Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: gbcdoj
The filioque was never required in the Eastern Churches, but only agreement to its truth.

That's rather odd as I've met some Byzantine Rite Catholics who deny it is true at all.

18 posted on 10/17/2005 5:26:01 PM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: FormerLib
That's rather odd as I've met some Byzantine Rite Catholics who deny it is true at all.

That doesn't mean that profession of it isn't required of them. There are many Latin Rite Catholics who support the ordination of women as priests - does this mean that rejection of the possibility of priestesses isn't required of them under our laws?

21 posted on 10/17/2005 6:52:41 PM PDT by gbcdoj (Let us ask the Lord with tears, that according to his will so he would shew his mercy to us Jud 8:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: FormerLib

The ab utroque procession of the Holy Spirit confuses the origin of that person of the Holy Trinity. Saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle, essentially says the Father and the Son are the same person.

Greek Catholics per the Union decrees are only required to believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. We only can accept the filioque if it is understood to mean that.

In any case the Latin Councils only became ecumenical as a Counter-Reformation argument between the Latins and the Protestants. If Lyons II was ecumenical, then why did Florence claim to be the 8th ecumenical council?


24 posted on 10/17/2005 8:29:24 PM PDT by JohnRoss (We need a real conservative in 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson