🌝 Support us (there are benefits on different platforms!) 💌 Patreon: www.patreon.com/BibleIllustrated 🎁 Merch: bibleillustrated.sellfy.store/ ☕ Buy as a coffee on Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/C0C61UGRQ ⭐ Subscribe Star: www.subscribestar.com/bible-illustrated 💝 Join this channel to get perks: th-cam.com/channels/4VktB44EEkmQV8DymZVGtQ.htmljoin
I would love to hear your thoughts on the Matt Frad interview with and Eastern Catholic priest who agrees, along with the pope emeritus, that the filioque should be removed.
@@republicradio431 Well, comnunion was supposed to be official after the council of Florence as long as dogmatization of papal supremacy and Filioque, but it didn't turn out...
Republic Radio “1054” is an arbitrary, retroactive designation designed to give the illusion that the Schism was a ‘clean break’, like with Luther and Calvin. This is done for convenience more than anything else. As Father Trenham has said, IF we MUST have an “Official” exact Schism cutoff date, it SHOULD “...be 1204.”, the day it became ABSOLUTELY clear that the Holy Sees themselves, at least, were “...no longer ONE.”, especially since the pope’s inability to discipline those thug mercenaries larping as ‘warrior monks’ showed that the institution as a whole, in spite of the pope personally condemning their unauthorized actions, was at least indifferent to anyone still defending Patriarchal Confederation over absolute Papal monarchy (and Cardinalate bureaucracy). Yet, intercommunion STILL stubbornly persisted in certain quarters. Sometimes it suddenly came about under uniquely tragic circumstances, such as how the very last Divine Liturgy inside the Hagia Sophia was administrated by Orthodox, Romans, Uniates and neutral priests who had been at each other’s throats for months now came together in the brotherhood of anticipated martyrdom, certain their blood would all soon mix under Mehmed 2’s blade, would first fill their veins with Christ’s Blood, and The songs of Saints Gregory, Basil and Chrysostom sounded throughout.😢☦️ However, one branch of Melkites remained steadfastly neutral and in intercommunion with Rome and Orthodoxy, UNTIL 1870, when Pius 9 put his foot down on the question of Communion loyalty, literally , upon Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Youssef. While he ultimately submitted to Vatican 1, several of his Bishops were so vexed by this outrageous behavior and Papal extremes that they resolved to also finally “pick a side” and became The Antiochian Orthodox Autocephally to this day, now under John 10th, MY Patriarch. So, no, the Great Schism was not only not a “clean break”, it was more like a VERY thick rope that had been very slowly sawed through, one thread at a time, with a nail file over 1,000 years, starting with the Carolingian meddling with how Western Bishops were selected.
Well, you are just being vague then. Each Church has its own unique melodies, so we seperate them Andreas. For example, Russian and Greek psalms have different melodies. We don't mix them together. Only people who are not aware confuse them.
What's most painful in this Great Schism IMO, is simple fact that West and East Churches differences on theological matters weren't so big to make unity impossible. Latins and Greeks disputed fervently, but they were still within the boundaries of The Faith. What really divided us was hunger of power and ignorance of people who were obligated to shepherd the faithful.
How great it would if we could reunite again before 2054.... it’s difficult for sure, but I think it’s possible. May God bless and guide us to Unity, with Faith and mutual respect. As Catholic I wish the best to all my Orthodox brothers! PS - the musketeers reference caught me off guard. It was a very good one, I must admit.
Чтобы нам быть вместе , католики должен строго исполнять апостольские правила. А следовательно исходя из святоотеческого и апостольского предания, католики должны будут отказаться от ереси fillioque, от примата папы, как главы церкви! Ибо Христос глава церкви, а наместник Христа на земле Дух Святой. Оказаться от ереси непорочного зачатия ибо этому лжеучению ранняя ещё единая церковь никогда не учила. Только тогда возможно воссоединение! Ибо, какая связь между истиной и ложью и какая связь Христа и Веллиара?
@@Recusant_Where was the Filioque in 100 AD? Where was it in 400 AD? How about 700 AD? Seriously now, the 2 issues are that the Filioque was ADDED to the Nicean Creed, which is FORBIDDEN by the eighth Ecumenical Council. NOTHING could be added to the Nicean Creed after that Council, which occurred around 800 AD. The second issue is that it breaks the balance of the Trinity.
When we Catholics say, "no where does it say that the holy spirit does not proceed from the son too" we are not referring to the council, but to all scripture. In revelations 22:1 it says that it comes from both the father and the lamb. Our point is that saying it proceeds from the son also in not contradictory to any scripture and its not changing the understanding of the the trinity, but clarifying.
Revelation 22:1 talks about a river of living water, which is used to symbolize the Holy Spirit. BUT, there is a delicacy here. In scripture the term "holy spirit/spirit of God" can mean two things. The one is the person of the Holy Spirit, the other is the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is an energy/action, and as such it proceeeds from all three persons, as they all have one energy/action, one will and one essence. In this case there is no reason to assume this passage refers to the person instead of the energy/action. One also needs to distinguish between eternal procession of the Spirit (which is a personal attribute), and temporal procession of the Spirit (which is a specific role in salvation). Because latin uses the same word (procedere) to refer to both types (adding), it beggs the question whether in the latin texts before the 7nth or 8th century fillioque means eternal procession from the Son or temporal procession. Given that the greek fathers and the absolute majority of the greek knowing latin fathers take it to mean temporal procession I have no reason to assume the latin fathers thought otherwise.
@@kostpap3554 I think this whole issue points to a larger one that needs to be discussed. Orthodox make a distinction between essence and energy while catholics don't so we are debating under different parameters. The churches need to be in union amd then hold a council for a final word on this.
@@kostpap3554 also for a clarification are you sayimg that orthodox beleive that it is saying the energy of the Holy spirit proceeds from both but not the person?
@@martinloynaz5085 Yes. The three persons have one will and one essence, their only difference resting in their personalities. Because they have the same will and essence, when the Spirit wills to act, the Father and the Spirit also will to act, and because all three partake of the same essence their action is common in both intention and "labour". On the other hand, the personal attributes (begotten from, proceeding from, source of divinity) are unique to each person.
Thanks for explaining the controversy behind the Filioque clause (even if in a somewhat sarcastic manner). I learned in college that the clause was one of the points of contention between the Western and Eastern churches, but the theological significance of the clause wasn't explained to me.
FACT: Mario and Luigi would have been Roman Catholic and supportive of the Filioque, change my mind. j/k. Latin Rite here, I never even knew about the disagreement between the leavening in the Eucharist, that's pretty interesting. I visited a Divine Liturgy once and loooooved it, but I wasn't in a state of grace so didn't see the Eucharist up close there. It really pained me that this separation still exists.
Catholic here. Generally fine with most things said. But theres a few points I think you present very unfairly or leaving out a lot of context. 1. Filioque First some straight forward arguments from scripture and early fathers. a. if the Holy spirit procedes from the Father as the Son doesnt that mean that he would be The Son or a "Second son" instead? But thats not how scripture reveals him to us. He is not a Son but the "Spirit of the Father" (Mt 10:20) and as the Spirit "of the Son (Gal 4:6) this implies he is proceeding from both b. All the passages that speak of the Father and the Son sending the Holy Spirit together to the faithful (Jn 15:26, Acts 2:33) c. The Greeks affirmation of the Filioque at the council of Florence 1438 "The Greek prelates believed that every saint, precisely as a saint, was inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore could not err in the faith. If they expressed themself differently, their meanings must substancially agree....Once the Greeks accepted that the Latin Fathers had really written Filioque (they could not understand Latin) the issue was settled. The Greek fathers neccesarily meant the same, the faiths of the two churches were identical, union was not only possible but obligatory. And on june 8ththe Latin credula (statements of belief) on the procession (of the Spirit) was accepted by the Greek synod." They also conceeded papal supremacy ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°): "One advantage, at least, resulted from the Council of Florence: it proclaimed before both Latins and Greeks that the Roman pontiff was the foremost ecclesiastical authority in Christendom; and Eugene IV was able to arrest the schism which had been threatening the Western Church anew (see COUNCIL OF BASLE). This council was, therefore, witness to the prompt rehabilitation of papal supremacy, and facilitated, the return of men like Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, who in his youth had taken part in the Council of Basle, but ended by recognizing its erroneous attitude, and finally became pope under the name Pius II. " www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm d. earliest church fathers Tertulian of Carthage "I believe the Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the Father through the Son" - against Praxeas 4 (a.d 218) (which is all the filioque meant) CoF "Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the Latin doctrine in the following terms: "the Latin Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Father. It is from the Father that the Son holds his place in the 'Procession' of the Holy Ghost. It is in this sense that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, but He proceeds also from the Son." St. Gregory Thaumaturgus "And there is one Holy Spirit, having his subsistance from God, and being made manifest by the Son, to men: image of the Son, perfect image of the perfect, life the cause of the living, holy fount, sanctity, the supplier of sanctification, in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all" - Declaration of the Faith (a.d 265) i could go on but you get the point. Now the point about what bread ought to be used. As you pointed out none in the early church explicitly stated and we have no other records what was to be used during the sacrifice of the mass and it is effectively guesswork. History does not establish conclusively what the practice of the Apostles and their successors was, but it may be asserted with some probability that they made use of whatever bread was at hand, whether azymous or fermented. Now you did a decent job presenting the arguments of the western church when it comes to what kind of bread is used and why. With one critical failure. The west never questioned the Easterners use of leavaned bread nor accused them of being heretics and some such. The west conceeded from the outset the right of the East to hold to the traditions they had received. If they had used leavaned bread since "forever" their tradition is wholly legitamate as the faith they had received. Eventually, even if heated at first it was quickly discovered to be a non issue. The East had the right to its tradition and so did the West.
1. Filioque a. You would have to equate the actions of begetting and spirating to say there would be a "confusion". As you've said, procession is a vague term, both begetting and spirating can be called "procession", but that does not mean there aren't two very specific terms for both. b. To say the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son is fine, and if that's what you mean by filioque, that's fine. But do you? Catholics get very slippery when it comes to saying this, like you starting with: Well without the filioque, the Holy Spirit is basically the same as the Son. There is literally zero reasons to believe that. Now, to get to the crux of the issue: Do you believe that the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son is economic or hypostatic? Ie, is it about it being given to creation through the Son, OR does there need to be a Son for there to be a Holy Spirit in the Trinity? Because if you believe in the latter, we don't share the same faith. We don't believe, nor do the Church Fathers, that the the Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father and the Son as from one single principle, they believed, as we do, that the Holy Spirit is delivered to the world by the Son, from the Father. c. There were those willing to concede points under duress. The idea of the primacy of the bishop of Rome was always present, but not in the form we find in Vatican I. There is no papal infallibility, there is no Vicarius Fili Dei. Mouthpiece of the bishops? Absolutely. A clero-monarch? Not a chance. Most of it is based not in patristic tradition, but in the forgery Donation of Constantine. And both papal supremacy and filioque were supported by other forgeries like the pseudo-Isydorian decretals, which were all used by the papacy, and then just went whoops, sowwy. d. I already addressed that earlier. The West DID accuse the East for using leavened bread, cardinal Humbert himself did so. Even so, the West used to use unleavened bread. Our Western Rite parishes serve the liturgy of Pope Gregory the Great, from the late VI/early VII century, and they use leavened bread. A practice later abandoned by the Latins. We were also accused of having omitted the filioque, even though such accusations were done away with by pope Leo III after Aachen and Libri Carolini were condemned, and he put up two silver plaques in Latin and Greek, the Latin not containing the filioque. Were it not for the Frankish court, this could all have been avoided. I mean, the filioque was not used in Rome until 1014. to please the emperor of the HRE. Not to mention how much the Latin church was infected by Aristotle through Aquinas, because after that, the faiths of East and West are now completely and utterly irreconcilable.
''c. The Greeks affirmation of the Filioque at the council of Florence 1438 '' Well it was mostly a political decision because.. you know... TURKS AT THE GATES!!!
Roman catholic here. I hold in high esteem the faith, liturgy and spirituality of the Orthodox Churches (whether Greek, Russian or Oriental). This makes the pain of our visible division even greater. I wish we could overcome it with the help of God. In this spirit, can an orthodox lay down for me, what the orthodox Churches would require from us Latins to do in order to overcome the schism? Suppose we Catholics were ready to do anything you ask, what would you Orthodox ask for? I ask in spirit of charity, to make an examination of OURS (Catholic) difficulties.
Come to our Divine liturgies . It's where we sing & pray our theology. It's where God will speak to your heart. It's where you will experience God. It's where you will listen to the Truth. It's where your conversion will take place.
There was once a time where the East and West were together. Many think it was Photius or Mark of Ephesus that caused this, but it wasn’t; it was the Muslim Sultan who appointed a Patriarch of Constantinople to excommunicate the Pope. That’s the current schism that lasts today. Either way, I feel like schismatic status depends on the person rather than the circumstances of schism. Also God bless all of you
You shouldve mentioned how Charlemagne was a huge advocate of the filioque and accused the Byzantines of REMOVING it from the creed. The filioque was peddled around by Clarlognian clergy before it made its way to Rome
@@tuck-brainwks-eutent-hidva1098 if you know Bojan you know that he is a huge fan of Jenna, so once my friends told me about these news I knew he'd have to talk about it
I saw that but I didn't get it. What does that have to do with the Catholic Church? For reference, I don't even know who she is other than what Google has propped up.
In my understanding the addition of Filioque was to bypass thw shortcomings of the Latin Language in Respect to ἀρχή, as this concept is not properly shown in the Latin Version of the Creed. So not including the Filioque phrase would make it Heretical. The 'principium' is not touched by Filioque . But i am open to debate.
Regarding the Filioque, I believe it would be very helpful to have another Council with the Catholic, and the three branches or Orthodox Churches (Eastern Oriental & East) to hammer out this Filioque issue once and for all.
@@evangelosdiamantopoulos8608 more byzantine supremacy hogwash! The son sends the spirit in the scriptures, therefore he proceeds from both but the father is the originater of the son and the spirit. Both western and eastern fathers teach that the spirit proceeds from the father and the son. St. Cyril says: “Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it”
@@presteyqah3963You and Evangelos are using two different meanings of proceeds. The argument of the "Filliqoue" clause is based on the relation described in the term "proceeds" to be analogous to "begotten" in the relationship of the Son to the Father. An analogy often used is that the Spirit proceeds as Eve proceeded out of Adam, and the Son is begotten as Seth was begotten of Adam. You however are using the term to describe the beckoning forth of the Holy Spirit by the Son and Father. As far as I can tell atleast lol.
@@falcomalko5938 I know the difference and the how the relationship of the holy trinity works. I was just stating that the spirit does come or is sent by the son too even if it originates from the father. Both the son and the spirit get their origin from the father.
The Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire version 2.0 . In fact, they still consider themselves as Romans since the eastern part is still part of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire didn't collapse, Constantine only just relocated the capital of the empire.
There is no confusion in the Gospel of John regarding the Eucharist. One must understand the Jewish Feasts. Passover (or Pesach) is on the 14th day of Nissan (aka Abib), and it is NOT a day of Rest (not a Shabbat). Also, keep in mind that the Jewish day begins at sundown, so the Apostles prepared the Passover Meal (aka Seder) on Thursday, but once the sun went down it was Friday. The 15th Day of Nissan is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (though usage of Unleavened bread actually started of the 14th, or 8 days in total). The Feast of Unleavened Bread lasted 7-days, which the 1st & 7th days being a Day of Rest (A Shabbat), and when it coincides with the 7th day, which was the regular weekly day of rest (a Shabbat), then it is a "Shabbaton", meaning a very special day of rest. St. John speaks to this. My point is that Jesus did use Unleavened Bread when he instituted the Eucharist, but that does not mean it is required to always be Unleavened Bread. I've been to Catholic Masses where leaved bread was used, but traditionally Unleavened Bread is used because that is what Jesus used. Now, before somebody points it out, there was no lamb at Jesus last supper. Why??? Well, because the lamb had not been sacrificed and the Jews had to wait till daybreak to take their Passover lamb to the Temple to be sacrificed, as instructed in the Torah (Pentateuch), that is, to sacrifice the Passover lamb in the Temple between the two twilights. That is between sunrise and sunset. This was different than that one time in Egypt. So in short, yes! Jesus did institute the Eucharist with Unleavened Bread, but celebrating the Liturgy with Leavened bread is OK too. Let's not "strain the mint and the cumin please". I'm sure more questions will arise from this topic. Drop them here and I'll try to answer them.
Bojan, could you please PRAY, research, pray some more, and then comment on the controversy of the new Russian Military Cathedral outside Moscow? I can’t help smelling something devilish going on around it. I’m praying for your recovery from Covid. Big hug from a Catholic brother 💪🏽 (If you do comment on the above subject, keep praying after that too).
As for the bread. I do not think it matters. But, the Greek word artos means leavened bread. It is used in every rendering of the establishment of the eucharist. The passages even speak of the feast of the unleavened (bread) when referring to Passover, still they use the Greek word which means leavened. There is a special word in Greek when referring to unleavened bread otherwise it is assumed that it is normal bread. So Jesus used leavened bread for the eucharist. So unless you think the evangelists who spoke Greek didn't understand Greek, or that they made a mistake when describing the establishment of the eucharist, you kind of have to agree that they used leavened bread. To make it clear, the text uses the word for feast of the unleavened, but mentions the bread as artos, which usually designates normal bread. Why use confusing terms when it is easier to understand that the evangelists specified in their own text that the bread was different. I in fact like both symbolistic explanations: unleavened symbolizing the purity and sinlessness of Christ, and the leavened symbolizing his fullness of humanity, both are good symbols and I do not think there is a theological problem with either type of bread.
I'm with Saint Sophrony, the Filioque distorted our understanding of the Trinity's Hypostasis and resulted in "Romanticism" (ya know cuz it's a Roman Catholic) that results in the anthropological unraveling of our understanding of love. The Catophatic understanding of the Trinity in unison. Sorry Saint Maximos the confessor, it ended up a bigger theological dilemma centuries later.
You don't need to call it Eastern Roman Empire, since there was no Western Empire. It's just "Roman Empire" after 476, so there's no reason to use the "B" word.
So before the great shizaam there was already a lighter form of separation in the Latin rite and Byzantine rite? To me it sounds like the great shizaaaam was primarily political, and the filioque itself was not the main problem but the unilateral changing of the Creed was. And when I say political I mean power hungry leaders, not very unlike the Pharisees, scribes, and elders in the years our Lord walked the earth...
If Pope Leo III opposed the addition of the filioque clause, why would he personally believe it? Additionally Pope John IIX condemned the addition of the said clause. Merely curious, if anyone can explain it, please do.
He didn't want to cause problems with the Eastern Church, and he felt the strongman tactics used by the Franks in order to insert it. I must say I have a lot of respect for trying to preserve Church unity like that.
I have a question regaring the yeast debate: was manna levent bread? The parallel between manna in the desert after the original pesach and the last supper is clear, but I am unaware if it was or not. I think this is important, as christ is best understood as the fulfillment of the second exodus and the second pact as prophesized. Furthermore, many catholics agree with / accept the orthodox critique of the filioque, including pope john paul II I believe. I as a catholic myself have not done thorough research on the matter, but I am open to change my understanding on this point. However, the real juice will be your next episode. I am curious as to what your perspective is on the pope because this is certainly where I have the best understanding and the most catholic opinion. I look forward to it, and than you for this episode:) Quick Sidenote: kyrie eleison, not miserere domine, is still part of the catholic rite.
What about the Crusaders who went to the Byzantine Empire and stole everything taking it back to the West? These Crusaders said they were going to the Holy Land and went nowhere near the Holy Land!
6:29 It seems like the image is implying, and I have heard Eastern Orthodox Christians say before, that the Filioque somehow confuses the Trinity makes the Holy Spirit a lesser person. However, I am unaware of the reasoning behind this position- could anyone explain?
I'm new to the faith so I might not get this right but essentially God's two aspects (his energies and persons) have different "properties". God the energy/whole trinity is omniscient, omnipotent and ect that is shared between all three persons. While the persons each have unique traits thatre unshared. A decent example could be Father as judge, son as savior and spirit as gift giver. These are their own "domains" which they manage. But if the the spirit comes from both the father and son that means two persons of God share a trait which the "Godhead" doesn't since the spirit doesn't come from the spirit. A better way to think of it is, the trinity is an equation nice and beautiful balanced but with the filioque it makes the entire equation unstable and imbalanced
@@ChristianEphraimson if you're going to criticize two persons sharing a trait, how about both the Son and the Spirit having their source in the Father, one begotten and the other proceeding? unless those can be legitimately distinguished. and if they can be, why couldn't Filioquists distinguish between the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the procession of the Spirit through the Son?
@@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275 That's kinda the point. The Father alone is "the Originator", unbegotten and unproceeded. The Son is the only begotten, and the Spirit is "the only proceeded". If both the Son and the Spirit were begotten (or both were proceeded), that would be a theological problem indeed because the Father should also be begotten/proceeded... Conversely, saying that there are two originators in the Trinity creates this theological issue. Furthermore, one could try to argue that Filioque breaks the equality of these divine persons/hypostasis - by making the Spirit "the child" of the Son and the Father (just like some people erronously present Jesus as the child of God the Father and "Spirit the Mother"). And what I have heard, Filioque misses the difference between the hypostatical procession and the economic procession. Hypostatically, the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (i.e. receives His "existence" from Him), but economically the Spirit proceeds into the world from the Father through the Son. The Father gives His Spirit to the Son, and the Spirit dwells within the Son, and the Son proceeds to give the Spirit to the world.
@@HomoEucharistica it all sounds rather meaningless to me, but then I have never grasped in the first place what it might mean for God to proceed from God or from God to be begotten by God, what the difference actually is between those two, and how God can still be simple if something is causing another thing. perhaps I'm simply not ready even to think about the Filioque; I'd need to understand how the heck the doctrine of the Trinity is supposed to be logical first.
@@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275 Perhaps, and for that purpose there're dozens of Christian writings regarding Holy Trinity, from the 2nd century (e.g. "The Dialogue with Trypho" by St Justin Martyr) until our days (e.g. those few chapters in "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis). But if the history has taught to us something it's that whenever a human, with human language and human logic, tries to grasp the divine nature that is beyond created languages and logics, he is doomed to fail (its fruits are Arianism, Modalism, Tritheism, Filioque, and so on). The Trinity MAKES SENSE and is reasonable in the light of what we know about God and how we interact with Him, but it will never be LOGICAL as long as we are using logics based on this world.
Agni Parthene is indeed a nice hymn. The Valaam version is best imo. My favourite hymn though is Be Thou my Vision. But that might be because I'm Irish and biased :P Also, my church (Church of Ireland, Anglican) uses leavened bread (the use of unleavened is against our canon law), we don't bow down to the pope, we're considering dropping the filioque, we don't have sola scriptura (we have a 3-legged stool: prima scriptura, tradition of the early church fathers & reason), and our primate bears the title Metropolitan (as well as Arch-Bishop... and Primate). Can we be friends with the Orthodox? :D
You're missing the fact of the Latin insistence on defining God's simplicity in the Hellenistic/Augustinian way. That was a major cause of the Schism, and the root cause of the Filioque (and Papal Supremacy, in part). Check out Dr. Bradshaw and his research into Absolute Divine Simplicity, and check out St. Photios on the Filioque. Don't get me wrong, I love St. Augustine. He's great. But there are some areas where he leaned to much on Hellenic philosophy.
Unleavened bread... What's the problem with keeping the matzas that Jesus may have used in the Last Supper? Ohhhh... Thanksgiving... With yeast.... Now I finally understand the problem...
would you call west before the schism early catholicism or western orthodoxy, i think early catholicism makes more sense since there were so many differences before communion was broken
Could you refer me to a source on how the Orthodox see the Holy Spirit? To be more specific: As a Catholic, I see mankind as in the image of God, so Jesus proceeds from the Father like Eve from Adam, and their mutual love is personified (for God, personified in the Spirit, for Adam and Eve in their offspring). How are humans an image of the Trinity for the Orthodox?
The Father is the Head of the Trinity, with the Son eternally begotten from the being of the Father (begotten, not created), and the Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father. The Father is the source of the divinity and being of the other two Persons, who are called the Son/Word *of* God (note that in the New Testament, "God" mostly refers to the Person of the Father) and the Spirit *of* God. We would probably say that the Son is begotten of the Father like Seth (or Cain or Abel) is the begotten son of Adam, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father like Eve proceeded from the side of Adam.
Great video! Only thing is it’s unfortunate many orthodox still use the same talking points about the filioque being of two processions. The graphics are very misleading and not at all what us catholics believe. It is in essential a language issue and authoritative issue, not theological.
Not to mention that a joint Catholic-Orthodox commission in the US found that the filioque is no longer a hindrance to unification. It became clear that there were nuances in Greek that did not exist in Latin. The filioque was never meant to say that the Holy Spirit comes from the Son just as He comes from the Father. It's kind of like... Let's say a father makes a toy for their child (yes, the Holy Spirit is uncreated but bear with me). The father gives it to the mother who then gives it to their child. When the child is asked who gave them that toy, the child can say either "My father gave me the toy" or "My father and mother gave me the toy". The child would not be wrong in either instances since each sentence stresses a different aspect. I've heard a lot of Orthodox say, "But there's a difference between 'through' and 'and'." Indeed, there is a difference, but that difference can't be shown as clearly in Latin. Indeed, I'd argue it can't at all (at least not with the same clarity that one can do it in Greek). So what did the bishops in Hispania do to clarify a main theological point and show that the Son is not a creature but stress that He is equally God just as the Father? They included a single word-phrase to hammer the point. Filioque.
Hey mate, I wouldn't go into such details, bottom pale truth is, the Pope and Vatican are in between any unification of Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholic people. Until a miracle happens, and the Pope and Vatican changes its doctrine , and they return to the true ways of Christanity, without a state, Pope's infallibility, bank, Yesuits, Ustashe, Nazis, Communist, and others monsterious projects against Orthodox people for starters, we've really got nothing else to discuss on the subject, especially not about filioque.
@@daenithriuszanathos9306 That's great and all, but the canons of Florence (a council the Roman Catholic Church accepts as ecumenical) explicitly define it as meaning double procession, not as merely proceeding *through* the Son as the modern RCC says. Unless the Pope were to declare the Council of Florence-Ferrara no longer ecumenical, then the commission's statements are meaningless
@@BroadwayRonMexico That's interesting because the Council of Florence is to be read in continuation with the other Ecumenical Councils. It also follows the formula stated by the Church Fathers (especially as with the likes of Augustine) who do use the "through the Son" meaning. Heck, even some of the Eastern Fathers affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, "for whatever the Father has, the Son has also", as they put it.
@@daenithriuszanathos9306 Straight from the Council of Florence: "In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and *has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son*, and proceeds from both eternally *as from one principle and a single spiration*. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed *as cause*, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, *just like the Father*" That's not "through" the Son (which we as Orthodox don't have a theological problem with, just with its inclusion in the Creed), that's dual-cause of the Spirit being taught as dogma at one of the Roman Catholic ecumenical councils. Im aware that most Catholics these days believe the Filioque means the Spirit merely proceeds through the Son, and that the hierarchs themselves now make statements to that effect as well. But this *does* contradict the established Roman Catholic dogma of earlier centuries, and that is an issue when it comes to reaching any sort of unified statement about the Filioque. Either Florence isnt ecumenical and your Pope needs to say as much, or our churches remain in dogmatic disagreement about the procession of the Spirit.
🌝 Support us (there are benefits on different platforms!)
💌 Patreon: www.patreon.com/BibleIllustrated
🎁 Merch: bibleillustrated.sellfy.store/
☕ Buy as a coffee on Ko-Fi: ko-fi.com/C0C61UGRQ
⭐ Subscribe Star: www.subscribestar.com/bible-illustrated
💝 Join this channel to get perks:
th-cam.com/channels/4VktB44EEkmQV8DymZVGtQ.htmljoin
“A suboptimal amount of leaven” is probably my favorite line.
This whole video is solid gold.
My def favorite as of recent. :-)
Even as a Roman-Catholic I found this really entertaining. I absolutely adore the work that you are doing!
The amount of times the protestants spilt up is immeasurable
'Ackshually: The Movie'
I would love to hear your thoughts on the Matt Frad interview with and Eastern Catholic priest who agrees, along with the pope emeritus, that the filioque should be removed.
Whait, but the 2 churches keept been in communion afther 1054 and wouldnt break untill afther the fall of constantinople, or am i rong?
@@ndkiwikid Sounds terrible, both of those men are heretics. But hey who isn't....
@@republicradio431 Well, comnunion was supposed to be official after the council of Florence as long as dogmatization of papal supremacy and Filioque, but it didn't turn out...
Republic Radio
“1054” is an arbitrary, retroactive designation designed to give the illusion that the Schism was a ‘clean break’, like with Luther and Calvin. This is done for convenience more than anything else.
As Father Trenham has said, IF we MUST have an “Official” exact Schism cutoff date, it SHOULD “...be 1204.”, the day it became ABSOLUTELY clear that the Holy Sees themselves, at least, were “...no longer ONE.”, especially since the pope’s inability to discipline those thug mercenaries larping as ‘warrior monks’ showed that the institution as a whole, in spite of the pope personally condemning their unauthorized actions, was at least indifferent to anyone still defending Patriarchal Confederation over absolute Papal monarchy (and Cardinalate bureaucracy).
Yet, intercommunion STILL stubbornly persisted in certain quarters. Sometimes it suddenly came about under uniquely tragic circumstances, such as how the very last Divine Liturgy inside the Hagia Sophia was administrated by Orthodox, Romans, Uniates and neutral priests who had been at each other’s throats for months now came together in the brotherhood of anticipated martyrdom, certain their blood would all soon mix under Mehmed 2’s blade, would first fill their veins with Christ’s Blood, and The songs of Saints Gregory, Basil and Chrysostom sounded throughout.😢☦️
However, one branch of Melkites remained steadfastly neutral and in intercommunion with Rome and Orthodoxy, UNTIL 1870, when Pius 9 put his foot down on the question of Communion loyalty, literally , upon Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Youssef. While he ultimately submitted to Vatican 1, several of his Bishops were so vexed by this outrageous behavior and Papal extremes that they resolved to also finally “pick a side” and became The Antiochian Orthodox Autocephally to this day, now under John 10th, MY Patriarch.
So, no, the Great Schism was not only not a “clean break”, it was more like a VERY thick rope that had been very slowly sawed through, one thread at a time, with a nail file over 1,000 years, starting with the Carolingian meddling with how Western Bishops were selected.
The variety of memes and references in this video is stunning.
“You don’t call it Eastern Roman Chant, but Byzantine Chant.”
No Bojan, I don’t. I call it “Church Music (εκκλησιαστική μουσική)”.
So how do you call Russian chant?
@@BibleIllustrated Cool words Church music! What else?
Well, you are just being vague then. Each Church has its own unique melodies, so we seperate them Andreas. For example, Russian and Greek psalms have different melodies. We don't mix them together. Only people who are not aware confuse them.
@@BibleIllustrated Znamennoe penie! Sorry Father, I don't have Cyrillic on my tablet! My prayers for an end to all schism.
