(Vatican Radio) The Vatican’s office for liturgical celebrations, headed by Archbishop Guido Marini on Friday released the full schedule of events that Pope Francis will be presiding over during Holy Week.
On Palm Sunday, March 29th, starting at 9.30am, the Pope will bless the palm and olive branches in St Peter’s Square before presiding at the celebration of Mass. Palm Sunday also marks the XXX World Youth Day with the theme taken from St Matthew’s Gospel ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God’
On Holy Thursday, April 2nd, starting at 9.30am in St Peter’s Basilica, Pope Francis will preside at the celebration of the Chrism Mass, during which the oils to be used during the coming year will be blessed.
The following day, Good Friday, the Pope will preside at the celebration of Our Lord’s Passion in St Peter’s Basilica starting at 5pm. Later in the evening, beginning at 9.15pm, he will travel across Rome to lead the traditional Via Crucis or Way of the Cross at the Colosseum and impart his Apostolic Blessing before returning to the Vatican.
On Holy Saturday, April 4th, Pope Francis will preside at the Easter Vigil in St Peter’s Basilica beginning at 8.30pm. After blessing the new fire and the Easter candle in the atrium of the Basilica, the Pope will also administer the Sacrament of Baptism before concelebrating Mass with the other cardinals and bishops.
Finally on Easter morning, Sunday April 5th, beginning at 10.15, Pope Francis will preside at the Mass of Our Lord’s Resurrection in St Peter’s Square before giving his ‘Urbi et Orbi’ blessing (to the city of Rome and to the world) from the central balcony of St Peter’s Basilica.
(from Vatican Radio)…
(Vatican Radio) The Vatican’s office for liturgical celebrations, headed by Archbishop Guido Marini on Friday released the full schedule of events that Pope Francis will be presiding over during Holy Week. On Palm Sunday, March 29th, starting at 9.30am, the Pope will bless the palm and olive branches in St Peter’s Square before presiding at…
Read more
(Vatican Radio) On Friday morning the Preacher of the Pontifical Household, Father Raniero Cantalamessa, OFM Cap., gave the third Lenten Sermon of 2015 in the Mater Redemptoris chapel in the Vatican.
Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa
Third Lenten Sermon 2015
EAST AND WEST
BEFORE THE MYSTERY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Today we will meditate on the common faith of the East and the West in the Holy Spirit, and I will seek to do it “in the Spirit,” in his presence, knowing, as the Scripture says, that “Even before a word is on my tongue, / behold, O Lord, you know it altogether” (Psalm 139:4).
1. Toward an agreement on the Filioque
For centuries, the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit in the bosom of the Trinity has been a point of major friction and reciprocal accusations between the East and West because of the much-discussed Filioque. I will try to reconstruct the status of the question to better assess the grace that God is giving us for an agreement on this thorny problem.
The faith of the Church in the Holy Spirit was defined, as we know, in the ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381 with the following words: “And (we believe) in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.”[i] If we look at it closely, this formula answers the two fundamental questions about the Holy Spirit. To the question “Who is the Holy Spirit?” the answer is that he is “Lord” (that is, he belongs to the sphere of Creator, not of creatures) who proceeds from the Father and is worshiped equally with the Father and the Son. To the question “What does the Holy Spirit do?” the answer is that he “gives life” (which summarizes all his sanctifying, interior, and renewing action) and that “he has spoken through the prophets” (which summarizes the charismatic action of the Holy Spirit).
Despite these elements of great value, however, it must be said that the formula still reflects a provisional stage, if not of the faith at least of the terminology regarding the Holy Spirit. The most obvious lacuna is that in this formula the title of “God” is still not explicitly ascribed to the Holy Spirit. The first one to lament this omission was St. Gregory Nazianzus who, on his own, had ended all the hesitations, writing, “Well then, is the Spirit God? Certainly! Is he then consubstantial (homoùsion)? If it is true that he is God, then of course.”[ii] This void was actually filled by the practice of the Church which, overcoming the contingent reasons that up until that point held it back, did not hesitate to attribute the title of “God” to the Holy Spirit and to define him as “consubstantial” with the Father and the Son.
What I just noted was not the only “lacuna.” From the point of view of the history of salvation as well, it must have seemed odd early on that the only work attributed to the Spirit was that of having “spoken through the prophets,” omitting mention of all his other works and especially his activity in the New Testament and in the life of Jesus. In this case as well, the completion of the dogmatic formula occurs spontaneously in the life of the Church, as is clear in this epiclesis from the liturgy of St. James in which the quality of being “consubstantial” is also attributed to the Spirit (the italicized phrases are taken from the symbol):
Send . . . your most Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life, who is seated with you, God and Father, and with your only-begotten Son; he rules with you consubstantially and coeternally. He spoke through the Law, the Prophets, and the New Testament; he descended in the form of a dove upon our Lord Jesus Christ in the Jordan River, resting upon him, and descended on his holy apostles . . . on the day of holy Pentecost.[iii]
Another point, and the most important one, about which the counciliar formula was silent was the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son and, consequently, the relationship between Christology and pneumatology. The only indication in this direction consisted in the phrase “by the power of the Holy Spirit was incarnate from the Virgin Mary,” which was probably already found in the symbol of faith that the Council of Constantinople adopted as the basis of its creed.
On this point, the completion of the symbol occurred in a less clear and peaceful way. Some Greek Fathers expressed the eternal relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “through the Son”; that the Holy Spirit is “the image of the Son”[iv]; that he “proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son”; that he is the “ray” that is diffused from the sun (the Father) and by his splendor (the Son); that he is the stream that comes from the fountain (the Father) and by means of the river (the Son). When the debate about the Holy Spirit passed over to the Latin world, they coined a phrase to express this relationship according to which the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father and from the Son.” The words “and from the Son” in Latin become Filioque, and from here arises the meaning with which this word became overloaded in the disputes between East and West, and the conclusions, obviously exaggerated, that were drawn at times.
It was St. Ambrose who first formulated the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father and from the Son.”[v] He was not influenced by Tertullian, whom he did not know and never cited, but by the expressions we have just quoted that he was reading in his usual Greek sources: St. Basil and, even more so, St. Athanasius and Didymus of Alexandria. All these modes of expression highlighted a certain relationship, however unclear and mysterious, between the Son and the Holy Spirit in their common origin from the Father. If “through the Son” means something, this “something” is what Ambrose (overlooking the subtle distinctions that exist in Greek between ekporeuesthai, “to go out from”, and proienai, “to proceed from”) intended by his expression “and from the Son.”
St. Augustine furnished the theological justification for the expression “from the Father and from the Son” (although he does not yet use the precise expression Filioque) that has subsequently characterized all of Latin pnuematology. He uses expressions that are quite nuanced and certainly do not put Father and the Son in the same role in relation to the Holy Spirit, as we can see in his well-known affirmation: “the Holy Spirit principally proceeds from the Father (de Patre principaliter) and, as the gift that the Father gives to the Son, without any intervening time, from both at the same time.”[vi]
This doctrine, in addition to so many passages in the New Testament (“All that the Father has is mine”; “he [the Paraclete] will take what is mine”) was required by Augustine’s conception of the Trinitarian relationships as relationships based on love. It also allowed the resolution to the following objection that had always remained unanswered: What had the Father still not fully expressed of himself in generating the Son that would justify a second Trinitarian operation? What distinguishes the procession of the Spirit from the generation of the Word?
The one who coined the literal expression Filioque to indicate the procession “from the Father and from the Son” was Fulgentius of Ruspe who, in other instances as well, had made rigid earlier formulas of Latin theology that were still flexible.[vii] He is silent regarding Augustine’s specification that the Holy Spirit proceeds “principally” from the Father and insists instead on saying that “the Holy Spirit . . . proceeds from the Son just as (sicut) [he] proceeds from the Father,” and “that Spirit is completely (totus) from the Father [and] is completely from the Son,” levelling in this way the two relations in regard to the origin of the Spirit.[viii] It is in this undifferentiated interpretation that the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son will enter into ecclesial definitions beginning with the Third Council of Toledo in 589.[ix]
While the issue remained at this level, it raised no protests from the East. In 809, there was a synod at Aquisgrana, called by Charlemagne, to advocate for the introduction of the Filioque into the Constantinopolitan-Nicene creed that was beginning to be sung at Mass in some churches. The emperor was moved less by personal theological convictions than by the desire to give a doctrinal justification for his policy of emancipation from the Eastern empire.
At the end of the council, a delegation from the emperor went to Rome to see Pope Leo III to win him over to the emperor’s cause. However, although he fully shared the doctrine of the Filioque, the pope considered its insertion into the creed to be inopportune and held firmly to his decision.[x] In so doing he was following the same conduct of the Greek Church where, as we have seen, there had been important additions and deeper understandings of the article on the Holy Spirit, without making it necessary to change the text of the creed. Facing new pressure from Emperor Henry II of Germany, in 1314 Pope Boniface VIII agreed to have the word Filioque inserted into the liturgical recitation of the creed, arousing legitimate recriminations from the Orthodox East.
Today in a climate of dialogue and mutual esteem that is being established between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, this problem no longer seems to be an insurmountable obstacle to full communion. Qualified representatives of the Orthodox theology are disposed to recognize, under certain conditions, the legitimacy of the Latin doctrine. Here is how the theologian John Zizioulas explains those conditions:
The “golden Rule” must be St. Maximus the Confessor’s explanation concerning Western Pneumatology: by professing the Filioque our Western brethren do not wish to introduce another aition [cause] in God’s being except the Father, and a mediating role of the Son in the origination of the Spirit is not to be limited to the divine Economy, but relates also to the divine ousia [nature]. If East and West can repeat these two points of St. Maximus together in our time, this would provide sufficient basis for a rapprochement between the two traditions.[xi]
These words maintain the Orthodox position that the Father is the unique cause that is “not caused” of the procession of the Holy Spirit, which is compatible with the position proposed above by Augustine. On the other hand, these words recognize the validity of the Latin point of view in attributing to the Son an active role in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, even if they do not share the precise specification of the Latins, “as though from a single principle” (tamquam ex uno principio).
On this issue the Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of a “legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid [and] does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.”[xii] The document of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in 1995, solicited by Pope John Paul II and well received by exponents of Orthodox theology, speaks along these same lines.[xiii] As a sign of this willingness for reconciliation, John Paul II himself initiated the practice of omitting the addition of the Filioque (“and from the Son”) in certain ecumenical celebrations in St. Peter’s Basilica and in other places in which the Latin creed was proclaimed.
2. Toward a new synthesis
As always, dialogue, when it is truly done “in the Spirit,” is not limited to ironing out past difficulties but opens up new perspectives. The greatest innovation in contemporary pneumatology does not in fact consist only in finally reaching an agreement on the Filioque but in beginning again from Scripture in view of a fuller synthesis and with a broader spectrum of questions that is less conditioned by past history.
In this rereading of the Scriptures, already initiated some time ago, a specific fact has emerged: the Holy Spirit in the history of salvation is not only sent by the Son but is also sent upon the Son. The Son is not only the one who gives the Spirit but also the one who receives the Spirit. The moment of the transition from one phase to the other in the history of salvation—from the Jesus who receives the Spirit to the Jesus who sends the Spirit—is constituted by the event of the cross.[xiv]
In the document of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity already mentioned, we find a beautiful text that summarizes all these interventions of the Spirit “on” Jesus: at his birth, in his baptism, in his offering of himself in sacrifice to the Father (see Heb. 9:14), and in his resurrection.[xv] This relationship of reciprocity that is revealed on the historical level must in some way reflect the relationship that exists in the Trinity. This same document therefore draws the following conclusion:
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.[xvi]
But how do we conceive of this reciprocity in the Trinity? This is the field that is opening up to contemporary reflection in the theology of the Spirit. The encouraging thing is that
theologians of all the great Christians Churches—Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant—are moving together in this direction in a fraternal and constructive dialogue. One of the fixed points from which the reflection of the Fathers and in particular Augustine was advancing (and by which their reflections were conditioned) was the lack of reciprocity between the Holy Spirit and the other two divine Persons. They said, we can call the Holy Spirit “the Spirit of the Father” but we cannot call the Father “the Father of the Spirit”; we can call the Holy Spirit “the Spirit of the Son,” but we cannot call the Son “the Son of the Spirit.”[xvii]
This is the difficult point that people are trying to get beyond today. It is true that we cannot call God “the Father of the Spirit,” but we can call him “the Father in the Spirit”; it is true that we cannot call the Son “the Son of the Spirit” but we can call him “the Son in the Spirit.” The preposition traditionally used to speak about the Spirit is not “of” but “in.” It is “in the Spirit” that Christ cries Abba on earth (see Luke 10:21). If we acknowledge that what happens in history is a reflection of what happens in the Trinity, we have to conclude that it is “in the Spirit” that the Son pronounces his eternal Abba in his generation by the Father.[xviii] The Orthodox theologian Olivier Clément anticipated this conclusion in saying that “the Son is born of the Father in the Spirit.”[xix]
A new way of conceiving of Trinitarian relationships emerges from all this. The Word and the Spirit proceed simultaneously from the Father. We need to reject any idea of precedence for these two, not only chronologically but also logically. Just as the nature that constitutes the three divine Persons is unique, so too is the operation unique that has its source in the Father and is what constitutes the Father as “Father,” the Son as “Son,” and the Spirit as “Spirit.” The Son and the Holy Spirit cannot be seen one coming after the other or as one next to the other, but as “one in the other.” Generation and procession are not “two separate acts” but two aspects or two results of one unique act.[xx]
How can we conceive of and express this profound act from which the mystical rose of the Trinity blossoms all at once? We are before the most intimate heart of the Trinitarian mystery that is beyond all human conception and analogy. The idea offered in this regard by that same Orthodox theologian Olivier Clément seems very suggestive to me. He speaks of “an eternal anointing” of the Son by the Father through the Spirit.[xxi] This insight has a solid patristic foundation in the formula of “anointer, anointed, and anointing” that is used in the most ancient theology of the Fathers. St. Ireneus had written,
In the name “Christ” is implied the one who anoints, the one who was anointed, and the unction itself with which he was anointed. The Father anoints, the Son was anointed in the Holy Spirit who is the unction.”[xxii]
St. Basil took up this affirmation literally, which was in turn repeated by St. Ambrose.[xxiii] At the beginning it referred directly to Jesus’ historical anointing in his baptism at Jordan; subsequently this anointing was seen as having occurred at the moment of the Incarnation.[xxiv] Already during the era of the Fathers the moment of his anointing began to go back further in time. Justin, Ireneus, and Origen had spoken of a “cosmic anointing” of the Word, that is, an anointing that the Father confers on the Word in view of his creation of the world insofar as “through him, the Father anointed and adorned [arranged] all things.”[xxv]
Eusebius of Cesarea goes even further and sees that anointing as occurring at the very moment of generation: “The anointing consists in the very generation of the Word by which the Spirit of the Father passes over into the Son like a divine fragrance.”[xxvi]
The opinion of St. Gregory of Nyssa is more authoritative; he dedicates an entire chapter to illustrate the anointing of the Word by the Spirit in this eternal generation by the Father. He starts from the presupposition that the name “Christ,” “the Anointed One,” belongs to the Son from all eternity.
The oil of gladness represents the power of the Holy Spirit with which God is anointed by God, that is, the Only-begotten is anointed by the Father. . . . Just as a righteous person cannot simultaneously be unrighteous, so too the anointed one cannot be not-anointed. Now the one who is never not-anointed is certainly anointed for ever. And everyone must admit that the one who anoints is the Father and the oil of anointing is the Holy Spirit. [xxvii]
The image of unction (since it always necessary to speak with images) adds something new that is not expressed in the more usual image of spiration. In the West, it is usual to repeat that the Spirit is called “Spirit” insofar as he is breathed and breathes forth. According to this perspective, the Holy Spirit performs an “active” role only outside the Trinity insofar as he inspires the Scriptures, the prophets, the saints, etc., while within the Trinity he would have only the passive quality of being breathed forth by the Father and the Son. This absence of an active role of the Spirit within the Trinity, regarded as perhaps the greatest lacuna of traditional pneumatology, is thus overcome in this way. If an active role of the Son toward the Spirit is recognized and expressed by the image of spiration, then there is an active role for the Holy Spirit toward the Son, expressed by the image of anointing. We cannot say of the Word that he is “the Son of the Holy Spirit,” but we can say of him that he is “the Anointed One of the Spirit.”
