic Question on January 22, 1893 Brilliantov A. Works of prof. V.V. Bolotov on the issue of Filioque and the controversy about his “Theses on Filioque” in Russian literature 1 Works of Prof. V.V. Bolotov, relating to the issue of ο Filioque, owe their origin to his participation in 1893 in the commission established by decree of the Holy Synod of December 15, 1892 to clarify the conditions and requirements that could form the basis for negotiations with Old Catholics seeking communion with the Orthodox Eastern Church. Being on this commission, the chairman of which was appointed Archbishop of Finland (later Metropolitan of St. Petersburg) Anthony, a member and at the same time a clerk. V.V. Bolotov compiled and himself rewrote all the journals of its meetings in 1893 and also developed a draft report for its Holy Synod, adopted by the commission (June 1). In addition to the issue of Filioque, the consideration of which was specifically entrusted to him and Prof. A.L. Katansky, he provided information in the form of special abstracts, and on other issues discussed in the commission. So he wrote treatises: “Several examples of the attitude of the ancient church to canonically illegal consecrations (on the question of whether the difference between the concepts of “canonical” and “invalid” is acceptable)” (Appendix 2, to the magazine of March 15); “On the issue of unleavened bread” (Appendix 10, to the magazines of April 20 and 27), “Disputes about unleavened bread” (Appendix 11, to the magazine of April 27). The question of the Filioque, after at the first meeting of the commission on January 8, 1893, it was established who should be understood by the Old Catholics and which Old Catholic documents should be considered authoritative when judging the doctrine of the Old Catholics, and at the second meeting on January 15, this name was discussed. the Utrecht announcement of the Old Catholic bishops (1889) on the part of its agreement with Orthodox teaching, 2 further three meetings of the commission were devoted, on January 22 and 29 and February 23. At the meeting on January 22, V.V. Bolotov offered an extensive “information” about the teaching of the Old Catholics regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit according to their authoritative statements of faith, about the results of negotiations with them on this issue at the Bonn conferences of 1874 and 1875, about the works of Russian theologians written to clarify the patristic teaching on this subject, and finally, in general, about the data that can serve to clarification of the question of how to treat the Filioque in the sense of the private opinion of the Old Catholics (a very extensive treatise). 3 At the next meeting on January 29, the abstract of prof. A.L. Katansky, not read at the previous meeting due to lack of time, about the attitude of the Old Catholics to the Eastern and Western teachings about the procession of the Holy Spirit, as this attitude was expressed at the second Bonn conference in 1875, and it was decided, after some other information and comments, to entrust a subcommittee of Prof. A.L. Katansky and V.V. Bolotov, chaired by Archbishop Anthony, to present to a further meeting of the commission “a draft presentation of the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Spirit, which could serve as an answer to the question posed by the Old Catholic movement.” 4 As V.V. Bolotov notes in a letter to the archbishop. Anthony dated February 9/10, in the subcommittee he “radically” disagreed with A.L. Katansky on the issue of Filioque. They were then presented with 27 theses on this subject, with a special introduction to them. According to his assumption, these theses, as well as the opinion of A.L. Katansky 5 could be sent to the members of the commission for review and comments on seemingly dubious points. But this assumption was not realized, and V.V. himself Bolotov, in the German edition of the theses, notes that they were known to only three theologians (except for Archbishop Anthony and A. L. Katansky, one must think, even Protopres. I. L. Yanyshev). At the meeting on February 23, the commission, “taking into account some of the experiments proposed by the subcommission,” formulated and accepted, “as quite accurately expressing the attitude in which the Orthodox Eastern Church stands towards the Old Catholics in the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit,” those provisions that were then included in the commission’s report to the Holy Synod and then communicated to the Old Catholic commission. 6 “Theses on the Filioque,” ​​with introductory remarks to them, now published in first place (I) in a number of works by V.V. Bolotov related to the issue of the Filioque, were thus the result of his work as a member of the said subcommission. This work of V.V. Bolotov was not read at the commission meeting and therefore was not included in its journals. Then in 1898 it was published in a German translation in the Old Catholic journal Revue internationale de Théologie (Internationale theologische Zeitschrift, 24, Heft. S. 681–712) under the title: “Thesen über das “Filioque.” Von einem russischen Theologen”, without indicating the author’s name. At the same time, the author made some changes and additions in the introductory remarks, partly - although to a very insignificant extent - and in the theses itself, and added a special preface written only then for publication. The translation was made by A. A. Kireev. 7 But the final edition of the German text should, undoubtedly, be considered as a whole to belong to V.V. Bolotov himself. In the manuscript of the “preface”, which was intended directly for translation into German, he himself wrote directly in German not only many individual expressions and phrases, but sometimes quite long arguments. 8 “Preface” is now being published about this manuscript, which was once handed over for the purpose of publication by the late A. A. Kireev. To print it in the same form as it was written in the original, which had a special purpose, where the Russian text is constantly interrupted by German words, phrases and long tirades, would, of course, be completely inappropriate, especially since along with it there is also an authorized German text, with some differences from this original made during translation. Everything German in the author’s original is therefore conveyed, if possible, in Russian. But at the same time, in order to make, in order to avoid any misunderstandings, what is in the original available in print, all such lengthy words and phrases, which are replaced in the text by Russian ones during publication, are placed in the notes. The notes also indicate various features of the German translation in comparison with the original text, as well as assumptions made by V.V. Bolotov himself in the margins of the manuscript (in red ink) regarding the possible translation of certain expressions into German. Unlike the notes of V.V. Bolotov himself, these notes made during publication are printed in a smaller font and have a special numbering (without brackets for numbers). For the subsequent “introduction” to the theses and for the theses themselves, the Russian text was available in the form as it was originally written for the subcommittee, in a manuscript found in the papers of V.V. Bolotov. It is also available in a copy once made from this manuscript for the chairman of the commission, Archbishop Anthony, and transferred by him to the commission upon the resumption of its studies in 1903 under the chairmanship of the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Bishop Sergius, now the Archbishop of Finland. In addition, in the papers of St. I. Ya. Yanyshev, transferred to the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, there was another similar copy (which was once, as some marks on it show, in the hands of A. A. Kireev). As was already noted above and as V.V. Bolotov himself points out in his “preface” (S. 681), when publishing in German, some additions to this original text and changes were made in places, namely in the introduction, to a very minor extent and in the theses. When publishing the Russian text, it was therefore necessary to always keep in mind this later authorized German text and, on the basis of it, make appropriate additions and changes in Russian. The notes indicate the differences between both texts, and for passages that appear only in the German edition and were translated from German for this edition, their German original is usually given below the line. An exception in the latter case is made for the V section of the “introduction” (S. 696 - 702), which is not at all in the existing Russian text and which is given entirely in translation from German; reprinting here in actual form the German text would require a lot of space without, perhaps, much need, since those who wish to read this text can find it in the above-mentioned Old Catholic journal. In the text of the theses written by V.V. Bolotov for the subcommittee and in the German edition, there are 27 theses. But in the aforementioned letter from V.V. Bolotov to Archbishop Anthony, the chairman of the commission and together with the subcommission, dated February 9/10, 1893, where he motivates his attitude to the issue of Filioque, 5 more theses were outlined, in the form of a draft. V.V. Bolotov himself attached such importance to two of these theses (29 and 32) that, with the permission of the chairman of the commission, Archbishop Anthony, they were included in the report of the commission to the Synod. 9 This letter was transmitted by Metropolitan Anthony, along with various other documents related to the Old Catholic issue, to Bishop Sergius, now Archbishop of Finland. It is now published following the “Theses” (II). In the papers of St. I. L. Yanyshev, transferred after his death († 1910 June 13) to the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, there was also a treatise written by the hand of V. V. Bolotov himself, which did not have a special title, on the issue of the meaning of order in the naming of the Persons of the Holy Trinity according to the view of the Eastern Fathers, with a detailed analysis of the passage relating to this in the 52nd letter of St. Vasily V. (III). The treatise was written, one must think, precisely at the time when the commission was discussing the issue of the Filioque, i.e. at the beginning of 1893. In it, V.V. Bolotov “justifies his disagreement with the opinion expressed, by the way, at the second Bonn conference by the Greek bishop Gennady (Bishop Argezu), that the names of the Persons of the Holy Trinity “first”, “second”, “third”, have a basis solely in the order of their revelation, and not in their relationships in the inner life of the Divine (cf. V.V. Bolotov’s abstract at the commission meeting: January 22, No. 12, aa). V.V. Bolotov also mentions this disagreement in a letter to the archbishop. Anthony. The treatise is closely related to the Theses on the Filioque, presenting a detailed development of the thoughts expressed at the beginning of the introduction to the Theses. V.V. Bolotov’s extensive abstract on the issue of the Filioque, proposed by him at the commission meeting on January 22 as a “reference”, is printed (IV) as it appears in the original journals of the commission, written by the hand of V.V. Bolotov himself. It is also available in two copies of these journals, one transferred to the commission of Metropolitan. Anthony, the other - found in the papers of Ave. I. L. Yanyshev, who entered the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Given the general importance of the issue of the Filioque, as one of the main differences: between the Orthodox East and the Catholic and Protestant West, V.V. Bolotov’s explanations and conclusions on this issue in the negotiations that began in 1893 on the union of the Old Catholics with the Orthodox Church should have been of particular importance. Adhering to a historical point of view, V.V. Bolotov in his “Theses on the Filioque” found it possible to admit that the Filioque, accepted only as a private opinion, but in no case as a dogma, is not an impedimentum dirimens for establishing church communion between Old Catholics and Orthodox, since it was not it that essentially caused the division of the church (theses 26 and 27). This conclusion was later referred to by the Old Catholic Rotterdam Commission in its second response to the St. Petersburg Commission dated November 19 (NS) 1898, 10 although, as V.V. Bolotov himself notes in the preface to the German edition of the theses, 11 his “sketches” turned out to be at the same time, without any intention on his part, as if a response to some passages in the first “Opinion” Old Catholics 1896 regarding the opinion of the Russian commission of 1893, and he draws attention in this preface, 12 among other things, to the “blatantly unpatristic” (die schreiend unpatristische) naming of the Son as the “secondary cause” of the Holy Spirit in the “Opinion” of the Old Catholics. In Russian literature, during the lively polemics on the Old Catholic issue that sometimes took on a personal and undesirably harsh character, which was conducted between A. A. Kireev and prof. prot. P. Ya. Svetlov, on the one hand, and professors A. F. Gusev and V. A. Kerensky, on the other, one of the main subjects of controversy was the theses of V. V. Bolotov. Objections to them, first in a rather moderate, then sharp form, were made, first of all, during the life of V.V. Bolotov and in the year of his death († 1900 April 5), A.F. Gusev, and the name of the author of the theses was not known to the polemicist at that time. He continued to defend his objections in the future, in polemics with A. A. Kireev and others. P. Ya. Svetlov. His point of view is shared in this case, in general, by V. A. Kerensky, who polemicized with the same opponents. For the first time prof. A. F. Gousev refers to “a kind of practical article by an unknown Russian theologian” in his “Response to the Old Catholic Professor Michaud. On the Question of Filioque and Transubstantiation,” published in the journal “Faith and Reason” at the end of 1898 and the beginning of 1899. 13 Recognizing that this article “in many respects is favorable to old Catholic views and desires, but for that it was apparently written not only by an expert on the matter, but also by someone who wanted to explain it to the best of his ability.” 14 He does not agree in particular with the 7th thesis, that the position: The Holy Spirit comes from the one Father, ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, there is only θεολογούμενον, and not dogma, because it does not have a proper sanctions, - and believes that in the following 8 thesis: “from the position - not disputed by anyone - that the Father is μόνος αἴτιος the only cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit, it follows that the Son is neither the culprit nor the co-author of the existence (ὕ παρξις) of the Holy Spirit," the author "with his own hand completely crosses out” what he just said. 15 In refutation of § 3 with the 7th thesis that St. the fathers speak of the Son: “one of one,” and do not use this expression about the Holy Spirit; he cites a passage from the Holy Spirit. Epiphany in Russian translation: “There is one God the Father and one true God; “There is one true God because from the One there is one Only Begotten Son and one only the Holy Spirit” 16. The order of naming the Persons of the Holy Trinity, according to him, contrary to the opinion of the author (S. 688), only indicates the order of Their revelation. 17 Filioque must be considered one of the most important reasons for the rupture of the Eastern and Western churches. 18 The relatively calm tone of Prof. in this “Response” towards the author of the theses. Gusev turns into a sharp one, after in the July book “Christ. Readings" for 1899. A. A. Kireev published an article: "On the issue of Old Catholicism. My last answer to Professor A.F. Gusev on this issue” 19 and at the same time, a letter from V.V. Bolotov himself was published in the “Revue internationale de Théologie” in French, containing a decisive and rather sharply expressed protest against the general trends and claims of the self-confident polemicist. In the article by A. A. Kireev regarding the Filioque, by the way, it was stated that “the polemic on the issue of the Filioque lost, if not all, then a significant part of its interest after the appearance of the article of the “Russian theologian” “Thesen über das Filioque” (in 24 issue of “Revue”), which, it seems to me, completely exhausts the controversial issue,” 20 excerpts from the Russian text of the “Theses” were given, and a remark was made about the desirability of the appearance of “Theses” in Russian. “It is a pity that the “discourse” of the Russian theologian appeared in such a publication that is inaccessible to our public. If it had been translated into Russian, a lot of wasted paper and ink would have been saved. He should definitely be translated." 21 On the question of confirming the teaching of a Patre solo (thesis 7, § 2, 3), with quotations from the fathers, it was noted that “if such an onus probandi was beyond the power of the great Photius, then my venerable opponent is unlikely to cope with it. It is permissible to think that in this complicated issue the experienced and authoritative pen of the “Russian Theologian” could serve as Prof. Gusev as a saving guide and leader.” 22 A. A. himself Kireev declares his full agreement on the issue of Filioque with the “Russian Theologian”. 23 A small letter addressed to the editor of the journal “Revue internationale de Théologie”, signed “Un Thélogien russe”, 24 was written, one must think, by V.V. Bolotov, at the request of A.A. Kireev, and was generally directed against the claims of Prof. Gusev and “some other Russian theologians” speak in discussions with their opponents on the issues of Filioque and ο transubstantiation on behalf of all Russian Orthodox theologians in general, thus posing as representatives of the Russian Church. The author in particular declares his disagreement with Gusev in his view of the dogmatic meaning of the “District Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs” and the “Orthodox Confession” of Peter Mogila, with which Gusev (in the “Response” of Prof. Michaud) wants to assimilate ecumenical authority almost on a par with Holy Scripture and the dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils, while the Latin connotation (la couleur latine ) in the doctrine of the Eucharist and the first and especially the second document is indisputable. Gusev is also reproached for his characteristic method of criticizing the teaching of the Old Catholic Church, identifying with this teaching the private opinions of some Old Catholic theologians; This is a completely wrong point of view (c'est là une manière de voir absolument fausse), just as the assimilation of universal significance to the documents of individual autocephalous churches is completely wrong (thèse, qui nous parait absolument erronée). Gusev and the theologians of his school, identifying their views with the views of the entire church and accusing those who disagree with themselves of betraying the church, in fact they themselves turn out to be unfaithful to the universal church and the truth, when per las et nefas they want to give predominance to the particular, local and temporary in contrast to the universal and eternal in the church. 25 – The editors of the Revue (Michaud) accompanied this, as they put it, “an excellent letter, so clear in its simplicity and so loyal in its spirit,” with several comments on its part. 26 Prof. Gusev after this, noting in passing already in the article “Jesuit apologies for the filioquistic teaching” (against the Jesuit writings of Astashkov and Livansky), published in “Faith and Church”, 1900, April and May, 27 that the Old Catholic theologians and their Russian like-minded people and defenders hold the same point of view on the Filioque with the Jesuits in a certain respect, that for example. “an unknown supposedly Russian theologian who published in the 24th book. Revue, which is very favorable for Old Catholics, directly repeats in the preface and in the first chapters its usual rational considerations among papist theologians in favor of the Filioque and gives them a very exaggerated importance,” and A. A. Kireev, “an ardent defender of Old Catholic errors on the issue of Filioque and transubstantiation,” “categorically declared his agreement with the nameless “Russian theologian” on the issue of Filioque.” 28 - attacked his opponents with all his might in the extensive pamphlet “False obstinacy in defending the Filioque and in rejecting transubstantiation,” published in Faith and Reason, 1900, May - July. 29 The title itself gives some idea of ​​its tone. Along with A. A. Kireev, the “mysterious “Russian theologian without a name,” who, together with prof. Michaud claims that Prof. Gusev “attacks” the Old Catholics and their defenders, while “this is a deliberate lie,” and he, prof. Gusev, as far as he knows about himself, “never attacked anyone,” but only defended his beliefs from outside attacks; on the contrary, “The Russian theologian without a name, according to the polemicist, himself “was the first to “attack” the Orthodox teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit from one Father, thereby greatly pleasing the Old Catholics and Mr. Kireev and earning all sorts of praise from them for his complicity with them,” and now, “albeit unfoundedly, he gives his voice on the issue of transubstantiation without any challenge from me and thereby gets involved into my polemic with the Old Catholics and Mr. Kireev on a different subject.” 30 “Russian theologian without a name,” together with Kireev and O. Π. I. Svetlov, “with their strange views they exclude themselves from the host of Orthodox theologians, even if they imagine that they are representatives of some supposedly progressive “type of theological thought” in Orthodoxy.” “This “theologian,” wanting to defend the Filioque as a theological opinion, himself inflicts a crushing blow on it with those self-contradictions in which he is hopelessly confused. What kind of theologian is this?!...” 31 Finding this theologian’s presentation of his views inaccurate, Gusev thinks that “one can even doubt whether he is really a Russian theologian and whether he even knows the Russian language.” 32 What prof. Michaud and the unnamed Russian theologian “completely evaded” the analysis of the arguments presented by the polemicist, which he explains by the lack of “the necessary scientific and theological means for this.” 33 In response to the recommendation of A.A. Kireev’s article by the Russian theologian as a guide for Gusev himself and to the statement about the desirability of publishing it in Russian, Gusev says that he, however, finds “even now, despite his strange letter against me, which dissuaded the attentive reader of his true love and competence, he defends the Filioque as a theological opinion more effectively not only than Mr. Kireev, but also all the Old Catholic theologians taken together and tried to defend it false teaching. Nevertheless, it is a sin to call a Russian theologian without a name an authoritative person and in bad faith to attach a decisive importance to his article and to recommend its author to me as a “saving pointer and guide,” when this “theologian” was unable to logically connect his own thoughts on the issue of the Filioque, when he generally said quite a few strange things, and when I was forced to teach him some lessons in logic and correct the errors of his article, and Mr. Kireev was and is unable, however, to support him in any way. As for the translation of the article of the mysterious “Russian Theologian” into Russian, it could, even more than the articles of Mr. Kireev, confuse readers who are less knowledgeable in theology and, perhaps, even favor some of them in favor of the false teaching about the relationship of the Son of God to the Holy Spirit.” 34 Prof. Gusev polemicizes, among other things, against the opinion that the Son is, although not a co-cause or second cause, but a condition for the “unconditional” procession of the Holy Spirit, 35 against the recognition of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός only for theologumen, 36 against the assertion that it was not the Filioque that divided church and that communication between the Eastern and Western Church continued to exist when in the last Filioque it was already recognized as a dogma. 37 By the end of 1900, prof. Gusev, at the request of Rev. I. L. Yanyshev, compiled “Theses on the issue of Filioque and transubstantiation,” which summarizes what he had previously said on these issues (in six works). The theses were published in the January book of the Orthodox Interlocutor for 1901; 38 in a translation into German, edited by I. L. Yanyshev, they were sent to the Old Catholics. The issue of the Filioque, out of 55 theses, is addressed here in theses 6–25 and some of them are directed directly against the theses of the Russian theologian (for example, thesis 13, end, against 7; 14 against 7, § 3; 18 against 8, § 1; 19–20 against 5: 25 against 26; the author substantiates the 15th thesis with reference to the introduction to the theses, Revue, No. 24, S. 699). After the Old Catholics (Bishop Weber) published their response to these theses in their journal in 1902, under the title “Nochmals zur Verständigung,” 39 Gusev responded to it with an extensive article in the “Orthodox Interlocutor” for 1903: “The Old Catholic response to our theses on the question of the Filioque and transubstantiation.” 40 He mentioned here an article by “a certain “Russian theologian”, in which he, defending the filioquistic view and at the same time being forced to soften it, called the Son of God not a co-cause or second cause, but a “condition” for the procession of the Holy Spirit into being,” and declaring that the reference to Mill’s logic made by Gusev himself in his 18th thesis “was amazing, if that is possible.” to express, to the very heart, a newly invented formula of the filioquistic view, capable of bribing ignorant minds in its favor with its apparent innocence,” in a note he reports that he “subsequently, to his great amazement, learned that by “Russian theologian” one must mean V. V. Bolotov, as reported in the newspapers.” 41 Finally, his article, which appeared shortly before the death of A. F. Gusev († 1904 July 8), contains a statement about the new references of A. A. Kireev in 1903 and 1904. 42 on the theses of V.V. Bolotov, as “irrefutably clearly” proving the admissibility of the Filioque as a theological opinion - that “Kireev, for the sake of his party goals, kept silent about the fact that I had already refuted Bolotov’s thought, and the latter in his answer to me did not prove in the slightest that he was right”, that he “has long since considered and refuted Bolotov’s theses and arguments, partly on the basis of even his own words” (in response Michaud). 43 According to Prof. Gusev’s “Theses” by V.V. Bolotov was joined in general by prof. V. A. Kerensky, although in 1897 he, refuting the incorrect statement of the Old Catholic Commission in its “Opinion” of 1896, that the recognition of the Son as the “secondary cause” of the Holy Spirit was “the usual teaching of the fathers in the East always, and in the West until Augustine,” did not deny “a certain amount of justice behind the filioquistic idea defended by the Old Catholics in the sense of private opinion procession of the Holy Spirit,” 44 and even admitted that “there are, although few, among the teachers of the Eastern Church those who use the expression - τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐκπορεύεται δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ in the sense of the causal dependence of the Holy Spirit on the Son according to being", e.g. Origen and Didymus. 45 In 1903, A. A. Kireev, in the article: “Old Catholics and the Ecumenical Church”, in the “Church Bulletin”, referred to V. V. Bolotov that he “irrefutably clearly proved in his study of the Filioque that, since it is not a dogma, but only theologumen, it can no longer be considered as an “impedimentum dirimens” in the matter of uniting churches; and Bolotov’s authority, of course, is great enough to make further debate about the Filioque completely unnecessary.” 46 V. A. Kerensky in the article: “Who is to blame? (On the Old Catholic question. - Regarding the brochure by A. A. Kireev: Old Catholics and the Universal Church. St. Petersburg. 1903)”, in “Christ. Readings" for the same year, disagreeing with this, he noted that he, of course, does not want to "humiliate the scientific authority of such an outstanding personality as the late V.V. Bolotov," but it "seems strange to him that his article, about which he himself declared that it expresses “only his personal opinion,” is given some kind of infallibly authoritative meaning." 47 In “Response to Prof. V. A. Kerensky" in the "Theological Bulletin", 1904, A. A. Kireev then explained that, of course, the article. V.V. Bolotova expresses his private opinion, as the author himself speaks about it in it, but one must keep in mind precisely the objective scientific significance of this article: Bolotov “always speaks very definitely, precisely, so to speak, “documentarily.” Α when I wrote, and even printed, it was of course quite deliberate; a saying can be applied to his writings: what is written with (his) pen cannot be cut down with an axe!” Having cited from the article the distinction made by V.V. Bolotov between dogma and theologumene and drawing the attention of his opponent to some theses (1, 7, 20, 25–27), A.A. Kireev notes about them that “Their strength and significance lie not in the fact that they came from the pen of a first-class Russian scientist, but in their internal objective meaning. 48 In the new article: “On the Old Catholic Question. Regarding the answer of A. A. Kireev. Theologian Vestn. 1904 March. Page 522–545”, published again in “Christ. Readings,” 1904 49, V. A. Kerensky expressed that “still paying due respect to the learning and talent of the late professor, considering him such a great figure, the equal of which is difficult to find in recent times even in the Western theological world,” he “still still insists on the position that his judgments on the issue under consideration, expressed in theses, cannot have an unconditional decisive significance. Contrary to the assertions of my critic, I am sure that next to the unconditional provisions in V.V. Bolotov’s theses there are provisions that require reservations.” 50 Recognizing the indisputable statement that “Filioque in the sense of representing the causeless mediation of the Son of God in the act of the procession of the Holy Spirit, since this mediation is expressed in the formula: Holy Spirit.” ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς διὰ τοῦ ϒ ὶοῦ ἐκπορεύεται , existed undoubtedly in the ancient church as a private opinion” (theses 2 and 3), and believing that as a private opinion it “did not can be considered as an impedimentum dirimens for the restoration of interkommunion between the Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholic Churches" (thesis 27), agreeing that the Western teaching of ο Filioque "even as a private opinion cannot be placed on the same level with the Eastern expression δὶ ϒ ὶοῦ" (thesis 14–18), V. A. Kerensky, at the same time, referring to the answer of A. E. Gusev to prof. Michaud, like Gusev, does not agree with the 7th thesis and thinks that this thesis is in conflict with the following 8th thesis. According to him, the expression that the Son of God is born ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός does not have any conciliar sanction, and no one doubts this. The indication of the order of origin of the second and third Persons of the Holy Trinity is only a philosophical assumption, next to which another philosophical idea existed in ancient times (reference is made to the article by Prof. A. L. Katansky in “Christ. Reader” 1893). 51 Ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός in relation to the Holy Spirit. (thesis 7, § 2, 3) can be confirmed in places from St. Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius of Cyprus and Michael Sincellus, and a number of other places of equal meaning. 52 Thesis 26 arouses bewilderment in the author. 53 Prof. admitted this “attempt was completely unsuccessful.” Kerensky to shake the decisive significance of the famous work of Prof. in the old Catholic question. Bolotov on the issue of Filioque, which, in all fairness, was highly valued by Old Catholic scholars and A. A. Kireev,” prof. prot. P. Ya. Svetlov in his extensive article: “The Old Catholic Question in the Spiritual Press for 1904. On the question of the unification of churches and on the doctrine of the Church,” in “Theological. Vestnik,” 1905, 54, who had previously stated that the literary dispute about the Filioque, as well as about transubstantiation, should be considered settled in favor of Old Catholicism. 55 Pointing out that Kerensky himself “remains in full force, for example, theses II, III, XXVII, which are undoubtedly of decisive importance,” the author does not agree with Kerensky’s criticism of the 7th thesis that the position: The Holy Spirit comes from God the Father alone - ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, there is only theologum, and not a dogma, as not having the sanction of the Ecumenical Council, since Kerensky, instead of indicating church sanction, resorts only to speculation, to the conclusion of this “dogma” from the 8th thesis, meanwhile, in the opinion of Archpriest. P. Ya. Svetlova, we, and even the indisputable position that the Son is born ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός, do not have the right to pass off in this particular form as a dogma without church sanction. As for the quotes cited by Kerensky, in the words of St. There is no Gregory of Nyssa expression ἐκ μονού τοῦ Πατρός, Michael Sincellus lived already in the 9th century, when the controversy ο Filioque was already underway and was in its midst; the reference to Epiphanius P.Ya. Svetlov, according to him, could not check due to the lack of Min’s patrol at hand at the moment; other places indicated by Kerensky, in the author’s opinion, do not refute the old Catholic understanding of the Filioque. The objection to the 26th thesis is based, among other things, on Kerensky’s unclear distinction between cause and occasion, pretext; in addition, in order to shake him, it would be necessary to refute theses 20 and 25. 56 Answering Rev. P. Ya. Svetlov with an article in “The Wanderer”, 1906: “Old Catholicism under the protection of ο. P. Ya. Svetlov”, 57 V. A. Kerensky, continuing to consider V. V. Bolotov’s 7th and 8th theses mutually contradictory, especially criticizes P. Ya. Svetlov’s statement that the expression: “The Son of God is born only from God the Father alone,” in this form does not have dogmatic meaning, since there is no direct conciliar sanction for it. Just as a special sanction is not needed for this position to be a dogma, so with regard to the Holy Spirit, if the position that God the Father is the only source of the existence of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit is recognized as a dogma, one cannot help but consider as a dogma, and not a theologum, only the position that the Holy Spirit comes from God the Father alone. 58 Gregory of Nyssa, if not in letter, then in meaning, contains the same thing that is expressed by the words ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός; Michael Sinkell's testimony does not lose value simply because he lived in the midst of controversy on this issue. 59 That the division of churches was carried out not only by papal dogma, but also by the doctrine of the Filioque, this was proven, according to the author, by references to documents from the time of division - to Photius, the council of 879, Michael Cerullarius, Peter of Antioch. 60 The author does not mention theses 20 and 25. In connection with the critical attitude of V. A. Kerensky to the “Theses” of V. V. Bolotov, by the way, to a certain extent, he has the same attitude towards the opinions of the St. Petersburg commission on the Old Catholic issue on this point, stated in his later essay: “What divided and divides the Eastern Orthodox and Western Old Catholic churches?”, in “Faith and Reason” for 1909. 