To understand the symbolism of the Catholic Church and its space - without the filioque - nowhere.
In 1054, the legates of Pope Leo IX placed a bull on the throne of Hagia Sophia excommunicating Patriarch Michael Cirularius of Constantinople and his supporters. And a few days later, in response to this, the patriarch and the council he convened excommunicated the legates themselves from the Church.
1054 is considered the date of the schism (schism). How did it happen?
St. Augustine, who lived in Rome in the 5th century, the most "philosophizing" of the Fathers of the Church, was inclined to exalt the abilities of the human mind in the field of knowledge of God. He developed the theological doctrine of the Holy Trinity, which formed the basis of the Latin doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son (in Latin - Filioque). The Bishop of Rome (Pope) was thus perceived not only as the first among equals in the Universal Church, but as its supreme head and vicar of Christ, "the mediator of the Holy Spirit", having direct authority over the rest of the patriarchs and secular rulers.
But the Eastern Fathers always adhered to the older tradition that the Holy Spirit, like the Son, originates only from the Father (cf. John 15:26), and saw in the Filioque a distortion of the apostolic faith. They noted that in the Western Church the Hypostasis Itself and the role of the Holy Spirit were belittled, and this led to the strengthening of the formal and legal aspects in the life of the Church. But since the 5th century, Filioque has been spreading in the West.
Christianity gradually split into Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Why is the filioque problem so divisive that it divides Orthodox Christians and Catholics?
Let's take a question about papal primacy. Christ, ascending, said: "I will not leave you orphans. I will give you another Comforter." Who did he mean? Who did Christ leave instead of Himself in the Church? Holy Spirit or Pope? The Holy Spirit lives and governs the Church, or some kind of administrator of the Vatican?
AT liturgies- What is the main difference between the Orthodox tradition and the Latin one? Epiclesis. The invocation of the Holy Spirit on gifts. "Send down your Holy Spirit on us and on these Gifts that are set before us." Amazing thing!
Here comes the understanding original sin. From the point of view of Catholics, man violated the will of God, and God has been angry with man ever since. legal understanding. The Orthodox understanding is different: a person turned out to be godless. In Orthodox anthropology, a person can be quite human if he is “impregnated” with the Holy Spirit. Thanked. And without it, we are all disabled. Adam, having sinned, drove the Holy Spirit away from him. And so we were disabled. From the point of view of Catholicism, grace is a kind of crown, which is imposed from the outside. And if a person has sinned, the crown is removed. Those. What is a person in Catholicism? Adam was elevated to the rank of corporal, he sinned, the lychka was torn from him. But the man is the same. Nothing has changed inside him. But in Orthodoxy - not so. Man suffocates without God. Sick. Terrible mutations begin in it.
Now painting. She spoke about the difference between icons and paintings.
This is again a question about the operation of the Holy Spirit. The icon shows a person transformed by this grace. And in the Catholic paintings, we see that the Holy Spirit, like a “plate”, flies over a person, and an ordinary person.
Favorite mysticism let's take. And also: those states of the soul, which in Catholicism are regarded as blessed, as revealing the presence of the Holy Spirit, from the point of view of Orthodox asceticism, there are nothing more than purely human, emotional experiences, mental, sometimes even sexual ...
Sacraments. Who administers the sacraments from the point of view of Catholic theology? - Priest! But just listen: “I, by the power given to me, do this and that.” This is how it sounds - in every Sacrament: "by power." For the Orthodox, the sacraments are performed by the Holy Spirit. And the priest - he only serves the sacrament. But he doesn't do it.
Let's take a look at the filioque itself. What is in this dogma that Orthodox theologians consider simply blasphemous. holy Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople (9th century), on this occasion, said this: "In man I see the mystery of theology." After all, whatever we say about God, we say it about man. St. Basil the Great once said so. “What idea of the distinction of hypostases and nature you have acquired in yourself, transfer to God, and you will not sin.” And vice versa. As we understand the hypostases of the Trinity, so we understand the hypostases of people. Therefore, talking about the filioque is not only talking about abstract matters of theology. This is the question from which the difference even in politics will follow. Because from this the attitude to the world and the perception of a person differ.
Even if someone with many crosses or panagias tells you that the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is small, this is just a “filioque”, and this should not be attributed of great importance- not true. This difference is fundamental. Filioque - distinguishes between the understanding of man in the West and in the East. For example, from this different understanding, the subject of human rights did not arise in Orthodox countries. Because you can protect the rights of a person. And how to protect the rights of the heart? You see, there is such a law - on freedom of conscience. And this is absurd - from the point of view of the Orthodox. There can be no law on freedom of conscience! Because freedom of conscience is not a legal, not a social phenomenon, but an ontological one. Any person's conscience is free, regardless of whether the state recognizes it or not. In the Orthodox world, it has always been considered so. Such a deep feeling inner world man - remember the Apostle Peter - "the innermost heart of man" - this is a hypostasis. The true "I" in a person is so deeply hidden that the external social environment has almost nothing to do with him. Western world, on the contrary, has always demanded that a person be able to exercise his rights, that his actions be protected, and so on. Hence such an external legalism, regulation of relations, that is, even in the political sphere it has a strong effect ...
Well, who has read it))) - now you can talk about temples and spaces. But next time.
PS The culinary filioque is interesting. About dough. If in the first century Christianity leavened bread was used everywhere, yeast and live, then from the 7th-8th centuries, the Eucharist began to be celebrated in the West with the use of hosts made from unleavened bread, that is, without leaven, that is, without a spirit, so, as did the ancient Jews on their Passover. Symbolic language was of great importance at that time.(ah, and now he's alive) , which is why the Greeks saw the use of unleavened bread as a return to Judaism. They saw in this a denial of that novelty and that spiritual character of the Savior's sacrifice, which were offered Them instead of the Old Testament rituals. In their eyes, the use of "dead" bread meant that the Savior in incarnation took only a human body, but not a soul...