3. The Spirit of truth and the Spirit of charity
A renewed attention to the Scriptures permits us to verify the complementarity of Eastern and Western pnuematologies from another point of view as well. In the New Testament itself, a major emphasis by John on the “Spirit of truth” and by Paul on the “Spirit of charity” has been observed.[xxviii] The “Spirit of truth” in the Fourth Gospel is another name for the Paraclete (see Jn 14:16-17). Those who worship the Father should worship him “in Spirit and truth”; he leads “to all the truth”; and his anointing “teaches you about everything” (see1 Jn 2:20-27). For Paul instead, the primary effect of the Spirit is to “pour love” into our hearts, and the fruit of the Spirit is “love, joy, and peace” (Gal 5:22); love constitutes “the law of the Spirit” (Rom 8:2); love is the “more excellent way” because the gift of the Holy Spirit is the greatest gift of all (see 1 Cor 12:31).
As is the case with the doctrine about Christ, this different emphasis concerning the Holy Spirit is also maintained in tradition, and once again the East reflects the Johannine perspective more and the West the Pauline perspective. Orthodox pneumatology has placed more emphasis on the Spirit as light while Latin pneumatology has placed more emphasis on the Spirit as love. This diversity is the clearest, in any case, in the two works that have most influenced the development of the respective theologies of the Holy Spirit. In St. Basil’s treatise On the Holy Spirit, the theme of the Spirit as love plays no role while the theme of the Spirit as “intelligible light”[xxix] plays a central role. In St. Augustine’s treatise On the Trinity, the theme of the Spirit as light plays no role while, as we know, the theme of the Spirit as love plays a central role.
Light, with the phenomena that usually accompany it—transfiguration of the person and his complete immersion in light internally and externally—is the most consistent element of the mysticism of the Holy Spirit in the East. “Come, true light!” are the words that begin a prayer to the Holy Spirit by St. Symeon the New Theologian.[xxx] Also the famous “Tabor light,” which plays such a large part in Eastern spirituality and iconography, is intimately linked to the Holy Spirit.[xxxi] One text of the Orthodox Divine Office says that on the day of Pentecost, “Thanks to the Holy Spirit, the whole world received a baptism of light.”[xxxii]
I conclude with a thought from St. Augustine about the Spirit of love that, if applied to the relationships among the various churches, would result in a decisive step forward toward the unity of Christians. Commenting on St. Paul’s doctrine in 1 Corinthians 12 on the charisms, St. Augustine offers this reflection. In hearing all the marvelous charisms listed (prophecy, wisdom, discernment, healings, tongues), someone might feel sad or excluded because he thinks that he does not possess any of these. But listen, the saint continues,
If you love, what you have is not small. If in fact you love unity, everything that is possessed by someone else is possessed by you as well! Banish envy and all that is mine will be yours; and if I banish envy, all you possess is mine! Envy separates, while love unites. Only the eye in the body has the function of seeing, but does the eye really only see for itself? No, the eye sees for the hand, the foot, and all the other members. . . . Only the hand acts in the body, but it does not really act only for itself. No, it also acts for the eye. In fact, if a blow were aimed only at the face and not at the hand, would the hand ever say, “I am not moving because the blow is not directed at me”?[xxxiii]
This reveals the secret about why charity is the “more excellent way” (1 Cor 12:31): it makes me love the body of Christ, or the community in which I live, and because of unity, all the charisms, and not just some, are “mine.” Charity truly multiples the charisms. It makes one person’s charism a charism that belongs to all. It is enough to make Christ, and not ourselves, the center of interest, to not want “to live for oneself but for the Lord,” as the Apostle says (see Rom14:7-8).
Applied to the relationship between the two Churches of East and West, this principle points to looking at what each of them has that is different from the other, to the charism that is proper to each one, not as an error or a threat but as a treasure for all in which we can rejoice. Applied to our daily relationships within the church or the community in which we live, this principle helps us overcome the natural feelings of frustration, rivalry, and jealousy. This is a necessary ascesis, but from it come forth the fruits of the Spirit of love, joy, and peace. “Blessed is that servant,” writes St. Francis of Assisi, “who does not pride himself [and I add, who does not rejoice] in the good that the Lord says and works through him more than the good he says and works through another.”[xxxiv] May the Holy Spirit help us to walk on this path that is a demanding one, but to which are promised the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, and peace.
Translated from Italian by Marsha Daigle Williamson
[i] Denzinger, #150, English ed., p. 66.
[ii] Gregory Nazianzus, Discourses, 31, 10 (PG 36, 144).
[iii] For the “Anaphora of St. James,” see Anton Hänggi and Irmgard Pahl, Prex Eucharistica: Textus e variis liturgiis antiquioribus selecti (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1968), 250.
