Pentecost commemorates the Holy Spirit’s descent upon the twelve apostles. He came down upon them in the rush of mighty wind that resounds from heaven and in tongues of fire (Acts 2:1-3). This is the last visible sending of a divine person. With it, finally the three divine persons have been fully revealed. So, the Sunday following Pentecost, the Church celebrates the mystery of the Holy Trinity.
None of the interviews and articles published since Trinity Sunday last year has been dedicated expressly to this truth of the faith. Occasionally, however, one of the recommended books has focussed on some aspect of “the central mystery of Christian faith and life.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 234). To celebrate Trinity Sunday, this edition of Five Books for Catholics picks out five such items. You can also check out last year's retrospect for Trinity Sunday.
The Masses by Anton Bruckner, Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra, directed by Eugen Jochum
Five Books for Catholics may receive a commission from qualifyng purchases made using the affliate links in this post.
By chance, several of the books surveyed since last Trinity Sunday have coalesced around the third divine person and the ecumenical councils that defined the Church’s faith in the Holy Spirit.
The first two ecumenical councils—Nicaea I (325) and Constantinople I (381)—had to defend the truth of the Trinity against the various strands of Arianism, according to which only the invisible Father was truly God and uncreated. Nicaea I condemned the Arian doctrine that the Word, though the first mediator between God and the rest of creation, was merely the first and most godlike creature. Constantinople I condemned the ensuing Arian thesis: that the Holy Spirit is the next down the chain and the second most godlike creature.
Prior to Constantinople I, several Church Fathers had written rigorous rebuttals of the Arian reduction of the Holy Spirit to a creature. One of the most notable was St. Athanasius the Great’s Letters to Serapion. Another was St. Basil the Great’s On the Holy Spirit, which Stephen M. Hildebrand singled out in his survey of the Cappadocian father’s writings.
1.
Prof. Hildebrand explained why we need to read such works of the Church Fathers.
While Constantinople I revised the Nicene Creed to assert unequivocally the divinity of the Holy Spirit, “the Creed does not give an argument. St. Basil’sOn the Holy Spirit does and engages the opponents of Nicaea. In the process, all kinds of wonderful things come up: the way that the Scriptures speak of both the Father and the Holy Spirit, along with questions about Tradition and doctrinal development…"
"On the Holy Spirit, therefore,is a window into a whole range of theological arguments and issues, even though it addresses a question that has since been settled."
"This is true of many theological questions. The Lord has left so much undone and so much for the Church to figure out. This attests to the dignity with which he has created us and the way he has saved us. We participate in the ever deeper unfolding of the truth revealed in Christ. There is a wonderful dignity to this. However, once progress has been made, we do not leave it behind."
"It is good for us to kind of relive these developments with the Fathers of the Church and participate in them. It is beneficial for our own souls and minds. Contrast that with technological developments. Nobody goes back to use the technology of first-generation smartphones. There is no point in that. It does not help us. Similarly, a farmer with a tractor will not bother to learn how to use a horse-drawn plough. With the faith, it is different. There is a tremendous benefit in going back and getting inside the mind of St. Basil, St. Athanasius, and their opponents. We relive and retrace their steps in this development of doctrine. This is very fulfilling spiritually and intellectually. The Lord has made us for this sort of thing.”
God the Father unbegotten, only-begotten Son, and Holy Spirit, the Comforter; holy and undivided Trinity, with all our heart and voice we acknowledge Thee, we praise Thee, and we bless Thee: Glory to Thee forever. *** Te Deum Patrem ingenitum, te Filium unigenitum, te Spiritum Sanctum Paraclitum, sanctam et individuam Trinitatem, toto corde et ore confitemur, laudamus, atque benedicimus: Tibi gloria in saecula.
2.
The divinity of the Holy Spirit was defined dogmatically not long after Basil died in the First Council of Constantinople (381). Constantinople I revised the Nicene Creed. Above all, it expanded on the article on the Holy Spirit. The council fathers did not state that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father and the Son. They avoided that vexatious and widely misunderstood adjective. Rather, like Basil, they opted for biblical expressions and descriptions of the Christian tradition of worship. They professed that the Holy Spirit is “the Lord, the giver of life," who “with the Father and the Son, is adored and glorified.” They thereby professed that he is God, just as much as the Father and the Son are, and equal to them in every way. They also professed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
However, the Western Church subsequently inserted "and from the Son" (Filioque) into this last article of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. This became, particularly with Photios, a source of disagreement between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
Later ecumenical councils, Lyon II (1274) and Florence (1439), addressed this issue and successfully if only briefly restored communion between Rome and Constantinople.
