Among the many accusations (real or fictitious) of Catholics against Orthodox and Orthodox against Catholics, the so-called “filioque issue” should be considered key. According to the Orthodox, its formulation contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity and is therefore unacceptable. What is the essence of this contradiction?
Is the Catholic Church ready to reconcile with the Orthodox Church?
The Creed, approved by the Fourth Ecumenical Council (451), states that a true Christian must, among other things, believe “in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, worshiped and glorified equally with the Father and the Son, who spoke through prophets." However, at the Council of Toledo (local) in 681, an addition was made to the Creed: “... coming from the Father and the Son” (in Latin - Filioque). It is believed that this addition was made forcedly to combat the Arian heresy, which was popular among the Visigoths who inhabited Spain at that time. The Arians believed that Jesus was not consubstantial with God the Father, since He was born (created) by Him, and, therefore, occupied a subordinate position in relation to Him, which violated the dogma of the Trinity. If we accept that the Holy Spirit comes not only from God the Father, but also from God the Son, then their status in the eyes of believers (but not knowledgeable in theology) parishioners was equalized.
Different opinions
In the Gospels themselves (as well as in other religious books) we can find different interpretations of this issue. In some places it is unconditionally recognized that the Holy Spirit comes precisely from God the Father: “...the sky was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in bodily form, like a dove, and there was a voice from heaven, saying: You are My Beloved Son; I am well pleased with you!” (Luke 3:21-22); “But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and remind you of everything that I have said to you” (John 14:26). In others - that the Holy Spirit comes from Jesus himself: “And John testified, saying: I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and remaining on Him. I didn't know Him; but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me: On whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on Him, it is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:32-33); “When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father. He will testify about Me; and you also will testify, because you were with Me from the beginning” (John 15:26-27); “Jesus said to them a second time: Peace be with you! just as the Father sent Me, [so] I send you. Having said this, he breathed and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:21-22). There are still heated theological discussions on this issue. Probably the most consistent postulate about the relationship between God the Father, God the Son and the Holy Spirit was created by Quintus Septimius Florence Tertullian: “The Spirit has no other source than the Father through the Son.” And the Creed in this case should be read as “I believe in... the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father through the Son, worshiped and glorified equally with the Father and the Son, who spoke through the prophets.”
What is a filioque from the point of view of Orthodox dogma?
The wording “and from the Son” (Latin Filioque, “filioque”) indicates the relationship between the hypostases of God the Trinity - the Holy Spirit comes not only from the Father, but also from the Son. This formula began to spread in Visigothic (long Arian) Spain after the 5th century and in itself is not a problem from the point of view of Orthodox theology - it can be interpreted in an acceptable way. This interpretation was proposed at one time by St. Maximus the Confessor: the words “from the Father and the Son” emphasize the unity of the Father and the Son with each other. However, soon Frankish theologians began to assimilate the Augustinian meaning to these words - the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son by its very origin, by the beginning of existence, that is, both the Father and the Son are the cause and source of the existence of the Spirit. From that moment on, the filioque came into conflict with the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (and, accordingly, as Byzantine polemicists later showed, with Orthodox sotiriology - the doctrine of salvation through deification).
Patriarch Photius was the first to speak out against the filioque in the 9th century (from the point of view of dogmatics, it does not matter that the polemic also had historical reasons). His arguments:
— With the filioque, the hypostatic ability of the Father to bring forth the Spirit is also acquired by the Son. But the hypostatic features are indescribable; they are what should distinguish the hypostases. The Filioque thus confuses the Father and the Son (“semi-Savellian monster”, cryptomodalism), and assigns to the Spirit the functional role of the connection between the Father and the Son, that is, it casts doubt on the real difference of hypostases in the Trinity.
To put it quite simply:
The Spirit comes from the Father. If the Spirit also comes from the Son, then the hypostases of the Father and the Son do not differ in this point. And they should.
— The expression “from the Father through the Son” and similar ones, which are found among the holy fathers, should be understood not in an intra-Trinitarian, but in an economic sense external to the Trinity: the Spirit does not come from the Son in being, but is sent through Him and by Him creatures. In addition, Photius contains the doctrine of the eternal resting of the Spirit in the Son (for a long time patrolologists did not notice this).
Photius's argumentation was continued and developed by Nikolai Methonian, Nikephoros Blemmides, Gregory of Cyprus, Gregory Palamas, Josephus of Bryennius, and Mark of Ephesus. Briefly it can be stated as follows:
The Filioque confuses the hypostatic features of the Father and the Son, and assigns a service role to the Spirit, thereby introducing subordination into the “equally honorable” Trinity: the Father is first, the Son is second, the Spirit is third, while, according to the Orthodox understanding, the Father is not “in anything.” more" than the Son and the Spirit except the beginning of existence. In addition, without distinguishing the relationship of the hypostases of the Trinity by origin (the beginning of being) from their pre-eternal “symmetrical” intercommunication (through the movement of a single essence) and from the order of their relationships according to the economy, the filioque excludes in God the inseparable difference of essence and energies, and therefore deification creatures with divine energies.
From an Orthodox point of view, several aspects can be distinguished in the teaching about the relationship of the Spirit to the Father and the Son.
Causal aspect
(who is the reason for whom)
At the beginning of existence, the Spirit comes from the Father - the single source of divinity (monarchy of the Father). In the pre-eternal birth of the Son and the exhaustion of the Spirit, the Father transmits to Them, along with hypostatic existence, the entire fullness of divinity (essence and energy), common to the three hypostases. In this sense, the Father is first, and the Son and Spirit are second.
