I’ve received many comments pointing out that the pronunciation of Filioque is incorrect. I apologize for this, and in any future videos on the topic, I’ll make sure to use the correct pronunciation, following the Latin pronunciation that many of you prefer.
No apology necessary. It’s refreshing, though, to see how many of my fellow viewers care enough to comment. I can’t imagine they all had the rules of Latin grammar knocked into their knuckles with a wooden school ruler.
Very enjoyable, and puts forth the debate in clear and understandable terms. As an aside, when I did Latin at High School well over 60 years ago, we pronounced "filioque" as "fill eee oh kway", not "fill ee oak" as you do.
@@doubledee9675 Thank you! I’m glad you enjoyed it. It’s so nice to hear that. Next time, I’ll make an effort to pronounce it more accurately. I understand now that many people prefer it to be pronounced as it is in Latin.
@@Imperial_Legacy Not necessarily as it was pronounced by the ancient Romans - more how we believe it was pronounced. That's why I put my comment as how we did it rather than how it was.
Something worth noting is that the Nicean creed was formulated in Greek, which continued to be used by the eastern Church, while the western Church used a Latin translation of the creed and formulated the Filioque clause in Latin, where the word for "proceeds" arguably has a different meaning. So the controversy has different levels, involving the terminology, the underlying doctrine, and the inclusion into the creed as a fundamental belief.
@@WaitingforGodel Thank you for pointing this out! I completely agree with you, cultural differences played a role leading to the great schism and that’s very unfortunate.
You have the holy Catholic Church. You have 48,000 man made protestant CULTS that serve Satan. There’s ONE CHURCH that’s it. And you have the orthodox CULTS that serve Satan
@@jimpassi349your wrong. The Bible is a Catholic book. The protestant Bible is an incomplete and corrupted Catholic book which I’d rip up. And there’s ONLY ONE CHURCH the holy Catholic Church. Protestant’s are NOT Christian!
Yes, there is. How can someone produce a whole video and not bother to learn how to pronounce the key term feature in it? What would we think about a video concerning the papacy where "Pope" is pronounced "poppy"?
It undermines confidence in the rest of the analysis, which in fact can be sustained only if one accepts modern ecumenists notions that the whole thing is just a big misunderstanding. That view is an insult to faithful Orthodox and Roman Catholics alike.
@@jimjatras1448 Bullshit! Get a grip! You pronounce EVERY Latin-based word that has entered the English language as it was once pronounced in Latin?! Hardly. Nor do we pronounce every French word the way it is pronounced in French. You obviously don't know squat about linguistics.
@jLjtremblay Thank you! I completely agree with you. The English language contains a significant amount of Latin vocabulary, including words that are identical to their Latin counterparts but are pronounced differently by modern English speakers. I acknowledged my mistake in a pinned comment on the video-but I suppose people will still complain.
Honestly there needs to be a another council for some who discovered the apostolic faith it torned me greatly about the choice between Catholic and Orthodox Church I had build relations and went to divine liturgy and mass It was a very awkward it did hurt. Hopefully church may unified
So... you liked going to the place that blesses Sodom & Gomorrah.? It seems you are not interested in truth but was looking for a place to socialize with the crowd. You have crowd at pubs, baseball, hockey, etc. Keep shuffling.!
The Catholic Church has no problem calling for a council because its worldwide church decision is centered in Rome. I don't know about the Orthodox churches because the last time they called for an Orthodox council, some of their churches didn't show up and there were lots of fingerpointing and controversy and divisions among themselves.
@@johndorilag4129 I think that almost all national Orthodox churches are instruments of their governments, promoting a certain political doctrine. They are not sovereign monarchs like the Pope. In Russia, the church is a conductor of anti-Western propaganda, using the great schism as an example of confrontation with the West. They don’t want to unite with anyone.
As others below have rightly commented, the video is pronouncing filioque incorrectly. It is a very prominent error. Other than that it is a theologically very informative video.
@@Imperial_Legacy Welcome. If you don't hear it spoken or did not study Latin its not obvious. The Irish pronounce "que and qay" like 'key", at least in Galway
Perfect explanation !!! Besides, if you read this three versions of the gospel of John: 15:26 (New King James Version (NKJV), New American Catholic Bible (NACB) and The Orthodox Study Bible (TOSB): ¨But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me¨ (NKJV) ¨When the Advocate comes whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify of Me¨. (NACB) ¨But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me¨.(TOSB) Our Lord message is very clear (He (Jesus) will send the Spirit that comes from the Father, (but clearly have to be the Son whom send It)), then being Jesus God, and having told that He will send the Spirit of Truth, then It will come from the Father and the Son. I rest my case. 🙏🙏🙏
What’s stopping the Church of the East and the West to dialogues nowadays ? Why Orthodox doesn’t believe that the Holy Spirit proceed to the Father and of the Son ? Have a debate or Councils, Why stayed in the past ?why not deal our difference now so we can all unite? All the leaders of the church needs is Love and humility towards one another and do the will of God to be United in One Faith, One Baptism, One Lord, One Body 🙏🙏🙏
@@glendanikolakakos7431 I totally agree with you! I think it will take a lot of humility to unite our churches together, but it is something that has to be done 🙏🏻
I think the biggest issue is that the Eastern Orthodox Church isn't one church, rather a group of churches with varying degrees of status and autonomy in communion with each other. The original 4 (or 5) at the time of the schism have now grown to 20+. Most of these churches would be happy to give the Bishop of Rome Primacy if the Roman Church returned to communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, but not supremacy or authority over them. Pretty much how things were in 1053.
filioque is pronounced filio- QWAY in standard Latin. Good summary of the "theological issue". For many in early christianity the trinity was a hard thing to understand and accept
Not sure what that has to do with filioque which contains no ae. Also church generally uses Italian version of Latin rather than either the continental or international pronunciation. Example: ci pronounced chee rather than si as in continental or ki as in international.
Not really. The word 'Filioque', in this case, has its tonic syllable in the 'o' and this 'que' endind is not pronounced as QWAY (wether by that you mean it should be said as in the word 'way' ou 'why'). I don't think you have this 'e' sound in English pronunciation, but it is supposed to be said as a closed 'e' sound (like in the word neigh, but without saying the letter 'i').
@@RPlavo I’m sorry for the confusion. The painting in the thumbnail doesn’t represent Eastern bishops, it’s actually a depiction of Recared I, King of the Visigoths, at the Council of Toledo. I split the painting to symbolize the schism.
Excellent video. This an important topic and one can see why western theology insisted on the Filioque: everything seem to hinge on the idea that the Holy Trinity must share the same essence among the Persons if we want our Christology to be coherent. If one doesn't agree then one needs to embrace some form of apophaticism with regard to the knowability or understanding of the essence of God, which could be problematic if you recognize at the same time Christ as the second person of the Trinity. This is a problem inside the Eastern tradition, I think. St. Augustin's efforts are, from a hermeneutical point of view, fully understandable.
Please look at a video called The Trinity Model Key Errors to understand why most people struggle with the Trinity Model. It's an interesting new perspective on the Trinity Doctrine
When I was very small, I used to be taken to Tridentine sung Mass. Apparently, long before I started singing nursery rhymes, I used to wait for "qui ex patre filioque procedit" and join in. So much for my chances of converting to Eastern Orthodox!
How does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son (Filioque) and at the same time with Mary incarnates Jesus? It almost seems like instead of a Holy Trinity with the Filioque you end up with 2.5.
The Holy Spirit proceeds (as source, as principle) from the Father and is sent to US through (by) the Son. "To proceed" in Latin as a different meaning than the world used in the Nicean Creed in is Greek version. "proceed" can by used too to say the last: we receipt the Holy Espirit send to us by the Son (but who is not is principle). Finally there is a faux controversy based over a semantic ambiguity, but served as excuse for a rupture caused by other political and cultural problems within East and West: the Carolingian "Roman West Empire" founded by the Pope and the rivality between the Patriarchy of Constantinople (seat of the remaining "true" Roman Empire) and the Patriarchy of Rome, "primus inter pares" between the Patriarks but politically independent from the Emperor of the East and militarily vulnerable just before the "imposted" Carolingian Empire. In those times the West was gaining power (Venice, the Franks, the Normands in southern Italy...) and the East was in a really tough position against the Islam... what was before (for example, with Justinian) never would return: the actual power of the Christiany was at the side of the only true Roman Emperor, in Constantinople. The Pope was in his hands or could be in any moment, as the others Patriarchs. But now the "head of the Church" was outside the reach of Constantinople and imposed himself as the renewed seat of a new West Empire.
There’s an error in this video. Pope Leo couldn’t excommunicate the bishop of Constantinople because he (Leo) was dead the day his legates deposed the writ of excommunication (which was thus invalid).
Pope Leo could not depose the writ of excommunication because the Bishop of Rome only has authority over churches under apostolic authority of Peter. Peter was first among equals. Nothing more.
@@threejaguarThat's not true, the Pope used his universal authority multiple times during the first thousand years. And the Scriptures say "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" making him indispensable, if you do not have Peter you do not have the Church.
