Eastern Church teaching

[ERose]

I am sorry, but this is a rediculous statement ERose. We do not need a human interpreter of the Holy Spirit’s guidance. The Holy Spirit caused the apostles to be understood in all languages and He can’t even make the various Churches teach the true faith? He needs Rome to interpret what He is saying? That is nonsense to me.

If you read the preface of the CCC it was written for the WHOLE church. Not just for the Latins as you claim.

From your post I take it you must think that personal interpretation of Scripture is ok. Because that is where your reasoning goes to or are you saying that only Bishops and Priest have the ability to personally interpret Scripture without any support or overall direction from the Church at large.

I still hold that when it comes to Dogma that the Holy Spirit is NOT going to tell your Rite one thing and another Rite something else that contradicts each other.

Your Rite is a Catholic Rite. It’s members are Catholics just like those of the Latin Rite. We are all Catholic. We all serve the One God. We are all Baptised into the Body of Christ and one day we will all be residents of Heaven. I do not think that in Heaven there will be a place for Latins, a place for Greeks, a place for Chaldeans, etc.

In other words Jimmy, you and I are brother Catholics whether you like it or not.

 

[Peter_J]

I cannot and will not believe that the Holy Spirit will reveal one idea to one group of people and another idea, that may contradict the first idea, to another group of people.

Peter J;3712285:

So you’re saying that one revealed truth can’t contradict another reveal truth? Isn’t that just obvious?

Maybe I’m being a little dense tonight, but however I try I just can’t see the point you’re trying to make in this sentence.

If you follow Jimmy’s line of thought it basically means that the Holy Spirit tells one Church one thing and another something else.

I think your attack on Jimmy is completely unfair. When did he say that the Holy Spirit will reveal an idea to one group, and then reveal to another group an idea contradicting the first idea? Give me a break.

You are right it is ludicrous to think that this is the case. As St Paul said there is one faith, one hope, one baptism, one God and Father of All. There is only one truth and no more. Everything else is opinions.

What I find ludicrous is the way your misrepresenting what Jimmy said.

 

[yeshua]

Were do you find that I am judging an entire Church?

I said Maronites are Catholics. Based on Jimmy’s statements, it appears that not all Maronites are Catholics.

You are judging the Catholicity of a forum member entirely based on your own definition of what constitutes a Catholic. This is against forum rules and I am reporting you.

He declared in his profile that he is Maronite but some of his statements are not Catholic. One of the members of CAF is Yeshua–he said in one of his posts that the term “Maronite” is synonymous with “Catholic”.

No, I said contemporary Maronite identity evolved into assuming their Catholicity in its title, for that is how their self-identification grew for a variety of historical and cultural reasons. You will not take my comments out of context again, least of all to attack one my brothers.

How come that Jimmy is expressing statements that are not consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church? Is he an Orthodox posing as a Maronite?

Jimmy is expressing statements that are not consistent with your narrow view of what constitutes a Catholic, and it should not be an immediate charge to denounce him or his beliefs. Eastern and Oriental Catholics have a unique identity right now, so rather it should be a window for more charitable discussion and genuine intent to dialogue about the issues that our churches and their beliefs. If this forum is about “educating Latins” then I am sorry to report that Jimmy’s beliefs are certainly not few and far between.

If he is a Maronite who does not subscribe to the teachings of the Catholic Church then, therefore, now, I can say that not all Maronites are Catholics.

These sort of judgments are not left to you.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[Peter_J]

natsclem;3712609:

Were do you find that I am judging an entire Church?

I said Maronites are Catholics. Based on Jimmy’s statements, it appears that not all Maronites are Catholics.

You are judging the Catholicity of a forum member entirely based on your own definition of what constitutes a Catholic. This is against forum rules and I am reporting you.

I reported him also.

I have, just in the last 24 hours, disagreed with some statements that Jimmy made (along with some statements by natsclem and ERose). But to say that Jimmy’s statements show he isn’t Catholic is ridiculous and offensive.

Peace and blessings,
Peter.

 

[Catherine_Grant]

Note from Moderator:
If the thread does not charitably return to the topic immediately, it will be closed.

I am confused about the Eastern Cathern Church’s teachings concerning “mortal and venial sin”. When can an Eastern Catholic receive communion if mortal sin does not exist? …and does the Eastern Catholic church have its own catachism?
Thank you. Medi

P.S. The moderators very much appreciate reports from participants because they make our job easier and contribute to a pleasant and charitable atmosphere in the Catholic Answers Forums. However, there is no need to submit the same report twice or to join with others to express outrage over an offensive post. One report is sufficient. Multiple reports on the same offense only add to moderator work loads.

 

[jimmy]

If you read the preface of the CCC it was written for the WHOLE church. Not just for the Latins as you claim.

From your post I take it you must think that personal interpretation of Scripture is ok. Because that is where your reasoning goes to or are you saying that only Bishops and Priest have the ability to personally interpret Scripture without any support or overall direction from the Church at large.

I still hold that when it comes to Dogma that the Holy Spirit is NOT going to tell your Rite one thing and another Rite something else that contradicts each other.

Your Rite is a Catholic Rite. It’s members are Catholics just like those of the Latin Rite. We are all Catholic. We all serve the One God. We are all Baptised into the Body of Christ and one day we will all be residents of Heaven. I do not think that in Heaven there will be a place for Latins, a place for Greeks, a place for Chaldeans, etc.

In other words Jimmy, you and I are brother Catholics whether you like it or not.

It is not my rite, it is my Church. Even the Latin code calls it a sui juris Church, not simply a rite.

My post has nothing to do with personal interpretation of scripture. I beleive that the Church is essentially local. The Church in its entirety is found within the local Church with the bishop as the presider over the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the foundation and creator of the Church. The Church does not consist of just the bishop and the priests but of all the faithful. The Spirit does not simply guide Rome and then Rome commands all other Churches. The bishops come together as heads of the local Church. The Maronite bishops represent their Church and the way the Church has experienced the guidance of the Spirit. So it has nothing to do with any individual interpretation of scripture, whether it is by bishops or laymen.

In the past several centuries latin theology has basically been assumed by the Maronites and other Eastern Churches and we have basically lost our identity. We are now trying to recover our identity. Each of our Churches has an identity and its identity is its Tradition which has been developed through communion(Eucharist) in the body of Christ and the guidance of the Spirit.

I don’t deny or have problems that we are brothers. I have problems with the ecclesiology of the west being forced on the Maronites and the other Eastern Churches.

I wish I had more time to explain this because it could definitely be cleaned up. My views though are not mine only though. They are a general eastern approach to ecclesiology.

You are Maronite…I was told that Maronites are never separated from Rome and I believed…until this time.

I am glad to see that you now realize that we were not always subjects of Rome and that we have our own tradition which was once monothelite. Now that you see that we have our own tradition that was not established by Rome we can begin to discuss the distinct nature of the Maronite Church.

 

[jimmy]

If you follow Jimmy’s line of thought it basically means that the Holy Spirit tells one Church one thing and another something else. You are right it is ludicrous to think that this is the case. As St Paul said there is one faith, one hope, one baptism, one God and Father of All. There is only one truth and no more. Everything else is opinions.

I never said this. If there is any contradiction it has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. But the fact is that the Spirit guides the Church in every local Church. Not simply through Rome and then Rome guides the rest of the Churches.

 

[Formosus]

If you read the preface of the CCC it was written for the WHOLE church. Not just for the Latins as you claim.

**But, as I stated the CCC is really ment to be a Reference book for local catechisms to be produced. The fact is the CCC, while referencing the east at times, is primarily a latin document and teaches the Dogmas of the faith from a latin theological perspective. **
From your post I take it you must think that personal interpretation of Scripture is ok. Because that is where your reasoning goes to or are you saying that only Bishops and Priest have the ability to personally interpret Scripture without any support or overall direction from the Church at large.

I still hold that when it comes to Dogma that the Holy Spirit is NOT going to tell your Rite one thing and another Rite something else that contradicts each other.Stop using the word rite like that, I beleive others have corrected you before you made this post. In the future use the term church, rite is somewhat offensive and is not the what the Universal Church uses to describe the various sui irus churches that make up the entire Catholic Communion

Your Rite is a Catholic Rite. It’s members are Catholics just like those of the Latin Rite. We are all Catholic. We all serve the One God. We are all Baptised into the Body of Christ and one day we will all be residents of Heaven. I do not think that in Heaven there will be a place for Latins, a place for Greeks, a place for Chaldeans, etc. **No, but there is a place for Greek theology, latin theology, west syriac theology , east syriac theology, armenian, coptic, etc. The Eastern churches each teach the same faith as the Latin Church. I disagree with some of what Jimmy says about the Pope’s role, but the essence of what he is saying is correct. Each historical Apostolic tradition is equally valid and theologically sound. When a latin says the filioque, the word linguistic and theological language behind how it works does not readily translate directly into the greek theological and linguistic language. Likewise the greek view of energies/essence of God has no real latin equivalent theologically. The various traditions do not contradict eachother when one realizes this fact. **

In other words Jimmy, you and I are brother Catholics whether you like it or not.

 

[ERose]

It is not my rite, it is my Church. Even the Latin code calls it a sui juris Church, not simply a rite.

The reason why I use the term Rite with a capital R is to be honest a little lazy on my part. When I have used Rite (capital R), I am referring to the particular church instead of the universal church. I know that the Maronite “Particular” Church is your Church. What I am try to impress is that the Catholic Church as a whole is your Church as well.

In the past several centuries latin theology has basically been assumed by the Maronites and other Eastern Churches and we have basically lost our identity. We are now trying to recover our identity. Each of our Churches has an identity and its identity is its Tradition which has been developed through communion(Eucharist) in the body of Christ and the guidance of the Spirit.

**Maybe this is the case. To be hones I don’t know for I do not have the same experiences as you do. But it does look like there is a greater effort on the Universal Church to bring back and safe guard these exclusive traditions of each Rite (a.k.a. Particular Church) which I am all for and so is the Popes.

A perfect example of this is the recommendation by the Papacy to the Chaldean Rite (a.k.a. Particular Church) to remove the “filioque clause” from their recitation of the Creed. Not because the Papacy is saying the filioque clause is untrue but because of the traditional safeguarding of the Chaldean Rite.**

 

[Peter_J]

each Rite (a.k.a. Particular Church)

Dear ERose,

I’m really baffled as to why you are being so disrespectful. More than one person has pointed out to you already that you should not use the term “Rite” to mean “Particular Church”.

Let me illustrate is this way: The Melkite Catholic Church (there is no “Melkite Rite”) is an example of a particular church which uses the Byzantine Rite. If, however, they decided to switch and instead use the Maronite Rite, they would not become part of the Maronite Church, but would still continue to be the Melkite Church sui iuris.

Now please, let’s be adults here so nobody has to call in the moderator on you.

God bless,
Peter.

 

[ERose]

I never said this. If there is any contradiction it has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. But the fact is that the Spirit guides the Church in every local Church. Not simply through Rome and then Rome guides the rest of the Churches.

Jimmy, I do apologize for taking it too far with your comments. Some of this comes from debates from other threads and as such should not be brought over onto this one.

I agree with you that the Holy Spirit guides the Universal Church, the Particular Churches, the Local Churches, and each individual Catholic who opens his/her to their God. And you are correct when saying if there is any contradiction it is not due to the Holy Spirit but through misinterpretations, human pride, etc.

Thus the Beliefs of the Universal Church, the Particular Churches, the Local Churches, and each individual Catholic cannot contradict each other if Holy Spirit is involved. So the question is how do we know what is of God and what is not? My belief when it comes to what I believe must always be compared back to the teachings of the Church. If they contradict the Church then I am wrong. Not the Church.

Now if a local Church begins teaching something that is contradictive to the Universal Churches teachings then is that local Church being guided by the Holy Spirit? The answer in my opinion is no.

Now I am not saying that the Maronites teach false doctrine so please do not accuse me of that. I am using the above as an example of my point not to point out an individual Church.

But the question is how does each individual Diocese know that they are teaching the truth? By comparing what they are teaching to the teachings of the Universal Church.

Thus the CCC was written with that in mind. Not by just the Roman Catholic Church but by all the Bishops of the Catholic Church as stated in the preface by Pope John Paul II.

The CCC is to be used not as a replacement of the Catechisms that are being used that have been approved. But as a measuring stick for all future Catechisms written in the Catholic Church.

 

[ERose]

Dear ERose,

I’m really baffled as to why you are being so disrespectful. More than one person has pointed out to you already that you should not use the term “Rite” to mean “Particular Church”.

Let me illustrate is this way: The Melkite Catholic Church (there is no “Melkite Rite”) is an example of a particular church which uses the Byzantine Rite. If, however, they decided to switch and instead use the Maronite Rite, they would not become part of the Maronite Church, but would still continue to be the Melkite Church sui iuris.

Now please, let’s be adults here so nobody has to call in the moderator on you.

God bless,
Peter.

Peter,

I do apologize and stand corrected. I did not understand that the term can be used as an insult and it was not intended as such. I used the term only as a distinction between the Universal Church and each Particular Church.

I will not use it again.

Thank you for the correction.

 

[ERose]

But, as I stated the CCC is really ment to be a Reference book for local catechisms to be produced. The fact is the CCC, while referencing the east at times, is primarily a latin document and teaches the Dogmas of the faith from a latin theological perspective.

You are correct that it is to be a reference book for local Catechisms, which means that all future catechisms must use the CCC as a measuring stick to insure proper teaching. Is it a latin document written by latin theologians? I am sure most of it. But from what I understand is that for the most part had to receive the blessing of the Eastern Churches’ Hiearchy as well.

No, but there is a place for Greek theology, latin theology, west syriac theology , east syriac theology, armenian, coptic, etc. The Eastern churches each teach the same faith as the Latin Church. I disagree with some of what Jimmy says about the Pope’s role, but the essence of what he is saying is correct. Each historical Apostolic tradition is equally valid and theologically sound. When a latin says the filioque, the word linguistic and theological language behind how it works does not readily translate directly into the greek theological and linguistic language. Likewise the greek view of energies/essence of God has no real latin equivalent theologically. The various traditions do not contradict eachother when one realizes this fact.

To this I agree as well. All that I am saying is that even though we have many perpectives of the Dogma given to us by Chirst, they still can never contradict each other.

 

[jimmy]

**The reason why I use the term Rite with a capital R is to be honest a little lazy on my part. When I have used Rite (capital R), I am referring to the particular church instead of the universal church. I know that the Maronite “Particular” Church is your Church. What I am try to impress is that the Catholic Church as a whole is your Church as well.
**

Yes, I agree and I am in communion with you (a Latin Catholic?) and every other person in communion with Rome. But what I am trying to emphasize is that each particular Church contains the whole of Catholicity and the Catholic Church. Each Tradition, each Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Each of these Churches develops within a specific context or culture. As a result they will each have their own peculiarities. For example, in the sixth and seventh centuries the Church of the East began to evangelize and spread into China. These groups developed within the context of Chinese culture and there are ancient Chinese Christian texts that integrate some of Buddhist terminology and thinking. Sadly these Chinese Christians died out or were destroyed many centuries ago.

I tend to see the universal Church as the gathering of the particular Churches. I don’t see it as some overarching entity that determines all the workings within each particular Church. That said, the greatest expression of the universal Church is the ecumenical council. It is each Church coming together to witness to the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church. Rome has some kind of primacy or pre-eminence in the council but the nature of this primacy I don’t know. As Pope John Paul II mentioned this still needs to be worked out.
**

**
**Maybe this is the case. To be hones I don’t know for I do not have the same experiences as you do. But it does look like there is a greater effort on the Universal Church to bring back and safe guard these exclusive traditions of each Rite (a.k.a. Particular Church) which I am all for and so is the Popes.

A perfect example of this is the recommendation by the Papacy to the Chaldean Rite (a.k.a. Particular Church) to remove the “filioque clause” from their recitation of the Creed. Not because the Papacy is saying the filioque clause is untrue but because of the traditional safeguarding of the Chaldean Rite.** *
Yes, you are right. Over the last 50 years or so there has been a movement to return to our tradition. For example, in the 70’s the Maronites determined to go back to their tradition of having Baptism and Confirmation/Chrismastion at the same time. They have not yet - atleast in the US - gone back to the tradition of having the Eucharist given at the same time as these other sacraments but hopefully they will soon. This return to tradition has been encouraged by Rome and many western bishops.

 

[jimmy]

Jimmy, I do apologize for taking it too far with your comments. Some of this comes from debates from other threads and as such should not be brought over onto this one.

I agree with you that the Holy Spirit guides the Universal Church, the Particular Churches, the Local Churches, and each individual Catholic who opens his/her to their God. And you are correct when saying if there is any contradiction it is not due to the Holy Spirit but through misinterpretations, human pride, etc.

