St. Basil of Caesarea (c. 330-379) is one of the most important Church Fathers and founders of monasticism.

He came from an upper-class and devout Christian family of Pontus. After higher studies at Constantinople and Athens, he had a conversion and abandoned the career of rhetor for a life of Christian asceticism and was baptised.

In 362, he was ordained a presbyter in Caesarea, formed a community of ascetics, but left for Pontus after falling out with the bishop.

Three years later, he returned to Caesarea, reconciled with Eusebius, and, amid a controversial election, succeeded him as bishop of Caesarea in 370.

The year before becoming bishop, he organised a remarkable relief effort during a famine.

During his episcopacy, he defended the Council of Nicaea but also courted controversy and opposition with his interventions in ecclesiastical politics.

A doctor of the Church, with St. John Chrysostom and St. Gregory of Nazianzen, he is venerated in the Eastern Churches as one of the Three Holy Hierarchs.

In this interview, Stephen M. Hildebrand discusses the life and work of St. Basil the Great

Stephen M. Hildebrand is Professor of Theology and Vice President for Academic Affairs at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. He is the author of The Trinitarian Theology of Basil of Caesarea: A Synthesis of Greek Thought and Biblical Truth (CUA Press), Basil of Caesarea (Routledge), Basil of Caesarea: Foundations of Theological Exegesis and Christian Spirituality (Baker Academic) editor of the Popular Patristics Series edition of St. Basil’s On the Holy Spirit.

On the Holy Spirit
by St. Basil
Homilies on the Six Days of Creation [Hexameron]
by St. Basil
On Christian Ethics (alternative edition)
by St. Basil
The Long Rules
by St. Basil
Letters (vol. 1) (vol. 2)
by St. Basil

Five Books for Catholics may receive a commission from qualifyng purchases made using the affliate links in this post.

What are the main events of St. Basil’s life?
I would start just before he was born. In 325, there was the Council of Nicaea. This ecclesial event loomed very large in Basil's life.

So did the Great Persecution, which occurred little earlier still. His maternal and paternal grandparents suffered in that persecution. They were confessors: Christians who stayed faithful in a time of persecution. That persecution marked his parents and his whole family profoundly.

A key moment in his life was his return from school in Athens. We are not quite sure what happened. Anna Silvas speculates that he came home on account of the tragic death of his younger brother, Naucratius. In any event, an exchange with his wonderful sister, Macrina, converted him to the ascetic life. Instead of becoming a secular teacher of rhetoric, he was baptized, and embarked upon the ascetic life.

His ordination was another key event. He never planned to be a bishop. Entering the doctrinal life of the Church and disputes of the times was a profound decision for him. He debated whether to live his ascetic life in the countryside or in the city. He tried both and but settled on the latter. This was a very important decision for him, indeed for the life of the Church and the future of asceticism.

Finally, his meeting with Gregory and the unfolding of that relationship were profoundly important in St. Basil's life.

During the famine of 369, Basil built a complex—later called the Basileiados— which acted as centre for a monastic community and works of corporal mercy. Was he simply following an existing precedent or pioneering a new kind of institution?
There were some precedents but Basil took these activities to a new level. That is where he is original.

For example, he decided to practice asceticism in the city, first as a priest and then as a bishop, and put that ascetic activity at the service of the Church. Basil's mentor, Eustathius, had set some precedent for that. However, Basil took all that to a whole new level.

Moreover, nobody had ever built such a complex. Gregory of Nazianzus called it a new city, the Basileiados. Though there were some precedents for it, it is original in both its scope and intensity.

"The saints need to get into the mess of ecclesial politics."

Like St. Cyril of Alexandria, Basil engaged in some questionable politicking as bishop. To preserve his influence in the region, he made his brother bishop of Nyssa and manipulated Gregory of Nazianen into becoming, against his will, bishop of Sasima. Perhaps his uncle, who opposed his election as bishop of Caesarea, was aware of this side of Basil. What should we make of this less saintly side of his personality?
Basil made mistakes. There is no question about that. Gregory thought so and that Basil had risked his friendship. However, the saints need to get into the mess of ecclesial politics.

