Filioque, and Why Orthodox Christianity Rejects It
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 09. 2024
- St. Photios - Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit: www.myriobiblos...
8th Ecumenical Council, Filioque and Eternal Manifestation: • 8th Ecumenical Council...
Filioque Stream by Jay Dyer: • Filioque? History of a...
Follow on Twitter: / medwhiteacolyte
Donate to my Patreon: / therealmedwhite
Subscribe to my Telegram: t.me/therealme...
My Discord: / discord
BTC wallet: bc1q7lszxzfwv2vmsfyx24kzpjhpyyrzse374hhp44
This issue was the final push that I needed to convert from Roman Catholicism; St. Photios’ “Mystagogy on the Holy Spirit” was instrumental in my conversion. I was baptized and named Photios this past Lazarus Saturday. Venerable Father St. Photios, pray to God for us!
Do you think the patriarchs should be able to continue to have their own discretion on whether or not a Roman baptism is valid, or should the issue be standardized?
My own position is more nuanced:
If the Roman priest who baptized you was an avowed Bugninite, than get rebaptized. Mine was not, he was a traditionalist Irish Priest who resisted the V2 insanity. Based on that, I was of the opinion and my priest an bishop supported me, that my baptism is valid and I subsequently only received chrismation and confirmation. Do you think I made a mistake and should have gotten rebaptized?
Fantastic introduction by Professor Farrell in that slim volume if you have that edition. Constantine Cavarnos has a good little volume on Photios and his theology/philosophy in his slim volume sold by Modern Byzantine and Greek Studies website. They also ship fairly fast. I ordered several works (a good book on Mark of Ephesus, and Cavarnos’ book on Nikodemos the Hagiorite) last week and received them by the end of the same week. Great work all three Pillars of Orthodoxy in the volume over it their feast in the Great Synaxaristes, as well.
@@eldermillennial8330 The answer was authoritatively given at the 1672 jerusalem synod decree 16
@@HeddvildNo That would be damning to go to your protestant church
@@eldermillennial8330
Is bugninite someone who accepts Vatican 2?
New Orthodox here from Brasil! Love yall my sisters and Brothers!
Amém.
Amen brother
I am Protestant but I like looking into what Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe. Great video.
Short yet Informative and concise! Thanks for clarifying this. God bless ☦️
You are literally reading my mind! I searched up your account to see if you had videos on the Filioque just a couple hours ago and here we are. God Bless, my brother in Christ!
It doesn’t seem right to call believers in the filioque stupid. Smarter men than us have debated this for centuries.
Also, it’s unhelpful. The backfire effect (no matter how much evidence toward a different idea, the person doubles down on their original belief) kicks in when people are insulted or challenged like that.
Are you trying to affect change, or make yourself feel good?
One is loving, the other is ego.
This is what Little Orthobros do, winge like lil bros.
Dr Beau Branson is the first who for me explained very clear the Monarchy of the Father - and then I understood the Filioque!
@@faithfultheology THE MONARCHY OF THE FATHER
@@faithfultheology If you have to ask that question, then you didn't even watch the video...
@@cavrev he is asking about the filioque not the monarchy
@@faithfultheology the filioque states that the Spirit is caused by Father and Son instead of the Father alone. Its a Roman Catholic addition to the creed. The dispute sounds abstruse but it causes all sorts of logical and theological problems.
There is an economic procession of God's energies through His Son and in His Spirit. Throughout creation. But the Father not the Son is the cause of the Spirit.
The Greek biblical term energeia is probably another thing you'll have to look up!
Well done. This, coupled with your video on the Eighth Ecumenical Council, is a solid one-two combo against the filioque heresy.
@@SAHOVNICUDid you even bother warching the video to see orthodox saints' views on the Filioque?
@@SAHOVNICU A "heresy" that was established at the ecumenical council of Constantinople of 381 when & where both east and west amended the Niceaen Creed to state "proceedeth from the father", right? 😂
@@SAHOVNICU The Niceaen Creed states "proceedeth from the father" with absolutely 0 mention whatsoever of the Son in the procession of the Holy spirit. If the church fathers wanted to say that the Spirit proceeds from the father "and the son" they surely would've made it clear in the Creed and avoid centuries of confusion, schism and heresies. Not only thay but several church fathers from both east and west were against the addition of the filioque and wrote about this heresy in their holy works.
@SAHOVNICU Clearly you haven't read my previous comment about the church father and the Niceaen Creed. The only thing you can do is just copy paste your previous shit like a true Western Latin can do. Oh and the Greeks are schsimatic? Nothing in my sources tell me about Greeks changing the Niceaen Creed, or Greeks wanting to split the church. Wasn't the Pope's messenger the one who delivered an excommunication letter to the east on the altar of Hagia Sophia in the middle of the Pascha? Clearly the schismatic Greeks' fault. Oh and wasn't the western crusaders the ones who sacked Constantinople in 1204 to 1271 for no apparent reason other than hate? Yeah. Clearly this is the fault of the Greek Byzantines. Speaking of Byzantines, haven't you ever heard about the Byzantine efforts to reconciliate the eastern and western churches after the filioque controversy but always got rejected by the western arrogance? Yep. Another schismatic behavior by the greeks right?
@@SAHOVNICU Wow I can't belive you're that ill-cultured. The Laetentur Caeli was a desperation agreement between the east and west to supply Constantinople with ressources and men to break the ottoman seige in exchange for the conversion of orthodoxy to western Christianity doctrine, in a failed attempt for reconciliation. It was extremely unpopular throughout the greek orthodox chruch and Byzantium, and was refuted in the same year by Orthodox bishops. Meanwhile Saint Cyril's letter to Nestorius discusses Christology, most precisely the hypostatic union of Christ, that is how Jesus Christ is one divine person in 2 different natures: Divine and Human. It has nothing to with the procession of the Holy Ghost, and in fact was a base for the 3rd ecumenical council at Ephesus, that did not discuss the procession of the Holy spirit. I can't belive you're that illiterate. Stop coming up with these ChatGPT like information 💀 and do a normal research before typing random misinformation you keyboard warrior.
Wow Gregory the theologian expressed things so clearly he makes it easy to understand
Here because I need to get one of the most basic premises of uniquely orthodox theology under my belt! I realised I’ve been focusing more on the political aspect of the controversy. We can always learn more about our faith 🙏🏻
Double hypostatic procession means there are two fathers. Simple as
Only problem with that is that the council of Florence clearly rejects the notion that there is two principles
@@TheChunkyCrusader The attempt to explain it via economic and temporal manifestation since upon further inspection the doctrine makes it a dyad that unifies into a monad
Catholics don’t believe there are two principles of origin. Most critiques of the Filioque are a parody.
@@kyrieeleison1243 no, but they also don't have a logical solution for the dillema they are facing by adding the Filioque to the Creed. Like this video explains, we have no issue by saying that the Holy Spirit is send and proceeds from the Son. But not in the sense that the Son is the source. To give a simple analogy, let's take the sun, the sun itself is the source of it's light and heat. And where the sunlight shines there you can directly feel the warmth of the sun. So in this case, the light is the bringer of heat, but it isn't the source. The main problem is, the adding the Filioque to Creed; "...and in the Holy Spirit Who proceeds from the Father *and the Son...*" creates confusion. By this it seems that the Holy Spirit has two sources. And you can write dozens, even hundreds of books that the Trinity has only one Monad, but that still doesn't give the Catholic Church the right to add to the Creed (see change), which was already established by the Ecumenical Councils of the Holy Father's.
@@orthodoxbasics Very good explanation. Thank you.
REALLY good and helpful video! God bless you David!
Just found your channel and I'm grabbing a notebook and jotting a lot of things I've had questions of regarding theology and in my ignorance, needed answers to.
What incredible work!
Would you agree with this statement?
"The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father *through* the Son"
And if something is through another it is with, and that it is with includes them in some way and to include a thing means 'and that thing'...therefore this is the filioque (which is fine because it true).
Only if it's not referred to hypostatic procession, through the Son is allowed if you refer to Energetic and Economic Procession, and believe that the Holy Spirit ONLY gets his existence from the Father alone.
@@Shadow-lb7ot Yes, because energetic procession is not the same as Hypostatic procession.
This channel helps me affirm my faith in Christ and my devotion through the lens of the Roman Catholic faith. God bless all catholic and orthodox Christians.
During my early stages in Orthodoxy this issue was confusing to me, and still is a little bit.
Luckily you help me understand it more, May God Bless you david.
Any advice? What you learned? I understand what you meant
Orthodox view is in error. Jesus is tru God and true human. So why would the Holy Spirt not proceed from the father and the son? This was already addressed in the Council of Florence.
(John 15, 26)
So who isnt God? Is Jesus not God or is the Spirit not God.@@johnnyd2383
Because the procession of the Holy Spirit is something that only the Father can do. Attributing it to the Son takes away from the distinction in person. The Father and the Son are not the same person, although they are both the same God.
@@NicBob89Interesting. I guess the entire West was wrong for 500+ years before the schism.
This is one strongest argument for me thinking of doing a complete conversion to Orthodoxy.
Rejecting scripture in context and claiming you are better than the Holy Spirit which guides the councils is how one can reject the filioque. John 20:22 Roman 8:9. Become Catholic and stop being Schismatics
Scary thought: am I correct in inferring that to confess the filioque, is to confess that the Holy Spirit is the byproduct of the mutual willing of the Father and Son to love? If the Holy Spirit is born of this the Divine energies, and not the Divine Essence, then the Holy Spirit is of a different essence than the Father and Son. If there is only one God’s Divine Essence, then the Holy Spirit cannot be God because He does not share in that Essence.
To confess that the Holy Spirit is not God, is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit 😬😬😬
Is this correct? These are heavy HEAVY implications and I don’t want to hold to this if it is not absolutely true.
Sir it is all blasphemy. God is God and has no partners.
@Joe Wrestling 23 I think the secular designation “monotheism” causes problems for us. My belief is simply the Capadocian understanding of the Trinity that was accepted by the councils.
Jesus prays to God. He teach monotheism. Jesus sent to Jewish people. But the jew reject him because they not belive he was the messiah.
No, this is incorrect. St John says that God is love. Loving on the part of God is not an energy but his own substance. The Filioque is simply the affirmation that the Holy Spirit is of the same substance as the Father and the Son, and therefore also proceeds from the Son as well as the Father. The Filioque for Catholics is not about hypostatic origination, as this ignorant video claims, but substantial procession.
@@kyrieeleison1243 However, in Orthodox Theology, because of the Patristic teaching of Eastern Fathers, such as Maximus the Confessor, and finally culminating in the teachings of Gregory Palamas, there is a clear distinction between God's Essence and His Energies. One of the most significant differences is that God shares His Energies with His Creation, and allows us to actually participate in them, whereas we do NOT participate in His Essence.
Included in His Energies would be things like Love, Goodness, Justice, Mercy, Peace, Joy, etc. These Energies are UN-created, as they are not things that God created, but are of His Divine Nature.
So Love is not God's Essence, but is part of God's Energies, which He shares with His Creation, that we may participate in. If the Holy Spirit emanated from this Love between the Father and the Son, this would then make the Holy Spirit into a creation, and no longer part of the Triune Divinity. This is why the Filioque messes up the Theological understanding of the Trinity, and can so easily create a heresy.
I wasn't aware brother that you make smaller videos. These are great.
Keep up small videos from time to time.
Christ is Born !
The filioque problem came into existance from translation only. In latin procedit means both 1) is released and 2) is sent. So even catholic bible says that the spirit is released only from father and sent from son. Thats why the orthodox bible says that the spirit is released only from the father because we don't have the same word for : is released and is sent. In Conclusion filioque doesn't exist both bibles mean to say that the spirit comes only from the father. But again people are ruining everything for numerous reasons.
This sounds right. Both sides necessarily agree. But language barriers have caused an unnecessary problem.
Then why did the Romanians (a Latin speaking Orthodox nation) side with the Orthodox if it is merely translation?
The hatred that some Orthodox show for Catholics is not inferior to that of some extremist Protestants. This is so sad.
They insult vehemently (“I’ll show your ignorance and stupidity” I heard this guy saying) and they do not even realize that the Catholic Church maintained the original formulation in the Greek version of the creed where the verb used is EKPOREUOMAI, but needed to add filioque in Latin because the verb PROCEDO in Latin falls short of the Greek counterpart.
This whole controversy is totally bogus, and was instrumentally used to have an excuse to break away from Rome in the power struggle of the East with the West.
@@thejerichoconnection3473 mhm. Where can I go to hear more of this angle?
Can you explain this to me again please? How and where did the translations go wrong?
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. (John 16:7)
If you have watched the video, you would have understood.
"And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God AND of the Lamb." ~ Revelation 22:1
In revelations 22:1 it does not support the filioque. I’ll explain it talks about how the Son sends the Holy Spirit, however the Holy Spirit does not ‘proceed’ from the Son, but only from the Father. We worship and glorify Him together with the Father and the Son. In that verse it describes the river of life flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, which doesn’t necessarily relate to the Filioque controversy.
what you just said is the catholic teaching@@gisueppefishin05
yeah, of course, what matters is not history about the filioque but the theology supposedly entailed by it because history denies the claims of orthodoxy, while we can always invent what the filioque 'means' - according to the ortho propagandists, it means that the Trinity is reduced to a dyad, that Christ is conceived in a Arian manner, that the divine essence is seen as the origin of the Spirit, not the Father, etc etc etc...
It seems our finite mortal understanding should be subject to mystery. Romans and EO have decent arguments for both positions and neither seems to denigrate the transcendent mystery of the Holy Trinity. Listening to people try to argue that they understand divine simplicity is irritating and arrogant of them. As an EO I have no issues with the Fillioque and the history of the Church seems to be indefinite on the matter save partisan schismatic positions of those attempting to relegate to finite understanding. Grace upon grace in the mystery of the incarnate Christ.
What about verses Galatians 4:6 and Revelation 22:1?
Who is this David? I only know David therealMedWhite.
Same here, who is this imposter? 😉
I know you’ve said that you’re sick of the “Sacred Heart” issue, and do not want to debate it further, but what about a related ancillary problem?
Namely Antioch’s investigative conclusion that the EARLIEST version of the practice (begun around the time of the Schism) is merely Troubadour Romance language adapted into prayer and THAT one is compatible with Western Rite Orthodox practice?
I’m having trouble finding English versions of the accounts of the development of the Western Rite Antioch Vicariate rules which should include a record of their investigation into that practice. Could you find out anything about that investigation and express your opinion about that SPECIFIC reasoning? It seems to be quite a different side of the debate than the usual.
I was also wondering if you could go into Sacred Heart once again and explain it. Catholic's love to claim that devotions to the Sacred Heart are okay because it's a devotion to his Christ's love. They then say since God is love, the Sacred Heart is a devotion to God. The mental gymnastics is bonkers when all it takes is a couple words to end the Sacred Heart debate: St. Cyril's 8th Anathema.
I read Denis de Rougemont's book "Love in the Western World" and he makes the case that troubadour culture is not orthodox, it's Cathar. You might enjoy the book and it could enlighten you on the orthodox objection, even if the author is not orthodox.
@Ojibwe T The bread and the wine is the person of Christ in the liturgy taking his seat as the ancient of days and the lords host
So the Spirit and the Son originate in the father eternally before anything was created? The Son being eternally begotten and the spirit eternally proceeding from the Father. Is that correct?
Originate means to have a beginning/origin. Can you elaborate?
@@ApostolicEchoes I'm not an expert theologian. But the father seems to have a more foundational role than the other two persons. Yet all 3 are co equal and eternal.
@@prayunceasingly2029 appreciate the response but really doesn’t answer my question. There is no before or after in the eternal.
@@ApostolicEchoes isn't it possible for the son to have an eternal origin in the father? As Christ is eternally begotten yet never began to exist in time, as he is eternal.
@@prayunceasingly2029 God does not have an origin. Neither part of the Godhead originated. God is eternal.
Great Content, I hope your channels grows!
@David Erhan. Very helpful video, with sound and logical Theology. However, that being said, I was quite bothered at 9:51 when you addressed Roman Catholics as being ignorant and stupid! You said, "I will show to you that you are only showing your ignorance and stupidity"! This is NOT a healthy way to communicate with others, when you are trying to express Truth! To call someone stupid and ignorant will only alienate and offend them, which could easily cause them to shut down and not even listen to anything else you have to say. This is why it is sooo important to speak the truth, in love! (Eph 4:15). Unfortunately, calling people stupid because their understanding differs from ours, takes the love out of it which can easily then cause them to reject the Truth that is being shared. David, I encourage you dear brother to consider editing out that phrase from your video, and to be more careful in future videos to not use such offensive phrases that could turn away potential seekers of truth. ☦️
@UCRqU3r8Uk0E9w3aGh9A70RA I didn't catch that he said the Holy Spirit was "caused". Could you please explain where that is? Because that would certainly not be an Orthodox belief. But, I think he was just explaining that the Catholic belief of the Filioque (i.e. that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son) has a problem, because the logical conclusion from that would be that it's implying that the Holy Spirit was CAUSED by the mutual love of God the Father AND God the Son! Of course, no Catholic actually believes He was CREATED, but that's why the Filioque is in error, as that would be the obvious outcome.
@Christus Vincit Christus Regnat Christus Imperat To a certain degree I think I may agree with you. I know that many Catholics say that the Filioque refers to the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father from eternity, AND He was SENT by the Son at Pentecost. I have no problem with that at all. But I find no support for His Proceeding in Eternity from both the Father and Son, simultaneously. What are your thoughts on this?
@Christus Vincit Christus Regnat Christus Imperat On this we are in total agreement, that the 3 are definitely equal. And the three are one.
When you don't speak the truth, you need to be overly agressive.
Hesychasm, in Eastern Christianity, type of monastic life in which practitioners seek divine quietness (Greek hēsychia) through the contemplation of God in uninterrupted prayer. Such prayer, involving the entire human being-soul, mind, and body-is often called “pure,” or “intellectual,” prayer or the Jesus Prayer. St. John Climacus, one of the greatest writers of the Hesychast tradition, wrote, “Let the remembrance of Jesus be present with each breath, and then you will know the value of the hēsychia.” In the late 13th century, St. Nicephorus the Hesychast produced an even more precise “method of prayer,” advising novices to fix their eyes during prayer on the “middle of the body,” in order to achieve a more total attention, and to “attach the prayer to their breathing.” This practice was violently attacked in the first half of the 14th century by Barlaam the Calabrian, who called the Hesychasts omphalopsychoi, or people having their souls in their navels.
This is close to Sufism and Yoga teaching 😢😢😊😊
Procedere doesn't mean causare
Basic Latin
The dogmatic statement from Rome in Florence and lyons is the Greek meaning of proceeding which is hypostatic in origin meaning to sources of origin in the person of the spirit which is eunomian
@@shiningdiamond5046 which Rev 22:1 proves is both the Father and the Son. It’s actually the same verb as Epiphanius used to create the creed in the Ancoratus. And Epiphanius taught the Spirit Filioque proceeded . So it is blaspheming to say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father “Alone” as they did at Blachernae. And even there they got their theology wrong. When God revealed his name to Moses he revealed He is the existing existence. Thus nothing can exist uncreated except the divine nature, thus if there are uncreated energies they must be the same as the Divine nature, thus even in the manifestation from the Son the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in essence or nature. The idea Blachernae has that the manifestation isn’t the divine nature is false unless the manifestation is created, then the Holy Spirit is partly created and not fully God, a heresy about the Holy Spirit, and if they teach the divine energies are uncreated but not the same as the divine nature, then they teach there are at least two gods, polytheism.
All that Father has, has the Son also except being Unbegotten and all that Son has, has the Spirit also except the Generation ❤❤😂Sct Gregory Nazianzen
My question for all Christians especially for Eastern, Oriental and Catholic is that why you guys keep philosophical about the nature of Christ, His divinity, and His humanity, and the proceedings of Holy Spirit all the time? Why don't you just simply keep focus on how to save people's soul in Jesus Christ's name? For me, it was all political and nonsense philosophy which was influenced by Empires back centuries ago. History tells us that when Christians were arguing and divided, Islam took control of the whole middle east. Current Christians need to learn a lesson from history. . . Sorry if I offended anyone. God bless all Christians!!
Because we are not as shallow hats as followers of a unhappy German monk.
Peace upon everyone who reads this. I speak from my own limited understanding, I hope in witness to the truth.
Honestly, this issue is so tiresome. The Orthodox straw man the filioque to the point of dishonesty. It's like protestants who attack the sacraments as "works of man, works of the law." You can tell them until you're blue in the face that the mysteries are those of Christ, and that his sacrifice is perpetual, but they will never hear you. They will their own ignorance, and deliberately choose to mischaracterize, pertinaciously misunderstanding the Gospel.
It's just like the Monophysite controversy: Semantics obsess the Greeks, and they impose their language upon people speaking a different language, parsing the Copts' meaning with arrogant imperialistic lack of charity, when all are addressing a profound mystery with inadequate human language, attempting to say the same thing.
The really sick thing is that this impulse is from a place of pharisaical self justification, ideological justification for schism born of imperial politics, based in ethnocentric grasping for political and cultural domination of the Church. Like all the schisms in the Church, the theological quibbling cloaks gnostic lust for worldly power. See what is happening in the Ukraine now, or the Ecumenical Patriarch and Pope's current alliance with the globalists.. Just because Rome pretends to monarchical supremacy over the Church does not justify Constantinople and Moscow doing the same thing. The Schism, just like the Reformation, has always been about politics and ethnocentrism corrupting theology. Heresy is always about satanic will to power.
This is the semantic issue: "que" in the filioque doesn't connote fusion of the father and Son, it connotes progression. It means "through the Son" not "initially from the Son."
We're speaking of God in eternal progression. The filioque does not mean that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son as though from one principle. It's an eternal syllogism that is explicitly articulated in the Creed. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son. The first eternally begets the second, and the third eternally proceeds.
The interesting thing is that the Son is made incarnate through the Spirit, and that the Spirit creates the world through the Son. The Son remains with the Church through the Spirit, the sacraments are the perpetual presence of the Spirit that creates the Church. God speaks, he breathes upon the waters. Does the Word precede the Breath? Does the Breath precede the Word? Are the Two One in Intention? Yes, the Two are One with the Father, but analogically the Word precedes the Breath in the Mind of Father.
Just as the the will of the Father is expressed in the will of the Son, we can fulfill the will of the Father and Son through the inspiration of the Spirit. The Spirit incarnates the Word, the Word creates the Cosmos through the breath of the Spirit. The Spirit leads the Word into the desert into unity with the Father. The Spirit enters into the World through the Incarnation of the Son in the separation of the baptismal waters of Creation.
The filioque has been in the Church since at least the fifth century, was endorsed by synods **against the Arians.** It was never an issue until the East needed a profound theological justification to anathematize Rome and justify schism and contempt of the West. It's a theologumena that can be understood in a perfectly Orthodox fashion. But the East prefers to wrap itself in itself in self referential solipsisms and condemn everything that is from outside itself, no matter how ancient it is.
Does Catholicism equate to Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy to Catholicism? They must. Catholicism is the mark of the Apostolic church in the Symbol of the Faith. Why then do the Orthodox not primarily identify themselves as Catholics?
This debate is exhausting. Orthodoxy and Catholicism cannot be, and are not separate. You must be orthodox to be catholic and catholic to be orthodox. There are Orthodox Catholics in the West. I only hope there are Catholic Orthodox in the East. Or are there only petulant ethnocentric schismatics squabbling over whether Second and Third Rome has suzerainty over the Church?
When I read the biblical verses you cite, or Basil; or any of the Fathers on the Trinity, it is all in complete conformity with my understanding of the filioque. We're treating the Mystery of God here, and we all ought to be very chary before anathematizing one another.
The unity of the Church is in the unity of the Trinity. You're projecting your schism onto the Trinity in your mischaracterization of the filioque.
I commend us all to Christ's mercy. God bless us all.
The issue here with your Latin is that we Orthodox have Latins, they are even named after the capital of Latium, the Romanians. If it were merely a misunderstanding of Greek with Latin, then why did the Romanians side with the Orthodox?
@@bellingdog Do you really think they sided the Orthodox based on this subject?
But anyway, any honest Orthodox knows that there are no real theological differences with Catholics about how to really understand the concept behind the filioque.
Prot who has been torn down the path of both Catholic and Orthodox. This comment was very meaningful and measured. I'm trying desperately to stay away from confirmation bias but I feel even more confused now. I have so much to learn. I wish I took my faith seriously when I was younger. I feel like I'm starting from scratch and overwhelmed with everything. Paralyzed on what to do next.
I beg Christ has mercy on me.
@@jimboslam Jim, if I can presume to give you advice, don’t stress about this. Start with the essential: seek the Lord with your whole heart, soul and mind. Confide yourself always to him. Christ is real, more real than you or I, in that he is the source of our very being. If you give your heart to him, he will receive it. Now, everything is grace. Ask him for the grace of discernment, the grace of prayer. Pray. Ask him for clarity. He will guide you.
Don’t turn this into an intellectual exercise. Don’t treat the Faith like an ideology that can nail down with your intellect alone. Don’t fall into the trap of trying to proof text your way to salvation. We’re dealing with profound mysteries here that can ultimately only be perceived by grace, that will only be understood in humility through prayer. Start with prayer and repentance, then. Everything you need to understand will then be revealed to you besides.
Cognitive dissonance is of the demons. As are the manifold schisms wracking the Church. My personal opinion is that neither Orthodox nor Roman Catholic ecclesiology is coherent. I won’t - can’t, it would take a book length dissertation - go into all the minutiae why here, I’ll just tell you that I believe as a simple pragmatic spiritual reality we all each need to live the sacramental liturgical life. The sacred mysteries are real, they will change your life. I go to traditional Latin mass with the FSSP, and I can tell you you’ll find grace there, because I have. I suggest you go to traditional Latin Mass parish and Orthodox or Eastern Catholic parish, and just begin subsuming the ancient patterns. Talk to people, especially the priests and monastics. They’ll help you.
Learn to pray the Jesus Prayer and the rosary, both of them are extremely powerful, and will become more and more profound as you grow into them. Start slow (three Aves in the morning, three before bed, with specific request for needed graces and virtues, the Jesus Prayer throughout your day).. Again, ask for the grace of prayer, ask for the grace of repentance, ask for specific ask for a spirit of asceticism, ask for every virtue and grace (“anything you ask in my name will be given to you”) the discipline will come to you.
We can’t sit in judgement over the Church. That’s what schismatics do, and it’s a sin. We need the sacraments. We especially need frequent confession and eucharistic communion. The Eucharist is the Church, the body of Christ himself. That’s what you need, that’s what will heal and bring you peace. Don’t sweat the other details, they will fall into place after the only thing necessary. Do not get too caught up in complexity here. The essential thing is not complicated.
Beatificet Deus te, Jim. Pax tecum.
@@fitzhamilton I clearly see Christ in your words. A tremendous thank you, Brother.
As an outsider, the very idea that the Father has no origin while the Son and HS have origin in him, especially when you surmise that this equates to the Father as "The monarch of the Trinity" just leads me to the conclusion that the Father is above the other two. The argumentation on the surface appears to deny the Christian teaching that all persons of the Trinity are equal and one. This whole idea of begetting and proceeding seems very emanationist to me, and in pretty much all emanationist theology the origin is the purer and superior state of divinity.
No, but each Divine Person has something unique, paternity is unique to the Father, eternal birth is unique to the Son and eternal procession is unique to the Holy Spirit.
@@kenandzafic3948This does not contradict the filioque.
Good video David.
The Filioque was introduced to England by St Theodore, of happy memory, at the Council of Hatfield in 680. How does the Orthodox Church interpret this?
I think the Church would say that Saints can err
@@jamesbancroft2467 Then hold an Oecumenical Council where the English and Welsh bishops have an opportunity to state their case. Spanish and Portuguese bishops may also wish to be represented. This is assuming that we set aside the Council of Ferrara-Florence.
Such a Council cannot retrospectively deny the sainthood of saints like John Fisher, Thomas More and Richard Gwyn, who were heroes of the fight against cesaropapism. The war in the Ukraine has reactivated cesaropapism as an issue.
Difficulties with holding such a Council are firstly the lack of an Emperor to summon it, and if there were such an Emperor then his authority is not worldwide. The Pope will have to do as a convenor. Secondly a majority of the delegates will be members of the Latin Particular Church, which on recent form may induce some bishops to boycott it. Thirdly there could be up to ten thousand bishops eligible to attend.
In the meantime the boot is on the other foot. Anybody in England or Wales who omits the Filioque without permission is a heretic. Anyone who publishes anything contrary in English or Welsh or Latin which is visible in England or Wales is a heretic. Everybody is free to write to the secretary of the Bishops' Conference expressing their dismay at the Filioque, or to raise the matter in academic circles, but public campaigning is impermissible.
@@david_porthouse ecumenical councils imperial councils, David has plenty other videos on how Orthodox councils work, such as “How do Orthodox know what is dogma?” I would recommend watching those.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese Either it is an interpolation or it isn't. Which is it? I recommend that you avoid using a word like "papist" which looks contrived to be offensive.
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese I am relying upon the competence of Oxford University Press.
Are all members of the Orthodox Church happy with the use of a word like "papist"? It's going to make them look terrible if they say they are.
Basically the whole video:
“I’m going to address people who use Gospel of John arguments.”
Never address those arguments.
“I’m going to address people who use this church father to defend Filioque clause”
Proceeds to never address it.
Never once uses Luke 24 because he knows it ruins his argument.
Keeps using an equivocation fallacy to say why the Filioque clause is not theological.
“Oh and if you disagree with me then you are stupid.”
Lets' be honest about the heresy of Filioque... Orthodox tossed it away 1000 years ago as an innovation of the Heretical Rome and there is nothing that can change Orthodox position. You can scream for as much as you want about it, it is simply not making any dent to the unwavering Orthodox faith.
How is "orthodoxy" not Arianism of our times? These are the same arguments Arius used against "homoousios"; it all comes down to semantics, why is it primitive or unorthodox to confess that Father and Son share the same Spirit? If they are both One God? I.e. if only the Father is uncaused does this mean there was time when the Son was not?! Is it not true heresy to say that the Son is not co-eternal with the Father?
are you comparing Orthodoxy with ARIANISM?
@@FireKobra Read the Arian creed; Arius and all who came after him professed Son to be God but were concerned with "homoousios" being non-biblical and undermining the Monarchy of the Father. I am not sure if that is the core opinion of Eastern churches but the person who made this video uses those same arguments.
I think it’s because we can prove orthodoxy is valid through church history and tradition, other denominations can’t do that.
This was a good video until you became very uncharitable at about 9:50.
If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
-1 Cor. 13:1
The filioque interpreted as eternal procession from the Father and the Son does not disqualify the Father as the sole source of Trinity. Eve proceeded from Adam and the two together generated Seth, but Adam is still the original man. In the same way, the Father begets the Son and the Father and Son proceed the Holy Spirit. In the Catholic view, the Monarchy of the Father is completely retained, and God’s essence, the essence of all three persons, remains the Father’s essence. The issue is purely about the origin of the Holy Spirit.
Except that, in your analogy, Adam and Eve jointly are the originating principle of Seth, and because of this the principle of Seth's origination is not a specific hypostasis, but rather a convergence of two hypostases. That absolutely cannot be applied to the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Fathers are abundantly clear that it is the hypostasis of the Father who is the originating principle of the Holy Spirit. Even just John 15 states that the Father is the originator of the Holy Spirit. To say that the Father and the Son together are the originating principle of the Holy Spirit is a contradiction of this, since the principle is either the hypostasis of the Father, or what is shared between the Father and the Son (i.e. the divine essence). It cannot be both. Unfortunately, the latter is in fact what the Council of Florence defined. So clearly Florence's articulation of originating procession of the Holy Spirit is against that of the Fathers.
@@thomasburke9060 I wasn’t saying that the current Catholic & Orthodox understandings of the Filioque are in harmony, just that the Catholic understanding doesn’t disqualify the Monarchy of the Father. The CCC affirms the Monarchy of the Father and Pope Francis has affirmed it.
@@TaehunGrammar I see. Well, it sounds like there is a disagreement on the meaning of the monarchy of the Father. You apparently think it means that the Father is the chief, or primary originator in the Trinity. Orthodox Christians have always taken this to refer to the belief that the Father is the _sole_ originator in the Trinity. Unfortunately I'm not prepared to argue for there being a "better" understanding of the concept; I don't have enough reading down yet.
@@thomasburke9060 one of the difficulties is that in Greek philosophy (Aristotle), procession implies causation, whereas the Latin fathers used proceed simply to mean to go from one point to another, as a line. Kind of like how we say ‘the soldiers proceeded from the palace’. I’m not trying to lie and say there’s no disagreement between us; there clearly is. But even if you take Augustine and Aquinas’ belief that the Son was a ‘secondary principle’ of the Holy Spirit to mean that the Son causes the Spirit, the Monarchy of the Father would still be retained because since the Father begets the Son, the Son’s essence is the Father’s essence, and so the Father remains the source of the Trinity. What is a head scratcher for me is that the Council of Florence says that the Greeks ‘should say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son indeed as cause’ without the Latins saying that themselves… it’s messed up.
I don't think Florence saw itself as binding the Greeks to a peculiar concept. Rather, it was explaining how the (supposedly) patristic formula "from the Father, through the Son" was to be understood in the respective languages. It was stated that in Latin this formula was to be understood as meaning the Son is the "principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit" jointly with the Father. In Greek, that the Son is the cause (αἰτία) of the Holy Spirit together with the Father was said to mean the same.
I can't say that I agree that what you explained preserves the monarchy of the Father. The monarchy of the Father for Orthodox Christians means that the Father is not just ultimately the source of being in the Trinity, but is _thoroughly_ the sole source of being in the Trinity. This means the Father must also be specifically the source of the Holy Spirit. By saying that the Son shares in this because He is given the divine essence by the Father, you are actually making the divine essence the principle of the procession of the Holy Spirit, rather than the Father.
And I don't see how the causation-movement distinction concerning the divergent Greek and Latin senses of procession helps to explain anything here. If we were talking about the economic procession of the Holy Spirit, that would be one thing, since there is actual motion in the Holy Spirit's economic procession (God moving in space/time). But in the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, we can't say there are actual motions since we're talking about being prior to space and time. With the Holy Spirit's eternal procession from the Father, this is understood to be a metaphorical representation of the Father causing the Spirit. If this metaphor is not applying to the Son, because you say the Son is not causing the Spirit in the same sense as the Father, and literal motion doesn't pertain, what are we left with for a non-causal movement? What is that supposed to mean in the eternal procession of the Spirit?
The Son being incarnate at a point in history does NOT indicate that he is caused to be. He is in fact the Word by which all created things were created and hold together to this moment. John 15:26 is a prime source of exactly this Genesis-like point. The only way the Son and Father having the ability to send is confusing is arbitrarily, not theologically. In any case, I'm baffled by the degree to which my Orthodox brothers (and I consider them such) work hard to divide instead of unite (the calling of all saints), work hard to 'remove the crowns' from the heads of true brethren instead of recognizing bare minimum that none of us is saved via right theology, but only by that which is theologically right. IE, a thing we share, the gospel.
You do not get it... Eastern Orthodoxy preserves originality and any heresy is seen as a lie that if accepted will defile Lord's Bride. Unity with the heresies would be denial of Lord's promise that His Church will be "pillar and ground of the truth" and that "gates of Hades will NOT prevail over it".
@@johnnyd2383 I do get that it's both the view and practice of Orthodoxy to preserve the original as best as possible. It's a good spiritual and ecclesial instinct, for sure. But people are saved by things described in the framework of right praxis and theology, but not by universally having to know it. Thank God. My trouble with Orthodoxy is not the history. It's not the devotion. It's the almost pharisaic and often uncharitably presented "you're not doing it right" in ways that go beyond faith in the living, risen Lord Jesus. All of this is a more worn path of discussion than you or I, though. It's burdensome.
I have only seen/found one on-line website where one can take a Christology quiz.
It would be nice if there were a couple of other websites with such a quiz.
Also- I have tried to e-mail a couple of Greek Orthodox churches, but have not heard back.
Could someone help me find answers to my questions about various verses and words in the New Testament?
Go to those Churches and see the Services.
Leo III of Rome was Pope of the Church of Rome from 795 to 816, a period when Charlemagne became emperor and added the filioque to the creed said during the imperial liturgy in his chapel at Aachen.
The political will of Charlemagne was to build a new western "Roman" empire fully independent from the roman empire in Constantinople. Therefore he need a schism between the Church of Rome and the other patriarchates. Since the instrument of the union of the Church was the Creed he knew that a unilateral modification of the Creed would inevitably end up with a schism.
In 809 Pope Leo III denounced synodically Charlemagne's anti-evangelical and utterly lawless addition of the filioque.
To make his opposition public, Leo III engraved on two silver plates, in Greek and Latin, the holy Creed of the first and second Ecumenical Councils, entire and without the filioque addition; having written moreover this sentence : Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxa'
I, Leo, have done this for love and sake of the orthodox faith.
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.
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them,
and whose sins you retain are retained.” John 20:21-23
To me they are equal. To God, everything happens and has already happened because he exists outside time. Removing “and the son” is belittling Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the love shared between the father and the son. 1 God, 3 persons. I don’t understand how we can limit God. It’s no different than the Jews who put the law over God and thus rejecting Jesus.
To get an even clearer answer, read this passage first, then ask yourself this question once more. See who speaks the truth. Galatians 5:16-25
Fantastic!
The holy spirit was caused? what? isn’t God eternal and has no beginning or end?
Western christians dont deal in concepts of hypostatic properties nearly as much. From a lay view, being begotten vs proceeding from seems a distinction without difference.
There is more emphasis placed on relations of opposition (Father is Father because He is the Son’s Father, vice versa) St. Basil the Great (Eastern Father)… also used relations of opposition. Can an EO answer what’s the relation of opposition between Son and Holy Spirit? No. They cannot.
So, to include "and the Son" depends on which of 3 processions are in view. For the ministerial processions (energy and economic) the filioque is appropriate, as the Spirit is indeed sent by both the Father and the Son. But as to origination, to protect the Father as the Monarchial head of the Trinity, the Spirit proceeds hypostatically necessarily from only the Father.
These are fine distinctions, but seem rational.
I wonder if the root of the debate is/was linguistic (before unyielding defensiveness takes hold). i.e. if the discussion is broader (inclusive of any sense in which the Son sends the Spirit), then the West is correct. Jesus DID announce He would send the Spirit to be with us and in us. And Paul literally calls for the unity of identification of the Spirit as Lord (end of 2 Cor. 3).
But if the East is clarifying that THE Issue is not the source of ministry empowerment of believers, but rather the protection of divine trinitarian distinctions of order and identity, then the point is well made. (And I'm at a loss as to why the West would disagree).
@Chaddonal Very good points you make here! I do think a big part of the problem is that the 2 sides (East and West) are referencing 2 different things, like you suggest. It is clear from Scripture that the procession of the Holy Spirit in Eternity Past was only from the Father (John 15:26). However, that very same verse is ALSO where Jesus states that HE will send the Holy Spirit from the Father. Since this "sending" was in Time (Pentecost), it is separate from the Procession from the Father from Eternity Past.
This, of course, I have no problem with, as it seems fairly clear in Scripture. But I suspect that the 2 "sides" are looking at 2 different things.
One of the issues with this, though, that the Orthodox takes exception with is the fact that the Councils specifically stated that no one can add to, or take away from the creed. When the West added the Filioque, whether correct or not, it was still violating what the council had decreed, without the authority to do so.
@@artdanks4846 Ah, so in addition to a lingual talking past, there was a turf battle. Oh how I wish church leaders could rise above such things.
@@chaddonal4331 Not sure I understand what you mean. Sorry.
@@artdanks4846unfortunate typo fixed.
So correct me if I'm wrong this was your argument from 11:00 and on:
You do agree that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, just not the way the Latin's explain it?
So you don't accept the Filioque when it is used as the more commonly used meaning of procession in the RC Church, but you accept that there are other/different forms of the procession, and agree that when you apply those lenses when looking to how the Spirit proceeds from the Son, that it is true that the Spirit does proceed from the Son?
Meaning that you in fact do agree with the Filioque but just disagree with way RC uses the term procession?
It seems to me that is not necessarily the Filioque that is "heretical" in your eyes, but more so the use of word procession.
Just as you quoted, the eternal joy of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit.. is that not clearly showing the Son's participation in the *procession of the Holy Spirit? (*depending on how you use the word)
The poster states that the filioque is not biblical, please explain John 16 13:15
as well as church fathers Athanasius in Hist 1st epistle to Serapion #21?
As well as Bessarion of Nicea?
Also when using this verse in John using John 16:7 is either equivocating or misunderstanding. If that’s what the Filioque meant, we wouldn’t have an issue with it. In fact, Orthodox theologians, including St. Maximus the Confessor centuries before the Schism, have proposed something like this as an acceptable possible meaning of the Filioque. If Rome agreed, there wouldn’t be an issue.The thing is, the Filioque is not saying the Spirit comes from the Father and is sent by the Son; the Filioque is saying that the Spirit is generated by the Father and the Son.
Pope John Paul II in 1995 commissioned Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to release an authoritative magisterial statement:
On the basis of Jn. 15:26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit "to ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon" ("who takes his origin from the Father"). The Father alone is the principle without principle (arche anarchos) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (peghe) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner.
The Greek Fathers and the whole Christian Orient speak, in this regard, of the "Father's Monarchy," and the Western tradition, following St. Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father principaliter, that is, as principle (De Trinitate XV, 25, 47, P.L. 42, 1094-1095). In this sense, therefore, the two traditions recognize that the "monarchy of the Father" implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (Aitia) or Principle (Principium) of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
This origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone as Principle of the whole Trinity is called ekporeusis by Greek tradition, following the Cappadocian Fathers. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, in fact, characterizes the Spirit's relationship of origin from the Father by the proper term ekporeusis, distinguishing it from that of procession (to proienai) which the Spirit has in common with the Son. "The Spirit is truly the Spirit proceeding (proion) from the Father, not by filiation, for it is not by generation, but by ekporeusis" (Discourse 39. 12, Sources chretiennes 358, p. 175). Even if St. Cyril of Alexandria happens at times to apply the verb ekporeusthai to the Son's relationship of origin from the Father, he never uses it for the relationship of the Spirit to the Son (c.f. Commentary on St. John, X, 2, P.G. 74, 910D; Ep 55, P.G. 77, 316D, etc.). Even for St. Cyril, the term ekporeusis as distinct from the term "proceed" (proienai), can only characterize a relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Trinity: the Father.
That is why the Orthodox Orient has always refused the formula to ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon [an unwisely proposed translation of "who proceeds from the Father and the Son"] and the Catholic Church has refused the addition kai tou Uiou [and the Son] to the formula ek to Patros ekporeumenon in the Greek text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, even in its liturgical use by Latins. ...
The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporeusis of the Spirit. ...
We are presenting here the authentic doctrinal meaning of the Filioque on the basis of the Trinitarian faith of the Symbol professed by the second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. We are giving this authoritative interpretation, while being aware of how inadequate human language is to express the ineffable mystery of the Holy Trinity, one God, a mystery which is beyond our words and our thoughts.
So there you have it. The Father is the cause and principaliter of the Holy Spirit.
A problem is the son is combunstantial with the father and begotten not made. So he is of the same essence with the father and in other scripture he breaths on the apostles and says recurve the Holy Spirit.
What about: “In the beginning was the Word,and the Word was with God, and the Word was God??
You can kick this can around and around and think you’re making ground. You’re not. The King created the Office of Peter (Matthew 16) to keep unity in the Kingdom. He created the Office of the Prime Minister. Surrender. Be obedient. Pride will continue to divide and cause heresies. Peter, the Bishop of Rome, and he alone has the Keys of the Kingdom. When you can get past this biblical truth, I’ll listen to your arguments. Peter has spoken.
So would you accept the compromise that the RC put forward at one time, that the HS proceeds from the Father *THRU* the Son? Wouldn't that preserve the unique hypostatic procession of the Father?
That is Nicea II.
You will have to remove it from the Creed as Council of Ephesus condemned anyone who composes a new creed.
@@johnnyd2383 only if it is changed in essence, which it hasn't, so no.
@@theregent3397 Canon does not specify a "measure" in which it must be changed before it condemns the changer. Any change is condemned. So, find a better excuse..
@@johnnyd2383 not true since it changed a bunch of times ever since without any problem. It is about esence
I don’t think the Orthodox understand the filioque. The filioque does not say the son caused the spirit.
Black on white written in (John 15, 26).
I’m not catholic or Orthodox but I have been considering the two as I have started my journey. Orthodox for some reason just seemed more true to me. Someone about the Catholic Church seems like a front to me and very arrogant. You want to find out if someone is a catholic? Don’t worry they will tell you before you ask.
The filioque is in the Athanasian creed. Do Orthodox accept Athanasius?
Athanasian creed was not originally written by Athanasius
Saint Athanasius, yes, but not the creed falsely attributed to him.
it always was a petty argument.......keeping it alive is not helping brother . No one knows the full working of God no matter how they pretend ....God bless you .
Even if God reveled Himself to us.? Read (John 15, 26).
Othodox think Saint gregory is a god. They worship him
Nicea II accepts the Filioque, per writing of the patriarch of Constantinople.
Why don't you quote Horos of the Council in question that allegedly supports it.?
@@johnnyd2383 what does he say?
@@theregent3397 No quote to support you r claim.??? Clownish....
@@johnnyd2383 i merely asked a question. You didn't answer me except for insulting me.
As a Christian you need to do better.
@@theregent3397 Even worse. You are lacking basic home education as it is indecent to ask a question over already asked question. I am done with you.... dusting off my sandals... Sayonara.
1:21 False, all my fellow protestants either reject the filioque or reject procession all together.
The "Classical" Protestant view, Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, is that Filioque is true and even argue online how the Pope was right and the Orthodox Church was wrong.
I grew up Pentecostal so Trinity wasn't discussed much. Then the Church I grew up in slid into Modalism and I went to another A-Trinitarian denomination.
Monarchy of the Father, the Christian stance, is what Orthodoxy preaches. That the Will of the Father is the sole Cause of all things.
If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, doesn't make it Son unbegotten?
No, it does not. Son is only Begotten. (period)
Wait...doesn't the Athanasian Creed state "the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal. What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has"?
I'm finding this explanation very hard to follow...
Might be related to the trinitarian essence, not the energies.
John 15 “ whom I will send onto you from the Father “ really over a 1,000 years separate us, could we not agree to disagree and be ONE as Jesus asked His Father before his crucifixion, should the Catholic Church have summoned. a full council to change the creed, yes, both sides erred. I hope to ask if I have chance when if I have pleased the Lord.
Rome decided it did not want to be “one”
If the scriptures say the Son and father send the spirit, why is filioque such a problem
Because the filioque means that the Father and Son caused the Spirit, not sends the Spirit. Sending the Spirit proves Eternal Manifestation which is an Orthodox teaching.
@@terrancemfjets Revelation
22 Then the angel showed me the river(A) of the water of life,(B) as clear as crystal,(C) flowing(D) from the throne of God and of the Lamb
@@koppite9600 this is eternal manifestation or economic procession not hypostatic procession
@@mariorizkallah5383 then why oppose it?
@@koppite9600 because dumb latin have one word for the two greek εκπορευω πεμπω and got in confusion
The Trinity doesn't make sense in either version of the doctrine.
The Son clearly proceeds from the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, but the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the son.
But the Father doesn't proceed from either.
The New Testament implies the hierarchy of Father to Spirit to Son, but only doctrinally emphasizes the Father and Son, with the Spirit being more of a vague intermediary proceeding from both (to which Jesus the man gifts to the Apostles).
Matthew 5:22
But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca (stupid), shall be in danger of the council. And whosoever shall say, Thou Fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
If you are not Eastern Orthodox Christian, you should not be considering yourself as our brother to whom verse you quoted apply. If Heterodox are our "brothers" in a sense of quoted verse, then anathemas Lord's Church issued against numerous heretics would have been wrong and we know it is not true. So.. .you are maliciously misquote Bible verse for your own benefit.
Filioque means "from the Son". 0:40
No, and the son. How can't you know even this?
I think the debate is over, when you read what follows both versions. They both state, "Who with the Father and the Son.......". Right?
Yeah. So what?
@@thomasburke9060 Yeah, sew a pair of pants!
@@MrKingsley16 Why bother chiming in in the first place if you don't intend to reply intelligibly?
@@thomasburke9060 "Yeah, so what?"? That's is your idea of intelligent? What are you 6?
@@MrKingsley16 My idea of an intelligible response to a question about the procession of the Holy Spirit would be something else about the procession of the Holy Spirit, not "Sew a pair of pants!"
Good video. Yes it interests me. Thank you.
This verse from Bible confirm filioque:
And he shewed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. (Rev.22:1)
That confirms that a river of life is proceeding from God not the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son
@@brotherofchrist469 Huh?
@Christus Vincit Christus Regnat Christus Imperat
One by nature; The Father is the Father, the Son is the Son; Do not mix them up.
@Christus Vincit Christus Regnat Christus Imperat
No problem. Just confirming that the Son does not cause the hypostatic procession of the Holy Spirit.
Eternal manifestation(communion), energetic procession and hypostatic procession are different topics, as I understand them.
@Christus Vincit Christus Regnat Christus Imperat
I'm not sure if that's true in the sense of " *no* true Latin *ever* said that the Father *AND* the Son were the *cause* of the Person of the Holy Spirit."
In any case, that's what the Tomos of the 1285 Council of Blachernae anathematized.
I need to do some more study.
I have a modified view of the Filioque:
The Spirit proceeds (is passively spirated) by the active spiration of the Father and through the meditative spiration of the Son.
Thus, the Father is the principle of the Son and Spirit, but the Son still contributes to the procession of the Spirit, albeit in an asymmetrical way: the Son doesn't spirate the Holy Spirit in the same sense as the Father does, but by virtue of the fact he is begotten and the divine essence is communicated to him through this begotten property, he mediates the divine procession of the Spirit from the Father.
I think it's a suitable compromise between the Western and Eastern views and is biblical. The Father always acts through the Son by the Holy Spirit, so why would their eternal relationships differ from this?
Also the scriptures say father and son send the spirit...
All the evidence for the nature of the holy spirit comes from John? The last gospel? Which was written decades later than Mark, Matthew and Luke, who mention nothing of the like? Such scarce evidence for the two churches to fight so vigorously over this matter with long arguments when actually the bible is simply not clear. It's just sad.
Does that make Gospel according to John somehow less valuable.? Your innuendo is ridiculous. Besides, EOC and Latin heretics are not using Bible alone, but also the historical witnesses of the faith in the first 1000 years and there is no a single shred of evidence that Filioque was ever taught in the East. It started as an innovation is the West and grew into a full fledged heresy.
The true catholic teaching is that the spirit originates in the father the son does not cause the spirit but he sends the spirit from the father and that the holy spirit is the relationship between the father and the son thats why we say the filioque... But to say it in its original form is not wrong either... The west clarified things
To say that " holy spirit is the relationship between the father and the son" is outright heresy on its own.
Jesús said lift the rock im there
Doesn't "Orthodox" theology of palamism directly contradict scripture on God's immutability.
No, it does not.
😂😂 you don't know what you are talking about.
The Catholic understanding of Filioque is not about hypostatic origination. This would presuppose two principles of origin in the Trinity, which Catholics do not adhere to. The Filioque is to do with the consubstantiality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, affirming that the Holy Spirit substantially proceeds from the Father through Son, which we clearly see in the post-resurrection appearance of John’s Gospel. A lot of Orthodox criticism today, like this video, are unintelligent straw-man parodies of Catholic theology which serve no real purpose except for certain eastern Christians to feel a bit less self-conscious about their being in schism.
Hypostatic Origination was explicitly defined by Latin theologians
Facts
Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem: qui ex Patre procédit.
Its not a heresy. You would have to call some of our saints heretics if you think so. Beyond that you're trying to define aspects of God that we'll never know definitely. Its a DUMB issue.
God revealed it in (John 15, 26). Your invention is UN-Biblical.
The Holy Trinity is a concept. It can't describe God or define God. But it is a helpful concept from the human perspective. It gives our One God the properties of a Familie. That is something we, as created beings, find ourselves in. Jesus said in the Bible, I and my Father is One. He asks us to pray to Our Father in Heaven, who sent Him.
When He left just before the ascension, Jesus promised to send the Holy Ghost from His Father to mentor us. He commanded the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is the clearest teaching on the persons of the Trinity seen from the Human perspective.
He gives the Father all the Glory. It comes from His boundless humility. The Father had to come to us as the Son clothed in human flesh to hide His Glory. A mission impossible but to God alone. He breathed the Holy Ghost into the Apostles as he did with Adam. The Holy Ghost is Eternal Life itself incarnate in us. So be gentle in spirit and love.
God is One and indivisible Creator and one in essence, as far as we can understand. That does not downplay the importance of the Trinity for the Human mind. The Trinity in the Roman Catholic understanding is not hierarchical. Purely descriptive of God's Love of Family. We are invited into this Family but we don't become God.
We can't understand God fully, and to base a Scism on mere play on words and meanings is folly. The Orthodox can and must come back to the fold of the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church.
Yes, we can downplay the role of the Holy Father to a more moderate status of dignity and humility, but we can't ignore the Papacy as the nave of the administration.
Semi-arianistic blasphemy.
saying The Holy Spirit comes from The Father and The Son is heretical, Due to the fact that Jesus is not only The Son Of God,
But God in human form, therefor The Holy Spirit coming from both His human Nature and His Divine Nature credits God
less. The Holy Spirit proceeds (In the nicene creed’s context, Proceed refers to created) from The Father ALONE.
He, The Almighty Creator, Is THE Root cause Of Holyness. Not His Son or His human form, Neither His human Nature.
To say otherwise is semi-arianism against The Holy Spirit and is therefor an unforgivable sin.
@@ReplyToMeIfUrRetarded what was Arianism? God is One and Jesus not of the same essens? He had a huge problem with Jesus of human flesh. How to discern that from God´s nature. Arians viewed Jesus as a Creature, not a Creator.
I think Arian was a very successful heretic. Muslims come from him and Nestorius. Pope Francis may also agree with you. But he is so unclear that we Catholics have a hard time discerning his intentions.
If I understand it right, both of you are arguing and fighting over terms and words which you invited after you broke the unity of the One Church the Lord Jesus Christ founded, wanted and Commanded even, from the fourth Century on! Now, why do we not go back to the unified status quo of the Nicean - Const. Creed, keep all the Commandments of Jesus without making excuses for the exemptions we also introduced in order to accommodate ourselves to the world, and continue our discussions about the Holy Trinity in Truly Brotherly Love to the End of the world? Not even then will we wholy understand That Mystery how our God is One but Three Persons!
Much better moniker, btw.
Jesus is God so the Holy Spirit comes from Him also
You sound like Holy Spirit is not God also according to you.
Obviously the Holy Spirit is God@@johnnyd2383
@@johnnyd2383There is no 4th person in the trinity my friend
@@christophersalinas2722 On what drugs are you.? Who said 4th person.?
@@johnnyd2383 Think with your head. There is no 4th person for the Holy Spirit to spirate.
Your argument is a giant straw man. The west doesnt believe there are two sources in the godhead. The reason the west says "and the son" is because the Spirit is sent by christ and because he is called the Spirit of Christ. The west believes in the monarchai of the Father, dont slander your brothers
don’t you guys believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son hypostatically as opposed to economically?
What about Revelations 22:1?
In revelations 22:1 it does not support the filioque. I’ll explain it talks about how the Son sends the Holy Spirit, however the Holy Spirit does not ‘proceed’ from the Son, but only from the Father. We worship and glorify Him together with the Father and the Son. In that verse it describes the river of life flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb, which doesn’t necessarily relate to the Filioque controversy.
God help us
Very interesting.
respectfully, what i don't understand from either side is how quotes and writing from theologians and saints are being taken and used as a means of proof almost. what ever saint said this or that is only just opinion; using the stories and words of the bible to come to such conclusions. I feel like citing interpretations does not give any evidence of anything. i am confused because with the information given to us in the bible and such there are many things we can not know for sure and it seems like these theologians and saints are talking in absolutes. to call either side heresy and such seems wrong; no one knows all the mysteries of our lord and anyone who calls the other stupid and dumb proves himself just that. the most holy of all peoples in the bible did not have all the answers so im confused how those after biblical time seem to be speaking with absolutes when nothing we know is fully known and could never be.
Who better to interpret the Bible and tell us what the early church believed than the saints; to ignore the saints and focus only on one's own interpretation of the Bible is a Protestant teaching that has nothing to do with the historic church.
"historic church" lol There is no Church, I am a Christian... that is it@@kenandzafic3948
I don’t see why the Son can’t be an instrumental cause. The Father remains the first/principle cause and the Son is the instrumental cause. These would be their respective hypostatic properties and thus there would be no confusion of Persons, all while keeping the Father the Monarch.
Correct, this is the view St. Maximus defended during his engagement with the Augustinian Latins. St. Augustine who is the foundation of this Latin tradition expounds this view below:
“Indeed, if whatever the Son has he has from the Father (John 16:15), then certainly the Son has from the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds from he the Son himself…. Indeed, the Father alone is not from another, and therefore He alone is called unbegotten, not indeed in the Scriptures, but in the usage of disputants, who employ such language as they can on so great a subject. And the Son is begotten of the Father; and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father principally (principaliter), and without giving any interval of time, the Holy Spirit proceeds from both communitively (communiter).”
- Augustine of Hippo, De Trinitate, Book XV, Chapter 26, Section 47 PL 42: 1094-1095
@@JengaJay unity of essence in the trinity requires a set for each hypostasis to be particular, procession becomes meaningless in the RC scheme and ruins the trinity if something that is an unique property is split between the trinity
@@shiningdiamond5046
Well there really is no *real* property in the Trinitarian life known as procession in which is general or hypostatic in the Trinitarian life. If such was the case there would be 3 divided essences [As the ontological procession would be adding natures], rather instead, because of the logical ordering of the trinity, in which the Father is Father because he generates the Son [Not logically prior to when he generates the Son]; when the Holy Spirit is produced, the generation of the Son must be logically prior or we cannot properly say the Holy Spirit receives his subsistence and being from the Father. Hence, when we focus on the ontological unity of the Holy Spirit, we say that in the manner of logical ordering, the Holy Spirit receives his divine being from both Father and the Son albeit this communication [proesi] is not some special property between Father & Son
Jesus is a Jewis and Muslim Prophet, in Jewis and to muslim, God (The Father to Cristian) is not begotten. Its pure monotheism. Jesus pray to God. Why you rom and greek never understand?
Edit: Jesus send to Jewis people but, most of them reject him.
@@sulaxana7847 dont confuse the satanic fiction isa of the quran with LORD JESUS CHRIST of the New Testament.
I converted from Roman Catholicism recently too!
Go back to the true church. Find my comment regarding the teaching of the filioque here in this thread... The original creed is not wrong but the new way in the west clarified things even more I can give you a lot of info about the papacy marys sinlessness purgatory and others
Glory to God.!
@@CopperheadAirsoft You are trying to revive dead horse...
The actual holy spirit could care less to bicker over this type of nonsense.
this info is very outdated it feels like I am in the 11th century
the filioque is no longer a Church dividing issue, it has been established that the issue was a simple misunderstanding between east and west
the teaching of the filioque PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD is held by both Orthodox and Catholics and its origin is from the eastern fathers not from western fathers
further reading :
Defending the Filioque by Tim Staples
This way of thinking is Linear and Time Dependent, when God exists in Infinity and totally non-Euclidean. Hubris in Men think they can explain God's existence!
"uncaused cause" wtf does this even mean?
This just shows the sectarian biasness of the Orthodox Church, that they would separate from the Catholic brethren because of a phrase! This wouldn't happen if they took verse 26 of John 15 along with John 14 verse 16. They're not interested in truth, but preserving their sectarianism.
John 14:16 does not speak of the Son as being a principle of the Holy Spirit. This is not "just a phrase", even I believed in that lie. A phrase or word changes everything in theology
Saying this is “Just one Phrase” is like calling a gothic cathedral’s central keystone “just a rock”.
Go to your puppet masses.
@Phil Andrew Ask them, don’t ask me!
(Trigger-warning for Catholics)
Created grace is a heresy. (:
🇷🇺☦️🤝☪️🇵🇸No, we don't really reject the filioque, that was only an excuse for that stupid selfish schism!
False. Eastern Orthodoxy tagged filioque as heresy and is as such under anathema. Council of Ephesus condemned anyone who composes a new creed.
@@johnnyd2383 Wrong, brother. So did the Papacy tagged some of ours as such, that is no proof. Both sides should humble themselves & reconcile our doctrines with each others & correct our past errors of our Popes & Patriarchs, due to falling into the sin of pride. The big schism is the cause for God's punishment of the fall of our Roman empire & for the modernist yoke on both our churches, which weakened our authority & dividing us more & more. We must heal the schism more than ever before🙏❤️
@@johnnyd2383 Moreover, they didn't compose a new Creed, simply added to it, just like the Constantinople Creed added to the Nicene one. Catholics don't mean that the Spirit originated from the Son, but proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son, which is perfectly what we believe & what was agreed by our Patriarchs. We were still in communion with them for a long time despite the Filioque - those were just excuses for schism with Rome (who had its own excuses). We are both to blame
@@johnnyd2383 Wrong, brother. So did the Papacy tagged some of ours as such, that is no proof. Both sides should humble themselves & reconcile our doctrines with each others & correct our past errors of our Popes & Patriarchs, due to falling into the sin of pride. The big schism is the cause for God's punishment of the fall of our Roman empire & for the modernist yoke on both our churches, which weakened our authority & dividing us more & more. We must heal the schism more than ever before🙏❤️
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy Decisions of the council can be changed by the same ranking council only. Is there anything unclear.?