The Filioque Heresy (Global Catechism)
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 08. 2023
- Father Josiah Trenham
To Access Global Catechism:
patristicnectar.org/globalcat...
Our Newest Lecture Series:
Demonology: Understanding & Winning the Spiritual Battle
Click Here: patristicnectar.org/bookstore...
The study of the Church’s demonology is a part of basic catechism and Christian instruction. The Scriptures are replete with teaching on the dark powers. Additionally, it is impossible to appreciate the magnitude of the saving deeds of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, without understanding how He, and He alone, has conquered Satan and destroyed his works. Lastly, Christians are called to fight and win in the spiritual war, and for this reason, it is essential that believers understand their enemies and their tactics. Toward this end, Father Josiah presents in these lectures in-depth studies of the Scriptures, Divine Services, and pedagogy of great saints and teachers on the subject of Satan and spiritual battle.
Lecture titles include:
Lecture #1 Jesus and Satan
Lecture #2 Demonology in the Baptismal Rite and the Divine Liturgy
Lecture #3 Gaining Mastery of Satan: The Life of St. Anthony the Great
Lecture #4 How to Win the Spiritual Battle according to St. John of the Ladder
Lecture #5 Engaging the Unseen Warfare: Fr. Lorenzo Scupoli and St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain
Lecture #6 C. S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters and Demonic Warfare in the 21st Century Falling West
If you are interested in other available titles, or if you would like more information on Patristic Nectar Publications, please visit our website at www.PatristicNectar.org
---SOCIAL MEDIA---
Patristic Nectar Instagram: bit.ly/3kmupqE
Patristic Nectar Facebook: bit.ly/33Bzmpx
Patristic Nectar Twitter: bit.ly/3igrH4f
---SUPPORT PATRISTIC NECTAR---
1) Spread the Word - tell your family and friends about Patristic Nectar. Share Patristic Nectar website links to content you have enjoyed. A personal invitation is the number one way the Church grows. Tell a friend to "Come and see!"
2) Make a Donation -Patristic Nectar is a small non-profit ministry with a big vision for expanding access to Patristic Orthodox teaching throughout the world. Since our establishment in 2010, we have made steady progress but there is so much more we could do. With funding, we can work to make our ministry vision a reality.
patristicnectar.org/donations
3) Pray For Us - remember us in your prayers, asking that the Lord strengthen, help, and direct us according to His divine will.
#orthodoxchristianity #jesus #christianity #patristicnectarpublications #patristicnectar #frjosiahtrenham #josiahtrenham #orthodoxchristianity #orthodoxchristian #christianity #church #jesus #jesuschrist #god #shorts #salvation #youtubeshorts #ytshorts #priest #ministry #pastor #identity #internet #christianity #churchfathers #saints #protestant #conscience #catholic #filioque #heresy
I'm considering converting to Orthodoxy. I grew up in baptist and non-denominational churches, and never once in them did I ever hear a metaphysical, comprehensive understanding of the Holy Trinity. It was always just explained at face value and we had to accept it because of dogma. It's the difference between saying the sky is blue vs understanding why the sky is blue. After listening to Father Josiah and other Orthodox Fathers, I now have a true understanding of the concept. There seems to be a lot of richness in Orthodoxy.
I was baptized Orthodox 2 years ago coming from baptist/non-denom.
The richness and the depth never stops.
Visit your nearest Orthodox Church and speak with the Priest. God be with you!
Hey, Im Orthodox. Feel free to ask me any questions. Im not a theologian but any questions I can't answer, I can ask my spiritual father in my parish.
If you feel like it, we could also talk live using discord or other platform.
I was a prot for 3+ decades. Not once did I ever hear a discussion on Christology. Because within the protestant tradition, there really is none. Orthodoxy will unlock those questions you have and you'll find the original Church.
Come and see.
Coming from the protestant world, all of a sudden this clicked for me
I had never heard, for 30 years, about the original creed without the filioque
All it took was hearing it once, plus the explanation for it, for me to ultimately turn to Orthodoxy
Praise God, Glory to Jesus Christ forever.
Only eastern orthodox are the eastern Catholics in communion with Rome, EO has become a joke with all the sacrilegious acts, gnostic heresies, schisms and uncertainty
amen
@@bolshoefeodor6536Glory forever!
God bless
Catholic here: obs: i love you guys, Viva Cristo Rei!
Hello, for all those here,there is 2 arguments in saint thomas aquinas writings that made me understand the filioque importance,
first one: the Creed nicea-constitopolitan was created strategically thought to fight each hesery of his time, so every single word put there was to combat the relevant heresys at the time, and because the filioque question was not in debate it was not explicit put on the creed, just when the nestorian hesery started to gain power and say that Christ didn't had the same nature as the Father, they also start to say that because of it the Holy Spirit didn't came from the Son, but just the Fatherso because of this the hierarchy saw the necessity to include explicitly this truth that was implicit on the Creed already(because the Creed was write in Greek and had no negation against the filioque attribute of the Holy Trinity. This was included to combat the heresies like in the previous councils.
Second argument: The Holy Trinity has the same essence, because they i God in essence, but at the same time in this essence exist 3 persons, so the material (essence) of the Holy Trinity is the same, therefore what makes the persons distinct is the relation (order, i understood like that) between them, therefore if we affirm that the Holy Spirit came just from the Father and not from the Son, it means that they are the same person, otherwise there is 2 persons only in the trinity, but this isn't true, so thats why the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son, and the Son come from the Father, because now they have distinct relations therefore are distinct persons, and i like to relate it wkth atoms, they have the same essence, but in other to them create something totally distinct in frequency vibration and energy dissipation they will ordering themselves in a different way, so they still continue to be atoms, but with different characteristics.
The point that you brought in diminish the Holy Spirit in the Holy Trinity doesn't even make sense to me, because we are talking about the same essence (principal) and a perfect relationship, how can something that is perfect and infinity be diminished by his order of origin?
Makes sense. Also if you just say from the Father, it leaves the Son on His own. As if the father and holy spirit only are related. The filioque ties them all together. ☺️. In my opinion, the only heresy is not loving Jesus. All these little differences do not matter. We should all unite and leave our differences behind. We have bigger problems in this world lol
Thank you Father for standing for the Orthodox Truth. Long live Orthodoxy☦️
Just a reminder for my Orthodox brothers: try to be respectful and kind with non-Orthodox people who visit this channel. 😊
Of course that de9ends on how they behave, and whether they are spreading blasphemy and heresy! Sometimes, we need to follow Christ's example, and "whip the money-changers out of the Temple", no?
@@bolshoefeodor6536 how about we leave God's judgement & veangence to Him, for He claimed those.
@@bolshoefeodor6536 Definitely we should defend our faith, but let’s not stoop to their level and be nasty about it.
@@mrjkstark "let's not stoop to their....." What a nasty arrogant attitude 😒. Why would I trust a single unchristian word you say?
@@bolshoefeodor6536 the speaker/clip & many commenters are just shocking & hate mongering. I hope & pray this doesn't represent the Orthodox Church in any way shape or form. Horrific & sectarian.
Fascinating! Having been born into and raised in the Roman Catholic Church this was never taught and now I know why. I left the Roman Catholic Church a long time ago and have traveled within the Protestant tradition for many years. Now I have discovered recently the Orthodox tradition and everything that I read and hear just rings true. Blessings to all.
Hey, Im Orthodox. Feel free to ask me any questions. Im not a theologian but any questions I can't answer, I can ask my spiritual father in my parish.
If you feel like it, we could also talk live using discord or other platform.
May God bless you! ☦
Keep traveling…
@@thedon978 why? He finally found his home.
why would he travel on a broken train?
Happy Feast of The Dormition of The Theotokos!☦⛪🕯
Joyous Feastday! May the Holy Theotokos pray for us all for our efforts!
Joyous feast!
We have 13 more days before the Feast of the Dormition here, but blessed Feast to you. ☦︎ 🤗
@LadyMaria May God bless your fast and your efforts! Blessed fast to you!!
@@LadyMariaOriental?
Well, what I have a problem with is not "filioque," but "procedit." But, I believe we need to wait until we get to heaven to learn about these details and refrain from calling each other "heretics" unnecessarily.
