The Filioque CONTROVERSY: Is it Really Such a Big Deal? w/ Jimmy Akin
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- This clip was taken from a recent livestream with Jimmy Akin. Watch the full interview here: • 10,000 Objections to C...
In this clip, Jimmy unpacks the "Filioque Controversy." What is it? Why does it matter? Should it matter? Find out!
===
📚 My new book: www.amazon.com...
🔴 FREE E-book "You Can Understand Aquinas": pintswithaquin....
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.app/matt...
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
Techless: techless.com/?...
🔴 GIVING
Patreon or Directly: pintswithaquin...
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 co-producer of the show.
🔴 LINKS
Website: pintswithaquin...
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd
Rumble: rumble.com/c/p...
![ลองสั่งของจากแอพ temu ถูกจริงหรอ?? ( part : 1/2 ) [โกงไหมครับ ep.89 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RTcZSQTiDZw/mqdefault.jpg)
![โรงเรียนตอนตี 2 โคตรหลอน..!! [โรงเรียนไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2MAEMwqVYh8/mqdefault.jpg)
As an Orthodox, that’s the best answer I’ve heard from a Catholic brother. Thank you!
Fellow Orthodox Christian here. I concur.
As an Eastern Catholic, I have a deep love for Orthodox Christians and long for the day when all barriers between us are torn down. The mutual ex-communications were already removed so we have no excuse not to love one another as the Lord taught us.
@Dustin Neely okay. Many prayers for you anyway 🙏🏻
@Dustin Neely please elaborate
@@athanasiusofalexandria4304 well, if all we say is that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, why can’t we also say the Son is begotten through the Spirit?
Per the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation, "We offer these recommendations to our Churches in the conviction, based on our own intense study and discussion, that our traditions’ different ways of understanding the procession of the Holy Spirit need no longer divide us."
From an outsiders perspective (neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox), it kinda just seems like semantics to me. Especially since you practically need a theology degree to truly sort through the differences.
semantic in this day and age with thousands of different denominations? Sure. Semantics back then? Definitely not.
@@zeropride1133 I agree. It's always a bigger issue for those involved directly at the time. C.S. Lewis has a great quote about our ability to see through those types of disagreements from the benefit of looking back on it from the outside.
"We are all rightly distressed, and ashamed also, at the divisions of Christendom. But those who have always lived within the Christian fold may be too easily dispirited by them. They are bad, but such people do not know what it looks like from without. Seen from there, what is left intact despite all the divisions, still appears (as it truly is) an immensely formidable unity. I know, for I saw it; and well our enemies know it. That unity any of us can find by going out of his own age."
(From "On the Reading of Old Books"
th-cam.com/video/tRa4MhjDjF0/w-d-xo.html
This is just the opinion of one regional commission, and it certainly does not express the most common viewpoint of Orthodox Christians.
Yes and no. The ideas are difficult but not incomprehensible. We need to start with Jesus, as all the big problems of heresy in the early Church had to do with the person of Jesus, unsurprisingly, as He was a very big deal. Was he God? Was He man? Was He both? How? Other questions arose as well. The question of the Spirit was left aside to a large extent, at least in my mind.
So, if Jesus is both God and man, perfectly God, and perfectly man, we have to say some paradoxical things about him. The doctrine which won out was called "the hypostatic union:" Jesus was fully God, fully man, of two natures in one person, united but without confusion. Here confusion means blending, cross over, mingling, that kind of thing. His God nature wasn't blended with his human nature, but both existed in the same man, the same person, the same being.
Ok, so God the Father is God, and therefore He has a God nature. He doesn't have a human nature, but a human IMAGE, as man is created in God's image (or likeness), but "God is not a man that He should lie." Nowhere is God called man in the Old Testament, though we have many hints at the manhood of the Messiah. These things are not easy, admittedly, and it would take weeks to go over all the pertinent verses.
The Spirit is God, and the Spirit has a God nature too. Moreover the Spirit is clearly spirit. Jesus is NOT spirit, as he says, "A spirit has not flesh and bone as I have." But Jesus HAS a spirit, and we speak of "the Spirit of Christ," and speak so without any danger whatsoever of heresy or even controversy.
God the Father is also said to be spirit, or one could at least make the case. It is not perfectly clear in my mind. The most pertinent verse is: "God is spirit and they who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." This text would have to be looked at in detail in the full context of John's dialogue. We do have the clue: "The Father seeks such to worship Him...." readily at hand. This is a strong hit AGAiNST the Filioque. Kind of a "you sunk my battleship" hit. But again, don't quote me.
So, Jesus is both man, God and he has a Spirit, which we can even call Christ and even "Lord," for "the Lord is the spirit." This is where Augustine would likely have defended himself, if he were smart. He was smart, but he never defended the Filioque. If you know differently, please give me the reference.
I hope I've said everything clearly. Is Jesus pre-existent as a Spirit such that he could eternally give out the Spirit along with the Father? Because that is essentially the Filioque as a picture.
Note also, we could have left the Creed as is, because what comes from the Father never excludes the Son, and all work together. We could have stated, the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Godhead. We could have added a disclaimer, this is a profound mystery and we proclaim it thus AT THIS TIME.
Think and pray on these things. This doctrine ultimately contributed to the breakup of East and West.
Conversations about the Filioque are too often stripped of the proper nuance. What is never addressed by the West when discussing this issue is that in Greek theology there are three modes of procession: hypostatic, energetic, and economic. Hypostatic procession pertains to the eternal origin or causality of the Holy Spirit, which is of the Father alone. Energetic procession is the eternal manifestation of the Holy Spirit by the Son (see St. Augustine's "mutual sending of loves" pneumatology). Economic procession is the temporal sending of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son or from the Father through the Son. John 15:26 perfectly encapsulates all of this. The Filioque itself is referring to the hypostatic origin of the Holy Spirit, as the line "begotten of the Father before all ages" in the second article is referring to the hypostatic origin of the Son. "Proceeds" isn't the same catch-all term in Greek theology as it has been in the West.
you know theologians are free to talk about this ad nauseum while beating a dead horse with a free hand. its been a very long time nothing needs to be addressed at this point.
I think your the first Orthodox I’ve met who’s been able to explain orthodoxy without obfuscation.
YES. Thank you!
@Steve Jail I don’t look, I’m Catholic, I’m not scouring Orthodox Online chats lol. Please go outside and touch grass.
The procession is hypostatic from the father. Not energetic. Filioque is imminent trinity.
Many Orthodox act as if saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father means it necessarily can't proceed from the Son. The Filioque was added to the creed to combat Arianism, though some Orthobros assert it was actually inserted insidiously by Arians, though it had been taught long before then in the West without protestation and declarations of it as heretical from the East which is rather curious. There are also semantic differences in the Greek where some of the Eastern Fathers accepted some word that could mean proceeds in regard to the Son but in a different manner than from the Father.
But if in fact the Filioque is added to combat Arianism, why can’t we also say the Son is begotten of the Father and the Holy Spirit to combat Macedonianism?
1 Corinthians 3:4
Filoque was added by small-brained heretics.
Merely saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father doesn't necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit can't proceed from the Son. Rather, it is the doctrine of the monarchy of the Father which necessarily means the hypostasis of the Father specifically and alone is the _arche_ of the Holy Spirit.
@@minasoliman Because, in the region where it was added, the majority of the people spoke Latin. Macedonianism, however, was a Greek heresy.
Surprise, surprise, words can mean different things in different languages.
Asking where the Holy Spirit proceeds from is like asking where an infinite loop starts from.
Nobody is asking _where_ the Holy Spirit proceeds from. The question is rather from _whom_ the Holy Spirit proceeds.
@@thomasburke9060 Exactly. Really clumsy theology going on here.
@@thomasburke9060 where and whom are the same thing
@Aksm91ManNavar They are completely different
@@thecrow4597 No, where is from God, whom is also from God so yeah
I'm an Eastern orthodox Christian and I really love your channel I've been watching it alot recently. I hope you keep making great content
In Orthodoxy, it is clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father from John 15:26: “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.”