The official position of the Catholic Church to this day is that the "Filioque" is "optional". The Orthodox position is that nothing in the Symbol of Faith-the Creed-should be optional. Orthodoxy believes that the Filioque denigrates the personhood of the Holy Spirit, it that it indicates the Father and Son share something unique, not shared by the person of the Holy Spirit. It was added unilaterally by the Roman Church, without any consent or discussion with the Eastern Orthodox, which sort of destroys the whole idea of consensus or conciliarity.
Consensus, is that how Christ told the truth to humanity? I think not. You might want to deepen the unity between you and the Father. It has absolutely nothing to do with consensus or conciliatory discussion
Some Catholics stoop to any level. What the Catholics imagined does not coincide with the concepts concerning the Spirit of Maximus the Confessor and St. John of Damascus. The Florence Council has never been accepted by the Orthodox Church
@@richcook2007of course not, because the eastern bishops and clergy who agreed to it and declared it to be ecumenical were coerce by secular authorities to abandon it or killed by laypeople
@@francisgruber3638 Thank you for watching! I’m glad you enjoyed it! Next time, I’ll make an effort to pronounce it more accurately, I understand now that many prefer it pronounced as it is in Latin.
@johnosumba1980 LIES????? Ever heard about the reactions of Leo the 3rd ,and Hadrian , to Filioque???? Ever heard about the 879/ 880 Council at Constantinople WITH THE participation of the legats of John the 8th that REJECTED FILIOQUE? Ever heard that according to the Rite of the Church of Rome , Filioque was NEVER RECITED , until the 11th century????
@johnosumba1980 LIES??????? Is it a lie that Pope of Rome Leo the 3rd excommunicated the participants at the Frankfurt Council that condemned the 7th Ecumenical Council and proclaimed Filioque. Is it a lie that Pope Hadrian placed at the entrance of st.Peter tablets in Greek and Latin with The Creed engrved without Filioque? Is it a lie that pope John the 8th conceded through his representatives at the 880 Council of Constantinople that condemned Filioque as a heresy? Is it a lie that the of Rite Roman Church , excluded Filioque from recitation during the liturgy until 1019? YOU ARE THE LIAR NOT ME!
You may be right (I flunked First year Latin) but I was relating to the famous SPQR, as Senatus Populusque Romanus. I was thinking more about the pronunciation than the grammar. Be well
The addition of the suffix "que" was a common Latin device meaning "and", for example, "terra marique" meaning "by land and sea", rather than "terra et mari". There's nothing special about "filioque" as it just means "and the son", as an alternative to "et filio".
Why? Because there are always unfaithful people, who refuse to retract heresy when it meets with rejection. Sometimes it's many people, and sometimes it's people who go along regardless. This is not the most significant cause of the Great Schism, but it became an important obstacle to healing the rift, which continued some 150 years following the date that generally marks the time the schism is said to have happened. The biggest issue was papal primacy.
The Filioque is related to the men who created the new religion and because they were formally pagan mythologists they broke away from the Jewish understanding of God and introduced their mythology. The Father comes down and impregnates a virgin and the son grows and goes up on the mountain to rule with his father.
@@ArtorGrael It depends on who you ask, Eastern Orthodox people might call it a heresy, arguing that it unbalances the Trinity and raises other concerns. In this video, I aimed to explain that it does not change the core theology of the Trinity.
Filioque implies that Jesus Christ is the father in heaven since the holy spirit emanates from him too. Filioque is a heresy only if you do not accept that Jesus Christ was God the creator (obviously he was not as he was human, who died on a cross). On the other hand you can claim we all embody the holy spirit and through practice elevate others, making us God (this would not support the trinity and put us at par with God/Jesus). We could instead chose to recognize Jesus as a teacher: John 18:37 “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me", and not God: Luke 22:70 “Are you then the Son of God? He replied, “You say that I am” and Matthew 10:24 "The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master." And those that are trained will be like him: Luke 6:40 "The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher." But if you take this stand point you also must accept that the trinity is bs and Jesus is as much God as you and me (which of course could be true).
The Filioque is related to the men who created the new religion and because they were formally pagan mythologists they broke away from the Jewish understanding of God and introduced their mythology. The Father comes down and impregnates a virgin and the son grows and goes up on the mountain to rule with his father.
why was the filioque added? another question is why do Greek Church people go utterly hysterical over it??? i neither know nor care if the spirit proceeded from the father alone or the father and the son and perhaps i could argue it either way one thing is clear, all the violence, even if only verbal, hatred rage and name calling shows that those who do so DO NOT HAVE SAID SPIRIT so their pointless quarreling over trivia is moot anyway. one last thing to note: religious arrogance will DEMAND total conformity over non essentials. they can't help themselves. What did Augustine say In essentials unity in non essentials liberty in all things amity not that Augustine himself actually believed this, given his attitude to heretics it was first and foremost such vicious quarrels that show much much we Christians love jesus ie not at ll and the world now notices and yet still we complain that they regard the church as irrelevant, ignoring that fact that WE MADE IT SO
@@onceamusician5408 I totally agree with you, and I applaud your attitude because I believe this is exactly how Christians should act! It’s very important to have right theology, but sometimes Eastern Orthodox Christians can be quite Pharisaical. When I was deciding between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, this was one of the main things that stood out to me. It’s really bad how prideful Eastern Orthodoxy can be, especially with their belief that there is no salvation outside their church and other similar notions about their exclusive righteousness. Some even go so far as to call ecumenism a heresy and a bad deed.
@@mkshffr4936 The Catholic Church believes it holds the fullness of truth and is the ordinary means of salvation. However, it also teaches that God, in His mercy, can save those outside the Church, including Orthodox and Protestant Christians, who sincerely seek Him and strive to live according to His will, recognizing His freedom to dispense grace as He wills.
This short video shows just how divided the church was over theological issues. Unfortunately, by insisting on anachronistic understanding of orthodoxy, it gives a false impression .
The ex-communication happened because the Bishop of Constantinople wanted the seat of primacy to move to Constantinople, because the capital of the Roman Empire had moved to Constantinople. When that was refused, the argument became that all bishops were equal and none were first among equals. The danger to this is a disintegration of the unity of the church and individual bishops reigning over separate churches. This makes them more vulnerable to nationalization or forming loyalty to secular nations, which ironically was why the west didn’t want to move the chair of Peter to Constantinople. The movement of national capitals or other secular developments should not influence the church.
To answer the question which forms the title of this video: ---> To fix the bad and incomplete statement made by the "Eastern Orthodox" churches which obviously had not purged the Arianism from their members/clergy. Many E.O. people are very weak on scripture knowledge and comprehension, preferring instead to watch E.O. priests & bishops do their ceremonies and rituals and "traditions" instead of reading and studying the actual words of Holy Writ. The Filioque is correct. BTW - I am NOT an R.C. member, but it seems to me that the R.C. theologians actually read John chapters 14 and 15 but the E.O. guys did not. I hope that everyone reading the comments and that watched the video will sit down right now and read the Gospel of John chapter 14 and chapter 15 and see what scripture says instead of believing the mystical guys of the E.O. group. The R.C. and the Protestants are much more Trinitarian than the E.O. churches. I am sure that many E.O. priests & bishops are still Arians - not really believing that Jesus Christ is fully God and man. They have not read and believed John chapter 14. Turn to Johnn chapter 15 and read verse 26! The Lord Jesus Christ plainly says that HE will send "The Comforter" ((that is The Holy Spirit -not a heavy fluffy blanket)) to the believers. He was speaking to his Disciples just before he was arrested. P.S. --> If you do not have a Holy Bible to read then you can read it for free at www dot justbible dot com God-breathed scripture is always better than human guesses.
In John 15:26 is clearly stated that Spirit is proceeding only from Father. Chist just sending Him. If you think that Spirit procceds also from Son, why dont you think that Son borning from Spirit on the par with the Father?
@@miuitest5272 ?!? It seems English is not your first language. Not just "spirit" Greek word: "pneuma" but to be exact The Holy Spirit. A PERSON, not a feeling. Turn to Genesis chapter 1 and read verse 26 and 27! "Let us make man in our image". Do you believe in the Triune God consisting of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit? Or --- do you demote The Son from a position of Deity and make him a child of a bigger "god" as the L.D.S. ("Mormons") do? The Lord Jesus before he was crucified told his Disciples that the Comforter would come to be with them after he (Jesus Christ) was gone. How did Jesus know that? I suggest that you and any other Eastern Orthodox person on You Tube sits down and reads John chapter 17 to get a better understanding of "The Father" and "The Son". In the 1980's I worked at a grocery company in California, U.S.A. and there were 4 Greek men on the crew. I had discussions with them (I sometimes would read my Bible on lunch break) and none of the 4 Greeks knew / thought that Jesus was "God in human flesh". I told the then Crew Foreman to read John chapter 1 in his Greek New Testament,,,,, he and the other 3 Greeks never asked me any more questions or challenged me. Obviously, their Greek Orthodox Priests were NOT teaching the whole truth about the deity of Jesus Christ.
The RCC branch of the Orthodox Church made it’s error when it aligned itself with an emperor. Like the Israelite nation, it wanted a king. This led to a serious transformation in the manner bishops were selected and even how the Pope was selected. Not all of these selections were bad, but it nevertheless changed the operation of a universal church where Councils were the seats of major theological decisions, to a church where the center (Pope and cardinals) were the domineering powers. This is what lead to the schism of 1054. The Filioque was the pawn used. We should restart at the last Council held before the schism.
@@dllion3196 Well, Charlemagne was a much, much later addition. The Roman empire lost Italy in VIII century but old Byzantime model was well established there.
@ He was, but the RCC wanted to have an alliance with a king or emperor. I believe, I may be wrong, but the RCC church was based in France at the time. It was not always in Italy.
In short, because it is Biblical, which makes the RCC the first protestant church who understood that the Bible always supercedes tradition as doctrinal authority, regardless of how early that tradition might have originated. Why? Because the New Testament predates all traditions and are the words of the apostles themselves.
Not true, All of the New Testament was not written by Aposiles , New Testament comes from the Traditions of the Church started by Christ about 380 and. The Church started by Christ was commonly known as the Universal (Catholic Church by 125ad. Letters of Antioch.
Protestantism is basically a claim by certain theologians to have authority superior to that of the supreme pontiff. But by implication it almost elevated certain aspects of the theology of St, Augustine to the level of divine revelation. Luther and Calvin but especially Calvin followed this line of thinking, In the French Church the Jansenists ha a similar attitude as against the thinking of the Jesuits. This schism in the French Church was one of the causes of the divisions among the clergy when the Revolution came.
@TomButler-g9z Wow. What a shockingly ignorant statement. All of the New testament was completed by 100AD, and apart from a few outliers, most of it was universally recognised as scripture by then, _because_ of its apostolic origin. Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew. Mark was the scribe of Peter according to the writtings of the Church Fathers. Luke was a second and first hand witness and a companion of Paul. Most of the epistles were written by Paul. James was the brother of Christ, then Peter wrote two epistles, John wrote a gospel, 3 epistles and revelation. The earliest church fathers, all the way back to 1 Clement, often quoted from these scripture to motivate and authorise the arguments they made. The fact that a council 380 years later reaffirmed the contents of the New Testament is not evidence that that is when they made up the New Testament. Evidence that the New Testament was regarded as scripture can be seen in most, if not all of the writtings of the early church fathers. But its not just the church fathers, but also the scriptures themselves. The early church verociously made copies of the New Testament texts, to the point that no other ancient document is more reliably transmitted to us than the new testament. To try and deny all of these wonderful facts in order to protect man made traditions, is to undermine the most important and reliable historical evidence for the truth of our faith.
@johnschuh8616 Nope. Completely wrong. Protestantism is the believe in Galathians 1: The idea that there is no authority in the church higher than _the scriptures,_ because that os the direct written deposit left to the church by the apostles themselves. Any preacher, bishop, cardinal or pope that preaches anything that contradict or go beyond what the scriptures teaches, in anathematised by Galathians 1. The Roman Church is doing exactly what the Pharisees did: nullifying the Word of God for the sake of their human traditions.
@johnschuh8616 Nope. Protestantism is the believe that Scripture - as the written deposit left to the church by the apostles - is the highest and only authority when it comes to doctrinal matters, and that _all_ theologians and traditions, including the pope, is subject and accountable to scripture. Paul says in Galathians 1 that anyone who teach a different gospel than the one the apostles taught is anathema. Therefore, no one has the right to teach any doctrine that goes beyond, or even contradicts, what scripture teaches.
3:26 No. I have looked up the acts in Latin. At the Third Council, the Nicene Creed was recited as an obvious preliminary, as already pre-existing, and it involved the Filioque. At another lower key expression, the Creed against Priscillianists, one can say the Filioque was formally adopted, because the Council was adopting that specific Creed. And it was at the FIRST Council of Toledo.
@@ablarod948 or Benedictus, I very much am entitled to objective facts, which I have to the best of my ability verified. YOU are not entitled to YOUR own facts, and neither was Kallistos Ware. As I recall the book, he never bothered to tell us in what canon of that council it is supposed to have formally ratified the addition. I have looked up the acts, I think the site was "documentatio catholica" or some such thing, and I know Latin well enough to skim through the beginnings of the canons to see what they are about, even if it would fatigue me to read it through. *There is no canon about adding the filioque. However, in the opening ceremony of a council, it is normal to recite the Nicene Creed, they did, and it was WITH the filioque.* I also happen to know that the FIRST Council of Toledo made a polemic creed against Priscillianism. It is very possible that they would have condemned Palamas as Priscillianist, because of "uncreated energies". Praeter hanc nullam credimus divinam esse naturam, vel angeli vel spiritus, _vel virtutis alicuius_ quae Deus esse credatur. y fuera de Ella no creemos en la divinidad de ninguna otra naturaleza, ni del ángel, ni del espíritu, _ni de ningún poder_ que se crea ser Dios. I translated: Beyond this we believe no nature to be divine, whether angels whether spirits, _whether of some virtue_ that would be believed to be God. Virtus could be the correct Latin for energeia. Now, before this we had the explanation of the Trinity, and the passage on the Holy Spirit goes as follows: Spiritum quoque Paraclitum esse, qui nec Pater sit ipse nec Filius, sed a Patre Filioque procedens. que el Espíritu es el Paráclito, el cual ni es el Padre ni es el Hijo, sino que procede del Padre y del Hijo I translated: There is also the Holy Ghost, who himself is neither Father nor Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son. The site where I found the acts of the First Council of Toledo (well before the Visigoths) is "filosofia [dot] org" and you extend it with "/cod/c0397t01.htm" I don't know whether Kallistos Ware had read an extract on this decision, but mistaken it for the third, and a decision, at the first, it was, formally indeed taken under the heading: Incipiunt regulae fidei catholicae contra omnes haereses et quam maxime contra Priscillianos, quam episcopi Terraconenses, Kartaginenses, Lusitani et Baetici fecerunt, et cum praecepto papae urbis Leonis ad Balconium episcopum Galliciae transmiserunt. Ipsi etiam et supra scribta viginti canonum capitula statuerunt in concilio Toletano Comienzan los artículos de la fe católica contra todas las herejías, y sobre todo contra los Priscilianos, que fueron redactados por los obispos Cartaginenses, Tarraconenses, Lusitanos y Béticos, y enviados con el precepto del papa romano León, a Balconio obispo de Galicia. Son también los mismos que redactaron los veinte cánones anteriores en el concilio Toledano I translated it as: Begin the rules of the catholic faith against all heresies and especially against Priscillianism that the bishops of [the Hispanies] Tarraconense, Cartaginense, Baetica and Lusitania made and sent, by order of the Pope of the City Leo to bishop Balconius of Galicia. You can argue, if you want, that Filioque was added inadvertently to the Nicene Creed from the Toledan Rules of the Catholic Faith. Or you can argue that the Filioque was taken away in the Greek by the time of the Fourth Council, but preserved in Spain. You cannot argue that Toledo III took a formal decision to add it, since that is just not true.
John 20 21Then Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you! [John 14:27] As the Father has sent me, I also send you.” 22When he had said this, he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
The point is that men decided who God and Christ are. They read what was written many years earlier and applying their authority, they decided who God was and what his plan was. God appoints, man applies. Man does not appoint, man declares what God has done.
Thank you. The Nicene Creed troubles me. This is an amazing insight into its depths. How desperately people fight over dogma. It is like fighting over poetry. What does it mean to sit at the right hand? It is fantasy.
Yeah, yeah. If its all about the nature of God why do the motives always come back to "whose authority" and the "state". AFAIK God does not need a bunch of Humans to clarify who He is and what He is about. These folks really needed to either get married or find a hobby. Waaay too much time on their hands. 😅😅😅
Very superficial treatment. "It's all just a big misunderstanding, language, politics, etc. You say 'tomayto,' we say 'tomahto.' What difference does it make, can't we just get along?" This is called indifferentism. Neither Orthodox nor Roman Catholics over the past 1,000 years were idiots. The Filioque is a genuine, profound, fundamental question of Trinitarian dogma. For the Orthodox, it is a heretical innovation. If Roman Catholics, however well-meaning, don't understand that, they understand nothing about us. We will not sacrifice truth for unity.
What bothers me the most about the Filioque in the Nicene Creed is that it seems to contradict the Apostles' Creed. The Nicene Creed states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son. The Apostles' Creed states that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from Jesus, then Jesus must exist first. If that is the case, then how could Jesus have been conceived by the Holy Spirit?
Conception of Jesus *_as a human_* (i.e. his human body) is not the same as proceeding of one of God's Persons from other of God's Persons. The first is temporal (i.e. involves a sequence in time), the second is not (i.e. it is not “who was first”, it is not a sequence in time). Do not confuse different planes of existence.