Perichoristic aspect
(perichorisis - other Greek “interpenetration”)
In the Trinity, the hypostases interpenetrate each other (perichorisis); they are actually different, but inseparable. In this sense, the Spirit is not only in the Father, but also in the Son.
Energy aspect
(see Palamas' teaching on divine energies)
In the pre-eternal radiance (manifestation) of the general essence of God through energies in relation to the hypostases, there is nothing “first or second” in the Trinity, but each hypostasis is “middle” in relation to the other two. In this sense, Orthodox triadology presupposes the symmetry of hypostases: the Spirit shines eternally through the Son, just as the Son through the Spirit.
Economic aspect
(oikonomia - other Greek “economy”, all the actions of God in relation to the created world)
When the creation is bestowed with common divine energies, the order of hypostases in the Trinity is as follows: from the Father through the Son in the Spirit.
Christological aspect
(what happens in the incarnation of Christ)
The eternal repose of the hypostasis of the Spirit in the hypostasis of the Son during the incarnation of the Son includes His humanity, “anointed” (Christ the Anointed One) and completely deified by all three hypostases (including the Spirit).
Ecclisiological and sotyriological aspect
(importance for the Church and our salvation)
At Pentecost, this resting of the hypostasis of the Spirit in the Son is transmitted with all the fullness of energies (“whole energy”) to the Church - the Body of Christ: Christians are adopted by the Spirit to the Father in the Son with all their energy (but whoever is able to contain how much), that is, they are deified.
Mosaic depicting the Trinity visiting Abraham. Basilica of San Vitale, Ravenna. VI century.
Prepared by Alexey Zaitsev for Islands
But it happened the way it happened.
It should be noted that initially this “Toledo addition” remained only a special case in the Latin Church. His main supporter (again, from the practical standpoint of fighting the Arians) was Emperor Charlemagne. However, Pope Leo III, who held this position in 795-816, categorically disagreed with him! He ordered the Creed (without the Toledan addition of “filioque”) to be engraved on two (in Greek and Latin) silver plates and hung them in the cathedral church. But two centuries passed, and in 1014 another pope, Benedict VIII, ordered these tables to be removed, and during the coronation of Henry II, “and the Son” was sung. From then until the end of the 20th century, the Catholic Church, contrary to the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and individual popes, traditionally uses the filioque. However, the so-called Eastern Catholic Churches are allowed to read the Creed without this addition.
On attempts to introduce the Filioque heresy into the Russian Orthodox theological school
To the editors of the Pravoslavie.ru portal: Dear editors! Thank you for opening the “Invitation to Discussion” section on the Pravoslavie.ru portal and on the website of Sretensky Theological Seminary, which provides an opportunity to speak out on topical issues of modern church life. Please publish my article.
Sincerely, Associate Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy R.M. Horse
I. Preface
In modern Russian theology, a strange tendency has emerged to revise the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox Church under the plausible pretext of achieving Christian unity in a divided world. One such direction in the search for unity is an attempt to revise the attitude towards the Roman Catholic false teaching of the Filioque (about the procession of the Holy Spirit “and from the Son”), condemned by the Orthodox Church as a heresy.
According to the belief of the Orthodox Church, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, but Catholics have distorted this belief by adding to it the false teaching that the Holy Spirit also proceeds “from the Son.” This addition to the Creed is written in Latin as Filioque.
We will not go into what tragic spiritual consequences this heresy leads to; we will only note that every seminary student knows that the Filioque is one of the fundamental dogmatic differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. However, some modern Orthodox theologians do not give up attempts to pass off the Filioque as just a historical misunderstanding from the standpoint of the modern understanding of theology. This is exactly what Oleg Davydov, who was previously unknown to anyone, did during his rectorship at the Moscow Theological Academy of Archbishop Ambrose (Ermakov) (now rector of Sretensky Theological Seminary), but in 2021 he took the position of professor at the Department of Theology of the Moscow Academy of Arts and considers himself a specialist in the field of Orthodox theology. , despite the fact that he does not even have a seminary education, and his enrollment in the MDA contradicted the requirements of the “Regulations on academic titles and staff positions in theological educational institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church” of the Educational Committee of the Russian Orthodox Church[1]. It is surprising that O. Davydov was admitted to the MDA without passing a competition at the department , and Prot. P. Velikanov put forward his candidacy for voting at the Academic Council of the MDA, presenting the matter as if O. Davydov had passed the competition. All this suggests that the then leadership of the MDA, headed by the respected Archbishop Ambrose, was very interested in the candidacy of this teacher.
But, as it turned out, O. Davydov’s activities are not limited to the framework of the Theological Academy alone, and recently he has been on the editorial board of the publishing house of the Sretensky Theological Seminary “Sreda”, which will publish scientific and theological literature, studies of domestic and foreign theologians, philosophers and historians.
So, is the confessional path of the Orthodox saints, who entered into the struggle against the false teaching of the Filioque until their martyrdom, just a “tradition of discord”?
Oleg Davydov outlined his views on the Filioque issue in the article “The Tradition of Discord”[2], published in 2021. Further in the text we will talk about this article. It implicitly follows from the title of the article and its contents that the confessional path of the Orthodox saints, who entered into the struggle against the false teaching of the Filioque until their martyrdom, is just a “tradition of discord” and not a guarantee of Truth, peace and unity.
This title of the article is, in principle, provocative. Remembering the feat of the martyrs and confessors for the Orthodox faith on the day of remembrance of all saints, which the Church celebrated on recent Sunday, June 14, it is clear that such assessments lead to the denial and trampling of their feat, and therefore the holiday itself. The day after the memory of all saints - June 15, 2021 - was the birthday of Protopresbyter Gabriel Kostelnik, who laid down his life as a martyr in the fight against Catholic false teachings, including the aforementioned Filioque, in order to bring the Uniates who had fallen away from Orthodoxy back to the Church.
II. Davydov does not recognize the teaching of the Ecumenical Councils on the Holy Spirit as dogmatic and theological
Referring to the opinion of Rev., unacceptable from the Orthodox point of view. Sergius Bulgakov on the issue of Filioque, Davydov writes:
“Father Sergius Bulgakov, in his brilliant works, primarily in the book “The Comforter,” demonstrates an excellent knowledge of Catholic thought and teaching, to which in many cases he gives reasonable and subtle criticism from Orthodox positions. However, in this text he convincingly shows that the question of the filioque, as it developed and exists to this day, was and is neither theological nor dogmatic. Despite the widely known presence of truly controversial theologumens of Bulgakov, in this case one should admit that he was right.”
So, MDA professor O. Davydov is in complete unanimity with Rev. Sergius Bulgakov opposes himself to all Church Councils and the holy fathers who agree with the Councils on this issue and believes that the Filioque question is not theological and dogmatic. The Orthodox Church, unlike O. Davydov, over the course of many centuries of controversy about the Filioque, thought differently and expressed this in many patristic works and church decrees.
An assessment of the teaching of the Filioque was given, in particular, in a document entitled: “District Letter of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith” of 1848:
“The one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, following the holy fathers... proclaims collectively that this newly introduced opinion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is a real heresy and its followers, no matter who they are, are heretics... the societies made up of them They are heretical societies, and any spiritual liturgical communion with them by the Orthodox children of the conciliar Church is lawless.”
Oleg Davydov, developing his thought, believes that in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit
“both versions (“with filioque” and “without”) are a dogmatic misunderstanding, which comes from the imaginary problem of not distinguishing between the procession and the origin of the Spirit by the Father,” and “this happened partly due to a misunderstanding, partly due to the lack of development of a specific language.”
And further O. Davydov writes:
“Evidence of this incompleteness and fundamental openness of the teaching can be considered that there was not a single Ecumenical Council that developed and approved as a generally binding dogma about the Holy Spirit. What happened was that the West and the East elevated limited theologumens to the rank of absolute dogmas, respectively, mutually branding all other theologumens as heresy, and this was done for polemical purposes.”
Thus, O. Davydov denies and tramples the decisions of the Second Ecumenical Council of 381, where the Doukhobor Macedonians were anathematized, and a doctrinal confession of the Holy Spirit was included in the Creed with a precise indication of Whom He comes from. Apparently, these truths are simply unknown to O. Davydov or they mean nothing to him. However, the holy fathers, who polemicized against the Filioque heresy, referred specifically to the theology of the Second Ecumenical Council on this issue (see “District Letter to the Eastern Patriarchs” by St. Photius of Constantinople).
Despite these definitions of the Councils, Davydov believes that the theme of the Filioque “did not receive a satisfactory result in previous times,” and therefore requires and presupposes “completely different means and way of creativity, an open dialogue both between theological traditions and between them and modern philosophy.” . In other words, the Church, which preserves Divine Revelation, is not able to answer the questions of heretics.
III. O. Davydov opposes the Orthodox theological principle of “consent of the fathers”
Oleg Davydov admits that the Filioque is recognized by church councils as a heresy and there is extensive patristic literature condemning the Filioque as a heresy. Nevertheless, he ignores both the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils and the works of the Holy Fathers on the subjective assumption that
the principle of “concord of the fathers” is just “ an artificial concept... which is more an instrument of ideology than the fruit of intense theological creativity .”
O. Davydov's statements show that he either does not notice that he is contradicting himself, or does not understand what he is writing about. After all, the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils demonstrate this “consent of the fathers,” laconically expressed by the IV Ecumenical Council of 451 with the formula:
“So, following the holy fathers, we teach everyone to confess in agreement...”
The Acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 expresses the same principle:
“Nothing that is written by anyone should be accepted unless it is first found to be in agreement with the Orthodox faith of the Holy Fathers” [3].
This principle was followed by all the holy fathers, for example St. Maximus the Confessor, who strove “to remain completely in piety and not to deviate from the teachings of the fathers.” He constantly states:
- “I have learned, I think, and I believe, and I have received it from my fathers, and so I speak.”
- and “I won’t say anything on my own behalf, but what I learned from the fathers, I say, without in the least changing their teaching about these things”[4].
IV. For O. Davydov, the polemic of the holy fathers with the Filioque heresy is “morally dubious” “Pharisee literalism”
It turns out that O. Davydov finds himself unbearably cramped in the patristic Tradition, and since it denounces him, and he has no arguments against it, he subjects the “consent of the fathers” on the issue of the Filioque to derogatory criticism.
In his opinion,
The history of “ debates about the Holy Spirit shows that pharisaic literalism, polemical fervor and apologetic fervor are much more often the driving motives of either side of the dialogue .”
And the theology of the holy fathers is “ aesthetically tasteless, intellectually sterile and morally dubious ” and traditionally banal , and theological disputes about the Truth are “ clashes of pride ” and, with rare exceptions, “ an instrument of a schismatic spirit ”...
