Jump to: navigation, search


950 bytes added, 15:44, July 28, 2006
Which filioque?
: That synod did not define the ''filioque'' as heresy but rather forbid alteration to the Creed. In effect, this precludes the ''filioque'', but it does not define it specifically as heresy, which would instead have involved a standard formula such as "To any who teach that the Spirit proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, anathema." &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font color="blue"><b><i>Dcn. Andrew</i></b></font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Randompage|<font color="blue">random</font>]]</sup> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]]</sup> 10:24, July 28, 2006 (CDT)
== Which filioque? ==
There are at least two separate issues concerning the filioque. The first is its unlawful addition the the Symbol. On this I don't believe there is any good argument to be made for its inclusion. We might term this issue the "canonical" one.
The second issue is the "dogmatic" one. Is the teaaching of the filioque orthodox or heterodox? That depends upon which understanding of the fiolioque one has in mind. A distinction must be made between the heterodox filioque (the teaching that the Spirit is dependent upon the Son as well as the Father for his origin) and the orthodox filioque (the perfectly Orthodox idea that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through (''dia'') the Son. The latter was taught by St Maximos Confessor and is Orthodox. The former is definitely heterodox. I would shy away from terming it "heretical" in that no council has defined it as such. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 10:44, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

Navigation menu