C.S. Lewis on the Holy Spirit as 'bond of love'

[Audrey]

I am a relatively recent convert to Orthodoxy (chrismated in September) and am currently taking a C.S. Lewis class. In "Mere Christianity" Lewis states the the Holy Spirit is the relationship of love between the Father and the Son, in chapter 4 of Book 4.

This sounds wrong to me, because it sounds Western in that Lewis seems to be identifying the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father and the Son, instead of just the Father.

I have heard this teaching before in some Protestant seminary classes I have taken, the view that the Holy Spirit is what grows or is born from the relationship between the Father and the Son. These teachers will use the analogy of a married couple having a child as the fruit of their love for each other.

Is this view wrong and un-Orthodox? It seems so to me, but I am not theologically astute.

What is the correct view of the identity, or role, or whatever, of the Holy Spirit? I am working on my final paper for the C.S. Lewis class right now so feedback would be very helpful.

Thanks so much!

Audrey

[Olga]

Hello Audrey, and welcome to the forum. If you haven't come across the weekly Our Life In Christ radio programs (downloadable) at www.ourlifeinchrist.com (http://www.ourlifeinchrist.com), I recommend you do so, it's a real treasure. As it turns out, the most recent programs are on Orthodoxy and the Holy Spirit. You should find them very useful.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I would say that Orthodoxy definately does not hold to this view, and many Orthodox writers have expressed the opinion that such a teaching "cheapens" the role and place of the Holy Spirit who is equal to the Father and the Son according to Orthodox teaching. While I have a great deal of respect for C. S. Lewis, as do many Orthodox, it is good to remember that he was NOT Orthodox, he was an Anglican converted to Catholicism. I don't know how much exposure he had to Orthodoxy, so it should be no surprise that he had some unOrthodox ideas.

[Father David Moser]

Lewis states the the Holy Spirit is the relationship of love between the Father and the Son,

This "definition" is an outgrowth of the addition of the filioque to the Creed and thus is not Orthodox. There are a number of problems with it. First, as you noted, it places the Holy Spirit in a subordinate position to the Father and Son and thus distorts the nature of the Holy Trinity. Also this view depersonalizes the Holy Spirit making Him a "force" or "energy" rather than a full Person. In identifying the Holy Spirit with "love" then what of the scriptural description of God as "Love" - is the Holy Spirit the only part of God that is love? Then again, is God "love" or is "love" something that God produces? This kind of a definition opens the door to a lot of incorrect ideas about that nature of God.

Fr David Moser

[Sean M.]

Hi i am new to the board.

I am just curious to know, why does the Orthodox religion interpret the Nicene Creed as recited by Roman Catholics, as meaning the Holy Spirit is inferior to the Father and the Son? The Holy Spirit came after Jesus's death and resurrection. If the Holy Spirit came after Jesus ascended into heaven, then it proceded from the Father and the Son, because the Son needed to ascend before the Holy Spirit came.

John16:26 "When the Advocate comes whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf. You also are to testify because you have been with me from the beginning.

Jesus clearly said, "The Advocate whom I will send." He also states, "The Spirit of truth who comes from the Father."

Why then is there such controversey over the inclusion of the words. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

[Anna Brenneis]

Greetings, Sean!

You ask an excellent question, and I hope one of the very knowledgeable priests or theologians will soon answer it for you.

I only write you to say "hello" and to make the very important point that Orthodoxy is not a religion, it is a Life!

A wonderful Easter to you!

[Paul Cowan]

Hi Logos,
You might want to search the archives here. I believe there are several threads if not inumerable posts on this topic. Just type it into the search.

From my limited knowledge of the topic I remember answers in the form of every day life events ( or similar situations). I relate the Holy Spirit coming from the Father and not the Son in the following way.

Consider a wresting match. God is the ring. Christ is the first wrestler. When he times out, he tags the ring allowing the Holy Spirit to jump in the match. Christ does not send the Holy Spirit. He tells God he is finished and God sends the Holy Spirit to us. Yes, Christ does His part of telling the Holy Spirit He is finished also, but God the Father is the one who releases the Holy Spirit to us.

This may be too simplistic, but it helps keep it straight in my head. I hope it helps.

Paul

[John Charmley]

Dear Sean,

Welcome here. As you know, the filioque clause has been one of the main points at issue between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church for a millennium and more; it was the proximate cause of the schism of 1054.

