Meredith -capadocienii

Irish Theological QuarterlyAnthony Meredith http://itq.sagepub.com/ The Pneumatology of the Cappadocian Fathers and the Creed of Constantinople The Pneumatology of the Cappadocian Fathers and the Creed of Constantinople Anthony Meredith Irish Theological Quarterly 1981 48: 196 DOI: 10.1177/002114008104800305 The online version of this article can be found at: http://itq.sagepub.com/content/48/3-4/196.citation Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: In the last twenty-five years a great deal of industry has been devoted to the question of the influences on and meaning of the Constantinopolitan Creed. Much of this question has to do with what we are to make of the pneumatology of Basil the Great. In chapter xviii of the Preface of Volume 3 of the great Maurist edition of St. Basil Maran lists much of the ancient evidence that illustrates the enigmatic character of Basil’s writing. Gregory of Nazianzus both in his letters and above all in his funeral oratian’ felt called to defend his friend against the charge of minimalism which was levelled against him in the 370s. More recently Basil has had his accusers and defenders on precisely the same charge. So, for example, Dom Jean Gribomont 4.S.B.2 and others see the disinclination of Basil to apply either ’God’ or ’consubstantial’ to the Holy Spirit as evidence of Basil’s defective belief in this matter. Fr. B. Pruche, however, in his recent re-edition of the De Spiritu Sancto insists that this omission on Basil’s part is not to be understood as a denial of the deity of the third person.3 He points to two factors that must be taken seriously: (i) Basil’s ’economy’, (which even the more outspoken Athanasius praised so highly) meant that for the sake of peace he was prepared not to insist on verbal forms when such insistence would rupture the fragile peace of the church; (ii) Though he does not call the Spirit ’God’ expressis verbis, the substance of the doctrine is present in his writings. Pontifical University, St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland Gregory of Nazianzus Gregory Nazianzen’s stance is important for two reasons. Firstly, he was, despite his bravado, uneasy with Basil’s views. Secondly, his silence on the Additional services and information for Irish Theological Quarterly can be found at: Email Alerts: http://itq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://itq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav >> Version of Record - Jan 1, 1981 Creed of Constantinople is not an indication of the non-existence of the Creed prior to Chalcedon (as Hort supposed), but rather of Gregory’s unease at the decisions of the Council. Certainly the natural reading of his second Letter to Cledonius (=Ep. 102.2) gives the impression that he was either ignorant of or unhappy with the compromise formula of the 150 Fathers. It is possible, as has been suggested, that his dissatisfaction (if such it was) may have arisen from factors which were not dogmatic. His own removal from the see of Constantinople and from the presidency of the Council, whether because he had supported the candidature of Paulinus rather than that of Flavian to the see of Antioch, vacated by the death of Meledos, or because in his acceptance of Constantinople while already bishop of the tiny see of Sasima he had transgressed the seventh canon of Nicaea, which forbade such translations, undoubtedly predisposed him to What is This? Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on November 10, 2013 Downloaded from itq.sagepub.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on November 10, 2013 It does not seem purely accidental that the former expression links Basil with Athanasius.5 and De Sp. Strom. And if Gregory lacked Basil’s political toughness and astuteness.29). finally (a) Basil . admitted as much in his Tomus ad Antiochenos of 362? It may be doubted whether Gregory shared so liberal a view as this.70 or with the Spirit’s godhead in the Letters to Serapioll. he is followed by Pruche. 3.E. aside from his vigorous assertion of belief in the deity of the third person. In what follows I owe a good deal to the monograph on Basil’s treatise by Hermann Doerries. ’who together with the Father and the Son is both adored and glorified’.a great difference.P. Gribomont O. 3. ix. comes in the fifth theological oration. for example. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa I intend (a) to summarize the doctrine of Basil on the Holy Spirit. (though we cannot be certain whether he thought that it only then became true). even though one may be able to detect in him something of Athanasius’ arguments for the deity of the Holy Spirit as they occur in the latter’s Letters to Serapion. and in C.) the Holy Spirit together with the Father and the Son form the only members of the class of uncreated beings: the Holy Spirit possessed the same onomata phuse6s as do they. with the main aim of trying to solve the problem of the differences between various apparently legitimate interpretations of his views: can one get beyond the dilemma and decide? What was his exact contribution? Do Plotinus and Origen shed any light on his true views? (b) I will assess the tradition and originality of Gregory of Nyssa’s views. ‘What then? Is the Spirit God? Most certainly. can only go a certain distance in the unravelling of theological mysteries.10.1. considered-the argument from deification. sections 22 and 26.E. in the latter the phrase theos genesthai. 5.sagepub. In the earliest of his works against the Anomoeans he seems to be far more outspoken in his assertions about the full deity than in his later writing. Both use it at C. If this were so one would expect Basil’s views on the deity of the third person to become more marked with the progress of time.E. (The same may be said for Gregory of Nazianzus. especially in his revised edition of the text and translation in Sources Chrétiemzes.14 and for the Spirit’s at O.T. to be paramount. but I do not intend to mark all points of direct dependence on secondary sources at each occurrence.23. where he argues interestingly and originally for the gradual revelation in history of the full nature of the godhead: it was only in the time of the church that the deity of the Holy Spirit became clearly known.’ His very bluntness suggests that he possessed none of Basil’s willingness to admit that dogmatic formulae. the full deity of the Holy Ghost? In what follows little will be said of the views of Nazianzus. 3 seems to go further than his De Spiritu Sancto. Again there is a certain unity in diversity in the way the two treatises employ the argument from divinization in order to prove the full dignity of the Spirit. But even if we admit that the Creed tried to pacify the moderates by omitting the ascription in so many words of either deity or consubstantiality to the Holy Ghost. It is difficult to know with any degree of certainty how far such differences of . It is true that in his early work Basil does not apply the actual words theos or homoousios to the third person.. 3.3). and seems to have more to do with ethical perfection than with ontological status. Origen and Plotinus. So for example in C. are we to infer from this that its formulation was simply a reproduction of Basil’s pneumatology? Or were Basil’s imperfect views modified by others in the direction of a more full-blooded assertion of what we normally suppose to be the belief of the church.S. 2013 to the article by Dom J. the mighty Athanasius himself. the Contra Eunomium 3 of c.s. But if they are significant they suggest that as he became less rather than more emphatic about the role of are on - Downloaded from itq. cit.l to its criticism by Basil Pruche O. and in this conviction. who in treating of the deity of the Son in Contra Arianos 2..4 (ü) The same emperor invited him to preach funeral orations for his little daughter Pulcheria c. 2013 . the Great Basil’s interest in the Holy Spirit stretches from one of his earliest writings. The other phrase links Basil with theos genesthai Clement of Alexandria (cf.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on November 10. Basil uses the verb theopoieisthai.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on November 10.19 and 4. though in certain other respects C. contenting itself with the clause. For Basil (op.E.S. reprinted in the first number of lI’ord and Spirit for 1979. written c.sagepub. Indeed had not that patriarch of orthodoxy. using this verb.375. despite their usefulness for giving expression on occasion to the timebound particularity of Christian believing.3 he insists on the total difference between creature and creator in a way that forcshddows his brother’s more trenchant and expanded treatment in his own Cozy Eunomiu11l of twenty years later. - expression time went significant. and Downloaded from itq. That he believed and unequivocally proclaimed the full deity of the Spirit is plain from the following passage taken from Or Theol 5. to letter 258 addressed to Epiphanius bishop of Salamis in or around 377 (Courtonne in the Bude edition simply writes ’6crite vers 1’an 377’). But verbally and in intention there is . 7. who argues with such terminology for the Son’s deity in Oratio Theologica 3.198 197 take a less than happy view of the Council where his glory had been so shortlived.. The attentive reader will easily observe at what points the influences of these several writers have taken over. That he was important emerges from two facts: (i) The emperor Theodosius appointed him aguarantee and enforcer of orthodoxy in the civil diocese ofPontus. In other words Basil’s writings span a period of just fifteen years and Doerries thinks it possible to trace a development of thought within that time.361.4 he argues that he also possesses the same onomata energeias. Is he consubstantial? Yes. The main contribution of Gregory to the debate.B. if He is God . though not quite in the same way or for the same reason. 3 83 and for his wife Placilla in 385. he also lacked his ’largeness of theological vision’. but this is by no means what happens. In the earlier. S.2 and 159. In the latter passage Basil claims that we offer equality of glory to the Spirit because ’we are persuaded that he is not foreign to the divine nature. this by itself is a somewhat ambivalent assertion. In spite of pressure from his friend Gregory of Nazianzus in letter 58 to affirm the consubstantiality of the Spirit. 54. is not prepared to make the final one that He is god and consubstantial. to be woefully inadequate. the other.E.199 the Spirit.53 he is incomprehensible and in xxiv.54 describes the Spirit as being theion tiphusei. that the Spirit is the Holy Spirit ’who broods like a bird over its young. Terminology varied even as the particular situations themselves varied and called forth differing responses. though denying certain charges made against him. for instance. 36 1). yet made no assertion of the type looked for. according to a passage in Socrates (H. as Doerries points out. xxiii.25). Here and only here with clarity does Basil emancipate himself from the .com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on November 10. It is also true that (e.sagepub. Two further passages adducible in favour of the claim that Basil believed in and taught the deity of the third person in the strong sense ought now to be mentioned. at others. in Ep. It would be quite unfair to those who. above all. Basil in his reply (Ep. where he refers to some unnamed critics who suggested that the Spirit was neither slave nor master but free and. as he insists. 8 PG 39. The striking and puzzling thing about all this is that Basil. In De. If however this were the sum total of his thoughts on Pneumatology he would not take us very far and might seem to merit the strictures passed on him by Gribomont and Doerries.19 that the Spirit ought to be numbered together with the Father and the Son. though prepared to make such immense claims for the Holy Spirit. After all. 2013 200 &dquo. Basil makes assertions about the Holy Ghost which are very strong arguments indeed for accepting the view that he believed in his full divinity.’ Basil concludes the section with the interesting remark that it is ’quite clear that the Holy Spirit is not without a share in the creative activity of God’.) does make a dichotomy. 90.. (a) by a passage in De Spiritil Sancto itself (xx.2 (c. and he is unlimited in size. In Basil’s defence the following may be urged: (i) Although it is = - - - - Downloaded from itq. in letter 52) he is prepared to assert on the basis of the baptismal formula of Mt .6. That this is not a fanciful argument is shown. occasion in his Contra Eunomium (cf. which cannot with any ease be fitted into a pattern of growth. In the latter work.270 ff. Downloaded from itq.S. At times one feels that hs is and that it would be mere carping verbalism to deny him the palm of and I shall deal with those passages a orthodoxy. as Dr.sagepub. 113). In the first passage he begins by distinguishing sharply between the Godhead and creation. as a corollary to this. Such a conclusion would only follow if Basil had added the further premise that the categories of ’creature’ and ’crtator’ between them comprise the whole of reality.6 But were these adherence to the Nicene formula. One passage comes from the beginning of his theological career Contra Eunomium 3. 51).617c) seems to have taught a not dissimilar doctrine. he belongs to that nature which embraces all things. 