61 Seeing a contradiction between the 7th and 8th theses of V.V. Bolotov, V.A. Kerensky, accordingly, wants to see in the provisions of the St. Petersburg commission on the Filioque of 1893 (edited by V.V. Bolotov) 62 “some incomprehensible hesitation of theological judgments on the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit,” precisely the contradiction between the statement that “the only source in the inner life of the Divine The hypostases are God the Father and that consequently (according to V.A. Kerensky) God the Son cannot take any part in the act of the procession of the Holy Spirit” (propositions 1 and 2), and allowing for the possibility of understanding the view of the radiance of the Holy One found among some church fathers. The Spirit through the Son “in the sense of the participation of the Second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity in the act of the procession of the Holy Spirit” (position 3), 63 i.e., as if, as V. A. Kerensky explains, in the sense of the participation of the Son “as a secondary cause.” 64 This hesitation, which the members of the Dutch commission took advantage of in their response in their own views, is no longer there, according to him, in the second opinion of the Russian commission in 1897, 65 where the members of this commission already “renounce their previous thoughts about freedom of theological speculation” in revealing the truth of unity of command in the internal life of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. 66 In the third opinion of the Russian commission on the issue of the Filioque of 1907, 67 the author again finds both a contradiction to the previous opinion and internal “instability”, since the Eastern theologumene is recognized here about the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son (διὰ τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ), and this expression is understood in the sense of indicating the Son as a condition, but not as the productive cause of the Holy Spirit in His hypostatic existence, and at the same time it is affirmed that the only cause of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit is God the Father; “condition”, according to V. A. Kerensky, is the same as “secondary cause”. 68 To prove that the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς was a “universal teaching”, passages from St. Gregory of Nyssa and Epiphanius of Cyprus. 69 It should be noted that while polemicizing against V.V. Bolotov and against the St. Petersburg commission, exploring, in general, in his argumentation for prof. Gusev, V.A. Kerensky admits that Gusev himself found even less stability in his reasoning about the Filioque than the St. Petersburg commission, and admitted, next to the indisputably correct, certainly false positions, when, for example, he proved the untenable idea that the teachings of the Filioque were not at all in patristic writing, and then had to declare that he does not recognize Bl. Augustine is not only a father, but also a teacher of the church, or recognizes, but “not in everything.” 70 V.V. Bolotov’s point of view on the issue of Filioque and his attitude to this issue have already been quite clearly expressed in his “Theses”. Other related documents now published together with the Theses further clarify his view and complement the argumentation presented in the Theses. From the “Theses” itself one can see how fair the accusation of Prof. Gusev, the author of them, in defense of the filioquistic view for allowing him the possibility for Old Catholics to adhere to the Filioque as a private opinion, in view of their references to the bl. Augustine and the fathers of the Western Church following Augustine in this matter, for recognizing the formula ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς only theologumenon, and for understanding the Eastern teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit διὰ τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ “in the sense of indicating the eternal relations of divine Persons, far from being similar to the meaning of the Western Filioque. In fact, despite the lenient, within certain limits and under certain conditions, attitude of V.V. Bolotov to the Western Filioque, since it is the latter that does not pretend to be anything more than a private theological opinion, his treatise on this subject is, at the same time, with its objective scientific historical character, one of the most convincing refutations of this distinctive feature of Western religious systems, since the Filioque appears in them with dogmatic significance. The main provisions he reveals in his article are such that agreement with them should prevent undesirable, even possible, conclusions from Augustine’s Filioque, make it, so to speak, harmless, as a private opinion, in a dogmatic sense, and bring it more or less closer to the Eastern view. Prof. could not help but appreciate the significance of his argument against Filioque. Gusev; he only wanted to use this argumentation to refute V.V. Bolotov himself, thinking to find in him a contradiction with himself. The bewilderment of the critics of V.V. Bolotov, as can be seen from their objections above, is caused mainly by the 7th thesis, where the position that the Holy Spirit ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται is recognized only as a theologumene, and not as a dogma, since in this form it does not even have the sanction that can be indicated for δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ. Critics see a contradiction between this statement and the statement made in the further 8th thesis that “from the undisputed position about the Father as the only cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit, it follows that the Son is neither the author nor the co-author of the existence (ὕ παρξις) of the Holy Spirit.” But in this case, it is necessary to pay attention to V.V. Bolotov’s explanation of the 8th thesis (§ 2), that “patristically” this thesis can be proven “only in a negative way,” and precisely because “Augustine’s view was not the subject of discussion among the Greek saints. fathers and they naturally did not give a special antithesis answer.” It is obvious that only if the position of ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς, a solo Patre, had received in ancient times a very definite sanction of an ecumenical council, would it have been completely impossible to adhere to the Augustinian teaching without directly incurring accusations of heresy. If bl. Augustine once found it possible to express his opinion and the entire Christian West followed him, without implying in his opinion disagreement with the faithful and established teaching, the special official sanction of the universal church for the formula ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς can hardly be considered completely unnecessary in order for this formula to become, Of course, for everyone, a mandatory expression of the dogma, no matter how clear the logical conclusions confirming this formula may seem, from a certain point of view and under the condition of accepting certain premises. Therefore, V.V. Bolotov sees only theologum, and not dogma, in ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς. References to the authority of individual ancient theologians would be insufficient in this case precisely because they, on the other hand, could be contrasted with the very high authority of Augustine and other representatives of the ancient Western Church who accepted his opinion. 71 By the way, the attempt of A.F. Gusev and V.A. Kerensky to find a refutation of thesis 7, § 2, 3, in church literature before the 9th century cannot be considered as achieving its goal. places in individual writers that directly confirm the formula ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς. A passage from the work of St. Gregory of Nyssa Πρὸς Ἕ λληνας ἐκ τῶν κοινῶν ἐννοιῶν 72 as was already noted by Fr. P. Ya. Svetlov, does not literally contain this expression. As for the reference to its meaning, it is known that it is Gregory of Nyssa, in the work Περὶ τοῦ μὴ ε ἶ ναι τρεῖς θεούς, 73 that has a reasoning of a completely different, directly opposite nature (discussed by V.V. Bolotov in the introduction to “Theses” does not lead to the goal and the reference to Ἀγκυρωτος of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, since in the quoted place “ὲκ μόνου”, as can be seen from the Greek text, refers only to ὁ μονογενὴς, and the logical emphasis in in this place it is generally done not on ἐκ μόνου, but on μόνος and μόνον 74. As for the very content of Augustinian views, t ο Β. V. Bolotov, as he explains this in a letter to the archbishop. Anthony on February 9/10, 1893, considering the eastern δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ to express the eternal relations of divine Persons, he found that it would be correct to recognize in view of this the unity of the soil of Augustinianism and the patristic δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ, resolutely challenging the identity - so to speak - of the very flowers, on this common soil, grown on West and East." In his opinion, through this, “Eastern teaching would be protected from being reinterpreted in the sense of Augustinianism,” and “the grave statement that there is not and never has been any shadow of truth in the Western form of view would not be accepted.” Therefore, he considered it possible to treat the Augustinian Filioque with condescension, if only it is expressed “without Vatican confidence, with the Augustinian unpretentiousness of a private - perhaps infallible - opinion” (“infallible” - according to the judgment of those who hold it). V. A. Kerensky’s critical attitude towards V. V.’s “Theses” Bolotov is transferred, as noted above, to the opinions of the St. Petersburg commission on the issue of Filioque. But if he wants to see an internal contradiction, supposedly, already in its very first opinion of 1893, and it supposedly disappears in the opinion of 1897 and appears again in the opinion of 1907, then this accusation is based only on his arbitrary assimilation of the 3rd provision of the commission in the opinion of 1893 - on the admissibility of the view of the eternal shining of the Spirit through the Son - the meaning of which it does not actually have at all and which is directly and decisively rejected in provisions 1 and 2, namely, as if in this shining through the Son one can see an indication of the Son as the “secondary cause” of the Holy Spirit. It would be possible to object to the 3rd position of the commission only on the basis of the assumption that all the patristic passages about the shining of the Holy Spirit through the Son must be attributed to His temporary message, but this would require something more thorough than what Prof. tried to give. Gusev, refutations of the 3rd and 4th theses of V.V. Bolotov. It is not difficult to verify that the second opinion of the St. Petersburg commission, 1897, in essence, completely agrees in the section on the Filioque with the first and only repeats it in a slightly different form, in view of the Rotterdam commission’s evasion of an affirmative answer to the first opinion and in view of the Old Catholics’ use of the name of the Son “secondary cause or co-cause” of the Holy Spirit, despite the direct rejection of this name in the first opinion of the St. Petersburg commission; It also speaks of the possibility of relating the patristic views about the shining of the Holy Spirit through the Son to the eternal life of the Divine, with precisely the limitation that was indicated in the 1st and 2nd provisions of the first opinion (about παρξις in paragraph 5 of the opinion of 1897, cf. thesis 8 of V.V. Bolotov). The disagreement of V. A. Kerensky, following prof. Gusev, with the distinction made by V.V. Bolotov between “condition” and “reason” (thesis 8, § 1), is mainly determined by his critical attitude towards the third opinion of the St. Petersburg commission on the issue of Filioque. But one can hardly recognize this disagreement as having serious grounds. THE FOLLOWING pages offer for the benefit of sympathetic readers the private opinion of an individual. 76 They were translated from a Russian manuscript, which was not even intended for publication and the contents of which were still known - if I’m not mistaken - only to three Russian theologians 77. These sketches (with the exception of only a few pages altered 78 ad hoc) are in the form in which they were written several years ago. At that time, I could not know about the content of the conclusions that the St. Petersburg Commission came to in 1893. Consequently, I could not even think about any polemic against the “Opinion” of the Rotterdam Commission of 1896. 79 And if my sketches contain, as it were, a response to some lines of the “Opinion,” then it turns out completely unintentionally. In the interests of better understanding of our mutual position, I will allow myself here to speak in more detail about some points. The Rotterdam Commission finds that the St. Petersburg Commission apparently “does not distinguish dogma sharply enough from theological opinion.” 80 If we assume that this remark is addressed to all Russian theologians, and that, therefore, I, as one of them, 81 have the right to vote here, 82 then I would find that this reproach is unfair. In reality, the situation is completely different 83: Old Catholics strictly distinguish between a) dogma and b) theological opinion: but I personally 84 distinguish (and I dare to hope that some other Russian theologians, when these lines become known to them from the Revue Internationale de Théologie, will not see any fundamental reasons to disagree with me): a) dogma, b) θεολογούμεν about ν 85 and c) theological opinion 86. A. Regarding what dogma is, there is not and there should not be any disagreement between us and the Old Catholics. Q. But they may ask me what I mean by θεολογούμεν about ν. In its essence, this is the same theological opinion, but only the opinion of those who for every Catholic are more than just theologians: these are the theological opinions of the holy fathers of the one undivided church; these are the opinions of those men 88, among whom are those who are worthily called “teachers of the universe,” οὶ διδάσκαλοι τῆς οἰκουμένης 89. I place Θεολογούμενα highly, 90 but in any case I do not exaggerate their significance, and I think that I “quite sharply” 91 distinguish them from dogma. The content of the dogma is true 92: the content of θεολογούμε vov'a 93 is only probable 94. The area of ​​dogma is necessaria, the area of ​​θεολογούμενον᾿ and 95 – dubiä In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas! No one who understands the matter 96 has the power to forbid me - as my private theological opinion 97 - to adhere to the θεολογούμενον᾿ a expressed by at least one of the church fathers, unless it is proven that a competent church court has already recognized this view as erroneous 98 . But, on the other hand, no one who understands the matter has the power to demand from me that I, as my private theological opinion 99, follow 100 θεολογούμενον᾿ in 101, expressed by some church fathers, since this θεολογούμενον captivates me with its sublime theological beauty, does not conquer me - accessible to my understanding - with the sovereign power of its argumentation. One thing, in this case, is clear to me: if I myself do not adhere to this θεολογούμενον᾿α, I still have no right to condemn those who follow it. And if, due to 103 circumstances, I am forced to discuss this θεολογούμε vov'a 104, and then I will behave respectfully 105, with reverence befitting the authority of 106 Sts. fathers. One church father or many 107 followed this θεολογούμε vov 'y, this question cannot be of significant importance, but for me it is far from indifferent. Each of the holy fathers of the Church had the moral right to say about himself, together with the Apostle Paul: “I think that I also have the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 7:40) 108. And if a whole host of such bearers of a high religious spirit adhere to a certain θεολογούμενον 109, then the subjective confidence grows in me that I too am standing on solid ground, that this probable is extremely probable, 2 that it is very close to the true. But of course θεολογούμενον, even the most widespread one, is not a dogma. S. From θεολογούμενα I distinguish “quite sharply” 110, perhaps even too sharply 111, theological opinions 112. The main distinguishing feature of the latter is their lack of authority. These are only the private opinions of those who, in my eyes, are nothing more than theologians. And I, as a theologian, licet indignus, must, as a matter of principle, look at theologians as my pares. If I accept, as my private opinion, the theological opinion of Thomas Aquinas, Petavius, Perrone 114, then I do this on the same basis on which I agree with the position 2 x 2 = 4: for me it is not at all important that the great Pythagoras thought so; I myself also find that 2 x 2 = 4 and could not even think otherwise, and this last point - subjective - is decisive for me. – If the reasons given in favor of a theological opinion 115 do not convince me, then I simply reject it, and, if circumstances require, I will criticize it pietätlos, even mercilessly, if only I have enough critical insight for this. The other side of the matter is more important. In choosing my private theological opinions 116 I am free, but not unconditionally. The limit of my freedom is the mandatory requirement that these private opinions of mine 117 do not contradict dogma. If I choose my private theological opinions in the circle of patristic θεολογούμενα, I place myself ipso facto beyond any suspicion of contradiction with dogma. No one who understands the matter will even require proof of this from me. Contradictory to the dogma θεολογούμενον of the Father of the Church sounds to the catholic’s ear as the most blatant contradictio in adjecto, as for example. "dark light" 118. On the contrary, 119 if I choose my private opinions 120 only from the circle of theological opinions, 121 I answer for them as for my own guesses, 122 and it lies on me onus probandi that, by reasoning this way, 123 I do not contradict dogma. That is why it seems important that when discussing the mystery of the Holy Trinity, theologians do not stray from the relatively solid ground of patristic θεολογοόμενα onto the shaky ground of theological opinions 124, so that even as formulas they adhere to patristic sayings 125. It is difficult to believe in the practical feasibility of the theoretically and fundamentally undisputed possibility of “improving” the patristic heritage 126: where do we have the resources for such an improvement? As I understand the content of the θεολογούμεν᾿ and the church fathers about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ 127, it is set out in my first note, which is a prerequisite instead of an introduction to my theses 128. In nuce, my view is stated in a long note on page 48. 129 To the reader who feels embarrassed by some of the too realistic colors in my reasoning, I allow myself to answer: let him suggest that the painter paint the image of the most holy, essential Trinity only with the help of immaterial, uncreated colors. Psychologically, the given is the theologian's palette. And to make my point clear, in contrast to the usual Western termini technici, I note that, as I understand it, a glass window is not the cause, even if only a secondary one, of sunlight in a room, but is a necessary condition. There is no reason: this is proven without further ado by the fact that on autumn nights it can be completely dark even under the glass roofs of photographic studios. For only the cause acts: the condition is completely unproductive. And the Holy Spirit eternally shines through the Son 130. Both theological opinions and θεολογούμενα 131 constitute, in essence, a luxury, not a necessity. If the mental life of a person consisted only of the processes of logical thinking, we would probably be content with only dogma: it would be enough for us to know only the true, we could easily abandon the probable 132. But a person sometimes prefers a less precise 133 but aesthetically ordered idea of ​​a fact to a completely accurate concept of it. Mathematicians know the geometric and as an empirically comprehended quantity quite accurately, 134 they can without any difficulty express this π through a twenty-digit number or a twenty-digit logarithm 135 ; however, the history of mathematics pronounces with honor the names of Wallis and Leibniz. Machin 136, who proposed formulas for calculating approximate values ​​of π 137. The same thing is observed in the history of astronomy: they are not content with a fairly accurate knowledge of the distances of the planets from the sun: Titius, Wurm find simple rules for calculating these distances, establishing series of numbers that, although rather inaccurate, express the progression of these distances more simply, more clearly, and even more elegantly from an aesthetic point of view 138 . Is it surprising that theology knows, next to dogma, also θεολογούμενα and theological opinions? 139 Simple natures 140 are of course content with dogma, that is, true knowledge of the basic facts of faith 141; but more inquisitive minds want to at least get closer to Quomodo’s probable understanding of these facts 142. Until now, what separates us and the Old Catholics is more a potential than an actual difference in attitudes towards θεολογούμενα. We and they 143 stand at different stages of cultural life. Among us 144 very many people still do not feel the need to have, next to dogma, another θεολογούμενα or private theological opinions 145 ; on the contrary, among the Old Catholics theological opinions 146 have already been developed. But this potential difference will turn into actual 147 if we, Russians, in the future (as we hope) remain worthy of our past, remain unswervingly faithful to our cultural historical principles: and our theological science will then develop its own definite theological opinions 148 based on the θεολογούμενα of the fathers of the Eastern Church 149 . Meanwhile, the basis of the current theological opinion of 150 Old Catholics is a purely Western θεολογούμενον blessedness. Augustine 151. This is the difficulty of the situation! What will be the outcome of it? Perhaps I should now write only the words: religiosum est divinari 152. But in any case, false steps are not desirable, and perhaps a friendly “schiedlich friedlich” is not the worst modus agendi to avoid them 153. In the short history of our relations, unfortunately, the crappy word “concession” 154 was already uttered. But the one from whom “concessions” are expected either does not have the right to concede or does not have the right to demand... And of course, no commonplaces that obscure the truth, no reinterpretations of the exact meaning of certain opinions 156. The attempt of the Russians in Augustine to find only θεολογούμενον of the Eastern Fathers of the Church 157 would not promise much good; but I also doubt anyone’s scientific right to portray the Eastern fathers only as Augustine’s predecessors, so in Augustino patet, quod in orientalibuis latet. I think that Russian theologians will never agree with the view that Augustine’s teaching is the completion, or “crowning of the building,” of the fathers of the Eastern Church 158. How many people believe this even in the West? Is it possible to dispute that Augustine was not an expert in the teachings of the Eastern Church Fathers 159? Let him be a deep thinker; but doesn’t he stand in history as an isolated quantity? And isn’t Augustinian θεολογούμενον 160 more like φιλοσοφούμενον 161? The cornerstone concepts 162 of the eastern θεολογούμενον 163: Πατὴρ, ϒ ἱὸς – Λόγος, Πνεῦμα are taken literally 164 from St. Scriptures: can this be said of Augustine’s 165 “mens ipsa, notitia mentis, amur – memoria, intelligentia, voluntas”? The Greek fathers and Augustine 166 followed their own independent paths in theology and came to two not at all identical θεολογούμενονα. There should be no talk of Augustinian hegemony in speculation about the Holy Trinity 167 . One more last word. Regarding my thesis 26 168 I may be asked: what broke the communion 169 of the united Catholic Church? I answer without hesitation 170: It was dissolved by the Roman papacy, this old hereditary enemy of the Catholic Church, one must think - an enemy even until the very last times, which will only cease to exist when the last enemy - death 171 - is abolished. Introduction to the following theses 172 In the following lines I allow myself to express 173 my idea of those images through which St. the fathers bring the mystery of the existence of the Holy Spirit closer to human understanding. First of all, two general caveats: 1. The hypostases of the Holy Trinity differ from each other only by τῷ τρόπ ῳ τῆς ὐπάρξεως, causal relationships, like αἴτιον - αἰτιατά. The relationship of cause, τὸ αἴτιον, and effect, τὸ αῖτιατόν, is a logical relationship, by which the cause precedes the effect, is prius in relation to it. But man cannot free himself from the conditions of space and time. Consequently, the logical prius in human thinking, as a psychological fact, inevitably turns into a chronological prius: a person thinks first (in time earlier) about the cause, then about the effect. Therefore, the metaphysical property of God’s being, eternity - timelessness, is certainly not imaginable for humans. We can think about this property only by distorting it: the divine “from eternity” is for us an instantaneous act, accomplished in the most remote corner created by our imagination; the divine “always” – for our understanding, is a continuously lasting process, composed of thirds, seconds, minutes, hours. The divine “outside space” is something completely unrealizable for our imagination; The best we can do to understand the extra-spatial is to replace it with the smallest conceivable space, the so-called mathematical point. The divine “everywhere” in our imagination is given with the character of spatial extension. When a mathematician is forced to calculate the fraction 1/10 logarithmically, he takes it as an integer 1,000,000,000 (one thousand millions) = log. 9,000 0000. True, he adds a correction to this logarithm, assigning another negative characteristic to the mantissa 9,000 0000 - 10,175. But this memento 176 is practically used only in the end; in the process of adding logarithms, 10 kopecks continue to appear under the guise of a billion rubles 177. What is a negative characteristic for a mathematician 178 10, is for a theologian the clause “θεοπρεκῶς”, “befitting of God.” Powerless to fight the distortions that our thinking introduces into dogma, we protest and deny them when we say that we mean “always” and “everywhere” in a flightless and extra-spatial, God-decent way. And I, in the future making extensive use of temporal-spatial images, protest them in advance as an inevitable falsity, just as an astronomer protests against the movement of the sun around the earth, although he still sees only the rising and setting of the sun, and not the rotation of the earth around its axis. 2. The second reservation is against the rational nature of further explanations 179. I think, however, that some excesses in this regard are inevitable because the images that will be discussed are indicated by St. fathers who fought against Arianism. “The historical situation required that, in the name of the highest understanding of the principles of Christianity, the fathers, animated by the most vivid consciousness of the god-like traits imprinted in the final being of man, came out against Arian logic as ἅ λογος καὶ ἅ σοφος and it was defeated on its own soil. The fathers of the 4th century were faced with the task 180: a) kill Arianism at the root, showing that the Son of God is the true Son of the Father. In Orthodox theology, the concept of the Son is theological, in Arianism it is cosmological. In Orthodox systems, the Son is “for the Father,” διὰ τὸν Πατέρα (Jo. 6:57), the necessity of the Son’s existence is motivated by the incomprehensibly mysterious structure (λόγος, τρόπος) of the inner life of the Divine: the Son is ad intra; in Arianism the Son exists for the world; in the structure of the internal life of the one all-perfect and all-satisfied God there is no motive for the existence of the Son; but since without the mediation of the Son the all-perfect God could not have created an imperfect world, the Son is ad extra, as a hypostatic mediator between the infinite and the finite. b) Show the non-confluence of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity. c) Show that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are truly consubstantial, that is, to provide reference points for the human mind to imagine such a unity of being that is not the simple unity of the genus observed in the world (“coequal in essence”), but the true unity of the one God. This proof boiled down to the presentation of the divine essence, Ο τὸονία, Ο τὸ συνεχὲς which there is no διαστή ματός τινος ἀνὑποστάτου κενότης, no empty “non-existent” interval 181. Therefore, the three Hypostases are συμφυεῖς, συνημμέναι, ἔχονται ἀλλήλων, ἤ ρτηνται προςεχῶς (“grown together”, “touching”, “holding each other”, “tightly jointed” (adjacent) directly), so that human thought in a single nature cannot open empty space, κενεμβατεῖν, “step into an empty place”, just as the human eye is unable to see in the rainbow the exact boundary between its iridescent prismatic colors. It is well known that the thinking of the ancient saints. Fathers is distinguished by the character of integrity, does not know the rubrics to which our thought has become accustomed since childhood, and reduces both his arguments and the positions they confirm to unity 5 . So, for example, their theological argumentation only very rarely gives us the opportunity to understand to what extent it understands, as different, concepts from the field of ontological revelation, on the one hand, and concepts from the field of economic revelation, on the other 182. And the three above provisions are often explained by St. fathers together. When comparing the mystery of the Holy Trinity with the sun, ray and radiance, a formula - so to speak - analytical, attracts attention. Based on the truth that in the word of Christ “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” an adequately accurate - as far as a person can understand - order of the Hypostases is indicated, absolutely correctly corresponding to the inner being of the triune God, St. the fathers establish a position that sounds like a mathematical formula: Α : Β = Β : C. The Father stands in the same relation to the Son as the Son to the Holy. Spirit; or: The Son is the image of the Father, the Holy Spirit is the image of the Son. The logical basis of the first part of this equality is as follows: for a person, we certainly cannot imagine the Father without the Son or the Son without the Father. “There is a Father: therefore there is a Son,” this thought is not even a conclusion; it is a simple statement of fact. For human thought, there is not and cannot be any mediating concept between the concepts “Father” and “Son”. Consequently: αα ) between the being (nature) 183 of the Father and the being (nature) of the Son there can be no mediation. Consequently: ββ) The Hypostasis of the Son is συνεχῶς ἤ ρτηται (directly articulated) with the Hypostasis of the Father, i.e. the Son is the second Person of the Holy Trinity, and for human thinking there is an absolute necessity to understand the Son precisely as the second (i.e. presuming as His prius, His πρεσβύτερον, only one and only Hypostasis, namely the first Hypostasis) Person 184. Consequently: γγ) The existence of the Son is certainly presupposed directly by the very existence of the Father, that is, the Arian cosmological view of the Son, namely the sequence of concepts: God - the idea of ​​the world - the Son, is false. Consequently: δδ) the Son is one from the one, the only one, the only one who has shone forth from the Father, and by His being (ὕ παρξις) presupposes only one Father as a logical prius. All this establishes the patristic view of the Person of the Holy Spirit. Human thought is not able to derive His existence from the concept of the Father with forced clarity, and the mediation of the Son comes to its aid and seems necessary 185 already because for thought there cannot be a third where there is no second. The Son is Λόγος, the Word of God, and the formula A: B = B: C essentially translates into the position: the Father relates to the Son as the Word relates to the Spirit. (From other experiments, the explanation of the second half of the equality (= Β: C) can be noted in the peculiar position of St. Gregory of Nyssa: as Χριστὸς to Χρίσμα, or as Βασιλεύς to Βασιλεία). A person, of course, cannot utter a word without even breathing coming out of his mouth. The Word of God, as St. Gregory of Nyssa, it would be weaker than human words if it were without the Spirit. So: αα) The Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit directly adjoins the Hypostasis of the Son and through the Son comes into contact, συνάπτεται, with the Hypostasis 186 of the Father 187. That the Holy Spirit is μέσον τοῦ ἀγεννήτου καὶ τοῦ γεννητοῦ 188 mediates between the Son and the Father, there is θεολογούμενον is more common in the west than in the east 189. Among the Eastern fathers it is found in almost only two. St. Damascus prescribed him from St. Gregory the Theologian, who should have used this expression, μέσον, to refute the Arians’ objection that there can be nothing in between between the unborn and the born. So: ββ) The Holy Spirit is the third Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, by its existence presupposing the existence of both the Father and the Son, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Father is the Father only of the Son. Consequently, since God as προβολεύς τοῦ Πνεῦματος is called Father, He is thought of as having a Son. Therefore, without running the risk of allowing too much inaccuracy, we can say: Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον (when the Son exists, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father), or: Filio generat ο ex Patre productus, as Zernikaw puts it about the Holy Spirit 190. After this, the patristic view of the image of the procession of the Holy Spirit is also understandable. So to speak, permeating the word, breath comes out of human lips. Breathing is necessary for the word to become sound. But since the mouth opens for the utterance of a sound - a word, and not for breathing, then the word is a logical prius before breathing. But the word, as a definite thought conceived in articulate sounds, does not produce these sounds from itself, and breath comes not from the word itself, but from human lips, although the pronunciation of the word inevitably leads to breath from the lips. From this analogy it follows: aaa) the birth of the Word and the procession of the Holy Spirit must be thought together; bbb) but the logical prius is birth. ccc) The Son - the Word is neither the author nor the co-author of the procession of the Holy Spirit, Λόγος is not Spirans; ddd) the birth of the Son - the Word is a God-appropriate condition 191 of the unconditional procession of the Holy Spirit, it is the motive and justification (and therefore the logical prius) of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. The birth of the Son of God is generatio aeterna et sempiterna, i.e. can only be imagined as an act committed from eternity and always timelessly present. Under the same form of view, the procession of the Holy Spirit should be presented. A) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father pre-eternally and in the absolutely pre-temporal first moment of procession. The Holy Spirit is, exists as a perfect Hypostasis, ὑπάρχει, ὑφέστηκε, and the Word - the Son is not thought of as bringing something into the hypostasis the existence of the Holy Spirit. C) But the Holy Spirit always comes from the Father, and this procession is identical with the most eternal existence, the divine life of the Holy Spirit. The human view can only present this moment as a process - a non-overlapping and constant process. If the first idea (“the procession as an act already completed from eternity to eternity”) forces us to think of movement precisely as movement (even if its duration is measured by only one mathematical point), then the second idea (“the procession as an act that is always real”) introduces into this movement, along with the nature of duration and constancy, the modifying moment of standing, rest 192 . Since from the Father ὑπάρχοντος τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ, i.e., the existing Son, the Holy Spirit proceeds, and the Father and the Son are thought of as directly touching, then the moment of always the present procession of the Holy Spirit is depicted under the form of the idea that the Holy Spirit from the Father proceeds as a perfect Hypostasis from The son is accepted; ? θεϊκῶς, says Didymus (Didymus, de Trin. 1.31 Migne, S. Gr., t. 39, col 425A), He comes from the Father and abides with the Son (in the Son), proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son. The relationship of the Son to the Holy Spirit in all these images is different from the relationship of the Father to the Holy Spirit: as Προβολεύς, as a cause, the Father) is thought of as movens, the Son characterizes this movement - procession by a moment of constancy. But, on the other hand, when the procession is thought of as a continuous movement, then the position; “he rests in the Son”, “abides in the Son”, is replaced by another image identical in meaning: proceeding from the Father, the Holy. The Spirit as a perfect Hypostasis “passes through the Son (so to speak; through the Son),” προϊὸν, “appears through the Son” and reveals His existence, which it has from the Father, “shines through the Son” (or shines forth). The Son Himself, by His hypostatic existence, through Himself and with Himself, the Holy Spirit γνωρίζει, as it were, characterizes, manifests as knowable, and the Holy Spirit “after the Son and together with Him” γνωρίζεται, is characterized, known. The image of the dawn, perhaps by eliminating the inevitable falsehood of this comparison, can explain this patristic view. The sun is still below the eastern horizon of this place, apparently it cannot be, and its ray does not touch the earth’s surface here. If there was no air, this place would be completely dark. But the ray passes through the layers of air, penetrates it, and the dawn illuminates the given place, announcing the proximity of the still hidden solar disk, and by its very appearance proving the existence of an atmosphere, without which the phenomenon of dawn would be impossible, although the real cause of dawn is the sun approaching the horizon. The Holy Spirit is a hypostatic power, shining through the Son, and at the same time proclaiming the Word, revealing the hidden divinity of the Father. I think that this is “abiding”, “resting” in the Son, this is “passing”, this is “revealing”, this is “shine” through the Son, according to St. fathers, means the eternal relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and is abbreviated in the position: “St. The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son." But although the idea of ​​the penetration of the Holy Spirit through the Son and the direct relationship of the third Person of the Trinity precisely to the second in the consciousness of the saints. Fathers is established so firmly that they even argued that the Holy Spirit is reunited (συνάπτεται) with the Father through the Son, but this by no means gives reason for the assumption that this δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ contains an indication of any causal moment in the relationship of the Son to the Holy Spirit 193. The Holy Spirit has its Hypostasis from the Father as the only cause. One of the most convincing evidence of such an understanding of θεολογούμενον᾿ and δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ is found in the following words of St. John of Damascus: Πνεῦμα τοῦ Πατρός, ὡ ς ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον – ϒ ἱοῦ δὲ Πνεῦμα , οὐχ ὡ ς ἐξ αὐτοῦ , ἀλλ ’ ὡ ς δι ’ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον. Μόνος γὰρ αἴτιος ὁ Πατήρ. "St. The Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, since He proceeds from the Father. He is also the Spirit of the Son, but not in the sense that He has existence from the Son, but due to the fact that He comes from the Father through the Son. For the Father alone is the cause.” Thus, immediately after δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ comes the incomparably laconic 194 Μόνος αἴτιος , as if it were self-evident for everyone 195 that the cause can be indicated only by ἐκ, but not also by διά. But if the Father is the only cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit, however, the idea of ​​the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son, apparently, gives us, at first glance, a reason to at least pose the question: whether directly, or not directly, 196 ἐμμέσως, the Father is the cause of the Holy Spirit. As far as I know, this question was discussed almost explicitly only by St. Gregory of Nyssa 197. Termini technici, which this church father uses (in place a), are very clearly compared by Dr. H. V. Swetéom in the following scheme: 198 and the Spirit is designated as “the mediately derived,” as “not directly 199 emanating.” This conclusion would be completely irrefutable if we read from St. Gregory only one place, namely d 200: “Assuming that we see a flame divided between three lamps, and that the cause of the third light is the first flame, kindled by transmission through the middle [light] of the last light, we do not encounter any obstacles to consider the third lamp as fire, although it was kindled from the previous flame.” Thus, concludes St. the father, and the Holy Spirit, although there is a third Person, has equal dignity with the Father and the Son. When assessing this seemingly decisive passage, one should not, however, lose sight of: firstly, that the action of a cause through something mediating, although it is expressively accepted here, is only in speech about the flame and lamps, not in speech about the Son and the Holy Spirit themselves. Secondly, St. Gregory, as you know, treated St. with great respect. Vasily and called him not so much his brother as his “father and teacher”, even ὁἅ γιος πατὴρ ἡμῶν. It is not difficult to assume that St. Gregory considered it his duty and his honor not to deviate one iota from the teachings and views of the great Basil, and one of the classical places of St. Gregory about the considered θεολογούμενον, namely b, is adjacent to the view of St. Vasily 201 even in expressions (see pp. 56 and 57). As we see, both church fathers expressively, even persistently say ο δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ, but only in connection with such predicates as γνωρίζεσθαι, καταλαμβάνεσθαι: through the Son the Holy Spirit is theologically knowable 202, and this is characteristic as a sign for the Hypostasis of the Son Himself, for His inner personal life, is His γνώρισμα. But, although “through the Son” has a basis for itself in the inner most mysterious relations of the Trinity life, it is free from even the slightest hint of causal meaning 203: the expression δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ, as far as I know, always disappears as soon as one and the other church father begins to talk about the reason for the existence of the Holy Spirit, αἰτία, causa. “By its being,” says the great Basil, “St. The Spirit depends on the cause, namely on the Father, from whom He proceeds.” St. expresses himself even more clearly. Gregory: “The Holy Spirit has the reason for its existence in the same place where the only begotten Son has it, namely from the Father of all” 204. Thus, from the point of view of the causal relationship, the Son does not rise logically above the Spirit; on the contrary, they are placed on the same logical level, as coordinati. And thirdly: between the fathers of the Church of St. Gregory of Nyssa - so says the consensus theologorum - most reflects Origen's influence. But the least appropriate criticism against Origen is that he was not sufficiently aware of the theological importance of the concept of cause, αἰτία, ἀρχή, πηγή 205. This meaning, undoubtedly, for St. Gregory was as clear as for Origen himself. However, the orienting father of the church did not say anything at all that should have elevated the Son above the category of αἰτιατά, those who have been produced. Repeatedly he misses the most convenient opportunity to state that the Son, as a living mediator of the causal influence of the Father on the Spirit, is a co-cause or co-source of the Spirit. Such silence 206 is, of course, of no small importance and is not without evidentiary force 207 . In this light, I would like to consider the first classical place of St. Gregory. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ προσεχῶς ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου, τὸ δὲ διὰ τοῦ προσεχώς ἐκ τοῦ πρώτου, ὥ στε καὶ τὸ Μονογενὲς ἀναμφίβολον ' επί τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ μένειν, καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ε ἶ ναι τὸ Πνεῦμα, μὴ ᾿αμφιβάλλειν , τῆς τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ με σιτείας καὶ αὐτῷ τὸ Μονογενὲς ?? ἀπειργούσης. “For one is immediately from the first, and the other through that which is immediately from the first, so that the property of being the only begotten remains undoubtedly with the Son, just as the fact that the Spirit has its existence from the Father is not subject to any doubt, since through the Son it preserves the only begottenness of Himself, just as it does not remove the Spirit from the connection with the Father by nature.” Thesis probanda of this place: The difference of nature, ἡ κατὰ φύσιν διαφορά, is not permissible in the Trinity. The difference of Hypostases does not at all speak against unity in essence. ἀπαράλλαχτον τῆς φύσεος ὁμολόγοῦντες , τὴν χατὰ τὸ αἴτιον καὶ αἰτιατοῦ διαφορὰν οὐκ ἀρνούμεθα, ' εν ᾦ μόν ῳ διακρίνεσίΐαι τὸ ἕ τερον τοῦ ἐτέρου καταλαμβάνομεν. “Confessing that there is no difference in the nature of the Trinity, we do not at all deny the difference between the cause and what it produces, and we even affirm that the difference between the individual Persons is reduced to this difference.” But the reasoning about the hypostatic difference is introduced here only with the aim of reflecting the objections of opponents, so the logical emphasis lies on the conclusion about ὁμοούσιον: the mediation of the Son is considered from the point of view of possessing a common essence 208. The fact that the Son is the second, the Holy Spirit the third Hypostasis, is accepted as something given, and is illuminated in the sense that it does not imply any obstacle to the ὁμοουσιότης of the Spirit. But there is no talk about the action of the cause, and therefore the question whether the Spirit has His existence from the Father directly, or δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ, through the mediation of the Son, is not given an explicit answer 209. “Spirit receiving being from the Father” and “Spirit having being from the Father”, these concepts in any case designate for the human way the representation of two different moments of divine life. In my opinion, θεολογούμε and St. Gregory is devoted only to the second point and keeps us in the field of the view of the ἔκλαμψις καὶ ἔκφανσις of the Holy Spirit, not of His ἐκπόρευσης in the true essence of this dogmatic concept 210. These mutual relations of the 211 divine Hypostases should be explained precisely by the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, the identity of the nature of the three Persons, and their communion by nature. The patristic view 212 that essential goodness from the Father through the Son comes to the Holy Spirit, expresses, as it were, the beating of the pulse of divine mysterious life, and under the pen of the saint. Ambrose is a strong proof of the co-equality of the Son with the Father. “No one is good, only God alone,” insisted the Arians. “The Holy Spirit is good,” answers St. Ambrose – “and receives essential goodness from the Father through the Son; If the Spirit is good, therefore the Son is good.” To attribute διὰ τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ only to the temporary donation of the Holy Spirit through the Son of creation would mean to weaken such patristic proofs as those given above 213. There is only one place in the Gospel (John 20:22) that can be cited to justify δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ, and from this place it is immediately clear that the Holy Spirit is given to the creation through the Son (cf. Tit. 3, 3, 5, 6) 214. This is also confirmed by St. fathers; but that from this historical fact they never draw the opposite conclusion to the eternal relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son, so that the very outpouring of the Holy Spirit is a reflection of this eternal fundamental fact in relation to the temporal 215 to prove this, this 216 onus probandi, lies with the one who would decide to dispute the idea of ​​the eternal shining of the Holy Spirit through the Son, and will lie - I think - beyond the power of the theologian heaviness. It should be borne in mind that the Old Catholics with respectable frankness declare the differences in their views on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit; they do everything that depends on them to prevent misunderstandings harmful to the cause of church unity, common after union omissions, which each side then interprets in its own way and sometimes incriminates the other side. It thus seems possible, in my opinion, to accept the following theses as correct 218: Abstract 1 219. The Orthodox Russian Church, by dogma 220 (credendum de fide), honors only the truth 221 that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται καὶ ὁμοούσιόν ἐστι τῷ Πατρὶ καὶ τῷ ϒ ἱω . The remaining details (since they are not identical 222 in meaning with this truth) are accepted only as θεολόγουμενα. Eg. § 1. That the Holy Spirit “with the Father and the Son we worship and glorify,” this is a dogma, not just θεολογούμενον, because in meaning it is identical with the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit and, as a result, is already given implicite in the content of this fundamental truth. 223 § 2. In the sense of this difference between dogma and θεολογούμενα, I also understand the answer: “It cannot,” given in the “Long Christian Catechism” to the question: “Can the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father be subject to any change or addition?” It cannot be supplemented as a dogma with either an explanatory addition “through the Son” or a limiting one “from the Father alone.” 224 But when the holy fathers, for example John of Damascus, (de fide orthodoxa, p. 12), say that the Holy Spirit is “the power of the Father informing the hidden divinity,” that He is the power of the Father, which proceeds from the Father through the Son, that the Holy Spirit is and the Spirit of the Son, not as proceeding from the Son, but as proceeding from the Father through the Son, αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορευόμενον: they say this, of course, not with the aim of changing, but with the intention of explaining, bringing closer to our understanding the fullness of the mystery of the existence of the Holy Spirit, and they say because such an explanation as θεολογούμενον 226, are recognized as both possible and correct. Thesis 2. The view that the Holy Spirit is ἐκλάμπει, comes from the Father through the Son, passes, shines, is found among the saints. fathers so often, the importance that is conveyed to him by his repeated repetition in the “Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” by St. Damascene and - in particular - his acceptance into the synod of St. Tarasius of Constantinople, whose Orthodoxy is attested by both the Orthodox East and (in the person of Hadrian of Rome) the Orthodox West and the Seventh Ecumenical Council, this importance is so obvious and high that theologians have the right to see in this διὰ τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ not a simple private paternal opinion, but an ecumenically authorized one θεολογούμενον of the Orthodox East 227. Thesis 3. The assumption that in διὰ οὐ ϒ ἱοῦ always and everywhere contains the thought only of the temporary sending of the Holy Spirit into the world for the blessing of creatures, leads to stretches 228 when explaining some patristic passages. § 1. It is known 229 that the Patriarch of Constantinople Gregory II of Cyprus (1283 - 1289), despite his antagonism against the unionist John Veccus, considered it absolutely impossible for Sts. the fathers meant by ἔκλαμψις 230 only the temporary shining of the Holy Spirit through the Son. § 2. It is also known 231 that the Reverend. Sylvester (“An Orthodox Reply to the Scheme about the Holy Spirit”, Kyiv 1874, pp. 72 – 75) admits that St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks (contra Eunom. 1. I, Migne, S. Gr., t. 45, col. 336D, 416C) about “the eternal 232 through the Son manifestation of the Holy Spirit in reality,” (έν τῷ δὶ αὐτοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ πεφηνέναι , δὶ αὐτοῦ μὲν ' εχλάμπον ) 5, about “the discovery or revelation of existence already ready, received by the Holy Spirit from the Father, and, if you like, being, so to speak, represented from that moment of eternity, from which the Holy Spirit must be conceived as existing,” “about the manifestation of the Holy Spirit “through the Son” unconditionally, regardless of His temporary embassy into the world.” § 3. In “The Definition of Orthodoxy by His Holiness and Blessed Ecumenical Patriarch Tarasius,” as the fathers of the seventh ecumenical council called the synodics of St. Tarasiya 233 – διὰ τοῦ ϒ ιού stands in the following context 234: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and our God, begotten of the Father timelessly and eternally, καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον, τὸ κύριον καὶ ζωοποιούν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς δὶ ϒ ιού ἐκπορευόμενον, and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord who gives life, proceeding from the Father through the Son. The true God - into the Trinity, consubstantial, consubstantial, single-throne, eternal, uncreated, creator of all creations. I believe in one beginning 235, in one divinity and dominion, in one kingdom, in one power and authority, in three Hypostases inseparably divided and separately united.” Since not a single word is said about the relationship of the Son of God to the world in this section (the words of the Constantinople symbol “By Him were all things” were not given in the synodikon) 236 and the Incarnation is spoken of in the next section, then, obviously, the thought of St. Tarasiya is kept here within the limits of a special “theology”, θεολογία, has before him the eternal and always real relations of the divine Hypostases. § 4. At St. Damascene (Migne, S. Gr., t. 94, 1512B, dialog. contra Manichaeos, ε᾿) to the Manichaean’s objection: “how?! Do you think that God did not change when He gave birth to the Son and brought forth the Spirit?” the following answer was given: γέγονε Πατήρ ἀλλ ’ ἀεὶ ἦ ν έχων ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν αὐτοῦ Λόγον καὶ διὰ τοῦ Λόγου αὐτοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον . “Not at all! For I do not say that God, not being first the Father, then became the Father, but He always was (the Father), having from Himself His Word, and through His Word proceeding from Him (the Father) His Spirit” 237. The whole strength of the answer here lies in the fact that these relations are eternal, beginningless and therefore unchangeable. § 5. Insist that the words προϊόν, ἐκλάμψαν, πεφηνός, προελθόν, not to mention ἐκορευόμενον, mean only temporary relationship of the Holy Spirit means putting oneself in hopeless contradiction with the fact that the Sts. fathers and in church hymns these terms also mean the pre-temporal relationship of the Spirit, sometimes the Son, to God the Father. A) E.g. at St. Gregory the Theologian (Migne, S. Gr., t. 36, col. 348B, orat. 39, n. 12): ?? , ἀλλ ’ ἐκπορευτῶς . C) He has: ἴδιον δὲ, Πατρὸς μὲν ἡ ἀγεννησία, Yίοῦ δὲ ἡ γέννησις, Πνεῦματος δὲ ἡ ἔκπεμψις. γ ) At St. I. Damaskina (Migne, S. Gr., t. 95, col. 60, epistola de hymno trisagio, n. 27): τοῦ Πατρὸς γάρ , διὰ τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ καὶ Λόγου προϊόν , οὐκ υίϊκῶς δὲ. Wed. Η. M. Bogorodsky, p. 64, pr. 1. δ) He also has (Migne, S. Gr., t. 91, col. 816C, de fide orthodoxa, I, p. 8): ὁ ϒ ἱος is - - Μονογενὴς δὲ, ὄτι μόνος ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς μόν ῳ ς ἐγεννήθη. ε) He has (Migne, S. Gr., t. 96, col. 833, irmos of the 4th canon of the canon for Pentecost: 238 Ἄ ναξ ἀνάκτων ο ἶ ος ἐξ οἴου μόνος Λόγος προελθ ὼ ν Πατρὸς ἐξ ἀναίτιου. It is worth paying attention to the exact parallelism of the non-terminological προελθ ὼ ν in ε, and the undeniably terminological, completely clear ἐγεννήθη in δ 239. ζ ) At St. Cyril of Alexandria (Migne, S. Gr., t. 76, col. 1157AB. 1160BC, de recta fide ad Theodosium imp. nn. 16. 18): τοῦ πεφηνότος εκ Θεοῦ κὰτα φύσιν ϒ ἱοῦ, τουτέστι τοῦ Μονογενούς. – – τὸν αὐτόν ε ἶ ναι καὶ Μονογενῆ πιστεύοντες καὶ πρωτότοκον Μονογενῆ μὲν , ὡ ς Θεοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγον καὶ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ πεφηνότα, πρωτότοκον δ᾿ Аὗ, καθὸ γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος. – – καὶ τοῦ ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς πεφηνότος Λόγου – - τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Λόγον – – νοήσομεν – - ἕ να καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν , φύσει μὲν ὄντα Θεόν καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς ???? ἀιῶνος καιροῖς γενόμενον ἄνθρωπον. η ) At St. Gregory the Theologian (Migne, S. Gr. t. 36, col. 141C, oratio 31, n. 9): “Τί ο ὖ ν ἐστι, φησίν (Dukhoborets), ὂ λείπει τῷ Πνεῦματι πρὸς τ o ε ἶ ναι ϒ ἱόν ; E ἰ γὰρ μὴ λεῖπόν τι ἦ ν, ϒ ἱὸς ἄν ἦ ν ". Οὐ λείπειν φαμέν οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐλλειπὴς Θεός τὸ δ e τῆς ἐκφάνσεως, ἵ ν᾿ ο ὕ τως εἴπω, ἢ τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα σχέσεως διά φορον , διάφορον αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν κλῆσιν πεοίηκεν. And in church hymns it is not the Octoechos composed by St. John of Damascus 240: θ) Tone 7, canon trinitarian (midnight office for Sunday), hymn 1, troparion 2: Νοῦς ὁ ἄναρχος, Λόγον 241 συναϊδίως γεννήσας , καὶ Πνεῦμα συνάναρχον ἐκλάμψας , κατηξίωσεν ἕ να Θεὸν κατ᾿ οὐσίαν σύμμορφον ἡμ ᾶ ς προςκυνεῖν τρισυπόστατον. Attention should be paid to the parallelism between ἐκλάμψας and γεννήσας 242. ι) Dogmatist 6th tone 243: ὁ γὰρ ἀσπόρως (Slavic translation suggests ὁ γὰρ ἀχρόνως) 244 ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐκλάμψας ϒ ἱὸς μονογενής . κ ) Tone 3, week at Matins, canon of the Theotokos, hymn 9, troparion 2 245: ἵ λεων νέμοις ἡμῖν Πνεῦμα μεταδοτικὸν ἀγαθότητος ἐκ Πατρὸς διὰ σοῦ προερχόμενον. λ ) Avg. with the words of St. Hilary of Pictavia (Migne, S. Lat., t. 10, col. 472. de Trinitate l. 12, n. 57): dona mihi – ut – sanctum Spiritum tuum, qui ex te per Unigenitum tuum est, promerear. – Cf. ε 246. Thesis 4. For all this, at least, it is not reprehensible to think that in the patristic sayings: the Holy Spirit “proceeds” (ὲκπορεούμενον) from the Father through the Son, “passes” (προϊόν, προερχόμενον) through the Son, “shines” (ἐκλάμπε) through the Son, “appears” (πεφηνός) through the Son 247, contains an indication of some mysterious moment of eternal activity, eternal life, eternal internal relations of the Holy. The Spirit to the Father and the Son is that moment, which is also called the eternal “dwelling” (μένον), the eternal “resting” (ἀναπαυόμενον), the Holy Spirit in the Son. Thesis 5. This moment is a figurative description of the identity (συμφυές) of the being of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, as well as that incomprehensible, but revealed in the Gospel truth that the Holy Spirit is the third, and the Son is the second 248 Person of the Holy Trinity. Thesis 6. This point is not identical in meaning to that which is revealed in the words ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται (if only we understand this position in the close [i.e., strictly theological] sense of the terms ἐκπορευτως and ἐκπορεύεται, as termini technici) 249. Thesis 7. Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the one Father, ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ἐκπορεύεται, in the strict sense of the term 1 ἐκπορευτῶς. But this position is only θεολογούμενον, and not a dogma. § 1. Not a dogma. See § 2 to thesis 1 (paragraph “It cannot”, etc., p. 63). § 2. The expression ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς lacks not only the sanction of an ecumenical council (even only equal to the testimony of δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ at the seventh ecumenical council), but even the degree of authority that its use can impart to a theological expression at St. fathers. – It would be very difficult for Photius to justify ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς with authentic patristic passages. § 3. St. the fathers speak of the Son: “one of one” (see δ and ε in § 5 to thesis 3) 250 and do not use this expression about the Holy Spirit, as if as a precaution so that the position: “St. The Spirit proceeds from the one 251 Father” was not opposed to the theological thought: “and through the Son 252 shines.” § 4. Provision: ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, should not serve as a negation, for example. such thesis: ἐκ μόνου μὲν τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται , δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ δὲ πρόεισιν 253. Thesis 8. From the position – not disputed by anyone – that the Father is μόνος αἴτιος, the only cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit, it follows that the Son is neither the author nor the co-author of the being of the Holy Spirit. § 1. “The unconditional condition” 255 (an expression used by S.V. Kokhomsky) is in no way a “cause” 256. § 2. Patristic 257 position 8 can only be proven in a negative way (since Augustine’s view was not the subject of discussion among the Greek holy fathers and they naturally did not give a special answer - an antithesis): a) no one indicated a place where the Son was called αἴτιος or συναἴτιος of the Holy Spirit; b) in the most complete enumeration of the hypostatic ἰδιότητες of the Son (as in de fide orthodoxa, I, p. 12) the Son is called only αἰτιατός on a par with the Holy Spirit. Thesis 9. The Western view differs 259 from the Eastern θεολογούμενον and it is impossible without a stretch to explain it (Filioque) in the sense of δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ, nor to interpret the views of the Eastern fathers in a sense identical to the Western. Thesis 10. It can be recognized that in the most ancient (pre-Augustinian) stage, the Western θεολογούμενον explained only the idea that the Eastern δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ illuminates: that the Holy Spirit has the same essence with the Father and the Son, and the expression ex Patre et Filio was initially only inaccurate transmission δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ. Thesis 11. But ex Patre et Filio, as given by St. Augustine, is not covered by the meaning of 260 by the teaching of St. Eastern fathers, because - Thesis 12. not only “a Patre et Filio aequaliter” of Leo III of Rome, but even “ex Patre principaliter” of Blessed Augustine himself says less than the μόνος αἴτιος of the Eastern St. fathers, and - Thesis 13. The difference between Western and Eastern views is reflected not so much in the words “ex Patre Filioque”, but in the closely related Augustine idea of una spiratio of the Father and the Son, according to which they both together represent the unum principium 261 of the Holy Spirit. Α this view is unknown to St. to the Eastern Fathers: as far as is known, none of them 262 called the Son “Spirans” or “συμπροβολεύς”. Thesis 14. Even in the sense of a private opinion, we cannot recognize the Western Filioque as having equal rights with the Eastern δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ. This is because Thesis 15. aa) the Western “Filioque” decisively lacks the same recognition that the Eastern δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ received, introduced by St. Tarasiy in his synodics; Thesis 16. bb) in the very west, the Filioque, despite its spread, has - apparently - no other support for itself than the single authority of St. Augustine; Thesis 17. ss) against Filioque, protests from the East were heard that were more serious (as they were not based on a misunderstanding) than the statement against δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ; Thesis 18. dd) the Western writer (about 560) Deacon Rusticus knew that some ancients even formulated the distinction of the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit like this: “He does not come from the Son, as he comes from the Father,” and therefore did not dare to insist on Filioque 263. Thesis 19. on the inscrutable destinies of God, proposed as a private opinion of the blessed one. Augustine; the Western view was not then protested by the Eastern Church. Thesis 20. Many Westerners who preached the Filioque to their flocks, without encountering any objections from anyone, lived and died in communion with the Eastern 264 Church. Thesis 21. The Eastern Church honors the fathers of the ancient Western Church as its own fathers, and therefore it is natural that for Westerners the personal views of these fathers are sacred. Thesis 22. When the Easterners read the Filioque in the synod of St. Martin, they stated their objections; but this matter was then settled, since the Easterners did not refuse communication with Martin, being content with the statement of his ambassadors, who explained the Filioque in the sense of δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ and justified it in places from the Western Fathers and St. Cyril of Alexandria. Thesis 23. If the Western at the VI and VII Ecumenical Councils did not present their Filioque to the Eastern, then the Eastern did not raise the question of this to them for a final clarification of the bewilderment caused by the Synodics of St. Martina. Thesis 24. At the beginning of the 9th century. the Jerusalem case 265 in any case, did not become a reason for breaking off communication with the Western Church because of the Filioque. Thesis 25. Photius and his successors had communion with the Western Church, without receiving (and apparently not demanding) from it a conciliar renunciation verbis explicitissimis from the Filioque. Thesis 26. It was not the question of the Filioque that caused the division between the churches. Thesis 27. Therefore, the Filioque, as a theological private opinion, cannot be considered an “impedimentum dirimens” for restoring communion between the Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholic Churches 266. II. Letter to Archbishop Anthony of Finland, February 9/10, 1893 Your Eminence, Most Reverend Master! When I returned home yesterday 267, a doubt immediately came to my mind: is it advisable to convene - as proposed - the next meeting on Monday, the 15th? What will the Commission actually do? After all, the subcommission for developing provisions to present to the Old Catholics (represented by me and Alexander Lvovich) radically disagreed with each other. Alexander Lvovich takes as his starting point the words of Bishop Gennady 268. I think that Gennady’s words simply disagree with the teachings of the saints. Eastern (and Western) fathers, I would say: with the teaching of the Orthodox Church, if there were not that (methodological) view that the church preserves (and can preserve) only faith (contained in the apostolic deposit, 1. Tim. 6, 20) and only dogmas (as a normal expression of this faith), and not theological opinion (it is the pillar and affirmation of the truth and can hold only that in which the truth, the whole truth, only the truth, and in theological opinions there may also be an admixture of error: they are the truth (by purpose, by tendency, by what the logical emphasis lies in them), but not the whole truth (omne simile claudicat, but theological opinions - only comparisons, only analogies, illuminate one side of the truth without embracing the other) and not only the truth (may contain erroneous premises in the chain of evidence)); that therefore there should be no question of the ο θεολογούμενα of the Eastern or Western Church [when I used, in the 2nd paragraph, the expression: “the universally authorized θεολογούμενον of the Orthodox East” 269, I assumed that the universal Church (represented by Council) seemed to have listened to the expression: “who proceeds from the Father and through the Son” and said: “I do not find in this anything contrary to the apostolic deposit of faith,” but did not extend the sanction further, did not say: “whoever does not admit that the Spirit proceeds through the Son is opposed to the apostolic faith”; in this last case δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ would be a dogma de fide credendum]. Α question posed by Bishop. Gennady, for me there is only θεολογούμενον (conclusion from dogma). If A.L. does not appear at the meeting on the 15th, then who will justify the correctness of the bishop’s view with patristic passages? Gennady, with whom A.L. intends to satisfy or repel the Old Catholics? I simply don’t know such places. Silence is not denial. A non esse ad non posse non valet consequentia. In order to motivate his constructions, A. L-ch needs to have time. I can already see that a surprise awaits him the first time. I have matured the expression “being born.” A.L. countered my doubts with the name of Theodoret. Meanwhile, Theodoret says this: “From this unborn came (φῦναι) the Word and the All-Holy Spirit: the first [τὸν μὲν = Word] - as the Word born from the Mind (ἐκ τοῦ Νοῦ γεννώμενον), the second [τὸ δὲ = Spirit] – As the Spirit proceeding (ἐκπορευόμενον). For the Word comes into being 270 Spirits without being generated, ξυγγεννωμενον but coexisting and accompanying and proceeding.” ἀλλά ξυνὸν καὶ παρομαρτοῦν καὶ ἐκπορευόμενον . Wouldn't your Eminence find it advisable to: 1) the meeting of the 15th is postponed until the 22nd or 23rd: 2) during this time, the papers presented to Your Eminence will be circulated for reading among the members of the Commission (since reading them, I’m afraid, will consume almost a whole meal): 3) in the transmittal paper, ask the members - if possible - to use only one evening for reading and to speed up the process, read only my 27 points with explanations for them, and read the expression of my understanding of the patristic teaching κ δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ (on 3 sheets) 271 only if there is something unclear or unacceptable in the provisions; 4) it would be extremely good if the members noted or immediately reported in writing (to Your Eminence or to me) which points they find dubious, requiring patristic justification; This would give me the opportunity to directly attach possibly complete extracts from Sts. to the journal of the future meeting. fathers (if, of course, we are talking about holy fathers); 5) meanwhile, it would be possible to schedule a meeting for one hour longer, and then perhaps it would be possible to listen to a message from either Ivan Yegorovich about the canonical consistency of the Utrecht consecrations or Fr. Archpriest A. A. Lebedev - about the divine service of the Old Catholics (it will probably be difficult for A. L-chu to compose an essay on the Eucharist by February 22) 272 ; 6) make up for the lost week by scheduling two consecutive meetings for the next week (on Monday and Tuesday). The starting point of the meetings of the Commission on the procession of the Holy Spirit can only be twofold in essence. OR: Let the Old Catholics first condemn the teaching of the blessed one. Augustine (and those who repeated him) as directly and undoubtedly false. (If it is a lie, then it cannot be tolerated not only as a dogma, but also as a private opinion). I don’t think it would be in keeping with the dignity of the Holy Synod to be content with, for example. uncertainty in the form of the fact that “the Son does not bring anything into the being of the Holy Spirit,” because, firstly, the Augustinians will agree with this, for the Son, as Son, has only what the Father has given Him from eternity, and so on. He brings nothing from himself; because, secondly, Old Catholics can turn to the Holy Synod with a direct question: in eternal existence, is there any relationship between the Son and the Spirit (or is there only a relationship between the Father and the Son on the one hand, between the Father and the Holy Spirit on the other)? It is necessary, therefore, to answer not in the slavish language of hints and omissions, but in the open word of one who is self-aware of his right and position of authority, αὐθεντικῶς, that the teaching of Augustine, both in Augustine himself and in Leo the Great and Gregory the Great, the Holy Synod condemns as false, does not accept their writings in these parts, and gives a positive answer; in eternal existence there is a relationship only between the Father and the Son on the one hand, between the Father and the Holy Spirit on the other, not between the Son and the Holy Spirit 273. This answer, in my opinion, contradicts the teaching of St. Eastern Fathers (δι 'ϒ ἱοῦ), and therefore I would consider it correct if the Commission recognized the unity of the soil of Augustinianism and patristic δι 'ϒ ἱοῦ, decisively challenging the identity - so to speak - of the very flowers that grew on this common soil in the West and in the East. aa) the Eastern teaching would be protected from its reinterpretation in the sense of Augustinianism (a disgusting trait of good Catholics - Jesuits e tutti quanti, when they begin to climb through our liturgical books, catching all sorts of “Spirit of the Son”, “I will send My Spirit and the Father”, “through the Son”, “and this will give the lips of the faithful”, “co-radiant”, “rest in the Son”, and - plaintively whine that the “Photians” do not know the teachings of their own church); bb) the grave statement that there is not and never has been any shadow of truth in the Western form of view would not have been accepted in conscience; ss) an answer would be given that Augustine himself would agree with, who at the beginning of his books about the Holy Trinity asked his readers (and obligated them with this as an unchangeable condition) - to continue reading if they feel confident in the correctness, - to re-examine with him those provisions with which they find it difficult to agree, - to join him in those cases when, thanks to his books, they correct an error in their own views, to warn him (“recall”) if notice his mistake. “Nec pigebit autem me, sicubi haesito, quaerere; non pudebit, sicubi erro, discere. Quisquis haec legit, ubi pariter certus est, pergat mecum: ubi pariter haesitat, quaerat mecum; ubi errorem suum cognoscit, redeat ad me; ubi meum, revocet me." “We doubt, and therefore we are unacceptable and do not condemn” 28. Consequently, we will not condemn you, and in the depths of our conscience we will not look at you as undoubtedly erring, if in your speeches and theological treatises we encounter the Augustinian Filioque, stated without Vatican confidence, with the Augustinian unpretentiousness of a private - perhaps unerring - opinion. 