Why Did Catholics Add the Filioque to the Creed?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- Karlo Broussard explains the Catholic position on the procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son. He discusses the historical and theological basis for this belief, including references to the Catechism, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Council of Florence. Discover why Catholics profess this in the Nicene Creed every Sunday.
Full episode: th-cam.com/users/li...
More Catholic Answers: catholic.com
Donate: givecatholic.com
You should have mentioned that the Orthodox bishops attended the Council of Florence and agreed to the word Filioque being added to the Creed. When the orthodox bishops returned to Constantinople they were reviled by the political elite, and others, and the orthodox bishops backed down. However, they did attend the Council and agreed, so the Orthodox Church is bound by this Council.
Even today there is a variety of opinion among the Orthodox on why they disagree. Some say it's papal authority, others make it a doctrinal issue.
Stop calling them orthodox. The only orthodox church is the Roman Catholic Church.
no one is bound to falsehood
This is really logical, and to be honest, I didn't even know this was something Christians disagree with because it just seems to self-evident.
Only the Greeks and Russians disagree
@@deutschermichel5807 My fault, I meant to say, "This was something Christians disagree about [...]" and not "disagree with."
@@deutschermichel5807 and the Serbs, Bulgarians,and the Romanians, the Georgians, the Ukrainian Orthodox(and by the way, Ukrainian Byzantines Catholics recite the Creed without the 'filioque'), Albanians, the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics...shall I go on?
Holy Scripture can argue it either way-check out the Gospels
The Catholic Church does not consider either version heretical. Laetentur Coeli makes that clear. Politics in the East caused it to be used as a cudgel. Today, we see the same thing with the Russian Church completely disregarding Constantinoples attempts to preserve unity. There's a long, sad, history of imperial politics undermining the Church.
Orthodox christians are gonna be mad with this one 🗣🗣🔥🔥🔥
Hardly. First, this is an admission it was "added." So, was the Church in heresy for centuries? Pope Leo III a heretic? Not to mention, the eastern right does not use it, showing discontinuity within the Roman Church itself. It seems these days there is a great amount of discontinuity in Rome, with various disagreements between Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, etc. and the only truly required universal in the Roman Church is fealty to the pope. I still have much love for my Roman brothers and sisters, and pay for unity... but forcing/creating an issue that, by y'all's own admission seems an implied redundancy, doesn't seem to help.
If the creed was fine for centuries and centuries without it, why even make it a divisive matter?
God bless us all!
Jesus breathes upon the Apostles: RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT
C'mon, let's face it, it wasn't a doctrinal issue. It was a political issue. TBH, it was like women fighting who's prettier but instead, it's church leaders arguing who's in charge. Embarrassing, if you ask me.
Agreed, there are two verses that says that reference the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (Jn 14:26 & 15:26). All the other verses it goes from the Father to the Son whom then sends it. Then there are all the other verses that use the "Spirit of Christ" as a reference to the Holy Spirit as well.
Also, of importance. Orthodoxy will argue that the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus prohibits changing the Creed and therefore Catholics are wrong. But, if a person actually looks into the claim, it would condemn them as well. The Council of Ephesus (3rd Ecumenical Council) only affirms the original Nicene Creed and not the additions about the Holy Spirit or the other deletions that happened allegedly at the 2nd Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. There is no actual documentation about any changes to the Nicene creed at this council. So, the Creed that they use and support was already altered by someone other than an Ecumenical Council. Also, the Council of Ephesus only prohibits a different/contradictory Creed to the Nicene Creed. It wasn't saying that it couldn't be modified for clarification to combat other heresies about the language.
Rome uses BOTH versions... The eastern rite does not use the filioque... So if it is a discontinuity that can be overlooked within the Roman Church, why make it a matter that can divide?
Because the Eastern orthodox church made it a dogmatic issue@@madsocsci
@@RJDJ__ not so. The Frankish Church in the West made it dogmatic and pressured Rome.
would that that were true! It is an ecclesiological issue far greater than a cat fight!
You forget to mention the Second Council of Lyons (1274) "1. We profess faithfully and devotedly that the holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, not as from two principles, but as from one principle; not by two spirations, but by one single spiration. " Filoque really means the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (one spiration) not the Father in addition to the Son (two aspirations). Two spirations is the reason why the Orthodox complain, in addition that we added it to the creed without their consent.
Yes, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, but in only one spiration (breath). If there is only one spiration, it cannot come from two sources, because that would be TWO spirations. This is what the Orthodox were complaining about. The Orthodox maintain the the Father is the source of ALL generation. Therefore, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father -- AND -- the Son, then the Father is not the source of all creation. If however, there is one spiration from the Father which goes through the Son, then there is only one source of creation, one spiration. But since that spiration comes THROUGH the Son (John 1:3) it is not a second spiration, but the Spirit proceeds from the FATHER through the SON in one act of creation, that includes the Father and the Son. The other reason why the Orthodox are upset is because we added it to the Creed with their approval.
It is complex because the Infinite God reveals Himself to finite humans. How can the infinite be contained in the finite? We believe that God became man, that a virgin gave birth, that the dead are raised to life, that bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the God-Man. When the omnipotent, omniscient, eternal God steps into finite time how can it not help but be ineffable, But God gave us a rational mind and His revelation to try to understand. It is like teaching calculus to a first grader.
So simple yet so based ✝️
I love how Karlo breaks this down.
This is a really succinct and good argument.
I love our Orthodox brothers and they need to get over the Filoque. The Gospel According the St John's Farewell Discourse makes it clear the Spirit comes from both. The Orthodox are increasing defining themselves by what they aren't instead of what they are.
We define ourselves by the Creed that was agreed upon at a Holy Council by the then world's bishops gathered under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in which the words, "and the Son" were not present in its formulation.
Great explanation!
Yay Dr. Karlo!
I may well be wrong, but I believe that most Orthodox brothers do believe that the Son also emanates Holy Spirit towards the Father, since the Holy Spirit is basically the Love between the first two persons of the Holy Trinity.
The issue is basically politics and vying for power. The Orthodox Costantinople's patriarch was basically the Byzantine's Emperor chaplain, while the Rome's patriarch wanted to be independent in his dealings with the temporal power. I am not surprised that Moscow patriarch supports Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
I sincerely hope and pray that our Orthodox brothers and sisters reunite with the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, 1000 years of separation have brought about other differences now difficult to overcome, such as few parts of core Catholic teaching. E.g. the Purgatory and the role of Our Lady - which Orthodox seems to see in a different way (especially the former).
In my humble opinion, I have found that when discussing things like this it does seem to be more a disagreement that "they can't do that" more than an actual theological issue. I know it is more complex than that, but that seems to be it.
The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and sent by the Son. 'Sent' does not mean 'proceed'. This is how it is poorly translated from the Greek. Remember, Greek is a more complex language than the gruntings of English! For example, Greek has 6 words for our one word "love."
Im getting tired of protestants asking catholics why did you change this or that. We have been around for 2000 years. All your crap is only 500 years old and a jumbled mess of over 45k diff versions of heresy. Its about time we ask you why do you keep changing crap?
fact. Protestantism is a mess. Imagine being a pentecostal (founded 1902) and hating on the Catholic church. Ludicrous!
Meh, let them yammer and yap. Just keep your eyes on the Eucharist.
@@Rocketninja200 I mostly treat them as comedians when I'm having a bad day, I listen to their theology and I can't help but chuckle.
Protestants are innocent in this case. It's the Orthodox that are mad it was changed.
You're 100% right BUT LET'S NOT SPEAK VULGAR PLEASE - it makes us not less deviant from catholic spirituality.
Great video! More beer/brewing videos please!
John 7 38 and 39
Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water (contextually the Holy Spirit).
Here Jesus says the Holy Spirit will flow forth from him. When you combine all this with the other verses where he says that he is God and God is one … the trinity … that the father and the son are one. You cannot think of the son as being lesser than as though it’s the same as an earthen family.
Be careful interpreting Sacred Scripture on your own. See what the Church says about it!
@@st.michaelthearchangelorth1055 this is the Catholic understanding of this verse. It comes for the true church
@@enderwiggen3638 No. this is simply St. Bernard of Clairvaux's interpretation, not that of the Church's Scripture Scholars nor magisterium.
@@st.michaelthearchangelorth1055 USCCB website on John 7 38 and 39
* [7:38] Living water: not an exact quotation from any Old Testament passage; in the gospel context the gift of the Spirit is meant; cf. Jn 3:5. From within him: either Jesus or the believer; if Jesus, it continues the Jesus-Moses motif (water from the rock, Ex 17:6; Nm 20:11) as well as Jesus as the new temple (cf. Ez 47:1). Grammatically, it goes better with the believer.
* [7:39] No Spirit yet: Codex Vaticanus and early Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions add “given.” In this gospel, the sending of the Spirit cannot take place until Jesus’ glorification through his death, resurrection, and ascension; cf. Jn 20:22.
USCCB website on John 7 38 and 39
7 38 Living water: not an exact quotation from any Old Testament passage; in the gospel context the gift of the Spirit is meant; cf. Jn 3 5. From within him- either Jesus or the believer, if Jesus, it continues the Jesus-Moses motif (water from the rock, Ex 17 6; Nm 20 11) as well as Jesus as the new temple (cf. Ez 47 1). Grammatically, it goes better with the believer.
7 39 No Spirit yet - Codex Vaticanus and early Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions add “given.” In this gospel, the sending of the Spirit cannot take place until Jesus’ glorification through his death, resurrection, and ascension. cf. Jn 20 22.
It looks like God the Father gets a gold medal. God the Son gets the silver medal. And the Holy Spirit gets the bronze medal. In fact, the Holy Spirit precedes everything and they all are gold medal and more, of course. Between Rome and Constantinople, there was a question of language between Latin and Greek. That is all but that was important to them. To all of us Christians what is important is to never ever forget the Holy Spirit, the giver of life.
The Trinity: The Father is the Fire ... The Son is the Light... and the Holy Spirit is the Heat.
I personally don't like any analogy because no analogy works. This example makes it seem like the Son and the Holy Spirit are accidental features of the Father and not that they all share the same divine essence.
Actually not. This would be closer to the Arian view. All three persons share the same substance, in this analogy it negates that
@@daniellennox8804 How to you easily explain it, especially to people who misinterpret it as three separate different gods?
That’s Arianism, Patrick!
@@jaytoven7 It is not easy to explain. It is the central mystery of the Christian faith.
Jesus said to.His Apostles: receive the Holy Spirit. then He breathed upon them.
what else will you make of that?
that has absolutely nothing to what the Council Fathers meant by "procession" of the Son from the Father, and the Holy Spirit from the Father. Sowwy!
🔥 MOST PRECIOUS BLOOD 🩸 OF
JESUS. CHRIST, SAVE. US
AND THE WHOLE WORLD. 🌎
Titus 3:3 KJV "For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers (many different) lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 4 But after that the kindness and love of GOD our SAVIOR toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to HIS mercy HE saved us, by the washing of regeneration (cleansed of all sin by being born again/made alive by the indwelling of the HOLY SPIRIT), and renewing of the HOLY GHOST (restoring/renewing our soul not sacrificing CHRIST over and over again in the unbloody sacrifice of the mass); 6 which HE shed on us abundantly through JESUS CHRIST our SAVIOR; 7 that being justified by HIS grace (forgiven of all sins by GOD's free gift of grace), we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."
Embrace Catholicism🇻🇦 reject Heresy 🚫☦️🚫
Exactly reject the Roman bishop's church.
@@BrotherinChr1st Okay satan 😂
@@harrisonsamson 🤦♂️ you literally believe in Allah. What does Vatican 2 say in nostra aetate
@@BrotherinChr1st I'm a Catholic. What are you saying? 😂
@@harrisonsamson exactly what I said. Vatican 2 claims Islam, jews and catholics share the same abrahamic faith.
0:33
More like "The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives a Nice-ene summary" am I right?
you can leave now
@catholiccom question can you explain purgatory to me and who go to purgatory like if someone was on road to hell how do they get off that road and on road to purgatory like give me checklist of requirements to go to purgatory?
@@jamesisaacson6379 Purgatory is not an eternal destination, so one does not "go from the path to Hell to the path to Purgatory." There are only two paths: the path to Heaven and the path to Hell. Further, one does not go TO Purgatory, but THROUGH Purgatory. The only people who go through Purgatory are those people who, while on the path to Heaven, don't become perfectly pure and detached from sin in this life (that is, the overwhelming majority of people on the path to Heaven). Another thing to know about going through Purgatory is that there is no official Church teaching regarding whether or not Purgatory is even a place (it's defined as a process, and there may or may not be a specific place associated with it) or whether it takes any set amount of time (or even any time at all). So, to answer your question, if you'd like to go through Purgatory and are currently on the path to Hell, you would follow the same steps you would follow to be in a state of grace and get on the path to Heaven (since only those who are on the path to Heaven will go through Purgatory): if you are not a Christian, get baptized; if you are a Christian, confess your sins and do penance. I hope this helps.
TH-cam does not allow me to give videos on this channel the "thumb up" (👍)... I would if I could *_but I can't!!!_*
I'll give it a thumbs up for you 👍
@@catholiccom
Thanks! I've noticed similar difficulty with several channels of late.
Does anyone else have similar issues?
Your translation is not quite correct. You say “and the son”. Filioque means “and FROM the son.” Son is filius. From the son is filio. “Que” is “and” when you intend to convey two things going naturally together.
Well, the Spirit does proceed FROM the son, they are 2 different persons yet holds the same Godhood. Doesn't change anything at all
Indeed you are right. "-que" is just a post-poned "and". You are very precise, though this does not basically change what Karlo Broussard expresses.
I think that this is very important. Orthodox don't understand this distinction and think that it changes the "power balance" of the Holy Trinity. They think that it makes the Holy Spirit less important and not equal in the Trinity.
@@hirakisk1973 Hm, interesting.
I am not a theologian by any stretch of the imagination, but I would have thought that, if the Holy Spirit does not also move from the Son to the Father, then the Son is somehow "less" than the Father.
@@maxdepasquale2351 That was the point the Synod of Toledo was trying to make. However its addition was unnecessary.
This was a bad argument that denigrates Holy Spirit to a third rate member of the godhead. I don't see the appeal, but the downsides are plentiful. It was added to combat falsehoods of Islam. It increased standing of the Son to the detriment of the Spirit, while destroying complementary relationship within Trinity.
Spanish Church added this because of a particular doctrinal confrontation that dies not exist now...what was the oroginal confrontation??
You are Correct! Synod of Toledo. It was against Arianism
The Filioque is an optional addition to the Creed. While the Western Church had good cause to add the phrase, it is not universally used even among Catholics. Many Eastern Catholics do not say it (as is their right) and recent popes have omitted the Filioque on ocassion during Mass, especially when concelebrating with Eastern Churches.
I think it is better to highlight the particular heresies faced by the Western Church that led to the addition of the Filioque and to note the freedom of sui juris Catholic Churches to omit (though not outright condemn) the phrase than to try to persuade them on it's rightness or essentiality itself.
Precisely! Thank you!
Everything that the Father has belongs to the Son as after the incarnation and ascension. Not before the time.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
@@kcal12 But so was the Holy Spirit! Co-eternal, Co-equal, Uncreated!
Also, if the Holy Spirit only proceeded from the Father, you couldn't distinguish Him from Jesus Christ, the Son.
huh? nonsense
@@st.michaelthearchangelorth1055 They share everything, except origin.
Since no scale of truth has only one side, here is the other:
1) The Holy Spirit is a person. The Father is also spirit and the Son was solely spirit before the incarnation. The understanding of the Trinity balance is changed here, diminishing the Holy Spirit.
2) The filioque is an innovation. It corrects the holy fathers of the 1st ecumenical council, the Council of Nicaea in 325. Hence the name Nicean Creed.
3) It gives confusion to the Baptism of Christ. Did the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son before descending upon him again in the form of a dove? Is there a double procession of one person? Should the Creed say the Spirit proceeds from the Father OR the Son?
I have heard this side and honestly I haven’t come to a conclusion to this subject. In truth it ( the entire subject) doesn’t seem to have much weight on my faith . But your first point makes me wonder if Jesus,and I assume he must, has a human soul. And didn’t begin at his conception?
Catholic Explanation: Clear, logical, gracious
Orthodox Explanation: schizo, spergy, fringe, angry
In him dwells the Godhead bodily
Just have to ignore John 15:26
Are you trying to say that John 15:26 contradicts the Filioque? The verse taken in its entirety is completely in line with what Karlo describes in the video
There’s only One True God, The Holy Trinity-The Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit. All three coeternal, equal and ONE! Mt 3:16-17, 4:7, 28:19, 1 Jn 5:5-9, Jn 1:1-14, 14:6-26, 20:28, 1Tim 1:2, Gen 1:26-27, 2:18, 1 Pet 1:2-3, Rev1:5-8. Like water is ice, liquid & vapor, all three are water.
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, and unto us a son is given. And leadership is placed upon his shoulder. And his name shall be called: wonderful Counselor, MIGHTY GOD, FATHER OF THE FUTURE AGE, PRINCE OF PEACE.
9:7 His reign will be increased, and there will be no end to his peace. He will sit upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, to confirm and strengthen it, in judgment and justice, from now even unto eternity. The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall accomplish this.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and GOD WAS THE WORD.
John 1:14 And the WORD became flesh, and he lived among us, and we saw his glory, glory like that of an only-begotten Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him: “I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father, except through me.
14:7 If you had known me, certainly you would also have known my Father. And from now on, you shall know him, and YOU HAVE SEEN HIM.”
John 14:9 Jesus said to him: “Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known me? Philip, WHOEVER SEES ME, ALSO SEES THE FATHER. How can you say, ‘Reveal the Father to us?
14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I am speaking to you, I do not speak from myself. But the Father abiding in me, he does these works.
14:11 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?