It is clear that O. Davydov is unbearably cramped in the patristic Tradition
It turns out, according to Davydov, that the holy fathers were not guided by the apostolic commandment “keep what was given to you” (1 Tim. 6:20) and the instruction given to the faithful in the person of the Apostle Timothy: “I adjure you before God and our Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word, be persistent in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and teaching” (2 Tim. 4: 1-2), and human passions, therefore, confessors of the faith, according to Davydov, these are people imbued with a schismatic spirit.
However, Davydov found it possible to bypass the apostolic commandment and “Pharisee literalism,” as he calls the teaching of the holy fathers, with the help of the theological “genius” of Archpriest. Sergius Bulgakov and personal dogmatic voluntarism.
V. Dogmatic and liturgical voluntarism
Since the theology of the Church and the Holy Fathers in the eyes of O. Davydov is hopelessly worthless, the young reformer of the church faith calls for ignoring the Filioque as a heresy at the liturgical and church-practical level and essentially proposes to step over faith in the One Holy Orthodox Church:
“In the liturgical and eucharistic life of communities, both Catholic and Orthodox, it is absolutely impossible to find differences that can be said directly that they depend on adherence to different theologumena. It is this “grassroots unity” that seems to be the basis on which a different, non-apologetic pneumatology will grow, allowing for differences of opinion, but not seeking totalitarian unanimity.”
O. Davydov does not know that the canons prohibit communication with heretics in prayer and the Sacraments? Or are these canons insignificant for him?
Apparently, the lack of basic seminary education and the patronage of the respected Archbishop Ambrose (Ermakov), Prot. P. Velikanov and a number of other individuals gave O. Davydov’s theological ignorance in the elementary issues of the seminar course a feeling of complete impunity. Apparently, he does not know that the canons prohibit communication with heretics in prayer and the Sacraments on the basis of a lack of unanimity in matters of faith. Or did he do it consciously and these canons are insignificant for him?
Actually, the whole message of the new MDA professor Davydov is to create a pneumatology that mixes truth with heresy and pass it off as a Christian teaching about the Holy Spirit.
VI. About the destructive consequences for the Church from accepting the teachings of O. Davydov
Such attempts to justify the Filioque lead to conclusions unacceptable to Orthodoxy.
Thus, the Orthodox theologian Bishop Nicholas of Metho back in the 12th century vividly wrote about this:
“What is absurd when we say that the Spirit also comes from the Son?” – There are a lot of absurdities, and very big ones.
Firstly, the gospel preaching is perverted and the definitions of the fathers are distorted.
Secondly, throwing away the divine heritage that has come down to us from the fathers and perverting the faith is the same as shunning communication with the fathers and, moreover, incurring the curses they uttered, by the will of God, on those who dare to make innovations in the faith.
Thirdly, the new addition, making the confession of the saints imperfect, makes it clear that all the martyrs suffered in vain, the ascetics labored in vain, the priests performed sacred acts, and even the self-witnesses and servants of the Word preached in vain.
Fourthly, the idea of inventing something more against God-bearing teachers cancels the saying of the Lord: “It is enough for the disciple that he should be like his teacher” (Matthew 10:25).
Fifthly, while the Only Begotten Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, spoke the theological truth that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, dare to introduce any addition of anything from oneself to theology, as if only now another, more a clear teacher and the most accurate tester of the Divine than our one, first and only Mentor and teacher Jesus Christ, who shone from the East, according to the prophet (cf. Zech. 3: 8; Is. 41: 2-29), is a sign not I know what impudence and madness.
Sixthly, this new dogma attempts to tear and divide the one Body of the Church of Christ, beautifully formed and united by the Spirit (Col. 2:19), since it introduces a strange and unusual saying, unworthy of the Spirit, which the true children of Christ have never heard and will never hear. , taught to listen to the voice of Christ Himself, even though it seemed that an abyss yawned wider than the gates of hell, threatening to kidnap and devour the apostolic thrones and dominate the Church.
Seventhly, renewing the rejected, rejected and exposed heresies of Arius and Sabellius, Eunomius and Macedonius, this teaching attempts to merge the trinity, then to separate the inseparable and the unmerged. For it merges the properties of the Father and the Son and cuts off the Holy Spirit from the entire fullness of the Divinity. These are the reasons why I reject novelty!”[5].
VII. conclusions
In connection with the above teaching of O. Davydov, questions arise:
- What faith will the new professor of the Department of Theology of the Moscow Academy of Sciences O. Davydov teach students - future priests? Orthodoxy or the Catholic Filioque heresy?
- Why is he doing this?
- On what grounds does O. Davydov, who considers the anti-Trinitarian heresy a non-dogmatic issue, teach at the Trinity Academy?
- On what basis did the respected Archbishop Ambrose and Prot. P. Velikanov hired a person at the MDA who was known in advance as preaching heretical ideas, because his article “The Tradition of Discord” was published in 2021, that is, two years before he was admitted to the Academy staff in 2021?
- On what basis was the respected Archbishop Ambrose accepted into the MDA, and even immediately to a professorial position (!) in theological, that is, the core discipline for the MDA, a person who, according to the requirements of the “Regulations on academic titles and staff positions in theological educational institutions of the Russian Federation” Orthodox Church"[6] Educational Committee of the Russian Orthodox Church, higher theological education?
Most recently (06/17/2020) on the Spas TV channel, Archbishop Ambrose was sad about the lack of specialists in the Church to train future priests. If the rector of Sretensky Seminary was talking specifically about such specialists as O. Davydov, whom he supported, then, to paraphrase a well-known saying, we can say: with such specialists you don’t even need enemies to destroy the Church from the inside.