In the internal life of the Holy Trinity, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, while the Son is eternally generated from Him. But externally, the Holy Spirit is sent to us through the Son.
i read a comment saying through the son is heresy, idk if its true
Galatians 4:6 in the Bible says, "Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father”"
It is definitely not an issue of semantics. If anyone is interested on why the filioque is considered heretical in the Orthodox Church, read “The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit” by Saint Photius. In a nutshell, the Greeks considered the Father to be the monoarchae (sole principle or fountain) of the Godhead. This just means the Father is the uncaused cause of the Godhead. This is why we could say we believe in one God, the Father, which we even affirm in the Creed. It is the hypostatic property of the Father to beget the Son, and spirate the Spirit. This is why we would say we are monotheists (although in the first centuries of the Church, the term Monoarchae was used instead of monotheism). If the Father could share his hypostatic property with the Son of causing hypostatic origins for persons, we would now compromise the Godhead by introducing two principles (two archaes) in the Godhead, thus having two Gods. Additionally, this would entail that more Persons should exist since the hypostatic property of causing another persons’ hypostatic origin can be shared, thus leading to more persons than just Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Additionally, Holy Scripture informs us that that the Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). I hope this helps in furthering the understanding of why this seemingly little clause has such importance for the Orthodox.
You realize he went back into communion with Rome knowingly. Right?
@@TheChunkyCrusader Correct me if I’m wrong, but did St Photius not go back into communion with Rome because at the 8th Ecumenical Council, the filioque was condemned as heresy and Pope John VIII accepted the council? This same council also abrogated the acts of the Robber Council of 869-870, which had deposed Saint Photius.
@@epicfailure7980 what you just said would actually prove my point there. Photius would therefore be back in communion.
@@TheChunkyCrusader I’m not understanding what is the problem with St Photius being in communion with Rome if he successfully was able to get Rome to condemn the filioque. That would just prove that Rome has changed its position on the matter.
Epic failure- I’d like to discuss this in more detail would you be open to that? I’m a newly saved baptist but I’d like to understand the orthodox position in more fullness. Would you be open to discussing this with me at discord in private? Or something like that?
When the filioque clause was added, the Roman Church was dealing with Aryanism.
Arianism; Aryans were the race which the Germans claimed descendance from during the Third Reich.
@@TS47YT ye that was what I was thinking too lol
So what? That explains the motive, but it's not sufficient to justify the revision.
@@thomasburke9060There’s a great comment in one of the reply sections talking about proceed meaning something different in Greek than in Latin that caused problems. In Latin it was needed to clarify the relationship but in Greek it made it seem like the spirit had two origins and they never needed it clarified.
@@Koyomix86 exactly, the Latin does not deny that the Father is the source of the Godhead
From St. Maximus the Confessor's Letter to Marinus:
“With regard to the first matter, they [the Romans] have produced the unanimous documentary evidence of the Latin fathers, and also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred commentary he composed on the gospel of St. John. On the basis of these texts, they have shown that they have not made the Son the cause (aitian) of the Spirit - they know in fact that the Father is the only cause (aitian) of the Son and the Spirit, the one by begetting and the other by procession (ekporeusin); but [they use this expression] in order to manifest the Spirit’s coming-forth (proienai) through him and, in this way, to make clear the unity and identity of the essence (ousias) [...] One should keep in mind that they cannot express their meaning in a language and idiom that are foreign to them as precisely as they can in their own mother-tongue, any more than we can do.”
Yes, St Maximus’ letter was offered by the Greeks at Florence as a means of reunion but the Latins rejected it because St Maximus says the Father alone is the case.
Florence unfortunately did make the Son aitia, explicitly.
St. Maximus the Confessor
“By nature the Holy Spirit in his being takes substantially his origin from the Father through the Son who is begotten (Questions to Thalassium 63 [A.D. 254]).
@@richlopez5896 How is there a document from Saint Maximus from the 3rd century?
As a Catholic, I want to investigate this a bit, because I can see both arguments. Also, as someone who, admittedly, hasn’t studied much of the history, it sounds like it is fair to say that if the church had included the Easter churches in the discussion there wouldn’t be animosity between the two today. We can argue that there are past wrongs, but does that mean we cannot work together now to solve this and come together as one? We as people are not the same as the people who once were. I wish, truly, that we could discuss and discover doctrine together as one CATHOLIC (universal) church. To be quite honest, we need to help each other out, as we need to combat modernism and work to convert Protestants. Feel free to correct me or give critiques if I have gotten stuff wrong!
Tbh, Photius helped created this schism to stay in position and power. In removing St Ignatius then later being removed by Basil after the killing of Bardas and Michael, he needed to rally Constantinople to support him. He need points to which they would be on his side with crafty words.
As an Eastern Catholic I assure you we accept Filioque and it’s is in our creed . Eastern Catholics are aligned with the West so this isn’t a west vs east debate!
Through the Son is basically what the Orthodox mean. The word " and " is confusing for the EO because it implies that there are two principles. But " through " it's much more clear. The Filioque and the Immaculate conception shouldn't be dividing issues for the two churches.
Wording is result of the lie beneath, that is, belief that Son is the causation of the Spirit. Such belief is heretical, unscriptural and has never been taught in the Lord's Orthodox Church. It leads to consequential subordination of the Spirit, distorts balance of equality in the Godhead and is plainly - work of the devil. Since Lord's Bride ought to remain "holy and without blemish", to unite EOC with the heretical Latins is impossible. Your proposal is rubbish.
@@johnnyd2383 Words full of "love".
@@daglasan4285 Truth may be hurting you but is liberating. Medicine pills are always bitter in taste but cure. What did you expect me to do.? To scratch your itching ears and tell you "stay in your heresies, you will be fine".? Nuh... Christian love is precisely the opposite - to warn person in err to repent and get back to the narrow path of salvation.
@@johnnyd2383 You have called me heretic without even knowing what i am and you called my words " rubbish " because i dared to say something different from what you believe. I was expecting the copy paste " bitter pill - truth " answer that all the " Keepers and Warriors of the True Faith " are repeating all the time. Nothing new here. I will still continue to pray that one day the schism will be healed. Meanwhile if you want to be harsh and judge everyone the way you do you are free to do to that. Your words and actions will either justify you or condemn you. I hope that one day we will see each other in the Heavenly Jerusalem. God bless
When orthodox argue like protestants. Perfect example.
Revelation 22:1 And he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, PROCEEDING from the throne of God and of the Lamb. seems clear but I don't think it should be a dividing factor
What mode of procession is this referential to?
Evan, maybe you're only coming across as impatient.
@@evaneparat ἐκπορευόμενον - the exact same word used in the Nicene creed. Concerning the modes of procession, one orthodox once told me that if the councils fathers used different words of 'generation' for the Son and 'procession' for the Spirit, it means there is a difference, and the fathers knew what the difference was. Actually, it could be true, or not true, they could also have known there existed a difference, but not know exactly what it consists in, so they were wise enough to simply use the same words as found in Holy Scripture.
That's talking about the UNCREATED grace that comes from the holy spirit not the holy spirit himself, filioque is not taught by that verse, Catholics have lost the doctrine of uncreated grace, so this is why u think that verse means the heresy of filioquism
Breath and Word proceed from the speaker together though. The Logos can't precede the Spirit. And in Genesis the Spirit was hovering over the face of the deep when the Father spoke the Word.
Using Jimmy's argument, one could also say that the Son proceeds from the Father through the Spirit because Mary conceived the Son through the Holy Spirit.
agreeable
Isn't the Holy Trinity, One God a mystery? Humans need to not dwell on such discrepancies. Have the Faith of a little child.
Ding ding
This was revealed to us in Scripture. It's divine revelation.
Scripture reveals that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The external relationships of the persons of the Trinity mirror their internal relationships. Just as the Father externally sent the Son into the world in time, the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity. Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20).
The quotations below show that the early Church Fathers, both Latin and Greek, recognized the same thing, saying that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son” or “from the Father through the Son.”
These expressions mean the same thing because everything the Son has is from the Father. The proceeding of the Spirit from the Son is something the Son himself received from the Father. The procession of the Spirit is therefore ultimately rooted in the Father but goes through the Son.
@@richlopez5896 The procession of the Holy Spirit is not a property to be possessed. So "the Son has everything the Father has" does not justify saying that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son. Nor does "the Son is everything the Father is", because this saying can only refer to the two being consubstantial, whereas the procession of the Spirit from the Father is a matter of the Father's hypostatic peculiarity, rather than the common divine essence.
From a brother in Christ Catholic, may my Confirmation fire your hearts, the problem with so called "orthodoxy" is that those who proclaim to be orthodox break even further the orthodoxy of the Nicene Creed. The title of Katholikos, "universal" is a term older than orthodox in the use of the Church. "Orthodox" seems to corrupt the notion that the Church in Rome is not according to Orthodox teaching. It is a pseudo protestant way of denigrating the church. As if Catholics were against Orthodoxy against Tradition and tradition. True orthodox should point out the errors in the prelates of the Church. This is what happens: any theological term that we use is being manipulated to ambiguity due to pride on the "orthodox” Christians at one side. The Church is hierarchical and authoritative, our Orthodox brothers are beginning to see that over one simple term "Filioque" you justify not abiding to any authority. Furthermore, the good cardinal prelates try at every chance to CLARIFY Church teaching. Simple Yes or No. The good fruits of orthodoxy are to point out how the exterior matters and how certain customs are relevant, the bad fruits are the lack of communication with hierarchical structure of the Church, Bad fruits: disunion, many baptisms, no clear teaching, one marriage or contraception. In my experience, protestants who reject Scripture become orthodox and bring the same errors back into the good Orthodoxy breaking the structure even further. In other words, protestants should stop calling themselves as Christians and reject Luther once and for all. Many protestants fall into heresy because they lack authority of the Church. When it comes to authority, we must not forget the Apostolic Sucssesion of Saint Peter and Saint Paul of the Church in Rome. Coming from a Laight man who just respects the Bishops so much as successors of the apostles, the discussion of certain "aspects" of the Trinity are irrelevant right now. "The light can only shine through when the smoke of Satan is out of the temple of God". I Proclaim the wanting of Unity between Catholics and Orthodox. May the Church not become a democracy falling short to governments of the world. But just to lighten the mood, we need to remember that "causality" is a term in context of Time which God is not confined to. We can't say that Christ the Second person "Causes" the Spirit, we say proceed. We can say after Christ won against Death He sends the Spirit to the Apostles and to the Theotokos, and Gives the Holy Spirit to the Apostles to Forgive Sins in the Particular form way of the Sacrament Mystery of Penitence. We see clear evidence that the term is not wrong in our Catholic minds. We see many Particular Churches abiding to Rome's teaching when it's clear. But so many temples that once were homes of Saints in Orthodoxy are leaving room for great disunion. Let us Read the Nicene-Constantinople Creed for it's inerrant as to the Nature of the Trinity, putting all protestantisms at bay. We may use orthodoxy but not to protest. Church is not a democracy. My sincere hopes of Union. Let us focus on this Synod as an opportunity to pressure the prelates into Clarification. As a Brazilian I submit my hopes that may Fatima become true, and a great conversion of Sinners happens. But the pandemic has caused too much to the people of God and Pope Francis is not clarifying the anxieties of many members who want to follow Christ. Here in Brazil many churches were closed due to Covid and persists the notion that Science can bring all the answers as if Science didn't come from the Holy Spirit. Where is Holy Water in our Churches, the powerful sacramental. Where are the people of good praying for conversions instead for a War that does not concern Rome's protection, the Holy see, of error. The Pope is there to defend Rome from all Bad teaching. If we deny doctrine over Matrimony, then the devil wins the battle. We say explicitly that there are no blessings for same sex sins, we say no to sinful behavior. May the Pope worry more about sin than wars that will not end until men convert to the One true Faith. Let us fast on Fridays and Worship on Sundays as is the Church teaching on Spirituality most recognized even in the orthodox way. “May they be One as Me and the Father are One”. Sacred Scripture, Tradition, Magisterium. “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (rock), and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
De um irmão em Cristo Católico, que a minha Confirmação incendeie os vossos corações, o problema com a chamada “ortodoxia” é que aqueles que se proclamam ortodoxos quebram ainda mais a ortodoxia do Credo Niceno. O título de Katholikos, “universal”, é um termo mais antigo que o ortodoxo no uso da Igreja. “Ortodoxo” parece corromper a noção de que a Igreja em Roma não está de acordo com o ensinamento Ortodoxo. É uma forma pseudo protestante de denegrir a igreja. Como se os católicos fossem contra a Ortodoxia, contra a Tradição e a tradição. Os verdadeiros ortodoxos deveriam apontar os erros dos prelados da Igreja. Isto é o que acontece: qualquer termo teológico que usamos está sendo manipulado até a ambiguidade devido ao orgulho dos cristãos “ortodoxos” de um lado. A Igreja é hierárquica e autoritária, nossos irmãos ortodoxos estão começando a ver que com um simples termo “Filioque "você justifica não obedecer a nenhuma autoridade. Além disso, os bons cardeais prelados tentam em todas as oportunidades ESCLARECER o ensinamento da Igreja. Simples Sim ou Não. Os bons frutos da ortodoxia são apontar como o exterior importa e como certos costumes são relevantes, o Frutos ruins são a falta de comunicação com a estrutura hierárquica da Igreja, Frutos ruins: desunião, muitos batismos, nenhum ensino claro, um casamento ou contracepção. Na minha experiência, os protestantes que rejeitam as Escrituras tornam-se ortodoxos e trazem os mesmos erros de volta aos bons A Ortodoxia quebra ainda mais a estrutura. Por outras palavras, os protestantes deveriam parar de se autodenominar cristãos e rejeitar Lutero de uma vez por todas. Muitos protestantes caem na heresia porque lhes falta a autoridade da Igreja. No que diz respeito à autoridade, não devemos esquecer a sucessão apostólica de São Pedro e de São Paulo da Igreja em Roma. Vindo de um homem leigo que respeita tanto os Bispos como sucessores dos apóstolos, a discussão de certos “aspectos” da Trindade é irrelevante neste momento. “A luz só pode brilhar quando a fumaça de Satanás sai do templo de Deus”. Proclamo o desejo de unidade entre católicos e ortodoxos. Que a Igreja não se torne uma democracia aquém dos governos do mundo. Mas só para aliviar o clima, precisamos lembrar que “causalidade” é um termo no contexto do Tempo ao qual Deus não está confinado. Não podemos dizer que Cristo, a Segunda pessoa, “causa” o Espírito, dizemos prossiga. Podemos dizer que depois que Cristo venceu a Morte, Ele enviou o Espírito aos Apóstolos e à Theotokos, e deu o Espírito Santo aos Apóstolos para perdoar os pecados na forma particular do Mistério Sacramento da Penitência. Vemos evidências claras de que o termo não está errado nas nossas mentes católicas. Vemos muitas Igrejas Particulares aderindo ao ensinamento de Roma quando este é claro. Mas tantos templos que outrora foram lares de santos na Ortodoxia estão abrindo espaço para grande desunião. Leiamos o Credo Niceno-Constantinopla pois é inerrante quanto à Natureza da Trindade, colocando todos os protestantismos sob controle. Podemos usar a ortodoxia, mas não para protestar. A Igreja não é uma democracia. Minhas sinceras esperanças de União. Concentremo-nos neste Sínodo como uma oportunidade para pressionar os prelados ao Esclarecimento. Como brasileiro, apresento minhas esperanças de que Fátima se torne realidade e que aconteça uma grande conversão dos pecadores. Mas a pandemia causou demasiado ao povo de Deus e o Papa Francisco não esclarece as ansiedades de muitos membros que querem seguir a Cristo. Aqui no Brasil muitas igrejas foram fechadas por conta da Covid e persiste a noção de que a Ciência pode trazer todas as respostas como se a Ciência não viesse do Espírito Santo. Onde está a Água Benta em nossas Igrejas, o poderoso sacramental. Onde estão as pessoas de bem orando por conversões em vez de por uma Guerra que não diz respeito à proteção de Roma, da Santa Sé, do erro. O Papa está lá para defender Roma de todos os maus ensinamentos. Se negarmos a doutrina sobre o Matrimônio, então o diabo vence a batalha. Dizemos explicitamente que não há bênçãos para os pecados do mesmo sexo, dizemos não ao comportamento pecaminoso. Que o Papa se preocupe mais com o pecado do que com as guerras que não terminarão até que os homens se convertam à Única e Verdadeira Fé. Jejuemos às sextas-feiras e adoremos aos domingos, como é o ensinamento da Igreja sobre Espiritualidade mais reconhecido até mesmo na forma ortodoxa. “Que eles sejam Um como Eu e o Pai somos Um”. Tradição, Sagrada Escritura, Magistério. “Abençoado és tu Simão, filho de Jonas, pois nem o Corpo nem o Sangue te Revelaram isso mas meu Pai que está no Céu. Pois eu digo que tu és Pedra (Cephas) e sobre essa Cephas edificarei a minha Igreja e os portões do inferno não prevalecerão contra ela.