The Council of Florence was the subject of one this last year’s interviews. In it, Fr. Thomas Crean OP explained how Florence brought about an agreement between East and West on the Filioque.
“They (the council fathers) agreed that the Father and the Son are one principle of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. They agreed that the Son has it from the Father, because he has all that he is from the Father, to be the with the Father the one principle of the eternal procession."
"They also agreed that this truth could be expressed suitably by saying either that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son or that he proceeds from the Father through the Son. These two formulations are complementary. Each brings out a slightly different aspect of the same truth."
"By saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son, we bring out that the Father and the Son are a single principle of his procession. It is not as if the Father contributes part of the Holy Spirit, and the Son contributes another. That would obviously be nonsense."
"By saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, we bring out a different aspect: that the Son, who proceeds from the Father, has it from the Father to be the single principle, with the Father, of the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Son has this from the Father, but the Father does not have it from the Son. We profess that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, but not from the Son through the Father."
"The council fathers agreed that both these formulations were correct. They argreed on the dogma behind these formulations and that this dogma was the teaching of the Fathers of the Church."
"This was all expressed with great clarity in the final decree."
"Today, there people who claim that the council fathers did not understand each other and may have meant different things. Such a view is untenable. The discussions and the final decree, a marvellous crystalline piece of writing, do not bear it out.”
“I had been studying the Council of Florence and was struck by the prevailing myths that float around in the ecclesial consciousness."
"One myth is that there was not any free discussion and that the Greeks were pressured."
"Another is that the Latins relied on false patristic citations, were only interested in scholastic philosophy, and made statements that the Greeks did not understand. As a result, there was no real meeting of minds and the union achieved was not genuine."
"When I read the Acts of the Council, it was evident that this was not true at all. I thought, therefore, that it would be interesting to write something to show this."
"I was also struck by the modern attempts to challenge the Catholic dogma of the Filioque."
"It has become fashionable to claim that the Catholic position, rightly understood, is no different from that of Photius of Constantinople, which became the official position of the Orthodox Church: that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. In my view, that is not the case, and it is important to be clear about that. As part of this misguided attempt to reinterpret the Catholic position, a certain amount of work has been done on the Fathers of the Church. This work makes unclear what is actually clear. It casts doubt on whether this or that Father of the Church—St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, or St. Gregory the Great—would have accepted the doctrine of the Filioque, as defined by Florence. They would have and I considered that it was important to explain why. All these ideas came together in this book, which has three parts."
"In the first part, I look at the Fathers of the Church who talk about the subject, especially those who were important to Florence."
"Secondly, I look at what an ecumenical council is. One of the complaints that's made about Florence is that it is not a true council because it does not fulfil the criteria for one. Hence, I consider what those criteria are and argue that Florence fulfils them all impressively."
"The third part looks at the proceedings of the Council of Florence and tries to dispel some of the myths about it."
"The three parts come together to showing how the Council of Florence accomplished a great work. It vindicated the doctrine of the Filioque and its work withstands the modern criticisms.”
Fr. Crean also contested the view that the Filioque is suspect because the Greek Church Fathers never endorse it.
“In my view, they certainly do. However, this is not a question that you can answer by pointing to one sentence. Nor can you do so with the Latin Fathers. You need to look at the Fathers in detail, read their words in context, and compare one passage to another. This is what I do at some length in the first third of my book."
"Some Fathers are clearer than others. Among the clearest is St. Gregory of Nyssa. He draws a famous comparison between the Blessed Trinity and three torches, where the first torch lights the second and the second the third. St. Cyril of Alexandria is also very clear. Others less so. There is a lot of room for discussion about St. Basil and St. Gregory Nazianzen. I argued that the only way you can make sense of what they say is to understand them as teaching the same doctrine as Florence. In that case, they would have accepted the definition of Florence. However, they were not addressing the question of the Filioque. Rather, they were asserting the full divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. That is why you cannot just go to them for a proof text on the Filioque. There are proof texts, but they cannot be pulled out as if there is no room for discussion. They need to be studied and interpreted carefully. That takes a long time.”
This post is for paying subscribers only
Sign up now and upgrade your account to read the post and get access to the full library of posts for paying subscribers only.