As Jesus is fully God, he has always existed. The same is true of the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Apostles Creed is referring to the incarnation of Jesus as a Human in the womb.
The Father and the Son love each other. They love each other with one love, the Holy Spirit of love. The love of the Father for the Son is the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father. Because the Father and the Son love each other with one love, so also the love of the Son for the Father is the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son. If the Father and the Son did not love each other with one love, then the love proceeding from the Son would be a different love than that proceeding from the Father. And this can not be. For the love proceeding from the Father is a Divine Person, the Holy Spirit. Since the Son is the perfect image of the Father (indeed of one substance with the Father), the love proceeding from the Son must also be a Divine Person. And since there are not four divine persons, but rather Three, the love proceeding from the Son must be the same Divine Person (the same Holy Spirit) proceeding from the Father.
Father and the Son are spirit either. Because it said that the God is a Spirit. Holy Spirit is not and action (energy) of God such as love. He also poses love, because he is a Person ontologically as the Son or Father.
The "TRINITY'", the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, God exalt Himself. Like a person, a body, a soul and a spirit, so a person cannot live without the other.
For those that don't beleive in the trinity of God, but in their wordly agenda, then, maybe they should take out, Joel 2:28-32, and Acts 2:15-21! How about tossing out the whole bible while they're at it, since it's Gods Spirit that created and inspired all things in the name of the, "FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT?" AMEN!!!!!!
Interesting how man has decided who and what God is. God and Christ are two separate, sacred individuals who have the same goals and work together as one. Before the beginning there was only God. In the beginning he created his son as I created my son. We are different but we work together. God reveals his truth, man can follow him but not determine who or what he is. Christ spoke both to and about his father. God said, "This is my beloved son, hear him". The two of them are a team, a partnership with a single goal. Man created the amorphous blob and called it God.
The Filioque is related to the men who created the new religion and because they were formally pagan mythologists they broke away from the Jewish understanding of God and introduced their mythology. The Father comes down and impregnates a virgin and the son grows and goes up on the mountain to rule with his father.
God Farher and Christ are not separate. They just different Persons of one Entity. What are separated in God is His cognition. To allow Persons be Persons.
@@miuitest5272 From a Jewish prispective that is a very pagan mythological convcept and it only shows that your god is defintly not the God of Israel but a god like all the other forrian gods. Just like Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and all the others I respect your right to believe as you wish.
Sadly, it is a man made concept that CAUSED the most unwanted thing in the gospel = DIVISION through CONFUSION. Is any Christian denomination in a better place now that such concept was made by teologians trying to make a science of God??!? Man interefering in God's business because they had, or still have "doctrinal opinions"?!?!? Anyway, 1 day all this issue will be clarified. Meanwhile, just CHOOSE to BE A LOVING/CARING human being as JesusCHRIST thaught us!!
The Filioque is related to the men who created the new religion and because they were formally pagan mythologists they broke away from the Jewish understanding of God and introduced their mythology. The Father comes down and impregnates a virgin and the son grows and goes up on the mountain to rule with his father.
หลายเดือนก่อน
why did Constantine call this council ? read edward gibbon. the two factions in the " church " at that time were literally at each other's throats. for the emperor it was a matter of obtaining some PEACE in the empire. so this council met and tried to hammer out a compromise. it really didn't solve anything. how could it . there hadn't been any APOSTLES in the church since JOHN died on Patmos. so there was no REVELATION from GOD telling an APOSTLE what to do. SO , this , and any other COUNCIL was just a bunch of squabbling bishops , all equal in their own eyes , WITHOUT APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY , declaring a bunch of MAN- MADE doctrine , the half of which makes no sense. greek philosophy had already entered the church decades previously , so all this council did was stir up a mess. and any writings of the early church fathers which could shed light on the subject were thrown in the trash by one of the popes. all you have left to do is wait for the " restitution of all things " , as spoken by peter in acts.
The Filioque is related to the men who created the new religion and because they were formally pagan mythologists they broke away from the Jewish understanding of God and introduced their mythology. The Father comes down and impregnates a virgin and the son grows and goes up on the mountain to rule with his father.
@@E-pistol no, its literally an alteration. Filioque describes different ontology of the Holy Trinity. Holy Fathers never believed in such Trinity. Only Augustine had some reflections on it.
All because of the lunacy of insisting that their particularly religious leader was the 'son' of their god, a preposterous idea, rightly scoffed at in other religions. But where there's a will... Along with this they have to claim that the virgin birth of Jesus is unique when it blatantly is not ie virgin births were retrofitted to all mythological heroes of any significance, and to revered kings, philosophers, city founders, etc. It makes a mockery of any semblance of dignity and honesty, that endless skullduggery and apologeti crap, were indulged in, due to the desperate clamour for something to make Christianity stand out as unique. You can't always have what you want. In the intervening 2,000 years, the true scale of time and distance in the universe has become apparent, and the utterly preposterous nature not just of Jesus as the son of a deity, but of the deity itself, have become apparent. A deity that presided over a small flat terrain within the Fertile Crescent, whose inhabitants travelled by manly footwear (leather sandals or bare feet) only short distances and had no conception of the geography of the globe such as the existence of the Americas and Australasia and Siberia etc. Now that god presides over trillions of galaxies, and ridiculously has only one place where life matters to him, having a curious interest in squabbling bipeds and what they do with their genitals or their hooved animals or their mismatching clothing fabrics, and not even having the wit to bestow on them a germ theory or a bit of physics or cosmology. What an utter joke.
Scripture gives clues to the filioque John 4 verse 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst, the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life. John 7 He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.’ ” 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. Rev 22 verse 1 Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the lamb
I’ve received many comments pointing out that the pronunciation of Filioque is incorrect. I apologize for this, and in any future videos on the topic, I’ll make sure to use the correct pronunciation, following the Latin pronunciation that many of you prefer.
If pronunciation is the biggest issue in your videos you’re in a good place 😄
@ Thank you! 🙏🏻
Ha! I was about to be "that Centurion".
No apology necessary. It’s refreshing, though, to see how many of my fellow viewers care enough to comment. I can’t imagine they all had the rules of Latin grammar knocked into their knuckles with a wooden school ruler.
Very enjoyable, and puts forth the debate in clear and understandable terms. As an aside, when I did Latin at High School well over 60 years ago, we pronounced "filioque" as "fill eee oh kway", not "fill ee oak" as you do.
@@doubledee9675 Thank you! I’m glad you enjoyed it. It’s so nice to hear that. Next time, I’ll make an effort to pronounce it more accurately. I understand now that many people prefer it to be pronounced as it is in Latin.
@@Imperial_Legacy In another 5 minutes, you can take your head out of the corner!
@@Imperial_Legacy Not necessarily as it was pronounced by the ancient Romans - more how we believe it was pronounced. That's why I put my comment as how we did it rather than how it was.
I thought it was a computerized voice.
@@MmmGallicus That's too exotic for this old man to have thought of.
Something worth noting is that the Nicean creed was formulated in Greek, which continued to be used by the eastern Church, while the western Church used a Latin translation of the creed and formulated the Filioque clause in Latin, where the word for "proceeds" arguably has a different meaning. So the controversy has different levels, involving the terminology, the underlying doctrine, and the inclusion into the creed as a fundamental belief.
@@WaitingforGodel Thank you for pointing this out! I completely agree with you, cultural differences played a role leading to the great schism and that’s very unfortunate.
Congratulations. Beautifully explained. Continue this ministry.
Fr George Madathiparampil
@@georgemadathiparampil7266 Thank you, Fr. George Madathiparampil! Comments like yours truly make me feel I’m on the right path! 🙏🏻✝️
Edifying clarity, thank you.
@@stevenovetsky3274 I’m happy you liked it! Thank you 🙏🏻
Great vid, thanks - learned much.
@@theplinkerslodge6361 thanks! God bless you 🙏🏻
Filioque was added to the Nicene Creed to emphasize the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, addressing theological disputes.
Amen! Good video! May we all work to reunify our churches!
I WOULD GO ALONG WITH THAT // HOWEVER WE DONT NEED MMORE PEOPLE FIXING THE BIBLE
You have the holy Catholic Church. You have 48,000 man made protestant CULTS that serve Satan. There’s ONE CHURCH that’s it. And you have the orthodox CULTS that serve Satan
@@jimpassi349your wrong. The Bible is a Catholic book. The protestant Bible is an incomplete and corrupted Catholic book which I’d rip up. And there’s ONLY ONE CHURCH the holy Catholic Church. Protestant’s are NOT Christian!
What an interesting video! 👏
@@natalialima9311 thank you! 🙏🏻
Thank you for your excellent work
@@PedroHernandez-qz9nv thank you! 🙏🏻
Very well presented. Thanks. GB
@@gregbellinger5765 Thank you, Greg! 🙏🏻
nice video. well done.
@@gpvaneron1584 thank you! 🙏🏻
GREAT video! And no need to apologize for pronunciation. Thanks!
Yes, there is. How can someone produce a whole video and not bother to learn how to pronounce the key term feature in it? What would we think about a video concerning the papacy where "Pope" is pronounced "poppy"?
