The ultimate issue is a bishop changing the creed without a council. That is the real problem. Arguing the filoque is pointless without the council, for if Rome called for a council and presented their reasoning, it may have been acceptable. The problem is papal authority, not necessarily the filioque.
@@josuesilva9409The East never accepted Florence. Only Constantinople did for a time, later recanting, and did so primarily for the hope of aid from the West which they never received, and then Constantinople fell (while Constantinople was Unuate). Furthermore, the vast majority of jurisdictions also didn't even attend in the first place so it could hardly meet even a single requirement for a binding council in Orthodoxy.
Rome did present their reasoning at Florence and said that they unironically hold to the Filioque being the Double-Hypostatic Procession of the Holy Spirit, after the Orthodox tried multiple tines to say they could recite the Filioque if it was understood to be an Energetic Procession. Thus it absolutely matters. If it was a matter if simple jurisdictional overstepping, there would not be a schism that remains. But instead, Rome dogmatized heresy
Not caused, just proceeds. It is simply just about procession. At least that is what Augustine’s position would be. None of the major eastern or western traditions would argue that any person of the Godhead exists prior to or after any of the other persons. In fact, Augustine argues for inseparable operations and part of that argument includes the idea that nothing done at any point in time among the persons of the Godhead is done without a unified will. To separate the wills would be to effectively create tritheism but such a view is rejected.
The Greeks use cause differently than the Latins. The Greeks using cause would be akin to the Latins using principle. The Latins use principle because as St. Thomas Aquinas says, it has a more general meaning while cause is more restricted. Principle signifies the origin of something proceeding and does not imply inferiority of the terminus to the principle. Cause to the latins implies inferiority in that this would be equivalent to efficient causality The Greeks don't mean cause in this way though.
1. The Roman Church is not wrong at all in asserting that the Holy Spirit comes from both 2. The Orthodox Church is not wrong in asserting that changing the creed should be a communal decision not by one bishop 3. This is a VERY arbitrary and ultimately pointless argument to split an entire church
I read through the comments. It is important to try to grasp the mystery of the Holy Trinity. It is also important to be the vessel of the Holy Spirit, to practice virtue, and bear the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
No mystery, It is The Goddess, most conspicuously anonymous throughout The Bible. For that you can blame King Manasehs tyrannical obliteration of Ashera's temples, groves & shrines. This is adequately explained by Paul Wallis, whether one believes in The Female Aspect of God or not. However, we should remember that Continents are named after Her.
The Holy Ghost is the Love of the Father for the Son and the Love of the Son for the Father which is the Holy Trinity - The Father The Son and the Holy Ghost. Saint John Marie Baptist Vianny explains. Saint Arnold Janson also explains the Holy Trinity.
@@TwisterTornado God made Adam and Eve. God made our souls. Male and female. We each have our own souls. A soul is not indiscriminate. God made us. We do not equate ourselves with God. What are you trying to say?
What specifically? That the pope promulgated a change in the creed sans a general council? Why do you think that's not within his rights? After all, we teach that no council is general, which is not promulgated by the pope.
@@someman7 But that is itself in question because the bishop of Rome possesses no real authority higher than the other bishops sure at the councils he was given a place of honor and respect but not authority. The whole cause of the first great schism in the first place was whether the pontiff had supremacy over the other bishops and was a naked power grab by the bishop of rome.
@@ashmoleproductions5407 The bishop of Rome does posses apostolic authority. Why didn't Eastern fathers protest the letters that popes sent to general councils if this is incorrect eclesiology? Why break away only in the 2nd millenium? I In fact, we claim all bishops work licitly only if in communion with the see of Peter.
@@Orthobro33 The (Eastern Catholic) saint Maximus the Confessor, disagrees, writing: “[...]the Church and clergy of Rome, [...] from the beginning to the present, as eldest of all the churches under the sun, presides over all!". Actually, even st. Ignatius, disciple of st. John the Apostle, martyr, bishop of the place where we were first called Christians, the one that first recorded the name Catholic, says the Church of Rome "presides over love".
"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." Jesus
@@matheusmotta1750John 16 I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”
@@TheAmosTree that doesn't have to do with eternal procession. The Holy Spirit is not a "thing" that the Son has. He is a Person. These verses explain that the Son communicates from the Father what the Spirit shall say/teach to the Church. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
@@matheusmotta1750 The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son. And no one said he was ‘a thing’ Regardless Saint Athanasius and multiple Orthodox and church fathers all believed in the Filioque czcams.com/video/_Rrzo55G364/video.htmlsi=udHIKzM4gzIiOjA3
@@matheusmotta1750 who said the holt spirit was a ‘thing’? Read your own Orthodox saints. (I assume you’re Orthodox?) They believed in the Filioque also.
The Greek creed specifically uses the verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι which implies that the Father is the absolute origin of the Holy Spirit's power, which is theologically correct. The Latin creed uses precidit meaning to pass through. To say that the Holy Spirit is mediated by both the Father and the Son is theologically correct, and biblical. It is also correct to say that the Holy Spirit passes through the Father (without saying the son) as it is technically correct, but not complete. If the Western Churches were to use the Greek version of to proceed (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) it would be heretical, as it would imply that the Holy Spirit is a slave to the Father and the Son, rather than Its own Person working in tandem. Which is also why you see *Eastern Catholics* saying "Who proceeds from the Father" during the creed.
@@namapalsu2364 So in translating to different languages you would argue one is forced to use a word for word translation even if that changes the meaning or completely destroys any meaning?
Thank you, LORD Jesus, for taking my sins away. Simple Gospel, we all sinned against the Holy God, and God sent Christ to take our punishment, and the Holy Spirit gives us the strength to stop sining.
"Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT" (John 20:21-22)
@@pero33403 That's the most arrogant, self contradictory, and funny little argument that EO gives to justify leaving the mother church. It is arrogant because they "know" the triune God in and out. It is self contradictory to their own creed which proclaims that Holy Spirit is also God. Therefore He can't be caused or originate. God is the uncaused cause of everything. That also applies to Our Blessed Lord who is True God of True God. That means He is not missing anything. It is funny because people who repeat this are very serious.
@@ellacrup1 With all due respect, I can tell you don't know much about the filioque debate. Please at least educate yourself before typing nonsense on the internet. And don't be proud. Have you read any of the books on the subject? Perhaps the one by dr. Edward Siecienski?
@@oroGold-s5b How can be a thing of pride if I just pointed out the fact that she doesn't know what she is talking about...What she is saying shows complete lack of understanding what filioque is all about, even the basics. At least read what the Catholic Answers is saying about filioque so at least we can have a discussion. I am a baptized Catholic who converted to the Orthodox faith last year primarily because of filioque. I can also give you other reasons if you are interested. And there are many...
@@ronanjm Yes why won't it be?? Christ went to the heavens and sent the holyspirit. "But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." . And also if it was eternal procession, how could John perceive/notice that?? The only one who can perceive it and also reveal it to us is christ himself inwhich he did in John 15.26 by saying "When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me"
@@ionictheist349 If it is in heaven, how can it be economic? Heaven is the dwelling place of God, who is timeless and immutable. Unless you mean to suggest God can change, what procession John sees in heaven is the procession of the Godhead. The Catholic view is that the Father and Son send as one principle. The text describes procession from "the throne" (singular) of the Father and the Son. This equates with the single principle of Catholic theology, not the rejection of the filioque.
It is a heresy in the Catholic Church to subordinate any member of the Trinity to another. I pray that the east and west can see the forest for the trees and unite against the seemingly endless number of threats to the salvation of humanity that we all face.
@@matet1906 the Catholic and Orthodox Churches both agree that subordination of one member of the Trinity to another is a heresy... I realize my wording choice was unclear. But my point is that we are not as far apart theologically, especially on the filioque, as the schism makes it seem.
I am deeply blessed by being a Roman Catholic. The Blessed Virgin Mary has appeared numerous times throughout the centuries to give warnings that evil behaviour will bring about the wrath of God. Because Our Lady is the mother Jesus gave us from the cross she is concerned for us especially these days when the Blessed Virgin warned during an apparition in 😅Mejugorje Bosnia Herzegovina that the times we are living in are worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. Almighty God destroyed the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah because of the concentrated evil of those cities. These days Our Blessed Mother implores us to pray fervently because she is finding it almost impossible to hold back the punishing hand of God the Father. 😮 She is the Immaculate Conception and as the mother of Jesus and the spouse of the Holy Spirit and the daughter of God the Father (we are all created by God and ch loved by God who is Love,Humility, Divine Mercy and our Creator) she implored us to change our lives doing penance fasting and praying for the world.
In the Book of Revelation St. John sees in Heaven the Living Waters flowing from the throne which Jesus is seated. A lot of Orthodox theologians now agree with Rome on the Filioque
No Orthodox theologian agrees with the filioque. Agreeing with it literally makes you heterodox, this is not a "minor language issue" as the Nicean creed is the pillar and symbol of Faith. We don't play around with our beliefs.
I agree with the other respondent and would add it is not the academic theologians who need persuading but the mass of the faithful or ORthodox which is nearly impossible. the Truth of the Orthodox faith is kept by both the bishops and the totality of the church so even if a few bishops are misled the church will self-correct and expel the deceased members.
Interestingly, most of that is being resolved right now between the Church and the Eastern Orthodox as per the synod in Alexandria last week. The fact, it’s basically been resolved for hundreds of years, and most orthodox academics, as well as Catholic academics. Do not see it as an issue. It’s primarily linguistic issue that rides between the Greek and Latin cultures and languages. Leon, this was not a problem, because of the shared Latin and Greek, this became a problem later
I think it’s disingenuous to say that such a major difference of doctrine that has kept the Church and Catholicism apart is because of a misunderstanding. Theologians aren’t dumb
@@lbwnova6654 it is because of a misunderstanding. They resolved it before, but a few didn’t agree so it perpetuated. Not everything is about theology, sometimes it’s about politics.
You left out the Filioque was added to address the Arian Heresy of the time and it isn’t even a dogma of the Church. Many Catholic Church don’t even say it. And the authority structure of the Church Jesus started is the Bishop of Rome is the head.
Our Lord Jesus Christ teaches, “But when the Helper comes, Whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth Who proceeds from the Father, he will testify of Me” (Jn 15:26). This is the basic statement in all the New Testament about the Holy Spirit “proceeding,” and it is clear: He “proceeds from the Father.” Thus, when the ancient council at Constantinople in AD 381 reaffirmed the Creed of Nicea (AD 325), it expanded that Creed to proclaim these familiar words: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-Giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who is worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the Son. . . .” But two hundred years later, at a local council in Toledo, Spain (AD 589), King Reccared declared, “the Holy Spirit also should be confessed by us and taught to proceed from the Father and the Son.” The King may have meant well, but he was contradicting Jesus’ teaching, confessed by the entire Church, concerning the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, that local Spanish council agreed with his error. Because of the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, believed by the Church at Nicea and at Constantinople and for centuries beyond, there is no reason to believe anything other than that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. But centuries later, in what was at least partially a politically motivated move, the Pope of Rome unilaterally changed the universal creed of the Church without an ecumenical council. Though this change was initially rejected in both East and West, even by some of Rome’s closest neighboring bishops, the Pope managed to eventually get the West to capitulate. The consequence, of course, in the Western Church has been the tendency to relegate the Holy Spirit to a lesser place than God the Father and God the Son. The change may appear small, but the consequences have proven disastrously immense. This issue, with the Pope departing from the Orthodox doctrine of the Church, became another instrumental cause separating the Roman Church from the historic Orthodox Church, the New Testament Church.
@@hismajesty6272 The filoque was added due to political influence. A disagreement concerning the Holy Spirit also began to develop in the Church. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father? Or, does He proceed from the Father and the Son? Our Lord Jesus Christ teaches, “But when the Helper comes, Whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth Who proceeds from the Father, he will testify of Me” (Jn 15:26). This is the basic statement in all the New Testament about the Holy Spirit “proceeding,” and it is clear: He “proceeds from the Father.” Thus, when the ancient council at Constantinople in AD 381 reaffirmed the Creed of Nicea (AD 325), it expanded that Creed to proclaim these familiar words: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-Giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who is worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the Son. . . .” But two hundred years later, at a local council in Toledo, Spain (AD 589), King Reccared declared, “the Holy Spirit also should be confessed by us and taught to proceed from the Father and the Son.” The King may have meant well, but he was contradicting Jesus’ teaching, confessed by the entire Church, concerning the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, that local Spanish council agreed with his error. Because of the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, believed by the Church at Nicea and at Constantinople and for centuries beyond, there is no reason to believe anything other than that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. But centuries later, in what was at least partially a politically motivated move, the Pope of Rome unilaterally changed the universal creed of the Church without an ecumenical council. Though this change was initially rejected in both East and West, even by some of Rome’s closest neighboring bishops, the Pope managed to eventually get the West to capitulate. The consequence, of course, in the Western Church has been the tendency to relegate the Holy Spirit to a lesser place than God the Father and God the Son. The change may appear small, but the consequences have proven disastrously immense. This issue, with the Pope departing from the Orthodox doctrine of the Church, became another instrumental cause separating the Roman Church from the historic Orthodox Church, the New Testament Church.
The reason it’s heretical to deny the filioque is because that would deny that the Son and the Father are one. This phrase was used by the church fathers, and the church has always said that “and the son” and “through the son” are both acceptable theological understandings. But the earliest known addition of it to the creed was actually a local council in the east, the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in Persia in about 410.
I don't reckon that checks out. The Son and the Father are one, yes, but that doesn't mean everything attributable to one hypostasis is shared by the other. The Holy Spirit can proceed only from the Father just as the Son is not begetting Himself, and the Father doesn't also have a human fysis. Each hypostasis performs unique functions within the Godhead so that the will of the Father can be done. The Father causes the Holy Spirit which the Son directs in order for miracles and other divine influence to be effected. The notion that the Holy Spirit is caused by two persons, I reckon, implies that He is caused in two parts, which is incongruent with the immutability of the divine ousia. It would also mean that the Holy Spirit both originates from and passes through the same origin in Christ Jesus, since we receive the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, which seems strange.
Not true. As a Catholic, both are correct. It's not incorrect to say it just descends from God. Any Orthodoxy that will throw a fit over something Catholic leaders agree with them on is lost. Fact is it also comes from the Son as well. If they want to say it comes from father only there is nothing wrong with that because Jesus is God and the spirit cannot proceed from itself because it is itself, but it is not unreasonable to say it proceeds from the father AND the son as Jesus has called upon the spirit in scripture to hand to others. To deny this by saying "God gave Jesus the ability to do that" denies that Jesus is God, as he never calls upon his father for the holy spirit. Everything Jesus calls from his father is always explicitly made clear in scripture. If he does not call upon the father, then it is the Son using His authority, not His Fathers
@@Star-vm9ocyes, even St Spryridon and St Alexander of Svir agree all three are God. St Alexander saw the triune even though he was Eastern Orthodox his visit was Catholic. Like St Spryridon and others show that our limited human understanding make it hard to comprehend God. His glory is vast and great like Padre Pio affirms, spanning dimensions, stars systems, microcosms, and possibilities.
in that council the Church of the East broke communion with the rest of the Church how is it a source of dogma as opposed to the Second Ecumenical Council
Orthodox people read this. As stated by Saint Ignatius of Antioq " To the church on rome, Which holds the presidency " ^ Ignatius is telling us that the church on Rome holds all the authority. As stated by Irenaues " by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” We the Catholic church hold the over all authority and we do not need inferior authority to make church declaration of dogma or doctrine.