Correct
There was a progression in the addition from the Gallican Sacramentary to its wider adoption by Rome and then across its episcopates and mission lands. However, once these are confirmed by Council it should be free to use either form as long as the theology is defensible and apostolic. After all the Catholic Church does still use the Creed of the church of Rome ie. the ‘Apostles’ Creed’. So while Orthodoxy claims ‘one creed’ today its priests and theologians argue its theology variously without threat of heresy, Fr Trenham’s video being just one contemporary example of error not being censured by his own bishop. 😂
It's censured by the Church. So he doesn't need an extra validation. Remember that "the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth"? Not 1 bishop, but all the bishops and people in Christ. That's why.
Thank you.
Do you trust an entire Church council or one man hundreds of years after the Creed was established?
This is a silly question, as the Pope did not contradict he council, but added to it. Christians believed more than what was professed in the Council from the very beginning so there is no strict problem in adding, only in subtracting.
@robertdolcetti450 I find ir odd that the easterners rebelled againsh the council and Constantinople fell on the day of pentecost. Again the schismatics on the east never accepted the filioque even in Constantinople.
Deu 4:2 & Rev 22:18-19 says do not addd or take away from the book. The texts
warn us adding or taking have serious consequences of punishment or even the
names will be taken out of the book of life. God is very precise in what he wants
to say especially the nature of deity.
Fr Mark Goring has a new video on his channel today, 02-01-22, Bread Of Life During A Pandemic.
Is this an issue of salvation?
It is. Every heresy, like Filioque, is a lie and negation of the God who is the Truth. Two masters can not be served and thus every heresy separates one from God.
Best And 100% Correct way to describe the “Filioque” - An Unnecessary addition made by papists and catholics that was never recorded in the Scriptures nor the early Church, but instead added as a way to try to change the Orthodox faith and break its tradition.
David Erhan makes very good videos diving deeper into this subject, and completely disproves the “Filioque” and all its logical fallacies.
I wonder if Photius during this time still admired St Ignatius or continued to give communion to Bardas and Michael if they were not killed by Basil the Macedonian. Photius was good with words. It's funny how humans think that their words meanings or concepts can comprehend God. I'm sure Photius knew if he had enough points that he could get many on his side and continue his ambiguous egotistical power trip and positions by keeping St Ignatius away. All that is the father's is the sons including the glory forever and ever. What the father gives the son can give. We can trust that the creator can change universal constants on a subatomic microcosm and galactic macrocosm including what we can see and not see in this or other dimensions. The Holy Spirit could be what existed before we gave titles like father, son, word, life, etc. The Bible doesn't tell us exactly what subatomic particle or how space time exists. Does this change our love for God or his, I don't think so. Our fellow eastern Orthodox brothers need to realize that human meddling created the schism.
Sips With Aquinas channel won't really be used anymore?
It's ridiculous that the Church has broken in half over such an unimportant detail. We don't know and there's no need to guess the details of God's inner relationships. If He wanted to, He would reveal it to us plainly. All we need to know is that God is not a simple singular being like me or you.
Agree. It’s one of God’s great mysteries -
I don't think is unimportant, but also it is possible that we don't have the means to exactly know the answer in this world. That is a Divine mistery.
I think the question is if the son participates in the being on the Holy spirit. I think the answer is yes as he breathes the holy spirit. Exactly how we might not ever know in this world.
@@RicardoGarcia-ib8ro I mean not necessary for us here in this world.
He did reveal if plainly in John. Jesus says the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. There is no guesswork to it. It's divinely revealed.
@@seeker3599 It is not that simple, because sometimes Christ speaks that way because they haven't fully grap the divinity in his person. Look for st. Agustine coments on John gospel. He breathes the Holy Spirit. Also the son is the reason to be sent. Also st. John said: Everything that belongs to the father is mine (John 16:15). So the spirit of the father is also the spirit of the son.
Which one does Eastern Catholics recognise?
Eastern Catholics understand and affirm the Filioque as "From the Father, through the Son" which is what the West means when they recite "From the Father and the Son." However, Eastern Catholics do not need to add the Filioque when they recite their Creed, because that distinction is not needed.
Pope John Paul II in 1995 commissioned Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity to release an authoritative magisterial statement:
On the basis of Jn. 15:26, this Symbol confesses the Spirit "to ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon" ("who takes his origin from the Father"). The Father alone is the principle without principle (arche anarchos) of the two other persons of the Trinity, the sole source (peghe) of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, takes his origin from the Father alone (ek monou tou Patros) in a principal, proper, and immediate manner.
The Greek Fathers and the whole Christian Orient speak, in this regard, of the "Father's Monarchy," and the Western tradition, following St. Augustine, also confesses that the Holy Spirit takes his origin from the Father principaliter, that is, as principle (De Trinitate XV, 25, 47, P.L. 42, 1094-1095). In this sense, therefore, the two traditions recognize that the "monarchy of the Father" implies that the Father is the sole Trinitarian Cause (Aitia) or Principle (Principium) of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
This origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone as Principle of the whole Trinity is called ekporeusis by Greek tradition, following the Cappadocian Fathers. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the Theologian, in fact, characterizes the Spirit's relationship of origin from the Father by the proper term ekporeusis, distinguishing it from that of procession (to proienai) which the Spirit has in common with the Son. "The Spirit is truly the Spirit proceeding (proion) from the Father, not by filiation, for it is not by generation, but by ekporeusis" (Discourse 39. 12, Sources chretiennes 358, p. 175). Even if St. Cyril of Alexandria happens at times to apply the verb ekporeusthai to the Son's relationship of origin from the Father, he never uses it for the relationship of the Spirit to the Son (c.f. Commentary on St. John, X, 2, P.G. 74, 910D; Ep 55, P.G. 77, 316D, etc.). Even for St. Cyril, the term ekporeusis as distinct from the term "proceed" (proienai), can only characterize a relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Trinity: the Father.
That is why the Orthodox Orient has always refused the formula to ek tou Patros kai tou Uiou ekporeuomenon [an unwisely proposed translation of "who proceeds from the Father and the Son"] and the Catholic Church has refused the addition kai tou Uiou [and the Son] to the formula ek to Patros ekporeumenon in the Greek text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, even in its liturgical use by Latins. ...
The doctrine of the Filioque must be understood and presented by the Catholic Church in such a way that it cannot appear to contradict the Monarchy of the Father nor the fact that he is the sole origin (arche, aitia) of the ekporeusis of the Spirit. ...
We are presenting here the authentic doctrinal meaning of the Filioque on the basis of the Trinitarian faith of the Symbol professed by the second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. We are giving this authoritative interpretation, while being aware of how inadequate human language is to express the ineffable mystery of the Holy Trinity, one God, a mystery which is beyond our words and our thoughts.
So there you have it. The Father is the cause and principaliter of the Holy Spirit. No more reason to fight. But, from what I have seen, the Orthodox usually want and look for reasons to use the word heresy.
Another ball knocked clear over the wall by Jimmy Akin!
The Holy Spirit descended upon Christ (from GOD the Father) at His Baptism (Matt 3:16) and later, Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles (John 20:22) That looks like from both the Father and Son to me.
Big enough for you to schism. Then use the Filioque as a blackmail tactic in order to send help to Constantinople when they needed aid.
@saxon6749 the east never accepted the council of Florence the heck you talking about. Shocking that Constantinople fell on the day of Pentecost.
I'm saying that the west used the Filioque as a blackmail tactic NOT to send aid to the east.
Howw about the Protestant? I think most denominations have their view aligned with the Catholic Church on the Filioque issue.
because most protestants are western christians. they split from the latin church, then split, then split again.
Many dont even believe in the trinity let alone the niciene creed.
Come, Holy Ghost, Creator Blest,
And in our hearts take up thy rest;
Come with thy grace and heav'nly aid
To fill the hearts which thou hast made,
To fill the hearts which thou hast made.
O Comforter, to thee we cry,
Thou heav'nly gift of God most high;
Thou fount of life and fire of love
And sweet anointing from above,
And sweet anointing from above.
