OnePeterFive has published Nishant Xavier's dawa to the Greek churches, arguing for the Spirit as "proceeding" from the Son as well as from the Father. This "procession" is hypostatic, meaning it reflects the nature of the Godhead Himself, at least as far as humans can perceive Him. It isn't just energetic.
I am decidedly in the Dyothelete choir, as the saying goes. Still, the article is valuable for showing the career of "filioque" among the Nicene Christians. I'd thought it had been mooted first at Toledo, and therefore a Latin construct. Xavier knows Toledo; but explains how Leo the Great and Gregory the Great had - earlier - mooted filioque.
Also Cyril of Alexandria argues for it in his third letter to Nestorius. Nestorius agreed with that much, given that said letter challenges him from the Monophysite perspective. This implies a consensus in pre-Ephesian Christendom, extending perhaps as far as Iraq.
What should worry Xavier more is exactly Cyril's monophysitism where he is not making a rhetorical appeal to Nestorius' common ground. Dyotheletes insist on filioque to make that distinction between Father and Son and, thereby, between the secular and religious arms of the Christian state. I do infer this distinction from Nestorius. I am not seeing this from Cyril.
What also should worry Xavier is a parallel development in Christology, where the Spirit flows from the Father through the Son. Such Xavier quotes from Tarasius of Constantinople, Basil of Caesarea ("the Great"), and even Maximus (who I believe should have known better). On this language, Arius and Eusebius themselves might agree. I sense a danger in a religious authority asserting itself with the Father, and emitting pronouncements through a captive Church. (Although these instances assuredly have contexts which inspired those wordings, such as what I have adduced for Cyril.)
I don't know that Xavier is going to win many converts from his essay as a result.
SEQUEL 8/15/2021: Charlemagne sensed it too.
No comments:
Post a Comment