Часть II. Учение бл. Августина, еп. Иппонского, о Св. Духе и Его имманентных отношениях к Отцу и Сыну (Filioque). Prolegomena

§ 1. Characteristics of the question and its formulation in this study Special, original qualities of 984 teachings of bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit and His “modus'e procedendi”, as it was already expressed by Augustine himself; further, the special position 985 which this question of Augustinian theology occupies in the later (post-Augustinian) scientific literature of the subject; finally, the special state of the primary sources 986 of this exceptional teaching of Bl. Augustine, i.e. the current text of Augustinian works in his various manuscripts and printed editions, are urgently required from a modern theologian who wants to be as impartial and comprehensive a researcher of this Augustinian teaching as possible, special and, perhaps, not entirely ordinary methods or techniques for its disclosure and presentation. Complex in itself and even more complicated by its subsequent literary history, the teaching of Bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit and His hypostatic relationship to the Father and the Son, in view of this, is difficult to generalize and systematize, combining data of a different and often directly opposite nature. One might think that Augustine’s views on this question of church dogmatics, which was little understood, according to Augustine himself, in his time, 987 in general never distinguished by his definiteness, stability and theological consistency, at various moments of his life underwent various fluctuations and changes, sometimes for the most elusive reasons. Probably, without dwelling specifically on this particular issue of Christian dogma (despite the very frequent reference to the question of the Holy Spirit) and, perhaps, without attributing special significance to it (from a symbolic-dogmatic and traditional-historical point of view), Augustine in different years and even at the same time, but in different works - and sometimes even in the same work, in just a few lines - spoke about this teaching in one way or another, i.e. in the spirit of the teachings of both the Western and Eastern Churches - one must assume, precisely depending on the task that he set himself in each individual case (in one or another separate place in his writings). 988 But to properly research, correctly understand and accurately define these tasks and goals, in view of their multiplicity, and most importantly, in the absence of often any solid guiding data, is extremely difficult and sometimes downright impossible. Conducting business in this way, given the above-mentioned conditions, we are not guaranteed against more or less significant and equally undesirable subjectivism and arbitrariness. That is why this point (the question of St. Spirit) of Augustinian theology, which is often resolved at the same time, and sometimes in the same place (work), by the author himself differently, and even in the opposite way; which (point) seems to be permeated through and through with the duality and imbalance of theological judgments; which is characterized by a lack of theological consistency and literary certainty, methodological integrity and internal unity (both in relation to its logical thoughtfulness (concept), and from the side of its disclosure, presentation and expression (methodology, terminology and stylistics); which, moreover, does not find for itself any consistent illumination and solution in the experiments of interpretation and commentary on it by scientists of later times; which, finally, allows and even forces us to raise the question of purity and integrity (in the relevant places) of the text of its existing literary sources), it is unlikely, based on all that has been said, that it seems possible. Hence, it would seem more expedient to present this extremely unique and kind of exclusive teaching of Bl. Augustine in its genesis, that is, to consider it in the process of its gradual formation and development in the dogmatic or theological consciousness of Augustine himself, in other words, to reveal and expound this teaching of Bl. Augustine not systematically or synthetically, but genetically or historically. But this method of research and explanation of the controversial issue of Augustinian dogma that we are examining is also, in our opinion, not entirely applicable here. The fact is that the doctrine in question is Bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit and His immanent relationship to the Father and the Son was not the result of Augustine strictly or simply any consistent and systematic disclosure or development of his church-dogmatic or theological-philosophical ideas (on this issue). As noted above, Augustine sometimes at the same time and even in the same place (work) speaks about him not only not completely in agreement, but directly opposite and contradictory, as if contradictory to the point of direct opposition. How can we reconcile, or at least explain in any satisfactory way, all these many and varied places? To reconcile them on the basis of one particular principle means often resorting to too arbitrary interpretations and unceremonious stretching of the text, artificially fitting into one standard what is often completely incommensurable with each other. Even simply striving at all costs to explain in one way or another the entire totality of these passages (Augustine’s expressions about the Holy Spirit) would often mean, in the absence of proper or any reliable data, to largely provide room for subjectivism, arbitrariness and completely unfounded judgments. And can they be explained one way or another, if, given the obscurity and darkness of their meaning and the unknown tasks and goals of many of them in Augustine himself, a circumstance that greatly complicates and extremely impedes a certain understanding of them is also, so to speak, the kaleidoscopically diverse coverage and understanding of them in later European scientific literature, as well as the above-mentioned far from disappointing present state of the primary sources of this teaching (the available text of Augustine’s creations). The literary and historical tradition of understanding this point of theological views of Bl. Augustine in many cases does not clarify or help, but often further obscures and complicates this understanding. Under such conditions, everyone understands (and, it must be said, often has the right to understand) this controversial teaching of the bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit, at least in some of its parts, exactly as it seems to him most correct. Favorable soil and abundant food for all kinds of objections and counter-objections, regarding almost every expression of the bl. Augustine about this is more than enough here. Therefore, it seems to us that the historical-genetic principle is perhaps the most convenient when presenting other points of the theology of the bl. Augustine, as a matter of fact, will not be applied here, when studying the present teaching of Bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit, the obscurity and hence the controversy of which seem to constitute his special characteristic and traditional glory. The unique nature of this teaching in Augustine himself, its exceptional position in the post-Augustine diverse and multi-confessional scientific literature, and finally, the special state of the available primary documents of this teaching determine the method and plan we have proposed and undertaken for its disclosure, clarification and presentation. To the two methods of theological research we mentioned above - subject-systematic and historical-genetic, in these conditions, we prefer the comparative-historical or the method of objective-critical parallelism, as the method, in our opinion, is most applicable in such conditions and best provides us with the most comprehensive and possibly objective results of the study. In view of the above, having previously briefly acquainted our reader with some information that has the general significance of the Prolegomena to the extremely complex issue of Augustinian theology being examined, we propose in the following pages to offer to the scholarly attention of the reader of this part of our work several literary traditions or literary experiences (examples) of understanding and interpretation of this multifaceted and prismatically multicolored teaching of Bl. Augustine, reducing them to the three most remarkable, most characteristic and original theological trends or types. In addition, we consider it useful, at least only in the briefest outline, to acquaint the reader with “all the most important” phenomena or varieties that exist within the 2nd and 3rd literary types of theological thought and theological argumentation on the issue we are considering. With such a formulation of the question and such a method of solving it, this exceptional teaching of the blessed one will pass before the eyes of the reader. Augustine in all its breadth and originality and in all the diversity of its further understanding and interpretation in history (the main directions in the understanding and assessment of Augustine's teaching about the Holy Spirit in the scientific literature of later times). And through this, a visual and more or less comprehensive and integral image of this teaching of the bl. will be outlined before the reader’s mental gaze. Augustine in the diversity that this teaching represents, like that of the bl. Augustine, and in the experiments of his interpretation in the subsequent centuries-old, multilingual and multi-confessional literature of this subject. By bringing our reader up to speed by similarly introducing him to the history of the issue discussed in this part, we will gradually prepare and bring him closer to the correct solution of the issue itself. Then, summing up what has been done before us in the field of our research and, thus, based on ready-made and known data, we, on the other hand, based on our observations in the field of the issue we are studying and our own conclusions based on them, will establish our author’s point of view. Having expanded and deepened, as far as possible, this special question of our research, we will try to substantiate our view with relevant facts of an objective-historical and subjective-psychological nature. Having given along with this the grounds for our disagreement with the 1st and 2nd literary types of understanding and construction of the teachings of Bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit, as not free from extremes and one-sidedness, we, for our part, note, as closest to the truth, the 3rd “Old Catholic concept” of this Augustinian teaching, going towards its resolution in the middle or “royal” way. Moreover, we make a reservation that we accept the old Catholic type of theological thinking on this issue with the necessary adjustments, which are introduced into it by some of our most authoritative Orthodox Russian theologians, who generally share the old Catholic concept of “Augustinian filioquism.” In conclusion of this part of our work, from the point of view of the principles we have established for understanding and evaluating Augustine’s teaching about the Holy Spirit and His “modus’e procedendi”, we will try to reconcile this fact of so-called “Augustinian filioquism”, stated above and accordingly argued by us, with that high respect for Augustine, 989 as a holy man of patristic antiquity and an authoritative teacher of the Christian faith and morality, which he always used in the ancient universal Church - not only Western, but also Eastern - and in the halo of which he invariably lives to this day in the church and theological consciousness of both the heterodox West and the Orthodox East (an assessment from a historical point of view of the dogmatic significance of St. Augustine’s teaching on the “Filioque”). In conclusion of these Prolegomena to the following part of our work - our small Addenda. An obligatory guiding principle on the path of studying Augustine’s teaching about the Holy Spirit should always be extreme caution and circumspection of the author’s judgments and statements, the greatest possible abstinence from too categorical, especially one-sided and extreme conclusions and decisions. Even moderate judgments on this issue, free from extremes and harshness and following the middle and therefore the safest path of the “golden mean,” must necessarily be accompanied in many cases by certain explanatory notes and restrictive clauses. We must always keep in mind when studying and presenting Augustine's teaching about St. The spirit that in this case, one apparently quite convincing and even indisputable grounds can often be contrasted with other equally convincing counter-grounds; that along with some judgments, no matter how clear and logical they may be, can often be cited as a negative authority to them, at the same time, others, moreover, seemingly of equal logical and historical dignity; that criticism of opposing opinions, even captivating with its logical harmony and the strength of its argumentation, in some cases can provoke no less thorough anti-criticism from the opposite point of view. According to the competent court of specialists, in general, when studying the works of Bl. Augustine must always be especially careful. Augustine himself in this case gives us an example of such caution and prudence. Regarding your op. “De Trinitate Dei” he wrote: “Whatever you find erroneous in this work, attribute it to myself, and assign what is true to God and the Church.” Leibniz, on the basis of his own experience, says: “In order not to be deceived by the sayings of Augustine, one must know their dates, their purpose, and the essential content and meaning of the books from which they are borrowed. I say this because I myself have made mistakes more than once when I did not do this. And in fact: one can often find the opposite meaning in his words when they are taken out of the connection and context of speech; That’s why I’ve become very careful now.” To this caution, circumspection and moderation of our judgments about the views of the bl., inspired by the words of Leibniz. We also bow to Augustine because his teaching about St., which is now subject to our consideration and evaluation. Spirit, more than any other of his views, is full of pitfalls for its proper understanding and, accordingly, more than others in history has been subject to all kinds of reinterpretations. Therefore, the above-quoted words of Leibniz, it seems, should have a special significance and meaning in the disclosure and presentation of this particular teaching of the bl. Augustine. That is why some scholars, known for their special works in the field of textual criticism of patristic works, as a result of their long-term philological-critical research and study of the text of Augustine’s works, instill in every modern worker called upon to use the text of Augustine’s works, even in the best “scientific-critical” editions, extreme caution “in order to protect themselves from false conclusions from works that have been damaged to a fairly significant extent by ignorance, negligence and dogmatic bias." 990 Also Addendis superaddenda. When expounding the teachings of Blessed. Augustine about the Holy Spirit, a teaching as important, as complex, as disputable and, because of this disputability, equally difficult to understand and express, we were guided by the rule of Socrates Scholasticus “to leave what requires special writing” (Hist. Eccles. III, 23). Teaching bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit, due to its properties noted above - on the one hand, and on the other hand - in view of its significant importance and contemporary interest in it, in our deep conviction, can be placed among such teachings of patristic antiquity, which could rightfully expect to become the subject of a special special development in a separate independent scientific study on this topic. Since in the present case the consideration of this issue constitutes no more than one part of the whole work, it is necessary here, in the words of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, “to recall only a few of many.” 991 Although we are highly aware of the fact that for a properly comprehensive, scientifically objective study and presentation of the teachings of St. Augustine about the Holy Spirit, it is necessary to approach it, on the one hand, through the works of Dionysius of Rome, Tertullian, Hilary of Pictavia and Ambrose of Milan, and on the other hand, to break through “countless hordes” of multi-confessional and multilingual (“diverse” in the philological and ideological sense of the word) Western European scientific literature that has grown up around this issue over the centuries. To these “countless hordes” of foreign-language and other-confessional Western scientific literature, which in other cases is not so much a helper and ally as our open or secret enemy, is added the Russian Russian literature on this issue, which is quite rich in quantity and extremely diverse in quality, which, by the abundance and diversity of opinions, shows that among Orthodox Russian theologians and non-theologians there is keen interest in this issue, as well as the fact that regarding this or that way of posing it and solving it “ad huc sub judice lis est”. § 2. Three main theological types of understanding and construction of the teachings of Bl. Augustine on the Holy Spirit The first literary and theological type of understanding and construction of the teachings of Bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit and His hypostatic property, in our opinion, are Roman Catholics (and also partly Protestants), who, from the premises undoubtedly given by Augustine for their teaching about the “Filioque” and the filioquistic elements inherent in it, made further logical conclusions, turning Augustine’s “ex Filio” and “principaliter” into “Filioque” and “aequaliter” and thus “modernizing” the teaching bl. Augustine in the sense of the later Roman Catholic doctrine of “Filioque”, which the so-called “Augustinian filioquism”, one might think, does not cover (entirely). In other words, Western, predominantly Roman Catholic, theologians have a unique concept of bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit, with its truly filioquistic basis in its meaning, for its part was “dogmatized”, turning it from a personal and therefore optional theological opinion or even a philosophical assumption of the bl. Augustine in dogma de fide, in a visual expression of the supposedly eternal and unchangeable and therefore obligatory belief of the ancient universal Church. How thorough is such an “accommodation” of the specifically Augustinian “Filioque” to the “Filioque” of the Roman Catholic dogmatic systems of our time, and the very detailed treatise by the German Catholic theologian Prof. Th. Gangauf’a, embodying the typical features of the theological and philosophical argumentation of Roman Catholics regarding this 1st point of religious differences between the Orthodox East and the heterodox West. The second characteristic literary and theological tradition of explaining and presenting the Augustinian teaching about the Holy Spirit and His personal relationship to the Father and the Son is represented by some Orthodox-Eastern (namely Russian) theologians, mainly of ancient times (Adam Zernikav, Feofan Prokopovich and some others; among the new ones - partly Metropolitan Macarius; among the newest ones - Bishop Sylvester, however, apparently, who subsequently changed his initial point of view on this subject, as well as Prof. A. F. Gusev, who first made an attempt to “rehabilitate” the Orthodox image of Augustine’s views on the Holy Spirit, but also then decisively abandoned this initial view and even went to the opposite extreme). The filioquistic meaning of many expressions of the bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit is either not obvious to theologians of this category, or these very expressions, according to the conviction of these theologians, are inauthentic or distorted by later Latin theologians for confessional purposes. And this aforementioned “dogmatic modernization” of the teachings of Blessed. Augustine about the Holy Spirit, undertaken by the Western scientist prof. Th. Gangauf in the spirit of the modern Roman Catholic doctrine of the “Filioque”, and the opposite “dogmatic rehabilitation” (churching) of this teaching of Augustine in the sense of bringing it closer to the ancient apostolic and ancient patristic belief of the universal Church (Adam Zernikav, Feofan Prokopovich) do not find a place for themselves in the following literary type of theological consciousness according to the one we are considering question. The third typical reconstruction of the Augustinian teaching about the Holy Spirit and His modus'e procedendi, mediating between the first two, is the views of the so-called “Old Catholics”, these, according to the official expression of the highest body of Russian church authority, “fighters in the West for Orthodox truth.” 992 Following the Augustinian scheme in understanding and revealing the dogma of the Holy Trinity, they also fully accepted his original view of the Holy Spirit, but at the same time they energetically strive in one way or another to achieve the reconciliation or unification of the Eastern and Western methods of representation (in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in general and its starting point - the doctrine of the Holy Spirit - in particular) in one integral view and thus put a limit the current differences of opinion between East and West, “dating back to the time of Augustine.” 993 One of the means to implement this theological task set for themselves by the Old Catholics in relation to the dogma of St. The Trinity should be served, according to the consciousness of the representatives of Old Catholicism, by removing the “Filioque” from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, eliminating the dogmatic importance and significance behind the question of the modus'e procedendi of the Holy Spirit in general and relegating it to the position of a simple theological opinion (without dogmatic and therefore generally binding meaning). The dogmatism of Augustine’s “Filioque”, with which the latter appears in the dogmatic systems and theological works of Roman Catholic scholars, and in general the dogmatic background in which representatives of the 1st and 2nd of the types of theological thinking we characterized above, in the views of Old Catholic theologians, completely disappears and completely disappears: Augustine’s “Filioque” (partly in the sense of per Filium or the Eastern formula ẟιά ϒἱοῦ) is his only Theologische-privatmeinung, Theologumenon or even Philosophumenon of a rational nature, but not regula fidei, symbolum, dogma de fide credendum. In principle, the eastern “ἐϰ τοῦ μόνου Πατρός” has the same meaning (i.e., a simple theological opinion) in the eyes of Old Catholics. Thus, as can be seen from here, the Old Catholics would like to look at the purely Western “Filioque” bl. Augustine and “ἐϰ τοῦ μόνου Πατρός” of Eastern church writers, as in “tolerari posse”, the practical conclusion from which should be the elimination of one of the obstacles to mutual communication between the Eastern Orthodox and Western Old Catholic churches. This is the “old Catholic understanding” of Augustinian “filioquism.” The Old Catholic concept of the Augustinian teaching about the Holy Spirit in the sense of the “Filioque”, in general, is shared by many prominent Orthodox Russian theologians, who, however, disagree with the Old Catholics in some particulars of this issue. Names of Prof. V.V. Bolotov and V.A. Kerensky mark two particular varieties of this 3rd theological type in understanding and assessing the fundamental question of the image of the procession of the Third Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity. “Dissensus duorum theologorum” (Prof. V.V. Bolotov and V.A. Kerensky) is determined by their actually different views on the dogmatic meaning and significance of the Eastern “ἐϰ τοῦ μόνου Πατρός”. The rest of the Russian theologians of modern times, who have spoken out on this issue in less detail, as far as we know, adhere to the point of view of one or the other of these two most authoritative Russian theologian specialists named above. § 3. The teaching of the blessed one. Augustine, bishop Ipponsky, about the Holy Spirit and His relationship to the Father and the Son (interpretation of the issue in Roman Catholic scientific literature) As the first type of understanding of the teachings of Bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit and His hypostatic relationship to the Father and the Son (in a strictly Catholic spirit), we place below a detailed treatise on this subject by the German Catholic theologian Th. Gan ga u f ’ a . 994 The height, mystery and extreme abstraction of the subject discussed here, the originality of the theological and philosophical terminology found here, the special structure of Latin-German speech, unusual for the Russian reader, and other reasons explain the rather significant difficulties with which the reading and translation of the said Latin-German treatise is inevitably associated. 995 This “detailed treatise based on sources on the Augustinian doctrine of the Holy Spirit” 996 represents, first of all, a special attempt by the author on the basis of the rational-psychological construction of the teachings of Bl. Augustine on the Holy Trinity (through a psychological analysis of self-awareness and love) to reveal and understand a particular point of Trinitarian dogmatics - the doctrine of the Holy Spirit as the Third Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, and His immanent relationship to the other two Persons of the Divine. This is, first of all, a dogmatic-apologetic experience in justifying the Roman Catholic “Filioque” on patristic grounds, namely on the basis of the Trinitarian views of Blessed. Augustine, who, with his teaching about the Holy Spirit and His relationship to the Father and the Son, undoubtedly laid the foundation for the later “filioquistic” doctrine of the Western Church. In close connection with this, on the same basis and from the same point of view, the German author proves the Divinity of the Holy Spirit and His equality with God the Father and God the Son, His independence and difference from the other two Divine Hypostases, with which together He constitutes the One Divinity. “The Proceeding of God the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son” “The analogy of human self-awareness,” says prof. Gangauf,” was supposed to show 997 that self-knowledge, in accordance with the nature of the cognitive process, is followed by love (amor sui). This love necessarily arises in the rational spirit (of man), if the latter objectifies itself in that internal image that it produces in its own depths, as if giving birth to it from itself. This love (amor sui) is also revealed if the rational spirit in its named image contemplates itself in its identity with itself (that is, when the rational spirit of a person identifies this image of itself, produced by it, as an object, with itself, as a subject). Thus, this love reveals itself when the rational spirit of a person objectifies or reflects the entire fullness of its being and life (the entire fullness of its spiritual content) in the spiritual image that arises within it. This love is precisely the force through which the above-mentioned spiritual image (so to speak, our second “I”), as a product of our rational spirit, connects itself as an object with itself as a subject. This spiritual image or this “inner word” of the subject of our consciousness is connected with it with the help of love - (jungitur ei amore verbum ejus) - with the ultimate goal that through the designated psychological process (self-objectification) the rational spirit of a person can come to self-consciousness and unity and thereby “ad fruendum se”, that is, to self-pleasure in the consciousness of the completeness of his being and life achieved by him. This love (amor sui) itself presupposes knowledge of itself (notitia, qua mens se ipsam noscit) as its natural psychological prerequisite, “for the mind cannot love itself if it does not know itself; how can he love what he doesn’t know?” In direct connection and dependence on the quality and subject of this premise, love itself (amor sui) acquires a positive or negative character (is it normal or abnormal). Therefore, while there is no commandment (postulate) for love, on the contrary, in relation to its designated prerequisite (i.e. knowledge, notitia sui) there is a certain requirement: “know yourself” (nosce te ipsum). So, for self-knowledge there is a postulate that regulates its activity and sets it a certain goal, as an ideal. The need for such a postulate, as the highest regulator of human rational activity, follows from the fact that if this is knowledge of the mind about itself, it is itself legitimate from the point of view of objectively given norms of its activity, i.e. in accordance with the nature of man and corresponds to his purpose, then his love (amor sui) will be imprinted with the same character. But if the finite spirit (mind), in the process of its self-objectification, as a subject, contemplating and cognizing itself as its object in their ideal identity, cannot love itself without some preliminary knowledge about itself, as a necessary psychological prerequisite for its love, and further - if, according to the laws of finite self-consciousness, love also enters into the self-objectifying personality, as a third principle that unites the other two (i.e., the cognizing subject and the cognized object): then, by analogy with this, in Divine self-consciousness, as the purest and most perfect process of self-objectification, one can assume love as the third principle connecting the Subject and Object (of Divine consciousness) into the unity of a living Personality. This love, as the beginning in which the act of Divine self-objectification receives, as it were, internal completeness and, as it were, closes in itself, all the more, of course, cannot be absent from God or lacking to God. On the contrary, the designated process of Divine self-objectification must exist and manifest itself in the Divine in the most perfect manner, in accordance with the very nature of the Absolute. Therefore, just as earlier in the definition of the intellectual content of the Divine “I” (or the object of the Divine consciousness) in comparison with the same content of the finite spirit, so exactly in the definition of Divine love (amor sui), in its opposition to the love of the finite spirit, the greatest difference existing between them comes out in full force. This difference, in turn, is determined by the very nature of the object, that is, by the absoluteness of the Divine being. It goes without saying that such absoluteness cannot be attributed to human thought, but on the other hand, the latter, in order to be true, must postulate it, that is, this absolute truth, as the only self-reliable criterion for determining any truth and the highest norm for human intellectual activity. It is from this absolute beginning that it, human thought, must start and be directed and guided by it, just as it must be consistent with the objective certainty of finite existence and be determined by it in the direction of its activity. The difference, which naturally should exist between Divine and human love and be revealed in the manifestation of both, comes down to the following. 