We are both guests here and must respect the house rules which guide us away from interfaith dialogue (which is not the purpose of this forum) and towards the study of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy through Patristics; but within that remit, might I offer a brief view on this well-trodden path?

Orthodox believers would tend to cite these three verses:

John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

John 15:26 But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

John 16:13-14 However , when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own [authority], but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare [it] to you.

This, the undivided Church took to mean what the Orthodox Church has always held, namely that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. Indeed, it was not until the local synod of Toledo in 587 that the filioque clause was added.

The Frankish 'Holy Roman' Emperor Charlemagne, not a man without an agenda of his own, attempted to accuse the Eastern Church of having omitted the filioque clause from the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed - and was firmly put in his place (for a short while) by Pope Leo III (795-816) ordered the Creed — without Filioque — to be engraved in Latin and Greek on two silver plates and mounted on a wall of St. Peter's in Rome. The Eighth Ecumenical Council; (879-880) reaffirmed that position and declared any and all additions to the creed invalid. This synod's teaching was affirmed by the patriarchs of Old Rome (John VIII), New Rome [Constantinople] (Photius), Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria and by Emperor Basil I.

In this sense the Orthodox Church would say that it simply holds to what has always been believed and would invite those who have added to it to think again; the Anglicans certainly have done so, and intend to remove the insertion.

Those more learned than myself could dilate on the intricacies of how one reads the Greek ἐκπορεύεται ("proceeds"), and tell you more about its referring to the 'eternal' origin of the Holy Ghost (which has to be the Father); but I am an historian, not a theologian or a Greek scholar and will leave it to those who are.

What I will do, if I may, on this Good Friday when we all contemplate the great mystery of His love for us, is to finish with a reflection from St. John Damascene, which, I think, refers us back to another of the differences between the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox tradition. Where the Latin Church has a long history of scholasticism, the Orthodox have tended to prefer a different approach - which is summed up in this quotation:

We have learned that there is a difference between begetting and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand.

There is much of the spirit of Orthodoxy in that comment from a great Saint. Even, of course, as there is much in Latin Christianity to admire.

I have tried to keep within the boundaries of our rules here, and within the greater rule of charity and love for all the brethren; I hope the foregoing help in your enquiries.

In Christ,

John

[Sean M.]

Thanks for your answer John, in the three verses of scripture you cited, Jesus does not omit himself.

John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

John 15:26 But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

John 16:13-14 However , when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own [authority], but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare [it] to you.

So in a sense to omit Christ from the Nicene Creed is to take away the glory that he rightly deserves for playing a part in the coming of the Holy Spirit.

I can see from the Orthodox perspective, that the Nicene Creed as recited by the Orthodox faith is not strictly wrong. Yes the Holy Spirit does proceed from the Father, but to exclude the Son, is to take away the glory that should be rightfully bestowed on Christ for playing his part in the giving of the Holy Spirit.

[M.C. Steenberg]

So in a sense to omit Christ from the Nicene Creed is to take away the glory that he rightly deserves for playing a part in the coming of the Holy Spirit.

Without wishing to sound too harsh, this seems fundamentally to misunderstand the issue of procession and relation. It is connected to the following:


Yes the Holy Spirit does proceed from the Father, but to exclude the Son, is to take away the glory that should be rightfully bestowed on Christ for playing his part in the giving of the Holy Spirit.

The question of procession, when used as a technical theological term with reference to the Spirit, is not linked to the sending of the Spirit into the world; i.e., it is not an economic descriptor, of how the Spirit exists and is in the cosmos. This is an entirely different category of discussion, which isn't at issue in the question of the Spirit's procession as means of eternal, hypostatic origin of relation in the godhead.

As to the Spirit's sending into the cosmos, both the scriptures and the fathers are quite clear that the Spirit sent into the world is sent by the Father through the Son -- something about which Orthodox people have been reminded in the past days, during the readings at the matins of the Passion.

But again, this is not the question being asked in discussions on the procession of the Spirit as trinitarian descriptor, which is what the creed elucidates. So to assess that the wording of the creed, 'And in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father', somehow lessens the glory that should be given to Christ for is part in bestowing the Spirit, is to read an entirely different discussion into the framework of the Filioque dispute.

INXC, Matthew

[Paul Cowan]

Dear Sean:
The Orthodox do not leave Christ out of the Nicene Creed. The question you are asking is why "and the Son" is not in our Creed. My priest has made a pictorial representation to show the difference between our two thoughts. The RC look at the Trinity as a perfect triangle. Each corner connected to the other. God on top, Christ on the lower left and the Holy Spirit on the lower right. NOT that they are lower, but to represent the triangle.

