Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: gbcdoj

"Since I was talking about the creed, and the theologians you cite were talking about Lyons II, I don't see how it's relevant. Lyons II was talking about beliefs, not the creed. The creed is an expression of some of our beliefs, but not of all of them."

Oh, please! The entire theological discussion was about the Creed. The condemnation your theologians refered to in 2003 are of those Christians who do not accept the innovative position of the Latin Church on the procession of the Holy Spirit as expressed in the the filioque addition to the 381 Creed. What they were doing becomes even more clear when they state that the 381 Creed without the filioque is normative and should be the one used in catechesis.

As for +BXIV, his encyclical clearly states that a number of times Rome required that Eastern Christians recite the filioque, apparently at the Pope's whim. It is therefore incorrect for you to assert that the Uniates were never required to recite the filioque. Apparently they can be so required whenever the master in Rome feels like telling them to.

"We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love."

Is this some new form of the Creed or another attempt to save face and preserve some modicum of the Frankish formulation?


35 posted on 10/18/2005 3:36:22 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: Kolokotronis
As for +BXIV, his encyclical clearly states that

His encyclical clearly states that the Greeks were permitted by Lyons II to recite the Creed without the addition. All this (including times when some of the Eastern Christians were so required) is covered in my post #17 which you apparently didn't read(?). I admit that my original formulation on this point was incorrect because I was thinking only of Lyons II and Florence - sorry on that point.

Is this some new form of the Creed

Solemn Profession of Paul VI.

PS: Toledo was a "Frankish" council? Perhaps Seleucia 410 was as well - those evil Franks were everywhere! In any case, the Catholic Church has no need to save face - at least we haven't screwed up the Patristic doctrine of the Holy Spirit, as explicitly approved by the Council of Chalcedon!

36 posted on 10/18/2005 7:20:04 AM 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 35 | 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