If you didn't quote mine it from new advent you would know it says which "presides in Rome" not "which holds the presidency" so nope, no papal Infallibility. Also your own popes condemned the previous popes which held the fake council against Photius in 869- this was then condemned by the later popes and council in 879 and they reinstated Photius as rightful patriarch of Constantinople and condemned to filioque. Your own popes and councils deny each other 😂
Saint Ignatius of Antioch says that the Church of Rome presides in the land of the Romans (their province/jurisdiction) and that she presides in love (charitas). Nothing more. Ignatius also says that where is the Bishop (that is, every Bishop, not just the Roman one), there is the Catholic (complete/universal) Church.
Pride and Vainglory. The Rock of Matthew 16 is the Confession of Faith in Jesus the Rock of the Church, which Peter was named after, but not being the Rock himself. See what the Fathers of the Church say about these verses, including Saint Augustine. Jesus gave the Keys of the Kingdom to other Apostles too (Matthew 18). There were three Petrine Sees, namely Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, "for three are the See of one", according to Saint Pope Gregory the Great. Rome was the greatest because the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul were martyred and left their relics there (for you to have an idea, Cyprus gained autonomy because the relics of the Holy Apostle Bartholomew were found there), and because it was the old capital of the Roman Empire (according to the Ecumenical Councils). Rome was the Primate of the Church, not the head (the Head has always been Christ). In the Council of Jerusalem of Acts 15, Peter didn't have the final word, according to the Fathers, Saint James the Apostle was the one responsible for the decisions of this Council.
The "rock" refers not to Peter himself but to the confession of faith that Peter made in the preceding verses (Matthew 16:16), where Peter declares Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God. Accordingly, it is this faith in Christ that is the foundation of the church.
This is wrong on so many levels. 1. The Filioque was used in the VI century by St. Leander of Seville to covert king Recared to Nicean Christianity... it is an anti-arrian clause, because if the Son is not consubstantial with the Father, it cannot send forth the Spirit. 2. Peter and his successors can bind in earth as they see fit (and it will be bound in heaven). They are the only ones that hold the keys of heaven, and as προεδρος (president) of the whole Church (as stated by the Church Fathers), they have the power and responsibility to teach the correct way of the faith by whatever methods they see fit. Furthermore, the Nicaean Creed doesn't prohibit changing it's content, but to preach another faith than that established in the Creed (e.g. Arrianism, Gnosticism, Nestorianism, etc.) 3. You need relations of opposition to distinguish the persons in the trinity... as the Son is eternally begotten by the Father, and the Spirit is eternally spired forth by the Father, you need a relation of opposition between the Son and the Spirit. Without the Filioque, you cannot distinguish (theologically) those two persons. 4. In the NT, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father as well as the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of the Son; it is clear that the procession occurs also by the Son. Hence, there's no imbalance in the trinity (that is a laughable claim). PD: Bold of you using a Catholic background song when criticizing Catholicism.
@@telosbound 1 & 4. St. Athanasius explained: "and so, since they [the Father and Son] are one, and the Godhead itself one, the same things are said of the Son, which are said of the Father, except his being said to be Father... ‘For all things’, says the Son himself ‘whatsoever the Father has, are Mine’; and again, and Mine are Thine". (Discourse III Against the Arians, Chap. 23 #4, c. AD 356). To deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is to deny that the Son has everything that the Father has, which of course does not include being the Father himself, since being the Father is incommunicable. As Jesus also says in John 5:19 "For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise", since the Father eternally spirates the Holy Spirit, the Son does likewise. Before we continue, we should note that there’s no doubt that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person from the Father and the Son and that He is God, having the exact same essence as the Father and the Son; He is not an impersonal force but a divine person. Futhermore, John 15:26 says "But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me."; Jesus clearly takes part in the procession of the Holy Spirit. The argument that I have heard for this is that scripture only describes the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the Son (and thus the procession from Him) in regard to what is called the ‘economic Trinity’ (Oikonomia), not in regard to the actual ‘eternal Trinity’ (or ‘imminent Trinity’, aka Theologia) and an eternal procession within it. The thing is that no matter what, the Oikonomia can't reflect anything different than the Theologia. 2. The concept that ALL apostles had the keys wasn't present in the early Church until Constantinople was made an artificial patriarchate (out of fucking thin air, may I add, just because it was the "new Rome"). Here we have to take a look to the old kingdom of Israel, that prefigurates the new kingdom (the Church); here ONLY the prime minister (out of the 12) had the keys to the house of David and power to shut so that no one opens and open so that no one shuts. He could lend/distribute the keys to the other ministers, but the control of the keys was his alone. The same happens in the new covenant; Peter alone is given the keys of the house of God (the kingdom of heaven), the other apostles can bind, but they have to do it through Peter lending/distributing the power of the keys. That's why the Pope can take away that power (binding or loosing) if the Bishop(s) become rogue. That cannon was to make sure that no single bishop became an anarchist or self-governing (*cough cough* like modern Orthodoxy *cough*) entity within its delegated territory, but to follow the hierarchy of the Church. Saint Gregory Nazianzen stated that Rome: "...binds together all the West (a reference to how heresies were ravaging the East more than the West) with her saving words, as it is right that she if the president OVER ALL" (Carminum, Liber I, PG 37:559). Also St. John of Damascus, when referring to Peter, uses the superlative form of κoρυϕαιoς (lit. Head, this was a title used with bishops)... he used κoρυϕαιoτατoς, meaning that Peter was the "chiefest", or the "supremest" or the topmost in the whole Church, also stating that Christ "appointed you key holder to the Kingdom of heaven, who bestowed on you the binding and losing of the means of correction" (Homily on the Transfiguration #6, J.P.Mignet, Patrologia Graeca, 96:556). Again, the successor of Rome has the supreme RESPONSABILITY to correct and teach as he sees fit. Now, this doesn't mean that the Filioque was added out of the blue just because the Pope said so, you yourself said it correctly: "the Church of Rome", He reunited the church in the West and decided to add the clause to attack Arrianism as fast and decisively as possible, in order to SAVE SOULS. That's the hole point, not to make the greeks mad, not to show the power of Rome, but to act in the best interest of the souls of the people, because I think you and I can agree that falling into heresies such as Arrianism is mortal to the soul, contrary to the filioque, that even the eastern Catholics have recognized. 3. Again, then tell me what is THAT that makes the Son distinguishable from the Holy Spirit? Theologically speaking. Denying the Filioque not only refuses that Jesus is consubstantial with the Father (see first bullet), but also does not allow to decisively distinguish or differentiate the 2nd and 3rd persons of the Holy Trinity. Btw, the Council of Florence is ecumenical even by contemporary Orthodox ad hoc standards, so much so that it had more attendance and representation from the east than the majority of the early ecumenical councils. Even more, the bulls of union were signed almost unanimously, being a rare feat for any council. Technically, the great schism only lasted 400 years, but the people rebelled and didn't accept the bulls; in fact, they were so unruly and violent that sometimes the maximum authorities of the Church in Constantinople had to absent themselves from Hagia Sophia in order to escape the rage of the common folk. What the patriarch had to do was to teach the truth, even to death, and not act like a coward and give in to the social pressure. But as nothing happens without God's consent, the same way He punished the rebel kingdom of Israel (while temporarily sparing the Kingdom of Judea), He allowed the rebel Patriarchates to fell under muslim yoke, while sparing Rome until the day of the parousia. PD: The correct term is the LATIN Church; using "the church of Rome" or "the Roman church" is incorrect. PD2: The early Church was guided by the triumvirate of the Petrine Sees (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, in that order). It was fair to give Jerusalem an honorary Patriarchate title, just because it was the Holy City of God, but Constantinople has absolutely nothing to do here. It was always subordinate to the churches of Thessaloniki or Nicaea. Constantinople becoming a patriarchate is the most political-based, non-religious-founded move in all of the early Church history and it is not only an abuse of power, but also a meddling of a secular entity (the eastern emperor) into religious affairs. PD3: In fact, there is another anti-arrian clause added to the Nicaean creed, the "Deum de Deo" (God from God)... it was used to reiterate that Jesus TRULY is God, and shares the same ousia or essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The church must use whatever methods has at its disposal to attack heresies and teach the truth.
Also, I feel like it is compounded by John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one), because proceeding from the Father can also mean proceeding from the Son. ( perhaps I am misusing the scripture there, so take my words with a grain of salt)
@@cedricengelhart7349I’m orthodox but you’ve made a compelling point, some I’ve heard before but some put together really well. God bless you my brother
Filique is also contradicted by the New Testament: "But when the Comforter [Holy Spirit] is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father - the Spirit of Truth who proceedeth FROM THE FATHER, He shall testify of Me." (John 15:26)
Not one Father taught your monopatrite heresy or Father alone heresy. The verse you are quoting like a typical 11th century Protestant, just says that the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father, it doesn't say from the Father Aone.
@@SAHOVNICU "monopatrite"? What word is this, what does it mean? What do u mean the verse I'm quoting like a Protestant? I'm an Orthodox and that verse if from New Testament. Any Christian should not dismiss the New Testament, on the contrary. Not one single Father said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well. As a matter of fact this is the FILIOQUE heresy adopted by Vatican and contradicts the Council of Holy Fathers that took place in Nicaea (325) and who adopted the Church' Creed. The idea that the Holy Spirit is also proceeds by the Son didn't even exist in the first few hundreds of years since the beginning of the Church. Filioque creed place the Holy Spirit below the Father and the Son, in a state of subordination, that's why is a heresy! When adopting the Filioque, Vatican went against the Holy Fathers and against their own popes (Pope Leo III and Pope John VIII who distanced themselves from the Filioque and threw anathema on all those who will adopt it). "just says that the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father, it doesn't say from the Father Alone." If the Holy Spirity wouldn't have proceed from the Father alone, Jesus wouldn't have specifically mentioned it. Filioque is the main issue between Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism, a divisive point of contention for why they separated in 1054. If you're a Catholic, I'm really sorry for you. Catholicism is heretic and separated from the Church. They've put a man (the pope) to be the replacement of Christ on Earth (!), who is a sinner cause all men are sinful. You're devoted to the Pope, not to Jesus Christ, sadly.
@@CatholicMaan The Greek schismatics will say that this procession is a temporal economic operation, even though not one father even mentions this about this passage.
John 20:21-23 "So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” The Holy spirit procedes from Jesus too, the Holy spirit proceded from the father and the Son. The Eastern Church is NOT in the right.
@@Scientist_Albert_Einstein That's merely the "outpouring" of the Spirit. What do you make of John 15:26 with Jesus saying "[...] the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father [...]"? What the (includes) Nicene Creed includes is basically just a citation of that verse. This, of course, excludes the possibility that we are using different definitions of the word "proceed", as "Josef Chandler" outlined in a comment below.
@@edethormaehlen Why don't you read the entire context? John 15:26-27 "‘When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf. You also are to testify because you have been with me from the beginning." First fact: the context says that Jesus will SEND the Holy Spirit from the Father. Second fact: The Spirit of truth who COMES from the Father, he will TESTIFY on Jesus behalf. Third fact: You also are to TESTIFY because you have been with me from the BEGINNING. Notice the conclusion, the conclusion says: "You also are to TESTIFY because you have been with me from the beginning." The keyword here is TESTIFY! John 8:17-18 "It is also written in your law that the TESTIMONY of two men is true. I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.” The Holy Spirit is the witness that procedes from the Father and the Son! The Holy Spirit who was send by the Father bares witness of Jesus; and the Holy spirit who was send by Jesus bares witness of the apostles and Jesus Church. This is why the Holy Spirit precedes from the Father and the Son! AMEN The Catholic Church is 100% correct. Orthodoxy is teaching half truths!
Catholic theology doesn't claim that the Son is the cause and the origin of the Spirit but that the Spirit of the Father rests in the Son. So it is through the Son that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Therefore, He is called the Spirit of the Father 'and the Son'. Also, the Church in the West had to make this change because it was fighting the Arian heresy that was denying the full divine nature to the Son.
The Catholic Church is 100% correct. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and of the son. The original reason the Greek church rejected this is because when translated they thought it meant it was created by the son. Not the same. The Holy Spirit cannot exist without the son or the father.
Which one orthodoxy he convert? Did your grandfather become russian? the bulgarian?, the greek? Which one.. ? I'm from southeast asian... and i don't want to become russian or Greek
@@marcelasius Greek Antiochian Orthodox! All orthodox churches have the same faith and in full communion with one another !! It doesn’t matter !! Go to any church and accept the faith and then you can attend any other orthodox church God bless !
I am going to the Catholic church but i do agree with the orthodox teaching on this subject. But i do hope in the future that the balance of the church comes back into one . The Catholic , Oriental, Eastern Orthodox church. Division by man made whole by Christ as the head of the church
One word, politics. Politics, and the Eastern and Western churches still holding grudges that are over a thousand years old. Instead of being better they're still pissed at one another and giving the silent treatment like children.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father through the Son. This is an alternative wording the Catholic Church offers which seems very plausible from what we understand about how Christ demonstrates his relationship with the Father in the bible and with us as the mediator. So I don't think the second point stands the first one is more debatable
The Filioque was not an addition to the Creed but making explicit an implicit doctrine. It's not a change to the Creed because it's not a mandatory clause for non-Latins. Its theological problems are mainly a matter of languages. Orthodox reject it for political reasons.
“The Father alone is Cause” - Saint John Damascene. This whole thing about it being a matter of “theological language and semantics” is a modernist push by the “scholars and theologians” of our days. The conflict was theological and was not a matter of semantics, the latins were simply heretical in their thinking and the greeks professed the correct teaching. The only political thing happening was rome literally starving the greeks in order to accept the false council. And they did, and since Constantinople became uniate it fell. The hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is something explicitly condemned in Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Capadocian fathers. The filioque is a satanic teaching, and it caused a loss of grace from the west, and because of this the west started altering the Eucharist, denying the blood to the laity and infants, the unnecessary dogma of the immaculate conception, heretical devotions, and now Vatican 2 and literal pagan idols being brought to rome to be placed on altars. This is not the Church of Christ. Rome became an anti church because of the false doctrines it accepted. It’s time to come back. But your pride will only seek to delude you ever more. Humble yourself, and recognize that the fruits your church is bearing is due to its schism.