1. In the process of self-objectification of the finite spirit or otherwise in the act of self-consciousness of the latter, only one subject is a person in the strict sense of the word and as such serves as the one and only cognizing and volitional real basis of all and any (mental) activity emanating from him. Therefore, love also comes only from him (i.e., from the self-conscious spirit or subject of consciousness). This is because the same subject acts and manifests itself here, only at different moments of a single mental act. In each of these moments, the same uniquely existing spirit knows itself, in accordance with its own idea of ​​itself, loves itself as it knows itself, and connects its mental image, its reflection in the intellect or its internal content (as if its objectified “I”) again with itself into the unity of its own self-consciousness. At the same time, like any other image or intellectual content, a given internal (image) of the rational spirit about itself or the own content of its “I” can enter into an inverse relationship with the rational spirit, as its subject or producer (for its part, it directs itself and influences the rational spirit). This reverse attitude or reaction on the part of our objectified “I” against the subject of our consciousness that objectifies itself serves as a chronological and psychological prerequisite for love, which explains and determines the fact of the origin of the latter (in man). Thus, the origin or awakening of love in a person is a direct consequence of the above-described turning psychological movement or counter-movement, starting (emanating) from our objectified “I” due to the identity stated by the subject between him and his own internal image (its adequate reflection or inner word). But still, in a precise or strict sense, love (comes only from the subject and then only passes (turns) to the object, so that, in fact, only the first moment of the trinitarian psychological process under consideration, i.e. the subject is the all-unified real principle (condition, basis) of the origin of his love, which through it identifies its inner image with itself and thus achieves, with its help, the fullness of self-consciousness and unity. Otherwise, the mutual relationship of these 3 moments in the process of Divine self-objectification must be revealed. Since here the Object itself is and must be (due to the absolute nature of this process) at the same time a living Personality, then in the living process of absolute self-consciousness not only the Subject recognizes the real identity existing between him and his own objectification (reproduction), but the Object, for its part, also ascertains the complete identity existing between it and the Subject, the personal objectification of which it itself constitutes. From the knowledge or affirmation of this sameness or unity and harmony, love in general arises as a result (love in the broad or general sense of the word). Since, further, the consciousness of this identity is in itself a mutual, two-sided act, then love also has a two-way character: that is, the Subject and the Object love each other absolutely equally due to the perfect equality of Their Divine nature that They recognize, and by the strength of this, Their mutual love proceeds in exactly the same way from the Object as from the Subject, i.e., speaking theologically: the Holy Spirit proceeds just as much from the Son as from the Subject. the Father, and therefore from the Father and from the Son. 998 Note translator For the sake of completeness of the matter and in the form of greater clarity, accuracy and complete impartiality, and on the other hand, for a clear description of exactly how Roman Catholic theologians use the known passages of the works of the bl. Augustine in support of his “Filioque” - we also include these passages from the works of Bl. Augustine in the same form as they are given in the work under consideration Th. Gangauf ’a, with the addition of only their translation into Russian. German prof. Everywhere he quotes the works of the blessed one. Augustine according to the famous publication Migne'i. Therefore, the Holy Spirit, which in the inner life of the Divinity is precisely this love, emanates from both, contrary to the Arians, Eunomians and Macedonians, not at all as a creature: 999 after all, He, in the inner relation of God to Himself, is His Divine Love, arising in the deepest depths of the Divine being, as a result of the immanent relation of God to Himself. Because of this, this Love is common to Both of Them (Subject and Object in the process of Divine self-objectification, i.e., the Father and the Son), being a unity (communion) of Both or the Spirit of Both. 1000 And although she possesses the entire Divine being, always equal to herself, yet, as love, as the third moment in the inner relation of God to Himself, it, on the other hand, is different from Both, just as the Subject and the Object - the Father and the Son - with all the identity of Their beings, differ from each other in this relationship of theirs (fatherhood and sonship). 1001 Regarding the doctrine of God the Spirit, Augustine says that before his time it had not been scientifically (theoretically) revealed by church teachers, at least as thoroughly and thoroughly (copiose et diligenter) as the doctrine of God the Son. Namely: in earlier (pre-Augustine) experiments in presenting this teaching, the distinctive (hypostatic) property of the Holy Spirit was not yet sufficiently emphasized, by virtue of which He is precisely the Spirit, and not the Father and not the Son. The theologians who preceded Augustine taught about the Holy Spirit as a principle that is communicated (to others) and cannot thereby become less than God Himself. To this was also added the assertion that this same Spirit is not born from the Father, like the Son, is not born from the Son, and because of this does not stand to the Father in relation to the grandson (nepos). The beginning of His existence, as Augustine’s literary predecessors taught, must be attributed to the Father, from Whom everything comes, since the Catholic Church forbids allowing two separate and independent principles in God. 1002 That the Greeks in the speculative explanation of this dogma and in subsequent times stood behind the Latins (although many of their own church fathers had already taken a step forward in this direction by expressing the idea of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son (per Filium) - anyone familiar with church history in general and with the history of dogmas in particular knows about this. The formula "per Filium" contains precisely that indisputable the psychological or philosophical truth that without knowledge of oneself a person cannot have love (amor sui); that love (amor sui), therefore, is conditioned by the fact of the existence of self-knowledge in man; and that, finally, in this same real subject or rational spirit, from which the movement towards self-knowledge comes and which in its knowledge, that is, in its intellect or image, objectifies itself, this love (amor sui) that we are analyzing has together. with this also its deepest principle (beginning). 1003 But the formula “per Filium” allows the idea, or at least can evoke the idea, that the Son serves only as a means for the procession of the Holy Spirit (as if the Son in the act of procession of the Holy Spirit. has the value of only one formal service tool). 1004 Meanwhile, the term “Filioque” to express the said procession points to the Son, precisely as the co-principle or co-beginning of the existence of the Holy Spirit, which is common and identical with the Father. And since the Son truly is and should be such a principle of the Holy Spirit co-author with the Father (co-principle), then this expression (i.e. Filioque) should be recognized as more appropriate (successful), as an expression that more exhaustively (more precisely) defines what is happening in the inner life of the Divinity, His holistic, eternal and living relationship to Himself. 1005 If this movement towards self-objectification, which we are considering, has its starting point or stimulus in the Divine Being, as a Subject, then the final moment of the said process, which closes itself in the Spirit, is raised in its final instance again to the all-single fundamental principle, the primary moment or starting point of the entire internal life of the Deity, and, therefore, of this movement, i.e. to its Subject - or, in other words, to God the Father. Therefore, it seems possible to assert about the Holy Spirit that He (the Spirit) “principaliter” (in the beginning, initially or predominantly) comes from the Father. 1006 But due to the fact that in Divine self-objectification, as absolute, the Object itself contains the entire fullness of the Divine being and is the same (like the Subject) Living and Absolute Personality, it is necessary to assume that the Subject (Father) from Himself gave to the Object (Son) together with the personal Divine essence also that the Holy Spirit equally comes from the Son (as it comes from Father). 1007 This circumstance by no means introduces into the inner life of the Divine two principles for the outflow of the Holy Spirit (causal dualism), but the Father and the Son are together one principle of the Holy Spirit, because They, in their mutual relations, considered in Their hypostatic separateness or independence (“ad se”), are not two gods, but One God, one Absolute Personality, one Absolute Being, revealed in the substantial immanent relation to Himself as Subject and Object. 1008 Therefore, the act of “spiratio” is only one, because the Divine Person in Her self-objectification is one, and by the power of this, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, and, as such, is also one. 1009 If we look at the Divinity and His inner life not under the category of relation (relatio), but consider the Spirit essentially, (in a substantial sense), that is, as an incorporeal being in its opposition to everything material, then we will have to say that the Father is Spirit and the Son is also Spirit, because God in general is Spirit. But for the Third Person in the Divinity (for the Third Divine Hypostasis), due to His eternal origin through the act of breathing (spiratio) and the existence of relative relations in the internal life of the Divine, such a name for Him as simply “Spirit” (i.e., without any epithet) or “Spirit of God” or, more precisely, “Holy Spirit”, is His own name exclusively belonging to Him. 1010 In the same way, in a special or primary sense, the Holy Spirit is also called “love” (amor, dilectio, caritas). Of course, essentially or substantially, both the Father is love and the Son is also love, as Scripture says: “God is love”; but for the Spirit, as the (hypostatic) synthesis of Both (i.e., the hypostatic connection of the Father and the Son), as the internal conclusion of the absolute Trinitarian process or as the final moment of the relative relations occurring in the deepest depths of the Divinity, the name “Love” is His proper (specific) name as the Third Divine Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity. 1011 But the act of the Divine “spiratio” in question is by no means the same as the act of birth. The Son, having his beginning in the Father, is called begotten (genitus, natus), 1012 but the Holy Spirit, who has his beginning from the Father and the Son, cannot be called by this name. 1013 It is very difficult to establish (show) the difference between the concepts “generatio” (birth) and “processio” (origin) for our finite thinking; and if, through philosophical analysis, we were able to come closer with our thoughts to the understanding of this difference, then even then our language, due to its inherent poverty and weakness, would be powerless to express the concept of this difference in its corresponding verbal formulation. Both concepts have something in common with each other; but still they are not identical with each other. 1014 The act of “spiratio” (“breath”), understood in the sense of birth, could transform the Holy Spirit into the Son of the Father and the Son, which, in fact, of course, cannot be thought or spoken about the Son. 1015 Moreover, the Father and the Son, since They together constitute one principle of the Holy Spirit (one beginning of the being of the Holy Spirit), could, under this assumption, seem to be related to each other in the relation of father and mother. A similar view of St. The Trinity, 1016 based on observation of the physical origin of man and then entirely transferred to the Absolute Spirit, is extremely absurd and at the same time does not in the least correspond in reality to the fact of the joint origin of the Holy Spirit from One and Another (simul procedere ab utroque) Person (i.e., together from the Father and the Son). 1017 The further part of the analyzed treatise Th. Gangauf'a about the procession of the Holy Spirit more specifically characterizes this immanent act of Divine life in the considered theological and philosophical construction of Bl. Augustine. True, Augustine’s teaching about the Holy Spirit is revealed here from those aspects in which Western and Eastern theologians agree with each other. Nevertheless, this department represents a phenomenon very characteristic of modern Roman Catholic theology. It is of immediate interest to us insofar as it serves as a clear indicator of the attitude that later Western scientists show towards Augustinian Trinitarian pneumatology, perhaps in this case (in the understanding and speculative disclosure of the Trinitarian dogma), standing under the influence of the tradition coming from Augustine himself. Teaching bl. Augustine on the Divine Properties of St. The Spirit that He has in common with two other Hypostases (unlimited conditions of space and time, consubstantiality, equality with the Father and the Son, as well as His independence as a special Third Divine Hypostasis, and His self-conscious Divine personality, similar to the two other Persons of the Divine), are considered and proven here by the Catholic professor from the point of view of the established trinitarian-psychological scheme of Augustine 1018 and therefore with the inevitable "Filioque". With this “status quaestionis”, very characteristic of all Western theology in general, the “Filioque” in the reconstruction below by Prof. Gangauf’a serves as a necessary logical and ontological prerequisite for the divinity of the Holy Spirit and itself, in turn, is postulated by it. “The process of human self-awareness 1019 allows us to firmly establish the following position: even about final love it cannot be said that in the process of a person’s self-awareness it arises in exactly the same way as a person’s internal image of himself (with the internal content of his intellect). We have already seen above that while the own content of our “I” (our idea or thought about ourselves) is “born,” love, on the contrary, “emanates” from the spirit, as such a force through which the latter connects itself as a subject with itself as an object, in order to achieve the fullness of self-consciousness or inner unity and the highest spiritual self-pleasure closely associated with them (“ad fruendum se”). It was also shown above that love (amor sui) enters, as a necessary ingredient, into the direct knowledge of the spirit about itself (intuitive knowledge) and exists in parallel with this knowledge, precisely as a tendency, with the help of thought (reflection), to elevate, with the help of thought (reflection), its general and immediate knowledge of itself into a detailed and precisely defined one, or as an urge (stimulus) to objectify itself in the intellect - in a certain idea about itself or in its internal image. In the event that the rational spirit, through the process of its thought, produces that in this logical process it “represents” itself within itself as its object and in the latter contemplates itself in identity with itself (as its adequate reflex), then at the same time and in connection with this, its movement towards a concrete form of love (the desire to concretize its love or to reveal it in concretely defined forms) increases or intensifies in it. Accordingly, with this idea of ​​the spirit about itself, the love in question comes from it as precisely the kind of love through which it loves itself as it knows itself, and with the help of which it relates itself, as an object, to itself as a subject (the last reactive moment in the process of self-consciousness). This means that the self-conscious spirit connects various acts or individual mental moments of self-consciousness with itself, as with their single center and their common beginning, or in other words, it comes to self-consciousness and unity, with the ultimate goal of finding the highest self-satisfaction in the inner consciousness of the fullness of its being and life achieved by it (by the power of the designated psychological process of self-consciousness). But this entire fact of the mental life of man that we have described is a finite process occurring under the conditions of time, and if we, Augustine further notes, from considering this phenomenon, analogous in the final spirit, now rise to consider the origin of Divine love, then we must, first of all, (as above regarding the birth of the Son of God, so here now in relation to the act of the procession of the Holy Spirit) 2. exclude from the essence of God any limitation of time or finitude (eliminate from here any concept of any kind of temporal convention). 1020 God's knowledge of Himself never had a beginning. There was not a single moment when God was not aware of Himself. It also cannot be assumed that this Divine knowledge, at first unidentified (unconscious), only later became recognized (conscious). Divine knowledge (about Himself) always exists as eternal and eternally conscious, and thus, God’s idea of ​​Himself or the eternal hypostatic reproduction of Divine consciousness - the Son - as an Object in the process of Divine self-objectification, is absolutely synchronistic (co-eternal) with His Subject - the Father. In accordance with this, the origin of love (i.e., the Holy Spirit), which connects the Divine Subject and Object into the unity of the Absolute Personality (to impart internal completeness to the Trinitarian process), does not at all first presuppose the temporal birth of the Son and does not itself follow as a successor to its predecessor, since the concepts “before” and “after” (“prius” et “posterius”) belong only to time. Where, as is assumed to be certain in God, there is no time, there no temporal measure can be applied. In Divine self-consciousness, as simply existing, eternally and unchangeably flowing within itself and contained in itself, the procession (“processio”) of the Holy Spirit and the birth of the Son (“generatio”) from eternity mutually coexist with each other (“eternal” “synchronism”). Just as, as a Subject, the Triune Divine Spirit was always also the Object of Himself (Himself) and therefore was always the Father, because He always had His Only Begotten Son in Himself, 1021 - in the same way, we repeat, here, as Father and Son, He, that is, the Triune Divine Spirit, was never without His Spirit, as the love that binds the Absolute Spirit, as the Subject and the Object, into the unity of the Living and Self-Conscious Triune Personality. 1022 Further, if in our final self-consciousness the object of our own objectification, as having only a formal-logical existence, is supplanted by other objects entering our (self) consciousness, due to which we must continuously renew the act of our self-objectification (the internal psychological act of “representing ourselves”), then, on the contrary, in Divine self-consciousness, as absolutely simple, this objectification, completely exceptional in its absolute nature, on the contrary, is completely inaccessible to any change, and how having not only a formal, but also an objectively real (substantial) existence, it appears as an unchangeable “present” (ever-present “today”). Because of this, the outflow of Divine Love or Spirit with this continuous “today” always constitutes a single, eternally ongoing and eternally present act. 1023 The next question that may naturally arise about Augustine’s concept of the Holy Spirit as Divine love is: 3. how exactly one should imagine the nature of this love. The nature of even our finite love (amor sui) does not allow us to consider it as just one simple form of the unity of the Father and the Son. The latter, even if it does not represent being and life an Sich (according to Augustine “ad se”), and especially not identical with our finite spirit itself (the subject of consciousness), still constitutes, at least, the power (potentia) of this spirit. The finite spirit (in comparison with bodily being) is, although simple, but still not entirely simple being, because what it has is not the same as what it is in itself. This is because he, as a substance composed of a certain number of qualitatively diverse accidents, inevitably contains forces (potencies), of which, however, not one is the same as himself, not one of them constitutes his very substance. 1024 We must think about Divine Being completely differently. The latter, as the Absolute (which was already clarified in detail in Augustine’s teaching on the Divine properties), is, by virtue of this, certainly pure, simple being and therefore has nothing in itself that would not be identical with His integral being (in his whole). On the contrary, as we already know, everything that He has is, at the same time, He Himself in His essence. Thus, in God, Who is the highest being, or the fullness of everything and every being - summe esse - love (amor sui) is not simply power (potentia), but it is His being (esse), His being (natura), His very substance (substantia), in other words: He Himself is His very Love. 1025 In the same way, the Holy Spirit, as the love that comes from the Father and the Son, with which They both mutually love Themselves and in which, as in the third Principle that separates Them, the Father and the Son, as Subject and Object - in the process of self-objectification, again unite with each other (come to unity), must be both co-existing and co-essential with both of them (absolutely synchronistic and consubstantial). Holy Spirit there is a substantial completion (seal) or the last final moment in the immanent process of Divine self-objectification. Therefore, it can also be called unity (otherwise - unity, communication, mutual connection) or goodness (holiness), but love must still be recognized as His better defining and more expressive name. 1026 As a hypostatic unity or a self-conscious substantial center of mutual communication between the Father and the Son, the Spirit is not, contrary to the false belief of some heretics, only an abstract concept constructed from the essence of both. It is also impossible to agree with the false assumption that if unity or unity is posited in love, then this love as a formal connection does not have an independent (substantial) existence and in itself is something non-existent or simply non-existence - precisely that non-existence that is especially clearly reflected in the case that what is connected is somehow separated (that is, in the event of a break in the connection between them). 1027 Receiving its existence through the procession from the Father and the Son (as mutual communication or love of both), the Holy Spirit is identical with Them and different from Them, self-existent being and original life, just as the Son is having its beginning in the form of birth from the Father, independent, existing in Himself and self-sufficient life. 1028 However, this separate and distinct “being in itself” by no means introduces into the Divine being any division into parts and is not individuality in the usual (ultimate) sense of the word. Such an understanding of the way of being of the Holy Spirit would be tantamount to His complete abolition. On the contrary, as will be shown in more detail later, the essence of the Holy Spirit must be understood in the sense of an independent personality or His personal independence, with His complete consubstantiality with the Father and the Son. Next. Just as the fact of the birth of the Son from the Father, according to what was shown above, did not produce any change or damage in relation to the Father, in the same way the act of the outflow of the Holy Spirit from Them is not accompanied by any change or deprivation in the being of the Father or the Son. The act of the inner life of the Divine in question (the outflow of the Holy Spirit) does not add anything with itself in relation to the Father and the Son (it does not matter, for example, a summand that quantitatively increases the sum, as well as a subtracted one equal to in an image that reduces a known value, or in general some extraneous ingredient that introduces something qualitatively new into the being or life of the Divine). This happens because in the mutual love of the Father and the Son under consideration, the all-one and complete Divine Being is really present, just as It is entirely in His own idea of ​​Itself (in His inner image or word) and in His substantial relation to Himself cannot be other than completely identical with Itself. 1029 The Father and the Son love in each other Their one complete being, and in this mutual love Their one complete being is, as it were, organized; moreover, this mutual Love of the Father and the Son is nothing other than their one complete being, due to which the Holy Spirit in everything that belongs to the Divine nature of the Father and the Son is absolutely equal to Them. 1030 Therefore, the Holy Spirit is 4. God is the same as the Father and the Son, and He is due the exact same worship as Them. 1031 But just as the Son, as a substantial immanent Object in the process of Divine self-objectification, is not the second God, in the same way the Holy Spirit cannot be called the third God, 1032 as a substantial unity or hypostatic intercommunication (synthesis) of the Absolute Subject and Object in a single Divine Person objectifying Himself. But just as the Son must be recognized as the second Hypostasis in God with the predicate of Personality, so He, that is, the Holy Spirit, must be recognized 5. Third Divine Hypostasis, 1033 because both the Son and He, that is, the Holy Spirit, possess everything that in the strict sense of the word relates to the concept of person (personality). Thus, being and life belong fully to the Holy Spirit, as well as to the Son, for He, as was already discussed above, as love is not a simple force, but a Divine Substance; as the principle of unity or communion (of the Father and the Son), He is not a formal or ideal only quality 1034 (the abstract logical form of God’s consciousness of his own unity), in which the Father and the Son recognize themselves as unity, but, as has been repeatedly noted, constitutes a substantial unity of themselves. He is, without a doubt, an independent individual Being and Life, namely: conscious and thinking, willing and acting, - conscious and reasonable, because He Himself is the Divine Being itself and as such, by His very nature, is Spirit, which name is primarily assigned to Him in contrast to the Father and the Son for reasons already known to us. 1035 He, as has been said, is also Being who wills and acts, because love in general is already characterized by will and action; Will and action are characteristic of him, as the unity of the Father and the Son, as a continuous and inextricable connection between the Father and the Son. In the process of the internal substantial relationship of God to Himself, the Holy Spirit must think as “Alius”, but behind such an “Alius”, which is completely consubstantial with the Father and the Son, and whose distinctive property is that in the Divine process of objectification of the subject it is neither a subject nor an object (neither the Father nor the Son), but a substantial unity or intercommunication (hypostatic connection) of the subject and the object in the unity of the person objectifying himself. 1036 To put it differently, He (the Holy Spirit) must be Divine Love, through which the Highest Spiritual Being reveals Itself as a Subject and together an Object in the fullness of His infinite perfection. So, the Holy Spirit must be precisely the Divine love through which the Absolute Spirit, in unconditional identity with Itself, exists as the most perfect bliss and contentment 1037 or as the Absolute God, who always has in Himself a living source of His own all-satisfaction and all-bliss and outside of Himself needs no one or anything.” 1038 The main idea and main tendency of the treatise of the Catholic scientist we examined are quite clear and speak for themselves. Nevertheless, partly following examples of this kind, 1039 partly in the form of greater clarity and distinctness, all the main thoughts about the Holy Spirit included in the content of the treatise Th. Gangauf’a, we will especially briefly summarize it in the following five theses. By analogy with the life of the human spirit, as an image of the Divine Spirit, there are sufficient grounds to assume and assert that Thesis 1. in the process of Divine self-objectification, due to the absolute nature of this process (excluding all temporal-spatial and asserting the absolute identity between the first and second moments of this process, 1040 i.e., the subject and object of consciousness), will or love, as its third moment, in its origin and direction of activity, bilateral and unifying, must come from the first and second moments of the absolute process under consideration, i.e. from the cognizing subject and knowable object. Translated into the theological language of Augustine and applied to the church dogma of the Holy Trinity, this position will state that it is immutable, from the point of view of Th. Gangauf’a, the fact of the internal trinitarian life of the Divine, that the Holy Spirit, as the Third Person of the Most Holy. Trinity, receives being or proceeds in being from the Father and the Son (i.e., not only from the Father, but also from the Son). But in a strict sense, love comes from the subject himself (as the single carrier and living center of the entire conscious-psychic life of a person), and only in its further manifestation is it revealed and developed through knowledge and in the direction determined by knowledge. By virtue of what has been said, love, considered in concreto, exists in parallel with knowledge and in some constant interaction with it. Thus, by its nature it is a bilateral, reciprocal act, and in its main direction - intermediary unifying, synthetic. Since (by analogy with the human spirit, as the image of the Absolute Spirit) the main culprit or primary source of love in the mental act of consciousness is the spirit itself, taken as a whole and objectively indivisible, 1041 then, extending this trinitarian psychological analogy to the Divine Trinity, as the Prototype of the trinity in man, and we can say (theologically) that the Holy Spirit, as the Third Hypostasis in this Trinity, “principaliter”, i.e., mainly “primarily” or “initially”, also differently: “at first - as from its source” - has its existence from One Father, although at the same time (as love in man) He also proceeds from the Son, as from His secondary Cause (Co-Cause of the Father) or Condition of His existence. Because of this, love, as a two-unit act in the process of self-consciousness - bilateral in its starting point and union in its final goal - can be said to be common to both the subject and the object, that is, in the theological language of Augustine, the Holy Spirit is common to the Father and the Son and in this sense can be called the connection of both or the Spirit of both. Thesis 2. The procession of the Holy Spirit, as the Third Hypostasis of the Divine Trinity, is a timeless and spaceless act and is of an absolute nature, like everything inherent in God. Thesis 3. The third Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity – the Holy Spirit – in Augustine’s trinitarian construction is thought of as the mutual connection or love of the Father and the Son. How should we imagine the nature of this love or connection - as a living, self-conscious person or as a simple, abstract form of communication? Due to the absolute simplicity of the Divine Being, which denies everything accidental, the Holy Spirit, as the connection, communication, love of the Father and the Son, is and should be nothing other than a hypostatic connection, a personal self-conscious center of life and a living principle of unity or intercommunication, that is, the personal substantial love of the Father and the Son. By the force of the same central predicate of the Absolute Being, love in God is not only a formal connection or an abstract form that has only a formal-logical existence, but is an objectively real (concrete) existence. She is the self-existent Being or original Life, independent and distinct from the Father and the Son and, at the same time, consubstantial and equal to Them in everything. The process of Divine self-objectification does not introduce any change into the absolutely simple nature of Divine Being, which is always and in everything equal (self-identical). Thesis 4. By virtue of the complete and all-perfect equality of the Holy Spirit with God the Father and God the Son in everything that relates to Their Divine nature, He - the Holy Spirit - is the same God as the Father and the Son, that is, the True God, to Whom it befits absolutely the same Divine worship as Them. And, however, the Holy Spirit is not the third God, but the One True God: just as the Son, being a Substantial Object in the process of Divine self-objectification, is not a second God, so in the same way the Holy Spirit cannot be the third God, Who is the Substantial Connection or Hypostatic Love of the Absolute Subject and Object in the unity of the Self-objectifying (i.e., self-aware and Self-loving) Divine Personalities. Thesis 5. The Holy Spirit is the Third Divine Hypostasis (Divine Person), because the content of the concept of the Holy Spirit (as well as the concept of the Father and the Son) includes signs that characterize spiritual-personal existence or a living personality: substantiality, self-consciousness and rational-free will. § 4. The teaching of the blessed one. Augustine, bishop Ipponsky, on the procession of the Holy Spirit (interpretation of the issue in Russian scientific and theological literature of old times) “Classical”, in the words of the English scientist Overbeck 1042, the work of Adam Zernikava under the title: “Orthodox theological studies on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone” (translated from Latin, edited by B. Davidovich, vol. 1st Pochaev. 1902. and vol. 2nd Zhitomir. 1906) 1043 in its part dedicated to Bl. Augustine, 1044 can be noted as the second theological type of understanding of Augustine’s teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit - precisely in the Orthodox-Eastern sense. The named work of this most thorough and completely competent 1045 researcher of the ancient church teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit is an extensive (vol. 1, pp. 1–604; vol. 2, pp. 1–621) and detailed study of the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, mainly based on the works of the Holy Spirit. fathers and church councils (1st–8th centuries), eastern and western. A number of authentic quotations from church writers of the patristic era, cited as evidence of the truth of the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Spirit, are accompanied by the author’s refutation of their Latin understanding, an indication of later damage to the text of the patristic works and positive explanations and comments by the author himself. According to the “Praefatio” for the publication of Zernikav’s treatise “On the procession of the Holy Spirit”, its author “thought that the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit cannot be proven clearly and obviously on the basis of Holy Scripture and that he would do a worthwhile job if he attempted to prove the teaching of the East with the unanimous consent of the saints.” fathers and teachers, both Greek and Latin." 1046 “The continuity of a series of paternal evidence cited from as many as eight centuries,” says F. Tikhomirov, 1047 “the decisiveness and irrefutability of individual evidence, borrowed, so to speak, “ex ipsis venis visceribusque” of paternal creations, wit and knowledge of the matter in refuting the objections of opponents, clarity, naturalness and ease in the study of the subject, gentleness in polemics - these are the merits of this work, according to the judgment of the Most Reverend Samuel. Particularly remarkable is the huge amount or completeness of the paternal testimonies presented here: here is everything that can be cited on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the paternal works and conciliar acts; on the basis of Holy Tradition, this issue is completely settled here. In a word, this work is a classic work: no other work equal to it has yet appeared in the Orthodox Church. According to Feofan Prokopovich, the work under review by Zernikav stands above all similar works written before his (i.e. Feofan’s) time not only by Orthodox, but also by Lutherans.” 1048 Theophanes himself made abundant use of this work of Zernikav, as a guide and model for himself. “According to the remark of famous Orthodox spiritual writers,” rightly says the Russian translator of the work in question, A. Zernikava, 1049 the latter’s work represents the most complete and comprehensive study of the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, a fundamental and essential issue in the restoration of the unity of the Universal Church. Such luminaries of our theological science as Metropolitan Macarius and His Eminence Sylvester drew information from Zernikav’s writings for their works on dogmatics. Our famous Gorsky makes frequent references to it in his “History of the Florentine Union,” published without the name of the author. Our secular theologian A. S. Khomyakov also speaks of him with great praise. By the way, Zernikav’s reading convinced the famous English theologian Palmer of the truth of the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Spirit, who sought unity with the Eastern Church and was in correspondence with Khomyakov on this matter. Feofan Prokopovich, this “first Russian scientific theologian,” characterizes A. Zernikav as “hujus controversiae (i.e., the dispute about the origin of the Holy Spirit) scriptor inter omnes, cum graecos turn latinos, solidissimus et sine comparatione maximus,” 1050 and about the works of A. Zernikav devoted to the revelation Orthodox teaching about the Holy Spirit is expressed as follows: “Et quot ante ipsum de hac controversia ex utraque parte scripsere, tametsi ille quidfem inaequales inter se fuerint, omnes tamen collati cum illo, tyrones jure merito vocari debent.” 1051 The result of A. Zernikav’s long and persistent “theological research” about the Holy Spirit was his deep and unshakable conviction in the truth of the confession of the Orthodox Church on this issue of Christian dogma - a conviction imprinted by him by accepting Orthodoxy and moving to Russia for the practical service of the Orthodox Church. Therefore, “a very important advantage of this work,” his Russian translator rightly notes about Zernikav’s work under discussion, “is that it was written by a former Protestant, a Westerner with the broadest theological and philosophical education. This is not a defense by a prejudiced person of inherited beliefs and views, this is not a repetition of current opinions by a person who was brought up in an Orthodox country, who grew up among people of the Orthodox way of thinking, which could unwittingly affect the beliefs of a follower of heterodox teachings. Then, it was not the search for earthly benefits and honors that led Zernikav to the perception and affirmation of the truth of Orthodoxy. A comprehensively educated man, a scientist who has studied theology in the main centers of Protestant and Catholic thought, through a long and deep study and thorough familiarization with the sources, he comes to the conviction that true Christianity, true Orthodoxy is preserved in the Eastern Church. Meanwhile, throughout his entire life, as a native of the West and a Protestant Lutheran, he stood incomparably closer to Catholicism - moreover, in the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit, the followers of the Lutheran reform follow the teachings of the Western Church.” 1052 In view of this, the remarkable work of this European-educated, brilliant theologian (17th century), first Protestant and then Orthodox, which we are examining, represents a very important and extremely interesting phenomenon in Russian theological (in particular, Augustinian) literature on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, a phenomenon that cannot be ignored. Thus, as can be seen from the above, this work of A. Zernikav, in relation to the controversial issue we are considering about the meaning of the Augustinian teaching about the Holy Spirit, sets itself a completely opposite goal in comparison with the above treatise of the Catholic scientist Th. Gangauf’a - just as textually, based on a critical analysis of sources and a thorough historical examination of the documents themselves - to prove that Augustine, bishop. Ipponsky (like all other Western church fathers of the first 8 centuries) is completely Orthodox on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, i.e. teaches in complete agreement with the Eastern ancient church writers who spoke about this mystery, and those passages from Augustine’s works that seem to speak in favor of the Western Latin understanding are either falsely and erroneously interpreted by Roman Catholic theologians, or simply represent shameless forgeries and distortions of the original true text of Augustine’s works, made for polemical purposes by Latin theologians of later times. A. Zernikav pursues this goal set for himself in two ways. Firstly, he wittily refutes false interpretations, subtle sophisms and obvious stretches of Latin theologians, who try at all costs to explain the authentic passages of Augustine’s works about the Third Divine Hypostasis in the spirit of the Latin “Filioque”. Secondly, on the basis of a careful comparison of the most ancient manuscripts and printed editions of Augustine’s works, stored in the best book depositories in Europe, he, with full knowledge of the matter and with an unshakable conviction in his correctness, authoritatively proves that this text of Augustine’s works, restored by him, does not speak in favor of the filioquistic understanding of Augustine’s teaching about the Holy Spirit; that this father of the Western Church on this issue taught completely in accordance with the Eastern Fathers and that those words and expressions of Augustine, which the Latins refer to in support of their filioquistic tendencies, are unknown to the original text of Augustine’s works and represent an unscrupulous distortion of it by later representatives of Roman Catholic theology. The importance and significance of the work under consideration by A. Zernikav in the matter of comprehensive and impartially objective coverage of Augustine’s teaching about the Holy Spirit is further enhanced by the fact that, despite his revelations that are extremely unfavorable for Roman Catholic theology, he, as far as we know, has still not been refuted by representatives of this theology. Thus, the present treatise by A. Zernikav, in its main tendency, character and task, has the significance of a negative authority in relation to the treatise of the Catholic scientist Th. Gangauf'a. One and the same question - the teaching of the blessed. Augustine about the Holy Spirit and His relationship to the Father and the Son receives here a completely opposite light and solution. Following the well-known principle “audiatur et altera pars” in the interests of scientific impartiality, anyone who studies the teachings of Bl. Augustine about the Holy Trinity in general and about the Holy Spirit in particular, is certainly obliged to take into account in one way or another the data that Zernikav gives against the Roman Catholic doctrine of “Filioque” so decisively attributed to Augustine by Western theologians. The only drawback of the work in question by A. Zernikav, in the opinion of His Grace Samuil (his publisher), is that “that its author did not use the best, latest editions of his father’s works.” 1053 Hence the uncertainty and incomprehensibility of the author’s citation of patristic works in general and the works of Bl. Augustine in particular. Indeed, the quotation adopted by the author from our Western Father of the Church is unusual and therefore difficult to understand for the present time, which is why it may arouse some doubts. We took upon ourselves the work, a kind of quotation from A. Zernikav, wherever possible, to check it against the best and currently generally accepted cumulative edition of Augustinian works contained in Migne’s Patrologiae1 cursus comptetus (ser. lat. t. t. 32–45). 1054 Another major phenomenon in the Russian theological literature of old times on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit is a very thorough and detailed treatise on this subject in Latin, written by Feofan Prokopovich, this “first Russian theologian”: Th. Procopovicz. Christiana orthodoxa theologia. Lipsiae. 1782. T. IV. Lib III. De processione Spiritus Sancti. p. p. 833–1232. In its corresponding part, it is interesting and important for us no less than the work of A. Zernikav; however, it is not subject to our detailed consideration in view of the fact that in its main tendency, in its task and methods of its implementation (with some, however, distinctive features), it, in general, represents a phenomenon similar to the above-mentioned work of Adam Zernikav, under whose influence it was compiled, and, moreover, in the time of its origin it belongs to the same era. 1055 § 5. The teaching of the blessed one. Augustine, bishop Ipponsky, about the Holy Spirit and His relationship to the Father and the Son (interpretation of the issue in Old Catholic scientific literature) In the 2nd half of the 19th century, the question of the Holy Spirit and His personal property again became the subject of discussion by representatives of Eastern and Western theology with the inevitable appeal of the latter to the blessed. Augustine, as the most outstanding patristic authority in favor of the Western "Filioque". The reason for this phenomenon was a large movement that arose in the bowels of the Roman Catholic Church and was known under the name of Old Catholicism. The essence of the matter is this. The council held in Rome in 1870 proclaimed a new dogma, completely unknown to Christian antiquity, that the Roman high priest is the mouth of the Church (os ecclesiae) and that he is therefore infallible when, as the universal teacher of Christian faith and morals, he proclaims and formulates from the church pulpit the truths of doctrine and moral teaching (loquitur ex cathedra). Representatives of Western theological science, mainly professors at German universities, protested against the new dogma of faith. They rejected the authority of the Roman church and its head - the Roman high priest - and formed their own society, calling themselves Old Catholics. This name contains the idea that members of this society, which separated from the Roman Catholic Church, recognize and preserve the old Catholic faith, which existed before the Vatican Council of 1870. To strengthen the position of their cause, representatives of Old Catholicism raised the question of unification with the Orthodox Eastern Church. As a result of this appeal of the Old Catholics to the Orthodox Churches of the East, a lively exchange of thoughts took place between representatives of Old Catholicism and Orthodox theological science. These negotiations, both written and oral (at conferences of friends of church unity), are still ongoing. In these mutual relations between representatives of Eastern and Western theology, aimed at preparing for church unification and developing the conditions for the latter, among the first dogmatic differences between Eastern and Western theology, the question of the “Filioque” was raised in the first place. And in connection with this, the most important Western patristic authority on this issue, that is, Bl., was always brought into consideration. Augustine, rightly revered as the father and founder of the filioquistic views of the Western Church. Hence our interest in Old Catholicism and its views. That in general Western theologians conducted their polemics with the Orthodox on the issue of the “Filioque” on the basis of ancient patristic writing mainly under the auspices of the blessed one. Augustine, - this has long been noted by representatives of Orthodox theology from the old times. 1056 It is not surprising if, with new attempts to unite churches, this old question arose again before Western and Eastern theologians of the second half of the 19th century. But for us and for our purposes, it is interesting because this old question in the relations of the Old Catholics with the Orthodox received a hitherto new formulation and new illumination, from the point of view of which a new understanding and assessment of the Augustinian teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit was obtained. Thus, a third theological type or a third literary tradition of understanding “Augustinian filioquism” is created. This type finds its expression in the oral and written statements and symbolic books of Western Christians who call themselves Old Catholics. In general, the essence of this “old Catholic concept” of the filioquist doctrine in general and the so-called “Augustinian filioquism” in particular comes down to the following. Agreeing to the exclusion of the “Filioque” from the creed as a later insertion, illegal from the formal and canonical point of view, Old Catholics energetically and decisively reject the idea of ​​a twofold source of the Holy Spirit. But along with the denial of the doctrine of the “Filioque” in the sense of the causal relationship of the Son of God to the Holy Spirit in existence or the causal dependence in the existence of the Third Divine Hypostasis from the Second, the Old Catholics would like to retain the “Filioque” in the sense of recognizing the Son of God as some kind of mediator or participant in the eternal act of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. But the Old Catholic theologians want to retain this not as a dogma or universal truth, but as a simple private opinion or scientific-philosophical assumption, which has no dogmatic significance and is therefore not binding on anyone. 1057 This, in general, is the attitude of the Old Catholics towards the “Filioque”, considered from the formal-canonical and material-dogmatic side. From the point of view of an established understanding of the doctrine of the “Filioque” in general and an assessment of its dogmatic meaning, the Augustinian doctrine of the Holy Spirit and His personal relationship to the Father and the Son is explained and expounded by the Old Catholic theologians. As precisely the voice of early Old Catholicism, expressing the “Old Catholic concept” of the so-called “Augustinian filioquism,” we place below some lines from the book of the Old Catholic Professor I. Lange n'a, which aims to clarify, from a historical-dogmatic point of view, the origin of the differences in the doctrine of the Trinity between the Eastern and Western churches. 1058 We present the thoughts of the venerable Bonn Old Catholic professor only in extracts, or rather, only in their operative part. Based on the conviction common to all Western theologians that “filioquism” in one form or another was already known in pre-Augustinian church literature, although the actual founder in the proper sense of the Western filioquist doctrine is only Bl. Augustine, our Bonn professor speaks. “Before Augustine, it was already said that the Holy Spirit is “from the Father and the Son,” equally, that “He proceeds from the Father or from the Son,” and, finally, formally, by Ambrose and the Council of Toledo, that “He proceeds from the Father and from the Son.” But, despite all this, we must name Augustine as the real culprit of the Western doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit. In an independent speculative form, to some extent ignoring inherited formulas, he formed Western teaching and introduced thoughts that, at least in the sense of Augustine, had hitherto been alien to theology. The Eastern teachers of the church naturally spread the tradition of their own Greek theology; the Westerners stuck to Augustine. Thus, what happened is that with the beginning of the fifth century, the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit, hitherto essentially homogeneous, was divided, as it were, into two different currents: traditional-Eastern and speculative-Western.” 1059 This view of Augustine as a filioquist and the founder of the later Roman Catholic “Filioque”, Prof. Langen confirms by analyzing some passages about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which he extracted from the works of Blessed. Augustine. Along with this, he does not deny that in Augustine’s writings there are passages about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which speak for Augustine’s understanding of this procession in the sense of Eastern theologians, and from his Western point of view explains their origin, meaning and significance in Augustine’s theological system. 1060 Basic thoughts of trinitarian pneumatology bl. Augustine Jos. Langen summarizes 1061 in the following positions. "1. The Holy Spirit is hypostatic (substantial) Love between the Father and the Son. 2. So He is the Spirit of both the Father and the Son, and, therefore, proceeds in the same way from both the Father and the Son. 3. Since the Son has everything from the Father, then the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son has its basis in the Father - and in accordance with this, the Father is only the beginning of all Divinity. Augustine everywhere expounds this teaching as firm and undoubted. He tries to prove it with biblical passages and nowhere does he find any sign of doubt about its correctness. Despite all this, he does not expose it, however, when he speaks about church confession before unbelievers or heretics. Regarding the position given above under paragraph 1, he even notes that this understanding, based on the Holy Scriptures. Some people unfairly contradict the Scriptures, and then adds: “in any case, one must hold with unshakable faith that in one Divinity there are three consubstantial Persons; and this, moreover, in the work “De fide et symbolo” (n. 19), in which for him the exact expression of church teaching is of particular importance. In the section on the Holy Spirit (n. 16), in the same work, he is content to indicate His Divinity together with the Father and the Son. In the same way, in another place, as the content of church faith, he points to the belief in Three Consubstantial Persons in a single Divinity and then says that the denial of the Trinity of Persons is a delusion; the heretics did not know the Principle (principium), from which all things are, and His image, through which all things were formed, and His Holiness, by which all things are brought into order. (De agone christ. n. 15 sq.). Likewise, Augustine, in his speech “to the catechumens about the symbol,” repeatedly repeats, as the object of church faith, only the Divinity of the Spirit (De symb. ad catech. I, 13. III, 9). Finally, in his Enchiridion, compiled at the end of his life (421) and setting out church teaching with great accuracy, he declares: one must believe that God “is a Trinity, namely: the Father and the Son, born of the Father, and the Holy Spirit, proceeding from the same Father, but one and the same Spirit of the Father and the Son” (p. 9). And then, when explaining the symbol, Augustine mentions only faith in the Holy Spirit, as the third Divine Person (p. 56). After all this we come to the conclusion that although Augustine considered the “Filioque” to be a solid doctrine based in the Bible, nevertheless, he did not classify it among the directly committed content of faith, to the fides explicita, which he limited to a brief confession of three consubstantial Persons in one Deity. Here, of course, he mentally included the teaching that the Holy Spirit is equally the Spirit of both the Father and the Son - a teaching that he, of course, had the same meaning with the “Filioque”. The results of the learned exchange of thoughts between Western Old Catholic and Orthodox Russian theologians on the controversial issue of the “Filioque,” ​​its patristic foundations and its dogmatic meaning in comparison with the Eastern “a Patre Solo” are summarized in an article by a well-known figure on the Old Catholic issue, General A. Kireev, this animated and ardent supporter and defender of the idea of ​​our church rapprochement with the Old Catholics. A. Kireev. The current situation of the old Catholic question (Theological Bulletin, 1908, Month. November, pp. 423–454). This article with a foreword and afterword by the above-mentioned gene. Kireeva sets out, after some information from the history of the Old Catholic movement, the letters of the “St. Petersburg Commission - the “Old Catholic” Commission (Rotterdam) and the opposite “Response of the commission established in Rotterdam and reorganized in The Hague for the reunification of the Old Catholic and Russian Orthodox Church - the highly revered St. Petersburg Commission, from July 6–19, 1907 year." This article is of keen interest to us insofar as it sets forth the newly formulated (at the request of the St. Petersburg Commission) old Catholic understanding of the “Filioque”, from the point of view of which the Augustinian teaching about the manner of the procession of the Holy Spirit or about His hypostatic relationship to the Father and the Son is explained. Proceeding, as “from a universally recognized theological axiom,” from the strictly differentiated concepts of “dogma” 1062 and “private teaching” or “theological opinion,” 1063 the dogmatic meaning in the doctrine of the personal relationship of the Holy Spirit to both other Persons of the Divine, the called “Answer” of modern Old Catholicism believes only in the fact that “St. The Spirit of Truth proceeds from the Father” (John 15:26). Because of this, any dogmatic authority naturally disappears, both behind the Western dissemination and the Eastern restrictive addition of “Filioque” and “a Patre Solo”, which are relegated to the position of a simple private teaching or theological opinion, and therefore there are no obstacles to attribute (“some”) participation to the Divine Logos in that immanent process, which is designated as the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. The idea of ​​precisely this participation of the Son in the immanent act of the origin of the Holy Spirit is then confirmed by a number of patristic quotations. Consideration of the last 1064 (especially in context) convinces the authors of the Answer that St. the fathers even believe that the temporary sending of the Spirit into the world by the Holy Father and the Son is “nothing other than in inextricable connection with the immanent revelation of the Divine.” In this sense, the ability of the Son to send the Holy Spirit is “immanent to Him from eternity.” From the point of view of established principles, illustrated by a number of patristic testimonies, the Filioque and the father of the Western Church we are studying are considered. Augustine speculatively gives a somewhat modified meaning to the expression “Filioque”, already known to patristic literature - as is assumed to be established from the above patristic evidence - by saying that “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, as well as from the Son.” But this idea of ​​his finds its limitation in the fact that the procession from the Son is also rooted in the Father, as the only fundamental principle of Divine life; and for Augustine the temporal epistle serves only as a basis for understanding, for proof of an immanent relation. Analysis, in the light of the above, of three quotations from Augustine (Tract. in Joan. ev. XCIX, 6 sb; De Trinitate XV, c. 17 and p. 26) allows his modern Old Catholic commentators to assert that although Augustine imagines the participation of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit 1065 in a somewhat new light, but that he thought of such participation only as based in the unity of the Divine being Persons, and therefore in the eternal primary source of the Divinity. And therefore, in essence, Augustine’s “Filioque” is, of course, in agreement with the faithful doctrine and is equivalent to the “διά τοῦ ϒίοῦ” of the Greeks. In what has been said there is a sufficient explanation of both why this formula “Filioque” (in the sense of “per Filium” and in the meaning of a private teaching or theological opinion) could be freely circulated in the Church and not be considered a heresy, and also the fact that Augustine, uttering the “Filioque”, could enjoy high respect throughout the Church, not only of the West, but also of the East, and be recognized as a saint. § 6. Teaching of Bl. Augustine, bishop Ipponsky, about the procession of the Holy Spirit in Russian scientific and theological literature of modern and contemporary times We have examined above the very important and interesting, from historical, dogmatic and polemical points of view, the theological and philosophical teaching of Blessed. Augustine about the Holy Spirit and His relationship to the Father and the Son under the pen of a Roman Catholic - prof. Th. Gangauf, who considers and expounds this teaching of the great Western father both as the subject of his church-symbolic confession and as the object of his rational-philosophical study in their close, inextricable connection with each other. We further became acquainted with another original type of Western theological thought on the issue of interest to us in the person of the Old Catholic theologian professor J. Langen and other members of the Old Catholic commission (of later times), negotiating with representatives of Orthodox theological science on the so-called “Old Catholic question”. There is, of course, nothing surprising in the fact that Bl. Augustine, in this point of his Trinitarian teaching, is a typical filioquist for a Catholic scientist, and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and His relationship to the Father and the Son is understood and constructed in such a way that it serves as a typical expression of the confessional views on this issue of the Roman Catholic Church. Of course, one cannot expect a different attitude to the matter on the part of a Western theologian, Catholic or Protestant - it makes no difference. This is quite understandable if we remember what a powerful and incomparable influence the blessed one had. Augustine on all Western theology that followed him, both Catholic and Protestant, and what enormous authority he and his ideas still represent for the entire Western Christian world. This especially needs to be said about the Trinitarian teaching of Bl. Augustine in general and his trinitarian pneumatology - in particular, as is known, which completely determined the fate of these teachings in the West. Apparently, everyone now agrees that with his numerous writings it was Bl. Augustine, who, thus, and according to the judgment of Western scientists, was one of the first filioquists and, so to speak, the creator of Western filioquism. According to the frank admission of contemporary representatives of Western theology, which are closest to our Eastern Orthodoxy (we mean the Old Catholic theologians), in their theological and philosophical speculation of the Trinitarian dogma they cannot renounce the Western (or what is the same - Augustinian) concept of this dogma and therefore would like to preserve this dear to them, due to centuries-old traditions, historical heritage of Augustinianism - i.e. "Filioque", - at least only as a simple private theological opinion (without any dogmatic meaning). In view of what has been said, it is logically and psychologically quite clear that the consideration and presentation of this teaching by Bl. Augustine about St. The spirit in the mouth of every Western theologian has always been and will be only filioquistic. But, as we already partly know, many, especially the newest ones, and even contemporary ones, moreover, highly authoritative and completely competent in this special issue, representatives of Orthodox-Eastern theology, which, of course, are not under the influence of Augustine and Augustinism, do not consider Blessed. Augustine and his teaching. The Holy Spirit is a completely pure organ of Orthodox truth: they either carefully note Augustine’s wrong-headedness in the point of his teaching about the Holy Spirit that we are considering (and, for the most part, they try to explain it in one way or another in a spirit favorable to Augustine), or they directly and openly classify Augustine as a filioquist, considering him, together with Western theologians, the ancestor, author, father and creator of the later Roman Catholic teaching “Filioque”. Indeed, the very name or assignment to Augustine of the less honorable, from the point of view of modern hagiological terminology, epithets “blessed” 1066 (and not “saint”) and “teacher” (and not “father”) of the church to some extent belittles his ecumenical teaching patristic authority and, as it were, casts some shadow on the holiness and infallibility of his theological and dogmatic convictions. Our brief overview of the opinions of Russian Orthodox scholars of modern times (XIX–XX centuries) on the issue under consideration will begin with earlier, more famous and more authoritative theologians, due to their prominent hierarchical position in the Russian Church. In the half of the past century, the ever-memorable Metropolitan of Moscow Macarius, the well-known author of the system of dogmatic theology famous in his time (“Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. St. Petersburg. 1849–1853. Vols. I–V”), shone in the sky of Russian Orthodox theological science, like a star of the first magnitude. At the end of the 1st volume it contains an extensive and very detailed treatise on the procession of the Holy Spirit, based on the primary sources of Christian knowledge (pp. 345–453). Noting that evidence in favor of the “Filioque” is found “definitely in no one” among the fathers and ancient teachers of the Eastern Church, and “of the fathers and teachers of the Western Church, also in none before the 5th century or before the bl. Augustine,” 1067 The Most Reverend “dogmatic genius” of the Russian Church says in the following section: 1068 “in the 5th century itself, such evidence is found, judging by the instructions of Western theologians,” by the way, “from Blessed. Augustine" but "only 3 or 4" De Trinit. lib. IV, cap. 20; n. 29; 1. XV, p. 17, no. 29; cap. 26, no. 47. Some other places of this kind in the works of Bl. Augustine are damaged” (p. 440 cf. above p. 423 note 933, where Metropolitan Macarius notes that “from the works of Augustine, Adam Zernikav and Feofan Prokopovich represent up to ten damaged places”). Thus, the Eminence author doubts the authenticity and integrity of those places from the works of Blessed. Augustine, which contain the doctrine of the “Filioque”, or, at least, is inclined to question them: he admits their later distortion by Roman Catholic theologians to justify their “Filioque” 1069 and, for his part, gives reasons for the validity of this assumption expressed by him. Thus, Metropolitan Macarius in this matter apparently leans toward the point of view of Russian Orthodox theologians of more ancient times (A. Zernikava and F. Prokopovich). If we agree to admit the authenticity and integrity of these testimonies, then, according to the thought of the Eminence dogmatist, “they can be understood differently than how they are now understood in the West,” that is, only in the sense of a temporary procession or embassy of the Holy Spirit into the world. 1070 If, finally, we agree to understand these testimonies the way Christians of the Western Church understand them today, i.e., that Bl. Augustine (and some others) believed in the eternal procession of St. The Spirit is not only from the Father, but also from the Son; in this case, according to the Eminence theologian, the belief of the bl. Augustine (like some other teachers of the Western Church) should be recognized only as “Augustine’s private opinion”, nothing more. 1071 Despite the fact that the verdict of Metropolitan Macarius on the teachings of Blessed. Augustine on the procession of the Holy Spirit remains favorable for the Orthodoxy of this Western Father of the Church, however, the Eminence theologian-dogmatist, apparently, in the end, does not deny the possibility (albeit with some reservations) to understand certain passages of the bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit as they are understood in the West, i.e. in the sense of belief “in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit not only from the Father, but also from the Son,” although this belief is considered by Bl. Augustine and his Western followers “only their private opinion, nothing more.” 1072 I had to determine my attitude towards the bl. Augustine and his teaching about the Holy Spirit and our famous domestic patrolologist, His Eminence Philaret, Apxienukop of Chernigov, the author of almost the only course on Patrology in Russian, which embraces approximately all the most important phenomena of patrolological science: “Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church. St. Petersburg 1859. I–III volumes. Wed. 2nd ed., rev. and additional I–III volumes. St. Petersburg. 1882". Having mentioned the various dry and refined logical divisions of Bl. Augustine, usual in his treatise on the Holy Trinity, Archbishop Philaret concludes: “although in op. About the Holy Trinity, Augustine more than once speaks about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, 1073 but sometimes, going into logical subtleties, he did not always express himself carefully about this subject.” 1074 This is the “very cautious expression” of the Eminence patrolologist about the “careless expressions” of Bl. Augustine, admitted by him in his teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit, means precisely those sayings of the latter in which he speaks about the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son. Thus, our domestic patristic authority, His Eminence Philaret of Chernigov, firstly, does not deny the presence in the works of Augustine of his careless, from an Orthodox point of view, expressions about the image of the procession of the Holy Spirit and, secondly, puts this undoubted and for him fact in connection with the “logical subtleties” of the considered teaching of the bl. Augustine, i.e. with his rational-psychological construction of the Trinitarian dogma. Likewise, the third most authoritative Russian theologian-dogmatist of the second half of the last and the beginning of this century - His Eminence Sylvester, Bishop of Kanevsky, who had occasion to speak twice in print on the controversial issue we are considering, is also not inclined to consider Blessed. Augustine was in all respects the infallible exponent of the Orthodox ancient universal teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit. Noting the attitude of Bishop Sylvester to the teachings of Bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit, we actually mean those, in general, few pages of the 2nd volume of the well-known system of his Orthodox dogmatic theology, which are devoted to the interpretation of the special teaching of Blessed. Augustine about the procession of the Holy Spirit and which, in our opinion, represent an original, even in its own way, remarkable phenomenon in the latest Russian theological literature of the issue we are studying (“The Experience of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Kyiv. 1885.” Vol. 2, pp. 546–565). The named section of the 2nd volume of the “Experience” of the Right Reverend Dogmatist, somewhat detailing the teaching of Bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit in comparison with the teaching about the same of other fathers and teachers of the ancient church, as well as his early article on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit (“An Orthodox Answer to the scheme proposed by the Old Catholics about the Holy Spirit. Kyiv. 1875”) stand in close connection with the Old Catholic movement, as a living response to the latter’s requests. However, the first of the ones we have named - the latest in time of its origin - is the scientific work of Bishop Sylvester regarding the issue that interests us is not just a simple reproduction of his view expressed by him in his earlier article (“Answer”). “For the peculiarity of the Experience,” says Prof. P. P. Ponomarev in his brochure devoted to the characterization of the personality of the Most Reverend Sylvester as a learned theologian 1075 - one should (by the way) consider some correction here by the Most Reverend Sylvester of his previous view of the teachings of the bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit, expressed by the author in the Orthodox Answer to the Old Catholics. In the Answer, His Eminence Sylvester does not seem to find in the works of Bl. Augustine's opinion on the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son or precedent for such an opinion and, citing Bl. Augustine in several places of the Answer, tries everywhere to look at his teaching about the Holy Spirit as completely consistent with the teaching of the Eastern Fathers about this dogma and alien to filioquistic shades. Meanwhile, in the Experience, the Most Reverend Sylvester does not dispute “the fact that Augustine, with his teaching about the Holy Spirit, against his will, could prepare a very convenient soil for the later Western Filioque,” ​​although he allows himself “to doubt that ..... Augustine's own teaching "about the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son was, in its thought, completely identical with the later Filioque." Equation of teaching bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit with the teaching of the ancient universal church in Experience, in any case, is no longer visible, but there is, on the contrary, a remark that Augustine with his expression: The Spirit is the mutual love of the Father and the Son, is the Spirit of Both, the Father and the Son, expresses a personal Augustinian opinion, but not the ancient church teaching.” Thus, on the path of approaching (in understanding) the Augustinian teaching in question to his Old Catholic understanding (i.e., in the sense of the Filioque) and evaluating it from a dogmatic point of view in the Old Catholic spirit (i.e., as Augustine’s private theological opinion, and not a subject of general church faith or dogma), the named treatise of the Most Reverend Sylvester in the 2nd volume of his Experience represents a step forward in comparison with his earlier (in 1875) view expressed on this issue in his Reply. In our judgments about the true views of the Right Reverend Sylvester on this subject, we will proceed from this very second work of his, as the latest in the time of its origin and being the fruit of a wider acquaintance and greater depth of its author into the essence and circumstances of the disputed issue. In the way of understanding and interpreting the teachings of Bl. Augustine on the procession of the Holy Spirit and in assessing its historical and dogmatic significance, the author of the Experience partly follows the works of Russian Orthodox theologians of earlier times (Adam Zernikav, Feofan Prokopovich, Metropolitan Macarius), partly accepts the considerations and views of representatives of the contemporary Old Catholicism, about which, mainly, the named section of the Experience of our famous dogmatist was compiled. Revealing, in general, a tendency towards a possible softening and weakening of the known “careless”, according to the Archbishop. Philaret of Chernigov, expressions of bl. Augustine, by means of a logically subtle distinction between the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, from His procession and from the Son, and the interpretation of Augustine’s term “procedere” as applied to the Holy Spirit in the sense of rather only “mitti”, but not “driri ex principio”, our Eminence dogmatist, on the basis of an accurate analysis of the original text of some (but not all and not in connection with the general Trinitarian views of Augustine) of his expressions about the Holy Spirit, fully armed with theological and church-historical knowledge, gives some new observations on this issue, creates his own original combinations, expresses his own deep considerations, which cannot be ignored by all later researchers of this issue. Not generally inclined to attribute to Augustine so decisively, per fas et nefas, the Filioque imposed on him by Western theologians in its later Catholic understanding, our Eminence, the dogmatist specialist, is nevertheless forced to admit that “Augustine also has passages in which the procession of the Spirit and from the Son, which he allows, cannot without stretch be understood in the sense of His temporary embassy into the world.” 1076 And at the beginning of this essay, dedicated to a relatively detailed, although not comprehensive consideration of the teachings of Blessed. Augustine on the procession of the Holy Spirit, our Eminence theologian, apparently, is himself inclined, together with Western theologians, to consider Augustine not only a “direct supporter”, but also the “main culprit” of the Filioque that has established itself in the West. 1077 In any case, His Grace Bishop Sylvester cannot deny the presence of the bl. Augustine's opinion about the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son, even if not in the sense and significance of the ancient ecumenical, Orthodox patristic teaching. 1078 It is also indisputable that, under the influence of a closer acquaintance with the teachings of Bl. Augustine about St. In the spirit of his second scientific work on this subject, our outstanding dogmatist quite noticeably changes his original point of view in the sense of a greater approach to the old Catholic understanding of the complex teaching of Blessed. Augustine. Even more sharply than the Reverend Sylvester, one might say radically, changes his view of Bl. Augustine and the true meaning of his dogmatic teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit, under the influence of greater familiarity with the issue in polemics with the Old Catholics, another of our domestic theologians, prof. Kazan Theological Academy A. F. Gusev. The latter, not recognizing Augustine as either a saint or the father of the Church, as a result of his lively polemics with representatives of Old Catholicism on the issue of “Filioque” and some domestic theologians who share their views in this case, comes to the point of depriving Augustine of even any teaching authority in matters of Christian dogmatics. Regarding the reference of Old Catholic theologians to the authority of Augustine in resolving the dogmatic question of the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son, Prof. A.F. Gusev, in his last article, directed against the old Catholic teaching on the “Filioque,” ​​directly and decisively, with the authority of a learned historian, declares that “Augustine is neither a father nor a teacher of the Church.” 1079 And other quite competent Orthodox Russian learned theologians of modern times, who certainly stand outside of any influence of the Western Augustinian tradition and, by virtue of their official position, are called to polemics with the heterodox understanding of the biblical and patristic sources of Christian doctrine and moral teaching, equally do not consider the teaching of the bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit is an expression of the general voice of the ancient universal Church and even directly exclude Augustine from the number of patristic authorities confirming the ancient patristic and general church universal teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit or His hypostatic relationship to the Father and the Son (in the sense of the Orthodox Eastern Church). Such, for example, enjoys well-deserved fame in the scientific world not only among domestic theologians, but also among their Western colleagues, Prof. Imperial Kazan Theological Academy V. A. Kerensky, “this is currently the best specialist on the Old Catholic question,” 1080 who studied it for many years in the very centers of the latter and, moreover, touched on this issue many times in the still ongoing polemics about it with the Old Catholics. As a result of his many years (from 1892 to the present) and comprehensive study of the issue of the “Filioque” in general and those of its Augustinian foundations, which are usually referred to by Western scientists - in particular, this indisputable authority in the field we are considering comes to the indisputable and decisively expressed conviction that “of all the fathers and teachers of the Western Church, indicated by representatives of Old Catholic theology, only one is an undoubted filioquist bliss Augustine (emphasis added throughout); 1081 what is he, bl. Augustine, the father of the filioquistic idea of ​​the origin of St. Spirit in the West; 1082 that representatives of Old Catholicism quite resolutely and, of course, quite thoroughly refute that statement of Prof. Gusev, as if bl. Augustine always in his writings expresses purely Orthodox views on the procession of the Holy Spirit; 1083 that the idea (by Prof. Gusev) is untenable that the doctrine of the “Filioque” was certainly absent from patristic writing and therefore appeared in Roman Catholic theology as if “ex abrupto” without any preliminary preparations.” 1084 But being “an undoubted filioquist” and the “father of filioquism” in the West, Bl. Augustine, and according to Prof. V. A. Kerensky, recognized for his filioquistic ideas the significance of only school-scientific opinions. 1085 His polemic with Old Catholic theologians on the issue we are considering in the article we quote by Prof. V. A. Kerensky concludes with the following tirade: “all the efforts of the Old Catholics to defend the mortal remains of the filioquistic idea of ​​the procession of the Holy Spirit are completely meaningless, especially since Orthodox theological science has never denied the position that the doctrine of the “Filioque” has always existed in the church consciousness of the Christian world as a private theological opinion. 1086 In the German-Russian theological literature on the Old Catholic issue, there is one scientific and literary work, which, both for its internal scientific and objective merits, and for the heated polemics that its appearance caused among Orthodox Russian and Old Catholic theologians, as well as for the decisive influence that it has on the course of further negotiations between Orthodox Russian theologians and Old Catholics on the issue of the “Filioque” and its Augustinian basis, deserves here our special attention. We are referring to the famous “Theses on the Filioque” of the late prof. St. Petersburg Theological Academy of V.V. Bolotov, this truly outstanding personality and “such a major scientific figure, the equal of which is difficult to find in recent times even in the Western theological world.” 1087 This learned work of the said Russian theologian, 1088 like his other works on the issue of the Filioque, was the result of his participation in a commission established by decree of the Holy Synod (December 15, 1892) “to clarify the conditions and requirements that could form the basis of negotiations with Old Catholics seeking communion with the Orthodox Eastern Church.” About the high scientific qualities of this article by Prof. V.V. Bolotova is spoken of by reviews of Russian and foreign scientists about her. “The controversy on the issue of the Filioque lost, if not all, then a significant part of its interest after the appearance of the article by the Russian Theologian, which completely exhausted the controversial issue.” 1089 According to Kireev and Prot. Svetlova, this work by Prof. V.V. Bolotov, highly valued by Old Catholic theologians and like-minded Russian scientists, has a decisive role in the Old Catholic question on the issue of “Filioque”. 1090 In view of the enormous scientific significance of the article under consideration, Prof. V.V. Bolotov and the enormous authority of its author, as a first-class Russian scientist and strictly Orthodox theologian, it is not surprising if in further relations between the members of the St. Petersburg Commission and Western theologians on the Old Catholic issue of the “Filioque”, the reasoning and views of the first of them, as it is easy to see, are based on the thoughts and views expressed by Prof. V.V. Bolotov in this truly excellent work of his. Despite this, in the lively exchange of thoughts that takes place between Russian theologians and scientists and which was determined by their different attitudes towards Old Catholicism and its representatives, these Theses of Prof. became one of the main subjects of polemics 1091. Bolotova. “Theses on “Filioque” by Prof. V.V. Bolotov, this, in the words of the priest. D. Jakšić, “a pearl of theological literature,” 1092 representing, however, according to their author’s own statement, only “his private, personal opinion,” 1093 by strictly distinguishing the concepts of 1) dogma (Dogma), 2) theologumenon (Theologumenon) and 3) private theological opinion (Theologische Privat-meinung) and illuminating the issue in a historical perspective, in fully armed with documentary data related to the issue, establish a new point of view on the dogmatic meaning and significance of the Western doctrine of the “Filioque”, as well as the Eastern formulas: “ἐϰ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός” and “διἀ ϒἰοῦ” (all these formulas express not dogmas, but private, albeit authoritative, “theological opinions” of certain fathers or teachers of the ancient church, or so-called “theologumen” in the language of our author). “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, in essence, that caused the division of the Church” (Theses 26 and 27). With a number of facts, accurately and documentedly established and illustrated by evidence from patristic antiquity, the author proves that “Filioque” in the sense of the idea of 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: “The Holy Spirit ἐϰ τοῦ Πατρός διἀ τοῦ ϒἰοῦ ἐϰπορεύεται”, existed, undoubtedly, in the ancient Church, as a private opinion (Theses. 2 and 3); that it was not the question of the “Filioque” that determined the division of churches (Theses 26), and therefore, as a private opinion, it cannot be considered as an “impedimentum dirimens” for the establishment of “Intercommunication” between the Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholic churches (Theses 27); that both “Filioque” and “ἐϰ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός” are only theologumens (Theses. 7th), and not dogmas, since for this they lack the necessary sanction of an ecumenical council; that both of these theologumens in their relative historical-dogmatic significance (if we bear in mind the degree of their attested authority) are lower than the formula “διἀ τοῦ ϒἰοῦ”, since the latter is not just a private paternal opinion, but “an universally authorized theologumenon” (Tes. 2, cf. Tez. 7th § 2 cf. also Theses 14 and 15) and what, finally, this formula (“The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son”) means in St. fathers the eternal relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 1094 From the point of view of established principles, the Augustinian doctrine of the Holy Spirit (filioquism of Blessed Augustine) is also considered and its meaning is briefly determined, both by Augustine himself and the attitude of the Western and Eastern fathers towards it in the era of the ancient universal Church. The main thoughts on the issue of the Augustinian doctrine of the Holy Spirit, contained in various places in the work of V.V. Bolotov being analyzed, come down to the statement of the following facts: Bl. Augustine taught about the "Filioque"; he is even the founder of this teaching in the West; Augustine’s “Filioque” is only his private, theological opinion (theologumenon, not dogma), based only on his individual authority; like the later Roman Catholic “Filioque,” ​​this purely Western Augustinian theologumenon (ex Filioque, una spiratio) differs significantly from the Eastern “διἀ τοῦ ϒἰοῦ” and is lower in the degree of its dogmatic meaning. The following provisions of the article in question by Prof. V.V. Bolotova can in one way or another illuminate the meaning and significance of Augustine’s doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and explain its historical position and significance in the Christian Church of the patristic era (i.e., the period of its undivided existence). “In the most ancient (pre-Augustinian) stage, the Western ϑεολογούμενον explained only the idea that the Eastern “δι’ ϒἰοῦ” also 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 an inaccurate rendering “δι’ ϒἰοῦ” (Thoses 10). “But “ex Patre et Filio,” as it is given by Bl. Augustine, is not covered by the meaning of the teaching of St. Eastern fathers (Thoses 11), since" - “not only “a Patre et Filio aequaliter” of Leo III of Rome, but even “ex Patre principaliter” of the bl. Augustine says less than the “μόνος αἲτιος” of the Eastern saints. fathers (Thoses 12), and – “The difference between Western and Eastern views is reflected not so much in the words “ex Patre Filioque”, but in the closely related Augustinian idea of ​​“una spiratio” of the Father and the Son, according to which they both together represent the “unum principium” of the Holy Spirit. And this view is unknown to St. to the Eastern fathers: as far as we know, none of them called the Son “Spirans” or “Συμπροβολεύς” (Thoses 13). “In the West itself, “Filioque”, despite its spread, has - apparently - no other support for itself, except for the single authority of bl. Augustine" (Thoses 16); “according to the inscrutable destinies of God, proposed as a private opinion of the bl. Augustine, the Western view was not then protested by the Eastern Church” (Thoses 19). “Many Westerners, who preached the “Filioque” to their flocks, without encountering any objections from anyone, lived and died in communion with the Eastern Church” (Theses 20). “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” (Tez. 21). The criticism leveled at Prof. V.V. Bolotov for this expressed in this article his attitude towards the Western “Filioque” and the Eastern “ἐϰ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός”, called prof. A.I. Brilliantov, his student and successor in the academic department, to defend and explain the provisions of this article (regarding its publication in Russian). “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.” 1095 In these “Theses” by V.V. Bolotov, his point of view on the issue of “Filioque” and his attitude to this issue found its fairly clear expression. Prof. A . I. Brilliantov rejects the claims made by Prof. A.F. Gusev's accusation against prof. V.V. Bolotov in the latter’s defense of the filioquistic view; for allowing them the opportunity for Old Catholics to hold on to the “Filioque” as a private opinion, in view of their references to Bl. Augustine and the fathers of the Western Church following Augustine in this matter; for recognizing the formula “Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐϰ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός ἐϰπορεύεται” only theologumenon, and for understanding the Eastern teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit “δι’ ϒἰοῦ” in the sense of indicating the eternal relations of the Divine Persons, which, however, is far from the meaning of the Western “Filioque”. 1096 Exonerating the author of the Theses from accusations made by his critics, Prof. A.I. Brilliantov characterizes and evaluates the point of view of his teacher, expressed by him in these “Theses”. “In fact,” says Prof. A.I. Brilliantov, - despite V.V. Bolotov’s lenient, within certain limits and under certain conditions, attitude towards the Western “Filioque”, since it 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 “Filioque” appears in them with a dogmatic meaning. 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.” 1097 A similar point of view on Augustine and the main meaning of his teaching about the Holy Spirit is shared by other contemporary academic and non-academic theologians, although, however, they do not detail the said teachings of Bl. in their scientific works (special monographs and individual journal articles). Augustine. These are, in addition to the members of the St. Petersburg Commission, negotiating with representatives of Old Catholicism on the so-called “Old Catholic Question,” to which the late prof. V.V. Bolotov 1098 and the heir to his church-historical and theological traditions prof. A.I. Brilliantov 1099, the following learned theologians: Prof. N. N. Glubokovsky, 1100 A. A. Spassky, 1101 P. P. Ponomarev, 1102 N. D. Terentyev, 1103 generally sharing the scientific view of his highly authoritative mentor in this matter, Prof. V. A. Kerensky, 1104 prof. A. P. Orlov, 1105 S. Kokhomsky, 1106 V. N. Samuilov, 1107 prot. P. Ya. Svetlov, 1108 gen. A. A. Kireev, 1109 prot. N. Malinovsky, 1110 I. Nikolin, 1111 prof. I. V. Popov, 1112 A. I. Sagarda 1113 and friend. Some of the mentioned theologians touch on the issue we are considering in relatively more detail (although none comprehensively and with a deliberate purpose), others in less detail and, so to speak, in passing. But all of them (et critici et defensores Augustini) resolve this issue in the sense that the teaching of Bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit is filioquist in nature and that Augustine himself was in a certain sense a filioquist and the father of filioquism, although the “Filioque” of Bl. Augustine represents only his simple theological opinion or philosophical assumption, which has only a school-scientific or optional, and not a symbolic-dogmatic and therefore legally binding meaning for everyone. § 7. Teaching of Bl. Augustine, bishop Ipponsky, on the procession of the Holy Spirit (review of objective-historical and subjective-psychological reasons and foundations of “Augustinean filioquism”) Analysis of numerous and varied works by Bl. Augustine in the latter’s original language, especially in the light of data from both Western (heterodox) and domestic (Orthodox) theological literature, leaves almost no doubt that the teaching of Blessed. Augustine about the Holy Spirit and His relationship to the Father and the Son contains elements of the so-called “filioquist”, and that Augustine himself was, to a certain extent and sense, a “filioquist”. Based on this conviction, as a fact confirmed by numerous places of the original creations of Blessed. Augustine, moreover, quite authoritatively attested by a number of highly educated Western and Eastern (both still living and deceased) specialist theologians and commentators on the bl. Augustine, we will try, for our part, by deepening the question, to give a feasible explanation for this fact of Augustine’s “filioquism”, from an objective-historical and subjective-psychological point of view. As a result of our personal observations in the area of ​​the issue under consideration and our own conclusions based on them, we present the following assumptions and considerations that, in our opinion, can at least partially reveal the subjective-psychological and objective-historical factors or conditions of the so-called “Augustinian filioquism.” – It was noted above that the teaching of Bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit and His personal relationship to the Father and the Son, with all its obscurity, darkness and theological instability, does not lend itself to any generalization and therefore cannot be presented systematically or from the point of view of one specific principle. It cannot be stated genetically, because this teaching was not in Augustine the result of any specific and systematic process of development of his religious-philosophical or church-theological views: in the earlier writings of Bl. Augustine, in the same way as in his works of later origin, in the doctrine of St. In the spirit, data of the most opposite nature are simultaneously combined, that is, favorable for their interpretation both in the Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox spirit. In each individual case one would have to resort to one or another explanation, which in some cases, due to the lack of solid ground, would have to be completely arbitrary. Therefore, without scattering about details and without wasting time on trifles, we will reduce all such cases, as the most possible and most probable causes or conditions of “Augustinian filioquism,” to the following provisions. Among such reasons that determine the emergence and development of Augustine’s filioquistic ideas about the Holy Spirit, one of the first places should be occupied by his rational-psychological construction of the Trinitarian dogma, established by him and in a certain respect original for patristic literature, that is, his philosophical attempt in a purely rational way on a psychological basis to reveal, understand and prove the Christian mystery of the trinity of Persons in God. In close connection with the essence of this philosophical construction of his, the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity, he establishes a view of the Third Divine Hypostasis - the Holy Spirit - as a mutual connection, communication 1114 or the love of the Father and the Son, emanating from both and then connecting them again. A similar understanding of the inner life of the Divine and the position that the Holy Spirit should occupy in the absolute Trinitarian process was obtained by Augustine as a result of his philosophical understanding of the Trinitarian life of the Divine by analogy with the life and activity of self-consciousness and love of man, as the image of the Triune Absolute Spirit. Closely connected with and directly dependent on this experience of Augustine’s psychological interpretation of the dogma of the Holy Trinity is his “filioquism.” The latter is a necessary postulate of his rational-philosophical construction of the Trinitarian dogma, which in turn is based on a kind of anthropology or psychology of the bl. Augustine. Thus, on the basis of this rational-philosophical construction, Bl. Augustine, the roots of which lie, as said, in his original metaphysical psychology (epistemology), and the so-called “filioquism” of Augustine was created, which carried away the subsequent theological thought of the West, less sensitive than Augustine’s, far beyond the boundaries of church orthodoxy. Indeed. Let us recall the position and significance of will or love in the process of human self-awareness according to the views of Blessed. Augustine. Will or love, as we already know from a detailed analysis of the highest psychological trinitarian analogy of Bl. Augustine (esse, nosse, velle; mens ipsa, noitia mentis, amor; memoria, intelligentia, voluntas; amans, quod amatur, amor), stands in close connection and interaction with memory (memoria) and intellect (intellectus, intelligentia), because you cannot love without knowing and remembering anything about the object of your love. And in the process of self-awareness, which is determined by the threefold activity of the basic mental forces and abilities of a person, will or love enters as a necessary psychological ingredient, which in the act of self-awareness, from the point of view of Augustine’s metaphysical psychology, even plays a dominant (double) role. The process of self-awareness according to Augustine consists, as we know, of the following main points. The will, by the power of memory, extracts from the depths of memory the spiritual image of an object, which then, refracted in our intellect, thereby receives its qualitative certainty. However, the activity of the will is not limited to its participation in these first two moments of self-consciousness. The latter consists of three moments, and in this third - final - moment the will also takes a living and active part. Called by the will to the surface of consciousness (with the help of attention), the spiritual image of an object is then identified by the will with the image previously perceived and stored in memory and in this way leads them to unity. Thus, the role of the will in this internal process is twofold, synthetic: it is, as it were, directed from memory to intellect and then from intellect returns to memory again, connecting them with each other and uniting the product of their activity into the unity of an integral image. The same must be said about love, which, however, in the language of metaphysical psychology bl. Augustine is synonymous with will. Love in its existence is directly dependent on memory and intellect, for it arises only when the object of love already exists in consciousness - the spiritual image of the object (at least as a vague image or only in a potential state) and when it is reflected in the intellect as a definite image. Because of this, the origin of love (for something) is due to memory and intellect. Then love, starting from memory to intellect, again extends from intellect to memory and thus unites the subject and object of consciousness into the unity of the lover, the beloved and love. The same role in the said psychological process is played by will or love, when the object of consciousness and love or the internal image of consciousness is not some external object external to a person or an internal spiritual image of him in the soul of a person, but the person himself in the person of his rational and self-conscious spirit, objectifying itself or coming to self-awareness and unity. And here, in a similar psychological scheme, Bl. Augustine, will or love comes from the subject and object of self-consciousness as its principles, and, in turn, is then the principle of their unification and unity. Transferred to the area of ​​the internal trinitarian life of the Divine and adapted to justify the trinity of Persons in God, this psychological trinitarian analogy with its three moments postulates the origin of the Third Divine Hypostasis - the Holy Spirit - not only from the Father, but also from the Son. And, indeed, we see everywhere that when Augustine speculatively substantiates the mystery of the trinity of being in God, he inevitably ends up with his peculiar, specifically Augustine “filioquism.” The latter is, therefore, a direct and necessary postulate of his rational-philosophical construction of the Trinitarian dogma, in particular - his philosophical concept of the Holy Spirit as the mutual connection and love of the Father and the Son, a concept, in turn, arising from the peculiar psychology (epistemology) of Bl. Augustine. Further, the so-called filioquism of Augustine or the filioquistic shade of his teaching about the Holy Spirit, considered in connection with the data of his anthropology (epistemology), can be partially explained by its peculiarity, which in the language of modern psychology is known as voluntarism or voluntaristic theory. Voluntarism or the doctrine of the participation of the will in knowledge (recognition of the activity of the will in all moments of the cognitive act) is a characteristic feature of Augustine’s theory of knowledge, which he was the first in all patristic antiquity to express definitely and develop in detail. Knowledge is inherent in will and will is inherent in knowledge. There is a close connection and interaction between them: one does not exist without the other. The will, to which memory and intellect are reduced, stands in as close connection with the former as with the latter. Bringing them closer to each other, the will itself approaches them in existence, is placed in greater connection with them and is dependent on them in its existence. Even a superficial and cursory analysis of the epistemology of Bl. Augustine quite clearly illustrates the dominant position that the will occupies in comparison with memory and intellect in the cognitive process. This primacy of will is very characteristic of the entire anthropology of the bl. Augustine. This primacy of the will, as a principle of Augustinian anthropology, is transferred - first of all, by Augustine himself - and especially, under his influence, by later Western theologians, and into the area of ​​his dogmatics and is posited here as a dogmatic principle for the clarification of the inner life of the Trinitarian Deity. As just such a dogmatic principle of revealing and justifying the origin and relationship of Persons in God, the primacy of the will to a certain extent also postulates the “Filioque”. The primacy of the will, as an original feature of Augustinian epistemology, bringing the will closer to consciousness and placing knowledge in close relation to the will, taught the theological thought of the West to think of them in a close, inextricable connection. Transferred into the inner life of the Divine, this voluntaristic theory also taught the theological thinking of Western church writers, by analogy with the indicated phenomenon of our human psyche, to bring together the second and third Persons of the Holy Trinity among themselves, establishing between them relations of the closest proximity and even causal dependence in existence. The same rapprochement between the Son and the Holy Spirit and the establishment of causal relationships between them in the church-philosophical consciousness of Augustine, as well as other Western theologians of the pre-Augustine and post-Augustine era, could be served by the theory of so-called “binitarianism,” still known in the West. The fact is that the teaching of Bl. that we are considering. Augustine about the Holy Spirit and His hypostatic property, distinguished, as said, by some duality and hesitation, on the one hand, is original, and on the other, bears traces of the influence of two church traditions coming from ancient times in the West. Firstly, one might think that Augustine’s teaching about the Holy Spirit was influenced by the above-mentioned binitarianism. The essence of the latter, as far as it is expressed in the works of ancient Western theology, consists in the identification of the Divine Word-Son, as the second Hypostasis, with the Holy Spirit, as the Third Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity: Sermo-Spiritus. 1115 This constitutes one of the characteristic features of the teaching about the Holy Spirit of Western theology, completely unknown to the church writers of the East. Probably, on this idea of ​​​​the original identity of Sermo-Spiritus, Western writers developed the doctrine of the origin of the Holy Spirit not only from the Father, but also from the Son, and precisely - for the most part (in Augustinian - principaliter) from the Father through the mediation of the Son. It does not seem impossible to assume that this close and close connection of internal relations between the Son and the Holy Spirit, which was resolved in binitarianism into their complete identification, could in a certain way determine the filioquistic image of the ideas of Western theology of later times. The theological thought of Westerners with the above-mentioned binitarian concept, which brought the immanent relationship of the Son and the Holy Spirit not only to ontological affinity and causal dependence, but also to their complete merging with each other and the resolution of one in the other, gradually, historically and psychologically, prepared for the later filioquistic doctrine, the philosophical premises and ecclesiastical rudiments of which are already evident in Augustine’s Trinitarian pneumatology. Along with the above-described binitarian tradition of Western pre-Augustinian theology in the teachings of Bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit and His hypostatic property, one can see traces of another, Western theological tradition. As a Western thinker and, moreover, a faithful son of the Western Christian Church, who occupied a prominent hierarchical position in it, Blessed. Augustine, in his theology, of course, could not help but be influenced by the theological tradition of the Western Church. This theological tradition of the Western Church, as far as it was by the time of Bl. Augustine was represented in the literary works of Western church writers (Tertullian, Dionysius of Rome, even Athanasius of Alexandria, who spent the years of his second exile in Rome and was under his influence, as well as Hilary and Ambrose), on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, created some precedents or premises for the development of filioquistic views on their basis. 1116 It must be said that the church-theological tradition of the West in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity presented some features in comparison with the East, both in relation to the methodology of the Trinitarian dogma (the method of its disclosure and clarification), and its terminology. This circumstance could also influence the content of a particular point of Western church triadology - the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and His relationship to the Father and the Son. To be clear and understandable, let us explain in more detail. The meaning associated with the basic triadological terms “οὐσία, ὐπόστασις” and “essentia, substantia” in the East and West was different. Bl. Augustine repeatedly notes the identification, still common in the West at this time, of the Greek dogmatic terms οὐσία, ὐπόστασις, which are synonyms of the Latin essentia, substantia. Both terms, that is, essentia and substantia, serve in Western theology to define the essence of God. Due to this established identification in the West of the Trinitarian terms essentia and substantia, the concept of hypostatic difference in the Divine is expressed by the special term “persona”. That is why, from the point of view of Western church orthodoxy, the expression is impermissible: “in Deo-una essentia, tres substantiae,” but: “in Deo-una essentia vel substantia, tres autem personae.” 1117 But the term “persona” used by Augustine, as an equivalent of the eastern “ὐπόστασις”, is far from satisfying Augustine, 1118 who, even if he uses it (especially in his polemics with heretics), is still far from considering it an adequate expression of the immanent relations of the inner Divine life and recognizes only a purely negative meaning for it. This terminological inaccuracy of the Trinitarian dogmatics of Bl. Augustine, who to some extent, in a formal-logical sense, brings together the being of God with the Hypostases and identifies the properties of the Divine essence common to all Three Persons with the specific properties of the Divine Hypostases, naturally could weaken or obscure in the theological consciousness the hypostatic property of the Father and the Son, transferring the hypostatic property of the first to the second (the ability of the Father to bring forth the Holy Spirit is also attributed to the Son). – With this uncertainty and imprecision of the theological language of Bl. Augustine also had another drawback in his Trinitarian terminology. We mean here the absence in the dogmatic language of Augustine, as well as other Western church writers of the pre-Augustine era, of special terms to designate the procession (of the Holy Spirit), as an eternal act of the internal trinitarian life of the Divine, and the procession, as a temporary messenger (of the Holy Spirit) into the world for the sanctification of creation, according to Greek words "ἐϰπορεύεσϑαι" and "προιέναι". Augustine has only one term at his disposal to define both concepts: “procedere”. Hence, some confusion and confusion of these far from identical, but completely different and independent acts of the immanent life and economic activity of the Divine became possible, some possibility of confusion or displacement of temporary and eternal relations in God. Perhaps it is from this terminological feature of Western Trinitarian dogmatics that something so inherent in the bl. Augustine, like other Christian writers of the Western Church, tended to consider these two heterogeneous acts of the internal and external life of the Divine in close connection and dependence on each other. And, indeed, from the works of Bl. Augustine clearly shows that the procession of the Holy Spirit, as a temporary embassy of His Son of God into the world, is put in close connection by Augustine with the immanent revelation of the Divinity, so that the first is considered by him as a manifestation or as evidence for the understanding of the second. Of course, this circumstance could not have been better able to incline theological thought towards the “Filioque”. But the theological tradition of the West in relation to the church dogma in question was not limited to terminological features alone, which, as shown, could contribute to the emergence and development of filioquistic ideas, both in Augustine himself and especially in post-Augustinian theology, which was under his influence. The concept of trinitarian dogma, which existed in the West even before Augustine, and the methodology for its disclosure, for their part, could in a certain way favor the emergence and establishment of “filioquism” already in Augustine himself. – Eastern theologians, especially the Great Cappadocians, following the tradition of Origen and fearing the formidable specter of Sabellianism, when developing the Trinitarian dogma, focused their primary attention on the moment of the hypostatic separation of the Divine Persons and persistently emphasized the existence in God of three real and independent Hypostases. Bl. Augustine, who was not influenced by the tradition of Origen's theology and alien to the polemical interest of the Cappadocians, on the contrary, experienced the influence of the Western literary tradition of a completely opposite nature. And a characteristic feature of Western theology, when presenting the Trinitarian teaching of the church, was the shading of the moment of the identity of the Divine essence and some shading of the moment of the hypostatic trinity and the distinctive properties of the Divine Persons. In full agreement with this basic tendency of Western theology, he develops his theological speculation about the Holy Trinity and the Holy Trinity. Augustine. Hence, he turns his attention primarily to the unity of the essence of the Divine Hypostases, at least in comparison with the question of the real trinity of the Hypostases and Their characteristic features. Hence, he has some inaccuracy, confusion and hesitation in his theological judgments when defining Their mutual relations. In addition, Bl. Augustine also had special specific Augustinian motives to highlight the moment of unity in God to some detriment to His hypostatic plurality and the hypostatic features of the Divine Persons, and thereby unconsciously and involuntarily, to a certain extent, obscure this last point of the church teaching about the Holy Trinity. These motives or foundations lie at the starting point of the rational-psychological trinitarian scheme of the bl. Augustine. Proceeding in his rational-philosophical construction of the Trinitarian dogma from the analysis of the finite spirit of man as the image of the Infinite Spirit, Augustine, naturally, could only come to the concept not of the Three Persons of the Divine in the church sense of the word, but only to the thought of three moments in the life of the individual Absolute Spirit by analogy with three abstract forces or simple impersonal moments of the individually existing God-like soul of man. Trinity, - from the point of view of the rational-psychological construction of Bl. Augustine, - it turned out to be a trinity of moments in God, but not Persons in the church sense of the word; Thus, the result was “Trinity in God,” and not “God-Trinity.” But Augustine himself, of course, was far from the idea of ​​becoming in contradiction with church orthodoxy and, wanting to harmonize the final conclusions of his philosophical speculation about the Trinitarian dogma with the church-symbolic confession of this Christian mystery, he makes significant adjustments to his rational-psychological scheme, hypostatizing the above-mentioned three moments of his construction into Living and Self-Conscious Persons of the Divine. The above is important and interesting for us in the sense that it partly explains the psychological origin of filioquistic tendencies in the theology of Augustine, and through him in all of later Western theology. For, as is clear from what has been said, in the West by the time of Bl. Augustine not only was not strictly formally established and the terminological difference between the Eastern concepts “οὐσία” and “ὐπόστασις” was not accepted everywhere, but also in theological thinking itself, especially thanks to the authority of Bl. Augustine, the Hypostases in the Divine Trinity are transformed, as it were, into moments of also the Divine being and are understood as belonging to one and the same Divine being (substantia=essentia=οὐσία). That is why the emission of the Holy Spirit, as the Third Divine Person in the Trinity, from the point of view of Eastern theology, is an act of the Hypostasis of the Father, and not of the Divine Being. Meanwhile, for the theological consciousness of Western church writers, thanks to the convergence of dogmatic terms and concepts we noted above, this act is an attribute of the being (actus substantiae). But since the essence of God the Father and God the Son is one and concretely identical, it was quite possible and common for representatives of Western theology to base the “Filioque” on consubstantiality and, on the other hand, to see in the “Filioque” a compelling argument in favor of consubstantiality. 1119 This is what the bloke himself is doing. Augustine, it seems to us, was also inclined towards this by polemical interest - namely, his dogmatic struggle with Western Arianism. Undoubtedly, this anti-Arian polemic of Bl. could have had a certain significance in the formation of Augustine’s “Filioque”. Augustine. What dogmatic struggle bl. Augustine with the Western Arians could, indeed, serve as one of the reasons that determined the filioquistic image of the views of the bl. Augustine, this seems to us very probable for the following reasons. Polemical interest inclined the theological thought of Bl. Augustine to the possible approach and equation of the Son of God with God the Father. This goal, as well as possible, was answered by placing the Son along with the Father in an equally culpable relationship between them and the Holy Spirit. But on the other hand, the same polemical interest of Bl. Augustine, in his struggle with the pneumatomachs, directed Augustine to a tendency of a completely opposite nature, namely to the equation of the Third Hypostasis - the Holy Spirit - with the Second - the Son of God, through their equal subordination in existence to the Father, as Their One Beginning and the First Principle of all Divine life. This also explains the aforementioned duality and instability of the theological thought of Blessed. Augustine at this point in his teaching. Desiring, in polemics with the Arians, to present to them as powerfully and conclusively and, so to speak, more clearly the Divinity of the Son, His consubstantiality and equality with God the Father (Whose Divinity was never disputed by anyone), Blessed. For this purpose, Augustine attracts the Third Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity - the Holy Spirit, at the expense of which, vulgarly speaking, he wants to elevate in the eyes of the Arians the Divine dignity of the Son, which they deny, and to place Him on an equal footing with the Father, for which the Holy Spirit must proceed in being from both together, i.e. from the Father as well as from the Son. Thus, the question of the Holy Spirit and His hypostatic property was not of direct and independent interest to Augustine. In the criticism of Arianism undertaken by Augustine, this question therefore had for Augustine not a self-sufficient and primary significance, but only an auxiliary and secondary one - precisely in relation to the dogma of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, to prove which was the main task and ultimate goal of the anti-Arian literary struggle of the bl. Augustine. To bring the Son of God into guilty complicity in the eternal act of bringing forth the Holy Spirit together with the Father (as His Divine Co-author) would be extremely important for the anti-Arian polemicist in the sense that it would give him an additional argument in favor of the Orthodox consubstantiality and in refuting the Arian non-essence. This is what the bloke does. Augustine, which is why his peculiar doctrine of the “Filioque” arises. At this point in his anti-Arian polemic (i.e., attributing to the Son the power to exterminate the Holy Spirit and placing Him, as it were, in a subordinate relationship to the Son) Bl. Augustine could be guided by the same motives that, some time after his death, guided the fathers of the Council of Toledo (447). The latter, perhaps under the influence of the authority of Bl. Augustine, introducing the formula into the creed: “paracletus patre filioque procedens” (Hahn, § 97), thereby wanted to more expressly emphasize, in contrast to the Visigothic Arianism that was then spreading in Spain, the idea of ​​complete equality (consubstantiality) of the Father and the Son. 1120 The logic of this polemical device implicite was as follows. If the Son of God, along with God the Father, whose Divinity was, without a doubt, even for the Arians, is the Reason for the existence of the Third Divine Hypostasis - the Holy Spirit, then naturally He Himself can and should be none other than the True God, Consubstantial with the Father. The author of the Divine existence of the Holy Spirit, who receives His existence from the Son, or at least not without His some causal participation, cannot, of course, Himself be a creature. Theological thought bl. Augustine fixes here actually on the Second Divine Hypostasis, and he places logical emphasis on the consubstantiality of the Son and Spirit with the Father. To touch upon the question of the Third Divine Hypostasis and Her special ontological principle of being was not directly the intention here of the bl. Augustine and in this case was not the special task of his anti-Arian polemic. But here's the bl. Augustine acts as an anti-Dukhobor polemicist. His task is now to refute Arianism not in this main point of it (“The Son, as a creature, is not consubstantial with the Father”), but in its further logical development or direct logical conclusion in relation to the Third Divine Hypostasis (“The Holy Spirit, as a creature of the creature, i.e. the Son, is not consubstantial with the Father and the Son”). In other words, the positive and immediate problem bl. Augustine, as an apologist for the Divine dignity of the Holy Spirit in the fight against pneumatomachs, was reduced to proving “όμοουσιότης,” but not the Son, but the Third Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity - the Holy Spirit. And in connection with this new task of literary polemics, Bl. Augustine has a new definition of the immanent relations of the Holy Spirit to God the Father and God the Son, a different understanding by Augustine of the hypostatic property of the Holy Spirit. The goals of the anti-Dukhobor polemic, apparently, were more successfully achieved by establishing the hypostatic relations of the Holy Spirit to God the Father alone. Thus, the same dogmatic opponent of Bl. Augustine - Arianism, but only in the form of Doukhoborism, was given by Bl. Augustine has reason and reason to present the personal relationship of the Third Divine Hypostasis to God the Father in the spirit of the Eastern Fathers of the Church (without any complicity of the Son). That’s why,” notes the Old Catholic prof. Langen, - Augustine “very often, like the Greek fathers, considers it sufficient to say: the Son is born of the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. He does this precisely against the Arians, whose teaching forced them to insist on the idea that the Son and the Spirit were not created from nothing, but both came from the Father.” 1121 To place the Son in a culpable relation to the Holy Spirit through the recognition of the causal or even only mediatory participation of the Son in the procession of the Holy Spirit, of course, could not be included in the circle of interests of the anti-Dukhobor polemicist, and this very thought, as favorable for the Arian subordinationism of the Third Hypostasis, bl. Augustine in such cases is usually obscured or hushed up. In these cases, the Son of God is no longer exalted. Augustine above the Holy Spirit, on the contrary, both of them are placed on the same level, namely “Patri coordinati”. Hence it turns out that “in the same works in which Augustine reveals the “Filioque” so thoroughly and convincingly, he, without hesitation, uses the above-mentioned formula (of the Eastern Fathers of the Church).” 1122 But even these mutual relations of the Divine Hypostases, which are revealed by Augustine in his criticism of Doukhoborism, according to the thought of Blessed. Augustine, were supposed to explain nothing other than the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, the identity of the nature of the Three Persons, Their communion by nature. The special question about the mode of existence of the Holy Spirit or the way He received His existence did not capture the theological attention of Blessed. Augustine was not of immediate interest to him. In this case, about bl. Augustine can be said the same as about another church writer of the West, an older contemporary of Blessed Virgin Mary. Augustine and the anti-Apian polemicist - specifically about St. Hilary of Pictavia. “The teaching of Hilary about the Holy Spirit,” notes one of our contemporary Russian researchers, Prof. A.P. Orlov, “adjacent to that stage of the historical development of this dogma when it had not yet become a special subject of church dogmatic thought.” 1123 Teaching bl. Augustine about the ontological principle of the hypostatic existence of the Holy Spirit, especially in his Arian polemics, despite his frequent and lengthy discussions about the Holy Spirit in general, just like St. Hilaria, was not revealed specifically and therefore with the proper completeness, clarity, distinctness and certainty. This is because the question of the special raison d'être of the Holy Spirit was not yet of any particular interest to the theological thought of the era we are considering. In exactly the same way as with Hilary, the teaching of Bl. Augustine about the special ontological principle of the existence of the Holy Spirit is expounded (and because of this is sometimes obscured) in connection and by analogy with the origin of the Son from the being of the Father and His consubstantiality with the Father, which was also, of course, caused by considerations and required by the interests of his anti-Arian polemics. In a word, in those cases when Augustine had to defeat the main Arian dogma about the Son, the Western Father of the Church we are studying, in order to maximize the possible exaltation of the Divine dignity of the Son, draws on the dogma about the Holy Spirit (he is looking for a fulcrum for his logology in the sphere of Trinitarian pneumatology) and attributes to the Son His culpable participation in the eternal bringing into existence of the Holy Spirit and in this way elevates in the eyes Arian of the Son of God, even at the cost of some kind of humiliation (subordination to Him by being) of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, in those cases when it was necessary to refute the further conclusion logically following from this Arian premise in relation to the Holy Spirit, Augustine, on the contrary, keeping silent about the causal relationship between the Son and the Spirit or about any mediatory participation of the Son in the ontological origin of the Holy Spirit, puts them Both (at the beginning of Their existence) are on the same level or in a completely identical relationship to the Father. In the first case, Augustine, bringing the Son closer to the Father and removing the Spirit from the Son, contrasts the existence of the two First Ones with the Third; in the latter case, alienating the Son from the Father and bringing the Spirit closer to the Son, he contrasts the latter two with the First in the same respect. This, by the way, explains that the teaching of Bl. Augustine about the Holy Spirit and His immanent relationship to the Father and the Son represents, as it were, two orders of thought, conditioned by his refutation of two different points of the Arian error. These are Augustine’s contradictory, or at least not entirely consistent with each other, formulas about the personal relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, some of which are favorable for understanding them in the Western Catholic sense, while others apparently provide grounds for interpreting them in the spirit of the Eastern Orthodox Church. What is the ideological struggle of Bl. Augustine with Western Arianism could indeed, to some extent and in a certain sense, determine the filioquistic image of the ideas of the bl. Augustine about the procession of the Holy Spirit; other facts of a similar nature, external or external to Augustine, can serve as proof of this. In this case we mean the trinitarian-pneumatological views of the eastern, namely Alexandrian, church writers, formulated partly in their literary polemics with the Arians and Arian theologians of the antiochene direction opposite to them. Considering and presenting the history of the Church during the period of the ecumenical councils from the point of view of the dogmatic struggle between two theological parties of that time (Alexandrian and Antiochian), our famous Russian historian of the ancient Church A.P. Lebedev says this about the teaching about the Holy Spirit of the Orthodox church writers - the Alexandrians (in comparison with the teaching about the same by representatives of the Antiochian theological school). “The teaching of Orthodox theologians is wonderful,” says Prof. Lebedev, - Alexandrians about the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son of God. The Arian Antiochians, avoiding the doctrine of close communion of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, managed to separate the Spirit from communion with the Son, to delineate Him differently from the Son. By this they thought to escape Sabellianism, this ghost that haunted them. This is not what we find among Orthodox writers, bound together by the unity of the Alexandrian theological trend. The Fathers placed the Holy Spirit in close relationship with the Son of God. Despite the Arian division, they brought Them closer together. The main intention of the fathers was the following: since the Son of God for them is undoubtedly the True God, consubstantial with the Father, as the Council of Nicaea proclaimed this - a truth that was obvious to them and did not require proof, then by bringing the Spirit closer to the Son they wanted to confirm the idea that the Spirit is as consubstantial in the Trinity as the Son. Based on the first truth, they wanted to clarify the second... Wanting to confirm the idea of ​​the sincere communion of the Spirit with the Son, some fathers sometimes expressed themselves in such a way as if they were close to believing in the causal connection of the Son and the Spirit.” 1124 Finally, in a number of probable reasons or favorable conditions that contributed to the origin and development in the theological consciousness of Bl. Augustine’s “filioquism”, it seems to us that poor knowledge of the bl. Augustine of the Greek language and, in connection with this, his insufficient acquaintance with Greek-Oriental writing in general, and with the theological teaching of the Eastern Fathers of the Church about the Holy Spirit in particular. What the fuck Augustine was not well acquainted with the Greek language, as he himself repeatedly admits in his writings. “I have accomplished very little (perparum), even almost nothing (et prope nihil) in studying the Greek language,” says Bl. Augustine in one of his anti-Donatic works." 1125 The same confession is repeated by Bl. Augustine and in his other major work “De Trinitate” in relation to issues related to the development of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. “As for the Greek language, here,” says Bl. Augustine, “there is no such skill in it that we are capable of properly reading and understanding books that treat these subjects (i.e., issues related to the development of Trinitarian dogma).” 1126 Poor knowledge of bl. Augustine of the Greek language, which he himself repeatedly and openly declared, did not allow him in his time to become more closely and comprehensively, more fully and deeply acquainted with the teaching of the Holy Trinity by Eastern church writers and with the theological tradition of this teaching that existed in his time in the East, with its distinctive features and characteristic features; and the Western theological tradition of this teaching, well known to him as a son of the West, as we have already shown above, on the contrary, could the theological thought of the bl. Augustine, on the path of his trinitarian studies, is inclined to lean towards filioquistic tendencies. Of course, with what has been said, we do not at all think of denying the idea that Bl. Augustine was generally familiar with the theology of the Greek fathers, at least, for example, such outstanding ones as St. Athanasius of Alexandria, the three Great Cappadocians or John Chrysostom and others, but the Eastern Fathers of the Church became available to Blessed. Augustine only subsequently and then not directly. In general, knowledge of bl. Augustine's Greek-Eastern patristics were not deep and left much to be desired. The conviction that Bl. Augustine was not well-read in Greek patristic literature, a characteristic not only of Eastern but also of Western theologians themselves. “Bl.’s poor school performance. Augustine in Greek, says, for example, the Russian secular researcher Bl. Augustina Prof. V. Guerrier, had a significant influence on his education. They delayed his acquaintance with Greek patristics and philosophy, which he later became acquainted with in a roundabout way through translations.” 1127 Our famous Russian historian-theologian, the late prof. V.V. Bolotov, resolutely denying the connection between the teachings of Bl. Augustine on the procession of the Holy Spirit with the teaching of the same Greek fathers, notes: “can it be disputed that Augustine was not an expert in the teaching of the Eastern fathers of the church?” “Even though he was a deep thinker, doesn’t he stand in history as an isolated figure?” 1128 The same is stated by our other Russian historian-theologian, the now living prof. Petrograd Spirit. Academy of A.I. Brilliantov, quite competent in this matter. “If the closest relation of bl. Augustine’s teaching on the Holy Trinity to Eastern theology on historical grounds and cannot be determined with accuracy, then this is not of particular importance, since he goes in his attempt (to rationally construct the church teaching on the Holy Trinity) in a completely special way and is completely original.” 1129 Exactly the same point of view on the issue we are discussing (about the independence and originality of the Trinitarian construction of St. Augustine and its almost complete independence from Eastern and even Western church writers) is shared by the contemporary luminary of historical theology in the West, Professor of the University of Berlin A. Harnack. The latter says: “one must certainly agree with Reuter’s position that Augustine made very little use of the Trinitarian studies of (not only) Greek but also Latin church writers.” 1130 An important aspect of the circumstance we noted is that it could in some way detach the theological thought of Bl. Augustine from the traditional soil of Eastern patristic theology and made his own experience of theological and philosophical speculation about the Holy Trinity to a certain extent alien to the spirit and peculiarities of the theology of the Greek Church and its primordial traditions. The same circumstance, with the freedom, breadth and integrity of patristic thinking, unusual for our time and even now not entirely clear to us, not yet constrained (as now) by the narrow framework for all obligatory authorities and the endless “rubrics” of modern systems of dogmatic theology, could carry the mobile, original and original mind of the Great Western Father even beyond the boundaries of the church. It is not surprising after this if bl. Augustine, setting himself the task of completing what seemed to him unclear and incomplete teaching about the Holy Spirit of the expositors of Holy Scripture who preceded him, 1131 i.e. fathers and teachers of the Church, could come to a new and original for patristic literature, the siecific-Augustinian “Filioque”. In the above-mentioned conditions of literary and theological activity of Bl. Augustine, i.e., given the theological uncertainty of the question of the manner of the procession of the Holy Spirit in the patristic literature contemporary to Augustine, as well as the comparative freedom and liveliness of theological thought contemporary to him, his unique teaching on the “Filioque” could have arisen in him and circulated freely among the believers of his Church, without encountering opposition from representatives of the theological and ecclesiastical consciousness of that time. This could have happened all the more easily since in the eyes of both Augustine himself and those to whom it was proposed, it had the meaning of a simple theological opinion or a school, scientific-philosophical assumption, and not an obligatory subject of general church belief. Given the conditions in which this special thesis of the teaching about St. The spirit in church theology contemporary to Augustine, and in what general form was the scientific and theological activity of representatives of the church consciousness of the patristic era under consideration, Bl. Augustine, it seems, could think “that it was in the will of the fathers of Orthodoxy to teach about the Holy Spirit one way or another” and did not seem to take into account, at least in relation to this point of Trinitarian pneumatology, that “the holy fathers only defended and revealed the teaching of Revelation, without adding anything of their own.” 1132 We will allow ourselves to finish our thoughts regarding the filioquistic concept of Augustine’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit and its objective-historical and subjective-psychological causes and foundations with a few, but valuable words of our Great Bolotov. “Not much good,” says this outstanding representative of Russian church-historical and theological science, who is fully aware of the particular issue we are considering, “not much good would be promised by the attempt of the Russians - in the teaching of Augustine about the Holy Trinity in general and about the Holy Spirit in particular - to find only the ϑεολογούμενον of the Eastern Fathers of the Church, but I also doubt who be that as it may, it is scientifically right to depict the Eastern fathers only as predecessors of Augustine, so that “in Augustino patet, quod in Orientalibus latet.” Is it possible to dispute that Augustine was not an expert in the teachings of the Eastern Church Fathers? He may have been a deep thinker, but doesn’t he stand in history as an isolated figure? And isn’t Augustinian ϑεολογούμενον (about the Holy Trinity in general and about the procession of the Holy Spirit in particular) more like φιλοσοφούμενον? The cornerstone concepts of Eastern ϑεολογούμενον: Πατήρ, ϒὶός-Λόγος, Πνεῦμα are taken literally from Holy Scripture: can this be said about Augustine’s “mens ipsa, notitia mentis, amor - memoria, intelligentia, voluntas"? The Greek fathers and Augustine followed their own independent paths in theology and came to two not at all identical ϑεολογούμενα.” 1133 § 8. Assessment of “Augustinian filioquism” from church-dogmatic and church-historical points of view (coordination of the so-called “Filioque” of St. Augustine with his high church-teaching authority) Having “stated” on the previous pages of this part of our study the “fact” of the so-called “Augustinian filioquism” and, for our part, if possible, “explained” this “fact” with reasons and conditions of an objective-historical and subjective-psychological nature, after all these “praemissis praemittendis”, in conclusion of this part of our essay we propose to give a brief assessment of the above-described and highly motivated specifically Augustinian “Filioque” from church-dogmatic and church-historical points of view. In connection with this formulation of the question and one way or another of its solutions, an answer will be given to the particular question of how to reconcile the above-established “filioquism” of Bl. Augustine with the high teaching authority that Augustine enjoyed in the ancient, still undivided Church, both Western and Eastern, and which the general Church consciousness retains for him to this day. 1134 – Usually this question is resolved from the angle of a dilemma: either Augustine is Orthodox, and then, therefore, his views about St. The Spirit also serve as an expression of the Orthodox ancient ecumenical teaching about this - or, on the contrary, his teaching about the Holy Spirit in question contains some signs of deviation of his theological consciousness from the general church norm, and, therefore, in this case, Augustine is not Orthodox, and certainly not a saint, not a father and not a teacher of the Church. But this dilemma, within the framework of which the above issue is resolved, can be expanded into a trilemma. The third member of the latter can be the affirmation or assumption of the thought that Augustine, expressing in a certain sense and meaning the “Filioque,” ​​was nevertheless (or at least could have been or thought of in the church consciousness) a generally Orthodox and even authoritative teacher of the Christian Church of the era of its united, undivided existence (which he invariably remains to this day). This last conclusion can be reached in two logical ways. We can say that bl. Augustine, expressing a heretical or sinful, from a dogmatic point of view, opinion about the manner of the procession of the Holy Spirit, could, for one reason or another, still remain an Orthodox thinker in the eyes of his contemporary Church and the Church that followed him and not arouse any criticism against himself (at least until a certain time). But the same conclusion (about the Orthodoxy of St. Augustine) can be reached in another way: namely through the denial of any dogmatic meaning behind Augustine’s “Filioque”, which, according to the indicated second view, both Augustine himself and the Church (at least his and the time closest to him) were considered, accepted and assessed as acceptable - along with others - a private theological opinion without any relation to the question of its dogmatic meaning, meaning and grounds. The first way of solving the question we posed allows for the existence in the views of the bl. Augustine has a sinful or erroneous opinion or error about the Holy Spirit and tries to explain it in a sense that is more or less favorable to Augustine’s Orthodoxy. How does he achieve this? First of all, according to the court of the defenders of Bl. Augustine, this “filioquism”, which acquired such a turbulent history in the subsequent era of church life, due to the obscurity, darkness and instability of this teaching, already among the bl. Augustine, could not be obvious to everyone and therefore could not be known to everyone. Perhaps there were those who found it possible for themselves to understand and explain it in a completely Orthodox sense, in the spirit of the faithful teaching of the ancient universal Church. Completely unknown to some, directly unobvious to others and, finally, understood in the Orthodox sense by others, the filioquism of Bl. Augustine could, naturally, speak very freely in the ancient Church, without arousing opposition against himself from anywhere and without bringing any doubts or criticism to his culprit or supporters. But there is no particular obstacle to admit that even as a directly heretical opinion or judgment of a clearly heretical nature, Augustine’s “Filioque” could exist for quite a long time in the Western Church of the period under consideration and find very convenient and favorable soil for its initial emergence and further development. To confirm the validity of this assumption of ours, we will refer to two very authoritative contemporary historians and theologians, one of whom, according to his official position, belongs to the Orthodox East, and the other to the heterodox West. We mean prof. on the History of the Ancient Church in the Imperial Petrograd Orthodox Spirit. Academy of A.I. Brilliantov and occupying the same department at the Imperial University of Berlin, a Protestant in his confessional convictions, Prof. A. Harnack. “If officially,” notes the first of the church-historical authorities we named, “the symbol, like an unchangeable law, stood high in the Western Church of the first centuries, with its brief and definite expressions, apparently warning the possibility of the emergence of errors, then in reality, under this apparent certainty there was hidden only the vagueness of ideas, and under the cover of official confession, a much larger number of directly heretical opinions could circulate in Western society and even among members of the clergy than was the case.” in the east, only these opinions, in the absence of common theoretical interests, remained there only private opinions." 1135 The above can also be applied to Augustinian filioquism, of course, if we consider the opposite “ἐϰ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός” already at that time as stated and formulated by the Church as a dogma, and, consequently, “Filioque” as a heresy. It seems possible to make the above-mentioned application because in the composition of the Augustinian opinion under consideration there is obvious darkness and obscurity of Augustine’s own ideas about this point of Christian dogma, and the non-obviousness of his non-Orthodox decision for others and some of its novelty (originality) from the point of view of the primordial church tradition of the faith. The high scientific authority of Bl. Augustine, this, according to established opinion, the real culprit of filioquistic views in the West, and his outstanding services to the Church in the field of theological science and church-practical life, could, of course, consolidate this non-Orthodox teaching among his many students and admirers in the western half of the Christian world. It is all the easier to assume this because this Augustinian view, even in the time of Augustine himself, was not completely unknown to the West and was in all respects absolutely new. After all, even in Augustine himself it could not have appeared “ex abrupto”, without any preliminary historical preparations: one might think that it had some precedents for itself (at least in the form of simple premises) even in the early - pre-Augustinian - church literature of the West. (See, for example, the works of Dionysius of Rome, Novatian, Tertullian, Hilary, Ambrose). The second of the above-mentioned representatives of contemporary church-historical science Prof. A. Harnack, characterizing the peculiar situation in the West of many dogmatic issues - a situation arising from the special cultural, historical, national, everyday and other conditions of the ancient Western Latin Church - says the following about this. 1136 “They (Cyprian and Augustine), as Christians and men of the Church, nevertheless revolve in such a complex of ideas and questions that ... can have little in common with dogma” ... Then, below, the Western scientist we quote cites as proof of this position a number of examples illustrating the presence of clearly erroneous, from a church-dogmatic point of view, opinions and views among Bl. Augustine and his friend Alypius, in Hilary, Optatus, Hippolytus, Ambrose and again in Augustine. 1137 Let us dwell briefly on the latter, citing from here a few of many. “Incomparably more instructive,” notes A. Harnack in this regard, “is what Augustine tells us, [Confess. VII, 19 (25)] about his own and his friend Alypius’s Christological faith, dating back to that time in their lives when both of them were already, so to speak, on the threshold of the Catholic Church and were preparing to enter its fold. And, however, already at this time Augustine thought about Christ in approximately the same way as Photinus, and Alypius denied Christ a human soul.” 1138 But both of them considered their Christology to be catholic and only later came to the realization of the need for its church correction.” “They believe,” concludes Prof. A. Harnack, “although Augustine received a Catholic upbringing and subsequently moved among Catholics, it is still clearly noticeable that in the West Christological formulas were little known even at the end of the 4th century and (thanks to this) very diverse Christologies were actually spreading there.” 1139 What A Harnack said above can partly shed light on the state in the Augustinian era among the believers of the Western Church - not only the laity, but also the clergy - and the theological issue we are considering. Judging by the analogy with the above-described state in the West of the Christological formulas of church teaching, the same can be said about some Trinitarian formulas in general and about formulas regarding the Holy Spirit in particular. Among the latest formulas, freely, thanks to the above-mentioned conditions, circulated at that time in the Western Church, there could be those that contained directly or indirectly expressed heretical opinions. Of course, they could find access to Augustine’s writings and not encounter protest or opposition even in church circles of that time (especially in view of the high authority of Augustine himself during his lifetime). From this point of view, it is also explained that in the Orthodox East Bl. Augustine was not recognized, or at least is not now recognized, as a holy father, but only as a blessed teacher of the Church. The reason for this phenomenon, according to our point of view, lies in some errors in his dogmatic thought or even in his purely Western theological opinions, which require some adjustments from a strictly ecclesiastical point of view or from the point of view of the Eastern church symbolic and theological tradition. Thus, from the point of view of the first view described above, which agrees with Augustine’s “filioquism” with his Orthodoxy, we can say that, while dogmatically expressing the Filioque and therefore sinning against the dogmatic ancient ecumenical teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit, Augustine, on the other hand, was and remains completely Orthodox and strictly ecclesiastical in the remaining points of his theology; He is the same in another form of his service to the Orthodox Church - namely in the pastoral-public field (in the oral and written struggle against contemporary paganism, Judaism and numerous heresies and schisms). In what has been said, one can find an explanation for the attitude that Augustine and his teaching about the Holy Spirit received towards themselves, both from his closest contemporaries and from later generations. Being mistaken in one point of the dogmatic teaching of the Church and developing strictly Orthodox theology on other issues of Christian dogma, Augustine, moreover, in his numerous, thoughtful and edifying works, bequeathed to his posterity a very rich spiritual heritage - lofty and extremely valuable examples of explaining the sources of Christian knowledge on almost all the most important points of church doctrine and moral teaching. From them, as from an inexhaustible well of Christian wisdom, entire generations of the Christian world still draw for themselves abundant spiritual food. Hence the high respect for Augustine. Therefore, accepting those of his thoughts and views, in which he is an accurate and excellent exponent and interpreter of the teachings of the Church, one can and should disagree with those points of his views in which he, for one reason or another, deviated from church orthodoxy. The latter could sometimes happen to him even unconsciously and involuntarily, or could only be obtained in those cases if direct logical conclusions were drawn from Augustine’s provisions, which he himself, however, did not do, often warning others against them. In addition, the above aberration of the theological consciousness of Bl. Augustine on the issue under consideration about the Holy Spirit could be excused, by the way, also because the Church of his time had not yet expressed its final competent judgment on this special issue, thus providing its individual representatives with a very wide field for free theology in this area. 1140 Moreover, the polemics in which Bl.’s own thoughts were revealed and formulated. Augustine on this issue, especially his literary struggle with the Arians, could also in a certain way determine the filioquistic nature of the ideas of Bl. Augustine, or at least incline his theological thought towards him, as we showed in our place above. 1141 It would be unfair to strictly condemn a church polemicist for the fact that in some polemical passion, out of zeal for the Church of God and its truth, he sometimes, perhaps unconsciously and involuntarily, allowed some extreme or careless opinions or expressions - from the point of view of only later the truth clarified in detail and precisely formulated by the Church. At the same time, you need to pay attention to how exactly the bl. Augustine expressed or expounded his teaching about the Holy Spirit: as the teaching of Christ and the apostles, as the faith of all Christians or the entire Church - or, on the contrary, as his personal, private opinion, subjective view, as a simple theological-philosophical assumption or scientific view, which does not have the authority of apostolic origin or the seal of church sanction and therefore does not at all claim to have universally binding force and significance. One should not lose sight of how close or far this specific Augustinian “Filioque” stands to the living source of ancient church or apostolic tradition: how close in its spirit and form it is to the main meaning of the strictly ecclesiastical ancient apostolic and ancient patristic teaching about the Holy Spirit and how far it stands from the later invented Roman Catholic dogma “Filioque”. Finally, Augustine’s lack in this case [on the issue under consideration] of the correctness and accuracy of theological thinking, which requires church correction, could also find some justification in the imperfection of dogmatic terminology contemporary to Augustine, which by that time had not yet received the proper definition and stability in theological science. 1142 It would be impossible to incriminate Augustine for something that, apart from his consciousness and will, could directly and directly, or only indirectly, flow both from Augustine himself and from other writers, from the above-mentioned terminological defects of contemporary church science. Thus, looking at the teachings of Bl. from the above point of view. Augustine about the Holy Spirit and His mutual relationship with the Father and the Son, we can easily be convinced that this is his seemingly new, apparently having no basis in ancient patristic tradition and therefore non-Orthodox, or at least not infallible, view of the Holy Spirit and His personal relationship with the Father and Son, he himself expressed and proposed to believers, for the most part carefully, in the form of a simple personal opinion, by no means claiming infallibility or obligatory authority. That modest, cautious and unpretentious form in which the bl. Augustine, this is his opinion, clearly shows that Bl. Augustine, without denying and even admitting the possibility of another, more correct way of resolving this issue, for his part, apparently, reveals a readiness to even abandon this opinion of his if it turns out that it may contradict or deviate from the general church belief of the ancient universal Church. And although not always and not everywhere Augustine’s “ex Filio, a Filio, Filioque, principaliter, Spiratio Patris et Filii, Pater et Filius – unum Spiritus Sancti principium, Spiritus Sanctus – una spiratio Patris et Filii” etc. can be “be nigna interpretatione” explained in the spirit of the teachings of the Eastern Fathers or weakened by understanding in the sense of per Filium = δι’ ϒἰοῦ, however, in these cases, Augustine did not think and did not want to consciously deviate or contradict the apostolic and paternal faith of the ancient universal Church, the binding power of which he fully recognizes and before the high authority of which he reverently bows, in which many of Bl.’s own expressions are indisputable and convince us. Augustine. 1143 The above considerations determine, or at least can determine, our attitude to Augustine’s view under consideration, and to himself, as its spokesman and, in a sense, its culprit. If bl. Augustine expressed - even if only in the form of his personal theological and philosophical opinion - the filioquistic doctrine of the Holy Spirit, then, without belittling many of the real merits of this outstanding man of patristic antiquity and without discrediting other points of his dogmatic system, one can, however, assume that in this case he sinned or was mistaken. The practical conclusion from this is that, while maintaining our full respect for Augustine and our obligation to follow him in general, we, on the other hand, are at the same time free not to follow him and even have the right to be critical of him - precisely to that point of his teaching in which he does not maintain a strictly ecclesiastical point of view. This is, firstly. Secondly, the considered filioquistic doctrine of Bl. Augustine, as a private, although perhaps not his individual opinion, cannot be placed on an equal footing, much less above the general Church belief on this issue: the authority of a private, even very respected, father or teacher of the Church, as, of course, cannot be preferred or opposed (as equal to equal) to the authority of the entire (universal) Church. In this case, the following remark, quite acceptable to us, by Thomas Aquinas, that highest and incomparable authority of Western medieval scholasticism (doctor angelicus), deserves mention. In his words, “Ipsa doctrina catholicorum doctorum ab Ecclesia auctoritatem habet; unde magis standum est auctoritati Ecclesiae, quam auctoritati vel Augustini vel Hieronymi vel cujuscunque doctoris.” 1144 An example of such an attitude towards the opinions of individual representatives of the church consciousness of patristic antiquity is shown to us by Augustine himself, who literally says the following on this matter: “Non accipio, quod de baptizandis haereticis beatus Cyprianus sensit, quia hoc Ecclesia non accipit, pro qua beatus Cyprianus sanguinem fudit.” 1145 Discussed “opinion” bl. Augustine about the image of the procession of the Holy Spirit could and can meet with a similar critical attitude also for the following reasons and grounds. Teaching authority bl. Augustine, although a very popular, but still a Western father and teacher of the local Church, in the East, among the autocephalous Eastern churches, may not have had such a high and such obligatory significance, meeting itself with an equivalent counterbalance in another kind of “opinions” on this subject of the same authorities of the Eastern Church and a slightly different church and theological tradition of this teaching existing in the East. This is how, by the way, such an authoritative representative of church-theological science in the Greek East (in the half of) the 9th century looked at the matter. and a deep connoisseur of ancient paternal writing, like His Holiness Patriarch Photius of Constantinople, who polemicized with Western Latin Rome over the illegal inclusion of the “Filioque” by the Roman Church in the Niceno-Constantinople Creed. 