Newsgroups: sci.lang,soc.culture.greek
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!xanth.cs.odu.edu!maui.cc.odu.edu!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch!kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU!gd8f
From: gd8f@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory  Dandulakis)
Subject: Re: XX cty glagolitic
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: kelvin.seas.virginia.edu
Message-ID: <D7q9Fu.7nr@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 04:21:30 GMT
Lines: 58

In article <3no8ms$r3u@ru7.inf.ethz.ch>,
Philip Santas <santas@inf.ethz.ch> wrote:
>In article <D7o23y.3CL@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>,
>Gregory  Dandulakis <gd8f@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>>
>>From the previous book from Oxford, page 146, I quote quickly:
>>"In the controversy between Orthodoxy and Rome, from the time of
>>Photius in the ninth century onwards, there were two fundamental
>>issues.  East and West differed, first, concerning the procession
>>of the Holy Spirit... But the Greeks recited the Nicene-Constanti-
>>nopolitan creed in its original form... The Latins, on the other
>>hand, had inserted the "Filioque" into the creed... The addition
>>seems to have originated in Spain during the sixth century, but
>>was not adopted at Rome itself until the early eleventh century..."
>
>This must be from "The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity"
>Chapter: "Eastern Christendom", by Kallistos Ware (Greek Orthodox Bishop
>of Diokleia [Britain], Lecturer and Fellow at Oxford [he is a convert])
>which you sent some weeks ago and which has been criticized.
>
>The "Spain during the sixth century" you say, was St. Augustine
>(beginning of the 5th century), according to the western bishops of
>the synod at Frejus (796) who inserted the Filioque clause.
>St. Augustine was considered one of the fathers of the Church.
>In any case, the reason they stressed the equality of Father and Son
>was to fight Arianism which was still a problem for the Catholic Orthodox
>Church, and not vice versa as you believe.
>
>You start with assumptions which do not correspond to facts, and then 
>you expect others to agree with your wrong conclusions...


The usual Santas "logic".

Convoluted, marginal, insincere, crappy, invalid.

I used a reference from a credible book (the author you are refered
to is one of many who wrote the book; obviously the editor, McManners,
knows what he is doing). Why you use the expression "you say"? What
is the Oxford history of Christianity book? It is your approach to
sincerity, eh? And the vague "has been criticized" means who? One,
one hundred, or one million people? In fact means only you...


You throw "data" without any validation, exact reference (your usual
approach to "scholarship"...). And what kind of data! The text speaks
about 6th century origination, and 11th century official adoption. You
speak about 5th century what? Theological speculations. The 796 crap
what is it about? Germanics Bishops who decided to reinterprete the
dogmas, eh? In the 8th century the popes were still resisting the
Germanic bullying to the basic, unchangable dogmas, (because the tran-
sient administrative intrusions was a triviality), and one of them (I
cann't recall name now) had actually engraved the original creed in go-
lden plates and hung it in Vatican to eliminate the possibilty of any
alterations.


Gregory