Praise we the Father, and the Son,
And the blest Spirit with them one;
And may the Son on us bestow
The gifts that from the spirit flow,
The gifts that from the Spirit flow.
this is straw man... does the word "through" means that the Father is the only one who is asey or not? because this is the whole issue - the Monarchy of the Father!
I think the question is if through means that the son adds something of himself in the process or not. I don't think we could exactly know in this world, how God procees in himself.
Through has some corporeal/physical connotation. Even the word begotten not made is very difficult to relate with anything else in this world.
I think the best solution is to understand that the holy spirit is the integrational person in God, is the shared love between the father and son. If only the father loved the son, but he didn't love in return there is no complete or perfect love and life.
@@RicardoGarcia-ib8ro "I don't think we could exactly know in this world, how God procees in himself."
I am not saying that I KNOW that. I know nothing, but Jesus knows and he said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. He never ad "and the Son"
"Even the word begotten not made is very difficult to relate with anything else in this world. "
True, but if the Scriptures say this we use this word . we should never change it!
"I think the best solution is to understand that the holy spirit is the integrational person in God"
Yeah! but no trinitarian denies He is part if the Trinity. what we EO don't like is the fact that Filique attacks the Monarchia of the Father. with this we are not ok!
@@anaarkadievna You're cherry picking the Bible, and the Creed. Earlier in the Creed we see the Son came to us "by the Holy Spirit". Also Jesus does say He is necessary for the Holy Spirit to come to mankind.
John 15:26-27 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father-the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father-he will testify about me. 27And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning"
Important here is Whom I (Jesus) will send to you from the Father.
John 16:7 "But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you"
Here we again see Jesus must be in Heaven in order for the Holy Spirit to come to the Apostles (and all mankind). We further see that the reason isn't that Jesus and the Holy Spirit can't both be present on Earth, but that Jesus is the one to send the Holy Spirit. So we do know from the Bible that the Holy Spirit comes to us from both the Father and the Son. Another way to say this is that the Holy Spirit proceeds to us from the Father and the Son. This is not a straw man argument, but comes instead from scripture.
@@anaarkadievna Don't you think monarchy sounds like one is above the others? One thing is primary order of the father, but the other is more like dignity. At the end is one being, is to say like my intelligence is more important than my heart? because both constitute myself.
@@BigwigRabbit84 I know that Catholics and Protestants use different verses to prove their point, but none of these verses says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.
If you think that "send" is equal with"proceed"" , then when I send someone to do something that person proceeds from me?
"Sending" doesn't mean authority necessarily . Jesus said God send Him but then He also said He does all this on his own will. Because they have the same will, "sending" doesn't mean to much.
when we say proceed, we meant that the Father is asey, the only one Who is asey (because the Son is eternally begotten and the Spirit proceeds).
If He is not the only One who is asey where is the Monarchia?
We say that we are monotheists because of the Monarchia...
If by God you mean Divinity, all persons are God, BUT if by God you mean only the title (God is title after all not a name) only the Father is God in the Trinity. that's why the Church Fathers say we are monotheists, not because the Persons share the same nature!
that ;s why God the Father is the God of God the Son, that's why The Father is greater then The Son - in the sense of authority in the Trinity.
Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit try to direct us to Father, because He is the Source.
I looked up this video because as reading the apostle's creed, it struck me that if Jesus, the Son, was conceived by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit couldn't proceed originally from both the Father and the Son. "Through the Son" makes more sense, since Jesus said that He and the Father would send the Holy Spirit as Paraclete.
"Conceived by the Holy Spirit" is in regards to His humanity; the Incarnation. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father before the incarnation. The begetting of the Son and the procession of the Spirit are both simultaneously from the Father in eternity and not chronological in time. The Incarnation, where the eternal Son takes on human flesh by the virgin Mary via the conception of the Holy Spirit, takes place chronologically in time. But, yes, "through the Son" I believe would be the best way to say it.
The eternal begetting of the Son and the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit are prior to the Son becoming man, so how is it that it makes any difference to the Son being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit whether the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father alone or from the Father and the Son?
Exactly!!!!
@@thomasburke9060 I wonder if Photius during this time still admired St Ignatius or continued to give communion to Bardas and Michael if they were not killed by Basil the Macedonian. Photius was good with words. It's funny how humans think that their words meanings or concepts can comprehend God. I'm sure Photius knew if he had enough points that he could get many on his side and continue his ambiguous egotistical power trip and positions by keeping St Ignatius away. All that is the father's is the sons including the glory forever and ever. What the father gives the son can give. We can trust that the creator can change universal constants on a subatomic microcosm and galactic macrocosm including what we can see and not see in this or other dimensions along with past and present in perceived time. The Holy Spirit could be what existed before we gave titles like father, son, word, life, etc. The Bible doesn't tell us exactly what subatomic particle or how space time exists. Does this change our love for God or his, I don't think so. Our fellow eastern Orthodox brothers need to realize that human meddling created the schism. The lamb shall lay with the lion or was it the wolf?...
@@DavidRodriguez-er4rq Photius is a saint of Holy Church.
You did a video about whether God loves some people more than others. I really gave that some thought. I think God loves everyone differently. And that relationship is as intimate as it gets. If God knows what we need and what we're missing, He provides it. I don't think there's preferential love from God. But he definitely favors certain people to rule over kingdoms or lead.
Filioque not only excludes the Holy Spirit from perfect unity but also takes away the Father's unique property of being the First Cause.
Didn’t u listen ? The Father Spirates the Holy Spirit through the Son. It creates a real relation between the Son and the Holy Spirit ortherwise they have no relation.
Excluding Filioque actually makes it an unperfect trinity. With filioque, the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Father to the Son, making a perfect Trinity.
Saying the Son is proceeded through with the Holy Spirit, in no way takes away from the Father.
@@ratatoskr9366 There's no imperfection in saying what the Fathers said, that there is one God, the Father, who is unoriginate, and the Son, eternally begotten from the Father, and the Spirit, eternally proceeding from the Father, all three being coeternal and consubstantial. You're inventing a problem where this none.
@@tristancatholic The Son and the Spirit are related in sharing the same divinity, given both by the Father, and thus being eternally in and with each other, always willing the same, and always acting as one together with the Father. You'll have to explain why you say that is "no relation".
The Father, The Son, and The Holly Spirit came at the same “time” one wasn’t before another, that’s nonsense.
Father is source of divinity for son and Holy Spirit
It's like asking "what is before the beginning?". God cannot be 2 Persons, nor just the Father. God is 3 divines Persons in one, equally. Wherever the Father is the Son and the Holy Spirit also there, inseparable. "Don't you know the Father and I are one?"....and " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:1-3
If you'd have used perfilium from the start, this wouldn't even be a conversation
Every you crack a beer I think of Wayne’s World and Pepsi
It can't be that big a deal if you can be 💯 Catholic and say the creed without it and numerous Popes have
Dustin - Yup, and Florence made the Son “aitia” of the Spirit which St Maximus’ Letter to Marinus explicitly says the Latins in his day did not do. Their teaching changed by the time you get to Florence.
The Filioque controversy seems so petty. The ability to articulate the mystery of God's essence corporeal and/or otherwise has absolutely zero impact on one's salvation. Repent, live sincerely and love rightly. Simple as. God's Grace will guide us.
Here's the thing. If the Spirit has an origin in the Father and an origin in the Son, then the Spirit is a composite being of the Spirit that comes from the Father and the Spirit that comes from the Son. Only if you agree that every bit of the Spirit that came from the Son came from the Father first, do you preserve the Oneness and Personhood and Simplicity of the Holy Spirit. I think that Roman Catholics could actually agree on language that is consistent with that, that ALL of the Spirit that comes from the Son came from the Father, but can they agree that some of the Spirit that comes from the Father did not come from the Son?
You forget God is God, you can't describe him sufficiently. What you said, just add "in godly way" and you are right
There is also a great talk by Matthew Levering, one of the best Thomist theologians today on this: th-cam.com/video/wuI2VxQcEOQ/w-d-xo.html
It can't be. Filioque means independently of the father or possibly independently from the father which is demonstrably wrong given the triadic nature of deity.
It was a mistake of the translators of the Nicene creed from Greek to Latin, rather uselessly maintained by the Catholic church.
Imagine beeing a schismatic cuz of a translation problème
@@TheMarusero Looks like it but there were more axes to grind between orthodoxes and catholics such as the ownership of the papal states of southern Italy and the Illyric coast. So this led to the schism - political things. Then the catholics clinged on to their variations of the christian liturgy to poke one in the eye of the easterners.
As a fellow anti-filioquist I have to inform you, since we don't want to strawman what we oppose, that that's not what the _filioque_ means. Rather, it means that the Father and the Son somehow are _together_ the cause of the Holy Spirit.
@@thomasburke9060 That's also not what it means.
The Catholic Church does not affirm that the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and the Son. Rather, the Holy Spirit originates only from the Father, and through the Son does the Holy Spirit Proceed.
248 "At the outset the Eastern tradition expresses the Father's character as first origin of the Spirit. By confessing the Spirit as he "who proceeds from the Father", it affirms that he comes from the Father through the Son.77 The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son, by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason",78 for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle",79 is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds.80 This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed."
The Father is the single principle from which the Spirit originates, however, it is with the consubstantial communion between both, that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
This entire controversy hinges on the misunderstanding that "Proceed" means something different in the West than it does in the East.
@@Cklert I said that the Father and the Son together are the cause of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit. The Council of Florence explicitly gave this as the definition of the the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. No amount of elaborating will change what Florence expressly stated.
The bigger problem with the filioque isn't whether it's acceptable theologically. If we granted that it's acceptable, as in it refers to the economic and/or energetic procession, and not hypostatic, so it's acceptable to us Orthodox, it still doesn't matter. Changing the Creed is forbidden by Ephesus in Canon 7.
So even if someone added: "And in the Holy Spirit, who is awesome,..." it doesn't matter, and we all agree that He is awesome. Ephesus outright forbids anyone to change the Creed.
And this doesn't apply to Constantinople I, because that is before Ephesus, and also it is called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. If you called the filioque creed the Toledian Creed, then we could discuss it.
So, if Rome thinks it's not important or something to fight over, then remove it. It's not an innovation from your viewpoint, you'd be returning to the original, and it only causes division.
I still think what divides us is much greater than the filioque, but that aspect of the schism can be much more easily dealt with.
So it literally is semantics then?
@@ajmeier8114 Breaking a Canon of an Ecumenical Council is not semantics.
And, I have started it's not even semantics linguistically. We reject hypostatic procession from the Son. We do accept energetic and economic procession, in short we receive Him from the Son. It's s like saying that if you sent me a 100 dollars through a friend, I could say I got the money from you and your friend, or you through your friend, but it is incorrect to say your friend chipped in.
@@robertsirico3670 Thank you, brother.
I make the joke: If we could add a clause to the Creed to deal with a heresy, it would take longer to go through the Creed than through the Psaltyr.
@@СаваСтанковић-с7к Maybe i misinterpreted your original comment but I took it to mean you wouldn't have an issue if we just called it something else. Instead of changing the Creed, just create a new creed.
@@ajmeier8114 Yes. I would still be against it, but adding something, and then claiming it's the same thing is a huge problem. In fact, the Creed with filioque wasn't recited in Rome until 1014. Certain popes were very much against it, one pope (I think it was Leo III, but I could be wrong) went so far as to hang two silver shields with the Creed, one in Greek, one in Latin without the filioque, as a direct protest to it being added.
It's not just us Eastern Orthodox being petty.
The Spirit of God only comes from the Father, not from the Son. It is not understood who the "Holy Spirit" aka "Spirit of God" is, He is not a third God-person. In the baptismal formula He is "distinct" from the Father but He is NOT a "distinct PERSON" from the Father. An example to explain it is given by the miracle of the BILOCATION of St. Anthony. He was in Italy, but in his miracles he was able to be present at the same time also in Portugal and to INTERACT with the people there. NOBODY was actually in Portugal, this means that the presence of St.Anthony corresponded to the PRESENCE OF A SPIRIT THERE: the spirit of St. Anthony. In the bilocations 1. only ONE St. Anthony existed and 2. his spirit distinct from him was elsewhere. The same occurs also with 1. the FATHER and 2. the SPIRIT OF THE FATHER: they are just ONE PERSON. The Father is NOT in a separate SPATIAL location though, He is in a different TEMPORAL location: before the world was born. "The world has not known you". "...you loved me before the world was born...". This is why "No man has seen God at any time.", INVISIBILITY is not an issue, God cannot be seen because He is ABSENT. The Father is in that DISTANT TEMPORAL LOCATION and his spirit - the Spirit of the Father - is here instead. From that past God is able to reach to us in his future.
This means that THE HOLY SPIRIT INSIDE JESUS WHO HELPS HIM IS NOT THE PARACLETE, HE IS THE SPIRIT OF THE FATHER (see the gospels, numerous passages where the Father ONLY helps the Son, the Paraclete will be sent only after Jesus' death). Indeed "God is a spirit", but the Father is God, this means that the Father is a spirit here, He is called "the Holy Spirit" by Jesus. Both the Father (not a spirit) and the Spirit of the Father (the Holy Spirit) are mentioned in the baptismal formula.
The Fathers have defined the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three distinct hypostases who are consubstantial (homoousios) with each other. No amount of bizarre, spiritualist reflections on stories of bilocations will be sufficient to overturn the consensus of the Fathers.
@@thomasburke9060
The fathers made the wrong choice: rather than simply ACCEPTING what is directly stated by Jesus, that is, that He is with the FATHER ONLY, and it's over, they ARROGANTLY decided to create a FANTASY GOD that has no match whatsoever in the gospels. The "Lord who gives life" was thus INVENTED from scratch. According to the fantasies of those inventors, the alleged "Lord who gives life" is supposed to be in a CLOSE UNION (i.e. the alleged trinity) and should therefore ALWAYS BE WITH the Father and the Son. Reality: NO TRACE OF HIM, not a SINGLE word from or to that phantom "Lord"!
Not only a very bad choice was not accepting Jesus' words, but also a LACK of committment on the part of those "inventors", it is indeed possible to IDENTIFY who is the Holy Spirit: He is THE FATHER WHO IS A SPIRIT. You get a clue by Jesus when He talks about the TWO blasphemies, where the Father is called "Holy Spirit" by Jesus. That clue is finally CONFIRMED by Jesus when He states that the Father is "a spirit" (Jn. 4:23,24). That ONE is the ONLY SPIRIT!!! Forget the invented spirit of the Lord who gives life!
In the same way as what happens by other people (Zacharias for ex.) Jesus has the Holy Spirit inside Him TOO. You can easily learn from the gospels that the Holy Spirit - inside Jesus - is THE FATHER who helps Him! He is the SAME HOLY SPIRIT that some time before led Him in the wilderness. There has been NO "CHANGE OF ASSISTANCE!" Of course you are not supposed to blasphemy the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of the Father inside Jesus.
Painful: you DEMONSTRATE without any doubt that the trinity is falsehood and even indicate where the error occurred. But they still refuse to accept it and cling to that fully nonsensical doctrine.
@@claudiozanella256 All of this nonsense is easily refuted by the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. One cannot proceed from oneself.
@@thomasburke9060
Yes, God can indeed proceed from Himself. The almighty God (not a spirit) is AWAY, that is why "Nobody has seen God at any time". That distant God, however, can be here in the form of a spirit (this means NOBODY is actually here) to interact with us. In fact you can see in the gospels that every action is performed by the Spirit of God, not personally by God. Only Jesus saw God, "before the foundation of the world" (Jn. 17, 24-26). That distant God can thus send Himself - in the form of a Spirit - inside selected people. Even Jesus will be present - in the form of a spirit - inside the apostles "I will come to you" to give some help, additionally to the "Spirit of your Father" (the Father who is a spirit).
@@claudiozanella256 This talk of God "sending Himself" simply makes no sense at all.
" I am the Spirit of Truth who issues from the Father and sent by the Son, Jesus Christ; We are one Substance and one Power and one Knowledge and since We are one God alone We converse and give knowledge in the same manner and in the same terms; this great knowledge is transmitted to you filled with love; " Problem solved.
It is sin to make images of the Father, and since we don’t know how the Lord Jesus looked, making images of Him is sin to.
But that’s exactly what this thumbnail shows.