Let's turn our attention to the main provisions of the heresy filioque to highlight the importance of this issue.
a) According to the decision of the Third Ecumenical Council, not a single word can be added or removed from the used Creed. And, of course, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol is recognized, because each Council recognized the decisions of the preceding Council.
b) The question of the Holy Trinity is a mystery that cannot be understood by human logic. Only the dogma of the sacrament of the Holy Trinity can we understand, but not the sacrament. This means that we are in a state of trust in the God-revealed words of Christ, without subjecting them to the study of reason.
in) Christ revealed to us the connection of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. The apostles attained personal knowledge on the day of holy Pentecost. Thus, the sacrament of the Holy Trinity is a matter of revelation by God Himself and not a revelation of man. This revelation man received “once” on the day of holy Pentecost (Letter of Jude, 3). The Saints have been participating for centuries in this revelation, which they inherited from the Apostles on the day of Pentecost. This is said because the Latins developed the curious theory that as the centuries pass, we begin to understand and delve deeper into Revelation. This has a direct connection with scholasticism. Orthodoxy says that the dogma of the sacrament of the Holy Trinity is experienced by those who comprehend the Revelation and express it according to the needs of each era.
G) Christ revealed that the Word was born and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Thus the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten, and the Holy Spirit is outgoing. The Persons of the Holy Trinity have a common essence, or nature, and not common personal properties, which are - unbornness, birth and procession. The confusion between the properties destroys the connections of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. If the Holy Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son, then the following would happen:
The Son must be born from the Father and the Holy Spirit, otherwise the Holy Spirit would be inferior, since a dyad (Father-Son) would be made up. If this were the case, then in order for the Holy Spirit to be equal to other persons, it is necessary that something also come from Him, but in this case the Trinity God would disappear, since a fourth person is introduced.
e) Remaining faithful to the word of Christ, we say that the Word is born from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (). However, we cannot understand how He is born and why this happens. We approach this question apophatically. In this case, we need a so-called apophatic theology. As far as God is concerned, we acknowledge what He is”, that is, that He exists, but we do not understand how“ He is» essence, so « who is» personality. The hypostatic properties, the unbornness of the Father, the birth of the Son, the procession of the Holy Spirit, are the way of existence, that is, they are the way in which the Persons exist.
Thus the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent through (διὰ τοῦ Ὑιοῦ) the Son. In Greek, the procession is different and the sending down is different. Sending down is not a hypostatic property, it is not a mode of existence, but a mission. Exodus is a hypostatic property, a mode of existence of the Holy Spirit, while sending down is a mission and a phenomenon in the world that occurs through the Son, just as the Son is incarnated through the Holy Spirit. Just as the incarnation of God the Word through (διὰ) the Holy Spirit is not identified with the cause of the birth of God the Word from the Father, so the sending down of the Holy Spirit through (διὰ) Christ is not identified with the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father.
e) St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus understands the mission and sending down of the Holy Spirit through the Son, as it becomes obvious upon acquaintance with some ancient patristic texts, in the sense of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in the world in terms of energy and time. That is, the procession of the Holy Spirit, eternal in essence, which takes place only from the Father, is different, and the appearance of the energy in time of the Holy Spirit, which takes place from the Father through the Son, or even from the Father and from the Son, is different. This minor difference, which is significant, the Latins did not understand and reinterpret the relevant texts.
and) The most basic difference between Orthodoxy and Papism is found in the question of the essence and energy of God. We Orthodox believe that since the essence of God is uncreated, then His energy is also uncreated. Essence does not exist without action-energy. If the essence is uncreated, then its action-energy is also uncreated, and if the essence is created, then its action-energy is also created. Thomas Aquinas and modern papal theologians believe in actus purus. (pure action). That is, he believes that the uncreated energy-action is absolutely associated with the pure action of God, and a person cannot come to communion and communication with God with the help of actus purum, but with the help of the created energy of God. Thus, the Latins introduce created energies into the Deity, which actually makes the salvation of man impossible, since it cannot be achieved with the help of created energies.
If anyone pays attention, he will be convinced that the discussion of the question of the origin and sending down of the Holy Spirit is related to the question of the essence and energies-actions of God. Characteristically, the dialogue between St. Gregory Palamas and scholastic Varlaam began with filioque and immediately moved on to the question of whether the energy-action of God is uncreated or created.
h) Introduction history filioque very interesting. The studies that were made by Protopresbyter John Romanidis, Professor, shed light on historical events. He believed that filioque used by the Franks against the Romans, both western and eastern parts of the unified Roman Empire. Roman Orthodox popes heroically resisted the introduction filioque in . It was eventually introduced when the Italo-Frankish Pope Benedict VIII (1009–1014) ascended the chair of Old Rome for the first time. Western and Eastern Romans in the 9th century. were Orthodox and fought the Franks as heterodox. The schism did not take place between the Roman Popes and the Roman Patriarchs, but between the Roman Popes-Patriarchs on the one hand and the heretic Franks on the other.
and) At the Ferrara Florence Cathedral of St. Mark Evgenikos proved the Orthodox views. The signing of the union by the Orthodox present, with the exception of St. Mark Eugenicus and some others, was the product and result of the pressure and difficult circumstances of that era. As a result, the union did not triumph for two reasons. First, because subsequent councils condemned it, and secondly, because the people resisted, not because they were theologically ignorant, but because they were enlightened enough about the betrayal that had been committed. This shows that interviews should be conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and not through political pressures and trends.
to) As a result, the use of various terms that have arisen in Western theology becomes a means for understanding, with the help of a precise word, issues related to revealed theology. This is the expression of scholasticism, which cannot distinguish between the limited terms of the understanding and the terms that will be born both by cataphatic and apophatic theology. But even the various terms have created in Western theology a certain way of thinking, which only gives rise to real problematism. Therefore, various dogmatic terminology is actually connected with the denial or overestimation of Orthodox hesychasm, according to the analysis of St. Gregory Palamas, which is the foundation of Orthodox theology and spiritual life.
Therefore, the interpretation of the terms that have been used over time is not only a topic of scientific analysis, but the conditions for the discovery of true hesychasm and the life of it.
And VII ecumenical councils, which strictly forbade any change in the Nicene-Tsaregrad symbol through the reduction or addition of any new words.
It was not so in the West. Since the end and beginning of the ages, some teachers of the Western Church have sometimes begun to express themselves differently about the personal property of the Holy Spirit, saying that He proceeds eternally, not only from the Father, but "and from the Son."
The emergence and development of the filioquitic doctrine, according to Western scholars, was especially promoted by his writings of Blessed. Augustine, who thus they believe was one of the first Filioquitists of the Western Church.