The Orthodox have the same triangle, but with no connecting bar from Christ to the Holy Spirit. Each is connected only to the Father. This to show Christ comes from the Father and the Holy Spirit also comes from the Father.

As the scriptures referenced here show.


John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.

John 15:26 But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

In each Christ is very much in the middle of the transaction, but each also very clearly show the Holy Spirit coming from the Father not the Son.

But as John says:

house rules which guide us away from interfaith dialogue (which is not the purpose of this forum) and towards the study of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy through Patristics

I hope you have a blessed Pascha.

Paul

[Sean M.]

But again, this is not the question being asked in discussions on the procession of the Spirit as trinitarian descriptor, which is what the creed elucidates. So to assess that the wording of the creed, 'And in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father', somehow lessens the glory that should be given to Christ for is part in bestowing the Spirit, is to read an entirely different discussion into the framework of the Filioque dispute.

Yes that was my intention, to look at it from a different perspective. Not the argument that the Holy Spirit is inferior to Christ, rather to show that excluding Christ, is to take away an integral reason why the Holy Spirit came in the first place.


Without wishing to sound too harsh, this seems fundamentally to misunderstand the issue of procession and relation. It is connected to the following:


pro·ceed (prō-sēd', prə-) Pronunciation Key
intr.v. pro·ceed·ed, pro·ceed·ing, pro·ceeds

To go forward or onward, especially after an interruption; continue: proceeded to his destination; paused to clear her throat, then proceeded.
To begin to carry on an action or a process: looked surprised, then proceeded to roar with laughter.
To move on in an orderly manner: Business proceeded as usual.

God is omnipotent and omniscient, God had planned for the Holy Spirit to come after Christ's death and resurrection. If Christ's death and resurrection was a precursor to the coming of the Holy Spirit, then Christ was an integral part of that plan.

[Father David Moser]

Sean,

In reply to Matthew's comments you quoted the dictionary definition of "procede". This is exactly the point that Matthew is making. "Proceed" is a technical theological term that has a very specific meaning which is related to but much more limited than the common useage meaning. "Procession" here relates specifically to the internal "essential" (another very specific theological term - See St Gregory Palamason "essence" and "energies") relationship of the persons of the Trinity. Thus if one simply assumes that the common use definition of the term encompasses the technical meaning of the Creed, then one will end up making a number of erroneous assumptions. Also we would end up talking past each other, using the same words to talk about different things.

Fr David Moser

[Sean M.]

and was firmly put in his place (for a short while) by Pope Leo III (795-816) ordered the Creed — without Filioque — to be engraved in Latin and Greek on two silver plates and mounted on a wall of St. Peter's in Rome.

Pope Leo III agreed with the Latin position regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. He wished to keep the Filioque seperate from the Nicene Creed because he was aware of the controversy and division it was causing between East and West.


Also we would end up talking past each other, using the same words to talk about different things.

Acts16:7 When they had come opossite My'si-a, they attempted to go into Bi-thyn'i-a, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them;

Romans8:9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

Matthew10:20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

If scripture does not distinguish between the Spirit of the Father, and the Spirit of the Son. Is it not the same Holy Spirit that proceeds from both?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Sean, you wrote:




Originally Posted by M.C. Steenberg
But again, this is not the question being asked in discussions on the procession of the Spirit as trinitarian descriptor, which is what the creed elucidates. So to assess that the wording of the creed, 'And in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father', somehow lessens the glory that should be given to Christ for is part in bestowing the Spirit, is to read an entirely different discussion into the framework of the Filioque dispute.

Yes that was my intention, to look at it from a different perspective. Not the argument that the Holy Spirit is inferior to Christ, rather to show that excluding Christ, is to take away an integral reason why the Holy Spirit came in the first place.

It may be your intention to look at things differently; but this issue simply is not of bearing in the Filioque dispute per se. To look at it this way fundamentally confuses the issue, which is not about the sending of the Spirit into the world, or the Son's role in the granting of the Spirit to the disciples, into the economy, etc. This is a separate matter, about which there is very little disagreement.

The Filioque question is about the hypostatic relation of the Father, Son and Spirit as the one ousia that is God. To attempt to discuss this from economic terms, is from the very beginning to misunderstand the realm of address.


