^{page 313 note 1} Spirit of God, Spirit of Christ – Ecumenical Reflections on the Filioque Controversy. Vischer, L., ed. London: SPCK, 1981, p. vi.Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 2} Lossky, V., In the Image and Likeness of God. London: Mowbrays. 1974, p. 80.Google Scholar

^{page 313 note 3} Barth, K., Church Dogmatics, vol. 1. 1, pp. 551ff. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 4} Rahner, K., The Trinity. London: Burns and Oates, 1970, p. 18.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 15} Basil, , De Spiritu Sancto. The Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, vol. viii. Eds. Schaff, P. and Wace, H.. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.Google Scholar

^{page 314 note 6} It is unfortunate that Rahner, op. cit., p. 18, note 13, proceeds to categorise Greek thought as ‘formalistic’ without seeking the basis of the Greek reluctance to inquire about hypostatic relations in God within the doxological context of liturgical language in which the dogma of the Trinity is rooted.

^{page 314 note 7} Basil, op. cit., sec. 1.3.

^{page 314 note 8} Basil, op. cit., sec. 4.6.

^{page 315 note 9} Ibid., sec. 5.7.

^{page 315 note 10} Ibid., sec. 5 and sec. 6.

^{page 316 note 11} Basil, op. cit., sec. 8.18: ‘Shall his care for us degrade to meanness our thoughts of him?’

^{page 316 note 12} Basil, Ibid., sec. 9.22.

^{page 316 note 13} This question and the legitimacy of such statements is argued in the debate between Gollwitzer, H., The Existence of God. London: SCM, 1965 Google Scholar, and Jüngel, E., The Doctrine of the Trinity. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1976.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 14} Pannenberg, W., Basic Questions in Theology, vol. 1. London: SCM, 1970, p. 216.Google Scholar

^{page 316 note 15} Basil, op. cit., sec. 2 and 3.4.5. See also Schlink, E., The Coming Christ and the Coming Church. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1970, pp. 16ff. and 87ff.Google Scholar

^{page 317 note 16} Basil, op. cit., sec. 27.76. Cf. Bonhoeffer, D., Christology. London: Collins, 1966 Google Scholar: ‘To speak of Christ means to keep silent; to be silent is to speak. The proclamation of Christ is the church speaking from a proper silence. … We must study Christ in the humble silence of the worshipping community’ (p. 27).

^{page 318 note 17} Tertullian, , Adv. Praxean. Ante Nicene Christian Library, vol. xv, no. 11. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1970. ch. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 18} Tertullian, op. cit., ch. 5; cf. Harnack, A., History of Dogma, vol. II. London: Williams and Norgate, 1897, pp. 257ff.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 19} Tertullian, Ibid., ch. 7.

^{page 318 note 20} Prestige, G., God in Patristic Thought. London: SPCK, 1956, p. 97.Google Scholar

^{page 318 note 21} A. Harnack, op. cit., pp. 262ff.

^{page 318 note 22} See Heron, A. I. C., The Holy Spirit in the Bible, the History of Christian Thought and Recent Theology. Westminster Press, 1983, pp. 176–177.Google Scholar

^{page 319 note 23} Augustine, , On the Trinity, in The Works of St Augustine. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1873, chs. 8 and 9, sees. 9–10.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 24} See Lossky, V., The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Cambridge: J. Clarke, 1957, pp. 85ffGoogle Scholar. and Torrance, T. F., Theological Science. Oxford University Press, pp. 189ff.Google Scholar

^{page 320 note 25} D. Ritschl, Historical Developments and Implications of the Filioque Controversy in L. Vischer, op. cit., pp. 48ff.

^{page 320 note 26} Barth, K., Church Dogmatics, vol. 1. 1, sees. 4–8 Google Scholar. See also Watson, G., ‘Karl Barth and St Anselm's Theological Programme’. Scottish Journal of Theology, vol. 30, pp. 31ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 320 note 27} Barth, Ibid., p. 556.

^{page 321 note 28} Barth, op. cit., p. 556.

^{page 321 note 29} Barth, op. cit., p. 542.

^{page 321 note 30} Barth, op. cit., p. 552.

^{page 322 note 31} Barth, op. cit., p. 553.

^{page 322 note 32} Barth, op. cit., p. 553.

^{page 322 note 33} Barth, op. cit., p. 554.

^{page 323 note 34} Barth, Ibid.