Take the way Basil made Gregory of Nazianzus and then Gregory of Nyssa bishops. His diocese had been cut in half by the emperor. The dioceses were being divided according to the imperial provinces. In a shrewd move, the Arian emperor Valens divided Basil's province in half. This severely diminished the number of bishops that Basil had under him as metropolitan. In making new bishops, Basil was responding to that move.

What would have been the saintly thing to do? Simply to let Valens have his way? That would have left the Arianizing bishops the dominant force. I am sympathetic to Basil, maybe because I am administrator and think of academic politics. That side of the Church and universities is unavoidable. You need to handle it the best you can, with honesty and charity.

It was important for Basil to respond shrewdly to Valens, who was trying to diminish the influence of the pro-Nicene bishops. I do not fault Basil for multiplying bishoprics. That was the smart thing to do and probably even the holy thing to do. However, he should not have duped Gregory into coming to his own ordination. Basil did not navigate these matters perfectly. Nor did St. Cyril of Alexandria.

What was the reason for St. Basil’s disagreement with St. Athanasius?
At the time, Athanasius, Basil, and many others were working out the best way to speak about the Trinity. They knew that they agreed in truth and had the same faith. However, they disagreed over what was the best way to speak of the Trinity. how best to talk about it. So when this became very concrete,

At one point, the See of Antioch had four bishops: an Arian, an Apollinarian, and two Nicene bishops, the one in communion with Athanasius, the other with Basil. The frustrating thing is that in this instance Basil and Athanasius were making the same mistake. They invested too much in words.

In 362, Athanasius wrote a very important Letter to the Antiochians (Tomus ad Antiochenos), where he allows for some flexibility of language. St. Basil never quite allowed for the same flexibility. He wanted Christians to confess that there are three hypostases. He uses hypostasis for person, where Athanasius used it for the one God and professed that Father and Son are of the same hypostasis. Basil wanted to use ‘hypostasis’ to refute modalism, whereas Athanasius had his own way of refuting it. That was their basic disagreement.

Basil wrote Athanasius six letters to persuade him to adopt his solution to the problem— which eventually the Church did adopt—but Athanasius never responded.

"Basil, therefore, acknowledged that we sometimes need to use technical terms but sees this as unfortunate."

St. Gregory of Nyssa was Basil’s brother. St. Gregory Nazianzen was his friend. These three Church Fathers are known as the Cappadocians because they share many common doctrines. How does the teaching of St. Basil differ from that of the other two Cappadocians?
As you said, the most important things they share in common.

For example, they had a common way of thinking of God and his relation to creation. This was a huge question for the Church at the time. It may sound crazy to us but some Church Fathers, influenced by the Greek tradition, thought of God as a ranked divinity: the Father is at the top, the Son a little below Him, and the Spirit a little bit below them both. Athanasius and the Cappadocians realized that this subordinationism does not make sense and is inconsistent with the Gospel. Hence, they make a radical division between God and creation. This is one thing the Cappadocians have in common.

However, they differ on a couple of things.

One is the question of the Holy Spirit. In his fifth Theological Oration, Gregory of Nazianzus asserts that the Spirit is God and that he is consubstantial with the Father. Basil was reluctant to make those assertions, not because he did not believe them, but because he was reticent to do so. This reticence is called the Basilian reserve or economy.

He was reticent to use expressions that did not appear in Scripture. He accepted that the Council of Nicaea has used the term ‘consubstantial’ (homoousios) even though it does not appear in Scripture. He accepted that and tolerated it.

However, he preferred not to use words that did not appear explicitly in Scripture. The clause on the Holy Spirit in the Constantinopolitan Creed is very Basilian. That Creed does not call the Holy Spirit God or consubstantial with the Father. It calls him “the Lord, the giver of life.” This clause is based in Scripture and so is very Basilian. However, it is not very Gregorian. Both Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa would have preferred to confess—and did freely confess—that the Holy Spirit is God is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil even exchanged letters on this point. In his letter, Gregory criticised Basil for not making this profession. In a couple of texts, Basil comes close to doing so. In one text, Basil speaks of a consubstantial Trinity. For the most part, however, he never directly addresses the Holy Spirit as God or talk of him as being consubstantial, even though he obviously believes and argues that he is. That is a theological difference.

On the ascetic side, Gregory of Nazianzus never embraced the organized ascetic life in the way that Basil did. Although he led a very ascetic life, his was more of a hermitic asceticism. He would withdraw from society and retire into the countryside. He was pulled back to his family and away from the ascetic life in a way that Basil was not.

Early on in their lives, right after their schooling in Athens, Gregory went to Alexandria. Basil wanted him to come to his country estate in Pontus, near the Black Sea so that they could live the ascetic life together, withdrawn from society. Gregory did so for a time but then left. So, their asceticism is different. Basil is the founder of a wonderful ascetic tradition. Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, who seems to have been married, were not. There are similarities between Basil's ascetic vision and theirs, but the way in which he lived it out is very different from theirs.

Was Basil entirely consistent on the first point you mentioned? If he was reluctant to call the Holy Spirit consubstantial with the Father because Scripture never uses the term ‘consubstantial’, why did he insist on calling the three divine persons hypostaseis, another term which Scripture does not use for them.
That is a great question. Hebrews 1:3 uses hypostasis but this is a very enigmatic verse and cannot be used as a clear proof text for Basil.

If I could speak for Basil, basically he would say that we use technical non-Scriptural words when we need to.

The Council Fathers at Nicaea felt they needed to. They were right. If you limit yourself to the words of Scripture, it is very difficult to refute Arianism. If you tried to, Arius would assent to every Scriptural text proposed but interpret it according to his mind rather than that of the Church.

Basil, therefore, acknowledged that we sometimes need to use technical terms but sees this as unfortunate. He blames the heretics for this unfortunate turn of events. He believes that it is necessary to use ‘hypostasis’, but not to apply ‘consubstantial’ to the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, the Creed of Constantinople does refute modalism without using hypostasis. One of the differences between the Nicene Creed and the Constantinopolitan Creed is that the latter adds a clause with a quotation from Scripture: “and of his kingdom, there will be no end” (Luke 1:33). That clause is designed specifically to refute the modalism of Marcellus of Ancyra, who believed that the Son would cease to exist when he handed the Kingdom over to the Father (Later, he repented of his modalism). Hence, whenever we confess with the Creed of Constantinople that “his kingdom will have no end,” we are confessing that his person will have no end. This is an anti-modalist confession.

Basil died a couple of years before the Council of Constantinople, he would have liked its Creed very much, even though it proves, contrary to what he insisted, that you can have an anti-modalist creed without using hypostasis.

However, he was right about the clause on the Holy Spirit. There is no doubt in anybody's mind that the Holy Spirit is divine. It does not matter that we do not call him God.

Is St. Basil the author of the Divine Liturgy that is attributed to him?Yes, basically he is. This is one aspect of St. Basil I have not studied all that much. As with other questions regarding St. Basil, it is very complicated.

These liturgies have a very complicated textual history but definitely resemble St. Basil’s thought and language.

In this regard, they remind me of the textual issues surrounding Basil’s Hexameron. These nine sermons on creation do not reach the creation of man. However, there are two sermons on the creation of man that are attributed to St. Basil. The textual tradition by which they have come down to us is less clean. Consequently, scholars debate their authorship. Philip Rousseau, who has done some wonderful research on them, concludes that, even if Basil didn't write them, he might as well have. They come from in his circle or school. They are inspired by his thinking.

Although this is not my area of expertise, my guess is that something similar happened with the Liturgy of St. Basil. He did not sit down and write it out in a single go, onto a manuscript that was then preserved and copied for centuries, without any addition, subtraction, or revision. More likely, the text originated with him, was revised by him, and then developed organically as a living liturgical text. It is still true to say that it comes from him.

1.

First up, is St. Basil’s treatise On the Holy Spirit. It was written to settle the dispute over the divinity of the Holy Spirit. That dispute was settled subsequently at the First Council of Constantinople (381). Why is Basil’s treatise still worth reading?