The 'Filioque:' The Biggest Debate Between East and West W/ Fr. Michael O'Loughlin
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ก.พ. 2020
- Ruthenian Catholic Priest, Fr. Michael O'Loughlin gives his take on the Theological debate which divided the East and West; the "filioque' added to the Roman Creed.
-Thanks to our sponsors!!!-
🌳 The Catholic Woodworker: catholicwoodworker.com/ (use discount code: mattfradd)
👁️Covenant Eyes: www.covenanteyes.com/ (use promo code: mattfradd)
🙏Hallow: hallow.app/mattfradd
🎥 Check out the Full Episode: • Pints With Aquinas #19...
⭐ Catholic Stuff You Should Know: catholicstuffpodcast.com/
Fr. Michael's Twitter: padremichaelo?lan...
📌 To support me on Patreon (Thank you! 😭): / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Twitter: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Instagram: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Facebook: / mattfradd
![ความรักไม่ได้น่ากลัวขนาดนั้น (TRUST ME) - LYKN [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9np-lAtCRpQ/mqdefault.jpg)
"And he shewed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb" (Apocalypse 22:1).
The Church Fathers did not interpret it to support Filioque, however St Augustine believed in Filioque
@@MS-dc1iu
St Ambrose used it to support the Filioque.
He says, "This is certainly the River proceeding from the throne of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, Whom he drinks who believes in Christ, as He Himself says: If any man thirst, let him come to Me and drink. He that believes in Me, as says the Scripture, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But this spoke He of the Spirit. (John 7:37-38) Therefore the river is the Spirit."
@@dwong9289 Thanks I did not know that.
@@dwong9289 contextuallu st Ambrose was speaking of the Spirit coming into the world so that men may drink of the living water. He wasn’t addressing the origin of the Spirit. He was completely Orthodox in his teaching.
@@MS-dc1iu that’s why we should not base our exegesis of Scripture on the early church fathers since there were many interpretations of Scripture they disagreed with each other. Revelation 22:1 is the clearest Biblical evidence for the Filioque, regardless of what the early church “believed.”
It would be wonderful to be United again
But for that we should reject our heresies which we consider "dogmas"
I absolutely loved this discussion!
Truly, I think we’re collectively on to something. Hopefully we can continue working on each other and ourselves toward truth and love.
Your Orthodox brother in Christ.
The Filioque is correct; end of story. 🔥 ♥️
@@ochem123
Thank you for your opinion and time.
Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).
Please pray for me, for every time I think I've made up my mind with all this I am confounded yet again. Pray that if I die having made the wrong choice that God have mercy on me just the same. God bless you all, & thank you all in advance for any prayers said for me
Praying for you 🙏
Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).
@@catholicapologetics7263 Agreed I watch an Orthodox theologian talk for almost thirty minutes and as he got to the end he simply admitted that it is pretty hard to come down and not ultimately say we are just looking at the same thing from two different perspectives but neither is wrong in the way they explain it only in the way they interpret what the other side is saying
I’m certain God will show mercy; if you get something wrong he won’t hold it against you and will look at your faith
What have you decided brother?
Whether it's recited or not, Filioque is De fide.
Amen.
Why not sit down and chat with someone from Orthodoxy? Way better than another half-dozen chats with Dave Rubin.
Very informative. Thank you!
As a Catholic, either Byzantine or Latin, you have to accept all Ecumenical Councils as infallible. By denying the Filioque, you deny the Council of Ferrara-Florence(1439). You cannot be Catholic and deny the Filioque. And also, in Greece they still use the Filioque in Mass. I am Greek, I was born and raised as Eastern Orthodox in Athens. I am a convert to Catholicism.
There are only three true ecumenical councils. This is just a fact. I'm a catholic, though, and I do strongly believe the Filioque
Florence is something completely not ecumenical. Another reason we Orthodoxy remain Orthodox and not Catholic
@@mattbellacotti Literally all the important Patriarchs and Bishops of the East and even the Emperor attended and all attendees except one agreed. You seem to not understand the word "ecumenical". I as a Greek do, and it's obvious, that it is ecumenical.
@@zaidhm5687 You cannot be Catholic and deny the other Ecumenical Councils. It is infallible.
The Catholic Mass here in Greece indeed uses the Filogue in the Creed but when the Mass is in English. If the Mass is in Greek then the Creed is being said without the Filogue
As I currently attend an Orthodox Church I find it hard not to believe in the filioque considering Jesus was elevated to the right hand of the father and what is now the father's is also his. The pange Lugnia really hammers is home for me honestly says it perfectly
this really belittles the Holy Spirit imo, you're saying the Father and the Son are at the top of everything and the Holy Spirit is this lesser-than force they send away from them
Jesus was never elevated, he was always God, he merely incarnated into a mortal body.
the Holy Spirit does whatever he wants without the need of Jesus or The Father needing to oversee.
@@basedgod6016yes. The Filioque definitely imbalances the trinity.
Fr even Jesus talks about it,
"'But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send from the Father, the Spirit of truth who *proceeds from the Father*, He will testify of Me.'" - John 15:26
Oh wait He chooses not to say it proceeds from Him.
@@sleepystar1638 agreed I worded that very bad lol
Thank you for sharing😊💓
Absolutely positively brilliant!!! Thank-you, and we’ll done!
Looking back to this discussion it would be great to have a talk between orthodox and catholic scholars on the Filioque but also the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. A little drop in the ocean of coming closer with one another. God bless
Matt,
When I heard this, my jaw dropped. This priest can not deny the fillique. It is a defined Dogma in the council of Florence. Please stipulate that this is not an acceptable theological “opinion.”
He’s a heretic.
@@gamers7800 I don't use that term lightly, but if this priest holds that position, yes.
@FightPeople Let's see them, sorry for late reply, I'm a bit of a boomer when it comes to this
We Eastern Catholics ALL deny the Filioque. And we do it with Rome’s approval. We are not heretics.
@@davidfigueroa8188 Strange. The term "catholic" is supposed to mean "according to the whole", then why no unity in belief, moreover, over the creed itself? Some eastern catholics also have stated that there were only 7 ecumenical councils (since the rest 14 were not ecumenically attended), that, doesn't go hand in hand with Rome's teaching about what makes a council ecumenical. Where's the real unity of belief in this? I thought the figure of the pope is supposed to function as the guardian of faith, and of unity? Is the catholic church really catholic, or syncretic?
“Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.”