@@mariorizkallah5383 Latins do not believe there are two principles in God. Only the Father is the source of the Divine. Rome prevailed, Constantinople is fallen. You must come back; no need to accept the Filioque because it's not different from what Orthodox believe, unless you think the Spirit can be granted to you outside the Son.
@@lorenzoc.b.9809 the Latin teaching on the filioque is that the Father is not the sole cause of the Spirit, but that the Father and the Son are one Cause or one principle. The Son becomes a cause or a co-cause of the Spirit. Such a teaching destabilizes the trinity and destroys it. You should read what your council teaches. Over the recent years rome has been walking back this error to return to a teaching that resembles the Orthodox one. That the Father is the sole cause of the Spirit (hypostatic procession) but in creation Sends the Spirit through the Son. This has always been the Orthodox View. The Roman Catholic view is that of florence where the Son is a cause indeed like the father(these words are from the decree of the council of florence). So you need to do a little bit more study because you seem to be confused. The filioque led to many errors such as created grace, something The Early Church never taught. Grace is the uncreated Glory of God, His energies. Western and Eastern Fathers agree with the Orthodox view. They do not agree with the council of trent especially in denying infants communion and denying lay people the blood in the Eucharist making those two anathema. Which makes no sense considering byzantine catholics use leavened bread, give lay people the blood and commune infants. Catholicism is one big meme at this point. There is no unity in doctrine nor in praxis. When the summit of Christian life (the Eucharist) has been tweaked and edited so much to the point of it being unrecognizable where you have Eucharistic lay ministers??? It shows which church believes in the true presence and lives it out. It is time to wake up and humble yourself and remove the beam from your eye. ❤ thanks and God help you
@@lorenzoc.b.9809 also I dont think you would say Rome prevailed, given all the papal scandals that took place after the schism and the pornocracy, pagan idols going into rome, would you even dare to say that Vatican 2 is a proof of “romes prevailing”? Pope francis is literally pushing and succeeded in establishing the Abrahamic family house. This triumphalist larping by Catholics online is absolutely wild, it’s like you live in a different reality separated from the real world. Your “church” has a loophole in canon law that protects pedos and homos and makes it an excommunicable offence to expose those crimes. Such a prevail man. Constantinople fail because it apostatized and became uniate. But you also must remember we do not believe that only in Constantinople is the Orthodox Catholic Faith found. So this meme argument doesn’t really stand on its own. It just shows your ignorance of the history. Perhaps get off twitter and talk with real people❤
I could argue the very opposite is the case for point #3: By saying that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father, you're equating Him with the Son. Because the Personhood of the Holy Three is precisely defined in their relations to each-other, right? Then the Father would have two sons, would He not? Rather, the Holy Spirit relates to the Father through the Son. And I heard a claim that this formula, "from the Father through the Son" is not strange to the East either.
@@thebalkanhistorian.3205 The Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. If we must continue using the triangle metaphor (I'm concern that we're pretending it informs our faith rather than just illustrating it, in a limited and imperfect way): The Holy Spirit is related to both the Father and the Son. More explicitly, from the Ecumenical Council of Florence: the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father. And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
The Spirit “proceeds” from the Father while the Son is “begotten” of the Father. There is a difference between begetting and procession, they are not identical according to the Cappadocian Fathers.
I’ve been leaning towards Orthodoxy more and more each day. This I can agree with, as even in my prayers, I feel the love of the Holy Spirit bombarding me more significantly when I call on it and pray to the father. I just read John 15 which makes it more clear that the will of the Father is fulfilled for us as we bear fruits by His power by abiding in Jesus and Jesus abiding in us, as to reach the father, we must be covered by the blood of Jesus
This was a nice, quick, fairly easy way to explain it. So many videos go into 20 minute diatribes. I appreciate the simplicity of this answer. God bless!
@@Nicolas-sr6zx Constantinople is viewed as a bastion of Orthodoxy. Did Orthodoxy fall because Constantinople fell? No, because Constantinople because uniate. Uniate Constantinople fell, that means Papism fell (if we follow your logic). If Papism is true, then it would save Constantinople, but it didn't 😁
In languages other than Greek, The Roman Catholic encourages Eastern Catholic Churches to omit the Filioque from their recitation of the Nicene Creed, even in Eastern Catholic liturgies that previously included it.
Jesús gave Peter the keys to Heaven, with authority to make any changes he wanted. For this reason, I am and will always be, where Peter is. God bless!
If all the papal claims are true, then why didn't every council go something like this: "Mr. Pope, Arius is saying that Jesus is a creation of the Father." The Pope responds, "Well he's wrong. Next issue."
As Orthodox.our faith as Christians is about The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in essence. If we say that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son, this creates a defect in the Trinity, because the three are one in essence and power. Jesus Christ said, “I and the Father are one.” That is, the Son and the Father are one in essence. The essence and also the Holy Books said that For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." (1 John 5:7) That why Orthodox are right from my opinion and i want we to unite again 😢
It is a teaching of Christ, that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from His Father. Just read a Gospel. “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me." (John 15:26)
@@snokehusk223 Why it's so hard to you to understand the difference between words proceeds and send? Two different verbs, two different actions "And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper,[f] to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him." (John 14) If the Holly Spirit would proceed also from Christ then it wouldn't be necessity to ask the Father for that.
Cyril of Alexandria “Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).
I truly believe that the pope will repent. They twisted christianity to give more power to the pope. Added purgatory. Added filoque. And finally added the infallible of the Pope. They sacked Constantinopole the Holy city of Christianity multiple times and by the times the Ottomans conquered it it was a shell of its former glory. Stole many relics and writings of Christianity. In some ways Catholics did more harm for Christianity than the Ottomans did.
I'm a western christian who Is very familiar with trinitarian theology. From what I understand, the East sees the father as being the source or cause as a personal property of the father. In the west the personal properties are these: The father is unbegotten, the son is begotten, and the spirit is spirated. This in the west the fillioque is a property of the spirit. I might be wrong about the orthodox view though. However *some of the eastern fathers were the ones who proved the fillioque from scripture.
Under present day doctrine the FILIOQUE does not have to be used when saying the Nicene Creed depending on which Church you belong to within the Catholic Communion of Churches. Therefore my Church, the Maronite Church, saying the Creed with the FILIOQUE is up to the celebrant and the parishioners; while the Melkite Church has removed it from the Creed they say.
At the Third Council of Toledo (589), was inserted the filoque clause only to create rift in the church. Till 589 all confessed the holy spirit proceeds from the father.
It was inserted over 100 years earlier in the 449 Council of Toledo. And no, it wasn't to create a rift in the church, it was to combat Arianism as the clause emphasized the Son's consubstantiality with the Father. Also you are correct that all did indeed confess that, but they did not exclude the Son.
Historical fact: The Council of Florence was attended by and agrred upon by the Eastern chuches, they went back on their agreement and were conquered shortly after
It was absolutely not agreed upon by the Church lol. Yes most representatives who attended did agree to it but that decision was UNIVERSALLY rejected by everyone else in the Church. It was so rejected that there were no factions or groups of Orthodox people who became schismatic and became eastern Catholic or something like that. This shows that those representatives were not actually good reps for the Church, since they clearly had no idea the Church’s stance on Rome’s heresies. And only a couple of the representatives ended up moving to Italy and converting to RC. It also a known historical fact that all of the reps were highly pressured by the emperor of Byzantium to heal the schism to get an army to help defend from the Turks. When they got back to Constantinople, St.Ephesus who was the only one to not agree with the council was heavily persecuted by the emperor.
Military successes and conquests aren't necessarily indicators that a particular faith is true or false. Many pagans and Muslims have conquered much throughout history. Does that mean their religions are true? Of course not!
True, and they even lie and say they never agreed even though there are proof that they signed it. Now, what they are saying is that they were forced to do so because they needed the Western Church power to save them from the Muhammadan, which makes it a lot worse.
The churches in the East had no problem when the Filioque was used to combat Arianism in 325, and Eastern Bishops signed the Formula of Hormisdas in 519, which asserts that the true Faith may be known by the doctrinal decisions of the See of Rome.
On the first reason, the canonical prohibition not to add/alter the creed is with regard to the original creed of Nicea I (see canon 7 of Ephesus for instance). And since Chalcedon till now, EVERYONE IS RECITING THE ADDED/ALTERED NICENE-CONSTANTINOPLE CREED. No one, since Chalcedon, ever recite the original Nicene creed. So if we take the prohibition to add/alter the creed in a very rigid manner, everyone is adding/altering the creed. On the second reason, in the filioque, the procession by the Father and by the Son is different. The Father is the principle without principle in the procession while the Son is principle with principle. So each retain a different property (tho both has the common denominator of spiration/procession).
...the Council of Ephesus is the THIRD ecumenical council. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was promulgated in the SECOND ecumenical council, and it doesn't form a different faith than what was defined in the first ecumenical council because it was convened principally in order to clarify the doctrine of the Trinity in response to the Pneumatomachoi. It was the doctrine of the Trinity that was defended in Nicaea I. It's not even a good argument to make-- _everyone's_ in violation of an ecumenical council, so it doesn't matter?
Eastern Fathers only said that the Son was in certain senses the AITIA of the Spirit. Aitia doesn't mean the "source" but the "explanation". A word can be an explanation for why the breath is released, but it doesn't mean that the breath proceeds from the word.
I could be wrong but it’s ultimately because they weren’t present to debate and ultimately vote on it. I’m pretty sure there were orders within the council who disagreed but remained in communion despite their efforts
Fun fact: when West recites the Creed in Greek, both East and West recite the same Creed. Fun fact: the same way that Orthodox Churches don't accept the translation into Latin that added the Filioque, when reciting the Creed, say: Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν. which means they believe in "only One, Catholic (Universal), Apostolic, and [Holy] Church" but decided to not be in communion with Catholic Churches. Another fun fact: Oriental Churches such as the Melkites, the Maronites or the Chaldeans are some examples of Churches throughout history after the Great Schism that have been reestablishing the full Communion with the Catholic Churches. The Catholic Church is not just the Roman tradition, but also has full Communion with Chruches of Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan (Byzantine) traditions that each tradition's Church have their Cardinals in Rome and could be elected as the Pope, making it "One, Universal, Apostolic and Holy" instead of dozens of autocephalous Churches.
It wasn't just the filioque, but even if it was, altering the Church's profession of faith without synodical discussion is schismatic behavior in its own right.
I could be mistaken but I think your historical accuracy is incorrect the filioque was added to help clarify the word choices. The Eastern Church rejected it hundreds of years later, this is mainly due to the Eastern Church being sacked by Muslims again. In fact there was a brief time of unity. The expression “from the Father through the Son” is accepted by many Eastern Orthodox. This, in fact, led to a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox with the Catholic Church in 1439 at the Council of Florence. Unfortunately, the union did not last. In the 1450s (just decades before the Protestant Reformation), the Eastern Orthodox left the Church again under pressure from the Muslims, who had just conquered them and who insisted they renounce their union with the Western Church (lest Western Christians come to their aid militarily). Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43). We can also look at the Western Church Father's. St. Augustine had this to say on the matter “[I]t must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle” (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]). “[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son” (ibid., 15:17:29). “Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him” (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).
John 15:26 26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father-the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father-he will testify about me.
This is one of the main reasons why I’m considering leaving Catholicism for Orthodoxy. I’ve listened to catholic apologists responding to this and I’ve found their responses to be very weak. Therefore, I decided not to say “and the Son” when i recite the creed at a Catholic church because , i really do think that we Catholics got it wrong.
Guys you wont find the trinity in the original biblical texts and this whole concept of a triune God is an innovation. Early Christians were like early jews and believed in One God and Islam came after Christianity and corrected this misconception and restored full Abrahamic monotheism. Read the Qur'an and theology will never be an issue again. God is one. We affirm the prophethood of jesus( may peace be upon him).
@@HI1804 you know what’s the satanic innovation? Islam. do you really think that uttering such rubbish taught but your ignorant sheikhs and imams, that you’d somehow get people to believe you on CZcams and convert???😂 You don’t know what you’re talking about at all.
@@Ryan_ChristopherI don’t think so. If this was the case then all eastern catholics who are allowed to recite it without the Filioque at church wouldn’t be catholics. Me choosing not to say it does not make me a non catholic. I haven’t left
To anyone curious, the reason for the schism was complicated, but mostly cultural/political. Under persecution and influence of the Muslims, the emperor of the Byzantine empire decided to cease using icons in their churches, and demanded that the Pope and the west follow. The Pope said nah, but there was still a council to debate, the second council of Nicea. They agreed with the Pope, and so then the Pope crowned a new emperor, which annoyed the east. Then Catholics added the filioque clause to combat Arianism and assert that the Son was not less than the Father in terms of power/divinity, which was supported by scripture and theological argument, but wasn’t good because they didn’t consult a council to make such a change. Then the west started using unleavened bread in their masses, which caused the Constantinople head to shut down all masses in Constantinople. The Pope sent someone to talk to them, but the patriarch of Constantinople refused. The representative was ignored for days, so he went into the Hagia Sophia Basilica during an Easter vigil mass and excommunicated the patriarch in mid mass. The Bishop in turn excommunicated the representative, which created a greater rift. Finally, as the Muslim expansion was threatening all of Christianity, the Pope and the Eastern churches united, and launched the crusades, to combat the centuries of persecution by Muslims. In the fourth crusade, the crusaders were going to take back Jerusalem from the Muslims, but at the same time, the Byzantine emperor was deposed by a coup. The son of the emperor asked the crusaders to take back Constantinople, and he would pay all of their (heavy) debts. The Pope told them NOT to go to Constantinople, but in greed they ignored it, which culminated in the initial siege of Constantinople. The emperors son couldn’t pay once they finished, and then he got killed by a new coup. Clearly, the government and order of the East was not built on stable foundations. The new leaders refused to pay the crusaders, so the crusaders, against Papal orders, ransacked the city. Eventually the Byzantine empire took it back, but because of its heavy ties with the Byzantine empire, the Eastern Orthodox blame the Roman Catholic Church for the demise of its nation. A couple hundred years later and the next ecumenical councils were formed, in Lyon then Florence, and although the wounds were still fresh, the eastern patriarchs agreed to the filioque clause, papal supremacy, and even purgatory. But then the Eastern Orthodox Church decided to recant after signing, because of the political pressure from the Byzantine emperor, as well as from the clergy back home. Long story short, the Eastern Orthodox are the ones in schism, but the reasons for it are well founded politically based on the events tied with Orthodoxy’s parent nation.
I grew up in the Catholic Church under Vatican I when Pius XII was pope. Even as a very small child, before catechism training and first communion, I was aware that The Trinity was three distinct persons. I don't recall being taught otherwise. I asked a great deal of questions in catechism class, so many that one nun told me that it was a sin. I never heard the word "filioque" until recently. I have always differed with the Roman Catholic church on the issue of the infallibility of the Pope. The current Pope is bending to worldly pressure by sanctioning homosexual marriage and transgenderism.
