06 — Constantinople 381 and the Spirit

The Creed of 325 said only “and in the Holy Spirit.” Within a generation that gap became a controversy, raised not by Arians but by men who had accepted the Son’s divinity and declined the further step. This section reports the Spirit-fighters’ case at its strongest, sets out how the Church answered it, states what the Second Ecumenical Council actually defined — and examines the disagreement inside the Nicene party about how boldly it should be said.

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox

File	Description
the-pneumatomachoi-and-the-creed.md	Who the Pneumatomachoi were, with a structured note on the unreliable link to Macedonius; their case stated at its strongest, including the plain fact that Scripture never calls the Spirit God; the four bodies of work that answered them; the council of 381 and Canon 1; the third article of the Creed quoted in Greek and analysed clause by clause; the two explanations of why the Creed does not say “God” or “consubstantial”; Gregory the Theologian’s disgust and resignation; and a structured note on the documentary history of the Creed of 381
basils-reserve-and-gregorys-boldness.md	On the Holy Spirit and the quarrel over prepositions; Basil’s two arguments, from the practice of the Church and from unwritten tradition; the two readings of his reserve, with Gregory’s own contemporary explanation given its weight and the methodological reading set beside it; Gregory’s “Is the Spirit God? Most certainly”; his refusal to say what procession is, and why every later Orthodox argument rests on that refusal; and Oration 31.26 on the order of disclosure, with a careful statement of what it does and does not license

File

Description

the-pneumatomachoi-and-the-creed.md

Who the Pneumatomachoi were, with a structured note on the unreliable link to Macedonius; their case stated at its strongest, including the plain fact that Scripture never calls the Spirit God; the four bodies of work that answered them; the council of 381 and Canon 1; the third article of the Creed quoted in Greek and analysed clause by clause; the two explanations of why the Creed does not say “God” or “consubstantial”; Gregory the Theologian’s disgust and resignation; and a structured note on the documentary history of the Creed of 381

basils-reserve-and-gregorys-boldness.md

On the Holy Spirit and the quarrel over prepositions; Basil’s two arguments, from the practice of the Church and from unwritten tradition; the two readings of his reserve, with Gregory’s own contemporary explanation given its weight and the methodological reading set beside it; Gregory’s “Is the Spirit God? Most certainly”; his refusal to say what procession is, and why every later Orthodox argument rests on that refusal; and Oration 31.26 on the order of disclosure, with a careful statement of what it does and does not license

What Closes Here

With 381 the Trinitarian dogma is complete, and the Church has defined nothing further about the inner life of God in the sixteen centuries since. The Son is of one essence with the Father; the Spirit is Lord and Giver of Life, proceeding from the Father, worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son; the three are one God, distinguished only by their relations of origin.

Everything in Sections 07 through 09 is the exposition, defence, or application of that. Nothing in them adds to it.

06 — Constantinople 381 and the Spirit

Contents

What Closes Here

See Also