1146 But after all, they can rightly object in this regard, the universal Church, through the mouths of the most authoritative Eastern and Western representatives, moreover, in the era of its undivided existence, precisely during the period of the ecumenical councils and later, approved with high praise Bl. Augustine, his writings and his teaching contained therein, as can be proven by numerous and official documents of patristic literature. After all, the voice of the ancient East-West undivided Christian Church, in the person of individual most authoritative and official representatives and exponents of its scientific-theological and church-dogmatic consciousness and even entire ecumenical councils, most definitely testified to the high teaching and pastoral authority of Blessed. Augustine, as the holy father and teacher of the Christian Church. It is, of course, impossible for any Catholic to ignore this so clearly expressed voice of the ancient universal Western-Eastern Church: everyone who recognizes himself as a true son of the Church must reverently bow before him, and before his indisputable authority any objection must fall silent. But is it not possible in this case, in explaining the phenomenon under consideration, to admit the idea that this is the undoubted and high respect with which many prominent and, of course, unconditionally Orthodox teachers of the ancient Church relate to the personality of Blessed. Augustine, and these highly praiseworthy reviews that they give about the works of St. Augustine and his views contained in them, 1147 actually have the meaning and significance that they state only the general Orthodox character of his church teaching; that they mean only the general ecclesiastical direction of his theology or the ecclesiastical tendencies and tasks of the entire literary and theological activity of Bl. Augustine. We already know that already in the ancient Church Bl. Augustine gained wide and very honorable fame as an Orthodox polemicist and apologist for the church idea [both in the positive theological and philosophical development of issues of the Christian faith and in his long and intense struggle with the numerous and varied enemies of the Church: pagans, Jews, Manichaeans, Donatists, Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, Sabellians, Arians, Doukhobors, Origenists, Priscillianists, Adoptians, etc.]. In other words: wouldn’t it be possible to apply to the blessed. In this regard, Augustine knows the concept of the patristic science of “approbatio Ecclesiae generalis”? As a kind of “approbatio Ecclesiae generalis”, all these laudatory reviews of competent patristic antiquity, of course, cannot extend to all particular points of the theological system of the bl. Augustine, do not sanction them with their authority and do not communicate to them the meaning of the actual expression of the teaching of the universal Church. It would be another matter if some essay by Bl. Augustine (or several works) and his teaching contained in it would become the subject of special consideration and special approval by the highest body of church consciousness and authority, i.e., the ecumenical council (so-called in the language of modern pathological science “approbatio Ecclesiae specialissima”), as the most perfect expression of Orthodox consciousness on this or that issue of the Christian faith. Such, for example, are the anathematisms of St., which received the sanction of ecumenical councils. Cyril of Alexandria, his second letter to Nestorius, his letter to John of Antioch, dogmatic letter of St. Leo Vel. (“tomos”) to Apxiep. Flavian of Constantinople and others. But this, as far as we know, cannot be said about any of Bl.’s works. Augustine. Therefore, as is self-evident, evidence from “competent antiquity” of such a general nature cannot yet serve as a guarantee for the unconditional correctness of each particular point of Augustine’s teaching or each individual thought of his, as an expression of true church consciousness, and does not convey to them the authority of the genuine and accurate teaching of the Church. “Of course, with infallible authority in everything,” says Prof., already quoted by us several times. A.I. Brilliantov, 1148 – 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 true catholic teaching: curandum est, ut id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est (II, [3]): Augustine with this teaching of his the author has in mind when citing 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) et al., XVII (22) et al.]. His disagreement with Augustine, however, should not have precluded him from having high respect for Augustine in other respects, and he wants to 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 appeases Cyprian of Carthage as a martyr, and rejects and condemns the Donatists, who want to base 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 opinionis catholici, consectatores vero haeretici judicantur; absolvuntur magistri, condemnantur discipuli, conscriptores librorum filii regni erunt, adsertores vero gehenna suscipiet" (VI, 11)." It is not difficult to draw conclusions from what has been said in relation to Augustinianism in the field of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. With all that has been said, I think our attitude towards the blessedness should be determined quite clearly. Augustine and his doctrine of the Filioque. However, the principle of this relationship is already established by Augustine himself and, first of all, in relation to himself and his views, when he literally says the following: “Neminem velim sic amplecti omnia mea, ut me sequatur, nisi in iis, in quibus non me erasse perspexerit.” 1149 In this way, it seems to us, it is possible to some extent satisfactorily explain and reconcile the so-called “filioquism” of Augustine, as his erroneous, from the point of view of the later expressed and explained church formula, theological opinion (only an opinion!) with the respect shown by Bl. To Augustine - in the person of its authorized representatives - the ancient universal Church, and what Augustine with his writings attracts to itself at the present time. But, as noted above, the same results, with the agreement of “Augustinian filioquism” with respect for Augustine’s very personality and with laudatory reviews of him by representatives of competent antiquity, apparently can be achieved in another way. The second path to the solution of the thesis we have posed is outlined through the elimination of any dogmatic significance - at least in the history of the ancient universal Church or even only in its Augustinian era - behind the theological question of the “modus procedendi” of the Holy Spirit. From this point of view, both the Western (Filioque) and the Eastern (ἐϰ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός or δι’ ϒἰοῦ) way of resolving the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit in the eyes of representatives of the church consciousness of that time did not yet have any dogmatic significance, and therefore this or that solution (in the sense Filioque, ἐϰ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός or δι’ ϒἰοῦ – indifferent) was left by the Church to free theological opinion. This explains that both one and the other theological opinion (“Filioque” and “ἐϰ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός”) have had for many centuries numerous and very authoritative and even official representatives and spokesmen in the person of not only the scientific-theological, but also the church consciousness of the patristic era. The first method of solving this issue (in the sense of ἐϰ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός) was widespread in the East, the second - especially since the time of Bl. Augustine - has become more or less the common property of the West. The first still serves as a distinctive feature of the Eastern Orthodox Church in the understanding of this teaching about the Holy. Spirit, the second is currently characteristic only of Western Christendom. It is completely understandable and quite natural, from the point of view just indicated, that Augustine, as a Western writer who adopted the Western theological tradition into his theology, expressing his specifically Augustinian Filioque as a personal opinion and further developing in his theological speculation this filioquistic tendency of Western theology, could, without arousing any protest against himself from anyone, not only be considered completely Orthodox, but also be recognized and glorified as a saint - not only in the West, but even in the East. True, the Western Augustinian Filioque, according to the competent judgment of the late prof. V.V. Bolotov “differs 1150 from the eastern ϑεολογούμενον’а (“δι’ ϒἰοῦ”, not to mention the eastern “ἐϰ μόνου τοῦ Πατρός”), and is impossible without a stretch neither can it (Filioque) be explained in the sense of δι’ ϒἰοῦ, nor can the views of the Eastern fathers be interpreted in a sense identical with the Western.” 1151 But on the other hand, prof. V.V. Bolotov, considering the eastern δι’ ϒἰοῦ, expressing the eternal relations of the Divine Persons, found that it would be correct to recognize in view of this “the unity of the soil of Augustinism and the patristic δι’ ϒἰοῦ, resolutely challenging the identity, so to speak, of the very flowers that grew on this common soil in the West and in the East.” 1152 It seems all the more possible to admit this because the thesis: “The Son is neither the author nor the co-author of the “being” (ὒπαρξις) of the Holy Spirit,” (following from the undisputed position that the Father is μόνος αἲτιος, the only author of the Holy Spirit). Spirit), cannot be directly or positively proven on an exact basis and within the official monuments of patristic literature in the era of the single, indivisible existence of the universal Church. “Patristically, it can only be proven in a negative way, since the Augustinian view was not the subject of discussion among the Greek holy fathers, and they, naturally, did not give a special antithesis answer.” 1153 With the acceptance of the same dogmatic assessment of Augustine's Filioque, the following statements of Prof. that follow from this become understandable and, apparently, acceptable to every Orthodox theologian. V.V. Bolotov, partly illuminating Augustinian filioquism from a historical point of view and explaining the tolerant attitude towards it even on the part of representatives of the Eastern Church during the period of its indivisible existence: Thesis 19. “According to the inscrutable destinies of God, proposed as a private opinion of the blessed. Augustine’s Western view was not at that time protested by the Eastern Church.” Thesis 20. “Many Westerners who preached the Filioque to their flocks, meeting no objections from anyone, lived and died in communion with the Eastern 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 the Westerners the personal views of these fathers are sacred.” Thesis 22. “When the Easterners read the Filioque in the synod of St. Martin, they expressed their objections, but this matter was then settled, since the Easterners did not refuse communication with Martin, being satisfied with the statement of his ambassadors, who explained the Filioque in the sense of δι’ ϒἰοῦ 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 Synodik of St. Martina." Thesis 24. “At the beginning of the 9th century. the Jerusalem affair, in any case, did not become a reason for breaking off communion 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. “And 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.” 1154 As a result of the above assessment of the dogmatic meaning of Eastern and Western formulas about the image of the procession of the Holy Spirit and a scientifically objective consideration of them in a strictly historical perspective, prof. V.V. Bolotov was inclined to recognize some elements of dogmatic and historical truth in the Augustinian Filioque, and due to the strength of this, he found it possible, given certain conditions, to treat the Augustinian Filioque condescendingly. In the own words of V.V. Bolotov, whose theological and historical competence, scientific impartiality and remarkably subtle sensitivity to the truth of Orthodoxy are, of course, beyond any doubt, with the adoption of the point of view he established above, “Eastern teaching would be protected from being reinterpreted in the sense of Augustinianism,” and “the grave statement that there is 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).” 1155 As the reader of this part of our work now sees, in the “copiose et diligeriter” Augustinian teaching on the procession of the Holy Spirit, which we have considered, there is no strict certainty and stability, internal integrity and unity, first of all, in Augustine himself, who, in view of the diversity and sometimes inconsistency of his judgments on this issue in various places of his writings, contrary to the well-known position, cannot always serve as “suorum verborum interpres”. Further, as the reader of the previous lines of this part might have noticed, the question about the image of the procession of the Holy Spirit in the Eastern and Western theology of the patristic era does not contain any signs of what is thought in the content of the pathological concept “consensus unanimis Patrum”. And accordingly, all this is absent in relation to the considered point of Augustinian views (about the true meaning and significance of his “filioquism”) and the “consensus unanimis theologorum” of patristic science, both past and present, and both foreign and Russian. While some of the theologians are vigorously and equally ineffectively polemicizing among themselves regarding this “punctum saliens” of the Trinitarian views of the bl. Augustine, wanting to refute each other at all costs, others - at best - set themselves the task, one way or another, to unite the Eastern and Western ways of thinking (about this subject) in one integral view. 1156 But both the first and the second are currently still more or less far from the actual implementation of these tasks and goals they have set for themselves. The main question of this part of our present study, in view of its qualities described above, its position in the scientific literature and the current state of its primary sources, can hardly be resolved or decided categorically: in this way it can only be cut down rather than really resolved in the scientific sense of the word. That is why, if in certain cases one can disagree with the tasks of theologians of the first category, then the tasks and goals of theologians of the second category we mentioned, looking at the matter academically, one can only wholeheartedly welcome and strive in every possible way for their possible and speedy implementation. To sum up the results of the past and provide material for the future implementation of these final tasks is the goal of the author of this work in its present part, during which he strived to achieve this goal to the best of his ability and the strength of his understanding. How far he succeeded in this is, of course, not for him to judge. But if these lines of his, even to the most insignificant degree, directly or indirectly, will be able to contribute to the great and glorious task of realizing this theological task of the future, previously set by others, with the whole range of practical church-unional consequences ensuing from here, then the author considers his modest task has already been completed, and the work put into its implementation is justified: “oleum et operam non perdidi.” ambiguity, instability and vacillation (some duality) of theological judgments of the bl. Augustine on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, hence its disputability, and hence, in turn, (see next note). the extraordinary abundance and variety of different, sometimes to the point of complete opposite, “scientific opinions”, which further complicate the already rather complex (in Augustine’s works) question of the true meaning of this teaching of his. This refers to the undoubted corruption of the text of Augustine's works in his various manuscripts and editions, due to the ignorance, negligence and dogmatic bias of his copyists, editors and publishers. In his essay “De fide et symbolo” Bl. Augustine remarks: "De spiritu sancto autem nondum tam copiose ac diligenter disputatum est a doctis et magnis divinarum Scripturarum tractatoribus, ut intelligi facile possit et Ejus proprium." Migne, Patrol, curs, compl., s. 1, t. 40, col. 191. De fide et symb. 19. Only this can explain the presence in the works of Bl. Augustine (sometimes in the same work) of his various ideas about this subject, unless, of course, we also assume conscious or unconscious damage and distortion of the text of Augustine’s works in later times. For relevant historical and literary facts, see the work of Prof. L.I. Pisareva: “The authority of Augustine, Bishop of Ipponia, in the field of Christian theology according to the court of ancient Christian writers. Kazan, 1903", pp. 6–16. R. M. Lagarde. Noch einmal meine Ausgabe der septuaginta Mitteilungen III. Gottingen. 1889. S. 231. See Chronicle. Read 1908 pp. 1365–1378. Wed. Theologian Vestn. 1908, vol. 2, p. 134. (Scholarly controversy in Russian theological literature regarding the harsh verdict made + by Prof. V.V. Bolotov about the Benedictine editions of patristic works in his Lectures on the history of the ancient church. I. Introduction to Church history. St. Petersburg. 1907, pp. 118–121). Creation St. Athanasia Vel., Apxiep. Alexandria. Serg. Lavra. 1902. Part 1. p. 141. (“Word against the Gentiles,” chapter 12). See A. Kireev. The current situation of the Old Catholic Question. Theologian Vestn. 1908 Month. November, page 424. The above-mentioned treatise constitutes only one chapter (“Das Ausgehen Gottes des hl. Geistes aus dem Vater und dem Sohne.” § 2. SS. 364–389) of the extensive work of the same author: “Des heiligen Augustinus speculative Lehre von Gott dem Dreieinigen. Augsburg. 1865.SS. 1–448". We gave a review of it in the preface to this work. In view of the above-mentioned qualities of the subject treated by the German author, as well as the peculiarities of the author’s language, which create in the aggregate quite a lot of technical difficulties for its transmission in literary-correct, clearly understandable and theologically accurate Russian speech, we present the above-mentioned treatise of the Western theologian in some, albeit minor, revisions. Despite this, we always strived to remain faithful not only to the thought, but, if possible, to the letter of the original. See Protoprev. I. L. Yanyshev. New official and other data for judging the faith of Old Catholics, St. Petersburg. 1902. 73 pp. Note. 2nd. This refers to the whole class of trinitarian psychological analogies outlined above by Gangauf. Augustine, i.e., reflections of the Divine trinity in the final God-like spirit of man, - for example: amans et quod amatur et amor; mens, notitia mentis, amor; memoria, intelligentia, voluntas (sive amor, dilectio), etc. (II. Theil. I. Abschn. § 3. Analogie aus dem inneren Menschen, oder der menschliche Geist in seiner lebendigen Selbstbeziehung mit seiner fest untercheidbaren Dreiheit in seiner Seinseinheit. SS. 240–286). Now (for our finite knowledge) “spiratio” in God already presupposes “generatio”, because if the latter did not exist, then the first would not exist; therefore, the first necessarily exists because the second exists - must exist. But that “generatio” in God cannot be conceived before “spiratio”; that between them no interval of time can, should not be allowed; that both must be conceivable together and eternally, this, as we will see below, Augustine proves with thoroughness and clarity, leaving nothing more to be desired. In the process of human self-awareness, a person's idea of ​​himself or his own image, reflected in the intellect, serves as a means for the emergence of love (amor sui); in the act of Divine self-consciousness, by the very nature of the Absolute, the ratio of the 3 moments of the said act must necessarily be different. And Augustine, who was the first to have the happy idea to base the speculative understanding (mystery) of the Divine Trinity on the process of human self-consciousness, was quite clearly aware of how far this analogy is from its Prototype and to what extent scientific thought, while maintaining its real-objective reliability, must determine itself (guided) by the objective norm of the Divine symbol. Hanne (Idee der Absoluten Persönlichkeit, Hannover. 1861) finds various shortcomings in the teaching of Augustine in question; but on page 366 of the 1st volume of his op. he himself says: “despite all these shortcomings, it is still impossible not to admit that in this case what creates an era (Epochemachende) is what underlies both the integral concept of Augustine’s entire Christian doctrinal system, and especially his presentation and presentation of the Christian concept of God (his philosophical idea of ​​​​God). But this especially needs to be said regarding the starting point of Augustine’s entire religious philosophy, which starts from the real, directly reliable facts of self-consciousness, just as about the analytical and synthetic method of its ascent from the knowledge of a directly given finite personality to the study of the idea of ​​the Absolute Personality. With this method of theological research, Augustine, as is known, was the first to stand on firm footing and the first to pave the more reliable path of speculative theism, which had not yet been completely trodden (not yet completely traversed) in the church.” true, known to the history of the Christian dogma of the Trinity - (P.V.). as a direct result of a speculative analysis of the basic elements and functions of Divine self-consciousness or the self-objectification of the Rational Absolute Spirit by analogy with the same process in the God-like spirit of man. - (P.V.). De Trin. XV, 25. n. 45. L. p. cap. 27 n. 50. Quotations from this note are in the original in extenso. - (P.V.). In illa summa Trinitate, quae Deus est, intervalla temporum nulla sunt, per quae possit ostendi aut saltem requiri, utrum prius de Patre natus sit Filius, et postea de ambobus processerit Spiritus Sanctus. "Non possunt prorsus ista ibi quaeri, ubi nihil ex tempore inchoatur, ut consequenti perficiatur in tempore." L. c. n. 47. Enarr. in p.s. 9 no. 11; Enarr. in 101 ps. serm. 2.n. 10. Note Textual extracts from the works of Augustine, placed by Th. Gangauf, both in the present and in his subsequent footnotes, are given in abbreviation. (P.V.). Quapropter qui potest intelligere sine tempore generationem Filii de Patre, intelligat sine tempore processianem Spiritus Sancti de utroque.– Sed nulla ibi tempora cogitentur, quae habent prius et posterius: quia omnino nulla ibi sunt ..... Pater enim solus non est de alio, ideo solus appellatur ingenitus; Filius autem de Patre natus est: et Spiritus S. de Patre principaliter, et ipso sine illo temporis intervallo dante, communiter de utroque procedit. De Tr. XV, 26 n. 47. In tantum ergo Donum Dei est (=Spiritus S.), in quantum datur eis, quibus datur. Apud se autem Deus est, etsi nemini detur, quia Deus erat Patri et Filio coaeternus antequam cuiquam daretur. L.c. cap. 19 no. 36 cnfr. IV, 21 n. 30; V, 15 n. 16; 16 no. 17. When the Son in the form of a servant (in forma servi) foreshadowed the sending (from Him) of the Holy Spirit, He said, among other things: de meo accipiet etc. etc., - and in connection with this bl. Augustine himself continues further: Nec moveat quòd futuri temporis verbum est, "accipiet": quasi nondum haberet. Indifferenter quippe dicuntur temporis verba, quamvis sine tempore manere intelligatur aeternitas. “Nam et accepit, quia de Patre processit; et accipit, quia de Patre procedit; et accipiet, quia de Patre procedere numquam desinet": sicut Deus et est et fuit et erit; et tamen initium vel finem temporis, nec habet, nec habuit, nec habebit. Contra serm. Arian. c. 24. Et ideo non amplius qnàm tria sunt, unus diligens eum qui de illo est, et unus diligens eum de quo est, “et ipsa dilectio.” Quae si nihil est, quomodo Deus dilectio est? Si non est substantia, quomodo Deus substantia est?” De Trin. VI, 5 n. 7. Quapropter si Sancta Scriptura proclamat, "Deus caritas est"... ipse Spiritus est Deus caritas. – Caritas quippe Patris quae in natura ejus est ineffabiliter simplici, “nihil est aliud quàm ejus ipsa natura atque substantia.” L. s. XV, 19 n. 37. L. c. cap. 17 no. 29; cnf. De fide et symb. c. 9 no. 20. De Trin. VI, 5 n. 7; cfr. XV, 27 n. 50; De Civit. Dei XI, 24. Ausi sunt tamen quidam ipsam communionem Patris et Filii, atque (ut ita dicam) deitatem, quam Graeci ϑεότητα appellant, Spiritum S. credere: ut, quoniam Pater Deus et Filius Deus, ipsa deitas, qua sibi copulantur, et ille gignendo Filium et ille Patri cohaerendo, ei a quo est genitus aequetur. "Hanc ergo deitatem", quam etiam "dilectionem" in se invicem amborum "caritatemque" volunt intelligi, "Spiritum Sanctum" appellatum dicunt. “In Dei substantia non esse aliquid tale, quasi aliud ibi sit substantia, aliud quod accidit substantiae et non sit substantia; sed quidquid ibi intelligi potest, substantia est.” De fide et symb. c. 9 no. 19.20. De Trin. D. XV, 27 n. 48; cf. Tract. 99 in Ev. Joan. n. 9. Serm. 71, p. 16, no. 26 cnfr. Serm. contra Arian. c. 15. Non enim ut Pater generaret Filium, minuit seipsum: sed ita genuit de se alterum qualem se ut totus maneret in se. Spiritus autem S. non praecedit unde procedit, sed integer de intergo, nec minuit eum procedendo, nec auget haerendo. De cant. novo s. 7.enfr. Ep. 170 ad Maxim. n. 5. aequalis est (sc. Patri et Filio) etiam Spiritus S.: et si aequalis, in omnibus aequalis propter summam simplicitatem, quae in illa substantia est. De Trin. VI, 5 n. 7. Omnia, quae habet Pater, non tantum Filii, sed etiam Spiritus Sancti sunt. L. s. II, 4. n. 6.cfr. I, 6 n. 13. Quidquid est Pater quod Deus est, hoc Filius, hoc Spiritus Sanctus. Enarr. in Ps. 68 serm. 1 n. 5.cf. Ep. 170 ad Maxim. n. 5. St. Augustine assimilates the same Divine properties to the Spirit as to God the Father and God the Son. For example, invisibility and immutability - De Trinit. II, 5 n. 10; omnipresence – 1. p. n. 7 cnfr. Contra Maxim. Arian. II, 21 n. 2; omnipotence – Contra Maxim. Arian. II, 17 n. 1; omniscience – ibid. 15 no. 4; truth – Contra serm. arianor. - With. 30 n. 28; the holiness which is attributed to Him par excellence - ibid. With. 32 n. 30; wisdom – De Trin. VII, 3, n. 6, etc. Quemadmodum enim Pater Deus est, et Filius Deus est, et Spiritus S. Deus est, quod secundum substantiam dici nemo dubitat. De Trin. V, 8 n. 9 cfr. XV, 17 n. 31; With. 18 no. 32; With. 19 no. 36; With. 20 n. 39, where Augustine concludes by saying: video me de Spiritu S. in isto libro secundum Scripturas S. hoc disputasse, quod fidelibus sufficit scientibus jam Deum esse Spiritum S., nec alterius substantiae, nec minorem quàm est Pater et Filius... Serm. 214 n. 10 cfr. Epist. 170 ad Maxim, n. 5. Quotes from the Holy Scriptures. In the Scriptures, Augustine proves to the Arians the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. in his writings: Contr. Maxim. Ar. I, 11; II, 3; With. 21 no. 1–3; Collat. With. Maxim. Ar. n. 14; Contra serm. Ar. c. 19; De Trin. 1, 6, 13; Epist. 238 ad Pasc. c. 4 n. 21; Enchirid. c. 56 n. 15; Quest. in Exod. II, 59. The “λατρεία” rejected by the pneumatomachian Arians in relation to the Holy Spirit is proven: Contr. serm. Ar. With. 20; With. 29 n. 27; Contr. Maxim. Ar II, 26, n. 6; De Trin. I, 6, n. 13. Nolite dubitare, Deum esse Spiritum Sanctum Et nolite addere quasi tertinm Deum: quia Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus unus est Deus. Sic credite. De symb. c. 5 n. 12. Prof. Th. Gangauf here condemns the idealistic trinitarian construction of Feuerbach (see Feuerbach. Wesen des Christentums. S. 76), which transforms the living faces of the Holy Trinity into abstract impersonal moments. Wed. previous note 1025–1028. Amborum eum dicere sanctitatem facilius ausus fuero, non amborum quasi qualitatem, sed ipsum quoque substantiam, et tertiam in Trinitate personam. De Civit. Dei XI, 24. See note. 1010 and 1028. Cnfr. De Trin. VII, 3.6 Tract. 99 in Ev. Joan. n. 5. cfr. ib. n. 4; Contra serm. Arian. c. 23 no. 20. Ille Spiritus Sanctus (Augustine here emphasizes the word ille, because the Father is Spiritus and at the same time Sanctus, just as the Son is also Spiritus and Sanctus, and God, as the Triune, is also Spiritus and Sanctus; and therefore ille Spiritus S.), qui non est Trinitas, sed in Trinitate intelligitur, in eo quod proprie dicitur Spiritus S., relative dicitur , c ù m et ad Patrem et ad Filium refertur , quia Spiritus S. et Patris et Filii Spiritus est. – De Trin. V, 11 n. 12; cf. Epist. 238 ad pascent. c. 2 n. 15. Alius est autem (sc. Spiritus S.), quàm Pater et Filius, quia nec Pater est nec Filius: sed alius dixi, non aliud. De Civ. D. XI, 10; Epist. 239 ad pascent. n. 3. Quid est autem amare se, nisi sibi praesto esse velle ad fruendum se? Et cùm tantum se vult esse quantum est, par menti voluntas est, et amanti amor aequalis. De Trin. IX, 2. Ille igitur ineffabilis quidam complexus Patris et Imaginis non est sine perfruitione, sine caritate, sine gaudio. Illa ergo dilectio, delectatio, felicitas vel beatitudo, si tamen aliqua humana voce digne dicitur, usus ab illo appellatus est breviter, et est in Trinitate Spiritus S. non genitus, sed genitoris genitique suavitas. L. s. VI, 10, 11 cf. De Civ. Dei XI, 11. Audite et intelligite, si potestis: credimus autem quia ipse qui nos posuit haec vobis dicere, dabit vobis etiam posse et intelligere. Deus nullo indiget bono, ipse est summum bonum, et ab ipso est omne bonum. - Enarr. in p.s. 70 serm. 2 n. 6. Contra adversar. Leg. et Prophet. I, p. IV, no. 6. See Von einem russischen Theologen. Thesen über das “Filioque” (Internat. theolog. Zeitschrift. 24 Heft. 1898. 681–712 Wed. Russian translation. Christ. Reading. 1913 Months May–June (and sec.) Dr. J. Langen . Die trinitarische Lehrdifferenz zwischen der abendländischen und morgenländischen Kirche. Bonn. 1876. S. 74. Theses on the Filioque and Transubstantiation. Kazan, 1900. (Reprint from “Orthodox Sobes”, 1901, pp. 3–39). Protocols of the St. Petersburg Department of the Society of Spiritual Enlightenment. Part 1, pp. 99–100. N. Bogorodsky. The teaching of St. John of Damascus, St. Petersburg. the consciousness of this identity, its affirmation, as the 2nd moment in the process of self-consciousness, is a necessary psychological condition of the latter, the conditio, sine qua non of even human self-consciousness, and therefore, according to Gangauf’s logic, of the Divine. knowledge, in interaction with which love is simultaneously revealed and developed, is (only) a co-agent of the subject of consciousness and in the process of this disclosure and development of love serves only as its regulator. “The undeniable advantages of the Orthodox Catholic Church over all other Christian confessions.” Chr. Thurs. 1882 Sept.-Oct. See F. Tikhomirov. Treatises by Feofan Prokopovich on God. St. Petersburg 1884 p. 123. The full title of the work under review in its original language is as follows: “Tractatus theologici orthodoxi de processione Spiritus Sancti a Solo Patre, elaborati auctore Adamo Zoernicav, Baturini in parva Russia, anno 1682.–Regimonti 1774.” In view of the fact that the named work is Hell. Zernikava has now already been published in translation into Russian; we do not find it necessary to present its contents in extenso and limit ourselves here to reporting only brief isagogical information about him: those wishing to get acquainted with him are textually referred to his above-mentioned editions directly. Vol. I, pp. 332–341 and 392–415. See below for a glowing review of Hell. Zernikava and his literary works on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit, given by Theoph. Prokopovich in his work Christiana Theologia Orthodoxa. Lipsiae. 1782. Tom. IV, lib. III. De processione Spiritus Sancti. pp. 826.827. Praefatio to ed. tract. Zernikava about the procession of the Holy Spirit. Regimonti. 1774–1775. See Tikhomirov, cit. op. page 122. F. Tikhomirov, op. op. page 123. Theofan Prokopowicz. Christiana Theologia orthodoxa. Lipsiae. 