The Trinity acts as one.But we see in the Bible that a specific person of the Trinity is send to act.The Holy Spirit was sent to sanctify humans.The Son was sent to die.Although they are distinct they always act in complete unity.
I would have liked it to include the reason the west added it in the first place: to combat heresy. At that time in the west there was a heresy perpetuating the idea that the Trinity was equal, that the Father was greater than the Son. The filioque was a bottom-up catechetical solution to this heresy created by local priests and at first resisted and rejected by the Pope (he even had the creed in it's original form w/o the filioque nailed to the doors of the Vatican as a response!) But it proved effective in combating the spread of the heresy so the clause was retained. If one takes into account the teleological meaning of the phrase, which is from where it came in the west, it says the same thing as the original meaning of the Creed - that the Father breathes the sigh of love that is the Spirit to rest in the Son, and the resting place, the teleological end of the Spirit, the Son, is EQUALLY important to the nature and existence of the Spirit as the point of origin, the Father - that is to say, there is no theological schism on this point, merely an aesthetic and linguistic one. To the point where Rome allows Eastern Catholics (Orthodox in communion w/Rome) to chant or no to chant it based on Eparchial or pastoral authority.
"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it." -Cyril of Alexandria
Filioque is correct. There is plenty of Church fathers defending the position, and the bishop of Rome hasdefinetly the right to edit the text of the creed as long as the essense remains the same, which it does
@@Testimony_Of_JTF Augustine was proud of the fact he could not reed Greek, and predates the local synod which introduced the Filioque clause. Augustine while recognised as a saint in the east is always treated with caution as he had some unhealthy ideas especially around sin due to the fact he could not reed the eastern fathers in their original Greek.
In John 15:26 it clearly states: But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me
John 20:21-23 "So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” Orthodoxy is wrong their theology only teaches half truths, but the whole truth is in the Catholic Church for it teaches that the Holy Spirit procedes from the Father and the Son just like scripture shows!
@@telosbound "He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit." This my friend is how the Holy Spirit precedes from the Son too. The Son's breath gave them the Holy Spirit. Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Do you see why Jesus breath on them? The Holy Spirit precedes from the Son and the Father just like scripture says! For this reason, the Catholic Church has the WHOLE truth for it is also written: 1 Timothy 3:15 "but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. " AMEN The whole truth is in the Catholic Church AMEN
I have noticed that the Catholic Church is the only one who is using faith and reason aligned with the fullness of truth, while the other side is using politics while at the same time using unreasonable faith.
@@JesusIsOurLord-xk9zz Procession? or precedes? Procession is one thing and precedes is another. Procession: "a number of people or vehicles moving forward in an orderly fashion, especially as part of a ceremony or festival:" You are so lost!
@@larrycera9276 - Yeah I've been confused the last 3 years.... I think Orthodoxy is the right one but you have to be born into it. We westerners (just me) are too fat and stupid to be allowed into Orthodoxy 🐷⚡️🙈
@@alexdelosreyes6076 - the Orthies have a point because Jesus mentions in the same verse twice, "the spirit comes from the father" but the RC got sick of aryanism and it does seem like a rhetorical statement from Jesus.... & the devil causes schism... You have to respect the Orthies because they died for that creed
Filioque is correct btw, but it is not demanded by the Church to accept it. The Eastern churches in communion with Rome reject it still and they are allowed to do so without breaking from the Holy See.
@@internautaoriginal9951 stop spreading the misinformation. The statue of "Pachamama" as the media started calling it afterwards was clearly presented to the pope as "Our Lady of the Amazon". Watch the video of the event and find better sources of information you consume.
@@jakajakos except that it clearly was not the case or if it was it wasn't just a charitable mistake. Why does the Vatican now print coins with Mother Earth? Why did priests pray with a shaman? I'm an Italian RC going through catechism, and while these are not the reasons for me leaving, I'm telling you as well as other Catholics: *fight* these monstrous heresies. I see too many who are willing to put up with this.
@@jakajakos from the Catholic News Agency: "Paolo Ruffini, head of the Vatican's communications office, said last week that "fundamentally, it represents life. And enough. I believe to try and see pagan symbols or to see... evil, it is not," he said, adding that "it represents life through a woman." He equated the image to that of a tree, saying "a tree is a sacred symbol."
This video also ignores the historical aspect. A lot of the division is due to misunderstanding. The Western Chruch originally added it to combat a heresy that was arising at the time. A lot of the Eastern Churches took this the wrong way because they had been battling a heresy on the opposite side of the same question. But the Eastern Catholic Churches basically show that most issues between Catholic and Orthodox are really semantics and non issues aside from the role and authority of the Pope
You are right when u say that personal properties are unique to the persons which means that the persons only differntiate from each other by the opposite relations. So if the Son is not opposed to the Spirit by the spiration and the spirit to the son by procession that means that they are not different from each other. On the other hand if we say that non-opposite relations can make a difference, than the relation of the father to the son and the relation of the father to the spirit would make two different hypostasis of the father. U need to educate more in Catholic theology
Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20). Catholics got it right.
My brother from another mother…😊. Please hear me out on this one…. The fact that our church was split on this matter is horrible… please soften your heart and read here…Thanks for bringing this to my attention as it confirms for me that the RCC is where I belong…. Please consider that the trinity is one God…. I and the father are 1 …. 3 in 1. Now consider this scriptural backup …. Showing that the Holy Spirit proceeds forth from both the Father and Now the Son…. Or do you not know that all things that are my fathers have been bestowed upon me?….. The Father Sends the Holy Spirit There is a passage that says God the Father is the one who sends the Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself said this. We read His statement in John’s gospel. All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you (John 14:25-26 TNIV). According to Jesus, the Holy Spirit will be sent by the Father. The Holy Spirit Is Sent from Jesus Yet there is another passage that affirms that the Holy Spirit was sent from Jesus alone. Jesus said this after He had risen from the dead. And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49 NRSV). Here is it Jesus alone who is sending the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit Proceeds from Both the Father and the Son This problem is seemingly solved when we look at another statement of Jesus. In John’s gospel Jesus indicates the Holy Spirit proceeds from both God the Father and God the Son. Jesus again said. When the Counselor comes, the One I will send to you from the Father the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father-He will testify about Me. (John 15:26 HCSB). This statement of Jesus Christ says that both the Father and the Son are involved in sending the Holy Spirit. This appears to be the best way of understanding this question; both the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit. This Was the Cause for the Church Split (Filioque Clause) This issue, as to whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father or the Father and the Son, was the reason given for the church to split into East and West. The original form of the Nicene Creed declared that, “the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father.” The teaching of St. Augustine in the Western and Latin-speaking church sought to emphasize the strict equality of God the Father and God the Son. He taught that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son. The Clause Was Added to the Nicene Creed This teaching eventually was added to the Nicene Creed. The result reads: who proceeds from the Father and the Son. The added words being a translation of the Latin word filioque which means “and the Son.” The filioque clause was added by the Western Church to make clear that the Son, Jesus, also sent the Holy Spirit. The addition of this clause is Scriptural for, as we have just seen, the Bible does teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. It also emphasizes the deity of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, it was this addition to the Creed that was the “official” reason given for the Church to split into East and West in the year 1054. Of course, this was not the only issue that caused the split between East and West but it was the reason which was highlighted. This Does Not Mean the Holy Spirit Is Inferior in Nature There is an important point we need to emphasize. The fact that the Holy Spirit was sent by God the Father and God the Son does not imply that He is inferior in nature to them. The three members of the Trinity are equal in nature. While equal in nature they have different duties to perform. It is the mission of the Holy Spirit to do the work of God the Son, Jesus Christ, once Jesus left the earth. Thus, the fact that He was sent by the Father and the Son has nothing to do with His character being less than theirs. Is There an Eternal Procession? There is also the question as to when this procession occurred. Did it only occur after Jesus ascended into heaven? Or has this sending of the Holy Spirit something that has been going on forever? The eternal procession of the Holy Spirit seems to be taught in the Psalms . When you send your Spirit, new life is born to replenish all the living of the earth (Psalm 104:30 NLT). During the Old Testament period the Holy Spirit came forth from God the Father. It was not until after Jesus Christ ascended that the Holy Spirit proceeded from God the Son.
The original christians are orthodoxe, was founded when jesus died by his apostles, but catholiques was created in 1000th, 1000 years After orthodoxe, when catholiques was created in europe when orthodoxe was created in africa
That is why these difficult issues should be discussed and judged upon in a Church council, not decided by one person, the way the pope of Rome did it.
“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. John 15:26 Jesus said he will send the holy spirit, he also said the father will send the holy spirit, they both send the holy spirit.
in my understanding the orthodox church thing that what differentiates the father and the son is the fact that the Father has the Holy Spirit that proceeds from Him, while the Son doesn't have it. But according to the Catholic Church the difference between the Father and the Son is that the Son is begotten of the Father, while the Father begot the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Both. The difference between begetting and proceeding is a mistery cause we're talking about an infinite being and we only have a grasp of these concepts finitely, but in your finite comprehention proceeding is a constant while begetting is a one time event.
The ultimate issue is a bishop changing the creed without a council. That is the real problem. Arguing the filoque is pointless without the council, for if Rome called for a council and presented their reasoning, it may have been acceptable.
The problem is papal authority, not necessarily the filioque.
But they did in the council of Florence which was accepted by the east
@@josuesilva9409The East never accepted Florence. Only Constantinople did for a time, later recanting, and did so primarily for the hope of aid from the West which they never received, and then Constantinople fell (while Constantinople was Unuate). Furthermore, the vast majority of jurisdictions also didn't even attend in the first place so it could hardly meet even a single requirement for a binding council in Orthodoxy.
Rome did present their reasoning at Florence and said that they unironically hold to the Filioque being the Double-Hypostatic Procession of the Holy Spirit, after the Orthodox tried multiple tines to say they could recite the Filioque if it was understood to be an Energetic Procession. Thus it absolutely matters. If it was a matter if simple jurisdictional overstepping, there would not be a schism that remains. But instead, Rome dogmatized heresy
Not caused, just proceeds. It is simply just about procession. At least that is what Augustine’s position would be. None of the major eastern or western traditions would argue that any person of the Godhead exists prior to or after any of the other persons. In fact, Augustine argues for inseparable operations and part of that argument includes the idea that nothing done at any point in time among the persons of the Godhead is done without a unified will. To separate the wills would be to effectively create tritheism but such a view is rejected.
The Greeks use cause differently than the Latins. The Greeks using cause would be akin to the Latins using principle. The Latins use principle because as St. Thomas Aquinas says, it has a more general meaning while cause is more restricted. Principle signifies the origin of something proceeding and does not imply inferiority of the terminus to the principle. Cause to the latins implies inferiority in that this would be equivalent to efficient causality The Greeks don't mean cause in this way though.
Beautifully said
Amen❤❤❤❤❤
@@TheChunkyCrusaderI believe it was Saint Augustine who used principle
@@DanielWard79 You are correct. Evident in De Trinitate. The reasoning for such is given by Aquinas.
1. The Roman Church is not wrong at all in asserting that the Holy Spirit comes from both
2. The Orthodox Church is not wrong in asserting that changing the creed should be a communal decision not by one bishop
3. This is a VERY arbitrary and ultimately pointless argument to split an entire church
It's arbitrary only if you think theology is pointless
@@RealLukifersad life to live if you truly Believe this. Even if you are not religious
@@grey.7828 I realised my bad wording now, I meant to say it's arbitrary ONLY if you think it's pointless.
It isnt pontles because most people believe that Catholic churxh is the original church but the catholic church left the Orthodox Church in 1054
@@midnighthunter5677or vice versa 😊
I read through the comments. It is important to try to grasp the mystery of the Holy Trinity. It is also important to be the vessel of the Holy Spirit, to practice virtue, and bear the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
No mystery, It is The Goddess, most conspicuously anonymous throughout The Bible. For that you can blame King Manasehs tyrannical obliteration of Ashera's temples, groves & shrines. This is adequately explained by Paul Wallis, whether one believes in The Female Aspect of God or not. However, we should remember that Continents are named after Her.
Amen 🙏
The Holy Ghost is the Love of the Father for the Son and the Love of the Son for the Father which is the Holy Trinity - The Father The Son and the Holy Ghost. Saint John Marie Baptist Vianny explains. Saint Arnold Janson also explains the Holy Trinity.
@@TwisterTornado
God made Adam and Eve. God made our souls. Male and female. We each have our own souls. A soul is not indiscriminate.
God made us. We do not equate ourselves with God.
What are you trying to say?
@@VijaySuryaAdityaPaul Wallis isn’t exactly the most respectable source lol
One of the major reasons why I’m converting to Orthodoxy
What specifically? That the pope promulgated a change in the creed sans a general council? Why do you think that's not within his rights? After all, we teach that no council is general, which is not promulgated by the pope.
@@someman7 But that is itself in question because the bishop of Rome possesses no real authority higher than the other bishops sure at the councils he was given a place of honor and respect but not authority. The whole cause of the first great schism in the first place was whether the pontiff had supremacy over the other bishops and was a naked power grab by the bishop of rome.
@@ashmoleproductions5407 The bishop of Rome does posses apostolic authority. Why didn't Eastern fathers protest the letters that popes sent to general councils if this is incorrect eclesiology? Why break away only in the 2nd millenium? I In fact, we claim all bishops work licitly only if in communion with the see of Peter.
@@someman7 the church never had papal ecclesiology. Read the canons of the councils. The bishop of Rome has been the first among equals.
@@Orthobro33 The (Eastern Catholic) saint Maximus the Confessor, disagrees, writing: “[...]the Church and clergy of Rome, [...] from the beginning to the present, as eldest of all the churches under the sun, presides over all!". Actually, even st. Ignatius, disciple of st. John the Apostle, martyr, bishop of the place where we were first called Christians, the one that first recorded the name Catholic, says the Church of Rome "presides over love".
“Receive the Holy Spirit” Jesus
"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." Jesus
@@matheusmotta1750John 16
I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14 He will glorify me because it is from me that he will receive what he will make known to you. 15 All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you.”
@@TheAmosTree that doesn't have to do with eternal procession. The Holy Spirit is not a "thing" that the Son has. He is a Person. These verses explain that the Son communicates from the Father what the Spirit shall say/teach to the Church. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
@@matheusmotta1750 The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son. And no one said he was ‘a thing’
Regardless Saint Athanasius and multiple Orthodox and church fathers all believed in the Filioque
czcams.com/video/_Rrzo55G364/video.htmlsi=udHIKzM4gzIiOjA3
@@matheusmotta1750 who said the holt spirit was a ‘thing’?
Read your own Orthodox saints. (I assume you’re Orthodox?)
They believed in the Filioque also.
Ive agreed with literally everything Orthodoxy is, im just wondering when to convert.