I find I agree with a lot of the orthodox but I can't see myself ever praying to departed human beings or elevating Mary far beyond a place of respect and admiration. I would think any worship or prayers given to someone other than God would be error. Christ made the way for us to be saved and to have the most precious Holy Spirit lead us through life. I will speak with Him myself and take the lives of those who came before as encouragement for the marathon that is ahead. I absolutely hate watching believers, professing Christ lovers going at one another over the internet. Just makes us look silly and a reason to keep walking as many non believers do. I am of the belief that Christ can reach down and save any person in any condition and lead them to His church. The church He will build NOT built by human hands. We all see and know in part but someday we will see in full when we all will stand before Him. ❤ to those who fight with one another- where is the common ground? Is there only One God? Is Jesus the begotten Son who lived, died and resurrected providing the salvation of all those who He would call? Then argue in private about the other stuff.
The sky is falling ,and it's raining cats and dogs ,think of it as a door to Christ heaven which there is no end..
@alvinf6981 You've entered into the core of the whole issue my friend... Qudos!
Thank you. We as Christians and brothers need to be able to have hard conversations about theology without name calling. I’m sure every single one of us in some aspects what we personally may believe? has some heretical opinions in the sense that it is not how God operates. But that’s not important as long as we BELIEVE in Christ, have faith, and let Him do His works in us. Jesus and Jesus alone is our salvation. That’s how it was and that’s how it will be eternally.
everything else is secondary to following Him and His words
There seems to be a renaissance of Orthodoxy going on abroad, especially in America, both in rediscovering its spirituality and in attracting new souls to its way and its life.
It's true. I've been curious about The Orthodox Church and have watched a ton of videos and a lot of comments are from recent concerts or by people like myself considering. I am from an Evangelical background and just got to the point where church was a rock concert, a power point seminar, and a Starbucks style coffee shop in the lobby. I felt no connection to God so I stopped going. The more I learn about Orthodoxy the more I am drawn to it. Even Hank Hanegraaff who I used to listen to all the time and have great respect for converted. It's definitely a thing.
@@dmacarthur5356 I liked the description of your ''Evangelical background''. Rings true. lol
@@KonstanzArrens lol, yeah no lie the church had baristas. Unreal.
@@dmacarthur5356My mom's megachurch has their own Starbucks.
The Father is my hope.
the Son is my refuge,
the holy spirit my protection.
Holy trinty Glory to you..
Bless you Father Peter and world family...
"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father through the Son."
-- Seventh Ecumenical Council, St Tarasios of Constantinople
I love Orthodoxy more by the day
same here
Father, bless! These are nice refreshers for us already baptized into the body of Christ, and excellent for those soon to be.
Well said Fr.Josiah! We are blessed to have priests like you! May God watch over you and protect you and your family 🙏🏼 ☦️
Im currently reading, Apodictic treatise on the procession of the holy spirit. It makes it so very clear why the filioque is a huge mistake! I highly recommend it. I am in awe at the brilliance of st Gregory!
This is apologetics not theology per se and sadly rationalises a serious point of schism which needs clearer Christian dialogue.
I love Fr. Trenham and I Almost became Orthodox. I continued to study Both Catholicism (West and East) and Orthodoxy and I concluded that Catholicism is the correct place to go. So I went From classical Anglican to Melkite Greek Catholic.
The problem with saying the filioque is heretical is that you have many western saints in Orthodoxy who hold to the Filioque, such as Ambrose. The good thing is that the US bishops no longer see the filioque as heretical but through much discussion there has been a correct understanding.
St. Ambrose didn't hold to the Filioque as explained by Florence. None of the Church Fathers did.
@@acekoala457according to whom? These statements always make me laugh.
@@acekoala457Hilary of Poitier, Augustine, and Ambrose absolutely held to the Filioque.
BASED Melkite Catholic! I attend a Melkite Divine Liturgy in São Paulo, Brasil, although I am of the Latin rite by baptism.
@@dave1370
The Filioque as explained in the Councils of Lyon and Florence?
Or the Filioque as explained by St. Maximus?
Because St. Maximus' Filioque and Lyons/Florence's Filioque are not the same.
The Catholics don't speak of the Son as the origin of the Spirit, but as the one who recieves the Spirit from the Father and through whom, the Spirit is given to the world. It is in this understanding, that the Spirit is of the Father and the Son.
If I’m not wrong, orthodox don’t have an issue with the Filioque itself, but the fact that it was inserted into the creed without any proper discussion
@@arturmonteiro8541 this video claims Filioque to be a heresy.
Also, the Church in the West had to make this change in the Creed because it was fighting the Arian heresy that was denying the full divine nature to the Son.
The council of Florence teachs that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one principe.
@@melroycorrea7720 The looser structure of the Orthodox Church, gives the priests the opportunity to add a few more words, not always in the wisest way.
To the Orthodox, the insertion of the Filioque in the Credo was initiating a diarchy in the Trinity - and that was heretical. Today, the traditional Patriarchs of the Eastern Church don't speak of heresy and heretics, Constantinople and Rome engage into dialogue in good terms and maybe are closer to each other, than say Constantinople in relation to Moscow...
Forgive the priest please. He is a convert and converts are always zealots! 😉
@@Maxx02897 That's because it's one divine nature and not because the Son is the Origin of the Spirit.
In the Western Church, from the end of the 8th century, it is professed that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son"; the Spanish councils applied this phrase from the 5th century. It spread to the empire of Charlemagne. The debate with the Eastern Orthodox began in 807 when Western pilgrims in Jerusalem began to sing the Creed this way in the Mass. Pope Leo III recognized the correctness of the phrase but objected to its inclusion in the Creed. Out of consideration for the Eastern Orthodox, he continued to demand that only the ancient text be sung in Rome. Pope Benedict VIII adopted the new formula at the request of Emperor Henry II, but for example, in Paris, they stuck to the old text even at the beginning of the 13th century. Patriarch Photius of Constantinople vehemently attacked the Western Church in 867 for falsifying the Creed. In 1054, Patriarch Michael Cerularius justified the schism with this, and in 1274 at the Second Council of Lyon, Michael's three delegates accepted the filioque, but a large part of the Eastern Church resisted the emperor's and pope's will and did not recognize the Lyon Council. In the 14th century, the Eastern Orthodox demanded that anyone coming to them from the Western Church must deny the heresy associated with the filioque. In 1438-39, at the Council of Florence, they again discussed the matter, but the Eastern delegates continually referred to the Council of Ephesus, which had once forbidden any additions to the Creed. However, that council only dealt with the Nicene formula, not the Niceno-Constantinopolitan. In the end, they recognized that the Eastern and Western teachings were substantially identical, and that the addition was legitimate, and the council officially declared this on July 6, 1439. However, the returning delegates encountered resistance again in Constantinople. The question always arose in the union of Eastern rite Christians. Pope Benedict XIV decided in 1742 that those who unite with the Western Church this way are not obliged to include the expression filioque in the Creed. After the Second Vatican Council, to facilitate ecumenical efforts, Latin-rite individuals living in Eastern Orthodox territories can also use the text of the Creed without the filioque. - As for the dogmatic truth, the Scripture expressly states of the Holy Spirit that He "proceeds from the Father" (Jn 15:26). We read also that the Father sends Him in the name of the Son (Jn 14:26) or the Son sends Him from the Father (Jn 15:26). But He can only send Him because He is in the same relationship with Him as the Father, for all that the Father has is also the Son's (Jn 16:15). The Eastern fathers used this formula: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The Westerners, since Augustine, have expressed the mystery this way: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Therefore, it is indeed a matter of faith that the Son also has a part in the origin of the Holy Spirit, although the Son received this ability from the Father.
Excellently stated.
Yes, very well done. Time certainly helps both Churches (East and West) to better express their theology. My understanding was that the Latin Church essentially believes what the Eastern Churches do in this matter but it is expressed differently. I think a lot of the challenge comes from what is meant but certain phrases and words, which is no surprise since this is a noted issue from even the early Councils. I sincerely pray that we are healed from our divisions and better reflect the unity of the Holy Trinity by being a united Church on earth.
this is singlehandedly the best explanation of the filioque i’ve ever heard, thank you Father!
