Changes

:I've read repeatedly the term "Eastern ''non-Filioquist'' Tradition" in many places, and being offended or thinking that the guys who wrote it tried to offend me never even crossed my mind ... should it have? The language barrier is not, in my own dis-honest opinion :-) , a valid one -- should we accept the Filioque because the poor-little-Latins didn't have different terms for the temporary-versus-eternal movement of the Holy Ghost, but used the Latin "processio" for the both of them? (Who knows, maybe they weren't ready ... maybe the Church wasn't ready ... maybe God was caught off-guard ...) FOR EXAMPLE, Georgia was cut off, historically and geo-politically , for 1,.000 years from the rest of Orthodoxy ... and yet, 1.000 years later, there they were, fully Orthodox ...

: 1) the '''Catholics''' say that their Pneumatology is fully-compatible with that of the Church-Fathers, -- i.e. "from the Father ''through'' the Son" and "from the Father ''and'' the Son" -- (and then add that the whole fuzz was actualy just some HUUUGE ''miss''understanding, ... ''especially'' for political reasons and cultural alienation, etc.) then the Orthodox ask them: "But aren't You then somewhat diminishing the Holy Ghost's personality with regard to the first two Persons in the Trinity?" -- to which the Catholics say: "Nooo! ... offcourse NOT! ... who gave You ''that'' idea?!" ... and then, the next thing You know is that they take out the Epiklesis from the Liturgy, because "the Words of the Institution is are all You need, because the ancients allways thaught that the Word of God was the agent of His own Incarnation in the Virgin's whomb, and the word spirit was aplied to Christ in that particular Gospel-verse ('the Holy Spirit shall descend upon You') and it was regarded as aplying to the Holy Ghost only 3 centuries later, by the Constantine-sponsored synod". -- to which the Orthodox reply "Ooooo-kaaayyy ... have it Your way ...": 2)the '''Orientals''' say "Wel, You see, it's all just some BIIIG ''miss''understanding, because we had the same word for <person> and <nature>" (just like the Romans said "we don't have special words for <ekporeusis>") -- to which the Orhodox reply: "But ''practically'' speaking, You do believe that Christ had a human ''nature'' with which He died on the Cross, and a divine one, which is by its very ''nature'' immortal?" -- to which they reply: "Yeah, man, offcourse ... deep-deep down we're still brothers and all that ... " -- and then, the next thing You know is that they take out the pouring of the water in the wine, which should happen 2 times twice during the Liturgy ... and which, by the way, show shows Christ's ''true'' death on the Holy and Life-Giving Cross (because the separation of plasma from hardened-blood is a very clear sign of death -- it was when the Gospels were written, ... and it still is now). : IF You think that ''it's just words'', please note that Origen, FOR EXAMPLE, (who was a heretic, I know, but in this example he's fully Orthodox), was speaking with a priest who said "there are two Gods" -- but he didn't went "mad", but instead simply asked the priest (to find out IF he was indeed ill in dogma, OR was just at a loss of words in describing the mistery of our wonderfull God) ... and when he found out he was just using a defectuous expression (i.e., he wasn't denying the Unity of the Godhead), he mildly corrected him and said a few words of advice as to how we should be more carefull with our speech, so as not to be "stambling-stones" or living and not to leave room for confusion.

: -- in the end '''I just hope that this is not insulting to anyone''' ... I think the way in which I expounded my ideas clearly show shows that --