God is omnipotent and omniscient, God had planned for the Holy Spirit to come after Christ's death and resurrection. If Christ's death and resurrection was a precursor to the coming of the Holy Spirit, then Christ was an integral part of that plan.

As above, the coming of the Spirit into the the world (and particularly here, into the Church), is not the subject of address of the Filioque dispute.

INXC, Matthew

[Herman Blaydoe]

Pope Leo III agreed with the Latin position regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit. He wished to keep the Filioque seperate from the Nicene Creed because he was aware of the controversy and division it was causing between East and West.

IOW, we can acknowledge that the Filioque is NOT part of the Nicene Creed? Do you accept the ruling of Pope John Paul II that the filioque is "optional" and that the fundamental statement of Faith, the Creed, stands just fine without it? Doesn't optional mean "not necessary"? And if it is not necessary, why should we allow it to be in the Creed, which states the basic belief NECESSARY to be called a Christian?

There are certainly ways that the filioque can be interpreted in an Orthodox manner, but the biggest claim against it is that it creates confusion. There are ways that it can (and has been) interpreted that are not in accordance with Orthodox Theology at all, like the one that started this thread! Therefore, I see a big argument against the filioque in that it is just not NECESSARY and only absolutely necessary things need be in the Creed.

It was a unilateral addition to the foundation of the Faith, not made in symphonia with the whole church since the Eastern Church NEVER accepted it. This also points to a very fundamental difference in Church governance but that is probably getting off-topic...

DISCLAIMER
The ideas expressed here may or may not reflect the opinion of the poster. Text may contain material some readers may find objectionable, spiritual guidance is advised. The drinking of beverages while reading these posts is strongly discouraged; not responsible for damage, discomfort, or staining caused by spit-takes or "nosers." Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, use of satire, or failure to suit your particular sense of humor (or lack thereof). Some shifting of context may have occurred during shipment. For external use only. Void where prohibited. Not legal in all spiritual states. Consult a licensed and reputable spiritual advisor before applying. For recreational use only. May exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony. If a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use. If condition persists, consult your spiritual physician. This notice applies to all posts by this poster whether or not it is included in the post and supercedes all previous disclaimers.

[Sean M.]

IOW, we can acknowledge that the Filioque is NOT part of the Nicene Creed? Do you accept the ruling of Pope John Paul II that the filioque is "optional" and that the fundamental statement of Faith, the Creed, stands just fine without it? Doesn't optional mean "not necessary"? And if it is not necessary, why should we allow it to be in the Creed, which states the basic belief NECESSARY to be called a Christian?

There are certainly ways that the filioque can be interpreted in an Orthodox manner, but the biggest claim against it is that it creates confusion. There are ways that it can (and has been) interpreted that are not in accordance with Orthodox Theology at all, like the one that started this thread! Therefore, I see a big argument against the filioque in that it is just not NECESSARY and only absolutely necessary things need be in the Creed.

It was a unilateral addition to the foundation of the Faith, not made in symphonia with the whole church since the Eastern Church NEVER accepted it. This also points to a very fundamental difference in Church governance but that is probably getting off-topic...

DISCLAIMER
The ideas expressed here may or may not reflect the opinion of the poster. Text may contain material some readers may find objectionable, spiritual guidance is advised. The drinking of beverages while reading these posts is strongly discouraged; not responsible for damage, discomfort, or staining caused by spit-takes or "nosers." Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, use of satire, or failure to suit your particular sense of humor (or lack thereof). Some shifting of context may have occurred during shipment. For external use only. Void where prohibited. Not legal in all spiritual states. Consult a licensed and reputable spiritual advisor before applying. For recreational use only. May exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony. If a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use. If condition persists, consult your spiritual physician. This notice applies to all posts by this poster whether or not it is included in the post and supercedes all previous disclaimers.

Pope John Paul recited the Nicene Creed without the Filioque.There isn't any problem with original Nicene Creed that Orthodox Christians recite.

The problem lies with the theology regarding the inclusion of the Filioque. There is really no difference, between, Through the Son." Which Orthodox Christians accept, and, "And the Son." Which the Latin Church uses.

Many of the early Church Fathers echoed the same sentiments regarding the inclusion of the filioque by the Latin Church.


Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit" [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).


Just as the Son says "All that the Father has is mine" [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).

[Herman Blaydoe]

The problem lies with the theology regarding the inclusion of the Filioque. There is really no difference, between, Through the Son." Which Orthodox Christians accept, and, "And the Son." Which the Latin Church uses.

I think I already addressed this? While it is true that this is ONE possible interpretation, it is certainly not the only one, see the beginning of this thread for other ones. The fact remains that the filioque is NOT NECESSARY as part of the Creed.

[Mina Soliman]

I've always been interested about this view about the Holy Spirit being the love relationship between the Father and the Son.

I'd like to offer perhaps a "other side" advocate. I've heard the Trinity before as being analogized to taking a certain attribute of God and "hypostasizing" them. So if we take "Love" for instance:

Father--Lover
Son--Love
Spirit--Life of Love (or Living the Love)

It seems that the Holy Spirit does with us many things. When we pray, the Holy Spirit prays with us. It's almost as if the Holy Spirit is the "verb" in our relationship with the Trinity.

Now, that is not excluding all the teachings that have to do with the Holy Spirit as the giver of Grace, the chrismater, the Comforter, etc. Could it be that one can understand C.S. Lewis and the RC's in this manner, that the Holy Spirit is not solely that of the relationship of Love between the Father and the Son, i.e. they did not mean to lower a Hypostasis to such a low degree as some sort of "force"?

As for the Filioque, there has been an indication the word "proceed" meant different things in different sides of the Church. Could it be possible that despite the Filioque, we believe in the same Trinity, or are there indications of heretical implications by post-schism Roman Catholics?

Xristos Anesti!

[Dimitris]

The Eighth Ecumenical Council; (879-880) reaffirmed that position and declared any and all additions to the creed invalid. This synod's teaching was affirmed by the patriarchs of Old Rome (John VIII), New Rome [Constantinople] (Photius), Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria and by Emperor Basil I.
Hallo!

I just came again across this thread because I wanted to learn something about the orthodox point of view of the local synod of Toledo. But then I read the text quoted above and now I am quite confused. The so-called Eight Ecumenical Council (also called Forth Council of Constantinople) seems to be accepted by the Orthodox Church. Obviously there actually were two Fourth Councils of Constantinople, from which the Orthodox Church accepts the second one. Is this "second edition" now really viewed as Ecumenical Council by the Orthodox Church or not? What about the term "Church of the Seven Councils"?

Dimitris

[Andrew]

Hallo!

I just came again across this thread because I wanted to learn something about the orthodox point of view of the local synod of Toledo. But then I read the text quoted above and now I am quite confused. The so-called Eight Ecumenical Council (also called Forth Council of Constantinople) seems to be accepted by the Orthodox Church. Obviously there actually were two Fourth Councils of Constantinople, from which the Orthodox Church accepts the second one. Is this "second edition" now really viewed as Ecumenical Council by the Orthodox Church or not? What about the term "Church of the Seven Councils"?

Dimitris

There are local councils that have catholic value... like the council that affirmed the traditional experience of divine grace attested to by Saint Gregory Palamas.

[Herman Blaydoe]

We have the original Apostles, and we have the "equal to the Apostles". We have the seven "Ecumenical" Councils and several councils that are "equal" in their application but were local in their scope. But then nothing from those local councils or any future council can contradict the proclamations of the seven councils, so they still are worthy of a special place in history.

[Owen Jones]

I like to get back to the centrality of Pentecost for Orthodox Christians, for without Pentecost, there would be no feast of the Resurrection. Orthodox Christians are the true Pentecostals. And what does that mean. It means that in and through the Gift of the Holy Spirit, our sense perceptions are healed and transformed so that we can see Christ as He truly is, and we can see created things as they truly are, and see the Holy Trinity in the things that have been created, to the extent that is humanly possible. Remember that even after the Resurrection, Christ was not recognized by some. So the whole question is how are we to recognize Christ in the world? For Latin and Western Christians, knowing is not like seeing. Knowing is an assertion. For Orthodox Christians, knowing is precisely seeing, and seeing precisely, we might say. Taste and see...This is why Orthodox worship as well as our personal prayer lives is replete with visual imagery, sounds and smells. The purpose is to cast out demonic imagery and make the conscious mind and heart proper receivers of divine images. This is why ascetic practice is key to Orthodox theology, not as a method of works righteousness, but as a way of cleaning house, so to speak, so that our bodies can become temples of righteousness and pure receivers of the divine image. Alas, were I only to put this ideal into practice!!!!!!!! But on rare occasions I do see God in things.