^{page 323 note 35} Barth, op. cit., p. 555. See also Hendry, G., ‘From the Father and the Son: The Filioque after 900 Years’. Theology Today, vol. XI, 1954–1955, pp. 449ffGoogle Scholar. and McIntyre, J., ‘The Holy Spirit in Greek Patristic Thought’. Scottish Journal of Theology, vol. 7, 1954, pp. 353ff. and 371–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 323 note 36} Barth, op. cit., p. 556.

^{page 324 note 37} Barth, op. cit., p. 556.

^{page 325 note 38} Cyril, , Five Tomes Against the Blasphemies of Nestorius. Oxford: Parker, J., & Rivingtons, 1881, Tome, 1, pp. 28ff.Google Scholar

^{page 325 note 39} Barth, op. cit., p. 556.

^{page 325 note 40} See also Pelikan, J., A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 2. University of Chicago, 1974, pp. 190ff.Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 41} See Rahner, op. cit. Cf. Heron, A. I. C., ‘Who Proceedeth from the Father and the Son; The Problem of the Filioque’, Scottish Journal of Theology, vol. 24, no. 2, 1971, pp. 159ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Heron, , The Holy Spirit, pp. 167, 172ff.Google Scholar; Moltmann, J., The Trinity and the Kingdom of God. SCM Press, 1981, pp. 157ff.Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 42} Cf. Barth, , Church Dogmatics, vol. 1. 1, pp. 550–552 Google Scholar. Cf. pp. 450ff.

^{page 326 note 43} Contra Moltmann, op. cit., p. 151. Cf. Gollwitzer, H., The Existence of God Confessed by Faith. SCM Press, 1965, p. 217.Google Scholar

^{page 326 note 44} Cf. Pelikan, op. cit., p. 259 and p. 2ff.

^{page 327 note 45} Pelikan, Ibid., p. 33.

^{page 327 note 46} Ibid.

^{page 327 note 47} Lossky, V., The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Clarke, J., 1957, p. 42 Google Scholar. Cf. St Basil, above, and Schlink, , The Coming Christ and The Coming Church, pp. 58ff.Google Scholar

^{page 328 note 48} Ritschl, D., ‘Historical Development and Implications of the Filioque Controversy’, pp. 64–65 Google Scholar; and Heron, , The Holy Spirit, p. 173.Google Scholar

^{page 328 note 49} Heron, op. cit., p. 173.

^{page 328 note 50} Heron, op. cit., p. 177.

^{page 328 note 51} Ibid.

^{page 328 note 52} Pelikan, op. cit., p. 194.

^{page 329 note 53} See on the following: J. Moltmann, ‘Theological Perspectives Towards the Resolution of the Filioque Controversy’ in Vischer (ed.), op. cit., pp. 164ff. and The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, pp. 182ff.; Heron, , SJT 24, pp. 161ff.Google Scholar; The Holy Spirit pp. 166ff.; Lossky, , The Image and Likeness of God, pp. 81ff.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 54} Moltmann, op. cit., p. 172; Heron, , SJT 24, pp. 164ff.Google Scholar; and The Holy Spirit, pp. 177–178.

^{page 329 note 55} D. Staniloae, ‘The Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and His Relation to the Son’ in Vischer (ed.), op. cit., p. 177. See p. 176 quoting St Gregory Palamas: ‘The Spirit has his existence from the Father of the Son because he who causes the Spirit to proceed is also the Father.’ (My underlining: cf. Heron, SJT 24, pp. 164–166, and The Holy Spirit, pp. 177–178; Moltmann, op. cit., pp. 182ff.)

^{page 329 note 56} Stylianopoulos, T., ‘The Filioque: Dogma, Theologumenon or Error?’ Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. 31, 1986, pp. 258ff.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 57} Pelikan, op. cit., p. 197.

^{page 329 note 58} Heron, , The Holy Spirit, pp. 169–170.Google Scholar

^{page 329 note 59} Moltmann, , The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, pp. 136ff., 167.Google Scholar

^{page 330 note 60} Moltmann, , The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, p. 151 Google Scholar. The two (immanent and economic) ‘rather form a continuity and merge into one another’ (p. 152).

^{page 330 note 61} Pelikan, p. 193.

^{page 330 note 62} Moltmann, op. cit., pp. 151–152; cf. Heron, , The Holy Spirit, pp. 177–178.Google Scholar