Search results

my guess is because they wanted to comment in Hebrew.

sort of. your first point is correct as in the language does develop. however, the second is not. Constantinople III didn’t have a new concept that wasn’t articulated before. the two wills and energies can be found in Fathers much earlier than the council. the Council was a more formal...

no, Nestorius was a heretic the moment he started espousing heresy. his teaching was the innovation. Ephesus was called because of his refusal to repent.

the articulation is what is developed to be a barrier against heresy. that’s been the MO since Acts. development does happen, but it’s never something dogmatically new.

Lord have mercy!

thanks! except that St Cyril’s was to defend something (Mary’s proper title of Theotokos) correctly. Nestorius defended the distinction between Natures to an extreme the Church never went down. if you read the dialogues between both camps, they were absolutely aware of each other. the...

just curious, but where does he teach that? because I you can say that there is a development in a sense in terms of the Church’s response to heresy (ie homoousious at Nicaea), but not development as in something that was wrong in the 400s AD is now okay, or something theologically completely...

it’s pretty odd to say that the theology of the Spirit can change, but the articulation cannot. plus, it wouldn’t have taken over a century for Rome to officially change her view. plus, no other council is open to that level of ambiguity of who believed exactly what about it in its aftermath.

agreed

yep

there is no development to dogma, only I the articulation of that dogma.

either way, the Creed with the filioque is in error. I’ll give you that, and I sit corrected. that does not change, however, that Rome agreed with our Constantinople IV which condemned the filioque as heresy.

yes, we do. she died. we have a whole fast to prepare for it.

bingo. the Liturgy has always been a dialogue. not between the laity and the clergy, but all the faithful and God.

both. what we don’t have is something dogmatically new (like Papal Infallibility).

and error by their own standards, just look at the contradictions in Rome’s view of the filioque.

we agree that He is everywhere, which means He is clearly in the midst of His people even when they face the same direction.

that’s not why we face the same direction.

dogma doesn’t develop, that contradicts the words of Christ Who promised the Spirit would lead the Apostles into all truth. but the articulation of that dogma does develop.

I don’t think he would have made the silver shields and erected them if it was just a theological opinion.