On the verge of change
But the year 2000 began with a sensation. On August 6, the Catholic Church published the declaration Dominus Jesus (“Lord Jesus”), authored by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (from April 19, 2005 to February 28, 2013 - Pope Benedict XVI). In it, in the second paragraph of the first part, the text of the Creed is given in the edition without the filioque: “Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre procedit, qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur, qui locutus est per prophetas” (“And in the Holy Spirit, the life-giving Lord, who proceeds from the Father, to whom, together with the Father and the Son, belongs worship and glory, who spoke through the prophets." Perhaps, on the part of the Roman Curia, this was a touchstone for establishing a dialogue with the Orthodox Church? But there was no reaction from the Orthodox Church...
Magazine: Mysteries of history No. 26, June 2021 Category: Version Author: Andrey Podvolotsky
Tags: Mysteries of history, Catholicism, church, Orthodoxy, Christianity, faith, Arianism, filioque, dogma, Trinity
- Back
- Forward
Lecture notes “on the filioque”
Deacon Andrey
Vladimir Nikolaevich Lossky: “A historian does not have the right to dictate to a theologian.” If you wish, if you “snatch” several quotes from patristic theology, you can easily find those that will testify in favor of the filioque.
However, we cannot accept this as the opinion of the Church. Any theological theses are put forward according to need. Church thought is reactionary! First the wrong teaching arises, then the answer to it. The Church itself did not pose problems! What follows from this? The spiritual experience of life in Christ is self-identical in all ages. But experience “realizes” itself gradually.
As some part of church practice, church life comes into focus, it acquires some canonical features. An example is icon veneration. Christian images have been known since at least the 80s. According to R.H. There are a lot of images before the 7th century. 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 talk about the benefits of icon veneration. There are several authors who strongly protest against pictorial images. There are several texts by church authors that describe that “we have it,” but there is not a single text that defends the veneration of icons. It was only in the era of the iconoclastic councils that this practice became the subject of theological discussion. Only then did the church mind think about what we are doing when we create an icon or say a prayer in front of an icon.
Imagine that a priest appears in this building who wants to take dogmatic theology. Rural priest. 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. I bought what was on sale. Gregory the Theologian was not there. And Athanasius the Great was not there. And there were books by Irenaeus of Lyons and Justin the Philosopher. And he gets a question about the Trinitarian dogma. And the priest will begin to answer with exact quotes from Irenaeus of Lyons 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. “Lord, 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 deep mistake to believe that it is precisely these formulations that express the essence of the church’s understanding of the mystery of the Trinity.
It’s just that these problems weren’t the focus of attention back then. These problems were then on the periphery. Fathers 2nd–3rd centuries. That's not what I was interested in. They looked at it out of the corner of their eye and therefore wrote about it vaguely. In the 4th century you had to take a closer look. And other answers were given.
It's the same with the filioque. This question arose seriously only starting from the 9th century. And therefore, the opinions of theologians until this time, the time of serious analysis of this problem, have no greater authority than the opinions of Justin the Philosopher and Irenaeus of Lyons about the relationship between the Father and the Son. This is what V. Lossky meant when he said: “A historian should not dictate to a theologian.” Defenders of Catholicism will give you quotes from early Christian writers as if in favor of the filioque! This is where you need to be careful. Theology is never reduced to quotation. It is not enough to provide the right quotation on time. No. We need to understand both its meaning and the meaning of the problem itself. Why is the filioque issue so important? What distinguishes the Orthodox Church and Catholics? Let us list the main dogmas.
The question of papal primacy. Relevant to understanding the Holy Spirit? The most direct! Christ, ascending, said: “I will not leave you orphans. I will give you another Comforter.” Who did He mean? The Pope? Whom did Christ leave in His place in the Church? Holy Spirit or Roman Bishop? It turns out that the question of papal primacy in the Church is a pneumatological question. Is the Church living and governed by the Holy Spirit, or by some administrator on Vatican Hill?
In the Liturgy, what is the main difference between the Orthodox tradition and the Latin one? Epiclesis. Invoking the Holy Spirit for gifts. “Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts that are set before us.” Amazing thing!
No matter what issues we take between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, everywhere among Catholics there is a belittlement of the Holy Spirit.
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 sanctified even before birth. The personal feat of the Blessed Virgin, which attracts the influx of the Holy Spirit, is removed here.
We can recall 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: man turned out to be godless. It turns out that in Orthodox anthropology a person can be fully human if he is “saturated” with the Holy Spirit. Blessed. Without this, we are all disabled. Adam, having sinned, drove away the Holy Spirit from himself. And that’s why we turned out to be such disabled people, hereditary disabled people. From the Catholic point of view, grace is a kind of crown that is imposed from the outside. And if a person sins, the crown is removed. Those. What is a person in the perspective of Catholic anthropology? Adam was elevated to the rank of corporal, sinned, and his stripe was torn off. The same man. 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 him.
Let's take painting. The difference between an icon and a painting is clear. This is again a question of the work of the Holy Spirit. The icon shows a person transformed by this grace. And in Catholic paintings we see that the Holy Spirit flies over a person like a “saucer”. But the person remains the same.
Mysticism is comparable to Orthodox and Catholic. And we will also see that those states of the soul that in Catholicism are regarded as grace-filled, as revealing the presence of the Holy Spirit, from the point of view of Orthodox asceticism are nothing more than purely human, spiritual experiences, mental, sometimes sexual...