You should study more. I recommend Michael Lofton and Erix Ybarra. Also Saun Suonna.
Best time to convert is the moment you thought about it, second best time is now
@@snokehusk223 Heretic
Very well. Happy to hear the news brother ☦️
The Greek creed specifically uses the verb ἐκπορεύεσθαι which implies that the Father is the absolute origin of the Holy Spirit's power, which is theologically correct.
The Latin creed uses precidit meaning to pass through. To say that the Holy Spirit is mediated by both the Father and the Son is theologically correct, and biblical. It is also correct to say that the Holy Spirit passes through the Father (without saying the son) as it is technically correct, but not complete.
If the Western Churches were to use the Greek version of to proceed (ἐκπορεύεσθαι) it would be heretical, as it would imply that the Holy Spirit is a slave to the Father and the Son, rather than Its own Person working in tandem. Which is also why you see *Eastern Catholics* saying "Who proceeds from the Father" during the creed.
Ekporeomenom (the word in John 15:26) is used in Revelation 22:1 for both Father and Son.
@@namapalsu2364 So in translating to different languages you would argue one is forced to use a word for word translation even if that changes the meaning or completely destroys any meaning?
@@DaleDixieMafia I'm saying that the word orignally doesn't have the specific meaning that's attached to it latter. So we shouldn't be anachronistic.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life John 3:16.
Very interesting. Didn’t know that specific before. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you, LORD Jesus, for taking my sins away. Simple Gospel, we all sinned against the Holy God, and God sent Christ to take our punishment, and the Holy Spirit gives us the strength to stop sining.
"Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you.
As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them,
“RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT" (John 20:21-22)
Yes, receive the Holy Spirit who originated from the Father alone (mono archy or monarchy).
@@pero33403 That's the most arrogant, self contradictory, and funny little argument that EO gives to justify leaving the mother church.
It is arrogant because they "know" the triune God in and out.
It is self contradictory to their own creed which proclaims that Holy Spirit is also God. Therefore He can't be caused or originate. God is the uncaused cause of everything. That also applies to Our Blessed Lord who is True God of True God. That means He is not missing anything.
It is funny because people who repeat this are very serious.
@@ellacrup1 With all due respect, I can tell you don't know much about the filioque debate. Please at least educate yourself before typing nonsense on the internet. And don't be proud. Have you read any of the books on the subject? Perhaps the one by dr. Edward Siecienski?
Ella you make to much sence. EO have to much pride to listen. They leave reasons out
@@oroGold-s5b How can be a thing of pride if I just pointed out the fact that she doesn't know what she is talking about...What she is saying shows complete lack of understanding what filioque is all about, even the basics. At least read what the Catholic Answers is saying about filioque so at least we can have a discussion. I am a baptized Catholic who converted to the Orthodox faith last year primarily because of filioque. I can also give you other reasons if you are interested. And there are many...
And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. (Rev 22:1)
Crystal clear!
Thats economic procession! Not the filioque.
@@ionictheist349 it is in heaven, how can it be economic procession?
@@ronanjm Yes why won't it be?? Christ went to the heavens and sent the holyspirit.
"But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you."
. And also if it was eternal procession, how could John perceive/notice that?? The only one who can perceive it and also reveal it to us is christ himself inwhich he did in John 15.26 by saying "When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me"
@@ionictheist349 If it is in heaven, how can it be economic? Heaven is the dwelling place of God, who is timeless and immutable. Unless you mean to suggest God can change, what procession John sees in heaven is the procession of the Godhead. The Catholic view is that the Father and Son send as one principle. The text describes procession from "the throne" (singular) of the Father and the Son. This equates with the single principle of Catholic theology, not the rejection of the filioque.
It is a heresy in the Catholic Church to subordinate any member of the Trinity to another.
I pray that the east and west can see the forest for the trees and unite against the seemingly endless number of threats to the salvation of humanity that we all face.
The spirit is not subordinate so many people think that about Catholics and they're wrong
@@CopperheadAirsoft sorry- that's what I mean to say. The CC considers subordination to be a heresy.
Strawman!
What does this mean?
@@matet1906 the Catholic and Orthodox Churches both agree that subordination of one member of the Trinity to another is a heresy... I realize my wording choice was unclear. But my point is that we are not as far apart theologically, especially on the filioque, as the schism makes it seem.
I am deeply blessed by being a Roman Catholic. The Blessed Virgin Mary has appeared numerous times throughout the centuries to give warnings that evil behaviour will bring about the wrath of God. Because Our Lady is the mother Jesus gave us from the cross she is concerned for us especially these days when the Blessed Virgin warned during an apparition in 😅Mejugorje Bosnia Herzegovina that the times we are living in are worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. Almighty God destroyed the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah because of the concentrated evil of those cities. These days Our Blessed Mother implores us to pray fervently because she is finding it almost impossible to hold back the punishing hand of God the Father. 😮 She is the Immaculate Conception and as the mother of Jesus and the spouse of the Holy Spirit and the daughter of God the Father (we are all created by God and ch loved by God who is Love,Humility, Divine Mercy and our Creator) she implored us to change our lives doing penance fasting and praying for the world.
I've never seen a Roman Catholic, ACTUALLY, worship Mary. But, today, I've seen one.
This is heresy, it is not biblical and shows the the Catholic Church is apostate from the truth
@@OrthoJason That’s a little too many commas.
@@waylonwongaming711 Nuh uh.
@@OrthoJason it’s supposed to be, “I’ve never seen a Roman Catholic actually worship Mary, but today, I’ve seen one.”
In the Book of Revelation St. John sees in Heaven the Living Waters flowing from the throne which Jesus is seated. A lot of Orthodox theologians now agree with Rome on the Filioque
No Orthodox theologian agrees with the filioque. Agreeing with it literally makes you heterodox, this is not a "minor language issue" as the Nicean creed is the pillar and symbol of Faith. We don't play around with our beliefs.
I agree with the other respondent and would add it is not the academic theologians who need persuading but the mass of the faithful or ORthodox which is nearly impossible. the Truth of the Orthodox faith is kept by both the bishops and the totality of the church so even if a few bishops are misled the church will self-correct and expel the deceased members.
Interestingly, most of that is being resolved right now between the Church and the Eastern Orthodox as per the synod in Alexandria last week. The fact, it’s basically been resolved for hundreds of years, and most orthodox academics, as well as Catholic academics. Do not see it as an issue. It’s primarily linguistic issue that rides between the Greek and Latin cultures and languages. Leon, this was not a problem, because of the shared Latin and Greek, this became a problem later
They are being disingenuous ecumenism’s if they say such a thing. Orthodox cannot subscribe to the dual causation proclaimed by Ferrara-Florence
@@larrycera9276explain further
I think it’s disingenuous to say that such a major difference of doctrine that has kept the Church and Catholicism apart is because of a misunderstanding. Theologians aren’t dumb
@@lbwnova6654 it is because of a misunderstanding. They resolved it before, but a few didn’t agree so it perpetuated. Not everything is about theology, sometimes it’s about politics.
That was the impression I got, having to read explains from both sides in English I wasn’t sure why they were arguing at all.
You left out the Filioque was added to address the Arian Heresy of the time and it isn’t even a dogma of the Church. Many Catholic Church don’t even say it. And the authority structure of the Church Jesus started is the Bishop of Rome is the head.
Arian heresy happened in 4th century. This was in the 10 or 11th century
Our Lord Jesus Christ teaches, “But when the Helper comes, Whom I shall
send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth Who proceeds from the
Father, he will testify of Me” (Jn 15:26). This is the basic statement in all the New Testament about the Holy Spirit “proceeding,” and it is clear: He
“proceeds from the Father.”
Thus, when the ancient council at Constantinople in AD 381 reaffirmed the
Creed of Nicea (AD 325), it expanded that Creed to proclaim these familiar
words: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-Giver, Who proceeds from
the Father, Who is worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the
Son. . . .”
But two hundred years later, at a local council in Toledo, Spain (AD 589),
King Reccared declared, “the Holy Spirit also should be confessed by us and
taught to proceed from the Father and the Son.” The King may have meant
well, but he was contradicting Jesus’ teaching, confessed by the entire
Church, concerning the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, that local Spanish council
agreed with his error.
Because of the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, believed by the Church at
Nicea and at Constantinople and for centuries beyond, there is no reason to
believe anything other than that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
But centuries later, in what was at least partially a politically motivated move,
the Pope of Rome unilaterally changed the universal creed of the Church
without an ecumenical council. Though this change was initially rejected in
both East and West, even by some of Rome’s closest neighboring bishops, the
Pope managed to eventually get the West to capitulate. The consequence, of
course, in the Western Church has been the tendency to relegate the Holy
Spirit to a lesser place than God the Father and God the Son. The change may
appear small, but the consequences have proven disastrously immense. This issue, with the Pope departing from the Orthodox doctrine of the Church,
became another instrumental cause separating the Roman Church from the
historic Orthodox Church, the New Testament Church.
@netsanetmengistie2207 There was a resurgence of it at that time.
@@hismajesty6272 The filoque was added due to political influence. A disagreement concerning the Holy Spirit
also began to develop in the Church. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from the
Father? Or, does He proceed from the Father and the Son?
Our Lord Jesus Christ teaches, “But when the Helper comes, Whom I shall
send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth Who proceeds from the
Father, he will testify of Me” (Jn 15:26). This is the basic statement in all the New Testament about the Holy Spirit “proceeding,” and it is clear: He
“proceeds from the Father.”
Thus, when the ancient council at Constantinople in AD 381 reaffirmed the
Creed of Nicea (AD 325), it expanded that Creed to proclaim these familiar
words: “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Life-Giver, Who proceeds from
the Father, Who is worshipped and glorified together with the Father and the
Son. . . .”
But two hundred years later, at a local council in Toledo, Spain (AD 589),
King Reccared declared, “the Holy Spirit also should be confessed by us and
taught to proceed from the Father and the Son.” The King may have meant
well, but he was contradicting Jesus’ teaching, confessed by the entire
Church, concerning the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, that local Spanish council
agreed with his error.
Because of the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, believed by the Church at
Nicea and at Constantinople and for centuries beyond, there is no reason to
believe anything other than that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
But centuries later, in what was at least partially a politically motivated move,
the Pope of Rome unilaterally changed the universal creed of the Church
without an ecumenical council. Though this change was initially rejected in
both East and West, even by some of Rome’s closest neighboring bishops, the
Pope managed to eventually get the West to capitulate. The consequence, of
course, in the Western Church has been the tendency to relegate the Holy
Spirit to a lesser place than God the Father and God the Son. The change may
appear small, but the consequences have proven disastrously immense. This issue, with the Pope departing from the Orthodox doctrine of the Church,
became another instrumental cause separating the Roman Church from the
historic Orthodox Church, the New Testament Church.
He declared Peter was the rock upon which the church would be built, I’m not so sure that means he has the keys to the kingdom alone so to speak.
Seems Scotus' attempt to reconsile the latin and greek views fixes most of these objections
The reason it’s heretical to deny the filioque is because that would deny that the Son and the Father are one. This phrase was used by the church fathers, and the church has always said that “and the son” and “through the son” are both acceptable theological understandings. But the earliest known addition of it to the creed was actually a local council in the east, the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in Persia in about 410.
I don't reckon that checks out. The Son and the Father are one, yes, but that doesn't mean everything attributable to one hypostasis is shared by the other. The Holy Spirit can proceed only from the Father just as the Son is not begetting Himself, and the Father doesn't also have a human fysis. Each hypostasis performs unique functions within the Godhead so that the will of the Father can be done. The Father causes the Holy Spirit which the Son directs in order for miracles and other divine influence to be effected. The notion that the Holy Spirit is caused by two persons, I reckon, implies that He is caused in two parts, which is incongruent with the immutability of the divine ousia. It would also mean that the Holy Spirit both originates from and passes through the same origin in Christ Jesus, since we receive the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, which seems strange.
where is filioque in the 2sd ecumenical council
Not true. As a Catholic, both are correct. It's not incorrect to say it just descends from God. Any Orthodoxy that will throw a fit over something Catholic leaders agree with them on is lost. Fact is it also comes from the Son as well. If they want to say it comes from father only there is nothing wrong with that because Jesus is God and the spirit cannot proceed from itself because it is itself, but it is not unreasonable to say it proceeds from the father AND the son as Jesus has called upon the spirit in scripture to hand to others. To deny this by saying "God gave Jesus the ability to do that" denies that Jesus is God, as he never calls upon his father for the holy spirit. Everything Jesus calls from his father is always explicitly made clear in scripture. If he does not call upon the father, then it is the Son using His authority, not His Fathers
@@Star-vm9ocyes, even St Spryridon and St Alexander of Svir agree all three are God. St Alexander saw the triune even though he was Eastern Orthodox his visit was Catholic. Like St Spryridon and others show that our limited human understanding make it hard to comprehend God. His glory is vast and great like Padre Pio affirms, spanning dimensions, stars systems, microcosms, and possibilities.
in that council the Church of the East broke communion with the rest of the Church how is it a source of dogma as opposed to the Second Ecumenical Council
Why would there be an imbalance they are all one and all have authoritative power
Orthodox people read this.
As stated by Saint Ignatius of Antioq " To the church on rome, Which holds the presidency "
^ Ignatius is telling us that the church on Rome holds all the authority.
As stated by Irenaues " by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition”
We the Catholic church hold the over all authority and we do not need inferior authority to make church declaration of dogma or doctrine.
If you didn't quote mine it from new advent you would know it says which "presides in Rome" not "which holds the presidency" so nope, no papal Infallibility. Also your own popes condemned the previous popes which held the fake council against Photius in 869- this was then condemned by the later popes and council in 879 and they reinstated Photius as rightful patriarch of Constantinople and condemned to filioque. Your own popes and councils deny each other 😂
Saint Ignatius of Antioch says that the Church of Rome presides in the land of the Romans (their province/jurisdiction) and that she presides in love (charitas). Nothing more.
Ignatius also says that where is the Bishop (that is, every Bishop, not just the Roman one), there is the Catholic (complete/universal) Church.
Pride and Vainglory.
The Rock of Matthew 16 is the Confession of Faith in Jesus the Rock of the Church, which Peter was named after, but not being the Rock himself. See what the Fathers of the Church say about these verses, including Saint Augustine.
Jesus gave the Keys of the Kingdom to other Apostles too (Matthew 18).
There were three Petrine Sees, namely Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, "for three are the See of one", according to Saint Pope Gregory the Great.
Rome was the greatest because the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul were martyred and left their relics there (for you to have an idea, Cyprus gained autonomy because the relics of the Holy Apostle Bartholomew were found there), and because it was the old capital of the Roman Empire (according to the Ecumenical Councils).
Rome was the Primate of the Church, not the head (the Head has always been Christ).
In the Council of Jerusalem of Acts 15, Peter didn't have the final word, according to the Fathers, Saint James the Apostle was the one responsible for the decisions of this Council.
What else would you expect him to say? It doesn’t actually mean it is truth, not a lie either, but a position from someone with vested interest.
The "rock" refers not to Peter himself but to the confession of faith that Peter made in the preceding verses (Matthew 16:16), where Peter declares Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God. Accordingly, it is this faith in Christ that is the foundation of the church.
This is wrong on so many levels.
1. The Filioque was used in the VI century by St. Leander of Seville to covert king Recared to Nicean Christianity... it is an anti-arrian clause, because if the Son is not consubstantial with the Father, it cannot send forth the Spirit.
2. Peter and his successors can bind in earth as they see fit (and it will be bound in heaven). They are the only ones that hold the keys of heaven, and as προεδρος (president) of the whole Church (as stated by the Church Fathers), they have the power and responsibility to teach the correct way of the faith by whatever methods they see fit. Furthermore, the Nicaean Creed doesn't prohibit changing it's content, but to preach another faith than that established in the Creed (e.g. Arrianism, Gnosticism, Nestorianism, etc.)
3. You need relations of opposition to distinguish the persons in the trinity... as the Son is eternally begotten by the Father, and the Spirit is eternally spired forth by the Father, you need a relation of opposition between the Son and the Spirit. Without the Filioque, you cannot distinguish (theologically) those two persons.
4. In the NT, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father as well as the Spirit of Christ and the Spirit of the Son; it is clear that the procession occurs also by the Son. Hence, there's no imbalance in the trinity (that is a laughable claim).
PD: Bold of you using a Catholic background song when criticizing Catholicism.
@@telosbound 1 & 4. St. Athanasius explained: "and so, since they [the Father and Son] are one, and the Godhead itself one, the same things are said of the Son, which are said of the Father, except his being said to be Father... ‘For all things’, says the Son himself ‘whatsoever the Father has, are Mine’; and again, and Mine are Thine". (Discourse III Against the Arians, Chap. 23 #4, c. AD 356). To deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son is to deny that the Son has everything that the Father has, which of course does not include being the Father himself, since being the Father is incommunicable. As Jesus also says in John 5:19 "For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise", since the Father eternally spirates the Holy Spirit, the Son does likewise. Before we continue, we should note that there’s no doubt that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person from the Father and the Son and that He is God, having the exact same essence as the Father and the Son; He is not an impersonal force but a divine person. Futhermore, John 15:26 says "But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me."; Jesus clearly takes part in the procession of the Holy Spirit. The argument that I have heard for this is that scripture only describes the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the Son (and thus the procession from Him) in regard to what is called the ‘economic Trinity’ (Oikonomia), not in regard to the actual ‘eternal Trinity’ (or ‘imminent Trinity’, aka Theologia) and an eternal procession within it. The thing is that no matter what, the Oikonomia can't reflect anything different than the Theologia.
2. The concept that ALL apostles had the keys wasn't present in the early Church until Constantinople was made an artificial patriarchate (out of fucking thin air, may I add, just because it was the "new Rome"). Here we have to take a look to the old kingdom of Israel, that prefigurates the new kingdom (the Church); here ONLY the prime minister (out of the 12) had the keys to the house of David and power to shut so that no one opens and open so that no one shuts. He could lend/distribute the keys to the other ministers, but the control of the keys was his alone. The same happens in the new covenant; Peter alone is given the keys of the house of God (the kingdom of heaven), the other apostles can bind, but they have to do it through Peter lending/distributing the power of the keys. That's why the Pope can take away that power (binding or loosing) if the Bishop(s) become rogue. That cannon was to make sure that no single bishop became an anarchist or self-governing (*cough cough* like modern Orthodoxy *cough*) entity within its delegated territory, but to follow the hierarchy of the Church. Saint Gregory Nazianzen stated that Rome: "...binds together all the West (a reference to how heresies were ravaging the East more than the West) with her saving words, as it is right that she if the president OVER ALL" (Carminum, Liber I, PG 37:559). Also St. John of Damascus, when referring to Peter, uses the superlative form of κoρυϕαιoς (lit. Head, this was a title used with bishops)... he used κoρυϕαιoτατoς, meaning that Peter was the "chiefest", or the "supremest" or the topmost in the whole Church, also stating that Christ "appointed you key holder to the Kingdom of heaven, who bestowed on you the binding and losing of the means of correction" (Homily on the Transfiguration #6, J.P.Mignet, Patrologia Graeca, 96:556). Again, the successor of Rome has the supreme RESPONSABILITY to correct and teach as he sees fit. Now, this doesn't mean that the Filioque was added out of the blue just because the Pope said so, you yourself said it correctly: "the Church of Rome", He reunited the church in the West and decided to add the clause to attack Arrianism as fast and decisively as possible, in order to SAVE SOULS. That's the hole point, not to make the greeks mad, not to show the power of Rome, but to act in the best interest of the souls of the people, because I think you and I can agree that falling into heresies such as Arrianism is mortal to the soul, contrary to the filioque, that even the eastern Catholics have recognized.
3. Again, then tell me what is THAT that makes the Son distinguishable from the Holy Spirit? Theologically speaking. Denying the Filioque not only refuses that Jesus is consubstantial with the Father (see first bullet), but also does not allow to decisively distinguish or differentiate the 2nd and 3rd persons of the Holy Trinity. Btw, the Council of Florence is ecumenical even by contemporary Orthodox ad hoc standards, so much so that it had more attendance and representation from the east than the majority of the early ecumenical councils. Even more, the bulls of union were signed almost unanimously, being a rare feat for any council. Technically, the great schism only lasted 400 years, but the people rebelled and didn't accept the bulls; in fact, they were so unruly and violent that sometimes the maximum authorities of the Church in Constantinople had to absent themselves from Hagia Sophia in order to escape the rage of the common folk. What the patriarch had to do was to teach the truth, even to death, and not act like a coward and give in to the social pressure. But as nothing happens without God's consent, the same way He punished the rebel kingdom of Israel (while temporarily sparing the Kingdom of Judea), He allowed the rebel Patriarchates to fell under muslim yoke, while sparing Rome until the day of the parousia.
PD: The correct term is the LATIN Church; using "the church of Rome" or "the Roman church" is incorrect.
PD2: The early Church was guided by the triumvirate of the Petrine Sees (Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, in that order). It was fair to give Jerusalem an honorary Patriarchate title, just because it was the Holy City of God, but Constantinople has absolutely nothing to do here. It was always subordinate to the churches of Thessaloniki or Nicaea. Constantinople becoming a patriarchate is the most political-based, non-religious-founded move in all of the early Church history and it is not only an abuse of power, but also a meddling of a secular entity (the eastern emperor) into religious affairs.
PD3: In fact, there is another anti-arrian clause added to the Nicaean creed, the "Deum de Deo" (God from God)... it was used to reiterate that Jesus TRULY is God, and shares the same ousia or essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The church must use whatever methods has at its disposal to attack heresies and teach the truth.
@@cedricengelhart7349i m not a catholic ,but yeah in open conscience whatever u mentioned makes sense ,it is convincing
Also, I feel like it is compounded by John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one), because proceeding from the Father can also mean proceeding from the Son. ( perhaps I am misusing the scripture there, so take my words with a grain of salt)
@@cedricengelhart7349I’m orthodox but you’ve made a compelling point, some I’ve heard before but some put together really well. God bless you my brother
Filique is also contradicted by the New Testament:
"But when the Comforter [Holy Spirit] is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father - the Spirit of Truth who proceedeth FROM THE FATHER, He shall testify of Me." (John 15:26)
John 20:21-23
Not one Father taught your monopatrite heresy or Father alone heresy. The verse you are quoting like a typical 11th century Protestant, just says that the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father, it doesn't say from the Father Aone.
@@SAHOVNICU "monopatrite"? What word is this, what does it mean? What do u mean the verse I'm quoting like a Protestant? I'm an Orthodox and that verse if from New Testament. Any Christian should not dismiss the New Testament, on the contrary. Not one single Father said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son as well. As a matter of fact this is the FILIOQUE heresy adopted by Vatican and contradicts the Council of Holy Fathers that took place in Nicaea (325) and who adopted the Church' Creed. The idea that the Holy Spirit is also proceeds by the Son didn't even exist in the first few hundreds of years since the beginning of the Church. Filioque creed place the Holy Spirit below the Father and the Son, in a state of subordination, that's why is a heresy! When adopting the Filioque, Vatican went against the Holy Fathers and against their own popes (Pope Leo III and Pope John VIII who distanced themselves from the Filioque and threw anathema on all those who will adopt it).
"just says that the Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father, it doesn't say from the Father Alone." If the Holy Spirity wouldn't have proceed from the Father alone, Jesus wouldn't have specifically mentioned it.
Filioque is the main issue between Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism, a divisive point of contention for why they separated in 1054. If you're a Catholic, I'm really sorry for you. Catholicism is heretic and separated from the Church. They've put a man (the pope) to be the replacement of Christ on Earth (!), who is a sinner cause all men are sinful. You're devoted to the Pope, not to Jesus Christ, sadly.
Revelation 22:1
@@CatholicMaan
The Greek schismatics will say that this procession is a temporal economic operation, even though not one father even mentions this about this passage.
Thank God I'm Orthodox Christian ☦️
The Eastern Church is in the right.
John 20:21-23 "So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
The Holy spirit procedes from Jesus too, the Holy spirit proceded from the father and the Son. The Eastern Church is NOT in the right.
@@Scientist_Albert_Einstein That's merely the "outpouring" of the Spirit. What do you make of John 15:26 with Jesus saying "[...] the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father [...]"? What the (includes) Nicene Creed includes is basically just a citation of that verse. This, of course, excludes the possibility that we are using different definitions of the word "proceed", as "Josef Chandler" outlined in a comment below.
@@edethormaehlen Why don't you read the entire context? John 15:26-27 "‘When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father, he will testify on my behalf. You also are to testify because you have been with me from the beginning."
First fact: the context says that Jesus will SEND the Holy Spirit from the Father.
Second fact: The Spirit of truth who COMES from the Father, he will TESTIFY on Jesus behalf.
Third fact: You also are to TESTIFY because you have been with me from the BEGINNING.
Notice the conclusion, the conclusion says: "You also are to TESTIFY because you have been with me from the beginning."
The keyword here is TESTIFY!
John 8:17-18 "It is also written in your law that the TESTIMONY of two men is true. I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me.”
The Holy Spirit is the witness that procedes from the Father and the Son! The Holy Spirit who was send by the Father bares witness of Jesus; and the Holy spirit who was send by Jesus bares witness of the apostles and Jesus Church.
This is why the Holy Spirit precedes from the Father and the Son! AMEN
The Catholic Church is 100% correct. Orthodoxy is teaching half truths!
@@Scientist_Albert_Einstein John 14:11 Belive me that I am in the father and the father is in me.
Pope and seethe.
Catholic theology doesn't claim that the Son is the cause and the origin of the Spirit but that the Spirit of the Father rests in the Son. So it is through the Son that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. Therefore, He is called the Spirit of the Father 'and the Son'.
Also, the Church in the West had to make this change because it was fighting the Arian heresy that was denying the full divine nature to the Son.
The Catholic Church is 100% correct. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and of the son. The original reason the Greek church rejected this is because when translated they thought it meant it was created by the son. Not the same. The Holy Spirit cannot exist without the son or the father.
Cope
It was "created"??? He PROCEEDS. He isn't created.
You gotta go back to genesis and read the second verse of chapter 1
Bro there is only 1 God...
Stop with this pagan stuff.
1054 you ve left from the schism youre heretics the true church of christ is the orthodox one .☦️
That’s why my great grandfather converted from Catholicism to Holy Orthodoxy! And thank goodness he did !
Both are gnostic are wrong gospel
@@albusai is that an English sentence???
Learn how to write, bro, before you comment
Which one orthodoxy he convert? Did your grandfather become russian? the bulgarian?, the greek? Which one.. ? I'm from southeast asian... and i don't want to become russian or Greek
@@marcelasius Greek Antiochian Orthodox!
All orthodox churches have the same faith and in full communion with one another !! It doesn’t matter !! Go to any church and accept the faith and then you can attend any other orthodox church
God bless !
Glory to God! God bless you brother in Christ ☦️
Wats the name of the background music
I am going to the Catholic church but i do agree with the orthodox teaching on this subject. But i do hope in the future that the balance of the church comes back into one . The Catholic , Oriental, Eastern Orthodox church. Division by man made whole by Christ as the head of the church
Thats not why the churches separated, keep researching God bless
It was definitely one of the main reasons
One word, politics. Politics, and the Eastern and Western churches still holding grudges that are over a thousand years old. Instead of being better they're still pissed at one another and giving the silent treatment like children.
One of the reasons. The other important one was that RC translated all orginal manuscripts into Latin.
Thats a big cause but yes that not the Only Reason the churches separated
Feeling blessed to be a Catholic. Thank you my lord Jesus Christ 🙏
ውነኣምን በ መንፈስ ቅዱስ አግዚእ ማሕይዊ ዘሰረጸ አም ኣብ። we believe in The Holy Spirit Lord and life giver whom originates/comes from the Father☦️
Proud to be Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church 🇪🇹 ⛪️
The Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father through the Son. This is an alternative wording the Catholic Church offers which seems very plausible from what we understand about how Christ demonstrates his relationship with the Father in the bible and with us as the mediator. So I don't think the second point stands the first one is more debatable
Let you yes be a yes and your no a no. The rest is from the devil...
The difference is that of relationship. If the son and spirit proceed from the Father , what's the difference between them?
Please what song is this? Please share, please!
The Filioque was not an addition to the Creed but making explicit an implicit doctrine. It's not a change to the Creed because it's not a mandatory clause for non-Latins. Its theological problems are mainly a matter of languages. Orthodox reject it for political reasons.
“The Father alone is Cause” - Saint John Damascene. This whole thing about it being a matter of “theological language and semantics” is a modernist push by the “scholars and theologians” of our days. The conflict was theological and was not a matter of semantics, the latins were simply heretical in their thinking and the greeks professed the correct teaching. The only political thing happening was rome literally starving the greeks in order to accept the false council. And they did, and since Constantinople became uniate it fell. The hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is something explicitly condemned in Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Capadocian fathers. The filioque is a satanic teaching, and it caused a loss of grace from the west, and because of this the west started altering the Eucharist, denying the blood to the laity and infants, the unnecessary dogma of the immaculate conception, heretical devotions, and now Vatican 2 and literal pagan idols being brought to rome to be placed on altars. This is not the Church of Christ. Rome became an anti church because of the false doctrines it accepted. It’s time to come back. But your pride will only seek to delude you ever more. Humble yourself, and recognize that the fruits your church is bearing is due to its schism.
@@mariorizkallah5383 Latins do not believe there are two principles in God. Only the Father is the source of the Divine. Rome prevailed, Constantinople is fallen. You must come back; no need to accept the Filioque because it's not different from what Orthodox believe, unless you think the Spirit can be granted to you outside the Son.
@@lorenzoc.b.9809 Constantinople fell when it was in communion with rome btw
@@lorenzoc.b.9809 the Latin teaching on the filioque is that the Father is not the sole cause of the Spirit, but that the Father and the Son are one Cause or one principle. The Son becomes a cause or a co-cause of the Spirit. Such a teaching destabilizes the trinity and destroys it. You should read what your council teaches. Over the recent years rome has been walking back this error to return to a teaching that resembles the Orthodox one. That the Father is the sole cause of the Spirit (hypostatic procession) but in creation Sends the Spirit through the Son. This has always been the Orthodox View. The Roman Catholic view is that of florence where the Son is a cause indeed like the father(these words are from the decree of the council of florence). So you need to do a little bit more study because you seem to be confused. The filioque led to many errors such as created grace, something The Early Church never taught. Grace is the uncreated Glory of God, His energies. Western and Eastern Fathers agree with the Orthodox view. They do not agree with the council of trent especially in denying infants communion and denying lay people the blood in the Eucharist making those two anathema. Which makes no sense considering byzantine catholics use leavened bread, give lay people the blood and commune infants. Catholicism is one big meme at this point. There is no unity in doctrine nor in praxis. When the summit of Christian life (the Eucharist) has been tweaked and edited so much to the point of it being unrecognizable where you have Eucharistic lay ministers??? It shows which church believes in the true presence and lives it out. It is time to wake up and humble yourself and remove the beam from your eye. ❤ thanks and God help you
@@lorenzoc.b.9809 also I dont think you would say Rome prevailed, given all the papal scandals that took place after the schism and the pornocracy, pagan idols going into rome, would you even dare to say that Vatican 2 is a proof of “romes prevailing”? Pope francis is literally pushing and succeeded in establishing the Abrahamic family house. This triumphalist larping by Catholics online is absolutely wild, it’s like you live in a different reality separated from the real world. Your “church” has a loophole in canon law that protects pedos and homos and makes it an excommunicable offence to expose those crimes. Such a prevail man. Constantinople fail because it apostatized and became uniate. But you also must remember we do not believe that only in Constantinople is the Orthodox Catholic Faith found. So this meme argument doesn’t really stand on its own. It just shows your ignorance of the history. Perhaps get off twitter and talk with real people❤
I could argue the very opposite is the case for point #3: By saying that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father, you're equating Him with the Son. Because the Personhood of the Holy Three is precisely defined in their relations to each-other, right? Then the Father would have two sons, would He not? Rather, the Holy Spirit relates to the Father through the Son. And I heard a claim that this formula, "from the Father through the Son" is not strange to the East either.
It’s a triangle. The Holy Spirit comes from the father. That is the original
@@thebalkanhistorian.3205 In a triangle, all three are connected.
@@someman7 yes with one one the top that being the father
@@thebalkanhistorian.3205 The Son is co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. If we must continue using the triangle metaphor (I'm concern that we're pretending it informs our faith rather than just illustrating it, in a limited and imperfect way): The Holy Spirit is related to both the Father and the Son.
More explicitly, from the Ecumenical Council of Florence:
the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father. And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
The Spirit “proceeds” from the Father while the Son is “begotten” of the Father. There is a difference between begetting and procession, they are not identical according to the Cappadocian Fathers.
what is this song? Please let me know!! it sounds awesome
This very short clip has helped me understand this much better than other long form videos have
I’ve been leaning towards Orthodoxy more and more each day.
This I can agree with, as even in my prayers, I feel the love of the Holy Spirit bombarding me more significantly when I call on it and pray to the father. I just read John 15 which makes it more clear that the will of the Father is fulfilled for us as we bear fruits by His power by abiding in Jesus and Jesus abiding in us, as to reach the father, we must be covered by the blood of Jesus
I'm going to say it: "Church history is reality TV "
This was a nice, quick, fairly easy way to explain it. So many videos go into 20 minute diatribes. I appreciate the simplicity of this answer. God bless!
"I and my Father are one."
"Receive the Holy Spirit."
What is the song
I wonder why Constaninople fell at the feast of Pentecost.
Because Constantinople became uniate 😁 (your argument is actually Orthodox argument).
@@Nicolas-sr6zx Constantinople is viewed as a bastion of Orthodoxy. Did Orthodoxy fall because Constantinople fell? No, because Constantinople because uniate.
Uniate Constantinople fell, that means Papism fell (if we follow your logic). If Papism is true, then it would save Constantinople, but it didn't 😁
In languages other than Greek, The Roman Catholic encourages Eastern Catholic Churches to omit the Filioque from their recitation of the Nicene Creed, even in Eastern Catholic liturgies that previously included it.
POV: you are unaware the Filioque was taught by the western churches since the 600s
Jesús gave Peter the keys to Heaven, with authority to make any changes he wanted. For this reason, I am and will always be, where Peter is. God bless!
Peter wasn’t a dictator of the Church. The Pope is attempting to replace Jesus with himself
where rome gets in play? why not antioch?
@@user-pj7sq7ce1f what are you saying?
@@elenag2965 peter founded antioch also why not Antioch then but only rome .just going your logic here about peter
Alexandria and Antioch was founded by St. Peter too.
If all the papal claims are true, then why didn't every council go something like this: "Mr. Pope, Arius is saying that Jesus is a creation of the Father." The Pope responds, "Well he's wrong. Next issue."
Christ never gave us a pope.
As Orthodox.our faith as Christians is about
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in essence. If we say that the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son, this creates a defect in the Trinity, because the three are one in essence and power. Jesus Christ said, “I and the Father are one.” That is, the Son and the Father are one in essence. The essence and also the Holy Books said that For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." (1 John 5:7) That why Orthodox are right from my opinion and i want we to unite again 😢
What is the song called?
Glad to be Orthodox☦️ Most Holy Theotokos save us!☦️📿 I’m a recent convert from reformed Protestantism as well!
It is a teaching of Christ, that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from His Father. Just read a Gospel.
“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me."
(John 15:26)
Yet sent to us by the son. Thus the holy spirit proceeds from the father through the son which makes the filioque very correct
Who will send the Holy Spirit from The Father? Son will. You just disproved yourself.
@@snokehusk223 you just supported my point with your assertion
@@emmanuelpatrickiwe6594 I was commenting to the guy of original commnet. To whom you commnented.
@@snokehusk223 Why it's so hard to you to understand the difference between words proceeds and send? Two different verbs, two different actions
"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper,[f] to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him."
(John 14)
If the Holly Spirit would proceed also from Christ then it wouldn't be necessity to ask the Father for that.
These are great short videos - really interesting.
Cyril of Alexandria
“Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).
I truly believe that the pope will repent. They twisted christianity to give more power to the pope. Added purgatory. Added filoque. And finally added the infallible of the Pope. They sacked Constantinopole the Holy city of Christianity multiple times and by the times the Ottomans conquered it it was a shell of its former glory. Stole many relics and writings of Christianity. In some ways Catholics did more harm for Christianity than the Ottomans did.
Greek schismatic tries not to worship cities and empires challenge (imposible)
@@zorandusic7079 I like how you ignored every single one of my points and answered with a meme.
@@JinnDante
lol
@@zorandusic7079Latin schismatic tries not to worship Rome and the pope challenge - impossible
@@tudorstancut9332 I'm not a catholic
The Orthodox Church is the true Holy Apostolic Catholic Church ☝️☦️
More like the whores of of the east
St. John Bosco explains orthodox church :
czcams.com/video/UdnjrUQknCs/video.htmlsi=VT08p4P-HUlSz1uy
⚜️AVE MARIA
St. John Bosco explains orthodox church :
czcams.com/video/UdnjrUQknCs/video.htmlsi=VT08p4P-HUlSz1uy
⚜️AVE MARIA
✝️
✝️
I'm a western christian who Is very familiar with trinitarian theology. From what I understand, the East sees the father as being the source or cause as a personal property of the father. In the west the personal properties are these: The father is unbegotten, the son is begotten, and the spirit is spirated. This in the west the fillioque is a property of the spirit.
I might be wrong about the orthodox view though. However *some of the eastern fathers were the ones who proved the fillioque from scripture.
Under present day doctrine the FILIOQUE does not have to be used when saying the Nicene Creed depending on which Church you belong to within the Catholic Communion of Churches. Therefore my Church, the Maronite Church, saying the Creed with the FILIOQUE is up to the celebrant and the parishioners; while the Melkite Church has removed it from the Creed they say.
At the Third Council of Toledo (589), was inserted the filoque clause only to create rift in the church. Till 589 all confessed the holy spirit proceeds from the father.
It was inserted over 100 years earlier in the 449 Council of Toledo. And no, it wasn't to create a rift in the church, it was to combat Arianism as the clause emphasized the Son's consubstantiality with the Father. Also you are correct that all did indeed confess that, but they did not exclude the Son.
Errors all over your comment Josh
Historical fact: The Council of Florence was attended by and agrred upon by the Eastern chuches, they went back on their agreement and were conquered shortly after
It was absolutely not agreed upon by the Church lol. Yes most representatives who attended did agree to it but that decision was UNIVERSALLY rejected by everyone else in the Church. It was so rejected that there were no factions or groups of Orthodox people who became schismatic and became eastern Catholic or something like that. This shows that those representatives were not actually good reps for the Church, since they clearly had no idea the Church’s stance on Rome’s heresies. And only a couple of the representatives ended up moving to Italy and converting to RC.
It also a known historical fact that all of the reps were highly pressured by the emperor of Byzantium to heal the schism to get an army to help defend from the Turks. When they got back to Constantinople, St.Ephesus who was the only one to not agree with the council was heavily persecuted by the emperor.
Military successes and conquests aren't necessarily indicators that a particular faith is true or false. Many pagans and Muslims have conquered much throughout history. Does that mean their religions are true? Of course not!
True, and they even lie and say they never agreed even though there are proof that they signed it. Now, what they are saying is that they were forced to do so because they needed the Western Church power to save them from the Muhammadan, which makes it a lot worse.
@@christian_orthodox1
And the Russians executed all the Bishops who came back to Russia having signed the false statement of Faith.
@@lbwnova6654 The fathers still defended the filioque
The churches in the East had no problem when the Filioque was used to combat Arianism in 325, and Eastern Bishops signed the Formula of Hormisdas in 519, which asserts that the true Faith may be known by the doctrinal decisions of the See of Rome.
While everyone's arguing in the comments section, may I ask, what is the background song?
☦️❤️ 13 and orthodox Christian
On the first reason, the canonical prohibition not to add/alter the creed is with regard to the original creed of Nicea I (see canon 7 of Ephesus for instance). And since Chalcedon till now, EVERYONE IS RECITING THE ADDED/ALTERED NICENE-CONSTANTINOPLE CREED. No one, since Chalcedon, ever recite the original Nicene creed. So if we take the prohibition to add/alter the creed in a very rigid manner, everyone is adding/altering the creed.
On the second reason, in the filioque, the procession by the Father and by the Son is different. The Father is the principle without principle in the procession while the Son is principle with principle. So each retain a different property (tho both has the common denominator of spiration/procession).
...the Council of Ephesus is the THIRD ecumenical council. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was promulgated in the SECOND ecumenical council, and it doesn't form a different faith than what was defined in the first ecumenical council because it was convened principally in order to clarify the doctrine of the Trinity in response to the Pneumatomachoi. It was the doctrine of the Trinity that was defended in Nicaea I.
It's not even a good argument to make-- _everyone's_ in violation of an ecumenical council, so it doesn't matter?
Even Eastern fathers accepted the Fillioque. The schism was due mainly to political reasons.
no they didn’t
Eastern Fathers only said that the Son was in certain senses the AITIA of the Spirit. Aitia doesn't mean the "source" but the "explanation". A word can be an explanation for why the breath is released, but it doesn't mean that the breath proceeds from the word.
I could be wrong but it’s ultimately because they weren’t present to debate and ultimately vote on it. I’m pretty sure there were orders within the council who disagreed but remained in communion despite their efforts
Love orthodox church
I'm converting to Orthodoxy. By the way what is the name of the song in the background?
Song of kings it’s a catholic chant
@@mattkhoury4241 Alright thanks my guy! I love the tradition of the western rite and I hope more western rite Orthodox Churches spread.
You might like some Orthodox chants too:
czcams.com/video/1yyrIFlK8c0/video.html
Fun fact: when West recites the Creed in Greek, both East and West recite the same Creed.
Fun fact: the same way that Orthodox Churches don't accept the translation into Latin that added the Filioque, when reciting the Creed, say: Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν. which means they believe in "only One, Catholic (Universal), Apostolic, and [Holy] Church" but decided to not be in communion with Catholic Churches.
Another fun fact: Oriental Churches such as the Melkites, the Maronites or the Chaldeans are some examples of Churches throughout history after the Great Schism that have been reestablishing the full Communion with the Catholic Churches. The Catholic Church is not just the Roman tradition, but also has full Communion with Chruches of Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan (Byzantine) traditions that each tradition's Church have their Cardinals in Rome and could be elected as the Pope, making it "One, Universal, Apostolic and Holy" instead of dozens of autocephalous Churches.
What music is this?
Whatever dude. I don't understand why something so seemingly arbitrary is so significant as to keep East and West, Rome and Greece apart.
It wasn't just the filioque, but even if it was, altering the Church's profession of faith without synodical discussion is schismatic behavior in its own right.
Politics and old grudges are what I think keeps East and West Christendom apart, much more than doctrines or theology.
@@seg162 I disagree.
@@siervodedios5952 I agree.
There’s more than just the creed that caused the schism
I could be mistaken but I think your historical accuracy is incorrect the filioque was added to help clarify the word choices. The Eastern Church rejected it hundreds of years later, this is mainly due to the Eastern Church being sacked by Muslims again. In fact there was a brief time of unity.
The expression “from the Father through the Son” is accepted by many Eastern Orthodox. This, in fact, led to a reunion of the Eastern Orthodox with the Catholic Church in 1439 at the Council of Florence. Unfortunately, the union did not last. In the 1450s (just decades before the Protestant Reformation), the Eastern Orthodox left the Church again under pressure from the Muslims, who had just conquered them and who insisted they renounce their union with the Western Church (lest Western Christians come to their aid militarily).
Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).
We can also look at the Western Church Father's. St. Augustine had this to say on the matter
“[I]t must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle” (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).
“[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son” (ibid., 15:17:29).
“Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him” (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).
John 15:26
26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father-the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father-he will testify about me.
This is one of the main reasons why I’m considering leaving Catholicism for Orthodoxy. I’ve listened to catholic apologists responding to this and I’ve found their responses to be very weak. Therefore, I decided not to say “and the Son” when i recite the creed at a Catholic church because , i really do think that we Catholics got it wrong.
What would be the right way to say it? Im new to Christianity and dont know what i should follow.
If you elect to not recite The Creed in its fullness then you’re already a Schismatic. You haven’t considered leaving, you’ve already left.