John 16:7
“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;”
John 14:16
Junelle Salmon being sent by is not the same as proceeding from. The Father is the sole cause of both the Son and the Holy Spirit. To say the Son is an origin of the Holy Spirit is subordinating the Holy Spirit to both Father and Son and causing an imbalance in the Trinity because now the Son has a property(cause) that the Spirit doesn’t have.
"And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them "receive the Holy Spirit..." John 20:22
His breath proceeds from himself!
@Junelle Salmon
Junelle,
Wwll said!
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
God bless.
@Haskel the Spirit is given to the Son by the Father and hence the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. You’re confusing the actions of sending and procession.
@Haskel no, not at all. But by your same reasoning you’re making the Spirit lesser than the Father and the Son. The Father alone is the source of deity. The Son is eternally begotten and the Spirit eternally proceeds.
Great discussion.
Matt asking the most important question at 8:18: 'is that the case?'
To be fair, this is an implication that Augustine did not intend. If you read De Trinitas I think Augustine would agree with Father O’Laughlin
It's not wrong to say the creed sans filioque. The Holy Spirit does proceed from the Father. It is, however, wrong to deny the filioque. The Holy Spirit does proceed from the Son as well.
@Traditional Catholic What on earth is "Eastern Vatican 2"? Are we making up labels now?
Traditional Catholic There’s no such thing.
There is no “Vatican 2 sect,” only members of the Latin Church who practice the Ordinary Form instead of the Extraordinary.
Vatican II gave the East access to its Eastern roots. It did the opposite to the East as it did to the West. Anyone who decries it outright without qualifying their statements first doesn’t know what they’re on about.
If you believe in a “Vatican 2 sect,” you’re asserting 98% of all Latin Church Catholics are somehow fundamentally wrong just because of what Mass they have access to. That’s despicable and is far, FAR from charitable. I’d highly recommend you keep such schismatic hot-takes to yourself.
that the Son proceeds from the Father is everywhere in the ancient Church, before the Greeks invented a new reason to fight the heretical Latin - it's not a question of being in the Creed or not, it's a question being witnessed by the CHurch tradition in a consensual manner
One Question: Are the sacred ordinations of SSPX (of Bishops and priests) accepted or approved (considered valid) by the Roman Catholic Church?
Valid but illicit I think
they are considered 100% valid. the SSPX are part of the Catholic Church albeit the irregular canonical position (which exists because they fight for Catholic Tradition)
@@steven21736 - not even illicit. the irony is of course that the Vatican II Liturgy etc is illicit
I see some in the comments calling this man a heretic for denying the philoque. I see others claim the Orthodox are ridiculous for fighting over something so trivial. Clearly these two positions are not consistent with each other.
I agree with the guest speaker’s view. I would like to see more union between the churches.
Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).
Interesting perspective of the Filioque in terms of the administration of the church. But I’m not sure if the Byzantine catholic priest was talking about the theological reasons for the filioque or against it. (Is he against the filioque in terms of administration only or theological as well?)
I think his position is remove Filioque from the creed as it stands only to create discord amongst apostolic Christians in the modern era as Arianism isn’t a threat to the theology and so doesn’t need defending against, but retain it as a de fide belief of the Church.
"By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).
Gregory the Wonderworker
"[There is] one Holy Spirit, having substance from God, and who is manifested through the Son; image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; life, the cause of living; holy fountain; sanctity, the dispenser of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father who is above all and in all, and God the Son who is through all. Perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty neither divided nor estranged" (Confession of Faith [A.D. 265]).
Hilary of Poitiers
"Concerning the Holy Spirit . . . it is not necessary to speak of him who must be acknowledged, who is from the Father and the Son, his sources" (The Trinity 2:29 [A.D. 357]).
"In the fact that before times eternal your [the Father’s] only-begotten [Son] was born of you, when we put an end to every ambiguity of words and difficulty of understanding, there remains only this: he was born. So too, even if I do not grasp it in my understanding, I hold fast in my consciousness to the fact that your Holy Spirit is from you through him" (ibid., 12:56).
Didymus the Blind
"As we have understood discussions . . . about the incorporeal natures, so too it is now to be recognized that the Holy Spirit receives from the Son that which he was of his own nature. . . . So too the Son is said to receive from the Father the very things by which he subsists. For neither has the Son anything else except those things given him by the Father, nor has the Holy Spirit any other substance than that given him by the Son" (The Holy Spirit 37 [A.D. 362]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
"The Father always existed and the Son always existed, and the Spirit breathes from the Father and the Son" (The Man Well-Anchored 75 [A.D. 374]).
Basil The Great
"Through the Son, who is one, he [the Holy Spirit] is joined to the Father, one who is one, and by himself completes the Blessed Trinity" (The Holy Spirit 18:45 [A.D. 375]).
"[T]he goodness of [the divine] nature, the holiness of [that] nature, and the royal dignity reach from the Father through the only-begotten [Son] to the Holy Spirit. Since we confess the persons in this manner, there is no infringing upon the holy dogma of the monarchy" (ibid., 18:47).
Ambrose of Milan
"Just as the Father is the fount of life, so too, there are many who have stated that the Son is designated as the fount of life. It is said, for example that with you, Almighty God, your Son is the fount of life, that is, the fount of the Holy Spirit. For the Spirit is life, just as the Lord says: ‘The words which I have spoken to you are Spirit and life’ [John 6:63]" (The Holy Spirit 1:15:152 [A.D. 381]).
"The Holy Spirit, when he proceeds from the Father and the Son, does not separate himself from the Father and does not separate himself from the Son" (ibid., 1:2:120).
Gregory of Nyssa
"[The] Father conveys the notion of unoriginate, unbegotten, and Father always; the only-begotten Son is understood along with the Father, coming from him but inseparably joined to him. Through the Son and with the Father, immediately and before any vague and unfounded concept interposes between them, the Holy Spirit is also perceived conjointly" (Against Eunomius 1 [A.D. 382]).
The Athanasian Creed
"[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding" (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).
Augustine
"If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle" (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).
"[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son" (ibid., 15:17:29).
"Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him" (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).
Cyril of Alexandria
"Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it" (Treasury of the Holy Trinity, thesis 34 [A.D. 424]).
"[T]he Holy Spirit flows from the Father in the Son" (ibid.).
"Just as the Son says ‘All that the Father has is mine’ [John 16:15], so shall we find that through the Son it is all also in the Spirit" (Letters 3:4:33 [A.D. 433]).
@Emil Suric 1) "But the Son is derived from the Father after the manner of generation, and the Holy Spirit likewise is derived from the Father, yet not after the manner of generation, but after that of procession. And we have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of that difference we in no wise understand" is what the Filioque also admits and posits exactly - we distinguish between procession and generation.
2) You can't pit John Damascene against the much, much earlier, and more numerous, fathers. If anything, Damascene would be wrong on this point, and the consensus right. But alas, there are many technical meanings behind these simple words 'procession,' 'cause,' 'spiration,' 'generation,' source,' etc. Suffice to say no Orthodox retains the Fathers' teaching that the Son is a "source" of the Spirit, or that the Spirit "has his being" "through the Son."
3) Jesus Himself says that in the same way the Son receives what He has from the Father, so the Spirit receives from the Son what the Son has!
@Emil Suric No, mine is a different argument. If earlier and very many Fathers taught that the Spirit has his being from the Son, and has two sources, the Father "et Filio"/Filioque (and the Son), and a Father four hundred years later says something which contradict them, we must reconcile the two somehow, either by admitting one erred from the former Tradition, or that one used technical language, one did not, etc. But we don't erect one Father to overshadow the rest - especially when the former Fathers are more numerous and use very explicit language like "has his being from," not merely, "is sent by."
@Emil Suric I never once cited the Athanasian Creed here. What are you talking about.
Ave Christus Rex wassup boy? My fellow CVS subscriber! Haha
@@IAMFISH92 Sup.
The River of Life Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God *and of the Lamb*
Revelations 22:1
In my many years of discussion with the Orthodox on the filioque, I have yet to hear a refutation of this scripture by them. CC 248 At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.
@@brianingram4709 This River of the Holy Spirit also flows out of believers when they have it, but that doesn't mean the Holy Spirit is eternally generated by them: "Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’" (John 7:38). Revelation 22:1 is pretty easily understood without the filioque. The Holy Spirit gets its existence from the Father and the Father gives it to His Son. The Son then has the Holy Spirit, which flows through Him. The Son does not generate the Holy Spirit, only the Father does that.
Please do not call the Holy Spirit "it" . He is a person @reeckstar6625
Filioque was added as early as the sixth century in some churches.
that is completely false and reveals the lack of honesty of the so-called orthodox - the filioque is everywhere in the Latin and the Greek Church during the 3rd, the 4th and the 5th centuries
I think there are good theological reasons to hold to the Filioque, but regardless of theology I think the Filioque is something that just logically follows. Anselm's derivation of the Filioque from pure reason is pretty convincing for me.
Don't rely purely on "what logically follows" as a definite criterion for true theology. If you do, you're in danger of fashioning a god based your image.
Atheism in many ways, makes way more logical sense than Christianity, but it's fruits ultimately testify against it.
@@panokostouros7609 Are you a fideist? God is Reason itself, the *Logos* through which all things were made. If so, we can use logic to know more about God. And atheism can't be more logical than Christianity since atheism can't adequately ground logic. Atheists generally hold that logic is just a human convention. If so, there's no reason to believe that logic corresponds to reality which would mean that arguments could never be true or false. No one could make arguments. If everything is created through the Logos and is that which grounds reality, then it makes perfect sense for logic to correspond to reality.
I think if we're serious in saying the (1) Son is a really distinct Person than the Holy Spirit, and that (2) the Son is the second, not the third Person of the Trinity, which we are, then the Holy Spirit has to proceed from the Son. I don't see how you could deny that and also hold onto (1) or (2). Aquinas' argument for based on the relations I believe to be quite correct.
@@Math_oma hey mathoma, good to see you in the comments, I enjoy your videos.
@@Math_oma They are distinguished by Begotten and Procession, not unmediated and mediated, similar to how Eve proceeds from Adam and Seth is Adam's begotten son. Fatherhood includes not only begetting an image, but also giving life (procession) to that image. The procession is contained in the begetting as one simultaneous cause. Just as in creation there is the pattern of forming (Days 1-3) and filling (Days 4-6), so also with the Holy Trinity there is the forming (Begetting) and filling (Procession). The Word of God is not only the Word of God. He is the Living Word of God because He has the Life of God.
The Holy Spirit is 3rd because He is in a sense contained in the Son. There can be a non-living Word but there can't be a Living nothing. So this is why the Holy Spirit can be said to proceed from the Father through the Son. He is the Life and Spirit of the Son. These are all analogically speaking, of course. So the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father to the Son and rests in the Son, just as in creation there is forming, filling, then resting.
To note one last thing, if the Son and the Holy Spirit are differentiated as Aquinas says (unmediated vs mediated), there doesn't seem to be a way to stop this chain of Hypostases. Why can't there be double mediated? A fourth person who is generating from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? What about triple mediated? Or mediated between only the 1st and the 3rd Person? Etc.
I think the church fathers seem to have two conflicting views on the issue if looked at superficially, for example, Saints Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa with Saints John of Damascus and Maximus the Confessor. Clearly, Saints Basil and Gregory who were contemporaries of when the Nicene Creed was written agreed with this creed, being major hierarchs during this time period. The major issue is that most people do not distinguish between the eternal nature and being of God and His role in the world. Eternally, the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father. In time in God's plan for salvation, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (the Holy Spirit is given by Christ after the Resurrection). This was a common understanding by theologians in the first 1000 years of Christianity. It is theologically important to understanding the eternal procession from the Father only. Fr. Michael makes this very clear in this video citing Pope Benedict many times that the Orthodox understanding is correct. Overall, this was a very well explained video, but I do not think most people in the comments understand the distinction between God's eternal ontology and His dispensation in history.
You're spot on. It's hard to see that the West and East every truly agreed on this issue imo.
The procession of the Holy Spirit from the father and the son is apart of the immanent trinity, not the economic trinity. It is an eternal spiration.
The problem is Catholics do believe that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son
how can you say "This was a common understanding by theologians in the first 1000 years of Christianity." about your own opinion, that seems ingenuine to me - if you can't explicitly quote some church father saying word for word that "the Holy Spirit once proceeded from the Father alone and then at some point that changed and now He proceeds from the Son too" i don't think you can make a claim like that, that is was "common understanding for 1000 years"
Is The Holy Spirit, the same as Ruach Hakodesh?
Very interesting.
And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit." ---John 20:22
Exactly. this is all I need to see the spirit comes from the son. I've thought of this many times when hearing about the "controversy" and don't understand how this isnt proof enough.
@@reeckstar6625 it did when Jesus was given dominion over heaven and is seated at the right hand of the father, what is hard to understand about that? The filioque is added because Jesus can command the holy spirit that is the whole darn point!
This makes so much sense.
No this is heresy according to Catholic Church
I wonder what that would mean with regard to re-setting the chants proper to the creed in the west. This wouldn't just have an effect on the Roman Rite; what about uses like Sarum, York, etc.? Unlike the use of the Roman curia, many non-Roman western uses developed after the introduction of the filioque. The filioque is proper to those rites, then, it would seem to me. I sure do envy your opportunity to talk with Fr. O'Loughlin about this topic. I would be extremely interested in knowing what he'd have to say regarding the spiritual and cultural legacy of western rites which never *didn't* have the filioque.
Thank you.
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
John 14:26 ESV
Is this the reason to make the filioque ? The Son asks the Father to send the Spirit in the Son’s name for the disciples.
The verse does say "the Father will send in my name", which means the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
A curious translation note:
Parakleitos is more an "advocate" than a helper, but the word is very unique anyway. That's also why St. Jerome didn't use ancillus or something of the sort, but kept the Koine word in the translation.
We could push this grammatically:
to onomati mou (dat.) -- in nomine meo (abl.)
For (the sake of) my name or for (the sake of) me would be closer to the dative meaning of the original. So it's still the Father, from whom the Spirit proceeds being sent, etc...
In doctrinal issues the Church added explanation phrases in the Creeds to fight against heresies. The filioque clause is legitime (and was necesary) because the Church in its history refined its symbols based in its authority to clarify doctrine. So the filioque could be added legitimely but cannot be deleted (thats not supported in the Tradition) to improve relations to our orthodox brothers. We cannot give up the expression "for the remission of sins…" and only say " We acknowledge one baptism" for the reconciliation with our protestamt brothers. The unity in doctrine is not possible because even there is no unity between orthodox churches (they have serious doctrinal differences like rebaptism). It should not be compromised the truth. The filioque hasnt been an obstacle in the union of the different catholic rites so shouldnt be an impediment in an eventual re-union of the apostolic churches. They should keep their Tradition and also us our Tradition.
The Filioque is in Catholic doctrine, but the addition to the Creed can definitely be removed.
The major problem here is that we are using a Creed different from the one we all agreed on. I believe a very reasonable compromise is to keep the doctrine, but remove it from the Creed.
The Catholic Church already removed it from the Greek translation, so it is not unprecedented.
So if you’re a catholic that is maybe agreeing with this, how do you deal with it?
What about Papal infallibility? Immaculate conception? Purgatory? Leavened bread? Wouldn't these keep us from uniting?
No catholics recognise orthodox eucharist as valid purgatory was not some recent Catholic invention there's been a concept of purgatory since the Jews papal infallibility is another questions all it is is that the pope is correct always only in matters of faith it's reflected in heaven as per the bible passage of pentecost day immaculate conception however is another issue
Anyone interested on this subject should the revelations of St Elizabeth of Schonu . St Paul sums it up petty well in one of her visions.
To Gamers, private revelation, therefore not binding
Dose the RCC accept the 7 Ecumenical Council’s and especially the first two ?
The Catholic Church is who holds the Ecumenical Councils.
1. NICAEA I
325
Pope Sylvester I, 314-335
Emperor Constantine, 306-337
Decisions: Condemned Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ (elements of Arianism have reappeared in our own time); defined the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son; fixed the date for Easter; began formulation of Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
2. CONSTANTINOPLE I
381
Pope Damasus I, 366-384
Emperor Theodosius, 379-395
Decisions: Recondemned Arianism; condemned Macedonianism, which denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit; completed the formulation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
3. EPHESUS
431
Pope Celestine I, 422-432
Emperor Theodosius II, 408-450
Decisions: Condemned Nestorianism, which denied the unity of the divine and human in Christ; defined that Mary is the Mother of God (Theotokos), a doctrine denied by the Nestorians and by most of today’s Protestants; condemned Pelagianism, which held that man could earn his own salvation through his natural powers.
4. CHALCEDON
451
Pope Leo the Great, 440-461
Emperor Marcian, 450-457
Decisions: Condemned Monophysitism (also called Eutychianism), which denied Christ’s human nature.
5. CONSTANTINOPLE II
553
Pope Vigilius, 537-555
Emperor Justinian I, 527-565
Decisions: Condemned the Three Chapters, writings tainted by Nestorianism and composed by Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyr, and Ibas of Edessa.
6. CONSTANTINOPLE III
680
Pope Agatho, 678-681
Emperor Constantine IV, 668-685
Decisions: Condemned Monothelitism, which held Christ had but one will, the divine (this heresy arose as a reaction to the monophysite heresy); censured Pope Honorius I for a letter in which he made an ambiguous but not infallible statement about the unity of operations in Christ.
7. NICAEA II
787
Pope Hadrian I, 772-795
Emperor Constantine VI, 780-797
Decisions: Condemned iconoclasm (which was mainly confined to the East), a heresy that held that the use of images constituted idolatry; condemned Adoptionism, which held that Christ was not the Son of God by nature but only by adoption, thereby denying the hypostatic union.
The way he paused when he said yes to agreeing with the Filioque, leads me to believe that yes is really a no but to stay United with Rome he said yes.
Right?!? He didn’t answer the very simple question. Does the Holy Spirit proceed from only the father ? Or the father and the son? He never even attempts to stay on that subject
The Greek Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith is translated into English as saying the Holy Spirit originates from the Father (alone). The Latin Toletan Creed is translated into English as saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (as a single principle). By Symbol of Faith is meant a creed which is a contract between bishops which only another General Council can amend. By Creed is meant something which is essentially handed down by the Pope, East and West having different views, at least de facto, on the constitution of the Church. Pope Paul VI published a Creed of the People of God which is now forgotten, for which Creed and not Symbol of Faith is the appropriate term.
"Ex Patre Filioque" does not mean the same thing as "ex Patre et Filio", just as "Senatus Populusque Romanus" does not mean the same as "Senatus et Populus Romani" which is why we have "(as a single principle)". An informal translation into English might be "from God and Son" as if we were talking about a family business. The "ex Patre et Filio" form is found in the Athanasian Creed.
