Your Eminence Ricardo J. Cardinal Vidal, Archbishop of Cebu, your excellency Bishop Antonio Rañola, Priest Formators, Professors lay formators, friends and benefactors, Good afternoon.
I have always wanted to be close to God. and I realized that priesthood would be an excellent avenue for me to reach this intimacy with the Divine. Then I wanted to live and die as a priest; a good one at that. So great was my yearning that one time I told myself that it would be a great success, should I be able just to be admitted to study in the seminary. I have always imagined then the close relationship between God and the priest; that a priest is to be within whispering distance from God.
I became a seminarian and I wanted to experience this idealized imagination that I had before, the picture of being so intimate with God that I could hear him whisper. During those first months and years of my seminary life, I thought I was having a close relationship with God attaining it through my own efforts. I would spend much time on my personal devotions even on study periods and I would really find time to visit Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. The feeling was good. I then felt flattered by the expressions of appreciation from people who saw the good seminarian that I believed I was The horror of committing sin and the avoidance of persons and situations that might soil my efforts to holiness tended to separate me from the rest of the community. That was my feeling. I was tempted to view myself as the best of all seminarians there is, thanking God of my goodness and comparing it with the misdeeds of others. It sounds familiar, isn’t it? Ahh…the Pharisee and the Publican.
My journey in the major seminary somehow dips me into the reality that I’m no longer a child, with someone to enforce authority from the outside that would allow minimal commission of evil deeds. To me, what is taught here is to appreciate the authority of God in my conscience thus becoming more helpful in the adult spiritual life because that authority goes with me anywhere. Here it is that I come to appreciate sin vis-à-vis the love of God. This is captured in a strophe of the praeconium of the Easter Proclamation rendered in Cebuano.
O katingalahang panumbaling alang kanamo,
O dili masukod nga pagpangga sa imong gugma,
aron matubos mo ang ulipon gitugyan mo ang imong bugtong anak
O palaran nga kalapasan,
O gikinahanglang sala ni Adan nga nakaangkon alang kanamo
sa ingon kadako nga Manunubos.
No, it’s not that I’m here committing sin liberally up to my heart’s further discontent but it’s in the formation content of this “best seminary in Asia” that I came to meet real people and dialogue with them about their experiences or non-experience with God. People who hate to go to Church not because they hate God but because of the attitudes of some personages in clergy whose character and countenance rather clouds the gospel message more than preaching it by their lips and hands.
I was always grateful that I became one of those students who were recommended to study abroad through the assistance of the good Opus Dei priests but His Eminence [Ricardo Cardinal Vidal] was not able to sign my papers and so that I fell without having started to fly, but, I gracefully landed on no less than the the motherly palm of God in this venerable institution. Oh happy fault. God knows best. Nothing happens by chance. I believe in the Divine Providence and why God chooses to form me/us in this seminary.
In this seminary, is taught and practiced that leadership is service and that’s one thing that I hope I have imbibed. That the erection of magnificent triumphalistic edifices without the corresponding building up of the church of the poor is insulting to the God of compassion and justice who always takes the side of our least sisters and brothers; that magnificent churches could well be an excuse that we are indolent to build up The Church; the people of God. But even as I am speaking of this I also feel I am too small for the noble task of building the people of God.
Now to this lifetime commitment that I am into, I maybe afraid of the things that come my way; I don’t know what the future holds for me but I’m sure God will be there. I trust in his grace in me and I hope that this grace in me will surely meet the Grace that is him. I believe I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me… and I trust that none can be against us if God is for us…
Your Eminence Ricardo J. Cardinal Vidal I am very grateful to your person the sign of unity of the Church of Cebu and a tangible presence of Christ the Good Shepherd. To the formators thank you for your words of teachings but more so thank you for your deeds worthy of emulation which inspire to you live what you teach that which you yourselves have lived. To our lay formators especially nanay Minnie Dosdos thank you for your undying labor in the vineyard of God. To our priest companion Fr. Dondon Aquino and to my Spiritual Director Fr. Bob Rice SJ both know me well and both earn my filial trust. To my benefactors and sponsors, Mrs. Carmen Mercado, Ms. Veronica Bariquit and Mrs Nene Abella also Sec. Ace Durano, thank you may God who will never be outdone in generosity keep you as apples of his eye. To our newfound friends brothers and sisters thank you. To my classmates, the brothers of St. Fancis of Assisi thank you, real brothers you will always be to me. To my family, to my parents Mr. and Mrs. Gabriel and Charlie Dutosme thank you God's gift to me is his gift to you, may we always be grateful to God for it.
To the Blessed Mother Mary and St. Joseph, I am ever grateful to these two guardians of my vocation. To God, God! may you help me sing of your mercies forever.
Lastly, may God humble me down all the more because of this praise I have received.
I thank you all.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
SOCIO-CULTURAL CONTEXT OF MINISTRY
Symbol: Hierarchical church
Worldview: the ordained as dispenser of blessings
Ethos: Great respect for the ordained. The priest is held in high esteem among the Filipinos.
The Church is not a democratic body of people. The government in the Church is not of the people, by the people and for the people. Some would say that the Church is not democratic because it is beyond democracy. The whole body of the Church is called the mystical body of Christ and the people is usually referred to as the people of God.
The symbol of hierarchy accordingly projects my own experience of the church as a layperson then and as a cleric now. The Filipino Church inasmuch as it has been colonized by medieval Spain still retains the traces and shadows of the medieval Spanish Church Filipinized to our context.
Allow me to state the ethos of the symbol that I chose. The great respect to the ordained vividly expressed in giving the priest extra special treatment. In a way it redounds to the advantage of the priest. in another way of looking at it, the ethos might also signify the peoples idea of transcendence. Their belief, our faith in the one greater than all of us who is God convinces them to treat the priest as a representative of God. They shoe reverence to the priest in the name of Jesus, God whose presence hopefully the people feel in the presence of the priest who acts in the person of Christ the head.
How do I feel about them?
I feel eerie considering the honor shown to a priest bearing in mind that I too would be shown the same kind of respect after presbyteral ordination. Even now as an ordained deacon I see already premonitions that would lead to these moments.
Another way of consideration is the question of my own self esteem. Why am I not comfortable with treatments of this sort? Well, the question would simple answer the lack of a healthy self esteem on my part or is it only a question of adjustment to the culture? Or have I any issue on authority and power. Anyhow, I still have to figure it out as to what is weightier among the three.
Experiences as a deacon and a reflection drawn from them.
My own experience vis-à-vis blessing sacramentals and utilities would tell me of the peoples faith in God emanated by the presence of the church minister side by side with their cultural upbringing. Last March 1,2009 I happened to bless a motorcycle. My companion Seminarian Noli Francisco pointed out to something that I already noticed. The thing is the blood splattered on the engine of the motorcycle. That is their local custom: to sprinkle animal blood on things to ensure protection and favor from other beings or to ward off evils caused by other invisible forces. Oh, I could have given them a short catechism to the owner but I did not!
The hierarchical structure of the church and the high regard of the laity to the clerics is beneficial to the Church as the people of God in a way that power is rightly used by those who wield it. If the priests be faithful to their tria munera and the evangelical vows then the hierarchical structure can be well utilized for the building of God’s project. To be emphasized however is the prophetic office of the priest that is to teach and feed the people with the Word of God. With my withdrawing attitude, God help me!
Worldview: the ordained as dispenser of blessings
Ethos: Great respect for the ordained. The priest is held in high esteem among the Filipinos.
The Church is not a democratic body of people. The government in the Church is not of the people, by the people and for the people. Some would say that the Church is not democratic because it is beyond democracy. The whole body of the Church is called the mystical body of Christ and the people is usually referred to as the people of God.