29. Let us be content with the fact that from your short catechisms the word Filioque will disappear from all of your short catechisms (and from Utrecht), as the word Filioque disappeared from the Swiss, and will be replaced (and in the German ones) by the teaching: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is of one essence with the Father and the Son.” 30. In the name of fraternal church communion, we demand that in detailed catechisms in dogmatic manuals, where not only the dogmata de fide credenda, but also theologumena are set out, next to the Western form of the view (Augustinian), the eastern theologumenon is also set forth: “St. The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, the Father is the only author of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from the one Father and rests in the Son as the Son’s own.” 31. Of course, it goes without saying that those Westerners who would prefer the Eastern theologumenon to the Western Augustinian one are not bound in their conscience by their belonging to the Western Church and, unprepared by anyone, will follow the Eastern view rather than the Augustinian one. 32. In the name of the same communion of the Church and in the name of the past of the Western Church itself, we demand that the seven ecumenical councils be recognized not de nomine only, that the content of their definitions of faith be set forth in lengthy catechisms with its characteristic details, so that for educated Old Catholics the difference between the Orthodox-Eastern Church and the church societies that fell away from it: Nestorians, Copts, Abyssinians, Jacobites, Armenians and Maronites. This 32nd point, in my opinion, is also necessary: ​​even in the Manual 274 nothing is said about Christology except that the Son is true God and true man; termini technici as “in two natures”, “one hypostasis”, “two wills and two actions” - not to mention the “Mother of God”, “one of the Holy Trinity” - are passed over in silence. There seems to be no need to raise the question of this aspect of the Old Catholic catechisms in particular; and at the same time making this requirement is not only important, but, I think, downright necessary: ​​one can condescend to the Western form of view, where it really is evident, but one should not leave such differences of persilentium that were completely unknown in the ancient Western Church 275 . Sorry, Vladyka, for writing such a long letter. I am finishing it after Council 276. Alexander Lvovich would also be glad if there were no 15th meeting. O. Rector 277 distributed to us cards of Your Eminence. Prince Golitsyn did not disgrace his French diplomas by releasing these photographs. Let me express my deep gratitude to Your Eminence. The two attachments to this letter are not relevant to the Commission's case 278. Asking for your holy blessing I have the honor to be Your Eminence's most humble novice III. On the meaning of the order of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity according to the view of the Eastern saints. fathers 279 I cannot convince myself that with the theology of St. The Eastern Fathers agree with the idea that the order of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity, ἡ τάξις, corresponds only to the order of Their revelation in history, so that - in particular - the Son of God is not before the Holy Spirit, not only in chronological, but even in logical terms. The first, of course, no one admits; the second is disputed, in my opinion, unfairly. 1. More (if not exclusively) consistent with patristic theology would be the view that the historical order of revelation contains a reflection of the mystery of the internal relations of the Holy Trinity. This is for example θεολογούμενον, that “the Son of God is the son of man” and “is born without a father in the flesh before the age of the Father, born without a mother.” I do not know whether at least one holy father sought to affirm the idea that the sequence of revelation in time, not only in a temporal sense, does not correspond to the eternal relationships in the Holy Trinity. 2. In my opinion, the idea that the second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, of course not chronologically, but logically before the third Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, can be disputed only by one who admits that in the mystery of the Trinity relations the Holy Spirit may not be a third, but a second Hypostasis, so that it may be permissible to say Father, Holy Spirit and Son. If this is not allowed, then I (like Prof. Knodt in Bonn in 1875) 280 do not understand at all what they want to say by this, what positive concept is connected with these negative words, because - in my opinion - for human thinking the “second” is inevitably logically before the “third”. Whoever allows this unbiblical order of Hypostases is at odds with the teaching of St. Vasily V. in his 52nd message to the canonesses, the words of which I enclose here in full in the original text with a feasible analysis of them. 3. It is equally incomprehensible to me what meaning the words of St. Gregory the Theologian (Orat. 29 n. 2, Migne, SG. 36, 76B, p. 524): “The unit, having originally moved into two, stopped at trinity. Μονὰς ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς εἰς δυάδα κινηθεῖσα, μέχρι τριάδος ἔστη. “And this is with us – the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the first “(ὁ μέν) is the parent and the creator (I mean: in the dispassionate, timeless and incorporeal sense), and of the subsequent ones, one is birth, the other is generation (τῶν δὲ, τὸ μὲν γέννημα, τὸ δὲ πρόβλημα )", if we must deny that in the eternal, pre-temporal relationships about which St. preaches. Theologian, the Son is logically before the Holy Spirit. How is it possible, in this case, to admit that “the one from time immemorial moved into two,” if this moment is not a logical prius in relation to the final one: “it stopped at the trinity”? Why is this “moving into two” not omitted? Moreover: why St. the father, if he did not allow this logical prius, did not directly reject this “moving into twoness” and did not express it in such a way that the one suddenly revealed itself or shone hypostatically in the trinity without any intervening moment of duality? 4. In my opinion, the patristic θεολογούμενα: a) The Father was never without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit (St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Basil V., I. Damascene); b) The Word must have the Spirit, because our word is not without breath (St. Damascus, Gregory of Nyssa); c) It is not the Spirit that unites the Word with the Father, but the Spirit from the Word receives λλον τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Λόγου λαμβάνει, at St. Athanasius, ar. St. Basil v.); d) The Holy Spirit also relates to the Son as the Son to the Father (St. Athanasius v.. Basil v.) directly assume that the Son is logically prior to the Holy Spirit. 5. If in the patristic θεολογούμενον: “St. The Spirit proceeds from the Father” contains the only and only thought that the birth of the Son from the Father and the procession of the Spirit from the Father are equal (άμα) co-beginning, co-eternal, timeless, - and nothing more, that is, if this θεολογούμενον does not postulate the logical prius, the second Hypostasis in relation to the third Hypostasis: then I would like the defenders of this view of “δί ϒ ἱοῦ” to point out to St. fathers of the place where it is said: aa) The Son is born from the Father through the Spirit; bb) The Father is, through the Spirit, the parent of the Word: cc) The Son is the seal and image of the Spirit; d) The Son is the Word of the Father and the Spirit; dd) The Son accompanies, συμπαρομαρτεῖ, the Spirit; etc. So far, as far as is known, only the following places have been indicated: aa) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son: bb) The Father is the parent of the Word and through the Word the producer of the Holy Spirit (St. Damascus): cc) The Holy Spirit is the seal and image of the Son, the image of the Father (St. Gregory of Neocaesarea, Athanasius V., Basil V., I. Damascene). d) “The Spirit of the Son, not as from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father.” “Concerning the Son we do not say that He is the [Son – Word] of the Spirit, nor that He is from the Spirit.” τὸν δὶ ϒ ιον ούτε τοῦ Πνεῦματος λέγομὲν , ούτε μήν ἐκ τοῦ Πνεῦματος. De fide Orth. I. 1, p. 8. St. Damascus. “Just as the Mind is the author of the Word, so (the Mind is the author) also of the Spirit, through the mediation of the Word. And just as we cannot say that the word is [the word of] the voice, so we cannot call the Son [Son of] the Spirit.” "Ὥ σπερ έστιν αἴτιος τοῦ Λόγου ὁ Νοῦς, ο ὕ τως καὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος, διὰ μέσου δὲ τοῦ Λόγο ο. Καὶ ὥ ςπερ οὐ δυνάμεθα εἰπεῖν τὸν λόγον ε ἶ ναι τῆς φωνῆς, ο "" (Quaestiones et dubia, n. 24, Migne, SG. 90, 814). St. Maximus the Confessor. dd) “The Spirit of God accompanying the Word” (St. Gregory of Nyssa and I. Damascene). “Co-occurring with the Word is the Spirit, always accompanying the Word” (Theodoret). And all these passages, in my opinion, necessarily lead to the conclusion that, according to the paternal view, the Son of God is logically before the Holy Spirit. S. Basilii magni epistola 52 (alias 300) ca. a 370–371. Κανονικαις. n. 4.281 So Vasily v. received news of an innovation, the tendency of which was that, contrary to the Arians, they wanted to establish indisputably the deity of the Holy Spirit, showing that He does not belong to the category of all those who came through the Word, since, according to one variety of this sense, the Holy Spirit is logically prius than the Son, according to another variety, the Holy Spirit is logically prius than even the Father Himself. Vasily V. refutes first (bb) the second variety, then (cc) the first. To this and another misconception Vasily V. contrasts two arguments, strictly similar in meaning: (Conclusion one). If the Holy Spirit is not from God through Christ (if it is disputed that “The Holy Spirit is from God, but is through Christ”), then He does not exist at all. Consequently, an innovation that changes only the order of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, and therefore seems harmless, actually denies the entire Christian faith, since it inevitably leads to the denial of the very existence of the Holy Spirit. (General judgment about a new invention). The opinion that the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity (chronologically or logically) follow or so: Holy Spirit, Father and Son or so: Father, Holy Spirit and Son, just as wicked as that spirit-fighting Arianism to which it was polemically opposed. A. This is highly important for clarifying the view of St. Vasily V. - the place is omitted from Langen and Sweet, conveyed correctly (in the main and essential) by S.V. Kokhomsky (pp. 24, 25) and quite correctly in “The Orthodox Answer to the Diagram on the Holy Spirit” (p. 67) 282. Words by Vasily V. (ss ddd) Kokhomsky translates this: “If He is not from God, but He is from God through “Christ,” then He does not exist at all.” The only inaccurate thing in this translation is that the words “διὰ Χρι στοῦ δὲ ἐστιν” are understood as an introductory sentence, and thus the logic of the argument of St. Vasily: as an introductory sentence, these words would be simply unnecessary. “In one of his letters, affirming the truth, “that the Holy Spirit is from God,” [this is a completely inaccurate rendering of the very power of the context: the meaning of Vasily V. is understandable precisely when compared with the misconception that it refutes] he makes, among other things, this kind of remark: “if the Spirit is not from God, but through Christ, then He is not at all” ( ἐστιν, οὐδέ ἐστι τὸ παράπαν). This same thought, without changing the essence, can be expressed in reverse form, and represent the following meaning: if there is a Spirit, it is not through Christ, but from God (the Father). Of course, such a position could have been expressed by St. Basil, mainly in view of the false teaching that the Spirit was created through the Son.” [The context leaves no doubt that St. Basil objects not to the Arians, but to the extreme opponents of Arianism: he refutes not the false teaching that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son, but that “madness”, that misinterpretation who, rejecting this false teaching, believed that the Holy Spirit was no longer created by the Son because He Himself logically precedes in being at least the Son, if only does not precede the Father Himself]. “But what could make the procession of the Holy Spirit place him between such extremes, if only that middle and reconciling thought about the Holy Spirit was close to him, that he is not from God alone and not through Christ alone, but, on the contrary, is both from God and through Christ?” If we exclude from here the vague “together,” which can be understood as equivalent to the expression: “in the same sense,” then St. Basil the Great here precisely claims that “sound faith” confesses that the Holy Spirit is from God through Christ, or with literal precision: “from God it is, through Christ it is,” ἐστιν ἐκ Θεοῦ, διὰ Χρίστοῦ δὲ ἐστιν. – The translation in the “Response” misses the point that aa) true (negating) opposition is expressed not by the particle δέ, but by the particle ἀλλὰ; Wed. In (aa): "ἀνθιταται μὲν ... ἀλλότριος δε ...": the second half with δὲ agrees with the previous one and sets it off only with a new touch. Wed. John 13, 20: ὁ λαμβάνων ἄν τινα πέμψω, ἐμὲ λαμβάνει, ὁ δὲ ἐμὲ λαμβάνων, λαμβάνει τὸν πέμψαντά με. 12, 30: οὐ δι᾿ ἐμὲ ὑ φωνὴ α ὓ τη γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ δι᾿ ὑμὰς. 12, 42: ? ὡ μολόγουν. Onion. 22, 42: πλὴν μὴ τὸ θέλημα μού ἀλλά τὸ σὸν γινέσθω. Gal. 1, 1: Παῦλος ἀπόστολος, οὐκ ἀπ᾿ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι᾿ ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλὰ διὰ Ἰ ησοῦ Χρίστοῦ. Theodoret (epist. 171), which δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ rejects, is expressed as follows: καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον, οὐκ ἐξ ϒ ὶοῦ ἢ δι᾿ ϒ ὶοῦ τὴν ἥ παρξιν ἔχον , ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, ἴδιον δὲ ϒ ὶοῦ ὡ ς ὁμοούσιον. and bb) that εἰ μὴ denies not just one immediate sentence, but a whole series of homogeneous sentences; eg From this it is clear that the process of Greek conditional negation has the form of the formula in Russian it is not possible everywhere. Greek text of Matt. 18.3 actually says the following: “If you do not fulfill this condition: you will be converted and you will be like children; you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” And ap. Thomas actually says: “Unless I experience the following: I will see the wounds of the nails in His hands, I will put my finger into the wounds of the nails, I will put my hand into His side, - Thus, the expressive interpuncture of such texts from a Russian point of view would be as follows: Ἐὰν μὴ: "στραφῆτε καὶ γένησθε ὡ ς τά παιδία", οὐ μὴ εἰ σέλθητε εἰς τ . V. τ . οὐ. Or Bow. 14, 26 : " καὶ τας ἀδελφὰς, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴν εαὐτοῦ ψυχὴν ", οὐ δύναται ε ἶ ναι μου μαθητής. In this verse, “ἔτι δέ” are not opposed to the previous one, but only complement it: a disciple of Christ must hate his relatives, and, moreover, his very life. Consequently, the words of Vasily V. εί δὲ μή "ἐστιν ἐκ Θεοῦ, διὰ Χριστοῦ δὲ ἐστιν ", οὐδέ ἐστὶ τὸ παράπαν contain that positive truth of sound faith that the Holy Spirit “is from God and through Christ.” And with this, everything deduced from these words in the “Answer” collapses. B. The second argument is only my conclusion from ddd, and not a fact, but - I hope - the conclusion is quite solid, since the very plan of Vasily V.’s incomparably laconic explanations. without such a conclusion it is incomprehensible. a) The opinion of the innovators is formulated as follows: A) The Holy Spirit is logically before the Son, B) The Holy Spirit is logically before the Father. For St. It would be natural for Vasily to refute these misconceptions in the same order: first the first (A), then the second (B). He does the opposite, refutes first β then A, of course because this was required by the argumentation of the saint himself. father. b) If my reconstruction of the second argument is wrong, then Mr. Kochomsky is right, and in ddd St. Vasily actually states: “If the Holy Spirit is not from God, then He does not exist at all,” and the words: “and He [is from God] through Christ” is an introductory sentence. But αα ) in this case it is obvious that this thought (freed from the introductory sentence) constitutes a direct conclusion from the first (aaa) proof that the Holy Spirit is not higher, no older than God the Father. Why Vasily V. did not put this position after aaa, in its natural place, but expressed it not only after the second (bbb) argument against the second (ß) error, but also after the refutation of the first (A) error? Further ßß) it is obvious that the words “διὰ Χριστοῦ δὲ ἐστιν” are not only unnecessary in the sense of strengthening the argument, but are not given in premise aaa, from which this argument is strictly logically deduced, and it is only obscured. Finally γγ ) it is equally obvious that the first (A) error of St. the father opposed - in this case - only one and only objection: The Holy Spirit is not before the Son because in this case He would appear in the middle, μέσον, between the Father and the Son; and there can be nothing intermediary between the Father and the Son (in the meaning of the concepts themselves). And it is not clear why this argument dissects the first (aaa) proof; why St. the father chose such a confusing plan of refutation and did not stop at the simple and clear following plan: On the contrary c) if my conclusion is correct, then the argumentation of St. Vasily - in the order in which he proposed it - was constructed artistically correctly, and the rearrangement β - α was necessary because in the refutation "διὰ" is only thinkable logically after, rather than "ἐκ". V. Vasily v. could say that the innovation regarding the place of the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity is resolved by denying the very existence of the Holy Spirit, only if he was convinced that the order of the Hypostases handed down by the Lord Himself corresponds not only to the revelation of the Holy Trinity in history, but to the very mystery of the inner life of the triune God, as far as human thought can understand it. From the order of revelation in history, since it is assumed that it may not contain any indication of the mystery of internal relations, an ontological reductio ad absurdum is impossible. It cannot be assumed that St. Vasily adhered to the half-hearted idea that the Father is the first Hypostasis both in the sense of historical revelation and in the ontological sense, and the Son is the second Hypostasis and the Holy Spirit is the third Hypostasis only in the order of revelation. but not in the ontological sense. If the view of Vasily V. If this were the case, then the insertion “διὰ Χριστοῦ δὲ ἑστιν” would be incomprehensible; and the final conclusion, in which both those who believe that the Holy Spirit is before the Father and those who admit that He is before only the Son are recognized as equally wicked, would be obviously unjust in relation to these latter. aa) From their teaching it would be impossible to conclude that they deny the very existence of the Holy Spirit. bb) Vasily V. could look at them as like-minded people who are only trying to express in words what he himself recognizes in thought. The restrictive “but not in the ontological sense” is understandable only when it is assumed that in the mystery of the inner being of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit may not be the third, but the second Hypostasis. G . The severity with which St. the father, even in these highly laconic words of his epistle, distinguishes between the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father (ἑστιν ἐκ Θεοῦ) and the relationship to the Son (διὰ Χριστοῦ δὲ ἐστιν) inspires confidence that St. Vasily V. would speak out against Filioque. But the entire content of these lines of the message suggests that St. Tarasius of Constantinople reasoned in agreement with Vasily V., when in his synodik he confessed the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son; that this “διὰ Χριστοῦ δὲ ἑστιν” is inexplicable in the sense of only the temporary messenger of the Holy Spirit into the world through Christ, and then only in the sense of the ontological basis for such an image of the revelation of the Holy Spirit in history; that not only the procession from the one Father, but also the shining through the Son mean certain moments in the pre-eternal and ever-present existence of the Holy Spirit, so that the germ of the rejection of His very existence lies not only in those interpretations that do not recognize that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but also in those for which His shining through the Word is unacceptable. D. That “ἢ κατὰ τὸν χρόνον”, I convey “chronologically”, and “ἢ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν” - “logically”, after all that has been said, does not need explanation. IV. Abstract proposed at the meeting of the Commission on the Old Catholic Question on January 22, 1893 284 1. The “List” [of dogmatic and main ritual (and canonical) differences that distinguish the Western Church from the Eastern Orthodox (Collection of Protocols of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. St. Petersburg Department. Second year. 1873 - 1874. St. Petersburg 1874, p. 429)] states: 2. Β “Notes on the scheme quaestionum controversarum” (ibid., p. 438) it is said: “If it were not possible to accept the formula also found among the Greek fathers, namely, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, a formula through which the assumption that was never made, however, and in the West, about the dual beginning of the inner life of the deity is clearly excluded, then this question would require even more detailed preliminary research. For now we will only add that we cannot speak of the “beginning of the deity” in the proper sense, that the external manifestation of divine activity corresponds to the internal divine life, and that next to the trinity of the deity we should not lose sight of the consubstantiality. 3. In the "Manual" [to the teaching of the Catholic faith in higher schools, published on behalf of the Old Catholic Synod in Bonn, 1875], the teaching about the Holy Spirit is stated as follows: § 20, 3. “If in some places of the Old (read: New?) Testament the Holy Spirit was spoken of in such a way that one could doubt whether the Holy Spirit generally means the divine Spirit or an independent Person. then Jesus, towards the end of His life, speaks of the Holy Spirit, whom He also calls the Comforter, as the third divine Person. a) He will ask the Father, that after His (Jesus) departure He will give His followers another Teacher (Comforter), the Spirit of truth, who will forever abide with them and in them (John 14, 16, 17). This Teacher, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father, through the prayer of the Son, will send in His name, will teach them everything and remind them of everything that He told them (John 14:26). The same Comforter whom He will send from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, will testify of Him (John 15:26). It is better that He Himself return to the Father, because if He does not go, He cannot send the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will convict the world: about sin, that people did not want to believe in Him (Jesus), about the truth that was revealed in Him through His glorification with the Father, and about judgment - that evil has already been condemned through Him (John 16:7-11). b) Just as the Son Himself has His essence from the Father and therefore, humanly speaking, performs His redemptive activity as sent from Him, so the Holy Spirit has His divine essence from the Father; That is why it is said about Him that He was sent by the Father to confirm the teaching and to complete the work of the Son. And since the Son has the same essence with the Father, He can say about Himself that He sends the Holy Spirit, onto whom His and the Father’s essence has passed. The Savior expresses the latter with the words: When He, the Spirit of Truth, comes; then he will guide you into all truth: for he will not speak from himself, but he will speak what he hears, and he will tell you the future. He will glorify Me, because He will take of Mine and proclaim it to you. All that the Father has is Mine; therefore I said that he will take of Mine and tell it to you. (John 16, 13 – 15). Translator's note. “This interpretation of the words of the Savior: “He will not speak of Himself, but will take of Mine,” found among many ancient fathers and teachers of the church and shared by Old Catholics, does not at all constitute a dogma generally recognized by the Church.” 4. The Savior made this teaching about the revelation of the one divine Being in three Persons the main teaching of the revelation He communicated when He commanded the apostles to receive believers into the community through baptism in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). 3,285. In the Old Catholic Catechism [1875], the dogma of the Holy Spirit is stated as follows: "41. What does revelation teach about the inner life of the Godhead? Revelation teaches that the Godhead is revealed from eternity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Translator's note. ““Trinity”, in German “Drei faltigkeit; “reveals” – sich ent faltet.” 42. How does revelation teach about God the Father? Revelation teaches that God the Father has the divine being from all eternity from Himself. 43. How does revelation teach about God the Son? Revelation teaches that God the Son has from all eternity the same divine being from the Father. 44. How does revelation teach about God the Holy Spirit? Revelation teaches that God the Holy Spirit from all eternity has one divine being with the Father and the Son. John 16, 13–15; Matt. 28, 19". Consequently, the Catechism A) avoids the question of from whom the Holy Spirit has the divine essence, a question to which a categorical answer is given in Q&A 42 and 43, and B) cites only John. 16, 18 – 15 (with the words: “He will receive from Mine”) and omits the classic John. 15, 26 (“which comes from the Father”). 4. But in the Christ-Catholic Catechism, published in 1889, thirteen [14] years after the Old Catholic Catechism, it reads: "120. From whom does the Holy Spirit come? The Holy Spirit proceeds from eternity from the Father and is one being with the Father and the Son (John 15:26).” 5. In the Old Catholic Catechism (questions 39. 40) only the text of “the most ancient symbol, which is called apostolic” is given; The Guide also contains (§ 44, 1, b) the text of the Niceno-Constantinograd symbol: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giving, who proceeds from the Father,” and only under the line it is noted: “in the west it was subsequently added: “and from the Son.” In the Christ-Catholic Catechism in the text of the “Nicene symbol” (question 1) it reads: “der vom Vater ausgeht” = “Who proceeds from the Father,” and not a word is said regarding the Filioque, either in the text or under the line. 6. Intercourse with Petersburg department of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment with Old Catholics opened with a letter dated January 19/31, 1874 (to which a “List” was attached), in which, among other things, the following is read. lines: “We hope to see the restoration of the Western, Orthodox, autocephalous church, kindred to us, and we hope to provide all possible assistance to this event. This restored Western Church would be eo ipso with our “one.” – – “Therefore, this unity would not be a fusion (Verschmelzung. mixing) of both churches, nor an aimless (peaceful) agreement between them (zweckloser Vertrag)” (ibid., pp. 426. 427). 7. That these last lines simply express agreement with. Petersburg department of the Society to take the point of view, the adoption of which the Old Catholics themselves recognize as a conditio sine qua non of any relations with the Eastern Orthodox Church, this was shown by both Bonn conferences of 1874 and 1875. aa) Firstly, Old Catholics do not want any union omissions, which in the future could only lead to misunderstandings. The “invitation to the second Bonn conference” dated July 8/20, 1875, signed by Döllinger, states directly: “That is not the intention of the conference. so that “through ambiguous phrases, which then “everyone could interpret for himself as he pleases,” to reach an illusory agreement. On the contrary, she wants, through a comprehensive investigation, to establish such provisions that would simply and accurately express the essence of biblical teaching and paternal tradition and precisely for this reason could serve as a connection “and a guarantee of the desired communication” (Report on last year’s second Bonn conference by Professor Reisch and an explanation about it in the St. Petersburg Department of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment [from the magazine Christian Reading 1876, No. 1 – 2], St. Petersburg 1876. p. 2). bb) Secondly, the Old Catholics wish to remain Orthodox-Catholic Western Christians in the future. The “invitation to the first Bonn conference”, which appeared in August 1874 and signed by Döllinger, states: “The immediate goal to which the conference should contribute is not an all-consuming union” (absorptive Union), or a complete fusion of various church bodies (Kirchenkoerper), but the restoration of church communion on the basis of unity in the necessary (unitas in necessariis), with the preservation and retention of those characteristics of individual churches that do not belong to the essence of the ancient church confession” (Collected minutes, third year 1874 - "1875, St. Petersburg 1875, p. 8. 9). At the second Bonn conference on August 2/14, 1875, Bishop Reinkens said: “I will remind Mr. Professor Overbeck that none of us “thinks of moving to the Eastern Church” (Report, p. 71). 8. These two desires of the Old Catholics determined their attitude towards the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit at both conferences. aa) Firstly, they did not hide at all that in their views on this dogmatic issue they differed from the Eastern Orthodox Church. bb) Secondly, they believed that this difference in views, inherited by them from their past, is natural and not reprehensible in them as Orthodox Catholic Christians, not Eastern, but Western, and cannot serve as an obstacle to their communication with the Orthodox Eastern Church. 9 . At the first Bonn conference, Döllinger clearly stated that “the formal side of the question of the Filioque” must be resolved “without prejudging the material, dogmatic issue” (Collected minutes, III, 22, cf. 23). And when they began to formulate the generally accepted position at the conference that the word Filioque was inserted illegally into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan symbol, they encountered serious difficulty, since the Eastern Orthodox could not agree to such an expression in which it would be assumed that the Filioque undoubtedly contained any truth, while the Anglicans, in turn, did not agree to formulas in which it was implicitly stated that the Filioque undoubtedly did not express any truth. (Ibid., pp. 37–47). 10. In this situation, this issue moved to the second Bonn conference in 1875, which specifically discussed it. And at this conference, the Old Catholics, without abandoning their Western views, expressed the hope that their unity with the Orthodox Church was possible. aa) Firstly, Bishop Reinkens stated: “Concerning the procession of the Holy Spirit there is no other “dogma [i.e. e. in the universal church, universally recognized eternal truth], except for the position in the Niceno-Constantinograd symbol: τὸ Πνεομα – τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, “and in the Holy Spirit - - like those who come from the Father.” The Old Catholics, according to him, having recognized the illegality of inserting the Filioque into the symbol, eo ipso recognized that the Filioque is not a dogma. “But the Eastern Church,” continues Reinkens. - “in her “Orthodox Confession” she also could not resist making an addition, which represents only a theological consideration, and yet is considered by the Eastern Church to be a dogma. The Easterners introduced precisely the word μόνου (from one) and say: ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρὸς (comes from one Father). We, of course, “can accept this as a theological opinion, in view of these explanatory words: ὡ ς ἐκ πηγῆς καὶ ἀρχῆς τῆς θεότητος (as the source and beginning of the deity), but this is a meaning-expanding explanation of the dogma, as it is expressed in symbol, “can itself become a dogma only after the decision of the Ecumenical Council. But if there is a difference between us not only in expression, but also in the essence of the matter, then do you really think, dear sirs, that at an ecumenical council (if one could now be constituted as a representative of the entire church) you with your 80 million against 250 - 560 million Western Christians could receive an ecumenical answer in your favor? Moreover, your teaching lacks semper. Still, both your and our understanding remain for now as a school theological opinion, which cannot, like dogma, be the basis for division, but agreement and reconciliation are very desirable, and I sincerely strive for it together with you.” Thus, Reinkens considers the union possible on the basis that the existing difference in views is not a dogma, but a (private) school theological opinion of the Western (“and from the Son”) and Eastern (“from one Father”) churches. 