[Owen Jones]

...to the extent that is ever humanly possible.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

The subject of St Peter's position amongst the apostles and in the Church is not the subject of this thread. There are several areas of the forum that deal with precisely that topic. The present thread is on C.S. Lewis' views of the Holy Spirit as 'relationship of Love' and immediately-related material.

I have moved the posts on St Peter as prince of the apostles and his relationship to the structure of the Church to its own thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3869).

INXC, Matthew

[John Charmley]

When Mina wrote
It seems that the Holy Spirit does with us many things it set me to exploring some of the ramifications, and leaving aside as already said, those things which Owen has written, it would seem, from my reading that three 'things' stand out.

The Spirit is given that His disciples might resemble their Lord. He is given into our lives that we might be translated from one doxa to another (2 Corinthians 3:18). His fruits are love, joy, peace and long suffering; this is in contrast to the works of the self which are ugly: fornication; impurity, idolatry and enmity. (Galatians 5: 16-26)

Secondly, He came to form believers into the Community of the Resurrection: not just giving our personal allegiance to the Risen Lord (although that too) but corporately confessing His name and praising it. The whole life of worship in the Church is the care of the Holy Spirit. He bade us to forge Christians into a corporate temple which He can inhabit - and which we, by our sinful natures make more difficult. (1 Corinthians 3:16-20). He brings divers gifts to His people: words of wisdom and knowledge; tongues; healing. prophecy and deliverance (1 Corinthians 12:8-26); some He makes teachers, some leaders, some pastors (1 Corinthians 12: 27-30). In all of this He seeks to make His Church here and now a 'colony of Heaven'. (Philippians 3:20). The life, behaviour, the love and the comradeship of Christians is all the work of the Spirit.

And finally, at the Eucharistic feast the Church demonstrates the life of the world to come. We declare that the Cross and the Resurrection, the Incarnate and the Risen Lord stands as Redeemer of All. We look back to the agonies of the Cross through which we are redeemed, and we cry Maranatha (1 Corinthians 16:22), as we look to the future hope He has promised. In the Eucharistic Feast the Spirit of the Risen Lord nourishes us, unites us, and calls us to be the Body of Christ.

I would welcome correction if I have misspoken or misunderstood - and other reflections on how we see the workings of the Holy Spirit.

In Christ,

John

[Mary Ward]

While I have a great deal of respect for C. S. Lewis, as do many Orthodox, it is good to remember that he was NOT Orthodox, he was an Anglican converted to Catholicism. I don't know how much exposure he had to Orthodoxy, so it should be no surprise that he had some unOrthodox ideas.

This is just a point of fact on the life of C.S. Lewis (Jack). He was born in Belfast, Ireland of Protestant parents and had an Anglican priest relative who loved to preach anti-Catholic sermons from the pulpit. Although Lewis had several friends who were Catholic, among them, JRR Tolkien, he retained an anti-Catholic sentiment to the end of his life, disagreeing on the position of Mary and other issues. Tolkien was quite sensitive on the topic of his religion and kept to himself rather engage in debates on Catholicism, and Lewis was a proponent of "mere" Christianity, which is why they probably were able to benefit from their friendship. Tolkien certainly assisted Lewis toward his Christian faith, but did not convert him or try to, as far as is known. Lewis was baptized Anglican as a child and after his reconversion to Christianity, attended Holy Trinity Church in Headington Quarry, Oxford to the end of his days (where he is also buried). When his brother, Warren, informed Jack that he intended to convert to Catholicism after several stays in a Catholic hospital, Jack rushed to the his side and used all his rhetorical powers to prevent it--which he did. Warren would certainly have converted were it not for his close relationship with his brother with whom he shared a home until Jack's death.

It's interesting to note that Lewis commented after his trip to Greece a few years before his death that he favored the Orthodox liturgy above any western form, being well-known for his dislike of organ music and church hymns (this did not deter him from attending church weekly and prayer services almost daily at the Oxford chapel, however). Had Lewis experienced his life differently, I think he would have easily become Orthodox.

[Padraeg]

"John 15:26 (http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NKJV&passage=John+15%3A26) But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me."

Hope I am posting properly. This quote would seem to make HS less than equal?

Is it the case that filioque was not always and universally used by Latins? As I have abandoned hope of finding any way that this controversy should influence my actions, and I hope salvation, I believe this quote worthy of discussion, but not aggression.

Is Augustin considered Orthodox? If so, is there any disagreement of his analysis of Trinity?

Why do RC and Orthodox make sign of cross as reflected symetrically thru a mirror, or a 'glass darkly?'