71. in the course of the interpretation of Gen. xxiii.54. and follows this up with what looks like a parallel distinction between sanctifying power and things sanctified. If there is a real parallelism the corollary would seem to be the deity of the third person.28.2).g. And because he does not do so it would be open to an objector to argue that there existed a third category between creature and creator to which the Holy Spirit belonged. but Basil does not do so. CE i. 11. He exists everywhere. favour the ’orthodoxy’ of Basil to suggest that their case rests here. (b) by a similar claim of intermediary status for the Spirit made by the Macedonians. First of all the argument is a slightly mechanical one and ignores the fact that at De Sp. De Sp. ’Is Basil teaching the full deity of the third person of the Trinity?’ is to be made aware of how tantalizingly perplexing the whole subject is. merely to assert.’ Could anything be clearer? Nor is it a solitary instance. though he must always be numbered third after the Father and the Son. Horn. But here again he in the end disappoints because of his failure to ascribe the terms ’god’ and ’consubstantial’ to the Holy Spirit. This is a very important passage and it is a great pity that it has no clear parallel elsewhere in the work of Basil. This direct or implicit refusal on the part of Basil to go beyond the language of Nicaea is a marked feature of his pneumatology. Sp. and xxiv.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on November 10. perfectly true. xviii. that the term homotimia7 is nowhere in the treatise applied to the Holy Spirit.45 places the Spirit with Father and Son in the same class of noncreated beings. at any rate in the light of later orthodoxy. the Spirit must be above creation. and that. any good Christian must (EP. S. xxiii. In that chapter not only is it stated that he is by nature divine. Gregory of Nyssa on more than one . 1:2 ’and the Spirit moved over the face of the deep’ Basil notes. the case to be drawn from Mt 28:19. 2013 .2 Basil quite unequivocally gives equality of honour to the second issue.56 he shares with the Father and the Son the essential goodness and life-giving power which are the acknowledged and distinctive qualities of the Father and the Son. 2. Kelly points out. Didymus the Blind (De Trznitate ii. 378. that the Spirit is not a creature does not of itself lead to the conclusion that the Spirit must be God. Basil argues that full honour and glory should be paid to the Holy Ghost along with the Father and the Son.556 ends with the fine question ’Who would be so bereft of the promises of eternal life as to enlist the Spirit with creatures and distric6te him from the deity?’. In xxii. on the authority of an unnamed Hebrew master. if the dating of Bernardi is correct comes from the very end. that is the divine nature. the Homilies on the Hexaemeron. Again. and the assertion that the Spirit must not be thought of as a creature the only arguments adduced by Basil for supporting what he believed about the nature of the third person? If they were they seem. like Pruche and Kelly. To read through the De Spiritu Sancto with care and with this question in mind. but also he is assigned all the traditional epithets of godhead.(iii)One final point should be made. and if they are not significant then the case for progress becomes hard to sustain. however little later his conception seems to differ little if at all from that of Grigen or Plotinus. Once the soul has been purified and io returned to its natural state it is capable of seeing the divine nature. Does Basil make any further statement about the person and role of the Spirit which will shed some light on the vexed question of his own attitude to his full deity? Basil connects the work of’the ’Holy Spirit with the sanctification. Johnston and Dehnard9 cannot be said to - The Influence of Plotinus on Basil The restriction of the work of the Holy Ghost to ’perfecting’ receives further elucidation if two further questions are asked: (i) What does this work of perfecting involve? (ii) Does the work of the Spirit precede and cause. which admittedly do not occur side by side either in Plotinus or in Basil. The natural perfection of the heavens is the work of the Son. But at the end of the chapter. the moral perfection of the blessed spirits belongs to the Holy Spirit. the equivalent of the Holy Spirit. created beings. Its return to its native beauty enables it to approach the Spirit. Elsewhere.2. ix. Basil and Plotinus describe a similar role for the Spirit/world soul things seem terms of the moral quite clear: (i) improvement Downloaded from itq. In the prescnt text he is assigned a place in the actual creation of the whole universe.26 respectively. The language in which this process is described.22-23. ’By the word of the Lord the heavens were made and by the breath of his mouth all the power thereof (Ps 33.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on November 10.88 202 though this capacity on its part is closely connected with illumination from the Holy Ghost. This pattern is too consistently repeated to be thought of as a mere peculiarity of the treatise under consideration. written in 376 to Amphilochius. On the first point Basil writes that the close connection of the soul with the Spirit is a result of the recession of the soul from moral impurities.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on November 10. (ii) Certain strong echoes of Plotinus. 2013 . as we shall see shortly. are to be found in De Sp. It is also important because it is the main text in this work that almost certainly shows the influence on Basil of Plotinus. a text which as both Gribomont and Doerries point out cannot be overestimated for the light it sheds on the heart of Basilian pneumatology. The action of ellainpsis or phõtismos occurs as the specific function of the third person on many occasions in the letters. angels and humans. the bishop to whom his great treatise had been addressed. notably the words perilampe and apostilbei have their counterparts in two treatises of Plotinus Enneads 2. S. In Ep. that to assert divinity of any being must mean that that being created.6]).sagepub. he is content to follow Origen in restrieting. In the former text it is the world soul. further. he writes that the intelligence which is mingled with the deity of the Holy Spirit is capable of seeing great spectacles and divine beauty. ’He shines on those who have been cleansed from all defilement and makes them spiritual by fellowship with him. Lest it be the Holy Spirit is ’the perfector of things made’ . It could be argued that Basil’s weakness on the Holy Spirit consists precisely in his unwillingness to do everywhere what he does on this.the action of the Holy Spirit to the sanctification of rational beings. S. His perfective character is well brought out by a passage in De Spiritu Sancto 16:38 where his role is distinguished from that of the Father who is called prokatarkilko aitia ’first cause of all that comes to be’ and from that of the Son who is the demiourgike aitia ’fashioning cause’ whereas teleiotike. which in fact derive from it. once illuminated by the Holy Spirit look up to the Son and see within themselves the image of the Father. There are indeed moments in the text when it looks as if Basil in his eagerness to deny any ultimate separateness to the three persons by insisting on their unity of action. that enlightens individual souls. thought that the Spirit is at the root of the perfection of all things as a sort of co-partner in the work of creation Basil goes on to restrict the Spirit’s sphere to the realm of intelligent. 23 and arguably nowhere else in this treatise.sagepub.16-18 and 5. This enlightenment makes them capable of understanding mysteries and all divine truth. Two _ The action of the Spirit is described in of men. any failure to assert creativity of the Spirit. De Sp.23 lists among the effects of the Spirit’s presence the separation of the soul from those passions that alienate man from God. ix. 233.10. written a year earlier to the ascetics under’his care. Once it came to be accepted that the peculiar and essential feature of the divine nature was its creative power and. or does it afterwards enhance and strengthen the perfection a man 1as achieved by himself? (i) Part of the perfecting work done is the achieving (in a sense to be jiscussed under (ii)) of moral perfection. 32. it remains to be discovered more precisely. which enlightens the now purified soul making it bright and spiritual and able to behold divine truths and become truly godlike. makes of the Holy Spirit simply the power that gives completion to the whole complex of the natural order. (ii) If ’enlightenment’ is the characteristic function of the Holy Spirit. the moral and intellectual perfecting of the individual believer.6 [LXX. Is his action equivalently our own action or does he actually in some mysterious way either effect our moral and spiritual condition by causing it or at least enhancing and strengthening it once we have achieved some advance by ourselves? The passage which sheds most light on this important and vexed problem in De Sp. 2013 agree. must entail at best a weak view of his divinity. if possible. S. how He operates. he understands the latter half of the verse to refer to the sanctification of the spiritual powers. In other words for Basil the condition for the possibility of perceiving the Father and the Son is the presence of the ’ ’ enlightening indwelling Spirit.one occasion.201 Origenist tradition in which he worked. whether human or angelic. ix. when he comes to deal with the hackneyed text. In letter 226. though on the existence and extent of this influence the main discussions in Henry. Jahn. and ends up by making them not only lik~ God but themselves divine’. however glorious his other activities. Downloaded from itq. he states that our minds.8.9. restricts the gift of the Spirit to those who have shown themselves worthy of his presence. It is true that especially towards the end of his life in the Homilies Oil the Hexaemeran Basil had occasion to censure the views of his master.12 (ii) When in De Sp. xvi.5. First of all the soul is purified and ceases to live according to the flesh. though it seems from what Basil says here and elsewhere. too. The first is Plotinian. likening them initially to the hornoi6sis described in the Platonic commonplace (Theaetetus 176b).203 improbable. Secondly the Spirit seals our moral and enables our spiritual perfection as pneumatikoi. to be morally and intellectually perfected is to be spirit-filled. If. De Principiis 1. but rejection of some particular views is easily. then the imperfect distinction he makes between the human spirit and divine Spirit becomes only too intelligible: he has simply taken over the imperfect distinction existing in the Enneads between individual souls and the world soul.2. rather than concomitantly with it.sagepub. There is no sense of this worthiness deriving from a prior indwelling of the Spirit. arguably without exception.32 (33). where as a direct result of the moral purification of the soul then comes the Holy Spirit to make it divine. Basil’s teaching on this point seems to be an amalgam of two views. - Summary of Basil’s Pneumatology It is now possible to sum up Basil’s teaching on the nature of the Holy Spirit.13 Now all this teaching of Basil’s has a strong family resemblance to what may be found passim in Origen. as St. 38 and 40.6l-63 the presence of the Spirit.2). 3.11. in two important respects they do reproduce his views: (i) In at least two passages in the De Sp. xxvi. laud. This connexion made by Plotinus between moral perfection and divinization is ‘echoed’ in several texts of Basil.sagepub.E. We started by inquiring how significant was his failure to describe Him as came.9.1 - The Influence of Origen Basil’s dependence upon Origen is a feature of his writing that has frequently been noticed.&dquo. Of all these perhaps the most remarkable occurs in De Sp.2 where Plotinus describes the effects of purification. made together with his friend Gregory of Nazianzus and designed to show that becoming a Christian did not automatically entail a sacrifice of the intellect. S. as we Downloaded from itq. commenting on I Cor 12:4 Basil observes that the gifts of the Spirit are distributed to those ’worthy to receive them’. apparently. xxvi. 61 Basil discusses the presence and effects of the Holy Spirit in the soul.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on November 10. we have a further passage in a later treatise On Virtues 1. Even if Dehnard is not correct (op. ministrata per Christum’. the second Origenist. compatible with retaining the deeper principles. making it thereby ’spiritual’. Although the researches of Professor Nautin in his as yet uncompleted work on Origen have raised some doubts about the role of Downloaded from itq. the Philocalia. As such He gives both form and perfection to the soul. Even more clearly at 1. that the Spirit may depart if the soul is untrue to its acquired purity. Over and above the famous description of ecstacy at the end of Ennead 6. His early enthusiasm bore fruit in the shape of a collection of extracts from Origen. but rather came to dwell in the hearts of those whose lives made a fit home for him. some such picture as the following emerges. but then going beyond that to describe the result as tautotes tini theo. as seems not (especially if the little work on the Holy Spirit is genuine a work that is little more than a cento of quotations from Plotinus) it is true that Basil owes something to the system of Plotinus. In one well-known passage.4 right through to De Sp. and all their host by the breath of his mouth. S. a sort of divinization (Ertrz.1. The effect of the indwelling of the Spirit is the all based on presence within the spiritual man of the various charismata I Cor 12. ’By the word of the Lord the heavens were made. had God left the temple and the house of Israel in Ezechiel 8:6. 38-46) in arguing that the influence of Plotinus on Basil was modified by that of Origen. He have seen very close to it. alone. Such a view of the relation between the two authors and their systems is reinforced if we compare what sort of ends they propose for man.3. S. After that. First of all. he assigns the whole realm of creation to the Father. the creation of rational beings to the Son and finally their sanctification to the agency of the Holy Ghost. the Holy Spirit enters and takes possession of the soul.6. either ’god’ or ‘cvnsubstantial’ with the Father and the Son.5. above all in the De Principiis. it remains only too clear that Origen did exercise a great influence on Basil. As in the hita Antonii 10 and in the Pseudo Macarian Homilies. It appears from these texts that Origen like Basil after him did not believe that the Holy Spirit was the cause of moral perfection in man. in other words the action of the Spirit in us is descriptively the same as our moral perfection.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on November 10. 2013 . 1. similar terminology to do so. is made to depend entirely on the moral worthiness of the individual.7 Origen quotes1he favourite verse from Ps. 53. This naturally raises the question of the relation between the moral success of the individual and the descent of the Dove. xxii. This fact may result from the general difficulty the Greek tradition seems to have experienced in trying to describe different descents of the and us - same’ Holy Spirit. So. the grace of the Holy Spirit is consequent upon the moral prowess of the Christian. Basil restricts the work of the Spirit to the sanctification of the rational order of creation alone. Paul seems to have done.3. 2013 204 ‘ Gregory Thaumaturgus ’Apostle of Cappadocia’ in transmitting Origen’s thought to the Cappadocians. Precisely the same restriction is met with in Origen. It must at once be admitted that Basil.10 In the earlier text.3 he writes that only those share in the gift of the Holy Spirit who have deserved (sic) to be sanctified by his grace.’ and refers the latter half of the verse the ’spiritus Sancti gratia quae dignis praestatur. From C. At 1. On this subject Basil’s writing is quite coherent. and was even prepared on occasion. from which the following references come. S. Eunornii 204-206 and 214-217. S. but belong equally to the Father and the Son. The whole discussion occurs in chapter 18 of the treatise. also Ennead 5. who had written as follows in De Principiis 1. S. which may be found at some length both in Adv. Gregor von Nyssa’s Lehre votiz Heiligen Geist and Tivo Rediscovered works of Early Christian Literature he has put the whole field of Christian scholarship in his debt. 2013 206 hardly the case that the use of a commonplace to establish the creative activity of the Spirit constitutes by itself a major sell-out to Platonism. In other words the creative action of the Spirit seems to be identical with the spiritual perfection of the Christian. (iii) He is co- creative with the Father and the Son. 53.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on November 10. The first argument appears in two different shapes: a) The epithets applied to the Spirit traditionally and in Scripture are none of them peculiar to him. xix. III Hex. 49 he does associate the third person expressly with the work of creating. 2013 .3. {ii) he is inseparable from the Father and the Son. But surely the point is that Gregory already knows the superiority of the Spirit aliunde and is simply quoting the dictum to illustrate rather than prove his point.. and he quotes all but verbatim Timaeus 29c which insists that there can be no jealousy in God.i. (ii) Another example of Gregory’s supposed . in common with Irenaeus.5 ad finem). Coif. 22-23. Now his argument for the creative activity of the Spirit is that He could not have been idle or jealous at creation. even preferable. to ascribe equality of honour to the Holy though Ghost. as in De Sp. As we have already indicated in dealing with Gregory’s alleged dependence on Plotinus. Jaeger sees here an example of the Plotinian principle that the cause is superior to the effect. xxC52 and for his incomprehensibility in xxii. to see them at best as confirmatory of conclusions arrived at by other methods. and this was a step Basil had been unwilling and indeed within his Origenist framework unable to take. 13 (= Jaeger 111. One of the reasons for this is simply that Gregory saw far more clearly and used far more coherently the cardinal Christian doctrine of creation than did Basil. it seems possible.99. there seems to be less case for postulating Plotinian influence on Gregory in any point of real consequence than on Basil. Mac. De facto the main arguments used by Gregory for the deity of the Holy Spirit can be reduced to three: (i) He is descriptively similar to the Father and the Son. Clement and others Downloaded from itq. Gregory had to insist on the fully creative activity of the Spirit if he was to vindicate his title to full deity. and walking along the way that leads to Jesus Christ. then it would seem to follow that we profess a Neoplatonic. In two masterly productions.’ At times Basil goes even further. A further. never (b) Gregory of Nyssa The greatest contribution to the study of the pneumatology of Gregory of Nyssa in recent years is undoubtedly the work of Werner Jaeger. are shared by the third person. b) the particular expressions ascribed to the Father and the Son.5. It is in his third argument for co-creativity that Gregory goes beyond his brother. After all. (In the latter area Jaeger’s opinion that Gregory is dependent on the Great Letter of Macarius has been largely rejected by more recent scholarship which sees Gregory as a tributary of Macarius and through him of the Messalian tradition). (i) In Adv. Mac. S. He saw that it was the characteristic activity of God.13) Gregory wishes to prove against the enemy that the Holy Spirit creates along with the Father and the Son. and that too he scarcely owed to Plato.sagepub. and consequently the basic structure of his thought are Neoplatonist and not Christian at all. If this is correct and if we accept the contention that Gregory’s views and not those of his elder brother triumphed in the church at Constantinople.205 in the De Sp.&dquo. Origen. Interestingly for so philosophical a thinker. ix. and on one other arguably. S. And in the latter of these two cases it is doubtful whether by ’creation’ Basil means much more than the recreation which results from sanctification and resurrection through the descent of the Dove. On the contrary the defective nature of his pneumatology proceeds from an imperfect (or barely existent). who are already turning to a better life. such behaviour being inappropriate to divine beings. related point at which Gregory departs from the Origenist position of his brother Basil is in his treatment of the relation between image and likeness. for it is above all in Adverstis Macedonianos and De Instituto Christiatto that Gregory treats the doctrinal and ascetical aspects of the Holy Spirit. The principal thesis of Jaeger’s treatment of the doctrinal work is this: that the main lines of Gregory’s argument. as Dodds has pointed out in his note on Proclus’ Elements of Theology 7. De Sp. I have argued that this caution is not to be understood simply as an eirenic gesture or as an example of Basil’s ’economy’. 6 and in Ref. Now it is perfectly true. He had argued in that way for the lordship of the Spirit in De Sp.6. the important premise upon which the argument ultimately rests is that the Holy Spirit is God and therefore that he must create. that this principle is one of those on which the whole structure of Neoplatonism reposes (cp. faith in Christian dress. aside from those two titles. Whereas Jaeger sees the two Platonic principles as %nderlying the whole fabric of Gregory’s argument. and actually identifies the Spirit’s action with the moral perfection of man. This type of argument. is not novel in Gregory and looks back to similar procedures in Basil.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on November 10. In all this Basil shows himself to be a (sub)conscious disciple of Origen. ’In those persons alone do I think that the operation of the Holy Spirit takes place. which led him to adjust the expression of his views to the character of the audience.dependence on Neoplatonism is said to be found in the argument that the divine nature can receive nothing because it is perfective of other beings. Downloaded from itq. This point in itself is interesting when taken in conjunction with what was said about Basil.sagepub. awareness of the role played by the Holy Spirit in the work of creation. And that It is premise is not derived from the writings of philosophy. On one occasion certainly. 2. and in this case both in thought and in phrase he recalls Plotinus. in his relative silence on the Spirit. for he will take what is mine and declare it to you’ at Ser.9. though it should be noted that his sweeping statement to the effect that it is an idea that occurs everywhere. Mac. so it is impossible to have The Word without the Breath of God.. so crucial an element of Gregory’s polemic in Mac. Not only had he unequivocally defended the deity and consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit against the Tropici in his Letters to Serapion. between creation and perfection. word without a breath. 22: Two further points might be made in favour of the view that it is possible to detect Athanasian two sides of the same coin. &dquo. conveys no other meaning than this.9) the true Life. Cat. without any mention of the word &dquo. 2013 influence in Gregory.likeness’.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on November 10. and Romans 12:2 ’Be transformed by the renewal of your mind. which is the only-begotten Son. if not explicitly stated by Downloaded from itq. but also the sort of arguments he used are at times very like those of Gregory. (i) Gregory is very insistent on a strong connexion between the actions and persons of Son and Spirit. Mac. is the acquisition of this likeness. as your heavenly Father is perfect’. The Spirit does create and there is for him no distinction between image and likeness. ’Now the expression. and one that has been noticed in Basil also. This point is well brought out by C. This is clear at Contra Eunomium 1.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on November 10.6.5 of his commentary). (ii) Both authors use John 16:14. too. 15 Gregory argues for the deity of the Holy Spirit by suggesting that true morphõsis is impossible if the whole of the mystery of God in three persons be not equally divine. Nevertheless both the texture and the structure of their respective arguments seem to me so different as to argue against dependence either way. 1. (iii) The Spirit’s involvement in the whole of creation. 2013 . (i) Both writers. it emerges as the chapter progresses.207 208 distinguished the two on the basis of Genesis 1:26 f. ’He (sc. The reason for the differences between Basil and Gregory Is it possible to discover any likely source that helps to explain this substantial divergence from his brother on the part of Gregory? It is of course possible that Gregory owed his change of heart on this matter to the writings of his namesake of Nazianzus. 1. It is not therefore without interest that Athanasius in the De lncarllatione (passim but cf.sagepub. that is the Christian formation of the believer.2 and Gregory at Adv. But what is the precise role of the Spirit in this process? How does he help to form the moral life of the Christian? Has Gregory so identified the moral progress of the individual with the action of the Holy Spirit as to leave the latter a purely formal role? One of the disturbing features of his pneumatology. 1. Ecclesiastes and the Life of Moses. 3 60) bishop of Thmuis. and it is a short step from there to connecting the gift of the spirit with this likeness. or the Ref. therefore. This argument can be paralleled in Ser. then salvation.l.2. (c. 4.3) was one of the first if not the earliest of the Fathers to refuse to draw a distinction. Mt 5:48 ’You. we must begin to wonder what exactly does the Spirit do. In the latter passage he argues that just as it is impossible to conceive a spoken ’ _ . is his apparent restriction of the activity of the Holy Spirit to the souls of the worthy.280 and even more so in Or. 10 respectively. expressed by the terms feleidsis or morphõsis. Athanasius at Ser. Conf. A few examples may help to illustrate the sort of dependence envisaged. and between the activities of Father and Son and those of the Spirit. If all three persons are not both fully divine themselves and believed to be so. 21 and Mac. or the Or. is not in fact supported by any adduced evidence. 1. In Gregory the principal role of the Holy Ghost in his formation of the moral life of the Christian. But this may be a mere weapon of conventional abuse. 13. is the characteristic way of describing the Spirit’s function. ’Answer a fool according to his folly’. 19(= 106. In Adv.&dquo. Basil. 2. Cat. the Spirit) will glorify me. Admirable as is Gregory’s insistence on the continuity between nature and grace.’ ’Morph6sis’in particular. Srawley’s note on page 24. An added difficulty. 1 use Proverbs 24:4. 23. 17 is surely foreshadowed.sagepub. although it should be emphasised that by themselves they cannot be considered as probative. as Jaeger has indicated in Early Christiaftity and Greek Paideia. A further and much more likely possibility presents itself in the shape of Athanasius. does not occur. In Adv. 10.’ Becoming spiritual. or the Holy Spirit.In the image of God created He him. appeared. He is barely mentioned at all in the great spiritual commentaries on the Song of songs. Mac. He delivered his theological orations in Constantinople before either the Adv. must be perfect. So he writes in De Principiis 3. that man received the dignity of God’s image at his first creation but that the perfection of his likeness has been reserved for the consummation. This last point is made in chapter 5 of the Great Catechetical Oration (cf. In both these respects Gregory differs from his brother.R. makes a like distinction and regards the Spirit as perfecting rather than causing the existence of created reality. he was certainly much bolder and more explicit than Basil in his affirmation of the full divinity of the Spirit temporally speaking also he could have influenced his namesake. It is perfectly true that Nazianzus -ould have influenced Nyssa. as Parmentier and others have pointed out. That these two points cohere closely together is clear if it is remembered that a refusal to distinguish between the action of creation and that of sanctification and a refusal to distinguish between man in his natural and man in his ideal state are Athanasius at Ser. Shapland in his very useful notes to his translation of the Letters. (ii) It was noted above that one of the central and significant divergences between Basil and Gregory was on the relation of image and likeness. A similar connexion between right faith and moral perfection is also made in De Instituto 43:8 ff. is imparted by the activity of the Spirit tois axiollmellois presumably Downloaded from itq. Eun. Mac. (iv) Finally Gregory’s contention in chapter 20 that a denial of the deity of the Spirit necessarily leads to a denial of the other two persons’ deity is not unlike a similar statement made at Ser.20.9. for which he depends primarily on two New Testament texts. 3. And this way of speaking is particularly prominent again in the De Instituto. (c) Conclusion The central aim of this article has been to establish the views of the Cappadocians and relate them to the formula about the Holy Ghost contained in the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed (= C). Such an interpretation of the known facts would find some measure of support from the negative.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on November 10. esp. 2013 . Early Christian Creeds. 258). at that time.who. which C. 159. that he is a fellow worker with the Christian in his task of spiritual growth. L. What catches the attention of the first three scholars is the striking similarity in attitude and phraseology between C. If this is true. The main areas of distinction are Gregory’s willingness to speak of the Spirit both as ’God’ and as ’consubstantial’ and in the resolute absorption of the work of perfection into that of creation.42). and also that above all in Adv. 44. Theod. tit. Labour and the grace of the Spirit together form the Christian soldier ((43. the restriction of his activity to the worthy. Against such a conslusion it would doubtless be possible for Gribomont to argue that Kelly is assuming what he ought to prove. 175. to be supplementing. 90 and 159 to prove not only Basilian influence on C. 1. &dquo. and Basil.tiennes. Mac. ’Intransigence and Irenicism’ republished in Word and Spirit 1979 from the original in Estudios Trinitarios IX. prefering by implication the language of synergy. (incorrectly. to conclude that there was never any such thing as C. But then in Ep. It is significant. It is true that SUl1 is a marked feature of C. The silence of the Acta and indeed of every document up to the Council of Chalcedon of 451 have led Harnack. This ’ Downloaded from itq. together with the Father and the Son is both adored and glorified&dquo. is best explained by the intervention of Gregory of Nyssa. In this passage Gregory distinguishes in Basil’s writing on the Holy Ghost between the actual expressions employed and the nous and skopos. and is himself not too clear (to say the least) about the deity of the Spirit. Epp. 1 Oratio 43.. What is not clear is what the latter adds to the former idea. however. Cod. LXVI. the use of ’perfection’ to describe his particular role. It is perhaps only in the proskunêsis of C. a revision of N. nature and activity of the Holy Spirit with those of Father and Son is the stock in trade of the argument. 1975. p. The co-operative function of the Spirit. 17bis). and that if Basil is behind C. Basile de C&eacute.of Nyssa.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on November 10. The picture Gregory paints there is of moral endeavour meeting the action of the Holy Spirit. Eitnoniii 227-229 Gregory rejected Eunomius’ restriction of the activity of the Holy Spirit to encouragement hupophõnesis (227).sar&eacute.7-47. Cf.3 for July 30.e sur le Saint-Esprit. though for different reasons and with differing conclusions. and Basil-in affirming ’God’ and ’consubstantial’ of the third person is: a) connected and b) does not prove the refusal of either to assert what he and we take to be the faith of the church about the nature of the Holy Ghost (cf. though this too is a feature that Gregory rather than Basil shares with Athanasius. This latter may also result.? Gribomont. especially in the De Instituto is too frequent a feature to be merely accidental (cf. was thought. all these can be paralleled in Basil. By ’orthodoxy’ Kelly clearly means agreement about the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. viz. 4. if not disgruntled. supports Gregory. It is unnecessary in the present context to rehearse the vexed question of the actual provenance of C. esp. Doerries and Kelly believe. or the Ancoratus 119 of Epiphanius of Salamis. the stress on sun in C. from the need to assert the unity of the three persons in action and in nature. The question at once arises: ’What is the origin of the words in C. Downloaded from itq. The insistence on the worthiness of the recipient. 68. Mac. was Basil. among others. In other words it is possible to sum up the activity of the Holy Spirit in our regard as a fusion of sll11ergeia and morphosis. It is precisely in the area of the unity of the Godhead and the particular action of the Holy Spirit that the brothers disagree and the two sides were only in the end ’resolved’ by the somewhat unhappy doctrine of ’appropriation’. (Sources Chr&eacute. Salamanca. He holds that the slight reserve shown by both C. Where he differs from Basil he may well be dependent on Athanasius. as thereafter.209 meaning those who have been found worthy. as in the treatise Quod non sum tres dei.sagepub.. 2013 210 tremendous reverence for Nicaea is seen both in the first canon of Constantinople and in scattered references in the letters of Basil (cf. and that the silence about C. He also complains somewhat peevishly of those who fail to make such a distinction. then the latter’s belief in the full deity of the Spirit has had a decided effect on Faith. 24. attitude of Gregory of Nazianzus towards the council and towards C. that it goes beyond Basil and in this decidedly unambiguous expression of adoration we are not far from the language of Gregory in Adv. 69. It has already been noticed that in the Ref. was largely a result of the reverence for the Creed of Nicaea. by insisting on one feature of his activity. which are lacking in N.’ Kelly cites the language of Basil’s Epp. p. sliding at times into an identification between the Spirit and the life of moral excellence. 3. but also the substantial ’orthodoxy’ of both.3 ff).2 Basil has sundoxazontes which is as strong as one could wish. It must be clear by now that much of what Gregory has to say about the functioning of the Holy Spirit owes a good deal to the pneumatology of his brother. Hort and Caspari. 9 the tying in of the worship.sagepub. especially of the clause. it is better to say with Ritter15 and Kelly that the Council did produce a creed. . esp. Jaeger. 2. On the whole. both for the theses they argue for and for the enigmatic character of Basil that whereas Gribomont cites similarity of attitude to prove the fact that ’the credal formula of Constantinople is strongly stamped with Basilian economy. on the other hand. that the major influence on the wording of C. however. itself. no doubt). Gregory seems just about to avoid giving the Holy Spirit as another name for ~ the moral perfection of men. Conf. Jaeger’s suggestion is that whatever the general provenance of the Creed. 342). itself too clear. 381. then neither is C. esp. and possibly De Sp. on the Holy Spirit.4 and 3. xxvi. This view has kinship with the view of Irenaeus at Adv. 1965.C. 4.1. Hom in Hex. 38 ad init. 38 apart. M. One of her central arguments (pp.77. Professor Pia Piuslampe makes a nearly convincing defence of the ’orthodoxy’ of Basil in a recent book. 13. xvi. The Book of St. 2013 . 63 and C. and 5. ch. Berne 1844. xvi. 2. Paris 1936. 9. 17 (= Jaeger. and in the same passage sanctity is stated quite clearly to be exothentes ousias. This point is brought out very clear at De Sp. S. Das Konzil von Konstantinopel und sein Symbol. 2. 1956.5 and De Sp. Downloaded from itq. that the likeness to God does not belong to us by nature.6. Spiritus Vivificans: Grundzuege einer Theologie des Heiligen Geistes nach Basilius von Caesarea.-Hist. 6. 111. 14. But. Klasse. xvi. 8.P.. but on both occasions it refers to the Son’s deity.. Berlin 1964. 2. S. ’Der Beitrag des Basilius zum Abschluss des Trinitarischen Dogmas’ in Abhandlungen der Akadamie der Wissenschaften in Goettingen.8) explicitly rejects the suggestion that there can be any intermediary being between creator and creature. 4 Praef.1. in De Sp. 38. H.30 and D. A similar treatment of 1 Cor 12:4-6 occurs in Origen’s Comm.1. homotimia is indeed used at vi. H. xvi. 12. 10. pp. 15.4. Sp. S.com at Katholieke Univ Leuven on November 10. Das Problem der Abhaengigkeit des Basilius von Plotin. Johnston. 11.10.F. and if this is so to say that the Holy Spirit perfects. 61. Museum Lessianum. Basilius Magnus Plotinizans. Henry. Oxford. 15. Basil the Great. 39. Cf. 97-111. xxvi.6. 2. S. Mac. but is part of the gift of the Spirit.104.E. S. Goettingen. Dehnard. Goettingen. Munster 1981.6.E. 49 ff. is tantamount to a claim that he creates.sagepub. all the evidence is the other way. Hermann Doerries. Jahn. Les Etats du Texte de Plotin. 13. In De Sp. C. Ritter A.211 5. also C.H. 40 the grace of the Holy Spirit is the ’crown of the just’. as Basil undoubtedly often claims he does. Phil. in Jn. S. 7. Opera Omnia 3.. a like distinction is made by Origin at C. De.) is that for Basil perfecting is an extension of creation. 3. Gregory of Nyssa also on at least one occasion in the Adv. Cf. 1892. Documents Similar To Meredith -capadocieniiSkip carouselcarousel previouscarousel nextThe Boon of Self-realizationBiblical Numerics MeaningsSolar Mysticism in Gurdjieff and NeoPlatonismThe Mystics of IslamFasting (by William Collins)DIVINE ESISTENCE ,ITS BEYONDNESS AND INNESS.The Origin of Christian Sciencemethexis-23Kundalini - The personal transformational energyCoherence of Cristology in the BibleTerms for EternityAnthropocentrism Gaudium Et SpesMystics of IslamHobson. Notes on the Athanasian Creed. 1894.161063949-Dostoevsky-Reads-Hegel-in-Siberia-and-Bursts-into-Tears-Laszlo-F-Foldenyi.pdfSai Our Divine ParentGibson. The three creeds. 1912.Part 96 the So Called Elusive Veil!New World OrderTheodicy in Hittite textsPlotinus and Aristotle on the Simplicity of the Divine Intellect1914 Souvenir Notes - Bible Students' ConventionsThe Perception of Time by Humans According to John Philoponus and Its Relation With the Theory of Special and General RelativityESC 12 11 Newsletter1. Who is Jesus ChristETERNAL GOSPEL chap 01 FROM GENESIS TO THE APOCALYPSE34529566 the Soul as Barzakh Substantial Motion and Mulla Sadra s Theory of Human BecomingBeeley Cv YdsMore From Viorel ComanSkip carouselcarousel previouscarousel nextGregory II of CyprusRatzinger.pdfIoan Moga Tabor 11 Nov 2013 (1)-LibreStaniloae 1964, no. 3-4Best Books About NeoplatonismAshtanga Yoga: Practice and Philosophyby Gregor MaehleBe Here Nowby Ram DassThe Mind Illuminated: A Complete Meditation Guide Integrating Buddhist Wisdom and Brain Science for Greater Mindfulnessby John Yates, Matthew Immergut, and Jeremy GravesThe Upanishadsby Eknath EaswaranSoul Centered Astrology: A Key to Your Expanding Selfby Alan OkenSigil Magick: The Basicsby Anousen LeonteFooter MenuBack To TopAboutAbout ScribdPressOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsLegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightSupportHelp / FAQAccessibilityPurchase helpAdChoicesPublishersSocial MediaCopyright © 2018 Scribd Inc. .Browse Books.Site Directory.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaSign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulYou're Reading a Free PreviewDownloadClose DialogAre you sure?This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?CANCELOK