The problem is not actually located in the attributions, dynamics and properties of the paper written by Monk Patrick, but in the dialectical tensions it exposes if a systenmatic Theology atttempts to use a Platonic Synthesis as its primary Hermeneutic of Scripture rather than actually accepting what Scripture actually spells out abouth the nature of Trinitarian Intentionality and their internal relations.

The paper is an exact summation of Eastern Orthodox views of the Filioque – it is simply too well written, too honest and too revealing – that the act of reading the paper for an Eastern Orthodox creates a form of pneumatological cognitive dissonance, in reconciling Scripture with Platonic notions of Primary Cause, Idea and Emanation.

The Power of this paper is that it brings out the Truth rather than engaging in an exchange of Ideologies and Counter-Ideologies.

The real reason for the criticisms of the paper is that it makes for challenging and uncomfortable reading.

If anyone has a question for Monk Patrick after having read the paper, it should be this:

Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this, they were cut to the Heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

It will be an interesting test of conviction and integrity to see who asks the question and then acts on the answer.

Christ is risen!

I haven’t read Metropolitan Kallistos’ conclusions so I cannot really comment on them properly at this stage. I would need to find out what he means by theological problem and who exactly does he mean by “the west”. Perhaps, the issues that I raised in the essay have be sorted out but I haven’t seen any other indication of this. Metropolitan Kallistos is in much better position to gauge this than I am. I don’t get to see him very often and when I do we tend to discuss other matters but perhaps I will find a moment to get a better idea of his conclusions.

Patrick, the least of monks.

Thanks you,
Joseph Patterson