Jump to: navigation, search


773 bytes added, 16:02, July 29, 2006
Which filioque?
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)
:"''Conciliar condemnations are not issued simply because a heterodox teaching arises. There needs to be a sort of '''"critical mass" of controversy''' in order for a synod to meet and issue an anathema''" ... So, in other words, all the (over) 1,000,000,000 Catholics in the world (all of which are professing the ''heterodox'' Filioque) do ''not'' contitute constitute a <<"critical mass" of controversy>>.
:"''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, eternal cause of the Spirit''" -- no, one doesn't need to, ... but, unfortunately, <<one>> does ... <<one>> being the Catholic Church, consisting out of over a '''b'''ilion believers.
:(Isn't it a little bit curious that this has been told to them by St. Mark of Ephesus some over 500 years ago, ... yet still they insisted, and ''insisted'', and '''insisted''' that this DOES mean the ETERNAL procession ... and they very much '''still''' do, now, after half a millenium, ... and don't, in their '''wildest''' dreams, think of making our <<through>> to corrupt their <<and>> -- but, instead, they want it to work the other way around, in spite of a millenium of dialogue??) [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 09:36, July 29, 2006 (CDT)
Two points. First, it simply isn't true that all Roman Catholics believe in the heterodox reading of the filioque. In addition to ones I've spoken who reject such a reading, one need only read the Vatican declaration on the filiqoue to see that there are at least some Roman Catholics (at the official level, no less) that reject the idea that the Son is an eternal cause of the Spirit. While the document isn't as clear as it could be (see the commentary by Metropolitan John [Zizioulas] of Pergamon that is readily available on the web), it ''is'' clear that the spirit of the document isn't heretical or heterodox. It represents an attempt to come to terms with what similarities and differences there are between the language of the Symbol of Constantinople and pre-Schism Western theology. Second, the language of the Spirit's procession from the Father through the Son isn't unique to St Maximos Confessor -- we find it in St Basil, the first great theologian of the Holy Spirit, and in St John Damascene, who sought to summarize the teaching of the Church. In other, one finds this Orthodox reading of filioque in the heart of our tradition. A final, personal note: I vigorously reject the heterodox filioque, and I vigorously believe that the word must be removed from the Western translations of the Symbol if there is to be reconciliation between East and West. Further dialogue is needed to bring the theology of the Spirt to greater clarity in the teaching of our Churches. But for our part, we must resist the temptation to simply dismiss our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters as "heretics."--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 10:25, July 29, 2006 (CDT)
:I've read the thing You were talking about, Father (long time ago), and ... let's just say that I wasn't "impressed" by it. It was simply a re-affirmation of the same old thing (a SICK interpretation of the "through" -- the same for over 1,000 years, "nothing new under the Sun", as the wise man said; TWISTED missinterpretations of Bible-passages having '''nothing''' to do with the subject under discussion -- "because 'one' got high"; and, at the end, the "cherry on the cake" : "offcourse, we should not drop out any ''eternal'' relationship between the Son and the Holy Ghost" -- and, somehow, I'm under the impression that simple consubstantiality between the 3 Persons wasn't quite what they meant by it ...) [[User:Luci83ro|Luci83ro]] 11:02, July 29, 2006 (CDT)

Navigation menu