[iv] See Athanasius, Letters to Serapion I, 24 (PG 26, 585ff.); Cyril of Alexander, Commentary on John, XI, 10 (PG 74, 541C); St. John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, I, 13 (PG 94, 856B).
[v] Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, I, 120: “Spiritus quoque Sanctus, cum procedit a Patre et a Filio, non separatur.”
[vi] Augustine, On the Trinity, XV, 26, 47.
[vii] Fulgentius of Ruspe, Letter 14, 21, in Fulgentius: Selected Works, trans. Robert B. Eno (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1997), 527-528 (CC 91, p. 411); On the Faith, 6.54, ibid., p. 64 (CC 91A, pp.716-747): “Spiritus Sanctus essentialiter de Patre Filioque procedit”; Liber de Trinitate, passim (CC 91A, pp. 633ff.).
[viii] Fulgentius of Ruspe, Letter 14, 28, p. 538 (CC 91, p. 420).
[ix] Denzinger, #470, p. 161. In the symbol of the First Synod of Toledo in 400 (Denzinger #188, pp. 74-75), Filioque is a later addition.
[x] See Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Concilia, vol. 2, p. II, 1906, pp. 235-244, and PL 102, 971-976.
[xi] John Zizioulas, “The Teaching of the 2nd Ecumenical Council on the Holy Spirit in Historical and Ecumenical Perspective,” in Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, ed. J. S. Martin, vol. 1 (Vatican: Libreria EditriceVaticana, 1983), p. 54.
[xii] Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 248.
[xiii] See “Greek and Latin Traditions Regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit,” L’Osservatore Romano
Weekly English ed., September 20, 1995, p. 3.
[xiv] See John Paul II, Dominum et vivificantem (“The Lord and Giver of Life”), 13, 24, 41; Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: First Fortress Press, 2001), 67ff.
[xv] “Greek and Latin Traditions,” p. 3.
[xvi] Ibid.
[xvii] Augustine, On the Trinity, V, 12, 13.
[xviii] See Thomas G. Weinandy, The Father’s Spirit of Sonship: Reconceiving the Trinity (Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1995).
[xix] Olivier Clément, The Roots of Christian Mysticism: Texts from the Patristic Era with Commentary (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1993), p. 70.
[xx] See Moltmann, The Spirit of Life, p. 90; Weinandy, The Father’s Spirit of Sonship, pp. 53-85.
[xxi] See Clément, The Roots of Christian Mysticism, p. 58.
[xxii] Ireneus, Against Heresies, III, 18, 3.
[xxiii] Basil, On the Holy Spirit, XII, 28 (PG 32, 116C); St. Ambrose, On the Holy Spirit, I, 3, 44.
[xxiv] Gregory Nazianzus, Discourses, 30, 2 (PG 36, 105B).
[xxv] Ireneus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 53, trans. J. Armitage Robinson (New York: Macmillan, 1920), p. 117 (SCh 62, p. 114); see A. Orbe, La Unción del Verbo, Analecta Gregoriana, vol. 11 (Rome, 1961), pp. 501-568
[xxvi] Orbe, La Unción del Verbo, p. 578.
[xxvii] Gregory of Nyssa, Against Apollinaris, 52 (PG 45, 1249f.).
[xxviii] See Edouard Cothenet, “Saint-Esprit,” Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible, fasc. 60, 1986, col. 377.
[xxix] Basil, On the Holy Spirit, IX, 22-23 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980), pp. 42-44 (PG 32, 108f.); XVI, 38 (PG 32, 137).
[xxx] Symeon the New Theologian, Mystical Prayers (SCh 156, p. 150).
[xxxi] See Gregory Palamas, “Homily on the Transfiguration” (PG 151, 433B-C).
[xxxii] Synaxarium of Pentecost, in Pentecostaire (Parma: Diaconie apostolique, 1994), p. 4.
[xxxiii] Augustine, Tractates on John, 32, 8.
[xxxiv] Francis of Assisi, Admonitions, XVII (FF, 166).
(from Vatican Radio)…
(Vatican Radio) On Friday morning the Preacher of the Pontifical Household, Father Raniero Cantalamessa, OFM Cap., gave the third Lenten Sermon of 2015 in the Mater Redemptoris chapel in the Vatican. Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa Third Lenten Sermon 2015 EAST AND WEST BEFORE THE MYSTERY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT Today we will meditate on the common…
Read more
(Vatican Radio) Archbishop Bernardito Auza, the Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, focused on the “connection between the feminine genius and solidarity in caring for the vulnerable and in creating a better world” during a conference on “Women Promoting Human Dignity” held in the chambers of the United Nations on Wednesday.