It undermines confidence in the rest of the analysis, which in fact can be sustained only if one accepts modern ecumenists notions that the whole thing is just a big misunderstanding. That view is an insult to faithful Orthodox and Roman Catholics alike.
@@jimjatras1448
Bullshit! Get a grip! You pronounce EVERY Latin-based word that has entered the English language as it was once pronounced in Latin?! Hardly. Nor do we pronounce every French word the way it is pronounced in French. You obviously don't know squat about linguistics.
@jLjtremblay Thank you! I completely agree with you. The English language contains a significant amount of Latin vocabulary, including words that are identical to their Latin counterparts but are pronounced differently by modern English speakers. I acknowledged my mistake in a pinned comment on the video-but I suppose people will still complain.
i love your vídeos! keep going
@@RefugioDoRelaxamento thank you! 🙏🏻
Honestly there needs to be a another council for some who discovered the apostolic faith it torned me greatly about the choice between Catholic and Orthodox Church I had build relations and went to divine liturgy and mass
It was a very awkward it did hurt.
Hopefully church may unified
So... you liked going to the place that blesses Sodom & Gomorrah.? It seems you are not interested in truth but was looking for a place to socialize with the crowd. You have crowd at pubs, baseball, hockey, etc. Keep shuffling.!
The Catholic Church has no problem calling for a council because its worldwide church decision is centered in Rome.
I don't know about the Orthodox churches because the last time they called for an Orthodox council, some of their churches didn't show up and there were lots of fingerpointing and controversy and divisions among themselves.
@@johndorilag4129 I think that almost all national Orthodox churches are instruments of their governments, promoting a certain political doctrine. They are not sovereign monarchs like the Pope. In Russia, the church is a conductor of anti-Western propaganda, using the great schism as an example of confrontation with the West. They don’t want to unite with anyone.
As others below have rightly commented, the video is pronouncing filioque incorrectly. It is a very prominent error. Other than that it is a theologically very informative video.
Fil-e-o-kwae. It’s Latin not Gaelic. Otherwise very succinct.
Thank God someone else noticed that. I have never heard the pronounciation “Fili-oak” used by either Roman or Byzantine Priests.
@@LupinGaius-ls1or Thank you for watching! Next time, I’ll try to pronounce it more accurately.
@@Imperial_Legacy Welcome. If you don't hear it spoken or did not study Latin its not obvious. The Irish pronounce "que and qay" like 'key", at least in Galway
Perfect explanation !!!
Besides, if you read this three versions of the gospel of John: 15:26 (New King James Version (NKJV), New American Catholic Bible (NACB) and The Orthodox Study Bible (TOSB):
¨But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me¨ (NKJV)
¨When the Advocate comes whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify of Me¨. (NACB)
¨But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of
truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me¨.(TOSB)
Our Lord message is very clear (He (Jesus) will send the Spirit that comes from the Father, (but clearly have to be the Son whom send It)), then being Jesus God, and having told that He will send the Spirit of Truth, then It will come from the Father and the Son. I rest my case. 🙏🙏🙏
What’s stopping the Church of the East and the West to dialogues nowadays ? Why Orthodox doesn’t believe that the Holy Spirit proceed to the Father and of the Son ? Have a debate or Councils, Why stayed in the past ?why not deal our difference now so we can all unite? All the leaders of the church needs is Love and humility towards one another and do the will of God to be United in One Faith, One Baptism, One Lord, One Body 🙏🙏🙏
@@glendanikolakakos7431 I totally agree with you! I think it will take a lot of humility to unite our churches together, but it is something that has to be done 🙏🏻
Why would other Christians want to unite with a pedophile institution based in Rome?
I think the biggest issue is that the Eastern Orthodox Church isn't one church, rather a group of churches with varying degrees of status and autonomy in communion with each other. The original 4 (or 5) at the time of the schism have now grown to 20+. Most of these churches would be happy to give the Bishop of Rome Primacy if the Roman Church returned to communion with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, but not supremacy or authority over them. Pretty much how things were in 1053.
filioque is pronounced filio- QWAY in standard Latin. Good summary of the "theological issue". For many in early christianity the trinity was a hard thing to understand and accept
The Church uses traditional latin rather than classical. AE is pronounced Ee not AI.
Not sure what that has to do with filioque which contains no ae. Also church generally uses Italian version of Latin rather than either the continental or international pronunciation. Example: ci pronounced chee rather than si as in continental or ki as in international.
Not really. The word 'Filioque', in this case, has its tonic syllable in the 'o' and this 'que' endind is not pronounced as QWAY (wether by that you mean it should be said as in the word 'way' ou 'why'). I don't think you have this 'e' sound in English pronunciation, but it is supposed to be said as a closed 'e' sound (like in the word neigh, but without saying the letter 'i').
Why are eastern bishops wearing the miter in the painting?
@@RPlavo I’m sorry for the confusion. The painting in the thumbnail doesn’t represent Eastern bishops, it’s actually a depiction of Recared I, King of the Visigoths, at the Council of Toledo. I split the painting to symbolize the schism.
Excellent video. This an important topic and one can see why western theology insisted on the Filioque: everything seem to hinge on the idea that the Holy Trinity must share the same essence among the Persons if we want our Christology to be coherent. If one doesn't agree then one needs to embrace some form of apophaticism with regard to the knowability or understanding of the essence of God, which could be problematic if you recognize at the same time Christ as the second person of the Trinity. This is a problem inside the Eastern tradition, I think. St. Augustin's efforts are, from a hermeneutical point of view, fully understandable.
Well done
@@davidpostma9862 thank you! 🙏🏻
Please look at a video called The Trinity Model Key Errors to understand why most people struggle with the Trinity Model. It's an interesting new perspective on the Trinity Doctrine
When I was very small, I used to be taken to Tridentine sung Mass. Apparently, long before I started singing nursery rhymes, I used to wait for "qui ex patre filioque procedit" and join in. So much for my chances of converting to Eastern Orthodox!
Beautiful 🥰
How does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and the Son (Filioque) and at the same time with Mary incarnates Jesus? It almost seems like instead of a Holy Trinity with the Filioque you end up with 2.5.
The Holy Spirit proceeds (as source, as principle) from the Father and is sent to US through (by) the Son. "To proceed" in Latin as a different meaning than the world used in the Nicean Creed in is Greek version. "proceed" can by used too to say the last: we receipt the Holy Espirit send to us by the Son (but who is not is principle). Finally there is a faux controversy based over a semantic ambiguity, but served as excuse for a rupture caused by other political and cultural problems within East and West: the Carolingian "Roman West Empire" founded by the Pope and the rivality between the Patriarchy of Constantinople (seat of the remaining "true" Roman Empire) and the Patriarchy of Rome, "primus inter pares" between the Patriarks but politically independent from the Emperor of the East and militarily vulnerable just before the "imposted" Carolingian Empire. In those times the West was gaining power (Venice, the Franks, the Normands in southern Italy...) and the East was in a really tough position against the Islam... what was before (for example, with Justinian) never would return: the actual power of the Christiany was at the side of the only true Roman Emperor, in Constantinople. The Pope was in his hands or could be in any moment, as the others Patriarchs. But now the "head of the Church" was outside the reach of Constantinople and imposed himself as the renewed seat of a new West Empire.
There’s an error in this video. Pope Leo couldn’t excommunicate the bishop of Constantinople because he (Leo) was dead the day his legates deposed the writ of excommunication (which was thus invalid).
This ^^^
Wasn't it Cardinal Humbert?
Pope Leo could not depose the writ of excommunication because the Bishop of Rome only has authority over churches under apostolic authority of Peter.
Peter was first among equals. Nothing more.
@@threejaguarThat's not true, the Pope used his universal authority multiple times during the first thousand years. And the Scriptures say "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" making him indispensable, if you do not have Peter you do not have the Church.
@@threejaguar Show me the biblical verse proving first among equals. Mathhew 16:18 shows primacy so show me the verse for first among equals
The official position of the Catholic Church to this day is that the "Filioque" is "optional". The Orthodox position is that nothing in the Symbol of Faith-the Creed-should be optional. Orthodoxy believes that the Filioque denigrates the personhood of the Holy Spirit, it that it indicates the Father and Son share something unique, not shared by the person of the Holy Spirit. It was added unilaterally by the Roman Church, without any consent or discussion with the Eastern Orthodox, which sort of destroys the whole idea of consensus or conciliarity.
It doesn’t have to be stated explicitly, but it can’t be denied.
Consensus, is that how Christ told the truth to humanity? I think not. You might want to deepen the unity between you and the Father. It has absolutely nothing to do with consensus or conciliatory discussion
Denial of the filioque is heresy.
Thank you
@@benjaminstutzman3171 you’re welcome! 🙏🏻
No mention of the Council of Florence/Ferrara where the Eastern bishops agreed to the Filioque.
