Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: kosta50
But, the question is: did any of the Eastern Fathers continue to profess or speculate about the filioque after the Council of Chalcedon?

Yes. For instance, St. Hormisdas' formula of reunion had the filioque. John of Montenero noted at Florence:

After Augustine came Pope Hormisdas, who reigned in the days of the Emperor Justin, when John, Patriarch of Constantinople, was trying to bring peace again to the Church after the aberrations of his predecessor Acacius. Both Emperor and Patriarch accepted the profession of faith of Hormisdas to make it the norm of orthodoxy. Yet that profession contained the following:

'Great and incomprehensible is the mystery of the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, an undivided Trinity, and yet it is known because it is characteristic of the Father to generate the Son, characteristic of the Son of God to be born of the Father equal to the Father, characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity' (P.L. 63, 514B).


158 posted on 07/25/2005 3:22:45 PM PDT by gbcdoj (Without His assisting grace, the law is “the letter which killeth;” - Augustine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]


To: gbcdoj

"After Augustine came Pope Hormisdas, who reigned in the days of the Emperor Justin, when John, Patriarch of Constantinople, was trying to bring peace again to the Church after the aberrations of his predecessor Acacius. Both Emperor and Patriarch accepted the profession of faith of Hormisdas to make it the norm of orthodoxy. Yet that profession contained the following:

'Great and incomprehensible is the mystery of the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, an undivided Trinity, and yet it is known because it is characteristic of the Father to generate the Son, characteristic of the Son of God to be born of the Father equal to the Father, characteristic of the Spirit to proceed from Father and Son in one substance of deity' (P.L. 63, 514B)"

I may be mistaken but I believe St. Mark of Ephesus refused to accept this. In other words, as with the Didache, it is of questionable provenance. Being of questionable provenance, it is unworthy of consideration other than as a curiosity of some sort. Sort of like an unusual dead rat.


159 posted on 07/25/2005 4:01:45 PM PDT by Graves (Remember Esphigmenou - Orthodoxy or Death!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | 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