Thus the Beliefs of the Universal Church, the Particular Churches, the Local Churches, and each individual Catholic cannot contradict each other if Holy Spirit is involved. So the question is how do we know what is of God and what is not? My belief when it comes to what I believe must always be compared back to the teachings of the Church. If they contradict the Church then I am wrong. Not the Church.

Before I can answer this, what do you refer to when you say the Church? Do you refer to Rome?

Now if a local Church begins teaching something that is contradictive to the Universal Churches teachings then is that local Church being guided by the Holy Spirit? The answer in my opinion is no.

If one particular Church begins to contradict another then a council is necessary to determine what the truth is. The various Churches must come together to determine whether the particular Church in question is contradicting the true faith.

Now I am not saying that the Maronites teach false doctrine so please do not accuse me of that. I am using the above as an example of my point not to point out an individual Church.

But the question is how does each individual Diocese know that they are teaching the truth? By comparing what they are teaching to the teachings of the Universal Church.

I am not sure what you are refering to when you mention the Universal Church. They are to hold to the Tradition which has been handed on to them. If they contradict that Tradition then they are false. If they contradict the other Churches then it is false. As St. Vincent of Lerins said we believe what has been believed at all times and in all places…

Thus the CCC was written with that in mind. Not by just the Roman Catholic Church but by all the Bishops of the Catholic Church as stated in the preface by Pope John Paul II.

The CCC is to be used not as a replacement of the Catechisms that are being used that have been approved. But as a measuring stick for all future Catechisms written in the Catholic Church.

I think that the main purpose of writing a new Catechism was to express the faith according to the thought of the VII council in a way that is more ecumenical or understandable to non-Catholics.

 

[ERose]

Jimmy,

I think that the greatest thing about our Catholic (a.k.a. Universal) Church is that it is made of so many traditions, that at the end of the day are united in a common faith.

Pretty much when it comes to the “filioque” controversy there are very good arguments and points on both sides to the point one cannot disprove the other. For at this time it seem that there are three ways to look at the relationships within the Godhead that are acceptable to the Catholic Church:

1. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
2. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
3. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Granted we can debate these as we should for from debate we learn more about our God.

We all know that the original split between Churches was due primarily to political reasons and not spiritual. And this wound needs to be healed in humility and love.

One day all Christians will be reunited under on banner. That I have no doubt. And our unity will be greater by our diversity of tradition.

 

[Formosus]

But, as I stated the CCC is really ment to be a Reference book for local catechisms to be produced. The fact is the CCC, while referencing the east at times, is primarily a latin document and teaches the Dogmas of the faith from a latin theological perspective.

You are correct that it is to be a reference book for local Catechisms, which means that all future catechisms must use the CCC as a measuring stick to insure proper teaching. Is it a latin document written by latin theologians? I am sure most of it. But from what I understand is that for the most part had to receive the blessing of the Eastern Churches’ Hiearchy as well.

No, but there is a place for Greek theology, latin theology, west syriac theology , east syriac theology, armenian, coptic, etc. The Eastern churches each teach the same faith as the Latin Church. I disagree with some of what Jimmy says about the Pope’s role, but the essence of what he is saying is correct. Each historical Apostolic tradition is equally valid and theologically sound. When a latin says the filioque, the word linguistic and theological language behind how it works does not readily translate directly into the greek theological and linguistic language. Likewise the greek view of energies/essence of God has no real latin equivalent theologically. The various traditions do not contradict eachother when one realizes this fact.

To this I agree as well. All that I am saying is that even though we have many perpectives of the Dogma given to us by Chirst, they still can never contradict each other.

I think you put a little too much importance on the CCC, but as I said it is mainly a latin document. At times it will make passing mention of generalized Eastern views on a topic or two, but it is mostly a latin document. So yes its a measuring stick for proper teaching, but your going to have a hard time using it in an eastern context. Since you used the measuring word, its like trying to measure inches with a ruler that only has centimeters.

 

[ERose]

Before I can answer this, what do you refer to when you say the Church? Do you refer to Rome?

I am referring to the whole Catholic Church.

If one particular Church begins to contradict another then a council is necessary to determine what the truth is. The various Churches must come together to determine whether the particular Church in question is contradicting the true faith.