Some Catholics stoop to any level. What the Catholics imagined does not coincide with the concepts concerning the Spirit of Maximus the Confessor and St. John of Damascus. The Florence Council has never been accepted by the Orthodox Church
@@richcook2007of course not, because the eastern bishops and clergy who agreed to it and declared it to be ecumenical were coerce by secular authorities to abandon it or killed by laypeople
You pronounce it, "filio-yoke", one often hears the pronunciation, "filio-kway". In any case, thank you. Well done.
Your pronunciation is correct
@@francisgruber3638 Thank you for watching! I’m glad you enjoyed it! Next time, I’ll make an effort to pronounce it more accurately, I understand now that many prefer it pronounced as it is in Latin.
You " forgot ' to mention that Filioque
WAS REJECTED BY THE CHURCH OF ROME UNTIL THE 11th century.
You are trying lies to see who will hook on it.
@johnosumba1980
LIES?????
Ever heard about the reactions of Leo the 3rd ,and Hadrian , to Filioque????
Ever heard about the 879/ 880 Council at Constantinople WITH THE participation of the legats of John the 8th that REJECTED FILIOQUE?
Ever heard that according to the Rite of the Church of Rome , Filioque was NEVER RECITED , until the 11th century????
@johnosumba1980
LIES???????
Is it a lie that Pope of Rome Leo the 3rd excommunicated the participants at the Frankfurt Council that condemned the 7th Ecumenical Council and proclaimed Filioque.
Is it a lie that Pope Hadrian placed at the entrance of st.Peter tablets in Greek and Latin with The Creed engrved without Filioque?
Is it a lie that pope John the 8th conceded through his representatives at the 880 Council of Constantinople that condemned Filioque as a heresy?
Is it a lie that the of Rite Roman Church , excluded Filioque from recitation during the liturgy until 1019?
YOU ARE THE LIAR NOT ME!
You may be right (I flunked First year Latin) but I was relating to the famous SPQR, as Senatus Populusque Romanus. I was thinking more about the pronunciation than the grammar. Be well
What's a Phillyoke?
It is a shoulder harness made from a filly-oak.
Perfect explanation - thanks.
@@condelevante4 Thank you! I’m glad you like it 🙏🏻
The addition of the suffix "que" was a common Latin device meaning "and", for example, "terra marique" meaning "by land and sea", rather than "terra et mari". There's nothing special about "filioque" as it just means "and the son", as an alternative to "et filio".
Define “procession” please. Procession from where to where?
It comes from the theology of saint Augustin and then probably through the theology of saint George I that called Saint Sprit a God .
Regardless of the intention, they agreed not to add to it. I think allot could’ve been avoided.
Why? Because there are always unfaithful people, who refuse to retract heresy when it meets with rejection. Sometimes it's many people, and sometimes it's people who go along regardless. This is not the most significant cause of the Great Schism, but it became an important obstacle to healing the rift, which continued some 150 years following the date that generally marks the time the schism is said to have happened. The biggest issue was papal primacy.
The Filioque is related to the men who created the new religion and because they were formally pagan mythologists they broke away from the Jewish understanding of God and introduced their mythology. The Father comes down and impregnates a virgin and the son grows and goes up on the mountain to rule with his father.
@@Rajul_JamilDrugs are bad.
Is filoque a heresy?
Does filoque mean one of the sides is in schism?
@@ArtorGrael It depends on who you ask, Eastern Orthodox people might call it a heresy, arguing that it unbalances the Trinity and raises other concerns. In this video, I aimed to explain that it does not change the core theology of the Trinity.
Filioque implies that Jesus Christ is the father in heaven since the holy spirit emanates from him too. Filioque is a heresy only if you do not accept that Jesus Christ was God the creator (obviously he was not as he was human, who died on a cross). On the other hand you can claim we all embody the holy spirit and through practice elevate others, making us God (this would not support the trinity and put us at par with God/Jesus). We could instead chose to recognize Jesus as a teacher: John 18:37 “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me", and not God: Luke 22:70 “Are you then the Son of God? He replied, “You say that I am” and Matthew 10:24 "The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master." And those that are trained will be like him: Luke 6:40 "The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher." But if you take this stand point you also must accept that the trinity is bs and Jesus is as much God as you and me (which of course could be true).
@@Imperial_Legacy But it is precisely on the theology of the Trinity.
Love learning about our Creator and his church
The Filioque is related to the men who created the new religion and because they were formally pagan mythologists they broke away from the Jewish understanding of God and introduced their mythology. The Father comes down and impregnates a virgin and the son grows and goes up on the mountain to rule with his father.
why was the filioque added?
another question is why do Greek Church people go utterly hysterical over it???
i neither know nor care if the spirit proceeded from the father alone or the father and the son
and perhaps i could argue it either way
one thing is clear,
all the violence, even if only verbal, hatred rage and name calling shows that those who do so
DO NOT HAVE SAID SPIRIT
so their pointless quarreling over trivia is moot anyway.
one last thing to note: religious arrogance will DEMAND total conformity over non essentials.
they can't help themselves.
What did Augustine say
In essentials unity
in non essentials liberty
in all things amity
not that Augustine himself actually believed this, given his attitude to heretics
it was first and foremost such vicious quarrels that show much much we Christians love jesus
ie not at ll
and the world now notices
and yet still we complain that they regard the church as irrelevant, ignoring that fact that WE MADE IT SO
@@onceamusician5408 I totally agree with you, and I applaud your attitude because I believe this is exactly how Christians should act! It’s very important to have right theology, but sometimes Eastern Orthodox Christians can be quite Pharisaical. When I was deciding between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, this was one of the main things that stood out to me. It’s really bad how prideful Eastern Orthodoxy can be, especially with their belief that there is no salvation outside their church and other similar notions about their exclusive righteousness. Some even go so far as to call ecumenism a heresy and a bad deed.
@@Imperial_LegacyDoes not Rome also teach no salvation outside of the RC church?
@@mkshffr4936 No !
Becase catholic theology and practices are deeply incorporated the filique. The filique is wrong then theology and practices are wrong either.
@@mkshffr4936 The Catholic Church believes it holds the fullness of truth and is the ordinary means of salvation. However, it also teaches that God, in His mercy, can save those outside the Church, including Orthodox and Protestant Christians, who sincerely seek Him and strive to live according to His will, recognizing His freedom to dispense grace as He wills.
Fili-OH-*kway*
is the pronunciation, fyi.
This short video shows just how divided the church was over theological issues. Unfortunately, by insisting on anachronistic understanding of orthodoxy, it gives a false impression .
It just took a few centuries for everyone to listen to one another
The ex-communication happened because the Bishop of Constantinople wanted the seat of primacy to move to Constantinople, because the capital of the Roman Empire had moved to Constantinople. When that was refused, the argument became that all bishops were equal and none were first among equals. The danger to this is a disintegration of the unity of the church and individual bishops reigning over separate churches. This makes them more vulnerable to nationalization or forming loyalty to secular nations, which ironically was why the west didn’t want to move the chair of Peter to Constantinople. The movement of national capitals or other secular developments should not influence the church.
Correction there was no Spain on those days.. details matter..😊
But congratulations Nice video
Spain (España) comes from Hispania, the name used by the Romans for the Iberian Peninsula and its provinces during the Roman Empire
To answer the question which forms the title of this video: ---> To fix the bad and incomplete statement made by the "Eastern Orthodox" churches which obviously had not purged the Arianism from their members/clergy.
Many E.O. people are very weak on scripture knowledge and comprehension, preferring instead to watch E.O. priests & bishops do their ceremonies and rituals and "traditions" instead of reading and studying the actual words of Holy Writ. The Filioque is correct.
BTW - I am NOT an R.C. member, but it seems to me that the R.C. theologians actually read John chapters 14 and 15 but the E.O. guys did not. I hope that everyone reading the comments and that watched the video will sit down right now and read the Gospel of John chapter 14 and chapter 15 and see what scripture says instead of believing the mystical guys of the E.O. group.
The R.C. and the Protestants are much more Trinitarian than the E.O. churches. I am sure that many E.O. priests & bishops are still Arians - not really believing that Jesus Christ is fully God and man. They have not read and believed John chapter 14. Turn to Johnn chapter 15 and read verse 26! The Lord Jesus Christ plainly says that HE will send "The Comforter" ((that is The Holy Spirit -not a heavy fluffy blanket)) to the believers. He was speaking to his Disciples just before he was arrested.
P.S. --> If you do not have a Holy Bible to read then you can read it for free at www dot justbible dot com God-breathed scripture is always better than human guesses.
In John 15:26 is clearly stated that Spirit is proceeding only from Father. Chist just sending Him. If you think that Spirit procceds also from Son, why dont you think that Son borning from Spirit on the par with the Father?
@@miuitest5272 ?!? It seems English is not your first language. Not just "spirit" Greek word: "pneuma" but to be exact The Holy Spirit. A PERSON, not a feeling.
Turn to Genesis chapter 1 and read verse 26 and 27! "Let us make man in our image". Do you believe in the Triune God consisting of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit? Or --- do you demote The Son from a position of Deity and make him a child of a bigger "god" as the L.D.S. ("Mormons") do?