The symbol of hierarchy accordingly projects my own experience of the church as a layperson then and as a cleric now. The Filipino Church inasmuch as it has been colonized by medieval Spain still retains the traces and shadows of the medieval Spanish Church Filipinized to our context.
Allow me to state the ethos of the symbol that I chose. The great respect to the ordained vividly expressed in giving the priest extra special treatment. In a way it redounds to the advantage of the priest. in another way of looking at it, the ethos might also signify the peoples idea of transcendence. Their belief, our faith in the one greater than all of us who is God convinces them to treat the priest as a representative of God. They shoe reverence to the priest in the name of Jesus, God whose presence hopefully the people feel in the presence of the priest who acts in the person of Christ the head.
How do I feel about them?
I feel eerie considering the honor shown to a priest bearing in mind that I too would be shown the same kind of respect after presbyteral ordination. Even now as an ordained deacon I see already premonitions that would lead to these moments.
Another way of consideration is the question of my own self esteem. Why am I not comfortable with treatments of this sort? Well, the question would simple answer the lack of a healthy self esteem on my part or is it only a question of adjustment to the culture? Or have I any issue on authority and power. Anyhow, I still have to figure it out as to what is weightier among the three.
Experiences as a deacon and a reflection drawn from them.
My own experience vis-à-vis blessing sacramentals and utilities would tell me of the peoples faith in God emanated by the presence of the church minister side by side with their cultural upbringing. Last March 1,2009 I happened to bless a motorcycle. My companion Seminarian Noli Francisco pointed out to something that I already noticed. The thing is the blood splattered on the engine of the motorcycle. That is their local custom: to sprinkle animal blood on things to ensure protection and favor from other beings or to ward off evils caused by other invisible forces. Oh, I could have given them a short catechism to the owner but I did not!
The hierarchical structure of the church and the high regard of the laity to the clerics is beneficial to the Church as the people of God in a way that power is rightly used by those who wield it. If the priests be faithful to their tria munera and the evangelical vows then the hierarchical structure can be well utilized for the building of God’s project. To be emphasized however is the prophetic office of the priest that is to teach and feed the people with the Word of God. With my withdrawing attitude, God help me!
Thursday, February 26, 2009
AVE MARIS STELLA CEBUANO TRANSLATION
Ave sa dagat bitoon
Inahan kang piniling Diosnon
Ulay ka gayud gihapon
Palaran kang pultang langitnon
Gikalawat mo ang himaya
Gikan kang San Gabriel nga baba
Lipaya kaming makasasala
Kay ilis ka sa ngalan ni Eva
Ang mga binilanggo tangtangi
Ang mga buta hayagi
Ang kadautan namo ipaiway mo
Ang kaayohan namo pangayoon mo
Magpahayag ka Inahan namo
Dawata kining among pag-ampo
Niadtong nagpakatawo
Tungod kanamo nga sa tiyan mo
Birhen ka ulay nga usa ra
Sa ngatanan nagahinuklog ka
Luwasa kami sa sala
Ulayon mo kami unta
Ang kinabuhi namo labani
Ang dalan namo hawani
Nga si Jesus among makit-an
Ang kalipayng gikahidlawan
Daygon tang Dios nga Amahan
Daygon ta ang Dios nga Anak
Daygon tang Dios Espiritu Santo
Usa rang pagdayeg kanilang tulo
Amen
1. Ave maris stella,
Dei Mater alma,
Atque semper Virgo,
Felix caeli porta.
2. Sumens illud Ave
Gabrielis ore,
Funda nos in pace,
Mutans Hevae nomen.
3. Solve vincla reis,
Profer lumen caecis:
Mala nostra pelle,
Bona cuncta posce.
4. Monstra t(e) esse matrem:
Sumat per te preces,
Qui pro nobis natus,
Tulit esse tuus.
5. Virgo singularis,
Inter omnes mitis,
Nos culpis solutos,
Mites fac et castos.
6. Vitam praesta puram,
Iter para tutum:
Ut videntes Iesum,
Semper collaetemur.
7. Sit laus Deo Patri,
Summo Christo decus,
Spiritui Sancto,
Tribus honor unus. Amen.
Inahan kang piniling Diosnon
Ulay ka gayud gihapon
Palaran kang pultang langitnon
Gikalawat mo ang himaya
Gikan kang San Gabriel nga baba
Lipaya kaming makasasala
Kay ilis ka sa ngalan ni Eva
Ang mga binilanggo tangtangi
Ang mga buta hayagi
Ang kadautan namo ipaiway mo
Ang kaayohan namo pangayoon mo
Magpahayag ka Inahan namo
Dawata kining among pag-ampo
Niadtong nagpakatawo
Tungod kanamo nga sa tiyan mo
Birhen ka ulay nga usa ra
Sa ngatanan nagahinuklog ka
Luwasa kami sa sala
Ulayon mo kami unta
Ang kinabuhi namo labani
Ang dalan namo hawani
Nga si Jesus among makit-an
Ang kalipayng gikahidlawan
Daygon tang Dios nga Amahan
Daygon ta ang Dios nga Anak
Daygon tang Dios Espiritu Santo
Usa rang pagdayeg kanilang tulo
Amen
1. Ave maris stella,
Dei Mater alma,
Atque semper Virgo,
Felix caeli porta.
2. Sumens illud Ave
Gabrielis ore,
Funda nos in pace,
Mutans Hevae nomen.
3. Solve vincla reis,
Profer lumen caecis:
Mala nostra pelle,
Bona cuncta posce.
4. Monstra t(e) esse matrem:
Sumat per te preces,
Qui pro nobis natus,
Tulit esse tuus.
5. Virgo singularis,
Inter omnes mitis,
Nos culpis solutos,
Mites fac et castos.
6. Vitam praesta puram,
Iter para tutum:
Ut videntes Iesum,
Semper collaetemur.
7. Sit laus Deo Patri,
Summo Christo decus,
Spiritui Sancto,
Tribus honor unus. Amen.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
did jesus know...
Did Jesus know that he was God?
Guy Davies
In my review of Brian Edgar's The Message of the Trinity here, I take issue with his statement,
if [Jesus] was aware of being God, could he live a life of faith and trust as every other human is called to do? Would the incarnation not be somewhat like the experience of the crew in Star Trek who, when visiting an alien planet could, in moments of danger, call out, 'Beam me up, Scotty!' and be miraculously...transported back to the safety of the starship. (p. 162)
I indicated that I would like to devote a post to considering this issue. Was Jesus, in his human mind, conscious that he was God?The gospel accounts seem to suggest that Jesus was aware that he was God the Son. He did things that "only God could do" like forgive sins (Mark 2:5-11) . He claimed to stand in a unique relationship to the Father as knower and known. As such he saw himself as the unrivalled revealer of God.All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. (Matthew 11:27)It seems that the devil tried to use Jesus' awareness of who he was to tempt him to use his powers in a selfish, God-denying way (Matthew 4:1-11).If Jesus was not conscious of being God the Son, what to we make of the following statements?For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. (John 5:21-23)Jesus exercised God's own prerogative of judgement. He, as the Son demanded to be honoured on the same terms as the Father. He was "making himself equal with God", as the Jews rightly perceived (5:18).I and My Father are one. (John 10:30)“If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. (John 14:7-11)Jesus was conscious that he was one with God. The Father was "in" him and he was "in" the Father. To see the human Jesus was to see the Father because the Son is homoousion - of one substance with the Father.And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. (John 17:5)Jesus, in his human mind, was aware of his pre-existence as the glorious Son of God who dwelt with the Father before the world was.Edgar suggests that if Jesus knew that he was God, he would not have needed to exercise faith. But Jesus trusted in God and prayed to him continually. Luke's Gospel especially emphasises the importance of prayer for Jesus. He was aware of his human frailty and need as well as his divine glory.
N. T. Wright reflects,I do not think Jesus "knew he was God" in the same way that one knows one is tired or happy, male or female. He did not sit back and think to himself, "Well I never! I'm the second person of the Trinity!" Rather, "as part of his human vocation, grasped in faith, sustained in prayer, tested in confrontation, agonized over further in prayer and doubt, and implemented in action, he believed that he had to do for Israel and the world, that which according to scripture only YHWH himself could do and be." (The Meaning of Jesus, Wright & Borg, SPCK, 2003, p. 166).
But, perhaps we can go futher than that. Jesus knew that he was Man with a human intellect, a human emotional life and a human physicality. He was profoundly aware of his human needs and limitations. But he also knew that he was the Son of God, one with the Father from eternity and deserving of equal honour to the Father. In his human understanding, Jesus was conscious of his humanity and deity.
.None on this means that in Jesus there are two self-consciousnesses, but it does mean that there are two levels of consciousness of the one self. There is a divine consciousness that he is the eternal Son of God and there is a human consciousness of the same fact. These two forms of consciousness remain distinct, united in one person, communicating through the Holy Spirit. (The Person of Christ, Donald Macleod, IVP, 1998, p. 193).
.
The amazing thing is, that Jesus knew that he was the Son of God, yet he went to the cross to die for the sins of the world. The form of God took the form of a servant and was made sin for us. At the cross, his sense of being the beloved Son of the Father was overwhelmed by a crushing awareness of the holiness of God and the enormity of the sin that he bore in his own body on the tree. He who was homoousion with the Father cried out, "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46). Jesus, in his human consciousness, entered the hitherto unknown territory of abandonment by God as he was made a curse for us, "suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man". (Calvin, cited in Macleod op cit. p. 177). Jesus' consciousness of being the Son of God brought him no comfort at that point. There was no reassuring, 'This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased', only the bleak, impenetrable darkness of the wrath of God upon the the sin-bearing Jesus.
.
Yes, Jesus knew who he was. But there was no, "Beam me up, Scotty!", only "Why have you forsaken me?" followed by the triumphant, "It is finished!" (John 19:30).
.
Guy Davies
In my review of Brian Edgar's The Message of the Trinity here, I take issue with his statement,
if [Jesus] was aware of being God, could he live a life of faith and trust as every other human is called to do? Would the incarnation not be somewhat like the experience of the crew in Star Trek who, when visiting an alien planet could, in moments of danger, call out, 'Beam me up, Scotty!' and be miraculously...transported back to the safety of the starship. (p. 162)
I indicated that I would like to devote a post to considering this issue. Was Jesus, in his human mind, conscious that he was God?The gospel accounts seem to suggest that Jesus was aware that he was God the Son. He did things that "only God could do" like forgive sins (Mark 2:5-11) . He claimed to stand in a unique relationship to the Father as knower and known. As such he saw himself as the unrivalled revealer of God.All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. (Matthew 11:27)It seems that the devil tried to use Jesus' awareness of who he was to tempt him to use his powers in a selfish, God-denying way (Matthew 4:1-11).If Jesus was not conscious of being God the Son, what to we make of the following statements?For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. (John 5:21-23)Jesus exercised God's own prerogative of judgement. He, as the Son demanded to be honoured on the same terms as the Father. He was "making himself equal with God", as the Jews rightly perceived (5:18).I and My Father are one. (John 10:30)“If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.” Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. (John 14:7-11)Jesus was conscious that he was one with God. The Father was "in" him and he was "in" the Father. To see the human Jesus was to see the Father because the Son is homoousion - of one substance with the Father.And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. (John 17:5)Jesus, in his human mind, was aware of his pre-existence as the glorious Son of God who dwelt with the Father before the world was.Edgar suggests that if Jesus knew that he was God, he would not have needed to exercise faith. But Jesus trusted in God and prayed to him continually. Luke's Gospel especially emphasises the importance of prayer for Jesus. He was aware of his human frailty and need as well as his divine glory.
N. T. Wright reflects,I do not think Jesus "knew he was God" in the same way that one knows one is tired or happy, male or female. He did not sit back and think to himself, "Well I never! I'm the second person of the Trinity!" Rather, "as part of his human vocation, grasped in faith, sustained in prayer, tested in confrontation, agonized over further in prayer and doubt, and implemented in action, he believed that he had to do for Israel and the world, that which according to scripture only YHWH himself could do and be." (The Meaning of Jesus, Wright & Borg, SPCK, 2003, p. 166).
But, perhaps we can go futher than that. Jesus knew that he was Man with a human intellect, a human emotional life and a human physicality. He was profoundly aware of his human needs and limitations. But he also knew that he was the Son of God, one with the Father from eternity and deserving of equal honour to the Father. In his human understanding, Jesus was conscious of his humanity and deity.
.None on this means that in Jesus there are two self-consciousnesses, but it does mean that there are two levels of consciousness of the one self. There is a divine consciousness that he is the eternal Son of God and there is a human consciousness of the same fact. These two forms of consciousness remain distinct, united in one person, communicating through the Holy Spirit. (The Person of Christ, Donald Macleod, IVP, 1998, p. 193).
.
The amazing thing is, that Jesus knew that he was the Son of God, yet he went to the cross to die for the sins of the world. The form of God took the form of a servant and was made sin for us. At the cross, his sense of being the beloved Son of the Father was overwhelmed by a crushing awareness of the holiness of God and the enormity of the sin that he bore in his own body on the tree. He who was homoousion with the Father cried out, "My God, my God why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46). Jesus, in his human consciousness, entered the hitherto unknown territory of abandonment by God as he was made a curse for us, "suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man". (Calvin, cited in Macleod op cit. p. 177). Jesus' consciousness of being the Son of God brought him no comfort at that point. There was no reassuring, 'This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased', only the bleak, impenetrable darkness of the wrath of God upon the the sin-bearing Jesus.
.
Yes, Jesus knew who he was. But there was no, "Beam me up, Scotty!", only "Why have you forsaken me?" followed by the triumphant, "It is finished!" (John 19:30).
.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
the exultet
Exultet iam angelica turba caelorum:
exultent divina mysteria:
et pro tanti Regis victoria tuba insonet
salutaris.
Gaudeat et tellus tantis irradiata fulgoribus:
et, aeterni Regis splendore illustrata,
totius orbis se sentiat amisisse caliginem.
Laetetur et mater Ecclesia,
tanti luminis adornata fulgoribus:
et magnis populorum vocibus haec aula
resultet.
Quapropter astantes vos, fratres carissimi,
ad tam miram huius sancti luminis claritatem,
una mecum, quaeso,
Dei omnipotentis misericordiam invocate.
Ut, qui me non meis meritis
intra Levitarum numerum dignatus est aggregare,
luminis sui claritatem infundens,
cerei huius laudem implere perficiat.
Vers. Dominus vobiscum.
Resp. Et cum spiritu tuo.
Vers. Sursum corda.
Resp. Habemus ad Dominum.
Vers. Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
Resp. Dignum et iustum est.
Vere dignum et iustum est,
invisibilem Deum Patrem omnipotentem
Filiumque eius unigenitum,
Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum,
toto cordis ac mentis affectu et vocis
ministerio personare.
Qui pro nobis aeterno Patri
Adae debitum solvit,
et veteris piaculi cautionem pio cruore detersit.
Haec sunt enim festa paschalia,
in quibus verus ille Agnus occiditur,
cuius sanguine postes fidelium consecrantur.
Haec nox est,
in qua primum patres nostros, filios Israele
ductos de Aegypto,
Mare Rubrum sicco vestigio transire fecisti.
Haec igitur nox est,
quae peccatorum tenebras
columnae illuminatione purgavit.
Haec nox est,
quae hodie per universum mundum
in Christo credentes,
a vitiis saeculi et caligine peccatorum segregatos,
reddit gratiae, sociat sanctitati.
