Interesting little post at the Anglican site Virtue Online about the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed. For those unfamiliar, the filioque controversy surrounds a single phrase in the Nicene Creed. In the original version of the Creed, the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father". But at the council of Toledo in 589, the phrase was added that in English is translated "...and the Son", meaning that in some sense the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
The issues are two: Does the Holy Spirit originate from the Son? Is the existence of the Holy Spirit contingent on the Son? (I'm not sure most who use the latter version of the Creed would assert that).
Second, was the clause added properly. Was the council of Toledo a universal council that had the authority to alter the creed?
So the Orthodox church insists there can be no reunion of the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity without the removal of this phrase.
Evangelicals have had numerous dialogues with Orthodox folk in recent years and a number of Evangelicals have embraced the Eastern Church.
But I wonder - is this a bit of hair splitting? The article acknowledges that there are ways to understand the phrase that does not offend the Orthodox understanding. And is scripture really so clear that Jesus promise of the Spirit and the Spirit's role in glorifying the Son doesn't in some way imply that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the son"?
While I am sure this is not a small matter to be swept under the rug, given much larger fish to fry in the fragmentation of Christianity I'm not sure this one can't be tabled for further discussion in some later century...
No comments:
Post a Comment