“The fundamental aim of governments is justice, and a just social order is one in which each person has his or her rights guaranteed and respected,” said Archbishop Auza. “But even in the most just society, some members of our human family fall into cracks, or have disabilities and other risk factors that even well-ordered and just societies may overlook or pay less attention to.”
The Archbishop said these people need or solidarity, and said people need more than “polite and efficient bureaucrats” fulfilling their duties.
“They need loving personal concern,” he said. “They need remedies that reach the soul rather than just the sickness, physical hunger, financial difficulties or material needs. In short, they need people who care, who treat them with the love that accords with the fullness of their human dignity.”
The full text of Archbishop Auza’s intervention is below
Remarks of H.E. Archbishop Bernardito Auza
Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations
At the Conference on “Women Promoting Human Dignity”
Economic and Social Council Chamber, United Nations
New York, March 18, 2015
Excellencies, Distinguished Panelists,
Friends, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am delighted to welcome you this afternoon to this event that will shine a spotlight on women promoting human dignity and extol the often-unheralded efforts and achievements of the multitudes of women who do.
Whenever we speak about human dignity, we are referring to the intrinsic worth of every person, no matter how young or old, rich or poor, strong or vulnerable, healthy or sick, wanted or undesired, economically productive or incapacitated, worldly influential or insignificant. Every human person has such an intrinsic worth that our only fitting response is love. All of us are called to give that loving response — and over the course of the centuries so many men and women have distinguished themselves in doing so. But most people recognize that women excel in this field beyond their male counterparts. I believe that most of us would agree that women spot faster than men do the needs and situations of others and respond to them more rapidly. I hope that no male present here would challenge me on this!
St. John Paul II referred to this special brilliance of women in caring for the intrinsic dignity of everyone and for nurturing others’ gifts as the “feminine genius.” Today we are here to ponder that feminine genius, to celebrate it, to thank God for it, and to thank and praise women for it, especially our mothers and all those women who with it have nurtured us, raised us, educated us, loved us and… disciplined us! Moreover, we are here to learn from it and resolve to do what we can to see this genius expand and assume a greater influence, for the good of individuals and society today and for the betterment of persons and nations tomorrow. I am convinced that a deeper recognition and a greater appreciation of this genius is key to fighting violence against women.
I would like to focus specifically on the connection between the feminine genius and solidarity in caring for the vulnerable and in creating a better world. The fundamental aim of governments is justice, and a just social order is one in which each person has his or her rights guaranteed and respected. But even in the most just society, some members of our human family fall into cracks, or have disabilities and other risk factors that even well-ordered and just societies may overlook or pay less attention to. More than and beyond justice, they need our solidarity. Moreover, in response to various forms of human suffering and to material, emotional, spiritual necessities, people need more than polite and efficient bureaucrats fulfilling their duties. They need loving personal concern. They need remedies that reach the soul rather than just the sickness, physical hunger, financial difficulties or material needs. In short, they need people who care, who treat them with the love that accords with the fullness of their human dignity.
Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his Encyclical on charity (Deus Caritas Est) in 2006, “While professional competence is a primary, fundamental requirement, it is not of itself sufficient. We are dealing with human beings, and human beings always need something more than technically proper care. They need humanity. They need heartfelt concern.” For that reason, all of us, but especially those who work in institutions with direct contact with people, need, he said, a “formation of the heart.” We need a “heart that sees”: a heart that sees specifically where love is needed and acts accordingly; a heart that recognizes the person so that we never treat just the problems of a client, or patient, or constituent, but rather a person with dignity.