Haec nox est,
in qua, destructis vinculis mortis,
Christus ab inferis victor ascendit.
Nihil enim nobis nasci profuit,
nisi redimi profuisset.
O mira circa nos tuae pietatis dignatio!
O inaestimabilis dilectio caritatis:
ut servum redimeres,
Filium tradidisti!
O certe necessarium Adae peccatum,
quod Christi morte deletum est!
O felix culpa,
quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem!
O vere beata nox,
quae sola meruit scire tempus et horam,
in qua Christus ab inferis resurrexit!
Haec nox est, de qua scriptum est:
Et nox sicut dies illuminabitur:
et nox illuminatio mea in deliciis meis.
Huius igitur sanctificatio noctis fugat scelera,
culpas lavat:
et reddit innocentiam lapsiset maestis laetitiam.
Fugat odia, concordiam paratet curvat imperia.
O vere beata nox,
in qua terrenis caelestia,
humanis divina iunguntur!¹
In huius igitur noctis gratia,
suscipe, sancte Pater,
laudis huius sacrificium vespertinum,
quod tibi in hac cerei oblatione sollemni,
per ministrorum manus de operibus apum,
sacrosancta reddit Ecclesia.
Sed iam columnae huius praeconia novimus,
quam in honorem Dei rutilans ignis accendit.
Qui, licet sit divisus in partes,
mutuati tamen luminis detrimenta non novit.
Alitur enim liquantibus ceris,
quas in substantiam pretiosae
huius lampadisapis mater eduxit.²
Oramus ergo te, Domine,
ut cereus iste in honorem tui nominis consecratus,
ad noctis huius caliginem destruendam,
indeficiens perseveret.
Et in odorem suavitatis acceptus,
supernis luminaribus misceatur.
Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:
Ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum:
Christus Filius tuus,
qui, regressus ab inferis,
humano generi serenus illuxit,
et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.
Resp. Amen.
exultent divina mysteria:
et pro tanti Regis victoria tuba insonet
salutaris.
Gaudeat et tellus tantis irradiata fulgoribus:
et, aeterni Regis splendore illustrata,
totius orbis se sentiat amisisse caliginem.
Laetetur et mater Ecclesia,
tanti luminis adornata fulgoribus:
et magnis populorum vocibus haec aula
resultet.
Quapropter astantes vos, fratres carissimi,
ad tam miram huius sancti luminis claritatem,
una mecum, quaeso,
Dei omnipotentis misericordiam invocate.
Ut, qui me non meis meritis
intra Levitarum numerum dignatus est aggregare,
luminis sui claritatem infundens,
cerei huius laudem implere perficiat.
Vers. Dominus vobiscum.
Resp. Et cum spiritu tuo.
Vers. Sursum corda.
Resp. Habemus ad Dominum.
Vers. Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.
Resp. Dignum et iustum est.
Vere dignum et iustum est,
invisibilem Deum Patrem omnipotentem
Filiumque eius unigenitum,
Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum,
toto cordis ac mentis affectu et vocis
ministerio personare.
Qui pro nobis aeterno Patri
Adae debitum solvit,
et veteris piaculi cautionem pio cruore detersit.
Haec sunt enim festa paschalia,
in quibus verus ille Agnus occiditur,
cuius sanguine postes fidelium consecrantur.
Haec nox est,
in qua primum patres nostros, filios Israele
ductos de Aegypto,
Mare Rubrum sicco vestigio transire fecisti.
Haec igitur nox est,
quae peccatorum tenebras
columnae illuminatione purgavit.
Haec nox est,
quae hodie per universum mundum
in Christo credentes,
a vitiis saeculi et caligine peccatorum segregatos,
reddit gratiae, sociat sanctitati.
Haec nox est,
in qua, destructis vinculis mortis,
Christus ab inferis victor ascendit.
Nihil enim nobis nasci profuit,
nisi redimi profuisset.
O mira circa nos tuae pietatis dignatio!
O inaestimabilis dilectio caritatis:
ut servum redimeres,
Filium tradidisti!
O certe necessarium Adae peccatum,
quod Christi morte deletum est!
O felix culpa,
quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem!
O vere beata nox,
quae sola meruit scire tempus et horam,
in qua Christus ab inferis resurrexit!
Haec nox est, de qua scriptum est:
Et nox sicut dies illuminabitur:
et nox illuminatio mea in deliciis meis.
Huius igitur sanctificatio noctis fugat scelera,
culpas lavat:
et reddit innocentiam lapsiset maestis laetitiam.
Fugat odia, concordiam paratet curvat imperia.
O vere beata nox,
in qua terrenis caelestia,
humanis divina iunguntur!¹
In huius igitur noctis gratia,
suscipe, sancte Pater,
laudis huius sacrificium vespertinum,
quod tibi in hac cerei oblatione sollemni,
per ministrorum manus de operibus apum,
sacrosancta reddit Ecclesia.
Sed iam columnae huius praeconia novimus,
quam in honorem Dei rutilans ignis accendit.
Qui, licet sit divisus in partes,
mutuati tamen luminis detrimenta non novit.
Alitur enim liquantibus ceris,
quas in substantiam pretiosae
huius lampadisapis mater eduxit.²
Oramus ergo te, Domine,
ut cereus iste in honorem tui nominis consecratus,
ad noctis huius caliginem destruendam,
indeficiens perseveret.
Et in odorem suavitatis acceptus,
supernis luminaribus misceatur.
Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:
Ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum:
Christus Filius tuus,
qui, regressus ab inferis,
humano generi serenus illuxit,
et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.
Resp. Amen.
Monday, February 16, 2009
pamalandong: martes feb.17 2k9
Pamalandong- Mk.8:14-21
The yeast's function in baking is to ferment sugars present in the flour or added to the dough. This fermentation gives off carbon dioxide and ethanol. The carbon dioxide is trapped within tiny bubbles and results in the dough expanding, or rising. www.yeastgenome.org
Kung atong diretsohon, ang igpapatubo/yeast naghatag ug inpluwensya aron modako ang pan gikan sa usa ka pudyot nga harina.
Gipasidan-an ni Jesus ang iyang mga tinun-an kabahin sa yeast sa mga Pariseo ug ni Herodes. Ngano man diay? Tungod kay ang yeast sa mga Pariseo naggikan man sa ilang pagka hypocrito. "Beware of the leaven - that is, the hypocrisy - of the Pharisees. Lk.12:1….Kining ilang pagka-hipocrito, pagpakaaron-ingon maoy naghatag ug color sa ilang mga reaksyon ngadto kang Jesus.
Ang yeast ni Herodes mao ang iyang spirit of worldliness, preoccupation with pleasure and political ambitions. (catholic commentary on SS) Kining mga kinaiyaha ni Herodes mao usab ang naghatag ug color sa iyang opinion ug reaksyon ngadto kang Jesus.
Ato kuno kining suwayan ug lambigit sa atong kasamtangang estado karon pinaagi sa pagsusi sa atong kaugalingon.
Sa atong pakigrelasyon karon kang Jesus unsa man pud ang yeast nga nakainpluwensya niini?
Or nalimot ba kaha ta pag-atiman sa atong relasyon/pakigsuod kang Jesus tungod sa mga papers, reflections ug reports nga himoonon. Nabusy na tag himo ug mga powerpoint slides unya malimot na tag hatag ug personal time for a personal encounter with Jesus?
Or kining atong mga pagpaningkamot sa pageskwela, pag adto sa pastoral area ato ba kaha kining gihimo isip kabahin sa pagpalambo nato sa atong personal relationship kang Jesus?
Sa minubo, ato bang gihimo nga yeast sa atong formation ang pagpalambo sa atong personal relationship tali sa Dios.
The yeast's function in baking is to ferment sugars present in the flour or added to the dough. This fermentation gives off carbon dioxide and ethanol. The carbon dioxide is trapped within tiny bubbles and results in the dough expanding, or rising. www.yeastgenome.org
Kung atong diretsohon, ang igpapatubo/yeast naghatag ug inpluwensya aron modako ang pan gikan sa usa ka pudyot nga harina.
Gipasidan-an ni Jesus ang iyang mga tinun-an kabahin sa yeast sa mga Pariseo ug ni Herodes. Ngano man diay? Tungod kay ang yeast sa mga Pariseo naggikan man sa ilang pagka hypocrito. "Beware of the leaven - that is, the hypocrisy - of the Pharisees. Lk.12:1….Kining ilang pagka-hipocrito, pagpakaaron-ingon maoy naghatag ug color sa ilang mga reaksyon ngadto kang Jesus.
Ang yeast ni Herodes mao ang iyang spirit of worldliness, preoccupation with pleasure and political ambitions. (catholic commentary on SS) Kining mga kinaiyaha ni Herodes mao usab ang naghatag ug color sa iyang opinion ug reaksyon ngadto kang Jesus.
Ato kuno kining suwayan ug lambigit sa atong kasamtangang estado karon pinaagi sa pagsusi sa atong kaugalingon.
Sa atong pakigrelasyon karon kang Jesus unsa man pud ang yeast nga nakainpluwensya niini?
Or nalimot ba kaha ta pag-atiman sa atong relasyon/pakigsuod kang Jesus tungod sa mga papers, reflections ug reports nga himoonon. Nabusy na tag himo ug mga powerpoint slides unya malimot na tag hatag ug personal time for a personal encounter with Jesus?
Or kining atong mga pagpaningkamot sa pageskwela, pag adto sa pastoral area ato ba kaha kining gihimo isip kabahin sa pagpalambo nato sa atong personal relationship kang Jesus?
Sa minubo, ato bang gihimo nga yeast sa atong formation ang pagpalambo sa atong personal relationship tali sa Dios.
Monday, February 9, 2009
the greek and latin traditions regarding the procession of the holy spirit
THE GREEK AND LATIN TRADITIONS REGARDING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity
The Holy Father, in the homily he gave in St Peter Basilica on 29 June in the presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, expressed a desire that "the traditional doctrine of the Filioque, present in the liturgical version of the Latin Credo, [be clarified] in order to highlight its full harmony with what the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople of 381 confesses in its creed: the Father as the source of the whole Trinity, the one origin both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
What is published here is the clarification he has asked for, which has been undertaken by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. It is intended as a contribution to the dialogue which is carried out by the Joint International Commission between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.
In its first report on "The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity", unanimously approved in Munich on 6 July 1982, the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church had mentioned the centuries-old difficulty between the two Churches concerning the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit. Not being able to treat this subject for itself in this first phase of the dialogue, the Commission stated: "Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26) as the sole source in the Trinity and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (Rom 8:15) since he is also the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4:6), is communicated to us particularly in the Eucharist by this Son upon whom he reposes in time and in eternity (Jn 1:32)" (Information Service of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, n. 49, p. 108, I, 6).
The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church.
On the basis of Jn 15:26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit “to ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon” (“who takes his origin from the Father”). The Father alone is the principle without principle (arch anarcoV) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (phgh) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou PatroV) in a principal, proper and immediate manner.1
The Greek Fathers and the whole Christian Orient speak, in this regard, of the "Father's monarchy", and the Western tradition, following St Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father "principaliter", that is, as principle (De Trinitate XV, 25, 47, PL 42, 1094-1095). In this sense, therefore, the two traditions recognize that the "monarchy of the Father" implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (Aitia) or principle (principium) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
This origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone as principle of the whole Trinity is called ekporeusiV by Greek tradition, following the Cappadocian Fathers. St Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, in fact, characterizes the Spirit's relationship of origin from the Father by the proper term ekporeusiV, distinguishing it from that of procession (to proienai) which the Spirit has in common with the Son. "The Spirit is truly the Spirit proceeding (proion) from the Father, not by filiation, for it is not by generation, but by ekporeusiV (Discourse 39, 12, Sources chrétiennes 358, p. 175). Even if St Cyril of Alexandria happens at times to apply the verb ekporeusqai the Son's relationship of origin from the Father, he never uses it for the relationship of the Spirit to the Son (Cf. Commentary on St John, X, 2, PG 74, 910D; Ep 55, PG 77, 316 D, etc.). Even for St Cyril, the term ekporeusiV as distinct from the term "proceed" (proienai) can only characterize a relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Trinity: the Father.
That is why the Orthodox Orient has always refused the formula to ek tou PatroV kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon and the Catholic Church has refused the addition kai tou Uiou to the formula to ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon in the Greek text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, even in its liturgical use by Latins.
The Orthodox Orient does not, however, refuse all eternal relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit in their origin from the Father. St Gregory of Nazianzus, a great witness to our two traditions, makes this clear in response to Macedonius who was asking: "What then is lacking to the Spirit to be the Son, for if nothing was lacking to him, he would be the Son? — We say that nothing is lacking to him, for nothing is lacking to God; but it is the difference in manifestation, if I may say so, or in the relationship between them (thV pros allhla scesewV diajoron) which makes also the difference in what they are called" (Discourse 31, 9, Sources chrétiennes 250, pp. 290-292).
The Orthodox Orient has, however, given a happy expression to this relationship with the formula dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon (who takes his origin from the Father by or through the Son). St Basil already said of the Holy Spirit: "Through the Son (dia tou Uiou), who is one, he is joined to the Father, who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (Treatise on the Holy Spirit, XVIII, 45, Sources chrétiennes 17 bis, p. 408). St Maximus the Confessor said: "By nature (jusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat’ ousian) takes substantially (ousiodwV) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di’ Uiou gennhqentoV)" (Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LXIII, PG 90, 672 C). We find this again in St John Damascene: "(o Pathr) aei hn, ecwn ex eautou ton autou logon, kai dia tou logou autou ex eautou to Pnewma autou ekporeuomenon”, in English: “I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself, and through his Word, having his Spirit issuing from him” (Dialogus contra Manichaeos 5, PG 94, 1512 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1981, p. 354; cf. PG 94, 848-849 A). This aspect of the Trinitarian mystery was confessed at the seventh Ecumenical council, meeting at Nicaea in 787, by the Patriarch of Constantinople, St Tarasius, who developed the Symbol as follows: "to Pneuma to agion, to kurion kai zwopoion, to ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon” (Mansi, XII, 1122 D).
This doctrine all bears witness to the fundamental Trinitarian faith as it was professed together by East and West at the time of the Fathers. It is the basis that must serve for the continuation of the current theological dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox.
The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arch, aitia) of the ekporeusiV of the Spirit. The Filioque is, in fact, situated in a theological and linguistic context different from that of the affirmation of the sole monarchy of the Father, the one origin of the Son and of the Spirit. Against Arianism, which was still virulent in the West, its purpose was to stress the fact that the Holy Spirit is of the same divine nature as the Son, without calling in question the one monarchy of the Father.
We are presenting here the authentic doctrinal meaning of the Filioque on the basis of the Trinitarian faith of the Symbol professed by the second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. We are giving this authoritative interpretation, while being aware of how inadequate human language is to express the ineffable mystery of the Holy Trinity, one God, a mystery which is beyond our words and our thoughts.
The Catholic Church interprets the Filioque with reference to the conciliar and ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value of the confession of faith in the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit, as defined in 381 by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in its Symbol. This Symbol only became known and received by Rome on the occasion of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451. In the meantime, on the basis of the earlier Latin theological tradition, Fathers of the Church of the West like St Hilary, St Ambrose, St Augustine and St Leo the Great, had confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeds (procedit) eternally from the Father and the Son.2
Since the Latin Bible (the Vulgate and earlier Latin translations) had translated Jn 15:26 (para tou PatroV ekporeuetai) by "qui a Patre procedit", the Latins translated the ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople by "ex Patre procedentem" (Mansi VII, 112 B). In this way, a false equivalence was involuntarily created with regard to the eternal origin of the Spirit between the Oriental theology of the ekporeusiV and the Latin theology of the processio.
The Greek ekporeusiV signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity. The Latin processio, on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit.3 In confessing the Holy Spirit "ex Patre procedentem", the Latins, therefore, could only suppose an implicit Filioque which would later be made explicit in their liturgical version of the Symbol.
In the West, the Filioque was confessed from the fifth century through the Quicumque (or "Athanasianum", DS 75) Symbol, and then by the Councils of Toledo in Visigothic Spain between 589 and 693 (DS 470, 485, 490, 527, 568), to affirm Trinitarian consubstantiality. If these Councils did not perhaps insert it in the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople, it is certainly to be found there from the end of the eighth century, as evidenced in the proceedings of the Council of Aquileia-Friuli in 796 (Mansi XIII, 836, D, ff.) and that of Aachen of 809 (Mansi XIV, 17). In the ninth century, however, faced with Charlemagne, Pope Leo III, in his anxiety to preserve unity with the Orient in the confession of faith, resisted this development of the Symbol which had spread spontaneously in the West, while safeguarding the truth contained in the Filioque. Rome only admitted it in 1014 into the liturgical Latin version of the Creed.
In the Patristic period, an analogous theology had developed in Alexandria, stemming from St Athanasius. As in the Latin tradition, it was expressed by the more common term of procession (proienai) indicating the communication of the divinity to the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion: "The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiwdwV) in it and from it" (St Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, PG 75, 585 A) .4
In the seventh century, the Byzantines were shocked by a confession of faith made by the Pope and including the Filioque with reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit; they translated the procession inaccurately by ekporeusiV. St Maximus the Confessor then wrote a letter from Rome linking together the two approaches — Cappadocian and Latin-Alexandrian — to the eternal origin of the Spirit: the Father is the sole principle without principle (in Greek aitia) of the Son and of the Spirit; the Father and the Son are consubstantial source of the procession (to proienai) of this same Spirit. "For the procession they [the Romans] brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son Cause (Aitia) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole Cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ekporeusiV — but they explained that the latter comes (proienai) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence" (Letter to Marinus of Cyprus, PG 91, 136 A-B). According to St Maximus, echoing Rome, the Filioque does not concern the ekporeusiV of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his proienai (processio) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father's monarchy.
The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit, proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common. This point was confessed as dogma in 1215 by the Fourth Lateran Council: "The substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds: so that there is distinction in persons and unity in nature. Although other (alius) is the Father, other the Son, other the Holy Spirit, they are not another reality (aliud), but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally; so, according to the orthodox and catholic faith, we believe that they are consubstantial. For the Father, generating eternally the Son, has given to him his substance (...) It is clear that, in being born the Son has received the substance of the Father without this substance being in any way diminished, and so the Father and the Son have the same substance. So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from them both, are one same reality" (DS 804-805).
In 1274 the Second Council of Lyons confessed that "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle (tamquam ex uno principio)" (DS 850). In the light of the Lateran Council, which preceded the Second Council of Lyons, it is clear that it is not the divine essence that can be the "one principle" for the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Catechism of the Catholic Church interprets this formula in n. 248 as follows: "The eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as the 'principle without principle' (DS 1331), is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds (Second Council of Lyons, DS 850)".
For the Catholic Church, "at the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he 'who proceeds from the Father' ("ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon" cf. Jn 15:26), it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque). (...) This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 248). Being aware of this, the Catholic Church has refused the addition of kai tou Uiou to the formula ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople in the Churches, even of Latin rite, which use it in Greek. The liturgical use of this original text remains always legitimate in the Catholic Church.
If it is correctly situated, the Filioque of the Latin tradition must not lead to a subordination of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity. Even if the Catholic doctrine affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in the communication of their consubstantial communion, it nonetheless recognizes the reality of the original relationship of the Holy Spirit as person with the Father, a relationship that the Greek Fathers express by the term ekporeusiV.5
In the same way, if in the Trinitarian order the Holy Spirit is consecutive to the relation between the Father and the Son, since he takes his origin from the Father as Father of the only Son,6 it is in the Spirit that this relationship between the Father and the Son itself attains its Trinitarian perfection. Just as the Father is characterized as Father by the Son he generates, so does the Spirit, by taking his origin from the Father, characterize the Father in the manner of the Trinity in relation to the Son and characterizes the Son in the manner of the Trinity in his relation to the Father: in the fullness of the Trinitarian mystery they are Father and Son in the Holy Spirit.7
The Father only generates the Son by breathing (proballein in Greek) through him the Holy Spirit and the Son is only begotten by the Father insofar as the spiration (probolh in Greek) passes through him. The Father is Father of the One Son only by being for him and through him the origin of the Holy Spirit.8
The Spirit does not precede the Son, since the Son characterizes as Father the Father from whom the Spirit takes his origin, according to the Trinitarian order.9 But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character. It is in this sense that St John Damascene says: "The Holy Spirit is a substantial power contemplated in his own distinct hypostasis, who proceeds from the Father and reposes in the Word" (De Fide orthodoxa I, 7, PG 94, 805 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1973, p. 16; Dialogus contra Manichaeos 5, PG 94, 1512 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1981, p. 354).10
What is this Trinitarian character that the person of the Holy Spirit brings to the very relationship between the Father and the Son? It is the original role of the Spirit in the economy with regard to the mission and work of the Son. The Father is love in its source (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8,16), the Son is "the Son that he loves" (Col 1:14). So a tradition dating back to St Augustine has seen in the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's love has been poured into our hearts" (Rom 5:5), love as the eternal Gift of the Father to his "beloved Son" (Mk 1:11; 9:7; Lk 20:13; Eph 1:6).11
The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his love" in order to exist consubstantially through the Son in the person of the Spirit, the Gift of love. This takes into account the fact that, through love, the Holy Spirit orients the whole life of Jesus towards the Father in the fulfilment of his will. The Father sends his Son (Gal 4:4) when Mary conceives him through the operation of the Holy Spirit (cf. Lk 1:35). The Holy Spirit makes Jesus manifest as Son of the Father by resting upon him at Baptism (cf. Lk 3:21-22; Jn 1:33). He drives Jesus into the wilderness (cf. Mk 1:12). Jesus returns "full of the Holy Spirit" (Lk 4:1). Then he begins his ministry "in the power of the Spirit" (Lk 4:14). He is filled with joy in the Spirit, blessing the Father for his gracious will (cf. Lk 10:21). He chooses his Apostles "through the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:2). He casts out demons by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). He offers himself to the Father "through the eternal Spirit" (Heb 9:14). On the Cross he "commits his Spirit" into the Father's hands (Lk 23:46). "In the Spirit" he descended to the dead (cf. 1 Pt 3:19), and by the Spirit he was raised from the dead (cf. Rom 8:11) and "designated Son of God in power" (Rom 1:4).12 This role of the Spirit in the innermost human existence of the Son of God made man derives from an eternal Trinitarian relationship through which the Spirit, in his mystery as Gift of Love, characterizes the relation between the Father, as source of love, and his beloved Son.
The original character of the person of the Spirit as eternal Gift of the Father's love for his beloved Son shows that the Spirit, while coming from the Son in his mission, is the one who brings human beings into Christ's filial relationship to his Father, for this relationship finds only in him its Trinitarian character: "God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying Abba! Father!” (Gal 4:6). In the mystery of salvation and in the life of the Church, the Spirit therefore does much more than prolong the work of the Son. In fact, whatever Christ has instituted — Revelation, the Church, the sacraments, the apostolic ministry and its Magisterium — calls for constant invocation (epiklhsiV) of the Holy Spirit and his action (energeia), so that the love that "never ends" (1 Cor 13:8) may be made manifest in the communion of the saints with the life of the Trinity.
Pontificial Council for Promoting Christian Unity
The Holy Father, in the homily he gave in St Peter Basilica on 29 June in the presence of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, expressed a desire that "the traditional doctrine of the Filioque, present in the liturgical version of the Latin Credo, [be clarified] in order to highlight its full harmony with what the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople of 381 confesses in its creed: the Father as the source of the whole Trinity, the one origin both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
What is published here is the clarification he has asked for, which has been undertaken by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. It is intended as a contribution to the dialogue which is carried out by the Joint International Commission between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.
In its first report on "The Mystery of the Church and of the Eucharist in the light of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity", unanimously approved in Munich on 6 July 1982, the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church had mentioned the centuries-old difficulty between the two Churches concerning the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit. Not being able to treat this subject for itself in this first phase of the dialogue, the Commission stated: "Without wishing to resolve yet the difficulties which have arisen between the East and the West concerning the relationship between the Son and the Spirit, we can already say together that this Spirit, which proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26) as the sole source in the Trinity and which has become the Spirit of our sonship (Rom 8:15) since he is also the Spirit of the Son (Gal 4:6), is communicated to us particularly in the Eucharist by this Son upon whom he reposes in time and in eternity (Jn 1:32)" (Information Service of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, n. 49, p. 108, I, 6).
The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught and professed by the undivided Church.
On the basis of Jn 15:26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit “to ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon” (“who takes his origin from the Father”). The Father alone is the principle without principle (arch anarcoV) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (phgh) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit therefore takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou PatroV) in a principal, proper and immediate manner.1
The Greek Fathers and the whole Christian Orient speak, in this regard, of the "Father's monarchy", and the Western tradition, following St Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father "principaliter", that is, as principle (De Trinitate XV, 25, 47, PL 42, 1094-1095). In this sense, therefore, the two traditions recognize that the "monarchy of the Father" implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (Aitia) or principle (principium) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
This origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone as principle of the whole Trinity is called ekporeusiV by Greek tradition, following the Cappadocian Fathers. St Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, in fact, characterizes the Spirit's relationship of origin from the Father by the proper term ekporeusiV, distinguishing it from that of procession (to proienai) which the Spirit has in common with the Son. "The Spirit is truly the Spirit proceeding (proion) from the Father, not by filiation, for it is not by generation, but by ekporeusiV (Discourse 39, 12, Sources chrétiennes 358, p. 175). Even if St Cyril of Alexandria happens at times to apply the verb ekporeusqai the Son's relationship of origin from the Father, he never uses it for the relationship of the Spirit to the Son (Cf. Commentary on St John, X, 2, PG 74, 910D; Ep 55, PG 77, 316 D, etc.). Even for St Cyril, the term ekporeusiV as distinct from the term "proceed" (proienai) can only characterize a relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Trinity: the Father.
That is why the Orthodox Orient has always refused the formula to ek tou PatroV kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon and the Catholic Church has refused the addition kai tou Uiou to the formula to ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon in the Greek text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, even in its liturgical use by Latins.
The Orthodox Orient does not, however, refuse all eternal relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit in their origin from the Father. St Gregory of Nazianzus, a great witness to our two traditions, makes this clear in response to Macedonius who was asking: "What then is lacking to the Spirit to be the Son, for if nothing was lacking to him, he would be the Son? — We say that nothing is lacking to him, for nothing is lacking to God; but it is the difference in manifestation, if I may say so, or in the relationship between them (thV pros allhla scesewV diajoron) which makes also the difference in what they are called" (Discourse 31, 9, Sources chrétiennes 250, pp. 290-292).
The Orthodox Orient has, however, given a happy expression to this relationship with the formula dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon (who takes his origin from the Father by or through the Son). St Basil already said of the Holy Spirit: "Through the Son (dia tou Uiou), who is one, he is joined to the Father, who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (Treatise on the Holy Spirit, XVIII, 45, Sources chrétiennes 17 bis, p. 408). St Maximus the Confessor said: "By nature (jusei) the Holy Spirit in his being (kat’ ousian) takes substantially (ousiodwV) his origin (ekporeuomenon) from the Father through the Son who is begotten (di’ Uiou gennhqentoV)" (Quaestiones ad Thalassium, LXIII, PG 90, 672 C). We find this again in St John Damascene: "(o Pathr) aei hn, ecwn ex eautou ton autou logon, kai dia tou logou autou ex eautou to Pnewma autou ekporeuomenon”, in English: “I say that God is always Father since he has always his Word coming from himself, and through his Word, having his Spirit issuing from him” (Dialogus contra Manichaeos 5, PG 94, 1512 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1981, p. 354; cf. PG 94, 848-849 A). This aspect of the Trinitarian mystery was confessed at the seventh Ecumenical council, meeting at Nicaea in 787, by the Patriarch of Constantinople, St Tarasius, who developed the Symbol as follows: "to Pneuma to agion, to kurion kai zwopoion, to ek tou Patros dia tou Uiou ekporeuomenon” (Mansi, XII, 1122 D).
This doctrine all bears witness to the fundamental Trinitarian faith as it was professed together by East and West at the time of the Fathers. It is the basis that must serve for the continuation of the current theological dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox.
The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arch, aitia) of the ekporeusiV of the Spirit. The Filioque is, in fact, situated in a theological and linguistic context different from that of the affirmation of the sole monarchy of the Father, the one origin of the Son and of the Spirit. Against Arianism, which was still virulent in the West, its purpose was to stress the fact that the Holy Spirit is of the same divine nature as the Son, without calling in question the one monarchy of the Father.
We are presenting here the authentic doctrinal meaning of the Filioque on the basis of the Trinitarian faith of the Symbol professed by the second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. We are giving this authoritative interpretation, while being aware of how inadequate human language is to express the ineffable mystery of the Holy Trinity, one God, a mystery which is beyond our words and our thoughts.
The Catholic Church interprets the Filioque with reference to the conciliar and ecumenical, normative and irrevocable value of the confession of faith in the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit, as defined in 381 by the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in its Symbol. This Symbol only became known and received by Rome on the occasion of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451. In the meantime, on the basis of the earlier Latin theological tradition, Fathers of the Church of the West like St Hilary, St Ambrose, St Augustine and St Leo the Great, had confessed that the Holy Spirit proceeds (procedit) eternally from the Father and the Son.2
Since the Latin Bible (the Vulgate and earlier Latin translations) had translated Jn 15:26 (para tou PatroV ekporeuetai) by "qui a Patre procedit", the Latins translated the ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople by "ex Patre procedentem" (Mansi VII, 112 B). In this way, a false equivalence was involuntarily created with regard to the eternal origin of the Spirit between the Oriental theology of the ekporeusiV and the Latin theology of the processio.
The Greek ekporeusiV signifies only the relationship of origin to the Father alone as the principle without principle of the Trinity. The Latin processio, on the contrary, is a more common term, signifying the communication of the consubstantial divinity from the Father to the Son and from the Father, through and with the Son, to the Holy Spirit.3 In confessing the Holy Spirit "ex Patre procedentem", the Latins, therefore, could only suppose an implicit Filioque which would later be made explicit in their liturgical version of the Symbol.
In the West, the Filioque was confessed from the fifth century through the Quicumque (or "Athanasianum", DS 75) Symbol, and then by the Councils of Toledo in Visigothic Spain between 589 and 693 (DS 470, 485, 490, 527, 568), to affirm Trinitarian consubstantiality. If these Councils did not perhaps insert it in the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople, it is certainly to be found there from the end of the eighth century, as evidenced in the proceedings of the Council of Aquileia-Friuli in 796 (Mansi XIII, 836, D, ff.) and that of Aachen of 809 (Mansi XIV, 17). In the ninth century, however, faced with Charlemagne, Pope Leo III, in his anxiety to preserve unity with the Orient in the confession of faith, resisted this development of the Symbol which had spread spontaneously in the West, while safeguarding the truth contained in the Filioque. Rome only admitted it in 1014 into the liturgical Latin version of the Creed.
In the Patristic period, an analogous theology had developed in Alexandria, stemming from St Athanasius. As in the Latin tradition, it was expressed by the more common term of procession (proienai) indicating the communication of the divinity to the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion: "The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiwdwV) in it and from it" (St Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, PG 75, 585 A) .4
In the seventh century, the Byzantines were shocked by a confession of faith made by the Pope and including the Filioque with reference to the procession of the Holy Spirit; they translated the procession inaccurately by ekporeusiV. St Maximus the Confessor then wrote a letter from Rome linking together the two approaches — Cappadocian and Latin-Alexandrian — to the eternal origin of the Spirit: the Father is the sole principle without principle (in Greek aitia) of the Son and of the Spirit; the Father and the Son are consubstantial source of the procession (to proienai) of this same Spirit. "For the procession they [the Romans] brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son Cause (Aitia) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole Cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ekporeusiV — but they explained that the latter comes (proienai) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence" (Letter to Marinus of Cyprus, PG 91, 136 A-B). According to St Maximus, echoing Rome, the Filioque does not concern the ekporeusiV of the Spirit issued from the Father as source of the Trinity, but manifests his proienai (processio) in the consubstantial communion of the Father and the Son, while excluding any possible subordinationist interpretation of the Father's monarchy.
The fact that in Latin and Alexandrian theology the Holy Spirit, proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son in their consubstantial communion does not mean that it is the divine essence or substance that proceed in him, but that it is communicated from the Father and the Son who have it in common. This point was confessed as dogma in 1215 by the Fourth Lateran Council: "The substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds: so that there is distinction in persons and unity in nature. Although other (alius) is the Father, other the Son, other the Holy Spirit, they are not another reality (aliud), but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally; so, according to the orthodox and catholic faith, we believe that they are consubstantial. For the Father, generating eternally the Son, has given to him his substance (...) It is clear that, in being born the Son has received the substance of the Father without this substance being in any way diminished, and so the Father and the Son have the same substance. So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from them both, are one same reality" (DS 804-805).
In 1274 the Second Council of Lyons confessed that "the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles but as from one single principle (tamquam ex uno principio)" (DS 850). In the light of the Lateran Council, which preceded the Second Council of Lyons, it is clear that it is not the divine essence that can be the "one principle" for the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Catechism of the Catholic Church interprets this formula in n. 248 as follows: "The eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as the 'principle without principle' (DS 1331), is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Spirit proceeds (Second Council of Lyons, DS 850)".
For the Catholic Church, "at the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he 'who proceeds from the Father' ("ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon" cf. Jn 15:26), it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son. The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque). (...) This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 248). Being aware of this, the Catholic Church has refused the addition of kai tou Uiou to the formula ek tou PatroV ekporeuomenon of the Symbol of Nicaea-Constantinople in the Churches, even of Latin rite, which use it in Greek. The liturgical use of this original text remains always legitimate in the Catholic Church.
If it is correctly situated, the Filioque of the Latin tradition must not lead to a subordination of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity. Even if the Catholic doctrine affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in the communication of their consubstantial communion, it nonetheless recognizes the reality of the original relationship of the Holy Spirit as person with the Father, a relationship that the Greek Fathers express by the term ekporeusiV.5
In the same way, if in the Trinitarian order the Holy Spirit is consecutive to the relation between the Father and the Son, since he takes his origin from the Father as Father of the only Son,6 it is in the Spirit that this relationship between the Father and the Son itself attains its Trinitarian perfection. Just as the Father is characterized as Father by the Son he generates, so does the Spirit, by taking his origin from the Father, characterize the Father in the manner of the Trinity in relation to the Son and characterizes the Son in the manner of the Trinity in his relation to the Father: in the fullness of the Trinitarian mystery they are Father and Son in the Holy Spirit.7
The Father only generates the Son by breathing (proballein in Greek) through him the Holy Spirit and the Son is only begotten by the Father insofar as the spiration (probolh in Greek) passes through him. The Father is Father of the One Son only by being for him and through him the origin of the Holy Spirit.8
The Spirit does not precede the Son, since the Son characterizes as Father the Father from whom the Spirit takes his origin, according to the Trinitarian order.9 But the spiration of the Spirit from the Father takes place by and through (the two senses of dia in Greek) the generation of the Son, to which it gives its Trinitarian character. It is in this sense that St John Damascene says: "The Holy Spirit is a substantial power contemplated in his own distinct hypostasis, who proceeds from the Father and reposes in the Word" (De Fide orthodoxa I, 7, PG 94, 805 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1973, p. 16; Dialogus contra Manichaeos 5, PG 94, 1512 B, ed. B. Kotter, Berlin 1981, p. 354).10
What is this Trinitarian character that the person of the Holy Spirit brings to the very relationship between the Father and the Son? It is the original role of the Spirit in the economy with regard to the mission and work of the Son. The Father is love in its source (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8,16), the Son is "the Son that he loves" (Col 1:14). So a tradition dating back to St Augustine has seen in the Holy Spirit, through whom "God's love has been poured into our hearts" (Rom 5:5), love as the eternal Gift of the Father to his "beloved Son" (Mk 1:11; 9:7; Lk 20:13; Eph 1:6).11
The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his love" in order to exist consubstantially through the Son in the person of the Spirit, the Gift of love. This takes into account the fact that, through love, the Holy Spirit orients the whole life of Jesus towards the Father in the fulfilment of his will. The Father sends his Son (Gal 4:4) when Mary conceives him through the operation of the Holy Spirit (cf. Lk 1:35). The Holy Spirit makes Jesus manifest as Son of the Father by resting upon him at Baptism (cf. Lk 3:21-22; Jn 1:33). He drives Jesus into the wilderness (cf. Mk 1:12). Jesus returns "full of the Holy Spirit" (Lk 4:1). Then he begins his ministry "in the power of the Spirit" (Lk 4:14). He is filled with joy in the Spirit, blessing the Father for his gracious will (cf. Lk 10:21). He chooses his Apostles "through the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:2). He casts out demons by the Spirit of God (Mt 12:28). He offers himself to the Father "through the eternal Spirit" (Heb 9:14). On the Cross he "commits his Spirit" into the Father's hands (Lk 23:46). "In the Spirit" he descended to the dead (cf. 1 Pt 3:19), and by the Spirit he was raised from the dead (cf. Rom 8:11) and "designated Son of God in power" (Rom 1:4).12 This role of the Spirit in the innermost human existence of the Son of God made man derives from an eternal Trinitarian relationship through which the Spirit, in his mystery as Gift of Love, characterizes the relation between the Father, as source of love, and his beloved Son.
The original character of the person of the Spirit as eternal Gift of the Father's love for his beloved Son shows that the Spirit, while coming from the Son in his mission, is the one who brings human beings into Christ's filial relationship to his Father, for this relationship finds only in him its Trinitarian character: "God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying Abba! Father!” (Gal 4:6). In the mystery of salvation and in the life of the Church, the Spirit therefore does much more than prolong the work of the Son. In fact, whatever Christ has instituted — Revelation, the Church, the sacraments, the apostolic ministry and its Magisterium — calls for constant invocation (epiklhsiV) of the Holy Spirit and his action (energeia), so that the love that "never ends" (1 Cor 13:8) may be made manifest in the communion of the saints with the life of the Trinity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)