11. Döllinger motivated the same view with a number of these propositions: aa) Old Catholics seek from the Eastern only tolerance for Western understanding as a theological opinion only. After all, we, for our part, do not want the Eastern Church to include the Filioque in the symbol or accept the teaching, for example. St. Augustine; We only wish that she would recognize our understanding as tolerant.” bb) Easterners can treat the Western view this way if they look at it impartially, renouncing historical prejudices. ααα ) “For centuries, both in schools and in ordinary life, the Eastern people were inspired to look at their teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit as a bastion, “which must be defended with all energy.” (Report, page 32). βββ ) “This happened because the “dogmatic question of the procession of the Holy Spirit” “was - so to speak - forcibly involved in the struggle over questions of church structure” [Döllinger means the struggle between the Eastern Church and the Roman Papacy]; “The difference that came to light on this dogmatic question was taken advantage of in order to reproach the other side with unorthodoxy (Heterodoxie).” (Report. 16). γγγ ) The forgeries of the papal theologians and the undoubted power-hungry claims of the popes in relation to the Eastern ones for the division of churches had the consequence that the Greeks treated all proposals, all the evidence of the West with distrust, in essence quite reasonable (nur allzu begründeten), and that a sincere agreement could never be reached.” (Collection of minutes, III, 31. 32. Wed. Report, 20). δδδ ) As a result of this mistrust, it happened that theologians on both sides sought only to formulate the teachings of their churches as sharply as possible.” “After him (John of Damascus) a time came in the Greek Church when they were looking for formulas that they had previously thought that their opponents could not accept, as Patriarch Jeremiah also assumed regarding his formula.” This formula is given there: “We believe that there is a twofold procession of the Holy Spirit: one – natural, eternal, pre-temporal, according to which the Holy Spirit proceeds from one Father (John 15:26). The other procession is temporary and messenger “(deputatio), by which the Holy Spirit is sent and brought forth into the outer world (externally) by both the Father and the Son, from both of them proceeds and flows out for the sanctification of creation.” “We, members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, on the basis of the teaching of the Fathers, say that the Holy Spirit proceeds exclusively from the Father, if we mean the procession by nature (natürlich), eternal and pre-temporal: and therefore, speaking about the Son, we do not use either the preposition ἐκ, or the preposition διά. For we do not say that the Holy Spirit in that respect (i.e., in relation to the eternal procession) proceeds from the Son or through the Son, since just as the Son was not begotten through the mediation of the Holy Spirit, so the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father through the mediation of the Son.” c) “In any case, all of us [Old Catholics and Orthodox] do not have any ulterior thoughts and therefore have no reason not to trust each other.” d) “let us leave aside these newest polemical expositions and, in general, the interpretations of later theologians, in which theological speculations were repeatedly put in the place of dogma. Explanations in the line of Jeremiah are directly aimed at making union impossible.” “If one side or the other had appointed the latest theologians as judges, our cause would have been lost in advance.” dd) “In the interests of agreement, we want to recognize as judges (in this matter) precisely the fathers of the Greek Church up to and including John of Damascus,” the fathers “of that time when the spirit of agreement still reigned and both streams of Eastern and Western tradition still flowed together, undivided. I named John of Damascus precisely because he completes this general tradition and sets out the most ancient tradition in a condensed form.” Starting from the polemical positions of later theologians, “we will not take a single step forward; “Based on the teachings of the church fathers, I think we can come to some kind of agreement.” (Report, pp. 10. 9. 10). This hope seems all the more feasible to Döllinger because the most ancient Western fathers in theology were only disciples of the Eastern fathers, and therefore, if in the works of the Latin fathers there is anything similar to the later Western view, then we can, so to speak, a priori assume that the Latin fathers took this similarity from the Greek fathers. ßßß) This assumption is justified in fact (a posteriori): the fathers of the Eastern Church have a teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son. γγγ ) If the Westerners have a peculiarity in their view that the Eastern fathers would not have found, then it should be borne in mind that “both expressions “ἐκπορεύεσθαι” and “procedere” are not completely covered by one another: the first, on the one hand, says more, on the other hand, less than the latter, and contains something that relates to the relationship of the Holy Spirit only to Father." (Report, page 10). To these words of Döllinger, Bishop Gennady (Bishop of Argesu) remarked: “The Greek language is richer than Latin. We have both expressions "ἐκπορεύεσθαι" and "προϊέναι"; "procedere" and corresponds to the latter." (Report, page 10). But prof. I. T. Osinin (Report, p. 23) accepted this with a limitation: “it cannot be said that the Latins generally connected a different meaning with the expression procedere. While the most ancient time is meant, we cannot take procedere in a meaning other than ἐκπορεύεσθαι." The first (ααα) Döllinger expressed as follows (Report, p. 20): “In theological subjects in the narrow sense, in those points of theology that concern God, also in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the Western Church is a disciple of the Eastern. Latin literature of the first centuries in this respect is completely dependent on Greek. She cannot indicate a detailed study of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit until the end of the 4th century, when the works of Basil and Didymus became known in the West thanks to Ambrose and Jerome. The phrases that are found among the Latin fathers were not their own for a long time, but were borrowed from the Greeks. Augustine is “the only person who appears with a certain originality both in other areas and in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. But he speaks more tentatively than with dogmatic certainty. In any case, the entire Western teaching of ancient times is in the closest connection with the teaching of the Eastern fathers. The sharp contrast between the Eastern and Western forms of teaching is a product of later times. Α second ( βββ ) – by the way, on p. 19 of the “Report” - it is stated as follows: “The Greek fathers consider the expression “διὰ τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ (through the Son) more correct than the Latin Filioque (and from the Son).” 12. To clarify the patristic teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, the following (most important) was done at the second Bonn conference. aa) To the words of Döllinger: “The work of the Holy Spirit through the “Father” (sic) “must be thought of as an act that has its basis in the divine nature, but also depends on the will, and precisely as an act, not in time, but logically following the birth of the Son. That is why we call the Father the first, the Son the second, the Holy Spirit the third Person.” Bishop Gennady objected: “This does not agree with our understanding. The name “first, second and third Person” has its basis only in the order of Revelation: first the Father was revealed, after Him the Son, after the Son the Holy Spirit. But the eternal work of the Son and the Holy Spirit coincides with one another so much that one cannot be placed before the other, not only chronologically, but even logically.” In response to this, Prof. Knodt said: “It is absolutely necessary to return to the Fathers of the Church; The newest theologians of the Eastern Church, also Archimandrite Sylvester, in his work “[“The Orthodox’s answer to the scheme proposed by the Old Catholics about the Holy Spirit”, Kiev 1874. Published in German by the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. St. Petersburg 1875], “which was sent to us, defends a view that is completely incomprehensible to me. How should we actually think about this matter?” Yanyshev: “The point is to recognize that the participation of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit concerns only the appearance and action of the Spirit, and not His existence.” Knodt: “We must distinguish between manifestatio ad intra and ad extra (revelation or discovery in the inner life of the Divine and externally); the latter is the creation of the world. Between one and the other it is impossible to insert anything in between.” Yanyshev: “I am talking about the participation of the Son during the mission of the Holy Spirit, as well as during His appearance in general. However, in this matter we can move forward not with the help of speculation, but only with frank teaching. If the church fathers talk about the work of the Holy Spirit as a force that appears, then they often attribute Him not only to the Father, but also to the Son. But they make the existence of the Holy Spirit dependent only on the Father.” bb) At the fifth meeting, some of the Easterners spoke about the meaning of the patristic teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son. Ι. I. L. Yanyshev. “I confess that I have not dealt specifically with the question that now occupies us for many years; It was only the Old Catholic movement that prompted me to study it more closely. I could present the result of this study in the following four points: “1) Divinity, divine properties, divine being are the same for all three divine Persons. From this point of view, it is just as impossible to talk about any division between the Father and the Holy Spirit, “just as it is impossible to talk about the division between the Son and the Holy Spirit. We all agree on this. 2) The special feature of the first Person is that He alone is πηγὴ, αἰτία or ἀρχὴ of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that He Himself is ἄναρχος. In this sense, both other Persons are the product of the first, the Son through birth, the Holy Spirit through procession.” 3) The special feature of the second Person is that He “is the Only Begotten Son, the Word who is eternal with God, and, like the Holy Spirit, was sent into the world. “4) The special feature of the third Person, the Holy Spirit, is that in His being He proceeds from the Father, in His action or appearance - whether in eternity or in time - not only from the Father, but also from the Son. G. Döllinger spoke about two streams in the teaching of the Greek fathers about the procession of the Holy Spirit. The second of these streams, that is, the view that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son, in the ancient patristic literature of the Greek Church appears not from tradition, not as a teaching always contained by the church; since only certain passages can be cited in favor of this view in some of the church fathers; and these very passages do not refer to the existence or the beginning of the existence of the Holy Spirit, but to His appearance, to His shining, to His action from the Son. The view that this radiance also extends to the immanent eternal life of the Divine, in view of how they speak about this, for example. St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. John of Damascus can no doubt be tolerated in the church as a theological opinion. In this teaching, it seems to me, lies the main point of difference between us and the Old Catholic theologians, and if I understand the question correctly, then I see no reason why the Eastern Church should condemn the theological opinion now expressed as such. This I allow myself to openly express here as my personal conviction” (Report, pp. 47–49). II. Damalas (professor of the University of Athens) in a long speech (Report, pp. 49 - 51) expressed the view that the Westerners must still prove the correctness of their theologumenon with clarity from St. scriptures and from the definition of any ecumenical council, or at least from the consonant testimony of the church fathers who lived before the division of the churches, but first show by eliminating the Filioque from the symbol that they, the Old Catholics, really see in the Filioque not a dogma, but only a theological opinion” (Report, p. 51). III. Rossis (Professor at Rizarion Theological Seminary and Associate Professor at the University of Athens); “The study of the church fathers and the history of dogmas on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit and the relationship of the Son to Him led me to the following results: “The Church Fathers know only one beginning (ἀρχὴ) or “source (πηγὴ) or cause (αἰτία) of the Son and the Holy Spirit - the Father. According to some Church Fathers, Son) or πρόεισιν ἐκ Πατρὸς καὶ δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ πρόεισιν (comes from the Father and through the Son), or πέφηνεν (appeared), ἐκλάμπει (shines), φανεροῦται (manifests), προκύπτει (arises), πέμπεται (sent χορηγεῖται (conducted). The word "ἑκπορεύεαθαι" expresses more the principle, the beginning, the source of being; the word προϊέναι - more, eternal or temporary, activity does not quite correspond to the Greek ἐκπορεύεσθαι, which is a preposition. ἐκ denotes more the beginning, the source of being. The Latin procedere rather corresponds to the Greek προϊέναι, which more indicates activity. The Greek word “ὲκπορεύεσαι” is fully consistent only with the Augustinian expression “principaliter procedere”. If therefore the church fathers say: “τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ Πατρὸς δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ,” πρόεισιν ἐκ Πατρὸς δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ, then - according to their teaching about a single source or cause in the Divinity - we must understand these expressions in the sense that the Holy Spirit has the beginning or cause of His existence in the Father, but that in the activity of the Spirit, both eternal and temporary, the Son also takes part.” 13. The final result of the second Bonn conference: on Monday 4/16 August 1875 the following theses were adopted by the East and West: “We accept the teachings of St. John of Damascus on the Holy Spirit, as expressed in the following paragraphs, in the sense of the teaching of the ancient undivided church." The words: “in the sense of the teachings of the ancient undivided church” were added according to a remark from the Eastern side, “against which,” as Döllinger stated, “from our [Old Catholic side] nothing can be objected.” “1) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς), as the beginning (ἀρχὴ), cause (αἰτία), source (πηγὴ) of the Divinity (De recta sentontia n. 1. Contra Manich, n. 4). 2) The Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son (ἐκ τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ), because in the Divinity there is only one beginning (ἀρχὴ), one cause (αἰτία), which produces everything that is in the Divinity. (De fide orthod. 1, 8: ἐκ τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ δὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα οὐ λέγομεν, Πνεῦμα δὲ ϒ ἱοῦ ὁνομάξομεν ). 3) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. (De fide orthod. 1, 12: τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον ἐκφαντορικὴ τοῦ κρυφίου τῆς θεότητος δύναμις τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐκ Πατρός μὲν, δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ ἐκπορευομένη. “The Holy Spirit is the power of the Father, manifesting what is hidden in the Godhead, proceeding from the Father through the Son.” Ibidem: ϒ ἱοῦ δὲ Πνεῦμα οὐχ ὡ ς ἐξ αὐτοῦ , ἀλλ ’ ὠ ς δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς εκπορεύομενον. “The Spirit of the Son, not as from Him, but as proceeding from the Father through Him.” Contra Manich. n. 5: διὰ τοῦ Λόγου αὐτοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ τὸ Πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύομενον . “Through His (the Father’s) Word proceeding His Spirit.” De hymno Trisagio n. 28: Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς διὰ τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ καὶ Λόγου προϊόν. “The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son and the Word.” Hom. in sabb. s. n. 4: τοῦτ᾿ [sic] ἡμῖν ἐστι τὸ λατρευόμενον ... Πνεῦμα ἄγιον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς, ὡ ς ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον, ὅ περ καὶ τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ λέγεται, ὡ ς δι᾿ αὐτοῦ φανερούμενον καὶ τῆ κτίσει μεταδιδόμενον , ἀλλ ’ οὐκ ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἔχον τὴν ὕ παρξιν . “This is what we honor: ... the Holy Spirit of God and the Father, as proceeding from Him, who is also called the Spirit of the Son, as manifested through Him and communicated to creation, but not as having being from Him.” Quote from hom. in sabb. s. added after." 4) “St. The Spirit is the image of the Son - the image of the Father (De fide orthod. 1, 13: Πνεομα ), “The image of the Father is the Son and (the image of) the Son is the Spirit” “coming from the Father and resting in the Son, as His manifesting power (De fide orthod. I, 7: τοῦ Πατρὸς προερχομένην καὶ εν τῷ Λόγω αναπαυομένην καὶ αὐτοῦ ούσαν έκφαντικην δύναμιν . “The manifest power of His (the Word), proceeding from the Father and resting in the Word.” Ibid. 1, 12: Πατήρ ... διὰ Λόγου ποβολεύς έκφαντορικου Πνεῦματος. “Father... through the Word bringing forth the manifest Spirit.” 5) “St. The Spirit is a hypostatic (persönliche) product from the Father, belonging to the Son, but not from the Son, because He is the Spirit of the mouth of the Divinity, communicating the Word.” (De hymno Trisag. n. 28: τὸ Πνεῦμα ἐνυπόστατον ἐκπόρευμα καὶ πρόβλημα ἐκ ?? , Λόγου ἐξαγγελτικόν ). “The Spirit is a hypostatic procession and a product, although from the Father, but belonging to the Son and not from the Son, as the Spirit of the mouth of God, communicating the Word.” 6) “St. The Spirit forms a medium between the Father and the Son and through the Son is united with the Father (De fide orthod. 1, 13: ἱοῦ τῷ Πατρὶ συναπτόμενον ). “(The Holy Spirit is) the mediator between the Unbegotten and the Begotten, and through the Son united with the Father.” 14. From all that has been said, it becomes clear that a) the Old Catholics look at the question of ο Filioque in the symbol differently than the Eastern ones, starting with Photius. b) they place their hopes for union with the Orthodox Church on the fact that Eastern theologians, having clarified the teaching of Sts. Eastern fathers about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, in this teaching they will see the basis for seeing in the Western form of view a private theological opinion that does not interfere with the communication of Old Catholics with the Orthodox Church, and c) the Orthodox Church is treated differently from the way the Roman popes and Roman Catholics of the time of union attempts treated it. These three circumstances posed a particular difficulty for representatives of the Orthodox Church at the Bonn conference. a) When the Easterners of previous centuries began their unifying attempts with the demand that the Westerners exclude Filioque from the symbol, they, the Easterners, implicitly assumed that whoever excludes the word Filioque from the symbol, implicite by this very action condemns as false the view that is denoted by the word Filioque and which for the Westerners is a dogma. The Old Catholics say clearly that by eliminating the addition in the symbol. as canonically incorrect, they in no way prejudge the question of the view contained in the Filioque - they do not prejudge in the sense that this view is false, contains error - but only say that this view is not a dogma for them either, but only theologumenon, only a school theological opinion. b) The question of the meaning of δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ in modern Orthodox literature by 1874–1875 had not yet been specifically considered. This depended partly on the fact that c) Orthodox theologians had to conduct polemics with Roman Catholics on the issue of Filioque; and among these latter this question, complicated by the idea of ​​papal supremacy, came down to denying the correctness of Eastern teaching. Concluding a union with the Eastern, the Roman Catholic Church believed that the Eastern Uniates were always obliged to believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but it only dispensed - for the time being - the Uniates from the obligation to confess this truth, which, nevertheless, for them is a dogma de fide credendum. And Eastern theologians had to prove that the church did not dogmatically teach about the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son. The Old Catholics of the NF need this evidence because they themselves claim the same thing, and only pose a new question: does the Eastern Church agree to treat the Filioque leniently as a theological opinion - in view of the fact that, accepting the six theses extracted from St. John of Damascus, do they themselves condemn such conclusions from the Filioque as that the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit, that the Filioque introduces two principles in the Divinity? 15. To clarify the patristic teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit, Russian theologians wrote the following. essays with a special character: 1. Archimandrite (now bishop [† 1908]) Sylvester, “An Orthodox Answer to the Scheme Proposed by the Old Catholics about the Holy Spirit.” Kiev 1874. The Eminence author, proving that δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ does not contain the thought of the causal dependence of the Holy Spirit on the Son in existence, ὕ παρξις, explains most of such passages in the sense of the temporary messenger of the Holy Spirit into the world. Lyangen’s remark (or, more precisely, sent by Lyangen) that according to the representation of the fathers in historical revelation the immanent relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son is revealed, is considered in the “Response” in the form of a special section, but remained without influence on the very method of the whole study. 2. S. V. Kokhomsky, The teaching of the ancient church on the origin of St. Duke. Historical and dogmatic essay. St. Petersburg 1875. – The work was published before the appearance of the six theses of the second Bonn conference. The teaching of St. Damascene is not investigated, since it lies outside the scope of the task set by the author. In the sense of δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ in Sts. Vasily V. and Gregory of Nyssa, the author expresses himself (pp. 26. 32) as follows: “In the “evangelical order, the name of the Holy Trinity is St. Basil finds an indication that the birth of the Son contains, as it were, a kind of condition for the (unconditional) procession of the Spirit and is imagined first.” “Consequently, in the order of timeless existence, according to the thought of St. Basil, the hypostasis of the Son only in a God-appropriate sense precedes the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, but does not produce it.” “When the Easterners teach,” the author of the words of Adam Zernikava quotes, “that the Holy Spirit proceeded directly from the Father (productum), they mean this in the sense of cause, that is, in the sense that both the Son is born and the Holy Spirit proceeds from one Father, but not in the sense of the order in which the Holy Spirit is from one Father. Nyssa recognizes mediation only in the sense of order, since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father after the birth of the Son (Filio generato). “This order is always observed by the Eastern Church, and by the means that Nyssa allows, nothing more can be understood.” 3. Η. M. Bogorodsky, Teaching of St. John of Damascus on the procession of the Holy Spirit, presented in connection with the theses of the Bonn conference of 1875. St. Petersburg 1879. – The author already knows the work of Langen: The difference in the doctrine of the Trinity between the Western and Eastern churches. Historical and dogmatic research. (Bonn 1876. Russian translation in the “Collection of minutes of the St. Petersburg Department of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment,” year IV). The main thesis of the author: “The formula” δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ “expresses in I. Damascene the idea of ​​the relationship of coexistence between the Son and the Holy Spirit in Their origin from the Father, or, what is the same, about the origin of Them One together with the Other,” and in this regard the author (e.g. p. 31 note 2 and p. 57 note 1) makes several remarks against the interpretation of the patristic passages where “through the Son” is mentioned, always and everywhere in the sense of a temporary messenger. (Cf. pp. 165–167. 170–171. 168). 4. Prof. A. A. Nekrasov, Teachings of St. John of Damascus on the personal relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son of God (Regarding the Bonn Conference), fourth appendix (pp. 163 - 200) to the essay: “Reading the Greek text of the holy gospels.” Kazan 1888. – The main thesis of the author: “according to the teachings of St. John of Damascus, the Son of God, together with His timeless and eternal birth from the Father, is timelessly and eternally imbued with the Holy Spirit emanating from the same one Father, whom He sends to the works of His hands and, especially, by virtue of His redemptive merits, to His elect” (p. 199. 200). The position of Catholics is not correct: “if the Holy Spirit passes through the Son, then comes from Him”: the sun's rays pass through the glass, but they do not come from the sun and the glass (pp. 196. 197). The preposition διὰ does not mean “through” (in the sense of causa instrumentalis), but “through” in the sense of “through” (pp. 197. 195). The expression “through the Son” “points to the real and eternal side of this relationship, and not to its mere temporary and conditional manifestation” (p. 191). Thus, all the named Russian theologians, to one extent or another, admit that some patristic passages about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ, cannot be explained in the sense of His temporary sending into the world; that δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ sometimes indicates something long-term and eternal in the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son. 16. To clarify the question of how the Filioque should be treated in the sense of the private opinion of the Old Catholics, information is offered on the following individual points related to this issue: a) Expressions: “St. The Spirit proceeds from the one Father” is not found in such authoritative dogmatic monuments as the statement of faith about the Hypostases of the triune God in “The Order of the Installation of a Bishop”, “The Message of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith” and “The Long Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church”. It is not found in the “Guide to the Study of Christian Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” (Makariy M. of Moscow), § 30. In the “Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East” (Peter Mogila) (1 part answer 71) it reads: “God and the Father himself is one, the fault of two, and not begotten. The Son is from the one Father guilty and born. And the Spirit himself, who is responsible and proceeds from the one Father, is sent into the world through the Son.” In the Greek text "Ὀρθόδοξος ὁμολογία" these words are given with direct reference: "ὁ αὐτός Ἀθανάσιος ἐν ταῖς ἱεραῖς ἐρωτήσεσι, δ᾿ ", where they are read literally; but these Quaestiones (Migne, SG. t. 28, 786) are a forged work that does not belong to St. Afanasy V. b) aa) The expression “St. The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son” is usually traced historically to Origen, who classifies the Holy Spirit in the category of all those who came into being through the Word (John 1:3). In fact, already in Tertullian (adv. Prach. n. 4) the words are read: “I do not produce the Son from here, but from the being of the Father. I do not put the Spirit away from [being] as from the Father through the Son. Therefore, see if you are destroying the unity of command.” “Filium non aliunde deduco sed de substantia Patris – – – Spiritum non aliunde puto quam a Patre per Filium. Vide ergo ne tu potius monarchiam destruas.” Here Tertullian bases his teaching on unity of command, on the unity of the Christian God, on the truth of the consubstantiality of the three Hypostases. Subordinationism does not govern Tertullian's thinking here. bb) In the symbol of St. Gregory the Wonderworker we read: “There is one God, the Father of the living Word, [self-]existent wisdom and power and eternal image, the perfect parent of the perfect, the Father of the only begotten Son. “There is one Lord, one from one, God from God, the image and expression of divinity, the active Word, the wisdom containing the composition of everything, and the power that builds all creation; true Son of the true Father, invisible of the invisible, incorruptible of the incorruptible, immortal of the immortal, and eternal of the eternal. And there is one Holy Spirit, who had his being from God and was revealed through the Son, the perfect image of the perfect Son, life is the cause of the living, a holy source, a shrine that bestows sanctification. He is God the Father, who is above everything and in everything, I am God the Son, who is through everything. The Trinity is perfect,” etc. “Neither the Father was ever without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit,” etc. The best edition of the Greek original and translations is in S. R. Caspari.Alte und neue Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel (Christiania 1879), S. 10. 1 - 17. 34 - 36. - After the words: “and through the Son appeared” in all available Greek texts (the oldest codex Paris, graec. 1084 saec. X) the words are read: δηλαδὴ τοῖς ἄνθρώποις, “that is [or rather: “it goes without saying”] to people.” Caspari says: “in all likelihood these words are not authentic.” They are not in the Latin translation of Rufinus (the oldest manuscript is Reichenauer (Carlsruher) cod. XVIII (saec. X), nor in the Syriac translation in cod. Brit. Add. 18,815 saec. IX. In this symbol, attention is drawn to the parallelism of expressions The title “one of one” is assigned to the Son of God and is not applied to the Holy Spirit. St. Gregory the Theologian uses a similar expression twice: in poema dogmaticum 1, 31 - 35 (Migne, SG. 37, 400 - 401): “the one Son of the beginningless and the one and only, equal (to Him) - - -. There is one Spirit from the good God, God.” 32. Ο ἶ ος καὶ μούνοιο μονώτατος , ἰσοφέριστος , – – 35. Ἐν Πνευμ᾿ ἐξ ἀγαθοῖο Θεοῦ Θεός . and in poema morale 1, 24 – 28 (ibid. 524): “but from the Son is not born the beloved Son, who is of the same glory to Him, so that the Father is entirely the Parent, and the Son is the only Son and the only one, raised into one with the great Spirit, which equally proceeds from the Father.” V. 25. – – – Аὖ ταρ ὕ γ᾿ ϒ ιός 26. Ο ἶ ον καὶ μούνοιο μονώτατος᾿ εἰς ἒ ν ἰόντε 27. Πνεῦματι σύν μεγάλ ῳ, τό ' ρα Πατρόθεν ε ἶ σιν ὁμοιον . Also John of Damascus in the irmos of the 4th song of the canon of Pentecost: “To the king of kings, one from the other [= one from one] is one, The word that came from the guiltless Father, Equally powerful of Your Spirit as an apostle Truly you have sent (=shone).” "Ἄ ναξ ἀνάκτων, ο ἶ ος ἐξ οἴου μόνος, Λόγος προελθ ὼ ν Πατρὸς ἐξ ἀναίτιου, "" cc) At St. Afanasia V. (παρὰ τοῦ Λόγου ἐκλάμπει, but there is also δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ), Epiphany of Cyprus (ἐκ Πατρὸς καὶ ϒ ἱοῦ, παρὰ Πατρὸς καὶ ϒ ιού, παρ᾿ ἀμφοτέρων) and Cyril of Alexandria (ἐξ αὐτοῦ [Son], παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ, πρόεισι δὲ ἐκ Πατρὸς καὶ ϒ ἱοῦ) there are expressions where the same preposition ἐκ or παρὰ means the attitude of the Holy Spirit as to the Father, so to the Son. But at the same time St. Epiphanius (this image of an elliptical expression is his stylistic feature) always keeps silent about the verb that he implies in this case; and when he expresses himself with all certainty, he speaks in the language of the gospel (παρ᾿ οὐ ἐκπορεύεται καὶ παρ᾿ οὐ λαμβάνει). At St. Cyril the usual verbs are πρόεισιν, κατὰ φύσιν προχεόμενον, οὐσιωδώς προϊόν. The following explanatory amendment is characteristic: προχεόμενον Πνεῦμα. Cf. ὡ ςπερ γάρ πρόεισιν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον, αὐτοῦ ?? . This is the expression of St. Maximus the Confessor almost literally (with ὑπάρχει τοῦ Πατρὸς – ἐστι τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ) repeated twice with the conclusion “ώς ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς "" dd) The view that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, passes, appears, shines, without any verbal approach to the Filioque (without even an accidental replacement of διὰ through ἐκ go παρά), is found among Sts. Vasily V., Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Theologian (something similar), Maxim [St. Gregory the Theologian sets out in his church words about theology only the positive dogma that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; but in poema morale 2, 685 – 689 (Migne, SG. 37, 632) there is a trace. words: – – - “Be merciful to us, 685. Gracious, merciful, pure Trinity, going into one 686. From the one, shining for bright eyes 687. Today, and at the end [of time] - even more clearly, for those on whom You have shone, 688. One God from the Parent through the Son into the great Spirit, 689. So in the perfect stands the perfect deity.” 685. – – – αγνή Τριάς , εἰς εν ίουσα 686. ἐξ ενός – – – – – – – 688. εἰς θεος ἐκ Ι᾿ενέταο δι᾿ ϒ ἱέος ές μέγα Πνεῦμα 689. Ἰ στάμενης θεότητος ενι τελέοισι τελείης. Cf. orat. theolog. 