> I had heard something of this but did not know it was official. Too bad
about the time they did this they started 'doing priestesses'. GDVW+    
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
          For what it is worth... The (Anglican) Church of the Province
of the
> West Indies dropped the filioque some time ago.
>
> +Peter
>
> Lexorandi2@... wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> 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 "Historical Documents"  section of our Constitution and Canons basically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@...>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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