What does "Filioque" mean? w/ Erick Ybarra
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- This clip was taken from Pints with Aquinas episode # 234: • Should We Become Easte...
Erick unpacks the meaning of "Filioque" and why it was such a big controversy in the Church in the East vs. the West.
SPONSORS
EL Investments: www.elinvestme...
Exodus 90: exodus90.com/m...
Hallow: hallow.app/matt...
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
GIVING
Patreon: / mattfradd
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.
LINKS
Website: pintswithaquin...
Merch: teespring.com/...
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Website - mattfradd.com
I had to watch just to see how to pronounce filioque.
@@TheWorldTeacher
One on my mind, it didn't come out the same pronunciation.
Two yes
Three for a vast many reasons none of which matter on a post such as this.
@@TheWorldTeacher
In my experience so far as a Western Rite Orthodox Christian, the best critic of Buddhism I know from the “Everyman” Christian perspective is Gilbert K Chesterton:
www.basicincome.com/bp/tothebuddhists.htm#:~:text=K.%20Chesterton%20compares%20Buddhism%20and%20Christianity.%20To%20the,that%20black%20is%20white%20because%20white%20is%20black.
This is just the tip of pieces of a large berg of such apologetic criticisms scattered about his divers other books. Innocent Smith’s encounter with an Eastern Mystic is my favorite of his more fictional approach to addressing the debate.
However, the man who has the strongest counter argument from direct personal experience in modern times was without a doubt Blessed Hieromonk Serephim Rose of California:
www.angelfire.com/pa3/OldWorldBasic/Buddhism_to_Orthodoxy.htm
He was also brilliant in his nuanced denouncement of the Filioque when writing his “The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church”, for anyone reading this who wants us to stay a bit more on video topic.
I would recommend the big book _”History of Heresies & Their Refutation”_ , by St Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787), Doctor of the Church, specifically the enormous chapter IX. The table of contents is interesting by itself.
*”CHAPTER IX. - HERESIES OF THE NINTH CENTURY”*
*ARTICLE I. - THE GREEK SCHISM COMMENCED BY PHOTIUS. - 1. St. Ignatius, by means of Bardas, Uncle to the Emperor Michael, is expelled from the See of Constantinople. 2. -He is replaced by Photius. 3.-Photius is consecrated. 4. -Wrongs inflicted on St. Ignatius, and on the Bishops who defended him. 5.-The Pope sends Legates to investigate the affair. 6.-St. Ignatius appeals from the Judgment of the Legates to the Pope himself. 7 - He is deposed in a False Council. 8.-The Pope defends St. Ignatius. 9.-The Pope deposes the Legates and Photius, and confirms St. Ignatius in his See. 10. -Bardas is put to death by the Emperor, and he associates Basil in the Empire. 11. -Photius condemns and deposes Pope Nicholas II., and afterwards promulgates his Error concerning the Holy Ghost. 12.-The Emperor Michael is killed, and Basil is elected, and banishes Photius*
*ARTICLE II. - THE ERRORS OF THE GREEKS CONDEMNED IN THREE GENERAL COUNCILS. - 13, 14, 15.-The Eighth General Council against Photius, under Pope Adrian, and the Emperor Basil. 16.-Photius gains over Basil, and in the mean time St. Ignatius dies. 17.- Photius again gets possession of the See. 18.-The Council held by Photius, rejected by the Pope; unhappy death of Photius. 19.-The Patriarch, Cerularius, revives and adds to the errors of Photius. 20.-Unhappy death of Cerularius. 21, 22.-Gregory X. convokes the Council of Lyons, at the instance of the Emperor Michael; it is assembled. 23- Profession of Faith written by Michael, and approved of by the Council. 24 - The Greeks confess and swear to the Decisions of the Council. 25. They separate again. 26.-Council of Florence, under Eugenius IV.; the errors are again discussed and rejected; definition of the Procession of the Holy Ghost. 27-.Of the consecration in leavened bread. 28.-Of the Pains of Purgatory. 29.-Of the Glory of the Blessed. 30.-Of the Primacy of the Pope. 31.-Instructions given to the Armenians, Jacobites, and Ethiopians; the Greeks relapse into schism”*
It is a very firm, but honest explanation of the process of schism by a huge Catholic theologian. Whoever is interesting in the Truth must go for it.
There is a Kindle version:
www.amazon.com/History-Heresies-Refutation-Alphonsus-Liguori-ebook/dp/B002AJ7JXK/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=history+of+the+heresies&qid=1608739043&sr=8-2
God bless you all!
Greetings from 🇧🇷 Brazil!
I came to this video not knowing what filioque means.
I watched the video, and I still don't know what filioque means.
It is regarding holy spit originate from the father vs Spirit originate from the Father and the Son. Original creed is Spirit originate from the Father.
@@lucasprzybyla7084 thing is west added filioque and the Son in the Nicean Creed which says that Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only
And west added to this and the Son
Church Fathers taught that Holy Spirit proceeda from the Father trough the Son not from the Father and the Son as the west says
And adding to Nicean Creed without agreement with the east is not nice in my opinion
@@lucasprzybyla7084 yes that is one of the reason which caused great schism
Filioque is in the Athanasian creed
pseudo-Athanasian*
« ...the Church has the authority to unlock the Creed ».... in other words, are we saying that the original form of the Creed was inadequate? That the Holy Spirit which guided the Church Fathers to select specific words used in the Creed ...missed something the first time! Doubting the Holy Spirit - where does that place us?!.........
My friend, Erick is talking about the redacted form of the Creed and what it would imply in the translation. You are implying the Creed is God breathed like Sacred Scripture, as if the redaction is inspired by God, which is closely to flirting with a heretical assumption.
On the “Filioque” clause, the obstinacy on Easterners and Westerners (but specially the first) on this matter say much more on the vanity or the stubbornness of men as applied to Church governing (both Roman or Constantinopolitan) than anything else. The Greek idiom is astonishing rich both in vocabulary and in verbal or nominal constructions; the Latin idiom is rich only in its phrasal construction, but it is consistently poor on vocabulary. Some philologists/linguists suggest emphatically that the Latin use of words (vocabulary) is directly connected to the tradition within the West to develop scientific and philosophical explanations, what Easterners may understand as “dogmatism”. But to see it as a linguistic problem is not only attributable to modern philologists, but that’s the exact argument St Maximus the Confessor used against the Bizantine Empire and in favor of the Papacy. So because the vocabulary in Latin is poor (even though the phrasal constructions are not) compared to the much richer Greek vocabulary, explanations were more or less always needed so as not to incur in wrong or imprecise theological understandings. If that is understood, then it explains also the adding of the clause “and the Son” after the word “procedit” in the translated Creed, which means literally “come-forth from” (not the plurivocal idea of procession as in Greek, having more than one word for it). So please notice the Greek Scriptures use different Greek verbs to speak of different kinds of “going forth” from the Father (a cognate of “erchomai” in John 8, 42, for example, but “ekporeusthai” in John 15, 26), but the Latin Scriptures (in the Vulgate or in earlier manuscripts) translate these different Greek words by the same Latin verb, “procedere” (to proceed), the word from which the past form “procedit” comes. The whole problem with the Greek-speaking Christians was the possible understanding of the “double procession of the Holy Spirit” as both the Father and the Son were like two autonomic principles of the procession of the Holy Spirit on the love relation operating between the Father and the Son on eternity, which is wrong, because the Holy Spirit is spired as one sole principle. But it is NEVER taught by the Catholic Church; it never taught the Holy Spirit have two autonomic causation within the eternity of the Trinity.
Greetings, my friend.
@Dustin Neely That’s just absurd. To say the Holy Spirit does not come from the Son (not on an autonomous principle of causation, of course) would be heresy. We know for a fact that is not what Eastern Orthodoxy means, but all you cultist-new-converts anti-Catholic Americans have this strange habit of making the Catholic position to be what it is not. Simple as that. Hope you grow in faith and all other virtues.
@Dustin Neely “The rejection of the Filioque, or the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and Son, and the denial of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff constitute even today the principal errors of the Greek church. While outside the Church doubt as to the double Procession of the Holy Ghost grew into open denial, inside the Church the doctrine of the Filioque was declared to be a dogma of faith in the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the Second council of Lyons (1274), and the Council of Florence (1438-1445). Thus the Church proposed in a clear and authoritative form the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition on the Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity.
As to the Sacred Scripture, the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6), the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:19), just as they call Him the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20) and the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). Hence they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the Son as to the Father.
Again, according to Sacred Scripture, the Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6), just as the Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3; etc.), and as the Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26).
Now the "mission" or "sending" of one Divine Person by another does not mean merely that the Person said to be sent assumes a particular character, at the suggestion of Himself in the character of Sender, as the Sabellians maintained; nor does it imply any inferiority in the Person sent, as the Arians taught; but it denotes, according to the teaching of the weightier theologians and Fathers, the Procession of the Person sent from the Person Who sends. Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost. The very idea of the term "mission" implies that the person sent goes forth for a certain purpose by the power of the sender, a power exerted on the person sent by way of a physical impulse, or of a command, or of prayer, or finally of production; now, Procession, the analogy of production, is the only manner admissible in God. It follows that the inspired writers present the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son, since they present Him as sent by the Son.
Finally, St. John (16:13-15) gives the words of Christ: "What things soever he [the Spirit] shall hear, he shall speak; ...he shall receive of mine, and shew it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath, are mine." Here a double consideration is in place. First, the Son has all things that the Father hath, so that He must resemble the Father in being the Principle from which the Holy Ghost proceeds. Secondly, the Holy Ghost shall receive "of mine" according to the words of the Son; but Procession is the only conceivable way of receiving which does not imply dependence or inferiority. In other words, the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son”.
www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm
@Dustin Neely “(continue) The teaching of Sacred Scripture on the double Procession of the Holy Ghost was faithfully preserved in Christian tradition. Even the Greek Orthodox grant that the Latin Fathers maintain the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. The great work on the Trinity by Petavius (Lib. VII, cc. iii sqq.) develops the proof of this contention at length. Here we mention only some of the later documents in which the patristic doctrine has been clearly expressed:
- the dogmatic letter of St. Leo I to Turribius, Bishop of Astorga, Epistle 15 (447);
- the so-called Athanasian Creed;
- several councils held at Toledo in the years 447, 589 (III), 675 (XI), 693 (XVI);
- the letter of Pope Hormisdas to the Emperor Justius, Ep. lxxix (521);
- St. Martin I's synodal utterance against the Monothelites, 649-655;
- Pope Adrian I's answer to the Caroline Books, 772-795;
- the Synods of Mérida (666), Braga (675), and Hatfield (680);
- the writing of Pope Leo III (d. 816) to the monks of Jerusalem;
- the letter of Pope Stephen V (d. 891) to the Moravian King Suentopolcus (Suatopluk), Ep. xiii;
- the symbol of Pope Leo IX (d. 1054);
- the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215;
- the Second Council of Lyons, 1274; and the
Council of Florence, 1439.
Some of the foregoing conciliar documents may be seen in Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte" (2d ed.), III, nn. 109, 117, 252, 411; cf. P.G. XXVIII, 1557 sqq. Bessarion, speaking in the Council of Florence, inferred the tradition of the Greek Church from the teaching of the Latin; since the Greek and Latin Fathers before the ninth century were the members of the same Church, it is antecedently improbable that the Eastern Fathers should have denied a dogma firmly maintained by the Western. Moreover, there are certain considerations which form a direct proof for the belief of the Greek Fathers in the double Procession of the Holy Ghost.
- First, the Greek Fathers enumerate the Divine Persons in the same order as the Latin Fathers; they admit that the Son and the Holy Ghost are logically and ontologically connected in the same way as the Son and Father [St. Basil, Epistle 38; Against Eunomius I.20 and III, sub init.]
- Second, the Greek Fathers establish the same relation between the Son and the Holy Ghost as between the Father and the Son; as the Father is the fountain of the Son, so is the Son the fountain of the Holy Ghost (Athanasius, Ep. ad Serap. I, xix, sqq.; On the Incarnation 9; Orat. iii, adv. Arian., 24; Basil, Against Eunomius V; cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 43, no. 9).
- Third, passages are not wanting in the writings of the Greek Fathers in which the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is clearly maintained: Gregory Thaumaturgus, "Expos. fidei sec.", vers. saec. IV, in Rufinus, Hist. Eccl., VII, xxv; Epiphanius, Haer., c. lxii, 4; Gregory of Nyssa, Hom. iii in orat. domin.); Cyril of Alexandria, "Thes.", as. xxxiv; the second canon of synod of forty bishops held in 410 at Seleucia in Mesopotamia; the Arabic versions of the Canons of St. Hippolytus; the Nestorian explanation of the Symbol.
The only Scriptural difficulty deserving our attention is based on the words of Christ as recorded in John 15:26, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, without mention being made of the Son. But in the first place, it can not be shown that this omission amounts to a denial; in the second place, the omission is only apparent, as in the earlier part of the verse the Son promises to "send" the Spirit. The Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son is not mentioned in the Creed of Constantinople, because this Creed was directed against the Macedonian error against which it sufficed to declare the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father. The ambiguous expressions found in some of the early writers of authority are explained by the principles which apply to the language of the early Fathers generally”.
www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm
Saint Ephrem the Syrian :
"The Father is the Begetter, the Son the Begotten from the bosom of the Father, the Holy Spirit He that proceedeth from the Father and the Son"
original syriac text (column 242 / 11) :
archive.org/stream/sanctiephraemsy01lamygoog#page/n188/mode/2up
and check this out from syriac : english dict :
drive.google.com/file/d/1wDuFwYHITTk1lHuhjM_UEBHDCuHFbBm0/view?usp=sharing
(it's clear the this excerpt is written in an theological context and not "ekonomia" )
-------------------------
the text from John 15 : 26 reads : O para tou Patros ekporeuetai
(ekonomia)
The Fahters of the Council of Constantinople modified it into : Ekporeuomenon to ek tou Patros (theologia)
this is a detail very rare persons are aware about ...
Le'ts not forget that Jesus never pronounced : ekporeuetai ... because he spoke aramaic not greek !! .. we will never know the original verb he uttered
The Greek sufficiently expresses what the Lord intended, since the production of the text was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Arguments made from the notion of the insufficiency of the Greek (this kind of argument is also made concerning Matthew 16:18) tacitly deny the inspiration of Scripture.
Ďakujeme.
There is nothing complex or spiritually theological that made Catholics follow the "filioque" doctrine. The Roman Catholic church wanted to get their version of the Creed back in the day to differentiate from the eastern Byzantine orthodox church, and move on with their secular bussiness mostly playing a part in the emergening italian trade, and leaving the falling Byzantine Empire behind them. They even sacked the Constantinople during the crusade, respecting orthodox much less than muslims occupying the holy land
Pope John Paul II publically apologized for the sack of Constantinople
The Sack of Constantinople was explicitly against papal orders. The Filioque doesn't say anything the Orthodox don't already agree with and they have agreed with it several times
@@Deathbytroll I guess you aint an orthodox, right? Saying the orthodox Christians mostly agree with this, is laughable, find me a priest who has said this. The "Filioque" part of the creed is against the orthodox doctrine and it is heretical both in its concept and the reasons the Pope's Church adopted it.
You do know that shorty before the sack of Constantinople there was already bad blood between East and West because of the massacre of the Latins when the Eastern Christians killed Latin Christians.
Бог -это Истина, мысль Истины - мысль Бога.
Бог как человек не говорит, ты не услышишь голоса Бога.
Бог рождает мысль, если мысль Истины не рождается
не будет исхождение Духа Истины
Дух Истины -это материализованная Мысль Истины!
Только мысль истины имеет свойство материализации - иных духов нет!
Дух Истины воздействует морально и физически чтоб ты Мысль Истины воплотил в жизнь.
Крест Христов в православном варианте -это Электроэнцефалограмма биотоков мозга моего
рождение и материализация Мысли Истины во спасение - печать Бога Живого!
I'm glad he knows what filioque means, maybe he can now explain what ἐκπορευόμενον means? If he can, he might finally figure out why the filioque is heretical.
Hum, you are just parroting things you are not familiar with, my friend. The “Filioque” clause, the obstinacy on Easterners and Westerners on this matter (specially the first) say much more on the vanity or the stubbornness of men as applied to Church governing (both Roman or Constantinopolitan) than anything else. The Greek idiom is astonishing rich both in vocabulary and in verbal or nominal constructions; the Latin idiom is rich only in its phrasal construction, but it is consistently poor on vocabulary.
Some philologists/linguists suggest emphatically that the Latin use of words (vocabulary) is directly connected to the tradition within the West to develop scientific and philosophical explanations. But to see it as a linguistic problem is not only attributable to modern philologists, but that’s the exact argument St Maximus the Confessor used against the Bizantine Empire in favor of the See of Rome. So because the vocabulary in Latin is poor (even though the phrasal constructions are not) compared to the much richer Greek vocabulary, explanations were more or less always needed so as not to incur in wrong or imprecise theological understandings. If that is understood, then it explains also the adding of the clause “and the Son” after the word “procedit” in the translated Creed, which means literally “come-forth from” (not the plurivocal idea of procession as in Greek, having more than one word for it). So please notice the Greek Scriptures use different Greek verbs to speak of different kinds of “going forth” from the Father (a cognate of “erchomai” in John 8, 42, for example, but “ekporeusthai” in John 15, 26), but the Latin Scriptures (in the Vulgate or in earlier manuscripts) translate these different Greek words by the same Latin verb, “procedere” (to proceed), the word from which the past form “procedit” comes. The whole problem with the Greek-speaking Christians was the possible understanding of the “double procession of the Holy Spirit” as both the Father and the Son were like two autonomic principles of the procession of the Holy Spirit on the love relation operating between the Father and the Son on eternity, which is wrong, because the Holy Spirit is spired as one sole principle. But it is NEVER taught by the Catholic Church; it never taught the Holy Spirit have two autonomic causation within the eternity of the Holy Trinity.
@@masterchief8179 Yes, but like the New Testament, the creed was written and codified in Greek, not Latin. The Latin isn't the creed proper, but merely a translation of the creed; so as a translation, in this context procedit doesn't have the full range of meaning that it does in the Latin language, but rather it only has the more narrow meaning of ἐκπορευόμενον, the word actually being translated.
But I do agree with you on one thing, stubbornness is at the heart of the problem. Rome simply refuses to acknowledge the facts of the situation, that many of it's theologians around the turn of the millennium didn't have a good grasp of the Greek language or, accordingly, of the patristic literature, as the overwhelming majority of it was written in Greek. Because of this ignorance of the Greek language they weren't well versed in patristic theology or philosophy and thus adopted the philosophy of the pagans, namely Aristotle, and thus entered into many errors. Now that many of the fathers have been translated into most major languages and Greek is far more widely known in the west (albeit thanks more to the efforts of the Protestants than Rome), these errors should be acknowledged and repudiated.
It's really plain as day to everyone on the outside looking in, that Latin theologians of that era were deeply ignorant of the Christian theological tradition that preceded them. But rather than acknowledging their errors and quarantining these theologians and their teachings, as the East has done with Origen, Rome has, in her pride, chosen to double down on her errors. She invented a whole new system of theology, disconnected from all that came before, nearly 1000 years after the time of the Apostles, and has the audacity to claim they are Apostolic teachings.
The really ironic thing is that this is exactly what the protestants would do again in the 16th century, attempt to derive the Christian religion anew independent of the traditions that had been handed down to us. Ultimately, they were merely following the example Rome had set for them, Rome truly is the mother church of the Reformation, the first Reformed Church.
But all of this was just error due to ignorance, the German, French, and English theologians of the turn of the millennium were truly ignorant of the Christian theological tradition that had largely been written and preserved in Greek, as were the protestant reformers. What is far less forgivable is the conduct of Rome herself, she was not ignorant of this tradition, she was an integral part of this tradition, most the Popes of the first millennium were fluent in Greek and conversed in Greek with the rest of the Church. In fact, Rome even actively fought against the filioque for a couple centuries, fully understanding the creed in Greek and the theological disputes with the Macedonians that had given rise to that line in the Creed. But then Rome deliberately turned away from the Patristic tradition and embraced the errors of the barbarians against the Christians, quite obviously for worldly and political reasons.
@@costakeith9048 Sorry, but you are a proof that stubbornness - added with some ignorance - are something that makes the so called Orthodox to act like in a cultism. Sorry to say it explicitly. You are just acting like in a faction. Most probably you are a convert, no need to say, and to preach that “abandoning tradition” is something on our sides 1) shows you don’t have much of a clue on what tradition means and 2) that you are actually just repeating things off.
You make the same mistakes your cultism makes you to be, but mixes things that have zero relation one with the other: you have to be anti-thomistic, because Palamism is simply proved to be metaphysically absurd, then you blame it on paganism adopted by the Catholic Church dominance of the philosophers (a thing that could have been traced back to St Clement of Alexandria, not to St Thomas Aquinas); then you say something about “modified doctrines” of the first millennium (where is Palamism taught in the first millennium?). What next?
My friend, you are implying the Creed is God breathed like Sacred Scripture, as if the redaction is inspired by God, which is closely to flirting with a grave heretical assumption. For me it is, unfortunately, some kind of cultism that makes you apart from Truth.
@Dustin Neely Your sect/church / ecclesial community preaches infallibility of a doctrine in which conditions?
Congrats you now how a diad within the triad. The cappadocians are eternally vindicated.
How so?
They actually say that the principle that justifies "the Father and the Son as from one principle" is their shared essence. The essence being the principle means that the abstraction of the essence has a causal force, making it a hypostasis above the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Filioquist theology thus dissolves the three into aspects of the essence. It is a tacit form of neo-Sabellianism.
Latin for heresy
Oof
Latin for orthodoxy
5:10-6:05 = Sola Ecclesia
As opposed to what? Sola Singula.
How is 'the church has authority to teach' the same as 'sola ecclesia?'