interwiki, renameuser, Administrators
13,552
edits
Changes
no edit summary
: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)
:: There are also many Protestants in the world who teach various heterodox things, as well as non-Christians. The question is whether it is a controversy within the Church. Generally speaking, with the longstanding state of schism that exists between Rome and the Orthodox Church, it may be said with some confidence that controversy over the ''filioque'' does not exist within the Orthodox Church.
:: In any event, the historical reality is that there has not been a conciliar anamethatization of the ''filioque''. Whether there ought to be or not is perhaps another matter, but up until the present time, it hasn't happened. —[[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> 11:19, July 29, 2006 (CDT)