Sacraments. Who performs the sacraments from the point of view of Catholic theology? Priest. I, with 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 doesn’t perform the sacrament.
Whatever we take, we will find everywhere the diminishment of the Holy Spirit. Why? Hard to say. I can't explain rationally right now. How is this related. But there are such connections. Because the Church is a living organism. Damage one tissue, one organ somewhere, and the rest will begin to suffer. Although it may not be possible to explain this right away.
Now let’s take a closer look at the filioque itself and see what is in this dogma that, from the point of view of Orthodox theology, is simply blasphemous. Holy Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, who began the polemic with Latin theologians on this issue, said this: “In man I see the mystery of theology.” These are very important words. Because whatever we say about God, we say it about man. St. Basil the Great once said so. “What understanding of the distinction between 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, a conversation about the filioque is not only a conversation about abstract matters of theology. This is the question from which the difference will follow even in politics. And this is what I will try to show. Because this changes the attitude towards a person and the perception of a person.
Thesis: legalism of Western culture.
A comment. It all started from this. Tell me please. You are studying law. What does the law regulate? Relationship between people. Does law regulate the inner world of a person? No. Only external relations. From here was born a principle that formed the basis of all Western culture. Definition of personality. “Persona est relatio.” Personality is an attitude. A principle that was first formulated (Bois Essay?) by a Christian Latin writer of the 5th century. Then it was adopted by Thomas Aquinas.
Before going further, a few words about terms. What does the word “hypostasis” mean? Purely etymologically? History of the word? 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, had a completely different meaning in the pre-Christian Greek and Latin languages. For example, the word hypostasis. (In Russian literally – “subject”). For example, in the Septuagint “hypostasis” means the foundation, the foundation of the temple. By hypostasis we mean a certain concrete existence. What is it about. Aristotle describes these concepts. He has two very important terms. Nature as such. Here are the chairs. There are a hundred chairs 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 distinguishes one chair from another. Here it 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. Further. The word "hypostasis" relates to such a philosophical problem. Part and whole. Let's take a kitten. Does a kitten have parts? Yes and no. Look what the problem is. We take the kitten by the ear. Ear, is this a kitten? Tail, is this a kitten? His mustache by itself? Imagine that we took a kitten, dismantled it into parts, everything is on our table. We take each part separately and talk. Kitty? No. Kitty? No. Where's 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 and raked them into one pile - all the parts are in place - he doesn’t meow. Why? This means that the whole is not just a collection of parts. The whole is something elusive. What you can’t take in your hands, but what shapes and 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 it again. The Greek language uses the word "hypostasis" as a support, 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, a certain idea of a thing that holds it all.
There was another word in Greek. Prosopon. The prefix “pro” means “through” or “to”. “op” – root – “to see”, optics. Literally meant "mask". Ancient theater actor's mask. Prosopon means mask, mask. This is what makes one person different from another person. His face, roughly speaking. Prosopon. This is very important to understand. Homer, for example, writes this: when Achilles laughed, he terrified his enemies with his prosopons. In Russian translation, “by the eyes.” Grimaces. This is something by which one person can be distinguished from another. Prosopon.
And the Latin language had its own words. Individual. This is an exact translation of the Greek word “atomon” - atom. Indivisible. Here is a kitten - indivisible, because it is unthinkable to divide a kitten. The chair too. Because if you take a chair apart, there will be no chair. There was the word “substance” - an exact copy of the word “hypostasis”. And finally, the word “person”. In Russian they translated “parsun”. In the 17th century. This is also a mask. But what is the root here? Sonum. Sound. Through – sonum – sound. The thing is. 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. A voice sounded through the mask. This is important to understand.
So, when the time came for Christianity to express its mystery, the mystery of personality, in the usual language, the East and the West made different choices. Eastern Christian thinkers chose the term “hypostasis” to denote personality. Western writers chose the term “persona”. Or "prosopon". And it 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 really the mask is a kind of “muzzle”.
So here it is. 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”. Hypostasis is something deeply hidden, a foundation, a support, something that is deep, deep. In the language of the Bible, hypostasis is the heart. Something deeply hidden, secret. Persona is the opposite. That which is maximally revealed is open. And from this filioquism will further grow.
Personality is an attitude. By the way, what follows from this? What if a person is his relationship with other people, this is where the pathos of power in Western society is born. Because from here an idea is born: if you change the way of relationships between people, then a new person, a new humanity will appear. This is where Marxism arises. This is where the ideal of the Inquisition arises. 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 path? Change your hypostasis! A person's heart is changed first. And from a 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 in these new relationships new hearts will arise. Hence Marx’s famous thesis: the essence of man is the totality of social relations. It all comes from Thomas Aquinas! And it is no coincidence that Thomas More is the founder of utopian socialism, the holy Catholic Church, it’s all connected.
So here it is. If personality is a relationship, then the famous thesis arises, which 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. Towards attitude. He loses his hypostasis. There is no hypostasis, no personality here, but only function. And they say this about the Son too! And the Son is a relation! That's the difference.
