RE: [Leica] feuds

["Tim Atherton" <tim@KairosPhoto.com>]

Marc,

You certainly are an expert, though your analysis of the Arian controversy
and the politics of the time is certainly quite simplistic.

Also,

> It really isn't fair to reduce these matters into simplistic
> terms nor, for
> that matter, to use theologic matters in an effort to make a point of
> logic, as all religion, ultimately, is a matter of faith.

I seem to recall that while studying for my theology degrees, and I was
lucky enough to do so under some of Britain's most distinguished theologians
and biblical scholars - Stephen Sykes, John Webster, C.K. Barrett; John
MacQuarrie; Jimmy Dunn; C.F.D Moule, Maurice Wiles, George Dragas and
others; that most theology has about as much relation to religion as law
does to justice.

And  theology (not religion, which is merely one among many areas that
theology studies) is about logic as much as it is about faith and oft times
has very little to do with the latter.

Tim Atherton



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Marc James
> Small
> Sent: May 15, 2001 4:08 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Cc: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] feuds
>
>
> At 08:49 AM 5/15/2001 -0700, Brian Reid wrote:
> >What was the fight about? Almost nothing, seen through the lens of
> >history. The Roman church wanted the Nicene Creed to say "the Holy
> >Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, proceeds from the Father and the
> >Son", while the Eastern Church (centered in Constantinople) didn't like
> >the words "and the Son" at the end. That phrase is called "the
> >filioque" "feel e OH kay", and arguing about it has lasted a thousand
> >years, a dozen crusades, sacking, burning, pillaging, and so forth.
>
> Brian
>
> The above simply isn't true.  The dispute was about control and
> organization of the Church -- the Latinate Church felt that Christ's
> comment about Peter, the first Bishop of Rome -- "you are Peter, the rock
> on which I build my church" -- provided the Bishop of Rome with the
> authority to be summus ecclesiastorum and adopted a hierarchical structure
> which claimed itself free of temporal authority, while the
> Eastern Churches
> opted for a broader source of authority, with several Metropolitans of
> equal authority, resolving differences in conciliam, and subjecting itself
> to temporal authority.  The filioque clause had little bearing on the
> division;  the underlying argument over Church authority did.
>
> In fine, the Orthodox argued that the Papacy was claiming a supremacy over
> their churches which they did not feel justified, as they viewed
> the Bishop
> of Rome as only the primus inter pares and, therefore, capable of
> presiding
> at councils, but with no real authority beyond this, while the Papists
> contended that the Orthodox were denying the clear word of Christ by
> refusing to acknowledge the absolute authority of the Pope.
>
> It is a fascinating period of history, but the argument between these two
> divisions of Christianity is not one subject to easy condensation, nor is
> the reasoning behind the Orthodox objections to the visit of John Paul II
> to Greece, which is, ad verissime rem ipsam, logical and rational to the
> adherents of Orthodoxy.
>
> It really isn't fair to reduce these matters into simplistic
> terms nor, for
> that matter, to use theologic matters in an effort to make a point of
> logic, as all religion, ultimately, is a matter of faith.
>
> Marc
>
> msmall@roanoke.infi.net  FAX:  +540/343-7315
> Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!
>
>