Thank God we come to him as children do. Thank God we don't have to have full knowledge and understanding to be in Christ, trusting him alone for salvation.
thank you I'm in x Protestant Western right Orthodox convert I have been trying to explain for years why Orthodoxy and Catholicism are not the same thing. thank you for making it so succinctly I've been trying to explain the schism from the Orthodox perspective
The difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is a LOT more than the Filioque clause, even pre-schism. If I had to boil it down to one thing, though, it's the papacy.
Christ is the head of His church, not any bishop. The bishop of Rome was not satisfied, however, being the first among equals. Having said this: It's not that simple.
@@ericlammerman2777 of course it's way more but that's the part my Orthodox, Catholic, protestant discussion groups bring up. If you just say the papacy is dumb they will give their talking points, we will give our rebuttal then no dialogue happens after that.
The Filioque sort of seems to make the Holy Spirit a subordinate errand boy. Christ makes this crystal clear-I will send The Comforter, who proceeds from The Father. Period.
I seldom can't find "alone" in that statement.
@awake3083 gotta try and get that hyper-rationalized jab in when your reason falls flat don't you؟
That's what Romans always do.
@@despairknot It’s a fair reply, you guys act like Protestants on the issue. When a Protestant quote mines scripture in an attempt prove Sola Fide they always use Ephesians 2:8-9 yet we can’t find “alone” in the Scriptures either.
@@awake3083it's not a fair reply at all.
God doesn't need you to correctly worship Him. He's not affected by a show of hands as to what humans want to believe. You are the one who needs to worship God correctly because that's what he made us to do, and if God is love; then tampering with what Christ taught his apostles about the nature of the trinity also ruins our understanding of Love.
That's why ROMANticism has led us astray from what love truly is.
That is why Fr Sophrony insists that it is only in Christianity, where God is revealed in three personae (Mt 28:19), that we find the completion of the revelation about divine persona. Since the personae in their threeness cannot be reduced to their essence it follows that their relationship is determined by their personeity and not by their essence. Their self-determination in eternity is the eternal fact. In divine being, which is utterly personal, self-determination of the divine hypostases derives from the hypostases themselves and is in no way predetermined or imposed by the essence. Hence the first implication: in its self-determination in relations, persona is absolutely free. No factor necessitates its determination: “Where there is no liberty, there is no persona; and vice versa-without persona there is no liberty. This kind of eternal being uniquely concerns the persona, in no way the individual (cf 1Cor 15:47-50).”
The Theological Legacy of Archimandrite Sophrony Nicholas V. Sakharov ST VLADIMIR’S SEMINARY PRESS YONKERS, NEW YORK
I suggest you read it @awake3083
My children and I were received into the Church in October of 2022.
I was raised in a Roman Catholic family but I was converted to a non denominational (but pentecostal) church. The protestant church that I converted to did teach some proper theology, such as being very much against the doctrine of "once saved, always saved", and taught basic fundamentals such as Christ is fully human and fully God, the Trinity. Although we practiced speaking in "tongues", we were taught that most charismatics/pentecostals were in the equivalence of spiritual Prelest.
I say that to say this, the heresy of the filioque has been hard for me to wrap my head around, but this has been the best explanation that I've heard and because of this I feel that I finally understand!
Thanks so much! : )
Awesome. Something I've been trying to explain to my Protestant father..... like most things it doesn't go well.
Maybe one day 😅
Tell him where is the filioque in the NT text Jesus Christ uses the word εκπορεύεται for the Spirit as the text says only from the Father.
@@user-pj7sq7ce1f John 15:26
don’t focus primarily on intellectual stuff, pray for him and talk about the good stuff about Orthodoxy
@@tclearytclearyThat's not the Filioque. Next time please write out the verse. It is lazy not to.
Saint Gregory of Palomas has written in depth on this and other topics concerning the Latins. Fr Chris Moody translated this into English and I believe its available on uncut Orthodox press. Fr. Chris Moody has a youtube channel where he discusses the Filioque that was quite edifying also.
I pray that Christians be given grace to recognize the Son (Filioque) in their hearts and Creed
You pray that non-biblical invention of the fallen see of Rome becomes accepted by Eastern Orthodox.? On what drugs are you.?
@@johnnyd2383 on the contrary, the only See not conquerered by Muslim is the Seeof Rome.
@@Slit-dl6gl God's Church was constantly under attack by the forces of Satan throughout the history... just as He said... Not just Islam attacked the lands His Church was developed in, but later Communism plague hit it.. and yet.. none managed to destroy it... just as Lord promised.
Love you, Father. Joyous Feast of the Dormition.
I will have to relisten to this multiple times. Interesting explanation of the issue.
Only the Orthodox have the true Trinity. Catholics have a Modalist “Trinity” with their absolute divine simplicity and filioque. Protestants have a Nestorian one with their penal substitution. God Bless the Orthodox Church of Christ. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us sinners!
I'd say protestants have a modalist trinity especially since Sola scriptura led to oneness pentecostals.
@@user-ur4rg5ph3x they have elements of it as they inherited the heresies of the papists and calvin and his goons piled more heresy on top of it.
@@user-ur4rg5ph3x several sects of Protestants do have a Modalist trinity. I myself am A former oneness Pentecostal. Glory to God for leading me to truth.
"Modalist"?? And with our "absolute divine simplicity" at that 🙂 I suppose you mean by "Modalist" in the context of this video that Catholics believe the Holy Spirit proceeds sometimes from the Father and other times from the Son. So, sometimes He's in Father-mode and other times in Son-mode? As a convert to Catholic from Orthodox, I assure you that is neither our teaching nor our reality 🙂 Catholicism is Trinitarian with the Father the Creator, the Son the Redeemer, and the Spirit the Preserver. They co-exist and are not One Person in different modes.
@@humbledandgrateful7411
Here are two examples why the positions are similar.
Modal Manifestations of Simplicity: In this argument, one could propose that the different modes or manifestations in Modalism are not distinct "parts" of God, but rather different ways in which God's simple nature is revealed or expressed. This interpretation would emphasize that God's simplicity remains intact even as these modes are experienced.
Unity of Essence: Another way to argue for compatibility is by emphasizing the unity of essence in Modalism. Supporters might assert that the three modes or manifestations of God are ultimately expressions of the same simple divine essence, thereby maintaining the principle of divine simplicity.
Brilliant! Perfect timing! Love and Blessings ❤❤❤ ☦️
I never really understood this issue until this video. Thank you Father!
Get some other viewpoints to get any sort of balanced understanding.
Thank you. I had never heard the explanation of why the Orthodox Church considers the filioque a heresy from the Orthodox perspective. I understand it better now.
They don't, the dispute has been settled. Catholic and Orthodox now have a common understanding. Unfortunately there are still a few who beat the drum of division
@@Motomack1042Wrong.
@@Motomack1042
"Common Understanding"?
The Council of Lyons, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent all proclaim the Dual Hypostatic Procession of the Holy Spirit, which is not Orthodox and is in fact a distortion of the Apostolic Tradition.
Just because some Ecumenist Bishops claim "common Understanding" doesn't change the truth.
This was INCREDIBLY helpful. Thank you for providing these insights - I've never heard it explained this eloquently before.
When I converted from Catholicism to Orthodoxy what struck me the most is the pride and arrogance of the Popes and the Latin Church in their decision to change the Creed, the foundation of our faith that the Holy Fathers established! Who gave them such authority???
You know EXACTLY how most Catholics will reply to your question. "Upon this rock..."
I find the Orthodox to be very prideful. Why do they have an ax to grind? If you’re right, we’ll know by the fruits. Right now all I see are people who are already Christian, mostly Protestant that become orthodox. The catholic who become orthodox have their reasons. I think we need to stop arguing and love God and our neighbor as Jesus taught us.
@@javaman8895I find Roman Catholics to be prideful, to be fair.