Orthodox theology asserts that the Persons of the Godhead are higher than the Divine Nature. Catholic thought says the opposite. “In the Divine Nature the Divine Hypostases arise.” The Orthodox formula is this, according to the formula of Gregory the Theologian: “From the Hypostasis of the Father flows the Divine Nature. Moreover, the Father begets the Son and brings forth the Spirit, giving them the fullness of his Divine Nature.” That is, the Hypostasis of the Father is primary. She is higher than 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 some more. Let us try to understand within ourselves what hypostasis and nature are, and then we will talk about God. Do you understand within yourself what personality is or not? Do you understand exactly? I would say so. It may be possible to understand this. It's impossible to express. This is the case when it’s like a dog: it understands everything and remains silent. This is how a theologian really is. He understands something, but still remains silent. But let's try to express it this way. Here are three main categories I will try to introduce: nature, individuality, personality.
Human nature: Each of us is human. This means that each of us has some specific properties that distinguish us from the chairs on which we sit. This is what distinguishes man 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. This is individuality, this is how we differ from each other. What is individuality? I'll tell you this formula. Individuality is a measure of the manifestation of nature in a given person. You can say it differently. Each of us is individual to the extent that we are defective. Let me explain. Imagine that we are drawing up some kind of psychological map for some of our fellow humans. Here we are interested in the servant of God John. And we build a schedule. Coordinate system. We put the qualities that we measure horizontally. And along the vertical axis there are quantitative indicators. Let's say as a percentage. Now we are interested in: to what extent is God's servant John a rational being? Suppose the degree of his intellectual development is 60%. What does this mean? You can say that he is 60% a genius, or you can say that he is 40% an idiot. Both will be fair in their own way. Further. We are interested in his aesthetic development. Man, what can we take from him, it’s clear that he has, say, 20% aesthetics. His religious development interests us. But the question here is what seminary course he completed. And if, God forbid, you have completed your studies to the 4th year, then religiosity is at the level of 10%. I guess so... We built such a graph. We are interested in ethical qualities - let's assume at the level of 30%. Let's take another one. Servant of God Tatiana. Well, intellectual development cannot be higher than 40% - she is still a woman. Religious development may be even higher, this is the scourge of the church - women's religiosity, let's say, hers is off the charts at 80, aesthetic at 82%, she won't go to bed without Bortnyansky or Tchaikovsky, ethical qualities - she loves to gossip, so we'll give 30%. The result is a graph like this. And everyone has their own. There is no such person who is 100% human! 100% talented in everything. There was only one person like that. 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. Each of us has our own medical history. Remember, from Tolstoy, “all happy families are alike, each is unhappy in its own way.” So it is with us. Everyone is unhappy in their own way. And this is an individual characteristic. So, therefore, in a sense, individuality is a measure of the inferiority of our nature. If we were all completely 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 feature that is individual in this person. Let's assume. You are traveling on the subway and in your pocket you have a proud student card of the St. Petersburg Theological Schools. That’s for sure, this is your individual trait that distinguishes you from all the other passengers on this subway car. But when you entered the seminary, did this continue to be your personality trait? In this building? No. What do I mean by this? An individual trait is always repeatable. Individuality is not a personality. Any individuality is repeatable. And on the contrary, if we see in a certain person some trait that is repeated in another, it means that this is not a personal trait, but an individual one. What is personality? And personality is that subject, that “I” that owns all these features. That is, I say this. Nature answers the “what” question. Individuality answers the “how” question. Personality answers the question “who”. Look. Here is the piece of paper in my hands. Let's pose a question. What is holding the piece of paper? What will the answer be? Hand. We pose the question: who holds the piece of paper? What will the answer be? Can you answer “finger” to this question? No. You need to give a name. Or a personal pronoun. So here it is. Personality is above all qualities. Personality owns qualities.
Now we will need to turn to the teachings of Maximus the Confessor. Do you know the doctrine of two wills of Maximus the Confessor? Two wills that exist in every person. “Phelima physics” – natural will and “Phelima gnome” – personal will or proerises. Personal will or arbitrariness. What it is. In each of us a certain parliament sits constantly. Let's say it's evening. And a hubbub begins in the human soul. Different factions demand their own. For example, the head faction says: “You need to go to the library and read something.” The faction of the heart timidly raises its voice and says: “Listen. You read books anyway. I should pray. Drop by for service.” The stomach faction says, “What are you guys doing? We need to eat." There is also a faction of radical democrats, which suggests that they should remain silent altogether. So here it is. This parliamentary bazaar 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 self in the face of these factions. Wait, who should I be with in order to realize this volitional impulse? Because this is really parliament. And the personality is the speaker. And if the speaker does not put this issue on the agenda and does not announce a vote, nothing will happen. There is no nature without hypostasis. Aristotle's great formula, which was later repeated by the fathers of the Eastern Church. No natural impulse can be realized if it is not hypostasized. Here is the great term of Leontius of Byzantium, “hypostasis.” So here it is. My will. Natural will. The stomach, for example. It tells me: “I need to eat.” Is there any sinfulness in this? Not the slightest sinfulness. Where is sin born? Sin is born when my personal will offers the wrong path to achieving natural good. It’s no sin that I want to eat. But if I take out a sandwich and chew it in front of the Royal Doors during the Cherubim, it will be a sin. Why? Because it’s inopportune and inopportune. Why? Because then I suppress the higher impulse. In order to give free rein to the lower one. 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 how exactly? Other authorities answer the question of how I will satisfy the thirst of my stomach. I can go beg. I can go flirt with the girl who works in the cafeteria. I can go rob a first grader. I can do a lot of interesting things. I can rob a kiosk. Lots of options. But my stomach doesn’t dictate to me. My nature doesn't dictate to me to rob a first grader or anything. She says “let me eat.” It depends on my personal will which path I choose to satisfy this desire.
