A. Edward Siecienski

While this is a competent and thorough overview of the history of the doctrinal controversy that is the filioque, it unfortunately adopts the 'neutral' stance of the modern academic historian. This is unfortunate because truth is not neutral but is rather an articulation of the 'biases' of God, as it were. For the Orthodox this means -- among other things -- that the Holy and God-bearing fathers of the Orthodox Church are authorities that we are called to submit to, not mere objects of historical study. Yet they (particularly Sts. Photius and Mark of Ephesus) appear here as mere men with opinions alongside other men with opinions, distorting the truth of the matter. Other Orthodox saints like Sts. Maximus & St. Gregory Palamas are treated much more favorably by comparison, but only because aspects of their work are more conducive to an optimistic ecumenical outlook (when taken in isolation from the rest of the Church's witness.)

This is a major failing, but it's one common to all works of this nature. If you appropriately account for the fact that the author is attempting to occupy the 'neutral' ground of academic historical theology, which eschews any 'denominational bias' that would 'taint' its value as history, then there is a lot to glean from the text in terms of its shedding light the contours of the debate, and the various ebbs and flows throughout history, between East and West.… (más)