May the the Lord have mercy on you and grant you repentance and faith
The only way for an image to strictly look like the entity it depicts is it it's photographic. Drawn images are always approximations. But we don't say because of this that they aren't true depictions. We don't need to know precisely what the Lord Jesus Christ looks like in order to depict Him.
There was an Ecumenical Council (7th) for the restoration of images in the Church. The teaching is that we depict Christ because He became Man. We saw Him, we touched Him. If you deny Him a depiction then Christ is not a Man. I do agree with your point that we do not make images of the Father; moreover, as Jesus said “ He who sees me sees the Father” John 14:9. Thus in Orthodox iconography ( iconography= “theology in colour”) there is no room to depict the Holy Trinity, as it is often presented in Catholicism, showing an old man as God The Father. Andrei Rublev captures the Orthodox depiction of the Trinity, through his icon of the Three Angels visiting Abraham.
I think eventually if one can make sense of the Filioque, the one should also say that the Son is begotten of the Father AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. Every argument that is “pro-Filioque” either makes the Spirit a lesser god, or to believe in the “Spiritus-que”
…qui ex Patre *Spirituque natum ante omnia sæcula…
Sorry 🤷♀️they made a mistake and they are trying to justify it after one thousand years. Anyway they added many other mistakes… they have to repent and go back to the one holy church of God 🙏well if you say thank you I will say you’re welcome and God bless you all☦️
It is a very big deal. It's not just some semantic difference, and anyone who pretends it is is either deceitful or downright small-brained.
Today many Eastern Orthodox bishops are putting aside old prejudices and again acknowledging that there need be no separation between the two communions on this issue. Eastern Orthodox Bishop Kallistos Ware (formerly Timothy Ware), who once adamantly opposed the filioque doctrine, states: “The filioque controversy which has separated us for so many centuries is more than a mere technicality, but it is not insoluble. Qualifying the firm position taken when I wrote [my book] The Orthodox Church twenty years ago, I now believe, after further study, that the problem is more in the area of semantics and different emphases than in any basic doctrinal differences” (Diakonia, quoted from Elias Zoghby’s A Voice from the Byzantine East, 43).
Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II
“We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and giver of life, proceeding from the Father through the Son” (Profession of Faith [A.D. 787]).
Scripture reveals that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The external relationships of the persons of the Trinity mirror their internal relationships. Just as the Father externally sent the Son into the world in time, the Son internally proceeds from the Father in the Trinity. Just as the Spirit is externally sent into the world by the Son as well as the Father (John 15:26, Acts 2:33), he internally proceeds from both Father and Son in the Trinity. This is why the Spirit is referred to as the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and not just the Spirit of the Father (Matt. 10:20).
The quotations below show that the early Church Fathers, both Latin and Greek, recognized the same thing, saying that the Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son” or “from the Father through the Son.”
These expressions mean the same thing because everything the Son has is from the Father. The proceeding of the Spirit from the Son is something the Son himself received from the Father. The procession of the Spirit is therefore ultimately rooted in the Father but goes through the Son.
@@richlopez5896 You say "many Eastern Orthodox bishops", and yet the only support for this we get is from Metropolitan Kallistos, whom many Orthodox Christians regard as compromised? No, you'll have to do a lot better than that.
As for the supposed quote from NIcaea 2, I suspect it's not authentic. Can you show where you got the quote?
I would like to talk with you privately.
Peace
If Christ is God the filoque it's just an obvlious conseguence, without that you have a less God from the Father.
Mh, no. Nature and Persons need to be distinguished. The Father isn't from the Son, but both are God, this shows that just to say Christ is God isn't explanatory of the Filioque. The Orthodox don't deny that the Son is God by denying the Filioque.
I'm curious are there any views rejecting the view that the Holy spirit is preceding from any person at all? As in just from God not specified from the father.
Polytheism, u need to have a connection between all 3 of them or its polytheism
@@DroknarsForge4198 WLC has some very dubious beliefs that it questionable to even call him Christian.
@@fumples4080 The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father and the Holy Spirit is the Love that they share. You can hold this and also hold that the 3 persons are uncreated.
@@sasukeCS7 no, filioque is heresy, is the love that the father has for the son a person? Read St Photius' mystagogy of the holy spirit
There is no "just God" in the Christian faith. "God" doesn't get any more primary than the unoriginate hypostasis of the Father.
has just a simple bible reader, I have always understood The Father to be the head person of the trinity. So I never believed in the Filioque I guess. I even think that Jesus, though was divine, did everything here on earth as a normal human through the Spirit. Like he did nothing he said nothing unless the Spirit told him to. I am not sure if this is the orthodox position or not.
I agree with you but many would call us heretics. Quite obvious Jesus may have some divinity, but his earthly ministry was through receiving “the full measure of the spirit” and was unhindered due to obedience to God his father…point being, quite obvious He is not equal to the Father. He said that himself
It is always a big deal when groups believe different things about Who God is. Putting aside Christ's own words about the Holy Spirit's procession as well as the Ecumenical Council's words on the procession, and also laying aside the implications of the papacy for one to be able to add words to Christ and the Church, the Filioque matters because it changes Who we believe God to be. The Father is the sole origin of the Godhead, thus the name Father. If the Son is also the originator of the Holy Spirit or shares in the procession of the Spirit with the Father, then the Son is the Father, sharing the Father's unique property of giving divinity. Further, if the Holy Spirit is generated or proceeds not from the origin of the Godhead alone but from both the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit cannot be equal and have equal relationship with the Father and the Son, having two originators to the Son's one. So to proclaim the Filioque is to confuse and imbalance the persons of the Trinity, and therefore to not understand nor preserve the revelation God has given mankind. Perhaps many do not consciously take the Filioque to its full conclusion, but that does not make it any less false or dangerous to upholding the faith that has been revealed to us. The Catholic Church would argue many differences they have with other churches and try to explain why it is important to uphold the truth on them, so it is painful to see theses matters waved down like the differences are irrelevant.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. John 1:1-3
@Dustin Neely God is 3 Divines Person in one. I am just putting John 1:1-3 there so to say God is not an office but a Being 3 in one, always, all the time. I did not say the Holy Spirit is created. It's a mystery. God cannot be two Persons or just the Father. God is always 3 in one. Where the Father, are the Son and the Holy Spirit. A mystery that we cannot comprehend. So, when the Father created the universe, the Holy Spirit was there, 3 in one, inseparable.
The Christian God is a triune God. God the Father is not the sole originator of the Godhead. Nowhere in the Nicene Creed does it assert or suggest that the Father is the sole originator of the Godhead. That would imply that God the Father is a god above two lesser gods, having "caused" them or created them. Somehow, God the Father's fundamental essence would have to be different from that of the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is heresy. The TRINITY is ONE god, and it is the Trinity that is the originator of the Godhead AND the uncaused cause. We can debate the nature of the aspects of the trinity, its hypostases, and their relationships to each other, but they constitute ONE eternal Godhead. One God in three persons, all of whom share the same indivisible and coeternal substance.
@@TheRevScare everything screamingreel500 and you said is in line with the Orthodox understanding except "the Father is not the sole source of the Godhead". This actually is in the Nicene Creed, as well as all the fathers interpretations of it in the 4th - 7th centuries. To quote the Creed, "and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages" and "and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father". Here it is clear that the Son is begotten of the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Father is not begotten or proceeding at all.
This doesn't change the divinity of each person or the equality. Everything you said about God being trinity isn't changed by the creeds affirmations.
It isn't a matter of one of us believing God is trinity or not, but the relationship between the three divine persons is different in the West and the east. The east proclaims the relationship with the same words of the Creed; the west does not. If the Father is not the sole source of the Godhead, Who or what is, and what Church teaching are you referring to? If more than one person of the Trinity is the source of divinity, the doctrine of the Trinity loses its unity, because two or all of the persons are independent sources of divinity, or worse, they are dependent sources of divinity and don't possess divinity fully themselves.
@@seeker3599 What do you mean "who or what" is the sole source of the Godhead? The Godhead, referring to the Trinity, is uncaused. It IS the uncaused cause. "Begotten" in the Nicene Creed is somewhat ambiguous. It's part of the mystery of the Trinity.
Notice that the Creed states that the Son was begotten, NOT made. This is an important distinction.
As far as I can see, "begotten" can mean that the Son was brought into existence by the Father in the world, as an incarnated man, and it can also mean that the son originated from the same essence as the Father, the same underlying substance, with its self-same nature, always pre-existing. It need not mean, as some Eastern Orthodox suggest, that the Son was caused by the Father, which would undermine the perfect unity of the Trinity.