The Lord Jesus before he was crucified told his Disciples that the Comforter would come to be with them after he (Jesus Christ) was gone. How did Jesus know that? I suggest that you and any other Eastern Orthodox person on You Tube sits down and reads John chapter 17 to get a better understanding of "The Father" and "The Son".
In the 1980's I worked at a grocery company in California, U.S.A. and there were 4 Greek men on the crew. I had discussions with them (I sometimes would read my Bible on lunch break) and none of the 4 Greeks knew / thought that Jesus was "God in human flesh".
I told the then Crew Foreman to read John chapter 1 in his Greek New Testament,,,,, he and the other 3 Greeks never asked me any more questions or challenged me. Obviously, their Greek Orthodox Priests were NOT teaching the whole truth about the deity of Jesus Christ.
No more than 8 angels can dance on the head of a pin!!! I'll die on this hill!😂
The RCC branch of the Orthodox Church made it’s error when it aligned itself with an emperor. Like the Israelite nation, it wanted a king. This led to a serious transformation in the manner bishops were selected and even how the Pope was selected. Not all of these selections were bad, but it nevertheless changed the operation of a universal church where Councils were the seats of major theological decisions, to a church where the center (Pope and cardinals) were the domineering powers. This is what lead to the schism of 1054. The Filioque was the pawn used. We should restart at the last Council held before the schism.
It was rather the emperors who wanted to be part of the Church (I mean Constantine and after him).
@ I was talking of Charlemagne. I agree that Constantine did significant changes as well.
@@dllion3196
Well, Charlemagne was a much, much later addition. The Roman empire lost Italy in VIII century but old Byzantime model was well established there.
@ He was, but the RCC wanted to have an alliance with a king or emperor. I believe, I may be wrong, but the RCC church was based in France at the time. It was not always in Italy.
Should it be Orthodox churches - Orthodoxy is divided among Greek, Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Ukrainian, etc.
In short, because it is Biblical, which makes the RCC the first protestant church who understood that the Bible always supercedes tradition as doctrinal authority, regardless of how early that tradition might have originated. Why? Because the New Testament predates all traditions and are the words of the apostles themselves.
Not true, All of the New Testament was not written by Aposiles , New Testament comes from the Traditions of the Church started by Christ about 380 and. The Church started by Christ was commonly known as the Universal (Catholic Church by 125ad. Letters of Antioch.
Protestantism is basically a claim by certain theologians to have authority superior to that of the supreme pontiff. But by implication it almost elevated certain aspects of the theology of St, Augustine to the level of divine revelation. Luther and Calvin but especially Calvin followed this line of thinking, In the French Church the Jansenists ha a similar attitude as against the thinking of the Jesuits. This schism in the French Church was one of the causes of the divisions among the clergy when the Revolution came.
@TomButler-g9z Wow. What a shockingly ignorant statement. All of the New testament was completed by 100AD, and apart from a few outliers, most of it was universally recognised as scripture by then, _because_ of its apostolic origin. Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew. Mark was the scribe of Peter according to the writtings of the Church Fathers. Luke was a second and first hand witness and a companion of Paul. Most of the epistles were written by Paul. James was the brother of Christ, then Peter wrote two epistles, John wrote a gospel, 3 epistles and revelation. The earliest church fathers, all the way back to 1 Clement, often quoted from these scripture to motivate and authorise the arguments they made. The fact that a council 380 years later reaffirmed the contents of the New Testament is not evidence that that is when they made up the New Testament. Evidence that the New Testament was regarded as scripture can be seen in most, if not all of the writtings of the early church fathers. But its not just the church fathers, but also the scriptures themselves. The early church verociously made copies of the New Testament texts, to the point that no other ancient document is more reliably transmitted to us than the new testament. To try and deny all of these wonderful facts in order to protect man made traditions, is to undermine the most important and reliable historical evidence for the truth of our faith.
@johnschuh8616 Nope. Completely wrong. Protestantism is the believe in Galathians 1: The idea that there is no authority in the church higher than _the scriptures,_ because that os the direct written deposit left to the church by the apostles themselves. Any preacher, bishop, cardinal or pope that preaches anything that contradict or go beyond what the scriptures teaches, in anathematised by Galathians 1. The Roman Church is doing exactly what the Pharisees did: nullifying the Word of God for the sake of their human traditions.
@johnschuh8616 Nope. Protestantism is the believe that Scripture - as the written deposit left to the church by the apostles - is the highest and only authority when it comes to doctrinal matters, and that _all_ theologians and traditions, including the pope, is subject and accountable to scripture. Paul says in Galathians 1 that anyone who teach a different gospel than the one the apostles taught is anathema. Therefore, no one has the right to teach any doctrine that goes beyond, or even contradicts, what scripture teaches.
3:26 No.
I have looked up the acts in Latin.
At the Third Council, the Nicene Creed was recited as an obvious preliminary, as already pre-existing, and it involved the Filioque.
At another lower key expression, the Creed against Priscillianists, one can say the Filioque was formally adopted, because the Council was adopting that specific Creed. And it was at the FIRST Council of Toledo.
You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts. What you say here is simply not true.
@@ablarod948 or Benedictus, I very much am entitled to objective facts, which I have to the best of my ability verified.
YOU are not entitled to YOUR own facts, and neither was Kallistos Ware.
As I recall the book, he never bothered to tell us in what canon of that council it is supposed to have formally ratified the addition.
I have looked up the acts, I think the site was "documentatio catholica" or some such thing, and I know Latin well enough to skim through the beginnings of the canons to see what they are about, even if it would fatigue me to read it through.
*There is no canon about adding the filioque. However, in the opening ceremony of a council, it is normal to recite the Nicene Creed, they did, and it was WITH the filioque.*
I also happen to know that the FIRST Council of Toledo made a polemic creed against Priscillianism. It is very possible that they would have condemned Palamas as Priscillianist, because of "uncreated energies".
Praeter hanc nullam credimus divinam esse naturam, vel angeli vel spiritus, _vel virtutis alicuius_ quae Deus esse credatur.
y fuera de Ella no creemos en la divinidad de ninguna otra naturaleza, ni del ángel, ni del espíritu, _ni de ningún poder_ que se crea ser Dios.
I translated:
Beyond this we believe no nature to be divine, whether angels whether spirits, _whether of some virtue_ that would be believed to be God.
Virtus could be the correct Latin for energeia.
Now, before this we had the explanation of the Trinity, and the passage on the Holy Spirit goes as follows:
Spiritum quoque Paraclitum esse, qui nec Pater sit ipse nec Filius, sed a Patre Filioque procedens.
que el Espíritu es el Paráclito, el cual ni es el Padre ni es el Hijo, sino que procede del Padre y del Hijo
I translated:
There is also the Holy Ghost, who himself is neither Father nor Son, but proceeding from the Father and the Son.
The site where I found the acts of the First Council of Toledo (well before the Visigoths) is "filosofia [dot] org" and you extend it with "/cod/c0397t01.htm"
I don't know whether Kallistos Ware had read an extract on this decision, but mistaken it for the third, and a decision, at the first, it was, formally indeed taken under the heading:
Incipiunt regulae fidei catholicae contra omnes haereses et quam maxime contra Priscillianos, quam episcopi Terraconenses, Kartaginenses, Lusitani et Baetici fecerunt, et cum praecepto papae urbis Leonis ad Balconium episcopum Galliciae transmiserunt. Ipsi etiam et supra scribta viginti canonum capitula statuerunt in concilio Toletano
Comienzan los artículos de la fe católica contra todas las herejías, y sobre todo contra los Priscilianos, que fueron redactados por los obispos Cartaginenses, Tarraconenses, Lusitanos y Béticos, y enviados con el precepto del papa romano León, a Balconio obispo de Galicia. Son también los mismos que redactaron los veinte cánones anteriores en el concilio Toledano
I translated it as:
Begin the rules of the catholic faith against all heresies and especially against Priscillianism that the bishops of [the Hispanies] Tarraconense, Cartaginense, Baetica and Lusitania made and sent, by order of the Pope of the City Leo to bishop Balconius of Galicia.
You can argue, if you want, that Filioque was added inadvertently to the Nicene Creed from the Toledan Rules of the Catholic Faith. Or you can argue that the Filioque was taken away in the Greek by the time of the Fourth Council, but preserved in Spain. You cannot argue that Toledo III took a formal decision to add it, since that is just not true.
The "-que" gets its own syllable, pronounced "kway".
😁👋🏻👍
John 20
21Then Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you! [John 14:27] As the Father has sent me, I also send you.”
22When he had said this, he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
The point is that men decided who God and Christ are. They read what was written many years earlier and applying their authority, they decided who God was and what his plan was. God appoints, man applies. Man does not appoint, man declares what God has done.
Thank you. The Nicene Creed troubles me. This is an amazing insight into its depths. How desperately people fight over dogma. It is like fighting over poetry. What does it mean to sit at the right hand? It is fantasy.
@@iuutoob you’re welcome! God bless you 🙏🏻
Yeah, yeah. If its all about the nature of God why do the motives always
come back to "whose authority" and the "state". AFAIK God does not need a bunch of Humans to clarify who He is and what He is about.
These folks really needed to either get married or find a hobby. Waaay too much time on their hands. 😅😅😅
Whoa! I believe it's pronounced "fi-lio-kway" (the "que" is pronounced).
Sounds like a delicious meal
Very superficial treatment.
"It's all just a big misunderstanding, language, politics, etc. You say 'tomayto,' we say 'tomahto.' What difference does it make, can't we just get along?"
This is called indifferentism. Neither Orthodox nor Roman Catholics over the past 1,000 years were idiots. The Filioque is a genuine, profound, fundamental question of Trinitarian dogma.
For the Orthodox, it is a heretical innovation. If Roman Catholics, however well-meaning, don't understand that, they understand nothing about us. We will not sacrifice truth for unity.
What bothers me the most about the Filioque in the Nicene Creed is that it seems to contradict the Apostles' Creed.
The Nicene Creed states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father and the son.
The Apostles' Creed states that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
If the Holy Spirit proceeds from Jesus, then Jesus must exist first. If that is the case, then how could Jesus have been conceived by the Holy Spirit?
Conception of Jesus *_as a human_* (i.e. his human body) is not the same as proceeding of one of God's Persons from other of God's Persons. The first is temporal (i.e. involves a sequence in time), the second is not (i.e. it is not “who was first”, it is not a sequence in time). Do not confuse different planes of existence.
As Jesus is fully God, he has always existed. The same is true of the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Apostles Creed is referring to the incarnation of Jesus as a Human in the womb.
2:37: _"to combat this error"_ neutral narrative? Don't think so.
Yes the entire creed stuff was created in order to step up conflicts within Christianity.
The Father and the Son love each other. They love each other with one love, the Holy Spirit of love.
The love of the Father for the Son is the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father. Because the Father and the Son love each other with one love, so also the love of the Son for the Father is the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son.
If the Father and the Son did not love each other with one love, then the love proceeding from the Son would be a different love than that proceeding from the Father.
And this can not be. For the love proceeding from the Father is a Divine Person, the Holy Spirit. Since the Son is the perfect image of the Father (indeed of one substance with the Father), the love proceeding from the Son must also be a Divine Person. And since there are not four divine persons, but rather Three, the love proceeding from the Son must be the same Divine Person (the same Holy Spirit) proceeding from the Father.
Father and the Son are spirit either. Because it said that the God is a Spirit. Holy Spirit is not and action (energy) of God such as love. He also poses love, because he is a Person ontologically as the Son or Father.
The "TRINITY'", the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, God exalt Himself.
Like a person, a body, a soul and a spirit, so a person cannot live without the other.
That’s modalism Patrick
For those that don't beleive in the trinity of God, but in their wordly agenda, then, maybe they should take out, Joel 2:28-32, and Acts 2:15-21! How about tossing out the whole bible while they're at it, since it's Gods Spirit that created and inspired all things in the name of the, "FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT?" AMEN!!!!!!
People weak of Him memorize creeds😮
All these rules and laws and creeds through the many different religions and they still Don't get it ? Sad funny people. 🌍🙏🌎
POPE FRANCISCUS TOLD THAT THE QUESTION OF THE FILIOQUE IS ENDED......
Then remove it from the creed
It ain't "fi-lee-oke", it's "fi-lee-o-quay". It means "and the son". Fix your auto-narrator script.
Don't matter, just get rid of the whole word, it's useless anyway
Was the Philly oak a tree. Must have phd
Pronounced "filly-oh-quay," not "filly - oke."
Fi-lee-o-kwee not fi lee oak
A LOT OF THINGS WERE ADED
You mean “false Christian history “. Revelation 17:4-6
Interesting how man has decided who and what God is. God and Christ are two separate, sacred individuals who have the same goals and work together as one. Before the beginning there was only God. In the beginning he created his son as I created my son. We are different but we work together. God reveals his truth, man can follow him but not determine who or what he is. Christ spoke both to and about his father. God said, "This is my beloved son, hear him". The two of them are a team, a partnership with a single goal. Man created the amorphous blob and called it God.
The Filioque is related to the men who created the new religion and because they were formally pagan mythologists they broke away from the Jewish understanding of God and introduced their mythology. The Father comes down and impregnates a virgin and the son grows and goes up on the mountain to rule with his father.
God Farher and Christ are not separate. They just different Persons of one Entity. What are separated in God is His cognition. To allow Persons be Persons.
@@miuitest5272 From a Jewish prispective that is a very pagan mythological convcept and it only shows that your god is defintly not the God of Israel but a god like all the other forrian gods. Just like Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and all the others I respect your right to believe as you wish.
PFM
Que is the Latin for "and", and is not French
I think that ‘et’ is the Latin word for ‘and’. I think that ‘que’ means ‘that’.
@@dknapp64. If I remember my school Latin correctly, que added as a suffix to a noun means “and.” As in, “and the Son.”
For goodness' sake pronounce "filioque" consistently properly - four syllables - if you want your piece to be taken seriously!!
Sadly, it is a man made concept that CAUSED the most unwanted thing in the gospel = DIVISION through CONFUSION. Is any Christian denomination in a better place now that such concept was made by teologians trying to make a science of God??!? Man interefering in God's business because they had, or still have "doctrinal opinions"?!?!?
Anyway, 1 day all this issue will be clarified. Meanwhile, just CHOOSE to BE A LOVING/CARING human being as JesusCHRIST thaught us!!
The Filioque is related to the men who created the new religion and because they were formally pagan mythologists they broke away from the Jewish understanding of God and introduced their mythology. The Father comes down and impregnates a virgin and the son grows and goes up on the mountain to rule with his father.
why did Constantine call this council ? read edward gibbon. the two factions in the " church " at that time were literally at each other's throats. for the emperor it was a matter of obtaining some PEACE in the empire. so this council met and tried to hammer out a compromise. it really didn't solve anything. how could it . there hadn't been any APOSTLES in the church since JOHN died on Patmos. so there was no REVELATION from GOD telling an APOSTLE what to do. SO , this , and any other COUNCIL was just a bunch of squabbling bishops , all equal in their own eyes , WITHOUT APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY , declaring a bunch of MAN- MADE doctrine , the half of which makes no sense. greek philosophy had already entered the church decades previously , so all this council did was stir up a mess. and any writings of the early church fathers which could shed light on the subject were thrown in the trash by one of the popes. all you have left to do is wait for the " restitution of all things " , as spoken by peter in acts.
The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, and the bishops all had apostolic authority bestowed upon them when they were consecrated. Thank you friend!
The Filioque is related to the men who created the new religion and because they were formally pagan mythologists they broke away from the Jewish understanding of God and introduced their mythology. The Father comes down and impregnates a virgin and the son grows and goes up on the mountain to rule with his father.
For Glory! WAR !!
The orthodox are totally wrong to deny the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son.
Orthodox is a fancy name for protestant, especially in amedica 💫
Would you please clarify? Orthodox and Protestant mean very different things to me, and I’m not sure where amedica is.
@happilyreformed , pride.
Orthodox chuches were from beginning. The are unite the one Creed. Is catholics who chaged the creed and sent the anathema.
@miuitest5272 , nothing is changed, just better description. Orthodox used to support the Papacy and have Saints, ftw.
@@E-pistol no, its literally an alteration. Filioque describes different ontology of the Holy Trinity. Holy Fathers never believed in such Trinity. Only Augustine had some reflections on it.
All because of the lunacy of insisting that their particularly religious leader was the 'son' of their god, a preposterous idea, rightly scoffed at in other religions. But where there's a will... Along with this they have to claim that the virgin birth of Jesus is unique when it blatantly is not ie virgin births were retrofitted to all mythological heroes of any significance, and to revered kings, philosophers, city founders, etc. It makes a mockery of any semblance of dignity and honesty, that endless skullduggery and apologeti crap, were indulged in, due to the desperate clamour for something to make Christianity stand out as unique. You can't always have what you want. In the intervening 2,000 years, the true scale of time and distance in the universe has become apparent, and the utterly preposterous nature not just of Jesus as the son of a deity, but of the deity itself, have become apparent. A deity that presided over a small flat terrain within the Fertile Crescent, whose inhabitants travelled by manly footwear (leather sandals or bare feet) only short distances and had no conception of the geography of the globe such as the existence of the Americas and Australasia and Siberia etc. Now that god presides over trillions of galaxies, and ridiculously has only one place where life matters to him, having a curious interest in squabbling bipeds and what they do with their genitals or their hooved animals or their mismatching clothing fabrics, and not even having the wit to bestow on them a germ theory or a bit of physics or cosmology. What an utter joke.
Scripture gives clues to the filioque
John 4 verse 14
but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst, the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.
John 7
He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.’ ” 39 Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive, for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.
Rev 22 verse 1
Then he showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the lamb
Simple men made a error then went back to fix it
christ was created Sirach 24:1-9
No He wasn’t: John 1:1.