3, n. 2 (Migne, SG. 36, 76B): “The one, having originally moved into two, stopped at the trinity. And this is our “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”. “Μονας, ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς εἰς δυάδα κινηθεῖσα, μέχρι τριάδος ἔστη.” Καὶ τοῦτο ἐστιν ἡμῖν ὁ Πατὴρ, καὶ ὁ ϒ ἱος, καὶ τὸ ἄγιον Πνεῦμα "]. Confessor, John of Damascus and Tarasius of Constantinople, who in his sociable epistle, the Orthodoxy of which is attested by the Eastern Patriarchs, Hadrian of Rome and the Seventh Ecumenical Council, writes: “I believe - - and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father through the Son” Patriarch Anastasius of Antioch († 599?), meaning (in Ps. 33:3: “By the Word of the Lord - and the Spirit of His mouth”) by the “mouth” of the “Only Begotten,” says that the Holy Spirit “proceeds and is sent not only from the Father, but also from the Son – – –. And the Lord, showing that He (the Spirit) is from Him, blew on the disciples and said “etc.” In Ammonius of Alexandria (c. 458) only: “καὶ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ προϊὸν ἐκ Πατρὸς.” The passages discussed in aa - dd are given in the original (sometimes after reference in English manuscripts) and are discussed with remarkable scientific impartiality in Η. V. Swete, On the history of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Cambridge 1876. ee) The question of the meaning of this paternal view was the subject of controversy in Byzantium. αα) Nikephoros Blemmydes (c. half of the 13th century) writes that only recently (χαιρὸς οὐ πολύς, ἐξ ο ὖ) some of his compatriots, in the interests of polemics against Filioque, began to shun the paternal δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ and, recognizing that the shining of the Holy Spirit from the Father is His proceeding from the Father, those places where we speak of His shining through the Son began to stubbornly explain in the sense of His giving through the Son. ββ ) Patriarch of Constantinople (1283 - 1289) Gregory of Cyprus, in a polemic with the unionist John Veccus, decisively disputed the identity of “sunrise” with “descent” recognized by Veccus. But when some of Gregory’s opponents began to reproach him for the fact that he considers the shining of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son to be an eternal, and not just a temporary fact, the patriarch, whose thorough acquaintance with the works of the Greek saints. fathers cannot be subject to dispute, answered his antagonists with the following lines (Christian Reading, 1889, vol. 2, pp. 569–570): “But they say that I, in addition, called this radiance eternal. This constitutes the third accusation against us. And you, who say this, whoever you are, do you not call the shining, shining and manifestation of the Spirit through the Son eternal? And is it possible to imagine this radiance otherwise? It is clear that the Spirit through the Son is communicated, given and sent only when those to whom He is sent, communicated and given are able to receive Him. But He shines, shines and manifests itself forever. You can be convinced of this from the great Basil, from his brother Gregory, from the wonderworker (Gregory of Neocaesarea), from Athanasius, from the wise John [Damascus], whose sayings I recalled a little higher. “Son,” says Vasily, “through “Himself and together with Himself, cognizing [γνωρίζων = revealing, characterizing] the Spirit emanating from the Father.” Thus, if He is ever known with the Son ["γνωρίζεται "", with the Son from whom He was never separated (about ὐκ ἐκλείπει ποτέ), as you know, and through whom ever; then how can we imagine all this if not eternal? Gregory, in turn, considers the properties of the Spirit, which make up His difference from the Father and the Son, to be that He appears and shines through the Son. Α since the Holy Spirit was never without His personal properties, as you also know, then the appearance through the Son, as a property inherent in Him as an eternally existing one, you certainly cannot call non-eternal, unless you have a king in your head (νοῦν ἔχων). The miracle worker clarified this even better with his teaching that “the Holy Spirit is eternally sent through the Son “from the essence of the Father.” [These words are taken from ἡ κατὰ μέρος πίστις [ρ. 111, 5. 6. ed. de Lagarde, Titi Bostreni contra manichaeos. Berolini 1859], from a work which the Apollinarians attributed to St. Gregory the Wonderworker. Its actual author is Apollinaris of Laodicea himself, as proven by Caspari, Alte u. neue Quellen, 65 – 111, especially 80 – 86]. Athanasius and John give us, if possible, the image of the incomprehensible and invisible Trinity, so that through it they can guide us, as far as possible, and lead us to the knowledge (ἑπίγνωσιν) of this blessed nature. The first of them shows us this image in the sun, in the reflection of its rays and light, the second - in the sun, ray and light. What do you think, do these fathers consider light and radiance to always emanate from the sun through reflection or through a ray, or perhaps somehow (in their opinion) this is done in addition to the ray? And then, when you hear that the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son in the sense that He appears through the Son, and not in the sense that He has origin from Him, then how do you imagine the relationship of the Spirit to the Son? Do you imagine Him as the Spirit of the Son in time, becoming such after (ἑγχρόνως καὶ ποτέ), or existing in this capacity from eternity? - “Fi! (“Ἄ παγε),” you say, “of course from eternity and always.” If the Spirit is always the Spirit of the Son, and He is called the Spirit of the Son because He appears through the Son. then, obviously, the one who calls Him the Spirit of the Son or - which is the same thing - says that He is revealed through the Son, says at the same time that He is revealed from eternity. And so, stop, my dear (ὦ ο ὗ τος), your attacks on the scroll” etc. c) Are there grounds that would authorize us to declare authoritatively, in the name of the Catholic Church, that the Filioque contains a dogmatic view already condemned as false, i.e., that the Filioque is a heresy? Patriarch Photius tried to present such evidence in his work: “On the Mystery of the Holy Spirit” (Migne, SG. 102, 279 - 400) and declared the doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son to be a God-fighting heresy. The contents of this work are briefly as follows: αα) Without going into an investigation of the meaning of the paternal view that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, based on the indisputable fact that neither St. Scripture and ecumenical councils do not teach that the Holy Spirit emanates from the Son, on the one hand, relying on a whole series of dialectical arguments (conclusions ad absurdum), on the other hand, Photius establishes the view that those who teach the Filioque oppose the word of the Lord Himself. ßß) After this, Photius proceeds to discuss the Western objection that Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine and some others (n. 66: καὶ τινας ἑτέρους n. 68: ἢ ὅ στις ἕ τερος ) sacred men taught that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son. aaa) Assuming hypothetically as a fact that the Latin reference to these fathers is documented correct, Photius answers, 1. that the Latins treat their fathers like Ham, if not worse than Ham, since they not only do not cover the nakedness of their fathers, but they themselves reveal it (n. 70), presenting the fathers as rebelling against the words of Christ Himself (nn. 68. 69); 2. that the Latins cannot prove that their fathers, even if they fell into error, persisted in it when they were exposed (n. 68); that fathers should be imitated in their virtues, and not in their errors; 3. that in such places the fathers may have expressed themselves inaccurately, applying οἰκονομικῶς to the circumstances, according to the requirements of the controversy (nn. 72 – 77). bbb) But Photius, however, thinks that the very passages to which the Latins refer are, perhaps, only false insertions of heretics: at least he doubts that the Latins could prove their authenticity. γγ ) Α that the (Latin) Western Church at the time of the ecumenical councils did not teach filioquistically, this is clear from the fact that the Roman high priests did not adhere to this error. Their authority as πατέρες πατέρων (nn. 81, cf. 82), therefore higher than simply the paternal authority of Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine, Photius contrasts with the Latins and calls by name Damasus, Celestine, Leo I, Vigilius and Agathon, Gregory I (Dvoeslov), Zechariah, Leo III, Benedict III, John VIII (872 - 882) and Hadrian III (884 - 885). aaa) That the first five named popes did not teach the Filioque, Photius proves this by the fact that they accepted the creed of the contemporary ecumenical councils of the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth; and these Filioque councils did not preach; on the contrary, the fourth ecumenical council “affirmed” (χοροῖ) the symbol of the one hundred and fifty fathers, “meaning those who fight against the Holy Spirit” (διὰ τούς τῷ Πνεῦματι τῷ ἁ γίω μαχομένους), and recognized that this symbol about the divine “being (περὶ τῆς τοῦ Πνεῦματος οὐσίας) of the Holy Spirit” “teaches perfectly” ( ἐκδιδάσκει τὸ τέλειον ). Thus, the Council of Chalcedon condemned, in the opinion of Photius, both the ancient Doukhobor Macedonians and the new “headless wickedness (ἀκέφαλον τὸ δυσσέβημα)” Latins. And the fourth ecumenical council resolutely forbade the formation of “another faith” (ἑτέραν πίστιν) under pain of defrocking and anathema. bbb) St. Gregory the Dvoeslov expressed his loyalty to Orthodox teaching by saying in Dialog. 2. p. 38: “The Comforting Spirit proceeds from the Father and abides in the Son” τῷ ϒ ἱῷ διαμένει ". Α Zechariah translated the Dialogues from Latin into Greek. In the Greek translation of Zechariah in the current (Migne) editions it reads as Photius cites, only instead of τοῦ Πατρὸς it reads: ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς, but in the Latin original: “Paracletus Spiritus a Patre semper procedit et Filio.” Le Quien (Migne, SG. 94, 217) gives evidence indicating that already under John VIII (884 - 885) the Latin text actually had the same form as in the current editions, and in Rome some (Deacon John) suspected that the Greeks had “ruined” the translation of Pope Zechariah. Le-quien himself, based on the Greek and Latin context, thinks that in the Latin original St. Gregory wrote “et inFilio manet” instead of “et Filio”. ccc) Leo III ordered the symbol of one hundred and fifty fathers to be inscribed on two silver boards without addition in the Greek original and in the Latin translation, placed these shields on church doors, and introduced it into the custom in his church area to read the symbol in Greek at the liturgy. This order was also left in force by Benedict III. ddd) John VIII, through his legates at the Council of Constantinople in 879, “accepted and confirmed” the symbol without the Filioque, and Adrian III sent a “communicative message” to Photius himself, in which he “theologized that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.” d) The question posed above (in paragraph c) therefore boils down to whether it is possible to stand on the point of view of Photius at the present time without any roundaboutness. The following data can serve as a feasible answer to the question in its new formulation. 1. Photius, in any case, resolved the issue (point c, αα), without having at his fingertips the works of the saints. fathers: he himself admits this when, at the end of “Mystagogy” (n. 96), he promises to examine in detail the patristic arguments (τας χρήσεις) of the “new Doukhobors” (ἃ ς οἱ νέοι προκομίζουσι Πνεῦματομάχοι), "if ever the Lord returns to us the captivity of books and scribes" ἐπιστρέψε τῶν βιβλίων καὶ τῶν ὑπογραφέων ἡμῶν ). 2. The actual possibility of accepting the symbol without the Filioque, on the one hand, and holding on to the idea that the Filioque contains the correct teaching, on the other hand, cannot be disputed already because this is how the Old Catholics looked at the matter in 1874 and 1875. The entire argument of Photius from the ecumenical councils to the teaching of contemporary popes is a conclusion constructed at random, a non esse ad non posse or a posse ad esse, which is actually refuted by the same thing as in Leo. both Gregory and Leo III have passages with the Filioque. Leon, magni epist. 15: “qui de utroque procedit” (or “processit”). These words could have been inspired by the text of the message of Turibius, bishop. Astorgsky, to whom Leo c. in epist. 15 answers. In the Homily for the Feast of Pentecost (sermo 75, n. 3) Leo c. says: "Spiritus sanctus Patris Filiique - - Spiritus, - - sempiterne ex eo quod est Pater Filiusque subsistens." Cf. words of Gregory of Illiberia (ο c. 360) in de fide orthodoxa (Migne, SL. 20, 49): Son “misit nobis Spiritum sanctum de propria sua et ipsa una substantia sua. – – “De meo”, inquit, “accipiet”, ex eo utique quod est Filius; Quia et Filius de eo quod Pater est.” From these passages it is clear that the Filioque in the West appeared as an incorrect abbreviation of this “eo quod est,” which clearly spoke of the “being,” “substantia,” of the Son, not of His hypostasis. In Gregory's in Moral. 1, 22: “qui [Spirit] a se [from the Son] procedit” (cf. the words of Anastasius of Antioch in paragraph 16, b, dd §) and in homil in Evang. 2, 26: “eius [Spiritus sancti] missio ipsa processio est qua de Patre procedit et Filio” (Migne. SL. 76, 541. 1193). Deacon John dedicated the book to John VIII, which is discussed in 16, c, γγ, bbb §; therefore, in John VIII there is no reason to see a decisive anti-filioquist. 3. Unfamiliar with the Latin fathers, Photius bonâ fide thought that “Filioque” was found only among “some” of them and could even appear among them somehow by accident. Reality shows that the Filioque is a view widely held in the West. aa) Words of St. Hilary of Pictavius, that the Holy Spirit “Patre et Filio auctoribus confitendus est” does not have a filioquistic meaning (he only says that the Holy Spirit must be confessed to be God, because the Father and the Son testify to His deity by their relationship to Him). He poses the question: “he receives from the Son” is not the same thing as “proceeds from the Father”? but leaves it without an answer, and he himself remains at the point of view “per Filium” (“Sanctum Spiritum tuum, qui ex Te per Unigentuin tuum est”). bb) St. Ambrose of Milan teaches about the essential προϊέναι of the Holy Spirit through the Son. Against the Arian interpretation of Luke. 18, 19 (“no one is good except one God”) he proves that the Son is also good by reference to Ps. 142, 10 (“Thy good Spirit”).”Quomodo non bonus, cum bonitatis substantia assumpta ex Patre non degeneravit in Filio quae non degeneravit in Spiritu? quod si “bonus” Spiritus qui accepit ex Filio, bonus utique et ille qui tradidit” (Expos, in Luc. 8, Migne SL. 15, 1876). And the words ero "mittitur Spiritus - - quando procedit ex Filio - - cum procedit a Patre et Filio non separatur a Patre, non separate a Filio (de Sp. S. 1, 11) contain only the verbal Filioque, since we are talking here about ο "procedit" in the sense of "temporalis missio" as recognized by the Benedictine publishers themselves. ss) Ho "Filioque" blessed. Augustine is very clear in its meaning. - In the work de fide et syrabolo, on behalf of the Council of Hippo in 393 and read before the fathers of this council, Augustine. then still a presbyter of Hippo, says that the dogma of the Holy Spirit in patristic writing is not explained in detail; but it is indisputably firmly established that He was not born either from the Father as the Son, nor from the Son as the grandson of the Father. But in the main composition of Blessed. Augustine, De Trinitate, which he, already Bishop of Hippo, wrote for about 20 years (“libros iuvenis inchoavi, senex edidi”) and published a little before 428, he, however, as his theological personal and therefore not infallible conviction, but as a well-thought-out conviction, puts forward the following provisions: A) “Spiritus sanctus de Patre principaliter et ipso (Filio) communiter de utroque procedit." ß) “Ideo autem addidi “principaliter”, quia et de Filio Spiritus sanctus procedere reperitur; sed hoc quoque illi Pater gignendo dedit,” “ut de illo [Filio] procedat idem Spiritus sanctus, et uterque [the Son and the Spirit receive being] sine tempore.” γ ) “Nec possumus dicere, quod Spiritus sanctus et a Filio non procedat.” The blowing on the apostles shows, "non taut um a Patre, sed et a Filio procedere Spiritum sanctum." δ ) “Fatendum est Patrem et Filium principium esse Spiritus sancti, non duo principia, sed – – relative ad Spiritum sanctum unum principium.” ε ) The Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity represents “amorem, quae volentior est voluntas”, He is “amor- – de scientia procedens et memoriam intelligentiamque conjungens”. And back in 415 - 416. In winter, Augustine from the church pulpit said that in John. 15, 26 Christ “sic ait “de Patre procedit”, ut non diceret “de Me non procedit”, and that the Holy Spirit “simul de utroque procedit”. Α in 427 – 428 in an essay against the Arian bishop Maximin, Augustine recognizes as completely firm (“satis sit ergo nobis quia – -”), “quia de utroque procedit (Spiritus sanctus).” (Swete, 123 – 130). dd) Of course, this view did not immediately become the dogmatic teaching of the Western Church. Collected from Caspari, the instructions to the catechumens (“explanation of the symbol”), namely s.Ambrosii exhortatio ad neophytos de symbolo, Explanatio symboli ad initiandos (in St. Gallen ρκ p. VII - VIII centuries), Augustine himself sermo 213, s. Faustini tractatus de symbolo (after 490?), Tractatus symboli [between the 5th – 9th centuries] in the “Missale Florentinum” (the early 12th century) - do not teach the doctrine that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son. Only an explanation of the “apostolic symbol” in the Vienna RCP. X century contains the words: "Credo in Spiritum sanctum ex Patre et Filio procedentem." ee) Augustine's Filioque was most sympathetically adopted in Christian writing in Gaul and Africa. Eucherius, ate. Lugdunsky († 454: ex R. et F.), Faust, bishop. of Reii († 485: ex utroque), Gennady, presbyter of Massilia († 495: ex P. et F.), Julian Pomerius, presbyter of Arelat († 498: ex P. et F.) Avitus, bishop. Viennese († 523: and Filio et Patre[however, some documents associated with the name of Avitus of Vienna constitute a forgery by Jerome Vigne in the 17th century]), Fulgentius, bishop. Russian († 533: de P. et F.), Carthaginian deacon Fulgentius Ferrand († 550, student of Fulgentius, bishop of the Russian Spiritus sancti ab utroque procedere), held the view of the blessed one. Augustine, who found followers on the Iberian Peninsula (Turibius, Bishop of Asturic (in 447), Council of Toleti 589). ff) They were less sympathetic to the Augustinian view in Italy. In the second half of the 5th century. Ep. Nikita of Aquileia taught about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father “with such emphasis that one might think that either the Filioque was unknown in the Aquileian church, or Nikita considered this view to be a subtlety unnecessary for simple faith.” Swete, 153. Around 550, a contemporary of Fulgentius Ferranda, the Roman deacon Rusticus, knows that “some of the ancients,” quidam autiquorum, among personal characteristics, proprietatibus, [St. Spirit] they also believed that He does not come from the Son, as (comes from) the Father, nec procedit Spiritus a Filio sicut a Patre. Rusticus himself does not dare to defend the Filioque (“utrum vero a Filio eodem modo quo a Patre procedat, nondum perfecte satisfactum habeo”), not being completely sure of the correctness of this view, and therefore limits himself to the positive: “et Spiritus sauctus a Patre procedit.” But, in any case, in Italy, St. Peacock Bishop Nolansky († 431: “Spiritum ab Unigenâ sanctum ét Patré procedéutem”), Roman deacon Paschasius († 512: ex utroque), philosopher Boethius († 524: ex utrisque), senator Cassiodorus († about 570: de Patre et Filio), Popes Leo, Ormisda, Gregory c., Leo III, the Council of Friuli in 796, chaired by Paulinus of Aquileia, were either exponents of the Augustinian view or - finally - its direct and staunch defenders. 4. There is no reason to assume that the named fathers and church writers admitted the Filioque only by applying themselves to circumstances. Augustine came to this view theologically: nothing external forced him to this. Augustine's followers adopted his view because it seemed correct to them. There is equally little scientific reason to doubt the authenticity of all filioquistic passages. The debate can be carried on only about individual places and further in this case with success that is not indisputable. The fact of the widespread distribution of Filioque in the West remains - in the main and essential - beyond the question. When Orthodox polemicists point out, for example. (Kochomsky, 57), that in the message of Pope Hormizda Inter ea (ad Justinum imperatorem dated March 25, 521) the words: “proprium Spiritus sancti ut de Patre et Filio procederet” are “distorted” since Mansi “disassembled the original reading (“primigenia manus”): “notum etiam quod sit proprium Spiritus sancti”: - then they are missing from I see that Mansi is talking about only one RKP. (cod. Lucanus 125); and this message (ed. A. Thiel. Brunsbergae 1868) is published according to four collections (reviews) (GNJO), which together are presented in 46 manuscripts and five ancient editions, and only in three manuscripts there are no controversial words, and of these the reading in cod. Vat. 4961 is undoubtedly incorrect, in cod. Vallicell. A5 and cod. Lucanus 125 it is hardly correct, judging by the context. Likewise, the authenticity of the word "et Filio" in the symbol read at the Council of Toleti 589 is disputed on the ground that it does not appear in the printed editions of 1530 and 1535 and in the cod. Vallicellan D18. But it does not follow from this that Garcias Loaisa did not take this reading from the manuscripts. 5. The conclusion of Photius, that the ecumenical councils prohibit the addition to the symbol, therefore condemning the Filioque as a doctrine, has no compulsory dialectical force, since the Filioque is found in such fathers and writers who the ecumenical councils accept, therefore do not consider this view to be contrary to their definitions. Neither Photius nor Leo III refer to the 7th rule of the third ecumenical council, which actually protects the inviolability and authority of the Nicene symbol, not the Tsaregrad one. In the final words of the Chalcedonian definition, both Photius and Leo III see a prohibition - adding anything to the text of the Constantinople symbol. The immediate prohibition on expounding “another faith” protects the integrity of the (immediately preceding) Chalcedonian creed. The fathers of the sixth ecumenical council supplemented the text of this definition with the words: “one of the Holy Trinity” and “truly and in the proper sense (of the Mother of God)” (both explanations are from the acts of the fifth ecumenical council) and with their own presentation of the dogma of two wills and actions in Christ and in conclusion of their creed (i.e., a new edition of the creed of Chalcedon Council) repeated the prohibition against expounding “another faith.” Consequently, the fathers of the Sixth Council understand by “ἑτέραν πίστιν” a new creed that substantially disagrees with the teaching of Sts. fathers of the Council of Chalcedon. e) It is possible, however, to assume (theoretically) that the Eastern Catholic Church, if at none of the ecumenical councils did not explicitly condemn the doctrine of the Filioque, it was only because no one in the East suspected the existence of such an opinion in the West; that it would be immediately condemned by the church if even only with the character of a private opinion any Westerner expressed it in the East. The historical facts related to the explanation of this hypothesis are the following: A) When the bishops of the “east” (the Patriarchate of Antioch) in 430 matured the Orthodoxy of the 12 anathematisms of St. Cyril of Alexandria, then, in the interests of their polemic against his Christology, they tried to cast a shadow over his teaching about the Holy Trinity. In his expression “The Holy Spirit belongs to the Son” they tried to see a hint that, according to St. Kirill. The Holy Spirit “has being either from the Son or through the Son,” ὡ ς ἐξ ϒ ἱοῦ ἢ δι᾿ ϒ ἱοῦ τὴν ἥ παρξιν ἔχον . The Easterners consider such a view to be an indisputable heresy, “βλάσφημον καὶ δυσσεβές.” But St. Kirill showed that his expression did not have this meaning and cannot have it. Α in Theodoret the meaning of this “τὴν ἥ παρξιν ἔχον” is explained by a certain “δεδημιούργηται”; It was assumed, therefore, that - according to St. Cyril - The Holy Spirit has existence (not from the Father, but) from the Son, because it created through Christ as a creation. Since it cannot be disputed that the Easterners thought to fail St. Cyril under the Macedonian heresy; then this case should be considered not relevant to this issue. 3) Information about the second case is borrowed exclusively from a passage in the epistle of St. Maximus the Confessor to the Presbyter of Cyprus Marinus. The latter received alarming rumors that a sociable message from a pope not named by name [of course, either Theodore, from 642, or his successor, from 649, St. Martin] in Constantinople were found to be largely non-Orthodox. St. Maximus replies that the Monothelite people of Constantinople, instead of defending themselves against the pope’s accusations of unorthodoxy, went on the offensive and saw the pope’s message on two points: christological (a strange accusation that – according to the pope’s teaching – the Lord, as a man, was without ancestral sin), and theological. The last point was that, according to the teaching of the pope, the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son, ἐκπορεύεσθαι κἀκ τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον. But the bearers of the message defended themselves against this accusation: they cited “consonant expressions” from the Latin St. fathers and also (ἔτι μὲν καὶ) from the interpretation of St. Cyril of Alexandria on the Gospel of John. By this the Westerners showed that they do not make the Son the cause (οὐκ ἀιτίαν ποιοῦντας) of the Spirit - they know that the only cause (μίαν αἰτίαν) of the Son and the Spirit is the Father - but they use Filioque “to show that the Holy Spirit passes through and through the Son, and thereby express Their consubstantiality and coexistence" τὸ συναφὲς τῆς οὐσίας καὶ ἀπαράλλακτον παρὰστήσωσι ). - This apparently ended the matter. St. himself Maxim, as can be seen from the entire content of the message in question to Marin, recognized the explanations given by the Westerners as quite thorough. He only found that the “Romans,” in order to avoid possible misunderstandings, should themselves translate their messages into Greek, and in this sense “made a representation to the Romans” (παρεκάλεσα τούς ῥ ωμαίους), but did not fully hope that his advice would be accepted: on the one hand, a custom had long been established - to write messages in Latin, on the other hand, it is natural that the Romans cannot express themselves as accurately in a foreign language as in their own. In any case, since they experienced such a nuisance as nagging (τὴν ἐπήρειαν) in Constantinople, they will take care of eliminating such misunderstandings (γενήσεται δὲ πάντως αὐτοῖς πείρα τὴν ἐπήρειαν παθοῦσι καὶ ἡ περὶ τούτων φροντίς ). Pope Agathon forwarded to the sixth ecumenical council a) his message to Emperor Constantine, and b) a message (to the emperor) from the Roman Council of the 125 Fathers, which took place on March 27, 680 c) Mansvet of Mediolan sent a message to the emperor on behalf of the Council of Mediolan. There is not the slightest hint of the Filioque in any of these Western monuments. Therefore, at the sixth ecumenical council the question of this Western view was not raised. The incident mentioned by St. Maxim was either completely forgotten, or was considered completely exhausted after the explanations presented then by the legates of the pope. But at the same time, in Britain, a council was held in Haethfelth (“Haethfelth” = Hatfield), presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the “philosopher” Theodore, originally from Tarsus. The “archicantator” of the church of St. was present at the cathedral. Peter in Rome, Abbot John, sent by Pope Agathon, to teach the Angles Roman chant “and carefully find out what faith the Church of the Angles is.” Theodore himself had long been under the influence of his educated friend, Abbot Hadrian, an African by birth and, probably, by upbringing. The Hatfeld Council accepts the five ecumenical councils and the Lateran Council, in whose actions the Tsaregrad symbol is read without Filioque, and then confesses his faith “and in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son without words, procedentem ex Patre et Filio inenarrabiliter, as those whom we mentioned above, the holy apostles and prophets and teachers, preached (sicut praedicaverunt). This statement of faith of the Council of Hathfeld was not sent to Constantinople. In any case, it is impossible to prove that this was not done intentionally. aa) Hefele dates the Council of Hatfeld simply “680”, Suite, based on Bede, “17. September 680" Is this date passed over by Hefele as not entirely reliable? The chronology of private councils of this time is, in any case, not indisputable (Paggi puts, for example, the Roman Council a year earlier). But if the Hatfeld council really took place in 680 and precisely on September 17, then Agathon obviously could not forward the Hatfeld creed to Constantinople, where his legates arrived on September 10, 680. bb) The message of the Roman Council says that it took place so late, among other things, because they were expecting the arrival (“ἠ λπίζομεν”) of the archbishop and philosopher Theodore. Obviously, they did not wait for him, but there is no question that by his message he expressed the complete agreement of the English Church with the Lateran Council, and, consequently, with the Roman Council of the 125 Fathers. If the message of the Council of Hatfeld had already been received, the Roman Fathers would probably have indicated explicitly that distant Britain was of the same mind with them. In the epistle of Adrian I, read at the seventh ecumenical council, there is also not a single word mentioned about the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son. γ) The third case was in Palestine shortly before the Council of Aachen (the last was convened in November 809), therefore, during the reign of St. Nikephoros of Constantinople (806 – 815). The Western monks who lived in Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives, “congregatio montis Oliveti,” were for some reason attacked by John from the monastery of St. Savva. John “rose up against them” and said: “The Franks on the Mount of Olives are heretics.” "All of you Franks are heretics." “There is no greater heresy (than yours).” “Brother, shut up,” the Franks told him: “after all, if you call us heretics, then you are raising an accusation of heresy on the holy apostolic see (Roman).” John’s agitation took on wide dimensions. On the feast of the Nativity of Christ (808?), a crowd of people began to shout to the Frankish monks: “you are heretics, and your books are heretical,” and wanted to drive them out of the Bethlehem church. “We will die here,” the Franks declared, and remained in the church, and then turned “to the saints who are in the holy city” (ad sacerdotes qui sunt in sancta civitate), with a request to be judges between them and John. The Franks were subjected to these attacks “for their faith” (reprobat fidem nostram), precisely because they read “qui ex Patre Filioque procedit” in the symbol. – The monks gave five arguments to justify such a reading. 1. They heard in the chapel (in capella) Emperor Charles himself. This is precisely the reading (dici) of the symbol. 2. In the rules of St. Benedict, a copy of which was given to them by Charles himself, reads: ex Patre procedentem et Filio. 3. In the book of conversations (homiliae) of St. Gregory V. (in the copy received from Charles) it reads: qui de Patre procedit et Filio. 4. The same teaching is contained in the “dialogues” of St. Gregory, a copy of which they learned from Pope Leo III himself. 5. In Athanasius's symbol. said the same. Α John said that the book of St. Gregory V. should not accept (non sint recipiendi). On one Sunday, “the saints gathered with the clergy and people” between Golgotha ​​and St. coffin and interrogated the Frankish monks about their faith. “We believe,” they answered, “like the holy Roman Church, and in our language we say something that you do not say in Greek: in “Glory to the Father” you do not say: sicut erat in principio, in “Glory in the highest” you do not say: tu solus altissimis, and in “Our Father” you say differently [i.e. that is, with doxology, while the Latin Church reads: sed libera nos a malo. Amen]; and in the symbol we say more than you: “qui ex Patre Filioque procedit,” and for these words John, the enemy of his soul, calls us heretics.” “The saints wrote” to the Franks some kind of “charter about their faith” (chartam de fide nostra) and asked them: “Do you believe like the holy resurrection of the Lord?” “We believe as much as the holy resurrection of the Lord and the holy apostolic throne of Rome,” answered the monks. After this, the archdeacon, together with them, ascended to the pulpit (= to the feast, in pergo) and read the charter in the hearing of the people. The monks anathematized “all heresy and all who bring charges of heresy to the Holy Roman Apostolic See” (anathematizavimus omnem haeresim et omnes qui de sancta sede apostolica romana dixerint haeresim). The Frankish monks write about all this to Pope Leo III himself, asking him to investigate the issue of the Filioque. because of which they are subject to criticism in the east (“vident istum sermonem gravem quem nos dicimus in latino”), according to the teachings of the Greek and Latin fathers, and communicate with the imp. Karl V. That the Frankish monks were not excommunicated by the Jerusalem church is clear from their very letter. That the Jerusalem church did not break communication with the Western church because of the Filioque can be seen from the fact that the Jerusalem patriarch Thomas (under whom this story took place) gives a “message” (communicative? recommendatory?) to Agam and Rockulf returning from Jerusalem. They “delivered the ego message” (detulerunt nobis epistolam Thomae Hierosolymorum patriarchae) to Leo III. On the basis of this message, the pope recommends its bearers to Emperor Charles V., transmitting to him the very message of Patriarch Thomas. The incident in Jerusalem prompted Pope Leo III to write a letter to “all the Eastern Churches,” “omnibus orientalibus ecclesiis,” in which he testifies to the faith of the Roman Church, “in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds alike from the Father and from the Son, Spiritum sanctum a Patre et a Filio aequaliter procedentem, consubstantial, coeternal with the Father and the Son.” “The Holy Spirit is perfect God, proceeding from the Father and the Son.” "Spiritus sanctus plenus Deus a Patre et Filio procedens." The last words of the message: “Whoever does not believe according to this right faith, he is condemned, damnat, by the holy catholic and apostolic church, founded by Jesus Christ Himself, our Lord, to whom be glory forever. Amen". There is no evidence to suggest that this message of Leo III “Hoc symbolum” (Jaffe Wattenbach 2534 (1930), between 795 – 816) remained only a draft or was sent only “to the east”, but not to Constantinople. If it was sent out as an encyclical, then St. also received it. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople. The Jerusalem incident also caused the Aachen Council in November 809. Frankish theologians were in favor of the Filioque. The emperor sent ambassadors (missi) to the pope himself with the goal of obtaining his consent to add the word Filioque to the symbol, accepted in France, but not recognized in Rome. Missi put a categorical question to Leo III: the doctrine signified by the word Filioque, with which the pope agreed as true, Leo III said: “Ita sentio. ita teneo – – . Si quis voluerit aliter de hac re sentire vel docere, dofendo (= I forbid) – – . “contraria sentientem funditus abiicio” does it constitute a dogma without which it is impossible to be saved? The essence of Leo III's answer was: yes, if the person is not in a state of insurmountable ignorance. Leo III said: Quisquis ad hoc sensu subtiliore pertingere potest et id scire, aut ita sciens credere noluerit, saivus esse non poterit. – – – multi vero, aut aetatis quantitate, aut intelligentiae qualitate praepediti, [pertingere] non valent. Et ideo, ut praediximus, qui potuerit et noluerit, salvus esse non potent. In this case, missi argued. – Filioque must certainly be included in the symbol. Very many only and exclusively through the singing of the Filioque in symbol learned about the teaching so necessary for salvation. Leo III himself gave the Franks permission to sing the symbol. If now we exclude Filioque from the symbol, the people will certainly notice this and think that this word has been excluded as false. The Pope replied: the fathers of the second ecumenical council drew up a symbol without the Filioque; the following ecumenical councils, the fourth, fifth and sixth, prohibited all changes and additions to the symbol. The Pope himself does not even dare to compare himself (coaequare) with these holy fathers. And not everything that is sublime, true and saving must therefore necessarily be contained in a symbol (for example, it does not contain the expression: the Son is God - wisdom from God - wisdom). If dad had known that the symbol would be sung with an increase, he would not have given permission to sing it. In order to eliminate the Filioque from the symbol and not cause temptation among the people, Leo III gave the ambassadors the following advice. The people's attention to the symbol is aroused by the fact that the symbol is sung. Singing is interesting news. Let them stop singing the symbol in the court church. Others will follow this example, and the singing will cease without any temptation: and whoever through this singing has learned something that he did not know before, let him believe it (ut quod jam nunc a quibusque prius nescientibus recte creditur, credatur). f) John Veccus (orat. 1 de unione Ecclesiae) quotes the words of Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria (since 1076): “I will allow you in other cases to use the expression: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son,” as much as your language allows, - that is, I mean in ordinary conversations and, if you want, in church conversations; but only in a symbol I will not allow you (this expression).” Ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἄλλοις συγχωρήσω χρῆσθαί σοι τῆ λέξει τῆς τοῦ Πνεῦματος ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ ἐκπορεύσεως, ὡ ς γλῶσσά σοι δίδωσιν ἐν κοινοῖς λέγω λόγοις καὶ ὁμιλίαις ἐκκλησιαστικαις , εἰ βούλει ἐν δὲ τῷ συμβόλ ῳ μόν ῳ οὐ συγχωρήσω σοι (Migne, SG. 94, 229, apud Μ. Le Quien, Dissertatio I, p. 33). g) In judging the way of expression of Westerners, it is useful to keep in mind that for some of them, some passages of the “Exact Exposition of the Faith” by St. John of Damascus will be incomprehensible because they are indescribable in their language. At the same time, G. Comrade Chief Prosecutor V.K. Sabler testified 286 that the expression: “Spirit of the Son” in French will be: “L'Esprit du Fils”, and the expression “from the Son” (ἐκ τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ) is also “du Fils”. The difference between these expressions is also untranslatable into Italian. – Probably the Syriac Christians had to struggle with the same difficulty in ancient times. So the fathers of the Council of Seleucia in 410 “confess the living and holy Spirit, the living Comforter, who is from the Father and the Son,” 287 ךברא אבא רםן Abâ w-Barâ. Probably “men” = “from” is put here for clarity: in the symbol of St. Gregory the Wonderworker expressions: (Son) “the invisible of the invisible and the incorruptible of the incorruptible and the immortal of the immortal and the eternal of the eternal (καὶ ἀΐδιος ἀϊδίου) in Syriac are translated: “not visible from (men) not visible and not perishing ( φθειρόμενος) from (men) not perishing, and He who from (men) the ages is [= His being] from the One [meneh] who from (men) the ages He also is.” Preface to the publication of the works of Prof. V.V. Bolotov on the issue of Filioque. The file of the Archives of the Holy Synod on the conditions for the union of Old Catholics with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Magazines A and B, l. 15–19, 20–32; report of the commission to the Holy Synod, l. 1–2. Wed. Π. I. Yanyshev, Opinions of authorized representatives of Orthodoxy and Old Catholicism on the issue of uniting Old Catholics with the Orthodox. St. Petersburg. 1896 (from the “Church Bulletin” 1896, Nos. 37,38 and 39), pp. 7–14 (report). Prof. A.L. Katansky, as a member of the same subcommission, compiled an abstract, which was then published in “Christ. Readings”, 1893, I. 401–425, under the title: “On the procession of the Holy Spirit. (Regarding the Old Catholic Question).” Journal D, l. 9192; report, l. 6. Wed. Yanyshev, 1. p. 17. These provisions are: “1. We believe that the Father is the wine of the Son and the Spirit: the Son through birth, and the Holy Spirit through procession. The Father begets the Son and brings forth the Holy Spirit, the Son is born from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. And so we honor the one beginning and recognize the Father as the one guilt of the Son and the Spirit. (From the Order of Confession and Promise of the Bishop, sheet 2, verso). – 2. In theological speculations, we avoid any form of presentation and expression in which two faults or two principles would be recognized in any way in the Holy Trinity. at least they were understood and not in the same sense, for example. The Son would be recognized as a secondary beginning, or a secondary cause of the Holy Spirit, or at least the Father and the Son would be thought of as united into one beginning for the release of the Holy Spirit.–3. We leave it to theological speculation and research to explain what is found in some of the saints. fathers and teachers of the church view of the shining of the Holy Spirit through the Son φανεροῦται, ἢ ἐκλάμπει, ἢ πρόεισιν. ἢ ἐκπορεύεται), whether the radiance from the Father through the Son is attributed only to the temporary sending of the Holy Spirit into the world for the blessing of creatures, or can it be conceivable in the eternal life of the Divine.” On the reprint of “Theses” presented by V.V. Bolotov to A.A. Kireev, there is an inscription by V.V. Bolotov: “To His Excellency Alexander Alekseevich Kireev with deepest respect and sincere gratitude for the work of presenting Russian thoughts in one of the world languages ​​from the author,” and a little lower the quote: Luc. 12, 3". In the papers of A. A. Kireev, transferred after his death († 1910 July 13) by his sister, O. A. Novikova. O. To D. N. Yakshich (now an archpriest in Dresden), there are, among other things, letters from V. V. Bolotov to A. A. Kireev. In one of these letters, according to D.N. Yakshich. V.V. Bolotov “suggests some amendments (in German) in the theses with short comments about this.” D. N. Yakshich expects to publish these letters soon. Wed. Π. I. Yanyshev, Opinions of authorized representatives of Orthodoxy and Old Catholicism, pp. 20–21. In the papers of V.V. Bolotov, a draft of this report written by him with proposed additions and comments from the archbishop has been preserved. Anthony, etc. I. L. Yanysheva. After the tirade corresponding to page 20: “Therefore, it does not seem impossible - to the Catholic Church,” V.V. Bolotov wrote here in red ink: “In the future, I ask Your Eminence’s permission to write out from the famous letter a conclusion directed against this shortcoming,” and after the remark of Archbishop Anthony: “Add one point on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit,” the words are written on the next page: “Therefore, it does not seem - Armenian, Maronite", pp. 20–21. Published in Revue internationale de Théologie, 1899, no. 25. In the Russian translation in “Church. Vestnik", 1902, No. 31, and separately: Π. I. Yanyshev, New official and other data for judging the faith of Old Catholics. St. Petersburg. 1902, pp. 11–22. 17. Faith and Reason, 1898, No. 24, December, 1899, No. 1–4, January–February, also separately. Faith and Reason. 1899, No. 1. p. 45; dept. imprint, page 53. No. 2, 95–99, dep. Ott. 75–79. No. 2, 101–102, dep. Ott. 81. Christ. Reading. 1899, I, no. 7, pp. 90 – 136. Cf. A. A. Kireev. Essays. Part one. Church and theological articles. Edited by Rev. D. N. Yakshich. St. Petersburg. 1012, pp. 297–323; The article is reprinted here with some changes. “Christ. Reading”, 1899, 1, 100. Works, 1, 299: “the polemic on the issue of Filioque lost both its meaning and interest after the appearance of the article by the “Russian theologian” [Prof. Bolotov] “Thesen über das Filioque” (in No. 24 of “Revue”), which, undoubtedly, completely exhausts the controversial issue.” 105, approx. This note is omitted from the Works. Revue internationale de Théologie, No. 27, 1899, juillet-septembre, p. 583–585. r. 585: "Mr. Gousseff et los téologiens de son école ont le graud tort non seulement d'identifier leurs idées avec cells de l'Eglise entière, mais encore d'accuser d'infidelité vis-à-vis de l'Eglise et de trahison tous ceux qui se permettent d'avoir des idees differentes des leurs. Tout ce que nous avons dit et tout ce que nous disons sur le filioque et la transsubstantiation, affirment ces Messieurs, doit être affirmé et repeté par tous les orthodoxes, s'ils connaissent la doctrine de leur Eglise et s'ils ne veulent pas être des traitres à leur foi." Non; c'est le contraire qui est vrai; ce sont ces Messieurs qui, eu voulant, per fas et nefas, donner raison au particulier, au local et au temporaire, contre le général, l'universel et l'eternel dans l'Eglise, ce sont eux, dis-je, qui tombent dans l'erreur et qui sont infidèles a l'Eglise universelle et a la verite." p. 585–589. 585: “exeellente lettre, si claire dans sa simplicrté et si loyale dans son Inspiration.” Faith and Church, 1900, no. 4, 523–554; No. 5, 657–682. The article is dated "March 16, 1900." Faith and Reason, 1900, no. 9–14. At the end of this article there is the date "May 8, 1900" 91–97. Prof. himself At the same time, Gusev, as an opinion, finds it possible to include even the famous filioquists - Alcuin, Paulinus of Aquileia and Pope Leo III (92-94) among the opponents of the Filioque. In his “Theses” (thesis 23), Gusev would like to doubt the presence of an opinion about the Filioque even among the bl. Augustine, who was in fact the founder of this opinion. Orthodox Interlocutor, 1901, No. 1, 3–39. Revue internationale de Théologie, 1902, No. 37, 38, 39. Russian translation in “Church. Vestnik” 1902, No. 32–34, and separately in the brochure: P. I. Yanyshev, New official and other data for judging the faith of the Old Catholics. St. Petersburg. 1902, pp. 23–83: "Once again - towards clarification." Orthodox Interlocutor, 1903, No. 1–5. No. 2, 231–232 (department 113). “Old Catholics and the Universal Church,” in “Church. Vestnik", 1903, No. 26–28; “Answer to Professor V.A. Kerensky,” in “Theological. Bulletin", 1904, March. Orthodox Interlocutor, 1904, April, 559–607, May 693–726. Wed. 590. “The Old Catholic Question in Modern Times,” in “Orthodox. Interlocutor", 1897, I, 125. “On the Old Catholic Question. Reply to the Old Catholic Bishop Weber”, in “Orthodox. Interlocutor", 1897, II, 495. Church Vestnik, 1903. No. 26–28. Works, I, 128. Christ. Reading, 1903, II, December, 727. Theologian Bulletin, 1904, I, March, 522–545; 522–524. Works, 1, 361–377: 361–363. Christ. Reading. 1904, II, July, 113–128, September. 387–409; Wed 391–402. 399–402. “XXIVth” on page 399 is a typo. Theologian Bulletin, 1905, January – May, July-August; about Filioque in the February book, 326-330. In the article “On a new imaginary obstacle to the unity of Old Catholics and Orthodox” (on the issue of the church), Theologian. Bulletin 1903, May, 134–150; 141. Theologian Bulletin, 1905, February, 330–331, note. Wanderer, 1906, February, March, April, August, and separately; o Filioque, April and August, dept. ott., 58–68. Faith and Reason, 1909, Nos. 13–14,15–16,17–18,22, 24, and separately, Kharkov 1910; o Filioque, nos. 13–14 and 15–16, dept. Ott. 9–70. Church Bulletin, 1906, No. 37, and in a separate edition: Π. I. Yanyshev, Opinions of authorized representatives of Orthodoxy and Old Catholicism on the issue of uniting Old Catholics with the Orthodox. St. Petersburg. 1906. pp. 14–17. The text of these provisions was given above (page 3 note 2). The report of the 1893 commission to the Holy Synod was also printed by prof. M. K rasnozhena, The origin of Old Catholicism and the IV International Old Catholic Congress in Vienna. Yuryev 1898, pp. 26–39. Kerensky, dept. Ott. 15–16. Published in Church. Vestnik" 1897, No. 39, and in Krasnozhen, 1. p. 47–50. Published along with the response of one hundred Rock Catholics in The Theology. Bulletin" 1908, November, 424–444 A. A. Kireev, with his introduction (423–424) and afterword (445–454), under the general title: “The current situation of the Old Catholic Question,” and a separate brochure. In “Works” of A. A. Kireev, I, 138–145, only the afterword is reprinted with the indicated title. Of course, the infallible authority of Bl. Augustine, with all the respect the West has for him and with all his significance in the history of Western Christianity, was not and is not recognized in the Western Church, as the fate of his teaching on grace and predestination clearly shows. Bl. himself Augustine, meanwhile, his experience of elucidating the dogma of the Holy Trinity, based not so much on tradition as on speculation, wholly and without any amendments was later accepted in the West, in fact did not propose with the same confidence in its indisputability as he expressed the said teaching, which, however, caused a sharp protest from Western Gallic theologians, partly during the lifetime of Augustine himself. It was against this teaching that, as we know, the famous Commonitorium of Vincent of Lyrinsky was directed with his criterion of truly catholic teaching: curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est (II [3]): The author has Augustine in mind with this teaching of his when he quotes the words of Deuteronomy. 13, 1–3, about a prophet who should not be listened to, and illustrates them with various examples from church history (heretics, Origen, Tertullian) (X [15] ff., XVII [22] ff.). His disagreement with Augustine on this point, however, should not have precluded him from having high respect for Augustine in other respects, and he wants to wage the fight against those who, in his opinion, are zealous beyond reason, the defenders of his teaching (Prosper and Hilary). The fact that St. The church pleases Cyprian of Carthage as a martyr, and rejects and condemns the Donatists, who want to establish themselves in their practice and teaching (on the issue of rebaptism) on the authority of Cyprian and his council, showing how sometimes in the church “auctores ejusdem orinionis catholici, consectatores vero haeretici judicantur; absolvuntur magistri, condemnantur diseipuli, conscriptores librorum filii regni erunt, adsertores vero gehenna suscipiet" (VI [11]). In the West, however, the original purpose of Vincent’s work was soon forgotten. Wed Hug ο Κο ch, Vincenz von Lerin und Gennadius. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristl. Literatur von A. Harnack und C. Schmidt. B. XXXI, Heft. 2. Lpz. 1907. About the “authority” of Bl. Augustine cf. also Anton Koch, Der heiligeFaustus, Bischof von Reiz. Stuttgart 1895. S. 129–191. Migne, Patr. gr. t. 45, p. 180 BC. Migne, Patr. gr. t. 43, C 20 D: άλλα μόνος αληθινος Θεος , επ ιδη μόνος ἐκ μόνου ὁ μονογενὴς καὶ μόνον τὸ μόνον τὸ ἄγιον Πνεῦμα. In "Christ. Readings" 1904, September, 395, B. A. Kerensky cites words about the Holy Spirit in this form: "καὶ μόνον τὸ ἄγιον Πνεῦμα", referring to the Cologne edition of 1682 ("Coloniae, T. II. No. 11. Pg. 7") and Minh's edition ("Tom. 43. Col. 19"), in which however there is no such reading, but there is "μόνον τὸ μόνον". In “Faith and Reason” 1909, No. 15 – 16, 397 notes. (det. ot. 46), these words take on a different form: “καὶ μόνον ἐκ μόνου τὸ ἄγιον Πνεῦμα,” and Min is again quoted. In this latter form, the cited passage from Epiphanius would indeed testify to ἐκ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός and in relation to the Holy Spirit. But in this case, V. A. Kerensky does not accurately reproduce the existing text, but corrects it, without making any reservation about it, on the basis of an assumption expressed in the form of a question in a note to this passage by the publisher the works of Epiphanius in the patrolology of Min, who reprinted them from the old edition (Petavius). « Καὶ μόνον τὸ μόνον τό . Locus corruptus. An legendum καὶ μόνον ἐκ μόνου? Edit." It is hardly necessary, however, to necessarily consider this place spoiled. One might think that the unusual tautological expression in St. The epiphany “μόνον τὸ μόνον τὸ ἄγιον Πνεῦμα” should, according to his intention, correspond to the expression he used about the Son “μόνος ὁ μονογενής ": since there is no one word to designate the Holy Spirit that would correspond to the word ο μ ο ν ο γενης denoting the Son, then St. Epiphanius uses τὸ μόνον τὸ ἄγιον Πνεῦμα. In the edition of the works of Epiphanius Dindorf, this passage is read in the same way as in Min (Petavius). Epiphanii sp. Constantiae opera. Ed. G. Dindorfius. Vol. I. Lipsiae 1869. r. 89 3 – 4 . A final clarification of the question of correct reading must be expected from Holl, who is preparing a new edition of these works. And the Russian translation of this passage by V. A. Kerensky, like that of A. E. Gusev, is not entirely accurate: “because from one there is one Only Begotten and one Holy Spirit” (“Christ. Read.” 1904, Sept. 395; in “Faith and Reason” 1909, No. 15 – 16, 397, without a dash, like Gusev), as if ἐκ μόνου directly referred in the Greek text equally to both the Only Begotten and the Holy Spirit. More precisely translated by A. Ζο ernicav, Tractatus de proccssione Spiritus Sancti a solo Patre. Regiomonti 1774 – 1776. Pars I, p. 49: “sed solus verus Deus (Pater scilicet): quia solus ex solo unigenitus, et solus Spiritus sanctus,” although he believes that ex solo also refers to the Holy Spirit. Cf. also Russian translation of this work, A. Zernikav, Orthodox theological studies on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone. Translation from Latin, edited by B. Davidovich. T. I. Pochaev 1902, p. 74: “but there is one true God (i.e., the Father), because there is only one from the One Only Begotten and one only the Holy Spirit.” Title in Revue internationale de Théologie, 24. Heft, 1898, S. 681: “Thesen über das “Filioque”. – Von einem russischen Theologen. – Vorwort.” “Vorwort” is also in the manuscript of B. B. Bolotov. Revue pages are indicated later in this edition by numbers in the margins. On the margin of the manuscript: “Of course not Person. Theologen would not be proper, as the most modest? The translation stands, S. 681: “Die hier folgenden Zeilen enthalten bloss die Privatmeinung eines einzelnen Theologen.” Archbishop of Finland (later Metropolitan of St. Petersburg) Anthony, Professor A.L. Katansky and then, probably, Protopresbyter I.L. Yanyshev. Printed by P. I. Yanyshev, Opinions of authorized representatives of Orthodoxy and Old Catholicism on the issue of uniting Old Catholics with the Orthodox. St. Petersburg. 1896, 29 – 4th; o Filioque, 29–32. “Scheint nicht scharf genug zwischen Dogma und theologischer Meinung zu unterscheiden.” Op. y Yanysheva, 1. c. 29. At first it was written: “Russian theologian,” but then it was put in brackets in red ink and written on top: “one of them.” Translated: “auch ich (als solcher).” “In reality, otherwise” does not appear in the German printed text. Anyone who is familiar with the ordinary life of Russian theologians understands well why the “I” under the pen of each of us can only in extremely rare cases turn into “We”, not without some moral right. We do not have separate theological schools in the sense of directions that are consistently maintained and - as they say - harmonized with each other not only in principles, but also in individual theses. Each Russian theologian is, in essence, a representative only of his own personal opinion. Theologumenon. So everywhere and further (plural Theologumena). In the “introduction” and theses” everything is in Greek. Italics here and, in most cases, further only in the German translation. On the field: “or those among whom are those men??” Translation, S. 682: “der Männer, unter denen auch die mit Recht οἰ διδάσκαλοι τῆς οἰχουμένης genannten sich befinden.” The title is basically and essentially similar to the Western “doctores Ecclesiae”. nur ein (das?) Wahrscheinliches. Translated, S. 682: “der Inhalt des Theologumenons nur das Wahrscheinliche.” Ha field: "sachverständige". Translated: “kein Sachverständiger”. theologischen Privatmeinung. Once this last point has been proven, this view ipso facto ceases to be θεολογούμενον for me. On the field: “accepted, chosen.” einem Theologumenon. Translated, S. 682: “dass ich als meine private Meinung ein Theologumenon anerkenne.” On the field: “souveraine Macht?” So it is in translation. eine Auseinandersetzung with this Theologumenon. On the field: “before the authority” Translation, S. 683: “und wäre ich gezwungen, dieses Theologumenon zu besprechen, auch dann wurde ich mich ihm gegenüber pietätvoll und mit der dem Ansehen der Kirchenvater gebührenden Ehrerbietung verhalten!” In I, 2 “Opinions” the Rotterdam Commission notes, “dass nicht “einige Kirchenlehrer” den immanenten Ausgang des hl. Geistes ans dem Vater durch den Sohn gelehrt haben.” But, continuing her reasoning, she ends with a position that is equivalent in meaning (On the field: “does not differ from the expression.”) to the expression: nicht “einige Kirchenlehrer”, sondern - “einige Kirchenlehrer”. As far as I understand, the only logical opposites of the adjective “einige” are “Niemand” on the one hand and “alle” on the other. But the venerable scientists, of whom the Rotterdam Commission consisted, could not claim that “alle Kirchenlehrer” was so wise, and the result was a list of names einiger [9 in total] Kirchenlehrer (In the translation, S. 683, the words: “But continuing - Kirchenlehrer” are pushed out. In the field of the manuscript, A. A. Kireev asked the question: “is it necessary?” In the translation, the beginning of this note reads like this: “In ihrem Gutachten bemerkt die Rotterdamer Kommission, dass nicht nur “einige” Kirchenlehrer den immanenten Ausgang des hl. griechischen Kirchenlehrern auf". Sts. should not be on this list. Church fathers had the moral right to speak about themselves together with the apostle. Paul: “I think I also have the Spirit of Didyma. His view, in my opinion (meines Erachtens), was of a unique nature, and, moreover, after the V Ecumenical Council, the name Didymus among Orthodox theologians (cf. the epistle of St. Sophronius of Jerusalem and the definition of VI Osc. Cathedral) (die Synodika des heil. Sophronius von Jerusalem und die Definitio der VI oekum. Synode) did not have a very good reputation (den besten Klang. Translated, S. 683: “stand – nicht im besten Ruf”): referring to his “authority” in theological controversial issues is not very convenient. Further, every Russian, of course, will notice that in this list the name of St. “is conspicuous by its absence.” Chrysostom, one of the saints glorified by our church. And this gap (this Lücke) clarifies the state of affairs, like the famous “Columbus egg” (On the margin: “I mean, of course, the famous anecdote, how Columbus taught how to put an egg on the table. Columbus Ei?” The translation is only. S. 683: “und diese Lücke erklärt die ganze Sachlagë Chrysostomus ist,” etc.). St. Chrysostom was a representative of the Antiochian theological school, as was Theodoret of Cyrus (der antiochenischen theologischen Schule, ebenso wie auch Theodoretus von Cyrus.). Of course Theodoret was not an angel, but he was undoubtedly Ehrenmann. From the words of St. Cyril of Alexandria "ἴδιον αὐτοῦ (τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ) Πνεῦμα", "the Son's own Spirit" Theodoret concluded the following ("der eigene Geist des Sohnes", hat Theodoretus folgende Schlußfolgerung auf gesponnen [translated: "gezogen"]. ): εἰ δ᾿ [ ἴδιον τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ ἔφη ] ὡ ς ἐξ ϒ ἱοῦ , ἤ δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ τὴν ὔ παρξιν ἔχον, ὡ ς βλάσφημον τοῦτο καὶ ὡ ς δυσσεβὲς ἀπορρίψομεν. “If he called the Spirit “ἴδίον τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ” meaning that He has being from the Son or through the Son, we reject this teaching as blasphemous and impious.” Without further consideration, the expression δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ is given an Arian meaning ("Wenn aber er den Geist" ἴδιον τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ "in dem Sinne genannt hat, dass Er aus dem Sohn, oder durch den Sohn das Sein hat. so verwerfen wir diese Ansicht als blasphemisch und als gottlos". Ohne Weiteres wird dem Ausdruck: δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ ein arianischer Sinn untergeschoben!)! Theodoret, of course, would not have done this if the theologum "δι ϒ ἱοῦ, “through the Son,” (das Theologumenon “δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ”, “durch den Sohn.”) was also widespread in the area of ​​influence of the Antiochian school, and was a current coin here too. All 9 names listed by the “Opinion” belong to representatives of the Alexandrian theological school. θεολογούμενον about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son (das Theologumenon von dem Ausgang des Heiligen Geistes aus dem Vater durch den Sohn) can more accurately be called Alexandrian than common Eastern. "Ich halte aber, ich habe auch den Geist Gottes." dieses Wahrscheinliche das höchst [translated: ein höchst] Wahrscheinliche [-es] ist. my Privatmeinung, eine theologische Meinung eines Thomas von Aquino, eines Petau, eines Perrone. Translated: “Wenn ich die theologischen Meinungen eines Thomas von Aquino, eines Petavius, eines Perrone, als die meinigen annehme.” einer theologischer Meinung. theologischen Privatmeinungen. diese meine Privatmeinungen. meine theologische Privatmeinungen unter [on the field: “from among, in a circle"] den Theologumena der Kirchenväter. Ein dem Dogma widersprechendes Theologumenon eines Kirchenvaters, das klingt für das Ohr eines Katholiken wie die schreiendste contradictio in adjecto, etwa wie "dunkles Licht". Ha field: "Vermuthungen". Translated: "Mutmaßungen". Ha field: "ο ὕ τως φρονῶν – so denkend??" Translated: “dass ο ὕ τως φρονῶν, indem ich so denke.” To illustrate this point, I will give just one example. In I, 2 “Opinions” we read that “not “certain teachers of the church” taught about the immanent procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, therefore they recognized His Son as a “secondary cause,” but...” At one time, both a fairly indisputable statement of fact is expressed (... “they taught about the immanent”, etc.), as well as a risky conclusion (... “therefore, they recognized the Son as His secondary cause”), the onus probandi of which, in my opinion, is not inferior in weight to the globe; Moreover, the blatantly unpatristic expression “secondary cause” is recommended as the “only correct” one! Please consider my 8th thesis (Zur Erläuterung des Satzes möchte ich nur ein Beispiel anführen. In 1,2 des “Gutachtens” lesen wir, “dass nicht “einige Kirchenlehrer” den immanenten Ausgang des Heil. Geistes aus dem Vater durch den Sohn gelehrt, also den Sohn als dessen secundäre Ursache anerkannt haben" [translated: “anerkannt haben, sondern..."]. translation: die gewagte] Schlußfolgerung (“also” u. s. w.) [translation: (..."also den Sohn als dessen seсundäre Ursache"...)], deren onus probandi, meines Erachtens, wie die Erdkugel schwer ist, ausgesprochen; ja sogar die schreiend unpatristische Bezeichnung "secundäre Ursache" als "die einzig richtige" proclamirt [translated: empfohlen]! Bitte um Prüfung meiner thesis 8. ). der theoretisch und principiell gewiss unbestreitbaren (nicht zu verleugnenden) Möglichkeit “der Vervollkommnung” der patristischen Erbschaft. des Theologumenon der Kirchenväter vom Ausgang des Heiligen Geistes aus dem Vater durch den Sohn, δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ . Anstatt Einleitung my Thesen. In nuce ist meine Ansicht in einem langen sub versu, S. 9 RKP. A. A. Kir[eva], ausgesprochen [on the field: resumirt?outlined?] Translated: “im langen sub versu pag. 693 ausgelegt.” Apparently, this refers to the manuscript with the Russian text of the “introduction” handed over to A. A. Kireev for translation into German; but subsequently A. A. Kireev, obviously, no longer had this manuscript at hand, and for the publication of the Russian text he could only give. autograph of V.V. Bolotov, containing only a “preface” (31 pages of large format notepaper of a very large letter). To the reader who will feel zurückgeschreckt vor einigen zu realistischen Farben meiner Betrachtung, erlaube ich mir zu antworten: möge er auch einem Maler zumuthen [on the field: anbieten, vorschlagen, empfehlen], das Bild der allerheiligsten supersubstantiellen Dreieinigkeit nur mit immateriellen umgeschaffenen Farben zu malen. Psychologisch Gegebenes ist Palette des Theologen. Und, um meinen Standpunkt (gegenüber) gangbaren abendländischen termini technici gegenüber klar zu stellen, bemerke ich, dass, soviel ich verstehe, das Glasfenster keine Ursache, nicht einmal eine secundäre [on the field: auch eine secundäre nicht] des Sonnenlichtes in der Stube ist, wohl aber eine nothwendige Bedingung. Keine Ursachë das wird kurz und bündig durch die Thatsache bewiesen, dass in Herbstnächten es ganz dunkel ist, selbst unter Glasdächern photographischer Ateliers. Denn wirkt [on the field: wirksam ist?] nur Ursachë durchaus aber unproduktiv ist Bedingung. Und der Heilige Geist glänzt durch den Sohn ewig durch. In the manuscript against the beginning of this place on the margin there is a remark by A. A. Kireev: “Is this necessary? Surely the readers of this article will not be frightened by what they find below? And further (where a comparison is made with a glass window): “Shouldn’t we let everything out? since below the same idea is expressed much better. In the translation, indeed, instead of all this there is only one phrase: “und, um meinen Standpunkt gegenüber gangbaren abendländischen terminis technicis klarzustellen, bemerke ich, dass wirkend nur die Ursache, die Bedingung aber unproduktiv ist.” theologische Meinungen and Theologumena. nicht schwer wäre uns eine Verzichtleistung auf das Wahrscheinliche. Translation: “auf das Wahrscheinliche könnten wir leicht verzichten.” In the Russian text: “But a person wants to know what he does not know, and sometimes less accurate,” etc. On the field: "präcis". Translated: "haben eine hinreichend genaue Vorstellung des geometrischen π". Können ohne leiseste Mühe dies durch eine zwanzigstellige Zahl oder einen zwanzigstelligen Logarithmus bezeichnen. eines Wallis, eines Leibnitz, eines Mach in. On the field: “Can genitive cases be translated without a member? In any case, I don’t want to say: some Wallis, some Leibniz.” für (zur) Berechnung genäherten (translation: "annähernder"] Grossen des π . ein Titius, ein Wurm, finden einfache Regel für Berechnung derselben Abstände, Regel, welche Keinen der Zahlen geben, die zwar ziemlich ungenau sind, aber die Progression dieser Abstände einfacher, anschaulicher, ja ästhetisch eleganter angeben. Translated: “erfinden für die Berechnung dieser Entfernungen einfache Kegeln, welche Reihen von Zahlen aufstellen”, etc. Theologumena und theologische Meinungen. Schlichte Naturen. Translation: “Schlichte, einfache Naturen''. der Grundthatsachen des Glaubens. des Quomodo dieser Thatsachen. On the field: “or, if this “and they” is not convenient, then - [put in the further marked place after “Us”] - Russians, in Russia." Translation: "Wir und die Altkatholiken stehen auf verschiedenen Stufen der Kultur. Unter uns Russen fühlen noch sehr wenige das Bedürfniss", etc. Theologumena oder theologische Privatmeinungen. Ha field: “reelle?” Translated, S. 686: “kann sich in einen reellen l Unterschied] verwandeln.” Theologumena der Vater der orientalischen Kirche. Theologumenon des beatus Augustinus. The place corresponding to the words: “Meanwhile, in the basis – – est divinari”, in the translation forms a separate paragraph, S. 686: “Die Basis der gegenwärtig besprochenen Theologischen Meinungen liegt im rein abendländischen Theologumenon des hl. Augustinus. Darin besteht die Schwierigkeit der Lagë was für ein Ausgang steht bevor? Vielleicht sollte ich mich jetzt mit dem Ausspruch “religiosum est divinari” begnügen!” In the original: “and maybe [on the field: das?? das Sprichwort?] “schiedlich – friedlich” is not the worst instruction [on the field: Maxime?] to avoid them.” The translation is supplemented, S. 686: “das freundliche”, and instead of “instruction” it is added: “modus agendi”. On the field: “At the Bonn Conference, I don’t know how it was said in German: “Concession?” Translation, S. 686: “wurde schon – ein elendes Wörtchen ausgesprochen: “Concessio”, “Nachgeben”. On the field: “Something like übertheuern: but, it seems, the latter does not mean “request” [which supposedly “doesn’t fit into your pocket”], but simply too expensive a price (received).” Μ einungsverdrehungen. Translation, S. 686: “Derjenige aber, von dem man (in dieser Angelegenheit) eine “Concessio” erwartet, hat kein Recht, eine derartige zu machen. Übermässige Forderungen dürfen nicht aufgestellt werden. Nur das unbedingt Notwendige! Ein Handel ist hier nicht zulässig. Gewiss auch sind "Topica", Gemeinsprache, welche die Wahrheit vertuschen, zu vermeiden. Auch keine Meinungsverdrehungen!” In the translation, the place corresponding to the words: “But in any case, false steps - - - no Meinungsverdrehungen” is one paragraph; then a new paragraph begins. das Theologumenon der orientalischen Kirchenväter. des Theologumenons der Väter der orientalischen Kirche. A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte (Freiburg i. B. 1888), II, 296, 297. “Seiner (H. Reuter''s) Thesë “Trinitarische Erörterungen griechischer, aber auch lateinischer Autoren hat er (Augustinus) sehr wenig benutzt, ist unbedingt beizustimmen." Wed. II, 292, Anm. 2: “aber Ursache des Geistes ist der Vater allein. Dieser Lehrbegriff blieb herrschend, und es verschlägt dem gegenüber nichts, dass man bei Epiphanius und Cyrill je eine Stelle nachgewiesen hat, nach welcher der Geist ἐξ ἀμφοὶν ist." augustmische Theologumenon. On the field "Grundbegriffe?" This word is also translated, S. 687, and a new paragraph begins here. des orientalischen Theologumenon. Die griechischen Kirchenväter und Augustinus. Von der [translated: einer] augustinischen Hegemonie in der trinitarischen Speculation muss [translated: “darf"] keine Rede sein. On the field: “die Communion?” Ha field: “Luther: frei; but isn’t offenherzig better?” It was dissolved das römische Ρ apstthum, dieser alte Erbfeind der katholischen Kirche, vermuthlich auch deren jüngste Feind, der nur dann zu existiren aufhören wird, wann auch der letzte Feind aufgehoben werden wird, der Tod. In translation, this entire passage (in one paragraph) reads, S. 687: “Noch ein Wort zum Schluss: wegen meiner 26. These kann man mich fragen: was war denn die Ursache der Trennung, des Risses der einen katholischen Kirche? Ich antworte unumwunden: die Kommunion hat das römische Papstthum zerrissen, der alte Erbfeind der katholischen Kirche, der vermuthlich nur dann zu existiren aufhören wird, wenn auch der letzte Feind aufgehoben wird – der Tod!” The title is taken from the German translation, S. 687: “Einleitung zu den nachstehenden Thesen”; there is no title in the Russian text. The “introduction” is also divided into sections marked with Roman numerals only in the German edition. In the original there was the word “before the Commission”, omitted in the translation, S. 687. So in translation, S. 688: “Das göttliche “ausser Raum” ist etwas für unsere Einbidungskraft ganz Unrealisirbares; das Beste was wir leisten können, um das Ausserräumliche zu fassen, besteht darin, dass wir diesem “ausser Raum” den kleinsten denkbaren Raum, den sogenannten mathematischen Punkt, unter schieben.” In the Russian original, instead: “The Divine “outside space” is for our imagination the shortest point, not realized in our imagination, just as a mathematical point is not given in reality.” So in translation, S. 688: “indem er hinter der Mantisse 9,000 0000 noch die negative Charakteristik – 10 schreibt.” In the Russian text there was an oversight: “adds an adjustment in the form of a negative mantissa - 10.” Translated as “diese negative Kennziffer”. Translated, “die zehn Pfennige in der Gestalt einer Milliarde Mark.” Translated: “die negative Kennziffer – 10”. In the Russian text, due to an oversight, there is “mantissa”. Translated from S. 689: “Meine zweite Vorbemerkung gilt dem verständnissmässigen Charakter der hier folgenden Auseinandersetzungen.” Translated, S. 689: Die Kirchenväter des IV. Jahrhunderts hatten eine dreifache Aufgabe zu lösen, nämlich.” Available only in translation, S. 689–690: “Dieser Beweis gipfelt in der These über τῆς θείας οὐσίας τήν πρός ἑαυτὴν ἀρμονίαν, über τὸ συνεχὲς der göttlichen Substanz, in welcher keine διαστὴματα ; τινος ἀνὑποστάτου κενότης , kein leerer “nicht seiender” Riss stattfindet. Demzufolge sind die drei Hypostasen» u. s. w. In the Russian text: “this proof boiled down to the proposition that there are three Hypostases,” etc. In the Russian text, the words “Well known - confirmed” are at the beginning of Section II. Further words are available in translation; S. 620: .So Mr. V. lässt uns ihre theologische Argumentation nur sehr selten darüber ins Klare kommen, inwiefern sie die Begriffe aus dem Bereiche der ontologischen Offenbarung einerseits, und diejenigen aus dem Bereiche der ökonomischen Offenbarung anderseits als unterschieden auffasst.” Translated, S. 690: “dem Sein (ὑπόστασις ὕ παρξις).” In the Russian text: “there is the second Person of the Holy Trinity with unconditional necessity for human thinking.” Translated, S. 691; “unbedingt notwendig.” So in the German printed text, S. 691: “Folglieh: αα) Schliest sich die Hypostase des hl. Geistes der Hypostase des Sonnen an, und kommt durch den Sohn in Verbindung mit der Hypostase des Vaters.” In the existing Russian text, “nature” is used here in all three cases instead of “hypostasis.” A note to this passage is found only in the printed edition of the abstract. S. Bas. Magn., er. 38 (alias 43), n. 4: ὁ ϒ ἱος , – ᾦ πάντοτε τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον συνεπινοεῖται – τὸ ἄγιον Πνεῦμα – τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ μὲν ἤ ρτηται . ᾦ ἀδιαστάτως συγκαταλαμβάνεται. S. Gregorius Nyssen., ad ν . Maced., n. 16 (Migne, S. Gr., t. 45, col. 1321Ä ?? πρὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον τῷ ϒ ϊῷ ἡ συνάφεια . ἄγιον δι ’ ϒ ἱοῦ τῷ Πατρὶ συναπτόμενον . In the Russian text there is only "μέσον". St. Athanasius the Great eg. completely rejects such an understanding. Migne, U. Gr., t. 26, col. 373B, orat 3 p. Arian., n. 24: καὶ οὐ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸν Αόγον συνάπτει τῷ Πατρὶ , ἀλλὰ μ ᾶ λλον τὸ Πνεῦμα παρὰ τοῦ Λόγου λαμβάνει . St. Basil the Great also considers the Son (sit venia verbo!) as the terminus medius in the ratio (λόγος) of the inner life of the Holy Trinity, which surpasses all reason. Epist. 