The English word "begotten" is also rather inadequate to describe the nature of the relationship. The Greek word is "monogenes," which means "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." That is the meaning of "begotten" in the Nicene Creed, and that is how it's used in the Gospel of John. It's meant to emphasize that Jesus shares the same divine nature as the Father.
In any case, when we use words such as "begotten" and "persons" and "Father" and "Son" to refer to the triune Godhead and its internal relationships, we are using human analogies to try to understand something far greater than ourselves. It's imperfect, not because God is misleading us, but because we are limited. There's supposed to be a sense of mystery around the Trinity.
As far as what church teaching I'm referring to, it's none in particular. I'm going off the Nicene Creed, the Bible, and my understanding of the Catholic faith. I'm not sure anything else really matters. (I also use the Athanasian Creed for guidance, but I realize that most Easterners don't recognize it for some reason.) The Church Fathers did not always agree with each other. That is why we have ecumenical councils and sacred tradition within the one true church.
Blasphemous thumbnail :(
@@reghty it depicts the Father. We depict Christ-who *is* the image of the Father-because he became man.
Thus guy is trying to sell Latin heresy of Filioque under the premise of alleged "equality" of the two phrases: 1) "through the Son", 2) "and the Son". While former one does not presuppose causation of the Spirit by the Son, later one does, thus making it heretical, unscriptural and has never been taught in the Lord's Orthodox Church. It leads to consequential subordination of the Spirit, distorts balance of equality in the Godhead and is plainly - work of the devil. Since Lord's Bride ought to remain "holy and without blemish", to unite EOC with the heretical Latins is impossible.
"It comes from a line in the western version of Nicene creed, it wasn't found in eastern versions, and IT WASN'T ORIGINALLY THERE." So the adition was made OUTSIDE the counsil of churches, to already established and existing creed.
That is already a strike.
But the main point is that in Holy Trinity there are properties between divine persons. And those properties either shared fully between three of them(omnisience, omnipotence, everlasting and so on), or properties unique to each one. And if property of hypostatic procession shared between the Father and the Son - then it means Holy Spirit is left out. The property is not fully shared and yet not unique for one person - that means the Holy Spirit is lacking shared property(hypostatic procession) and by that is lesser in relationship of Holy Trinity.
But orthodox ascribe ability to generate and spirate only to the Father, as the ultimate source of being. And the Father begets the Son, and the Father spirate the Holy Spirit.
No one's offenses are big deal to themselves!
Orthobros are cool with "through the Son".
Yes, From the Father as cause alone and the Spirit flows through the Son but does not derive His hypostates from the Son.
Not necessarily. It depends on what is meant by it.
Even Eastern Catholic under the Pope say the original creed which clearly even says in scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. To say otherwise is heresy. Period.
@007Seraphim the Western church doesn't claim that the Holy Spirit doesn't proceed from the Father
the problem with the filioque is not theological- that can be resolved.
it's that it was the Bishop of Rome's first attempt to declare doctrine for the whole Church.
which was and is beyond his authority.
It's nice that you have faith that the theological issue could be resolved... it hasn't though, and I don't see how it could be. Nor do I see sincere attempts to resolve it. All I see are disingenuous attempts to sweep the differences, which are substantial, under the rug. That approach of course will not work.
@@thomasburke9060 it can be resolved because it was not a legitimate theological issue.
it was created by mistake and then seized upon by Charlemagne and his henchmen, and their successors, as a wedge issue to assert authority over Constantinople.
an Ecumenical Council, called by the Pope to renounce his claim to primacy would be the vehicle.
@@BaikalTii It wasn't originally a legitimate theological issue, but it has become one. The Council of Florence's definition of faith explicitly states that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son together as one principle, which is elaborated as meaning 'arche', or source. This articulation is absolutely anathema to Orthodox Christianity, so there is no hope at all for reunion so long as Orthodox Christians stick to the monarchy of the Father and the Papists cling to these sorts of articulations of the origination of the Holy Spirit.
@@thomasburke9060 Yes and no, the Arche in Latin is not equated to mean 'source.' It is used to mean 'principle' in a general sense. With that, it shouldn't be anathema. It was essentially a quote from St. Augustine.
@@Cklert 'Arche' is a Greek term, not a Latin one. It was affirmed _in Greek_ that the Father and the Son together are the 'arche' of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit. This is heresy.
As a protestant Christian, the Holy Spirit is seen as being equal to the father and the son. The Holy Spirit does not come from the Father or through the son, but is equally God as much as the Father and Son are.
Sure, I see what you mean (even when you say the Spirit doesn't come from the Father, which per se would be wrong), but it is irreleant when talking about the His procession. All Christians believe in the identity or equality of Nature in the Persons of God. By sayint that The Son proceeds by being begotten and the Spirit proceeds by being spired, we do not mean they are inferior. It is a point the Filioque wants to combat.
I am an Orthodox Christian and I just cant understand Protestants point of view. But that's okay cuz in the end we believe in the same thing
Imagine, for example, if a U.S. president suddenly decided to alter a couple of words in the Bill of Rights without telling anyone from the opposing political party in Congress or Senate. That would be seen as a major issue.
The addition of Filioque was a minor power-grab maneuver to show that the West didn't need permission or a council to do things they wanted. It was kind of the final "Hey, we're going to do things our way and your opinion doesn't matter, and we won't even tell you that we did it.". For a united Church, government, or any system, I'm not sure if there's really a faster way to get people to distrust you.
That's a bit of a false equivalency and a strawman for that matter.
Imagine for instant, that about 5 states within the US, no longer have English as their primary language. The majority speak Spanish or French, or whatever language you want to substitute. The people learning about the Bill of Rights are having a tough time understanding it because the words don't have the same implications as they do English. So some specifications within the Bill of Rights need to be made so people don't misinterpret it. It starts with a Governor heading these alterations on a local level, the President (who also speaks this language) understands the confusion and agrees that a modification the Bill of Rights but only for this language. The actual legality behind the Bill of Rights don't get changed at all.
That is the Filioque.
That is what happened at the Council of Toledo. In Latin, the term 'procession' does not carry the same weight as it does in Greek. Which is why Visigothic Bishops added the Filioque.
The Eastern Churches that are in Communion with the West understand this, they both affirm the same thing, but the West does not bind the Eastern Churches to recite this during their liturgy because it is unneeded confusion.
If the Western creed means that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father, through the Son", then why don't they just say it that way 😅.
It's also too bad that Rome needed lies in order to get people to accept it at the time, creating forgeries to claim the Filioque was in the original creed and that the East removed it 😅😅😅
And what's up with that forged Donation of Constantine 😅😅😅😅😅
It would seem if Rome was confident in their argument, there wouldn't need to be so many lies and forgeries?
it's really simple, the Divine Persons of God can't share a property that excludes another.
Funny to hear a Roman Catholic playing pope and magistrate by saying that maybe orthodoxy is right our maybe wrong in judging the “time” of the changing of the creed.
“The church has spoken, she decided to make these statements”. Funny to see the inconsistency and the fly back of the own arguments that RC make about Christian’s.
Filioque is in the Athanasian creed
pseudo-Athanasian
"THE TRINITY"
THE FILIOQUE IS A GREAT HERESY BECAUSE THE HOLY SPIRIT AS A PERSON ONLY COME PROCEDE OF THE FATHER ONLY OF THE FATHER AS THE SON IS BORN ONLY OF THE FATHER WHO IS THE SOURCE OF DIVINITY...AND WE HAVE HEARD THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS THE LOVE OF THE FATHER FOR THE SON THAT S MEAN THAT IT IS NOT A PERSON ANOTHER GREAT HERESY.1054 IS EVER UNTIL TODAY.
How does God proceed from anything? He is eternal, absolute. The concept of God in Islam is the only one that makes perfect sense.
The Holy Spirit proceeds eternally.
@@thomasburke9060 That's proof the holy spirit isn't God. God isn't dependent on anything that he must proceed from something else.
@@sub7se7en So... it's possible to be eternal and not divine?
@@thomasburke9060 He cannot be eternal because he proceeds, meaning originates or comes from. It's an oxymoron.
@@sub7se7en The idea is that it's a non-spatial procession. There is no spatial point of origin for the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit.