History of the Filioque Controversy (w/ Dr. Ed Siecienski)

[@George-ur8ow]

Wonderful review of the history of the development of the Filioque and the perspectives of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. The both of you bounced a bit from century to century and council to council, yet the discussion remained both organized and at the same time fluid enough to allow for some wonderful flourishes. Great job.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for the kind words!

[@iwansaputra1890]

my opinion filioque just trigger not main reason, the main reason is politic.

[@debbiedmeades3805]

​@@iwansaputra1890 I share your view - you are 100% correct!

[@amg2598]

It might be a good idea to listen to the stream before posting arguments.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Such a good idea

[@FirstnameLastname-py3bc]

@@GospelSimplicity lol

[@CatholicWithaBiblePodcast]

@@GospelSimplicity Boring. Rip off their faces! lol jk

[@Robert-ie8eb]

But that would make sense. We can't have that can we ;-)

[@deadalivemaniac]

Nah, we only do that during debate videos.

[@vesnastihovic7014]

Yes Austin! 👏 Bravo for choosing such deeply eschatological, mystical topic! So glad that Saint Maximus the Confessor was brought up who claims that Jesus obviously had both a human and a divine will. And let us not forget Saint Athanasius the Great: "God became man so that man could become God"!!! Love Orthodoxology but I'm gonna finish with Saint Patrick. 😊 💓 🙏 "Christ be with me, Christ within me, Christ behind me, Christ before me, Christ beside me, Christ to win me, Christ to comfort and restore me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me, Christ in quiet, Christ in danger, Christ in hearts of all that love me, Christ in mouth of friend and stranger.” 💓💓💓

[@iammsmorales]

You are so sweet! This was a beautiful reply 🌹💖

[@feeble_stirrings]

Fascinating conversation! As an Orthodox Christian there was some stuff here that I wasn't aware of in terms of the history of this debate. Thanks for sharing this. I also wanted to say, as an aside in relation to your Q&A session (and I think you probably know this), internet Orthodox are a very loud, but VERY small minority of the OC. Don't let their sometimes poor behavior dissuade you!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for both points!

[@777Justin]

Thank you for this interview. It was informative. 🙏🏼☦️

[@GospelSimplicity]

My pleasure!

[@jameselders7139]

Im so glad you came to Christ Brother Skrillex. Lord bless you.

[@rjward1775]

Lol

[@bk74w80]

I was also hopeful they would drop the filioque when they revised the English translation. Sometimes I omit “and the son” when I recite the creed at mass.

[@GospelSimplicity]

It would be interesting to hear the thought process behind keeping it in

[@bk74w80]

@@GospelSimplicity I’d be interested to hear it as well.

[@Isaac_Hess]

@@GospelSimplicity There are two reasons: momentum and theology. You covered why the filioque was added (I assume, haven't watched yet), and creeds tend to be fairly stable. Theologically, the West believes what it says: the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Father is the sole causal principle of the Spirit, but the Son is eternally involved in its emanation. The Spirit really is the personified life of God, which really is the love shared between the Father and Son. "God is love." I'm in favor of removing it from the creed for ecumenical purposes, but I think the theology is very sound - even necessary. I think the revelation of the inner life of God shows that the Father and Son are both involved in the procession of the Holy Spirit, though in differing ways: the Father remains the sole cause, but He eternally sends the Spirit to His Son, who in turn returns the Spirit to His Father. *This* is the Spirit (this "life/breath of God") that Christ promises to send to us. It is the real invitation to participate in the internal communion of love within the Trinity. God bless, I'm going to listen to the show now. 🙂

[@marianweigh6411]

​@@Isaac_Hess I enjoyed your summary. I think it speaks in support of retaining the Filioque. An accidental page refresh deleted my first comment, maybe I can reconstruct it. We humans struggle to think simultaneously an 'order of origins' in the Trinity and a coeternality of the Persons. The Father begets the Son, but there is no _interval_ whatsoever. That was the crux of the matter even back with Athanasius. There was no time when the Son was not, hence He is not created - there's no interval, no gap, no process of production, no lag or wait time... The generation of the Son is coeternal and (to abuse a temporal adjective where no temporal metaphor can stand!) 'simultaneous' or 'instantaneous' to the Being of the Father: it is the same One Being... The Father eternally gives His full being and full freedom to the Son, primordially leaves the Son free in his own being and his own freedom to be who the Son is. We see through Jesus Christ who the Son is. We see just how the Son responds to this from all eternity: with obedience and self-surrendering love, an eternally faithful doing of what He sees the Father doing... To me it makes sense say that the Holy Spirit "is" the life/breath/love of this interaction between Father-Origin and Son-Logos, through whom all things were made. The world is created for the Son, and the Son will render it back to the Father at the end of time. The Spirit - which the Son sends to those who are His - grants us the chance to enter that interaction in God and to participate in that sharing of divine being and freedom between Father and Son. That at least is one reason for seeing the Holy Spirit as coeternally its own Person, as the very Gift eternally given and received in reciprocal love from Father to Son and Son to Father. The Spirit is the Gift of Love - a never-ending movement of giving and receiving, an ever-greater glory of love. By the grace of the Spirit, we are invited to participate in this - to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, by the power of His Spirit. Well, I love meditating on the Trinity, so forgive my sketches. Balthasar is one of my favorite theologians and he always turns attention to the Trinitarian dimension. Ultimately, what Christ opens for us is the possibility of participating in the Triune life of God, beginning here on earth and blooming in heaven. It is a mystery that our words will never plumb, which yet His Word forever preserves and, in His Spirit, gives us to speak. I will have to rewind the talk and listen again now. Thank you for sharing.

[@isaiahkerstetter3142]

So the new/old understanding of the filioque would be "..Who proceeds from The Father alone and through The Son, who together.."?

[@pah9730]

If we speak of the Church as the Body of Christ and then say “it is split”, this is an error. Obviously, the Body of Christ cannot be broken and split. We should be careful in our language for it could be misinterpreted and a false ecclesiology propounded.

[@F2222m]

Interesting perspective Father would you be willing to debate Father Gregory Pine on Matt Frad’s channel or Reason and Theology? I would love to see a debate on the Filioque between you two

[@Yallquietendown]

Theres nothing to debate. It’s a question of divine revelation not of logic.

[@Gerrysjamz]

Another excellent video. So much to learn! Now I have to go read!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you enjoyed it and it's inspiring you to dig deeper!

[@williammurray85]

Austin you should reach out to Fr. Deacon Anthony Dragani for an Eastern Catholic perspective! He'd be a great addition to your program

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for the recommendation!

[@thereccereport1172]

@@GospelSimplicity If you want a good perspective on Orthodoxy interview Fr. Deacon Ananias. He's a professor of theology and philosophy. So, he is very busy. But, very few Orthodox clergy study philosophy as far in depth as he does. So, you will get see highly unique views expressed. By the way, Fr. Deacon Ananias's channel is titled, "Norwegian Nous". By the way, I've noticed you've interviewed a few Roman Catholics on the Virgin Mary. I recommend interviewing some Orthodox theologians on her.

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video.

[@Erick_Ybarra]

Ed is a great guest! Good stuff

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you enjoyed it! Is this Erick Ybarra, and if so, have you started a new account? I noticed a new username

[@petars4444]

@@GospelSimplicity He is! :D

[@Erick_Ybarra]

@@GospelSimplicity I am terribly sorry for not answering sooner. Yes I started a channel but it will be some time before I start putting out videos . Possibly in a few months . Keep up the good work!

[@fabriziom9]

I live in Toledo where it was celebrated the III Council of Toledo!! Blessings

[@actsapologist1991]

Great interview! It left me wondering what it means to be a "cause" of the Holy Spirit. And what does it mean for the Spirit to proceed "through" the Son. As I try to turn these concepts around in my mind, I quickly realize I have no idea what I'm even thinking about. That said, I'm still on the team which says: "Whatever the distinction is between one and the other, this has little importance for how I make it from the beginning of the day to the end."

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks! I think that’s all quite fair

[@OrthodoxInquirer]

I read a book that said the Son is eternally begotten and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds. It's more of a flow outwards that never began and never ceases. They are one God in 3 persons after all. We will never understand it this side of heaven. I obviously believe the RC version is incorrect, and the only main it causes is that the 'triangle' of the Trinity has Father and Son at the top with the Holy Spirit in the RC version, vs the Orthodox version with the Father at the top and Christ and the Holy Spirit underneath. The Holy Spirit overshadowed the Theotokos and caused the incarnation and then the Word became flesh, then when Christ ascended the Father sent the Holy Spirit. I just prefer to think of both the Logos and the Spirit serving the Father and responding to His direct commands.

[@georgios7191]

Thank you Austin!!

[@GospelSimplicity]

My pleasure!

[@johnobeid67]

Another great video, thank you. The east-west split is one of the greatest tragedies of Christian history. I fear that Christ will judge us all harshly on the Last Day for the lack of charity we have shown each other over this issue and the other issues that divide us. He will remind us of his words at the Last Supper where he prayed that his followers would be completely one, just as he and the Father are one. He will ask us “so, how did you all go with that command?”

[@johnobeid67]

@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese the saints are not infallible. He may have said that comment in a frustrated and slightly uncharitable moment. I suspect the Orthodox church’s main objection was HOW the filioque came to be added rather than the fact that it was added. St Gregory Palamas also said: “How can you introduce an alien addition to the specific creed, which was written jointly by the chosen Fathers who, gathered together spiritually for this, wrote the Creed from a sincere opinion of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and gave it as a touchstone of the true knowledge of God and immutable confession of faith for all the elect to direct the word of truth? …In our opinion, at first your addition needs to be taken away, and then to consider whether the Holy Spirit is from the Son or not, and to maintain whether or not it corresponds to the extant decision of the God-bearers. (Apodictic Treatise 1)”. Hence, St Gregory would have been happy to look at the issue in an ecumenical council or if there was dialogue about it.

[@johnobeid67]

@@icxcnika2037 which part of what I said amuses you?

[@johnobeid67]

@@icxcnika2037 to tell you the truth I can’t really remember why I wrote what I wrote. It was in response to someone else’s comment which I notice they have deleted. I would need the context in order to support what I said. From vague recollection I think the other writer I was responding to might have criticised St Gregory Palamas over something he said about the filioque. My general point is that saints are “not infallible”, but I do agree with you that saints are worthy to be listened to and venerated.

[@caleb.lindsay]

i had just ordered "The Papacy and the Orthodox" and "The Filioque" but really wanted to see his demeanor. super excited for both of them. convinced they were worthwhile buys after seeing his approach

[@GospelSimplicity]

Dr. Siecienski is wonderful!

[@rjward1775]

I loved this video and would enjoy another on each of the other books. I want to learn more about our Orthodox brothers and how we can embrace again without losing either identity.

[@nuzzi6620]

Look into Western Rite Orthodoxy if you're interested in seeing a genuine meeting of Western traditions with those of the East. As a Byzantine-rite Orthodox Christian (which is far and away the vast majority of EO faithful), it's not my tradition or what I'm familiar with, but I'd be super interested to hear what you and other Catholics think of this sort of connection of identities. Here's a Western Rite Mass: kzbin.info/www/bejne/f6nSo2Z9dp2imM0 Here's a quick video introduction to Western Rite Orthodoxy: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jpuThnuipceWqaM I too would also enjoy more talks with Dr. Ed Siecienski. Here's to ecumenical dialogue that's done with boldness and honesty and not with the aim to sacrifice truth for the sake of unity. God bless!

[@masterchief8179]

That experience is arguably more authentic - to my judgment - on the part of Eastern Catholics, much more than the experience of the Western Rite Orthodoxy as the way to find our common grounds without losing identities. And I say it for a series of reasons. 1) First, because there are at least one kind of Eastern Catholic - the Lebanese Maronites, from Syriac tradition - that never broke communion with Rome in their existence. There is not an equivalent of this in Western Orthodoxy. 2) Second, because there are Eastern Catholics that were never once in their existence Eastern Orthodoxs, like those coming from Oriental Orthodoxy Pre-Chalcedonian who split and returned to communion with the Successor of Peter in acceptance of Catholic dogmas (like the Coptic Catholic Church, the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church or the Armenian Catholic Church, for example), or the ones coming from the Assyrian Church of the East who split and returned to full communion with Rome, equally adhering to the dogmas (the Chaldean Catholic Church). 3) Third, because the “Western Rite Byzantines” without communion with the papal authority were a very brief experience from 1054 (the Great Schism) to 1071, when the Normands conquered the last Byzantine territory in Italy. Even so it was polemical to say it practiced a Latin Rite, not a Byzantine Rite (like the one of the Exarchate of Ravenna, a Byzantine enclave). So an identifiable Western Rite Orthodoxy did not come to real and undoubted existence until the late 19th and the early 20th century, coming to be established in the United Kingdom by former Anglicans that abandoned their previous faith and in France by former Catholics that were condemned by the heresy of Gallicanism (and did not accept those condemnations) or at least professed the Gallican position. On the other hand, the largest Eastern Catholic churches that split specifically from Eastern Orthodoxy trace their origins back to the late 16th century (Union of Brest): the Ruthenian Catholic and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church are two of them. 4) Fourth, because most of the Western Rite Orthodox parishes are subordinate to the Russian Orthodox Church and the Antiochian Orthodox Church, and the three called the Celtic Orthodox Church, the French Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church of the Gauls (that form the so-called Communion of Western Orthodox Churches) congregates both Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, therefore recognizing only the first three Ecumenical Councils. There is no need to say that Eastern Orthodoxy’s autocephalous churches and the Patriarchs do not recognize these three as legitimate Orthodox churches. 5) Fifth, because there are currently eight Eastern Catholic Cardinals in Rome, including five cardinal electors, belonging to seven different particular churches “sui iuris” (among the twenty-three of them): - Nasrallah Pierre Sfeir (Maronite Church) - Antonios Naguib (Coptic Catholic Church) - Béchara Boutros Raï OMM (Maronite Church), cardinal elector - Louis Raphaël I Sako (Chaldean Catholic Church), cardinal elector - George Alencherry (Syro-Malabar Catholic Church), cardinal elector - Lucian Mureșan (Romanian Greek Catholic Church) - Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal (Syro-Malankara Catholic Church), cardinal elector - Berhaneyesus Demerew Souraphiel (Ethiopian Catholic Church), cardinal elector All the Eastern traditions of the 23 “sui iuris” churches are fairly well preserved (not being true that any risk of “Latinization” is indeed more effective than that of the experience of “Byzantinization”), inclusive the autonomic canonical status of them. For a nice overview of the high esteem indebted to the Eastern Catholics, the preservation of their customs and liturgies, check “Orientalium Dignitas” of Pope Leo XIII and “Orientale Lumen” of Pope St John Paul II. God bless!

[@othavio100]

​@@masterchief8179 Salve Maria! Estou impressionado com os seus comentários! Parabéns pela bela argumentação! Agora estou interessado: o que achou do vídeo? Eu achei bem interessante a abordagem "neutra" dada ao assunto, e confesso que não achei uma má ideia a Igreja latina abandonar a filioque para fins de unidade. Só penso que isso talvez geraria um certo escândalo entre os fieis latinos, e poderia ser mais uma polêmica na Igreja pós Vaticano II... Você acha possível que esse abandono da filioque aconteça mesmo? Se puder me tirar algumas outras dúvidas: 1) Na página da Wikipédia sobre Fócio, é dito que a Igreja romana o venerava como santo até o sec. XII, e consta como se as Igrejas (sui iuris) romena, ucraniana e melquita o veneram nos dias atuais. Daí a minha pergunta: como isso é possível? Ele não era um cismático? 2) Como posso entender a questão do 4º Concílio de Constantinopla? Porque a Igreja reconhece um e os ortodoxos outro? Na Wikipedia diz que aquele reconhecido pelos católicos teve apenas 25 bispos na primeira sessão e 102 na última. Enquanto que o reconhecido pelos ortodoxos teve afluência de 383 bispos. Esses números estão corretos? Do ponto de vista católico, o número de bispos importa? É dito também que os legados papais estavam naquele reconhecido pelos ortodoxos, e que o Papa supostamente ratificou a anulação do concílio anterior. Como entender tudo isso? Desde já agradeço!

[@masterchief8179]

​@@othavio100 BR na área também! Deus abençoe, irmão! Bom, tenho tentado estudar ao máximo as razões de nossa fé. E comungo do mesmíssimo receio um tanto por intuição: que a retirada do Credo escandalize uma parte (ainda que pequena) da enorme maioria dos fiéis católicos do rito latino (que são 98% dos católicos de todo o mundo, se não me falha a memória), sem alterar em nada a realidade dos católicos de rito oriental, os quais já vivem sem a cláusula "Filioque" inserta em suas versões do Credo Niceno-Constantinopolitano em grego ou outros idiomas alheios à tradição latina. É dizer: um movimento de boa vontade que por igual não proporcionaria, argumentativamente, verdadeira e decisiva aproximação com os fiéis grego-ortodoxos em cisma, por talvez e em essência faltar-lhes o requisito essencial para o diálogo ecumênico, qual seja, a boa vontade com a causa da reunião. Talez o fato de que venhamos adotando o "Credo dos Apóstolos" por anos seja uma sinalização de que a alteração do "Filioque" seja um caminho possível, tal que não cause maior escândalo aos fiéis latinos, que em sua extrema maioria não atendem às missas tradicionais em latim, onde talvez isso fosse ser mais impactante. Mas os Ortodoxos listam entre os motivos da divisão, inclusive, o pão ázimo do Santíssimo Sacramento como um "obstáculo doutrinal" à unidade, quando é certo que as espécies sacramentais jamais demandam o fermento no pão (ao contrário, no Ocidente o pão ázimo sempre foi usado para ressaltar a continuidade da Eucaristia com a tipologia do "pão da proposição" e do maná do Antigo Testamento, ao passo que no Oriente essa diferenciação do pão fermentado é marcada justamente para ressaltar a descontinuidade com o judaísmo), mas as espécies de pão e vinho como matéria, e a oração da consagração ou a "epiclese" como forma. Isso sempre foi pacífico em teologia sacramental, mas eles tantas vezes parecem incorporar o espírito de que nós nos rendamos a toda e qualquer tradição (com letra minúscula) incorporada na vida espiritual deles. Ou seja: somente passos muito bem dados devem ser tomados porque, ao preço do possível escândalo, pouco ou nenhum retorno talvez se consiga obter na causa da reunificação a não ser que eles, que tanto resistem a uma suposta e propagandística "colonização latina" da Igreja, advoguem exatamente a "colonização greco-bizantina" da Igreja universal ironicamente. E esta posição soa-me essencialmente anticatólica por natureza. Confio, com humildade, que todos os passos tomados sejam guiados ou pela prudência da nossa hierarquia (o que está cada vez mais difícil de crer, para falar a verdade), e muito mais decisivamente creio no Espírito Santo (pelo que talvez só a Providência divina possa curar ditas feridas). Sinto que o rancor dos ortodoxos em cisma é muito profundo para conosco e tantas vezes adoptam posições dúbias ou hipócritas, pelo que somente a genuína transformação de coração - nosso e deles - poderia fazer com que todos, indistintamente, alcancemos a importância da causa da (re)união do Povo de Deus, curando o dilaceramento do Corpo Místico de Cristo, a Igreja. (cont)

[@masterchief8179]

@@othavio100 1) Sobre Fócio, ele é um personagem extremamente polêmico, pois com justiça se pode dizer ser o "mentor" intelectual direto do processo de cisma com Roma, que foi resolvido, mas culminou, já mais tarde, no Grande Cisma de 1054, quando seus escritos foram revisitados pelos Bizantinos para firmar sua posição anti-Ocidental. Veja-se que Fócio iniciou seu episcopado como um 'patriarca biônico' , nomeado pelo Imperador Bizantino com a deposição do patriarca corrente, Santo Inácio de Constantinopla, e que o papa São Nicolau (um santo papa, também chamado Nicolau, o Grande, ou "Papa Nicolau"), interveio por Santo Inácio de Constantinopla, o patriarca deposto, por entender que o Imperador não detinha "de iure" poderes eclesiais para retirar e apontar patriarcas, ainda que na "Sé Imperial" (=Constantinopla), pois a realidade do Império e a realidade da Igreja eram distintas. Para isso, leia-se aqui o tremendo impacto que o livro "A cidade de Deus", de Santo Agostinho, teve no Ocidente, e como na cosmovisão bizantina isso não fazia sequer sentido, já que a Igreja e o Estado (o Império) tinham uma relação de mútua cooperação. Essa questão toca a fundo a resistência católica ao cesaropapismo, mas não impediu que os papas terminassem, após os concílios a que você aludiu, reestabelecendo Fócio por razões políticas entre o Império Bizantino e o "Sacro Império Romano do Ocidente" (coloco entre aspas porque esta entidade política, além de megalômana, é uma realidade político-temporal que, sob a ótica da interferência diuturna do Império Bizantino na vida eclesial, teria sido tomada como uma concausa do cisma, já que os Bizantinos não abrem mão de enxergar o Império Bizantino como o autêntico sucessor do Império Romano). É disputada a hipótese de que Fócio tenha sofrido uma segunda excomunhão no final de sua vida, o que pode indicar que, como São Cipriano de Cartago em sua rebelião contra o Papa Santo Estêvão, ele não morreu, objetivamente, sob o pecado de cisma (formal). O problema é que os escritos e a história já haviam deixado seu rastro: no "ethos" bizantino, ele passou a representar a visão genérica (algo deliberadamente simplista) de que o Império, e não o Bispo de Roma, teria a função de conduzir espiritualmente a vida dos cristãos. Poderia citar aqui a visão católica de como, do ponto de vista quer da eclesiologia, quer do direito canônico eclesiástico, dita visão está sumamente incorreta, mas creio que as feridas merecem cura e entendimentos recíprocos, não novas visitas às velhas chagas. Então só posso afirmar ser duvidoso que a Igreja Romana tenha venerado Fócio como santo até o século XII, já que não havia nenhum elemento de tangência de sua figura com a piedade popular ocidental, nem havia ritos seguros sobre a canonização de santos ao tempo, como existem hoje. Acho que isso é mais uma tese defendida por Ortodoxos do que uma verdade histórica universalmente aceita. Sobre o fato de que Católicos de rito bizantino o venerem, eis aí um tema que aponta para a possibilidade de que Católicos de rito oriental venerem os santos que são caros à sua tradição, sem que isso implique a adoção da veneração pela Igreja universal desses mesmos santos, como se dá sob os ritos canônicos formais adotados progressivamente no Vaticano e hoje canonicamente regulados. Um exemplo foi a canonização de São Charbel Makhlouf em 1977, um santo maronita imediatamente venerado após a morte no Líbano, e que é hoje um santo a ser venerado pela Igreja universal (sendo maronita, não um santo latino). Nada parecido está implicado nos argumentos dados à veneração (argumentativa) de Gregório Palamas, por exemplo, que é um personagem enorme e que, por igual, não é seguro que tenha estado em posição de cisma formal quando de sua morte, mas sim tentado, ainda que em condição de cisma material já consolidado nos anos 1300s, corrigir o que concebia como problemas na posição latina do "Filioque", mas que ele, um monge atonita, não teve condições de conhecer plenamente, senão através de diálogos com escolásticos abertamente nominalistas, como Barlaam da Calábria. Isso significa que os católicos de rito bizantino tendem a manter a veneração por Palamas somenos nos calendários, mas não sei dizer se necessariamente o fazem por Fócio, já que quanto a Fócio já é um tanto nebuloso conhecer se sua posição era, sim, a de um cismático formal com o Sucessor de São Pedro. Acho que temos, porém, um bom resumo na posição da Igreja Católica. Um dos critérios mais para defender, do ponto de vista concreto, se um santo pode ser venerado por uma igreja particular quando esta revolve à comunhão com a Sé Petrina é que o santo de particular veneração de uma igreja i) não pode ter abertamente morrido em condição de cisma formal, isto é, em defesa da causa da divisão e ii) igualmente importante, ele não pode ter contestado abertamente os dogma católicos proclamados ao tempo de sua vida. Esses critérios são claríssimos quando analisamos a história da Igreja Católica Caldeia, provinda da Igreja Assíria do Oriente ou "Igreja nestoriana": para ser recebida em plena comunhão manifestada no Sucessor de São Pedro e na 'oikouméne', na universalidade dos bispos em plena comunhão com ele, os Católicos Caldeus (que hoje são a extrema maioria dos cristãos do Iraque) não foram obrigados a abolir todos os hinos compostos por Nestório e seus seguidores e que estavam por muitos séculos plenamente incorporados na liturgia caldeia e adotar elementos de outras tradições que lhes seriam alheias, na medida em que se julgaram compatíveis com a doutrina católica, mas foram obrigados a retirar Nestório das festividades dos santos, porque, ainda que se dispute se Nestório realmente defendeu o "nestorianismo" em doutrina, hipótese que é mais própria ao debate de teólogos, assume-se que ao menos o nestorianismo dos Assírios fora condenado "de facto" e "de iure" como heresia por contrastar com os dogmas católicos proclamados em Éfeso em 431, sem falar no fato de que Nestório estava em aberto cisma formal com a Igreja e recusou um Concílio. Assim sendo, os Caldeus foram trazidos à comunhão mediante a renúncia formal aos erros do nestorianismo e a abrir mão de qualquer veneração objetiva a Nestório, sem significar, porém, que haja um extermínio de todo e qualquer resquício da tradição caldeia/assíria em hinos litúrgicos, por exemplo, atribuídos àquele teólogo ou seus seguidores. Não houve, pois, uma "colonização litúrgica". Nesse campo, sou plenamente confiante na causa dos santos e na sabedoria que o exemplo da Igreja Católica Caldeia lega à Igreja Católica Latina para entendermos as discussões com os Ortodoxos em cisma, nas acusações que dirigem (tantas outras por incompreensão, tantas vezes por simples orgulho e obstinação) a nós. (OBS: vou continuar a resposta sobre os concílios assim que puder, porque teria que estudar melhor sobre eles, embora possa já ir respondendo sobre a teologia dos concílios sob o ponto de vista Católico). Abração!

[@someguyoverthere3275]

Well done, it was a very good interview.!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks!

[@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275]

Lots to like about this conversation. I hadn't really thought about it before, but Dr. Siecienski's proposal for the Catholic Church to remove the Filioque from the creed is not a bad idea. It is not contradictory to the Catholic position, because if it was maintained at Florence that the pope had the power to add the Filioque to the creed, then it follows that the pope has the power to remove the Filioque from the creed. As long as such a move does not constitute either a denial of the pope's authority to change the creed in the first place, or a denial of the theological truth behind the Filioque itself, it would be perfectly acceptable to Catholics, and it would remove one more minor issue in the schism, although the theological argument and other issues would remain.

[@LadyMaria]

We would never agree that the Pope has the authority to contradict Councils.

[@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275]

@@LadyMaria Thank you, I had no idea what the Orthodox position on papal authority was until you enlightened me with your superior knowledge.

[@LadyMaria]

@@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275 If you can't handle replies without sarcasm, ignore them.

[@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275]

@@LadyMaria I don't think it's wrong to be sarcastic from time to time. But if you can't handle my sarcasm, feel free to ignore my comment.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad this video was food for thought in that area! My opinion on the subject would be that, while I can't fault the West from a theological perspective for moving from the economic to the immanent trinity, and therefore the content of the filioque, if not defined causally, doesn't make me nervous, I do think it would be best to just remove it. I think the West could say this was a theologically viable addition to address concerns of the time, but a greater concern of our time is fostering unity in a splintered church and therefore we are going to remove it from the creed.

[@kyriosbooks8400]

It would be fair to hear from orthodox catholic side objective comment on this. I would also like to suggest inviting father Dragani, eastern catholic deacon, very knowleadgable and pleasant guy. Blessings!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for the recommendation!

[@FirstnameLastname-py3bc]

If he knew anything about Catholicism he wouldn't be "eastern catholic", which celebrate exactly those who are celebrated for being martyrs of Orthodoxy by hands of Catholics, and celebrate those who're only celebrated for their teachings and arguments against papal Catholicism

[@masterchief8179]

@@FirstnameLastname-py3bc Care to name some martyrs, brother?

[@LadyMaria]

Orthodox Catholics are Eastern Orthodox. Lol

[@adolphCat]

@@LadyMaria My Eastern Catholic lady friend understands herself to be an Orthodox Christian in Communion with Rome. She rejects all the distinctive Roman Catholic inavoations to the Faith, such as the Filoioque, Papal Supremacy over the Church, Purgatory etc. She takes Communion in Orthodox Churches if it is more convenient than to be at the Divine Liturgy of her Greek Catholic Church. She is however, very uncomfortable at a Roman Catholic Mass.

[@nemeart]

Thank you for this very interesting interview !

[@GospelSimplicity]

My pleasure!

[@evans3922]

“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me(John 15:26) this is the biblical straight and clear declaration by our Lord Himself... The Holy Spirit proceeds (εκπορεύεται)from the Father eternally regarding Its hypostasis as a Person of the Holy Trinity and also in time (εν χρόνω) it is sent by the Father and the Son to the created creatures.This is crystal clear for those who speak Greek and understand fully the meaning of the greek verbs εκπορεύεται and πέμψω.And the Eastern Fathers knew very well what they said because they spoke Greek. The only Cause in the Holy Trinity is the Father who begets the Son and proceeds the Holy Spirit..

[@iteadthomam]

ur manipulating the bible. first off, you can never prove that john 15:26 is talking about eternal procession. second, even if i grant that. bible actually proves filioque in rev 22:1 which says: Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb... as we all know jesus himself declares in John 7 that river of the water of life is Holy Spirit. here in this verse "flowing from" in greek is the exact verb which was used in creed of 381. "ἐκπορευόμενον" notice that verse says that river proceeds from one throne (which is referring to single source) of the 2 persons (God the Father and the Lamb Jesus Christ.) so yes Bible clearly teaches the Filioque and Roman church is 100% right.

[@LadyMaria]

@@iteadthomam That's reaching.

[@Zematus737]

"The only Cause in the Holy Trinity is the Father who begets the Son and proceeds the Holy Spirit.." John 16:15 "All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you." How do the the Orthodox square the dynamic relationship of the Trinity as this phrase would suggest against the rigid structure of the EO view? Are you not making the Son a lesser Person and not equal, which the gospels all attest. Is it not written, 'being in the form of the Father, did not think it theft to be equal with God'. St. Augustine: "We cannot say that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son also, for it is not without a reason that he is called the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. I cannot see what other meaning he had when he breathed in the face of his disciples, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost. For that corporeal breathing was not, indeed the substance of the Holy Ghost, but a demonstration, by a congruous signification, that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Father alone, but from the Son, likewise." and again "He is sent by him from whence he emanates...the Father is not said to be sent, for he has not from whom to be, or from whom to proceed." Jesus, being the Word of God and representative of everything that the Father is by His nature of carrying the same weight of full authority, speaks and the Holy Spirit issues forth FROM the mouth of the very Word, which is the Son of God. Otherwise, how is it possible that the Spirit can receive anything from the Son as the scriptures clearly attest? St. Alphonsus Ligouri: "This dogma is proved from all those texts, in which the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of the Son 'God has sent the Spirit of the Son in to your hearts (Galatians 4:6). Just as, in another place, the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of the Father: 'For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you' (Mat 10:20). If, therefore, the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of the Father, merely because he proceeds from the Father, he also proceeds from the Son, when he is called the Spirit of the Son...especially as this mission of one Divine Person from another, cannot be understood either in the way of command or instruction, or any other way, for in the Divine Persons both authority and wisdom are equal." from History of Heresies.

[@masto2898]

Still your saints taught filioque Please dont tell me that heretics are saints in your church

[@LadyMaria]

@@masto2898 They didn't and no heretics are Saints in the Church (the ones you are probably referring to are even venerated in the Byzantine Rite Catholic churches). Conversely Rome has many heretics as saints.

[@DeusEstPrimus]

Austin, Great topic brother. I have always been interested in the filioque controversy, but there doesn't seem to be a whole lot out there. Well...there is, but it's either circular, or so overly academic that one almost needs to be fluent in parseltongue to read it.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@bethanyann1060]

Haha parseltongue! That's exactly how I feel sometimes when I listen to these debates lol.

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

Wow thank you so much! I understand better now. I feel some hope for unity now we're a bit detached from the initial conflicts but I'm definitely going to get those books.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Glad you enjoyed it! They’re great books

[@no_more_anymore]

And this one word matters so much. The Holy Spirit guides the Church that Christ established. If we can't agree on how this person of God functions, then the Church follows the wrong spirit. Not saying their path 100% is wrong, but they will be prone more to heresy and other changes. This was one of the things that helped me to decide to follow Christian Orthodoxy.

[@ThomasG_Nikolaj]

Hey brother, God bless

[@no_more_anymore]

@@ThomasG_Nikolaj you too man!

[@Athabrose]

Thanks Austin

[@othavio100]

Austin, could you please visit an Eastern Catholic Church? In Chicago, there are a cathedral and a few parishes of the Ukrainian Catholic Church!

[@GospelSimplicity]

I’d love to!

[@beverleypettit3577]

@@GospelSimplicity To me, you have a beautiful heart Austin. It is as though your heart beats faster at the prospect of arriving at Unity. ❤️💔❤️ I lag behind intellectually and at times feel a tad despairing because of my limitations... Veni Sancte Spiritus ! Bev South Africa

[@1will4]

Austin: filioque KZbin subtitles: philly oak way

[@GospelSimplicity]

😂

[@evans3922]

It is pronounced FILIOKVE not FILIOKUE

[@robertbourgeois9565]

❤️🙏❤️ from Montréal beautiful people.

[@lillyperson5988]

The guest is my dad ed siecienski I am his daughter

[@GospelSimplicity]

Wow!

[@Yallquietendown]

Só does “the theologians are getting closer” mean that Roman Catholicism is changing its view so that it now opposes “eternal procession?” Or does it mean that Roman Catholicism has come to tolerate having 2 coexisting but opposing views on that subject ?

[@LadyMaria]

@Brian Farley You mean Roman Catholics as we are Orthodox Catholics.

[@LadyMaria]

@Brian Farley I refer to it as Roman Catholic as we are Catholic. You aren't the only ones. There are 7 rites and 24 sui iuris churches (not rites) in the RCC. You lot mix that up a lot. All are in communion with Rome hence Roman Catholic. There are no Orthodox Catholics in communion with Rome, that's part of why we're Orthodox Catholics. Um, the Orthodox churches are one Church..

[@LadyMaria]

@Brian Farley Those are sui iuris churches, not rites. Lol I didn't say all the 24 churches practice the Latin Rite. I SAID there are 6-7 liturgucal rites. I guess you missed that. Latin, Byzantine, Antiochene (Maronite is a subrite), Alexandrian, Chaldean, Syrian, Armenian. I studied this before coming to Orthodoxy. www.catholicsandcultures.org/Eastern-Catholic-churches The majority of the sui iuris churches have the Byzantine Rite. And I disagree that there is the fullness of the Faith in the RCC. Once they leave the Orthodox Catholic Church they are no longer Orthodox.

[@LadyMaria]

@Brian Farley Dude, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church for example isn't a Rite, It's a sui iuris church that uses the Byzantine Rite. The Italo-Greco Catholic Church uses Byzantine Rite, Ukrainian Greek church uses the Byzantine Rite, so on. There are 20 other Eastern churches who use one of the 6 Eastern Rites. It's not that hard to understand. You have 24 churches, we have 14. You have 6 rites, we have 2. I'm aware what the RCC apologetics are. I was in RCIA for years in diligent study (and around the RCC since the 90s since half my family was RC) before leaving and becoming Orthodox. I will never look back.

[@decluesviews2740]

I'm only 16 min into this, but I wanted to comment on Dr.'s statement that the Trinity isn't mentioned much in the Catholic divine liturgy. I have two thoughts: 1) we have many Eastern Catholic Rites within the Catholic Liturgical tradition that are essentially the same as the Eastern Orthodox and 2) in the Extraordinary Form (TLM) the standard Preface used in most Masses is the Preface of the Blessed Trinity that emphasizes the unity with distinction that he's talking about here.

[@bellingdog]

I think the Eastern Catholics reaffirms the Dr's point. Eastern Catholics don't have the filioque in their creed, and believe the Spirit proceeds from the αρχή. About the Tridentine Latin Mass, I am not familiar. My issue with the filioque is that the Western Church fought one heresy with introducing another. The Orthodox Church has Latin speakers, Romanians, and they reject the filioque, so it is not merely a semantic misunderstanding. The Cstholic Church has Eastern Christians, who still refuse the filioque, but accept the Pope. These point to the reason why the filioque should be rejected, as it is understood to be fighting fire with fire, thus, one fire is overtaken by another. The Nicene Creed fights fire with Baptismal water.

[@geneparadiso6258]

It wasn’t JUST, the Filoque, it was the authority of the Pope that divided the Church.

[@tonguemybumb]

and the later palamist/scholastic divide.

[@namapalsu2364]

It's really not. Even amongs Orthodox today, there are those who held a high papalist. Meaning, the pope had special privilege.

[@iammsmorales]

@@namapalsu2364 thank you for saying this, what a lovely thing to know 💖🌹

[@saintpolycarp8197]

So the answer to Dr. Siecienski's question around 1:15 is that because the Arian's denied the deity of Jesus adding the Filioque reinforced the deity of Jesus. That was the reason it was added.

[@LadyMaria]

Although a problem is that it was not added via council. Nothing can be added to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed without a council. Really nothing can be added at all.

[@saintpolycarp8197]

@@LadyMaria Well it was done and had to be done at the time to defend the deity of Christ from Arian heretics. Now the question is should we remove it or leave it? In the west we can used either version of the creed as we understand they are both accurate. However the filioque solidifies Christ's deity in a way that the original version doesn't. I think both are fine and it's much to do over nothing at this point.

[@LadyMaria]

@@saintpolycarp8197 It's important to us so that's another reason why I believe we don't need to be in communion.

[@masto2898]

@@LadyMaria easterns accepted filioque at the council of florence Filioque is not heresy Your saints taught it

[@masto2898]

@@LadyMaria if the teaching is legit i dont see the reason why an council should be called to add Filioque in latin creed

[@gigelchiazna_censored]

one question that was not answered is: what is the point of this book? to "bring toghether"?!? what's the use to bring us toghether if we are together in lies; we need to look for the truth and all join the truth

[@randolph1917]

Because Christ called us, Christians, to remain UNITED***, as he was in union with the Heavenly Father. Not for his sheep to scatter, but to be one flock. Christ warned that wolves in sheep's clothing would arise, within the church, and lead many astray, but commanded unity, and not disintegration.

[@gigelchiazna_censored]

@@randolph1917 but we are united, I mean we the christians; yet, you can not use Bible quotes to justify heresy, since Paul also said we should not talk to heretics too much - but some are smarter than saint Paul and think they can talk to them ...

[@randolph1917]

@@gigelchiazna_censored Your arrogance blinds you. St. Paul said no such thing, and he would NEVER contradict Jesus's command to us to remain united as one, as he was with his heavenly Father. And on the contrary, Paul called on UNIFORMITY in matters of faith and church doctrine, and went after Schismatics and Judaizers who attempted to break away from the mission of making disciples of ALL nations, where there is no Jew nor Gentile, but one in Christ. Even as far as to say if someone is married to even a Pagan , NOT TO DIVORCE THEM, because through th Christian, the Spouse will be redeemed.

[@gigelchiazna_censored]

@@randolph1917 you do not use terms correctly - catholics are not schismatics - please read from people that know what they are talking about ... all the saints of the orthodox church call upon papal heresy

[@randolph1917]

@@gigelchiazna_censored What "Orthodox Church"? The Ukrainian, the Russian? The Greek? The Bulgarian? What Orthodox Church? You are all in Schism with one another, you are the epitome of the a disorder Christ warned about, and a precursor to the heresy of Protestanism and it's 50,000 heretical denominations. Rome alone stands as the Holy Mother Church, the seat of Peter, whom Christ called the Rock of the Church, who has the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. God has spoken. There is NO salvation outside the One True Holy Roman and Apostolic Church of Rome, which Christ himself founded.

[@shawnhampton8503]

The latest revision of The Book of Common Prayer of the ECUSA is set to come out soon and will NOT have the words "and the Son" in the Nicene Creed.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Interesting! I didn't know that

[@LadyMaria]

A step in the right direction.

[@LadyMaria]

@Brian Farley I'm not one for innovations. So it's a good thing.

[@LadyMaria]

@Brian Farley Your opinion is noted. Used to fall on the Roman side but wised up.

[@Melissa-bb5hs]

What is the ECUSA?

[@lionheart5078]

As a Catholic we should, out of charity for the east drop the filioque from the Creed. We wouldnt have to give up the theology at all, as I believe its totally Orthodox, but just drop it from the creed.

[@christianlacroix5430]

Let's GOOOOOOO!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Hope you enjoy it!

[@triscat]

Pray.

[@xpictos777]

The Patriarch of the West (which has been the Pope’s historical title until Pope Emeritus Benedict secretly and quietly removed it) does not have the authority to unilaterally change the creed. There is now only one tradition that keeps the creed as originally agreed and as originally defined.

[@masterchief8179]

Actually it is incorrect. It was how some Byzantine Emperors, from the 5th or 6th century, and how the Eastern See of Constantinople referred to Rome (specially post-Photius), portraying the Sees of Rome and Constantinople (“New Rome”) as the two equal capitals of the Roman Empire, as if mirroring in the Church how the Roman Empire during Constantine had been conceived: Rome as the capital city of the Roman Empire of the West and Constantinople, the city built by the Emperor, as the capital city of the Roman Empire of the East. The title was used essentially by Byzantine Emperors (NOT even by Eastern Fathers!) in relation to the ecclesiastical governance and was never been a “historical title”. Just look in papal documents if the usage was really accepted “historically”, my friend. You will find “Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province”, “Bishop of Rome”, “Domnus Apostolicus”, “Fisher of men”, “His Holiness”, “Roman Pontiff”, “Servant of the servants of God”, “Successor of the Prince of the Apostles”, “Supreme Pontiff”, “Vicar of Christ” and so on. Those are much more frequent titles. But “Patriarch of the West” was far from common in papal usage; actually it was used very episodically, since the Church of Rome was clearly uncomfortable with the growth of political prominence of the Church of Constantinople, in its pretensions and of the Emperors’ of gathering around its zone of influence the churches of all East, all throughout the ecclesiastical history, and specially how it paved the way for the grave West-East fracture of the Church.

[@xpictos777]

@@masterchief8179 Wow, I am the lawyer but you have the best double talk I have ever read. It doesn't change the fact that the Creed cannot be changed except via an Ecumenical Council (with the full Pentarchy), even some Popes acknowledged this, which is why the Creed is written on doors of Saint Peter's in Greek WITHOUT the Filioque.

[@masterchief8179]

@@xpictos777 Double what? You clearly misinformed, so I tried the best I could to inform. Simple as that. I said it is NOT historically set that the popes were safely known to be “Patriarchs of the West”. I could be here all day (and I mean it) talking about ecclesiology and ecclesiastical canon law (how for Catholics the ecclesiastical canon law is built upon the theology of the Church as divinely revealed in Sacred Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition, and how for Orthodoxs post-schism it is mostly the exact inverse: how the theology of the Church was built upon the ecclesiastical canon law on the basis of privileges, prerogatives, organizational “taxis” or even Imperial decisions), or I could go on analyzing the Byzantine Emperor Justinian’s pentarchy (and if it has Apostolic origins and was ever taught by the Apostles either in Scripture or Tradition, even if the pentarchycal structure was there in embryonic form to later doctrinal development) and, more so, about the nature of creedal formulas and the alleged immutability of the Creed of Nicea, as proclaimed in Nicea (325) and Ephesus (431) (and the fact that it was altered to giver better explanations, for example, in Constantinople in 381, without substantial modification in the very truths of faith, or the evolutions in the written form of the Apostles’ Creed or ‘Symbolum Apostolicum’ to demonstrate the difference between altering a formula and changing the faith). Of course I could make points - as you said - on the “popes” adding/ changing the creedal formulas. But we would be in circles. I simply corrected one affirmation. And it is undoubted that the title itself was never a practice consolidated among popes themselves, even if one or two in more than 250 used it episodically. Yves Congar, for example - a Dominican who was very influenced by Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology - have argued that the term "Patriarch of the West" have never been genuinely endorsed by popes. Besides, the story of the silver plates in the old Basilica of St Peter (I assume you’ve never been to the new Basilica) by Pope St Leo III is parroted without further noticing that this very pope taught officially the theology of the “Filioque” (so did every pope, by the way) but didn’t think it was convenient, in order to avoid affecting more of the Eastern sensibilities (Pope St Leo III was EXACTLY the pope that decided to coronate Charlemagne as the “Holy Roman Emperor”, causing the fury - this word would be a bit too soft - of the Byzantines), so he opted to not press for the usage of the Filioque in the creedal formula and to show them his good will and seek for peace as the universal pastor of the Church. Therefore, that case of the silver plates has been insanely fueled up among EO apologists but it is badly missing the historical point and, even worse, context. You should work better your arguments (and, of course, increase your knowledge prior to engaging in arguments), specially for a lawyer. Peace be with you.

[@briansardinas1359]

The Papacy unlike the Pentarchy is of apostolic origin. The Pentarchy was not as prominent in the West even before the schism. I encourage you to approach us from a place of understanding before trying to lecture to us.

[@bethanyann1060]

Dude the Nicene Creed you recite today is not the "original creed" of Nicaea. The Church agreed to add more about the Holy Spirit at Constantinople I.

[@marybenton2917]

A good discussion but I'm afraid I remain unconvinced that this is such an important issue. We simply cannot comprehend the inner workings of God. I am Catholic and Trinitarian prayer is central to me but this theological dispute saddens me by separating me from my Orthodox friends. I don't think that the average Catholic even knows what the filioque is.

[@aquiladavid5681]

If they don’t know what it is, that’s a problem. It is not a trifling matter as it is fundamental to understanding Who God is. When we change the nature of God, we cease to be worshipping the same god. I can say seeing the current professions of the RCC and the Pope, Orthodox and Catholics do not have unity of faith in one god. Innovation was bad in 1054 and is bad today. I think you can agree.

[@marybenton2917]

@@aquiladavid5681 But that is my point - that we cannot understand God! Nor can we change God's nature. We can change how we think about God but our human thoughts, even when guided by Scripture and Tradition (be it RCC or Orthodox), will still and always fall short of Who God is. It disturbs me when any of us cling so tenaciously to our ideas about God that we are willing to hurt one another and fracture the Church.

[@palermotrapani9067]

@@aquiladavid5681 The Filioque was taught in the 4th century by Latin Doctors such as Saint Hillary of Poitiers, Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine. I was part of the Latin Tradition well before the Council of Chalcedon 451AD was approved by Pope Leo, which the Creed additions from Constantinople in 381 AD. In fact, the Filioque was taught by Latin Theologians since Tertullian, who taught it while he was still in communion in Rome. So one can say the Filioque has a history in the West since the 2nd century.

[@aquiladavid5681]

@@palermotrapani9067 To Orthodox, evidence of individual men teaching a heresy does not give credence to the heresy. I could make your same argument as you to justify Arianism or Monotheolitism. We believe that the Fathers and the saints could be wrong, and were occasionally. If the Filioque was "the belief" of the Church, why didn't it make it into the Creed during the first 1000 years? Why didn't ALL of the Fathers teach it? Why did only one of the five Sees ultimately adopt it?

[@palermotrapani9067]

@@aquiladavid5681 David again, the Creed that speaks of the Son proceeding from the Father as in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is not problematic for the Catholic position. It was part of the Latin tradition since the 2nd Century well before the Councils of the 4th century. Tertullian, yes I know he sort of flew over the cuckoos nets sometime around 210 AD clearly taught it while he was an orthodox Latin Catholic in communion with Rome. Saint Hillary of Poitiers taught it in his work regarding the Trinity, Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine. Pope Leo affirmed it dogmatically as a correct theological understanding in his Letter 15 to Bishop in Spain defining what the Catholic faith is against the errors of the "Priscillianists" who were a Gnostic sect. So an honest reading of Pope Saint Leo's Letter to the Bishop in Spain since it was addressing this Gnostic sect's heresy is that this Letter contains definitive teaching by the Pope to protect the faith from error. This is in 447 AD before the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD when Pope Leo's Tome defined Chalcedonian Christology against the Monophysites and accepted the additions to the Original Nicene Creed that were added at Constantinopile in 381 AD. So from Rome, the Creed is a legitimate expression of the Faith and one that is in line with what all the Eastern Churches agreed to. www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604015.htm There are some 21 or 22 sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome and they can say the Creed without the Filioque. But even before the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD as I already stated, you have numerous Latin Fathers teaching it (including 3 of the 4 Doctors of the Latin Church, i.e. Hillary, Ambrose and Augustine) and Pope Leo The Great affirming it in his role as Bishop of Rome (Pope) to defend the faith.

[@cultofmodernism8477]

People don't seem to grasp how important it was for the fathers and ancient Church to confess the true faith, as deposited by the Apostles. They read their modern depravity and lack of faith i to Church history. This is how they arrive at their shallow interpretation that "It's all political." It's important to remember that, St. Maximus for example, had his hands cut off and tongue ripped out because he refused to concede and confess one will in Christ. Why? Because he knew that an incorrect faith leads to incorrect practice and ultimately to damnation. 1 will in Christ introduces the error of monergism, namely that we don't participate in our salvation. The filioque introduces other (modalist) errors. So for the fathers, having the correct faith wasn't a trivial matter, used to cause political divions or whatnot. It should also be noted that Ephesus forbade any change to the Creed.

[@ThomasG_Nikolaj]

Good point!

[@nicholaspostiglione3948]

Can you have Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller on again? I'd like to hear what the Lutheran view on justification is and how that differs from the Catholic and Orthodox views.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I’d love to have him on again!

[@johnathanrhoades7751]

The question of reception as a qualification for eccuminism is a huge part of why I am seeking out Orthodoxy over Catholicism. Like. Probably the huge reason I'm even considering Orthodoxy over Protestantism...

[@GospelSimplicity]

Interesting. I'd be curious to hear more about this

[@johnathanrhoades7751]

@@GospelSimplicity I think I responded to a similar statement on another comment, but it's the loose concept that just because a council has the hallmarks of eccuminism, doesn't strictly make it authoritative over time...sort of. Basically, the Holy Spirit in the church as a whole should recognize the same Spirit's work in a council, similarly to how the Spirit in the council members recognized the same Spirit speaking in the Canon of scripture among other requirements. It still has some issues. Chalcedon being the big one as whole churches broke off over that. So it's hard to say "the whole Church" accepted that council. And if a truly pan-orthodox council was ever held (like the 2017 council was supposed to be...) it would still be considered authoritative more or less unless it was thoroughly rejected by the church as a whole. Anyway. The basic understanding of the faith being preserved primarily by the church as a whole vs the understanding of the faith being preserved primarily by the magisterium and the Pope seems much more in line with how I see the Spirit working in general. It's not clear cut for sure, but the fact that I recognize the preservation of the faith in Orthodoxy much more strongly than I do in Catholicism makes me lean more toward the emphasis of conciliarism being the proper path over the emphasis of top down authority. But it's not super clear. If Rome is right they're right. The combination of the faith held by each church, the concepts of authority ascribed to, and lived experience pushes me to fall on the side of Orthodoxy, though. Not sure if that's helpful, but that's my thinking right now.

[@dwong9289]

Reception literally undermines the bishop’s power to bind and loose. Christ didn’t say “whatever you bind on earth which your flock accepts is bound in heaven” he said “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.”

[@iammsmorales]

@@dwong9289 touche my good man, touche 👏

[@diegobarragan4904]

If the Filioque is biblical and was added in order to fight Arianism, then how come it wasn’t in the original creed which was formed against Arianism? Why didn’t the great saints of the 4th century like Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory the theologian need the Filioque in order to prove that the Son is of the same essence of the Father?

[@evans3922]

excellent question,this is what came in my mind too when I heard dr.Siecienski telling that....... In my opinion the great Cappadocian Fathers St.Basil,st.Gregory and the others as genuine Fathers of the Church who were living the truth of the Church empirically fought Arianism as they did, without inventing doctrines by their own logic and mind,but with the enlightment of the Holy Spirit with a cleansed 'nous' who can 'see' the Truth without logic contemplating on doctrines.What happened to the western church very early was the rationalistic approach to the theology and doctrines..Moreover, Augustine was a neoplatonist influenced theologian and thus inevitably he was led to philosophical conclusions about Holy Trinity doctrines..the same applies much more to Aquinas and the rest western theologians... I would have expected from dr.Siecienski that he had stressed this rationalistic approach of the western theologians more.

[@Zematus737]

That's because the heresy of Arian was not about the progression of the Spirit, but that Christ was not fully man and fully God, but also a creature (as in having been created in or outside of time). The council sat and 'consubstantial' was what came from it, together with 1 divinity, 3 Persons, and two natures and two wills in Christ, being fully man and fully God, eternally begotten.

[@diegobarragan4904]

@@Zematus737 you are proving my point, it has nothing to do with it. Yet the latins made it about the procession, they did that in order to say that the Father and the Son share procession, and using that against Arianism to say that the Father and Son have the same essence, which to them means that both the Father and Son proceed the Spirit.

[@Zematus737]

@@diegobarragan4904 You're mistaken to say that the Father shares 'procession', since the Father cannot be sent himself. The Son has and the Spirit has, but why do you assume that The Son, who is of the Father, the same substance, eternal from eternal, does not carry with him the Holy Ghost? This is where the Eastern Churches are wrong, because they presume that Jesus is somehow not of both Truth AND Grace. What will it take for the realization of this to finally dawn on the eastern churches? It wasn't something that had to be aggregated until the heresy of doubting it was established, just for the same reason consubstantial was not originally part of the creed, but afterwards was. Now the creed has a few more words and you are mistaken if you think they will ever be removed.

[@diegobarragan4904]

@@Zematus737 I meant shares procession as in the spirit proceeds from them both , not that the Father proceeds....

[@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275]

52:10 "To say that it was an ecumenical council, with real ecumenical dialogue, as we understand that term to be- wrong. There was free exchange of ideas, but it was never with the point of trying to come to a common understanding. It was always to try to win the day." I feel like this is a relatively weak objection from Dr. Siecienski to calling Florence an ecumenical council. At the majority of the previous ecumenical councils that are today commonly recognized by Catholics and Orthodox, dialogue was not really considered paramount. Most of the attendees were indeed primarily concerned with trying to win the day over differing viewpoints like Arianism and Monothelitism. They weren't focused on trying to come to a compromise position or consensus between the ideas that were being condemned and the ones they thought were true. This doesn't sound good to our modern, "ecumenical" understanding, and I don't think it was the most apt approach myself, but it's simply how they played out. In comparison to some earlier councils, Florence is actually downright friendly. It doesn't call the East heretics, and says that both sides were really aiming for the same meaning but rightly expressing it in different words. But yeah, if someone wants to measure ecumenicity by the attempt made to reach a true consensus between all parties, I think they'd have to throw most of the councils out, which I don't think Dr. Siecienski or any other Orthodox Christians would be willing to do.

[@LadyMaria]

We don't recognize the council of Florence at all. To recognize it would say that we agreed with it and we didn't after the Bishops who were coerced by Rome realized their error, and of course the Faithful rejected it.

[@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275]

@@LadyMaria Interesting. You somehow read my entire comment without grasping the point of what I said.

[@LadyMaria]

@@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275 I only commented on what I thought needed commenting on. If you don't like it you can ignore it.

[@gandalfthegreatestwizard7275]

@@LadyMaria It goes without saying that the Orthodox rejected Florence eventually. It was even mentioned in the video. So I don't see why it's a relevant reply. But I can't control what you choose to comment.

[@GospelSimplicity]

THat's a pretty good point. I'm not super strong in this area, but from my reading of the history of the ecumenical councils, it does seem that open dialogue wasn't concerned the primary goal

[@Melissa-bb5hs]

Can you bring him on again to talk about his book on the papacy?

[@GospelSimplicity]

I would love to!

[@Melissa-bb5hs]

@@GospelSimplicity I really hope you can make it happen. I want to learn the EO perspective on the papacy, especially in the way that he explains both sides perspectives in a non-argumentative way.

[@Valkyrie00]

Unrelated question: what you ever considered visiting a Synagogue?

[@GospelSimplicity]

I'd consider it

[@LadyMaria]

@zedd No they are not.

[@beverleypettit3577]

@zedd How can a Jew not be a Jew ? Of course they are Jews. Was /Is Jesus - 'Yeshua' to the Jews - not a JEW ?! God bless and grant salvation to ALL His Chosen people. I may be wrong but I think it was ROY SCHOEMAN (USA) who said so beautifully that 'Judaism is pre-Messianic Catholicism and that Catholicism is post-Messianic Judaism'. Roy had a theophany which changed his life. His journey to Christ is breathtaking to listen to. The LAST thing this Jewish Professor EVER wanted to be was a Christian !!! And yet... Roy Schoeman has written two books (...sadly because of dwindling finances) I can afford neither of them. They are... 1 SALVATION IS FROM THE JEWS and 2 HONEY FROM THE ROCK I would love to have both of Roy Schoeman's books but it is not to be. So be it. Let us embrace our Jewish family who gave us our Messiah. Glory be to God 🙏🏾 Shalom everyone. Bev

[@beverleypettit3577]

Dear Charlotte BLESSINGS AND MUCH LOVE TO YOU AND YOUR PEOPLE. I am very mindful of all of you at this time. 🙏🏾 🙏🏾

[@LadyMaria]

@@beverleypettit3577 Messianic Jews are not Jewish unless their mother is or they converted to actual Judaism at one point. It's shameful to larp as Jewish when you're not. It was decided in the first century (Acts too) that we Gentiles never needed to become Jewish. That is the heresy of Judaizing. Roman Catholicism is post-Orthodox Christianity as it came from us. Roy has no idea what he's talking about. Orthodox Christianity started on Pentecost.

[@daglasan4285]

" I am the Spirit of Truth who issues from the Father and sent by the Son, Jesus Christ; We are one Substance and one Power and one Knowledge and since We are one God alone We converse and give knowledge in the same manner and in the same terms; this great knowledge is transmitted to you filled with love; " Problem solved.

[@kevinninja787]

I really don't follow Siecienski's belief that the Filioque is the cause of difference in the prayer life of the West vs East. I agree with him that in the Divine Liturgy you get a lot of mentions of the Trinity vs a modern Catholic Mass for example (though it is there). But it seems a large leap to claim that's due to belief in the Holy Spirit spirating from the Father and Son vs just the Father, or at least I didn't hear a convincing argument to make that assertion.

[@Motomack1042]

This is sheading more light on the subject, but I have a hard time with the fact that it was not really an issue at all until Photios, I have to believe that because he was deposed by the Pope, he had an axe to grind. We see this issue blow up because of him. Also the bad blood because of the 4th crusade and the sacking of Constantinople. I also believe terminology has a lot to do with the differences. The Filioque controversy is first of all a controversy over words. As a number of recent authors have pointed out, part of the theological disagreement between our communions seems to be rooted in subtle but significant differences in the way key terms have been used to refer to the Spirit’s divine origin. The original text of the Creed of 381, in speaking of the Holy Spirit, characterizes him in terms of John 15.26, as the one “who proceeds (ekporeuetai) from the Father”: probably influenced by the usage of Gregory the Theologian (Or. 31.8), the Council chose to restrict itself to the Johannine language, slightly altering the Gospel text (changing to pneuma…ho para tou Patros ekporeuetai to: to pneuma to hagion… to ek tou Patros ekporeuomenon) in order to empha­size that the “coming forth” of the Spirit begins “within” the Father’s own eternal hypo­static role as source of the divine Being, and so is best spoken of as a kind of “movement out of (ek)” him. The underlying connotation of ekporeuesthai (“proceed,” “issue forth”) and its related noun, ekporeusis (“procession”), seems to have been that of a “passage outwards” from within some point of origin. Since the time of the Cappadocian Fathers, at least, Greek theology almost always restricts the theological use of this term to the coming-forth of the Spirit from the Father, giving it the status of a technical term for the relationship of those two divine persons. In contrast, other Greek words, such as proienai, “go forward,” are frequently used by the Eastern Fathers to refer to the Spirit’s saving “mis­sion” in history from the Father and the risen Lord. The Latin word procedere, on the other hand, with its related noun processio, suggests simply “movement forwards,” without the added implication of the starting-point of that movement; thus it is used to translate a number of other Greek theological terms, including proienai, and is explicitly taken by Thomas Aquinas to be a general term denoting “origin of any kind” (Summa Theologiae I, q. 36, a.2), including - in a Trinitarian context - the Son’s generation as well as the breathing-forth of the Spirit and his mission in time. As a result, both the primordial origin of the Spirit in the eternal Father and his “coming forth” from the risen Lord tend to be designated, in Latin, by the same word, procedere, while Greek theology normally uses two dif­­fer­ent terms. Although the difference between the Greek and the Latin tradi­tions of under­standing the eternal origin of the Spirit is more than simply a verbal one, much of the ori­gi­nal concern in the Greek Church over the insertion of the word Filioque into the Latin trans­lation of the Creed of 381 may well have been due - as Maximus the Confessor explained (Letter to Marinus: PG 91.133-136) - to a misunder­standing on both sides of the different ranges of meaning implied in the Greek and Latin terms for “procession”.

[@isaiahkerstetter3142]

Thank you for the short lesson. Duly noted.

[@emanuelkournianos7412]

"When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify about me!" John 15:26 "He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him, the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day!" John 12:48 "Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar!" Proverbs 30:5-6

[@johnnyd2383]

CORRECTION: The Church has never been divided. Fact is that one branch (Rome) of The Church fell from the tree.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I don’t ask this to be difficult, but I’m genuinely curious. Given the current schism between Moscow and Constantinople, has one of these churches fell away, is the church divided, or am I just missing something?

[@evans3922]

@@GospelSimplicity Given that the conflict between Constantinople and Moscow is a jurisdiction conflict it is not a real schism like the schism of 1054 with Rome when there was a doctrine plus more disagreement and not only jurisdictional and anathemas were declared and when Rome stopped communion with all Eastern Patriarchates, its See thus fell apart from the tree as Johnny says. Because Rome stopped communion with All Patriarchates. Ecumenical Patriarch didn't stop commemorating the Moscow Patriarch, the latter only did. Also both Churches are in union by mutual commemoration with other Orthodox Churches e. g. Jerusalem Patriarchate, Church of Albania and Romania and others. So when the Moscow Patriarch commemorates those which the Ecumenical Patriarch also commemorates in fact there is an indirect communion, though it is a wound in the Body of the Church and a sad fact but the Church is still United. What Moscow did is rather an expression of discomfort and great disagreement with the Ecumenical Patriarch but in Church history there are many such cases that after some time were resolved and unity prevailed again... This is a temptation for the Orthodox Church that we pray to Lord and hope it will be surpassed soon God willing.

[@johnnyd2383]

@@GospelSimplicity 1) Both Patriarchates are still "on the tree" since there are other Patriarchates who are in communion with both of them. If other Patriarchates decide to do the same as Russians did, that would lead to the real fall of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. 2) Discontinued communion is not a schism. Take for example person that gets excommunicated... that person is still member of The Church but is not allowed to commune, and can be re-instantiated easily. It gets really ugly if the person is thrown out... so.. to conclude... don't mix apples and oranges.. or... grannies and frogs.! :o)))

[@evans3922]

inofficial testimony regarding the ukranian conflict.This is for the Orthodox brothers and sisters: By Metropolitan of Morfou Cyprus Neophytos: Blessed Elder Ephraim of Arizona,well known for founding 17 Orthodox monasteries in USA and 2 in Canada appeared in vision to a pious couple from Greece who were hesitant to attend the Divine Liturgy in Greece due to the fact that Ieronymus of Athens commemorated Epifanios of Kiev and told them not to stop going to the Liturgies of Greek bishops because the soon upcoming calamities and dreadful events like the great 3rd World war will make this conflict fade away since there will be more serious problems to face in the Church and the world.After peace is achieved a great Pan-Orthodox Synod will take place that will solve this problem as well as many other problems that have been accumulated. This couple was relactant to believe the vision as this is the Orthodox way:not to accept visions and not to reject them till you ask the elders...They asked another blessed elder in Greece who as soon as they entered his room before even asking him told them in a sober way : Do as Ephraim told you... So we believe God will fix this problem through our Elders and Saints and Most Holy Theotokos intercessions.Amen

[@danglingondivineladders3994]

@@evans3922 Yes, God willing this will all pass.

[@mr.molina8008]

You should reach out to Fr. James Likoudis

[@GospelSimplicity]

Is he eastern catholic?

[@bethanyann1060]

@@GospelSimplicity He is a famous Eastern Orthodox convert to Catholicism. Not sure which rite he is though.

[@thegracecast40]

He’s talking about Rome removing the filioque but they can’t right? Because they can’t change councils. It’s like spiritual hemophilia. If they cut themselves they bleed to death. They have the same issue with trying to reconcile the council of Trent and the joint declaration of 1990. Good stuff lol

[@bellingdog]

They can, there are historical bases for this. The Chalcedon Council renounces a previous council. Hence why we have Oriental Orthodox and the rest. If not for Chalcedon, we would be either Nestorians or Oriental Orthodox.

[@thegracecast40]

@@bellingdog orientel orthodox believe Jesus has one nature: a God-Man nature right?

[@bellingdog]

@@thegracecast40 Yes, I do not want to speak for them, but yes, they believe that Christ is fully God and fully man, just in 1 nature - miaphysitism.

[@thegracecast40]

@@bellingdog I don’t think that’s outright heresy but a distinction without a difference

[@noahjohnson2611]

Don't most Roman Catholics say the Apostles' Creed, rather than the Nicene Creed, during Mass? Ortho-bro asking Catho-bros (w/

[@rjward1775]

Often yes, but also the Nicene and I haven't figured out if that follows a liturgical calendar.

[@masterchief8179]

Nice question! In the Latin Mass or the Extraordinary Roman Rite, it is always the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed with the Filioque (in Latin, obviously). In the New Ordinary Roman Rite (in vernacular language), we recite the Apostle’s Creed, which is a shorter version of the Creed. Still today, if you watch a baptismal rite, the very Apostle’s Creed - used in Rome since the 2nd and 3rd centuries in a shorter version known as the “Old Roman Symbol” - is used in the interrogative form until this day: “Do you believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth?”, and then the answer “I do” must be given by the catechumen or the sponsor of the baptized (if infant baptism) - and it should be given twelve times, since there are twelve sentences. So the Apostle’s Creed - only in the affirmative form - is the creedal formula we recite in the New Ordinary Roman Rite, also called “Novus Ordo” (and, just for curiosity, it is actually more ancient than the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed in maybe one or even two centuries). Of course it is not as complete as the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. God bless!

[@masterchief8179]

Catechism of the Catholic Church. Paragraphs 185 to 197. SECTION TWO I. THE CREEDS _185 Whoever says "I believe" says "I pledge myself to what we believe." Communion in faith needs a common language of faith, normative for all and uniting all in the same confession of faith._ _186 From the beginning, the apostolic Church expressed and handed on her faith in brief formulae normative for all.[1] But already very early on, the Church also wanted to gather the essential elements of her faith into organic and articulated summaries, intended especially for candidates for Baptism:_ _This synthesis of faith was not made to accord with human opinions, but rather what was of the greatest importance was gathered from all the Scriptures, to present the one teaching of the faith in its entirety. and just as the mustard seed contains a great number of branches in a tiny grain, so too this summary of faith encompassed in a few words the whole knowledge of the true religion contained in the Old and the New Testaments [2]_ _187 Such syntheses are called "professions of faith" since they summarize the faith that Christians profess. They are called "creeds" on account of what is usually their first word in Latin: credo ("I believe"). They are also called "symbols of faith"._ _188 The Greek word symbolon meant half of a broken object, for example, a seal presented as a token of recognition the broken parts were placed together to verify the bearer's identity. The symbol of faith, then, is a sign of recognition and communion between believers. Symbolon also means a gathering, collection or summary. A symbol of faith is a summary of the principal truths of the faith and therefore serves as the first and fundamental point of reference for catechesis._ _189 The first "profession of faith" is made during Baptism. the symbol of faith is first and foremost the baptismal creed. Since Baptism is given "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" [3]. The truths of faith professed during Baptism are articulated in terms of their reference to the three persons of the Holy Trinity._ _190 So the Creed is divided into three parts: "the first part speaks of the first divine Person and the wonderful work of creation; the next speaks of the second divine Person and the mystery of his redemption of men; the final part speaks of the third divine Person, the origin and source of our sanctification."[4] These are "the three chapters of our [baptismal] seal" [5]._ _191 "These three parts are distinct although connected with one another. According to a comparison often used by the Fathers, we call them articles. Indeed, just as in our bodily members there are certain articulations which distinguish and separate them, so too in this profession of faith, the name "articles" has justly and rightly been given to the truths we must believe particularly and distinctly."[6] In accordance with an ancient tradition, already attested to by St. Ambrose, it is also customary to reckon the articles of the Creed as twelve, thus symbolizing the fullness of the apostolic faith by the number of the apostles[7]._ _192 Through the centuries many professions or symbols of faith have been articulated in response to the needs of the different eras: the creeds of the different apostolic and ancient Churches [8], e.g., the Quicumque, also called the Athanasian Creed [9]; The professions of faith of certain Councils, such as Toledo, Lateran, Lyons, Trent; [10] or the symbols of certain popes, e.g., the Fides Damasi [11] or the Credo of the People of God of Paul VI [12]._ _193 None of the creeds from the different stages in the Church's life can be considered superseded or irrelevant. They help us today to attain and deepen the faith of all times by means of the different summaries made of it. Among all the creeds, two occupy a special place in the Church's life:_ _194 The Apostles' Creed is so called because it is rightly considered to be a faithful summary of the apostles' faith. It is the ancient baptismal symbol of the Church of Rome. Its great authority arises from this fact: it is "the Creed of the Roman Church, the See of Peter the first of the apostles, to which he brought the common faith" [13]._ _195 The Niceno-Constantinopolitan or Nicene Creed draws its great authority from the fact that it stems from the first two ecumenical Councils (in 325 and 381). It remains common to all the great Churches of both East and West to this day._ _196 Our presentation of the faith will follow the Apostles' Creed, which constitutes, as it were, "the oldest Roman catechism". The presentation will be completed however by constant references to the Nicene Creed, which is often more explicit and more detailed._ _197 As on the day of our Baptism, when our whole life was entrusted to the "standard of teaching"[14], let us embrace the Creed of our life-giving faith. To say the Credo with faith is to enter into communion with God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and also with the whole Church which transmits the faith to us and in whose midst we believe:_ _This Creed is the spiritual seal, our heart's meditation and an ever-present guardian; it is, unquestionably, the treasure of our soul[15]._ ______________ 1 Cf. Rom 10:9; I Cor 15:3-5, etc. 2 St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. illum. 5, 12: PG 33, 521-524. 3 Mt 28: 19 4 Roman Catechism I, 1, 3. 5 St. Irenaeus, Dem. ap. 100: SCh 62, 170. 6 Roman Catechism I, I, 4. 7 Cf. St. Ambrose, Expl. symb. 8: PL 17, 1196. 8 Cf. DS 1-64. 9 Cf. DS 75-76. 10 Cf. DS 525-541; 800-802; 851-861; 1862-1870. 11 Cf. DS 71-72. 12 Paul VI, CPG (1968). 13 St. Ambrose, Expl. symb. 7: PL 17, 1196. 14 Rom 6: 17 15 St. Ambrose, Expl. symb. I: PL 17, 1193.

[@LadyMaria]

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (with Filioque) is recited 95% of the time if not more at all the Roman Catholic Masses I've been to over the last 20 some years.

[@masterchief8179]

@@LadyMaria That’s interesting to hear. I should say 99% of the “Novus Ordo” Sunday masses I’ve been in Brazil - we don’t recite the profession of faith during weekday masses, except for solemn days - it is the Apostle’s Creed that was recited and not the larger one, which is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan. And 100% of the Latin Traditional Masses are with the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (with Filioque, in Latin). That happens because in 1973 it was granted authorization to use the Apostle’s Creed - that means a reduced form - in the Eucharistic liturgy and not only during Baptismal rites in the interrogative formula. In 2002, the Revised Roman Missal granted a general permission to adopt the Apostle’s Creed. So in Brazil it got uniformly adopted due to that permission granted by the CNBB (“Conferência Nacional dos Bispos do Brasil”), and maybe special authorization given in 1973 (I should talk to older Catholics to know it exactly). Maybe the USCCB disciplined it diversely, assuming you are from the USA. Please check it here: _”Since the 2002 edition, the Apostles' Creed is included in the Roman Missal as an alternative, with the indication, "Instead of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, especially during Lent and Easter time, the baptismal Symbol of the Roman Church, known as the Apostles' Creed, may be used."[34] Previously the Nicene Creed was the only profession of faith that the Missal gave for use at Mass, except in Masses for children; but in some countries use of the Apostles' Creed was already permitted”._ en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed

[@bk74w80]

Another good discussion of the topic: www.usccb.org/committees/ecumenical-interreligious-affairs/filioque-church-dividing-issue-agreed-statement

[@Beta-XYZ]

Not only a word but all.

[@masterchief8179]

From a Catholic that is very interested in the tone of the channel and has a deep respect and appreciation for the host (not so much how the comment section’s anti-Catholicism turned to be from time to time), it feels - that’s only my opinion - that the channel maybe overdosed on Eastern Orthodox priests, scholars and apologists talking about divisive things from their angle. Maybe it is fair to hear Catholics talking their side of the story about those things: Latin Catholics specialized on these matters, even Eastern Catholics from Byzantine background and those coming from Eastern/Oriental spirituality that is diverse from Greek-Byzantine. God bless you all!

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for sharing that feedback. I always appreciate hearing thoughtful critiques. I must say, I found this one a touch surprising considering, in my experience, Dr. Soecienski is about ad far from a polemicist as there is in the scholarly world. In fact, in this interview, he never even really makes a case against the filioque. We just walk through the history. Furthermore, the last orthodox priest I had on was actually pro-reunion. However, I do appreciate your thoughts and I will take them into consideration

[@masterchief8179]

@Dustin Neely My argument was not about one-on-one quantity of Catholics vs Orthodoxs, I actually don’t think it is unfair (nor do I see quantity actually meaning a theme to me in particular), but rather on the fact that core divisive issues are simply told by Eastern Orthodoxy’s point of view. Then that can become the default historical and theological set of assumption and it plays, willingly or not, a huge rhetorical role. In general, Protestants and Orthodoxs are the ones to talk about the Protestant Reformation and the Great Schism historically; in general, when one remembers to hear us Catholics about those things (and I mean the divisive issues), we are put on the fence to defend from the accusations or assumptions previously made as some kind of argumentative “topoi” by Protestantism and EO’s view of history/ theology, almost never to give our own. Maybe that’s just how it is to be a Catholic in light of the scandalous divisions of the church: someone accuses and we need to go and say “actually it is not the Catholic Church’s doctrine” or “actually it is not how it happened” and so forth. Again, it is just my overall impression. I am not even American or anglophone. Even so, Austin is notably a very fair guy.

[@masterchief8179]

@Dustin Neely I think you maybe missed my point. It is not the same old “someone is misrepresenting what someone else teaches”. That is constant for everyone - it seems - and it is not touching my argument. I am referring to historical events and motives (theological) for them being exposed necessarily under non-Catholic (EO or Protestant) lenses; and Catholics in general, if ever, being limited to defend from those accusations or assumptions, but not to describe the very historical events and theological motives for them according to a Catholic point of view/ cosmovision. I think I made it clear in my comment. God bless you too.

[@masterchief8179]

@Dustin Neely Ps: Besides, I simply gave my humble opinion in what to me is a matter of fairness and balance. I didn’t even ask for him to invite this or that person (one can clearly notice I don’t do that unless I am asked to), since I respect the fact that the owner of the channel must do whatever he pleases. More than that, it wasn’t me who was collectively “demanding” Austin to invite a famous EO apologist known to ridicule Catholics and offend the Catholic faith to be on this very channel. I didn’t see Catholics doing anything alike with Austin, to be sincere. Please don’t. Not on me, Dustin. God bless!

[@masterchief8179]

@Dustin Neely Peace, brother.

[@ephesiansbrowne5982]

The question to me has never been who was right. The Latin Church isn't trying to impose this universally. It's a local variant. The Pope has no problem not saying it when praying with our Orthodox brethren. The question to me is... Is a local creed worth going into schism. After 2 years of wrestling with that idea as an Orthodox catechumen, the answer was emphatically no. So I became a Catholic a year later.

[@unam9931]

Bravo👍✝️

[@bethanyann1060]

Wow, welcome home!

[@flisom]

Are you implying that the Catholic Church is simply a local church with its “local” creed? The Catholic Church has killed Eastern Orthodox Christians because they would not accept the Filioque. I would refer you to the 4th Crusade as an example. I too became Catholic. After four years, I felt my faith being drained and then God led me to the Orthodox Church. My faith has been restored. As you attend Mass and line up for communion, you must realize that it is entirely likely that most in line with you do not believe Christ is truly present in the consecrated bread and wine. As Catholics complain about Orthodox not accepting the Filioque, papal infallibility, the immaculate conception of Mary, and their other innovations, most Catholics, according to surveys, do not even believe in the Real Presence. Why would you join a Church full of non believers?

[@bethanyann1060]

@@flisom Orthodox have killed Latins in the past too. Neither of us were alive to see any of that. It’s time to bury the hatchet. Jesus said there would always be tares among the wheat until the end of the age. That is a very poor argument to justify leaving a church because of the ignorance of people within it. I used to do that as a Protestant all the time. There are many Orthodox in name only as well.

[@flisom]

@@bethanyann1060 I can understand your desire to dismiss Catholic atrocities, often instigated by popes, but these wounds still run deep in the Orthodox world. There is a great mistrust of Catholics. As a Catholic, I was oblivious to these Orthodox concerns as well. The Filioque is really the least of the issues that have to be overcome. I would suggest reading some history written from an Orthodox perspective. Father John Strickland’s books would be a good start.

[@kyriakosaronis4872]

It is not just the Filioque that divided the christendom from the very beginning had quarrels and problems with its Patriarchate then in the 400 you had Augustine very promises man not christian until age 30. then in 800 you had Charlemagne that threatened the pope to make him an Emperor or else. Then the fighting between german popes and french popes. Also being that Rome only was using Latin and the rest of the four Patriarchates were using Greek that was also detrimental to Rome. then the Grand Schism of 1054 pope Leo sent his German bishop Humbert and placed the anothema on the Holy Altar of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople on July 16, 1054 CE. After the schism Rome started to change with Heresies inventions and falsehoods.

[@Gruenders]

I want to be Orthodox, but I cannot for the life of me understand why they assume the Father’s hypostatic property is causality as opposed to solely unbegottenness. They argue that granting causality to the Son makes him just like the Father - but this is only if you assume that the Father’s hypostatic property is causality. What if his property is simply not being caused (unbegottenness)! They seem to equivocate on principle cause and mediate cause. Someone explain this to me so that I can convert to EO

[@diegobarragan4904]

Do you not trust the many great saints of the East that teach that the Father’s hypostatic property is causality? It’s not only the Capodocian Fathers but most of the Saints also. And remember that many of these are also venerated by the Catholic church

[@Gruenders]

@@diegobarragan4904 no I don’t merely blind faith trust them, if that’s your question. I’m looking for the logic behind their arguments.

[@diegobarragan4904]

@@Gruenders well that’s a problem if you don’t trust the consistent teaching of the saints. And respectfully, there seems to be another problem with your approach. The church did not develop the Trinity Doctrine by using reason to figure out what makes most sense. The Holy Trinity is revealed Doctrine, by Christ. Not only did Christ teach that he was the only begotten son of the Father and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but so did the Church in establishing he nicean-Constantinopolitan creed. Again, The Eastern saints didn’t come to this on their own using their reason alone, but by receiving the teaching from the Church, and through union with God through a purified heart. True theologians are not scholars , it’s those who see God and know God in the truest sense. These are the Saints that defended the divinity of the Son and the Spirit, and specifically taught that Causaility was the hypostatic property of the Father. Let me ask one question, if causation is not a hypostatic property, does that mean it’s from the Essence that the Son received from the Father?

[@Gruenders]

@@diegobarragan4904 the fathers logically worked out the nature/wills of Christ. I reject the idea that the saints don’t utilize reasoning in formulating their theology. John of Damascus has a whole philosophical work in defense of the Orthodox Faith. This attitude is merely reactionary to Catholicism, it seems to me. I’m not saying causality isn’t a hypostatic property. In fact that’s exactly what I’m proposing. But I’m asking why can’t the Father’s hypostatic property be a specific type of causality - principle causality. While the Son’s hypostatic property be a different type of causality - instrumental causality (like sacraments and like the Son’s role in economic manifestation).

[@diegobarragan4904]

@@Gruenders I didn’t say that they didn’t use reason, I’m saying that the knowledge of God is beyond reason. It’s something that the Saints, the true theologians, received through illumination by a purified heart, the saints reached Theosis. orthodox teach that man is made of body soul and the nous, which is the deepest part of the soul whereby we can commune with God directly. Fallen Reason on its own, not cooperating with a purified nous, is the “reasoning” that we talk about. The saints didn’t sit around reasoning about God, instead they truly seen God and know God in the most intimate sense, which is beyond reason, while using the reasoning faculty of the soul to articulate what the Nous sees. Hope that makes sense. So In response to your question, so what you are suggesting is the idea that the hypostic property is both unbegottoness and principle causation, while the Sons are begottoness and a “different” kind of causality, and the Spirit is procession alone without causation? There’s few problems with this: 1) it makes the Trinity unbalanced 2) where does the Son receive this “different” kind of causation if all he has is from the Father?. What brought this different kind into existence? 3) why did the Spirit alone not receive any causation property?

[@williammurray85]

Please ask him how Orthodox can say the filioque is heretical when it was clearly held to by St Cyril, St Epiphanius, St Hilary, Pope St Leo, Pope St Gregory, and all the other Latin Fathers.

[@williammurray85]

These are all Orthodox saints and are not only Catholic saints. Orthodox claim to be the undivided Church of the first millennium, so how can they say half their saints were heretical and still claim to represent the undivided Church?

[@williammurray85]

@Dustin Neely any evidence that is what these Latin Fathers were teaching?

[@GospelSimplicity]

@Dustin Neely we delve into the distinctions of the economic and immanent Trinity and how that can help understand patristic sources

[@aaronbenjaminjacobs3231]

Is he an Orthodox or Catholic? If an orthodox, ask him what he thinks about Gregory of Nanzien, Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, and Basil the great teaching “and the son”!

[@MrPeach1]

where does Athanasius teach it? Is it in on the Incarnation?

[@williammurray85]

He is Orthodox

[@williammurray85]

I'd also ask what he thinks about Hilary, Pope Leo and Pope Gregory who clearly teach it. Seems like this was the accepted view in the West among all the Latin Fathers

[@iteadthomam]

@@williammurray85 It's very plain in Latin Fathers. and many would argue that some of the eastern saints teach filioque too, I mean if it's a plausible doctrine, we should have no problem accepting it.

[@LadyMaria]

@@iteadthomam One of the biggest problems is that it was added without a council. It was agreed at the 381 council not to do that. In the Greek it just doesn't work and that's what we go by.

[@marianweigh6411]

Amateur comment here but, in the nativity narratives (24:44), the fact that the Father sends the Spirit ahead to announce and generate the Son, does not necessarily go against the view that the Spirit "is" the bond of love between Father and Son or proceeds from them both. Doesn't this also happen in the generation of human offspring? There is love for the child conceived in the mind and heart before the child is conceived in reality. The burgeoning conception leads to the concrete-creative acts of physical conception. Though humans don't always attain this level of purity, ideally speaking the bond of love between parent and child would always exist 'spiritually' before the child existed - or, at least, that love would arrive right alongside with the child. (This seems less a 'priority' than a co-primordial emergence of _love for_ the child, _will to_ create the child, and the _idea of_ the child, if not the child itself...) So, in the context of the economic Trinity, it makes sense that the Spirit of Love between Begetter and Begotten would (and seemingly would have to) make its voice heard - announce the love! - before the concrete-historical-visible event of conception and incarnation. Of course, once the Word is Incarnate, He further illuminates all these relations...

[@LadyMaria]

And that subordinates the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the love child of the Father and Son..

[@christianstephens7213]

These thoughts are beyond us for you have God the Father , and the Spirit of the Lord in the old covenant which is the Holy Spirit , and then you have the Angel of the Lord that appeared in human for which he recieved worship and sacrafice which regular angels never can , This is the Son.

[@LadyMaria]

Christians believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons of one God.

[@jonathansmith336]

The Charismatic Episcopal Church does not have it in our creed.

[@alfredhitchcock45]

Imminent vs Economic Trinity

[@ransomcoates546]

Polish surname and Orthodox??

[@mertonhirsch4734]

Good point on prayer. Orthodox see the Holy Spirit as guiding the whole church: "The grace of the Holy Spirit has assembled us", Also, the bringer of grace "The seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit". If the Pope is the vicar of Christ on earth, then Roman prayer may SEEM to subjugate the Holy Spirit to the Pope. I say "seem" to as a Catholic theologian would not say that the Holy Spirit is subjugated to the Pope, but the way the Roman church works may seem to enforce that theological architecture. At any rate, the Orthodox faith in the Holy Spirit to have the power to lead the whole church, in time, into relative consensus kind of negates the concept of a need for a single earthly monarch with ultimate authority.

[@danglingondivineladders3994]

seem...got it.

[@mertonhirsch4734]

@@danglingondivineladders3994 Well, the language can not actually subjugate the Holy Spirit, it can only present a heterodox typology of the relationship. It is more like having an icon that has a theological flaw, like Jesus with blue eyes, or an image of the trinity showing an old man and a bird. The irony perhaps is that we need the Holy Spirit to avoid those mistakes.

[@fitzhamilton]

It's a syllogism. The Creed with or without the filioque states that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son: "who was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and became man." There aren't two sources- only one, the Father, who is source of both the eternally begotten Son and the eternally processing Spirit . The Father always has eternal precedence, the Son comes next and the Spirit comes third through both. Eternally first then second then third. The Son creates the World and the Church - and becomes incarnate as man - through the action of the Spirit in time, all this according to the eternal will of the Father: see Genesis 1-4 and John 1. There. I've solved the problem, just like Ss. Basil and Maximos did.. Our schism is stupid, a multivalent power grab, primarily on the part of Rome, but also to lesser degree by Moscow and Constantinople. Tell the pope and most of the Catholic and many of the Orthodox bishops to stop reading Theilhard de Chardin and all the rest of those hermetic gnostic occultists and repent. There. That's it. We can all go home now.

[@iammsmorales]

I love that you called it syllogism! Bravo 👏👏👏 but what about photius?

[@nrnash83]

The addition of the filioque was not just the singular issue of the split. While dogmatically incorrect, the bigger issue is whether the Bishop of Rome had the authority to insert the phrase into a creed established by the ecumenical body of the Church through a council? The orthodox answer to that is no, because they do not believe any Bishop or Patriarch is above the council. So, in reality the filioque just unveiled a deeper issue, which is the problem of Papal supremacy especially in how it relates to his authority. We think the Bishop of Rome has usurped authority never granted to that office. Here is a quote when discussing how seriously any usurper of authority in the Church is viewed, except in this case it was Pope Gregory the Great responding to Patriarch of Constantinople, John IV referring to himself as “ecumenical patriarch”: Gregory told John in no uncertain terms to not call himself "universal," saying that reference to such a title was "ill-advised." Simple logic dictated to Gregory that if one patriarch was universal, it would deny the very "office of bishop to all their brethren." 12 For good measure, he wrote both the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch regarding his concerns as well, informing them "Not one of my predecessors ever consented to the use of this profane title, for to be sure, if one patriarch is called ‘universal,’ the name of patriarch is denied to the others." 13 Nor did he stop there: in a letter to the emperor, Leo flatly stated that such a title amounted to "blasphemy."

[@koppite9600]

The authority of the Pope is evident, Peter was the head, there were not 12 heads, only one.

[@nrnash83]

@@koppite9600 yes, and Peter was also Bishop of Antioch before he ever went to Rome. There are three Sees associated with Saint Peter. So what exactly is your point?

[@koppite9600]

@@nrnash83 his succession in Rome is the one which bears the Powers of binding and loosing.

[@nrnash83]

@@koppite9600 oh really? Under what ecclesiological ruling? I’ll give you a hint: there isn’t one! The bishop of Rome was given primacy (not supremacy) because it was the capital of the Empire. It had nothing to do with being a See of Saint Peter. If being a See of Saint Peter is all it took to receive primacy, then both Antioch or Alexandria would have received primacy before Constantinople did. Stop believing the nonsense told to you by the Roman Catholic Church. There is no legitimacy to the claim that it’s some special Bishopric as being distinguished uniquely from the other Sees, especially those which are also Sees originating with Saint Peter.

[@koppite9600]

@@nrnash83 the Church was built where they died (Peter and Paul) I wonder why you doubt the Apostolic See yet when the Eastern Church was still in communion with him they believed he had universal primacy even over the councils, what Peter says is not to be debated.. look at the fierce debate in Acts 15 7 where he ends it with his authority being from God over the others.

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

15:50 That is patently false. The Catholic Mass is completely saturated with Trinitarian language. This fundamental ignorance of the Latin tradition’s liturgy throws his whole the legitimacy of his whole body of work into question.

[@rustamakhunov1545]

a comment for the video promotion)

[@csterett]

I don't know about omitting the Filioque. It seems sort of like you would be denying the Trinity. If God is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the spirit comes from the Father, then wouldn't it also come from the Son? It's almost like saying you are the son of your father, but not your mother. Here is a traditional rendering of the Holy Trinity: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_of_the_Trinity#/media/File:Trinity_triangle_(Shield_of_Trinity_diagram)_1896.jpg

[@jimschroeder1176]

Then where did the Son come from? And where did the Father come from?

[@LadyMaria]

The original Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed doesn't have the Filioque so no reason to have it. Saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from Father and Son subordinates the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the child of the Father and Son so your analogy doesn't hold up.

[@ronfeledichuk531]

Chris Sterett you could say the same thing about the Son. If God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and if the Son is begotten of the Father....then is He begotten of the Holy Spirit also?

[@csterett]

@@ronfeledichuk531 Interesting question. In the gospel of Luke, the angel did say that the Holy Sprit would come upon Mary.

[@LadyMaria]

@@ronfeledichuk531 No. Yes, the Holy Theotokos conceived of the Holy Spirit as the Father used the Holy Spirit for this end. The Holy Spirit is not Christ's Father however.

[@joecastillo8798]

Observe in Sacred Scripture, how the inspired writers call the Holy Ghost: 1) The Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6) 2) The Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9) 3) The Spirit of Christ (Philippians 1:19) 4) The Spirit of the Father (Mat 10:20) 5) The Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11). As you can well see, they attribute to the Holy Ghost the same relation to the SON as to the FATHER. Again, according to Sacred Scripture: 1) The Son sends the Holy Ghost (Luke 24:49; John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Titus 3:6) 2) The Father sends the Son (Romans 3:3) 3) The Father sends the Holy Ghost (John 14:26). Sacred Scripture never presents the Father as being sent by the Son, nor the Son as being sent by the Holy Ghost. The very idea of the term "mission" implies that the person sent goes forth for a certain purpose by the power of the sender, a power exerted on the person sent by way of a physical impulse, or of a command, or of prayer, or finally of production; now, Procession, the analogy of production, is the only manner admissible in God. It follows that our inspired writers present the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Son, since they present Him as sent by the Son. Finally, pay close attention to the following passage: JOHN 16:13-15 13. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. The Holy Spirit proceeds from both, The Father and The Son.

[@TheFeralcatz]

He's like an Orthodox Vox Day

[@F2222m]

Lol

[@TheFeralcatz]

@@frcaseycole4135 Why don't you enable comments on your own videos and spam people there?

[@austengiles2089]

Keep up the great content, but no I will not subscribe lol! People don't want the commitment of people popping up on their stream.

[@GospelSimplicity]

👍🏻

[@Mr.Peck88]

I can’t begin to come near the education level of Dr. Siecienski, but the Spirit proceeding from the Father AND the Son just makes more sense to me. I understand both arguments but the Catholic argument feels correct. Just my (very) humble opinion.

[@LadyMaria]

It puts the Holy Spirit as subordinate to the Father and Son. The Filioque is not Catholic, it is Roman Catholic.

[@Mr.Peck88]

@@LadyMaria Thank you I meant Roman Catholic.

[@ThomasG_Nikolaj]

This is what every RC I've spoken to says. 'It just makes more sense to me' but why?

[@Mr.Peck88]

@@ThomasG_Nikolaj I think because it reflects a perfect balance of the trinity. If the Spirit does not proceed from the Son it seems to make the Son as less than the Father instead of true God. We also think of the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son and it make sense that the love proceeds from both. And there are scripture references where Jesus imparts the Holy Spirit himself. This is of course in union with the Father because they are truly one.

[@LadyMaria]

@@Mr.Peck88 But why do you need to subordinate the Holy Spirit? All 3 are equally God. The Filioque way you unbalance the Holy Trinity. The Holy Spirit is not the product of the Father and Son. He came into existence with Both. The Father is the Source of the Holy Trinity; the Son is begotten, the Spirit proceeds.

[@redit5332]

This argument Byzantine catholics are making AGAINST ADDING the words..."and the Son" to the Nicean Creed is utter NONSENCE!! The Holy Spirit was sent to the followers of Christ by BOTH the Father AND the Son!! The Holy Scriptures state this is so in the following verses from the ESV bible: John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. John 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever. John 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. This is WHY it is so IMPORTANT to read for yourself what the Holy Scriptures say rather than to have your only source be a Pope, Bishop, or Minister. Thank God people like Martin Luther, Wycliff, and and others made possible for the common man to read and understand the bible itself in many different languages. This way we can spot check our leaders in the church and also be able to discern who the anti-Christ and the Lawless One is in the near future. Btw, the 1st Century Jews/Gentiles constructed biblical texts in this way: fb.watch/7Pb6zghZSm/

[@namapalsu2364]

I agree. The word ekporeumai (proceed, John 15:26) had never been strictly applied to the Father only (as Orthodox and some eastern Catholics argue).

[@redit5332]

@@namapalsu2364 Thank you. God Bless.

[@johnathanrhoades7751]

Yes. They both sent. But it's a question of origination not of sending. So from the father THROUGH the son, sure. But it's a question of the origination. The father begetts the son, the spirit does not, the spirit proceeds (in an originative way, not just a sending way) from the father, not the son, and the Father is neither begotten nor proceeding... it is a difference.

[@johnathanrhoades7751]

The biggest deal is the place of the Bishop of Rome, though, even though the Filioque is important.

[@namapalsu2364]

@@johnathanrhoades7751 The context of John 15:26, which is the text where everyone (Catholic and Orthodox, even Protestant) see procession, is temporal sending. Which is why Catholic theologians (but not Orthodox theologians) would say that the sending is a reflection of hypostatic origin. So if the Father sent the Holy Spirit and the Son also sent the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit hypostatically proceed from both.

[@joelkelly4154]

Ut unum sint.

[@NMDecember1]

#youmustbebornagain #bibleprophecy #matthew2424 #comeoutofhermypeople John 8:31-32 31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” #eternityisforever

[@iteadthomam]

Filioque is a sound, biblical and historical doctrine. Latin Fathers and some of Eastern Fathers (as many would argue) teach it

[@iteadthomam]

@abc usd well, the Roman pope was and is the head of the church. some of eastern saints say that Pope has authority over an ecumenical council. there's a difference between adding sth which is heretical and contrary to what Fathers have taught and a doctrine which is sound and has its root in fathers. at 2nd ecumenical council, Fathers reasonably added and omitted things in 381 to 325 creed. because what they added was orthodox. if they can add, then Pope of Rome which is the head of the all churches can do the same. but if it's not an orthodox doctrine, he cant and he wont.

[@williammurray85]

@abc usd No, it doesn't. The official Orthodox position is that it is heretical. That position is false.

[@amg2598]

@C Have you read the joint statement by Catholics and Orthodox on the filioque? It's very good!

[@Anthony-ws3il]

Orthodoxy opposes the Filioque because it places the Holy Spirit on a lower level in the Trinity. There is no attribute of God that two Persons of the Trinity share without the third also sharing it. The Filioque absolutely violates this. Pope Leo III could not have been a clearer opponent to the Filioque. He had the Creed without the Filioque placed on two silver shields: one in Latin and one in Greek. In addition he also had the following placed at the bottom of the shields: "I, Leo, put these here for love and protection of orthodox faith." The view that the Filioque is of the Holy Spirit's temporal mission and not of His eternal origin is consistent with Orthodoxy. Even though it is consistent in that regard there are a couple problems with this: 1. Catholicism teaches the Holy Spirit's eternal origin is from the Father and the Son: "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once ( _simul_ ) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son (CCC, 246, quoting the Council of Florence, 1438) (credit to _Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy: Finding the Way to Christ in a Complicated Religious Landscape_ by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick). 2. The context of the Creed does not indicate anything is temporary: "And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets;" And finally, which you have definitely seen before: "But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me" (John 15:26).

[@iteadthomam]

@@Anthony-ws3il it does not place spirit lower than father and son because each possess the same essence. remember that son gets everything from the father except paternity and spiration is not paternity, therefore son spirates spirit too. u're manipulating the bible. first off, you can never prove that john 15:26 is talking about eternal procession. second, even if i grant that. bible actually proves filioque in rev 22:1 which says: Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb... as we all know jesus himself declares in John 7 that river of the water of life is Holy Spirit. here in this verse "flowing from" in greek is the exact verb which was used in creed of 381. "ἐκπορευόμενον" notice that verse says that river proceeds from one throne (which is referring to single source) of the 2 persons (God the Father and the Lamb Jesus Christ.) so yes Bible clearly teaches the Filioque and Roman church is 100% right.

[@rc3088]

Uhmm ...isn't orthodox still Catholic as that is where they originated... The word or term orthodox did not come into play until maybe the 1850s around there... What were they called before that. They were called Catholic As they are and forever will be my brethren.

[@diegobarragan4904]

Uhmm where in the world did you get 1850? I’m pretty sure at John of Damascus and st Gregory the theologian and many early saints were before 1850 and used the title Orthodox for the true Christians

[@GospelSimplicity]

Can you provide any sources for the claim that the word orthodox wasn't in use till 1850?

[@LadyMaria]

The Roman church came from us. We are the Orthodox Catholic Church. We're not brethren, I'm sorry. Orthodox has long been in play.

[@ThomasG_Nikolaj]

@@LadyMaria facts

[@supreme87878]

...Et in spiritum sanctum, dominum et vivificantem: qui ex patre filioque procedit....

[@LadyMaria]

Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.

[@alfredhitchcock45]

Jesus sent the Holy Spirit during Pentecost. That settles it

[@LadyMaria]

Not really.

[@alfredhitchcock45]

Latins vs Byzantine

[@helenoce5007]

To those who keep changing the word, at the end those will give an account.. God said do not divide the body of Christ, your will get many to be lost. More and more are making harden hearts, everybody wants to tell God what he means,( sir teach yourself, )God is right in his word 1 Timothy 4:1,2. 👀👀📖 2Tessalonians2:3-12👀👀📖you don't need an expert you need the Holy Spirit of God. Jesus said this great truth In Matthew7:6 , 15,16 , 21--23. Matthew 24:23-25 😳😳😳👀👀👀📖 too many lost minds will do such things with Gods word. Leave the word of God alone and leave it to those who it was stolen from it only belongs too the chosen. That's why you don't understand it in truth. Who do you believe God should be??? The world full many opinions in their heads and loose many looking for the truth, be careful not to be convinced of a man's lie you might just loose many souls. Wrong, wrong, wrong !!!! 😳😳LEAVE THE BIBLE WHERE IT BELONGS, IT BELONG TO THE CHOSEN CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR 2000 YEARS, THE BIBLE WAS MADE BY THE CHURCH. GO MAKE YOUR OWN, IF YOU CONTRADICT GODS WORD. IT'S ALL IN THE BIBLE, GOD WORD PROVES HE IS RIGHT. The church of God has Authority from the beginning for the church of Christ.In many readings Jesus gives the authority. Our lack of wisdom will loose many souls

[@LadyMaria]

The [Orthodox] Catholic Church has been here since Pentecost. We're not the ones who added to the tome of Scripture that our Church compiled nor the Creed. That would be the once local church of Rome who adds things.

[@YenkammaNe]

WHAT IS SPECIAL ABOUT BEING A HINDU? By Francois Gautier. Diversity in Divinity and Unity in Spirituality. 1) Believe in God ! - Aastik - Accepted 2) Don't believe in God ! - You're accepted as Nastik 3) You want to worship idols - please go ahead. You are a murti pujak. 4) You dont want to worship idols - no problem. You can focus on Nirguna Brahman. 5) You want to criticise something in our religion. Come forward. We are logical. Nyaya, Tarka etc. are core Hindu schools. 6) You want to accept beliefs as it is. Most welcome. Please go ahead with it. 7) You want to start your journey by reading Bhagvad Gita - Sure ! 8) You want to start your journey by reading Upanishads - Go ahead. 9) You want to start your journey by reading Purana - Be my guest. 10) You just don't like reading Puranas or other books. No problem my dear. Go by Bhakti tradition . ( bhakti- devotion) 11) You don't like idea of Bhakti ! No problem. Do your Karma. Be a karmayogi. 12) You want to enjoy life. Very good. No problem at all. This is Charvaka Philosophy. 13) You want to abstain from all the enjoyment of life & find God - jai ho ! Be a Sadhu, an ascetic ! 14) You don't like the concept of God. You believe in Nature only - Welcome. (Trees are our friends and Prakriti or nature is worthy of worship). 15) You believe in one God or Supreme Energy. Superb! Follow Advaita philosophy 16) You want a Guru. Go ahead. Receive gyaan. 17) You don't want a Guru.. Help yourself ! Meditate, Study ! 18) You believe in Female energy ! Shakti is worshipped. 19) You believe that every human being is equal. Yeah! You're awesome, come on let's celebrate Hinduism! "Vasudhaiva kutumbakam" (the world is a family) 20) You don't have time to celebrate the festival. Don't worry. One more festival is coming! There are multiple festivals every single day of the year. 21) You are a working person. Don't have time for religion. Its okay. You will still be a Hindu. 22) You like to go to temples. Devotion is loved. 23) You don't like to go to temples - no problem. You are still a Hindu! 24) You know that Hinduism ☺ is a way of life, with considerable freedom. 25) You believe that everything has God in it. So you worship your mother, father, guru, tree, River, Prani-matra, Earth, Universe! 26) And If you don't believe that everything has GOD in it - No problems. Respect your viewpoint. 27) "Sarve jana sukhino bhavantu " (May you all live happily) You represent this! You're free to choose, my dear Hindu! This is exactly the essence of Hinduism, all inclusive .. That is why it has withstood the test of time inspite of repeated onslaught both from within and outside, and assimilated every good aspects from everything . That is why it is eternal !!! There is a saying in Rigveda , the first book ever known to mankind which depicts the Hinduism philosophy in a Nutshell -" Ano bhadrah Krathavo Yanthu Vishwathah"- Let the knowledge come to us from every direction...

[@LadyMaria]

I don't see why Hinduism is relevant here.

[@YenkammaNe]

@@LadyMaria God is relevant to all of humanity

[@LadyMaria]

@@YenkammaNe Not the same God.

[@YenkammaNe]

@@LadyMaria please if you CAN Describe & Define God specifics as per bible. - color, location, shape, size,gender, human, animal.. whatever.

[@LadyMaria]

@@YenkammaNe God the Son - Jesus Christ At any rate Hinduism has nothing to do with anything. So please stop spamming.

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

15:50 That is patently false. The Catholic Mass is completely saturated with Trinitarian language. This fundamental ignorance of the Latin tradition’s liturgy throws his whole the legitimacy of his whole body of work into question.