Nice. Old dishonest debating trick right out of liberal playbooks. change the term of debate. He said "error" -- clearly you cannot defend that so you try to change it to"heresy." I would take this as admission of error.
Nice little trick with that "taught" business too, from what I saw following Kolokotronis' lead.
Kolokotronis, is the "filioque"(?) heresy or just error, according to the (Greek?) Orthodox?
ME - *Post for us a single heresy taught by any Pope
Nice. Old dishonest debating trick right out of liberal playbooks. change the term of debate. He said "error" -- clearly you cannot defend that so you try to change it to"heresy." I would take this as admission of error
I didn't know you were brother Kolo's mouthpiece :)
That aside; when I read the word "error" used on an ecclesastical thread, I read "heresy". I don't read "error" as referring to that which describes what happened when a groundball hit sharply to short was booted by Derek Jeter
Now, I have had many profitable and pleasant exchanges with borther kolo. This is my first with you. Why don't you tell me what you mean by "error"
"Kolokotronis, is the "filioque"(?) heresy or just error, according to the (Greek?) Orthodox?"
Until about 5 years ago there is no question what any Orthodox person would call the filioque, its heresy, a heresy which had tragic consequences for The Church. Five years ago the Orthodox Catholic dialogue on the subject determined that the Creed without the filioque was the "normative" Creed for The Church and that the filioque should not be used in translations or for catechetical purposes. It was also determined, in light of the "revised" explanation of the filioque presented by the Latin theologians, that both particular churches should refrain from calling the presence or absence of the filioque heretical. At this point perhaps an Orthodox person would say, in light of the Latin explanation, that the filioque is an unnecessary addition, with no meaning, to the Creed.
Like BAC, I'm a bit confused as to what you might mean by error. When I read that in a theological sense, I read heresy. Now I suppose one could frame a situation where something might be "wrong" or "improper" thus error but not heresy. An example might be the Roman Catholic dogma of the bodily assumption of the Theotokos into heaven. In Orthodoxy, that is what is called theologumenon, a permitted , pious belief. One might argue that for the Pope to proclaim that pious belief to be binding dogma is error, but it clearly isn't heresy.