Are you sure that Rome changed the creed? It simply made it clearer, to combat further against the Arius heresy, for which it had originally been made! You are just struggling with the Pope's Authority, but not theology! And if there be any theology in that, other than affirming that God is one in three coequal and coeternal Persons, that Theology is wrong! The issue is who did this right thing, and by what authority? But it is not wrong! Now let me ask the Orthodox! if you were allowed to put the word "ALONE" would you say.........from the Father alone"?
Read about the Ecumenical Councils that approved the addition. (Lyons & Florence)
I could listen to this caliber of instruction for days on end. The power of truth ….
Thank you for explaining this Father Trenham 🙏🏻☦️🤗
Excellent and very clear. Thank you Father.
My goodness, this helped me get closer to understanding more than YEARS of study.
Thank you Father.
the best explanation I've ever heard on the subject. Thanks Father Josiah
I believe that Peter was the head of The Church. I'm starting to not believe in Catholicism anymore, but Orthodoxy. Thank you Father for enligthtening me to this True Faith!
As an orthodox, we believe that peter had primacy (first among equals with the other apostles) but that was changed by rome to supremacy (monarchy) and was supported by papal forgeries made by the catholic church they declared this at Vatican I, but this led to separation between east and west. Although the papal forgeries are admitted by the catholics nowadays, they still hold the papal dogmas and other heresies like the filioque, immaculate conception .
The head of The Church, now and always, is Jesus Christ.
The first bishop of The Church, in Jerusalem, was St. James...even though St. Peter was around. Also, St. Peter was bishop of Antioch before he was the bishop of Rome.
I don't write this to take anything away from St. Peter, just to add perspective. And Rome was the capital of the world, essentially, when Christ founded His church.
It makes sense that the bishop of Rome would be an important figure in the early church. It does not make sense, however, that the bishop of Rome would try to rule over the church.
If you believe Peter is the head of the Church, then you should then trust God made him so. One thing I see stand out in comments and videos on Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism is that orthodoxy is always viewed in from a different lense. Almost as a can do no wrong. Catholicism is attacked by what seems like everyone. Yet, when the Bishop of Rome speaks the world listens. When any of the Patriarchs speak, the world doesn’t blink an eye.
As Flannery O’Connor once remarked, if the Eucharist is just a symbol, then the hell with it”. I say, if the Papacy, means what the orthodox claim (First among equals AKA SYMBOLIC title), then the the hell with it.
Just as there is celestial hierarchy, there too is order and structure mirrored on this principle here on earth. Heck, even nature show that there exists a pecking order.
I love Fr. Josiah’s content but find him unreasonable on this topic which at it’s core has less to do with semantics of Filioque and more with the problem and question of authority. Though now Orthodox, I still see a strong Protestant spirit in his framework thought towards the Catholic Church.
If everyone has authority, then no one has authority. Do all bishops in orthodoxy unilaterally agree on divorce? On topic of birth control? You can find the answer in the Catholic Church without needing to go to your local bishop for interpretation. Why is three the limit for remarriage in the Orthodox Church and not 4? Or 2, or 10?
Orthodoxy is currently in vogue in the US, especially amongst Protestant circles. For them, it is easier to continue with their “anything but Catholic” attitude/framework of thinking. It often feels as if Catholic Church is the only church which is judged by its failed members, and not by it’s fruits.
So then, it appears Satan has his eyes set on a target -on what he finds repugnant for what it represents. Christ’s church is the Catholic Church, his bride. He does not have many brides, he has A bride.
Schism is a grave matter. Fr. Josiah makes the Schism larger by calling the Church heretical and claiming all the things that he does. We are closer than we are apart. Maybe I’m naive? Maybe I’m hopeful? That one day the west and the east will one day be one again and with renewed strength take on the biggest issues facing our times: expansion of Islam, the evil or f gender confusion, socialism, overall state of degeneracy in the world,tbh.
Ends rant. 😅
@@nicadag good post, it seems that and not to be mean spirited to the Father Josiah that he does his theology on the basis of just going against Catholicism, and your point about Orthodoxy being in vogue with former protestants is correct, "apostolicity without being in union with the "anti-Christ" Papists of Rome?? sign me up"
Thank you for this teaching Fr.
As a fairly new convert to Catholicism (a few years), I have never heard any priest, bishop, or layperson describe a belief that matches your description of the heresy. This seems like making theological mountains out of linguistic molehills.
Typical Lil Bro behaviour from the Orthys
And unilaterally changing what the whole church agreed to is somehow ok?
@No_One_infinity no it wasn't okay, we admit that, well most of us anyway. But in the end we were right about it and it defeated a growing heresy, something the church has done for almost 2k years. We could unify and orthodox brothers wouldn't have to admit it into their creed.
@@t.d6379 it does not seem to me that you are expressing the desire to seek forgiveness for this but you are seeking for submission from us for something you admit was wrong and divided us based on your stated desire to defeat heresy you entered into error(if you admit something is wrong how is it not error) do you understand?
@@t.d6379 also please forgive me if i mistook you for someone else who was attacking fr josiah
Wow. Such a powerful explanation.
That was such an understandable explanation of that heresy. I especially appreciate that you followed through with the results of that heresy. What’s happening in the Roman rite is a travesty, and if this pope has his way, will destroy whatever is left of it. It’s the house that is built on sand. 😢
Excellent explanation! And so say I, a Lutheran.
"The truth lies with the Greeks” - Martin Luther, 1519
@@ericlammerman2777So was he basically saying Orthodoxy is true?
Thank you Father, i learn a lot from this video.
It was my intense study of the Filioque controversy that led my wife and me to leave an otherwise sound and conservative Presbyterian church. We now are active members of a conservative and traditional Anglican church. We have unbounded love for our Orthodox friends and have learned much from reading the early church fathers.
I feel smart when i understand what father Josiah is saying.❤
There are no real orthodox in EO
It seems to be simply summarised by a Trinity of - " Hate, Hate, Hate." - , utterly disillusioned, shocking, awful 😖.
Very interesting, but i assume the other side also have their own theological approach to the topic, it would have been nice if you could have addressed these in your answer, for example the biblical verses they use to support their doctrine and how you would refute them.
My favourite Father, please could you visit Romania and Uk? ❤ Please bless me, Father! ✝️
Besides these theological differences, we can just look at the fruits of the Church and all the saints God has given us despite these insane modern times. For me, this gives me a lot of reassurance that Orthodoxy is the one, true church when it produces such massive saints and more to come. St Paisios, St Porphyrios and St Jacob pray for us!
brilliant explanation! Thank you
This is the first time I’ve heard an explanation of why the filioque heresy matters.
It seems like nitpicking to me to just talk about “this to that” and kind of rationalize a diagram.
But to explain the impact of “demoting” the Holy Spirit being the growing governance and bureaucracy of the church makes the heresy of the filioque clear.
Thank you.
Thank you for this explanation
The issue is that ortodox Saits belived in filioque, Filioque was present in church for 500 years before the offical document.
Was the son not given all from the father? Including the principle that the spirit is begotten from the father? Would that not be a heresy to say the Father has not given everything to the son including the spirit?
Every verbal description of the Trinity has its own problems my friend. Roman Catholics like you, say that the original Credo somehow demotes the Son as a real God equal to the Father. The Orthodox reply that the dogma of Filioque establishes a kind of diarchy in the Trinity. With the Filioque we have one Deity but with two internal Sources from whom the Spirit proceeds independently. People outside Christianity, the Jews for instance, think that we believe in three Gods...
Since every Christian receives the Unction (Chrism in Greek) he receives the Holy Spirit, so he becomes annointed, i.e. Christ in the making. Imagine now the possible implications of the Filioque: Christ has received the Holy Spirit from the Father but the Apostles received the Holy Spirit, not "through Christ" (as the Orthodox accept) but "from Christ". Can you understand the difference and the danger?
The core problem may be only verbal, and the initial intentions of the people who conceived the notion of the Filioque where the best for sure; some things though, sometimes, maybe it's good to be left alone...
That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, the Scripture repeatedly and formally declares. For example, "But when the Comforter 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; cf. 14:16-26 Mt 10:20 1 Cor 2:10-12 1 Thes 4:8 1 Jn 4:13.) But it also clearly teaches that the Spirit proceeds from the Son.
a) The Scriptures frequently and consistently refer to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of the Son (2 Cor 3:7, Gal 4:6 Rom 8:9-11 Phil 1:19 1 Pet 1:11 Act 16:6), thus establishing a constant and clear reference to the Son. But in the Divinity, there can be no other constant and clear reference between the persons except that of origin; interchangeability exists among the others because of the absolute simplicity of God. Therefore, if it were not trying to express a constant and clear reference between the Son and the Holy Spirit but merely an essential identity, it could just as easily reverse the relationship and speak of the spirit of the Spirit; which, however, it never does. Moreover, this expression, the spirit of the Son, even expresses procession from the Son according to the scriptural analogy (genitive of origin); for according to Saint Paul, the spirit of God means "the Spirit that is from God." (1 Cor 2:12.)
b) According to the Scriptures, Christ sends the Spirit (Jn 14:26, 15:26, 16:7, 20:22, Lk 24:49, etc.). But sending implies a kind of power over the one sent. And since in the wholly equal Trinity there is no basis or title for a power difference other than origin, the outward continuation and pattern of which is the sending, the Son can only send the Spirit because He proceeds from Him; the Father sends both the Son and the Spirit, but neither of the two sends the Father; the Son sends the Spirit, but the Spirit does not send the Son.
c) The Holy Spirit receives instruction from the Son: "When he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." (Jn 16:13-15.) Since the Holy Spirit is truly God, He cannot take truth from the Son in any other way than by receiving omniscience from Him eternally. However, omniscience is identical with the divine essence; therefore, the Holy Spirit takes the divine essence eternally from the Son, or in other words, proceeds from Him.
d) Scripture always mentions the Holy Spirit in the third place, after the Son, in the Trinitarian formulas. From this consistency of expression, one may justly infer that the Holy Spirit's relation to the Son is not the same as to the Father; for then they could have been interchanged at will. The procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is beautifully symbolized in the book of Revelation (22:1): "He showed me a river of the water of life (the Holy Spirit, Cf. Jn 7:38.), clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb."
Yeah, but the Immaculate Conception was made possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.
"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Lk. 1:35)
Thank you Father for this clear explanation. I today have read of critiques of Orthodoxy for being traditionalist. But I’m concerned that Catholicism in its attempt to appease modernist forces may become something different to what it should be!
wow beautiful explanation
Wrong explanation, it’s rejected by other eo bishops
@@BCATO sorry but that’s simply untrue
@@jasonmurray1771 Bishop Theophan, who was consecrated by Archbishop Elpidophoros of the Greek Archdiocese of America, recited the Nicene Creed with the Filioque clause
@@BCATO 1. Everyone called him out for it as an irregular and wrongheaded statement and the bishop himself later clarified saying that it was a mistake :)
2. Everyone recognizes that the simple phrase “Filioque” can be interpreted in an Orthodox way. Depends on what you mean by the words. But you shouldn’t say it in the creed.
@@jasonmurray1771 Show a link where the Bishop said it, not an opinion piece by salty ortho-bros
The official position of the EO church was that the filioque was added in the 11th century, this is historically false.
6:30-10:45 Fr. Josiah breaks it down.☦️
I would just ask one question, if God is eternal and subsistent within himself, creating all things in a fashion that would look almost hierarchical then why would his own church not follow such a nature? One Head, flowing thru God in a magisterium, not co depending on other forms of ruling, but subjective to God thru one? All things are created by God and flow from his objective goodness, why should the church not also? I put faith in the Catholic Church because it doesn’t rely on man but only in faith that man flows from God within his magisterium that he in a way has begotten thru the trinity
Because my friend, the term Catholic (from the Greek word "καθολικός", catholicos) means universal, wide-ranging. And the structure you propose could truly be adopted by the Church, only if the Church would catholically, i.e. universaly agree upon it. That was the way the Church was structured and continued traditionally.
Had God wished everything to flow through one, he would first baptize Peter with fire and then Peter would baptise the rest of the apostles. That didn't happen, and was never the case. Of course, the early Church in Jerusalem had its own bishop, James, the brother of Christ. But after the destruction of Jerusalem, and while the Church expanded, every new land had its own bishops, all equal, with the bishop of Rome (the largest Christian church) accepted as "Primus inter pares", first among equals. That meant that traditionally, the Pope's opinion was of an enhanced importance. Nothing like the "Vicarius Filii Dei" or the "Pope's infallibility" which were established later by the papacy.
In my opinion, if the Church manages to reunite, the Pope could function as a coordinator and a spokesman for the whole Church but not as a person that would dictate how every bishop or Patriarch should manage his own affairs. The Church of Rome has started electing non Italian Popes; this is a move to the right direction in my opinion.
Ty for this explanation
As a non-denominational Protestant, I greatly appreciate this teaching about the Filioque. After months and months of reading and listening to various teachers on the Filioque I have come to understand why the Filioque is incorrect. However, I have no intention of changing my Church affiliation because of my new understanding of the Filioque. Having the correct understanding of the Filioque has no bearing on one's salvation. No where in Scripture does Jesus insist one have a clear understanding whether believing in the Filioque or not has a bearing on one's salvation. When the False Prophet eventually comes after those who follow after the testimony of Jesus, he's not going to asking whether one believes in the Filioque or not, whether you pray to Saints or not, whether there are seven sacraments or two sacraments, he just wants to know if you are a follower of Jesus or not before be determines if you get to live or die. I consider many within Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism as my brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus. We may not agree on a variety of issues, but we do believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God and that is what unifies the children of God.
Orthodoxy insists on sound faith because of the Lord's promise that His Church will be pillar and ground of the faith and that gates of Hades will not prevail over it. One false doctrine and Hades won over those who introduced it and believe in that falsehood. Since RCC have had and still have numerous false beliefs, as per Lord's promise, such spiritual group can not be tagged as God's Church. And we know that nobody was saved outside of the Noah's ark. Do you understand now why we Orthodox maintain original Faith.? If you think you can believe anything you want just do a lip service remember God's words that not all who say Lord Lord will inherit His kingdom.... additionally, read: (1 Timothy 6, 3-5), (2 Timothy 4, 3-4), (2 Peter 2, 1-3), etc... God hates false teachings taught by the false teachers.
@@johnnyd2383 To answer your question, No. No, I do not see how you Orthodox maintain original Faith, strictly by your answer. The few scripture verses you shared has to do with false teaching and that God is against false teachers, which I agree with you. However when it comes to maintaining the Faith, it's all about the object of our faith. It is the Object of our faith that saves us. For you, and any Roman Catholic and the various denominations within Protestantism, it is our faith in Jesus and Him alone that saves us. The Church is designed for making disciples, you know...Go and make disciples of all nations (people groups)... We read in Acts 4:12 "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved." I assume you heard of John 3:16, however I will also include verses 17 & 18 here " 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.
17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18 “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
The Apostle Paul tells us in Romans chapter 10, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
11 For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”
12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;
13 for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”
Jesus in the 6th chapter of John tells us "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." An individual is not drawn to a particular denomination, but drawn to Jesus. Again, the Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 14:12 "So then each of us will give an account of himself to God." Did you catch that...we each individually will give an account to God. We are not going to be held accountable by groups, i.e. "All you Orthodox over there, the Roman Catholics over here, and the Protestants over in that area."
I could go on and on, but let me conclude by leaving this from Acts 15 when the Apostles and Elders of the Church debated with believing Pharisees whether the new believing Gentiles should be circumcised and required to uphold the Law of Moses. 6"The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7 And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9 and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10 Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
The Italians and westernized Church believe they have the Right to reform the councils by their own, the Christianism born in the EAST and that´s were the truly faith remain,
I appreciate the historical and philosophical explanations. I did not hear much biblical exegesis.
Bible is clear on the matter. Simply read: John 15, 26. It is written in black and white plain and directly w/o need to decipher it.
Father,
I am responding as a convert to Catholicism 40 years ago who also considered Eastern Orthodoxy. Sergius Bulgakov opined that the Filioque did not represent an insurmountable obstacle to reunion of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. Maximus the Confessor did not object to the Western use of the Filioque in a context other than that of the Niceno-Constantinipolitan Creed and defended the Filioque as a legitimate variation of the Eastern formula when allowing that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. Photius, an opponent of the Filioque, was in communion with, and died in communion with a pope who advocated for the Filioque in the West. Maximus wrote: "Concerning the Holy Spirit, it is said not that he has existence from the Son or through the Son, but rather that He proceeds from the Father and has the same nature as the Son, is in fact the Spirit of the Son as being One in Essence with Him." All the Eastern bishops save one agreed yhat this was acceptable based upon Holy Scripture and Tradition. On 6 July 1439 in Florence a re-union was proclaimed (in both Latin and Greek) in the document Laetentur Caeli ("Let the Heavens Rejoice") which was signed by Pope Eugene and by the Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaiologos. Some Greek bishops, agreed that it was likely reluctantly, accepted the decrees of the Council. Other Eastern bishops did so by sincere agreement, such as Isidore of Kiev and others. Only one Eastern Bishop refused to accept the union, Mark of Ephesus, who became the leader of opposition back in Byzantium. Almost all the Eastern bishops of the time agreed that the Creed with the Filioque as it was meant by the Latins, origin by Spiration from the father, proceeding through the Son, was not heretical. Most of the Eastern Catholic churches do recite the Creed without the Filioque. This has not been a burden to unity and the Pope recites the Creed without when visiting those churches.
If it were not for Mark of Ephesus, the document would have held. Now, one could argue that God may have used that one dynamic, faithful Saint to preserve right belief. I am OK with that argument and would find it plausible. However, to call the Filioque a heresy, as the Filioque does not entail "gaining origin from" is in my opinion false.
On another matter, since you said the Filioque was used as a springboard to other excesses, the Council proclaimed: "We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church." All the Eastern bishops at the Council save one, and most of the Eastern Bishops, agreed with this.
Other so called heresies can be discussed as you mentioned a springboard. Purgatory, for instance. Similar beliefs exist in Orthodoxy, but the descriptions are different due to cultural differences and the more scholastic Latin Church has made more specific definitions that, nonetheless, do not meet the criteria for "heresy." The Confession of Dositheus, adopted by the Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem (1672), states: "And the souls of those involved in mortal sins, who have not departed in despair but while still living in the body, though without bringing forth any fruits of repentance, have repented-by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and finally by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church has from the beginning rightly called satisfaction. Their souls depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their departed." A rose by any other name......
The "petty problems" to which you refer in Orthodoxy include the current excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople by the Russian Patriarch and a current schizm. There is political discord in the struggle for primacy between the two Sees. The Ecumenical Patriarch has merely 5 million persons in his Patriarchate and if the argument for "the new Rome" is valid, Moscow would be the new Rome. If not valid for Moscow, it was not valid for Constantinople. Furthermore, Eastern Orthodoxy is very cultural with churches of mostly regional and national origin. I cannot ever be a Greek, or Ukrainian, or Armenian, etc. Even attending a Maronite Catholic church for a time, I was never in the "in crowd" as I did not share their culture. This is a problem for potential converts to Eastern Orthodoxy. Not so for the Western Catholic tradition. Catholicism is the way in which Christianity became universal. Don't get me wrong, we are going through a crisis right now. I am decidedly not a fan of the current Pope. But there have been very bad popes, and very bad eastern patriarchs, in the past as well. The abuses post Vatican II are a sad reality. However, I attend a very holy church whose priests properly and reverently celebrate the Novus Ordo, with the priests ad orientem, and it retains the holiness of the Sacred Mysteries.
Additionally, though I follow you and respect you tremendously, you generally act in a very condescending way toward the Catholic Church, and your snarky sarcasm is in contrast to that which I would believe a sincere theologian should promote. You may feel that this condescending attitude underscores the "abuses" of the Catholic Church, but I do not think so. Nonetheless, you are a wonderful example to all Christians, even Catholics, and I will continue to follow you. I would welcome the opportunity to speak with you or even debate you sometime.
Thank you, Father, and God Bless you
Frank S. Rosenbloom, MD
One thing I see stand out in comments and videos on Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism is that orthodoxy is always viewed in from a different lense. Almost as a can do no wrong. Catholicism is attacked by what seems like everyone. Yet, when the Bishop of Rome speaks the world listens. When any of the Patriarchs speak, the world doesn’t blink an eye.
As Flannery O’Connor once remarked, if the Eucharist is just a symbol, then the hell with it”. I say, if the Papacy, means what the orthodox claim (First among equals AKA SYMBOLIC title), then the the hell with it.
Just as there is celestial hierarchy, there too is order and structure mirrored on this principle here on earth. Heck, even nature show that there exists a pecking order.
I love Fr. Josiah’s content but find him unreasonable on this topic which at it’s core has less to do with semantics of Filioque and more with the problem and question of authority. Though now Orthodox, I still see a strong Protestant spirit in his framework thought towards the Catholic Church.
If everyone has authority, then no one has authority. Do all bishops in orthodoxy unilaterally agree on divorce? On topic of birth control? You can find the answer in the Catholic Church without needing to go to your local bishop for interpretation. Why is three the limit for remarriage in the Orthodox Church and not 4? Or 2, or 10?
Orthodoxy is currently in vogue in the US, especially amongst Protestant circles. For them, it is easier to continue with their “anything but Catholic” attitude/framework of thinking. It often feels as if Catholic Church is the only church which is judged by its failed members, and not by it’s fruits.
So then, it appears Satan has his eyes set on a target -on what he finds repugnant for what it represents. Christ’s church is the Catholic Church, his bride. He does not have many brides, he has A bride.
Schism is a grave matter. Fr. Josiah makes the Schism larger by calling the Church heretical and claiming all the things that he does. We are closer than we are apart. Maybe I’m naive? Maybe I’m hopeful? That one day the west and the east will one day be one again and with renewed strength take on the biggest issues facing our times: expansion of Islam, the evil or f gender confusion, socialism, overall state of degeneracy in the world,tbh.
Ends rant. 😅
The Orthodox have some great arguments but this one is really bad.
"If the Spirit is from Father and Son then you have 2/3 persons sharing the same quality"
The problem is that you have that either way. In the Orthodox view, the Son and the Holy Spirit share the common hypostatic property of depending on the Father for their exitance.
That's why St. Anselm's version of the hypostatic properties is correct.
Father: "God from whom God exists"
Son: "God from God" + "God from whom God exists"
Spirit: God from God"
Couldn’t it be said that the Father also depends on the Father for his existence as well?
For the first two centuries of the Church, the Holy Spirit was not regarded as a hypostatically-distinct divine being, but only as an operative aspect of the life of God.
The Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter VI
"They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power."
So we see St. Ignatius speaking about errors of those who did not hold the Three as separate persons... And he lived at what time.?
I know that you have to pick and choose which concepts get special treatment and which are only glossed over, due to time constraints, but I think you should have paid special attention to one concept: "to proceed from". Many people who have learned the creed may be under the impression that they don't need this concept defined, but I assure you that they do need this concept defined. And understanding this concept is the key to fully understanding the implications of the filiogue.
The Filoque is a detail at most but a very sharp one
Oooooh Wonderful! I like this video. I have always talked about the topic to my fellow Anglicans. I tell them that the Battle between Rome and the East is not the Filioque issue, but authority! The Eastern Orthodox shall be sincere to tell us that it is not wrong that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, because the Bible also affirms it. But the question is who affirmed! They simply don't want to follow the path that Rome has taken, even if it is correct! In Anglicanism however, we are free, as long as we are practicing Scripture! We use both the Original and the New version, because both have no problem. "The Ghost proceeding from the Father" does not mean "The Ghost proceeding from the Father alone". So where necessary, we or for further clarity on the Trinity, we use the Filioque Creed even when we know that in 325 AD the Filioque issue was not raised. After all, it is in Scripture. Otherwise thanks
Proceeds from the Father and the Son
Nope!
@@georgiacap9294 Only eastern orthodox are the eastern Catholics in communion with Rome, EO has become a joke with all the sacrilegious acts, gnostic heresies, schisms and uncertainty
Once a heretic always a heretic
Proceeds from the Father. Who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified. Not proceeds from the Father and the Son
@kp7100
The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. They are Co- Equal, Co- Eternal. "... the Father and I are One." Look up and read the Athanasian Creed, from St Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria in the 4th century
Catholics still believe Father is source of Divinity to Son and Spirit
That’s not the issue. The issue is that Rome believes that the Son is also a source.
Glory to Jesus Christ
jesus bless you
Regarding the sacred tradition, the teaching of the Western Fathers is clear from the beginning: "The Spirit is not from another place but from the Father through the Son." (Tertull. Prax. 4.) "The authors of the Holy Spirit are the Father and the Son." (Hilar. Trinit. II 29; cf. VIII 20; XII 57; Ambros. Spirit. S. II 118; in Lc 8, 66 (cf. however Spirit. S. I 20); August. Trinit. IV 20, 29; in Jn 99, 6 ff.) But the teaching of the ancient Greek church is also quite definite: Origen professes that the Holy Spirit is necessary in relation to the Son, who gives existence, understanding, and truth to His hypostasis. According to Athanasius, the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit is like that between the Father and the Son; "whatever the Spirit has is from the Logos; Christ is the source of the Holy Spirit." (Orig. in Jn 2, 6; Athanas. Ctra Ar. 3, 24; Serap. 3, 1; 1, 19; De incarn. ctra Ar. 9.) St. Basil the Great likes this formula: from the Father through the Son, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ. And this formula cannot be twisted with the later Greeks to mean that "the Father, after begetting the Son, breathes the Spirit"; this is protested by the διὰ's universal and constant causal meaning. According to St. Gregory Nazianzus, the Father is without principle, the Son is a principle, and the Holy Spirit is a principle through a principle: ἄναρχος, ἀρχὴ, τὸ μετὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς; his favorite thought: "the one God from the Begetter through the Son to the great Spirit" is the κίνησις τῆς μονάδος εἰς τριάδα; according to him, the Trinity is a golden chain where one person depends on another. Nyssenus also speaks of three torches that ignite each other. (Basil. Spirit. S. 18, 45-47 (cf. Bardenhewer Altkirchl. Lit. III p. 139-161); Nazianz. Or. 42, 15; Praecepta ad virg. cf. Or. 31, 2; Nyssen. Macedon. 6; Eunom. I (M 45, 464c).)
That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, is testified in this coordinate form by Didymus, Epiphanius, and St. Cyril of Alexandria (Didym. Spirit. S. 32, 34; Epiphan. Ancor. 7-8-9-11; Haeres. 62, 4; 74, 7-8; Cyrill. Al. Ador. in Spiritu et verit. (M. 68, 147); Thesaur. 34.); so that the later Greeks without historical basis wanted to proclaim their formula alone as legitimate: from the Father through the Son. For the aforementioned great Greeks used the coordinate formula (widespread among the Latins); on the other hand, the Greek subordinate formula is also found among the Latins (Tertull. Prax. 4; Hilar. Trinit. XII 57; Novat. Trinit. 24 etc.). Their meanings are more or less the same. The Latin formula directly expresses the equal rank of the Father and the Son in spiration; the Greek expresses the sequential origin, and what St. John Damascene lays great stress on, namely that the Son is not a source in the Trinity, like the Father: he is not a principle without a principle (Damasc. Fid. orthod. I 8, 41; cf. Thom I 36, 2 ad 3, who did not pay enough attention to this circumstance.).
The ancient Greek Church did not deny the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, except for Theodorus Mopsuestenus and Theodoretus. If the First Council of Constantinople taught only that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, it did not mean to deny His origin from the Son. Because the Macedonians, against whom the council fathers had to defend the Catholic truth, only denied the divinity of the Spirit without directly attacking His origin, the council fathers believed they had fulfilled their duty by establishing the Spirit's procession from the Father and thus His consubstantiality with the Father. Therefore, when the Spaniards began to sing the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed loudly in the Mass, following the practice that arose in the East in 510, and immediately included that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (Filioque), they were only expressing the universal and constant faith of the Church. In any case, they made an innovation in the creed, in spite of the express prohibition of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, for which Pope Leo III opposed the new practice (the popes then gave their consent in the 9th century); but they did not innovate the faith, and only Photius, who was looking for a dogmatic pretext for the schism and accused the Westerners of falsifying the dogma, could be qualified as quarrelsome on this account. The schismatic Greeks soon made this thesis, that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father, their main dogmatic difference (first at their council in Constantinople in 879). Even though "on the basis of the Greek fathers, it would be easier to prove that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Son than that He proceeds only from the Father. Never has a heresy so denied its own past faith, the teaching of the Scriptures, and the inner content of the dogma, as Photius, who did not hesitate to introduce the schism into the Divinity, to justify the schism he raised in the Church" (Schell).
Pope Benedict XIV, Allatae Sunt #6, 30, July 26, 1755: “That man too would betray his ignorance of ecclesiastical history who did not know that the union with the Orientals confirmed that they would accept the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son… the first question is whether the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is a dogma of the Faith. This question has always been firmly answered that there is no room for doubting that this procession is a dogma of the Faith and that every true Catholic accepts and professes this.”
Early!
There is a great little book called "Love in The Truth" "Ortho" means "The Truth"...
Father Josiah: I'm catholic, I know that you are a man of study and pray; but this video makes my Wonder if you had read what Saint Thomas Aquinus wrote about this topic.
About the papacy I honestly bealive that if a catholic puts to many force into it, it's easy to became a papolatryc catholic. But this happens when you put to many force into any dogma or doctrine. I love your videos and thanks for your blessing.
Did you know Contra Errores Graecorum was 75% forgeries?
@@JustinianRomanov I Will look for this ! Thanks!
As soon as they put filioque, the Grace flew away from Catholic church and thus the other dogmas that followed (protestantism, lutherianism, evangelism etc etc)
Does Fr. Josiah have any videos on ecumenism in Orthodoxy?
John 16:7 ".... I will send him to you" vs John 14:26 "... whom the Father will send.... " and John 14:16 "... and I will ask the Father, and He will give you...." ... 🙏✝👍😄
The Dimond brothers refuted your arguments smoothly with sources and evidence.
Check it out.
John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. There it is in the bible, Jesus breathing on the disciples, and they received the Holy Ghost. It does not get much clearer that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son as well as the Father.
End credits music sounds like Halo load screen. I'm now Orthodox.
My head literally hurts when I try to understand what the problem is. My humble grasp of all this is that God exists outside of time, therefore the Father+Son+Holy Spirit exist in a n infinite loop. All 3 being one and the same, and yet 3 distinct personas. Isn't that why it's called a mystery? Our simple minds cannot grasp it...I just get a deep sadness when I think about what God must think about all our bickering over who is right. Reminds me of when the Apostles were fighting over who got to sit where in Heaven...sigh..we are such a mess!
Persons, not Personas. Personas entails modes. God is not modes.
These things matter. This is how we know God. This He has revealed to us. To say it's not important says getting to know Him isn't important. We should know the basics in mind and heart. Heresies lead one away from God, outside of the Church.
Who's going to sit where relative to the Lord in His Kingdom is vastly different from believing the Truth as opposed to falsehood. The former is self-aggrandizement. The latter is to not be misled by the evil one, who, through heresy, leads people away from God. Heresy is not lightly to be dismissed. It separates us from reality, truth, God. It is a lie from the Father of lies, who lies in order to kill--cause eternal death. Heresy, unless one repents of it (& to repent is to return to truth, to God, Who is the Truth) always leads to more heresy. This, sadly, is what happened to the papalists & those who reacted to their (the papalists') false beliefs, teachings, abuses. By their fruits ye shall know them.
@@LadyMaria
That is why Fr Sophrony insists that it is only in Christianity, where God is revealed in three personae (Mt 28:19), that we find the completion of the revelation about divine persona. Since the personae in their threeness cannot be reduced to their essence it follows that their relationship is determined by their personeity and not by their essence. Their self-determination in eternity is the eternal fact. In divine being, which is utterly personal, self-determination of the divine hypostases derives from the hypostases themselves and is in no way predetermined or imposed by the essence. Hence the first implication: in its self-determination in relations, persona is absolutely free. No factor necessitates its determination: “Where there is no liberty, there is no persona; and vice versa-without persona there is no liberty. This kind of eternal being uniquely concerns the persona, in no way the individual (cf 1Cor 15:47-50).” - I Love Therefore I Am; The Theological Legacy of Archimandrite (Saint) Sophrony Nicholas V. Sakharov ST VLADIMIR’S SEMINARY PRESS YONKERS, NEW YORK
These dogmas are not just bickering over who is right. They have strong consequences in the way the spirituality of the Church developed. As a father once said (father Rafail Noica), the Filioque is the reason why the Catholic and Orthodox spirituality developed in 2 different ways.
For those of us who have a somewhat moral life, it may seem that it is not a big deal. But once you start to reach the peak of the Christian spirituality you will see that these differences protect you against being deceived by the devil.
That's the problem. You worship a completely different God. These things matter. Your understanding is that God has modes, you're a modalist, which has been a condemned heresy for around 1500 years.
The New Testament says that The Father and Jesus both send the Holy Spirit. This man did not go into the biblical text (or did he and I just didn't catch it?).
Just meditate about the following verse: "“But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father (sic) will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26) Why didn't Jesus say "the Holy Spirit whom I will send to you"?
On the other hand, we read that “He breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit'” (John 20:22)
How can we conciliate those verses?
@@amakrid The Father sent the Spirit to the Son first and then the Son sent the Spirit when he breathed on the disciples? Is that what you're saying?
@@SOWWHATAPOLOGETICS Look; whatever we write on paper concerning the Trinity can be proven to be problematic, since the words we use have been constructed to reflect the reality of this world and noth of the heavenly realm.
For instance, to the Western theologians, the traditional Credo could imply that the Word is a lesser Person in comparison to the Father and so, they tried to correct it by inserting the Filioque. Their aims were good for sure and from their point of view, against Arianism, they wished to undeline that the Father and the Son are One. To the Eastern Church though, the Filioque initiated a diarchy in the Trinity: The Spirit seemed to proceed from two different sources, let alone that this depiction is in contrast to the first verse I gave you.
If you consider that the insertion of the Filioque came right after the Pope claimed to be "Vicarius Filii Dei" on Earth (Representative of the Son of God) it was obvious to the East that things were getting out of control...
The Orthodox accept that the Spirit proceeds from the Father "through" the Son to us. It's a verbal and theological formula that could unite both Churches today in my opinion, while leaving the original Credo intact.
❤
Where does the idea that any aspect not shared by all has to be the procession of only one come from? It's is derived from the fact that they are co-equal?
Protestant here and I love Orthodoxy but didnt Jesus say that without him going the holy spirit cannot come? so wouldn’t it be right that the Holy spirit proceeds from the Father and the son?
I am probably best described as an Evangelical but I do not accept the filioque clause, I do not say it if the creed is recited during a service. It turns out my reasons are very similar to what you explained here with The Father being the source.
Can you explain what you meant by "his son is begotten of him outside of time"?
I'm Catholic, I don't believe God will hold us accountable for interpreting this differently. Jesus said "for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.". It would not be a mistake to also come through a logical conclusion that Jesus can also proceed the Holy Spirit.
But I'm not worried if I will be wrong or not in this. I must grow Spiritually as a Christian.
As Jesus taught about these dogmatic theology, " they strain at a gnat and swallow a camel", no wonder churches are described as a woman, they never forget about the past. Imagine a thousand yrs of division , unbelievable.
If my priest says we believe in the filioque by accident how do I correct him as a layman
Tell him that we don't? I mean in the Creed things are very clear: we don't use Filioque (and from the Son) in it. I'm not sure what else you can do. If he can accept it, ok. If not, I wouldn't waste time trying to convince a priest that he is wrong. If he is not very humble, he would probably refuse to be educated by a layman. So I would search for a different church.
Not quite sure how to feel about the filioque (for context, I’m a Protestant). On the one hand, the fact that the West inserted it into the creed without calling an ecumenical council is a travesty and inexcusable. Also, I think Father Trenham is right in saying that the Filioque confuses the roles of the Father and the Son by simply saying that the Spirit proceeds from them both. On the other hand, I’m not sure the East adequately accounts for the Son’s unique relationship to the Holy Spirit. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that the Son *sends* the Spirit (John 15:26, John 16:7, Acts 2:32-33, Titus 3:5-7). This is different from procession, and yet it affirms that the Son does have a role to play in relation to the Spirit. There have been some theologians (some of them Orthodox!) who have proposed a version of the creed that says, “who proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son,” and I think this is a great solution to the East/West divide on the Creed. Or perhaps pulling from the explicit language of Scripture, it could be something like “who proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son.” The affirmation of Christ’s full divinity that motivated the West to write the filioque is satisfied, and the East’s desire to affirm the uniqueness of each person in the Trinity is also satisfied. Most important of all, it’s explicitly scriptural. I know it’s a far-off dream on my part, but I would love to see an ecumenical council of Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants that settle on a single version of the creed once and for all. I know it won’t solve every matter of church division, but having a universally accepted creed would be a great start. I mean hey, this century marks the 2,000th anniversary of Christ’s Resurrection, the 1,000th anniversary of the Great Schism, and the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. What better century than this one to take a radical step toward a reunited church? May God bless you all. Psalm 133:1
Except that's the thing, it was already settled once and for all, and yet the filioque was added by the West. That's the issue lol
@ coopahtroopah You advocate for the Ecumenist heresy. The Creed was already settled. Protestants and Roman Papalists need to begin confessing it as is. Done. It takes about 2-3 minutes to recite.
@@david_porthouseBecause you left the Church and adhere to heresies and blasphemies. Why would we attend?
A big point of confusion for the Latins is that The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Son, only in a temporal sense, the way we see in Scripture. In a hypostatic sense, The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father Alone.
So, there’s confusion between The Relationship of the persons of The Trinity from all eternity, and historical events.
@@MrWesfordAs one of the "Latins", I do not confuse the Holy Spirit with an angel that is merely 'sent' by the Father or the Son. It is the Holy Spirit's function to preserve what the Father created and the Son redeemed. The Spirit would act on His Own as He sees fit in His function of preservation, wouldn't He?
But if you're saying that if the holy spirit proceeds from the Son makes the holy spirit less, then that means that the holy spirit is already less than the father because the holy spirit already proceeds from the Father.
I think this gives room for arians...
How dare you make sense. Shuuuuuuuuuu listen to all the revisionist armchair apologists trying to battle over the Filioque with modern lense in mind and not the state of Church and most dangerous heresies of the time when the Filioque issue arose.
Interestingly, this is also how I view it. I think the Filioque helps at once eliminate the Arian error. I also believe as did Bellermine, the notion that Islam was born from the Arian framework of thinking- and subsequently a heresy gone wild. By the stripping the divinity of Christ. Where did the birthplace of Mohammedism aka Islam occur? In the EAST (Saudi Arabia), and not the west.
@@nicadag
While Islam was ravaging the East the West was still dealing with Arianism in decent sized pockets in Germania and even Rome itself.
Non Sequitor
@@acekoala457 my point exactly. While the West was continuing to battling Arianism, and countering it with these types of things mentioned above, it was the East which was struggling and being dominated by Islamic thought and aggression (unchecked Arianism at its core). The West met the Islam of the day with as much tolerance as Kissinger with Communism 😅
Anywho, my main point still stands, the West tried to address the issue at its root, and the filioque narrative of the EO side fails or pretends to not care about this component.
The world today, in terms of development and prosperity (albeit long term prosperity leads to weak mean and hard times but that’s a subject for another day 😅) owes it largely in part to the development of the West and the progress and thought it brought into the world. My thesis is that at its core this all began from the time the church ruptured in 1054, and further divided with disunity on the filioque clause. This allowed the pervasiveness of Islam today.
The East couldn’t even defeat Islamic aggression and had no real unity to stand on to combine with all its so called EO “churches” to bring about a cessation of muslim intimidation.
This is where I'm not ordained. The things we're talking about here are real, you know!!