38 (alias 43), n. 4: ? ?? . Cp. S. Gregor. Nyss., adv. Maced., n. 13 (Migne, S. Gr., t. 45, col. 1317A): δὲ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὁ ϒ ἱὸς , δυνάμεῶς δὲ Πνεῦμα τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον. (This note is not in the manuscript and is taken from the German printed text, S. 692: “Der hl. Athanasius der Grosse z. V. lehnt solche Auffassung durchaus ab. – – Auch der hl. Basilius der Grosse betrachtet gerade den Sohn (sit venia verbo!) als terminus medius in der über alle Vernunft erhabenen ratio (λόγος) des inneren Lebens der hl. So in translation, S. 692: “Folglich ohne Gefahr, eine zu große Ungenauigkeit zu begehen, kann man sagen ὑπάρχοντος (ὄντος, ὑφεστῶτος) τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ' εκπορεύετα : τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον (indem der Sohn existiert, geht der hl. Geist vom Vater aus) oder: Filio generato ex Patre productus, wie Zoernikav, vom hl. Geiste redend, sich ausdrückt.” In the Russian text: “Hence ὑπαρχοντος τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ – - ἄγιον, Filio generato”, etc. I borrow the expression “condition” from S.V. Kokhomsky (theological dissertation in Russian, St. Petersburg, 1875). (S. Kokhomsky, The Teaching of the Ancient Church on the Procession of the Holy Spirit. Historical and Dogmatic Essay. St. Petersburg, 1875.) The “Condition” when applied to the “Unconditional” sounds, of course, like a logical contradictio in adjecto. This is true: but I reflect this blow with the theological shield θεοπρεπῶς, “decent to God.” The meaning of this prima facie unsuitable expression is still not incomprehensible. If the Holy Spirit, like the Son, is from the being of the Father - both Arians and Macedonians - why is the Holy Spirit not the Son? - Because the Spirit from the Father ἐκπορευτῶς, and not γεννητῶς, answered them. - Why is the Spirit not γεννητός (not born)? - Because only the Only Begotten, ὁ Μονογενής, that is, only one Son, is γεννητῶς. Thus, the Son determines through his birth and τρόπος τῆς ὑπάρξεως, modus exislendi, the Holy Spirit, His unbornness. In general, theologumen ϒ ἱοῦ is either in the form of thought, and then the mind operates with concepts, analyzing them and coming, for example. to the knowledge that the idea of ​​the “Father”, as a concept expressing a relationship, implicitly contains the idea of ​​the “Son”; that every “third” inevitably presupposes some “second”. Or it appears in the form of a visual image, in which the ability of imagination comes to the rescue with a very inadequate, of course, but not unpictorial representation of the passage of the spirit (breath) through the (spoken) word - and on the assumption that the Father is not εἰς κενόν τι πνεῖ, does not breathe into empty space, since the Son is inextricably united with the Father, ἀδιαστάτως τοῦ Πατρὸς ἔχεται (ἤ ρτηται), gives us A) an image for a visual representation of the moment of processio aeterna (and at the same time the moment of the purest revelation of the Father’s causality and the most initial moment the existence of the Holy Spirit): the Spirit emanating from the Father is received by the Son, andˆb) another image for visually representing the moment processio sempiterna: the Spirit emanating from the Father and resting in the Son shines through the Son. – To the question of how the procession of the Holy Spirit differs from the birth of the Son, only one strictly theological answer is possible; Only the triune God himself knows this. But in times of polemical excitement, such a complete rejection of knowledge of the secrets of Christianity could be met by opponents even with triumphant cries. Under such circumstances, one or another theologian felt forced - even if he was not able to offer a completely reliable doctrine - at least to express his assumption. Instead of: “We don’t know this,” they answered: “We know this only in part,” and, without getting too close to the inner essence of the mystery, they observed, so to speak, accompanying signs. The expression γεννητῶς was explained through μόνος ἐκ μόνου; on the contrary, when presenting the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, this sign did not occur. If they wanted to have a positive sign for ἐκπορευτῶς, then they did not find any other than the following: “The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the existence of the Son,” ὄντος τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ᾿εκπορεύετα. (at the same time, it was completely indifferent whether the theologian took his point of view in the field of thought or in the field of visual image: the result should have been the same in both cases). The illustrative formula of this theologumene was ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον, “coming from the Father through the Son.” (This note is also not in the manuscript and is translated from the German text, S. 693 – 694: “Den Ausdruck “Bedingung” entlehne ich dem S. B. Kochomsky (Theologische Dissertation, russisch, St. Petersburg 1875). Eine “Bedingung”, dem “Absolutum” beigelegt, klingt doch wie eine logische contradictio in adjecto. unverständlich. Geist, ebenso wie der Sohn, aus dem Wesen des Vaters ist – fragten sowohl die Arianer als die Macedonianer – warum ist dennoch der hl. und nicht γεννητῶς ist, antwortete man ihnen. – Warum ist denn der Geist nicht γεννητός (nicht gezeugt)? – Weil nur der Eingeborne, ὁΜονογενής, d. nur der Sohn allein, γεννητός ist. Nichtgezeugtsein. Idee "Vater" als ein Relationsbegriff in sich implicite auch die Idee eines "Sohnes" einschliesst; dass jedes "Dritte" unvermeidlich ein "Zweites" voraussetzt. allerdings sehr inadäquaten, doch nicht numalerischen Vorstellung des Hindurchgehens des Geistes (Atems) durch das (gesprochene) Wort zu Hülle kommt, und unter der Voraussetzung, dass der Vater nicht εἰς κενόν τι ? uns darstellt A) ein Bild zur Veranschaulichung des Momentes der processio aeterna (und somit des Momentes der allerreinsten Offenbarung der Kausalität des Vaters und des alleranfänglichsten Augenblickes des Seins des hl. Geistes): der von dem Vater ausgehende Geist wird von dem Sohne empfangen , undb) ein anderes Bild zur Veranschaulichung dos Momentes der processio sempitema : der vom Vater ausgehende und im Sohne ruhende Geist glänzt durch den Sohn hindurch. – Auf die Frage, wodurch der Ausgang des hl. Geistes sich vom Gezeugtsein des Sohnes unterscheidet, ist selbstverständlich nur eine streng theologische Antwort möglich: das weiss nur der Dreieinige Gott selbst. In den Zeiten eines polemischen Gärens mochte aber eine so völlige Verzichtleistung auf das Erkenntnis des Mysteriums des Christentums sogar mit triumphierendem Pfeifen seitens der Gegner entgegengenommen werden. Unter solchen Umständen fühlte sich mancher Theologe genötigt – war er auch nicht im stände, ein sicheres Dogma vorzulegen – wenigstens seine Vermutung zu äussern. Statt eines "Wir wissen das nicht'' antwortete man mit einem "Wir erkennen das stückweise", indem man, ohne dem innersten Kern des Mysteriums zu nahe zu treten, die sozusagen begleitenden Merkmale beobachtete. Das γεννητῶς erläuterte man durch μόνος ἐκ μόνου ; dagegen blieb dieses Merkmal bei Auslegung der Lehre vom hl. Geiste weg. Wünschte man aber ein positives Merkmal des ἐκπορευτώς zu haben, so fand man kein anderes als dieses: “während des Seins des Sohnes geht der Geist vom Vater aus”, ὄντος τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ ἐκπορεύεται (dabei war es durchaus gleichgültig, ob der Theologe seinen Standpunkt im Gebiet eines Gedankens oder im Gebeit eines Bildes nahm: das Resultat musste in beiden Fallen ein und dasselbe sein). Die anschauliche Formel dieses Theologumenons war ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ ἐκπορευόμενον, “der aus dem Vater durch den Sohn ausgeht.”) The words: “If the first idea is of peace,” translated from the German text, S. 694: “Wenn die erste Vorstellung (“der Ausgang als von Ewigkeit und vor Ewigkeit schon vollbrachter Akt”) uns zwingt, die Bewegung eben als Bewegung zu denken (mag deren Dauer auch nur Einen mathematischen Punkt messen), so bringt die zweite Vorstellung (“der Ausgang als ein immer gegenwärtiger Akt”) samt einem Charakter der Dauer und Beständigkeit auch ein modifizierendes Moment des Stillstehens, der Ruhe in diese Bewegung hinein.” In the available handwritten text here it reads: “If the first representation forces us to think of movement always as movement, then the second introduces into this movement a moment of “standing,” i.e., rest.” Zwar ist die Idee. Und doch ist damit u. s. w. das unübertrefflich, lakonische. The main passages are: a) quod non sint tres dii, Migne, t. 45, col. 133BC; b) contr. Eunom., col. 369A, Migne. ibid.; c) contr. Eunom.. col. 464BC, Migne, ibid.; d)adv. Maced., n. 6, col. 130SB, Migne, ibid. In a) τὸ αἰτιατὸν is also called τὸ ἐκ τοῦ αἰτίου: b) Son is designated as κατὰ τὸ προςεχὲς ἀδιαατάτως τῷ Πατρὶ συνετπνοού ενός . and the Holy Spirit as δὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ (i.e. through the Son and with the Son) εὐθύς καὶ σονημμένως καταλαμβανόμενος. 'Ώ σπερ ἂ ν ε ἵ τις ἐν τρισί λαμπάσι διηρημένην βλέπων τὴν φλόγα [ ἀιτίαν δὲ τοῦ τρίτου φωτὸς ὑποθώμεθα ε ἶ ναι τὴν πρώτην φλόγα ἐκ διαδόσεως διὰ τοῦ μέσου τὸ ἄκρον ἐξάφασαν ] – εἰ δὲ κωλύει οὐδὲν ε ἶ ναι τὴν τρίτην λαμπάδα . κ ᾶ ν ἐκ προλαβούσης ἀναλάμψη φλογός , τίς ή σοφία τῶν διὰ ταῦτα τήν τοῦ άγιου Πνεῦματος ἀξίαν άθετειν ἀσεβῶς νομίζὄντων ἐπειδήττερ μετὰ Πατέρα καὶ ϒ ἱόν ἠ ριθμήθη παρὰ τῆς θείας φωνῆς; S. Basil., epist. 38 (alias 43) (a. V. 369–370), written: Γρηγορί ῳ ἀδελφῷ, i.e. to St. Gregory of Nyssa, and it is very likely that he had a great influence on the development of the latter’s way of thinking. All the parallels under the inscription “St. Vasily" taken from n. 4 of this letter. S. 700: ist der hl. Geist theologisch erkennbar. frei von dem leisesten Anstrich einer Kausalitäts-Bedeutung. Wed. adv. Eunom. 1. 1 (col. 416С): ἀλλὰ δι᾿ αὐτοῦ (τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ) μὲν ἐκλαμπον. τὴν δὲ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αἰτίαν ἔχον ἐκ τοῦ πρωτοτύπου φωτός Eg. in Joh., t. 2, no. l, 2, 3, ρ ρ . 49–51, ed. de la Rue, Origen claims that only the Father is Αυτόθεος and ὁ θεός. The Son is only θεός, for He is also included in the class μορφούμενοι θεοί, τὴ μετοχὴ τοῦ θεοῦ γινόμενοι; it then occurs to the Alexandrian that such a distinction may confuse some; to eliminate their fears, he assures that the divine dignity of the Son is not diminished through this: “for (and Origen considers this proof very compelling) both the Father and the Son occupy the place of the source: the Father is the beginning of deity. The Son is the beginning of reason." Ἀμφ᾿τερα γὰρ πηγὴς ἔχει χώραν ὁ μὲν Πατὴρ θεότητος, ὁ δὲ ϒ ἱός λόγου. And it has the most serious grounds for itself: for a human concept, subject to the laws of space (and only about it can be discussed here), the Holy Spirit must be thinkable - already at the very first imaginable moment of its existence, that is, at the moment of action of the cause - with irresistible necessity, as already existing outside the Father, if the Son is to be understood as the conductor of this action. But such an understanding postulates – implicite – to the blasphemous ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων. The Orthodox, homoousian concept can thus project the Holy Spirit in this moment only as occurring still within the Father, and this excludes any μεσιτεία of the Son. S. 701: ist centnerschwer und kann etwas beweisen. vom Standpunkte der Gemeinschaft der Substanz. And the place with (In the German text, due to an oversight, “d.”) does not provide an answer. Τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἔχεται τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον , ἑπινοία μόνη κατὰ τὸν τῆς αἰτίας λόγον προθεωρουμένου τῆς τοῦ Πνεῦματος ὑποστάσεως. I understand these words (as N.M. Bogorodsky understood them, for example, in 1879) (L. Bogorodsky, The Teaching of St. John of Damascus on the procession of the Holy Spirit, set forth in connection with the theses of the Bonn Conference of 1875, St. Petersburg, 1879, p. 91.) as follows: Completely theoretically, the Son appears even before the existence of the Spirit, as a logical prius in relation to reason (not “as a cause and therefore as a logical prius”). Brothers, the firstborn son and the son born after him, differ from each other in their relationship to the cause, to the father, and, however, the elder brother is not in any sense the cause of the younger brother's existence. The entire V section has been translated from the German text, S. 696–702, since it is unknown whether and where the corresponding Russian original has survived. In the existing Russian text, instead of all this, there are only the following lines, which are immediately followed by the VI section: “But the idea of ​​​​the penetration of the Holy Spirit through the Son in the consciousness of the saints. Fathers is established so firmly that the Holy Spirit is συνάπ τεται, with the Father through the Son, but has existence not only from the Father Himself as a cause, but even hardly from the Father Himself through the mediation of the Son. Ἐμμέοως or οὐκ ἀμέδως, “not directly,” these words are from St. fathers, apparently, is found nowhere, and “διὰ μεσιτείας” and “διὰ τοῦ πρὸσεχῶς” in St. Gregory of Nyssa is accompanied by the correction that this through the Son imparts only begottenness to Him and does not remove the Holy Spirit from φοσικὴ σχέσις to the Father. But σχέσις is equivalent to ἔχεσθαι, which marks precisely the immediacy (προςεχῶς) of the contact of divine Persons. All this – it seems – leads to the position that the Holy Spirit proceeds directly from the Father through the Son.” In the Russian text: “But these are mutual relations.” Translated, S. 702: “Das Theologumenon der Kirchenväter.” So in translation, S. 702: “wie die oben erwähnten.” In Russian text: “given”. So in translation, S. 702 – 703: “Im Evangelium giebt es nur eine Stelle (Jon. 20, 22), welche zur Begründung des δὶ ϒ ἱοῦ angeführt werden kann, und ans dieser Steile erhellt unmittelbar, dass der hl. Geist der Kreatur gegeben ist (vgl. Tit. 3, 3, 5, 6)." In the Russian text: “There is only one place in Scripture, John. 20:22, testifies that the Holy Spirit is through the Son, and from this place it is immediately clear that the Holy Spirit is given to creatures through the Son.” To support the likelihood of such a contrary conclusion, I could bring to mind another θεολογούμενον, namely, the attempt of the church fathers to make to some extent understandable why the Son, and not the Father, became man. Wed. Photii Bibliotheca, cod. 222, pp. 181 b, 182, 193, 199 b, 196, ed. Bekker (This note appears only in the German text, S. 703: “Um die Wahrscheinlichkeit eines solchen Ruckschlusses zu bekräftigen, mochte ich ein anderes Theologumenon ins Gedächtnis bringen, nämlich den Versuch der Kirchenvater, das einigermassen verständlich zu machen, warum der Sohn und nicht der Vater Mensch geworden ist" w.). The words: “so the most important thing is this” are found only in the German text, S. 703: “so dass die Ausgiessung selbst des hl. Geistes durch den Sohn vielmehr ein Reflex dieser ewigen Grundthatsache auf das Zeitliche sei, das zu beweisen, dieses onus probandi» u. s. w. The title is only in German translation, S. 703: “Die Thesen”. So in the German translation, S. 703: “Es ist zu berücksichtigen, dass die Altkatholiken – - – . Meiner Meinung nach schiene es also möglich, die folgenden “Diesen als richtige anzuerkennen”. In the Russian text: “Keeping in mind that the Old Catholics themselves with respectable frankness declare the difference in their views on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, and do everything that depends on them, it seems necessary to ask for the blessing (sanction) of the Holy All-Russian Synod on the following provisions.” So in the German text, S. 703: “These1”. In Russian, here and everywhere else there is only a number. In the Russian text it is emphasized: “dogma”. Italics only in German text. Based on the German text, pp. 703–704. In Russian it reads (in the form of a remark in the text of the thesis itself, and not in the form of a special §): “as for example. “The “equality and unity” of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son is identical in meaning with “consubstantial” and is already given in the content of this basic concept.” Italics in the German text, S. 704. In Russian, only “as a dogma” is emphasized. In the manuscript: "δί ϒ ἱοῦ [δε?]". In Russian the text is emphasized "as θεολογούμεν o ν". In the German translation, 8. 704: “nicht nur eine blosse Privatmeinung eines Kirchenvaters, sondern ein sozusagen ökumenisch, überall autorisiertes Theologumenon des orthodoxen Morgenlandes zu erblicken das Recht haben.” In the Russian text the word “universally” is not underlined. Italics only in German text, S. 705: "zu Verdrehungen". In Russian text: “The Commission knows.” In the Russian text: "under ἔκλαμψις, ἔκφανσίς". Italics only in German text, S. 705: “von der ewigen Erscheinung”. Greek words are only in the German text. In the Russian text the quote: “(DVS. VII, 226)” = Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. under Kaz. spirit. Academy. T. VII. Kazan 1875. Mansi, t. XII, p. 1154. In Russian the link to the same publication is: “(VII, 195).” Mansi, t. XII, p. 1119. In the German text, S. 705: "an eine ἀρχή". In the Russian text: “(“The whole thing happened to them” is not given).” The translation from the Greek is only available in the German text. S. 706: “Nicht im Mindesten! Denn ich sage nicht, Gott, nachdem Er vormals Vater nicht gewesen ist, sei später Vater geworden, sondern er sei immer (Vater), da er aus sich selbst sein Wort, und durch sein Wort seinen aus Ihm (dem Vater) ausgehenden Geist hat.” In the German text, S. 706: "ὁ [jambische] καν ὼ ν εἰς τὴν Πεντηκοστὴν, ᾠ δὴ δ᾿, εἰρμός." This phrase is not in the Russian text, and it is taken from German. S. 706: "Zu bemerken der pünktliche Parallelismus des nicht terminologischen τροελθών in ε, und des unstreitig terminologischen, sonnenklaren ἐγεννήθη in δ." In the Russian text: “In the Octoechos: Tone 7,” etc. In German: “Und in den Kirchenliedern aus der Ὀκτώηχος συντεθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ ἁ γίου Ἰ ωάννου τοῦ Δαμάσκηνοῦ: θ) (ἦ χος βαρύς τῆ κυριακῆ πρωῖ, ἐν τῷ μεσονυκτικῷ, καν ὼ ν τριαδικὸς, ᾠ δη α᾿, τροπάριον β᾿)". So in the German translation. In the Russian text “Λόγος”, but a note is made in parentheses: “so in the reprint ἐν Βενετί ᾳ 1836; without a doubt you need to read "Λόγον". The Russian text does not contain this phrase. In German, S. 707: "Zu bemerken der Parallelismus des ἐκλάμψας und des γεννήσας." In the German translation, S. 707: “(ἧ χος πλάγιος β᾿, τῷ σαββίτ ῳ ἑσπέ ρας, εἰς τὸ Κύριε ἐκεκραξα, θεοτόκιον)". In German translation, S 707: "(die slavische Übersetzung setzt voraus ο γὰρ ἀρόνως)". In the Russian text: “(we have it better: “flightless”, ἀχρόνως)". In the German translation, s. 707: "(ἧ χος γ᾿ τῆ κυριακῆ πρωΐ, εἰς τὸν ὄρθον, καν ὼ ν τῆς Θεοτόκου, ῴ δὴ θ᾿, τροπάριον β᾿)". In the German translation, S. 707. no "λ)" and "cf. ε ". “Zu vergleichen mit dem Gebet des hl. Hilarius" etc. In German translation. S. 707 – 708: “dass der hl. Geist "geht aus" (ἐκορευόμενον, προϊόν) vom Vater durch den Sohn, "erleuchtet" (ἐκλάμπει) durch den Sohn, "erscheint" ( πεφηνός ) durch den Sohn". In the Russian text, the words “Third” and “Second” are not underlined. So in the German translation, S. 708: “Dieses Moment ist dem Sinne nach, mit demjenigen, welches in den Worten ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται geoffenbart ist (wenn wir nur diesen Satz im engen [d. h. streng theologischen] Sinne der Terminitechnici "ἐκπορευτῶς und ἐκπορεύεται verstehen werden), nicht identisch." In Russian the text: “This moment is not identical in meaning with ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς in the close, i.e. strict and precise theological meaning of the term ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκποοευτῶς ". Link only in German text. In Russian the text is in brackets: “from [one].” Italics in German text. To indicate, at least, the direction which human thinking should follow in speculation about this Greek θεολογούμενον, we can here resort to an attempt at a German rendering with enhanced expressions: Holy Spirit geht vom Vater allein heraus, kommt aber durch den Sohn hinaus. From the one Father, the Holy Spirit has His Hypostasis, His personal existence, but through the Son He manifests His Hypostasis as existing. (The note is only in the German text. S. 708–709: “Um wenigstens die Richtung zu bezeichnen, die das menschliche Denken halten muss in der Spekulation über dieses griechische Theologumenon, mag hier ein forcierter Verdeutschungsversuch folgen: Der hl. Geist geht vom Vater allein heraus, kommt aber durch den Sohn hinaus. Vom Vater allein hat der hl. Italics in German translation. The German text does not contain this word. “But” only in the German text. Underlined in Russian text. Italics are only used in German text. Migne, S. Lat, t. 67, col. 1237C, contra acephal. disput. “Quidam vero antiquorum et hoc proprietatibus adiecerunt, quia sicut Spiritus cum Patre Filium sempiterne nou genuit, sie nec procedit Spiritus a Filio sicut a Patre.” Ego vero, quia Spiritus quidem Filium non genuerit sempiterne, confiteor (nec enim duos dieimus Patres): utrum vero a Filio eodem modo quo a Patre procedat, nondum perfecte habeo satisfactum" (Note only in the German edition, S. 710.). In the Russian text, instead of “with the eastern”, there is “with the catholic”. Wed. F. X. Kraus, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte (Trier 1882), § 74, 3. - F. X. Funk, Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte (Rottenburg a. N. 1886), § 99. - L. B. Swele, History of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit (Cambridge 1876). (Note only in the German edition. S. 711.) So in the German text: “Bas Filioque als theologische Privatmeinung kann also nicht als ein “Impedimentum dirimens” für die Herstellung der Interkommunion zwischen der orthodoxen orientalischen und der altkatholischen Kirche betrachtet werden.” In the Russian text: “And therefore cannot be considered an impedimentum dirimens for restoring communion between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Old Catholics.” Theses 26 and 27 are printed in the German translation in large bold font. Obviously, from a meeting of the subcommittee, which was tasked with considering the issue of Filioque and which included, in addition to V.V. Bolotov, Archbishop. Anthony and p ρο f. A. L. Katansky. The Commission meeting was then scheduled for February 23 instead of the 15th. This refers to the words of Gennady, Bishop of Argesu, at the Bonn Conference on July 30 (E.S.) 1875, that the name “first, second and third Persons” have a basis only in the order of revelation of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. See the Conference Report in the Collection of Minutes of the Society of Spirit Lovers. enlightenment. S. Petersburg department. (Fourth year). 1875 – 1876." St. Petersburg 1876, p. 16. The second thesis of V.V. Bolotov about Filioque. ΝΒ. “The Spirit comes into being with the Word” [with which my idea stands and falls], not “The Son is born (In the original “comes with” is obviously a typo.) Spirit” [A.L.’s idea] The abstract of I. E. Troitsky “On the origin of the Utrecht hierarchy” was then read at the commission meeting on March 2, the abstract of Prot. A. A. Lebedeva “On the liturgy of the Old Catholics” - April 13. The words “that the teaching of Augustine – – and the Holy Spirit” and further “if the Commission – – and in the east” are marked in the original with a double line drawn in red ink on the margin. A manual for teaching the Catholic faith in higher schools, published (by Prof. Langen) on behalf of the Old Catholic Synod in Bonn. 1875 (Leitfaden für den katholischen Religionsunterricht an höheren Schulen, herausgegeben im Auftrage der Altkatholischen Synode. Bonn 1375). Theses 29 and 32 were then included in the report of the Commission to the Holy Synod on June 1, 1893 in the following form (P. I. Yanyshev, Opinions of authorized representatives of Orthodoxy and Catholicism on the issue of the union of Old Catholics with the Orthodox. St. Petersburg, 1896, pp. 20 - 1): “The Commission therefore finds it necessary to require, a) that absolutely all Old Catholic communities eliminate the word Filioque from the creed and from the catechisms, unless there are communities that have not yet done so, and b) that the Old Catholics take appropriate measures to ensure that the seven ecumenical councils are recognized by them not only by name; so that in the manuals for teaching the Catholic faith in higher schools, the teaching of the undivided church of the period of the ecumenical councils is set forth with its characteristic details, so that for educated Old Catholic laity the difference between the Orthodox Eastern Catholic Church and the heterodox Eastern churches that have fallen away from it and have no communion with it: Nestorian, Coptic, Abyssinian, Jacobite, Armenian, is sufficiently clear, Maronite." Meetings of the Academy Council. Archim. Boris (later bishop, † September 18, 1901). It is unknown what applications are being referred to here. The treatise does not have a title in the manuscript. In addition to what has been said about this treatise on pp. 6–7, it should be noted that, as can be seen from the dates on the rough draft of the treatise found in V.V. Bolotov’s papers, it was written following a letter to the archbishop. Anthony dated February 3/10, 1893. At the end of the analysis of a passage from 52 of Vasily V.’s letter in the draft manuscript it is marked: “Feb. 1893, end 14/13 script"; at the end of the discussion preceding this analysis, which originally made up a special notebook: “Feb. 13/14. Same". - Regarding the teaching of St. Basil V. on the procession of the Holy Spirit cf. the work of the Catholic filioquist author A. Kranich, Der hl. Basilius in seiner Stellung zum "Filioque". Braunsberg 1882 (the motivation for writing this work, according to the author, S. VII, was, among other things, “in dem traurigen Wagniss der sog. Altkatholiken, auch unter Berufung auf Basilius dem Filioque alle dogmatische Bedeutung abzusprechen, dasselbe ab eine Frage untergeordneten Ranges und als Gegenstand theologischen Spekulation hinzustellen"). Here they are indicated, among other things, as parallels to ep. 52, 4, still by Wed. 125, 3 [115 error) cf. 243, 4 et cf. 251, 4 (S. 44–5, Anm). This refers to the statement of Prof. Knodt at the Bonn Conference on July 30 (s.s.) 1875 regarding the words of Gennady, Bishop of Argesu. See the Conference Report in the Collection of Minutes of the Society of Spirit Lovers. enlightenment. S. – St. Petersburg department. (Fourth year). 1875 – 1876". St. Petersburg 1876, pp. 16–17: "Döllinger: The work of the Holy Spirit through the Father must be thought of as an act that has its basis in the divine nature, but also depends on the will, and precisely as an act not in time, but logically following the birth of the Son. That is why we call the Father first, the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third Person. Bishop Gennady: This does not agree with our understanding. The name “first, second and third Person” has its basis only in the order of Revelation: first the Father was revealed, after Him the Son, after the Son the Holy Spirit. But the eternal work of the Son and the Holy Spirit coincides with one another so much that one cannot be placed before the other, not only chronologically, but even logically. Knodt: It is absolutely necessary to return to the Fathers of the Church: the newest theologians of the Eastern Church, as well as Archimandrite Sylvester, in his work [An Orthodox Answer to the scheme proposed by the Old Catholics about the Holy Spirit, Kyiv 1874], which he sent to us, defend a view that is completely incomprehensible to me. How should we actually imagine this matter?” Migne, Patr. gr. t. 32, p. 396. In another edition (reprint) 1875 pp. 78–79. Discharge at V.V. Bolotov. The printed abstract was read by V.V. Bolotov at the third meeting of the Commission on the Old Catholic Question on January 22, 1893, when the Commission began to discuss the difference in the teachings of Old Catholics and Orthodox Christians about the procession of the Holy Spirit. The commission was guided, in establishing general points of disagreement between Old Catholics and Orthodox Christians that required discussion, by the “List of dogmatic and main ritual [and canonical] differences that distinguish the Western Church from the Eastern Orthodox Church,” published in the “Collection of Protocols of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. St. Petersburg Department. Second year 1873 - 1874. St. Petersburg. 1874,” pp. 428 – 434. The response to this list, compiled in 1874 by the St. Petersburg Department of the said Society, came from the Old Catholics “Comments on the scheme of quaestionum controversarum (Langen), received in the same year and published in the “Collection” in Russian translation, following the “List” (pp. 437 - 446). "List" and "Remarks", together with reports of the meetings of the two Bonn conferences, which took place in 1874 and 1875. (published in the same “Collection”, third year. St. Petersburg. 1875, and the fourth year, St. Petersburg. 1876), served as material for the Commission to formulate a judgment about the Old Catholics in their past. (Case of the Archive of the Holy Synod on the conditions for the union of Old Catholics with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Report of the Commission to the Holy Synod, l. 2. Cf. Π. I. Yanyshev, Opinions of authorized representatives of Orthodoxy and Old Catholicism on the issue of the union of Old Catholics with the Orthodox. St. Petersburg. 3896. p. 9). The following were recognized by the Commission at its first meeting on January 8 as authoritative documents by which one could judge the Dutch, German and Swiss Old Catholics at the moment: 1) “Utrecht Declaration”, signed on September 24 (12), 1889 by all five Old Catholic bishops of that time. 2) “Guide to the teaching of the Catholic faith in higher schools, published (by Prof. Langen) on behalf of the Old Catholic Synod in Bonn,” 1875 (Leitfaden für den catholischen Religionsunterricht an höheren Schulen, herausgegeben im Auftrage der Altkatholischen Synode. Bonn 1875. Russian translation in "Christ. 1876, II). 3) “Catechism published in Bonn on behalf of the Old Catholic Synod in 1875” (Katholischer Katechismus, herausgegeben im Auftrage der Altkatholischen Synode. Bonn 1875. Translated in “Church Herald” 1876, No. 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12). 4) “Christ-Catholic Catechism” (Swiss Old Catholics). Bern 1889 (Christ-katholischer Katechismus. Bern 1889). 5) “Book of liturgical prayers with an appendix of a book of hymns.” Mannheim 1885 (Liturgische Gebetbuch nebst einem Liederbuche als Anhang.Mannheim 1885). 6) “The Book of Prayers of the Christ-Catholic Church of Switzerland”. Bern 1889 (Gebetbuch der christkatholischen Kirche der Schweiz. Bern 1889). (Case of the Archive of the Holy Synod, l. 1 – 2. Yanyshev, 8. The abstract of V.V. Bolotov, which fills the journal of the third meeting of the Commission and is presented in 16, or more precisely in 17 (since No. 3 is repeated) paragraphs (l. 33 - 74), begins by establishing the teaching of the Old Catholics about the procession of the Holy Spirit and their attitude to the issue of the Filioque according to those of the specified documents that could serve for this purpose (Nos. 1–5 of the abstract, l. 33 vol. – 36) and according to reports on the Bonn conferences (nos. 6–14, l. 36–51: the report on the second Bonn conference is quoted from a reprint from “Christian Readings”, 1876, no. 1–2). Next, we briefly characterize Russian works specifically devoted to the explanation of the patristic teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit, Archimandrite. Sylvester, Kokhomsky, Bogorodsky and Nekrasov (No. 15. l. 51–53). Finally, there follows an extensive treatise by V.V. Bolotov himself on the Filioque (No. 16, in 7 paragraphs, a - g, l. 53–74). The beginning of the abstract in the original: “Help. 1) It is stated in the “List” (ibid., p. 429), etc. Obviously, the following note found in the papers of V.V. Bolotov, outlining its plan, relates to this abstract: "Reference. Scheme. The statement of the Old Catholics that they do not seek the fusion of both churches, nor [towards] an aimless agreement, that they do not want any unional omissions. Essential from both Bonn conferences on this issue. The Western point of view on the exclusion of Filioque from the symbol and the Eastern point of view (Photian) on this issue. Old Catholics believe that in the teaching of διὰ τοῦ ϒ ἱοῦ there is a point of agreement with the eastern ones. a) What is the meaning of the paternal θεολογούμενον, that the Holy Spirit also proceeds through the Son. aa) Should we continue to insist that this is only the idea of ​​a temporary messenger of the Holy Spirit? How firm is our ground for the demand that the Western Filioque can contain nothing but lies? From the one Father - how firmly in symbolic books? How Photius reached his point. Is it possible for us to stand on it bona fide. The expression Filioque among the Western fathers. Did the Eastern Church really condemn this word with unconditional condemnation? aa) Question about the increase in the Symbol. bb) Theodoret against St. Kirill. cc) St. Maximus the Confessor. d) Last clash 807–809.” The number “3” was inserted here in the manuscript due to an oversight for the second time instead of “4”; Accordingly, further numbering follows. The abstract, as written by V.V. Bolotov in the journals of the meetings of the Commission on the Old Catholic Question, includes an oral comment by V.K. Sabler, a former member of the Commission, made while reading the abstract. The original is in Syriac script.