> Hi list, > Good stuff: Lets take the lead and correct that which is amiss. Restore the Credo to what it was ab initio. GDVW+ > Well, I guess I should reveal my cards since I'm the one who dealt this > hand. > > As far as I'm concerned, forget the ecumenical issue of the Filioque > with the EOs. Maybe I'm wrong, but I doubt that we will ever live long > enough to see any significant developments between East and West. > Maybe we will, but we (the APA/REC) won't be major players. Then again > it might be nice to be ready if something does come about. > > Nevertheless, looking at this purely from the perspective of the REC's > Constitution and particularly its "Body of Doctrine", it's inconsistent > to assert that the REC affirms the first four ecumenical councils > without qualification, the next two as applications of the first four, > and the last one with certain qualifications (which is what the > "Historical Documents" section of our Constitution and Canons basically > states), and then turn around and confess the Filioque without SOME > statement to the effect that while we might acknowledge that such a > doctrine is *implicit* in the Creed, it was never ecumenically > received. > > In my estimation, the history of the Filioque doctrine in the West has > indeed often times verred off into the realm of heterodoxy. While > Augustine on a good day affirmed procession from the Father > *principaliter*, and the Council of Florence clarified the matter by > upholding the Monarchy of the Father as the origin of the Trinity, > other Western councils and some of the scholastics actually clouded the > issue by misunderstanding the phrase to teach a bona fide DOUBLE > procession or origin of the Spirit, which on a very bad day is > practically heresy, at least in its theological implications. > > That being said, it would be irresponsible for us (i.e., REC/APA) at > this point, not to mention probably dangerous, just to remove what we > and our forefathers have confessed as Catholics for over a millennium > (or 500 years since the Reformation anyway.) That would be a > precipitous move in my estimation, and in this I am in complete > sympathy with those who might vote for "A" (see my earlier post). So > what can be done? > > Let me suggest a simple answer: I think at the very least we must make > clear that the version of the Nicene Creed as received in the Common > Prayer tradition (i.e., with Filioque) is a *liturgical* symbol which > is only binding to our jurisdiction(s). Along with that must come an > acknowledgment, even clearer, that the interpretation of our liturgical > Creed is nonetheless subject to the ecumenical version of the Creed (AD > 381) and the universal consensus in this matter (i.e., the councils > that defined the Trinity, the fathers, and the more consistent and > irenic voices on both sides of the East/Wide divide). Whether this > means placing a statement in our (REC or a future joint REC/APA) > Constitution to that effect, or what, I don't know. > > What are your thoughts? > > Regards, > Dan+ > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to > <faithandlife-unsubscribe@...> ----------------------------------------- This email was sent using FREE Catholic Online Webmail. Please tell your family, friends and children about COL Webmail! http://webmail.catholic.org/ During the Lenten Season, please help support the mission of Catholic Online by purchasing goods and services from our sponsors at http://www.catholic.org/clife/lent