The opinion about the procession of the Holy Spirit "and from the Son" was expressed by some writers of the Western Church and in subsequent times, and in the 7th and 8th centuries at the cathedrals that were in Toledo in Spain, the addition "Filioque" was even introduced into the Nicene Tsaregradsky symbol. Thus, through this addition, private opinion was placed by the Spanish bishops next to the dogmatic teaching expressed at the first two ecumenical councils, and raised by them within Spain to the rank of dogma.
Such a new teaching about the personal property of the Holy Spirit became known to the Greek Church and caused bewilderment and criticism in the East, prompting St. Maximus the Confessor to the clarification of this fact in his letter to the Cypriot Bishop Marin. These clarifications, according to the interpretation of the writer of the century Anastasius the Librarian, consisted in the fact that by the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, the Latins understand the sending (missionem) of the Holy Spirit by the Son.
Despite the opposition of the pope, the addition to the creed, which he did not allow, was gradually accepted in various places in Gaul, Spain, Italy and Germany.
Used materials
- Christianity, Encyclopedic Dictionary v. 3, Moscow, 1995
"Dogmatic Theology" Metropolitan. Macarius, ed. 4, pp. 258, 259
The doctrine of the descent of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is the second most important doctrinal position, after the doctrine of the power of the pope over the Church, separating Catholicism from Orthodoxy. In contrast to the Creed professed by the Orthodox, which proclaims the descent of the Holy Spirit only “from the Father” (I believe ... “in the Holy Spirit ... proceeding from the Father”), the Catholics added “and the Son” to the text of the eighth member, which introduces в Symbol is a distortion that has a deep dogmatic meaning. In Latin, the words for "and the Son" sound like "filioque" ("filioque"). This term is widely used to denote the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.
The Dogmatic Essence of the Filioque Doctrine
The creed, as a brief confession of what the Church believes, occupied in the life of the Church of Christ and continues to occupy to this day an exceptionally important significance.
Historically, the Creed arose from the preparation of catechumens, that is, new converts preparing to enter the Church, for the sacrament of Baptism. Each baptized person had to read it and thereby express their faith. The members, that is, the constituent parts of the Symbol, had a double meaning: on the one hand, they indicated the truth of Revelation, which the believers were supposed to accept as an article of faith, and on the other, they protected them from any heresy against which they were directed.
77 The word symbol is Greek, in translation it means that which unites, gathers, holds together. "The creed precisely "contains" all those truths that, as the Church knows and believes, are necessary for a person, for the fullness of his life in Christ, for salvation from sin and spiritual death.
In the first three centuries, each significant Local Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Caesarea, Antioch, Rome, Aquileia had its own baptismal Creed. Being similar in spirit as an expression of a single and inseparable faith, they differed in letter, having almost every feature associated with the refutation of certain misconceptions that existed in those places where this or that symbol was used. Of these Symbols, the Symbol of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, a learned bishop of the 3rd century, expounding the doctrine of the personal properties of the perfect equality of all the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity.
At the beginning of the 4th century, when the Arian heresy became widespread, undermining the very foundations of Christian doctrine through the recognition of the Son of God only as a creature, and when heretics began to publish their own symbols on the model of the Orthodox, a general church need arose to draw up a single creed. This task was completed at the First Ecumenical Council (325) in Nicaea, which issued its oros - its "message of a dogmatic nature. In this oros, compiled on the basis of the ancient baptismal symbols of the Caesarean or Jerusalem Church, a formulation was introduced about the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. Here its text:
"We believe in the One God the Father, the Almighty, the Creator of everything visible and invisible. And in the One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the Father, the only begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God begotten - uncreated, consubstantial with the Father, through whom everything happened both in heaven and on earth. For us for the sake of men and for ours for the sake of salvation, he descended and became incarnate, became man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven and is coming to judge the living and dead. And in the Holy Ghost."
The Creed, which the Orthodox Church uses to this day, was originally one of the expressions of this "Nicene" faith" (a specific feature of this exposition of the Nicene Faith was the detailed confession of the Divinity of Christ), compiled after 370 from the baptismal Antiochio-Jerusalem Symbols. Then the liturgical Symbol was refined and adopted by the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council (381) in Constantinople (Tsargrad), thus, the name of the Nicene-Tsaregrad (or Niceno-Constantinople) Creed was established behind it.
78. Subsequently, this Creed spread throughout all the Churches of East and West. Finally, the III Ecumenical Council (431) decided by its 7th rule that this Symbol would remain forever inviolable: "Do not allow anyone to either pronounce, write, or compose another faith ..."
It is significant to note that, in the order of silent practice, the Nicene-Tsaregrad symbol is accepted both in those who have retired and in those who have broken away from the Universal Church - the Monophysite and Nestorian Churches.
For more than one and a half thousand years, the Niceno-Tsaregradskaya confession has been truly the Universal Creed, which is sung or read at every liturgy, and all later confessions of faith, dogmas and symbolic texts were called upon to interpret it, protect it from errors and, as necessary, reveal it. meaning.
Today, for the Orthodox Church, the Nicene-Tsaregrad Creed is just as modern and vital as it was during the period of the Ecumenical Councils, obligatory for all believers, and cannot be changed or supplemented except by the voice of the entire Church’s Fullness, that is, at the Ecumenical Council .
The doctrine professed by the Orthodox Church about the descent of the Holy Spirit from the Father ascends to the truth affirmed by Holy Scripture. The Lord Jesus Christ testified in a farewell conversation with the disciples: "The Spirit of Truth proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). It is this belief in the procession of the Holy Spirit only from the Father that was proclaimed by the Ecumenical Church in the Niceno-Tsaregrad Creed. Expanding somewhat the text of the Symbol, according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers, can be said as follows: the Church teaches that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, that is, it possesses (without appropriating it to itself) the same essence as the Father and the Son, that He proceeds from the Father, that is receives His hypostatic being from Him alone, and rests on the Son, is sent into the world by the Son (“the Spirit of Comforter, I will send him to you from the Father”), through the Son is taught to us in the Church and is rightly called both the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son.
79 The doctrine of the double pre-eternal procession of the Holy Spirit and the Father and the Son, accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, originated in the West. The roots of this teaching can be found in Blessed Augustine (5th century), who, emphasizing the unity of the Divine Essence, common to all the Persons of the Holy Trinity, was inclined to belittle the significance of the personal property of the Father and the Trinitarian one-man command, carried out by one Father. The term "filioque" was first introduced into the Creed in Spain in the 6th century, and by the 3rd century. it spread in the power of the Franks.
The Roman Catholic Church completed the final formation of the doctrine of the "filioque" in the 15th century, however, the most profound among the holy fathers of the Church should be recognized as the assessment of the dogmatic foundations of this doctrine, given by Patriarch Photius of Constantinople in his District Epistle (867). To a large extent, all subsequent criticism of this doctrine is based on the arguments formulated by him.
Photius gives four groups of arguments against the filioque:
He derives the first group from the idea of the unity of command of the Holy Trinity. “Filioque introduces,” writes St. Photius, “two principles into the Trinity: for the Son and the Spirit-Father, and also for the Spirit-Son. By this, the one-man command of the Trinity is resolved directly into ditheism, and in further conclusions into polytheism. Namely, if the Father is the cause of the Son, and the Son, together with the Father, is the cause of the Spirit, then why does not the Spirit produce a fourth Person, and this fourth a fifth, and so on up to pagan polytheism, "that is, reduction to absurdity is used here. “In relation to the Person of the Holy Spirit,” Photius writes further, “the following unacceptable conclusion is obtained: as being raised to two reasons. The Holy Spirit must be complex” (in contrast to the general church teaching about the simplicity of the Godhead - M. K.).
80. The second group of arguments follows from the analysis of the qualitative aspect of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. "If this procession is perfect (and it is perfect, for the perfect God is from the perfect God - M. K.), that procession from the Son is superfluous and in vain, for it can bring nothing into the being of the Spirit. The procession of the Spirit from the Son can be either identical with its procession from the Father, or opposite to it. But in the first case, personal properties would be generalized, only thanks to which the Trinity is known as the Trinity, in the second case, the heresies of Manes and Marcion come to life before us. As you know, Manes is the founder of the doctrine called Manichaeism, and Marcion is the representative of the Gnostic heretics. They are united by dualism, that is, the recognition of two principles (light and dark), equally underlying the existence of the world. St. Photius here recalls these heresies because if we accept the argument that the procession from the Son is the opposite of the procession from the Father, then, therefore, his properties must be opposite. If the procession from the Father possesses all the fullness of light, divine perfections, then the procession from the Son, as the opposite, must have directly opposite characteristics, that is, two principles are introduced into the being of God - along with the principle of light and the principle of darkness. The conclusion is clearly unacceptable, forcing the rejection of the premise itself - the doctrine of the "filioque".
The third group of objections is based on the fact that the "filioque" violates the quantitative harmony of the personal properties of the three Hypostases and thereby places the Persons (or Hypostases) in unequal proximity to each other. The personal property of the Son is birth from the Father. The property of the Holy Spirit is the procession from the Father. But if they say that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son, then the Spirit will be different from the Father. a large number personal attributes than the Son. And, therefore, it will stand further from the being of the Father than the Son, which leads to the heresy of Macedonia.
The heresy of Macedonia, or Dukhoborism, lies in the fact that the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit was placed in a subordinate position in relation to the Hypostasis of the Father. This heresy was a variation, or rather a further modification of Arianism. The Arians placed the Hypostasis of the Son of God in a subordinate position. This heresy was condemned at the First Ecumenical Council (325), and Dukhoborism was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council (381). And Photius points out that the arguments of the filioque lead to a revival of this heresy.
81 The fourth and last group of objections St. Photius derives from the opposition of the general and personal properties of the Holy Trinity - the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the Son cannot be attributed to either general or personal properties. "If the production of the Spirit is common property, then it must belong to the Spirit Itself, that is, the Spirit must come from Itself, be both the cause and the product of this cause. "St. Photius writes that pagan myths did not invent this either, meaning that this is an obvious internal contradiction Further, if this is a personal property, then which of the Persons? "If I say that this is the property of the Father, then they (the Latins - M.K.) should give up their new doctrine," since if this is a personal property of the Father, then you just need to cross out the "filioque" and accept the Creed as it was before this insertion. "If this is the property of the Son, then why did they not discover that they do they only recognize for the Son the production of the Spirit, but take it away from the Father?" Here St. Photius wants to emphasize that it is unacceptable to operate with intra-trinitarian properties as some kind of logical categories, that is, to transfer arbitrarily, to please this or that theological or near-theological opinion, the concept of proceeding from one hypostasis to another. He writes that if one follows this path, then one can assert that it is not the Son that is born from the Father, but the Father from the Son. He draws the following conclusion: "But if the procession of the Spirit cannot be recognized as either a general or a personal property then in the Trinity there is no procession of the Holy Spirit at all.
These arguments, given by St. Photius, are, of course, generally not easy to understand. But it is important to delve into them and take them seriously. Precisely because the dogmatic experience of the Orthodox faith should be the basis of piety and asceticism, in polemics with Western confessions one should not rely on the facts of historical injustice brought by Catholics or Protestants in relation to the Orthodox, or, for example, personal impurity of representatives of Western confessions, in particular Roman ones. papa It is necessary to proceed from dogmatic wrongness rooted in heterodoxy. And the arguments cited by St. Photius just testify to his very deep dogmatic awareness of the disastrous consequences of the filioque.
In the years following the notorious case of Photius, the doctrine of the "filioque" was repeatedly the subject of controversy between Catholic and Orthodox theologians.
In the years following the Second Uniate Council of Lyons (1274), the patristic texts were misinterpreted by the Latinophiles. Patriarch Gregory II of Cyprus (1283-1289), Patriarch of Constantinople, well specified the meaning: “The Spirit has its perfect being from the Father, Who is the only reason from which He proceeds together with His Son, in His own way, appearing simultaneously through the Son, through Him and at Shining from him, just as the light comes from the sun along with the beam, shines and appears through it and with it, and even from it ... It is clear that when some say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, that is, from the Father and the Son , or from the Father through the Son, or that He appears, or shines, or proceeds, or exists from the essence of both, then all this does not mean that they confess that the being of the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in the same way as from the Father .. Indeed, just as water that is drawn from a river exists from it, so does light exist from a ray, but neither one nor the other (that is, neither light nor water) have the cause of their being these two things (a ray or a river ) Indeed, water exists from the source from which it is poured ayatsya, existing; and light exists from the sun, whence it, receiving its radiance, shines together with the ray, and proceeds through it.
She didn't pose any problems! What follows from this. The spiritual experience of life in Christ is self-identical in all ages. But the experience “conditionalizes” itself gradually.