John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give another Advocate to you, so that he may abide with you for eternity:
14:17 the Spirit of Truth, whom the world is not able to accept, because it neither perceives him nor knows him. But you shall know him. For he will remain with you, and he will be in you.
14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will suggest to you everything whatsoever that I have said to you
1 Timothy 1:2 to Timothy, beloved son in the faith. Grace, mercy, and peace, from God The Father and from Christ Jesus our Lord.
That's Modalism-a heresy
@@st.michaelthearchangelorth1055 Gods Only One True Apostolic Catholic Church does not have heresies. A heretic is one who rejects Gods One True Apostolic Catholic Church & makes their own version or believes in the versions that God did not establish. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees & Scribes for rejecting His Church & Doctrine & created their own, like all 44,000 other Christian Churches did.Mt23:1-39, Lk 11:37-54 He wants everyone to be His One True Church, receiving His Doctrine, Sacraments & Teachings.2n1:9, Rom16:17, 2Thes3:6-16, Gal1:6-9, 2Cor11:3-4, Eph4:4-6, Jn10:16,
We’re the only ones who remain in His Doctrine, Sacraments and Teachings. All other Christian Churches rejected Gods Doctrine and or His Sacraments and Teachings, when He taught & prayed everyone would remain in His Church and Doctrine.
@@southernlady1109 That's just not true. The Oriental Orthodox, The Armenian Apostolic, the Orthodox Churches have the Seven Sacraments and Ancient Christian doctrines. Your own Church has even made a concordat with the Armenians(who once were considered heretics) and allow them to Holy Communion.
@@st.michaelthearchangelorth1055 I know our Orthodox brothers can still receive Gods Sacraments, they just don’t remain in His Doctrine and some of His Teachings.
In all his salutations in all his epistles not once does Paul mention the holy spirit. Gee Paul, how disrespectful. The one time he does mention it at the end of 2nd Corinthians it's merely the COMMUNION of the holy spirit.
Luke 1:35 gives a definition of the Holy Spirit: the power of the MOST High. Is your spirit a separate and/or distinct person? Unless you're schizophrenic.
As soon as He refers to Peter as the rock, He tells him to Get thee behind me. Satan. So much for papal infallibility, authority.
Did you know that the late, Great Pope Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) not only excluded the 'filioque' but gave every pastor of every Catholic parish the right to have his parish recite the creed at Holy Mass without the 'filioque'? Pope Francis has followed suit by excluding the 'filioque' when he recites it publicly(probably the only good thing he has done in this miserable pontificate). This issue is not doctrinal. it is ecclesiological, that is, how we understand the Church to operate since the Holy Apostles gathered in AD 48-50 at the Council of Jerusalem. Did you know that Pope Adrian I fought against its inclusion and Pope Leo III was so horrified that he erected an enormous Bronze and Silver plaque on the Holy Doors of St. Peter's Basilica with the Nicene Creed without the 'filioque' ;because Charlemagne wanted to use the 'filioque' and strong armed the Church to accept it. Although Leo III did not disapprove the Filioque doctrine, the Pope strongly believed the clause should not be included into the Creed. In spite of the efforts of the Church of Rome, the acceptance of the Filioque clause in the Creed of the Frankish Church proved to be irreversible. So it got in without a proper universal council of Bishops under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit! But, what about the Council of Florence? Yes, you mentioned that. Did you know that the 'filioque' was a bargaining tool at the Council of Florence? Byzantium was brought to their knees by the Moslem Saracens who took the Great City of Constantinople, turning the Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom(Hagia Sophia) into a mosque. Rome further squeezed their cajones by promising military strength to Byzantium if they but accept the 'filioque'. You left that part out, brother! In any event, if the late, great Pope Benedict XVI excluded the 'filioque' when praying publicly then to argue it doctrinally is moot!
It will always come down to either trusting GOD or trusting mortals in Rome
Is it such a fine point that it needed to be made if the cost adds division? Kind of like 2 guys holding hands getting a blessing but "as individuals" and yet optically as a couple? Must we follow Marx brother's theology -who you gonna believe, ME or your lying eyes? I mean do we really need "theological" constructs that kind of satisfy one group and alienate another, or a continent? Must a pope pronounce on such items?
I would have thought a certain amount of prudence, and speech, and accompaniment would be available in equal measure to all in such ways as to foster unity and not divide. Like not eating at pagan temple restaurants for the sake of not scandalizing some, or having the audacity to listen to Paul when your dinner party is all of ONE KIND.
I think popes have a lot to answer for to God and to His people when they pronounce things.
Without Filoque there is no trinity. The eastern schismatic church does not teach Christianity because the Trinity is the central theme of Christianity.
Because it's ture
based