&lt;i&gt;The&lt;/i&gt; Filioque: &lt;i&gt;History of a Doctrinal Controversy&lt;/i&gt; (review)
Aristeides Papadakis
Reviewed by: The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy Aristeides Papadakis Controversy. By A. Edward Siecienski. [Oxford Studies in Historical Theology.] (New York: Oxford University Press. 2010. Pp. xii, 355. $49.95. ISBN 978-0-195-37204-5.) Siecienski dutifully reminds us that his account is by no means “a complete history” the filioque (pp. 15, 215). If one thing clear, doctrinal debate generated this famous addendum to Nicene Creed still awaits final resolution. This relatively slim volume; if endnotes are excluded, text’s ten chapters total some 200 pages, whereas history controversy stretches back nearly two millennia. It certainly an ambitious, well-told story. That it manages weave together timely manner highly accessible tapestry also credible and even ecumenically valuable small achievement. origin stems from portentous resolve Western Church add phrase “and Son” (filioque) creed. Eastern Christendom, fair say, found clause unsettling promptly challenged it. anything, implicitly questioned Spirit’s eternal dependence on Father. Not only was tampering with ecumenical text inadmissible but idea “double procession” Spirit—from Father Son—was egregious error. Fittingly, author begins historical reconstruction analysis New Testament evidence. He then moves briskly assess patristic material, particularly contributions [End Page 343] Ss. Maximus Confessor Augustine. Several follow describe battles debates Carolingian era high Middle Ages. latter period especially turning point terms developments. leapfrog dawn twenty-first century critical survey contemporary trends. Although straightforward guide, often reads as detailed who’s who subject. approach way deft solution following difficult question: How does chronicle centuries-long controversy, its myriad polarized participants often-complex commentaries? On other hand, never treats wider political context subject secondary. secure ground when arguing topic trivial tussle among theologians. facts indeed otherwise. To top off, suitably short confessional bias sustained angry polemic; clearing air old prejudices undeniably useful. These strengths bring level balance, freshness, account. gives pride place (†662), viewed providing powerful piece promising Latin apologetic. convinced did not ascribe causality Son; Latins believed Spirit receives hypostatic derivation solely Father, cause (mia aitia) primordial coming-into-being. Maximus, irreproachable witness, hugely important. Yet whether suffices tout court problem or alter discussion radically debatable. later stand way. thirteenth dogmatization Council Lyons (1274) accomplished fact. Theologians (armed appropriate Augustinian-Thomist scaffolding) were already ascribing Son. Increasingly, too, canonists alleging (contra view Orthodox world), bishop Rome, virtue office, had power More dizzying occasional assertion originally part primitive Small wonder Byzantine became formal anathema for refusing endorse doctrine. Without first considering these contentious developments, Maximus’ viewpoint cannot have any significant bearing problem. There ecclesiological interpolation those rite doggedly oppose. gifted Dominican Yves Congar put well he...
Catholic Historical Review