In this formation or education of the heart, women are the world’s professors. “A heart that sees” is another way of defining the “feminine genius” . For those who accept the inspiration of the Hebrew Bible, God himself expresses his love in feminine terms. Through Isaiah, God says, “Can a mother forget her infant or be without tenderness for the child of her womb? Even should she forget” — something that in the text God implies would be impossible — “I will never forget you” (Is 49:14-15). Later, God adds through the same Prophet, “As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you” (Is 66:13). For those who accept Christian revelation, we see the flourishing of the feminine genius in the woman whom God the Father chose to be the mother of his Son. We see it in Mary’s going with haste to care for her pregnant elderly relative Elizabeth. We see it in her care for the young married couple who had run out of wine at the wedding feast in Cana. We see it in her courage at the foot of the Cross. We see it in her guidance of the apostles and members of the early Church as they awaited God’s help to take the Gospel to all nations. For us who venerate her as our Mother, her whole life is a beautiful hymn to the hearts that see and a constant invitation to love and care for others.
While history books sing the victories of valiant emperors and warriors – and the defeat and the follies of some, as well! – all of civilization and certainly the Church owes an unpayable debt of gratitude to the less chronicled or even unknown contributions of women that have shaped civilizations, like the silent but constant flow of deep waters that shape rivers. Our textbooks normally obsess about the names at the top of political hierarchies and are preoccupied fundamentally with economic and military trends. But genuine human progress happens more fundamentally in the relations human beings have with one another and the way human beings care for one another. Such progress often doesn’t make journalists’ radar screens, but it is perhaps more consequential to human flourishing than scientific and technological inventions. Indeed, we have become super technological and super informed, but have we become better persons?
Louise de Marillac, Francis Xavier Cabrini, Elizabeth Anne Seton, Dorothy Day and Mother Teresa of Calcutta are only a small sample of those women across the centuries who have played starring roles in this drama of loving and caring for humanity. And I can hear you asking me: add my mother and my grandma to that list, please! Yes, I will: mothers give everything they have out of love for their children. And Sister Norma would ask: how about us, women religious? Yes, we remember all women religious with profound gratitude, especially in this Year of Consecrated Life. In more ways than one, they are the face of the Church, and Sister Norma represents all of them here this afternoon.
I’m very happy to host this event featuring several women who are such examples of the feminine genius I have been talking about. They not only have hearts that see, but hearts and minds that respond with creativity and compassion to what they see. I’m so grateful that Dr. Carolyn Woo, the President and CEO of Catholic Relief Services, has been able to join us. Catholic Relief Services provides assistance to over 130 million people in more than a hundred countries. I look forward to hearing Dr. Woo’s stories of development and humanitarian assistance from her experience on the front lines. I’m so happy to introduce to you two friends whose feminine genius impacted me during my more than six years as Apostolic Nuncio to their country of Haiti, and whose witness I hope will have a similar effect on you.
Her Excellency Professor Michèle Pierre-Louis is a former Haitian Prime Minister, former Resident Fellow of Harvard’s Institute of Politics, and is Founder and President of the Knowledge and Freedom Foundation, popularly known as FOKAL. In Haiti, FOKAL provides educational, human development and economic activities in local communities. Her Excellency will be speaking to us about the women in governance and civic leadership, something that is needed all the more in societies that have weak institutional capacities. Mrs. Magalie Dresse is the owner of Caribbean Craft Haiti whose entrepreneurial creativity, care for her employees and business success have not only won her multiple awards, but justifiably garnered the attention of many world leaders, popular television hosts, top newspapers and many others who have been helping Haiti rebuild. She will be speaking to us today about her experience managing a handicraft industry that gives work to hundreds of poor but highly talented women artisans, and on how women in difficult socio-economic conditions can help one another in the fight to lift themselves out of extreme poverty and ignorance.
I am likewise honored to welcome Sister Norma Pimentel, a member of the Missionaries of Jesus, Executive Director of Catholic Catholics of the Rio Grande Valley, and a leader in defending human dignity and providing humanitarian assistance to tens of thousands of migrants at the border between the United States and Mexico. She will be speaking to us about her work with undocumented migrants crossing the border, and particularly about the scourge of the trafficking of human persons, above all women and children. Then, we have bonuses for you: in between our four Speakers, we will hear from three young women who have come to the United Nations to help us understand the feminine genius.
Finally, at the end of the conference of the last principal Speaker, we will watch a short video entitled “Women of the World,” which demonstrates various aspects of the feminine genius. Earlier this month, on the International Day of Women, Pope Francis said in St. Peter’s Square that women “give us the ability to see beyond… to understand the world through different eyes, to hear things with more creative, more patient, more tender hearts.” Today, our Speakers will help us develop hearts that see: creative, patient and tender.
I thank all of you for coming.
(from Vatican Radio)…