Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Filioque

6,381 bytes added, 23:52, September 8, 2012
no edit summary
Update: It has, indeed, been significantly reworked! &mdash;&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> 12:39, 4 Jul 2005 (EDT)
 
I'd like to do a bit of a rework on this article to make it more encyclopedic and formal in tone. But I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Unless anyone objects, I'll take a stab at some point soon. --[[User:Jeffholton|Jeff]] 16:57, 2 Apr 2008 (PDT)
But in at that time there was no "St. Peter's Basilica".
 
_________________________
As far as I know there was. The building made from indulgence money in 15 - 16th C was not first, but replaced one which had been tottering. Since St Peter was crucified on Collis Vaticanus, it would have been remarkable, had there not been built a Basilica after the peace of St Constantine.
 
By the way: remarkable too that Pope Leo III of Rome forbids something as far away from his own diocese as Aix-la-Chapelle, is it not?
/Hans
:As for St. Peter's Basilica, I agree with Hans. The current one was built after the previous one had been burned. The first Basilica under this name was built soon after the peace of St. Constantine. Even in this time, this Basilica had been known by its magnificence.
:"Pope Leo III said something from Aix-la-Chapelle (or Amiens, the place of Frankish court) sounds a bit strange, but it could happen. In 799 he refuged to the Frankish court over the Alps. But I have no idea what is the fact on this matter. --[[User:Cat68|Cat68]] 23:13, February 26, 2007 (PST)
 
--[[User:Cat68|Cat68]] 23:13, February 26, 2007 (PST)
==Misspelling?==
: 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)
 
Why was the Council of Lyons not an Ecumenical Council? Russians and probably Egyptians did not attend, but there were some countries not represented at the Council of Nicea too. Andronicus of Constantinople later repudiated the Council of Lyons, but was it at the time, 1274-1283, ecumenical? [[User:Rakovsky|Rakovsky]] 08:31, June 19, 2009 (UTC)
== Which filioque? ==
==Early Filioque==
Check out Sts Hilary of Poitiers and Athanasius the Great on Scripture Catholic site
 
:Why? What's "Scripture Catholic site" and do you have a link? Thanks, — [[User:FrJohn|<b>FrJohn</b>]] ([http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/User_talk:FrJohn&action=edit&section=new talk])
== Pro-Filioquist, Pro-Roman Hijacks ==
 
MaximustheConfessor has been adding conspicuously anti-Orthodox biased materials to this article.
 
I undid most of his work, but kept some of his neutral or "acceptable" (in my opinion) edits.
 
He seems to misunderstand that this is an ''Orthodox'' Wiki, not Roman Catholic.
 
The OrthodoxWiki article states: "Orthodoxwiki purposes to present the Orthodox Christian viewpoint throughout the site. Articles on OrthodoxWiki will be, so far as is reasonably possible, worded from a neutral point of view (NPOV). That is, disputes between Orthodox Christian groups will be characterized and described rather than entered into.)
 
For instance, he changed "Thomas Aquinas" to "St. Thomas Aquinas." This is a clearly Roman bias. Thomas of Aquino is a philosopher, an academic theologian, a scholastic -- but not an Orthodox Saint.
 
Furthermore, he baldly claims that Roman Catholics do not hold "a heterodox interpretation of the filioque." Such a claim is so close to false it is hardly controversial -- but let's be charitable; it is highly controversial at the very least.
 
He consistently rewrites "Eastern Roman Empire" as "Byzantine Empire", as if "Byzantine" were a kind of insult, or as if Constantine the Emperor had failed to include the East in the Roman Empire.
 
Again, Orthodox Wiki says, "[This site is] a place for Orthodox Christians to share their knowledge and perspectives." Roman Catholics or ecumenists who view the differences between East and West as non-fundamental are welcome to read and to edit, but they are not welcome to hijack the site to their own bias. Correct me if I am wrong.
 
I move that MaximustheConfessor's ambitious edits are misguided, and that they should cease.
 
Thanks for your time. -CircularReason
 
----
 
As Fr. Lev had pointed out, the Catholic understanding of the Filioque is neither heretical, nor heterodox.
 
"The problems on the order of terminology seem thus to be resolved and the intentions clarified, to the extent that each party, the Greeks and the Latins, during the sixth session (July 6, 1439) were able to sign this common definition: "In the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with the approval of this sacred and universal Council of Florence, we establish that this truth of faith must be believed and accepted by all Christians: and thus all must profess that the Holy Spirit is eternally of the Father and the Son, that he has his existence and his subsistent being from the Father and the Son together, and that he proceeds eternally from the one and from the other as from a single principle and from a single spiration" (DS 1300).
 
"There is an additional clarification to which St. Thomas had devoted an article of the Summa ('''"Utrum Spiritus Sanctus procedat a Patre per Filium,"''' I, q. 36, a. 3): "We declare," said the Council, "what the holy Doctors and Fathers stated” that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son” tends to make understandable and means that the Son too, like the Father, is the cause, as the Greeks say, and the principle, as the Latins say, of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit. And since all that the Father has he has given to the Son in his generation, with the exception of being Father, this very procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son the Son himself has eternally from the Father, from whom he has been eternally generated" (DS 1301)."
 
(The Spirit and the Filioque Debate[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19901107en.html])
 
 
The term "Byzantine" is not insulting, but is the accepted academic term, whereas "Eastern Empire" is a reference to an eastern portion of the Roman Empire under ONE emperor.
 
Although we might not call Muhammad a prophet, should we not be respectful enough to say that he is called such? Similarly, Thomas Aquinas is called a saint. Do you not know that many Orthodox revere St. Francis of Assisi? Why not Thomas Aquinas as well?
 
My edits are ambitious only inasmuch as they seek a recount of history free even from Orthodox bias.--[[User:Maximustheconfessor|Maximustheconfessor]] 10:11, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 
==Photian Schism==
The "Photian" Schism section of this article needs a comprehensive review and editing. It does not take into count the work of [[Francis Dvornik]], a Roman Catholic, who found that Patr. Ignatius had resigned prior to Patr. Photius' election. Thus, Photius' election was not illegal and the relations between Rome and Constantinople appear not to be as strained as the earlier stories present. As a non-scholar, what Dvornik's work may do to the Filioque position as presented must also be reviewed. As stated in the article the history appears to be that before Dvornik's epic work! [[User:Wsk|Wsk]] 13:52, September 8, 2012 (HST)
16,951
edits

Navigation menu