External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Filioque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"double procession"[edit]

The lead says "the double procession of the Holy Spirit." Is this a neutral formulation? Shouldn't it be "the procession of the Holy Spirit as double," or something like that? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you will have to explain how they mean different things to you. They seem synonymous to me. -- Elphion (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean. I've made the change. -- Elphion (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Political Aspects of Filioque Controversy & Schism[edit]

The heirs of Charlemagne claimed to be successors of the the Roman Empire (as also did the Emperor at Constantinople); and since it was also the Frankish kings who pushed the Filioque controversy, as discussed in the article; and since the resulting Great Schism - wherein the Pope excommunicated and anathematized both the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople - was politically beneficial to the Franks by discrediting two important rivals it may perhaps be appropriate (provided always that there are credible sources available meeting Wikipedia standards) to add one or more footnotes or citations regarding the political dimensions of the controversy for the benefit of readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:985:C100:8540:B193:53FF:5C3D:2D08 (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Filioque or Filioque Controversy?[edit]

Is this an article about the Filioque, or the Filioque Controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.29.10 (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Constantinople I[edit]

Per the Catholic Encyclopedia, the council at Constantinople was a council only of the Eastern Empire [1]https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04308a.htm In addition when the council was notified by Damasus of the upcoming ecumenical council at Rome in 382, they sent a letter whose tome requested approval by that authority and sent Epiphanius of Salamis, who wrote the approved creed in 374 in the Ancoratus along with others. Dionysius Exiguus in Codex canonum Ecclesiæ Universæ [DS 86] has the Filioque in the Latin version of the creed, and Denzinger notes that the Church did not accept it into the Liturgy until after the Council of Chalcedon. Thus it appears that Epiphanius gave the Filioque translation to the Roman council of 382.

Leander of Seville is noted for introducing it into the Latin Mass. 140.32.168.13 (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please phrase requested changes in a "Change X to Y" format. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the section on the Photian Controversy states "The Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox), in 879, restored Photius to his see", unfortunately Photius never was restored from his excommunication as Dvornik shows, he was required to apologize and make amends to be restored. The apology never happened, so it was a council led by an excommunicated man who never was never restored (from excommunication). Now you can see why this was never accepted by Rome---which explains why Dvornik shows he wasn't excommunicated again (no point in that as he remain excommunicated.)
Also under the section of Possible earliest use in the Creed, St Leander before the council of Toledo had inserted it into the Latin Mass. worse this was after Dionysius Exiguus (died 544) had written Codex canonum Ecclesiae Universae, which contains the Filioque, which highly suggests Epiphanius of Salamis inserted into the Latin in 382, which would be why the Latin filioque creed was accepted as the only thing of Constantinople I ever accepted from that council. 140.32.168.13 (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First suggested edit revolves around treating Photius as either restored (EO view) or not restored (Catholic view). I think the current situation in the article is an appropriate treatment. The second edit needs a precise source for clarity. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories