Jump to: navigation, search


607 bytes added, 01:22, July 29, 2006
Which filioque?
:::Okay. That was very enlightening, I have to admit. And thank You very much for Your prompt response, Father. But I still can't help myself at asking yet another ''Silly question #2a'': how is something "against, or contrary to, the Orthodox faith", yet "''not'' condemned" by the very same Orthodoxy that it contradicts? And yet another ''Silly question #2b'': how does Orthodoxy not contradict something that contradicts Orthodoxy? [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 13:50, July 28, 2006 (CDT)
I think the distinction is rather straightforward. A heresy is a teaching that the Orthodox Church has formally condemned as theological error. Presumably there are many, many heterodox claims that have been made that the Church has never formally condemned. Part of what I was saying before is that the notion of "filioque" is patient of an Orthodox interpretation, as when St Maximos Confessor speaks of the Spirit proceeding "through" the Son. One need not take it in the heterodox sense of taking the Son to be a second, eteranl cause of the Spirit. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 20:22, July 28, 2006 (CDT)

Navigation menu