St Bede writes in his "History of the English Church and People" that the Filioque was introduced to England by St Theodore at the Council of Hatfield in 680. Whatever it was that St Theodore believed in is what I believe in, but then I am a layman and not a theologian. The Creed of St Theodore, identical to the Toletan Creed, became the Symbol of Faith at the Council of Lyon in 1272.
In 1281 Pope Martin IV excommunicated Michaal Palaiologos for no obvious reason. I would have advised against it. In 1756 Patriarch Cyril V railroaded the Oros through the Synod of Constantinople, exiling anyone who disagreed with him, to say Latin baptism was invalid. This is heretical. People like Martin IV and Cyril V are the real villains, not Photios or Cardinal Humbert or Michael Cerularios or Mark of Ephesus, because of their lack of provocation.
My own opinion is that the Filioque is one for Pentecost, in which case it is OK in the Prayer for the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit said during the Novena and the Athanasian Creed on Trinity Sunday. It sounds odd at Christmas to say that Our Lord Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit Who proceeds from the Father and the Son. We could say the Apostles' Creed instead. To turn this around, we could say the Apostles' Creed in the Rosary between Advent and the Ascension, and the Toletan Creed in the Rosary after Pentecost.
I apologise for any spelling mistakes. This has been a tough one to write. I had to Edit it a few times. The reader can track down any prayer mentioned by highlighting it with the mouse, right-clicking and then selecting Search Google.
:*) 👏👏👏
I particularly like the most explicit translation, "proceeds from the Father through the Son"
Yet Byzantine Catholic Churches do not use the Filioque in their Creed...
@David Figueroa Strange. The term "catholic" is supposed to mean "according to the whole", then why no unity in belief, moreover, over the creed itself? Some eastern catholics also have stated that there were only 7 ecumenical councils (since the rest 14 were not ecumenically attended), that, doesn't go hand in hand with Rome's teaching about what makes a council ecumenical. Where's the real unity of belief in this? I thought the figure of the pope is supposed to function as the guardian of faith, and of unity? Is the catholic church really catholic, or syncretic?
No Pope ever rejected the theology of the Filioque.
No - Augustine did not event the Filioque it had been there in the West since the 3rd and 4th century, Hilary of Poitiers is a great example.
Yes - this priest is dangerously close to being publically heretical, there was not a single mention of florence here.
I was just think about this, because I know it’s found in variations of the creed prior to schism
good stuff here friend
This priest is already a public heretic unfortunately
I'm some what confused, do the Orthodox not believe that Christ is equal to God or do they simply not like the fact that the Catholic Church altered the creed after it's creation?
What I took from that, Augustines argument which lead to the addition of the filioque contained wording that created subtle distinctions of hierarchy within the trinity.
If the Son has to be involved in the origination of the Spirit in order for him to be God, then what does that say about the Spirit who is involved in no Person's origination?
The Orthodox position is that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the three Persons of the Trinity, equal in substance, i.e. equally divine, hence God. However each Person has its own features that distinguishes them from one another. The problem with the Filioque is that it does away with the differences between the Father and the Son as Persons, and thus reduces the Trinity into a Diad. Beyond that, read Photios' Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. It's better explained there.
Isn't Photios the guy who first was against the Filioque then accepted it and returned to communion with the Rome ? s@emilianoestevarena5071
Everyone here do yourselves a favor and read The Filioque by Edward Siecienski.
he himself is eastern orthodox.
he does not agree with the filioque; however, one would never, it was stated, as he tried be fair to both sides.
Great book
The debate surrounding the Filioque seems too difficult to be maintained on the Eastern side. Almost very question directed to the good Father began with something like “there are subtle semantic points,” and so if even an advocate for the view cannot make it seem simple, then it seems many will be/become heretics simply because the idea is too difficult for people to say. And i think Matt made a good point with the “you think we’re wrong but the two opinions are compatible” which didn’t seem to be answered. The only “error” called out in that section was “the orthodox looking for trouble” by calling the Church “too hierarchical” because Rome still appoints Bishops. With respect, weak sauce. And that’s without even a reference to iconoclasm and other heretical influences coming out of the Orthodoxy’s centuries-long oppression by Mohommadanism...
Critique of filioque: “well you could just make up any number of new Divine Persons if any relationship between persons generates a new one”. That’s silly, the Trinity has been revealed as the fullness, and construction of a fourth person would obviously be rejected by all.
Criticism of rejecting filioque: “if the only point in that word ‘proceed’ means ‘pilgrimage’ with no reference to an origin, then it seems you say the Holy Spirit has no origin with the Father and the Son, but also no relation to the Father or the Son, and this seems easily to fall into belief in two separate gods, or even three separate beings, as the Mohommadans accuse Christians of. So... yeah
Theologically this is a tricky topic. Personally, it makes more sense to me to just say, "The Holy Trinity is a mystery. Who can say? But for the sake of unity, let us remove it."
Personally, doing speculative theology on the Holy Trinity and how it is the Spirit proceeds, possibly, from the Son as well is not all that worth doing somewhat, unless it aids us in growing in love of Christ or ending a heresy. At least in regards to heresy, Arianism isn't our fish to fry these days. Currently the filiqoue just helps in perpetuating the schism. Jesus doesn't ask us to be theologians, but saints. So, why divide the Church over something speculative?
ArchetypeGotoh can you please reference some reading material on why the nature of God is limited to 3 persons? You said that the idea is that the love between any two of them could in theory generate another, so why aren’t there 15 instead of 3 for instance? I don’t deny the Trinity at all. I’m Catholic and I accept the teaching but if a Muslim for instance takes issue with this, how do I answer why there are only 3 persons? I was literally having this very discussion recently and really want to know if any saints or church fathers wrote about this. Thanks in advance!
@@impasse0124 I think, in very, very simple terms, it is because that is Who God is.
Didn't also have something to do with the German language? Arianism held on for a long time in Germany & the language didn't facilitate a direct translation of Greek.
I have the same questions
I am a man of God and I have some information about the Filoque. Not sure of spelling.
Peace
Don’t say there are no Arians anymore. Arianism came back with a vengeance with Islam.
How interesting. This is actually a subject - “ filioque “ - that I am well aware of. We started to notice in our Ukrainian Catholic Divine Liturgy that parenthesis were put around the phrase “ the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father ( and the Son ) “ to actually having ( and the Son ) whitened out, some years later.
Very confusing for all of our family ( nine children ) who are used to saying “ from the son “ for most of our life in our Ukrainian parish.
When we all gather in our original Ukrainian Catholic Church together for a wedding, funeral or Baptism, it is hilarious to hear us all saying the old version with the current parishioners saying the newest version. What a mishmash - everyone looking at each other in confusion.
My Father used to laugh and say “ Does anybody here even know about the importance of this change in the Great Schism?” He was Roman Catholic, so we were all Baptized in the RC, but he knew his Catholic Church history.
My Mom and all her relatives were Ukrainian Catholic. We were sent to a Ukrainian Catholic School, so we naturally switched to the church next to our school.
Some of us were born Pre Vatican II and also attended the Latin Mass. Kind of a confusing background.
I think we will always say “ and from the son “ just because it sounds so familiar.
paula proulx the “Filoque” is the new version. You merely swapped out for true better none erroneous version that states what even Jesus himself stated. As an Orthodox we pray for you to come back with us :)
Mikhail_Балика ( aka Michael Baleka ) Oh, how sweet! No one has ever invited me to convert to the Orthodox Church.
I grew up in an Eastern European neighbourhood, with different churches on every corner, plus a couple of Synagogues. We often went to Orthodox Churches for Prayers the evening before a funeral, and sometimes we went to the funeral. Our general reaction as children was - “ Oh no, it’s going to last forever! “
That was the only practical difference I could comprehend as a child. The Divine Liturgy was the same, but so much longer in the Orthodox Church.
Of course, I did not swap anything. I am baptized RC, but we ended up going to the Ukrainian Church because of my Mom, and the Church was within walking distance.
Roman Catholic Nicene Creed - “ from the Father and the son “ - never changed.
Ukrainian Catholic - we are puzzled. This is a huge theological question that I am unable to answer - one of the reasons for the Great Schism.
Personally, I don’t think it is that big a deal, and I doubt I will ever convert. But thanks for the invitation!
@David Figueroa Strange. The term "catholic" is supposed to mean "according to the whole", then why no unity in belief, moreover, over the creed itself? Some eastern catholics also have stated that there were only 7 ecumenical councils (since the rest 14 were not ecumenically attended), that, doesn't go hand in hand with Rome's teaching about what makes a council ecumenical. Where's the real unity of belief in this? I thought the figure of the pope is supposed to function as the guardian of faith, and of unity? Is the catholic church really catholic, or syncretic?
I guess that to say that the 3rd Person proceeds from the Father through the Son, and from the Father principally and the Son secondly, as by a gift from the Father (to say the Son is not the source) without meaning that the Son is secondary in nature would settle it. But many would see this as Arianism, which is exactly what the phrase - without meaning the Son is secondary in nature - tries to do....
@@mattbellacotti I’m currently RC, but my heritage is from Russian orthodoxy, I’m seriously considering converting...I grew up Anglican and I have been reading early church fathers and following the Orthodox Church for sometime, this past year. What should I do, when considering converting? Of course I’m praying and I would never leave the true presence of Jesus. I feel extremely let down by the atrocities and inaction, unauthentic choice of serious abuse within the RC church. My experience has been good 😌 for myself, I’m just having a difficult time reconciling with it. I’m certain it’s in all churches, but I haven’t found any major mishaps in the orthodox religion that I can uncover. It’s not the only reason.
Oh man... I'm totally lost who got it "right"... catholicism, orthodoxy, protestantism... ism ism ism...
Didn't God told us we will be in unity?
I have to trust only in Jesus - that is the most honest thing I can muster.
Lord have mercy on us 😔...
true but please avoid the protestant sects!
@@marcokite Actually I'm at a point where I've to avoid it all. Nothing can make me question Christianity like Christians.
Christ formed the Catholic Church. If anyone got it right, it was God.
@@markushill8639 Hi Markus. True that GOD got it right but not neccesarily the way catholics may think. Sad it lead the way to schisms. How wonderful it would be if there were none so we would'nt have to argue now, don't you think?
Regardless,
GOD bless you and your loved ones
The Divine Persons are distinguished by processions. If the Son proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father in the same way, then you can’t distinguish the two. Without the Filioque you can’t distinguish the Son from the Holy Spirit.
Where's Kieran?
When will the Holy Spirit heal us from the divisions the enemy has inflicted? With God, nothing is impossible. The gates of hades shall never prevail. May the truth in love poured in humble hearts reunite us all.
Are you telling me this entire conversation is about who gets top billing Jesus the son or god the father ( even though some would argue one and the same) even though one came through the main source as does all things but still really ??!! I guess that’s why they call it a mystery or the trinity or the mystery of the Holy Spirit
I was pissed at the way he described the SSPX, but you did mention and got it "corrected". Most catholic priests are "taught" SSPX (Mons. Lefebvre) is schismatic or other "truths".
As a western Rite Orthodox under Antioch (in Kansas USA) I find nothing to really be upset with inside this. It was balanced and fair. And I too long for communion.
The best podcast yet. Will have to listen 3 or 4 times to absorb everything.
The priest is a borderline heretic keeping himself from being formal by calling “semantics” I recommend reading the documents of the ecumenical council of Florence or listen to someone like Ybarra.
The filioque was declared in the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. There was no Orthodox Church then. They separated in the 11th century for all kinds of mainly political reasons.
What are you talking about that council was in the greek east .the creed used by the greek speaking christians with no filioque not waiting what rome would say and when it would be accepted by rome
Show me the greek creed from 381 where is the filiioque there
@@user-pj7sq7ce1f you do not seem to know that just because the Greek people lived in the East , that makes a difference. The Catholic Church is called Catholic because that word means Universal. Christ instituted his one and only church for all humanity , not just for one region. He sent his apostles to go into the world and "teach all nations."
He also made one of his apostles the Vicar of His church and that was Peter. The birth of that Church was at Pentecost. Through all kinds of complicated political events, Peter who lead the other apostles, became the first Pope (Vicar of christ) when he was in Rome because he has to flee. The seat of the Vicar of Christ was in Rome ,underground first . Like I said because of political reasons. Rome was a danger for christians because of the Pagan empire. Therefore through events which are very complicated to get into now, Peter became the Pope in Rome , it could have been anywhere but it was in Rome. There was no separate Orthodox Church at that time. The Greeks were in communion with Rome which means they also had the vicar of Christ as their Head . It is only after they split , they were not in communion with Rome anymore. There are 24 different Catholic rites from different countries but they are in communion with Rome which means they are Catholic, even if they are Greek, Russian , Egyptian, Ukrainian etc. The Orthodox has 16 different churches (after they split with Rome) . They are all regional , not universal, and many do not agree with each other.
When we speak of Rome, it means the SEAT of the Vicar (Peter)is there. The Bible is the same, the Teaching is the same and they all have one person who is the Vicar of Christ. Christ is the Head of the church He instituted but since He was leaving this world , He instituted somebody to represent him and make sure He protects the Deposit of Faith (The Magisterium).
But didn’t the Lord breathe the Holy Spirit into the apostles?
The Lord also says the Father is his head and the Lord is the head of men.
Most people just don’t like authority.
It's not a debate for Orthodox. It's a non-negotiable.
The Filioque is a red herring and your guest proved it (3:40), eastern Catholics who returned to union with Rome, at least some, don’t use it. Any church returning to union would continue saying the creed without it as well.
Therefore it is NOT a barrier to reunion; period.
It is not a problem that the Church changed something. The question is whether it is a right/sound change. I have only heard from the Orthodox side the historical argument - "it is wrong, because it was added." It is not an argument. This issue should be approached from the theological standpoint only. But the Orthodox either do not have one, or would not dare to develop it (hierarchy in Godhead?) Filioque has been there for centuries. It can be revised. But on theological grounds, and not "it was added, therefore it's wrong."
I think that the language made a confusion and THE two churchs are separate now.
The Greeks REALLY understand it in another way, só why dont use the original nice Constantinopolitan creed as oficial when it doesnt deny that the Holy Spirit can come throught the Son?
The Athanasian Creed
“[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding” (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).
Council of Nicaea II
“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son” (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]).
12:57 Here's a great debate on the topic "SSPX in Schism" between Michael Davies and E Michael Jones th-cam.com/video/wE_URMCvXHs/w-d-xo.html
Need more of this because frankly, overall it is too confusing for a lay person. Every church and denomination claiming that they are "The real church". And frankly, Catholics are way more open minded than Orthodox.
Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).
John 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.
JESUS does certainly say that HE personally sends the HOLY SPIRIT. At the very least, we should say that the FATHER and the SON both sent the HOLY SPIRIT proceeding from the FATHER. If ONE sends ANOTHER, does the ONE sent necessarily proceed from the SENDER or not?
John 10:30 I and the Father are one."
Indeed in the essence . But we know that there are three faces ( The Father , The Son , The Holy Spirit ) . “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
John 14:26 ESV
Plus that from the 3rd Ecumenical Council we dogmatised the Nicene Creed and noone can add or remove any word on it. You may have as a contrary argument the Ferrara-Florence Council , but you should know that the Christians of the East denied it right away ( look up for it )
Why is Matt blindly nodding in confusion as if he understands this man’s nonsense? Matt is like a deer in the headlights and is obviously uncomfortable but can’t articulate why this guy is wrong. 🔥 ♥️
Breath and Word proceed from the speaker together though. The Logos can't precede the Spirit. And in Genesis the Spirit was hovering over the face of the deep when the Father spoke the Word.
Using Jimmy's Akin's argument, one could also say that the Son proceeds from the Father through the Spirit because Mary conceived the Son through the Holy Spirit.
so if someone could clarify I would much appreciate it, is going to an eastern orthodox church on sunday filling the obligation?
MrBaller Pants I don’t believe so
I’ve been told that one should attend an Eastern Orthodox mass *only* *if* one is under obligation (Sunday or holy day of obligation) and determines that getting to a Catholic mass in the timeframe of the obligation is physically impossible. I’ve tried to verify this, without success so far.
One should strive to avoid the situation of being unable to attend obligatory Catholic mass.
If you are nowhere near a Catholic parish, then yes.
Eg. You are in Eastern Siberia and the nearest Catholic church is 1500 miles away.
No, it doesn't. We are obliged to attend a mass or divine liturgy said by a priest in communion with the Pope. A divine liturgy celebrated by someone who is not in union with Rome is certainly valid, but does not fulfill our obligation. In the event you cannot get to a Catholic Church, you don't have an obligation to attend mass.
Was refused communion at an Orthodox mass and the priest afterwards justified himself by evoking the Pope's abandonement of the byzantines when the turks took over Constantinople.
Wasn't the insertion of the filioque ratified by the pope? Are we saying the pope can ratify a councils declaration of a creed and have it be wrong? Seems to be slippery ground to me unless I'm misunderstanding something.
Scandalous.
No, not only Filioque must not be removed from the Creed in Roman rite, it also must be propagated to all the Eastern rites, specifically to find the monopatrist heresy.
A guy, named David Erhan, claims in his TH-cam video "The Ultimate Argument Against the Filioque" that he has 'debunked' the Catholic arguments for the 'Filioque'.
Was found in creeds prior to schism so there’s no valid objection
I am Orthodox and I wish the filioque was the only obstacle to union but then what? How about doctrines (immaculate conception, celibate priests, no infant communion, etc) that were instituted in the middle ages? The west has changed so many things since the schism and that is aside from the debate over papal primacy. I would rather hear those issues discussed in light of reunion and how you reconcile churches when one side has maintained the same traditions all along and the other side changes them like flipping a light switch.😢
celibate priest is not dogma and we also have infant communion, immaculate conception is dogma.
Despite all the content I've read and listened to from Orthodox commentators and debaters, I still struggle to understand how the filioque controversy (and apparently, as i recently found out much to my confusion, their differing understanding of the Trinity from us) does not constitute a subordinationist gradation of the Persons. I've heard them claim that the Persons still retain their ousia as one, but somehow they're still in an ontological gradation (i could phrase that better but I'm at work rn). I just can't wrap my mind around how they can square that and then claim we're in heresy when the Church spent hundreds of years fighting off that same sort of slippery slope.
Update SSPX are now Schism B-)
Quicumque Symbol or Athanasian creed contains the "filioque"
Pseudo-Athanasian
@@TitusFlavius11 sorry, trying really hard to catch up being lapsed... so that means almost there or still too far away from athanasius?
@@iammsmorales it means the “Athanasian Creed” was not written by St. Athanasius.
@@TitusFlavius11 was it just named after him then in his honor? It doesnt have to have been written by him to validate his points which I'm pretty sure everyone agrees with (sincerely asking because again, this is all new to me)
@@iammsmorales It is a pretty orthodox creed, except that in includes the Filioque. St. Athanasius most probably did not believe in the Filioque, having it in a creed attributed to him is anachronistic,
Catholic here...way too busy to have this issue be any kind of influence at all on my ministry for the gospel of the Christ. If unity depended on removing the 'filioque', then have at it. Wouldn't affect salvation one way or the other at this point in history. But I don't think that would sway the EO toward unity. The Pope is still way too much an issue for them, which is based in ideology/polemics more than theology IMHO.