1782. p. 826. “Praefatio” for the publication of treatises by A. Zernikava Regimonti 1774–1775. See F. Tikhomirov. Quote op. p. 123. Note. 1st. Our experience of verifying textual extracts made by A. Zernikav from the works of Bl. according to Migne. Augustine (according to ancient editions of the 16th century), convinced us that he had no false quotations, but on the other hand, however, not all quotations, from a modern point of view, can be considered accurate and correct. There is also no complete coincidence between the text, as it is read by Zernikav, and its edition, which is in the well-known collection of patristic texts of Min. The first circumstance is explained by the fact that the titles of some of the works of Bl. Augustine in the editions used by A. Zernikav correspond to their other names and a slightly different classification of Augustinian works in Min’s edition (for example, Adam Zernikav mentions 3 books of St. Augustine “Contra Maximinum, arianorum episcopum”, while in Min’s edition there are only two of them. This feature of A. Zernikav’s citation is explained by the fact that under the third by the book “Contra Maximinum, ar. ep.” Zernikav means the current [according to Min] 2nd, and by the 2nd - the first book “Contra Maxim., ar. ep.” 1., t. 42, col. 719–742. Or, for example, 66 Epist. Augustini [in Zern.] = 59 Epist. [3rn.] = 149 in Min, etc.). The facts of discrepancies between Zernikav and Min are explained by the fact that the text of Min’s “Patrology”, being later in the time of its publication, was subjected to a more thorough and complete revision (critical verification) and therefore was relatively better restored. To make it easier to use A. Zernikav’s work, he quotes from the works of Bl. Augustine (according to their ancient editions) we offer below to the attention of our readers translated into a modern way of quoting them (according to Min), while preserving Zernikav’s citation. Adam Zernikaw, op. op. vol. 1, ch. III (“On the damages made by the Latins in the writings of the Western Fathers regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son.” “Damages” XIII–XXII [pp. 332–341] refer to the text of Augustinian works. Damage XIII. Augustine's Epistle LXVI, according to the now generally accepted method of quotation, means: Aurelii Augustini Epist. CLXX, no. 4. Migne. Patrol. curs. compl., ser. lat., t. 33, col. 749. Damage XIV. Pawnshop in book I. “Opinions”, section 18 from Book V. Augustine “On the Trinity” = Petri Lombardi Sententiarum lib. I, dist. XVIII, no. 4. Migne, s. 1., t. 192, col. 570 cnfr. August. De Trinitate Dei lib. V, cap. XI, no. 12; Migne, t. 42, col. 919. Damage XV. XV book. Augustine "On the Trinity", XXVII chapter. = De Trinit. D. XV, XXVII, n. 50. Migne, t 42, col. 1097. Damage XVI. XXXVIII word of Augustine “on time” = De Tempore Serm. XXXVIII. Edit. Lovaniens. Theolog. (Maurin.). Parisiis. MDCXXXXV. tom. X, pag. 664 AB. (Append. de divers). Damage XVII. XV book., XXVII chapter. “On the Trinity” = De Trinit. D. XV, XXVII, n. 48. Migne. t. 42, col. 1095–1096 conclusion. in Augustine's XCIX Discourse on the Gospel of John cnfr. Tract. XCIX in Joann. Ev. nn. 8–9. Migne. t. 35, col. 1889–1890. Damage ХVIII. Dialogue “LXV questions” (question XI, vol. IV of the works of Augustine) = Dialogus Quaestionum LXV. Quest. et Resp. XI (Append.). Migne, t. 40, col. 737. XCIX Augustine's Discourse on John = Tract. XCIX in Joann. Ev. n 4. Migne, t. 35, col. 1888. Damage XIX. “On the Trinity” XV book., ch. XVII = De Trinit. D. XV, XVII, 29. Migne, t, 42, col. 1081. Damage XX. “On the Trinity and Unity” ch. V (Vol. IV) = De Trinit. et Unit. Dei, p. V. Migne, t. 42, col. 1198 (Append.). “Against the words of the Arians” Chapter IV. = Contra serm. arianor. With. IV. M.t. 42, col. 686. Damage XXI. “On the Trinity and Unity” ch. X; from Chapter XXI book Aug. "against Apius" = De Trinit. et Unit. D. in ed. Migne, t. 42, col. 1193–1200 has only chapters I–V cnfr. Contra serm. arian. With. XXI. n. 10. M. t. 42, col. 698. Damage XXII. Chapter XXIII “against the speech of the Arians” = Contra serm. arian. cap. XXIII, no. 19. 20. Migne, t. 42, col. 700. "On Trinity and Unity", ch. X. = In ed. Migne (t. 42, col. 1193–1200) op. bl. Augustine De Trinit. et Unit. D. is observed to have only 1–5 ch. "Chapter IV, which proves that the fathers of the Western churches unanimously and in agreement until the end of the 8th century believed in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone." 5th century Augustine, bishop Ipponsky. pp. 392–415. See his book. "against the speech of the Arians", ch. XXIII (vol. IV of his works, Venetian edition 1584, sheet 216) = Contra serm. arian., p. XXIII, n. 19. Migne, t. 42, col. 700. Book I “against (the same) Maximin”, vol. VI, sheet 219–220 = Collatio cum Maxim, n. 5. Migne, t. 42, col. 711–712; n. 9, col. 713; n 11, col. 714. Book II "On the Trinity", ch. III (vol. III, sheet 87) = De Trinit. D. II, III, 5. Migne, t. 42, col. 847–848. C-oe study on John (vol. IX, sheet 158) = Tract. With in Joann. Ev. n. 4. Migne. t. 35, col. 1892–1893. Book “about faith and symbol” (vol. III, sheet 48) = De fide et symbolo p. IX, n. 19. Migne, t. 40. col. 191. Book IV “On the Trinity”, XX chapter. (Vol. III, sheet 104) = De Trinit. D. IV, XX, 29. Migne, t. 42, col. 908. "Manual to Lawrence", ch. IX (vol. III, sheet 51) = Enchirid. ad Laurent. With. IX–3; Russian lane XI, 7. Migne, t. 40, col. 235–236. “On the Trinity” XV book., ch. XVII = De Trinit. D. XV, XVII, 29. Migne, t. 42, col. 1081. Book I “against Maximin”, vol. VI, sheet 225 = Collatio cum Maxim. ar. ep. n. 14. Migne, t. 42, col. 730. Next – sheet 226 = op. cit. n. 15; M.t. 42, col. 733. III book. against the same Maximin, XII ch. = Contra Maximin. ar. episc. lib. II, cap. XII, num. 3. M.t. 42, col. 768–769. Word CXXIX “about time” (vol. X, sheet 292) = De Tempore Serm. CXXIX. Ed. Maureen. t. X, p. 310 D. IV book. Chapter XXI “On the Trinity” (vol. III, sheet 104) = De Trinit. D, IV, XXI, 32. Migne, t. 42, col. 910–912. Book I Chapter VI “literal interpretation of the book. Being" = De Genes. ad litt. I, VI, 12. Migne, t. 34, col. 251; p. item VII, 161. Book I, ch. V "lit. sense on the book Being" = De Genes. ad litt. I, V, 10. M. t. 34, col. 250; p. item VII, 160. Book V, ch. XIII “On the Trinity” = De Trinit. V, XIII, 14. M. t. 42 col. 920. LIX message (at the end) = Epist. CXLIX, p. II, no. 25. Migne, t. 33, col. 641. “Manual to Lawrence” (ch. XXXVIII, vol. III, sheet 55) = Enchirid. ad Laurent. With. XXXVIII, no. 12. Migne, t. 40, col. 251: p. paragraph XI, 32. Book IV, ch. XX “On the Trinity” = De Trinit. D. IV, XX, 28 (finis). M.t. 42, col. 908. Book Chapter V XI “On the Trinity” (vol. III, l. 107) = De Trinit. D. V, XI, 12. M. t. 42, col. 919 Wed. Ch. XIV = op. cit. V, XIV, 15; ibid. col. 920–921. Research "On the Trinity" XII chapter. (on sheet 121) = De Trinit. D. IX, XII, 17. Migne, t. 42, col. 970 cnfr. IX, XII, 18, col. 971. Book XII, ch. V “On the Trinity” (folio 130) = De Trinit. D. XII, V, 5. Migne, t. 42, col. 1000; and VI ch. = op. cit. XII, VI, 6; ibid. col. 1001. Book XV, ch. VI of the same op. (on sheet 130) = op. cit. XV, VI, 10, ibid., col. 1064. Book XV, ch. XVII of the same op. (on sheet 148) = De Trinit D. XV, XVII, 31. M. t. 42, col. 1082. The same in the XVIII, XIX and XXIII chapters. (sheet 156) = De Trinit. D. XV, XVIII, 32. Migne, t. 42, col. 1083; op. cit. XV. XIX, 37; col. 1086; XV, XXIII, 43; col. 1090. And in ch. XXV = De Trin. D. XV, XXV, 45. M. t. 42, col. 1092. And in ch. XXVII = De Trinit. D. XV, XXVII, 50. M. t. 42, col. 1097. CLXXXI word “about time” (vol. X, sheet 330) = in Edit. Maureen. in Appendice Sermo LIX, vol. X, pag. 689 D. CXCI the word “about time” (sheets 339 and 340) = Serm. CXCI. Ed. Maureen. t. X, p. 348 AB et ib. p. 348 D. CXCIV speech “about time” (l. 343) = Serm. CXCIV. Ed. Maureen. t. X, p. 351 A. XCIX study on the Gospel of John (vol. IX, l. 157) = Tract. XCIX in Joann. Ev. n. 4 et n. 5 (finis). Migne, t. 35. col. 1888. CVII research. per ev. John (folio 164) = Tract. CVII in Joann. Ev. n. 2, M. t. 35, col. 1913. VII Study on the Epistle of John = Tract. VII in Epist. Joannis, n. 6. M.t. 35, col. 2031–2032. Chapter XXI books “against the teachings of Apian” (vol. VI, l. 216) and ch. XXIII (l. 217) = Contra serm. arian. With. XXI, no. 10. Migne, t. 42, col. 698 and p. XXIII, n. 20, col. 700. Before this (on fol. 216) = Contra serm. arian. With. XXIII, n. 20 (init.). M.t. 42, col. 700. And in ch. XXIV = op. cit. With. XXIV, no. 20; ib. col. 700. And in ch. XXIX = op. cit. With. XXIX, no. 27; col. 703. III book. “against Maximin”, ch. X (vol. VI, l. 235) = Contra Maximin. ar. er. II, X, 3. Migne, t. 42, col. 766. And in ch. XIV (l. 236) = op. cit. II, XIV, 1; col. 770. And in ch. XV (l. 239) = op. cit. II, XV, 2; col. 778. And in ch. XXI (l. 243) = op. cit. II, XXI, 3; col. 792. Epistle LXVI (vol. II, l. 96) = Epist. CLXX, no. 5. Migne, t. 33, col. 750. Book II, ch. III - “about the soul and its origin - to the presbyter Peter” (vol. VIII, l. 379) = De anim. et ejus orig. II, III, 5. Migne, t. 44, col. 497. I book., ch. VIII “on the predestination of the saints” (vol. VII, l. 404) = De praedest. sanct. With. VIII, no. 13. Migne, t. 44, col. 970. Book “About new singing”, ch. VII (vol. IX, l. 306) = De Cant. nov. With. VII, n. 7. Migne, t. 40, col. 684. Book II “about the symbol to the catechumens” (vol. IX, d. 368) = De symbolo sermo ad catechum. With. IX, n. 18. Migne, t. 40, col. 648. Book "On the Incarnation of the Word", ch. XV (vol. IV, l. 337) = De incarnat. Verbi lib. I, cap. XV. Migne, t. 42, col. 1183 (Append.). Book “about true religion,” as Lombard cites this passage in Book I. of their “Opinions”, in section 3 = De ver relig. With. LV, n.n. 112–113. Migne, t. 34, col. 171–172; p. paragraph VII, 96–102. Cnfr. Lombardi Sententiarum lib. I, dist. III, no. 6. Migne, t. 192, col. 530 (paraphrase). The reader can find more detailed information about this work of Feofan Prokopovich in the work of F. Tikhomirov: “Treats of Feofan Prokopovich about God, one in essence and trinity in Persons. St. Petersburg 1884". See Theophan Procopowicz. T. IV. Lib. III. De processione Spiritus Sancti. § 86 p. 999: “notandum est, quia Latini maxime sub hoc Achille militare sibi videntur, cum in multis ejus locis aliis palam Spiritus Sanctus a Filio procedere asseratur.” Old Catholics want to assimilate the same meaning to the Eastern teaching about the procession of the Holy Spirit “from the Father alone” (a Patre Solo). Dr. Jos. Langen. Die trinitarische Lehrdifferenz zwischen der abendlandischen und der morgenländischen Kirche. Bonn. 1876. Wed. Russian lane in the Collection of Protocols “Loves Society, Spirit. enlighten." for 1875 and 1876 Part 2. St. Petersburg 1876. 1–135 pp. Op. cit. SS. 63–64; Wed Russian lane cit. op. pp. 67–68. Op. cit. SS. 64–74; Wed Russian lane cit. cit. pp. 68–79. Op. cit. SS. 74–76; Wed Russian lane pp. 80–81. as the truth, based on the clear and indisputable testimony of Holy Scripture or the decrees of the Ecumenical Council. as a result of human thinking and therefore not having legally binding force for everyone. Some expressions of Tertullian, St. Athanasius Vel., Hilaria, Basil Vel., Epiphania, Didyma, Ambrose, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril Alex., John of Damascus. The Russian translation of the above expressions was made by prof. Petrograd Theological Academy A.I. Brilliantov. which even outstanding Eastern fathers taught in one form or another. See Prof. L. I. Pisarev. The authority of Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in the field of Christian theology according to the judgment of ancient Christian writers. Kazan. 1903. pp. 4–5. Quote op. vol. 1, p. 439. Demolished. Lib. 4, p. 20; Lib. 15, p. 17. According to Prokopovich [Tract. de process. Spiritus S. cum notis Damasceni. Goth.; 1772], also says Bl. Augustine in the Enchiridion p. 9, in op. About faith and symbol § 19. Prokopovich denounces the corruption of many passages about the Holy Spirit in Augustine r. 119–130. 288. 289. Quote. cit., vol. III, p. 38 (ed. 1859) or 31 pp. (ed. 1882). Note 55. Prof. P. P. Ponomarev. His Grace Bishop Sylvester, as a learned theologian. Kazan. 1909. Pp. 6–7. Experience... vol. 2, pp. 561–562. Ibid., p. 547 cf. pp. 563, 565. Orthodox Social security 1903, Feb., p. 229 and in a separate pamphlet: “The Old Catholic Answer to Our Theses on the Question of the Filioque and Transubstantiation.” 1903, p.111, approx. 1. See about this in the article by Prof. L.I. Pisareva: “The authority of Augustine, bishop. Ipponsky, in the field of Christian theology according to the judgment of ancient Christian writers. Kazan. 1903". page 5. – “It’s true, prof. A.F. Gusev in a special note (Orthodox Sobes. 1903, m. March, p. 338, and in the brochure with typos) states that this passage should be read like this: “Augustine is not a father and not in everything a teacher of the church.” But even after this amendment, notes Prof. L.I. Pisarev in his scholarly work we quote, “the respected professor’s general verdict about Augustine, in essence, remains equally unfavorable for his personality as an Orthodox theologian-thinker” (ibid., p. 5, note). Wed. Prof. V. A. Kerensky. “What divided and divides the Eastern Orthodox and Western Old Catholic Churches? Kharkov. 1910." pp. 23, 24, 44. Wed. also Prof. A.I. Brilliantov. "Works of Prof. V.V. Bolotov on the issue of the “Filioque” and the controversy about his “Theses on the “Filioque” in Russian literature.” Christ. Read 1913 April. (and dept.). – The stated point of view of Prof. A.F. Gusev on the block. Augustine and his teaching about the Holy Spirit, which he declared at the end of his life, represents, as has been said, a sharp change in his views on this subject, which he had repeatedly previously expressed in polemics with Old Catholic theologians and some Russian like-minded people and defenders of their opinions. Until this time, A.F. Gusev persistently defended the Orthodoxy of the bl. Augustine on the issue of the procession of the Holy Spirit. See cit. op. prof. V. A. Kerensky and A. I. Brilliantov (passim). See Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia of Lopukhin-Glubokovsky, vol. IX, p. 518, article “Kerensky Vladimir Alexandrovich” cf. “Soulful Reading” 1907 No. 1, p. 58. See Prof. V. A. Kerensky. What divided and divides the Eastern Orthodox and Western Old Catholic churches? Kharkov. 1910. Pp. 70. Prof. V. A. Kerensky. See Chronicle. Read 1913 IV, 447 pp. cf. Chr. Read 1904 This scientific work, which came from the pen of the now Great Bolotov, was first published in translation into German in the old Catholic journal “Révue internationale de Théologie” (International. theologisch. Zeitschrift. 24 Heft. 1898. SS. 681–712, under the modest title: “Thesen über das “Filioque.” Von einem russischen Theologen". German translation made with the participation of the famous figure on the old Catholic issue, Gen. A. Kireev). The original Russian text of this work by Prof. V.V. Bolotov, published by prof. A.I. Brilliantov (with the latter’s preface) in Christ. Thurs. for 1913, V–VI, pp. 574–596 and 726–746 (and separate brochures pp. 1–27; 29–73), reproduces the original text of the original manuscript of its author. – In addition to the noted work by Peru + prof. V.V. Bolotov also owns the following small scholarly studies on the Old Catholic Question (Filioque), published under the editorship of Prof. A.I. Brilliantova, on page Chr. Thurs. for 1913 (No. VII–VIII. 921–927; No. IX, 1046–1059; No. XI, 1289–1309; No. XII, 1391–1414 and a separate brochure under the general title: “Prof. V.V. Bolotov. On the question of the Filioque. St. Petersburg. 1914.” P. 74–138): “Letter to Archbishop Anthony of Finland, February 9/10, 1893.” “On the meaning of the order of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity according to the view of the Eastern saints. fathers." “Abstract proposed at the meeting of the Commission on the Old Catholic Question on January 22. 1893." Christ. Read 1899, I, 100. Op. A. A. Kireeva I, 299. See Chronicle. Thurs. 1913, IV, 440 pp. cf. dept. brochure 10 pages Chr. Thurs. 1913, IV, 440; dept. brochure 10 pages For a brief overview of this debate, see the article by Prof. A.I. Brilliantova: “Works of Prof. V.V. Bolotov....", placed in the Chronicle. Read 1913, month. Apr., pp. 438–457. The article in question by Prof. V.V. Bolotov (“Theses”...) meets with a critical attitude towards himself, among other things, from “the best expert on modern Old Catholicism” Prof. V. A. Kerensky, who pays, however, due respect for the “learning and talent” of it and its author. The bewilderment and objections of the critics of this article by V.V. Bolotov (Prof. A.F. Gusev and V.A. Kerensky) are mainly caused by its 7th thesis, which, in their opinion, is also in contradiction with the further 8th. Notes of the St. Petersburg Religious and Philosophical Meetings. St. Petersburg 1906, p. 443. . Op. cit. Internat. theolog. Zeitschr. 24 Heft. 1898. S. 681; Wed Russian lane Christ. Read 1913 May. Page 573; dept. brochure 29 pp. Prof. A.I. Brilliantov. Quote op. Christ. Read 1913, IV, 437; dept. brochure page 7. See cit. article by prof. A. A. Brilliantova (passim). Ibid., p. 452; dept. brochure page 22. See his “Theses on the Filioque” and other works related to the question of the “Filioque” and published in Christ. Read for 1913 (and separate brochures). Wed. above, approx. 1088. And as the author of the monograph “The Influence of Eastern Theology on Western Theology in the Works of John Scotus Erigena. St. Petersburg 1898" (p. 102, etc.) and as a member-secretary of the above-mentioned St. Petersburg Commission for negotiations with Old Catholics. See God. West. 1908 November. Page 436–439. Christ. Read 1913 Month. April. Page 431–457 (and separate brochure, pp. 1–27). Christ. Read 1911 March et al. See his extensive review of Op. prof. Vl. Guerrier "Bl. Augustine”, placed in the journal. “Proceedings of the Kyiv Spirit. Academy" for 1911 Month. January. Page 125–162. See his major work: “History of dogmatic movements in the era of ecumenical councils. T. 1st. Trinitarian question. Sergiev Posad. 1906". Page 647. See his brochure “The Reverend Bishop Sylvester, as a learned theologian. Kazan. 1909". Page 7. See his master's thesis “The Lutheran Confessional System on the Symbolic Books of Lutheranism. Kazan. 1910". Page 186–188. See his study “Old Catholicism, its history and internal development mainly in religious terms. Kazan. 1894". Page 205. His same. “What divided and divides the Eastern Orthodox and Western Old Catholic Churches? Kharkov. 1910". Page 24, 30, 44, 48, 70 and other his works on the Old Catholic issue. See his master's thesis “Trinitarian views of Hilary of Pictavia. (Historical and dogmatic research). Sergiev Posad. 1908". Page 338–339. See his “Teaching of the Ancient Church on the Procession of the Holy Spirit.” St. Petersburg 1875". Page 46, 48, 53, etc. See his dissertation, “The History of Arianism in the Latin West.” St. Petersburg 1890. 191–192 pp. See Bogosl. West. 1905 and “Where is the universal Church.” Serg. Posad. 1905 See Bogosl. Vestn. 1908 November. "The current situation of the Old Catholic Question." Page 421–454 and others. his op. See his “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. Part 1. Kharkov. 1895". Page 328. See his Essays on Dogmatic Theology. (Training course). Moscow. 1912". Page 76. See his most outstanding work in recent scientific and theological literature on the issue of bl. Augustine and his epistemology: “The Teaching of Blessed. Augustine on knowledge” on page of the journal. “Questions of philosophy and psychology” for 1915. Book. 129 (Sep-Oct), pp. 388–460; Book 130 (November–December), pp. 499–580 (special p. 432) and for 1916 Book. 132–133 (March–April. May–June), pp. 195–279. See a number of his polemical essays under the title: “How is the Catholic doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son now defended by Catholics?” on the page of “Church Gazette” for 1915 Nos. 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47; esp. No. 45, pp: 2294–2296. Already known to us, the Old Catholic prof. J. Langen says: “Already the thought that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son led to another further one, that He constitutes the substantial community of both - a thought that can be recognized as a speculative source for the Filioque.” Op. cit., S. 64 cf. Russian lane pp. 68–69. This same point of view is shared by our Russian dogmatist Bishop. Sylvester. See his Experience, II, 546 and 547 pages, where he says: “It would be unnecessary to expand on the fact that Augustine often repeats the position that the Spirit is the Spirit of both - the Father and the Son - and in connection with this he always puts forward the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son.” A particularly characteristic feature of trinitarian pneumatology bl. Augustine, closely connected with his filioquism and especially sharply distinguishing it from the trinitarian speculation of the Eastern Fathers of the Church, is his view of the Holy Spirit as the result of the “una spiratio” of the Father and the Son, according to which they both together represent the “unum principium” of the Holy Spirit. – See Von einem russ. Theologen. “Thesen üb. d. Filioque." Internat. theol. Zeitschrift. 1898. Heft. 24. S. 710. Cf. Russian lane Prof. IN . IN . Bolotov. Theses on the "Filioque" of Christ. Read 1913, VI, 744; dept. brochure pp. 70–71. Wed also Prof. V. A. Kerensky. “What divided”... Kharkov. 1910. 33 pp. A. Kireev. The current situation of the Old Catholic Question. Theologian Vestn. 1908, XI, 431. Loofs. Leitfaden zura Studium der Dogmengeschichte. Halle. 1906. SS. 95–95 Wed. Macholz. Spuren binitarischer Denkweise im Abendland seit Tertullian. Jena. 1902. See about this I. I. Adamov. The doctrine of the Trinity of St. Ambrose of Milan. Serg. Posad. 1910. Pp. 24. A detailed examination and proof of this, of course, is not included in the task of this part of our work, and therefore, in confirmation of the validity of the thought we have expressed, we refer the reader to some works of Orthodox Russian academic theologians. See, for example, Prof. V.V. Bolotov. Origen's Teaching on the Holy Trinity, p. 99. Prof. A. A. Spassky. History of Dogmatic Movements, Vol. 1, p. 66. 80. Prof. A. P. Orlov. Trinit. outlook Ilaria P. pp. 338–9.346. V. Chetverikov. About God as a personal Being. Page 310–325. Iv. Adamov. The doctrine of the Trinity of St. Ambrose of Milan. Page 27. See also A. Kireev. God. West. 1908, XI, 436–438. (Translation of patristic quotations was made by Prof. A. I. Brilliantov), etc. Bl. Augustine says: “non audemus dicere unam essentiam, tres substantias; Sed unam essentiam vel substantiam, tres autem personas.” De Trinitate Dei 1. V, cap. IX, n. 10, Migne, t. 42, col. 918. De Trin. D. VIII, IV, 9. Migne, t. 42, col. 942. Having used the term “personae” in the application to the Persons of the Holy Trinity, Bl. Augustine adds: “Si ita [personae] dicendae sunt.” De Trin VIII, VI, 11. Migne, t. 42, col. 945. Wed. Prof. V.V. Bolotov. Lectures on the history of the ancient church. (History of the Church during the period of ecumenical councils). Dept. III, p. 38. See about this in A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Aufl. 2-te. Freib. im Br. 1888. Bd. II. S. 298. Prof. J. Langen, op. cit. SS. 71–72; p. p. p. 76. J. Langen, op. cit. S. 72; p. pp. 76–77. A. P. Orlov. Trinitarian views of Hilary of Pictavia. Serg. Pos. 1908. p. 339. Prof. A. P. Lebedev. Ecumenical councils of the 4th and 5th centuries. Serg. Pos. 1896 pp. 98–99. Contra Litteras Petiliani. II, XXXVIII, 91. Migne, t. 43, col. 292.Cnfr. Confess. I, xiv, 23. Migne, t. 32, col. 671; p. paragraph I, 20–21. De Trinitate Dei lib. III, Proëm.–1. Migne, t. 42, col. 868–9. Architects and devotees of the “Kingdom of God.” Part 1. Blessed Augustine. Moscow. 1910. p. 12. Thesen über das "Filioque". Internation. theologisch. Zeitschrift. 1898. Heft. 24. S. 687 cf. Russian lane in Christ. Thurs. 1913 Month. May, p. 584; dept. brochure page 40. The influence of Eastern theology on Western in the works of John Scotus Erigena. St. Petersburg. 1898. p. 97. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Freib. im Breisg. 1888. II 296–297 cf. II, 292. Anm. 2. See also Von einem russ about this. Theol. Thesen über das "Filioque". Internat. theolog. Zeitschr. 1898. Heft. 24. S. 687. J. Langen. Johannes von Damascus. Eine patristiche Monographie. Gotha. 1879. S. 3. About the nature of the acquaintance of the bl. Augustine with the Greek language, see also – Th. Gangauf. Des heil. Augustinus speculative. Lehre von Gott dem Dreieinigcn. Augsburg. 1865. S. 7. Anmerk. Details. For the attitude of St. Augustine to the Greek language and to the Catholic East in general, see the study by N. Reuter, Augustinische Ftudien. Gotha. 1887. SS. 153–230, 479–516. De fide et symb. With. IX, n. 19. Migne, t. 40, col. 191. S. Kokhomsky. The teaching of the ancient church about the procession of the Holy Spirit. St. Petersburg 1875. p. 48. Thesen.... S. 686–687 cf. Russian lane Chr. Thurs. 1913 Month. May, pp. 584–585; dept. brochure pp. 40–41. The same author in his same article a little higher (S. 686, p. p. p. 583; separate brochure p. 39) notes: “the basis of the current theological opinion of the Old Catholics - (like all Western theologians) about the image of the procession of the Holy Spirit - lies a purely Western (author’s bold font) ϑεολογούμενον bliss Augustine". At the same time, we make a reservation that we do not at all mean to raise here a fundamental question about the so-called “authority of the fathers,” their writings and their views contained in them, just as we generally do not set ourselves the task, one way or another, to clarify here the basic meaning of this one of the central and at the same time the most difficult concepts of patrolological science. Prof. A.I. Brilliantov. The influence of Eastern theology on Western in the works of John Scotus Erigena. St. Petersburg 1898. Page 82. Wed. Prof. A. A. Spassky. History of dogmatic movements in the era of ecumenical councils. T. I-th. Trinitarian question. Sergiev Posad. 1906. Pp. 342–343, etc. Prof. A. Harnack. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Freib. im. Br 1890. Bd. III. S. 48. As far as is known, the earliest special evidence from patristic literature on the particular issue of the manner of the procession of the Holy Spirit and His immanent relationship to the Father and the Son goes back to the theological dispute on this issue between St. Cyril of Alexandria - on the one hand and bl. Theodoret of Cyrus - on the other. This controversy, caused by the anathematisms of St. Cyril and which actually revolved around the Christological question, however, by the way, also touched upon this particular thesis of church Trinitarian dogmatics (IX Anathematism of St. Cyril). But both the very publication of the anathematisms and this polemic that took place regarding them date back to the time after the death of Blessed. Augustine. Therefore, to know about it and, one way or another, react to it. Augustine, of course, could no longer do so. Cm . A. Zernikav, op. cit., vol. 1, pp. 335–336. Wed. also Prof. V. A. Kerensky. What divided and divides... pp. 49–51. – However, regarding this theological dispute between Cyril and Theodoret about St. The Spirit and His hypostatic relationship to the Father and the Son, the contemporary Church - in the person of the Third Ecumenical (Ephesian) Council - also did not define in any special way its special teaching on this subject. See above, notes 1119–1120. Wed. Archim. Anthony. Langen's view on the difference in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity between the Eastern and Western Churches. (Regarding Langen’s book “Die trinitarische Lehrdifferenz zwischen der abendländische und der morgenländisehen Kirche.” Eine dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchung). Additions to the edition of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation for 1891. Part 47, p. 434, etc. To this teaching Bl. Augustine fully applies to the same thing that Augustine expressed about the entire rational-psychological experience of his understanding of the dogma of the Trinity - an experience in close connection with which is the present point of his teaching about the Holy Spirit, that is, his Filioque, as the subject of his theological and philosophical speculation (although in essence, the rational-philosophical trinitarian construction of St. Augustine, of course, is not connected and cannot be associated with his Filioque). After all, the speculative scheme of the Trinitarian dogma (by analogy with the three forces or moments of the individually existing human soul) should have also brought the theological thought of the bl. Augustine to conclusions that are not only not of an ecclesiastical, but also not of a Christian nature, namely to the pantheistic assumption that the Persons of the Divine Trinity are only abstract or impersonal moments in the life of the strictly singularly existing Absolute Spirit. However, Augustine did not draw these conclusions, and far from them, he and others, as we know, warned against such illegal, from the Orthodox point of view, conclusions, which, however, logically followed from the premises he himself established. Summa theologica, II 2.qu. 10, art. 12. Migne, t. 3, col. 101–102 Cp. J. Nirschl. Lehrbuch der Patrologie und Patristik. Mainz. 1881. Bd. 1, S. 33. Anm. 1. Contra Crescon. Donatist. 1. II, p. XXXII, no. 40. Migne. t. 43, col. 490.cnfr. Contr. Julian. Pelagian. 1. I, p. VI, no. 22. Migne, t. 44, col. 655. See his detailed and rich in very valuable guidelines in this regard - “sane loculentissimus tractatus” (Leo of Allations) under the title: “Λόγος περί τῆς τοῦ άγίου Πνεύματος ρυσταγωγίας (De Spiritus Sancti mystagogia)” Migne, s. gr., t. 102, col. 263–542; Russian lane in the journal "Spiritual Conversation" for 1866 Nos. 20, 21, 24, 26, 30. See, for example, col. 343 (n. 66), col. 346 (n. 68), col. 352 (n. 70), col. 352–353 (nn. 71–72), etc. A detailed collection of these opinions and reviews about the block. Augustine of competent patristic antiquity, see the brochure of Prof. L.I. Pisareva: “The authority of Augustine, Bishop of Ipponia, in the field of Christian theology according to the court of ancient Christian writers. Kazan. 1903". pp. 6–12. See his article “Works of Prof. V.V. Bolotova"... Christ. Thurs. 1913, IV, 453–454. Note 1; dept. brochure pp. 23–24. De dono perseverantiae, cap. 21. Migne, t. 45, col. 1027–1028. Cnfr. De Trinit. D. I, II, 4. M. t. 42, col. 822, where bl. Augustine gives this warning to the reader of his treatise on the Trinity: “Nec pigebit autem, sicubi haesito, quaerere; nec pudebit, sicubi erro, discere"; op. cit. I, III, 5; M.t. 42, col. 822: “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" etc. Since the Augustinian view represents the Father and the Son together as the “unum principium” of the existence of the Holy Spirit, so the procession into the existence of the Holy Spirit, as a result of “una spiratio Patris et Filii,” is actually the action of two principles, only ad hoc united with each other. "Thesen über das Filioque". Von einem russ. Theol. Internat. theolog. Zeitschr. 24. Heft. 1898. S. 709. Cf. Russian text: On the issue of Filioque. Theses on "Filioque". Christ. Read 1913, VI, 743; Thesis 9th Wed. thesis 10 – ibid., pp. 743–744; dept. brochure page 70. See Christ about this. Read 1913, IV, 455–456; dept. brochure pp. 25–26 Wed. 77 pp. Thesen über das "Filioque".... Thes. 8th, § 2. S. 709; Russian lane Christ. Read 1913, VI, 743; dept. brochure 70 pp. Op. cit., ibid. SS. 710–712; Wed Russian text, cit. cit., ibid., pp. 745–746; dept. brochure 72–73 pp. See Prof. A.I. Brilliantov. "Works of Prof. V.V. Bolotov on the issue of “Filioque”... Christ. Read 1913, IV, 455–456; dept. brochure pp. 25–26; Wed 77–78. See A Kireev. The current situation of the Old Catholic Question. (Letters of the Russian “St. Petersburg” commission - the Old Catholic ["Rotterdam" commission] and the Reply of the commission established in Rotterdam and reorganized in The Hague for the reunification of the Old Catholic and Russian Orthodox Church - the highly revered St. Petersburg commission, dated July 16/19, 1907.) Theological Vestn. 1908, XI, 432, etc.