"The filioque clause is misleading for two possible reasons. First, if in the Augustinian sense (the way the West has consistently understood it) the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as a single source, the distinction of the Father and the Son is blurred. The Son is not the same as the Father – he is begotten, and the Father is not. The Son is forever the Son, and the Father is forever the Father. Thus, the Son does not have the identical relation to the Holy Spirit that the Father has. The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit must take this distinction into account. Second, there appears some evidence of a tendency to the subordination of the Holy Spirit if the filioque is needed to support the consubstantiality of the Son. If the deity of the Son requires him to be the spirating source of the Holy Spirit, where does that leave the Spirit, who is the source of no other hypostasis?" Letham, p. 238.Friday, August 21, 2009
Letham on the Filioque
"The filioque clause is misleading for two possible reasons. First, if in the Augustinian sense (the way the West has consistently understood it) the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as a single source, the distinction of the Father and the Son is blurred. The Son is not the same as the Father – he is begotten, and the Father is not. The Son is forever the Son, and the Father is forever the Father. Thus, the Son does not have the identical relation to the Holy Spirit that the Father has. The doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit must take this distinction into account. Second, there appears some evidence of a tendency to the subordination of the Holy Spirit if the filioque is needed to support the consubstantiality of the Son. If the deity of the Son requires him to be the spirating source of the Holy Spirit, where does that leave the Spirit, who is the source of no other hypostasis?" Letham, p. 238.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I have a question for Ryan and Perry, and my brother Robin can weigh in to, because it seems that it touches on this east/west difference and it is something I have wondered about. It is often said in very strong terms that the Orthodox don´t believe in the immaculute conception and reject this wrong doctrine. I have wondered if this may be a left over from protestantism when people convert. I really would like to know and here´s why. There are many instances in the writings of saints and in our liturgy that would seem to give the impression that the Orthodox do believe in the immaculoute conception. For example, in the Matins liturgy I have often heard the words, ¨Thou who wast so immaculoutely conceived.¨ ¨White and sinless, immaculoutely conceived¨ and many such phrases. One time when these ¨official¨ prayers were being sung at matins, I started looking around the church wondering if the people realized what they were saying, because these were people who had previously spoken out against the doctrine in our theological coffee table chats. And then there is the present Metropolitan of all America and Canada who when I was at his monastery said, ¨The Orthodox don´t say the immaculoute conception is so much wrong as just silly and unnecessary.¨ He said that it was a necessary safegaurd for the Roman Catholics as an extention of their belief in original sin. Since, according to him, Orthodox don´t believe in original sin, there was no need to cover it up with this innovation. And then there is Constantine Zouloues, who´s caseette tapes and translations from contemporary Greek sources make their ways like magic all over the parishes in the U.S, who said once, ¨She was sinless, or virtually sinless.¨ So is it possible that the Orthodox often give the wrong end of the stick when they say they don´t believe in the IC? Wouldn´t it be better to say we don´t believe in original sin and then backtrack to the IC, especially when even our pre-feast Matins use phrases like, ¨thou who was so immaculouly conceived.¨
patrick
Robin,
Are these Letham's criticisms of the filioque or standard eastern criticisms? When I read his book on the Trinity I seem to recall him defending the filioque clause.
Stuart
I’ve checked the context again and it does appear that those are Letham’s own views (I haven’t read his book on the Trinity but would like to). But it is worth pointing out that Letham’s view on the filioque is substantially more complex and nuanced than that brief quotation might suggest and he is sympathetic with concerns on both sides of the fence. In his chapter on the Trinity he has a section on the Western view, then a section on the Eastern view, then a section titled “Problems of East and West” in which he suggests that “it is clear that both the Western and the Eastern lines of approach [to the filioque] have serious weaknesses.” It is in this latter section that the quotation in question occurs.
I didn’t post it because I have a particular problem with the filioque clause. On the contrary, I don’t think I have a good enough grasp of the debate to even understand all the issues at stake.
Post a Comment