I agree with this mostly. The question is if a local church begins to teach something that is already understood to be non-Catholic such as let us say Arianism, is a council necessary?

I am not sure what you are refering to when you mention the Universal Church. They are to hold to the Tradition which has been handed on to them. If they contradict that Tradition then they are false. If they contradict the other Churches then it is false. As St. Vincent of Lerins said we believe what has been believed at all times and in all places…

I agree.

I think that the main purpose of writing a new Catechism was to express the faith according to the thought of the VII council in a way that is more ecumenical or understandable to non-Catholics.

Again I agree for the most part, but the primary purpose of the Catechism is for Catholics.

By the way Jimmy, can you give me some recommendation for books or reference material that explains the Eastern perspective of the Trinity especially when it refers to the filioque clause controversy? I would appreciate it.

God bless.

 

[jimmy]

By the way Jimmy, can you give me some recommendation for books or reference material that explains the Eastern perspective of the Trinity especially when it refers to the filioque clause controversy? I would appreciate it.

God bless.

I don’t know of any that specifically deal with the filioque. I think Metr. Zizioulas’ books - Being and Communion and Communion and Otherness - do a very good job of explaining the Trinity. They are basically an explanation of the Trinity as percieved by the Greek fathers up to St. Maximus the Confessor.

I am referring to the whole Catholic Church.

Thus the Beliefs of the Universal Church, the Particular Churches, the Local Churches, and each individual Catholic cannot contradict each other if Holy Spirit is involved. So the question is how do we know what is of God and what is not? My belief when it comes to what I believe must always be compared back to the teachings of the Church. If they contradict the Church then I am wrong. Not the Church.

As I basically said above, the Tradition of the Church is the guide. Each Church explains that Tradition in a different way which ultimately may mean different formulas of doctrines as is shown with the Oriental Orthodox. The Orientals condemned what they percieved to be nestorianism while the Chalcedonians condemned what they percieved to be monophysitism. Constant discussion in councils between the various Churches is good though in order to avoid schisms due to misconceptions.

I agree with this mostly. The question is if a local church begins to teach something that is already understood to be non-Catholic such as let us say Arianism, is a council necessary?

I can’t say whether a council is necessary or not. There are many times in history where heresies have been rejected without a council but when problems occur that is generally the way that they are to be dealt with. There are times in history when some bishop or Church was in error and the other Churches simply declared that they were not in union with that Church. Eventually communion was re-established.

But the idea of a universal Catechism to refer to as the guide to what is true is not consistent to guide the Church regarding the truth. Each culture explains the faith in a different way and it would not be possible to have a universal catechism to teach what the Church teaches. Take for example the Oriental Orthodox. They were condemned by the Greeks and Latins at the 5th ecumenical council because they professed one divine human nature in Christ. But in modern times most theologians have come to the conclusion that they did not profess what they were accused of professing. They were falsely accused of professing that there was one nature of Christ that was divine which basically swallowed up His humanity This is called monophysitism. Pope Paul VI of Rome and Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria signed a Christological agreement affirming that what the Orientals believe is not heretical. Consequently a Catechism can not deal with the nature of Christ if it is a universal document simply because the dictrine of one nature by the Orientals and the doctrine of two natures by the Latins/Greeks are both considered to be orthodox.

What is more consistent is a Catechism for the Latin Church that explains the faith as has developed according to Latin thinking and other local Catechisms which will explain the faith according to the ways of thinking of those people.

 

[Allyson]

By the way Jimmy, can you give me some recommendation for books or reference material that explains the Eastern perspective of the Trinity especially when it refers to the filioque clause controversy? I would appreciate it.

God bless.

I am not Jimmy, and he has responded. However, I though that would thrown in a suggestion, incase you like historical studies. The works of Francis Dvornik on Photius might be a good read. They deal with one historical case. There is his book The Photian Schism, which is long, but I also came across an article of his from the early 40’s before the book came out, which is a good summary of the main point of his arguement. This all involves the filioque clause. The article was in a politcal science peer review journal. The series title escapes me at the moment (“political” “theory”, and maybe “practice” are present in the journal title.). I read that first, and then began the book, but I had to move away from school and return it to the library. The article is somewhere.

God Bless,
Rosemary