One more example. The gardener waters the flowers. A gardener is a person. He hoses down. Please tell me, does the water he waters come from the gardener? No. From a hose. This is very important to understand. That in Orthodox anthropology the source of energy is not the individual, but nature. The personality controls these energies. But it does not give birth to them. The gardener waters these flowers. Water from the pumping system. What depends on the gardener? Like a faucet. Increase water pressure, reduce. Send here or send here. You can water this bush first, then this one. You can use this hose to clean the faces of passers-by. Everything can be done. But. Understand this “role of personality in history.” Where I direct my natural energy depends on the choice, arbitrariness, and gnomic will of my personality. Which of my natural energies. When and with what intensity.
Why am I saying this? Understand. In Orthodox anthropology, the individual is elevated. Above the chaos of natural energies, the individual freely decides which energy will go where and when. We also think about God. The Divine Personality also rises above the Divine nature and owns It and manifests Himself in one way or another, in this way or another. Therefore, in Orthodox theology, the Personality of God is primary in relation to the Divine nature. This primacy is superbly expressed in 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 the Existing from the existing, but the existing from the Existing. I translate into Russian. Not the one who is, i.e. Jehovah, from what is; not the Person of God the Father from substance, but that which is, i.e. impersonal substance, from the One Who is. Here's the philosophical problem behind it. What comes first 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, the Divine Persons arise. Personalities.
When Catholics began to substantiate this concept, Byzantine theologians asked them a series of very tricky questions. First. It's clear. We understand everything. 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 just said? That the Spirit comes 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? Yes, 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 be destroyed. Something that, in principle, cannot be taken apart. That is, absolutely unified and simple being. Yes, we agree. Tell me, how can an absolutely simple being emerge from two different principles? Of two components, can it be simple? This means that if you claim 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, that's not what we wanted to say. 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. Right. So, do you want to say that from the nature of the Father and the Son proceeds the Holy Spirit? Yes. So, in this case, it turns out that the Holy Spirit has a different nature? Then speak honestly. From the nature of the Father, the Son and the 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 partially. Then, too, the Holy Spirit is not God.
Further. This is something very important to understand. In the Orthodox tradition, the names Father, Son and Spirit distinguish the persons of the Trinity. Please note. In the Latin tradition they connect the Trinity. In the Orthodox Church they differentiate. Please tell me why we say that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father? Why don’t we say that the Spirit, like the Son, is born of the Father? Is there any difference between the birth of the Son and the procession of the Spirit? How do you think? No. Not the slightest difference. And we say that the Son is born and the Spirit proceeds only so as not to repeat the word “is born” 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 individuals? However, not all? Individuality. What about individuality? Damage. Thus, we divided the Trinity into three gods.
The same thing happens in the filioque. It turns out that the Father has the property, the hypostatic property of being the cause of the Spirit, and the Son also has it, but the Spirit does not have it. Personal properties are only those properties that one hypostasis has, but the other two do not. 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 is written for a school graduate, we cannot tell you a qualitative characteristic - here is a “portrait” of the Father, a “characteristic” for the Son, but here is a “recommendation” for the Holy Spirit! We can't do this! There is nothing in the Son that the Father and any of the Persons of the Trinity do not have, otherwise you and I get three different gods. How many individual people are sitting in this room. Individuals. So, therefore, by recognizing the filioque, we thereby break the Trinity. The property appears: to be the cause of the Spirit, which two Hypostases have and the third does not. But if two have it, then it is not a natural property and not a Hypostasis. Which? Individual. Trinity is broken.
Well, from a philosophical point of view I will repeat it again and again. The question of the filioque is primarily a question about this. Can impersonal existence be the cause of the emergence of personality? Filioque says: yes, it can. The impersonal nature of the Father and the Son is the reason for the personal existence of the Spirit. And this is already pantheism. This is what already destroys the very meaning of biblical theology, what opened the Western world to occultism, 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 related to each other.
Let's go back to the beginning. At what point in my story did you get confused and no longer understand me? Let's try to return to this place. Fine. What do I want to achieve from you? The usual student reaction. “It’s unclear, but it’s great.” Is this what I achieved? What is my task? I am not going to prepare you to be people who would be able to conduct some serious debate on Trinitarian topics. In such a time this is unthinkable. The main thing is to explain. Even if someone with many crosses or panagias tells you that the difference here is small, that these are features of the Greek and Latin languages and that no importance should be attached to this, it is not true. This is a fundamental thing. Which differentiates the understanding of man in the West and in the East. In particular, this different understanding of persona and hypostasis resulted in the fact that the topic of human rights did not arise in Orthodox countries. It's clear why. Because it is possible to protect a person's rights. 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 Orthodox point of view. 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. Every person has a free conscience, regardless of whether the state recognizes it or not. In the Orthodox world it has always been considered this way. There is such a deep feeling that the inner world of a person - remember the Apostle Peter - “the hidden heart of man” - this is a hypostasis. The true “I” is so deeply hidden in a person that the external social environment has almost nothing to do with it. And therefore, an Orthodox person will agree with almost any social system. With any regime of power. He will say: the main thing is, don’t touch my inner shrine. Let it be there, you need to sing “many years” to someone there, God be with you, please. To give the tax to someone, to Caesar what is Caesar's? No problem! But in the depths of my heart, allow me in my spirit to be faithful to Christ. The Western world, on the contrary, has always demanded that a person be able to exercise his rights, that his actions be protected, etc. Hence such external activism, regulation of relations, that is, it has a strong effect even in the political sphere.