Guys you wont find the trinity in the original biblical texts and this whole concept of a triune God is an innovation. Early Christians were like early jews and believed in One God and Islam came after Christianity and corrected this misconception and restored full Abrahamic monotheism. Read the Qur'an and theology will never be an issue again. God is one. We affirm the prophethood of jesus( may peace be upon him).
@@HI1804 you know what’s the satanic innovation? Islam.
do you really think that uttering such rubbish taught but your ignorant sheikhs and imams, that you’d somehow get people to believe you on CZcams and convert???😂
You don’t know what you’re talking about at all.
@@Ryan_ChristopherI don’t think so. If this was the case then all eastern catholics who are allowed to recite it without the Filioque at church wouldn’t be catholics. Me choosing not to say it does not make me a non catholic. I haven’t left
THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE ONE. Where is the imbalance?
I think because the Son is begotten from the Father and the spirit Proceeds from the Father?
To anyone curious, the reason for the schism was complicated, but mostly cultural/political. Under persecution and influence of the Muslims, the emperor of the Byzantine empire decided to cease using icons in their churches, and demanded that the Pope and the west follow. The Pope said nah, but there was still a council to debate, the second council of Nicea. They agreed with the Pope, and so then the Pope crowned a new emperor, which annoyed the east. Then Catholics added the filioque clause to combat Arianism and assert that the Son was not less than the Father in terms of power/divinity, which was supported by scripture and theological argument, but wasn’t good because they didn’t consult a council to make such a change. Then the west started using unleavened bread in their masses, which caused the Constantinople head to shut down all masses in Constantinople. The Pope sent someone to talk to them, but the patriarch of Constantinople refused. The representative was ignored for days, so he went into the Hagia Sophia Basilica during an Easter vigil mass and excommunicated the patriarch in mid mass. The Bishop in turn excommunicated the representative, which created a greater rift. Finally, as the Muslim expansion was threatening all of Christianity, the Pope and the Eastern churches united, and launched the crusades, to combat the centuries of persecution by Muslims. In the fourth crusade, the crusaders were going to take back Jerusalem from the Muslims, but at the same time, the Byzantine emperor was deposed by a coup. The son of the emperor asked the crusaders to take back Constantinople, and he would pay all of their (heavy) debts. The Pope told them NOT to go to Constantinople, but in greed they ignored it, which culminated in the initial siege of Constantinople. The emperors son couldn’t pay once they finished, and then he got killed by a new coup. Clearly, the government and order of the East was not built on stable foundations. The new leaders refused to pay the crusaders, so the crusaders, against Papal orders, ransacked the city. Eventually the Byzantine empire took it back, but because of its heavy ties with the Byzantine empire, the Eastern Orthodox blame the Roman Catholic Church for the demise of its nation.
A couple hundred years later and the next ecumenical councils were formed, in Lyon then Florence, and although the wounds were still fresh, the eastern patriarchs agreed to the filioque clause, papal supremacy, and even purgatory. But then the Eastern Orthodox Church decided to recant after signing, because of the political pressure from the Byzantine emperor, as well as from the clergy back home.
Long story short, the Eastern Orthodox are the ones in schism, but the reasons for it are well founded politically based on the events tied with Orthodoxy’s parent nation.
I grew up in the Catholic Church under Vatican I when Pius XII was pope. Even as a very small child, before catechism training and first communion, I was aware that The Trinity was three distinct persons. I don't recall being taught otherwise. I asked a great deal of questions in catechism class, so many that one nun told me that it was a sin. I never heard the word "filioque" until recently. I have always differed with the Roman Catholic church on the issue of the infallibility of the Pope. The current Pope is bending to worldly pressure by sanctioning homosexual marriage and transgenderism.
The Trinity actualy is unbalanced without the Filioque. Do the Father and the Son not act as one in everything?
The Trinity acts as one.But we see in the Bible that a specific person of the Trinity is send to act.The Holy Spirit was sent to sanctify humans.The Son was sent to die.Although they are distinct they always act in complete unity.
I would have liked it to include the reason the west added it in the first place: to combat heresy. At that time in the west there was a heresy perpetuating the idea that the Trinity was equal, that the Father was greater than the Son. The filioque was a bottom-up catechetical solution to this heresy created by local priests and at first resisted and rejected by the Pope (he even had the creed in it's original form w/o the filioque nailed to the doors of the Vatican as a response!) But it proved effective in combating the spread of the heresy so the clause was retained.
If one takes into account the teleological meaning of the phrase, which is from where it came in the west, it says the same thing as the original meaning of the Creed - that the Father breathes the sigh of love that is the Spirit to rest in the Son, and the resting place, the teleological end of the Spirit, the Son, is EQUALLY important to the nature and existence of the Spirit as the point of origin, the Father - that is to say, there is no theological schism on this point, merely an aesthetic and linguistic one. To the point where Rome allows Eastern Catholics (Orthodox in communion w/Rome) to chant or no to chant it based on Eparchial or pastoral authority.
So to use a heresy to combat another heresy is OK?!
@@pero33403 it’s not heresy
@@ninjaked1265 It is. With all dure respect in Christian charity, you just don't understand how deep and far reached are its implications.
For some reason Orthodox always leave that part out when it comes to the West battling the Arianism Heresy. That was a big deal.
@@pero33403 Its the fact that Jesus is more then a creature. Hes God. What did the Eastern do about it? Exactly nothing
"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it." -Cyril of Alexandria
What happened to limbo? Oh, people make shit up. I understand now.
Filioque is correct. There is plenty of Church fathers defending the position, and the bishop of Rome hasdefinetly the right to edit the text of the creed as long as the essense remains the same, which it does
name them, I think you will find few are before 900CE and none were Greek or at least fluent in Greek.
where is filioque in the 2nd ecumenical council
@@PhoebeK Augustine is an example
@@Testimony_Of_JTF Augustine was proud of the fact he could not reed Greek, and predates the local synod which introduced the Filioque clause. Augustine while recognised as a saint in the east is always treated with caution as he had some unhealthy ideas especially around sin due to the fact he could not reed the eastern fathers in their original Greek.
@@PhoebeK Okay. We have Athanasius as well
I am Orthodox and I believe in filiquoe
Very easy to understand
In John 15:26 it clearly states: But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me
Since it states clearly in the Bible…then who are we to change the words?
John 20:21-23 "So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
Orthodoxy is wrong their theology only teaches half truths, but the whole truth is in the Catholic Church for it teaches that the Holy Spirit procedes from the Father and the Son just like scripture shows!
@@telosbound "He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit."
This my friend is how the Holy Spirit precedes from the Son too. The Son's breath gave them the Holy Spirit. Genesis 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
Do you see why Jesus breath on them? The Holy Spirit precedes from the Son and the Father just like scripture says! For this reason, the Catholic Church has the WHOLE truth for it is also written:
1 Timothy 3:15 "but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. "
AMEN
The whole truth is in the Catholic Church AMEN
@@telosbound Why wouldn't the economy reflect the ontology?
I have noticed that the Catholic Church is the only one who is using faith and reason aligned with the fullness of truth, while the other side is using politics while at the same time using unreasonable faith.
Ok but sending doesn’t equal procession. Also where is the Son getting the Holy Spirit from? Does the Holy Spirit come into existence at that moment?
@@JesusIsOurLord-xk9zz Procession? or precedes? Procession is one thing and precedes is another. Procession: "a number of people or vehicles moving forward in an orderly fashion, especially as part of a ceremony or festival:" You are so lost!
Jesus: breathes the holy spirit on the disciples
Orthodox: uh, I didn't see that 🙈⚡️
@@telosbound - yeah OK 😏
@@Cata-Holic_Doodehe’s right. You’re confusing economic with eternal causation
@@larrycera9276 - Yeah I've been confused the last 3 years.... I think Orthodoxy is the right one but you have to be born into it.
We westerners (just me) are too fat and stupid to be allowed into Orthodoxy
🐷⚡️🙈
Oh my Gawd. Ya dang busted the poor guy
@@alexdelosreyes6076 - the Orthies have a point because Jesus mentions in the same verse twice, "the spirit comes from the father" but the RC got sick of aryanism and it does seem like a rhetorical statement from Jesus.... & the devil causes schism... You have to respect the Orthies because they died for that creed
All of the Christian churches split for ridiculous reasons
Church Father Tertullian:
“I believe that the Spirit proceeds not otherwise than from the Father through the Son” (Against Praxeas 4:1 [A.D. 216]).
Filioque is correct btw, but it is not demanded by the Church to accept it. The Eastern churches in communion with Rome reject it still and they are allowed to do so without breaking from the Holy See.
As long as you pay bread to the heretical pachamama worshipper you good I guess
@@internautaoriginal9951 stop spreading the misinformation. The statue of "Pachamama" as the media started calling it afterwards was clearly presented to the pope as "Our Lady of the Amazon". Watch the video of the event and find better sources of information you consume.
@@jakajakos except that it clearly was not the case or if it was it wasn't just a charitable mistake. Why does the Vatican now print coins with Mother Earth? Why did priests pray with a shaman? I'm an Italian RC going through catechism, and while these are not the reasons for me leaving, I'm telling you as well as other Catholics: *fight* these monstrous heresies. I see too many who are willing to put up with this.
@@jakajakos from the Catholic News Agency:
"Paolo Ruffini, head of the Vatican's communications office, said last week that "fundamentally, it represents life. And enough. I believe to try and see pagan symbols or to see... evil, it is not," he said, adding that "it represents life through a woman."
He equated the image to that of a tree, saying "a tree is a sacred symbol."
This video also ignores the historical aspect. A lot of the division is due to misunderstanding. The Western Chruch originally added it to combat a heresy that was arising at the time. A lot of the Eastern Churches took this the wrong way because they had been battling a heresy on the opposite side of the same question. But the Eastern Catholic Churches basically show that most issues between Catholic and Orthodox are really semantics and non issues aside from the role and authority of the Pope
You are right when u say that personal properties are unique to the persons which means that the persons only differntiate from each other by the opposite relations. So if the Son is not opposed to the Spirit by the spiration and the spirit to the son by procession that means that they are not different from each other. On the other hand if we say that non-opposite relations can make a difference, than the relation of the father to the son and the relation of the father to the spirit would make two different hypostasis of the father. U need to educate more in Catholic theology
You can be very educated in a wrong theology (Islam for example), but that doesn't make your theology right.
Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20).
Catholics got it right.
My brother from another mother…😊. Please hear me out on this one…. The fact that our church was split on this matter is horrible… please soften your heart and read here…Thanks for bringing this to my attention as it confirms for me that the RCC is where I belong…. Please consider that the trinity is one God…. I and the father are 1 …. 3 in 1. Now consider this scriptural backup …. Showing that the Holy Spirit proceeds forth from both the Father and Now the Son…. Or do you not know that all things that are my fathers have been bestowed upon me?…..
The Father Sends the Holy Spirit
There is a passage that says God the Father is the one who sends the Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself said this. We read His statement in John’s gospel.
All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you (John 14:25-26 TNIV).
According to Jesus, the Holy Spirit will be sent by the Father.
The Holy Spirit Is Sent from Jesus
Yet there is another passage that affirms that the Holy Spirit was sent from Jesus alone. Jesus said this after He had risen from the dead.
And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49 NRSV).
Here is it Jesus alone who is sending the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit Proceeds from Both the Father and the Son
This problem is seemingly solved when we look at another statement of Jesus. In John’s gospel Jesus indicates the Holy Spirit proceeds from both God the Father and God the Son. Jesus again said.
When the Counselor comes, the One I will send to you from the Father the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father-He will testify about Me. (John 15:26 HCSB).
This statement of Jesus Christ says that both the Father and the Son are involved in sending the Holy Spirit. This appears to be the best way of understanding this question; both the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit.
This Was the Cause for the Church Split (Filioque Clause)
This issue, as to whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father or the Father and the Son, was the reason given for the church to split into East and West. The original form of the Nicene Creed declared that, “the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father.” The teaching of St. Augustine in the Western and Latin-speaking church sought to emphasize the strict equality of God the Father and God the Son. He taught that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son.
The Clause Was Added to the Nicene Creed
This teaching eventually was added to the Nicene Creed. The result reads: who proceeds from the Father and the Son. The added words being a translation of the Latin word filioque which means “and the Son.”
The filioque clause was added by the Western Church to make clear that the Son, Jesus, also sent the Holy Spirit. The addition of this clause is Scriptural for, as we have just seen, the Bible does teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. It also emphasizes the deity of Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately, it was this addition to the Creed that was the “official” reason given for the Church to split into East and West in the year 1054. Of course, this was not the only issue that caused the split between East and West but it was the reason which was highlighted.
This Does Not Mean the Holy Spirit Is Inferior in Nature
There is an important point we need to emphasize. The fact that the Holy Spirit was sent by God the Father and God the Son does not imply that He is inferior in nature to them. The three members of the Trinity are equal in nature. While equal in nature they have different duties to perform. It is the mission of the Holy Spirit to do the work of God the Son, Jesus Christ, once Jesus left the earth. Thus, the fact that He was sent by the Father and the Son has nothing to do with His character being less than theirs.
Is There an Eternal Procession?
There is also the question as to when this procession occurred. Did it only occur after Jesus ascended into heaven? Or has this sending of the Holy Spirit something that has been going on forever? The eternal procession of the Holy Spirit seems to be taught in the Psalms
.
When you send your Spirit, new life is born to replenish all the living of the earth (Psalm 104:30 NLT).
During the Old Testament period the Holy Spirit came forth from God the Father. It was not until after Jesus Christ ascended that the Holy Spirit proceeded from God the Son.
Hopefully the Orthodox will see their error of their ways, and rejoin the Church that Christ started, the Roman Catholic Church.
The original christians are orthodoxe, was founded when jesus died by his apostles, but catholiques was created in 1000th, 1000 years After orthodoxe, when catholiques was created in europe when orthodoxe was created in africa
filioque a satanic heresy
No thanks lol☦️
I can't even understand the explanation, much less able to decide who is right.
Same.
I would like to read the actal debates that happened which happened in Nicea. It would shed so much light to our belief.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life John 3:16.
Love the humility, everybody’s chipping in with their theological knowledge but you admit your lost and that respectable.
That is why these difficult issues should be discussed and judged upon in a Church council, not decided by one person, the way the pope of Rome did it.
“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. John 15:26
Jesus said he will send the holy spirit, he also said the father will send the holy spirit, they both send the holy spirit.
in my understanding the orthodox church thing that what differentiates the father and the son is the fact that the Father has the Holy Spirit that proceeds from Him, while the Son doesn't have it.
But according to the Catholic Church the difference between the Father and the Son is that the Son is begotten of the Father, while the Father begot the Son, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from Both.
The difference between begetting and proceeding is a mistery cause we're talking about an infinite being and we only have a grasp of these concepts finitely, but in your finite comprehention proceeding is a constant while begetting is a one time event.