As some part of church practice, church life comes into the focus of attention, it acquires some canonical features. An example is iconography. Christian images have been known since at least the 80s. According to R.Kh. Until the 7th century - a lot of images. Moreover, there is a clear trend towards an increase in the number of images. At the same time, if we turn to the texts, we will see that there are very few texts that speak about the benefits of icon veneration. There are several authors who strongly protest against picturesque images. Several texts by ecclesiastical authors are known that describe "we have it," but there is not a single text that would defend icon veneration. And only in the era of iconoclastic councils did this practice become the subject of theological discussion. Only then did the church mind think about what we are doing when we create an icon or when we pray before an icon.
Imagine that a priest appears in this building and wants to take a dogmatic theology exam. Rural father. There are few books in his village. And so he once visited St. Petersburg and bought several books of the Holy Fathers and used them to prepare for exams. Bought what was on sale. did not have. And it wasn't. And there were books. And he gets the question of the Trinitarian dogma. And the priest will begin to answer with exact quotations from Irenaeus of Lyon and Justin the Philosopher. What grade will he get? Two points. And it’s good that the teacher doesn’t write a report to the bishop. “Vladyka, you have such a heretic here! The purest Arian." What is the problem? They were not Arians. But the context of thinking about God, about the Trinity, about Christ, in which the thought of the 2nd-3rd centuries revolved, was completely different from the context of the 4th century. Therefore, the formulations of these fathers about the relationship between the Father and the Son are very approximate. And it would be a profound mistake to believe that it is in these formulations that the essence of the Church's understanding of the mystery of the Trinity is expressed.
It's just that these problems were not in the spotlight then. At that time, these problems were on the periphery. Fathers 2-3 centuries. it was not of interest. They looked at it out of the corner of their eye and therefore vaguely wrote about it. In the 4th century it was necessary to take a closer look. And other answers were given.
The same goes for the filioque. This question seriously arose only starting from the 9th century. And therefore, the opinions of theologians up to this time, the time of a serious analysis of this problem, have no more authority than opinions about the relationship of the Father and the Son. This is what he meant when he said: "The historian should not dictate to the theologian." The defenders of Catholicism will quote you from early Christian writers as if in favor of the filioque! This is where you have to be careful. Theology is never reduced to quotations. It is not enough to give the right quote at the right time. No. It is necessary to understand both its meaning and the meaning of the problem itself. Why is the filioque problem so important? What is the difference between Orthodox and Catholics? Let's list the main tenets.
question of papal primacy. Has it got to do with understanding the Holy Spirit? The most immediate! Christ, ascending, said: “I will not leave you orphans. I will give you another Comforter.” Whom did he mean? the pope? Who did Christ leave instead of Himself in the Church? Holy Spirit or Bishop of Rome? It turns out that the question of papal primacy in the Church is a pneumatological question. Does the Holy Spirit live and govern the Church, or is it some administrator of the Vatican hill?
In the Liturgy, what is the main difference between the Orthodox tradition and the Latin one? Epiclesis. The invocation of the Holy Spirit on gifts. "Send down your Holy Spirit on us and on these Gifts that are set before us." Amazing thing!
No matter what issues that distinguish between Orthodoxy and Catholicism we take, Catholics everywhere have a belittling of the Holy Spirit.
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary. What does this mean. That the Holy Virgin is deprived of participation in Pentecost by and large. It turns out that She was consecrated even before birth. The personal feat of the Blessed Virgin, which attracts the influx of the Holy Spirit, is here removed.
You can remember the understanding of original sin. From the point of view of Catholics, man violated the will of God, and God has been angry with man ever since. legal understanding. Orthodox understanding: a person turned out to be godless. It turns out that in Orthodox anthropology, a person can be quite human if he is “saturated” with the Holy Spirit. Thanked. And without it, we are all disabled. Adam, having sinned, drove the Holy Spirit away from him. And so we turned out to be such invalids, hereditary invalids. From the point of view of Catholicism, grace is a kind of crown, which is imposed from the outside. And if a person has sinned, the crown is removed. Those. What is a person in the perspective of Catholic anthropology? Adam was elevated to the rank of corporal, he sinned, the lychka was torn from him. The man is old. Nothing has changed inside him. From the point of view of Orthodoxy, everything is not so. Man suffocates outside of God. Sick outside of God. Terrible mutations begin in it.
Let's take painting. The difference between an icon and a painting is clear. This is again a question about the operation of the Holy Spirit. The icon shows a person transformed by this grace. And in the Catholic paintings, we see that the Holy Spirit, like a “plate”, flies over a person. But the person remains the same.
Mysticism is comparable to Orthodox and Catholic. And we will also see that those states of the soul, which in Catholicism are regarded as blessed, as revealing the presence of the Holy Spirit, from the point of view of Orthodox asceticism, there are nothing more than purely human, emotional experiences, mental, sometimes sexual ...
Sacraments. Who administers the sacraments from the point of view of Catholic theology? Priest. I, by the power given to me, do this and that. From an Orthodox point of view, who performs the sacraments? Holy Spirit. And a priest is a clergyman, he serves the sacrament. But he does not perform the sacrament.
Whatever we take, everywhere we find the diminishing of the Holy Spirit. Why? Hard to say. I can't rationally explain now. How is this related. But there are such connections. Because the Church is a living organism. Damage somewhere one tissue, one organ, the rest will begin to suffer. Although it may not be possible to explain this immediately.
And now let's take a closer look at the filioque itself and see what is in this dogma that is simply blasphemous from the point of view of Orthodox theology. holy Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who began the polemic with the Latin theologians on this issue, said this: “I see the mystery of theology in man.” These are very important words. Because whatever we say about God, we say it about man. St. once said so. “What idea of the distinction of hypostases and nature you have acquired in yourself, transfer to God, and you will not sin.” And vice versa. As we understand the hypostases of the Trinity, so we understand the hypostases of people. Therefore, talking about the filioque is not only talking about abstract matters of theology. This is the question from which the difference even in politics will follow. And this is what I will try to show. Because from this the attitude towards a person and the perception of a person differ.
Thesis: legalism of Western culture.
Comment. It all started with this. Tell me please. You are studying law. What governs law? Relationship between people. Law regulates the inner world of man? No. Only foreign relations. From this was born the principle that formed the basis of all Western culture. Definition of personality. "Persona est relatio". Personality is relationship. A principle that was first formulated (Bois Essay?) by a Christian Latin writer of the 5th century. Then he was accepted by Thomas Aquinas.
Before going any further, a few words about terms. What does the word "hypostasis" mean? Purely etymological? Word history? Pre-Christian history does not know a word that would correspond to the modern concept of the word "personality". Those words that denoted a person, a separate, individual person, in the Greek and Latin pre-Christian languages had a completely different meaning. For example, the word hypostasis. (In Russian literally - "subject"). For example, in the Septuagint “hypostasis” means the foundation, the foundation of the temple. Hypostasis refers to a particular existence. What is this about. Aristotle describes these concepts. It has two very important terms. Nature as such. Here are the chairs. One hundred chairs are in this room. There is a certain nature of the chair. That is why we call this object a chair. But there are differences. What makes one chair different from another. Here he is scratched. Something is drawn... This will be the hypostasis of this chair. That is, some features by which this chair can be distinguished from its neighbor. Farther. The word "hypostasis" refers to such a philosophical problem. Part and whole. Let's take a kitten. Is a kitten made up of parts? Yes and no. See what's the problem. We take the kitten by the ear. Ear, is that a kitten? Tail, is that a kitten? His mustache by itself? Imagine that you took a kitten, took it apart for parts, everything is on our table. We take each part separately, we speak. Kitty? No. Kitty? No. Where is the kitten? If there is no kitten in any of the parts. This is the problem of the part and the whole. The whole seems to consist of parts, and at the same time, they took all the parts, raked them into one heap - all the parts are in place - it does not meow. Why? So the whole is not just a collection of parts. The whole is something intangible. What cannot be taken in hand, but what forms, animates all these parts into a kind of unity. This is also one of the meanings of the Aristotelian understanding of hypostasis. Let's repeat again. The Greek language uses the word "hypostasis" as a stand, foundation, etc. Therefore, the kitten has a hypostasis. This chair has a hypostasis. Any complex body has a hypostasis that shapes all its parts, takes, collects, some idea of a thing that holds it all.
There was another word in Greek. Prosopon. The prefix "pros" means "through" or "to". "op" - the root - "see", optics. Literally meant "mask". Mask of an ancient theater actor. Prosopon means mask, disguise. This is what makes one person different from another person. His face, to put it bluntly. Prosopon. This is very important to understand. Homer, for example, writes thus: when Achilles laughed, he frightened his enemies with his prosopons. In Russian translation "ghosts". Grimace. This is what distinguishes one person from another. Prosopon.
And the Latin language had its own words. Individual. This is an exact copy of the Greek word "atomon" - atom. Indivisible. Here is a kitten - indivisible, because it is unthinkable to divide a kitten. Chair too. Because if you take the chair apart, there will be no chair. There was a word "substance" - an exact copy of the word "hypostasis". And finally, the word "person". In Russian they translated "parsuna". In the 17th century. This is also a mask. But what is the root here? Sonum. Sound. Through - sonum - sound. The fact. that in the ancient theater the mask served as a resonator, it amplified the sound. And that's why the person was also called. Sounding through. There was a voice through the mask. This is important to understand.
So, when the time came for Christianity to express its secret, the secret of personality, in the usual language, East and West made different choices. Eastern Christian thinkers have chosen the term "hypostasis" to designate a person. Western writers have chosen the term "person". Or "prosopon". And that was a huge difference. In the 20th century, Lev Karsavin wrote. “I, he says, sincerely feel sorry for my Western colleagues, who, instead of the word hypostasis or personality, should use the term “mug”. Because indeed the mask is a kind of "mug".
So. What happened next. "Persona est relatio". That is, what is external in me is addressed to another. There is such a phrase in the Old Testament. "Man looks at faces, God looks at hearts." This is the difference between "person" and "hypostasis". A hypostasis is something deeply hidden, a foundation, a stand, something that is deep, deep. In the language of the Bible, the hypostasis is the heart. Something deeply hidden, hidden. The person is the opposite. That which is most evident is open. And from this, filioquisism will grow further.
Personality is attitude. By the way, what follows from this? What if a person is his relationship with other people, hence the pathos of power in Western society is born. Because from here the idea is born: and if you change the way of relationships between people, then there will be new person, the new humanity. This is where Marxism comes from. From this arises the ideal of the Inquisition. If our people come to power. With the help of laws, their laws, they will change the fabric of social relations, and as a result, a new person will arise.
What is the Orthodox way? Change hypostasis! Change the human heart first. And from the changed heart other relationships between people will flow. The pathos of Western civilization - from Catholics to Marxists, is different. Come to power, create new relationships, and new hearts will arise in these new relationships. Hence the famous thesis of Marx: the essence of man is the aggregate public relations. It all comes from Thomas Aquinas! And it is no coincidence that Thomas More is the founder of utopian socialism, the saint of the Catholic Church, it's all connected.
So. If a person is a relationship, then there is a famous thesis that is familiar to many of you. Because sometimes even Orthodox theologians use this formula without thinking. "The Holy Spirit is the relationship of love that binds the Father and the Son." Beautiful formula. But monstrous. Because it means that the Holy Spirit is reduced to a function. To attitude. He loses his hypostasis. It is the hypostasis, the personality, that is not here, but there is only a function. And they say this about the Son too! And the Son is the relationship! That's the difference.
Orthodox theology maintains that the Persons of the Godhead are higher than the Divine Nature. Catholic thought asserts the opposite. "In Divine Nature, Divine Hypostases arise." The Orthodox formula is as follows, according to the formula: “From the Hypostasis of the Father follows the Divine Nature. In addition, the Father gives birth to the Son and brings forth the Spirit, gives them all the fullness of his Divine Nature. That is, the hypostasis of the Father is primary. She is above the divine nature. Everything flows from the Hypostasis of the Father, and He shares His Divine Nature, not dividing It, but allowing the Son and the Spirit to participate in It.
Before we go any further, we need to tinker with these terms. Let us try to understand in ourselves what hypostasis and nature are, and then we will talk about God. In yourself, do you understand what a person is, or not? Do you understand exactly? I would say so. It is possible to understand this. It is impossible to express. This is the case when, like a dog: he understands everything and is silent. This is how a theologian really is. He understands something, but still remains silent. But let's try to put it this way. Here are the three main categories I will try to introduce: nature, individuality, personality.
Human nature: each of us is human. This means that in each of us there are some specific qualities that distinguish us from the chairs on which we sit. This is what distinguishes a person from animals, or from angels, from stones, chairs, this is human nature, human essence. But. However, although we are all human, we are all different. Here is the individuality, this is what makes us different from each other. What is individuality? I'll give you the formula. Individuality is a measure of the manifestation of nature in this person. It can be said otherwise. Each of us is individual to the extent that we are incomplete. I explain. Imagine that we are compiling some kind of psychological map for some of our brothers. Here we are interested in the servant of God John. And we're making a schedule. coordinate system. Lay down the qualities that we measure horizontally. And on the vertical axis, quantitative indicators. Let's say percentage. Now we are interested in: to what extent is the servant of God John a rational being? Suppose the degree of his intellectual development is 60%. What does this mean? You can say that he is 60% genius, but you can say that he is 40% idiot. Both will be fair in their own way. Further. We are interested in its aesthetic development. Man, what to take from him, it is clear that he has, say, 20% aesthetics. We are interested in its religious development. But here the question is, to what seminary course did he finish his studies. And if, God forbid, I finished my studies up to the 4th year, then religiosity is at the level of 10%. I suppose so ... They built such a schedule. We are interested in ethical qualities - let's say at the level of 30%. Let's take another. Servant of God. Well, intellectual development cannot be higher than 40% - a woman is still. Religious development can be even higher, this is the scourge of the church - women's religiosity, let's say, it goes off scale by 80, aesthetic by 82%, she doesn't go to bed without Bortnyansky or Tchaikovsky, ethical qualities - loves to gossip, so we'll give 30%. It turns out such a schedule. And everyone has his own. There is no such person who would be 100% human! 100% talented in everything. There was only one such person. All-man. Homo essay. Jesus of Nazareth. Only one was talented in everything. All the rest of us are fragments of Christ, fragments of Adam. We each have our own medical history. Remember, according to Tolstoy, "all happy families are alike, each is unhappy in its own way." So do we. Everyone is unhappy in their own way. And this is an individual characteristic. So, therefore, in a certain sense, individuality is a measure of the inferiority of our nature. If we were all fully human, we would be indistinguishable from each other. Quite human. But we are only partially human. Therefore, we each have our own medical history and you know that even a filling in the mouth can identify a person.
However, look. Here we take a certain trait that is individual in this person. Suppose. You are riding the subway and you have in your pocket a proud student card of St. Petersburg Theological Schools. That's for sure, this is your individual trait that distinguishes you from all the other passengers of this subway car. But when you enter the seminary, does that continue to be your personality? In this building? No. What do I want to say. An individual trait is always repeatable. Individuality is not personality. Any individuality is repeatable. And vice versa, if we see in a certain person some feature that is repeated in another, then this is not a personality trait, but an individual one. What is a personality? And personality is that subject, that “I” that owns all these traits. That is, I say so. Nature answers the question "what". Individuality answers the question "how". The person answers the question "who". See. Here is the paper in my hand. Let's put a question. What is holding the paper? What will be the answer? Hand. We pose the question: who is holding the paper? What will be the answer? Can you answer - "finger" to this question? No. You need to say a name. Or a personal pronoun. So. Personality is above all qualities. The individual has qualities.
Now we must turn to teaching. Do you know the doctrine of the two wills of Maximus the Confessor? Two wills that are in every person. "Felima physics" - natural will and "felima gnome" - personal will or proerises. Personal will or will. What it is. In each of us, a certain parliament constantly sits. Let's say it's evening. And in human soul the uproar begins. Different factions demand their own. For example, the faction of the head says: "We need to go to the library, read something." The fraction of the heart timidly raises its voice, says: “Listen. You read books like that. You would need to pray. Run to the office." The fraction of the stomach says, “what are you guys. You need to eat." There is also a faction of radical democrats, which offers them to keep silent altogether. So. This parliamentary bazaar, it takes place in the soul of every person. And my personality answers them with the famous thesis of the Soviet saleswoman: there are many of you, I am alone. This is the cry of my unfortunate personality in the face of these factions. Yes, wait, with whom should I combine in order to realize this strong-willed impulse. Because it really is parliament. And the personality is the speaker. And if the speaker does not put this issue on the agenda, and does not announce the vote, nothing will come of it. There is no nature without hypostasis. The great formula of Aristotle, which was then repeated by the fathers of the Eastern Church. No natural impulse can be realized unless it is incarnated. Here is the great term "enhypostasization." So. My will. Natural will. stomach, for example. He tells me: "We need to eat." Is there any sin in this? Not the slightest sin. Where is sin born? is born when my personal will suggests the wrong way to achieve the good of nature. What I want to eat is not a sin. But if I take out a sandwich and chew it in front of the Royal Doors during the Cherubic, it will be a sin. Why? Because at the wrong time and inopportune. Why? Because then I dampen the higher impulse. For the sake of giving to the lower. That's when sin happens.
What more can be said. I want to eat. But my stomach, as a rule, does not tell me what exactly I want to eat. And in what way? Other authorities answer the question of how I will satisfy the thirst of the stomach. I can go beg. I can go flirt with the girl who works in the cafeteria. I can go rob a first grader. There are many interesting things I can do. I can rob a kiosk. Lots of options. But my stomach doesn't dictate. My nature does not dictate to me to rob a first-grader or something else. She says "give me something to eat." It depends on personal volition which way I choose to satisfy this desire.
One more example. The gardener is watering the flowers. The gardener is a person. He hoses down. Tell me, please, does the water he pours from the gardener flow? No. From a hose. This is very important to understand. That in Orthodox anthropology the source of energy is not a person, but nature. The personality controls these energies. But does not give birth to them. The gardener is watering these flowers. Water from a water supply system. What depends on the gardener? Like a faucet. Add water pressure, turn down. Send here or send here. You can water this bush first, then this one. You can clean the faces of passers-by with this hose. Everything can be done. But. Understand this "role of the individual in history." It depends on the choice, volition, on the gnomic will of my personality where I will direct my natural energy. Which of my natural energies. When and with what intensity.
Why am I saying this. Understand. In Orthodox anthropology, the individual rises. Above the chaos of natural energies, and the personality freely decides which of the energies where will he go and when. We also think about God. The Divine Personality also rises above the Divine nature and owns It and manifests Itself in one way or another, in this way or in another. Therefore, in Orthodox theology, the Personality of God is primary in relation to the Divine nature. This primacy is splendidly expressed by the words of Gregory the Theologian. This is a very complex formula, it sounds very short, but it is complex. It sounds like this: not being from being, but being from being. I translate into Russian. Not the one who is, i.e. Jehovah, from what is; not the Personality of God the Father from substance, but that which is, i.e. impersonal substance, from the One Who is. Here is the philosophical problem behind it. What is primary in our world? Personality or impersonal substance? Indian philosophy, occultism and filioquist theology hold that first there is an impersonal divine substance in which logically later, I do not say chronologically later, but logically later, Divine Persons arise. Personalities.
When Catholics began to substantiate this concept, Byzantine theologians asked them a series of very tricky questions. The first. It's clear. We all understand. You argued with the Arians there, so you said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, as well as from the Father. However, we have a question for you. Do you understand what you said by that? That the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son? Thus you said that the Spirit is not God. Catholics scratch in tonsure. Like this? Why is He not God? The Byzantines respond. An elementary rule of philosophy and dialectics. Is God an eternal being? Oh sure. But only that which is indestructible can be eternal. Do you agree? Yes, we agree. And only that which cannot be destroyed can be indestructible. Do you agree? Yes, we agree. And only that which is without composition cannot undergo destruction. Something that, in principle, cannot be divided into parts. That is, absolutely single and simple being. Yes, we agree. Tell me, how can an absolutely simple being appear from two different beginnings? Of the two constituent parts simple maybe? So if you say that the Hypostasis of the Spirit has two causes, the Father and the Son, then He is not eternal, He is not God. They scratch the tonsure again.
No, we didn't mean to say that. We wanted to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from one cause. Here the Orthodox speak. Sorry. What do the Father and the Son have in common? Answer. Divine nature. Correctly. So what, you mean to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the nature of the Father and the Son? Yes. So, in this case, it turns out that the Holy Spirit has a different nature? Then be honest. From the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit comes the Holy Spirit. If He is absolutely consubstantial, everything that the Father has, the Son has. And must have the Holy Spirit then. Or do you say that in the Father and in the Son the Divine nature is complete, but in the Holy Spirit only in part. Then also the Holy Spirit is not God.
Farther. Here is something very important to understand. AT Orthodox tradition the names Father, Son, and Spirit distinguish the persons of the Trinity. Note. In the Latin tradition, they connect the Trinity. In the Orthodox - they distinguish. Please tell me why we say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father? Why don't we say that the Spirit, like the Son, is born from the Father? Is there any difference between the birth of the Son and the procession of the Spirit? What do you think? There is not. Not the slightest difference. And we say that the Son is born, and the Spirit proceeds only in order not to repeat the word “begotten” twice. Because if it turns out that “The Son is born from the Father” and “The Spirit is born from the Father”, then this means that a certain property appears that the two Persons of the Trinity have and the Third does not. What do you and I call a property that is repeated in several personalities? However, not all? Individuality. What about individuality? Inferiority. Thus we broke the Trinity into three gods.
The same thing happens in the filioque. It turns out that the property, the hypostatic property of being the cause of the Spirit, is in the Father, and also in the Son, but the Spirit does not have it. Personal properties are only those properties that one hypostasis has, but the other two do not have them. Only then is it a personal name, not even a property, but a name. The name by which we distinguish one Hypostasis from another. But this is not a characteristic, as it is written for a school graduate, we cannot tell you a qualitative characteristic - here is a “portrait” of the Father for you, a “characteristic” of the Son, and here is a “recommendation” for you on the Holy Spirit! We can't do that! There is nothing in the Son that the Father and any of the Persons of the Trinity would not have, otherwise you and I get three different gods. How many individuals are sitting in this room. individualities. So, therefore, recognizing the filioque, thereby we break the Trinity. A property appears: to be the cause of the Spirit, which two Hypostases have and the third does not. But if two of them have it, then this is not a natural property and not Hypostatic. Which? Individual. The trinity is broken.
Well, from a philosophical point of view, I repeat again and again. The question of the filioque is, above all, a question about this. Can impersonal being be the cause of the emergence of personality? The Filioque says yes, it can. The impersonal nature of the Father and the Son is the cause of the personal existence of the Spirit. And this is pantheism. This is what is already destroying the very meaning of biblical theology, what has opened the Western world to the occult, to pantheism, to Hegel, Schopenhauer, and we see the results of this in today's revival of neo-paganism. So in history, especially in spiritual history, everything is too closely correlated with each other.
We return to the beginning. At what point in my story did you get confused and stopped understanding me? Let's try to return to this place. Good. What I want from you. The usual student reaction. "It's not clear, but it's great." Have I achieved this? What is my task. I'm not going to prepare you for people who would be able to carry on some serious debate on trinitarian topics. For such a time, it is unthinkable. The main thing is to explain. Even if someone with a lot of crosses or panagias tells you that the difference here is small, that these are features of the Greek and Latin languages \u200b\u200band no importance should be attached to this - it’s not true. This is a fundamental thing. Which distinguishes the understanding of man in the west and in the east. In particular, from this different understanding of the person and hypostasis, the subject of human rights did not arise in Orthodox countries. It is clear why. Because you can protect the rights of a person. And how to protect the rights of the heart? You see, there is such a law - on freedom of conscience. And this is absurd - from the point of view of the Orthodox. There can be no law on freedom of conscience! Because freedom of conscience is not a legal, not a social phenomenon, but an ontological one. Any person's conscience is free, regardless of whether the state recognizes it or not. In the Orthodox world, it has always been considered so. Such a deep feeling that the inner world of a person - remember the Apostle Peter - "the innermost heart of a person" - this is a hypostasis. The true "I" in a person is so deeply hidden that the external social environment has almost nothing to do with him. And so the Orthodox will agree with almost any social system. With any government. He will say: you, most importantly, do not touch my inner shrine. Let it be there, it is necessary to sing to someone “many years”, but God is with you, please. To give tax to someone, to Caesar what is Caesar's? No problem! But in the depths of my heart, let me be true to Christ with my spirit. The Western world, on the contrary, has always demanded that a person be able to exercise his rights, that his actions be protected, and so on. Hence such external activism, the regulation of relations, that is, it has a strong effect even in the political sphere.