What's most painful in this Great Schism IMO, is simple fact that West and East Churches differences on theological matters weren't so big to make unity impossible. Latins and Greeks disputed fervently, but they were still within the boundaries of The Faith. What really divided us was hunger of power and ignorance of people who were obligated to shepherd the faithful.
I'm a traditionalist Catholic, and we sing Kyrie Eleison every mass.
Here in Brazil , in a regular Mass we sing it too
How dare you? 😁
How great it would if we could reunite again before 2054.... it’s difficult for sure, but I think it’s possible. May God bless and guide us to Unity, with Faith and mutual respect. As Catholic I wish the best to all my Orthodox brothers!
PS - the musketeers reference caught me off guard. It was a very good one, I must admit.
Same
It's strange to think that, God willing, we may live to see the 1000 year anniversary of the Great Schism, how odd
Чтобы нам быть вместе , католики должен строго исполнять апостольские правила. А следовательно исходя из святоотеческого и апостольского предания, католики должны будут отказаться от ереси fillioque, от примата папы, как главы церкви! Ибо Христос глава церкви, а наместник Христа на земле Дух Святой. Оказаться от ереси непорочного зачатия ибо этому лжеучению ранняя ещё единая церковь никогда не учила. Только тогда возможно воссоединение! Ибо, какая связь между истиной и ложью и какая связь Христа и Веллиара?
@@user-patrick888_ can you explain what is theologically wrong about Filioque? Why is it a heresy? Also don’t Orthodox believe Mary was/is sinless?
@@Recusant_Where was the Filioque in 100 AD? Where was it in 400 AD? How about 700 AD?
Seriously now, the 2 issues are that the Filioque was ADDED to the Nicean Creed, which is FORBIDDEN by the eighth Ecumenical Council. NOTHING could be added to the Nicean Creed after that Council, which occurred around 800 AD.
The second issue is that it breaks the balance of the Trinity.
I'll have you know that I've received the Donation of Bojan, which gives me supreme worldly power over all of Bible Illustrated comment sections.
But yes I agree, it's the Bulgarians' fault, just like everything else in the world.
YOU SAID IT NOT ME.
It's not as if Greeks tried to hellenize us or exert power over us through their church...
Also, who converted the Slavs?
@@ХристоМартунковграфЛозенски Well that would be Vladimir the Great, who by modern standards would be either Russian or Ukrainian
@@TheExtremeIRON I said the Slavs. Not just the Russians.
guys.. why cant we all get along?
Yo thats what happen when you try to get 1 of your rivals into your religion
The whole episode is just r/dankchristianmemes
Chad chubby guy: Yes
Rip in peace
@@cullenkerr6556 (oo)F
Why is it private now
@@govols1995 what?
When we Catholics say, "no where does it say that the holy spirit does not proceed from the son too" we are not referring to the council, but to all scripture. In revelations 22:1 it says that it comes from both the father and the lamb. Our point is that saying it proceeds from the son also in not contradictory to any scripture and its not changing the understanding of the the trinity, but clarifying.
Revelation 22:1 talks about a river of living water, which is used to symbolize the Holy Spirit. BUT, there is a delicacy here. In scripture the term "holy spirit/spirit of God" can mean two things. The one is the person of the Holy Spirit, the other is the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is an energy/action, and as such it proceeeds from all three persons, as they all have one energy/action, one will and one essence. In this case there is no reason to assume this passage refers to the person instead of the energy/action. One also needs to distinguish between eternal procession of the Spirit (which is a personal attribute), and temporal procession of the Spirit (which is a specific role in salvation). Because latin uses the same word (procedere) to refer to both types (adding), it beggs the question whether in the latin texts before the 7nth or 8th century fillioque means eternal procession from the Son or temporal procession. Given that the greek fathers and the absolute majority of the greek knowing latin fathers take it to mean temporal procession I have no reason to assume the latin fathers thought otherwise.
@@kostpap3554 I think this whole issue points to a larger one that needs to be discussed. Orthodox make a distinction between essence and energy while catholics don't so we are debating under different parameters. The churches need to be in union amd then hold a council for a final word on this.
@@kostpap3554 also for a clarification are you sayimg that orthodox beleive that it is saying the energy of the Holy spirit proceeds from both but not the person?
@@martinloynaz5085 Yes. The three persons have one will and one essence, their only difference resting in their personalities. Because they have the same will and essence, when the Spirit wills to act, the Father and the Spirit also will to act, and because all three partake of the same essence their action is common in both intention and "labour". On the other hand, the personal attributes (begotten from, proceeding from, source of divinity) are unique to each person.
@@kostpap3554 amen
Last time I was this early the Pentarchy was still a thing
The council of Florence?
I was thoroughly entertained.
- a backstabarian subscriber
Thanks for explaining the controversy behind the Filioque clause (even if in a somewhat sarcastic manner). I learned in college that the clause was one of the points of contention between the Western and Eastern churches, but the theological significance of the clause wasn't explained to me.
Welp this video did it, looks like its time to finally convert to Orthodox Christianity.
Today I learned that I wanna be yeastern orthodox. :)
FINALLY A VIDEO ON THE SCHISM!
Darius Róśćęłwja You mean the “Shazam”? 🤣
Let us pray that we be healed of this schism and that we all become one.
[offended bulgarian noises]
I didn't know about your podcast until this episode - downloaded lots of episodes and loving it!
Glad you like it! :-)
3:21 We do call it “Roman chant” in the Coptic church
This was great. Thanks for all the work you put into this!
"or even worse, an episcopalian" i'm dead hahahahahahahaha. It was the best vid ever!
FACT: Mario and Luigi would have been Roman Catholic and supportive of the Filioque, change my mind. j/k. Latin Rite here, I never even knew about the disagreement between the leavening in the Eucharist, that's pretty interesting. I visited a Divine Liturgy once and loooooved it, but I wasn't in a state of grace so didn't see the Eucharist up close there. It really pained me that this separation still exists.
Surprisingly unbiased. Good job.
tomorrow is the 970th anniversary of the creation of the roman catholic church
The Churches : fighting over bread
People who are suffering and lost in sin : 💧 👁👄👁💧
Love from your backstabing neighbor.
hahhahahahha "watch your back"
hahahah and watch your back :)
The perfect mix of orthodoxy and memes , it , it glorious !
Catholic here....Bojan, you have started a flame war, your gonna cause a Great Schism 2.0 Electric Boogaloo
As an Episcopalian I enjoyed your jab at us!
Catholic here.
Generally fine with most things said.
But theres a few points I think you present very unfairly or leaving out a lot of context.
1. Filioque
First some straight forward arguments from scripture and early fathers.
a. if the Holy spirit procedes from the Father as the Son doesnt that mean that he would be The Son or a "Second son" instead?
But thats not how scripture reveals him to us. He is not a Son but the "Spirit of the Father" (Mt 10:20) and as the Spirit "of the Son (Gal 4:6) this implies he is proceeding from both
b. All the passages that speak of the Father and the Son sending the Holy Spirit together to the faithful (Jn 15:26, Acts 2:33)
c. The Greeks affirmation of the Filioque at the council of Florence 1438
"The Greek prelates believed that every saint, precisely as a saint, was inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore could not err in the faith. If they expressed themself differently, their meanings must substancially agree....Once the Greeks accepted that the Latin Fathers had really written Filioque (they could not understand Latin) the issue was settled. The Greek fathers neccesarily meant the same, the faiths of the two churches were identical, union was not only possible but obligatory. And on june 8ththe Latin credula (statements of belief) on the procession (of the Spirit) was accepted by the Greek synod."
They also conceeded papal supremacy ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°):
"One advantage, at least, resulted from the Council of Florence: it proclaimed before both Latins and Greeks that the Roman pontiff was the foremost ecclesiastical authority in Christendom; and Eugene IV was able to arrest the schism which had been threatening the Western Church anew (see COUNCIL OF BASLE). This council was, therefore, witness to the prompt rehabilitation of papal supremacy, and facilitated, the return of men like Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini, who in his youth had taken part in the Council of Basle, but ended by recognizing its erroneous attitude, and finally became pope under the name Pius II. "
www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm
d. earliest church fathers
Tertulian of Carthage "I believe the Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the Father through the Son" - against Praxeas 4 (a.d 218)
(which is all the filioque meant) CoF "Giovanni di Ragusa set forth clearly the Latin doctrine in the following terms: "the Latin Church recognizes but one principle, one cause of the Holy Spirit, namely, the Father. It is from the Father that the Son holds his place in the 'Procession' of the Holy Ghost. It is in this sense that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, but He
proceeds also from the Son."
St. Gregory Thaumaturgus "And there is one Holy Spirit, having his subsistance from God, and being made manifest by the Son, to men: image of the Son, perfect image of the perfect, life the cause of the living, holy fount, sanctity, the supplier of sanctification, in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all" - Declaration of the Faith (a.d 265)
i could go on but you get the point.
Now the point about what bread ought to be used.
As you pointed out none in the early church explicitly stated and we have no other records what was to be used during the sacrifice of the mass and it is effectively guesswork.
History does not establish conclusively what the practice of the Apostles and their successors was, but it may be asserted with some probability that they made use of whatever bread was at hand, whether azymous or fermented.
Now you did a decent job presenting the arguments of the western church when it comes to what kind of bread is used and why. With one critical failure. The west never questioned the Easterners use of leavaned bread nor accused them of being heretics and some such.
The west conceeded from the outset the right of the East to hold to the traditions they had received. If they had used leavaned bread since "forever" their tradition is wholly legitamate as the faith they had received.
Eventually, even if heated at first it was quickly discovered to be a non issue. The East had the right to its tradition and so did the West.
1. Filioque
a. You would have to equate the actions of begetting and spirating to say there would be a "confusion". As you've said, procession is a vague term, both begetting and spirating can be called "procession", but that does not mean there aren't two very specific terms for both.
b. To say the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son is fine, and if that's what you mean by filioque, that's fine. But do you? Catholics get very slippery when it comes to saying this, like you starting with: Well without the filioque, the Holy Spirit is basically the same as the Son. There is literally zero reasons to believe that. Now, to get to the crux of the issue: Do you believe that the procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son is economic or hypostatic? Ie, is it about it being given to creation through the Son, OR does there need to be a Son for there to be a Holy Spirit in the Trinity? Because if you believe in the latter, we don't share the same faith. We don't believe, nor do the Church Fathers, that the the Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father and the Son as from one single principle, they believed, as we do, that the Holy Spirit is delivered to the world by the Son, from the Father.
c. There were those willing to concede points under duress. The idea of the primacy of the bishop of Rome was always present, but not in the form we find in Vatican I. There is no papal infallibility, there is no Vicarius Fili Dei. Mouthpiece of the bishops? Absolutely. A clero-monarch? Not a chance. Most of it is based not in patristic tradition, but in the forgery Donation of Constantine. And both papal supremacy and filioque were supported by other forgeries like the pseudo-Isydorian decretals, which were all used by the papacy, and then just went whoops, sowwy.
d. I already addressed that earlier.
The West DID accuse the East for using leavened bread, cardinal Humbert himself did so. Even so, the West used to use unleavened bread. Our Western Rite parishes serve the liturgy of Pope Gregory the Great, from the late VI/early VII century, and they use leavened bread. A practice later abandoned by the Latins. We were also accused of having omitted the filioque, even though such accusations were done away with by pope Leo III after Aachen and Libri Carolini were condemned, and he put up two silver plaques in Latin and Greek, the Latin not containing the filioque. Were it not for the Frankish court, this could all have been avoided. I mean, the filioque was not used in Rome until 1014. to please the emperor of the HRE.
Not to mention how much the Latin church was infected by Aristotle through Aquinas, because after that, the faiths of East and West are now completely and utterly irreconcilable.
''c. The Greeks affirmation of the Filioque at the council of Florence 1438 ''
Well it was mostly a political decision because.. you know... TURKS AT THE GATES!!!
Entertaining AND educational. Awesome as always, sir.
Roman catholic here. I hold in high esteem the faith, liturgy and spirituality of the Orthodox Churches (whether Greek, Russian or Oriental). This makes the pain of our visible division even greater. I wish we could overcome it with the help of God.
In this spirit, can an orthodox lay down for me, what the orthodox Churches would require from us Latins to do in order to overcome the schism? Suppose we Catholics were ready to do anything you ask, what would you Orthodox ask for? I ask in spirit of charity, to make an examination of OURS (Catholic) difficulties.
Come to our Divine liturgies . It's where we sing & pray our theology. It's where God will speak to your heart. It's where you will experience God. It's where you will listen to the Truth. It's where your conversion will take place.
The Great Shazam. I am loving it.
This kind of content would be good for a sunday school. I say this unironically.
Brilliant! I love this!!
Thank you!
"I'll play the devil....'s advocate." 😂
Nice to see M in a video!
And fabulously spiky! 😂
I like this episode a lot! Miloš and all the memes are quite funny.
Orthodox and Catholics: arguing about using leavened or unleavened bread.
Protestants: bread is bread!
More like...
Protestants: It's not really the body of Christ. It's just a symbol!
Orthodox: >:(
Catholics: >:(
@@Abk367 but they all deny the supper is a sacrifice
Actually for Protestants, Skittles are bread.
@@Fortunatus144 visible confusion
@@eliegbert8121 some have used skittles and soda for the Eucharist
There was once a time where the East and West were together. Many think it was Photius or Mark of Ephesus that caused this, but it wasn’t; it was the Muslim Sultan who appointed a Patriarch of Constantinople to excommunicate the Pope. That’s the current schism that lasts today. Either way, I feel like schismatic status depends on the person rather than the circumstances of schism.
Also God bless all of you
You shouldve mentioned how Charlemagne was a huge advocate of the filioque and accused the Byzantines of REMOVING it from the creed. The filioque was peddled around by Clarlognian clergy before it made its way to Rome
Помоз Бог, нисам знао да си наш е.
Is that Guga Foods reading this? lol great video guys!
Will you do an episode about Emperor Leo the 3rd and his iconoclasm movement?
Possibly. Not a huge fan of historical subjects - decided to do the one on 1054 because of all the joks I was suddenly inspired with. :-)
I knew you'd include a Jenna Marbles cancellation reference 😆
Wait till you see an entire podcast episode dedicated to that :D
Still angry :D
That one caught me by surprise -- 🤣🤣🤣! Well done, guys....
@@tuck-brainwks-eutent-hidva1098 if you know Bojan you know that he is a huge fan of Jenna, so once my friends told me about these news I knew he'd have to talk about it
Where was it? I missed it.
I saw that but I didn't get it. What does that have to do with the Catholic Church? For reference, I don't even know who she is other than what Google has propped up.
In my understanding the addition of Filioque was to bypass thw shortcomings of the Latin Language in Respect to ἀρχή, as this concept is not properly shown in the Latin Version of the Creed. So not including the Filioque phrase would make it Heretical. The 'principium' is not touched by Filioque . But i am open to debate.
as a Bulgarian, this is the first time i have ever heard anything like this. i am sorry
A Dilbert reference?! I finally subscribed lmao
Regarding the Filioque, I believe it would be very helpful to have another Council with the Catholic, and the three branches or Orthodox Churches (Eastern Oriental & East) to hammer out this Filioque issue once and for all.
6:32 wrong.. the Eastern fathers said the holy spirit proceeds from the son too. From the father through the son.
"Through" is not the same as "from".
@@evangelosdiamantopoulos8608 more byzantine supremacy hogwash! The son sends the spirit in the scriptures, therefore he proceeds from both but the father is the originater of the son and the spirit.
Both western and eastern fathers teach that the spirit proceeds from the father and the son.
St. Cyril says: “Since the Holy Spirit when he is in us effects our being conformed to God, and he actually proceeds from the Father and Son, it is abundantly clear that he is of the divine essence, in it in essence and proceeding from it”
@@evangelosdiamantopoulos8608it doesn't matter. We know the father is the originater of the procession. That's my point
@@presteyqah3963You and Evangelos are using two different meanings of proceeds. The argument of the "Filliqoue" clause is based on the relation described in the term "proceeds" to be analogous to "begotten" in the relationship of the Son to the Father. An analogy often used is that the Spirit proceeds as Eve proceeded out of Adam, and the Son is begotten as Seth was begotten of Adam. You however are using the term to describe the beckoning forth of the Holy Spirit by the Son and Father. As far as I can tell atleast lol.
@@falcomalko5938 I know the difference and the how the relationship of the holy trinity works. I was just stating that the spirit does come or is sent by the son too even if it originates from the father.
Both the son and the spirit get their origin from the father.
The Byzantine Empire is the Roman Empire version 2.0 . In fact, they still consider themselves as Romans since the eastern part is still part of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire didn't collapse, Constantine only just relocated the capital of the empire.
"i'm catholic but i don't believe in real presence" we really are down bad tho :(
There is no confusion in the Gospel of John regarding the Eucharist. One must understand the Jewish Feasts. Passover (or Pesach) is on the 14th day of Nissan (aka Abib), and it is NOT a day of Rest (not a Shabbat). Also, keep in mind that the Jewish day begins at sundown, so the Apostles prepared the Passover Meal (aka Seder) on Thursday, but once the sun went down it was Friday. The 15th Day of Nissan is the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread (though usage of Unleavened bread actually started of the 14th, or 8 days in total). The Feast of Unleavened Bread lasted 7-days, which the 1st & 7th days being a Day of Rest (A Shabbat), and when it coincides with the 7th day, which was the regular weekly day of rest (a Shabbat), then it is a "Shabbaton", meaning a very special day of rest. St. John speaks to this. My point is that Jesus did use Unleavened Bread when he instituted the Eucharist, but that does not mean it is required to always be Unleavened Bread. I've been to Catholic Masses where leaved bread was used, but traditionally Unleavened Bread is used because that is what Jesus used.
Now, before somebody points it out, there was no lamb at Jesus last supper. Why??? Well, because the lamb had not been sacrificed and the Jews had to wait till daybreak to take their Passover lamb to the Temple to be sacrificed, as instructed in the Torah (Pentateuch), that is, to sacrifice the Passover lamb in the Temple between the two twilights. That is between sunrise and sunset. This was different than that one time in Egypt.
So in short, yes! Jesus did institute the Eucharist with Unleavened Bread, but celebrating the Liturgy with Leavened bread is OK too. Let's not "strain the mint and the cumin please".
I'm sure more questions will arise from this topic. Drop them here and I'll try to answer them.
As an Episcopalian I find this funny!
Bojan, could you please PRAY, research, pray some more, and then comment on the controversy of the new Russian Military Cathedral outside Moscow? I can’t help smelling something devilish going on around it. I’m praying for your recovery from Covid. Big hug from a Catholic brother 💪🏽 (If you do comment on the above subject, keep praying after that too).
Can you make a video about the differences between orthodox Christians and Jehova Witnesses? I will like it.
Great work
As for the bread. I do not think it matters.
But, the Greek word artos means leavened bread. It is used in every rendering of the establishment of the eucharist. The passages even speak of the feast of the unleavened (bread) when referring to Passover, still they use the Greek word which means leavened. There is a special word in Greek when referring to unleavened bread otherwise it is assumed that it is normal bread. So Jesus used leavened bread for the eucharist.
So unless you think the evangelists who spoke Greek didn't understand Greek, or that they made a mistake when describing the establishment of the eucharist, you kind of have to agree that they used leavened bread.
To make it clear, the text uses the word for feast of the unleavened, but mentions the bread as artos, which usually designates normal bread. Why use confusing terms when it is easier to understand that the evangelists specified in their own text that the bread was different.
I in fact like both symbolistic explanations: unleavened symbolizing the purity and sinlessness of Christ, and the leavened symbolizing his fullness of humanity, both are good symbols and I do not think there is a theological problem with either type of bread.
Ok Looked for the second half but never found it. If you didn't make it you should
Thank you,
Did you ever do a second part to this one? It's great!
@10:26 I have to admit I chuckled at that.
I'm with Saint Sophrony, the Filioque distorted our understanding of the Trinity's Hypostasis and resulted in "Romanticism" (ya know cuz it's a Roman Catholic) that results in the anthropological unraveling of our understanding of love. The Catophatic understanding of the Trinity in unison. Sorry Saint Maximos the confessor, it ended up a bigger theological dilemma centuries later.
St. Maximus is a Saint for much different reasons than the Latins say.
You don't need to call it Eastern Roman Empire, since there was no Western Empire. It's just "Roman Empire" after 476, so there's no reason to use the "B" word.
Shut up Byzantine
@@patrickrooney4601 lol
@@patrickrooney4601 lol ok ok I ll take ''Eastern Roman Empire'' lol
The biblical bruh moment
So before the great shizaam there was already a lighter form of separation in the Latin rite and Byzantine rite?
To me it sounds like the great shizaaaam was primarily political, and the filioque itself was not the main problem but the unilateral changing of the Creed was. And when I say political I mean power hungry leaders, not very unlike the Pharisees, scribes, and elders in the years our Lord walked the earth...
Oh boy. *deep breath* How DARE YOU?! YOU MUST REALIZE: God loves you. :) Have a good day.
Bojan it is I, the glass dog
If Pope Leo III opposed the addition of the filioque clause, why would he personally believe it? Additionally Pope John IIX condemned the addition of the said clause.
Merely curious, if anyone can explain it, please do.
He didn't want to cause problems with the Eastern Church, and he felt the strongman tactics used by the Franks in order to insert it.
I must say I have a lot of respect for trying to preserve Church unity like that.
I have a question regaring the yeast debate: was manna levent bread? The parallel between manna in the desert after the original pesach and the last supper is clear, but I am unaware if it was or not. I think this is important, as christ is best understood as the fulfillment of the second exodus and the second pact as prophesized.
Furthermore, many catholics agree with / accept the orthodox critique of the filioque, including pope john paul II I believe. I as a catholic myself have not done thorough research on the matter, but I am open to change my understanding on this point.
However, the real juice will be your next episode. I am curious as to what your perspective is on the pope because this is certainly where I have the best understanding and the most catholic opinion. I look forward to it, and than you for this episode:)
Quick Sidenote: kyrie eleison, not miserere domine, is still part of the catholic rite.
It was
What about the Crusaders who went to the Byzantine Empire and stole everything taking it back to the West? These Crusaders said they were going to the Holy Land and went nowhere near the Holy Land!
Brilliant!
moral of the history: human 'ego' at play even within the realm of the holy of holies
Hahaha excellent vid!
Papal legate had no business issuing an excommunication to a patriarch.
This is why I go with the anabaptist side
Once again, Bulgarians are to blame! Great video guys!
"But didn't i just mention the sacrifice and praise from the old-"
"SHUT UP"
xD
6:29 It seems like the image is implying, and I have heard Eastern Orthodox Christians say before, that the Filioque somehow confuses the Trinity makes the Holy Spirit a lesser person. However, I am unaware of the reasoning behind this position- could anyone explain?
I'm new to the faith so I might not get this right but essentially God's two aspects (his energies and persons) have different "properties". God the energy/whole trinity is omniscient, omnipotent and ect that is shared between all three persons. While the persons each have unique traits thatre unshared. A decent example could be Father as judge, son as savior and spirit as gift giver. These are their own "domains" which they manage.
But if the the spirit comes from both the father and son that means two persons of God share a trait which the "Godhead" doesn't since the spirit doesn't come from the spirit.
A better way to think of it is, the trinity is an equation nice and beautiful balanced but with the filioque it makes the entire equation unstable and imbalanced
@@ChristianEphraimson if you're going to criticize two persons sharing a trait, how about both the Son and the Spirit having their source in the Father, one begotten and the other proceeding? unless those can be legitimately distinguished. and if they can be, why couldn't Filioquists distinguish between the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the procession of the Spirit through the Son?
@@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275 That's kinda the point. The Father alone is "the Originator", unbegotten and unproceeded. The Son is the only begotten, and the Spirit is "the only proceeded". If both the Son and the Spirit were begotten (or both were proceeded), that would be a theological problem indeed because the Father should also be begotten/proceeded... Conversely, saying that there are two originators in the Trinity creates this theological issue.
Furthermore, one could try to argue that Filioque breaks the equality of these divine persons/hypostasis - by making the Spirit "the child" of the Son and the Father (just like some people erronously present Jesus as the child of God the Father and "Spirit the Mother").
And what I have heard, Filioque misses the difference between the hypostatical procession and the economic procession. Hypostatically, the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (i.e. receives His "existence" from Him), but economically the Spirit proceeds into the world from the Father through the Son. The Father gives His Spirit to the Son, and the Spirit dwells within the Son, and the Son proceeds to give the Spirit to the world.
@@HomoEucharistica it all sounds rather meaningless to me, but then I have never grasped in the first place what it might mean for God to proceed from God or from God to be begotten by God, what the difference actually is between those two, and how God can still be simple if something is causing another thing. perhaps I'm simply not ready even to think about the Filioque; I'd need to understand how the heck the doctrine of the Trinity is supposed to be logical first.
@@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275 Perhaps, and for that purpose there're dozens of Christian writings regarding Holy Trinity, from the 2nd century (e.g. "The Dialogue with Trypho" by St Justin Martyr) until our days (e.g. those few chapters in "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis).
But if the history has taught to us something it's that whenever a human, with human language and human logic, tries to grasp the divine nature that is beyond created languages and logics, he is doomed to fail (its fruits are Arianism, Modalism, Tritheism, Filioque, and so on). The Trinity MAKES SENSE and is reasonable in the light of what we know about God and how we interact with Him, but it will never be LOGICAL as long as we are using logics based on this world.
Byzantine is a synonym for Constantinopolitan, but easier to say and spell. Hope I got it right.
I no longer come for education but I come for meme😂. 11:01 got me so bad that I choke on my soda.
Занимљиво,
Ја сам од Владимира Димитријевића и Слободана Деспота чуо другачије.
Hey Bojan why Orthodox Church recognises or accepts Roman Catholic baptism????
Agni Parthene is indeed a nice hymn. The Valaam version is best imo. My favourite hymn though is Be Thou my Vision. But that might be because I'm Irish and biased :P Also, my church (Church of Ireland, Anglican) uses leavened bread (the use of unleavened is against our canon law), we don't bow down to the pope, we're considering dropping the filioque, we don't have sola scriptura (we have a 3-legged stool: prima scriptura, tradition of the early church fathers & reason), and our primate bears the title Metropolitan (as well as Arch-Bishop... and Primate). Can we be friends with the Orthodox? :D
Irish and Greeks make great company!
You're missing the fact of the Latin insistence on defining God's simplicity in the Hellenistic/Augustinian way. That was a major cause of the Schism, and the root cause of the Filioque (and Papal Supremacy, in part). Check out Dr. Bradshaw and his research into Absolute Divine Simplicity, and check out St. Photios on the Filioque. Don't get me wrong, I love St. Augustine. He's great. But there are some areas where he leaned to much on Hellenic philosophy.
Saint Boris Johnson
Unleavened bread... What's the problem with keeping the matzas that Jesus may have used in the Last Supper?
Ohhhh... Thanksgiving... With yeast....
Now I finally understand the problem...
Make a video about Hagia Sophia after July 2nd
LongLive the Holy Eastern Orthodox church!!!
Never underestimate mushrooms!
*_WHAT'S A GOOD BOOK ON THE 1054 SCHISM?_*
would you call west before the schism early catholicism or western orthodoxy, i think early catholicism makes more sense since there were so many differences before communion was broken
Well, I would call it 'Western Orthodoxy' if I really had to, but those categories are post-schism, so I would think it would be kinda flawed.
Could you refer me to a source on how the Orthodox see the Holy Spirit?
To be more specific:
As a Catholic, I see mankind as in the image of God, so Jesus proceeds from the Father like Eve from Adam, and their mutual love is personified (for God, personified in the Spirit, for Adam and Eve in their offspring). How are humans an image of the Trinity for the Orthodox?
The Father is the Head of the Trinity, with the Son eternally begotten from the being of the Father (begotten, not created), and the Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father. The Father is the source of the divinity and being of the other two Persons, who are called the Son/Word *of* God (note that in the New Testament, "God" mostly refers to the Person of the Father) and the Spirit *of* God.
We would probably say that the Son is begotten of the Father like Seth (or Cain or Abel) is the begotten son of Adam, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father like Eve proceeded from the side of Adam.
My understanding, Eastern Catholics don't use filioque.
Great video! Only thing is it’s unfortunate many orthodox still use the same talking points about the filioque being of two processions. The graphics are very misleading and not at all what us catholics believe. It is in essential a language issue and authoritative issue, not theological.
Not to mention that a joint Catholic-Orthodox commission in the US found that the filioque is no longer a hindrance to unification. It became clear that there were nuances in Greek that did not exist in Latin. The filioque was never meant to say that the Holy Spirit comes from the Son just as He comes from the Father.
It's kind of like... Let's say a father makes a toy for their child (yes, the Holy Spirit is uncreated but bear with me). The father gives it to the mother who then gives it to their child. When the child is asked who gave them that toy, the child can say either "My father gave me the toy" or "My father and mother gave me the toy". The child would not be wrong in either instances since each sentence stresses a different aspect. I've heard a lot of Orthodox say, "But there's a difference between 'through' and 'and'." Indeed, there is a difference, but that difference can't be shown as clearly in Latin. Indeed, I'd argue it can't at all (at least not with the same clarity that one can do it in Greek). So what did the bishops in Hispania do to clarify a main theological point and show that the Son is not a creature but stress that He is equally God just as the Father? They included a single word-phrase to hammer the point. Filioque.
Hey mate, I wouldn't go into such details, bottom pale truth is, the Pope and Vatican are in between any unification of Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholic people.
Until a miracle happens, and the Pope and Vatican changes its doctrine , and they return to the true ways of Christanity, without a state, Pope's infallibility, bank, Yesuits, Ustashe, Nazis, Communist, and others monsterious projects against Orthodox people for starters, we've really got nothing else to discuss on the subject, especially not about filioque.
@@daenithriuszanathos9306 That's great and all, but the canons of Florence (a council the Roman Catholic Church accepts as ecumenical) explicitly define it as meaning double procession, not as merely proceeding *through* the Son as the modern RCC says. Unless the Pope were to declare the Council of Florence-Ferrara no longer ecumenical, then the commission's statements are meaningless
@@BroadwayRonMexico That's interesting because the Council of Florence is to be read in continuation with the other Ecumenical Councils. It also follows the formula stated by the Church Fathers (especially as with the likes of Augustine) who do use the "through the Son" meaning. Heck, even some of the Eastern Fathers affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, "for whatever the Father has, the Son has also", as they put it.
@@daenithriuszanathos9306 Straight from the Council of Florence:
"In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and *has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son*, and proceeds from both eternally *as from one principle and a single spiration*. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed *as cause*, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, *just like the Father*"
That's not "through" the Son (which we as Orthodox don't have a theological problem with, just with its inclusion in the Creed), that's dual-cause of the Spirit being taught as dogma at one of the Roman Catholic ecumenical councils. Im aware that most Catholics these days believe the Filioque means the Spirit merely proceeds through the Son, and that the hierarchs themselves now make statements to that effect as well. But this *does* contradict the established Roman Catholic dogma of earlier centuries, and that is an issue when it comes to reaching any sort of unified statement about the Filioque. Either Florence isnt ecumenical and your Pope needs to say as much, or our churches remain in dogmatic disagreement about the procession of the Spirit.