From nauplion@charm.net Sun Oct 8 14:55:38 2000 Received: from mxu1.u.washington.edu (mxu1.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.8]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id OAA22554 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:55:37 -0700 Received: from fellspt.charm.net (root@fellspt.charm.net [199.0.70.29]) by mxu1.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id OAA03501 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 14:55:37 -0700 Received: from charm.net (coretel-116-172.charm.net [209.143.116.172]) by fellspt.charm.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA02859 for ; Sun, 8 Oct 2000 17:55:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <39E0EC95.CF6EF424@charm.net> Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 17:52:24 -0400 From: Diana Wright X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,el,tr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: classics@u.washington.edu Subject: Re: "Filioque" R.I.P.? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Lupher wrote: > Does the excision of the "Filioque" in this new document constitute > what is now official Catholic policy? Has there been any more > explicit statement from the Vatican on the dumping of the "Filioque"? > And will this have any effect on the Catholic doctrine of the > "Double Procession of the Holy Spirit"? The doctrine antedates > the "Filioque" (it was expressed by Augustine, for example), so > presumably it can live without it. That would mean a continuing > theological disagreement between East and West, but at a greatly > reduced temperature without the offensive clause in the Creed. I understand that whenever the new Episcopal prayer book is published, it will show the Filioque has been quietly dropped. I have missed anything from the Vatican about this but I abide in hope. My primary source on Vatican/orthodox matters is in intensive care just now, so I have to look elsewhere. DW .