John 20:22 The Holy Spirit is coming out of Jesus's mouth. He is literally breathing the Holy Spirit onto them.
I can fill a glass with water from the tap, then pour the water onto a plant. Does that mean the water proceeds from the cup? We never deny that the Holy Spirit goes through Jesus, but he doesn't proceed from Jesus.
@@heli0s101 Yes the water proceeds from the cup
The confussion in the West started because in greek the words εκπόρευση and πεμπω are not the same ,In Latin they have one meaning and latins thing that in greek had one meaning
Does this mean we could settle this as a language barrier issue and not theological? This would do wonders to union.
@@alonsoACR well one part is the language for the different theology. The other is that in the west there is a belief that as ages pass more knowledge comes..
@@user-pj7sq7ce1f That's not quite accurate. New knowledge per se isn't what we get, but a greater understanding of it.
Like how it took us 300-700 years to settle on the nature of Jesus and the Trinity.
What has developed in the West is the understanding of the nature of Mary, which hasn't in the East.
"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed are thou among women..."
How do we interpret that? Well that, and some other passages, gave us immaculate conception, meaning "pure since birth". It's not that the East disagrees, they just haven't decided yet. Perhaps they don't see it as important, but in the West it was for a time crucial. Some heresies were arguing Mary was impure, which cannot be accurate, we think. Immaculate Conception is that God prepared Mary since her conception as a pure vessel for our Lord, and as the ideal Theotokos. "Immaculate" in this case is to mean "pure." It was uncontroversial in the West, not a single bishop disagreed, but because the East wasn't invited, they see it as an illegitimate dogma. What it certainly isn't is new knowledge, it's new UNDERSTANDING.
The last conclusion the East got from Marian nature is that she's the Theotokos, I think, which was to fight the Eastern heresy of Nestorianism. We decided that one together though, both West and East were invited.
Anyway the fact you didn't develop new councils gives us a weird position now. 100% of your theology is, to us, valid and orthodox. But to you, we have invalid theology.
@@alonsoACR that is actually what we see as heresy.they are not actually dogmas that we know as time goes by. All the knowledge we can have is from the experience of the pentecost_ Theosis. Simple more people can get in that experience in time
@@alonsoACR again i say it satanic heresy is to believe that we can understand more as time goes pass...
And "He breathed on them saying "Receive ye the Holy Spirit." Pretty convincing there..."
That refers to economic procession, but not hypostatic procession, which the Greek Fathers taught is from the Father alone.
No pope has ever condemned the Filioque....Even the Favorite pope of Eastern orthodox , which is Pope Leo III approved the Filioque to be preached and taught....He just does not want it added in the Creed...
Too much noise
At 8:14 is where the Fr. finally gets to the honesty of the matter separating the East from the West. The orthodox, like so many, it not all of the rites that have separated themselves from the roman rite, do not recognize the pope as the supreme head of the church. The filioque issue is simply a red-herring.
That's why I don't go to the Byzantine Catholic Church because they omit the words "and the Spirit" from their creed.
Younis the exact words of the Original Creed is " I believe in the Holy Spirit , the Lord , the giver of life who proceeds from the FATHER and TOGETHER WITH THE FATHER AND SON IS WORSHIPPED AND GLORIFIED .....
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father Alone and sent through the Son and the Holy Spirit together with the Father and the son is worshipped and glorified .
The Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son but the Father gives the Holy Spirit fully to Jesus and the Holy Spirit flows from the glorified Body of Jesus as from an inexhaustible spring as happened at Pentecost when Jesus poured Him out .
from John 20:22
Again Jesus said to them, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you.” 22When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.”…
PATREM FILIOQUE PROCEDIDT, means ""proceeds from the father and the son""
I see it as a semantic issue not doctrinal issue.
"And the Son" and "From the Son" is basically the same.
The Holy Spirit comes from both in the end.
"...Holy Spirit who proceeds from The Father and the Son"
The John 16:15, All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
I think we should keep the filioque just in case of heretics...
"sspx schismatic" aged bad
St John 16:7. 🕯🙏
It says he will SEND the Holy spirit, not proceed.
The Uniates could not have been persecuted first because then they were not living in Soviet Russia.
They were living... western Ukraine.
7:00 A (correct) word was added to the Creed for clarification to combat a heresy and this guy wants to remove it? That will logically lead to heresy; he wants to play semantics and ecumenism to get his way in order to match what he already believes. He says he doesn’t deny the Filioque (kinda sorta), yet he advocates its removal from the Creed; his stated intentions and his actions are not aligned. And the Filioque is correct. He argues Church procedure rather than eternal Truth. A theological discussion cannot be solved by rehashing who sent which letter when and which council voted on what. Those are items for reference and further understanding of God; not tinder for the flames of heresy from below. The East is just plain wrong, but they refuse to admit it. The West cannot admit being wrong on the matter because we are. It to lie. 🔥 ♥️
John 20:22 " And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." Jesus breathed on his disciples, and they received the Holy Ghost. It doesn't get any clearer that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son as well as the Father.
Get DBH on!
Second this
Third this
John 15:26
How is 'filolque' defined?
What is the biblical basis for it?
How does Jesus Christ fit in?
See vaticancatholic.com’s documentary on the subject. Be warned there’s some crazy stuff on the channel, but that video thoroughly answers your question
@@SammyJ.. Amen.
@@SammyJ.. Yeah, I kinda agree, but to be frank, we should absolutely never send anyone to that website. That's just begging for schism.
It'd be better to send them to the Council of Florence or to Saint Thomas Aquinas, honestly. Michael Dimond doesn't deserve anyone's clicks.
Hilary of Poitiers and Epiphanius of Salamis say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and in so doing receives from the Son. And Hilary equates Proceeding from
The Father receiving of the Son with Proceeding from the Father and the Son.
Nyssa likens the Trinity to a flame atop of three torches, the flame originating from the first, passed on to the second, which in turn lights the third.
Augustine and Aquinas can both affirm through the Son. Augustine notes that the Holy Spirit is referred in an ultimate dense back to the Father. Aquinas says the Spirit proceeds from the Father in an immediate way and the Son in a mediated way.